Syrian Civil War Developments

[kira]

How likely is a Turkish invasion of Syria?
http://rbth.com/international/2016/0...f-syria_568603

[tantalus]

excellent article on the war
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1077140.html

I cant agree nor disagree with the criticisms of western policy, but the article offers an interesting summary of Russian and Assad-regime objectives.

[tantalus]

“Battlefield realities rather than great power politics will determine the ultimate terms of a settlement to end the Syrian Civil War,” noted the D.C.-based Institute for the Study of War, in a policy memo published on Friday. “(Assad) and his allies in Russia and Iran have internalized this basic principle even as Washington and other Western capitals pinned their hopes upon UN-sponsored Geneva Talks, which faltered only two days after they began.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/wo...paradigm-shift

Very interesting interview. i would be interested to interested to hear wabbits on the discussion of failure of american policy in it...?
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...russia/462231/

But we have to understand that this president was elected to get us out of the Middle East. And I think we [Americans] missed that. Because along the way I think he made a lot of decisions on the Middle East which seemed to indicate that he was of two minds. But in the end I think we got the candidate who we originally elected.

Interesting idea that the american electorate got what they wanted...

[tantalus]

The interview makes several interesting points:
-

the problem for the regime has been that it can’t retake and hold areas, because it doesn’t have the manpower. So those manpower shortages remain, but the change has been that the Russian air strikes have instituted a scorched-earth policy which destroys the area and pushes people out. So when an area’s destroyed, it’s easier to take and hold, because you need less men, because there aren’t any other people there.

But I think that’s what the regime and the Russians are going for: They’re going for a whole-country solution to the Syria crisis based on the Assad regime.

And because of the flow of refugees as a result of this, if they go northward to Europe, then you would see a migrant crisis in Europe that could lead to far-right governments coming to power which are much more friendly to Russia than they are to the United States. I think that is likely to happen.

It will soften up American power in Europe, yeah. And put into jeopardy a lot of the advances in the NATO-accession countries,

I don’t think most people get how much of a blowout this really is. I don’t think most people understand: This defeat of the United States by Russia in Syria, it’s not just about Syria. It’s about our presence in Europe.

And so we’re seeing now the failure of policy which happened years ago. It’s not just about military intervention in Syria. It is about the failure to create safe areas in order to protect [people] so that they wouldn’t go running for their lives to Europe. And that’s the real tragedy here. And it’s simply because the White House did not believe that the cost was worth it.

I certainly think “responsibility to protect” is not something that this administration observed. Other ramifications are just the significant weakening of American power. We’re not talking here about the use of force; that’s what was avoided. Power is a lot about perception, about people being able to understand that they can count on you. Do your words matter? And I think in Syria, our words didn’t matter. If you look at it, going back to [President Barack Obama’s call for] Assad [to] step aside, which was read by many to mean that he must go, and I think particularly the red-line incident, the non-strike incident of 2013, that was particularly damaging to American credibility. And I think [it] had ramifications for Russian calculations in Ukraine, and ultimately the calculations of our allies. But we have to understand that this president was elected to get us out of the Middle East. And I think we [Americans] missed that. Because along the way I think he made a lot of decisions on the Middle East which seemed to indicate that he was of two minds. But in the end I think we got the candidate who we originally elected.

The Islamic State of Iraq would not have evolved into ISIL, which would not have evolved into the Islamic State, had it not been for the Syrian Civil War. It generated an unprecedented terrorist threat that we’re only beginning to grapple with now. It also created this humanitarian disaster, which no one seems to fully understand the ramifications of until this point. And I think those two things have made Americans much less safe. And I would point to the testimony [this week] of [Director of National Intelligence] James Clapper about [the risk of] ISIS running its operatives through the refugees. This really, I think, allows ISIS to spread a lot of their terror. And with it, destabilize Europe in the process.

...calls into question our very commitment to things like human rights, [punishing or preventing] war crimes, phrases like “never again.” And I think that’s extremely damaging to U.S. credibility and [America’s] reputation in the world today.

The other part of it is that by demonstrating that we were unwilling to use military force in precise ways at key junctures, we then encouraged others to fill that vacuum. The Russians have been planning this for years, and I’ve spoken with them in Moscow about it.

They believe that the problem is not the Arab uprisings—the problem is the American response to the Arab uprisings. So instead they advocate for something called military-to-military cooperation. Like-minded countries, essentially, work together through their militaries to blast their way out of it. And that’s the way they look at it. And that’s what’s happening right now in Syria. We’ll see if it politically works and so on. And many elsewhere in Europe might see it in similar ways. But what’s interesting is that it’s Russian air strikes that are pushing Syrians out of the country, en masse. So in a way Russia is, with the regime and with the Iranians, playing the role of the arsonist in Syria, and then being heralded as the fireman who comes to put it out. That is really amazing. Because it makes you central to any solution either way. And that makes the world a really chaotic place, and a big challenge, I think, for the incoming [U.S.] president.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...russia/462231/

[NUS]

Russian air strikes have instituted a scorched-earth policy which destroys the area and pushes people out...
And because of the flow of refugees as a result of this, if they go northward to Europe, then you would see a migrant crisis in Europe that could lead to far-right governments coming to power which are much more friendly to Russia than they are to the United States. I think that is likely to happen.

