Russian Air Campaign in Syria

[lastdingo]

The argument for NATO's action is... less clear.

What NATO's action?
AFAIK some North Atlantic Treaty members participate in the bombing of D'aesh, but NATO isn't involved.

US, Turkey: Most Russian Strikes Do Not Target 'IS,' al Qaeda in Syria

The US and Turkey have said that Russian strikes in Syria have mainly targeted moderate rebel groups, not "Islamic State" fighters.

Hilarious. Turkey's hypocrisy is astonishing. Their own bombing of D'aesh was a mere fig leaf for their war on the PKK.

 

[sferrin]

Hilarious. Turkey's hypocrisy is astonishing. Their own bombing of D'aesh was a mere fig leaf for their war on the PKK.

Do you have any evidence that they're wrong?

 

[kaiserd]

"How Iranian general plotted out Syrian assault in Moscow"
By Laila Bassam and Tom Perry

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-general-plotted-syrian-assault-moscow-172251295.html

Yeah, looks more and more like Russia's involvement is more about propping up Assad than fighting terrorism.

I know you'd struggle to be aware of this from watching US news, but Assad invited Russian forces in. He is the recognised sovereign leader. No matter what your personal opinion it remains a fact that the Russian action is demonstrably legal under international law. The argument for NATO's action is... less clear.


It's not like the Russians just turned up, either, lest we forget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus

Assad's claim for any legitimacy as "recognised sovereign leader" are very dubious.
Exactly who recognises him apart from Russia, Iran and their affiliates?
Re: being sovereign over what percentage population and/or land mass proportion of Syria does he reign?
Re: being a leader how much is he still calling the shots and to what extent is he now just a passenger of Russian and Iranian decision making?

And that's before you get into his crimes against his own people, including use of chemical weapons.

He is now little more than a useful stooge, and his usefulness may well prove to of dubious value.
His backers are currently attempting to make it Assad versus ISIS zero-sum game.
One assumes even the Russians and Iranians recognise the limits of this strategy; there is no plausible scenario where Assad can turn back the clock and rule over Syria as it was.
Some form of partition and/or Assad's replacement with a more plausible face to win wider support (and to better protect Assad's backers interests) the most likely way this plays out.

 

[Avimimus]

Assad and a substantial share of his top lieutenants are Alevites, not Shi'ites. It is a religious minority regime just as the Bahraini one, though.

Revolutionary Iran wasn't very close with the USSR. They didn't get terribly much equipment from the USSR for the Gulf War, for example. The U.S. hostility rather originated in the embassy hostage crisis.

Saudi-Arabian Salafism is usually called "Wahhabism" and supposedly is a bit different.

Thanks.

Are you sure you don't mean Alawites? From what I understand, both Alevis and Alawis are broadly considered to be branch of Shi'ism, as they share many of the same beliefs which set them apart from Sunnis (even if Alawis have other beliefs that make them unique). This might be a big oversimplification though.

I'd also suggest that the U.S. hostility may have been related to the fall of the Shah (with the embassy crisis being the symbolic representation of that).

 

[lastdingo]

Yes, Alawites.

The fall of the Shah would explain why the Carter administration and early Reagan administration may have opposed Khomenei, but the persistent outright hate of large swaths of the U.S. population on Iran can only be explained with the hostage crisis and constant hatemongering by media, pundits and politicians (in my opinion). This is particularly true since the end of the Cold War; any Cold War hostility would have calmed down by now, Iran isn't even in the backyard like Cuba.
Part of the hate-sustaining propaganda no doubt is fuelled by Israeli government's aversions against Iran based on Iran's support for Hezbollah (which doesn't affect the U.S. in any unavoidable direct or indirect way).

Iran didn't attack another country in well over 200 years - more than the existence of the United States! - and (it's government) still is perceived as a super-aggressive hub of evil.


It's going to be interesting what the U.S. foreign policy does about Iran's involvement in Syria. It seems as if Iranian involvement in Iraq against D'aesh doesn't rev up Washington much, but a survival of Assad due to Iranian support is not what they seem to be willing to accept.

