The Arab Spring

Then I don't really understand why can't a Syria that's lacking in Sunnis rebel again, sorry.

Because of the nature of the rebellion. You asked a generalized question and I gave you a generalized answer. If you had asked me specifically why Syria, then thats a different answer. Next time, be more direct instead of dancing around your point.

In Syria, pre-war, the state was under iron grip of Assad's rule. Assad's family is Alawite, an off-shoot of Shia Islam, and historically marginalized since the Ottoman era. When Syria became independant in the 40s, it was a chaotic democracy, eventually leading to a military coup in the 60s, of which his father was part. In order to take power himself, he strengthened Alawites within the military and, once he was in power, economically as well. He then strengthened other minorities, including Christians and Druze. The revolt back in the 80s was a response by the neglected Sunni Arab majority to that policy. They rebels then were destroyed, but the Sunnis remembered. When Hafez died in 2000, there had been hope his western-educated son would be better. And initially he made moves to that effect. Then there was the spring, and Bashar purposefully turned it into a situation where the minorties would have no choice but to support him for fear of their existence.

edited 5th Oct '15 1:19:36 AM by FFShinra

I see, thank you.

US backed rebels in Syria go on the offensive WASHINGTON — The American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State has begun preparing to open a major front in northeastern Syria, aiming to put pressure on Raqqa, the terrorist group’s de facto capital, according to military and administration officials.

President Obama last week approved two important steps to set the offensive in motion over the coming weeks, officials said. Mr. Obama ordered the Pentagon, for the first time, to directly provide ammunition and perhaps some weapons to Syrian opposition forces on the ground. He also endorsed the idea for an increased air campaign from an air base in Turkey, although important details still need to be worked out.

Together, these measures are intended to empower 3,000 to 5,000 Arab fighters who would join more than 20,000 Kurdish combatants in an offensive backed by dozens of coalition warplanes to pressure Raqqa, the Islamic State’s main stronghold in Syria. Plans are also moving forward to have Syrian opposition fighters seal an important 60-mile part of the country’s border with Turkey to cut off critical supply lines of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

As recently as Friday, Mr. Obama said he would take all steps necessary to combat the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The new approach relies on Arab fighters whose commanders have been screened by American forces and Kurdish fighters who are more battle-tested and whose loyalties Washington can count on.

“The top-line message that I want everybody to understand is, we are going to continue to go after ISIL,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “We are going to continue to reach out to a moderate opposition.”

Senior administration officials say the new offensive holds promise and may change the dynamics on the ground. But it comes a year after an American-led coalition started a campaign against the Islamic State that is now “tactically stalemated,” Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said last month.

Whether the new approach can succeed remains to be seen. The Islamic State has proved to be more resilient to coalition attacks and adaptive in the face of international pressure than American officials anticipated — even managing to extend its reach and control in Syria and Iraq.

The new American-led push would be conducted far from the brunt of the Russian air campaign in western Syria. That Russian operation has been directed largely at Syrian groups that oppose President Bashar al-Assad, and is only nominally aimed at the Islamic State, American officials said.

The new northern front would be the opposite: It is entirely directed at weakening the Islamic State by trying to take away the group’s home-court advantage, even as the militants hold on to Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria.

These outlines of the mission have been drawn from public statements of senior commanders briefing Congress as well as interviews with more than a half-dozen military, diplomatic and administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning. Even in describing the goals of the campaign, officials said they would not disclose the kinds of details that might help the Islamic State anticipate exactly how the offensive would unfold.

Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the commander of American forces in the Middle East, hinted at the emerging strategy last month, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that over the next six months it would put “a lot more pressure on key areas in Syria, like the city of Raqqa.”

“Because of that access,” General Austin continued, referring to the use of the air base in Turkey, “we’ll have the ability to increase the pace and focus on key places in Syria. So that will certainly shake things in Iraq.”

Last Thursday, President Obama held a National Security Council meeting that endorsed the main elements of the strategy. At that meeting, administration officials said, Mr. Obama backed the basic idea for the Syrian Kurdish-Arab push toward Raqqa supported by United States and other coalition air power.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry alluded to the main elements of the northern front operation at a meeting at the United Nations Security Council. With the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, presiding, Mr. Kerry said: “We are now in position with France, Australia, Canada, Turkey and other coalition partners joining the campaign, to dramatically accelerate our efforts. This is what we will do.”

Mr. Kerry said that “we will also be sustaining our support to anti-ISIL fighters in northeast Syria.”

“ISIL,” he continued, “will soon face increasing pressure from multiple directions across the battlefield in Syria and Iraq.”

A spokeswoman for the National Security Council, Emily Horne, declined to comment on Sunday on the mission, citing “operational security.”