Your daily brainwashing. VKS operation has began in October (30 September to be precise). The flow of migrants was steady since beginning of 2015. Who were they running from? Oh, and according to UN only 49% of migrants in Europe are Syrians.

Blaming Russia for everything is cool today, but on this particular issue, West should look at the mirror to find the source of the problem.

And so we’re seeing now the failure of policy which happened years ago. It’s not just about military intervention in Syria.

For a second i thought this guy has brains...

It is about the failure to create safe areas in order to protect [people] so that they wouldn’t go running for their lives to Europe. And that’s the real tragedy here. And it’s simply because the White House did not believe that the cost was worth it.

But no! It's not about responsible policy to keep your urge to war and regime change at bay, it's about direct military control over destroyed countries!

The Islamic State of Iraq would not have evolved into ISIL, which would not have evolved into the Islamic State, had it not been for the Syrian Civil War.

The Islamic State of Iraq would not have appeared, had it not been for the Iraq war. Who started it?
Who poured billions of $ and direct military support of war and regime change in Syria? Who provided diplomatic and PR assistance to "democratic moderate rebels"?

So in a way Russia is, with the regime and with the Iranians, playing the role of the arsonist in Syria

Oh... my... God... I dont have words! It's not even funny. I wish all this mess was in Mexico, so Russia could just grap pop-corn and enjoy the "you reap what you sow" show.

[tantalus]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour...ry-to-military by Seymour M. Hersh.

Very long article on the history and development of us intelligence in Syria including the US joint chiefs indirectly cooperating with the assad regime behind the back of the Obama admin. A succinct analysis of differing opinions within the usa military and political spheres, one that does not flatter the obama administration to say the very least. The article also discusses Russia, French and Chinese perspectives on the conflict and more.

The article presents a convincing argument (imo) that western nations should back the Assad regime at this point and loosely align with Russia. And that Turkey are a major problem in their support for extremism, a problem not fully realised by us intelligence and/or communicated/listened to through the appropriate channels to the obama administration in real time.

It makes me a little sick to suggest that support for russia and assad in syria as the best course given my disdain for the Putin regime, domestic and international over the years, notably in the Ukraine and also the sporadic information about their military tactics on the ground in Syria, cheap and dirty

[tantalus]

Your daily brainwashing. VKS operation has began in October (30 September to be precise). The flow of migrants was steady since beginning of 2015. Who were they running from? Oh, and according to UN only 49% of migrants in Europe are Syrians.

Blaming Russia for everything is cool today, but on this particular issue, West should look at the mirror to find the source of the problem.

Its the idea that Russia are adding to it, a useful byproduct is increasing the flow of migrants, and that the strategy has tactical benefits for the assad regime in holding territory and longer term political benefits in redefining the demographics.

I imagine operationally, there are logical reasons the russians would follow such a policy relating to lack of intelligence and weaponry but would be better to hear from WAB members with greater expertise...

This does not justify their military tactics...

[Officer of Engineers]

The Islamic State of Iraq would not have appeared, had it not been for the Iraq war. Who started it?

Saddam Hussein.

[NUS]

Its the idea that Russia are adding to it, a useful byproduct is increasing the flow of migrants, and that the strategy has tactical benefits for the assad regime in holding territory and longer term political benefits in redefining the demographics.

I imagine operationally, there are logical reasons the russians would follow such a policy relating to lack of intelligence and weaponry but would be better to hear from WAB members with greater expertise...

This does not justify their military tactics...

The idea that ~50 airframes can shift demographics of Syria is flattering for VKS, but as European experience tells us, you need industrial scale death camps for this. Besides, it will be ridiculously expensive. :)
And i can hardly imagine what would they add to the horrors of the war to significantly increase refugee flow.

It makes me a little sick to suggest that support for russia and assad in syria as the best course given my disdain for the Putin regime, domestic and international over the years, notably in the Ukraine and also the sporadic information about their military tactics on the ground in Syria, cheap and dirty

If this "sporadic information" comes from western press, i would advise to take as war propaganda. For whatever reason they don't like Putin and demonize him in every way they can. And, btw, with this fact in mind, i would also suggest you to take a second look at Putin's actions outside Syria.

[snapper]

And, btw, with this fact in mind, i would also suggest you to take a second look at Putin's actions outside Syria.