It's also going to be interesting to see whether Iran and Russia both supporting Assad quite directly will lead to greater Irania-Russian cooperation, up to UNSC veto umbrella for Iran. The latter in mind, Obama's nuclear deal may have been a last minute achievement that might not have been able in the future ever again.

 

[sferrin]

Iran didn't attack another country in well over 200 years - more than the existence of the United States! - and (it's government) still is perceived as a super-aggressive hub of evil.

That tends to happen when you're a known sponsor of terrorism. Go figure. :

 

[sublight_]

Iran didn't attack another country in well over 200 years - more than the existence of the United States! - and (it's government) still is perceived as a super-aggressive hub of evil.

Yea, why don't you try and tell Neda's family that Iran is not a hub of evil.....

 

[lastdingo]

Iran didn't attack another country in well over 200 years - more than the existence of the United States! - and (it's government) still is perceived as a super-aggressive hub of evil.

That tends to happen when you're a known sponsor of terrorism. Go figure. :

You don't seem to understand that supporting the Contras was at least as much sponsoring terrorism as was supporting Hezbollah!?
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-08/news/mn-32283_1_contras

Also, let's talk about Israel as terror sponsor since the CIA knows Israel supports terrorists, right?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/13/false-flag/

Or maybe we acknowledge that singling out Iran is hypocrisy instead?


Hypocrisy is shaping narratives and perspectives on the Syrian Civil War as well, see the Turkish outrage that the Russians are not bombing D'aesh much while their own bombing of D'aesh was a mere fig leaf for their bombing of the PKK as a punishment for Kurdish votes going to an opposition party in the last election.


The Syrian Civil War could be reduced to a somewhat simpler triangle if hypocrisy and old aversions didn't taint the perceptions.

 

[sferrin]

You don't seem to understand that supporting the Contras was at least as much sponsoring terrorism as was supporting Hezbollah!?
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-08/news/mn-32283_1_contras

Comparing Contras to Hezbollah? That's quite a stretch.

Also, let's talk about Israel as terror sponsor since the CIA knows Israel supports terrorists, right?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/13/false-flag/

Yeah, we see Israel randomly raining down rockets all over the Palestinians. Right? Anybody else would have steamrolled the place by now. Oh, and guess who sponsors all those rockets randomly raining down on Israeli civilians. I'll give you a guess.

 

[Triton]

"NATO Secretary General Ready To Send Troops to Turkey"
By Esteban Villarejo 1:10 p.m. EDT October 8, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/10/08/nato-secretary-general-ready-send-troops-turkey/73572460/

 

[Triton]

"Iraq would welcome Russian airstrikes against ISIS"
By Jeff Schogol, Staff writer 1:31 p.m. EDT October 7, 2015

Source:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/10/05/russian-airstrikes-against-isis-welcomed-iraq-islamic-state/73386916/

 

[kaiserd]

Yes, Alawites.

The fall of the Shah would explain why the Carter administration and early Reagan administration may have opposed Khomenei, but the persistent outright hate of large swaths of the U.S. population on Iran can only be explained with the hostage crisis and constant hatemongering by media, pundits and politicians (in my opinion). This is particularly true since the end of the Cold War; any Cold War hostility would have calmed down by now, Iran isn't even in the backyard like Cuba.
Part of the hate-sustaining propaganda no doubt is fuelled by Israeli government's aversions against Iran based on Iran's support for Hezbollah (which doesn't affect the U.S. in any unavoidable direct or indirect way).

Iran didn't attack another country in well over 200 years - more than the existence of the United States! - and (it's government) still is perceived as a super-aggressive hub of evil.


It's going to be interesting what the U.S. foreign policy does about Iran's involvement in Syria. It seems as if Iranian involvement in Iraq against D'aesh doesn't rev up Washington much, but a survival of Assad due to Iranian support is not what they seem to be willing to accept.