The origins of the northern front lie in the fight for Kobani, the Syrian Kurdish border city that faced an Islamic State onslaught last year. Kobani showed the potential for using a combined air and ground operation to defeat the Islamic State. The United States and its allies provided the combat aircraft, and Syrian Kurdish fighters, in contact with American Special Operations Forces in northern Iraq, provided the ground force.

In just a few months, that campaign not only held onto Kobani, but also routed Islamic State fighters across a stretch of territory from the Euphrates River to the Iraqi border.

The operation now being prepared would expand the Kurdish effort by adding Arab groups. In addition to increasing the number of anti-Islamic State fighters, the inclusion of Arab fighters eases Turkish concerns that the Syrian Kurds are becoming too influential in northern Syria.

The Arab wing of this ground force is called the Syrian Arab Coalition, a conglomeration of 10 to 15 groups whose total numbers range from 3,000 to 5,000 fighters, American officials said. They would fight alongside a larger Kurdish force in the northeast of as many as 25,000 fighters.

American military officials have screened the leaders of the Arab groups to ensure that they meet standards set by Congress when it approved $500 million last year for the Defense Department to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels. Most of the focus of that financing has been on an ill-fated Pentagon training program at sites in Turkey and Jordan that so far has fielded few fighters.

The administration’s plan is to support the Kurdish and Arab fighters and have them advance toward Raqqa, but not try to seize the heavily defended city itself. Rather, the aim is to isolate Raqqa and cut it off from travel and supply lines northeast and northwest of the city.

Under planning for the northern offensive, coalition air power at the Incirlik air base in Turkey would also be expanded. More nations could base aircraft there. Australia, France and Turkey have all recently starting flying strike missions against targets in Syria.

By gradually expanding the area of the coalition’s air operations, the administration could protect more American-backed rebel forces and possibly hem in Russia’s own operations, according to a European official and a senior American official.

The administration’s new plan, which was devised before the Russian buildup in Latakia, Syria, has not been coordinated with Russia, an administration official said, and the United States made it clear last week that its campaign against the Islamic State would not be thrown off course by the Russian strikes.

But it seems likely that an effort will be made to “deconflict” American and coalition air operations in northern and eastern Syria from Russia’s airstrikes once the new operation begins. Pentagon officials held a one-hour teleconference with their Russian counterparts on Thursday and presented a proposal for ways to minimize the risk of unintended confrontation. A follow-up discussion has yet to be held.

In addition, the United States and Turkey continue detailed planning to use Arab militias to close a 60-mile stretch of border from the Euphrates River west to Kilis. The two countries reached agreement in late July on the basic concept, but now detailed planning is going forward on the assumption that Mr. Obama and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey will bless it when it is done.

I realize that the thread has moved on, but I just wanted to clarify that I do not believe anyone is justified in dropping bombs on someone just because they may be affiliated with someone we dont like. That's unacceptable, no matter who does it.

Hopefully this new coalition offensive will have more success than the last one did.

edited 5th Oct '15 6:16:36 PM by DeMarquis

As a fun aside, you just criminalised Poroshenko there.

Cool.

The last offensive did clear ISIS form a large area of the boarder, link up two Kurdish Cantons, and cut a key supply line, along with killing a large number of ISIS fighters and destroying their equipment, hardly what I would call a failure.

... Do believe, or don't believe?

@De Marquis - The onus is not on Russia (or anyone else) to differentiate between irregulars when said irregulars are cooperating. That ain't how war works.

@Jack - Well, there is hope that the US will salvage something positive from this.

It's okay Shinra. "Russia is evil" is the current axiom of the Anglo-American community, you can't change that.

edited 5th Oct '15 4:41:22 PM by KnitTie

Oh gosh, Knit Tie, can you stop being the Russia apologist everywhere?

Meanwhile, considering that Assad's being in power is the initial primary driver (if not still is) of the current problems in Syria, I think it is reasonable to be suspicious of whether the intervention of Assad's ally of any sort — Russian or otherwise — is really to fight extremism rather than to prop up Assad or aid Assad's non-extremist political enemies.

That said, if Russia wants to muddy its own criticism of the west for being too eager to intervene, then there's not much anyone can do about that. Ironically, in their quest to be taken seriously as a superpower again they're making moves similar to what the US has been criticized for — specifically, right now, military intervention in multiple locales at the same time.

I am still of the mind that it is a sort of mistake not to support Assad's government.

Now, don't look at me like that, I am not saying what you think I am saying. I am saying that he is the de facto leader, like it or not (likely not) of the military and major force there. Cooperation with him can go to the point of coordinated attacks against same enemies targets and that's it.