I've seen it first hand thankyou. It stinks and breaks international law.

[troung]

The Arab fighters are allied with Islamists and AQ. Good riddance.

America Is Now Fighting A Proxy War With Itself In Syria

Confusion in the Obama administration’s Syria policy is playing out on the ground as U.S.-backed groups begin battling each other.
posted on Feb. 20, 2016, at 7:03 a.m.

ISTANBUL — American proxies are now at war with each other in Syria.

Officials with Syrian rebel battalions that receive covert backing from one arm of the U.S. government told BuzzFeed News that they recently began fighting rival rebels supported by another arm of the U.S. government.

The infighting between American proxies is the latest setback for the Obama administration’s Syria policy and lays bare its contradictions as violence in the country gets worse.

The confusion is playing out on the battlefield — with the U.S. effectively engaged in a proxy war with itself. “It’s very strange, and I cannot understand it,” said Ahmed Othman, the commander of the U.S.-backed rebel battalion Furqa al-Sultan Murad, who said he had come under attack from U.S.-backed Kurdish militants in Aleppo this week.

Furqa al-Sultan Murad receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies as part of a covert program, overseen by the CIA, that aids rebel groups struggling to overthrow the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, according to rebel officials and analysts tracking the conflict.

The Kurdish militants, on the other hand, receive weapons and support from the Pentagon as part of U.S. efforts to fight ISIS. Known as the People’s Protection Units, or YPG, they are the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s strategy against the extremists in Syria and coordinate regularly with U.S. airstrikes.

Yet as Assad and his Russian allies have routed rebels around Aleppo in recent weeks — rolling back Islamist factions and moderate U.S. allies alike, as aid groups warn of a humanitarian catastrophe — the YPG has seized the opportunity to take ground from these groups, too.

In the face of public objections from U.S. officials and reportedly backed by Russian airstrikes, the YPG has overrun key villages in the northern provinces of Aleppo and Idlib. It now threatens the town of Azaz, on the border with Turkey, through which rebel groups have long received crucial supplies. Over the weekend, Turkey began shelling YPG positions around Azaz in response, raising another difficult scenario for the U.S. in which its proxy is under assault from its NATO ally.

Yet as America has looked on while Russia and Syria target its moderate rebel partners, it has failed to stop the YPG from attacking them too. “That is a major problem,” said Andrew Tabler, a Syria specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It’s not just that it’s a nonsense policy. It’s that we’re losing influence so rapidly to the Russians that people just aren’t listening to us anymore.”

Othman, the Furqa al-Sultan Murad commander, said the YPG tried to seize two areas of Aleppo under his control, resulting in firefights that left casualties on both sides. He had captured seven YPG fighters and was holding them prisoner, he added.

Othman’s group receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies, including TOW anti-tank missiles, he said, and fights Assad as well as ISIS. The aid is part of a long-running CIA effort approved by Congress and coordinated from an operations room in Turkey with participation from international allies of the rebellion such as Saudi Arabia. Othman said he was in regular contact with his American handlers about the problems on the ground. “The Americans must stop [the YPG] — they must tell them you are attacking groups that we support just like we support you,” he said. “But they are just watching. I don’t understand U.S. politics.”

New recruits take part in a training session at a camp in a rebel-held area of Aleppo before fighting along with opposition fighters. Karam Al-masri / AFP / Getty Images

Officials with three other groups — the Northern Division, Jaysh al-Mujahideen and a coalition called Jabhat al-Shamiya — that have received support from the operations room also said they were now battling the YPG in northern Syria. “There are many groups supported by [the operations room] that are fighting the YPG right now,” said the Northern Division’s Col. Ahmed Hamada, who added that some of his fighters had received U.S. training in the past.

An official with the Turkish government criticized the U.S. for what he described as a Syria policy gone awry. “The YPG is taking land and villages from groups that are getting American aid,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the subject. “These are groups that are not only getting American aid. Some of them also got training from the Americans.”

The official added that U.S.-backed Arab rebel groups had seen their support dwindle of late, while the YPG was benefiting from a surge of interest from both Washington and Moscow. “The Americans are not giving the moderate rebels enough material. They are not providing any political support,” he said. “And they did not stop the YPG from attacking them.”

“They said we are not in control of the YPG in [those areas],” he added. “That’s the official answer. It doesn’t make any sense to us. What can I say?”

In an emailed statement, Col. Patrick J. Ryder, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, which oversees support for the YPG, said he had no information to provide “regarding potential friction between various opposition groups.”

“Syria continues to be a very complex and challenging environment,” he said. “I can tell you that we remain focused on supporting indigenous anti-[ISIS] ground forces in their fight against [ISIS].”