It's also going to be interesting to see whether Iran and Russia both supporting Assad quite directly will lead to greater Irania-Russian cooperation, up to UNSC veto umbrella for Iran. The latter in mind, Obama's nuclear deal may have been a last minute achievement that might not have been able in the future ever again.

Interesting reading of events; I wouldn't agree with much of it but interesting to have your assumptions challenged.
I think is important to understand that Russian and Iranian interests only converge in limited aspects, Russia doesn't really want a nuclear Iran or an Iran intriguing in their sphere of influence re: the bordering Former Soviet states. Part of the reason the've escalated their involvement in Syria was to "balance" Iranian involvement.
A non-nuclear Iran pointed towards Iraq and Syria and away from their back yard may be of interest to Russia but Iran has its own ideological and sectarian agenda, which could easily trump real-politic considerations.

However I would add that the apparent attempt to portray Iran as a peaceful power is complete bullocks.
They have been and are a fundamentalist state pursuing an aggressive expansionist foreign policy as mandated by their reading of their religion. The best comparison would be the early Russian Soviet State.
i'm not calling them evil or anything but they are far from being Switzerland

 

[lastdingo]

They have been and are a fundamentalist state pursuing an aggressive expansionist foreign policy as mandated by their reading of their religion. The best comparison would be the early Russian Soviet State.
i'm not calling them evil or anything but they are far from being Switzerland

Well, not concerning the invasion of other countries. They've been identical on this for centuries.
Now considering that Ahmadinejad actually never spoke the famous 'erase from map' words (it was a wrong translation by some Iranian), Iran did not violate Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations as much as every medium-sized or large Western country did already.

I suppose a much better analogy to Iran than the early Soviet Union would be the late Czarist State with its pan-slavism. Iran thinks of itself as protecting power of Shi'ites at least in its region.
Iran quite obviously limits what you call "expansionist" (but isn't about territorial expansion at all) to foreign Shi'ites in need. The oppression of Shi'ites in Arab countries and the once grave situation of Shi'ites in Lebanon triggered basically of of their criticized foreign policy actions.

The West acts more harshly with much lesser reasons. Outright multi-month bombing campaign against Yugoslavia over it fighting back against insurgents (and fabricated allegations), invasion and occupation of a country exclusively over fabricated allegations, casual bombing of targets like a fertilizer factory et cetera.


Back in 2005 or so I got a good laugh when the US. harshly criticized Iran for interfering in Iraq with the smuggling of anti-material rifles (which it apparently didn't at all). The U.S. was at that time occupying Iraq after a war of aggression and installing a puppet regime ... Just imagine how the U.S. would have reacted if Iran had invaded Mexico on grounds of fabricated accusations and installed a theocracy there! They sure would have done quite a bit more (and earlier) than Iran (allegedly) did about Iraq 2003-2009.


Coming back to Iranian involvement in Syria; I suppose they're really supporting Syrian Shi'ites, not so much Assad there. They would likely be OK with a proportional government and Assad sent to the ICC, for example. This might be relevant for future foreign policy.

 

[Triton]

The Russian airstrikes have renewed discussion of the partitioning of Syria and Iraq along religious lines.

"Russian Airstrikes Defend Strategic Assad Regime Stronghold on Syria’s Coast"
Raids appear to hew closely to an arc running on the fringes of Syria’s Alawite heartland
by Sam Dagher
Oct. 1, 2015 7:57 p.m. ET

Source:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-airstrikes-defend-strategic-assad-regime-stronghold-on-coast-1443743860

Map from:

"Iraq And Syria: Past, Present, And (Hypothetical) Future Maps"

http://www.rferl.org/content/iraq-syria-religious-ethnic-divides-history-future-maps/25232404.html

 

[Orionblamblam]

... the Russians are not bombing D'aesh much while their own bombing of D'aesh was a mere fig leaf for their bombing of the PKK...

Point of order: it's "Islamic State," not "D'aesh." Call it what it is.