That would not necesarily mean that one is supportive of his regime.

if this is what Russia is doing, I honestly don't fuckin' know. I just think that ignoring assad as a major power in the region is not likely the way. if anything, coordinating better attacks with him could help lessen collateral damage, no...?

Except Assad isn't attacking ISIS, he's deliberately avoided attacking them so that they will grow stronger and discredit the other rebels groups via association.

Also coordinating with Assad, regardless of the rationality, is a good way to piss of the Syrian people, we really don't need even more people in the Middle East hating us.

Oh. Well then my ignorance in the situation of the middle east shines once again.

This, too.

Even if he is actually effective at governing in peacetime, the political situation in Syria has become irreversibly such that his being in power is regarded by some groups of residents/citizens with, at best, a extremely strong degree of distrust.

Even if you keep the institutions of Assad's government in place, you'd at least have to remove him from power in name.

edited 5th Oct '15 4:10:30 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Magus - I thought that it was brutally obvious to everybody that Russia wants to prop up Assad's regime, since it pretty much has outright said that (one of) its goal(s) is to support Assad before the intervention started. Fighting extremism is but a nice PR collateral.

Also, somebody here has to be a Russia apologist. Poor Shinra can't handle it all by himself.

edited 5th Oct '15 4:14:53 PM by KnitTie

X4 Hey now, you do pretty much the exact same thing as Knit, except where he thinks the US/"west" is belligerent and hates Russia to its core, you think that the US/"west" is weak and just wants to bend down and lick Putin's boots.

Shinra was doing fine and making his point calmly and with facts, I don't think your coming in and saying that the "Anglo-American community" thinks "Russia is evil" helped Shinra's rational point about how the groups in Syria aren't in a situation where they may be affiliated with certain groups, they are affiliated and cooperating with said groups.

edited 5th Oct '15 4:32:15 PM by Silasw

I really should Humor Mode my jokes more often, apparently they are too much Godwin's Law-y otherwise.

For the record, I (now, I did go through a phase) consider the Anglo-American community in general to be much less belligerent than Russia. It still is equally pointlessly confrontational when it comes to Russia-America relations, though.

edited 5th Oct '15 4:41:04 PM by KnitTie

I believe it's Poe's Law you're thinking of. But yeah it would help.

How's that? In my defence, though, I honestly didn't believe that anybody would be able to take that seriously.

Anyway, to get back to the topic, the IS destroyed yet another historical monument in Palmyra. Looks like these guys are trying their hardest to recreate the feel and function of ancient barbarian hordes.

edited 5th Oct '15 4:48:44 PM by KnitTie

Godwin's in the invoking of Hitler, Poe's is how parody is often mistaken for reality because reality is crazy at times, that's what keeps happening with you.

As for the news, I'm actually surprised that there are any monuments left for ISIS to destroy.

edited 5th Oct '15 4:52:52 PM by Silasw

It's not helped by the fact that sometimes I stumble upon such a self-righteous and/or objectively factually wrong anti-Russian piece that I do climb up on the soapbox.

Monuments - Let's see, there's the Lion of Al-lat, the Temple of Baalshamin, the Temple of Bel, seven tower-tombs, and now the Arch - not a lot, actually. The guys still have plenty of monuments to go!

Actually, has the destruction of historical sited by ISIS been limited to Palmyra, or are they doing the same thing everywhere they go?

edited 5th Oct '15 5:10:25 PM by KnitTie

@Marq (23684): "Dont". Fixed. Sorry.

@FF Shinra (23685): "The onus is not on Russia (or anyone else) to differentiate between irregulars when said irregulars are cooperating."

I believe quite the opposite, being at war is not an excuse to not make a good faith effort to distinguish between belligerents. "Bomb them all" has long ceased being considered an acceptable way to wage war. "Cooperating" is way too broad a criteria- by that metric we should be bombing Pakistan.

Russia isn't evil- it's just less transparent and accountable to world opinion than is typically the case for a developed nation.

As for supporting Assad, that's a different issue. I can actually see the Russian case for supporting Assad- he's the lessor evil compared to ISIS. All right, there's arguments on both sides there. But, by what criteria is he the lessor evil compared to the FSA?

@Silas W (23689): "Also coordinating with Assad, regardless of the rationality, is a good way to piss of the Syrian people"

Not just piss them off- it's a good way to get alot of them killed, injured and homeless. That's the whole problem.

@Glen Magus Harvey "Even if you keep the institutions of Assad's government in place, you'd at least have to remove him from power in name."

That's an option I think we all need to consider at this point.

edited 5th Oct '15 6:30:09 PM by DeMarquis