A State Department official acknowledged the increasingly problematic situation. “We’ve expressed to all parties that recent provocative moves in northern Syria, which have only served to heighten tensions and lessen the focus on [ISIS], are counterproductive and undermine our collective, cooperative efforts in northern Syria to degrade and defeat [ISIS],” he told BuzzFeed News, likewise speaking on condition of anonymity.

A spokesman for the YPG declined to comment. Yet the group appears to be battling Islamists and U.S.-backed moderates alike, said Faysal Itani, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “The YPG has also been physically capturing territory [around] Azaz, amid Russian bombing and regime progress further south in Aleppo province,” he said. “I see these moves as opportunistic, capitalizing on the insurgent losses in the province to increase YPG territory.”

The YPG is the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, or PKK, the insurgent force warring with the Turkish government in the country’s restive southeast. Both Washington and Ankara list the PKK as a terror group. Yet to Turkey’s increasing anger, the U.S. has sought to differentiate between the PKK and the YPG, promoting the latter as a key partner. In late January, Brett McGurk, President Obama’s special envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition, paid a visit to the YPG in the Syrian town of Kobane, which U.S. airstrikes had helped the group defend from ISIS last year.

The YPG fits well with the Obama administration’s growing hesitance to confront Assad: it has long maintained a détente with the Syrian government, focusing instead on pushing back ISIS and other extremists from Kurdish land.

As part of its embrace of the YPG, the Pentagon has propped up a new YPG-dominated military coalition called the Syrian Democratic Front (SDF) and encouraged smaller Arab battalions to join. In October, the U.S. government air-dropped a crate of weapons to the SDF in Syria, and it has also embedded special forces advisors with the group. This is both a bid to give U.S. support to the YPG some political cover and a nod to the reality that driving ISIS from its Sunni Arab strongholds will require significant help from Sunni Arab fighters.

A Department of Defense official sought to distance U.S. efforts from recent YPG offensives around Aleppo. He said the U.S. was supporting the group east of the Euphrates River, in its fight against ISIS, but not in its new campaign against rebel groups to the west. “Some of the Kurdish groups west of the Euphrates” have been “engaging with some Syrian opposition groups,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“What’s important here is that we are not providing any direct support to these groups,” he added. “Our operations have been focused on the SDF east of the Euphrates as they fight ISIS.”

The battle between America’s two proxies reflects the competing impulses of the Obama administration’s Syria policy. “The SDF model is meant to replace the failed [operations room] model,” said Nicholas Heras, an analyst at the Center for a New American Security.

Yet he noted that groups like Furqa al-Sultan Murad are battling ISIS as well as Assad — and still considered a bulwark against the extremists by the U.S. “It is a front-line combatant against ISIS,” he said of the battalion.

The recent clashes could make it difficult for the U.S. to build the crucial Arab component of its ISIS fight, the Washington Institute’s Tabler said. “If this continues, the U.S. is only going to have one option it can work with, which is the YPG. It’s not going to have the Arab option,” he said. “Which would be fine if the Kurds were the majority of the Syrian population, but they’re not. We need Sunni Arabs to defeat ISIS.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/a...jZM#.taAp3ZEv7

[gunnut]

Good. Give both sides plenty of small arms, but nothing sophisticated. Let them kill each other. This is perhaps Obama's biggest foreign policy success story.

[troung]

So the "secular" FSA and "moderate Islamists" of the IF (who share AQ's world view) have issues with a ceasefire because AQ are their allies and they fight side by side... can't make this shit up...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mi...-idUSKCN0VV25F

Syrian rebel downbeat on ceasefire chances, cites Nusra problem
BEIRUT

A U.S.-Russian plan for a cessation of hostilities in Syria is flawed because it will allow the government and its allies to target rebel forces on the grounds they are attacking the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, a rebel leader said on Monday.

Bashar al-Zoubi, head of the political office of the Yarmouk Army, a Free Syrian Army group, said he expected Damascus and its Russian allies to continue to attack opposition-held territory on the pretext of fighting the Nusra Front.

"Russia and the regime will target the areas of the revolutionaries on the pretext of the Nusra Front's presence, and you know how mixed those areas are, and if this happens, the truce will collapse," he said.

Zoubi said it was "not possible" to identify positions held by the Nusra Front, particularly in northern Syria. The cessation of hostilities does not include the Nusra Front or Islamic State. Zoubi also said it was unfortunate that Syrians were "absent from" the talks on the ceasefire.

(Reporting by Tom Perry; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

[Aryajet]

Russia is withdrawing its forces from Syria, claiming main objective is achieved. I guess Putin is anticipating Geneva conference to fail and he doesn't want presence of Russian forces in the country to be blamed for the failure.

[TopHatter]

Russia is withdrawing its forces from Syria, claiming main objective is achieved.

I bet his logisticians are breaking out the vodka and breathing a sigh of relief.