 

[Triton]

... the Russians are not bombing D'aesh much while their own bombing of D'aesh was a mere fig leaf for their bombing of the PKK...

Point of order: it's "Islamic State," not "D'aesh." Call it what it is.

The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish or Daesh, the Arabic equivalent of "ISIL"

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

 

[Mr London 24/7]

Have a couple of colleagues from Iraq, Jordan, as I understand it (from them) the term Daish is also considered something of a slight against the group, therefore preferable and even something to be encouraged perhaps?


http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/what-should-we-call-islamic-state-daish-or-is-20150117-12sii7.html

 

[Rickshaw]

... the Russians are not bombing D'aesh much while their own bombing of D'aesh was a mere fig leaf for their bombing of the PKK...

Point of order: it's "Islamic State," not "D'aesh." Call it what it is.

:

 

[r16]

and it should be rather be ISIL . While still containing the aspersion to be the state of Islam , it's merely a Sunni extremist group that operates in Syria and Iraq . Certainly assisted in many ways , too . While being Turkish almost certainly assures my dislike about the US support to Kurdish designs and desires , one could always remember that it took America months to support the fighting in Ayn el Arab , which might be more familiar to members of this forum as Kobane . It could have been over in two weeks , instead of two months ... And one should not come up with theories of how Turkey wouldn't want that to happen . It happened after all ...

 

[lastdingo]

... the Russians are not bombing D'aesh much while their own bombing of D'aesh was a mere fig leaf for their bombing of the PKK...

Point of order: it's "Islamic State," not "D'aesh." Call it what it is.

The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish or Daesh, the Arabic equivalent of "ISIL"

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

And apart from this I don't see why one should recognize their claim of statehood because sovereignty is with the people, not with relatively small armed groups. As someone who cannot speak Arabic I don't care what the word means exactly, but I know it hasn't the English word "state" in it.

 

[CJGibson]

Not just us with a quandary:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27994277

Chris

 

[Arjen]

Da'ish is not an Arabic word and the use of acronyms is not common in Arabic. Furthermore, the jihadist group objects to the term and has advised against its usage.

Da'ish then. Whatever gets their goat.

 

[CJGibson]

Precisely.

Chris

 

[Grey Havoc]

From yesterday, via CDR Salamander:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G2TQ0wAfRts

 

[Orionblamblam]

Have a couple of colleagues from Iraq, Jordan, as I understand it (from them) the term Daish is also considered something of a slight against the group, therefore preferable and even something to be encouraged perhaps?

The point to continuing to refer to them as "Islamic State" is that, unlike Daesh, Daish, Da'ish or whatever... you know what you're getting. Some organization calls itself the Communist Party, you don't refer to them as the Economic Morons Party just to get their goats... you continue to call them Communists, because the link between the designation and the depravity should not be broken.

 

[sferrin]

Have a couple of colleagues from Iraq, Jordan, as I understand it (from them) the term Daish is also considered something of a slight against the group, therefore preferable and even something to be encouraged perhaps?

The point to continuing to refer to them as "Islamic State" is that, unlike Daesh, Daish, Da'ish or whatever... you know what you're getting. Some organization calls itself the Communist Party, you don't refer to them as the Economic Morons Party just to get their goats... you continue to call them Communists, because the link between the designation and the depravity should not be broken.

What he said. ISIS it is.

 

[Void]

IS advances on Syria's Aleppo despite Russia air war

Perhaps one of the biggest risks of the Russian intervention is with their help the Syrian government will crush the rebels... then promptly lose to ISIS.

 

[sferrin]

IS advances on Syria's Aleppo despite Russia air war

Perhaps one of the biggest risks of the Russian intervention is with their help the Syrian government will crush the rebels... then promptly lose to ISIS.

The would be poetic.

 

[lastdingo]

The point to continuing to refer to them as "Islamic State" is that, unlike Daesh, Daish, Da'ish or whatever... you know what you're getting. Some organization calls itself the Communist Party, you don't refer to them as the Economic Morons Party just to get their goats... you continue to call them Communists, because the link between the designation and the depravity should not be broken.

The so-called "communists" hardly ever are true communists actually. Almost all of them are Bolshevists or worse.
To call them "communists" is rather flattering actually.

Most North Americans never understood the mostly not subtle differences between Socialism, Communism, Titoism, early Social democracy, modern Social democracy, Bolshevism, Menshevism, Stalinism, Maoism and even much of the Catholic social theology - and called it all "Communism" or post-Cold War they called it "Socialism" - which was flattering to most of them and badly misleading about many of them.

I'm not inclined to repeat this with those Near Eastern infantiles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of which, I think a huge motivation of theirs are indeed infantile power fantasies (against "others", against women etc.), eliminationist extremism (Megalomania) and young men's thrill and manliness confirmation seeking through warfare. A handful of leaders exploit this (as always).
This - if correct - hints at a brittleness of Da'ish, a suitable strategy may be disillusionment and frustration. I suppose they would greatly lose strength and recruiting drive after a series of un-spinnable defeats and loss of territory.
The Western-Arabic CAS and interdiction bombing campaign appears to lack what's often called a 'strategic vision'; maybe the Russian approach of focusing their effort regionally may come closer to a tipping point. On the other hand, the USAF no doubt had some main effort at Kobane for weeks or months already, and Da'ish was merely stalled strategically.

 

[bobbymike]

Not great quality (video of TV screen) but great summation of current administrations fecklessness in the face of terrorists fighting for the Islamic end times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vApBZlaePec

 

[lastdingo]

That's primitive crap, that character is a classic "very serious people" con only pretending to be smart and supposedly daring to speak tough truths when in fact he's only stupid.

Anyone with a modicum of operational art knowledge could point out that one of the key problems is the lack of mobile, offensive-capable forces that produces the stalemate in Syria. All you need to do to change the situation is to find a way to assemble such a mobile reserve and THEN it could strike at different points in succession with CAS support. CAS and interdiction without such a major offensive capability ont he ground is merely about attrition, and the targets can reduce their expuosure and thus avoid defeat by such attrition as long as they keep getting new recruits.

You don't need a force several times as large as Da'esh to defeat them and Assad, though. What's missing is a tip of the spear, something as the AQ mujaheddins shock troops provided to the Taleban who were lacking in shock troops mobile reserves during the late 90's.

Required are 2,000-4,000 troops meeting these requirements:
motivated
sufficiently fit
sufficiently equipped (=including some means to overcome fortified positions with HE)
at least somewhat combat-experienced
proficient in basics of firearms and behaviour under fire
Scrap those together, make sure militias relieved of siege contribute a percentage of their fighters to bolster this mobile reserve (a deal to be agreed on before the offensive in their area and sweetened by reliable food supplies) and the war will be over in months.


The primitive "more resources" attitude of the usual warmonger suspects is just as primitive as the attritionist "let's bomb targets of opportunity and intel-delivered targets" approach of the USAF.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-09/white-house-is-weighing-a-syria-retreat

 

[Mr London 24/7]

Have a couple of colleagues from Iraq, Jordan, as I understand it (from them) the term Daish is also considered something of a slight against the group, therefore preferable and even something to be encouraged perhaps?

The point to continuing to refer to them as "Islamic State" is that, unlike Daesh, Daish, Da'ish or whatever... you know what you're getting. Some organization calls itself the Communist Party, you don't refer to them as the Economic Morons Party just to get their goats... you continue to call them Communists, because the link between the designation and the depravity should not be broken.

The difference is their use of 'State': since it's completely illegitimate in this case. I doubt there could ever be much important disagreement over the use of 'Party' by a Political organisation, the context is simply not the same.


Regardless of what they are called I think we all know what we are getting.


I'll be continuing to call them Daish: awareness and use of the term is growing in the UK and Europe at least, a small step it might be but it's perfectly appropriate since we must oppose their propaganda (and their depravity) on all levels.

 

[kaiserd]

That's primitive crap, that character is a classic "very serious people" con only pretending to be smart and supposedly daring to speak tough truths when in fact he's only stupid.

Anyone with a modicum of operational art knowledge could point out that one of the key problems is the lack of mobile, offensive-capable forces that produces the stalemate in Syria. All you need to do to change the situation is to find a way to assemble such a mobile reserve and THEN it could strike at different points in succession with CAS support. CAS and interdiction without such a major offensive capability ont he ground is merely about attrition, and the targets can reduce their expuosure and thus avoid defeat by such attrition as long as they keep getting new recruits.

You don't need a force several times as large as Da'esh to defeat them and Assad, though. What's missing is a tip of the spear, something as the AQ mujaheddins shock troops provided to the Taleban who were lacking in shock troops mobile reserves during the late 90's.

Required are 2,000-4,000 troops meeting these requirements:
motivated
sufficiently fit
sufficiently equipped (=including some means to overcome fortified positions with HE)
at least somewhat combat-experienced
proficient in basics of firearms and behaviour under fire
Scrap those together, make sure militias relieved of siege contribute a percentage of their fighters to bolster this mobile reserve (a deal to be agreed on before the offensive in their area and sweetened by reliable food supplies) and the war will be over in months.


The primitive "more resources" attitude of the usual warmonger suspects is just as primitive as the attritionist "let's bomb targets of opportunity and intel-delivered targets" approach of the USAF.

I would agree that one shouldn't necessarily look to Homeland for deep truths.

However I'd strongly disagree with what you are proposing.
What you are proposing sounds like the sort of Northern Alliance forces that with US special forces and air power support initially defeated the Taliban at the start of the US involvement in Afghanistan after 9/11.
Or in terms of approach like Rumsfeld's vision of US forces in Iraq; barely enough to conquer but not enough to rule.

The force you are describing may well inflict a series of military defeats on Isis.
But how could such a small force realistically administer a definitive final defeat on Isis, how it hold ground it took from Isis, ensure order and longer-term secure rebuilding and development (and return of millions of refuges) in such territories.
Who would be willing to pay the blood price for a probably flawed plan?
And where would such a force come from? The US attempts to build up a moderate opposition have failed.
And even if you beat Isis what rises from the ashes in its place?

Syria promises to be a quagmire; that's why so many players are reluctant to get more directly involved and the Russians may find it hard not to get more deeply drawn in.

 

[lastdingo]

I'm talking about the tip of the spear, or the main effort - not the whole force. There are ten thousands of militiamen and extant regular soldiers in Syria. Controlling ground is not all that difficult even if half of the factions demobilized and the winners demobilized a bit.

The mistake done in Afghanistanw as that the continuing fight against the overthrow of the TB was not left to the Afghans and their own ways AND no non-TB representation of Pashtun interests was established. Foreign troops substituted for easily raised Afghan warlord- and militia-model troops, and the perverse incentives ensured efforts to build up regular Afghan security forces were the more profitable to the Afghan oligarchs the slower the build-up was.
Western behaviour was stupid beyond imagination.
It wasn't a problem about only part of the anti-TB forces being part of a mobile reserve vs. none of them. To have a mobile strategic reserve IS advantageous and the key to offensive capability and success. You don't win wars by defending only, you NEED to free up forces for a reserve that can be committed to offensive action.

Syria also has the advantage that with the FSA there's at least some competitor to Da'esh in regard to representing Sunni Arab interests, whereas in Afghanistan the TB were the only substantial representatives of Pashtun interests and ways against the Northern Alliance's Non-Pashtuns.

 

[GTX]

From yesterday, via CDR Salamander:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G2TQ0wAfRts

Any idea what weapons the Russians fired from their warships?

 

[kaiserd]

I'm talking about the tip of the spear, or the main effort - not the whole force. There are ten thousands of militiamen and extant regular soldiers in Syria. Controlling ground is not all that difficult even if half of the factions demobilized and the winners demobilized a bit.

The mistake done in Afghanistanw as that the continuing fight against the overthrow of the TB was not left to the Afghans and their own ways AND no non-TB representation of Pashtun interests was established. Foreign troops substituted for easily raised Afghan warlord- and militia-model troops, and the perverse incentives ensured efforts to build up regular Afghan security forces were the more profitable to the Afghan oligarchs the slower the build-up was.
Western behaviour was stupid beyond imagination.
It wasn't a problem about only part of the anti-TB forces being part of a mobile reserve vs. none of them. To have a mobile strategic reserve IS advantageous and the key to offensive capability and success. You don't win wars by defending only, you NEED to free up forces for a reserve that can be committed to offensive action.

Syria also has the advantage that with the FSA there's at least some competitor to Da'esh in regard to representing Sunni Arab interests, whereas in Afghanistan the TB were the only substantial representatives of Pashtun interests and ways against the Northern Alliance's Non-Pashtuns.

Hi last dingo, hope I'm not picking on you, good to have my perceptions challenged, hope you feel the same.

A few quick points;
- still not clear from where / whom this "tip of the spear" is supposed to come from.
- a (very small) mobile strategic reserve is great, never said it wasn't an advantage, but it's not the war winner in this type of conflict that you are saying it is. In fact Isis is a good example of this. In terms of numbers and commitment their not a million miles from what you are proposing, but Isis lacks the ability for knock out blows against Assad or Iraqi state forces.
- "Controlling ground is not all that difficult..." How much blood and treasure has been spent disproving this statement.....
- Constant refrains condemning "Western" this or that cheapen your arguments and portray a prejudice.
At best it's just lazy...

 

[Orionblamblam]

I'll be continuing to call them Daish: awareness and use of the term is growing in the UK and Europe at least, a small step it might be but it's perfectly appropriate since we must oppose their propaganda (and their depravity) on all levels.

But you're *not.* By buying into the idea of "Daish," you are buying into the BS that the "Islamic" descriptor is irrelevant or even inaccurate. Which is a propaganda coup for the *other* Islamists who would prefer you not pay attention to them just yet.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Required are 2,000-4,000 troops meeting these requirements:

We have a historical precedent: the de-Nazification effort after World War II. But what came *before* that? Several dozen *million* soldiers fed into a meatgrinder to wipe out *all* of the the Nazi power base.

To effectively deal with Al Queda or Islamic State, you need to defeat not just those movements, but their complete power base. That means *defeating* Syria. And Iraq. And Saudi Arabia. And Jordan. And Egypt. And Somalia. And etc. Because leaving the rest of the region undefeated would be akin to defeating Bavaria, but leaving the rest of Nazi Germany intact, and somehow expecting the Nazi problem to be solved.

And once you defeat these nations, you must now occupy them. *All* of them. And then begin a massive de-Jihadification program. How exactly you convince about a billion people to give up beliefs deeply held not just for a dozen years, but a dozen *centuries,* I can't begin to imagine.

And before you can hope to begin starting such a process, you must be unafraid to call things what they are. Such as *not* calling "Islamic State" a word that means precisely nothing in *your* language, because the people who buy into *most* of Islamic States goals (such as, y'know, converting *you* at the point of a sword) don't want you associating a particular word with a general movement.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The so-called "communists" hardly ever are true communists actually. Almost all of them are Bolshevists or worse.
To call them "communists" is rather flattering actually.

Hardly flattering to call someone "economic thieves."

Most North Americans never understood the mostly not subtle differences between Socialism, Communism, Titoism, early Social democracy, modern Social democracy, Bolshevism, Menshevism, Stalinism, Maoism and even much of the Catholic social theology - and called it all "Communism" or post-Cold War they called it "Socialism" - which was flattering to most of them and badly misleading about many of them.

I note you left out "Fascists" from the list. In any event, would "economic collectivist totalitarian moron thugs" be better for you than "communist?"

The Western-Arabic CAS and interdiction bombing campaign appears to lack what's often called a 'strategic vision'

Here's a strategic vision for ya: