# Syria Superthread [merged]



## Kirkhill

Sorry about eating up more bandwidth but this topic looked interesting and may be noteworthy

The Korean reference is covered in this thread

http://army.ca/forums/threads/19221.30.html


http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/


> Syrians, Syrians everywhere
> 
> Agence France Presse reports that a German newspaper Die Welt will report - based on "unnamed western security sources" - that Syria has tested chemical weapons on civilians in the war-torn Sudanese province of Darfur, resulting in dozens of deaths.
> 
> 
> "Die Welt said the sources had indicated that the weapons tests were undertaken following a military exercise between Syria and Sudan. Syrian officers were reported to have met in May with Sudanese military leaders in a Khartoum suburb to discuss the possibility of improving cooperation between their armies.
> 
> "According to Die Welt, the Syrians had suggested close cooperation on developing chemical weapons, and it was proposed that the arms be tested on the rebel SPLA, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, in the south. But given that the rebels were involved in peace talks, the newspaper continued, the Sudanese government proposed testing the arms on people in Darfur."
> Just lovely - if true (via the Best of the Web).
> 
> You might recall a few months ago in North Korea, when a giant explosion leveled the Ryongchon train station and much of the neighborhood, "Syrian technicians" were among the casualties.
> 
> Seems like, with Iraq knocked out, Syria is getting awfully keen to fill in the vacancy at the Axis of Evil.



I was trying to find a couple of other links that I have seen that referred specifically to the relationship of the Syrian government hiding Iraqi Baathists and equipping and training "recruits" for Iraq.

Anybody else got any links about Syrian activity?


----------



## Kirkhill

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040914/1/3n4ir.html

Here is the Agence France Presse / Die Welt article referred to above.


----------



## pbi

They should be careful. The US warned them once already to behave themselves.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

The AFP story was picked up by the Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040916-102058-3651r.htmThi


Curiously they mention that they have had other reports that they published



> This is not the first report of chemical weapons use in Sudan.
> The Washington Times reported last month that Sudan's air force sprayed a village in the Darfur region with a powder that killed two persons and dozens of cattle.
> A Sudanese air force Antonov plane in May dropped several rectangular plastic sacks containing a white, flourlike powder on a wadi â â€ a dry riverbed â â€ in the lower part of the village, eyewitnesses told The Times.
> The Times report said a jet fighter on the same day dropped a bomb on the other side of the village that produced a poisonous smoke that affected about 50 villagers.



As to the western source of the reports, the US doesn't appear to be the origin (from the same article)



> State Department spokesman Richard Boucher cast doubt on the newspaper report, saying he had no information on such an attack and that it would have been unlikely for an attack of this type to have taken place without the United States knowing about it.



Coupled with the silence of the US on the North Korean blast it makes me wonder if US intelligence's reputation has been so degraded that the US interests are better served these days by keeping quiet and let information get out by other means.

Another interesting observation from this article about the USMC operating in Chad, the Black African, as opposed to the Arab African, desert state adjacent to the Darfur region of Sudan, training and upgrading the Chad border guards.   http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0917/p06s01-woaf.html.   This is usually the stomping ground of the French Foreign Legion. 

A year or so ago I remember reading an article about the USMC conducting joint training with the FFL in Djibouti, the tiny coastal country on the other side of Sudan.   Sudan appears to be bracketed, even if tenuously.

The article also mentions an uptick in US cooperation with other countries of the Sahel, like Nigeria.


Is this part of an emerging containment strategy?   Divide Dar-al-Islam and Isolate?


In Iraq the main players are Shiite Arabs, Shiite Persians, Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds and Socialists of all types.

Folks like Al-Zarqawi and Bin-Laden have been calling for a unified front against the West but as is becoming obvious to the west there is precious little trust amongst the communities, resulting in the current speculation about civil war.   

In today's National Post, an item from memri.com   suggests that Zarqawi at least is starting to exhibit a degree of frustration and seeing an "everybody's against me" situation.   "The war in Iraq is against a "tri-partite Satanic alliance of heresy and deceit" of Americans, Kurds and Shiites: "The first are the Americans who carry the banner of the cross; the second are the Kurds through their peshmerga forces, which are reinfoced by Jewish military cadres; the third are the Shiites, the Sunnis enemies, represented by the army of treachery.... the Party of Satan" The article appeared on the Editorials page.


So if I can summarize, the battle lines may be starting to become a little clearer.

On one side there are the Wahabist Arab Muslims engaged with the Iranian Mullahs and the Syrian Socialists actively cooperating with the North Koreans.   The Mullahs and the Wahabists are best served by Muslim unity against the West.

On the other side is everybody that has a historical grievance against the Arabs.   This includes Black Africans of the Sahel (sold by Arabs for slaves for millenia, the Americas were just a market that flourished for a while and dried up), the Spanish, the Austrians, the peoples of the Balkans recruited to be slave soldiers, the Hindus of India (who were so busy fighting Muslims that they let the British in to help in their wars), the people of the Steppes (the northern Alliance in Afghanistan), native peoples of Indonesia and the Phillipines (the Dhow culture of Sea Traders/Raiders that "converted" these lands is, I believe, predominately an Arab culture) and finally the Persians (the people the Iranian Mullahs claim to represent). 

If all of these other Muslims can be directed toward the predominately Wahabist Sunnis then the "clash of civilizations" might be avoided.   This seems to be a likely and developing US strategy.

Zarqawi's outburst suggests that they might be having some success - Al Sadr may represent the "army of Treachery" and/or he just represents the limits of the Mullahs control.   They can't control al Sadr, let alone his followers, or Iraqi Shiites and are having difficulty at home.   They can influence but at this time the can't dominate.

There are an awful lot of fault lines there for the Great Satan to exploit.

A final thought, from a longterm strategic point of view, as opposed to a short-term presidential election point of view, instability in Iraq and Islam is not necessarily a bad thing.   It gives the west more freedom of action. It supplies a magnet for all the malcontents. It forces the malcontents to constantly watch their back.   It uses up the malcontents resources.   All of which means that the can't be spending as much time and effort on consolidating forces for major attacks on the west.

In short a very Cold War strategy, both sides try to generate domestic instability in their opponents camp and fight small engagements at long range, often covertly, often by proxy. 

Mullahs = Kremlin,  Syrians = Cuba,  Al Qaeda and JI  = Red Brigades and RAF (German Red Army Faction)?

Which brings us back to mysterious explosions in North Korea.


Jeez, I think I have outdone myself today. 

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0917/p08s03-comv.html

CS Monitor Editorial - Dancing with Damascus


----------



## Kirkhill

If the Dancing With Damascus article describes Isolating Syrian Generals from Syrians at large, does this article http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040916-085027-3843r.htm describe Isolating Extremist Wahabist Sunni Arab Muslims?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Very good article.
 Kirkhill, it looks like your posting to yourself but thats not the case, I'm finding this very interesting but know very little of this region so myself and I'm sure others are just lurking. Thanks


----------



## devil39

Kirkhill,

However unlike the Cold War and Kennan's grand strategy of "Containment", I don't think this current war is going to be merely about containment and meeting the enemy encroachment wherever its ugly head pops up around the world.   

This is going to be about selectively, over time, taking out regimes that do not follow any civilized and acceptable rule set.   

Check out Thomas Barnett's articles I have posted.   He most recently worked in the Sec Def's office on Tranformation.     His book "The Pentagon's New Map"   is a very interesting and seductive postulation of a new grand strategy for the US.   A good companion book would be Niall Ferguson's "Colossus- The Price of America's Empire".



Barnett links

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/esquire2004.htm

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives/000711.html



Norman Podhoretz on parallells between the Truman doctrine/Kennans Containment Strategy and the new "Bush Doctrine"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/A11802017_1.pdf



Niall Ferguson:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0406.wallace-wells.html


----------



## pbi

Hi Devil. Good to see you on here. More stuff to read!!! Can't keep up as it is!!

Cheers


----------



## devil39

pbi,

As you well know, one of the fringe benefits of a tour is that there is nothing else to do but work and catch up on your reading.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hi devil39, 

I was beginning to think I had spouted so much bafflegab as to be completely unintelligible.   Thanks for throwing me a lifeline. 

Also thanks for the references, I appreciate the recommendations, I was just about to pick up Barnett last week, guess I'll have to dig into my pockets now after all.

Just a point of clarification, I was making a case for Isolation as opposed to Containment, in the same sense that IIRC a shepherd works his flock to isolate a particular sheep.   An essentially random pass of the dogs through the flock, followed by a determination that the target in question is not in one group but is in the other.   The passes continue, reducing the size  of the mini-flock the target can hide in, until the target is isolated.   At that time the target can be dealt with.

You are right, the Cold War analogy is not exact, because as you say the end-game was essentially about Containment.   This was because neither side could afford the many and varied costs associated with concluding the match.   Eventually the game played out as a Stalemate with one side conceding because they could no longer afford to play.

I think the difference here is, that unlike the USSR/Warsaw Pact, which with the experience of centuries of empire building by the Russians, which had a large population with internal lines of communication, a degree of ideological cohesiveness and a massive resource and industrial base to exploit,   the modern Emirs of the Terrorists of the Salafis of the Wahabis of the Sunnis of the Muslims are a pretty disparate group.   Therefore they are ripe for picking off individually.   

The same goes for the failed states out there.   The leaders of those states by and large are out for personal gain.   They don't do alliances well, they can't trust anybody because they no nobody trusts them.   As well they are geographically isolated in countries that often they can't control themselves because the terrain is too harsh to allow ready communication.

So to summarize again, what I was thinking was I might be seeing a strategy for dealing with these people of Isolating them from untrustworthy allies and populations that endure them but don't actively support them except under coercion, setting them up for the direct application of pressure.

The pressure could come from coercion - put forces into the wild spaces in their backyards or cut off their revenues and access to western universities, from bribery - guarantee them contracts in return for good behaviour (eg a word of support, donations to the cause....) or direct action (remove them from power, benignly or otherwise).   

The methodology is not new, in fact the stated goals are not new as a review of Fergusson's Empire will show - improving the lot of the rest of the world in a search for lasting peace (make everybody happy and there will be no wars - unfortunately we have to wait for the second coming for that).   It's just the latest attempt.

It has as good a chance as succeeding as all the others have.     It will likely bring improving changes to someplaces for a generation or two,   someplaces longer, someplaces it will fail. Someplaces it will probably fail disastrously or be envied and there will be the seeds for the next change.

To me it seems as natural   a cycle as breathing.   Peace, Order and Good Governance - Challenge at the fringes from the disadvantaged and the envious - Empire - Overstretch - Disorder - Reorder - Peace, Order and Good Governance.

It is a cycle as old as forever.   Just because we keep repeating ourselves doesn't mean that it is a futile endeavour to keep trying to impose POGG.   Its just like weeding the garden or polishing boots.   The weeds grow back, the boots get dirty ..... pull the next batch of weeds, polish the boots again.
This time round its the Yanks turn to weed and polish.   Those that want them to succeed would be well advised to assist.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040911/COTHAKUR11/TPComment

This article was in today's Globe and Mail, it is by Ramesh Thukra, an Indian, Rector at the Tokyo UN University.

I thought this paragraph was revealing.




> They came to deliver us from local tyrants and stayed to rule as foreign despots. In the name of enlightenment, they defiled our lands, plundered our resources and expanded their empires. Some, like the rapacious Belgians in Congo, left only ruin, devastation and chaos whose dark shadows continue to blight. Others, like the British in India, left behind ideas, ideals and structures of good governance and the infrastructure of development alongside memories of national humiliation.



While most lefties tend to see Imperialism in "Belgian" terms, many conservatives, myself amongst them tend to see it in "British" terms.   What I found most interesting was the line





> *the British in India, left behind ideas, ideals and structures of good governance and the infrastructure of development alongside memories of national humiliation*


.

Why the humiliation?   Because it can undermine a man, or woman, to be helped - to realize that they were not capable of getting the job done themselves, especially when it involves strangers from far away places.

No end in sight, but it has to be done, keep polishing........

Gawd that's depressing.


----------



## Kirkhill

By the way devil, just read Wells'review of Ferguson.

Suffice to say, I am a fan of Ferguson and find Wells' characterizations somewhat hyperbolic.   Empire requiring slaughter, rape, pillage and general doses of nastiness.... if that were true then the Belgian empire would have outlasted the Brits and their "liberal" empire.

POGG requires effort.   Empire is the application of POGG over an ever increasing geographic territory, and then large amounts of maintenance.   Eventually the Empire runs out of funds, bodies or interest and it collapses.   And apparently precious little thanks.....

On the other hand

I feel that Revolutions, which are the overthrow of the established order and the ultimate demise of POGG going wrong, are products not of the masses but of the people in the board room aspiring to the top chair.   

Strangely when the Brits went into Basra many of the locals called them "Uncle" (in some cases it may have been true rather than an honorific) because, despite the various rebellions many of the underclasses had fonder memories of the Brits than their subsequent indigent rulers.   I have heard similar sentiments expressed by former "colonials" currently residing in Canada.   In fact for some the ultimate problem they had with the Brits was not that they "invaded", but that they left.

Wells doesn't quite see things that way.

Having said all of the above, I think that Empire as a concept is a neutral concept.   In execution it can be positive, benign or disastrous, but it always takes work.   And as everybody knows, work is tiring and often unrewarding and unappreciated.

If one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter, one man's Empire is another man's Government.


----------



## devil39

Kirkhill,

I would agree that Empire should be viewed as a neutral concept with the potential to be positive or negative.   Ferguson argues that the US should admit their "Empire" and concentrate on executing it as a positive force.   He argues that in order for America to be a positive force they will have to stay the course where they intervene.   Japan, Germany, Puerto Rico and Hawaii are positive examples where the US has stayed the course.   Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and the Phillippines are examples of the US attention deficit disorder towards Empire and the consequent inability of those countries to prosper, or at least to achieve their full potential.

Ferguson argues that the US suffers from 3 deficits that have to date limited its success as an empire in comparison to the British empire.

1.   Economic deficit.   The US has become the worlds biggest debtor since 1985

2.   Manpower deficit.   The US military is chronically short of troops and civil administrators to stay the course with its current commitments, let alone taking on new ones.   

3.   Attention deficit.   He feels this is the most difficult to overcome and as we discuss it now the US is in danger of prematurely halting the reconstruction   of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would think that the US should be able to continue to intervene internationally when required, provided the long term benefits of intervention are realized through the long term commitment toward regeneration.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Ferguson argues that the US suffers from 3 deficits that have to date limited its success as an empire in comparison to the British empire.
> 
> 1.  Economic deficit.  The US has become the worlds biggest debtor since 1985
> 
> 2.  Manpower deficit.  The US military is chronically short of troops and civil administrators to stay the course with its current commitments, let alone taking on new ones.
> 
> 3.  Attention deficit.  He feels this is the most difficult to overcome and as we discuss it now the US is in danger of prematurely halting the reconstruction  of Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> I would think that the US should be able to continue to intervene internationally when required, provided the long term benefits of intervention are realized through the long term commitment toward regeneration.




devil39, sorry it took so long to get back to this topic - been giving it some thought (just as well you can't smell smoke on these things).

Of the three deficits I was trying to figure out which one I thought was most important, economic, manpower or attention.  I couldn't.  They are all intertwined.  

No money. Can't afford to hire Americans to fight overseas. Americans die the sacrifice makes people want to get out of there - Attention deficit essentially - reward not worth the sacrifice.

Then it occured to me that maybe the two of us Ferguson and myself, can't speak for you, are seeing it wrong.  Maybe we are looking at a Public Empire rather than a Private Empire.

The British Empire that I most commonly associate with is the Late Victorian, Edwardian Empire that finally died out in the 1960's - characterized by military looking civil servants, the District Commissioner Wallah in shorts, knee-socks, solar topee and Sam Browne belt. An employee of the state running a department in a vast Crown Corporation.  Supplying Peace Order and Good Government and filling the coffers of Her Majesty's Government.

But if the Americans have an Empire, and I stipulate they do, their Empire doesn't look anything like the British Empire.  No government chappies in pith helmets lounging at Raffles.  But if they don't have the government chap, what is his counterpart?  I think the counterpart is the Harvard educated consultant with an MBA.

I think that the American Empire is a Private, for Profit Corporation rather than a Crown Corporation.  If it has a British analogy it is the British Empire before the Sepoy Mutiny in India in 1857.  That was when the Reformers, with the best interests of the natives at heart, took over the Empire from the various private corporations that were running it.

If we look at Iraq in that sense what do we see.

Suppose the following:

Step one - spend as few american dollars on manpower as possible, hire local soldiers and police with Americans as Stiffeners and Trainers (think East India Company, Skinners Horse, Gurkhas and the Indian Army).  So far a very British solution.

Step two, and this is the American solution, rather than sending out civil servants on the US government payroll, send out consultants to be paid by the Iraqis.  This has the added benefit of not just reducing the draw on American coffers but actually swelling them as Iraqis pay Americans.  Making headway on deficit number one, the economic deficit.

Step three - encourage Americans to do business in Iraq.  

Now some will argue that the security climate in Iraq doesn't allow for investment.  If you are thinking in terms of investment bankers and Wall Street you would be right.  But there is another kind of American - the kind that Sheila Copps sees in her nightmares.  The kind I had a lot of experience with in the fishing industry in Alaska.

These essentially are the cowboys and the gamblers.  People that will take any risk if there is a prospect of a dollar at the bottom.  Risk being capsized on an iced-up crabber in the Bering in return for $100,000 paychech for 4 weeks of hard work and sleepless nights? No problem.  Risk being shot or blown up for a similar paycheque driving truck, putting up cell towers, repairing oil wells, running construction companies?  They are queueing up.  The prospect of low taxes, few lawmen, no speed limits, SUVs and your own personal sidearm do not constitute deterrents.

They may not be John Kerry's, or Jacques Chirac's, cup of tea but they represent a well known side of America.  And when the go they take with them Hollywood and Britney Spears, Coca Cola and Budweiser, Levis and Nikes,  and they also take with them an awful lot more egalitarian view of the world than the locals have, even if a good chunk of them could be fairly described by the PC set as racists and chauvinists.

So looking at the three deficits again, starting with the bottom first,

Solve the attention deficit by getting their attention - show them how they can make a dollar

Solve the manpower problem by keeping the government out of it , privatize commercial enterprises and nationalize security

Solve the economic deficit by decreasing government expenditures and increasing revenues by selling what you know best, for the Americans that is "knowledge".


The American Empire got this far on the backs of Coca-Cola and Hollywood, perhaps they, Morgan-Stanley and Blackwater can take them on from here.

Oh by the way getting back onto the track of this thread, it seems while the Syrians are still talking a good game for there domestic population, there seems to be a move to start back-pedalling:

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040923-084644-8505r.htm


----------



## devil39

Kirkhill,

With respect to the private/economic empire, it has been argued and likely is a fact of life.   In the long run, I don't believe that there is the strength of character and/or incentive to make the contracted consultant stay the course when absolutely required.   Nor the promise to support him militarily when absolutely required.   This is a feasible course of action however, and may in the long run lead to a more institutional type of empire in a more acceptable, gradual nature.

From a military perspective, it will be harder and harder each year to recreate the imperial force that commanded respect in the height of the British Empire.   That kind of discipline cannot be imposed upon less willing subjects in this day and age.   Todays "stiffeners" must come with PGMs, Javelins and the "Deus ex machina" that only the US Military can provide.   This is possible, and the early campaign in Afghanistan provided a very good example of how money and modern munitions could motivate the friendlies and dissuade the bad guys.   This will only go so far however as the operation in Tora Bora has been suggested to prove.

The British Empire was primarily and initially about commerce, the real management came afterward as a sense of duty and responsibility.

Robert D. Kaplan's "The Man Who Would Be Khan", and "Supremacy By Stealth" are good depictions of where the US might find its bureaucrats, governors and managers, perhaps todays equivalents of the colonial administrator.   Kaplan suggests that it is the US Miliitary that will provide this class of committed, well educated and multi-talented individuals.   Individuals who accept deployment as a cost of doing business and are satisfied with promotion, an elevated social status externally, and the equivalent of the OBE to hang from their black tie at the end of their days.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

*Ferguson argues that the US suffers from 3 deficits that have to date limited its success as an empire in comparison to the British empire.

1.  Economic deficit.  The US has become the worlds biggest debtor since 1985

2.  Manpower deficit.  The US military is chronically short of troops and civil administrators to stay the course with its current commitments, let alone taking on new ones.  

3.  Attention deficit.  He feels this is the most difficult to overcome and as we discuss it now the US is in danger of prematurely halting the reconstruction  of Iraq and Afghanistan.*

And of course the neoliberal would add a moral deficit.


----------



## devil39

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> *Ferguson argues that the US suffers from 3 deficits that have to date limited its success as an empire in comparison to the British empire.
> 
> 1.   Economic deficit.   The US has become the worlds biggest debtor since 1985
> 
> 2.   Manpower deficit.   The US military is chronically short of troops and civil administrators to stay the course with its current commitments, let alone taking on new ones.
> 
> 3.   Attention deficit.   He feels this is the most difficult to overcome and as we discuss it now the US is in danger of prematurely halting the reconstruction   of Iraq and Afghanistan.*
> 
> And of course the neoliberal would add a moral deficit.



Of course.   

But you and I have frequently agreed to disagree on most subjects of this nature.

The US moral deficit is considerably less prevalent in my opinion than that of most, if not all, nations in history who have wielded the sort of power that the US currently is capable of.   I believe that history will confirm this eventually, perhaps long after you or I are capable of lucid comment (you will succumb before me, therefore I should likely have the last word!).   :   )


----------



## PPCLI Guy

devil39 said:
			
		

> Of course.
> 
> But you and I have frequently agreed to disagree on most subjects of this nature.



I think that I would actually be dissapointed if we ever did agree.



> The US moral deficit is considerably less prevalent in my opinion than that of most, if not all, nations in history who have wielded the sort of power that the US currently is capable of.   I believe that history will confirm this eventually, perhaps long after you or I are capable of lucid comment (you will succumb before me, therefore I should likely have the last word!).   :   )



Fair enough.   My observation was more Caligula-esque than Bush-esque.   I was drawing a parallel, rather than siding with the neo-liberals.

As to our respective capacities for lucid comment - of course I will succumb before you.   I have been lucid for many more years than you...including most of the last 15.


----------



## Acorn

So, I have to ask: does the existence of "neo-conservatives" require the creation of "neo-liberals?"

Acorn


----------



## Acorn

And to bring things back to Syria:

My take is that the vast majority of current commentators on Syria haven't a clue. But maybe my opinion is clouded by many years of physical experience in the region.

Acorn


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Acorn said:
			
		

> So, I have to ask: does the existence of "neo-conservatives" require the creation of "neo-liberals?"
> Acorn



From Duncans World Politics in the 21st Century:

_Neoliberalism:   A philosophical position that argues that progress in international relations can only be achieved through international cooperation.   Cooperation is a dynamic rather than a static process.   By focusing on understanding the dynamics of the web of relationships driving the international system, states and other international actors can effectively use the international institutions spawned by the system to promote peace and cooperation_

As I understand it, in the Post WWII era, the debate between the two main schools of thought in International Relations, Realism and Idealism spawned neoliberalism.   Try this link:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/histneol.htm


----------



## Bert

In light of Devil39's posts, here is article on the "US Empire" from another 
point of view.


The American Empire 

ww.stratfor.com
19 March, 2003

Al Qaedas goal always has been to unify the Islamic world under an Islamic government
to create, in effect, an Islamic empire that is ready to both protect the interests of the 
Islamic world and to expand Islamic influence. It is doubtful that al Qaeda will achieve this 
goal. Indeed, it is Stratfor?s view that al Qaeda?s actions will, contrary to its intentions or
 expectations, generate the exact opposite effect -- the creation of an American empire. 

In a sense, the American empire already was created by the nearly simultaneous fall of 
the Soviet Union and the Japanese economy. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the 
United States became the only power capable of projecting military force globally. 
With the crash of Japan?s economy and the extraordinary expansion of the American 
economy in the 1990s, the United States also became the dominant global economic 
power, the primary source of capital and innovation. These two forces combined to give 
the United States overwhelming political power and with that came the ability to shape 
the international order as it wished. 

American power did not match the American appetite for power. The U.S. did not 
perceive itself as having major global interests and its economy was less dependent 
on either imports or exports than were those of other major powers. Nevertheless, 
the United States had an interest in maintaining the stability of the international 
economic order. In general, this meant maintaining and expanding market capitalism 
in other countries and developing an international free trade regime with the inevitable 
protectionist aspects that domestic American politics had come to require. 

On another level, the United States, no longer riveted by any serious threats to its 
national security, had the luxury to focus on the moral character of regimes. It 
intervened in Somalia to end appalling hunger; in Haiti to put a stop to a brutal 
and repressive regime; in Bosnia and Kosovo to limit Serbian excesses. All of these 
were elective operations. The United States did not undertake these missions 
because it had any overriding interests at stake, but because it had a massive 
surplus in politico-military power and could afford to indulge. When Somalia proved 
more complex and painful than the United States was prepared to endure, it 
withdrew. When the Haitian operation failed to provide the promised blessings, 
the government changed its focus. 

The central reality of the 1990s was this: while the United States had the ability 
to impose a global order, it clearly did not need one and the cost of imposing 
one outstripped any benefit that the United States might derive from it. Although 
the U.S. was clearly the world?s leader in every sense, and even thought of itself as 
the leader, it did not wish to take on the disciplines of leadership or assume the 
cost of forming a global order. Leadership includes developing coherent principles 
for governing the international system, deploying the power to impose that system 
and the willingness to create appropriate institutions with which to govern. 

The lack of American appetite for power in the 1990s resulted in a subsequent lack 
of any predictable, coherent behavior in the international system. Instead, Washington's 
principles were vague, its political and military power was diffuse and the institutions 
it chose to operate through (namely the United Nations and NATO) were both 
relics of the Cold War and were fundamentally unsuited to the tasks at hand. 

Nothing is more dangerous than power without appetite or fear. Appetite and fear 
focus power, make it predictable and make it possible for other nations to craft 
policies that accommodate, avoid or resist that power. Where there is neither 
appetite nor fear, power is unfocused and therefore inherently unpredictable. 
That unpredictability was the mark of U.S. policy between the fall of the Berlin Wall 
and Sept. 11. 

For most of the rest of the world, the 1990s was like living with a huge gorilla whose
intentions were generally good if somewhat addled. It was impossible to predict what 
the gorilla might become interested in next, what it might do and the consequences 
of its actions. For other nations, the United States potentially could be the solution 
to their problems, but, if unfocused, also could be dangerous. 

Other countries therefore had two predominant goals. One was to try to take 
advantage of a relationship with the United States. The other was to try to form 
coalitions large enough to focus the U.S. or at least render it predictable to some 
degree. The latter was difficult. Working with the United States was more profitable 
than resisting it. Thus every time a coalition started to form, the U.S. government 
would shift its policy slightly, perhaps seducing one of the potential coalition members, 
and the effort would collapse. 

The rest of the world did not find this situation amusing. U.S. power and indifference 
posed a threat to their national interest. The problem did not derive from any defect
 in the American character, but from geography and power. The United States was 
physically secure from the rest of the world and so powerful and prosperous that it 
needed little from that world. American self-sufficiency and the power to secure what 
little it needed collided with the very different experience of the rest of the world. 

Nowhere was this clearer than in Somalia. The United States, under former President 
George Bush, intervened for humanitarian reasons, stayed to try to build a nation, 
then pulled out when the nationals resisted. From the American point of view, this 
was a humanitarian mission that just didn?t work out. 

From the standpoint of the Islamic world -- and particularly that of al Qaedas 
founders -- this was an example of the random and unpredictable nature of U.S. 
foreign policy, coupled with a lack of moral fiber. Washington?s actions may have 
been well intended, but were perceived as an unwarranted, imperial intervention. 
Worse, the intervention was perceived as an imperial move by a nation with no 
appetite for empire. 

Somalia led directly to Sept. 11. Al Qaeda was part of the international community 
that found U.S. behavior erratic, unpredictable and ultimately weak. Al Qaedas 
goal -- building an Islamic empire -- required that it challenge the U.S. and 
demonstrate that the United States was both inherently weak due to moral 
corruption and that it would be incapable of destroying al Qaeda. For al Qaeda, 
challenging the United States would change the psychology of the Islamic world,
 thereby undermining the perceived power of the United States. 

Sept. 11 redefined the world for the United States. It turned the world from a 
vaguely irrelevant, generally harmless place in which there were economic 
opportunities and the chance to do good deeds into one that was deadly. It also 
created a focus for U.S. power that changed the dynamic of the entire 
international system. Prior to Sept. 11, the United States had only a vague interest 
in the international system; after the attacks this international system -- and the 
destruction of al Qaeda, to be precise -- became an obsession. 

The problem for the United States, however, is that destroying al Qaeda is not a 
straightforward action. The group has dispersed itself globally, which forces the 
United States to follow suit. Prior to Sept. 11, the United States completely 
dominated the world?s oceans and space. This allowed it to go anywhere and see 
everything, but its ground forces were deployed fairly randomly. For example, 
thousands of troops were still deployed in Germany, more from habit than from need. 
The U.S. presence in Eurasia was essentially without a mission and not particularly deep. 

Over the past 10 months, the United States has not only dispersed its forces 
throughout Eurasia and the surrounding islands, but also has moved deeply into 
the governments, intelligence agencies and security apparatus of many of these 
countries. U.S. forces have been deployed, in small numbers, to areas ranging 
from Europe and Georgia to the "stans" and the Philippines. More important, in 
many of these countries small numbers of U.S. forces are "advising" (i.e. commanding) 
native forces while U.S. advisors monitor and influence decisions from the these countries? 
Ministries. 

Sept. 11 created an unintended momentum in U.S. foreign policy that has led 
directly to empire-building. Empires are not created by salivating monsters 
seeking power. Such empires usually fail. The Romans did not intend to build an 
empire, but each step they took logically led to the next and in due course 
they had an empire. In turn, being an empire profoundly changed their institutions 
and their self-definition. Aside from a deep belief in their own virtue, becoming an 
empire was not an intention but an outcome. 

The United States does not intend to become an empire. Its birth was the first 
great anti-imperial exercise. It certainly has little economic need for empire because, 
like the British, it can trade for what it needs. But the logic of empire does not 
consist of avarice nearly as much as fear. The Romans? first impulse to empire was 
defensive. So, too, the American impulse is entirely defensive. The United States 
is not trying to build an empire: It simply wants to stop al Qaeda. However, to do 
so is to follow the classic imperial process. 

Driven by the need to defeat al Qaeda, American forces are deploying to scores 
of countries around the world -- sometimes overtly, sometimes secretly; 
sometimes in uniform and sometimes as secret agents. In all of these countries, 
the United States is engaged in reshaping domestic policies. Al Qaeda cannot be 
rooted out unless the social fabric of these countries can be managed. 

Few will dare resist. The United States is enormously powerful and has been 
transformed from a vaguely disinterested gorilla into a brutally focused and deadly 
viper, ready to strike anywhere. Given U.S. power and the American mood, few 
nations are prepared to risk U.S. displeasure by refusing to cooperate in the fight 
against al Qaeda. Indeed, many see it as a chance to profit from collaboration with 
Washington. 

In practice this means that, in the course of defeating al Qaeda the United States 
is becoming an integral part of the domestic policy process and implementation in 
virtually all countries around the globe. Those that resist are potential targets for
 American attack. This was an inevitable -- but unintended  consequence of the 
attacks of Sept. 11. 

The intention is to defeat al Qaeda; the means to do so is a global war against them. 
This requires the United States to be present in a majority of countries, overseeing 
processes that are part of a sovereign nations purview, therefore, in effect, usurping 
its sovereignty. Since the war itself requires reconstructing social orders, the 
American presence will have to intrude deeply into these societies. Since the war 
against al Qaeda could take a generation, the U.S. will be there for a long time. 

Most American policymakers would deny that this is their intention. All would be
 sincere, but the unintended consequence is the nature of politics. In this case, 
the unintended consequence is empire. U.S. power, having met an obsessive 
need, is moving throughout the world. Where it meets resistance, it has no 
choice but to plan war. The United States can neither decline combat with al 
Qaeda nor avoid the consequences of such combat. 

The United States has been a democratic republic, an anti-imperial power. Now 
it is an imperial power, not in the simplistic Leninist sense of seeking markets, but 
in the classical sense of being unable to secure its safety without controlling 
others. The paradox is that al Qaeda -- ultimately a very minor power -- is driving 
the world's greatest nation toward this end. 

The problem, of course, is that all of this is visible tactically to Americans. They 
see the deployments into each country. They see the acceptance of advisors
 into ministries. They have come to expect cooperation by police in Yemen, 
bases in Kyrgyzstan, information from Egypt and accommodation from Germans 
or Russians. They expect it, but have not yet constructed a coherent picture 
or named what they are getting into: empire. Empires begin not with rabid 
manifestoes, but with short-term solutions leading only one way. 

The dispersal we see today will last at least as long as the Cold War dispersals, 
and will be even harder to abandon. There will be resistance to an American 
empire, from great powers as well as small. There will be burdens to be borne 
in holding this empire that cannot be abandoned. The American dilemma is that 
it is better at winning an empire than explaining it or even admitting what has 
happened. 

The United States is taking control of countries throughout the world, bringing 
benefits and making threats. But the United States has no theory of empire. 
How can a democratic republic and an empire coincide? Once, this was an 
interesting theoretical question. Now it is the burning -- but undiscussed -- 
question in American politics. 

The issue is not whether this should happen. It is happening. The real issue, 
apart from how all this plays out, is what effect it will have on the United States 
as a whole. A global empire whose center is unsure of its identity, its purposes
 and its moral justification is an empire with a center that might not hold. 
As the obvious becomes apparent, this will become the focus of a pressing 
debate in the United States.


----------



## Kirkhill

Great post Bert. 

Just as an interesting numbers exercise based on this article

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1645

I came to the following conclusions.

The US will create up to 48 Regular Force Units of Action, approximately 24 heavy and 24 light/medium (18 Light and 6 Medium?) yet to be taken

It will also create 34 Guard/Reserve Units of Action.

The Regs will deploy every three years

The Guard will deploy every six years.

Divisions will comprise about 4 UAs of mixed sources.

The intent is to sustain the deployment cycle indefinitely.

Based on these numbers the US could deploy as follows:

1 Corps in Iraq with 

one Heavy division of 4 UAs - Heavy (Abrams and Bradleys)  to form a backbone and respond to conventional military threats
four Mixed divisions of 4 UAs comprising 1 UA-Heavy, 1 UA-Guard, 2 UA-Light to supply regional security and work with national forces.

If we assume 2000 bodies per UA, not including external support, keep in mind that UAs are supposed to deploys with a high degree of internal support, this results in a fighting force of 20 UAs or about 40,000 people.

In Reserve the US will still hold 

16 UA-Heavy or  4 Heavy Divisions
16 UA-Light/Med or 4 Light Divisions
30 UA-Guard or almost 8 Guard Divisions.

They will not be short of capability to defend themselves or react to crises.  Willpower may be another matter......

As to the 40,000 F-Echelon Forces in Iraq, if we assume that each of the Mixed Regional Security Divisions requires its 3 non-Heavy UAs to support and train 3 similarly sized Iraqi Army/Facility Protection/Border Guard Units then we add 4x3x3x2000 72,000 Iraqis to the 40,000 Americans.  And if we further assume that each Iraqi Military/Paramilitary unit supports 3 similarly sized Police Units
then we generate a total force for stabilizing Iraq of 3x72,000 Iraqi police or 216,000 plus 72,000 Iraqi military/paramilitaries plus 40,000 American soldiers.  Total force = 328,000 bodies.  Roughly the type of numbers that Shinseki called for a year or two ago.  But it is largely a domestic, not a foreign force.

And it can be sustained indefinitely.

And at the same time the US still has forces in reserve to repeat the performance.

Leaves a fair amount of support for those Bud-drinking, dollar-driven cowboys I was referring to earlier.


----------



## Kirkhill

> And to bring things back to Syria:
> 
> My take is that the vast majority of current commentators on Syria haven't a clue. But maybe my opinion is clouded by many years of physical experience in the region.
> 
> Acorn



I would be really interested to hear your understanding of the Syrian situation.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48704-2004Sep24.html?



> Syria's Baathists Under Siege
> Party Reformists Seek Reduced Size, Influence
> 
> By Scott Wilson
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Saturday, September 25, 2004; Page A13
> 
> DAMASCUS, Syria -- As editor of the Baath Party newspaper, Mehdi Dakhlallah has risen to a position of rare power within the institution that has dominated most elements of public life here for more than four decades. Now the balding, rotund intellectual is trying to tear his party apart.
> 
> In sober editorials, Dakhlallah has argued that the party is too big, too meddlesome and too removed from its founding principles of social justice, socialist economics and Arab nationalism. The young people who are joining today, he laments, are drawn only by the promise of preferential treatment in university admissions and lucrative jobs in Syria's largely state-controlled economy. He wants the party to return to its ideological roots by becoming smaller, more democratic and, most controversial to his colleagues, less influential in government.
> 
> "The Baath Party is not going to change the world," said Dakhlallah, 57, who joined amid the revolutionary fervor of the late 1960s. "Right now we're fighting to separate the party from government. This is an essential step in changing and developing this country."
> 
> A year and a half after Iraq's Baath Party vanished with the U.S. invasion, Syria's branch is under siege from within its own ranks. Dakhlallah is among a vanguard of intellectuals trying to reduce the party's influence with the blessing of President Bashar Assad, who during four years in power has grown frustrated with the opposition many of its members are putting up to his plans for economic reform.
> 
> Since the revolution that brought it to power 41 years ago, the nearly 2 million-member party has grown into a parallel government, monitoring education, political and economic policy through a network of committees from the national to the village level. Assad is slowly dismantling the system of privileges the party has accumulated, allowing him to set the pace and extent of change at a time when Syria is in the cross hairs of the Bush administration's push to bring democratic reforms to the Middle East.
> 
> Assad, the party's titular head, has selected more than a quarter of his cabinet from outside party ranks since inheriting the presidency on the death of his father, Hafez Assad, four years ago. He is purging the Baath-dominated military of senior officers by enforcing for the first time regulations on mandatory retirement age, and he may push to remove the article of the Syrian constitution that guarantees his party "the leading role in society and in the state." At the same time, fewer young people are joining the party.
> 
> But as Assad, an ophthalmologist by training, works to remove the party as an obstacle to reform, he is also trying not to upset the political base that sustained his father for three decades. He is facing strong resistance from a group of septuagenarian holdovers from his father's administration and from provincial party leaders accustomed to influencing everything from teacher promotions to the price of vegetables in the market.
> 
> Those pushing hardest for reform within the party are primarily political ideologues, such as Dakhlallah, who do not hold posts with influence over state industry or the powerful intelligence services, where most of the opposition to change is coming from. A smaller party might be more amenable to Assad's economic reforms, and a new set of leaders could emerge from among those pushing hardest for change.
> 
> "Assad encouraged introspection within the party, and it is having a big conversation with itself that is not yet resolved," said Peter Ford, the British ambassador here. "But as of now you still can't ignore the party. You must work with it."
> 
> Hani Murtada, a soft-spoken pediatrician, is fighting the party from the outside at the president's direction. A year ago, Assad appointed Murtada minister of higher education, making him one of seven members of his 25-person cabinet who is not a party member.
> 
> Murtada was given control of a system comprising four public universities and 225,000 students but with a shortage of qualified teachers, classrooms and curricula. Since then, he has licensed Syria's first private universities, created e-learning programs in a country that still blocks certain Web sites, and dismantled the privileges extended to teachers and students who belong to the party. Soon, he said, "all 17 million people in this country will be treated the same."
> 
> In the past, 25 percent of university admissions went to party members whose test scores did not meet minimum standards, usually by only a few points. Murtada said he cut that to 10 percent this year and will eliminate it altogether for the next school year. A knowledge of English, he said, is a better ticket to promotion than party membership. He allows the party's education committees to comment on appointments but not to dictate them as in the past.
> 
> "Many look at the party now as an important symbol. But as something that controls the country, that is over," Murtada said in a recent interview. "The general vision of the country has changed completely in the last three years. They once thought the state should manage everything, and we have seen this is nonsense."
> 
> Assad, according to Syrian officials and Western diplomats, is increasingly concerned by the demographic challenge facing the country. Each year 300,000 young Syrians enter the labor market, while the economy grows at only 3 percent a year, not nearly fast enough to absorb the new job seekers.
> 
> So far the most notable economic change has been the recent licensing of three private banks, a step Assad proposed three years ago. Party leaders, many of whom have substantial stakes in the state-run banks and other government-controlled entities, resisted the move until party doctrine was amended to allow Assad to proceed.
> 
> Many opposing the changes are in their seventies; the president, a generation younger, is waiting them out. He is also enforcing mandatory retirement, commonly waived for powerful military officers in the past. Western diplomats here say several hundred party members in the officer corps will be out over the next eight months, including the directors of four intelligence services.
> 
> 
> "The end result will be to get the Baath Party out of the government and, particularly, out of making economic policy," said Waddah Abdrabbo, editor of the Economist, an independent weekly newspaper. "These people know that change is coming. They can fight it for a year or two, but in the end they will not be able to do anything about it."
> 
> Damascus University was once fertile ground for party recruiting when Soviet-style socialism and Arab nationalism captured the imaginations of many students across the Middle East. Today a broader range of political opinion is reflected in its sunny courtyards.
> 
> Dima Bawadikji, 18, said she joined the party in high school because she believed "any party member would have an easy life." A freshman studying library science, Bawadikji was the only one among five children in her family who joined the party, which in high school meant special picnics and sports days for members.
> 
> Sitting next to her on the shady steps of the journalism building, Amer Hassan, a 24-year-old student of English literature, said he joined the party a decade ago even though he "didn't know anything about it." Only a few people from his high school class in the southern province of Daraa didn't join, and he said he feared that failing to do so would hinder his ability to travel abroad, which he hopes to do some day.
> 
> "This party has been around for more than 30 years, and it's done nothing for us," Hassan said. "This president is a good one, and I respect him. But he can do nothing against these people because they run everything."
> 
> On the streets of Daraa, 70 miles southeast of Damascus, Yasseen Damara's smoky waiting room fills with men in military uniform and in the red-checked kaffiyehs of Bedouin farmers. He is the province party boss, and he is a busy man.
> 
> His calendar is filled with the weddings and funerals of provincial notables, and he is in constant contact with the provincial governor, another party member, for consultations ranging from the status of medicine in the hospital to problems with the electricity grid. Assad, father and son, look down on him from his wall as he works through committee reports on youth, economics, politics and education.
> 
> If vegetable prices in the market are too high, a party member will tell the vendor they should come down. The education committee recommends teachers for promotion, though Damara insists ability is the deciding factor. Despite his post, he said, two of his children were recently denied admission to the highly competitive local nursing school.
> 
> The changes being proposed by the intellectuals in Damascus make little sense to Damara, 51, a beneficiary of the party for decades. Land reform that followed the 1963 Baath revolution quadrupled the size of his father's tiny wheat, barley and garbanzo fields in the village of Maarea, making the farm profitable enough to sustain his family of eight. He joined the party in high school and never left.
> 
> "The party is still close to its principles, even though some individual members have made mistakes," said Damara. "It will always be the leading party. Why? Because its goals will always be supported by the people."


----------



## Kirkhill

This one is really curious. Syria trying to get rid of Saddam's scientists to Iran.....

Ran today in the Telegraph

 http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/26/wiran26.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/26/ixportaltop.html




> Syria brokers secret deal to send atomic weapons scientists to Iran
> By Con Coughlin
> (Filed: 26/09/2004)
> 
> Syria's President Bashir al-Asad is in secret negotiations with Iran to secure a safe haven for a group of Iraqi nuclear scientists who were sent to Damascus before last year's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
> 
> 
> 
> Western intelligence officials believe that President Asad is desperate to get the Iraqi scientists out of his country before their presence prompts America to target Syria as part of the war on terrorism.
> 
> The issue of moving the Iraqi scientists to Iran was raised when President Asad made a visit to Teheran in July. Intelligence officials understand that the Iranians have still to respond to the Syrian leader's request.
> 
> A group of about 12 middle-ranking Iraqi nuclear technicians and their families were transported to Syria before the collapse of Saddam's regime. The transfer was arranged under a combined operation by Saddam's now defunct Special Security Organisation and Syrian Military Security, which is headed by Arif Shawqat, the Syrian president's brother-in-law.
> 
> The Iraqis, who brought with them CDs crammed with research data on Saddam's nuclear programme, were given new identities, including Syrian citizenship papers and falsified birth, education and health certificates. Since then they have been hidden away at a secret Syrian military installation where they have been conducting research on behalf of their hosts.
> 
> Growing political concern in Washington about Syria's undeclared weapons of mass destruction programmes, however, has prompted President Asad to reconsider harbouring the Iraqis.
> 
> American intelligence officials are concerned that Syria is secretly working on a number of WMD programmes.
> 
> They have also uncovered evidence that Damascus has acquired a number of gas centrifuges - probably from North Korea - that can be used to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Relations between Washington and Damascus have been strained since last year's war in Iraq, with American commanders accusing the Syrians of allowing foreign fighters to cross the border into Iraq, where they carry out terrorist attacks against coalition forces.
> 
> "The Syrians are playing a very dangerous game," a senior Western intelligence official told The Sunday Telegraph.
> 
> "The Americans already have them in their sights because they are doing next to nothing to stop foreign fighters entering Iraq. If Washington finds concrete evidence that Syria is engaged in an illegal WMD programme then it will quickly find itself targeted as part of the war on terror."
> 
> Under the terms of the deal President Asad offered the Iranians, the Iraqi scientists and their families would be transferred to Teheran together with a small amount of essential materials. The Iraqi team would then assist Iranian scientists to develop a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Apart from paying the relocation expenses, President Asad also wants the Iranians to agree to share the results of their atomic weapons research with Damascus.
> 
> The Syrian offer comes at a time when Iran is under close scrutiny from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is investigating claims that Iran is maintaining a secret nuclear bomb programme.
> 
> The Iranians, who possess one of the world's largest oil reserves, insist that their nuclear programme is aimed solely at developing nuclear energy. Last week relations between Teheran and the IAEA deteriorated further after the Iranians reneged on a commitment to suspend their nuclear programme.
> 
> In a move that will raise suspicions in Washington that Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb, Teheran announced that it was to press ahead with plans to enrich 37 tons of uranium into the gas needed to turn the radioactive element into nuclear fuel. Nuclear experts estimate that when the process is complete the Iranians will have enough enriched uranium for five nuclear bombs.
> 
> The IAEA responded by passing a resolution setting a November 25 deadline for Iran to clear up suspicions over its nuclear activities or risk having the issue referred to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. The resolution also demanded that Iran halt all activities related to uranium enrichment, a part of the nuclear fuel cycle that can be used for both energy and weapons purposes.
> 
> In a further gesture of defiance, Ali Shamkhani, the Iranian defence minister, announced that the Iranian army has taken delivery of a new "strategic missile".
> 
> The missile, unnamed for security reasons, was successfully tested last week, Shamkhani was quoted as saying by state television. It was unclear if the weapon in question was the Shahab-3 medium-range missile, acquired by the Revolutionary Guards in July last year. An improved version was successfully tested in August.
> 
> The Shahab-3 is based on a North Korean design and is thought to be capable of carrying a one-ton warhead at least 800 miles, which puts Israel well within its range.
> 
> The Iranians yesterday also accused America of "lawless militarism" in Iraq and called Israel the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. "The attack against Iraq was illegal," Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign minister told the UN General Assembly. He thanked Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, for stating the same in a television interview last week.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kind of curious juxtaposing these to articles.

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040926-103904-7454r.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,1-1281064,00.html

On the one hand Assad is surprising diplomats by being conciliatory to the US, according to one newspaper with a right wing slant.  While another right wing newspaper claims that the Mossad is assassinating Hamas leaders in Syria. (Unofficially confirmed in Ha'aretz).


----------



## Acorn

I could spend quite a bit of time replying, but I simply can't afford too much, so the "cole's notes" below will have to do for now. Anyway, looking at the articles Kirkhill posted:

First, Ba'ath Party reform has been in the works for a few years now. What it usually boils down to is re-distribution of wealth in the guise of reform. The intent is to mollify internal forces (more below.)

Regarding contacts with Iraq and Iran on a CBW front, most of what get's published is of very questionable providence. There are the Syrian equivalents of Ahmad Chalabi and his party, firing off "reports" of buried Iraqi chemical weapons in Eastern Syria, Iraqi scientists and senior regime figures hiding in Syria (as an example one early report was that Saddam himself was ensconced the the "luxurious Cham Palace Cote d'Azure hotel" in Lattakia. Said hotel is "luxurious" by no standard I've ever encountered.) Look at such stuff with a jaundiced eye.

The bottom line on many reports from "sources in Syria" is that they are highly suspect. Given recent history I'd also be suspicious of "US intelligence sources" (which obviously sounds better than "Bob, the messenger boy for the Middle East desk at some lower-level CIA office").

Bashar al Assad, Syria's young president, has a tight rope to walk. On the one hand he tries to be as conciliatory as possible to the West (particularly the US) but on the other hand he has a restive population with high unemployment - mostly in the critical 18-30 year old male group. He must be seen to be taking a "principled stance" (to use the Ba'ath Party terminology) against Israel and the occupation of the Golan Heights. He must be seen to support the Palestinians, an issue which has become the central cause for most Arabs - even non-Muslims.

He is also faced with an entrenched establishment which has clear "rice bowl" interests. He doesn't have the power base of his father, so he is forced to allow some forces (sometimes called "old guard" though this is a misnomer) a freer hand than the old man would have put up with. This allows some other powerful individuals to expand their own power bases; men like Bashar's brother-in-law, Asef Shawkat, deputy head of military intelligence (some say he is the de-facto head, with MGen Hassan Khalil serving as the "front man") or MGen Ghazi Kanaan, head of political security and former number one in Lebanon.

Is young Assad a reformer? Of a sort, I would think. Certainly he would like to reform the obviously broken economy. I'm not sure he'd be so keen to political reform.

As a final observation: the impression I get from many commentators with a certain political bent is that Syria is an oppressive police state, much like the former Soviet Union. In fact this is not so. Yes, it is something of a police state, but most of her citizens accept that as the price for personal safety. There is also a fairly free economy - taxation is generally ignored - though there is some indication that one wouldn't want to be too successful, lest a "partner" appear.

Maybe more another time.

Acorn


----------



## Kirkhill

A couple of interesting articles here on Syria and Syrians.  

The first one describes the Conveyor belt for moving Mujahedeen from Syria to Iraq (border doesn't look to tight) and speculates on Iraqi activities in Syria.  Suggests as Acorn noted that the authorities may not have a particularly tight grip on the place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/02/wirq102.xml

The second one concerns a Syrian that stowed away on a truck in France that was carrying missiles into one of the Royal Navy's dockyards.  When captured he declared he was an asylum seeker.

Anyone want to buy some swampland?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004560515,00.html


Asylum scandal at 
Navy war HQ  



Security scare ... carrier Invincible




  FULL NEWS INDEX 
   



By TOM NEWTON DUNN
and VIRGINIA WHEELER 

AN ASYLUM seeker sneaked into a top Navy base in a lorry carrying secret MISSILE PARTS. 

The stowaway sparked a massive alert by riding undetected beside a crate holding the new weapons system. 

The man, a Syrian believed to have crept into the truck in France, managed to pass two armed checkpoints at HMS Nelson in Portsmouth and get within yards of warships including the aircraft carrier Invincible. 

As red-faced top brass ordered a probe into the fiasco, a source said: â Å“If he did it so easily, imagine what an al-Qaeda terrorist could do.â ?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/04/26/1013365-ap.html

April 26, 2005  
Syrian troops end 29-year military presence in Lebanon in farewell ceremony
    
MASNAA, Lebanon (AP) - The last Syrian soldiers crossed into Syria on Tuesday, waving and flashing victory signs, surrendering to international and Lebanese popular demands and ending its 29-year military presence in its smaller neighbour. Syrians across the border danced and waved flags welcoming them home. 
At a farewell ceremony near their shared border, a Syrian commander told Lebanese troops: "Brothers in arms, so long." The soldiers responded, "So long." 
A commander of Lebanese soldiers then addressed his words to the Syrians, saying: "Brothers in arms, thank you for your sacrifices." His soldiers repeated, "Thank you for your sacrifices." 

After the hour-long ceremony, the Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon, Maj. Gen. Rustom Ghazali and 10 carloads of intelligence agents crossed into Syria at the border point of Masnaa. The last 250 Syrian troops in Lebanon, who'd participated in the ceremony at the nearby army air base at Rayak, weren't far behind. 
At the crossing, about 25 Lebanese civilians saluted Ghazali, who got out of his car and accepted a poster from a Lebanese man that said: "Thank you Syria." On the Syrian side, hundreds of Syrians waved flags and danced in the streets of Jedeidit Yabous, waiting for the soldiers to emerge. 

The Syrians entered Lebanon in 1976, ostensibly as peacekeepers in the year-old civil war. After the war ended in 1990, about 40,000 Syrian troops remained, giving Damascus the decisive say in Lebanese politics. 
Anger over the Feb. 14 assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri helped turn the tide against Syria's longtime presence in Lebanon. Unconvinced by Syrian and Lebanese government denials of involvement, pressure to leave snowballed. Huge "Syria Out" demonstrations in Beirut brought down the pro-Syrian government, and UN and U.S. pressure intensified on Damascus until it withdrew its army. 

Shaaban al-Ajami, the mayor of nearby Lebanese border village of Majdal Anjar, said he was happy to see the Syrians leave: "I feel like someone who was suffocated and jailed and has finally emerged from jail." 
In the capital, Beirut, meanwhile, relatives of Lebanese prisoners held in Syrian jails scuffled with the army and beat legislators' cars with the Lebanese flag during a demonstration Tuesday outside parliament demanding the release of their loved ones. Two protesters were seen being loaded into a Civil Defence ambulance while two others received first aid at the scene of the demonstration in downtown Beirut. 

With the Syrians leaving, its Lebanese allies in the security services also were collapsing. Maj. Gen. Jamil Sayyed - often described as the enforcer of Damascus' policy - announced his resignation Monday, and another top security commander left the country with his family. Lebanon's new Cabinet, led by Prime Minister Najib Mikati, went to Parliament on Tuesday to seek a vote of confidence that will allow preparations for May elections. 
Gen. Ali Habib, Syria's chief of staff, said in a speech during the departure ceremony, that President Bashar Assad had decided to pull out his troops after the Lebanese army was "rebuilt on sound national foundations and became capable of protecting the state." 
Habib said Syria had no "ambitions in Lebanon, except to protect it." 

By withdrawing, Habib, said that Syria will have "fulfilled all its obligations toward" UN Resolution 1559, which called on it to pull out. 
UN secretary general Kofi Annan has dispatched a team led by Senegalese Brig. Gen. Mouhamadou Kandji to verify the withdrawal. 
Habib stressed that the withdrawal does mean an end to Syrian-Lebanese ties. 
"The relations do not emanate from (Syria's) military presence. The relations will continue and become stronger at present and in the future," he said, then took a swipe at the United States, saying, "anyone who thinks that the history of people can be eliminated by statements made by this or that state is mistaken." 

Lebanese army commander Michel Suleiman lauded the role of Syria's army in Lebanon, crediting it with rebuilding the army, maintaining peace among the country's 17 sects and ending the 1975-90 civil war. 
He pledged continued co-operation between the two countries in several fields, including the fight on terror. 
"Together we shall always remain brothers in arms in the face of the Israeli enemy," said Suleiman. 

The farewell ceremony opened with Lebanese and Syrian military commanders placing a wreath of flowers at a cornerstone they laid for a monument to commemorate the Syrian military presence in Lebanon. As military honours were read out, troops punctuated the ceremony with chants supportive of Syrian President Bashar Assad. 
The 250 Syrian soldiers in red berets and camouflage, the last Syrian troops remaining in Lebanon, shouted "we sacrifice our blood and our souls for you, oh Bashar!" during the ceremony at Rayak, a few kilometres from the Syrian border. 
Recipients of medals exchanged as a sign of appreciation included Ghazali, the Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon, and Brig. Gen. Asef Shawkat, Assad's brother-in-law whom he had recently appointed as Syria's chief of military intelligence. 

On the Lebanese side, Suleiman received a medal from the Syrian government. 

Shortly before the ceremony began, Brig. Gen. Elias Farhat, director of the Lebanese Army Orientation Department said, "Those are the ones left," referring to Syrian soldiers who marched in Rayak, holding their AK-47 rifles to their chests. 
He said the Syrian withdrawal does not mean an end to Lebanese-Syrian relationship. "The military deployment of the Syrian army is part of this relationship which links the two countries," he said. 

Farhat pointed to the 1991 Lebanese-Syrian Brotherhood, Co-operation and Co-ordination Treaty, which calls, among other things, for the two countries to closely co-ordinate on security and defence matters and jointly work to fight sabotage, espionage and prevent any hostile activity against any country.


----------



## a_majoor

The Lebanese I encountered in Cyprus and even here always struck me as being energetic and commercial people. IF the American "Commercial Cowboys" reffered to in an erlier post move in fast, I think the Syrians will find themselves outmanoeuvred, since they have little capacity to respond to that kind of challenge


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

*From the August 5 2006 edition of the Los Angeles Times:*

  


> 5:19 PM PDT, August 5, 2006
> 
> Syria Wants to Talk, But Bush Won't Answer the Phone
> Damascus has effectively cooperated with Washington on terrorism, says Syria's ambassador.
> By Imad Moustapha, IMAD MOUSTAPHA is the Syrian ambassador to the United States.
> August 4, 2006
> 
> 
> LATE LAST MONTH, a number of congressmen called me and asked for an urgent, unscheduled meeting. There, at the Rayburn House Office Building, we spent a couple of hours discussing in-depth the crisis in the Middle East. The paramount concern of these legislators was not the typical Capitol Hill rhetoric (offering unconditional support for Israel, or delivering the routine condemnation and demonization of Syria). Instead, they simply wanted to know what they could do to stop the ongoing massacre in Lebanon.
> 
> Their frustration and exasperation about the total nonchalance of the U.S. administration was overwhelming. The very first question they had for me was to clarify the confusion about whether the White House is talking to Syria or not. Although the media have reported that no contacts have been made between the two countries over the last three weeks, administration officials have sent vague signals that this might be happening through back channels.
> 
> But no communication whatsoever has taken place. U.S. policy remains to ignore the Syrian government. And it remains fundamentally wrong.
> 
> It hasn't always been this way. When President George H.W. Bush faced Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, he realized the strategic need for Syria and knew how to lure us into the American-led alliance: by inviting Syria to the Madrid peace conference.
> 
> As a result, and within a short period of time, the Clinton administration engaged Syria and Israel in serious peace talks that, had they succeeded, would have created a very different paradigm in this troubled area.
> 
> In Syria, we consider the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as the fatal blow that felled the peace efforts, and since that tragic event, Israel has had no leader with the courage or vision required to accept the inevitable "land for peace" compromise enshrined in U.N. Security Council resolutions 224 and 338.
> 
> In sharp contrast, the current U.S. administration has publicly dissuaded Israel from responding to the repeated Syrian invitations to revive the peace process. Syria still hopes that this position might change, as there exists a growing alienation against the U.S. and its policies in the Arab and Islamic world, which is undoubtedly creating fertile breeding conditions for terrorism.
> 
> Syria thought that the atrocious events of Sept. 11, 2001, would be a much-needed wake-up call for the Bush administration.
> 
> After Sept. 11, we cooperated with the U.S. in fighting terrorism. Syria had been fighting extreme fundamentalist movements in the region for the previous three decades, so we promptly initiated intelligence and security cooperation with the U.S., providing a wealth of information about Al Qaeda, some of which was described in a letter to Congress by former Secretary of State Colin Powell as "actionable information" that led to "saving American lives." Consequently, bilateral relations improved dramatically at the time, much to the chagrin of the neoconservative cabal that doggedly opposed any engagement with Syria, no matter how productive.
> 
> This effective cooperation ended when Syria and the U.S. found themselves at odds over how to address the Iraqi problem. Syria fiercely opposed the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and continues to do so. The fact that Hussein was Syria's archenemy did not blind our eyes to the grave consequences such an occupation would bear on our region: bloodshed, destruction, instability, extremism and the ugly face of sectarianism.
> 
> The Bush administration never forgave Syria for its opposition to the war. Despite the fact that Syrian-U.S. intelligence and security cooperation continued, even after the fallout on Iraq, well up to January 2005, heavyweights in the White House continued to engage in a rhetorical campaign against Syria. Members of Congress, influenced by the powerful pro-Israel lobby, overwhelmingly passed the Syria Accountability Act in November 2003, enacting trade sanctions on Damascus without serious debate or reference to the crucial intelligence support provided by Syria.
> 
> Concurrently, administration officials devised a new "policy" toward my country: Don't talk to Syria at all, and maybe its regime will collapse.
> 
> That is why the U.S. decided to change its 20-year position toward Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Suddenly, Syria's "stabilizing and necessary presence" in Lebanon became, overnight and without any change in Syria's behavior, "an evil occupation that should immediately be ended."
> 
> The underlying idea behind demanding Syrian withdrawal was simple: It would precipitate the fall of the Syrian regime, and the U.S. would end up with a new government in Damascus that is both Israel-friendly and an ally of the U.S. Does that have any resemblance to the neoconservative justification for the war on Iraq?
> 
> To the dismay of U.S. policymakers, this belligerent attitude only rallied Syrians behind their own government.
> 
> Ultimately, the Bush administration has to realize that by trying to isolate Syria politically and diplomatically, the U.S. continues to lose ability to influence a major player in the Middle East. In the wake of the ongoing instability in Iraq and violence in Palestine and Lebanon, it begs the larger question: Has isolating Syria made the region more secure?
> 
> Currently, the White House doesn't talk to the democratically elected government of Palestine. It does not talk to Hezbollah, which has democratically elected members in the Lebanese parliament and is a member of the Lebanese coalition government. It does not talk to Iran, and it certainly does not talk to Syria.
> 
> Gone are the days when U.S. special envoys to the Middle East would spend hours, if not days, with Syrian officials brainstorming, discussing, negotiating and looking for creative solutions leading to a compromise or settlement. Instead, this administration follows the Bolton Doctrine: There is no need to talk to Syria, because Syria knows what it needs to do. End of the matter.
> 
> When the United States realizes that it is high time to reconsider its policies toward Syria, Syria will be more than willing to engage. However, the rules of the game should be clear. As President Bashar Assad has said, Syria is not a charity. If the U.S. wants something from Syria, then Syria requires something in return from the U.S.: Let us address the root cause of instability in the Middle East.
> 
> The current crisis in Lebanon needs an urgent solution because of the disastrous human toll. Moreover, the whole Middle East deserves a comprehensive deal that would put an end to occupation and allow all countries to equally prosper and live in dignity and peace.
> Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | | Home Delivery | Permissions | Contact



Interesting POV....


----------



## tamouh

Well written article. Syria has been on and off with Washington for decades, yet, the relations between Syria and the US never reached this level of isolation before. I believe the current US administration has put itself at a great disadvantage by distancing Syria in a time where the US is bogged down in Iraq, and possibly facing Iran, been dismissed by Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinians and most of the Arab world as a player that can effectively bring solutions to the table. This is one of the many reasons why groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are now going about their way to achieve what they need, instead of relying on US mediation.

Syria is and remain the other major player in the ME (aside from Israel), so shunning out the Syrians demonstrates the US administration is planning to go pro-Israel instead of attempting to mediate between all the parties in bringing about a peace. 

Also, interesting thing about this article the mention of US attempt to encourage the Syrians to rise against their government. Instead, (and mostly due to what happened in Iraq), the general population (thought oppressed by the current regime) choose to stand by its government, something the US administration didn't expect.

Great article and thx for sharing...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Syria could do a lot by condeming Hezbollah and their attacks on Israel as well might make the current administration take a second look.


----------



## tamouh

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Syria could do a lot by condeming Hezbollah and their attacks on Israel as well might make the current administration take a second look.



It will be baseless since Syria had already made more important things like fighting terrorism, sharing intelligence. Still the current US administration is unable to envision Syria as a major player in the ME. They thought they could by pass Syria, work with Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, yet we've seen the results so far!!

You'll also need to look at the pressure from within Syria itself. The Golan heights were lost during the 1967 war (When Hafaz Al-Assad was Minister of Defense), the Syrian people until today dream of freeing the Golan. The government is under pressure to reach a solution to that problem. So when a small group like Hezbollah fights the Israelis, many Syrians will view the current position the government is taken as "weak", so imagine if Syria goes against Hezbollah and in support of Israel. There will be no reason for the people of Syria nor the Syrian army to stand behind its government, hence, there will likely follow either : a) revolution   b)  military coup.


----------



## rmacqueen

Unfortunately, this does seem to be a recurring theme within the Bush government.  If you do anything to upset them they cut you out with little regard for the downstream consequences.

Syria could be a dominate player in the region and a foil to any Iranian expansionism if the US would involve them.  Their military is fairly strong but they do have to walk a very fine line given the prevailing feelings towards Israel in the region.  Excluding them will only ensure that any peace plan will fail as politically Syria will have no choice but to oppose it.  The current US administration seems to have a very myopic view that ignores realities to their own peril.


----------



## paracowboy

Syria sponsors the worst terrorists out there, sponsors a raging insurgency in a foreign nation, sponsors a puppet tyranny in another foreign nation, is run by a dictatorship, shields war criminals, and launches missiles by proxy into yet another nation whenver they want to make a point, and WE'RE supposed to feel sympathy for THEM?

Yeah.  :


----------



## CanadaPhil

tamouh said:
			
		

> ............. the Syrian people until today dream of freeing the Golan.



They also until today dream of "freeing" "Palestine", just like they did in 1948, 1967 and 1973. 

But as many children, and those who knowingly choose to wage war sometimes realize, dreams don't always come true.

I  think Israel just got a little sick of being awoken in the middle of the night by Syria's bad dreams.


----------



## GAP

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Syria sponsors the worst terrorists out there, sponsors a raging insurgency in a foreign nation, sponsors a puppet tyranny in another foreign nation, is run by a dictatorship, shields war criminals, and launches missiles by proxy into yet another nation whenver they want to make a point, and WE'RE supposed to feel sympathy for THEM?
> 
> Yeah.  :



There's the public Syria, and then, there's the real Syria. The US has been seen to be dealing with the Public Syria, and have now, probably for good reason, decided not to. You are right, there is nothing that Syria offers, that it does not take away by it's support for Terrorist Organizations. They are not a friend of the US, but up until now it served the purpose of the US to deal with them.


----------



## tomahawk6

Regime change in Syria that involves the replacement of the Baath Party would really transform that region and yank out the props under Hizbollah. It would also strengthen Lebanon. Right now Hizbollah is very close to usurping the leadership of Lebanon from the elected government. This would be a very dangerous pattern for future countries that host powerful terror groups.


----------



## paracowboy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Regime change in Syria that involves the replacement of the Baath Party would really transform that region and yank out the props under Hizbollah. It would also strengthen Lebanon. Right now Hizbollah is very close to usurping the leadership of Lebanon from the elected government. This would be a very dangerous pattern for future countries that host powerful terror groups.


that's not acurate, as the "elected" government was put in place by Syria.


----------



## CanadaPhil

Here is another Syrian view. However, it is not the familiar soft spoken ambassador noted above who is often a guest on CNN to provide uniformed North Americans with the warm & fuzzy view of his government.

It is the Syrian Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment, Dr. Muhammad Al-Sattar calling for Jihad and likening Jews to the descendants of Apes and Pigs. 

It aired July 21st  on Syrian TV.   

http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1206

I can only imagine what kind of reaction there would have been if a member of the US Congress or a member of any western parliament had made a remark likening Muslims to the descendants of Apes and Pigs?


----------



## tamouh

> Regime change in Syria that involves the replacement of the Baath Party would really transform that region and yank out the props under Hizbollah. It would also strengthen Lebanon. Right now Hizbollah is very close to usurping the leadership of Lebanon from the elected government. This would be a very dangerous pattern for future countries that host powerful terror groups.



Any regime change in ANY Arab government ANY where in the ME will produce (if democratic) an Islamist government. If a puppet regime is installed that does not abide to the people's and armed forces well, it will be toppled in few years. This had happened before during the colonial wars of 1920s and will happen in the future. Latest examples: 

Algeria 1994 produced democratic Islamic party as majority 
Turkey 2000, Islamic party...
Iran, Islamic party....
Iraq, Islamic party (Sheaa).....
Palestine, Islamic party.....
Jordan (Islamist are majority)......
Egypt (The Muslim Brotherhood on the rise again)......
Lebanon (mark my word, the next democratic government will be mostly Islamists).
Mauritania (keep an eye there as Islamist gain popularity)...
Saudi Arabia (local elections produced a sweeping win for conservative officials)
Kuwait ...... conservatives holding power in the parliament.

I don't know what change the U.S. is seeking, but any change happens after now will produce an Islamic majority. As I said it before, Israel and the US has the best chance to make peace now with the current Arab regimes.



> that's not accurate, as the "elected" government was put in place by Syria.



Incorrect, the current Lebanese government is 100% democratic with no intervention at all from Syria. The pro-Syrian members in the parliament are smaller than the Saad Hariri coalition (the majority party). 

The events occurring in Lebanon now would never have never happened should Syria had remained in Lebanon. It is an irony! Obviously, when the Syrians were in Lebanon, they'd interfere in all aspects of people lives, but for the very least people had a life!


----------



## a_majoor

"Democracy" is only a method.

Perhaps many of the cultures in the Arab middle east need to go through a constitutional monarchy or a total social rebuild similar to Japan post 1945 in order to create the social and political organizations which are needed to create a stable society and prevent (or at least limit the possibility of) takovers by radical elements.


----------



## tamouh

> Perhaps many of the cultures in the Arab middle east need to go through a constitutional monarchy or a total social rebuild similar to Japan post 1945 in order to create the social and political organizations which are needed to create a stable society and prevent (or at least limit the possibility of) takovers by radical elements.



This is what Britain and France have been doing in the region from 1920-1940 and look where it ended up !!! They used to shuffle things around Arab-Style ( We'll help you do this if you help us do that, then we'll help someone else against you so they help us achieve some other thing in another region....... )


----------



## CanadaPhil

From the Memri TV Project,

Here is Syrian cleric Muhammad Al-Bouti on Al Manar (aka Hezbollah TV) saying it is perfectly OK to bomb and destroy American, Israeli, & other groups "hostile to Islam" around the world. 

http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1230


----------



## tamouh

> Here is Syrian cleric Muhammad Al-Bouti on Al Manar (aka Hezbollah TV) saying it is perfectly OK to bomb and destroy American, Israeli, & other groups "hostile to Islam" around the world.



Wasn't there a post on these forums that talked about a radical Israeli Rabbi who claimed Arabs should be eliminated and killed. Everyone jumped on board that this is the opinion of one radical should not be taken as the opinion of the whole nation , or am I wrong here ?


----------



## paracowboy

tamouh said:
			
		

> or am I wrong here ?


yes, you are, and you know it. There are no huge rallies in Israel calling for the deaths of all Muslims. There are no enormous outpourings of hatred amongst Jews aimed at any race or religion. In the rabbi's (we'll continue to call him that, although he's hardly a man of God) case, it IS a single oddity, whereas amongst the Muslim community, it's virtually the status quo.

You're trolling again.


----------



## tamouh

> yes, you are, and you know it. There are no huge rallies in Israel calling for the deaths of all Muslims. There are no enormous outpourings of hatred amongst Jews aimed at any race or religion. In the rabbi's (we'll continue to call him that, although he's hardly a man of God) case, it IS a single oddity, whereas amongst the Muslim community, it's virtually the status quo.



Does Syria occupy ANY Israeli land ? Is Syria in violation of ANY UN resolutions ?  NO!

While on the other hand, Israel occupies illegally lands since 1967 in a legal war which Israel started against its Arabs neighbours, AND Israel is in complete violation of UN resolutions since 1967 until our nowday.

p.s. Jews live in Syria too and the Syrian constitution guarantees their safety. Syrians nor any Arabs have any problems with Jews, but they have issues with settlers occupying their land and that happens to be extremist Jews, so they simply are mixing the two together. Same with the war on Terror, we all respect the Muslim community, yet it seems most Terrorists nowadays are belonging to extrimist Muslim ideology.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

United Nations Holds Canada In Continuing Violation of Lubicon Human Rights
http://www.tao.ca/~FOL/pa/humanr.htm


...I guess we don't have the same good friends in high places like Syria does.


----------



## CanadaPhil

tamouh said:
			
		

> Does Syria occupy ANY Israeli land ?



Nope. But we all know that is not by choice huh. 




			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> Is Syria in violation of ANY UN resolutions ?  NO!



LOL, I dont think you are looking closely enough. No surprise there.


----------



## paracowboy

tamouh said:
			
		

> Does Syria occupy ANY Israeli land ? Is Syria in violation of ANY UN resolutions ?  NO!
> 
> While on the other hand, Israel occupies illegally lands since 1967 in a legal war which Israel started against its Arabs neighbours, AND Israel is in complete violation of UN resolutions since 1967 until our nowday.
> 
> p.s. Jews live in Syria too and the Syrian constitution guarantees their safety. Syrians nor any Arabs have any problems with Jews, but they have issues with settlers occupying their land and that happens to be extremist Jews, so they simply are mixing the two together. Same with the war on Terror, we all respect the Muslim community, yet it seems most Terrorists nowadays are belonging to extrimist Muslim ideology.


how is this, in any way, a response to my post? What point did you address? We were discussing a specific rabbi's extremist philosophy, and you brought this up. Some sort of bizarre tangent. THAT is why you are so often accused of trolling.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

A bizarre tangent that was quickly shot down.......so for once, address the view that Paracowboy proposed to you.


----------



## tamouh

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> United Nations Holds Canada In Continuing Violation of Lubicon Human Rights
> http://www.tao.ca/~FOL/pa/humanr.htm
> 
> 
> ...I guess we don't have the same good friends in high places like Syria does.



Syria as well has been criticized negatively for its human rights. However, no UN security resolutions on this subject. You're comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## big bad john

tamouh said:
			
		

> Syria as well has been criticized negatively for its human rights. However, no UN security resolutions on this subject. You're comparing apples to oranges.



There might not have been any UN resolutions on the matter, But I have seen Syrian Police and Troops clear a demonstration.  They didn't seem to care about human rights when they were firing on the crowd.


----------



## tamouh

paracowboy: My response is directly related to your point. Why do Syrians rally against Israel and call for the destruction of Israel ?? Because simply Israel is occupying their land. You're saying the Israelis are not protesting against Syrians, why should they ? No Arab nation is occupying an Israeli land.

Which goes to take us back to the Rabbi vs Sheikh issue. Why would you stand with a Rabbi tgat says death to all Arabs, while Israel occupies those Arabs lands!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

So if the Six Nations in Brantford started chanting "death to all white men",...thats OK?


----------



## CanadaPhil

tamouh said:
			
		

> paracowboy: My response is directly related to your point. Why do Syrians rally against Israel and call for the destruction of Israel ?? Because simply Israel is occupying their land.



 :

That is very convenient twisting of the facts. The Golan was NOT OCCUPIED until MULTIPLE ATTACKS over multiple wars started by Syria! So what was the excuse before then.......

Oh yeah... The destruction of the State of Israel and the slaughtering of the Jews. Seems like a recurring Syrian theme.

Tamouh, you just don't get it. When a nation deliberately starts a war of conquest and THEN LOSES!, if the price to pay is the forfeiture of some land to try to guarantee the security of the attacked party, then thats just too bad.

Ring.... Ring.......

Hey Tamouh.... The Prussians just called. They want Poland back!


----------



## tamouh

Bruce: 



> So if the Six Nations in Brantford started chanting "death to all white men",...thats OK?



I don't have well understanding of the Canadian Aboriginal subject and what were the agreements/laws governing this relation, so I'd not comment on something I don't know about. But we all agree Hate is Hate. Whether you say death to Jews, Muslims, Christians , White, Black, Indo, English, Arabic, Chinese .....hate is not tolerable.


----------



## CanadaPhil

;D

LOL.... making a swoooshing motion over my head and making a race car sound.


----------



## paracowboy

tamouh said:
			
		

> paracowboy: My response is directly related to your point. Why do Syrians rally against Israel and call for the destruction of Israel ?? Because simply Israel is occupying their land. You're saying the Israelis are not protesting against Syrians, why should they ? No Arab nation is occupying an Israeli land.


and how does that jibe with Saudis, Yemenis, Iranians, Indonesians, Thais, Afghans, etc, etc, calling for the death of Israel, and the annhilation of Jews world-wide? Israel occupied Syrain soil after being attacked by Syria. Your rebuttal is specious at best. As per your established SOP.



> Which goes to take us back to the Rabbi vs Sheikh issue. Why would you stand with a Rabbi tgat says death to all Arabs, while Israel occupies those Arabs lands!


do not, ever, say that I stand with any extremist. I do not. Especially those who attempt to justify their idiocy in the name of Religion. I, personally, do not care how anyone chooses to worship an invisible man who lives in the sky.

None of your posts have yet to show that you accept the basic idea of the war we are engaged in: Islamic Extremists are the threat to our secular, representative, free-market society. Israel is not. It is an ally (of sorts).

With the collapse of Communism, we ended that threat. The war against it, however, gave birth to the next threat, which is, (by whatever nom du jour you choose to apply) Islamic nutjobs who want to re-establish the Caliphate, and willingly butcher, murder, and torture anyone who disagrees. And they have shown that they will bring their savagery to foreign shores.

Israel is not our enemy. Islamic whackos are. And no amount of appeasement will stop them, nor will ignoring them. The first they see as weakness, the second merely gives them room to plan and orchestrate their misdeeds ON OUR SOIL.


----------



## CanadaPhil

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Israel is not our enemy. Islamic whackos are. And no amount of appeasement will stop them, nor will ignoring them. The first they see as weakness, the second merely gives them room to plan and orchestrate their misdeeds ON OUR SOIL.



+1


----------



## tamouh

> With the collapse of Communism, we ended that threat. The war against it, however, gave birth to the next threat, which is, (by whatever nom du jour you choose to apply) Islamic nutjobs who want to re-establish the Caliphate, and willingly butcher, murder, and torture anyone who disagrees. And they have shown that they will bring their savagery to foreign shores.
> 
> Israel is not our enemy. Islamic whackos are. And no amount of appeasement will stop them, nor will ignoring them. The first they see as weakness, the second merely gives them room to plan and orchestrate their misdeeds ON OUR SOIL.



While we both agree that Extrimisim is an issue, and we need to vigorously combat those who want to destroy our way of life and turn us back to the stone age (e.g. Taliban ideology). We do however disagree on the reasons behind some extrimists hate to America or West. 

I don't know any sane or educated Syrian wants to turn Syria into another Saudi. There are very few who exist for sure, but the majority do despise Wahabisim as much as Zionisim. 

I believe those who are calling for the death of Israel and America are not doing so because of their hate for democracy, freedom of rights , freedom of speech.....but rather (as was said in a post on the promise land & peace thread) because they blame their problems on the West and on top of that list is Israel continued occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.


----------



## armyvern

tamouh said:
			
		

> Why do Syrians rally against Israel and call for the destruction of Israel ?? Because simply Israel is occupying their land. You're saying the Israelis are not protesting against Syrians, why should they ? No Arab nation is occupying an Israeli land.



Tamouh,

Your outlook is revisionist history. Pro-Syrians call the strategic Golan Heights Israeli Occupied Syria, while pro-Israeli call the strategic Golan Heights Israel proper.

Perhaps some research is in order of the Yom Kippur War - Oct 1973.

6 Oct 73: While Israeli forces are at a low state of readiness due to Yom Kippur (the holiest day in the Jewish calandar) Egypt and Syria (backed by other Arabic nations) launch surprise attacks on Israel. For 48 hours, both Syria and Egypt overwhelmed Israeli Forces. Egyptian Forces were able to advance 15 miles into the Sinai. Syrian Forces were able to advance about the same distance into the strategic areas of the Golan Heights then contained within the 1973 Israeli border.

8 Oct 73: With Israeli Forces now fully functional, and Israeli Reserves fully called-up and operational, Israel is able to push back advancing Egyptian and Syrian troops swiftly to their own previous 6 Oct borders. Beyond this, and due to the threat from Syrian forces, Israel kept pushing Syrian forces beyond the 6 Oct Syrian/Israeli border, in fact, Israel advanced to within 35 miles of Damascus. Imagine that. The closest line of Israeli advance on Damascus is actually marked in Syria. A hill overlooking Damascus has Arabic writing on the side of it which denotes it as the Hill of Shame and is meant as a reminder of how close Israel got. I have a picture of it here somewhere that I will try to pull up.

24 Oct: Cease-fire is brokered by the U.N., at which point in time, Israel withdraws from the Hill of Shame overlooking Damascus to the agreed upon AOS (of which I already posted a map) in the UN cease-fire agreement. 

What it all comes down to is that Syria continues to insist that both the AOS and territory on the Israeli side of the AOS, east of the 6 Oct border is "Israeli Occupied Syria" and must be given back. But is it really? I'd say not. 

Syria invaded, they lost and with that loss they gave up some ground. Happens all the time in wars. In fact, Israeli did withdraw somewhat from Syria upon the cease-fire agreement. But the kicker is they only withdrew as far as Israel was comfortable with. They won, I guess it's up to them. 

So Israel did not give all the Syrian territory back (but again *they won * the war!!) but they did give some back, or else the Israelis would still be sitting on a lonely hill-top 35 miles outside of Damascus looking in, where rightfully they could still be. Time to get over the Israeli Occupied Syria agruement because the Israelis won it fare and square and were even generous enough to give back (in the cease-fire) all that other territory up to and including the Hill of Shame.  

Moral of the story is: if you go to War with someone you'd best be willing to give up ground should you happen to lose. Better yet, don't go to war with someone if you can't win.


----------



## paracowboy

tamouh said:
			
		

> I don't know any sane or educated Syrian wants to turn Syria into another Saudi.


no, the Ba'athists in Syria are entirely focussed on one thing: maintaining their grip on total power in Syria, and expanding that power in every neighbouring nation, especially Lebanon. To that end, they employ any and all manner of shenanigans, to include manipulating the Palestinians into invading a foreign nation, and constantly keeping the effects of those manipulations distorted in the eyes of their own populace, much as the Soviet Union used the Imperialist Running Dogs, and the Nazis used Bolshevism/Zionism as boogeymen to distract their populations.



> they blame their problems on the West and on top of that list is Israel continued occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.


their perceptions of Israel's occupation, as preached to them by their totalitarian governments seeking to keep power, and by the various other factions attempting to use them to gain power. If the various neighbouring states truly cared about the Palestinian cause, they would have made sure those poor suffering Palestinians lived in more comfort in their various refugee camps. But, that wouldn't have made for good propaganda, and wouldn't have allowed them to use the Palestinians to strike by proxy. 

There are no good guys, but the Palestinians are amongst the worst of the bad guys, and they're being used by other bad guys, principally the odiously hypocritical Syrians. And they've established such a cult of death, that they enjoy it. Gnawing on old hates like a dog with a soup bone. Teaching their children to commit murder and suicide, instead of attempting to better their lives. Israel has offered any number of times over the decades to rectify their behaviour in the '30s and '40s, and to compromise. But they ain't goin' away. After the millenia of mistreatment, they exist for the sole purpose of defending Jews, and keeping them alive. They won't back down, and the only alternative is to deal with them. But the Palestinians won't, and the Syrians can't allow it. They stand to lose too much. Considering that they hold that ground due entirely to their own efforts, and in the face of the entire world's antipathy, continued calls for them to surrender it can only be seen with a cynical eye.

The "Palestinian Cause" - yet another method for the Islamoloonies to excuse their fall into savagery from feudalism. Funny how it's always somebody else's fault.


----------



## muskrat89

> LOL.... making a swoooshing motion over my head and making a race car sound.



Phil - if you can't offer anything more substantive to the thread than peanut-gallery comments, keep them to yourself.

I strongly suggest that you re-read the forum guidelines, before you get introduced to the Warning System.

Thanks.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## tamouh

ArmyVern: I agree from a Military perspective Syria and Egypt had lost the 1973 war. Israel pretty much "conquered" the lands they currently control. I'm aware of the 35km to Damascus. In fact, when the news reached Damascus that the Israelis were about to invade the capital, all ministers, merchants and "loyalist" families packed their belongings and travelled North to Aleppo. Damascus was pretty much empty from any resistance when the Israelis stopped at 35km mark (so much for the defenders of the realm)

However, trace this back abit to 1967, Israel wages a war against Egypt and Syria , occupying the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and Golan Heights from Syria, Eastern Jerusalem from Jordanian, Gaza/West Bank from Arab Forces. 

The UN resolution 242 does not call for the return of the land Israel had acquired by defeating the Arab leagues in 1948. But it does recall for Israel to return the land it "conquered" in the 1967 war. While you could argue that because Syria/Egypt attacked the Israelis in 1973 they've lost that claim for return of the land through the UN resolution. Yet, we can also argue that because Syria/Egypt initiated the 1973 war because they felt the Israelis had no intention of returning the land they've acquired through 1967 war (e.g. the strong fortification of Sinai Peninsula).

The question here remain on the political front, does Israel and the Arabs want to return back to the initial UN resolution in this matter ? Will the Syrians agree to have an Israeli state next to its borders. Will the Israelis agree to return back the land they've acquired through a war they've started in exchange for peace and security the same way they have with the Egyptians ?

One issue keeps playing a major problem in the Arab-Israeli peace process is who is in control of what? It is not just a matter of land, but much more:

- Settlements built inside the 1967 occupied lands Will they be evacuated ? Will the settlers agree to live under the Syrian or Palestinian control as long as fair policies are ensured ? What if a Palestinian/Syrian claims a settler house was built on his land ?
- Waters and rivers in these lands, water is a major issue in the ME
- The fair return of the Palestinians refugees to their homes, how and who can they claim these homes?
- The security for Israel and its borders
- The sovereignty of all nations including fair access to their borders, sea ports and air space.

Will Israel give up all the advantages it has right now for a lasting peace with Syria ? Will the Syrians agree to these terms in exchange of full cooperation with the Israelis ?

I know one thing, when Jordanian, Palestinians, Syrian and Lebanese went to Oslo . The Syrians asked all Arab parties to stay united and no agreement be made unless all issues are resolved at once. However, the Jordanian and Palestinians felt they can get a "better deal" if they negotiate with Israel alone. This have definitely not worked well for either. Jordan hasn't resolved its Palestinian refugee problem, and the Palestinians.....well, lets leave it there.

I strongly believe the ME issue can only resolved by all parties sitting and hammering all points. All parties must make concessions if they wish to live in lasting peace together and must acknowledge the right for each to exist as an independent and sovereign nation.

paracowboy: You know, I find myself sometimes pondering the same thing. Are the Arab rulers and Muslim clerics using the Palestinian issue to manipulate the people in the same way Israelis are using the same issue to manipulate the West ?

I agree, Syrian regime is focused on maintaining their grip on Power. Is that why the Syrian government is not making peace with Israel ? 
I've said in a previous post somewhere else, if peace is made between the Arabs and Israel, there would be no reason for the Arab citizens not to rise against their oppressing government. I sometimes wonder, are the Arab rulers smarter than we've estimated ? Did they find the weak spot of all Arabs and Muslims ??

The Palestinian refugee camps are jokes. What the Arabs have provided to the Palestinians is nothing compared to what the West have provided the Palestinians. Yet, the Arab rulers emerge as the saviors of the Palestinians! 

Are the Arab rulers a curse on the ME ? Well, they could be. But I know alot of people who also blame the West for that curse. They say if it wasn't for British and French interference from the 20s-40s and until nowdays, we most likely wouldn't have had these military regimes controlling the Arab lives.

Who brought the Saud house to power ? Britain..
Who brought the turbulence to Damascus ? France..
Who divided Lebanon from Syria and gave the Turks the Askandaron ? France..
Who created the current middle east border ? Britain & France

This is where pan-Arabisim/Baathisim comes into play. Their concept is: since Britain & France put the borders between the Arabs, then they must be trying to divide the Arabs (which in some ways true).

My last comments....I remember the days of Saladin. He fought against the crusaders, and the crusaders fought against him. However, nobody was winning but blood was being shed in the name of religion. At the end, Saladin signed a peace treaty with King Richard of England in Ramala, 1192. In which Jerusalem remains in the hands of Muslims and stay open for Christian pilgrims. A year later, Saladin died of mysterious illness! Unfortunately, many know his courage, but few know his philosophy and nobility.

Can the Arabs and Israelis make a noble peace like that ? Can the Syrian government sit down with the Israeli and hammer their differences?


----------



## armyvern

Tamouh,

It just doesn't compute. Twice now these states have invaded Israel...and lost. Because they lost the 2nd time in 1973, you now want to roll back the clock to the 1967 borders and that UN resolution.

If a country goes to war (twice now) and loses, it can not yell scream and cry foul, well we lost but roll back the borders to 2 wars ago because that is what benefits us. If that's to be the case, lets settle this by rolling back the borders through a millenia of wars...and give it all back to the Hebrews...who were there first. Why not? Why does Syria get to decide which war should count? Losers don't get to make those decisions, a well-known fact that has resulted in borders which are now in existance throughout the world. Why do Arabic countries that invade Israel seem to be the only ones in the world who do not expect their borders to change when they lose in a war? 

Why do they totally ignore the fact that they invaded twice, and they lost. Of course 67 benefit the Syrians and that's why they want them but their arguement has little basis in the realities of war.

OK mom, if we win this war against Israel we will keep all their territory that we win (and hopefully we will drive them into the sea)....but if we lose we'll cry foul and ask for the borders to get set back to how they were when we *chose* to invade them two wars ago. Funny how that works isn't it?


----------



## tamouh

> It just doesn't compute. Twice now these states have invaded Israel...and lost. Because they lost the 2nd time in 1973, you now want to roll back the clock to the 1967 borders and that UN resolution.



Two questions:

1) How would you feel if in 1967 Syria started the war and presume it resulted in the Syrians reaching the port of Haifa. a UN resolution is made requiring Syria to withdraw back to the Golan Heights. Israel later attempts to return these lands through war with no success, and Syria ignores the UN resolution ?

2) Based on that above, if Syria now initiate a war with Israel , return back the Golan Height and continues its forces towards the Haifa port then propose a peace to the Israelis on the term Syria keeps the city of Haifa, will that be acceptable ?

** I should add....take these two questions in a Political perspective, not a Military point of view. In Military for the victor goes the spoils.


----------



## cplcaldwell

UNSCR 242 does not call for the return of all lands conquered by Israel in 1967. In fact, if the rule of law is applied to *all* of the resolution it does not require Israel to return any territory until it gets peace inside secure borders.

One can no more accept the clause 
_Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; _

Without accepting the entire resolution, next sentence of which states 
_Termination of all claims or states of belligerency  and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; 
_

 And let's note the phrase _free from threats or acts of force_

So 242 is up in the air, in my opinion, until Syria stops playing footsie with a Hezbollah that wants to fight Israel. Once the Syrians bugger off, they'll get Golan. Just like Egypt got Sinai. Or if we extend it further, once Iran stops messing around and Israel gets secure borders the whole shooting match is over.

242 can't be used to beat the Israelis unless it is equally employed to give them a secure peaceful border.

It's like saying that part of a contract must be enforced on the first party even though the second party is in material breach of other parts of it.


----------



## tamouh

> So 242 is up in the air, in my opinion, until Syria stops playing footsie with a Hezbollah that wants to fight Israel. Once the Syrians bugger off, they'll get Golan. Just like Egypt got Sinai. Or if we extend it further, once Iran stops messing around and Israel gets secure borders the whole shooting match is over.



Correct, the resolution calls for both side to make peace. This is where things stumbling, weren't the Arabs saying in Oslo: "Peace for Land" ?

Also ironic....the conflict started between Palestinians/Israelis, then grew to include Syria, Jordan and Egypt, then Iraq, then Lebanon and now Iran. It just seems the longer this conflict keeps on going, the more complex it will get and harder to reach a solution which appeases everyone.


----------



## cplcaldwell

Yes that was exactly what the Arabs were saying in Oslo in 1993, 26 years after 242 was passed.*But I don't recall Syria being at the table, so were they part of the solution?*

And it would have worked without the intifada (2nd one right?). But again, was that a result of Sharon going to the Temple Mount or Arafat using it as pretext to start the insurrection?

Perhaps we can get back to it some day. Which we almost had after the Sharm al Shakh agreements. Until Hamas repudiated the agreements.

_<edited to add that bit at the top about Syria being at Oslo>_


----------



## tamouh

> Yes that was exactly what the Arabs were saying in Oslo in 1993, 26 years after 242 was passed.
> 
> And it would have worked without the intifada (2nd one right?). But again, was that a result of Sharon going to the Temple Mount or Arafat using it as pretext to start the insurrection?
> 
> Perhaps we can get back to it some day. Which we almost had after the Sharm al Shakh agreements. Until Hamas repudiated the agreements.



Incorrect, the whole Peace process died with the assassination of Isaac Rabin by a radical Jewish extremist and it is still buried in his grave. 

The reason we got to the Oslo accord mainly due to the attention 1st Intifada brought...the secondary was the promise George Sr. made to Arafat after Gulf War I that the US will resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Well, GW Bush didn't, Clinton did get closer....but all died in 1995.

cplaldwell, Temple Mount doesn't exist no more. If you want to resurrect 2000 yo story, then no point of carrying this conversation, we can go back to Abraham and how the Arabs/Jews are cousins, then go even further to Adam and conclude we're all from the same father ?

Sharon did NOT visit the Temple Mount, Sharon attempted to enter the Aqsa mosque, something he knew would ignite an outrage from the Palestinians and Muslims world wide.


----------



## FredDaHead

tamouh said:
			
		

> Sharon did NOT visit the Temple Mount, Sharon attempted to enter the Aqsa mosque, something he knew would ignite an outrage from the Palestinians and Muslims world wide.



Is there anything, besides letting themselves be killed, that Israel and Jews in general can do that will _not_ ignite an outrage from the palestinians and idiotic Islamist radicals worldwide?

They got criticized and attacked for pulling out of Gaza, pulling out of Lebanon, and also for defending themselves _inside their borders_ against *MUSLIM* terrorists. Why should they bother giving anything to the people who will try to kill them at every opportunity?


----------



## cplcaldwell

Respectfully no. The Peace Process did not die with Rabin in 1995. 

Certainly Netanyahu's insistence the PLO curb the violence and suicide bombings emanating from inside Gaza and the West Bank and his construction of settlements on the West Bank did little to advance the process (96-99). But it was Arafat who walked away from the table at Camp David on 24 July 2000 over a few thousand hectares and the right of return (which they will never get) without putting a counter proposal on the table to Clinton.

I think it is more likely we got to Oslo ('93) as a result of the Madrid Conference ('91) . Subsequent rounds were definitely at the behest of Bush I, in order to get the Palestinians a home. These rounds got a Jordanian-Israeli peace ('94) and damn near got a Syrian-Israeli peace. If I remember the first Intifada is generally considered to have been 1987-90. Although the first Intifada brought the Europeans and Russians to the table I think it was the negotiations that got us Oslo, not a year or two of riots, a couple of years of civil disobendience and a final year of pacification by Arens.

Temple Mount, whatever, it's a common usage, you don't want to use it, okay, we'll call it al Haram al Sharif, another common usage. ( You'll never now how hard I had to look to find that reference...)

Sharon went to al Haram al Sharif in September 2000. There is ample evidence from inside even the PLO that Arafat had something up his sleeve after Camp David failed. As to what exactly happened that day, there are a number of accounts.

Anyway, my library is now a mess and I need a smoke. Perhaps tomorrow.


----------



## tomahawk6

Never thought I would agree with Chirac but in this instance I do. Defanging Syria would have helped the Lebanese government, short term anyway. The Syrian military would have been degraded and possibly the Assad government would have been overthrown but if not Assad would have been issued a warning.If Iran didnt enter the war on Syria's behalf they would have been exposed as being weak.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879109084&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

French President Jacques Chirac told Israel at the start of the war in Lebanon that France would support an Israeli assault on Syria, it was reported on Sunday. 

Army Radio reported that in the message, which was delivered by Chirac to Israel via a secret channel, the French president suggested that Israel invade Damascus and topple the regime of Bashar Assad. In exchange, Chirac assured Israel full French support for the war. 

According to the message delivered from Paris, Syria was responsible for the flare up in the North and encouraged Hizbullah to attack. 

"Former prime minister Ariel Sharon had explained to the French in the past that Iran is the main one responsible for Hizbullah's armament in Lebanon, while Chirac saw Syria as the primary one responsible for the matter," former Israeli ambassador to France Nissim Zvilli told Army Radio in an interview. 

"President Chirac saw Syria as directly responsible for the attempt to undermine the Lebanese regime," he said. "He saw them as directly responsible for the murder of [former Lebanese prime minister] Rafik Hariri and directly responsible for arming Hizbullah. Likewise, he saw Syria as the one giving Hizbullah orders on how to operate." 

In March of last year, some four months before the war began, Chirac warned Syria that the international community would respond harshly to any attempt to destabilize Lebanon. 

"Syria must understand that any act that encroaches upon the stability of Lebanon, be it through the shipment of weapons or assassinations, is an act that contradicts with its standing in the international community and will trigger a response from the international community," Chirac said at the time. 

During the war, France was one of the foremost proponents of sending a multinational UNIFIL force to police the Israel-Lebanon border, and even offered to lead it. 

Towards the end of the war, however, diplomatic officials said France had changed its mind out of concern that its badly strained relations with Syria would lead Hizbullah to target French soldiers. 

France, the officials pointed out, was instrumental in pushing through UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which forced Syria out of Lebanon. In addition, it was a key force behind the establishment of the commission of inquiry into the assassination of Hariri, who was a personal friend of Chirac. 

AP and Herb Keinon contributed to this report.


----------



## Shec

> In exchange, Chirac assured Israel full French support for the war.



Gee, with that assurance and $1.25 one can get a cup of coffee.  Israel's been screwed by France before (after the 1967 war) so why would it believe them?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Agreed.  Chirac is a weasel and would've hung Israel out to dry.


Matthew.


----------



## ModlrMike

We all know how well this would have worked given France's previous successes in the Middle East.  :


----------



## hoist-monkey

;D
Chirac would have sent an Airbus A380 full of white sheets.


----------



## rz350

hoist-monkey said:
			
		

> ;D
> Chirac would have sent an Airbus A380 full of white sheets.



Making fun people who bled and died along our own troops in the great war? 4,266,000 of them bled and 1,397,800 of them died fighting the same fight and the same enemy as our troops.


----------



## Edward Campbell

rz350 said:
			
		

> Making fun people who bled and died along our own troops in the great war? 4,266,000 of them bled and 1,397,800 of them died fighting the same fight and the same enemy as our troops.



Yes, they died.  They also mutinied in 1917 and put, essentially, the entire burden of *attacking** the Germans on to the British (including Canadian) forces.  There would be fewer crosses in our war cemeteries had the French fought the whole war with us – it was, after all, their war in the first bloody place.

The problem is *not* the courage or integrity of the French people – they have both in exactly the same proportion as Afghans, Bulgarians, Canadians, Danes, etc, etc.  The problem is that France’s *political culture* – since about the 14th century – has been headed, almost consistently, in a ‘perverse’ direction.

For a variety of reasons – 500+ year old reasons, in many cases – France has adopted a highly centralized, _statist_ political culture and it has, consistently, led the French to make serious _strategic_ misjudgements.  I would argue that the last time the French got their strategy right was during the Hundred Years War!  While I celebrate Napoleon as a brilliant field commander and a pretty fair despot/emperor/civil administrator he was, in my not at all humble opinion a *strategic nincompoop* who failed, utterly, to understand his own (continental) or the British (maritime) strategies and why the latter could not help but overcome the former, as implemented.

In the 19th century the French made a tragic error and institutionalized the (Napoleonic) idea that there exists a self perpetuating _elite_ which can be selected, educated and mentored so as to be able to manage the affairs of France and, by extension, the world.  I believe that the _grandes écoles_ have seriously weakened French strategic decision making for more than 100 years – but, despite having their graduates at the centre of a depressing series of French strategic failures – including abject surrender – they are much admired. 

French leadership reached and then maintained its nadir in the 20th century.  I see no signs that it will improve any time soon.  In fairness, British leadership, in the Edwardian era, was equally weak: signing the _entente cordiale_with France (1904) must go down as Britain’s greatest strategic blunder in over 500 years.

France is neither Canada’s friend nor even a trustworthy ally.  It is the only country since 1945 to attack Canada’s sovereignty directly.

----------
* The French did not abandon their trenches – they just refused to undertake offensive operations.


----------



## rz350

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> France is neither Canada’s friend nor even a trustworthy ally.  It is the only country since 1945 to attack Canada’s sovereignty directly.



I must of missed that Franco Canadian War that happened sometime in the last 60 years. I also missed the memo saying NATO members are no longer allies or friends.


----------



## Roy Harding

rz350 said:
			
		

> I must of missed that Franco Canadian War that happened sometime in the last 60 years. I also missed the memo saying NATO members are no longer allies or friends.



I'm guessing you weren't around in 1967.  I'm also guessing that you weren't taught in school about De Gaulle's famous little speech in Montreal.



> In July 1967, de Gaulle visited Canada, celebrating the centennial of its existence as a nation with a World's Fair known officially as Expo '67. On July 24th, during a speech made from a balcony on Montreal city hall, to a large crowd gathered below De Gaulle uttered Vive le Québec then added, Vive le Québec libre ("Long Live Free Québec"). Harshly critized by English-speaking Canadians and the Canadian government for this unprecedented breach of diplomatic protocol, it was seen by many Canadians as an insult to the thousands of Canadian soldiers who twice fought and died for the freedom of France. De Gaulle's stance was nonetheless welcomed by a part of the Quebec population that favor that province's sovereignty. Outraged, the Government of Canada under Prime Minister Lester Pearson, a soldier who served in World War I and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, cancelled the remainder of De Gaulle's tour and he returned to France where he was also heavily criticised by a large part of the French media.



Complete text of the quoted article can be found here:

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Charles_de_Gaulle

One can be an ally without being a "friend".  Just ask the Germans and Russians pre-WWII.


Roy

Edit:  Typo.


----------



## George Wallace

rz350 said:
			
		

> I must of missed that Franco Canadian War that happened sometime in the last 60 years. I also missed the memo saying NATO members are no longer allies or friends.



How soon they forget! ....... or is it the rewriting of history to suit a political agenda?

I would hope that you remember the name Charles de Gaulle and his little speech in Montreal in 1967?  Perhaps you will also remember him kicking Canada and all other NATO countries out of their Bases in France in 1963?   He also removed France from most of the NATO alliance activities and treaties.......but who are we to hold that against him or his nation?


----------



## hoist-monkey

rz350 said:
			
		

> Making fun people who bled and died along our own troops in the great war? 4,266,000 of them bled and 1,397,800 of them died fighting the same fight and the same enemy as our troops.



I was not making fun of the "French People", I am of French descent on both sides of my family and very proud of it.
I have little respect for the French government and their policies.

The only time France will ever care about the rest of the world is when the Germans get restless and need to go on a vacation in Paris again, and then
we will see how fast we are allies again. I am also 1/4 German and more proud of that.


----------



## rz350

So they never ATTACKED our sovernity. French troops never landed and tried to wrest control of PQ, now did they? 

The Americans seem to send subs into OUR waters, but no one talks about that. They are still friends and allies.

Didnt France send troops to A'stan? In fact, are some not there right now? (I remember they pulled regular forces out early this year, but they still have special forces there as far I know)


----------



## a_majoor

rz350 said:
			
		

> So they never ATTACKED our sovernity. French troops never landed and tried to wrest control of PQ, now did they?
> 
> The Americans seem to send subs into OUR waters, but no one talks about that. They are still friends and allies.
> 
> Didnt France send troops to A'stan? In fact, are some not there right now? (I remember they pulled regular forces out early this year, but they still have special forces there as far I know)



Attacking our sovernity by publicly suggesting that one of our provinces should no longer be part of Canada is different than disagreeing where the territorial boundaries are.

The French do have troops in Afghanistan, but this is because the French see this operation as supporting the French National Interest, in the same manner WE are in Afghanistan because it is in OUR national interest


----------



## rz350

a_majoor said:
			
		

> So we're no better then the French then?  Or does it seem taht do to both of us being countries of the West, our National intrests will line up somtimes, which is why we are friends, and allies.


----------



## Roy Harding

rz350 said:
			
		

> a_majoor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *better*[/i] then the French then?  Or does it seem taht do to both of us being countries of the West, our National intrests will line up somtimes, which is why we are friends, and allies.
> 
> 
> 
> (Emphasis added)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.
> 
> better1
> 
> SYLLABICATION:	bet·ter
> 
> PRONUNCIATION:	  btr
> 
> ADJECTIVE:	Comparative of good1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality. 2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one. 3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English. 4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour. 5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success. 6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today.
> 
> ADVERB:	Comparative of well21. In a more excellent way. 2a. To a greater extent or degree: better suited to the job; likes it better without sauce. b. To greater advantage; preferably: a deed better left undone. See Usage Notes at best, have, rather. 3. More: It took me better than a year to recover.
> 
> NOUN:	1. One that is greater in excellence or higher in quality. 2. A superior, as in standing, competence, or intelligence. Usually used in the plural: to learn from one's betters.
> 
> VERB:	Inflected forms: bet·tered, bet·ter·ing, bet·ters
> 
> TRANSITIVE VERB:	1. To make better; improve: trying to better conditions in the prison; bettered myself by changing jobs. See synonyms at improve. 2. To surpass or exceed.
> 
> INTRANSITIVE VERB:	To become better.
> 
> IDIOMS:	better off In a better or more prosperous condition: would be better off taking the train instead of driving; felt better off after the rise in stock prices. for the better Resulting in or aiming at an improvement: Her condition took a turn for the better. get (or have) the better of To outdo or outwit; defeat. think better of To change one's mind about (a course of action) after reconsideration: I almost bought an expensive watch, but then I thought better of it.
> 
> ETYMOLOGY:	Middle English, from Old English betera. See bhad- in Appendix I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Better" used by itself is usually interpreted as a "moral" term.  "Morals" have little place in international relations - nations have interests - read Jack Granatstein on the subject (Who' War Is It Anyway? - I don't have the book handy, so I can't make a proper reference - let me know if you need the rest of the citation), and NO place in an objective debate or discussion.  When used as a qualifier, "better" makes reference to specific quality (see definition above).
> 
> So I throw your question back at you - in which specific actions or qualities do you think France is "better"?
> 
> Roy
Click to expand...


----------



## TCBF

"The only time France will ever care about the rest of the world is when the Germans get restless and need to go on a vacation in Paris again ..."

- Rather unfair.  Some of their best breeding stock was killed off 1870-1945.  The current civil war brewing in the suburbs will soon separate the wheat from the chaff, however.


----------



## rz350

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> So I throw your question back at you - in which specific actions or qualities do you think France is "better"?
> Roy



None, I do not think they are better then us. I however, also, do not think they are enemies or in the ranks of the Taliban, they are a good, proper Western Nation. (proper as in they are properly, and truly part of political "west" ) Thus they are our friends (since the west needs to stick together to stave of the Middle Eastern extremists) and our allies, via being part of NATO.


----------



## Donut

RZ350, since you don't seem to get it that France is no longer part of the military aspects of NATO...

From the French Foreign Affairs website
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/discovering-france_2005/france-from-to-z_1978/defence_1983/france-and-nato_1435.html

"France is one of the founding members of the Atlantic Alliance created by the 1949 Washington Treaty. *Since leaving the integrated NATO structure in 1966*, France has continued to participate fully in the activities of the political bodies." (emphasis mine)

Further, while France still deploys troops in support of NATO ops, they do so as part of their larger objective (A European Defence Identity, or  "Lets keep the Americans, who kept the Soviets from marching along the Champs Elysee to the Bay of Biscay, out of our back yards") which is expanded upon in the same page, and further elaborated on on this page:

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/discovering-france_2005/france-from-to-z_1978/defence_1983/france-and-european-defence_1434.html

I'll agree that France is a proper "Western" nation, they now display most, if not all, of the attributes that are leading to the decay of the "Western" world.  We may share interests, but we are most emphatically not friends (even if you believe that nations have friends).  Friends come over to my house and drink my beer.  The French, not so much.

DF


----------



## rz350

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> I'll agree that France is a proper "Western" nation, they *now display most, if not all, of the attributes that are leading to the decay of the "Western" world.*  We may share interests, but we are most emphatically not friends (even if you believe that nations have friends).  Friends come over to my house and drink my beer.  The French, not so much.
> 
> DF



That is the least objective thing I have ever heard, ever. The Western world is not decaying. its advancing. It gets freer, richer and more powerful ever year, not the other way around. Then again, what I said was not objective or fact based either, but I recon if you wont give me facts to back your argument, I wont either.


----------



## Donut

Sure.   Race riots, ghettoization, anti-semitism, 15,000 dead old people whose families won't even come back from the beach to claim the bodies....all signs of progress in your world I guess.   :boring:


----------



## rz350

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Sure.   Race riots, ghettoization, anti-semitism, 15,000 dead old people whose families won't even come back from the beach to claim the bodies....all signs of progress in your world I guess.   :boring:



There was even more anti Semites , oh, I recon, about 70-60 years ago. A lot more. In fact, if I remember, about 6 million dead Jews as result. 

Race Riots? I think the good ol USA has had more of them in recent time then France.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

rz350 said:
			
		

> Race Riots? I think the good ol USA has had more of them in recent time then France.



*!!!* Don't follow the news much, eh? 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4405620.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France


----------



## geo

Hmmm
Whac could I say about France & Canada
1763  France sold "new France" down the river
1778  France enters the war on the US side.  In part to satisfy it's taste for revenge (though it ruined the treasury)... bringing on the French revolution 
1967  Charles DeGaule flaps his gums about "vive le Québec Libre" & skips town before he got his ass kicked outa town
2006  Ségolène Royale - a potential candidate for the Presidency - flaps her gums about "la liberté et souveraineté du Québec" (Québec Libre).....

Thank you very much, don't need your help we're doing fine without ya!
Don't let the door hit ya in the A$$ as you go out the door....


----------



## tomahawk6

There is no question that Israel struck at a target in northern Syria.A fuel tank was found just across the border in Turkey.One interesting tidbit was that the Israeli planes were able to neutralize the Pantsyr-S1 air defense system.Valuable intel if the US must strike at Iran.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448829,00.html

Report: Israel spots nuclear installations in Syria 


Washington official says Israeli surveillance shows possible Syrian nuclear installation stocked by North Korea, Israeli Arab newspaper claims target of alleged raid last week was Syrian missile base financed by Iran 

Israel believes that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times. “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” he said.

The official added that recent Israeli reconnaissance flights over Syria revealed possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials estimate might have been supplied with material from North Korea. 



Meanwhile on Wednesday the Nazareth-based Israeli Arab newspaper The Assennara cited anonymous Israeli sources as saying that Israeli jets "bombed a Syrian-Iranian missile base in northern Syria that was financed by Iran... It appears that the base was completely destroyed."

According to the Times, American officials confirmed Tuesday that Israeli jets launched an airstrike inside Syria. Sources said that Israel struck at least one target in northeastern Syria, but could not provide more details. 


The most likely target was, according to some administration officials, weapon caches sent by Iran to Hizbullah through Syria. 

North Korea commented on the incident Tuesday, calling it a "dangerous provocation", Chinese News Agency Xinhua reported on Tuesday.

"This is a very dangerous provocation little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security," a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea strongly denounces the above-said intrusion and extends full support and solidarity to the Syrian people in their just cause to defend the national security and the regional peace."


----------



## tomahawk6

The Israelis and Syrians are being very secretive about this operation. I suspect the Syrians were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’

IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.

At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.

Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.

The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.”

The Syrians were also keeping mum. “I cannot reveal the details,” said Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice-president. “All I can say is the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming.” The official story that the target comprised weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group, appeared to be crumbling in the face of widespread scepticism.

Andrew Semmel, a senior US State Department official, said Syria might have obtained nuclear equipment from “secret suppliers”, and added that there were a “number of foreign technicians” in the country.

Asked if they could be North Korean, he replied: “There are North Korean people there. There’s no question about that.” He said a network run by AQ Khan, the disgraced creator of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, could be involved.

But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly?

Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?

According to Israeli sources, preparations for the attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea.

The Israeli spy chief apparently feared such a device could eventually be installed on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles.

“This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel,” said an Israeli source. “We’ve known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can’t live with a nuclear warhead.”

An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.

The target was identified as a northern Syrian facility that purported to be an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river. Israel had been monitoring it for some time, concerned that it was being used to extract uranium from phosphates.

According to an Israeli air force source, the Israeli satellite Ofek 7, launched in June, was diverted from Iran to Syria. It sent out high-quality images of a northeastern area every 90 minutes, making it easy for air force specialists to spot the facility.

Early in the summer Ehud Barak, the defence minister, had given the order to double Israeli forces on its Golan Heights border with Syria in anticipation of possible retaliation by Damascus in the event of air strikes.

Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.

Israeli military intelligence sources claim Syrian special forces moved towards the Israeli outpost of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights. Tension rose, but nobody knew why.

At this point, Barak feared events could spiral out of control. The decision was taken to reduce the number of Israeli troops on the Golan Heights and tell Damascus the tension was over. Syria relaxed its guard shortly before the Israeli Defence Forces struck.

Only three Israeli cabinet ministers are said to have been in the know � Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister. America was also consulted. According to Israeli sources, American air force codes were given to the Israeli air force attaché in Washington to ensure Israel’s F15Is would not mistakenly attack their US counterparts.

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.

There is no doubt, however, that North Korea is accused of nuclear cooperation with Syria, helped by AQ Khan’s network. John Bolton, who was undersecretary for arms control at the State Department, told the United Nations in 2004 the Pakistani nuclear scientist had “several other” customers besides Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Some of his evidence came from the CIA, which had reported to Congress that it viewed “Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern”.

“I’ve been worried for some time about North Korea and Iran outsourcing their nuclear programmes,” Bolton said last week. Syria, he added, was a member of a “junior axis of evil”, with a well-established ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The links between Syria and North Korea date back to the rule of Kim Il-sung and President Hafez al-Assad in the last century. In recent months, their sons have quietly ordered an increase in military and technical cooperation.

Foreign diplomats who follow North Korean affairs are taking note. There were reports of Syrian passengers on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang and sightings of Middle Eastern businessmen from sources who watch the trains from North Korea to China.

On August 14, Rim Kyong Man, the North Korean foreign trade minister, was in Syria to sign a protocol on “cooperation in trade and science and technology”. No details were released, but it caught Israel’s attention.

Syria possesses between 60 and 120 Scud-C missiles, which it has bought from North Korea over the past 15 years. Diplomats believe North Korean engineers have been working on extending their 300-mile range. It means they can be used in the deserts of northeastern Syria � the area of the Israeli strike.

The triangular relationship between North Korea, Syria and Iran continues to perplex intelligence analysts. Syria served as a conduit for the transport to Iran of an estimated £50m of missile components and technology sent by sea from North Korea. The same route may be in use for nuclear equipment.

But North Korea is at a sensitive stage of negotiations to end its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantees and aid, leading some diplomats to cast doubt on the likelihood that Kim would cross America’s “red line” forbidding the proliferation of nuclear materials.

Christopher Hill, the State Department official representing America in the talks, said on Friday he could not confirm “intelligence-type things”, but the reports underscored the need “to make sure the North Koreans get out of the nuclear business”.

By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.

As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.

This weekend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Ali Akbar Mehrabian, his nephew, to Syria to assess the damage. The new “axis of evil” may have lost one of its spokes.


----------



## 1feral1

Just goes to show that any sane nation, including ours, does not want 'out of control' regimes with such power.

Iran is definatley on the radar!

If countries such as these ever get nukes, a new and serious danger will emerge.

Scarey thought!


Wes


----------



## time expired

About 6 months ago I read on Jane's Defense site that Iran was
assisting Syria with the construction of 6 chemical warfare facilities.
I was a little surprised that non of the media picked up on this,after
all Jane's is a well respected source,maybe there could be some
connection here?.
                      Regards


----------



## TCBF

Some speculation a few years back that any re-incarnated WMD progam of Saddam's that existed after Gulf War I was driven from Iraq to Syria during Gulf War II.


----------



## geo

Hmmm.... I would describe this as being "A clear and present danger".


----------



## DBA

time expired said:
			
		

> About 6 months ago I read on Jane's Defense site that Iran was
> assisting Syria with the construction of 6 chemical warfare facilities.
> I was a little surprised that non of the media picked up on this,after
> all Jane's is a well respected source,maybe there could be some
> connection here?.
> Regards



"Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane's Magazine report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria."
JP Article link


----------



## geo

An "accident" eh!
Fancy that, Pitty!


----------



## tomahawk6

Quite amazing feat for the Israelis to pull off a nuclear burglary prior to taking military action. Would make a great movie I think.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2512380.ece



> bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.
> 
> The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.
> 
> They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.


----------



## Flip

> Would make a great movie I think.



No Doubt!!

Waiting for a prescription to be filled I read an article in a popular
aviation magazine. I wish I'd spent the 7 bucks now.

The article was about an Iraqi owned 727 used for "humanitarian"
flights to Syria being actually used to smuggle WMD out of Iraq 
before the second gulf war started.

Seemed to weird to be credible at the time - I should have been more
open minded.  ;D

This magazine issue was out about 9 months ago (ish).


----------



## Flanker

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Just goes to show that any sane nation, including ours, does not want 'out of control' regimes with such power.
> 
> Iran is definatley on the radar!
> 
> If countries such as these ever get nukes, a new and serious danger will emerge.
> 
> Scarey thought!
> 
> Wes



Let's get back to reality.
At this time the regime that is 'out of control' and that has *already * got nukes illegaly is not Syria or Iran.
It is Israel.

Why don't you put it on your radar?


----------



## 1feral1

Flanker said:
			
		

> Let's get back to reality.
> At this time the regime that is 'out of control' and that has *already * got nukes illegaly is not Syria or Iran.
> It is Israel.
> 
> Why don't you put it on your radar?



Do you actually think Israel is 'out of control'? You can't even grasp the true concept of reailty! Ever been to a muslim country? 

Are you trolling or just deliberatly stirring the pot for an audience?

Sounds like you're batting for the other side to me.




Wes


----------



## Flanker

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Do you actually think Israel is 'out of control'?



Exactly.
1. Regular aggressive acts against neighbor countries.
2. Ignoring UN resolutions
3. Illegal acquiring nuclear weapons

This is all real. 
Not virtual, as Collin Powel's anthrax or whatever he brought to show at UN security council last time to support the US invasion in Iraq.


----------



## 1feral1

I think you are on the wrong website pal.

Ya, another empty profile. Figures.  :

Keep on living in a fantasy world wearing rose coloured glasses, you'll be alright, head in the sand and all.


Wes


----------



## Flip

Flanker!

Simple list with simple thoughts.

Israel is a multicultural, multiethnic, liberal, constitutional democracy.
Not that unlike the one you live in.

Do you want to see it destroyed?

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria all would like to see it and it's people destroyed.
This has been demonstrated.

What great virtue do you ascribe to these others?


----------



## tomahawk6

This makes for an interesting read. Kind of a recap of what we have already said here.

http://www.tothepointnews.com/

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Wednesday, 19 September 2007

One of India's top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the Iranian military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in Tehran - in a state of complete amazement.

"Everyone in the government and military can only talk of one thing," he reports. "No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me, over and over again, 'Do you think the Americans will attack us?' 'When will the Americans attack us?' 'Will the Americans attack us in a joint operation with the Israelis?' How massive will the attack be?' on and on, endlessly. The Iranians are in a state of total panic."

And that was before September 6. Since then, it's panic-squared in Tehran. The mullahs are freaking out in fear. Why? Because of the silence in Syria.

On September 6, Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16s conducted a devastating attack on targets deep inside Syria near the city of Dayr az-Zawr. Israel's military censors have muzzled the Israeli media, enforcing an extraordinary silence about the identity of the targets. Massive speculation in the world press has followed, such as Brett Stephens' Osirak II? in yesterday's (9/18) Wall St. Journal.

Stephens and most everyone else have missed the real story. It is not Israel's silence that "speaks volumes" as he claims, but Syria's. Why would the Syrian government be so tight-lipped about an act of war perpetrated on their soil?

The first half of the answer lies in this story that appeared in the Israeli media last month (8/13): Syria's Antiaircraft System Most Advanced In World. Syria has gone on a profligate buying spree, spending vast sums on Russian systems, "considered the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology."

Syria now "possesses the most crowded antiaircraft system in the world," with "more than 200 antiaircraft batteries of different types," some of which are so new that they have been installed in Syria "before being introduced into Russian operation service."

While you're digesting that, take a look at the map of Syria:



Notice how far away Dayr az-Zawr is from Israel. An F15/16 attack there is not a tiptoe across the border, but a deep, deep penetration of Syrian airspace. And guess what happened with the Russian super-hyper-sophisticated cutting edge antiaircraft missile batteries when that penetration took place on September 6th.

Nothing.

El blanko. Silence. The systems didn't even light up, gave no indication whatever of any detection of enemy aircraft invading Syrian airspace, zip, zero, nada. The Israelis (with a little techie assistance from us) blinded the Russkie antiaircraft systems so completely the Syrians didn't even know they were blinded.

Now you see why the Syrians have been scared speechless. They thought they were protected - at enormous expense - only to discover they are defenseless. As in naked.

Thus the Great Iranian Freak-Out - for this means Iran is just as nakedly defenseless as Syria. I can tell you that there are a lot of folks in the Kirya (IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv) and the Pentagon right now who are really enjoying the mullahs' predicament. Let's face it: scaring the terror masters in Tehran out of their wits is fun.

It's so much fun, in fact, that an attack destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and the Revolutionary Guard command/control centers has been delayed, so that France (under new management) can get in on the fun too.

On Sunday (9/16), Sarkozy's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner announced that "France should prepare for the possibility of war over Iran's nuclear program."

All of this has caused Tehran to respond with maniacal threats. On Monday (9/17), a government website proclaimed that "600 Shihab-3 missiles" will be fired at targets in Israel in response to an attack upon Iran by the US/Israel. This was followed by Iranian deputy air force chief Gen. Mohammad Alavi announcing today (9/19) that "we will attack their (Israeli) territory with our fighter bombers as a response to any attack."

A sure sign of panic is to make a threat that everyone knows is a bluff. So our and Tel Aviv's response to Iranian bluster is a thank-you-for-sharing yawn and a laugh. Few things rattle the mullahs' cages more than a yawn and a laugh.

Yet no matter how much fun this sport with the mullahs is, it is also deadly serious. The pressure build-up on Iran is getting enormous. Something is going to blow and soon. The hope is that the blow-up will be internal, that the regime will implode from within.

But make no mistake: an all-out full regime take-out air assault upon Iran is coming if that hope doesn't materialize within the next 60 to 90 days. The Sept. 6 attack on Syria was the shot across Iran's bow.

So - what was attacked near Dayr az-Zawr? It's possible it was North Korean "nuclear material" recently shipped to Syria, i.e., stuff to make radioactively "dirty" warheads, but nothing to make a real nuke with as the Norks don't have real nukes (see Why North Korea's Nuke Test Is Such Good News, October 2006).

Another possibility is it was to take out a stockpile of long-range Zilzal surface-to-surface missiles recently shipped from Iran for an attack on Israel.

A third is it was a hit on the stockpile of Saddam's chemical/bio weapons snuck out of Iraq and into Syria for safekeeping before the US invasion of April 2003.

But the identity of the target is not the story - for the primary point of the attack was not to destroy that target. It was to shut down Syria's Russian air defense system during the attack. Doing so made the attack an incredible success.

Syria is shamed and silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. Defenseless enemies are fun.


----------



## Flip

> Syria is shamed and silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. Defenseless enemies are fun.



They wouldn't be so managable now if Saddam were still in business.  

So........ I wonder who will play the lead in the movie?  ;D

Mark Wahlberg?


----------



## 1feral1

Flip said:
			
		

> Flanker!
> 
> Simple list with simple thoughts.
> 
> Israel is a multicultural, multiethnic, liberal, constitutional democracy.
> Not that unlike the one you live in.
> 
> Do you want to see it destroyed?
> 
> Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria all would like to see it and it's people destroyed.
> This has been demonstrated.
> 
> What great virtue do you ascribe to these others?



Flanker is a troll seeking an audience. He is argumentitve, and controversial pretty much on everything we say, just read his posts. An audience seeker who willl burn out on here sooner than later. He's already given himself enough rope to implode by his own demise.

Ignore him.

Wes


----------



## Flip

Wes,

As usual, I agree with you.

But, I'm trying to perfect my "Simple Arguments For Simple People Method"  ;D


----------



## Flanker

Flip said:
			
		

> Flanker!
> 
> Simple list with simple thoughts.
> 
> Israel is a multicultural, multiethnic, liberal, constitutional democracy.



So what?
All this, does not help to justify Israel's aggressions, ignoring UN resolutions and clandestine manufacturing of nuclear weapon.



> Do you want to see it destroyed?



No, I am just wondering why you are blaming Iran or Syria that has not done any thing yet and persistenly close your eyes on Israel who has already done all that. 
Why?


----------



## Flip

Iran and Syria haven't done anything yet!? :rofl:

Read some history.


----------



## Flanker

Flip said:
			
		

> Iran and Syria haven't done anything yet!? :rofl:
> 
> Read some history.



I am still asking the same question.
Syria and Iran have no nuke bombs, Israel has already built them illegaly.
Why are there so much media attention to Syria and Iran and no attention to Israel at all?


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

Actually, Flanker, there's not much that's "Clandestine" about Israel's nuclear program.  More like an "open secret" that no one denies.

No one in the Levant is innocent, they all have blood on their hands.  Rather than be emotive on the subject, maybe some research will back up your allegations.  Some hints are  from one of my previous posts here.

However, your blinders must come off - if you swing the tar brush, everyone who deserves some must get it.  There are no innocents there - trying to accuse someone in the Levant of murder is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

Oh, Flanker, I just saw your last.  Trying to help you out here...

You are not going down a good path.  I suggest that you not be so one-sided if you expect anyone to take you seriously.  Sources, research, documentation and *objectivity* are your friends if you try to make a point here.


----------



## tomahawk6

Six anti-Syrian politicians have been asassinated is it bad luck or Syria trying to destablize Lebanon ? I think its the latter. Where did hizbollah get all the missiles they hit Israel with last year ? Iran by way of Syria. In Gaza we see rocket attacks from there by Iranian rockets. In Iraq we have captured hundreds of Iranian Quds Force agents a senior officer just last week was captured. Iran is supplying weapons and money to both AQ and the pro-Iranian shia militias. You probably dont see a pattern here but I do. Israel struck a target deep inside Syria and curiously there has been no comment by Israel or Syria. No anti-israel outcry from the arab states either which has got to be a first.


----------



## 1feral1

This Flanker is just a troll guys, time to ignore it. 

He has his agenda, and thats to stir the pot and get attention. He has had his audience, now its time to phuck him off via frog marching!

I am all for giving a bloke a fair go on here, but his credibility is in the negatives, and he's cut his own throat. Examine his posts, they speak for themselves.

Flanker = waist of band width on here.

Wes

EDITed not to 'OFFEND' those so politically 'correct' inclined.


----------



## Flip

No one has stated the obvious.

Israel has never called for or attempted the destruction of
Syria or Iran.

If Israel has nukes it's for self defence.
If Syria or Iran has nukes it's for making trouble.

It's a simple but meaningful distinction.


----------



## Shec

Flip said:
			
		

> No one has stated the obvious.
> 
> Israel has never called for or attempted the destruction of
> Syria or Iran.
> 
> If Israel has nukes it's for self defence.
> If Syria or Iran has nukes it's for making trouble.
> 
> It's a simple but meaningful distinction.



Thankyou for making that essential point.    At their passing out parade all IDF recruits take the oath "Masada Shall Not Fall Again" .  For if it does it will surely be the end of the world as Megiddo, or Armageddon, is only a short 3 hour drive away.   

As for your observation that this will make a rivetting movie, it certainly has all the ingredients for one (except maybe for Chuck Norris). And perhaps the real star of the show is the IDF's Sayaret Matkal.  Originally modelled on the SAS they:



> Commandos captured nuclear materials before air raid in Syria'
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 23, 2007
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Soldiers from an elite Israeli unit captured nuclear material originating in North Korea from a secret Syrian military installation before IAF jets bombed it, a report by Britain's Sunday Times wrote Saturday night, quoting "informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem."
> 
> According to the sources quoted by the report, the alleged IAF attack was sanctioned by the US on September 6, after the Americans were given proof that the material was indeed nuclear related.
> 
> The sources confirmed that the materials were tested after they were taken from Syria and were found to be of North Korean origin, which raised concerns that Syria may have been trying to come into possession of nuclear arms.
> 
> The report said that the commandos, from the legendary General Staff's Reconnaissance Unit (Sayeret Matkal), may have been disguised in Syrian army uniforms. It also stated that Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who used to head the unit, personally oversaw the operation.
> 
> Israeli sources admitted that special forces had been accruing intelligence in Syria for several months, the report said, adding that evidence that North Koreans were at the site was presented to President George Bush during the summer.
> 
> The report said North Korean and Chinese diplomats believed that North Koreans were also killed in the subsequent "IAF air strike."
> 
> Meanwhile, Newsweek quoted Binyamin Netanyahu adviser Uzi Arad as saying, "I do know what happened, and when it comes out it will stun everyone."



This was their greatest snatch since they seized a state of the art Russian built Egyptian AA radar station and helicoptered it back to Israel in 1969 and their greatest raid since Entebbe.


----------



## Greymatters

Flanker said:
			
		

> So what? All this, does not help to justify Israel's aggressions, ignoring UN resolutions and clandestine manufacturing of nuclear weapon.  No, I am just wondering why you are blaming Iran or Syria that has not done any thing yet and persistenly close your eyes on Israel who has already done all that.   Why?



Thats Flanker in the back...


----------



## tamouh

I do agree with CSA 105 post. All sides in the ME are no better than the other one. Personally, I think if the Arabs possessed nukes while Israel had none nor Israel had support from the US, Tel Aviv would be flatten by now. On the other hand, lets not forget the Israel did consider using Nuclear Bombs on Egypt during the 1973 war.

During the cold war , the USSR served as a backer for the Arab states ensuring Israel wouldn't think about using its nuclear power. But since the fall of communisim most Arab states find themselves with no supporters and hence the nuclear arm race.

Back on topic, Syria already have a small research only nuclear facility, and obviously like any other country in that part of the world would want to guarantee their safety (just as Israel does) by owning nuclear weapons. I think should the Iranians or Syrians own any nuclear weapons, they're far more likely to use it against their own people than Israel. After all, it works to the 'leaders' advantage to keep Israel on the map as a way of controlling their population.


----------



## 1feral1

tamouh said:
			
		

> I think should the Iranians or Syrians own any nuclear weapons, they're far more likely to use it against their own people than Israel



Or sell/supply them to an extremist islamic front against us, yes the west, and thats not generally at the USA either.

IMHO, Iran will not get any nuclear capability in the forseeable future, because this will be simply quashed by random surgical airstrikes, which will come sooner than later, so do a 'wait out' on the national news. Its coming one day to a theatre (of ops) near you.


Wes


----------



## TCBF

Taking out infrastructure is one thing - 'de-militarizing' the technicians who know how to use that infrastructure is another.  

You will recall the bizzare wave of fatal 'accidents' that mysteriously shredded the ranks of British scientists who were working on the American SDI ('Star Wars') research contracts  in England the 1980s.

Recall as well the 'accidental' landing in a school compound of a 'stray' US helicopter during the raid on the (empty) Son Tay POW camp in Noth Vietnam years ago. Turned out the 'school' was the classroom and quarters used by 'foriegn' air defence specialists who regettably did not survive the incident.  Oooops. Sorry about that.


----------



## GAP

Syria air strike target 'removed'  
Article Link

Newly-released satellite images of the presumed site of an Israeli air raid on Syria last month suggest that a large building has been completely removed. 
US research group, the Institute for Science and International Security, obtained and analysed the images. 

The industrial-style building may have been a nuclear reactor under construction, says the ISIS. 

A BBC correspondent says the images are not conclusive. Nor is it certain that they show the site hit by Israeli jets. 

The Israeli strike has been shrouded in mystery and speculation. 

Originally Israel did not even admit that the 6 September raid had been carried out, and its military censor ordered a complete blackout on information. 

But Syria said Israeli warplanes violated its airspace in what it called a "hostile act", and Israel eventually acknowledged the mission some four weeks later. 

Intelligence sources hinted at a possible link with North Korea's nuclear programme. 

'Resemblance' 

On Wednesday the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), an independent organisation, released satellite images pre-dating the attack, of a facility in northern Syria that it believes was the target. 

They showed both a large industrial building and a pumping station near the Euphrates river. 


 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 
6 Sept: Syria says air defences fired at Israeli jets, which "dropped some ammunition without causing any material damage" 
Week one: Israel says nothing; US officials say Israel struck an unspecified target; one US source hints at links to North Korea 
Week two: N Korea denies any link to Syria; Israeli opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu admits Israel made strike 
Week three: Syrian president says a military construction site was hit and speaks of "retaliation"; Israel confirms strike on "military target"  

The ISIS said the building bore a resemblance to the Yongbyon nuclear facility in North Korea. 

"The length of the outer walls of the structures are approximately the same," the institute said in its analysis. 

"From the image, the Syrian building is similar in shape to the North Korean reactor building, but the Syrian building is not far enough along in its construction to make a definitive comparison," it said. 

The ISIS has now produced a more recent image of the same site taken on 24 October, more than six weeks after the alleged air attack. 

The image appears to show that the building has been completely removed and the ground scraped clean. 
More on link


----------



## a_majoor

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> IMHO, Iran will not get any nuclear capability in the forseeable future, because this will be simply quashed by random surgical airstrikes, which will come sooner than later, so do a 'wait out' on the national news. Its coming one day to a theatre (of ops) near you.



I suspect the Iranians will have a rash of industrial accidents at or near their sites (high speed centrifuges are very sensitive to voltage fluctuations or other events that unbalance them, for example), who knows, maybe that is already happening. It would be much harder to figure out if this was a result of Achmed's innatention or action by Western or Israeli SOF operators, while airstrikes are pretty unambiguous.


----------



## Flip

Ah yes!

The time honoured, "series of unfortunate events". ;D


----------



## geo

... "living in interesting times"


----------



## Greymatters

Unbelievable what manages to get put out in open sources these days... good stuff!


----------



## tomahawk6

Syrian weapons facility [that Israel struck]  has since been dismantled by the Syrians.


----------



## TCBF

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Syrian weapons facility [that Israel struck]  has since been dismantled by the Syrians.



- Wow. That was quick.  They must have some pretty strict environmental remediation laws!

 ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

or something to hide  ;D


----------



## geo

Hide, hide what?... it was an empty building, honest


----------



## tomahawk6

It does seem to be a twin of one of the structures at one of the north korean nuclear sites. The Norks traded nuclear stuff for wheat. Looks like they got the better deal.


----------



## Greymatters

Trading nuclear stuff for missiles is always bad, looks like the deal blew up in their face...  ;D


----------



## Hedgehog18

well if north korea traded there nuclear program equipment for syrian anti aircraft gear it would be even funnier lol


----------



## Shec

Tac nuc?    

US Air Force struck Syrian nuclear site

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST  Nov. 2, 2007 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The September 6 raid over Syria was carried out by the US Air Force, the Al-Jazeera Web site reported Friday. The Web site quoted Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two strategic US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a nuclear site under construction. 

The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets provided cover for the US planes. 

The sources added that each US plane carried one tactical nuclear weapon and that the site was hit by one bomb and was totally destroyed. 

At the beginning of October, Israel's military censor began to allow the local media to report on the raid without attributing their report to foreign sources. Nevertheless, details of the strike have remained clouded in mystery. 

On October 28, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the cabinet that he had apologized to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan if Israel violated Turkish airspace during a strike on an alleged nuclear facility in Syria last month. 

In a carefully worded statement that was given to reporters after the cabinet meeting, Olmert said: "In my conversation with the Turkish prime minister, I told him that if Israeli planes indeed penetrated Turkish airspace, then there was no intention thereby, either in advance or in any case, to - in any way - violate or undermine Turkish sovereignty, which we respect." 

The New York Times reported on October 13 that Israeli planes struck at what US and Israeli intelligence believed was a partly constructed nuclear reactor in Syria on September 6, citing American and foreign officials who had seen the relevant intelligence reports. 

According to the report, Israel carried out the report to send a message that it would not tolerate even a nuclear program in its initial stages of construction in any neighboring state. 

On October 17, Syria denied that one of its representatives to the United Nations told a panel that an Israeli air strike hit a Syrian nuclear facility and added that "such facilities do not exist in Syria." 

A UN document released by the press office had provided an account of a meeting of the First Committee, Disarmament and International Security, in New York, and paraphrased an unnamed Syrian representative as saying that a nuclear facility was hit by the raid. 

However, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency, SANA said media reports, apparently based on a UN press release, misquoted the Syrian diplomat.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380718519&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


----------



## tomahawk6

Shec the sat photos in this thread would indicate no nuclear weapon was used in the attack. Its pretty well determined that it was the Israelis who did it. A drop tank with Israeli markings came down in Turkey.


----------



## Shec

Thanks Tomahawk 6.  I didn' think so, its based on an Al Jazeera report which would never miss an opportunity to spread some "lets slam the Great and Little Satan" hyperbole.  Tac Nuc is such a giant step that whether or not Syria had a  program would cease to be the issue.


----------



## GAP

Watch.....within the next year that report will be disseminated throughout the Arab world and there will be many that take it as the gospel.


----------



## tomahawk6

There was zero outcry in the arab world when the attack occured which would indicate that the Syrians lack credibility because of their close ties to Iran.


----------



## tamouh

> There was zero outcry in the arab world when the attack occured which would indicate that the Syrians lack credibility because of their close ties to Iran.



I believe te Arabs in general didn't care much to the Syrian response which was the typical "we reserve the right to retaliate". Something the rest of the Arab world have heard many times from Syria without any results. Some Arabs do see Syria deserves to be hit due to its alliance with Iran. This is especially true in the case of Gulf countries vs Syria & Iran.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

There is like a 0% chance that anyone, leastwise the US, could have gotten away with exploding a couple of nuclear weapons inside Syria and then covered it up.  If it was done, there would have been seismic evidence on hundreds of monitoring stations owned by governments and universities around the world- yet, no one has mentioned a thing.  There should be at least trace amounts of fallout showing up down-range.  Again, nothing heard.  Finally, it defies belief that a nuclear attack could be authorized by the US and not have at least some of those details leaked afterwards. 

To me, it looks like the Syrians got caught with their hand in North Korea's nuclear cookie jar and the Israelis (probably assisted by the US and maybe even Turkey and a few others)  shut'em down- conventionally.  And now the Syrians are terrified to admit that the couple of billion they just spent on Russian Air Defence equipment was a huge waste of money and that they can be undressed by the Israelis or the US anytime that they feel like it.

Sucks to be them.  And Iran, too.  I'm sure the lesson was not lost on them, either.


----------



## geo

+1 SKT


----------



## FastEddy

[/quote]

+1 SKT, right on target (no pun intended).

Cheers.


----------



## TCBF

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... The Norks traded nuclear stuff for wheat. ...



- Dead-end economics.  It's far cheaper just to grow the wheat.


----------



## Mike Baker

LINK



> Israeli expert: Syrian site probable bomb plant
> 
> Tel Aviv University chemistry professor Uzi Even, who worked in the past at Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor, said satellite pictures of the site taken before the Israeli strike on September 6 showed no sign of the cooling towers and chimneys characteristic of reactors



More on link.


----------



## a_majoor

A slightly different explanation as to what was going on:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2983719.ece



> December 2, 2007
> *Israelis hit Syrian ‘nuclear bomb plant’*
> Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Michael Sheridan in Seoul
> 
> ISRAEL’S top-secret air raid on Syria in September destroyed a bomb factory assembling warheads fuelled by North Korean plutonium, a leading Israeli nuclear expert has told The Sunday Times.
> 
> Professor Uzi Even of Tel Aviv University was one of the founders of the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona, the source of the Jewish state’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.
> 
> “I suspect that it was a plant for processing plutonium, namely, a factory for assembling the bomb,” he said. “I think the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] transferred to Syria weapons-grade plutonium in raw form, that is nuggets of easily transported metal in protective cans. I think the shaping and casting of the plutonium was supposed to be in Syria.”
> 
> All governments concerned - even the regime in Damascus - have tried to maintain complete secrecy about the raid.
> 
> They apparently fear that forcing a confrontation on the issue could spark a war between Israel and Syria, end the Middle East peace talks and wreck America’s extremely complex negotiations to disarm North Korea of its nuclear weapons.
> 
> The political stakes could hardly be higher. Plutonium is the element which fuelled the American atomic bomb that destroyed the Japanese city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.
> 
> Critics in the United States say proof that North Korea supplied such nuclear weapons material to Syria, a state technically at war with Israel, would shatter congressional confidence in the Bush administration’s diplomatic policy.
> 
> From beneath the veil of military censorship, western commentators have formed a consensus that the target was a nuclear reactor under construction.
> 
> But Even said that purely from scientific observation, he had reached a different conclusion - that it was a nuclear bomb factory, posing a more immediate danger to Israel. He said that satellite photos of the site, taken before the Israeli strike on September 6, showed no sign of the cooling towers and chimneys characteristic of nuclear reactors.
> 
> Syria’s haste after the attack to bury the site under tons of soil suggested that hundreds of square yards were contaminated and there were fears of radiation, the professor added.
> 
> Since then the Syrians have sealed up the location, levelled the site and diverted curious journalists to a place that had not been attacked by Israel.
> 
> The professor’s theory fits with authoritative technical evidence about North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. The North Koreans are able to produce weapons-grade plutonium, which is electro-refined, alloyed and cast into shapes ready to be machined to fit into a warhead, according to a team of distinguished American nuclear weapons scientists who visited the country’s laboratories.
> 
> One of those scientists, Siegfried Hecker, was allowed to hold a sample and was told that it was “good bomb grade plutonium”, because it had a very low content of plutonium240, the isotope which reduces the overall quality of the material.
> 
> Assembly of a Nagasaki-type bomb involves mating a plutonium core with a uranium wrap and inserting a small quantity of polonium and beryllium to initiate the chain reaction.
> 
> “Plutonium is highly dangerous material,” explained the Israeli professor. “It is easily oxidised in air unless protective measures are taken. The oxide is easily dispersed as dust in air when machining plutonium to create the ‘pit’ [a hollow sphere in many nuclear weapons] and thus can be inhaled, causing a fatality in minute quantities.
> 
> “Plutonium pellets are handled and machined exclusively in a large array of ‘glove boxes’, to protect the technicians and their environment. That is why you need a relatively large containment building and cannot assemble a nuclear weapon in your garage - unless you are suicidal of course.”
> 
> The debris from a destructive raid on a weapons-building facility could therefore contain toxic radioactive waste. But the main danger for Syria would be the telltale exposure of the elements to surveillance and detection by America. This would explain the cover-up at the site.
> 
> North Korea, for its part, has more than enough plutonium to sell some of its stock to Syria.
> 
> The same team of visiting US scientists estimated that by late 2006 the nation had made 40-50kg (88-100lb) of the material. Between six and eight kilograms are needed for a weapon.
> 
> For the US and its allies the Syrian connection raises the deeply worrying possibility that North Korea has succeeded in building what the US scientists called “a sophisticated design with smaller dimensions and mass so as to fit onto a . . . medium-range missile”.
> 
> That puzzle was complicated when North Korea announced that it had tested its first nuclear bomb on October 9 last year. The yield of the blast was small - less than a 20th of the Nagasaki bomb - suggesting to some scientists that the device was sophisticated and small while others believed the North Koreans had simply not made a very good bomb.
> 
> Professor Even believes the North Koreans have not yet perfected small warheads. “The mechanical dimensioning at this stage is extremely demanding (less than 0.01mm). So is the casting of the explosives around the plutonium core and the initiation of the implosion,” he said.
> 
> The question is under urgent study by nations who might one day be targets of a North Korean device sold to Syria or Iran. Iran is known to have financed missile and weapons deals between North Korea and Syria, causing concern to Israel and the US. One day after the Israeli attack, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, sent his nephew with a personal letter to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader.
> 
> The professor’s theory of a clear and present danger that Damascus would get the bomb may be the only credible explanation why Israel carried out a military strike against Syria and risked an all-out conflict.
> 
> Indeed on September 6 Israel was ready for war with Syria. Israeli sources said its military chiefs assumed Syria would launch a retaliatory attack, but no reprisal came.
> 
> Meanwhile, President Bush has authorised his chief negotiator, Christopher Hill, to go on talking to North Korea in the search for a peaceful solution. Hill will visit Pyongyang this week to pursue negotiations after international technicians got to work on disabling the reactor at Yongbyon, the source of North Korea’s plutonium.
> 
> The North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il is supposed to make a full declaration of his nuclear programmes by December 31. The US says that must include information on his weapons deals with Syria and Iran.


----------



## CougarKing

Interesting. I'm surprised this hasn't been posted here yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_...pe/nkorea_syria



> *Congress getting evidence on suspected nuclear facility*
> By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
> 21 minutes ago
> 
> WASHINGTON - A top U.S. official says the Syrian nuclear reactor allegedly built with North Korean design help and destroyed last year by Israeli jets was within weeks or months of being functional.
> 
> The official says the facility was mostly completed but still needed significant testing before it could be declared operational. The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
> 
> No uranium — the fuel for a reactor — was evident at the site.
> 
> THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — A top member of the House intelligence committee said classified information being shared with members of Congress Thursday shows that an alleged Syrian nuclear reactor built with North Korean help and destroyed last year by Israeli jets threatened to spread nuclear weapons technology.
> 
> "This is a serious proliferation issue, both for the Middle East and the countries that may be involved in Asia," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich.
> 
> The Syrian reactor was similar in design to a North Korean reactor that has in the past produced small amounts of plutonium, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information. The reactor was not yet complete but was far enough along to demonstrate a resemblance to the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon.
> 
> The official said no uranium — the fuel for a reactor — was evident on site.
> 
> CIA Director Michael Hayden and other intelligence officials went to Capitol Hill to brief Congress on the evidence related to the bombed Syrian facility, scheduling appearances before the House and Senate armed services, intelligence and foreign affairs committees.
> 
> Hoekstra and Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, told reporters after the closed meeting that they were angry that the Bush administration had delayed briefing the full committee for eight months.
> 
> "There's not a clear and compelling case as to why this information is being made available to the committee today. There has been no change in circumstances as to the reasons why we were not told eight months ago," Hoekstra said.
> 
> Bush's failure to keep Congress informed has created friction that may imperil congressional support for Bush's policies toward North Korea and Syria.
> 
> That makes it "very difficult for them to move forward any policy initiatives in the Middle East or Asia any time soon," Hoekstra added.
> 
> The reactor site has been veiled in secrecy until this week, with U.S. intelligence and government officials refusing to confirm until now suspicions that the site was to be a nuclear reactor.
> 
> White House press secretary Dana Perino said the Bush administration would issue a public statement later in the day.
> 
> The administration has thus far refused to reveal why it chose to release the information now, but the briefings come at a critical time in the diplomatic effort to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons.
> 
> As part of that process, the North is required to submit a "declaration" detailing its programs and proliferation activity, but the talks are stalled over Pyongyang's refusal to publicly admit the Syria connection. However, officials say the North Koreans are willing to accept international "concern" about unspecified proliferation.
> 
> By disclosing North Korean-Syrian cooperation to Congress, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog and the public, the administration may have overcome that impasse by giving North Korea a "concern" that it can acknowledge in the declaration.
> 
> North Korea was aware that the administration would be releasing the information and its Foreign Ministry said Thursday that a visit to Pyongyang this week by a U.S. delegation to discuss the declaration made progress. It did not elaborate.
> 
> At the same time, the administration's release of the intelligence shines light on alleged malfeasance by Syria, which has signed an international treaty requiring it to disclose nuclear interests and activity, and vindicates Israel's decision to destroy the suspect site.
> 
> Syria has not declared the alleged reactor to the International Atomic Energy Agency nor was it under international safeguards, possibly putting Syria in breech of an international nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
> 
> In the Syrian capital of Damascus, legislator Suleiman Haddad, who heads the parliament's foreign relations committee, told The Associated Press that the videotape does not deserve a response.
> 
> "America is looking for any problem in order to accuse Syria," Haddad said by telephone. "Do we need Korean workers to work in Syria?"
> 
> "It is regretful to say that America is putting us among its enemies and therefore this talk (at Congress) does not deserve a response. America is trying to create an atmosphere of war in the region," Haddad said. He did not elaborate.
> 
> Israeli warplanes bombed the site in Syria on Sept. 6, 2007. Private analysts said at the time it appeared to have been the site of a reactor, based on commercial satellite imagery taken after the raid. Syria later razed the site. A new, larger building has been constructed in its place.
> 
> House Foreign Affairs Middle East Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., sharply criticized the administration for the delay in the release of the information and the press leaks surrounding it.
> 
> "This is the selective control of information that led us to war in Iraq," he said.
> 
> U.S. officials were also briefing members of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, at its Vienna headquarters.
> 
> John Rood, the under secretary of state for arms control, called IAEA chief Mohamed elBaradei on Thursday morning to detail the presentation and an interagency intelligence team was in Vienna to brief IAEA representatives either Thursday or Friday, a senior U.S. official said.
> 
> The revelation of alleged North Korean cooperation with Syria comes at a sensitive time for Pyongyang.
> 
> Associated Press Writers Barry Schweid, Matthew Lee, Edith Lederer, and Bassem Mroueh contributed to this report. end quote...


----------



## RobJackson28

I wouldn't go so far as to call that "proof" of nuclear ties between the two countries; compelling evidence none-the-less.

Edit: Thanks for the change of title.


----------



## CougarKing

Yet another website link on the nuclear ties between Syria and North Korea, plus pictures from the link showing the Syrian nuclear plant before and after an Israeli Air Force strike: 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fe65ca72-1209-11dd...&nclick_check=1



> North Korea ‘helped Syria build N-plant’
> By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
> 
> Published: April 24 2008 15:36 | Last updated: April 24 2008 15:36


----------



## Rodahn

While it may very well be a N Korean built/supported facility, I'm skeptical regarding the validity of the intelligence, given the past performance regarding "weapons of mass destruction".....


----------



## tomahawk6

Israel had compelling evidence about this being a nuclear facility before they attacked the facility. The design of the facility is identical to N. Korean nuclear facilities. North Koreans were at the facility. Notice the lack of condemnation from Syria or other arab countries. 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66084.0.html


----------



## Rodahn

As I said earlier Tomahawk, it may very well have been. But even your link notes possible.... Hardly what I would call irrefutable proof....



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Washington official says Israeli surveillance shows *possible* Syrian nuclear installation stocked by North Korea, Israeli Arab newspaper claims target of alleged raid last week was Syrian missile base financed by Iran
> 
> Israel *believes* that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times. “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” he said.
> 
> The official added that recent Israeli reconnaissance flights over Syria revealed *possible* nuclear installations that Israeli officials *estimate* might have been supplied with material from North Korea.


----------



## geo

From a personal perspective, the fact that Syria has been 95% "mumm" on the whole thing SCREAMS the loudest.
If this were a fertilizer plant or something, the Syrians woulda been screaming blue murder about the unjustified and unprovoked violence of the Zionist sw?&*.


----------



## tomahawk6

Clearly you believe what you want to believe. A few pic's of the facility before and after the air strike.


----------



## tomahawk6




----------



## tomahawk6

Compare the after strike photo to the sat photo on the right. The Syrians have scrubbed the site completely one might think that is odd in itself.


----------



## Edward Campbell

But I'm sure you understand the problem, T6. After the Iraqi WMD _intelligence_ fiasco no one needs to take US evidence seriously, no matter how clear it may be. And we can be sure that an immense crowd of the _usual suspects_ will pooh-pooh it and an even larger crowd will, willingly, disbelieve - just because it's American.


----------



## geo

Aye, there's the rub!
The boy who cried "wolf" one time too often...


----------



## tomahawk6

Israel evidently had an agent at the facility and that agent supplied enough evidence for the IAF to launch a very daring raid deep into Syria. I dont think the raid would have been initiated if the target wasnt of strategic importance to Israel.

As for WMD every western intelligence agency felt that Iraq had WMD,it wasnt just a US claim.


----------



## geo

Israel has agents in all places they believe they have a vested interest in knowing "what's going on"... 
They reserve the right of carrying out preemptive strikes on anything / anywhere they believe threatens their present or future existence.

Also... Israel certainly provided tangible proof that the much vaunted Syrian air defence system acquired from Russia wasn't all that it was touted to be...... wonder how much Syria spent on the deal ???  Do you think they can get a refund ???


----------



## Edward Campbell

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ...
> As for WMD every western intelligence agency felt that Iraq had WMD,it wasnt just a US claim.



Very true but, as we all know, the *truth* is irrelevant in the propaganda wars.


----------



## geo

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Very true but, as we all know, the *truth* is irrelevant in the propaganda wars.



The truth is an inconvenience.....


----------



## 1feral1

Rodahn said:
			
		

> While it may very well be a N Korean built/supported facility, I'm skeptical regarding the validity of the intelligence, given the past performance regarding "weapons of mass destruction".....



Regardless, these countries should never be allowed this technology.

WRT you being skeptical, if you found you had a tumour, would you rather leave it alone, and take the chance that it is NOT cancer, or would you have it removed anyways. 

Its bad enough Pakistan and India have the bomb. Letting any of these other questionable islamic countries have the technology is equal to giving kids bic lighters in a dynamite factory.

My 2 cents.


----------



## a_majoor

From the Jeruselem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1211872842227&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



> *US suspects Syria hiding nuclear facilities*
> By JPOST.COM STAFF
> 
> Although American efforts to defuse the nuclear crisis with Iran have yet to bear fruit, the Bush administration now appears to be focusing on yet another nuclear program which they believe is under secret development, this time in Syria.
> 
> In a report published by the Washington Post on Thursday, the US is said to be appealing to the United Nations to send inspectors to search for hidden nuclear facilities in the country. According to the report, the Bush administration suspects that Syria is hiding at least three sites, which they believe were intended to support a nuclear reactor which was destroyed in September.
> 
> On September 6, Israeli warplanes reportedly bombed a nuclear reactor deep in Syrian territory. Damascus has repeatedly denied ever having built a reactor, and soon after the bombing, bulldozed the area and erected buildings on top of the site. Israel has never formally admitted to carrying out the attack.
> 
> US intelligence suspects that at least three secret facilities may have been used to provide fuel for that nuclear reactor, the report states.
> 
> In a briefing to US congressmen earlier in the year, intelligence officials suggested that the Syrian reactor was nearly operational at the time that it was bombed. Yet no fuel source has ever been found for the reactor - a fact which has baffled experts. The suggestion that nuclear facilities still exist in the country and remain hidden potentially solves that problem.
> 
> US government officials declined to describe the specific sites that have drawn interest, or to discuss how they were identified, according to the Washington Post report.


----------



## tomahawk6

I think what concerns the Pentagon is the possibility of centrifuges in at least one underground facility near Deir el-Hajjar.While a nuclear program is certainly worrisome and from an Iranian standpoint dispersing the nuclear program makes it harder to detect and easier to employ nuclear weapons from Syria against Israel than from Iran. Iranian missiles of various categories have been deployed in Lebanon,Syria and now Gaza. If a shooting war resumes Israel could face an onslaught of conventional missiles that would be hard to defend against and would require Israel to invade Gaza,Lebanon and Syria a tall order for the IDF. The Olmert government has to be forced from office if Israel is to really protect itself.He has to go down in Israel's history as their least effective PM.


----------



## jonz67

Just saw this on the BBC site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7692153.stm


----------



## tomahawk6

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7692153.stm

US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including a woman, Syrian authorities say. 

The official Syrian news agency Sana said the raid took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria. 

It said that American soldiers on four helicopters had stormed a building under construction on Sunday night. 

The US says it is investigating. It has previously accused Syria of allowing foreign militants into Iraq. 

"Four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 16:45 local time (1345 GMT) on Sunday," state television and Sana news agency said. 

It said that "American soldiers" who had emerged from helicopters "attacked a civilian building under construction and fired at workmen inside, causing eight deaths". 

"The helicopters then left Syrian territory towards Iraqi territory," Sana said. 

"We are in the process of investigating this," Sgt Brooke Murphy, a US military spokesman, told the AFP news agency in Baghdad. 

The area is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money travelling into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency. 

Washington has accused Damascus of turning a blind eye to the problem.


----------



## Rifleman62

US ammo only hits civilians, mainly women, children and old people as well as hospitals. Every world news agency and the spokesperson for the  "innocents" on the receiving end just cuts and pastes the date, time and location. The rest is SOP.


----------



## tomahawk6

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as "serious aggression." 
A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach. 

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids. 

The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq. 

A Syrian government statement said the helicopters attacked the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, five miles inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said. 

The government said civilians were among the dead, including four children. 

A resident of the nearby village of Hwijeh said some of the helicopters landed and troops exited the aircraft and fired on a building. He said the aircraft flew along the Euphrates River into the area of farms and several brick factories. The witness spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, 

Syria's Foreign Ministry said it summoned the charges d'affaires of the United States and Iraq to protest against the strike. 

"Syria condemns this aggression and holds the American forces responsible for this aggression and all its repercussions. Syria also calls on the Iraqi government to shoulder its responsibilities and launch and immediate investigation into this serious violation and prevent the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against Syria," the government statement said. 

The area targeted is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency. 

Iraqi travelers making their way home across the border reported hearing many explosions, said Farhan al-Mahalawi, mayor of Qaim. 

On Thursday, U.S. Maj. Gen. John Kelly said Iraq's western borders with Saudi Arabia and Jordan were fairly tight as a result of good policing by security forces in those countries but that Syria was a "different story." 

"The Syrian side is, I guess, uncontrolled by their side," Kelly said. "We still have a certain level of foreign fighter movement." 

He added that the U.S. was helping construct a sand berm and ditches along the border. 

"There hasn't been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years," Kelly said. 

The foreign fighters network sends militants from North Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East to Syria, where elements of the Syrian military are in league with al-Qaida and loyalists of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, the U.S. military official said. 

He said that while American forces have had considerable success, with Iraqi help, in shutting down the "rat lines" in Iraq, and with foreign government help in North Africa, the Syrian node has been out of reach. 

"The one piece of the puzzle we have not been showing success on is the nexus in Syria," the official said. 

The White House in August approved similar special forces raids from Afghanistan across the border of Pakistan to target al-Qaida and Taliban operatives. At least one has been carried out. 

The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has been cut to an estimated 20 a month, a senior U.S. military intelligence official told the Associated Press in July. That's a 50 percent decline from six months ago, and just a fifth of the estimated 100 foreign fighters who were infiltrating Iraq a year ago, according to the official. 

Ninety percent of the foreign fighters enter through Syria, according to U.S. intelligence. Foreigners are some of the most deadly fighters in Iraq, trained in bomb-making and with small-arms expertise and more likely to be willing suicide bombers than Iraqis. 

Foreign fighters toting cash have been al-Qaida in Iraq's chief source of income. They contributed more than 70 percent of operating budgets in one sector in Iraq, according to documents captured in September 2007 on the Syrian border. Most of the fighters were conveyed through professional smuggling networks, according to the report. 

Iraqi insurgents seized Qaim in April 2005, forcing U.S. Marines to recapture the town the following month in heavy fighting. The area became secure only after Sunni tribes in Anbar turned against al-Qaida in late 2006 and joined forces with the Americans. 

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem accused the United States earlier this year of not giving his country the equipment needed to prevent foreign fighters from crossing into Iraq. He said Washington feared Syria could use such equipment against Israel. 

Though Syria has long been viewed by the U.S. as a destabilizing country in the Middle East, in recent months, Damascus has been trying to change its image and end years of global seclusion. 

Its president, Bashar Assad, has pursued indirect peace talks with Israel, mediated by Turkey, and says he wants direct talks next year. Syria also has agreed to establish diplomatic ties with Lebanon, a country it used to dominate both politically and militarily, and has worked harder at stemming the flow of militants into Iraq. 

The U.S. military in Baghdad did not immediately respond to a request for comment after Sunday's raid.


----------



## tomahawk6

It has now been confirmed that the special ops guys got their man. Abu Ghadiyain, Al Qaeda's senior coordinator operating in Syria now at room temp.


----------



## Fusaki

Abu Ghadiyain _and_ Haji Omar Khan? _Sweet!_

Today is a good day. 

EDIT

From http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_strike_in_syria_d.php



> Al Qaeda leader Abu Ghadiya was killed in yesterday's strike inside Syria, a senior US military intelligence official told The Long War Journal. But US special operations forces also inflicted a major blow to al Qaeda's foreign fighter network based in Syria. _The entire senior leadership of Ghadiya's network was also killed in the raid, the official stated.
> _



Emphasis added.


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Is no one else here worried about the horrible precedent set here by the USA? 

It seems the USA is done with its covert operations and has gone straight through with aggressive style incursions into foreign countries. It seems like, with the Iraq war and continuing escalations, the USA is just finished with following international law and any international reconciliation.

And people wonder why events such as 9/11 happen, and why Iran and Syria are so antagonistic towards us. Continued unilateral actions as some omniscient international superpower does not create a better future for relations in the region whatsoever. It seems the concept of blowback was not learned through 9/11, was it?

Let's not also forget about the innocent civilians killed in this action. RIP to those killed, my condolences go out to their families.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

: Here we go again...


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> : Here we go again...



I would appreciate some commentary instead of sarcasm, if you are so inclined to disagree with me then I would very much appreciate a debate regarding this issue.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Why do you want a debate? To you everything about the West and the US is evil and wrong. You cannot have a debate with someone who has made up their minds and has shown themself inflexible in their views. Have you seen the intel the US used to plan the attack. Are you so sure that this attack was not justified? I would say no, based on your post. You want an argument not a debate.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Is no one else here worried about the horrible precedent set here by the USA?



No precedent here.  Some naval book reading should be in your future.




			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> I would appreciate some commentary instead of sarcasm, if you are so inclined to disagree with me then I would very much appreciate a debate regarding this issue.



Bring something new to the table with some actual thought in it and you might get it....


----------



## tango22a

Cog-Dis:
May I ask you have you never heard of "the end determines the means"?
If some a$$hat is shooting up your house and when you grab your trusty C7 and pursue him only to come up against some other armed person who says " wait a minute buddy you can't chase him any farther, and no firing across the border either!" Meanwhile a$$hat is wearing a s**t-eating grin and has also dropped his drawers and is mooning you in the near distance. This goes on day after day but now a$$hat is firing RPGs and laying IEDs on your front lawn.Not only is this a danger to you and yours but also to your friends' property around your place. ....what to do?...what to do?... Finally you get pissed-off enough to sneak by a$$hat's buddy the border guard and you pursue your tormentor up to his place of residence where you proceed to level the place. Remember you are only doing this AFTER A$$hat has destroyed your home and injured or killed many of your friends and family.

Now for the $64,000 Question?.... Are you justified in what you've done?

tango22a


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well looking at this statement by Cog-Diss


> And people wonder why events such as 9/11 happen


Then 9/11 was justified? Then he wonders why we react to him the way we do.... please....

If you feel the US deserved 9/11 then I think you should do all of us serving members a favour and put in your release. I would never want to serve with someone like you.


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Why do you want a debate? To you everything about the West and the US is evil and wrong. You cannot have a debate with someone who has made up their minds and has shown themself inflexible in their views. Have you seen the intel the US used to plan the attack. Are you so sure that this attack was not justified? I would say no, based on your post. You want an argument not a debate.



Please do not strawman my argument. I live in the West, as such I don't think its inherently evil or wrong. I am just very critical recently because of the actions of our governments. As a matter of fact you can have a debate with someone who has "made up their minds", that is the point of a debate. Instead of waving aside and claiming moral superiority please actually touch the points I made. Attacking a town in a foreign country without any permission is an aggressive and illegal act. Say we flip this on the other hand. What if Cuba, using their own intelligence, found a "terrorist" cell in Florida and decided to unilaterally attack that? Would they be justified? No they would not be, as the USA is not here.

Attacking through other nations and violating international laws and sovereignty is not how you create the proper relations in a region that already hates us so much because of the things we continue to do, like this action here.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Then 9/11 was justified? Then he wonders why we react to him the way we do.... please....
> 
> If you feel the US deserved 9/11 then I think you should do all of us serving members a favour and put in your release. I would never want to serve with someone like you.



Please again do not strawman or put words into my mouth. I did not say 9/11 was justified, as no act of violence such as that terrorist attack is. What I am saying is its _understandable_ why it happened. Instead of throwing it aside as an "evil" act, randomly done by people who "hate our freedoms" it is better to analyze the real root causes of 9/11. Those root causes being our involvement and continuing interventionism in the Middle East which has only incited more hatred and anger by the population there. Again, I further emphasize the point that I do not believe 9/11 was justified or right, but merely trying to understand why it happened and how we can prevent future events like it.


----------



## tango22a

Cog-Dis:

Living proof that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink

tango22a


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

He's trolling.......noticed how he conviently skipped my post about this not being precedent?

Stop feeding him.


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> He's trolling.......noticed how he conviently skipped my post about this not being precedent?
> 
> Stop feeding him.



I am in no way trolling. I simply missed your post because it didn't even make a point. All you did was state there was no precedent set, how is that an argument? I would like to hear you back up your claim that it has not set a bad precedent, as I have backed up my claim that is has set a bad precedent with my post. You on the otherhand simply replied that it was not a precedent.

Instead of labeling my criticisms of the mainstream views on this forum as trolling I would very much appreciate actual debate on the issues. I have so far, in my posts, brought up my issues without any insults, harsh language or sarcasm. I have brought up my posts in a professional and mature method, and I hope I can have some discussions in the same vein.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Someone commits a heinous crime and flees the country, the crime is considered one that requires hunt down and removal from the gene pool. Mission is exectued in secrecy and is completed successfully upon foreign soil. The ONLY people who should be concerned or even remotly interested are the Taliban and Al Quieda. Sure some may speculate that relations between the US and Syria are now strained, but when haven't they been strained?

 Nothing changed with regards to the diplomacy process, the only thing that HAS changed is there are a few less terrorists for the west to worry about.

 Cheers.



edit to fix grammar and ad Al Q to the mix.


----------



## Fusaki

I'd like Cog-Dis to address tango22a's point. Here's the situation as I see it:

-The Coalition in Iraq is at war with insurgents, and some of those insurgents are using Syria as a place to plan, rest, and launch attacks from. 

-If the Syrian Government is unable to manage it's own borders, then the US is justified in picking up it's slack.

-If the Syrian Government is unwilling to stop the insurgents, then their sovereignty is worth about as much as any other enemy state.

-Therefore, the US has conducted a raid into Syria to disrupt insurgent operations.

Where do you see the problem?


----------



## tango22a

Cog-Dis:

For a precedent please refer to US Troops pursuing Mexicans who had entered US territory  robbing and killing US citizens.I think in 1916-17.

tango22a


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I'd like Cog-Dis to address tango22a's point. Here's the situation as I see it:
> 
> -The Coalition in Iraq is at war with insurgents, and some of those insurgents are using Syria as a place to plan, rest, and launch attacks from.
> 
> -If the Syrian Government is unable to manage it's own borders, then the US is justified in picking up it's slack.
> 
> -If the Syrian Government is unwilling to stop the insurgents, then their sovereignty is worth about as much as any other enemy state.
> 
> -Therefore, the US has conducted a raid into Syria to disrupt insurgent operations.
> 
> Where do you see the problem?



All very good points and I will do my best to address them.

This is an interesting argument regarding sovereignty and foreign interests. However I think you are making an assertation that these insurgents are, objectively on a world scale, a threat. However I need to address this claim. They are a threat to the United States, however because Syria and other nations are not involved in this war then therefore I do not believe the United States has gained the right to trespass on a nation's sovereignty. My biggest issue is this was done with no consultation with Syria itself. Did we hear about the United States attempting dialogue and perhaps extradition with the Syrian government? As the majority of the Iraqi Insurgents are Iraqis, and not Foreign fighters, the presence of insurgents (possibly Iraqi) could be a political or security issue for the Syrian government and perhaps they would be interested in removing them. However thats the problem, is there was no attempted dialogue. There was no attempt at resolution, only unilateral and illegal actions.

By continually antagonizing nations in the Middle East all we do is set up the stage for yet another war in the Middle East, not reconciliation and open-dialogue. Some would argue that dialogue with Syria is pointless but this argument is pessimistic and militaristic.  However by proceding with dialogue at least the United States then can continue on a step by step force escalation, not unilateral actions that only antagonize the people in the region and hamper the attempts of peace and stability in the Middle East.

We have international laws, international agreements etc. so that we can foster a proper environment of cooperation in the world. Otherwise we degrade into Hobbesian foreign relations where human life and nation rights are simply trampled over for the sake of expansion of influence.



> Cog-Dis:
> 
> For a precedent please refer to US Troops pursuing Mexicans who had entered US territory  robbing and killing US citizens.I think in 1916-17.
> 
> tango22a



Very much different circumstances for one, and by precedent I am referring not to the supposed fact that the USA has no precedent to do such an action, but rather that this current action is _setting_ a poor precedent for the future. Furthermore that precedent is a very poor one in fact, and in a time when we did not hold international relations in a more rational and reconciliatory way.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

From a well respected published military historian who says he has better things to do than engage with someone who is just using rhetoric, and no facts, to base a discussion on.




> Bruce
> From my point of view as someone who has worked in a national operations environment, his opinion fails the smell test in a number of areas including these:
> 
> a. the Syrians did no more than issue a proforma protest. No recall of ambassador, no breaking of relations and no 'rent a crowd' protests.
> 
> b. international law allows incursions/attacks onto foreign soil in hot pursuit. It may have been difficult to justify in this case, but I can think of many, many instances when the US invoked hot pursuit going back to the Indian Wars. Certainly it is a standard practice in recent years against specific targets.
> 
> c. international law does not require a nation to await an attack from a potential enemy if there is confirmed intelligence that such an attack is being planned or certain other criteria are met. The raid probably comes close enough to fall into this category.


----------



## tango22a

Cog-Dis:

I am almost positive that if the Syrians had been warned that this would have been passed to the insurgents who would have either left the target area or set up the target area as a killing zone. In war you NEVER telegraph your punches.

tango22a


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> From a well respected published military historian who says he has better things to do than engage with someone who is just using rhetoric, and no facts, to base a discussion on:
> 
> Bruce
> From my point of view as someone who has worked in a national operations environment, his opinion fails the smell test in a number of areas including these:
> 
> a. the Syrians did no more than issue a proforma protest. No recall of ambassador, no breaking of relations and no 'rent a crowd' protests.
> 
> b. international law allows incursions/attacks onto foreign soil in hot pursuit. It may have been difficult to justify in this case, but I can think of many, many instances when the US invoked hot pursuit going back to the Indian Wars. Certainly it is a standard practice in recent years against specific targets.
> 
> c. international law does not require a nation to await an attack from a potential enemy if there is confirmed intelligence that such an attack is being planned or certain other criteria are met. The raid probably comes close enough to fall into this category.



I thank your friend for his points and I will address them.

a. Syrian response is not that important in this sort of situation. In fact I would say that the Syrian lack of real response to this is a smart move, as in letting the facts speak for themselves and keeping them out of the spotlight. Remember, the Syrian government has a poor reputation in the world and would gain little from putting the spotlight on themselves. However that case may be, the act itself is what I am dealing with, not the response of the government.

b. I very much doubt this was a hot pursuit. If you look on a map, the city was 8km from the border. The way the operation was carried out was clearly a planned one in advance, by Special Operations assets and with helicopter support. Such an operation does not in any way look like one of hot pursuit. As such, the "hot pursuit" argument falls flat as this was obviously an intended raid with long time period of planning. 

c. This is true in the case of actual nations in the context of an internationally known event. I don't believe you can extrapolate that onto a raid of enemy combatants and insurgents. Furthermore, the wanton disregard for collateral damage and civilian life in this operation (leading to 9 civilians killed I believe) shows again the United States disregard for international relations in its dealings with other countries. Instead of attempting this through the proper venues, the USA has once again shown it is quite willing to simply disregard the environment of dialogue and cooperation and instead go for war, death and destruction.



> I am almost positive that if the Syrians had been wrned that this wouuld have been passed to the insurgents who would have either left the target area or set up the target area as a killing zone. In war you NEVER telegraph your punches



This is a very good point, Tango. With that in mind however, its not that black and white. This isn't such an easy question as "Bad guys were there, lets go get them, hooah". There are many things that need to be questioned. I think in this case, with the USA's history and current relations and reputations in the world regarding its unilateral and aggressive actions, it would have been a far better and reconciliatory move to withhold any such operation. Instead the USA continues to use the same actions, the same strategies it has used in the past, and therefore setting us up for even worse relations with the Middle East in the future. The United States really should have erred on the side of caution, as their illegal and unilateral action into Iraq has already strained their relations with the world, let alone the Middle East where it is seen as proof of the United State's "infidel aggression".


----------



## tango22a

Cog-Dis:

I Quit!! It's pointless to continue this. I certainly hope somebody with more brains than I will take up the cudgels. It's just like firing spit-balls at a battleship!

tango22a


----------



## Fusaki

> My biggest issue is this was done with no consultation with Syria itself. Did we hear about the United States attempting dialogue and perhaps extradition with the Syrian government? As the majority of the Iraqi Insurgents are Iraqis, and not Foreign fighters, the presence of insurgents (possibly Iraqi) could be a political or security issue for the Syrian government and perhaps they would be interested in removing them. However thats the problem, is there was no attempted dialogue. There was no attempt at resolution, only unilateral and illegal actions.











> Earlier Hoda Abdel Hamid, Al Jazeera's correspondent in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, said the purported US raid seemed to be in contradiction to comments by US officials that Syria had improved its border security. The Americans had actually praised the role of Syria over the past year, which made the alleged raid puzzling, our correspondent said. *Muallem, who had been in London for talks with his British counterpart, said US officials knew "full well that we stand against al-Qaeda".
> 
> "They know full well we are trying to tighten our border with Iraq,"* he said.


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/10/2008102815052252838.html

This is what I take from that blurb:

-The US is in diplomatic talks with Syria about the border

-Syria is saying they stand against Al Queda, and they are attempting to tighten the border

-The US appreciates these attempts

-But the border didn't get tight enough, fast enough, and the US took action to ensure that an HVT did not escape a known location

Even if Syria is telling the truth, and they really do stand against AQ, the US was still justified on the grounds that they needed to pick up Syria's slack.


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/10/2008102815052252838.html
> 
> This is what I take from that blurb:
> 
> -The US is in diplomatic talks with Syria about the border
> 
> -Syria is saying they stand against Al Queda, and they are attempting to tighten the border
> 
> -The US appreciates these attempts
> 
> -But the border didn't get tight enough, fast enough, and the US took action to ensure that an HVT did not escape a known location
> 
> Even if Syria is telling the truth, and they really do stand against AQ, the US was still justified on the grounds that they needed to pick up Syria's slack.



Before I answer your queries, please refrain from dragging this debate down into meaningless banter by bringing in silly internet memes. Not only a silly one, but a tired, old and overused one at that.

If the USA was in talks, I think its very very disgusting to jeopardize their attempts at real dialogue and security issues by impinging on Syria's sovereignty. I still assert that the US actions were illegal (as they are), and are a bad lane to start going down in future Middle East relations. Does anyone here agree with me that this is a poor action to be considering and to be undertaking when our relations in the Middle East are already as poor as it is?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Are you so certain that even if the US in good conscious offered to sit down at a table, that these countries and entities would even sit down and negotiated fairly with the US/West?


----------



## Fusaki

First off, the bird fucking rocks.

Second off, if you were Syria and I were the US, and our negotiations were anything like this debate, I would have raided your sovereign ass a long time ago. Because ya know what? When diplomatic means are ineffective, I reserve the right to violence in order to secure the safety of my troops.

When you're trying to balance hearts and minds with force protection, ya gotta draw the line somewhere. Killing this AQ cell was deemed worth the cost to international relations.


----------



## 1feral1

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> And people wonder why events such as 9/11 happen,
> Let's not also forget about the innocent civilians killed in this action. RIP to those killed, my condolences go out to their families.



Alright, I am arc'd up over this one! yes, and I will bite.

It really disturbs me a great deal to read such horrible comments which are apparently coming from 'someone' within the ranks of the CF, who is supposed to be 'one' of our own (??). For this reason I am beginning to doubt if this person is one of our brothers in arms. If so, his real identity, and (IMHO) ABHORENT behavior should in fact be noted and passed on up the chain. Is this person still a serving member? If Militia, NES perhaps? Although we each have opinions, his, in my opinion is outright callous and dangerous. I would openly question his LOYALTY to his peers, his Unit and especially his country.

Cog-Dis/Army Goon, you are way out of line with that 9-11 comment! That cut me to the bone! Your own words tell me you are saying the USA deserved what they got in 2001, and should get more of the same for this incident. Shame on you for spewing such shyte on this site. Your whole post is outragous, and I find it as palletable as dog shyte!!

Your words are an insult to all of us who have fought, those that have been KIA/WIA, and are stuck with a lifetime of rehab from physical and emotional injuries. We also cannot forget their families and friends who have to live with things the way they are now for the rest of their lives.

RIP to the families of the Terrorists? I nearly fell over reading that! Just remember, its these people who are kiiling and wounding your Canadian brethern, my Australian fellow Diggers, and our US and other Allies soldiers, and you feel sorry for the families of those trying to kill us?  Holy crap!!!

As for the 'civilians' killed on this operation, take away their ammo pouches, RPGs and AKs, and you have 'innocent' civilians, when moments before they were gun toting cowardly terrorists who would GLADLY slit your throat with your own bayonet and film it for your own family to see.

How gullable and niave are you!! Its showing, and so are your TRUE COLOURS.

You need a huge reality check! Not that it would help, as we know where you stand and where your loyalties are now.

Gents and ladies, I think what we have here is an audience/attention seeking TROLL with an agenda that I sensed (and noted) was 'hidden' in another post. That agenda is now in full blossum, and let the meltdown commence. We are only giving him what he wants.

At days end we know the facts, he knows SFA. That we all can agree on, except for the TROLUP in this case.

Remember all, we are talking about a person who has admitted that PT in the CF scares him. He'll never leave the safety of the bosum of dear ole Canada. Need I say more about his character and quality he possesses and has demonstrated openly for us on this site. His posts speak for themselves.

Please remember back if/when he comes back and responds in his gutless fashion and troll mentality. 

He is nothing, but he is feeding off our emotion, including mine. I hope he feels better now for doing so. How bloody pathetic is that!

EDITED for spelling due to irritation.

Yes, disgusted beyond a joke.

OWDU


----------



## tomahawk6

The bad guys have learned that in these situations always claim civilian deaths,even if there were none. In this case 7 male bodies were displayed on location.This raid was conducted by 8 special operations operators from TF 88,these men are highly trained and just do not shoot indescriminately.



> US strike in Syria "decapitated" al Qaeda's facilitation network
> By Bill RoggioOctober 27, 2008 4:51 PM
> Al Qaeda leader Abu Ghadiya was killed in yesterday's strike inside Syria, a senior US military intelligence official told The Long War Journal. But US special operations forces also inflicted a major blow to al Qaeda's foreign fighter network based in Syria. The entire senior leadership of Ghadiya's network was also killed in the raid, the official stated.
> 
> Ghadiya was the leader of al Qaeda extensive network that funnels foreign fighters, weapons, and cash from Syria into Iraq along the entire length of the Syrian border. Ghadiya was first identified as the target of the raid inside Syria late last night here at The Long War Journal. The Associated Press reported Ghadiya was killed in the raid earlier today.
> 
> Several US helicopters entered the town of town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, just five miles from the Iraqi border. US commandos from the hunter-killer teams of Task Force 88 assaulted the buildings sheltering Ghadiya and his staff.
> 
> The Syrian government has protested the attack, describing it as an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression" carried out by the US. The Syrian government claimed eight civilians, including women and children, were killed in the strike. But a journalist from The Associated Press who attended the funeral said that only the bodies of seven men were displayed.
> 
> The US official said there were more killed in the raid than is being reported. "There are more than public numbers [in the Syrian press] are saying, those reported killed were the Syrian locals that worked with al Qaeda," the official told The Long War Journal. "There were non-Syrian al Qaeda operatives killed as well."
> 
> Those killed include Ghadiya's brother and two cousins. "They also were part of the senior leadership," the official stated. "They're dead. We've decapitated the network." Others killed during the raid were not identified.
> 
> The strike is thought to have a major impact on al Qaeda's operations inside Syria. Al Qaeda's ability to control the vast group of local "Syrian coordinators" who directly help al Qaeda recruits and operatives enter Iraq has been "crippled."
> 
> Ghadiya's staff
> 
> The identity of Ghadiya and several members of his senior staff have been known since February 2008 when the US Treasury identified Ghadiya, his brother, and his two cousins as members of the network. The US Treasury department publicly designated Ghadiya, his brother, Akram Turki Hishan Al Mazidih, and his two cousins, Ghazy Fezza Hishan Al Mazidih and Saddah Jaylut Al Marsumis as senior members of al Qaeda's foreign facilitation network.
> 
> Ghadiya, whose real name is Badran Turki Hishan Al Mazidih, was an Iraqi from Mosul. He was working as an al Qaeda logistics coordinator in Syria since 2004, when he was appointed to the position by Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After Zarqawi's death, he "took orders directly, or through a deputy" from Abu Ayyub al Masri, al Qaeda's current leader in Iraq,
> 
> Ghazy Was Ghadiya's "right-hand man," the Treasury stated. "As second-in-command, Ghazy worked directly with [Ghadiya], managed network operations, and acted as the commander for [Ghadiya's] AQI [al Qaeda in Iraq] network when [Ghadiya] traveled."
> 
> Akram directed al Qaeda operations along with Ghadiya in the Al Qaim region right on the border with Syria. He smuggled weapons from Syria into Iraq, and ordered "the execution of AQI's enemies," Treasury stated. "Akram also ordered the execution of all persons found to be working with the Iraqi Government or US Forces."
> 
> Marsumi was an al Qaeda financier who "facilitated the financing and smuggling of AQI foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq." He helped Syrian suicide bombers enter Iraq, and also wired hundreds of thousands of dollars to Ghadiya to facilitate operations.
> 
> All four men lived openly inside Syria. The US Treasury identified Ghadiya, Ghazy, and Akram as living in Zabadani. Marsumi lived in the village of Al Shajlah.
> 
> A senior US general and the Iraqi spokesmen both noted that al Qaeda leaders were openly living inside Syria, and the Syrian government did nothing to shut down the network.
> 
> "The attacked area was the scene of activities of terrorist groups operating from Syria against Iraq," Ali al Dabbagh, Iraq's spokesman told Reuters. "Iraq had asked Syria to hand over this group which uses Syria as a base for its terrorist activities."
> 
> Major General John Kelly, the commander of Multinational Force - West, described Syria as "problematic" during a briefing on Oct. 23. "The Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi intelligence forces feel that al Qaeda operatives and others operate, live pretty openly on the Syrian side," Kelly said. "
> 
> Background on al Qaeda's Syrian facilitation network
> 
> Syria has long been a haven for al Qaeda as well as Baathists who fled the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Terrorists and insurgents took advantage of the long, desolate, and unsecured border, which stretches more than 460 miles along Iraq's western provinces of Anbar, Ninewa, and Dohuk.
> 
> At the height of the Iraqi insurgency, an estimated 100 to 150 foreign fighters poured into Iraq from Syria each month. Operations in Anbar and Ninewa have pushed that number down to 20 infiltrators a month, according to the US military.
> 
> Wanted insurgent leaders, such as Mishan al Jabouri, openly live in Syria. Jabouri, a former member of the Iraqi parliament, fled to Syria after being charged with corruption for embezzling government funds and for supporting al Qaeda. From Syria Jabouri ran Al Zawraa, a satellite television station that aired al Qaeda and Islamic Army of Iraq propaganda videos showing attacks against US and Iraqi forces.
> 
> Al Qaeda established a network of operatives inside Syria to move foreign fighters, weapons, and cash to support its terror activities inside Iraq. An al Qaeda manual detailed ways to infiltrate Iraq via Syria. The manual, titled The New Road to Mesopotamia, was written by a jihadi named Al Muhajir Al Islami, and discovered in the summer of 2005.
> 
> The Iraqi-Syrian border was broken down into four sectors: the Habur crossing near Zakhu in the north; the Tal Kujik and Sinjar border crossings west of Mosul; the Al Qaim entry point in western Anbar; and the southern crossing at Al Tanf west of Rutbah near the Jordanian border. Islami claimed the Al Tanf and Habur crossing points were too dangerous to use, and Al Qaim was the preferred route into Iraq.
> 
> The US military learned a great deal about al Qaeda's network inside Syria after a key operative was killed in September of 2007. US forces killed Muthanna, the regional commander of al Qaeda's network in the Sinjar region.
> 
> During the operation, US forces found numerous documents and electronic files that detailed "the larger al-Qaeda effort to organize, coordinate, and transport foreign terrorists into Iraq and other places," Major General Kevin Bergner, the former spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq, said in October 2007.
> 
> Bergner said several of the documents found with Muthanna included a list of 500 al Qaeda fighters from "a range of foreign countries that included Libya, Morocco, Syria, Algeria, Oman, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom."
> 
> Other documents found in Muthanna's possession included a "pledge of a martyr," which is signed by foreign fighters inside Syria, and an expense report. The pledge said the suicide bomber must provide a photograph and surrender their passport. It also stated the recruit must enroll in a "security course" in Syria. The expense report was tallied in US dollars, Syrian lira, and Iraqi dinars, and included items such as clothing, food, fuel, mobile phone cards, weapons, salaries, "sheep purchased," furniture, spare parts for vehicles, and other items.
> 
> The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point later conducted a detailed study of the "Sinjar Records," which was published in July 2008. The study showed that al Qaeda had an extensive network in Syria and the Syrian government has allowed their activities to continue.
> 
> "The Syrian government has willingly ignored, and possibly abetted, foreign fighters headed to Iraq," the study concluded. "Concerned about possible military action against the Syrian regime, it opted to support insurgents and terrorists wreaking havoc in Iraq."
> 
> Al Qaeda established multiple networks of "Syrian Coordinators" that "work primarily with fighters from specific countries, and likely with specific Coordinators in fighters’ home countries," according to the study. The Syrian city of Dayr al Zawr serves as a vital logistical hub and a transit point for al Qaeda recruits and operatives heading to Iraq.
> 
> A vast majority of the fighters entering Iraq from Sinjar served as suicide bombers. The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point estimated that 75 percent conducted suicide attacks inside Iraq.


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Alright, I am arc'd up over this one! yes, and I will bite.
> 
> It really disturbs me a great deal to read such horrible comments which are apparently coming from 'someone' within the ranks of the CF, who is supposed to be 'one' of our own (??). For this reason I am beginning to doubt if this person is one of our brothers in arms. If so, his real identity, and (IMHO) ABHORENT behavior should in fact be noted and passed on up the chain. Is this person still a serving member? If Militia, NES perhaps? Although we each have opinions, his, in my opinion is outright callous and dangerous. I would openly question his LOYALTY to his peers, his Unit and especially his country.
> 
> Cog-Dis/Army Goon, you are way out of line with that 9-11 comment! That cut me to the bone! Your own words tell me you are saying the USA deserved what they got in 2001, and should get more of the same for this incident. Shame on you for spewing such shyte on this site. Your whole post is outragous, and I find it as palletable as dog shyte!!
> 
> Your words are an insult to all of us who have fought, those that have been KIA/WIA, and are stuck with a lifetime of rehab from physical and emotional injuries. We also cannot forget their families and friends who have to live with things the way they are now for the rest of their lives.
> 
> RIP to the families of the Terrorists? I nearly fell over reading that! Just remember, its these people who are kiiling and wounding your Canadian brethern, my Australian fellow Diggers, and our US and other Allies soldiers, and you feel sorry for the families of those trying to kill us?  Holy crap!!!
> 
> As for the 'civilians' killed on this operation, take away their ammo pouches, RPGs and AKs, and you have 'innocent' civilians, when moments before they were gun toting cowardly terrorists who would GLADLY slit your throat with your own bayonet and film it for your own family to see.
> 
> How gullable and niave are you!! Its showing, and so are your TRUE COLOURS.
> 
> You need a huge reality check! Not that it would help, as we know where you stand and where your loyalties are now.
> 
> Gents and ladies, I think what we have here is an audience/attention seeking TROLL with an agenda that I sensed (and noted) was 'hidden' in another post. That agenda is now in full blossum, and let the meltdown commence. We are only giving him what he wants.
> 
> At days end we know the facts, he knows SFA. That we all can agree on, except for the TROLUP in this case.
> 
> Remember all, we are talking about a person who has admitted that PT in the CF scares him. He'll never leave the safety of the bosum of dear ole Canada. Need I say more about his character and quality he possesses and has demonstrated openly for us on this site. His posts speak for themselves.
> 
> Please remember back if/when he comes back and responds in his gutless fashion and troll mentality.
> 
> He is nothing, but he is feeding off our emotion, including mine. I hope he feels better now for doing so. How bloody pathetic is that!
> 
> EDITED for spelling due to irritation.
> 
> Yes, disgusted beyond a joke.
> 
> OWDU



My implications with 9/11 were not that the USA deserved it whatsoever. No nation deserves to have such a horrid act committed upon them and my heart goes out to those who died in the attacks. However what I believe is just as important as remembering the victims, but also finding out how it happened, and to prevent it in the future. Its been consistently proven that the situation in 9/11 happened because of our antagonistic involvement in the Middle East. Look at our interventionism both overt and covert and you'll see that their hatred and motivations to attack us aren't justified, however they are _understandable_. Who I am debating is those who advocate a clear black and white message of "us vs them". Its not so simple to say they are evil and are out to "destroy our freedoms", that is a cop out and it establishes and fixes nothing.

Furthermore if you read the article you would see that women and _children_ were killed in the attacks. They were reported as civilians, not as terrorists. Also, these are not the same people we are fighting in Afghanistan. My heart goes out to the innocent women and children, who were reported as _civilians_ by the reports given from the aftermath of the attack. If you can show me definitive proof that these were "terrorists" then I would be persuaded to rephrase my condolences. 

As to my status, I am not NES, nor am I a former member. My profile shows my current qualifications and history, and call me spook-paranoid but I like to keep some anonymonity when speaking on a public internet forum, so excuse me if I do not wish to give up anymore personal information on such a widely accessed public forum. 

As to questions of my loyalty to my unit and my country I refuse to answer such antagonistic baits. I have proven my loyalty and continue to proudly serve in the Canadian Forces, and will continue to serve for years to come. Loving ones country, army and unit does not mean it should be given a free ticket of criticism. If anything I am obligated as a professional to bring about these topics, as it creates open dialogue. I do not appreciate character assassinations of the type that you are openly invoking. You can continue to search through my posts and ridicule my character however I have yet to see real debate. 

-C/D


----------



## Shamrock

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> You can continue to search through my posts and ridicule my character however I have yet to see real debate.



Again, you're not here to debate.  You're not here to convince any of us you're right or we're wrong.  You're here to confirm your own rightness in your own head.


----------



## Drag

Hopefully Syria learns a lesson from this: Secure your borders with Iraq and keep terrorists out and this won't happen again.  This harbouring terrorists crap used to work when they had their big brothers the Soviets backing them, but not anymore.  Get used to it.


----------



## 1feral1

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> My implications with 9/11 were not that the USA deserved it whatsoever.  Its been consistently proven that the situation in 9/11 happened because of our antagonistic involvement in the Middle East. Look at our interventionism both overt and covert and you'll see that their hatred and motivations to attack us aren't justified, however they are _understandable_. Who I am debating is those who advocate a clear black and white message of "us vs them". Its not so simple to say they are evil and are out to "destroy our freedoms", that is a cop out and it establishes and fixes nothing.
> 
> Furthermore if you read the article you would see that women and _children_ were killed in the attacks. They were reported as civilians, not as terrorists. Also, these are not the same people we are fighting in Afghanistan. My heart goes out to the innocent women and children, who were reported as _civilians_ by the reports given from the aftermath of the attack. If you can show me definitive proof that these were "terrorists" then I would be persuaded to rephrase my condolences.
> 
> As to my status, I am not NES, nor am I a former member. My profile shows my current qualifications and history
> 
> As to questions of my loyalty to my unit and my country I refuse to answer such antagonistic baits.  I do not appreciate character assassinations of the type that you are openly invoking. You can continue to search through my posts and ridicule my character however I have yet to see real debate.
> 
> -C/D



Dear Sir,

This is not a personal attack, just stating a VALID opinion.

You cannot be debated, thats already been proven. For our Mods to comment on such troll-like behaviour adds weight to my opinion of you. Its your integrity on here, not ours, and you've set the precidence. IMHO you appear to be the type who would question authority on the battlefield and would wind up getting your mates killed because you hestitated by NOT squeezing the trigger. I certinally would not want you in my Troop/Platoon, but fear naught ole chum, you'll never be going anywhere dangerous outside of the borders of Canada, oh and thats IMHO, but again who am I.

A response from you exactly as I thought it would be. I am not ridiculing you, just calling a spade a spade, and luring an active troll out from under it's rock. All I have quoted are your OWN words, which breed nothing but sheer and utter contempt and disloyality to your mates, your Unit, the CF and this ongoing war as a whole. Don't try talking your way out of the US deserving 9-11 comment, you said it, and I am not the only one who understood what you said.

Excuses are like AHs, Cog-Dis! With almost 33 yrs in two armies, and yes, time on the two way rifle range (do you know what that means??), I've heard them all  :

At least I and others know what you are and what your agenda is, and thats all that counts.

As for your military service which you openly tell us all is current, your MOC is that of a Regular Army soldier, why is it not that of a Militia soldier (oh, its not Militia bashing, I did my time in that and absolutely loved it), and what about the new MOS, why not use that? 031, or R031 for that matter is incorrect, and misleading. How about being honest and ensure this is corrected. I guess time will tell won't it.

Don't try to mislead us by falsly telling us you are a Regular Force member when you are not. You are openly telling a 'porky pie' (rythmic slang for a lie). Its times like this when perhaps an imposter is present. Too many secrets. I still doubt your authenticity. Take a look at my profile, I have nothing to hide.

Oh, and they are the same Enemy BTW, different nationality perhaps, but same goals, but you're the Subject Matter Expert, afterall never setting foot on hostile ground, and gathering your info from INet sources, makes you 'in the know', and I and others, who have experienced some 'hairy assed' traumatic incidents know SFA in your eyes, and you see us as war mongering sociopaths, thriving off the blood of innocent civilian casualties. Even though as a part time soldier, you are definatly in the wrong job. My men would eat you alive!

We all have opinions, but agendas full of anti US rant and a cocky attitude with a chip on one's shoulder to boot do not mix well with me, but again who am I.

When you grow up (sure you might be legally an adult), and get some real life 'every day' experience, shy of some twisted text book, INet source, or questionable leftist Uni friends, then get back to me. 

Do have a happy day.

Peace, love, and harmony,

OWDU
Veteran

re-EDITed for clarity and the usual spelling mistakes


----------



## 2 Cdo

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> As for your service, your MOC is that of a regular army soldier, why is it not what you are, a militia member (oh, its not militia bashing, I did my time in that and loved it), and what about the new MOS? 031, or R031 for that matter is incorrect, and misleading.
> 
> Don't try to mislead us by falsly telling us you are a Regular Force member when you are not.



I'm curious now as to which regiment he is a member, and I truly hope it isn't mine!


----------



## enfield

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Is no one else here worried about the horrible precedent set here by the USA?
> 
> It seems the USA is done with its covert operations and has gone straight through with aggressive style incursions into foreign countries. It seems like, with the Iraq war and continuing escalations, the USA is just finished with following international law and any international reconciliation.
> 
> And people wonder why events such as 9/11 happen, and why Iran and Syria are so antagonistic towards us. Continued unilateral actions as some omniscient international superpower does not create a better future for relations in the region whatsoever. It seems the concept of blowback was not learned through 9/11, was it?
> 
> Let's not also forget about the innocent civilians killed in this action. RIP to those killed, my condolences go out to their families.



Ok, it's a quiet night - I'll bite. 

1- According to Western and international legal tradition, *national sovereignty and territory integrity are not absolute*. There are many cases when outside powers and organizations are expected to intervene, with military force, inside a sovereign nation.  Only China, Russia, N. Korea, et. al., dispute this.  Examples of justfied intervention might include NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo, East Timor, Somalia 1992-93, Britain in Sierra Leone, and many, many others.  The precedent was set _long_ ago, and was most recently embodied, officially, in the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.

2- Sovereignty can be violated when a nation state fails to treat it's citizens in a humane manner, or when a state is unable or unwilling to exercise control of it's territory, which is the case in this example.  You used the example of Cuba attacking terrorists in Florida. That is not a reasonable example - the US Government is able to control it's territory, making action by Cuba unnecessary. Cuba, in this case is left with other options which it can rationally choose to take - decide getting rid of these terrorists is worth war with the US, use other means (assassination, like Russia uses on dissidents), or go to a international organization. However, unless a state has no other options, it is unlikely to trust an international committee with its own security and the lives of its citizens. But I digres. 

3- The existence of networks that facilitated the movement of foreign volunteers into Iraq, through Syria, was well known and well documented, even as the first US troops crossed the Iraqi border in 2003.  It has been discussed many times by American and Iraqi leaders and media commentators and 'experts'. Yes, a large degree of the Iraqi insurgency was carried out by Iraqis - but a siginificant part of the worst attacks, such as suicide bombings, were carried out by foreigners. In the past year, as the situation in Iraq stablilized, common Iraqis were less interested in civil war, and foreign fighters became more prominent.  I'll refer you to the "Iraqi Insurgency" article in Wikipedia (yes, I realize it's not the ideal source, but frankly it's a good place to start, and I'm not going to troll the 'net finding sources). 

4- This is not news to Syria. The insurgent networks in Syria were a subject of discussion between US and Syrian leadership since the US invaded - however, Syria (and Iran) perceives it's best interests to be served by exercising a degree of control over the insurgency, allowing them to gain from the eventual outcome. For five years Syria has *chosen* to allow these networks to exist on their soil. Likely, they were allowed exist in limited and tightly controlled circumstances.  For a similar example, but of what can go wrong, look up the experience of Jordan and the PLO - Black September, 1970.  

5- Whether you were for the invasion of Iraq or against it is immaterial at this time - we have the war we have, and the question for decision makers is how to deal with the problems we have now. Your immediate reaction may be "Withdraw!" or "Negotiate a settlement!". Withdrawal, at this stage, would equal chaos. A negotiated settlement - between who? Should Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the US sit down and carve up a new Iraq?  Should domestic extremist parties - Shia and Sunni - divide up the country between hateful, warring sides? 

6- I think that the solution Gen. Petraeus (and others) have started forward is a good one - neighbourhood solutions, local settlement of issues, local security - and the statistics agree with this assessment, although the future remains shaky.  I believe that the option presented by the US (increased local security, gradual withdrawal of US troops) is the best option for Iraq, and although imperfect, far better than alternatives. Therefore, individuals/entities/groups/states that attempt to interfere with this process - and in so doing, cause massive death, destruction and harm to *many* innocents - need to be halted. I'll call these individuals 'spoilers', as they have a singular goal: prevent the solution advanced by the US, at any cost. 

7- Within Iraq, Iraqi and US forces are able to deal with such 'spoilers', and have been very successful in doing so. However, this issue is trans-national - what to do? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey do not allow insurgents to operate from their territory (although the majority of foreign fighters are Saudi), and are not complicit in the movement of foreign fighters to Iraq. Syria and Iran _do_, at the least, allow such networks to exist - to pretend that much of anything happens in totalitarian police states like Syria and Iran that the regimes do not know about, especially involving the movement of large numbers of young men, is ludicrous. 

8- Syria proved unwilling to deal with the problem on its soil. Importantly, it is also unable to retaliate against the US - starting a wider war over this issue, at this time, would be dangerous and ill-considered. So, a known insurgent base with a high-profile leader was attacked by relatively miniscule forces - 8-10 soldiers on the ground, a few helicopters.  Perhaps this will make Syria or Iran pause and reconsider - if so, it is worth it. Even if the flow of extremists into Iraq is slowed, temporarily, it is well worth the work of less than a dozen soldiers and a half dozen air crew. 

9- You believe innocents died in this attack. Unfortunately, it is unlikely conclusive proof of this will ever be available. You'll never believe the US reports, and I'll never believe that the Syrians didn't rig this for publicity.  So, until disinterested aliens come down, with 3-D colour and full sound recordings of every detail of the attack, we'll have to let that one lie.


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Enfield said:
			
		

> Ok, it's a quiet night - I'll bite.
> 
> 1- According to Western and international legal tradition, *national sovereignty and territory integrity are not absolute*. There are many cases when outside powers and organizations are expected to intervene, with military force, inside a sovereign nation.  Only China, Russia, N. Korea, et. al., dispute this.  Examples of justfied intervention might include NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo, East Timor, Somalia 1992-93, Britain in Sierra Leone, and many, many others.  The precedent was set _long_ ago, and was most recently embodied, officially, in the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.
> 
> 2- Sovereignty can be violated when a nation state fails to treat it's citizens in a humane manner, or when a state is unable or unwilling to exercise control of it's territory, which is the case in this example.  You used the example of Cuba attacking terrorists in Florida. That is not a reasonable example - the US Government is able to control it's territory, making action by Cuba unnecessary. Cuba, in this case is left with other options which it can rationally choose to take - decide getting rid of these terrorists is worth war with the US, use other means (assassination, like Russia uses on dissidents), or go to a international organization. However, unless a state has no other options, it is unlikely to trust an international committee with its own security and the lives of its citizens. But I digres.
> 
> 3- The existence of networks that facilitated the movement of foreign volunteers into Iraq, through Syria, was well known and well documented, even as the first US troops crossed the Iraqi border in 2003.  It has been discussed many times by American and Iraqi leaders and media commentators and 'experts'. Yes, a large degree of the Iraqi insurgency was carried out by Iraqis - but a siginificant part of the worst attacks, such as suicide bombings, were carried out by foreigners. In the past year, as the situation in Iraq stablilized, common Iraqis were less interested in civil war, and foreign fighters became more prominent.  I'll refer you to the "Iraqi Insurgency" article in Wikipedia (yes, I realize it's not the ideal source, but frankly it's a good place to start, and I'm not going to troll the 'net finding sources).
> 
> 4- This is not news to Syria. The insurgent networks in Syria were a subject of discussion between US and Syrian leadership since the US invaded - however, Syria (and Iran) perceives it's best interests to be served by exercising a degree of control over the insurgency, allowing them to gain from the eventual outcome. For five years Syria has *chosen* to allow these networks to exist on their soil. Likely, they were allowed exist in limited and tightly controlled circumstances.  For a similar example, but of what can go wrong, look up the experience of Jordan and the PLO - Black September, 1970.
> 
> 5- Whether you were for the invasion of Iraq or against it is immaterial at this time - we have the war we have, and the question for decision makers is how to deal with the problems we have now. Your immediate reaction may be "Withdraw!" or "Negotiate a settlement!". Withdrawal, at this stage, would equal chaos. A negotiated settlement - between who? Should Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the US sit down and carve up a new Iraq?  Should domestic extremist parties - Shia and Sunni - divide up the country between hateful, warring sides?
> 
> 6- I think that the solution Gen. Petraeus (and others) have started forward is a good one - neighbourhood solutions, local settlement of issues, local security - and the statistics agree with this assessment, although the future remains shaky.  I believe that the option presented by the US (increased local security, gradual withdrawal of US troops) is the best option for Iraq, and although imperfect, far better than alternatives. Therefore, individuals/entities/groups/states that attempt to interfere with this process - and in so doing, cause massive death, destruction and harm to *many* innocents - need to be halted. I'll call these individuals 'spoilers', as they have a singular goal: prevent the solution advanced by the US, at any cost.
> 
> 7- Within Iraq, Iraqi and US forces are able to deal with such 'spoilers', and have been very successful in doing so. However, this issue is trans-national - what to do? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey do not allow insurgents to operate from their territory (although the majority of foreign fighters are Saudi), and are not complicit in the movement of foreign fighters to Iraq. Syria and Iran _do_, at the least, allow such networks to exist - to pretend that much of anything happens in totalitarian police states like Syria and Iran that the regimes do not know about, especially involving the movement of large numbers of young men, is ludicrous.
> 
> 8- Syria proved unwilling to deal with the problem on its soil. Importantly, it is also unable to retaliate against the US - starting a wider war over this issue, at this time, would be dangerous and ill-considered. So, a known insurgent base with a high-profile leader was attacked by relatively miniscule forces - 8-10 soldiers on the ground, a few helicopters.  Perhaps this will make Syria or Iran pause and reconsider - if so, it is worth it. Even if the flow of extremists into Iraq is slowed, temporarily, it is well worth the work of less than a dozen soldiers and a half dozen air crew.
> 
> 9- You believe innocents died in this attack. Unfortunately, it is unlikely conclusive proof of this will ever be available. You'll never believe the US reports, and I'll never believe that the Syrians didn't rig this for publicity.  So, until disinterested aliens come down, with 3-D colour and full sound recordings of every detail of the attack, we'll have to let that one lie.



Some very relevant and good points regarding sovereignty and absolutism. I agree, territorial sovereignty is not absolute and other nations do have justifications for impinging on that. Let me make myself clear, I am not making a blanket statement against the need to sometimes go outside of territorial boundaries. However I think I have argued effectively in my previous posts that in this case it was not warranted, and detrimental to the United States' situation in the Middle East. One must understand, and look at it from other perspectives. For instance in this case it brings the question of "If I were a Syrian or Middle Easterner, how would I see such an act?"?. This type of question really brings some interesting perspectives into play and does show that these kind of acts can be detrimental to the spirit of international and foreign relations. Thats why I believe that this excursion was wrong. However you bring in a valid point, how do we balance the need for the proper spirit, while still keeping the security interests at hand. In that case I would look to further foster better relationships with the neighbours in the Middle East so incursions like this would not be necessary in the future, instead I think this simply furthers the divide. 

With that in mind Enfield I am very much in gratitude for your well thought out post, this is the sort of debate I am interested in. One of issues and topics, not the supposed loyalties, integrities and character of each person arguing. 

@OverWatch

You can continue to twist my words on 9/11 to suit your purposes, but nowhere did I state that the USA deserved it. This is merely you putting words into my mouth to simply create a strawman that can be easily taken down. As for your character assassinations, I believe that what you are posting will be shown for what it is, simply attacks on my character and not on the issues I brought up. You may not like me as a person, or of my supposed character or integrity, however you have yet to debate my actual points that I brought up. 

-C/D


----------



## tango22a

Hey Guys:

If We ignore the TROLL maybe he'll ESFOAD!!

tango22a


----------



## enfield

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> However I think I have argued effectively in my previous posts that in this case it was not warranted, and detrimental to the United States' situation in the Middle East. One must understand, and look at it from other perspectives. For instance in this case it brings the question of "If I were a Syrian or Middle Easterner, how would I see such an act?"?. This type of question really brings some interesting perspectives into play and does show that these kind of acts can be detrimental to the spirit of international and foreign relations. Thats why I believe that this excursion was wrong.



1- Foreign fighters have been flowing through Syria into Iraq for five years, causing massive destruction and loss of life, with the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian regime.  Syrian leadership believes it has a vested interest in maintaing the Iraqi insurgency and ensuring chaos, just as it believes it has a role in maintaining anarchy in Lebanon and fighting a proxy war through Hezbollah with Israel.  

2- If I were a Syrian, I would be unhappy that my government was intentionally fomenting unrest in Iraq, and that my governmet had given up a degree of national sovereignty by allowing armed foreigners to act from my soil.  I would see the role my government played in civil strife in Lebanon and Iraq, it's mad pursuit of nuclear weapons, and a continual support for extremists it can't really control or manage.  Generally, I would be embarassed that Syria constantly places itself in an aggressive regional position, and be consistently slapped down for it.    

3- Frankly, the view of a Syrian or Middle Easterner is largely irrelevant at this point: the view that matters is of the US leaders who are accountable to their soldiers, their soldiers families, and are responsible for fixing the mess in Iraq. US leadership that ok'd this raid were acting in the best interests of the stakeholders that mattered.  Syria itself is largely a pariah state, and it's regional neighbours are likely quite happy to see it slapped a bit.  The US'  response was proportionate, if not cautious - 8-10 soldiers and a few helicopters does not begin to describe what the US could inflict on Syria, at the drop of a hat, should it choose too.  Or, observe the news from the Afghan - Pakistan border - almost weekly strikes. Syria got off easy. 

4- What "international and foreign relations"?? The fact that if a State is complicit in acts that kill US troops and cause anarchy in another country, that the US will come knocking, is hardly a surprise and I would expect it of any nation.  To the best of my knowledge, relations were barely altered by this laregly symbolic raid - Syria remains a pariah, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait still sell us oil, Iran carries on it's agenda, although maybe a little more circumspectly, and Israel continues on. The true result is that a network that imported suicide bombers that carried out mass casualty attacks on Iraqi civilians was disrupted. 

5- What was the alternative? I know of no international law, organization or process that could deal with Syrian and Iranian support for foreign fighters in Iraq. Syria will carry this policy forward until they think they will benefit from a negotiated solution - a solution that pushes the US out, and installs Pro-Syria and Iranian leaders in a fragmented Iraq. Syria has been complicit for five years in moving insurgents into Iraq, a fact that has been protested many times. If Syria is unhappy with the repercussions - easy. Stop allowing terrorists to come from your soil.


----------



## 1feral1

Enfiled, this TROLL is just feeding off us, he does not even have a clue what debate really means. He simply wants to feed off the emotions of real soldiers, and gets some cheap thrill from that, along with emphasising his pro terrorist political views. Best let him starve and he will find another site to express his anti US anti and Canada sentiment.
Pretty sad when someone in our own uniform has crossed over to the other sides politcal beliefs, that is if he really is a serving member.

For the record, I like others, love a good debate, and I respect those opinions of others who can have their say, but this INDIVIDUAL is over the top, and his AGENDA is being flaunted in front of our own eyes. We all can agree that this INDIVIDUAL loves stirring the pot.

Simply a classic example of why some animals in the wild eat their young.

He's on IGNORE from now on, and no doubt on Mod Doppler 4!

Meanwhile,  op:

Cold beers,

OWDU


----------



## tango22a

Will some kind moderator Please Lock this down,thanks. This thread has become pointless at this time.

For the gentlemen that stood up to this TROLL....a BIG Thank You, as I have been off-'net for five days and this TROLL persists in beating a dead horse! He's not getting anywhere and we're just wasting time and giving ourselves major headaches.


NOT very cheerfully,

tango22a


----------



## George Wallace

We have a motion on the Floor.

Seconded by Wes.


----------



## Fusaki

I'd like Cog-Dis to have one last shot at addressing every one of Enfield's points from both of his posts individually.

If he won't do that, then there's no doubt in anyone's mind that he's just here to troll.

If he does do it, he'll have to deal with the points at which is logic falls apart head on.


----------



## tango22a

Cog-Dis says his Heart goes out to those who were slaughtered. I'm glad he has a Heart because he definitely doesn't have Two brain cells to rub together!

tango22a


----------



## GAP

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I'd like Cog-Dis to have one last shot at addressing every one of Enfield's points from both of his posts individually.
> 
> If he won't do that, then there's no doubt in anyone's mind that he's just here to troll.
> 
> If he does do it, he'll have to deal with the points at which is logic falls apart head on.



Right after he finishes his evening shift at Timmies.....


----------



## 1feral1

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have a motion on the Floor.
> 
> Seconded by Wes.



Yes, confirmed.

Seriously now, if this INDIVIDUAL responds, we will hear nothing but more anti US propaganda, pro enemy sympathy, and the denouncing of our governments for being in this war, which in my opinion shows disrespect for those of our brethern who have fallen, and those wounded, and those that have served there. I've had a giant gutfull of this weak and one sided INDIVIDUAL.

Not so seriously now....

If I was a rich MF, I'd buy Cog-Dis/Army Goon a one way ticket (coach class, sorry no 1st class) to Shyteland (AKA various fronts on this GWAT), so he can help the other side, and be sympathetic to their cause, maybe he can take that Khadir terrorist mob with him too (but they can go crated in the cargo hold)?

Again seriously...

Until then, lets put a dirty-great-big-giant PADLOCK on this thread quicksmart!

Cheers from a tropical rainy spring day,

OWDU


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm locking this as dogpiling does nothing but make everyone look bad.

I will unlock it when Cognitive-Dissonance PM's me a point by point response to Enfields post with thought out counterpoints backed up by the kind of research that Enfield has done.

If he fails to do that then he is what some have called him and it will stay locked......


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I have unlocked this as C-D as sent me his reply.

Folks, you have two choices, proper replies or put this thread on ignore.
Dogpiling is not an option.
Bruce


----------



## PAT-Platoon

Very good points Enfield, thanks again for the discussion instead of simply labelling me a "pro-terrorist" and waving away my arguments. Thanks also to Bruce for unlocking the thread, now on to the debate:

_1- Foreign fighters have been flowing through Syria into Iraq for five years, causing massive destruction and loss of life, with the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian regime.  Syrian leadership believes it has a vested interest in maintaing the Iraqi insurgency and ensuring chaos, just as it believes it has a role in maintaining anarchy in Lebanon and fighting a proxy war through Hezbollah with Israel._

While this may be the case, again my point being that the destruction of these assets are not worth the political and international relations damage caused by it. By making incursions into Syria to destroy these foreign assets, I believe that you're only worsening the situation. If anything, in the eyes of those sympathetic to the Iraqi Insurgency this is only "proof" of American's "imperialism", so to speak. Its very easily manipulated by enemies of the United States into a propaganda tool, and very easily so (picture this, "American imperialists bomb and kill innocent civilians inside sovereign Arabic nation!"). So it is of my opinion that the end results do not outweigh the immediate and short term benefits of eliminating this threat. Its very short sided on a geopolitical scale. 

As for Syrian involvement, while there is most likely involvement there is still a lot of forced information coming in from the United States side that reeks of dubious claims in order to legitimize their operations in Iraq. The United States has always claimed the problems of Iraq are from foreign fighters, when recently it has been proven that only some 5% of Iraqi Insurgents are actual foreign. GlobalSecurity has this to say about Syrian involvement in particular:

"Yet while coalition forces often suspect Syria of assisting insurgents, Syrian denials are adamant and hard evidence is lacking." (from Here )

Now I am not suggesting that the Syrians are happy go lucky and are simply innocent in this regard. They are most likely aiding the actions of foreign fighters going into Iraq by simple inaction. That being said, the hard evidence is still not there on direct Syrian involvement. And even so, again the problems of Iraq come from deep seated ethnic tensions, not the often claimed problem of foreign fighters.


_2- If I were a Syrian, I would be unhappy that my government was intentionally fomenting unrest in Iraq, and that my governmet had given up a degree of national sovereignty by allowing armed foreigners to act from my soil.  I would see the role my government played in civil strife in Lebanon and Iraq, it's mad pursuit of nuclear weapons, and a continual support for extremists it can't really control or manage.  Generally, I would be embarassed that Syria constantly places itself in an aggressive regional position, and be consistently slapped down for it._

It's very easy to say this from our perspective but one must be careful not to get caught up in our own experiences and how we view things. You have to understand that in their nations, the reputation and legitimacy of United States foreign affairs has already been massively destroyed because of constant American interventionism. Thus they are unlikely to see American claims of fighting insurgency and bringing peace and stability as legitimate. Personal responsibility is easy to tout while we talk about this in the comfort of our homes in the West, while they are having to hear information filtered through various competing outlets, each with much more overt agendas than objective western media. With that in mind we need to always be careful of our actions in the region, because information is easily used against us in this regard. Futhermore I don't think the majority of those unsympathetic to American causes in the Middle East would be mad about arming foreign fighters, as they see the invasion of Iraqi and occupation to be illegitimate and illegal from the beginning.

_3- Frankly, the view of a Syrian or Middle Easterner is largely irrelevant at this point: the view that matters is of the US leaders who are accountable to their soldiers, their soldiers families, and are responsible for fixing the mess in Iraq. US leadership that ok'd this raid were acting in the best interests of the stakeholders that mattered.  Syria itself is largely a pariah state, and it's regional neighbours are likely quite happy to see it slapped a bit.  The US'  response was proportionate, if not cautious - 8-10 soldiers and a few helicopters does not begin to describe what the US could inflict on Syria, at the drop of a hat, should it choose too.  Or, observe the news from the Afghan - Pakistan border - almost weekly strikes. Syria got off easy._

The USA is not only responsible to be accountable to only their soldiers. If the USA wishes to continiue to be a big player in the geopolitical stage, they have an obligation to be accountable to all. Human life is still human life and the threshold of destruction, collateral damage and operations needs to be high, but not too high to warrant risking the lives of innocent civilians. Its a difficult question and theres no easy ratio or equation to know when the risk outweighs the costs. However I believe the response in this sense may have been "good" in terms of short-term military strategy, but I believe the long-term geopolitical repercussions are much more serious than taking out a few insurgents. The trade off is destroying some operatives, in exchange for further destroying the legitimacy of US foreign relations. I believe that trade off is seriously troubling, not just for the bad precedent but even from an American perspective; it destroys reconciliation efforts with the Middle East. If the USA wants to not get into more quagmires like Iraq, and more terrorist attacks on their home soil they need to understand the root problems of the Middle East. Much of these problems come from Western interventionism, both overt, covert, political, military and economic. 

_4- What "international and foreign relations"?? The fact that if a State is complicit in acts that kill US troops and cause anarchy in another country, that the US will come knocking, is hardly a surprise and I would expect it of any nation.  To the best of my knowledge, relations were barely altered by this laregly symbolic raid - Syria remains a pariah, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait still sell us oil, Iran carries on it's agenda, although maybe a little more circumspectly, and Israel continues on. The true result is that a network that imported suicide bombers that carried out mass casualty attacks on Iraqi civilians was disrupted. _

Ofcourse I will acknowledge that the immediete effects aren't changing the status quo, and you are correct in that regard. However I still posit that the long-term precedent with this, coupled with so many other incidents of US unilateralism sets a bad precedent and bad foundation for future reconciliation with the people of the Middle East. How are common Syrians supposed to support the USA when all they hear about is American invasions of neighbouring nations, and incursions into their country? These are very easily manipulated situations and they need to be avoided so the regimes don't have any more ammunition at their disposal for misinformation.

_5- What was the alternative? I know of no international law, organization or process that could deal with Syrian and Iranian support for foreign fighters in Iraq. Syria will carry this policy forward until they think they will benefit from a negotiated solution - a solution that pushes the US out, and installs Pro-Syria and Iranian leaders in a fragmented Iraq. Syria has been complicit for five years in moving insurgents into Iraq, a fact that has been protested many times. If Syria is unhappy with the repercussions - easy. Stop allowing terrorists to come from your soil. _

The alternative in this certain situations is to see that the benefit of not provoking even more outrage in a region strife with anti-Americanism, is larger than the benefit of destroying a small insurgent compound. Now as for what alternatives the military leaders themselves had, without regards to geopolitics? Well I won't try to stray too far out of my lane in saying this but I am sure there are ways in which an eye can be kept on the movements and travel of insurgents can be monitored from these already known location, and from there they can intercept movements across the border. Though I admit this may not be feasible, so in that case my strongest argument is still that the large-scale geopolitical benefit outweighs the short-term, micro-scale military goals of destroying insurgent military infrastructure.


----------



## PanaEng

Thanks Bruce for letting the discussion continue and thanks to Enfield and C-D for logical arguments and counter arguments. Both have brought up good points.

C-Ds mistake was to start up with pretty emotional references which only bring out emotional responses - and I don't blame them. If you want to have a logical debate, stay away from referring to emotional subjects or making emotional appeals or taking one side of the story at face value. And that goes for most of the other responders as well.

What I would add, and this is counter to C-D central argument that this raid did more damage geo-politically than good, is that there is no surprise there to the middle east countries and peoples; they are used to this "unilateral" behaviour so this doesn't increase their animosity toward us measurably. On the other hand, this is showing Syria and Iran where the line in the sand is - about time!

cheers,
Frank


----------



## enfield

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> By making incursions into Syria to destroy these foreign assets, I believe that you're only worsening the situation. If anything, in the eyes of those sympathetic to the Iraqi Insurgency this is only "proof" of American's "imperialism", so to speak. Its very easily manipulated by enemies of the United States into a propaganda tool, and very easily so (picture this, "American imperialists bomb and kill innocent civilians inside sovereign Arabic nation!"). So it is of my opinion that the end results do not outweigh the immediate and short term benefits of eliminating this threat. Its very short sided on a geopolitical scale.


First, US (or Western, or European) foreign policy and security policy cannot be held hostage to notions of Syrian or Iranian public opinion.  Second, Syrian media is no doubt working very hard to maintain the idea of Evil American Imperialist Crusader, no matter what the US _actually_ does.  On the day of the raid, I'd bet my house that the Syrian Gov't killed more Syrians than the US military, but that will never make the headlines in Damascus, so arguing about perception is largely irrelevant. Popular (and officially sanctioned) Syrian opinion is already so anti-American that a raid like this is hardly going to change much. Besides, given that Syrian public opinion has zero influence on Syria's policies, what does it matter?



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> As for Syrian involvement, while there is most likely involvement there is still a lot of forced information coming in from the United States side that reeks of dubious claims in order to legitimize their operations in Iraq. The United States has always claimed the problems of Iraq are from foreign fighters, when recently it has been proven that only some 5% of Iraqi Insurgents are actual foreign. GlobalSecurity has this to say about Syrian involvement in particular:
> 
> "Yet while coalition forces often suspect Syria of assisting insurgents, Syrian denials are adamant and hard evidence is lacking." (from Here )
> 
> Now I am not suggesting that the Syrians are happy go lucky and are simply innocent in this regard. They are most likely aiding the actions of foreign fighters going into Iraq by simple inaction. That being said, the hard evidence is still not there on direct Syrian involvement. And even so, again the problems of Iraq come from deep seated ethnic tensions, not the often claimed problem of foreign fighters.



I could line up quotes from websites - in fact, here's several from the GlobalSecurity.org site you cited: 
"...[as of 2005 there were three factions] The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq."
" London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency. And there is no doubt many of these have had a dramatic effect on perceptions of the insurgency through high-profile video-taped kidnappings and beheadings."
"One group of Ansar al-Islam militants captured in the Kurdish region during early August 2003 consisted of five Iraqis, a Palestinian and a Tunisian. It was reported that the men had five forged Italian passports for another group of militants. It is estimated that at least 150 members of Ansar al-Islam have entered Iraq with the help of smugglers within the last few weeks."
"The recalcitrant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is widely perceived as an Iranian proxy, while in a television interview, Muayed al-Nasseri, commander of Saddam's "Army of Muhhammad," said his group received weapons and cash form both Iran and Syria." 

- but I could go on forever with various quotes from various reputable sources.  I'd only add that whatever we see in open media (who have almost no real access to the insurgency) is a shadow of what American forces in Iraq see, hear about, and monitor.  Given Syria's record of interference n Lebanon, it's support for Hezbollah, and it's proxy conflicts aganst Israel, I have no doubt they have the will and capacity to support anti-American insurgents in Iraq. Therefore, when American authorities present facts regarding Syrian complicity in fighter networks, I'll believe it, unless they suggest something wild or outlandish. 



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> It's very easy to say this from our perspective but one must be careful not to get caught up in our own experiences and how we view things. You have to understand that in their nations, the reputation and legitimacy of United States foreign affairs has already been massively destroyed because of constant American interventionism. Thus they are unlikely to see American claims of fighting insurgency and bringing peace and stability as legitimate. Personal responsibility is easy to tout while we talk about this in the comfort of our homes in the West, while they are having to hear information filtered through various competing outlets, each with much more overt agendas than objective western media. With that in mind we need to always be careful of our actions in the region, because information is easily used against us in this regard. Futhermore I don't think the majority of those unsympathetic to American causes in the Middle East would be mad about arming foreign fighters, as they see the invasion of Iraqi and occupation to be illegitimate and illegal from the beginning.


I don't understand why we need to be careful of our actions in the region - Syrian popuar opinion should guide Western foreign policy?
Does the President of France evaluate a trade policy based on how it will play in Saskatchewan? 
Anyways, as Syria is already a pariah state pursuing destructive, anti-social policies, I don't see what else can go wrong. And why should Syria matter? It has no means to retaliate, There's a reason Syria was raided and not Iran. 



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> The USA is not only responsible to be accountable to only their soldiers.


You're right - they are accountable to American voters and taxpayers, and are obligated to always act in the best interests of American citizens. Always. 



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> If the USA wishes to continiue to be a big player in the geopolitical stage, they have an obligation to be accountable to all.


The US has an obligation to be accountable to all if it wishes to continue to be a big player on the world stage??? 
Come again?

Ok, Poli Sci 101:
1) Might makes right. 
2) History is written by the victors.
3) God is on the side of the big battalions.
4) States do not have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. 

The US *is* a *hyper-power* because it has by far the world's largest, most prosperous and most innovative economy, coupled with a dynamic scientific and intellectual community, and fields a military exponentially more powerful than anything before, and anything existing. 
Being a "big player in the geopolitical stage" has nothing to do with accountability to others; otherwise, we'd be discussing Swedish foreign policy and the US, Russia, China would be relegated to the level of Bolivia.  Like all states, the US will go along with international norms/treaties/organizations to the extent it furthers the interest of the US. Because, in the end, the US is accountable to American citizens - just like Iceland is accountable to Icelanders, and Poland is accountable to the Polish. 



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> The trade off is destroying some operatives, in exchange for further destroying the legitimacy of US foreign relations. I believe that trade off is seriously troubling, not just for the bad precedent but even from an American perspective; it destroys reconciliation efforts with the Middle East. If the USA wants to not get into more quagmires like Iraq, and more terrorist attacks on their home soil they need to understand the root problems of the Middle East. Much of these problems come from Western interventionism, both overt, covert, political, military and economic.


I believe this raid just _added_ to the credibility and legitimacy to American foreign relations, because it fulfills the Bush Doctrine, and transplants the policies of the Afghan/Pak theatre to the Iraq theatre.  I think it forces nations like Syria to take the US seriously, and shake them of the misconception that the US is too "tied down" to react or retaliate against further aggression. Globally, the presence or threat of American military force is the single greatest stabilizer (well, perhaps second after the global standard of the US dollar) - just as the Royal Navy kept the peace in the 1800s. The re-assertion of the capacity and will of America to intervene reinforces this stabilizing factor. 



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Ofcourse I will acknowledge that the immediete effects aren't changing the status quo, and you are correct in that regard. However I still posit that the long-term precedent with this, coupled with so many other incidents of US unilateralism sets a bad precedent and bad foundation for future reconciliation with the people of the Middle East. How are common Syrians supposed to support the USA when all they hear about is American invasions of neighbouring nations, and incursions into their country? These are very easily manipulated situations and they need to be avoided so the regimes don't have any more ammunition at their disposal for misinformation.


I see no true reconciliation in the Middle East - it's hardly as if this US raid prevented the signing of a sweeping Mid East Peace Accord tomorrow. In the long run, this (and future such raids) will contribute to Mid East stability by preventing pariah nations like Syria from acting as 'spoilers'.  Syria has NOT acted as a legitimate stakeholder in Iraq, and acts against US policies in Iraq that will eventually create peace and stability there.   



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> The alternative in this certain situations is to see that the benefit of not provoking even more outrage in a region strife with anti-Americanism, is larger than the benefit of destroying a small insurgent compound. Now as for what alternatives the military leaders themselves had, without regards to geopolitics? Well I won't try to stray too far out of my lane in saying this but I am sure there are ways in which an eye can be kept on the movements and travel of insurgents can be monitored from these already known location, and from there they can intercept movements across the border. Though I admit this may not be feasible, so in that case my strongest argument is still that the large-scale geopolitical benefit outweighs the short-term, micro-scale military goals of destroying insurgent military infrastructure.


The small insurgent compound was not just a nest of foot soldiers - it was a key transit point, and home to a High Value Target. The seriousness of this attack was not lost on US policy makers - it was deliberately chosen for the High Value of the Target. 
"An eye" cannot be kept on the movement and travel of insurgents to the degree necessary  - if that were possible, there would be no insurgency left in Iraq. Perfect situational awareness is a pipedream. 



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> my strongest argument is still that the large-scale geopolitical benefit outweighs the short-term, micro-scale military goals of destroying insurgent military infrastructure.


As there has been no backlash in foreign relations - even Syria is barely compalining - and as a insurgent leader is dead and a network disrupted, I guess that's it then. The benefits of the raid did outweigh the costs.


----------



## 2 Cdo

I'll go with game, set, match for Enfield. ;D I can't wait for some tired, anti-US rhetoric masquerading as a rebuttal!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I'll go with game, set, match for Enfield. ;D I can't wait for some tired, anti-US rhetoric masquerading as a rebuttal!



Yea, but maybe he will spread it over an even bigger post.


----------



## 1feral1

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> ;D I can't wait for some tired, anti-US rhetoric masquerading as a rebuttal!



I/we, and others hear you.

As far as I am concerned, this world is going ghey or green in a spiriling vomit of PCness, and I don't know whether to laugh, cry or....... shoot  ;D

However the phrase 'enough rope' comes to mind, and he has this already.

Meanwhile from the Batcave, and in the interim, I remain  op:

Cold XXXX's,

Wes


----------



## CougarKing

A more recent article.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11026964?source=rss



> *Syrian site bore evidence of reactor*
> U.N. inspectors say the Israeli-bombed facility in the desert was tainted with uranium.
> By Joby Warrick
> The Washington Post
> Updated: 11/19/2008 10:58:44 PM MST
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — *The Syrian facility bombed by Israeli planes last year bore multiple hallmarks of a nuclear reactor, and the ruined site was contaminated with uranium, U.N. nuclear inspectors confirmed Wednesday in a report that largely backed Bush administration accounts of a secret atomic program in the Syrian desert.
> 
> The report stopped short of declaring the Syrian facility to be a nuclear reactor, noting that Damascus had taken extensive steps to sanitize the site before officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency were allowed to visit. But agency officials said Syria had failed to provide blueprints or other documents to support its claim that the destroyed building had a nonnuclear purpose. *
> 
> In a separate report, the agency also heaped new criticism on Iran for failing to cooperate with U.N. inspectors in clearing up questions about past nuclear research that appears linked to a military weapons program.
> 
> The report said Iran continues to expand its capacity for making enriched uranium, a key ingredient in both commercial nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
> 
> The IAEA has been engaged in contentious negotiations with both Syria and Iran as it seeks to assess claims that both countries were secretly planning to make nuclear weapons. Syria has denied having nuclear ambitions, while Iran contends that its nuclear program is exclusively for electricity production.
> 
> *The Syrian facility, on the banks of the Euphrates River near the village of Kibar, was obliterated by Israeli bombs on Sept. 6, 2007.
> 
> While the Bush administration previously released photographs and other evidence suggesting that the building was a partly completed nuclear reactor, the new IAEA report provides independent support for the U.S. claim.*


----------



## geo

Israel certainly snookered all that modern Russian Air defence hardware that had been put in place.

and then Syria removes every single last trace of the facility before it can be inspected.... kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar I guess...


----------



## twistedcables

:argument:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AO3Y520081125?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews 

By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA (Reuters) - A bid by Syria for aid in planning a nuclear power plant poses no proliferation risk and a Western move to block the project could discredit the U.N. nuclear watchdog, its chief said in remarks released on Tuesday.

Major Western nations want the project shelved because Syria is being investigated by the watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), over U.S. intelligence asserting that it tried covertly to build a nuclear reactor designed to make plutonium for atomic bombs.

Their push has met resistance at an IAEA board of governors meeting from Russia, China and developing states who see no grounds for "politicizing" IAEA nuclear energy development aid without proof a country has violated non-proliferation rules.

An IAEA report last week said a Syrian building demolished in an Israeli air raid last year bore similarities to a nuclear reactor and uranium particles, possibly remnants of pre-enriched nuclear fuel, had been found in the area.

But it stressed that the findings were preliminary and more on-site checks, and Syrian documentation to prove its denials of covert nuclear activity, were needed to draw conclusions.

IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said the intervention by Western powers against Syria had no legal basis and there was no way Syria could abuse the project -- a feasibility study for a nuclear power plant -- for military ends.

Barring IAEA aid to a country on the basis of unproven allegations "is not part of our lexicon, it's not part of our statute," he told a session of the agency's 35-nation board on Monday in remarks released by his office.

"INNOCUOUS" STUDY

The disputed $350,000 project is a "technical and economic feasibility and site selection" study for a nuclear power station in Syria. It would run from 2009 to 2011.

ElBaradei said all equipment that would be provided to Syria under IAEA auspices was "relevant to the project and...of an innocuous nature."

"None of it requires any safeguards," he added, referring to IAEA oversight meant to prevent diversions into nuclear bomb-making.

He warned if the Syria project were blocked over "political considerations," the IAEA would lose credibility with developing states seeking peaceful nuclear power and it would discourage cooperation by states under investigation.

Diplomats said a deal was being discussed under which a U.S.-led Western group would drop objections, enabling the project to be adopted by consensus, if the IAEA pledged to stagger it to ensure no equipment was introduced until the end.

"Some Western powers want ElBaradei to back down but he will not," said a senior diplomat familiar with the deliberations.

"If it works, a compromise would be noting all the West's reservations in the official summary of the meeting and let the project go forward, albeit with delayed equipment purchase. It would be a face-saver," he said.  

The meeting recessed for much of Tuesday to allow negotiations. It was adjourned later without a result and will reconvene on Wednesday, when a decision is expected.

An IAEA official said the governors could easily revisit the Syria study next year if by then the inquiry found Damascus to be in "non-compliance" with safeguards rules, as North Korea and Iran were previously, which led to cut-offs of IAEA aid.

Tensions between ElBaradei and U.S. officials over their suggestions he is "soft" on alleged nuclear proliferators, something he denies, have simmered for years.

"The latest clash between ElBaradei and the Bush administration goes back to his insistence on maintaining the agency's independence, following due process and preventing the IAEA from becoming a kangaroo court," said a senior IAEA official who asked for anonymity due to political sensitivities.

(Editing by Mark Trevelyan)


----------



## Greymatters

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Very true but, as we all know, the *truth* is irrelevant in the propaganda wars.



Ours or theirs?


----------



## CougarKing

A war of words that hopefully won't escalate any further:

Canadian Press




> JERUSALEM - *Israel's outspoken foreign minister harshly warned Syria Thursday against drawing the Jewish state into another war, saying the Syrian army would be defeated and its regime would collapse in a future conflict. *
> 
> 
> Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also advised Syria to abandon its dreams of recovering the Israeli-held Golan Heights in a speech that ratcheted up simmering political tensions between the two longtime foes and sparked an urgent damage control campaign from the prime minister's office.
> 
> 
> *Lieberman's exceptionally sharp words followed Syrian President Bashar Assad's accusation on Wednesday that Israel was the one avoiding peace, and the Syrian foreign minister's earlier threat that Israeli cities would be attacked in a future conflict. *
> 
> 
> The Syrians "have crossed a red line that cannot be ignored," Lieberman said in a speech at Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv.
> 
> 
> "Our message must be clear to Assad: 'In the next war, not only will you lose but you and your family will lose power,"' he added.
> 
> 
> *Lieberman heads the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu faction. He has stirred controversy before with statements that Israeli-Arab lawmakers who meet Palestinian militants should be executed and that the president of Egypt could "go to hell." He later apologized for the comment directed at the Egyptian leader.
> 
> 
> Lieberman's bellicose language contrasted sharply with a statement Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued late Wednesday, saying Israel seeks peace. It also said Netanyahu "would be willing to go anywhere in the world, and doesn't rule out any assistance by a fair third party, to promote the political process in order to begin peace talks with Syria without any preconditions." *
> 
> In another statement Thursday, Netanyahu's spokesman Nir Hefetz said the prime minister spoke with Lieberman about the Syria issue.
> 
> 
> "The two clarify that the policy of the government is clear: Israel seeks peace and negotiations with Syria without preconditions. Having said that, Israel will continue to act aggressively and persistently to any threat toward it," the statement read.
> 
> 
> In a third statement, the prime minister's office said Netanyahu will ask his ministers to refrain from speaking out about the Syrian issue.
> 
> 
> Syria demands the return of the Golan Heights - the strategic plateau Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war - as the price of any deal.
> 
> 
> But Lieberman said there would be no such thing.
> 
> 
> "We must make Syria recognize that just as it relinquished its dream of a greater Syria that controls Lebanon ... it will have to relinquish its ultimate demand regarding the Golan Heights," Lieberman said.
> 
> 
> There was no immediate comment from Syrian officials to Lieberman's remarks.
> 
> 
> *Several rounds of indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel in 2008 ended without agreement.
> 
> 
> Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak warned earlier this week that the absence of peacemaking with Syria could result in a regional war.*


----------



## CougarKing

> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - *The United States voiced concern on Wednesday that Syria may have supplied Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas with Scud missiles that can hit deep inside Israel, potentially altering the military balance between the long-time foes.*
> 
> A day after Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of handing over "sophisticated Scud missiles to Hezbollah that threaten Israel," the White House said it had warned Damascus of a possible "destabilizing effect" for the region.
> 
> 
> "There's concern that this is under consideration, but it's unclear whether or not the missiles have been transferred," said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
> 
> 
> Such a development could threaten U.S. President Barack Obama's diplomatic outreach to Syria and create new obstacles to the confirmation of a new U.S. ambassador to Damascus after a five-year absence.
> 
> 
> *One Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Scuds were smuggled in to Hezbollah, an Islamist group backed by Iran and Syria, over the past two months.*
> 
> Another Israeli official said the missiles were believed to have come without launchers but called that "irrelevant" since they were placed in improvised silos. There was no immediate word on where in Lebanon the missiles were stationed.
> 
> 
> (...)


----------



## Retired AF Guy

It appears that some people may have jumped the gun on this story. 



> On Friday, American sources said it was unclear whether the missiles were indeed transferred to the Lebanese group.
> 
> "We think the intent is there," a senior US official told Reuters. "We believe a transfer of some kind occurred but it is unclear if the rockets themselves have changed hands," the senior official said.
> 
> Another official said doubts were growing that Syria had delivered the Scuds in full and allowed them to transit to Lebanese territory: "We don't believe it happened."
> 
> "It's unclear at this point that a transfer has occurred ... and the United States has no indications that the rockets have moved across the border," a third US official said.



 Full story here.


----------



## a_majoor

Political disarray in Washington:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/283866



> *The Scud Saga Continues*
> Noah Pollak - 04.25.2010 - 8:15 AM
> 
> Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Beirut Daily Star, has a fine column parsing the latest developments on Syria, Lebanon, and the Obama administration. He confirms the interpretation I made recently on this blog, that the administration is puzzled at the failure of its opening gambits and unsure of what to do next:
> 
> The problem is that Washington is of several minds over what to do about Syria…because there is no broad accord, and because the president has not provided clear guidance on resolving Mideastern problems, there is confusion in Washington. And where there is confusion there is policy bedlam, with everyone trying to fill the vacuum. That explains why the Syrians feel they can relax for now, and why the Iranians see no reason yet to fear an American riposte.
> 
> Lebanon should be worried about American uncertainty. When there is doubt in Washington, it usually means the Israelis have wide latitude to do what they see fit here. With much of the Lebanese political class openly or objectively siding with Hezbollah, rather than shaping an American approach to Lebanon that might reinforce its sovereignty, we can guess the calamitous effect of that abdication.
> 
> Young’s worry is confirmed by this remarkable report from Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin:
> 
> As for why Syria seems to be playing such an unhelpful role, “that’s the million-dollar question,” the [Obama administration] official said….”We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem,” the official said. “Until then it’s all damage control.”
> 
> This is quite simply amazing. The Assads, father and now son, have run the same foreign policy for decades. It is a very simple model, and one that gets discussed in detail on a regular basis: They are the arsonists who sell water to the fire department. The administration official should start his odyssey of discovery by reading Bret Stephens’s 2009 Commentary essay, “The Syrian Temptation — and Why Obama Must Resist It.”
> 
> Bashar is a promoter of a remarkable array of death and destruction in the Middle East: killing American soldiers in Iraq, murdering Lebanon’s pro-democracy community into submission, killing Israelis, arming Hezbollah, hosting Hamas, and so on. This is intended not only to make Syria into a bigger player than it would otherwise be, but allows Bashar to maintain his illegitimate police state of a regime by constantly invoking foreign threats. And it ensures that the United States and other western powers will continuously drag themselves to Syria to beg for cooperation. “The road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Nancy Pelosi famously declared on her visit in 2007, unintentionally confirming to Assad the wisdom of the mayhem he sponsors. This is like saying that the road to the brothel is a road to virginity.
> 
> In the Obama administration, there are a few people, like Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, who understand Syria. But foreign policy is run from the top. The person who doesn’t get it is the president, who seems confused by the failure of the region’s dictators and terrorists to respond constructively to his sensitive reorientation of American foreign policy. Right now he is stuck between his ideological commitments and the reality of their failure, and in the meantime the Middle East’s rogues are not waiting around for The One to figure out what level of nuance he ultimately wishes to pursue. They see naivety and irresolution, and they capitalize.


----------



## Rifleman62

> When there is doubt in Washington, it usually means the Israelis have wide latitude to do what they see fit here



I don't think so. Not after the recent mishandling by Washington of the _proposed_ new housing, leaked by a member of the opposition who was in the coalition Israeli government, and the snubs by the President and the Administration to PM Netanyahu. 

No bows to the Israelis thank you very much!


----------



## a_majoor

I think what the article is really saying is Washington has fewer levers available to use when it comes to dealing with Israel. Israel is facing existential threats to its very existence, but is no longer seeing help or support from Washington (and when the POTIS bows to the King of Saudi Arabia and makes "smart diplomacy" noises to Israel's avowed enemies but seems to have no stick or will to back up their intentions, while making angry noises over a long planned and entirely legal housing development in Israeli territory, that idea rises very fast indeed).

Given these alarming developments, Israel may increasingly decide to take measures on its own, without regard to what Washington thinks or how Israel's actions might affect Washington's interests in the region.


----------



## Rifleman62

The Israelis may as well proceed with the backbone they have, the current US Administration lacks, and take out Iran's ability to manufacture WMDs. Almost the entire UN (joke) and the CBC hates them anyway.


----------



## HavokFour

From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/syria-bans-full-islamic-face-veils-at-universities/article1645185/



			
				The Globe and Mail said:
			
		

> Syria has forbidden the country's students and teachers from wearing the niqab — the full Islamic veil that reveals only a woman's eyes — taking aim at a garment many see as political.
> 
> The ban shows a rare point of agreement between Syria's secular, authoritarian government and the democracies of Europe: Both view the niqab as a potentially destabilizing threat.
> 
> “We have given directives to all universities to ban niqab-wearing women from registering,” a government official in Damascus told The Associated Press on Monday.
> 
> The order affects both public and private universities and aims to protect Syria's secular identity, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Hundreds of primary school teachers who were wearing the niqab at government-run schools were transferred last month to administrative jobs, he added.
> 
> The ban, issued Sunday by the Education Ministry, does not affect the hijab, or headscarf, which is far more common in Syria than the niqab's billowing black robes.
> 
> Syria is the latest in a string of nations from Europe to the Middle East to weigh in on the veil, perhaps the most visible symbol of conservative Islam. Veils have spread in other secular-leaning Arab countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, with Jordan's government trying to discourage them by playing up reports of robbers who wear veils as masks.
> 
> Turkey bans Muslim headscarves in universities, with many saying attempts to allow them in schools amount to an attack on modern Turkey's secular laws.
> 
> The issue has been debated across Europe, where France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands are considering banning the niqab on the grounds it is degrading to women.
> 
> Last week, France's lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on both the niqab and the burqa, which covers even a woman's eyes, in an effort to define and protect French values — a move that angered many in the country's large Muslim community.
> 
> The measure goes before the Senate in September; its biggest hurdle could come when France's constitutional watchdog scrutinizes it later. A controversial 2004 law in France earlier prohibited Muslim headscarves and other “ostentatious” religious symbols in the classrooms of French primary and secondary public schools.
> 
> Opponents say such bans violate freedom of religion and personal choice, and will stigmatize all Muslims.
> 
> In Damascus, a 19-year-old university student who would give only her first name, Duaa, said she hopes to continue wearing her niqab to classes when the next term begins in the fall, despite the ban.
> 
> Otherwise, she said, she will not be able to study.
> 
> “The niqab is a religious obligation,” said the woman, who would not give her surname because she was uncomfortable speaking out against the ban. “I cannot go without it.”
> 
> Nadia, a 44-year-old science teacher in Damascus who was reassigned last month because of her veil, said: “Wearing my niqab is a personal decision.”
> 
> “It reflects my freedom,” she said, also declining to give her full name.
> 
> In European countries, particularly France, the debate has turned on questions of how to integrate immigrants and balance a minority's rights with secular opinion that the garb is an affront to women.
> 
> But in the Middle East — particularly Syria and Egypt, where there have been efforts to ban the niqab in the dorms of public universities — experts say the issue underscores the gulf between the secular elite and largely impoverished lower classes who find solace in religion.
> 
> Some observers say the bans also stem in part from fear of dissent.
> 
> The niqab is not widespread in Syria, although it has become more common in recent years, a development that has not gone unnoticed by the authoritarian government.
> 
> “We are witnessing a rapid income gap growing in Syria — there is a wealthy ostentatious class of people who are making money and wearing European clothes,” said Joshua Landis, an American professor and Syria expert who runs a blog called Syria Comment.
> 
> The lower classes are feeling the squeeze, he said.
> 
> “It's almost inevitable that there's going to be backlash. The worry is that it's going to find its expression in greater Islamic radicalism,” Landis said.
> 
> Four decades of secular rule under the Baath Party have largely muted sectarian differences in Syria, although the state is quick to quash any dissent. In the 1980s, Syria crushed a bloody campaign by Sunni militants to topple the regime of then-President Hafez Assad.
> 
> The veil is linked to Salafism, a movement that models itself on early Islam with a doctrine that is similar to Saudi Arabia's. In the broad spectrum of Islamic thought, Salafism is on the extreme conservative end.
> 
> In Gaza, radical Muslim groups encourage women to cover their faces and even conceal the shape of their shoulders by using layers of drapes.
> 
> It's a mistake to view the niqab as a “personal freedom,” Bassam Qadhi, a Syrian women's rights activist, told local media recently.
> 
> “It is rather a declaration of extremism,” Qadhi said.


----------



## tomahawk6

When is the UN going to demand a no fly zone for Syria ?


----------



## Journeyman

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> When is the UN going to demand a no fly zone for Syria ?


 :rofl:   But they're a "respected" Arab state. A Syrian no-fly zone would be kowtowing to the Israeli lobby.


....oh, you were serious   :-[


----------



## tomahawk6

There are signs that the 4th divison of the Syrian Army may have fired on the 4th Division in Deraa. The 5th divison may see itself as the protector of the civilian populace.The 4th division is led by Maher Assad. There are rumors that the rebels have trapped Maher Assad and Rustom Ghazali[Assad's man in Deraa] or might even have captured them. Bottom line is that there are elemnets in the Army tht dont approve of the heavy hand being used against civilians.


----------



## old medic

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> When is the UN going to demand a no fly zone for Syria ?



Push in U.N. for Criticism of Syria Is Rejected
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
Published: April 27, 2011 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/world/middleeast/28nations.html

UNITED NATIONS — An attempt by the United States and its European allies to condemn Syria in the United Nations Security Council was rebuffed on Wednesday, as the willingness to intervene in the region — strong enough to lead to military action against Libya under similar circumstances just weeks ago — appeared to evaporate. 

Western nations failed to secure the simplest of Security Council measures: a press statement calling on Syria’s leaders to stop the violence against their own people.

Envoys for several wary Council members that had agreed to at least abstain in the vote against Libya, particularly Russia, spoke out against any international intervention on Wednesday, while Lebanon would have found it impossible to support criticism given the influence Syria holds over it. The required unanimity among the 15 members for a press statement was impossible.

“The current situation in Syria, despite the increase in tension, does not represent a threat to international peace and security,” said Alexander Pankin, the Russian deputy permanent representative to the United Nations. Intervening would be “an invitation to civil war,” he said. All council members addressed the body after it became clear that no consensus would emerge. .......................



UN seeking urgent access to Syria's Deraa
By JORDANA HORN,  JPOST CORRESPONDENT 
04/29/2011 02:50 
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=218371


Security Council hears that Syrian army is carrying out a major operation int he city, firing at civilians preventing medical care.

NEW YORK – The UN undersecretary- general for political affairs told Security Council members Wednesday that the United Nations wants urgent access to the city of Deraa in southern Syria, so that it can assess the humanitarian needs on the ground.

Reliable sources, B. Lynn Pascoe told the body Wednesday, report that the Syrian army is carrying out a major operation in Deraa, both firing at unarmed civilians and preventing the wounded from getting medical care. Pascoe estimated the current death toll of demonstrators as being between 350 and 400...............


----------



## 57Chevy

From the Gazette and shared with provisions of the Copyright Act

Tanks shell Syrian town, West piles on pressure
 Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Reuters May 18, 2011
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tanks+shell+Syrian+town+West+piles+pressure/4802132/story.html#ixzz1MhUbsyBm

AMMAN — Tanks bombarded a Syrian border town for the fourth day on Wednesday in a military campaign to crush protests against President Bashar al-Assad, under mounting Western pressure to stop his violent repression of demonstrators.

Troops went into Tel Kelakh on Saturday, a day after a demonstration there demanded "the overthrow of the regime", the slogan of revolutions that toppled Arab leaders in Egypt and Tunisia and challenged others across the Middle East.

Assad had been partly rehabilitated in the West over the last three years but the United States and European Union condemned his use of force to quell unrest and warned they plan further steps after imposing sanctions on top Syrian officials.

Human rights groups say Assad's crackdown has killed at least 700 civilians. Authorities blame most of the violence on armed groups backed by Islamists and outside powers, saying they have also killed more than 120 soldiers and police.

"We're still without water, electricity or communications," a resident of Tel Kelakh said, speaking by satellite phone.

He said the army was storming houses and making arrests, but withdrawing from neighbourhoods after the raids. In a sign that the army was coming under fire in the town, he said some families "are resisting, preferring death to humiliation".

Syria has barred most international media organisations from operating in Syria, making it hard to verify reports from activists and officials.

article continues at link...


----------



## sean m

Here is an interesting article from sky news and why the armed forces seem to be still supporting the Assad regime 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sky-News-Analysis-Tim-Marshall-Looks-At-Why-The-Bashir-Al-Assad-Regime-Has-Not-Collapsed/Article/201105115987446?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15987446_Sky_News_Analysis%3A_Tim_Marshall_Looks_At_Why_The_Bashir_Al_Assad_Regime_Has_Not_Collapsed_


----------



## 57Chevy

old medic said:
			
		

> ---
> ...particularly Russia, spoke out against any international intervention
> ---
> “The current situation in Syria, despite the increase in tension, does not represent a threat to international peace and security,” said Alexander Pankin, the Russian deputy permanent representative to the United Nations. Intervening would be “an invitation to civil war,” he said.




Russia has not asked Syria yet to host its naval base in Tartus - Syrian diplomat (April 01, 2011)
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?y=2011&m=4&d=1&pg=11&id=233285
MOSCOW. April 1 (Interfax) - Syria expects Russia to finally decide on the idea to set up a full-fledged Russian naval base at Port Tartus, said Syria's Charge d'Affaires in Russia Suleiman Abou Diyab.

"Russia must decide on its own whether it wants to set up a base there," he said in an interview with Interfax.

The Syrian diplomat also said that Moscow has not contacted Damascus over this proposal.

During its dispute with Ukraine over the presence of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Russia was eyeing the prospect of deploying a naval base in Tartus, he said. "But we subsequently learned from media reports that Russia was no longer considering this," he added.

He declined to speculate on how much Syria is interested in this project.

"This issue will be discussed when it is raised. But the theme remains on the agenda. It is for Russia to decide whether it will be taken up again," Abou Diyab said.

He also said he doubted that the mass unrest in Syria will impact the delivery of Russian Bastion mobile coastal missile systems with Yakhont anti-ship missiles to Syria.

"If the contract [to deliver Bastion systems and Yakhont missiles] exists, why should it not be implemented? Contracts must be fulfilled," he said.

The Russian Navy's logistics support post at Port Tartus is the only Russian military base in the far-abroad. An agreement to deploy Russian naval installations was signed by the former Soviet Union and Syria back in 1971. The Tartus base was intended to support the Russian Navy's operations in the Mediterranean, primarily to repair and supply warships of the 5th tactical (Mediterranean) squadron.

Since 1991, when the squadron ceased to exist, Russian warships have visited Tartus only on separate occasions.

The Tartus naval logistics facility, based in Syria, is comprised of three PM-61M floating piers, with only one in service; a repair vessel, rotated once in six months, warehouses, barracks and other auxiliary facilities.

Tartus is not a permanent base and is intended only for temporary mooring, repair and resupplies. It also includes floating maintenance plants, which can repair ships directly in the sea.

Israel has expressed its concern to the Russian government on many occasions over Moscow's plans to deliver Yakhont missiles to Syria. Israel argues that if supplied to Syria these weapons may fall into extremists' hands
                                                             _____________________

Russian Naval activity Tartus    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartus)

The city hosts a Soviet-era naval supply and maintenance base, under a 1971 agreement with Syria, still staffed by Russian naval personnel. In particular, the Russian Navy's 5th Mediterranean Squadron has been using the base. It has been reported that Russia and Syria are conducting talks about permitting Russia to develop and enlarge the base in order to establish a stronger naval presence in the Mediterranean, and amidst the deteriorating Russia relations with the west in conjunction with the 2008 South Ossetia war‎ and the plans to deploy US missile defense shield in Poland, it has been asserted that President Assad has agreed to Tartus port’s conversion into a permanent Middle East base for Russia’s nuclear-armed warships. Moscow and Damascus additionally announced that it would be renovating the port, although there was no mention in the Syrian press. On September 19, ten Russian warships docked in Tartus. According to Lebanese-Syrian commentator Joseph Farah the flotilla which has been moved to Tartus consists of the Moskva cruiser and four nuclear missile submarines. According to Farah upgrades of the port facilities are already under way. Since 1992 the port has been in disrepair with only one of its three floating piers remaining operational, but the facilities now are being restored.

On September 22, 2008, Russian Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said the nuclear-powered battlecruiser Peter The Great, accompanied by three other ships, sailed from the Northern Fleet's base of Severomorsk. The ships will cover about 15,000 nautical miles (28,000 km) to conduct joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy. Dygalo refused to comment on Monday's report in the daily Izvestia claiming that the ships were to make a stopover in the Syrian port of Tartus on their way to Venezuela. Russian officials said the Soviet-era base there was being renovated to serve as a foothold for a permanent Russian navy presence in the Mediterranean.

On July 20, 2009 RIA Novosti reported that the base would be made fully operational to support anti-piracy operations. It will also support a Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean as a base for "guided-missile cruisers and even aircraft carriers".

                                           Articles shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that targeted sanctions would be imposed against members of the current Syrian regime.  This action is in response to the on-going and violent crackdown by the military and security forces against Syrian civilians who are peacefully protesting for democracy and the respect of human rights.
> 
> “Canada is gravely concerned at the excessive use of force by the Syrian regime against its own people, which has reportedly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians and the detention of thousands more,” said Prime Minister Harper. “The sanctions being announced today are a repudiation of Syria’s blatant violation of its international human rights obligations that threaten the security of the entire Middle East.”
> 
> Canada is also concerned about the humanitarian situation in cities and towns that remain under military lockdown, and by reports that hundreds of Syrians are fleeing the country.
> 
> Our Government will be implementing the following sanctions against Syria which are aimed at pushing for democratic reform:
> 
> A travel ban to Canada imposed on designated people associated with the current Syrian regime;
> An asset freeze against people associated with the current Syrian regime and entities involved in security and military operations against the Syrian people;
> A ban under the Export and Import Permits Act on the export from Canada to Syria of goods and technology that are subject to export controls; and,
> A suspension of all bilateral cooperation agreements and initiatives with Syria.
> 
> 
> The measures announced today directly target members of the current Syrian regime and individuals and entities involved in the crackdown. They are not intended to cause harm to the Syrian people ....


A bit more in news release here.


----------



## apeaceofconflict

Hello-- long-time reader, first time poster here. 

I'm just curious given the recent events in Syria and the UN working on a resolution to condemn the violence, whether people on this forum supported an intervention by foreign forces? Why or why not? 

Do you think the violence in Syria is likely to spread and destabilize the region, particularly to Lebanon or Israel? 
Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## Edward Campbell

You might want to define "foreign."

Who has a vital interest in settling Syria's problems? Who has the resources and political will to intervene? Does anyone want to intervene when it will look like it, the intervenor, is doing Israel's bidding? What does Responsibility (R2P) to protect really mean?

My short answer is: No.


----------



## aesop081

My answer is no. We intervened in Libya and as soon as that happened, every left-wing nutjob demanded we leave and ranted about "evil NATO" and "illegal war" and other rubbish like that.

Let Syria deal with Syria. It will be a lesson to the left that they cant have it both ways.


----------



## Infanteer

What do we gain by having soldiers there?  Is it worth the bones of one Canadian grenadier?


----------



## blacktriangle

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What do we gain by having soldiers there?  Is it worth the bones of one Canadian grenadier?



No and it's not worth a single foot or leg either.


----------



## 57Chevy

Here are a couple of good reasons.....The Russian Federation and China.

article from Al Arabiya News
Anne Allmeling: Why Syria’s Bashar Al Assad is not afraid
Sunday 12 June
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/06/12/153004.html
                               ___________________________
from IPS
Russia, China Shield Syria from Possible U.N. Sanctions
Thalif Deen
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56011
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 9, 2011 (IPS) - A resolution inspired by Western nations critical of civilian killings in politically-beleaguered Syria is facing threats from two veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council: Russia and China.

If and when the resolution is adopted by the 15-member Council, perhaps next week, it will be diluted to avoid the customary call for economic or military sanctions against a country accused of "ruthlessly crushing" civilian protests. 

"It is pretty obvious the Russians and the Chinese are protecting their own economic and military interests in Syria," an Asian diplomat told IPS, "just as Western nations traditionally continue to protect Israel from any form of sanctions at all." 

A country with vibrant political, economic and military ties to both Russia and China, Syria depends heavily on the two countries for arms currently used against demonstrators in the three-month-old revolt against the government of President Bashar al-Assad. 

article continues at link...
                                              __________________________

and Tartus;   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/100607.0.html  (reply #6)

If it comes to "foreign" involvement, then let the Russians and the Chinese veto masters 
take care of their own interests in the Syrian pit.


----------



## Lowlander

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What do we gain by having soldiers there?  Is it worth the bones of one Canadian grenadier?



What about Canadian Highlanders, fusiliers, guardsmen, riflemen, dragoons, hussars, etc


----------



## Sig_Des

I lean toward yes.

First, as a first world nation that wags it's fingers at a lot of countries that don't have great human rights record, I feel we should back it up. Does the nation itself have the political will and stomach for it? Probably not.

While not common knowledge, Canada does have some vested interest in Syria. As of Dec 2010, Canada was the third largest foreign direct investor in Syria due to a $1.2 billion Suncor/Petro Canada gas project. In 2009, official trade statistics recorded a total of $61.3 million in Canadian exports to Syria. Canadian Archaeologists have been involved in digs in Syria since the 90's. Hell, there are annual Terry Fox runs in Syria. 
( http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/syria-syrie/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/index.aspx?lang=eng )

Add to this Canada's contributions to both the major UN Military missions in the Region. Op DANACA's contribution to UNDOF since the 70's, and Op JADE's contribution to UNTSO the 50's. While the situation in Syria doesn't seem to have a huge affect on the missions currently, it does possess the ability to destabilize the area.  And accepting the fact that our contributions to these 2 missions are much much smaller than they used to be, Canadian soldiers did give up their lives under the UNDOF flag. 

I'm sure we won't see it, but I personally would be open to a mission in Syria. Besides, I'd love to see how Silver Mike is doing in Damascus.


----------



## Infanteer

So, we should risk an intervention on the scale of Iraq/Afghanistan for a Suncor project and some dreamy reminisces of UN missions from a generation ago?


----------



## Sig_Des

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, we should risk an intervention on the scale of Iraq/Afghanistan for a Suncor project and some dreamy reminisces of UN missions from a generation ago?



I didn't specify anything of the scale of Iraq/Afghanistan. If anything, IMO we've shot ourselves in the foot with Libya by setting a precedent. Why are we there and not Syria? I'd argue the point that Canada has more national interest in the Syrian region than in Libya. While I won't presume the scope of a mission to Syria, there is a UN framework there.

What I'm saying is that in my opinion, due to our history and our interests, and that we are pushing for certain roles on the international stage, a case could be made for our involvement in an intervention in the area.


----------



## Infanteer

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I didn't specify anything of the scale of Iraq/Afghanistan.



So then what?  When I hear intervention, I think troops doing something decisive.

Or should we just harass the Assad regime and hope it goes away?


----------



## Pieman

What I am wondering is: Why intervene so readily in Lybia but do nothing about Syria?


----------



## aesop081

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> there is a UN framework there.



A UN framework that has failed to resolve the situation after how many years ? Is a current running UN mission somehow an advantage ?



> and that we are pushing for certain roles on the international stage, .



We are certainly living up to those aspirations in other places. Further more, what would you have us intervene in Syria with ?



			
				Pieman said:
			
		

> What I am wondering is: Why intervene so readily in Lybia but do nothing about Syria?



Our Crystal ball was working the same as yours when we commited to the Libya mission.


----------



## Pieman

> Our Crystal ball was working the same as yours when we commited to the Libya mission.


Really? You have a Crystal ball? What about tarot cards? Try those instead. 



> The fact that the "ok, what now?" questions are popping up seems to indicate that the "Libya model of intervention" may not be a viable one in the future.  Of course, Iraq 1991-2003 could have told us that.


Good answer, thanks for that. I am a little surprised to see people posting about how going into Lybia was  a mistake. Came across to me as a mistake in the tactical sense, underestimating the Lybian forces to hold it together, 
rather than stop intervening in situations like this all together. But perhaps it is a better tactic to let things take their course on their own, especially when things are made worse by our involvement.


----------



## aesop081

Pieman said:
			
		

> especially when things are made worse by our involvement.



Are you saying that things in Libya are worse as a result of international involvement ?



			
				Pieman said:
			
		

> underestimating the Lybian forces to hold it together,



I don't believe that to be the case.


----------



## Pieman

> Are you saying that things in Libya are worse as a result of international involvement ?


I don't know one way or another. If people are saying it is a mistake to have gone in there, doesn't that indicate a negative impact?



> I don't believe that to be the case.


Then what is the case? Was NATO not expecting that as a result of our involvement in going into Lybia, that their leader Gaddafi would be overthrown? Were they not expecting this to happen quickly?


----------



## aesop081

Pieman said:
			
		

> doesn't that indicate a negative impact?



2 seperate issues. It was a mistake because the political bind it puts us in now, the "why here and not there" argument that will undoubtably be used to force us into another country. The impact on the ground has been far from negative.



> Was NATO not expecting that as a result of our involvement in going into Lybia, that their leader Gaddafi would be overthrown? Were they not expecting this to happen quickly?



Indeed but that is not, IHMO, a factor of NATO underestimating the regime but a case of NATO overestimating its political resolve to see it to the end and do what is needed.


----------



## Sig_Des

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A UN framework that has failed to resolve the situation after how many years ? Is a current running UN mission somehow an advantage ?



Considering that UNDOF's mandate is to supervise the ceasefire and monitor the buffer zone, I wouldn't say they failed to resolve the situation, as that was never the job.

I do see a current UN mission as an advantage. While I'm not advocating upscaling it to a Chapter VII mission and sweeping North through the country, the use of existing UNMO's to verify the claims of human rights abuse, as one of the tenets of the UN being the promotion of human security, could be a benefit to the passing of resolutions pushing for peace ops.

Sure, I'll admit that we can't depose the regime short of invading the country, and that we're overburdened with what we have on our plate, and even sending that observers would probably be as useful as pissing in the wind. However, I don't see the right in involving ourselves in Libya, straight up bombing the country, and then doing nothing but pushing sanctions in another region where we HAVE a history of trying to keep peace. Seeing as the vote above is whether you support foreign intervention in Syria, and doesn't specify what kind of intervention, in my personal opinion, I am open to some kind of intervention. What kind, I can't say for sure, but I'd like to see something.


----------



## aesop081

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Considering that UNDOF's mandate is to supervise the ceasefire and monitor the buffer zone, I wouldn't say they failed to resolve the situation, as that was never the job.



That UNDOF is still required to monitor a ceasefire is the failure.



> However, I don't see the right in involving ourselves in Libya, straight up bombing the country, and then doing nothing but pushing sanctions in another region where we HAVE a history of trying to keep peace.



We have a history in many places, should we feel the need to re-commit resources there if another crisis comes up ?

Should we involve ourselves everywhere from now on because we did in Libya ?


----------



## 57Chevy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> the "why here and not there" argument that will undoubtably be used to force us into another country.



That may well be the readily used argument phrase, but IMO, that alone won't be forcing anyone
into similar situations in other countries.

Even though non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and others are now reporting that the number of men, women and children killed, since the protests began in March, has exceeded 1,100, with up to 10,000 or more detained. 

There is the requirement of fact finding missions initiated by the UN (HRC) of which the Syrian government
has not responded.



			
				Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> $1.2 billion Suncor/Petro Canada gas project. In 2009, official trade statistics recorded a total of $61.3 million in Canadian exports to Syria.



peanuts in comparison to the Russians

from the earlier article:
Darling said that in January 2005 the Kremlin forgave some 9.8 billion dollars of Damascus's 13.4-billion-dollar Soviet-era debt, thus paving the way for new arms agreements, many of which included upgrades to platforms already in Syrian service such as its MiG-21, - 23 and -29 squadrons. 

Some of the more recent Russian sales to Syria include the 96K6 Pantsir-S1E (NATO designation: SA-19 Grison) self-propelled, short- range gun and missile air-defense system, the Buk-2M Ural (SA-17 Grizzly) medium-range theater-defence missile system, plus 10-20 new MiG-29SMT Fulcrum combat aircraft (signed in 2007), with another deal for four MiG-31Eh Foxhounds still under negotiation. 

Russia is also reportedly creating a naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus, and possibly another at Latakia, he said. 

China's military trade with Syria is not as voluminous as Russia's, said Darling, but it does provide Damascus with missiles and missile technology. 

From 2002 through 2009, Russia signed 5.8 billion dollars worth of arms agreements with Syria, and with China worth 800 million dollars. 
---
                                        ___________________________________

Another reason that I did not mention earlier is Iran and their supreme Idol.
from Express.co.uk
William Hague: Iran aiding Syria
Monday June 13 2011 by Alison Little
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/252396/William-Hague-Iran-aiding-SyriaWilliam-Hague-Iran-aiding-Syria#ixzz1P6wucLwZ

“The Syrian regime is undoubtedly being assisted by the Iranian government in many ways, both the provision of equipment for them and advice on techniques on how to crush protest,” Mr Hague said.

His comments came amid continuing reports of violence and threats by Syrian forces against protesters. Mr Hague said he was working to get backing for a UN resolution criticising Syria.

But he cautioned that the chances of a UN Security Council agreement were “on a knife edge”.

He went on: “It is an extraordinary example of hypocrisy that the Iranian government, which positioned itself on the side of protests in Egypt and Tunisia, is assisting the Syrian government in actively and brutally suppressing protest and that tells you a great deal about the regime in Iran.”

Thousands of Syrians have fled to the Turkish border to escape the violence and Britain is pledging humanitarian support at the border including shelter, medicine and food. 
                                              _________________________
                                  Articles shared by provisions of The Copyright Act


----------



## aesop081

57Chevy said:
			
		

> That may well be the readily used argument phrase, but IMO, that alone won't be forcing anyone
> into similar situations in other countries.



It is the same "we must do something" argument that put enough public pressure on Governments that they intervened where they did not really want to. The "why no us" evolution will undoubtably see us doing it again. It may not be Syria but it will be somewhere.


----------



## 57Chevy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It may not be Syria but it will be somewhere.



Perhaps elsewhere on the world stage in a country with a lesser military partnership.

Economic sanctions in Syria are possible to enforce and maintain without adverse humanitarian issues arising as a result.
Considering the Syrian alliances, a military intervention similar to that of Libya could/would destabilize the entire region.
(including the European underbelly)
I see it as very thin ice. 
IMO Syria is the fuse that Iran hopes to ignite.

I can agree that caution must be exercised by all parties regarding Syrian resolutions.


----------



## lethalLemon

I vote maybe.

Why? They need to be put in their place, Syria has been known to be guilty of firing missiles into Israel along side Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza/West Bank (Palestine). International powers can use this uprising as a double edged sword to not only restore order and peace in the region, but also as a "foot in the door" to end the violence by these terrorist cells attacking Israel (and/or Palestine). Now, I don't know if that would at all be possible, this is just speculation as I believe that there's some sort of international regulation against saying your mission is one thing, but then also doing another. On another hand, if a nation such as Canada were to jump in with the intervention teams, this could spark outside resistance from other countries (especially in such a volatile region) and you'd have yourself facing quite a bloodbath. If we look at Libya though, the CF is participating in the largest ordinance drop missions since... what was it? Korea or WW2? Outside resistance has not been present, so it's clear that the people/allies of a lot of these neighbouring nations do not support these tyrants, which is a good sign but in my opinion I would not risk jumping into Syria... too close to Lebanon for comfort.

However, this brings me to my next point. Now bear with me, I know this is going to seem a bit outlandish: The USA has large oil corporations with interests and assets in Libya and Egypt, that's why they jumped so quickly to suppress the revolt. It's possible that the UN is not jumping to their feet and doing something about the revolt in Syria because there's nothing of any real value to the USA or EU in that country... except people, but then again I don't know that for sure. I don't know much about Syria as I used to. Once again, please note, this is just speculation and should be taken entirely serious.


----------



## aesop081

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> The USA has large oil corporations with interests and assets in Libya



Of all the oil companies owned by Libya (National Oil Company and its subsidiaries), only the Waha Oil Company has American involvement ( ConocoPhillips 16.3%, Marathon Oil 16% and the Hess Corporation 8%). One other US company, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, operates in Libya.

The numbers in terms of production and value don't look to smashing. US imports of Libyan oil are not that significant either at 70 000 barrels per day in 2010.

In my estimation, Libya is not about American oil.


----------



## lethalLemon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Of all the oil companies owned by Libya (National Oil Company and its subsidiaries), only the Waha Oil Company has American involvement ( ConocoPhillips 16.3%, Marathon Oil 16% and the Hess Corporation 8%). One other US company, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, operates in Libya.
> 
> The numbers in terms of production and value don't look to smashing. US imports of Libyan oil are not that significant either at 70 000 barrels per day in 2010.
> 
> In my estimation, Libya is not about American oil.



Hmm, alright, but like I said, it was just speculations; food for thought.


----------



## teabag

Intervention in Syria without a U.N. mandate would be akin to shooting ourselves in the foot.  Most of us can only guess at why Libya was picked as the stepping stone.  It may not have been about oil but it sure is comforting to know that what is being delivered will continue to flow.  It would be foolish to believe that U.S. interests in the region have no influence on our decision to participate.  If they have no reason to go there, neither would we.  Yes, it's unfortunate that the government is cracking down on protesters but aside from sanctions there really is not much else to do at this point.


----------



## apeaceofconflict

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Of all the oil companies owned by Libya (National Oil Company and its subsidiaries), only the Waha Oil Company has American involvement ( ConocoPhillips 16.3%, Marathon Oil 16% and the Hess Corporation 8%). One other US company, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, operates in Libya.
> 
> The numbers in terms of production and value don't look to smashing. US imports of Libyan oil are not that significant either at 70 000 barrels per day in 2010.
> 
> In my estimation, Libya is not about American oil.



See:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/conflict-in-libya-us-oil-companies-sit-on-sidelines-as-gaddafi-maintains-hold/2011/06/03/AGJq2QPH_story.html

This suggests that the oil factor is bigger than what you are saying:

"By the time Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited in 2008, U.S. joint ventures accounted for 510,000 of Libya's 1.7 million barrels a day of production, a State Department cable said. "

Also "He said experts believed that only 30 percent of Libya had been explored and that there was “much more oil to be discovered.” 

The oil companies have also invested significant amounts in the last 5 years in exploration, and future production.


Also, there is the matter of the possible unreported nuclear facilities that were recently brought to the UN by the IAEA.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

apeaceofconflict said:
			
		

> See:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/conflict-in-libya-us-oil-companies-sit-on-sidelines-as-gaddafi-maintains-hold/2011/06/03/AGJq2QPH_story.html
> 
> This suggests that the oil factor is bigger than what you are saying:
> 
> "By the time Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited in 2008, U.S. joint ventures accounted for 510,000 of Libya's 1.7 million barrels a day of production, a State Department cable said. "
> 
> Also "He said experts believed that only 30 percent of Libya had been explored and that there was “much more oil to be discovered.”
> 
> The oil companies have also invested significant amounts in the last 5 years in exploration, and future production.
> 
> 
> Also, there is the matter of the possible unreported nuclear facilities that were recently brought to the UN by the IAEA.



Libyan oil production courtesy of the U.S. Dept. of Energy's  Energy Information Agency (EIA):



> Exports
> With domestic consumption estimated around 270,000 bbl/d in 2010, Libya's net exports (including all liquids) were slightly over 1.5 million bbl/d. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) the vast majority (around 85 percent) of Libyan oil exports are sold to European countries namely Italy, Germany,
> France, and Spain. With the lifting of sanctions against Libya in 2004, the United States has increased
> its imports of Libyan oil.  *According to EIA January through November estimates, the United States imported an average of 71,000bbl/d from Libya in 2010 (of which, 44,000 bbl/d was crude), up from 56,000 bbl/d in 2005 but a decline from 2007 highs of 117,000 bbl/d.*


 My Emphasis.


----------



## aesop081

apeaceofconflict said:
			
		

> See:
> 
> This suggests that the oil factor is bigger than what you are saying:



I took my numbers from the US department of energy's 2010 data. You just cherry-picked one part that suited what you had to say, probably because when you clicked to go to page 3, you got advertising like i did.


----------



## FoverF

Well yes, I would support foreign (ie not Canadian) intervention in Syria.

There are a lot of people being killed, for the sake of standing up to their corrupt dictator. That's not something anybody likes to see. 

IF there was a foreign power with local and regional support, who would be able to intervene in an effective manner, I would (morally and vocally) support them. This would be up to and including overthrowing the Al-Assad government, and (if required, briefly) occupying the country to re-establish order. I would also be willing to see my tax dollars go towards these goals in some direct or indirect way.

There are several flies in the ointment here, including a lack of an appropriate agent to intervene, the fear of a weaker government unable to resist Islamo-fascist influence, the inevitable regional backlash against any western-supported government using violence in the region (and lets face it, any country capable of intervening has western support), etc. 

It's the right thing to do, but it's a minefield. I'd support anybody who has a chance to sort it out. Especially if they're foreign.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I fully support offering up a free flight in a C17 to turkey/Iraq where Peace protesters can march across the border to confront the Syrian military and convince them to settle this dispute with the proper conflict resolution tools.
I have no doubt the committed members of the peace organizations will volunteer for this important mission. If they don’t we can tell them it’s a flight to fly protesters to support the return of the Golan heights and to embarrass Israel , by the time they find out the truth it will be to late.


----------



## 57Chevy

Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
US naval movements around Syria. Hizballah moves rockets
DEBKAfile/Exclusive Report June 14
http://www.debka.com/article/21026/

debkafile's military and intelligence sources report that Monday, June 13, the US deployed the USS Bataan amphibian air carrier strike vessel opposite Syria's Mediterranean coast with 2,000 marines, 6 war planes, 15 attack helicopters, including new V-22 Ospreys,  and 27 choppers for landing forces aboard.Also this week, US naval units went operational in the Aegean, Adriatic and Black Seas as part of the joint US-Ukrainian Sea Breeze 2011 exercise.
The USS Monterrey cruiser armed with Aegis surface missile interceptors has additionally been stationed in the Black Sea. Western sources additonally report a build-up of ship-borne anti-missile missile strength in the Mediterranean basin.

This huge concentration of naval missile interceptor units looks like preparations by Washington for the contingency of Iran, Syria and Hizballah letting loose with surface missiles against US and Israeli targets in the event of US military intervention to stop the anti-opposition slaughter underway in Syria.
Moscow, Tehran and Damascus, in particular, are taking this exceptional spate of American military movements in and around the Mediterranean as realistically portending American intervention in Syria.

This concentration of US might also the effect of deterring the Turkish government from going through with its decision to send Turkish troops into Syria.
The plan was to create a protected buffer zone where the thousands of refugees in flight from the Assad regime's military crackdown would be kept safe on Syrian side of the border and out of Turkey.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyep Erdogan is averse to be seen working hand in glove militarily with any US interference in Syria.

At the same time, Western intelligence sources in the Persian Gulf are sure Washington is coordinating its military movements with Ankara and that Erdogan quietly agreed to place Turkish bases at US disposal for an operation in Syria.

Debkafile's military sources also report that Monday, June 13, Hizballah began shifting the long- and medium-range rockets it had stored in northern Lebanon to locations in the center of the country.

Western military sources first thought the Lebanese Shiite group was taking the precaution of keeping its arsenal safe from a spillover of violence from Syria. Tuesday, however, they learned that Iranian intelligence had advised Hizballah to remove its rockets out of range of a possible American operation in Syria.

Tuesday, Iran capped these events with three separate warnings to the Obama administration against military interference in Syria.

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said Tuesday: "The Americans are not allowed to launch a military intervention in any country of the region including Syria."

He accused "Israel and the USA of standing behind the riots in Syria, Iran's closest ally in the Arab world… with particular aims…of provoking terrorist groups in Syria and in the region to carry out terrorist and sabotage operations."

Another spokesman warned: "Western attempts to set the model of Libya in Damascus are doomed to failure."

Iranian Vice President Reza Rahimi accused the United States of preparing and executing "the slaughter of Muslims" worldwide.

Iran's ground forces commander Brig. Gen. Kioumars Heidari added this threat: Any new military move by the US in the region will impose heavy costs on the country far greater than the costs it paid in Iraq and Afghanistan."


----------



## cupper

It is  a bit of a moot point anyway. With the current political state of the US being so dysfunctional that they couldn't organize a p*ss-up in a brewery, along with a complete lack of willingness to do anything which would lose war-weary voters, and a military stretched beyond it's capacity, there won't be any move by the US to send forces to intervene.

Call me jaded, but having spent all of the Bush and Obama administrations living outside the DC Beltway, I shake my head and wonder how they ever became the World's Greatest Superpower.


----------



## tomahawk6

Turkish troops will be rolling south into northern Syria sooner than later.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cupper said:
			
		

> It is  a bit of a moot point anyway. With the current political state of the US being so dysfunctional that they couldn't organize a p*ss-up in a brewery, along with a complete lack of willingness to do anything which would lose war-weary voters, and a military stretched beyond it's capacity, there won't be any move by the US to send forces to intervene.
> 
> Call me jaded, but having spent all of the Bush and Obama administrations living outside the DC Beltway, I shake my head and wonder how they ever became the World's Greatest Superpower.



And why should they intervene? Because the world expects them to make everything right all the time? Then shits all over them when they don't do what everyone expects? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If I was Obama, I'd let the whole ME light itself up and my biggest concern would be "who brought the hot dogs".

As to the question of how they became a superpower, I'll sure as hell bet it's not because of the general population of the US right now. Inside, or outside the beltway.


----------



## cupper

recceguy said:
			
		

> And why should they intervene? Because the world expects them to make everything right all the time? Then shits all over them when they don't do what everyone expects? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


 :nod:

I agree wholeheartedly, there is no reason to intervene, as there was no justifiable reason to intervene in the Libya either. With the exception of keeping the lid on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US has no other real strategic interest in what happens in Syria. 

As for the rest of the world expecting the US to make everything right, I don't really think that has ever been the case. In reality, what typically happens (Iraq and Afghanistan being the exceptions) is that the rest of the world sits back and waits to see what the US does, and then decides if it is politically expedient for them to commit their own country's resources, and what the minimum commitment is.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Turkish troops will be rolling south into northern Syria sooner than later.



I think under the old party, that would have happened, under the current government I doubt it.


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of the Copyright Act

Syria - Turkey Border Clashes Possible? 
Friday, June 24, 2011

Turkish And Syrian Forces In Tense Cross-Border Standoff -- The Telegraph
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2011/06/syria-turkey-border-clashes-possible.html

Turkish and Syrian forces engaged in a tense cross-border standoff on Thursday as a fresh military operation against Syrian dissidents threatened to spark a major regional crisis.

An elite Syrian army unit advanced to within quarter of a mile of the Turkish border, expanding an onslaught against opponents of President Bashar al-Assad.

Escalating an already acute refugee crisis, hundreds of Syrian civilians cut their way through a border fence into Turkey as they fled an advance into the frontier village of Khirbet al-Joz by the army's Fourth Division and Presidential Guard, led by Mr Assad's feared brother Maher.

read more at link...


----------



## a_majoor

As Syria destabilizes furthur:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/syria%E2%80%99s-future-alawite-military-coup-or-regional-civil-war/?print=1



> *Syria’s Future: Alawite Military Coup, or Regional Civil War*
> 
> Posted By Farid Ghadry On July 1, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 2 Comments
> 
> Syria may be on the brink of a civil war far bloodier than anything seen for a long time in the Middle East. To make matters worse, it could spill over into neighboring countries by pitting Sunni and Shia Muslims against one another, a conflict whose power has already been seen in Iraq
> 
> Iran, Hezbollah, and their allies in Iraq and elsewhere are often extremist Shia Muslims; the radicals further west — as in Saudi Arabia, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood — are Sunni Muslims.
> 
> Syria is on the borderlands between these two doctrines. Most of its people are Sunni Muslims but there are also Christians, Druze, and Alawites. Who are the Alawites? While arguably Alawites are not Muslims at all, they claim to be Shia Muslims. Syria’s government is also aligned with Iran and Hezbollah — in other words, the Shia Muslim forces.
> 
> And therein lies the danger. The ruling Alawites comprise only about 12 percent of Syria’s population but largely dominate the government. The bloody repression of the opposition, which is largely Sunni, is creating communal tensions. Sunni Muslims, who outnumber Alawites by a margin of more than five-to-one, may view this as a Sunni-Alawites and equally a Sunni-Shia conflict.
> 
> The Syrian dictatorship has thus begun a blood feud regardless of these potential consequences. Many Syrians I have spoken with inside the country are seething with anger over the Alawite-led government’s butchering of Sunnis. They are equally aware that Hezbollah and the Iranian regime support President Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s dictator, secretly and cheer him publicly.
> 
> To try to convince enraged young revolutionaries that this is not religiously fostered but rather the work of thugs who happen to be Alawites is futile. Whether the revolution succeeds, is repressed, or continues, a communal war could be the result.
> 
> And a Sunni-Alawite bloodbath in Syria could lead to something similar happening in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Lebanon. The result could also be a sectarian war that might last for generations.
> 
> The best option would be a military coup led by an Alawite general who would free political prisoners, initiate real and major reforms, imprison those guilty of corruption and murder in the current government, and bring a transformation to democracy. By bringing the Alawites credit for ending what is widely perceived as an Alawite regime, such an act could defuse hatreds and lead to national conciliation.
> 
> Thus, there is an additional factor making the downfall of the Assad regime even more important and pressing. Otherwise, both Syria and the region will pay a high price, with the victims being mostly innocent victims of communal and religious hatred on both sides. Hopefully, there is a Syrian general who understands this situation. Equally, it is vital that those in the West understand there is limited time and that a successful revolution in Syria followed by national conciliation is in everyone’s interest.
> 
> Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
> 
> URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/syria%e2%80%99s-future-alawite-military-coup-or-regional-civil-war/


----------



## a_majoor

Cracks appearing in the Syrian establishment. Perhaps the most important issue is to discover what will replace the Assad regime?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/top-syrian-generals-defect-announce-formation-of-free-syrian-army-to-fight-assad-video/



> *Top Syrian Generals Defect – Announce Formation of Free Syrian Army to Fight Assad (Video)*
> Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, July 31, 2011, 7:16 AM
> 
> The End of the Murderous Assad Regime May Be Near–
> A top general in Syria defected on Friday and released video urging the army to quit killing freedom protesters and join the Free Syrian Army.
> 
> General Riad El As’ad directed his message to Assad and his allies in Iran and Hezbollah.
> 
> It has been widely reported that the Iranian regime and Hezbollah have been assisting the the Assad regime.
> 
> Syrian Major-General Riad El As’ad is joined by other officers in the video.
> 
> (7:00 AM CST – This translated video currently has only 52 hits.)
> 
> Arutz Sheva reported:
> 
> A Syrian Major-General has deserted Assad’s army along with a group of other officers and joined the rebels.
> 
> In an Arabic video clip posted on Youtube on July 29, 2011, the officer, Major-General Riad El As’ad is seen in the company of other officers, announcing the establishment of the “Free Syrian Army whose main goal will be to fight the army of oppression headed by President Bashar Assad”.
> 
> As’ad accused the Assad regime of crimes against the Syrian people and called on the officers and soldiers in the Syrian army not to aim their weapons at the people. He further called on them to join the Free Syrian Army.
> 
> The major-general warned that the Free Army will eliminate any soldier who acts to harm his own people. The present army commanders do not represent the army, he continued, they are acting for the criminal gang that controls the media and prevents the people from obtaining truthful information on what is happening.
> 
> After years of killing, tyranny, and oppression, the kingdom of silence is silent no more.
> 
> And, where has our president been? Silent.


----------



## tamouh

> Cracks appearing in the Syrian establishment. Perhaps the most important issue is to discover what will replace the Assad regime?
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/top-syrian-generals-defect-announce-formation-of-free-syrian-army-to-fight-assad-video/



It has been a long time indeed!! The article you've posted above is inaccurate.

The defected Syrian Army Officer on that website is listed as Major-General. However, quick check on his rank reveals he is a Colonel in the Syrian Army (Later videos claim he is Colonel in the Syrian Air Defence).

As for intervening or not in Syria, first you want to know what the Syrians want on the ground, and I know for certain they don't want intervention. They believe Al-Assad regime can be toppled without outside intervention as long as Western Powers cut off all sources of economical means (particularly Oil) to the regime.

From the ground, the Syrian regime appears to be desperate and running out of options. Many cities are experiencing long line ups for fuel (diesel) because most of it being diverted to military operations. The Syrian army in general had been weakened by decades of neglect, corruption and low morals. The only real army in Syria at this time is the 4th Division controlled by Maher Al-Assad (Brother of Bashar Al-Assad).

Turkey is the only country to be able to flex its muscle and its army is more than capable to defeat Al-Assad regime on its own.


----------



## cupper

One has to wonder how much of an effect Mubarak's trial is going to have on the situation in both Libya and Syria. Will those leaders decide to fight to the bitter end or use more force to quell opposition rather than face the humiliation that Mubarak is experiencing.


----------



## reason

Why is nobody paying attention?

I'm calling it now, as many of you have already done. We're going to see amplified media on Syria and Iran VERY soon! (This is already happening) Israel will be talking about the horrible things happening in Syria, the U.S. will be demanding the violence stops, etc. And, before mid September, If any military intervention happens, I think Saudi Arabia will join Turkey aswell, then Iran will have to take side, when this happens, Israel will have the best opportunity to attack Iran's facilities, then WW3 follows.

if any military intervention on Syria happens, it will be not like Lybya or Iraq, all hell will break loose.

Out of all of this, Russia stands to be the one to watch. Both Iran and Syria are vital allies of mother Russia and I doubt very seriously if they will stand by and just watch as NATO, the U.S. and Israel pound the hell out of Syria and Iran. I do believe, this WILL be the start of World War III! With so much focused on the nuclear weapons programs, the chance one or more will be used during the process is almost a certainty!


----------



## PPCLI Guy

reason said:
			
		

> Why is nobody paying attention?
> 
> I'm calling it now...... I do believe, this WILL be the start of World War III! With so much focused on the nuclear weapons programs, the chance one or more will be used during the process is almost a certainty!



What an odd screen name you have.

Perhaps some of the following might have been more appropriate:

Screed?
Diatribe?
Troll?
Emotion (as opposed to, say, reason)?


----------



## opp550

I seriously doubt Russia or China will launch a nuclear war over Syria or Iran. They might get a little angry on the surface, but will most likely jump with joy as the US starts another costly war (For them).


----------



## reason

RUSSIAN ENVOY: NATO IS PLANNING ATTACKS ON SYRIA, IRAN
http://wrc559.com/2011/08/06/russian-envoy-nato-is-planning-attacks-on-syria-iran/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/192596.html



> Even as it finds itself still embroiled in Libya,  NATO is preparing to launch a military assault on Syria in order to create a  beachhead for a future attack on Iran, claims Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry  Rogozin.
> “The planning [of the military campaign] is well  underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda  operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against  North Africa,” Rogozin  said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper published on Friday.
> The envoy added that attacks on Syria and Yemen  were part of a build-up focused around regime change in Iran.
> “The noose around Iran is tightening. Military  planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an  escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region,” Rogozin said.
> Rogozin has been known to make embellished  statements about NATO’s military adventurism in the past, so whether there will  actually be an intervention in Syria remains to be seen.
> Moscow has consistently warned NATO not to meddle  in Syria, saying the country should be left to resolve its own problems as  violence that has killed 1,600 civilians since March continues to plague the  country.
> Speculation surrounding an attack Iran, which  Rogozin claims is the long term goal of the assault on Syria, has peaked in  recent weeks.
> Efforts by Palestinian leaders to achieve full  statehood, set to be heard by the United Nations in early September, has prompted  speculation that Israel is planning a surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear  facilities in September as a means of distracting from and ultimately derailing  the prospect of such an agreement.
> Last month, former CIA agent  Robert Baer said that comments made by former Mossad head Meir Dagan “tell  us with near certainty that Netanyahu is planning an attack, and in as much as I  can guess when it’s going to be, it’s probably going to be in September before a  vote on the Palestinian state.”





Russia has a navy base in Tartus, Syria.
Russians also use other Syrian ports.


----------



## Journeyman

reason said:
			
		

> Russia has a navy base in Tartus, Syria


Hmmm.....a collection of workshops, empty barracks, and some logistic assets intended to support the Russian Mediterranean Squadron -- which was disbanded in 1991.

Yep, that's a pretty compelling reason to believe armageddon is on the horizon.  op:



Edit to add: While I regret giving the tinfoil-hat wackjob "wrc559" any further attention, citing his website as a source for _anything_ (other than to chuckle at conspiracy theorists) speaks volumes about one's "reason."  :


----------



## reason

lol. yeah, maybe i was starting to believe in the conspiracy a little too much about a WW3.
i cant help but think its possible tho. with iran and syria being very close allies also having ties to russia, turkey and saudi want to intervene, backed by nato, israel / rest of the arab nations likley to get involved. who knows what will happen.


im continually following the news in syria.



> *Syria uprising may lead to regional war
> The brutal crackdown in Syria continues unabated, and is likely to become the stage for a regional conflict involving Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Gulf.*
> http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/syria-uprising-may-lead-to-regional-war-1.378391
> 
> Thousands of Egyptians have already signed a petition circulating on Facebook that calls for the expulsion of the Syrian ambassador from their country. For once, it is not an Israeli ambassador who receives such attention. The initiators of the petition hope to have over one million Egyptians sign the appeal, which may push the current Egyptian military government to publicly condemn Syrian President Bashar Assad.
> 
> New Syrian Facebook pages have decided to use humor to recruit people to the opposition, ironically describing the recent events in Syria as if they happened in Britain. Turkey, however, does not find the situation in Syria so funny.
> 
> 
> A Syrian national shouts slogans against President Bashar Assad during a demonstration outside Syria's embassy in Cairo.
> 
> Photo by: AFP
> 
> In recent days, the Turkish army summoned hundreds of officers for reserve duty, placing them in bases near the border with Syria. Turkish sources report that the military has been on high alert along the border to prepare for a massive flight of Syrian refugees into the country, as well as for the possibility of NATO strikes in Syria. Only hours after Turkey's foreign minister visited Damascus did the government understand that Prime Minister Erdrogan's ultimatum to Assad fell on deaf ears, after news broke that the city of Homs was being battered by Syrian security forces.
> 
> The protests and the bloodshed continued on Friday, when human rights organizers claim 13 protesters were shot to death by Syrian security forces. According to reports, live fire was shot at thousands of worshippers on their way home from Friday prayers in the town of Dir al-Zur. Crowds went out into the streets across the country calling for Assad to step down.
> 
> While Turkey prepares for the worst, Iran refuses to print any news on the uprising in its state-run newspapers, while the government has warned that Syria may become the center of an international war. Iran has also transferred approximately five billion dollars to Syria in recent weeks, and according to Iraqi sources, Iran has demanded that Iraq transfer ten billion dollars to the Syrian government.
> 
> The involvement of Iran, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, and other gulf states has turned the Syrian uprising from an internal event - resulting from mass poverty, oppression, and a lack of economic and political future - into a potential regional war. Syria, whose regional strategic importance is based less on oil and natural resources, and more on its strong relationship with Iran and ability to intervene in Iraqi affairs, has been able to prevent the establishment of a military front against it. As opposed to the immediate international consensus that allowed for a military offensive in Libya, there has been no initiative to promote a similar UN Security Council in regards to Syria.
> 
> In contrast with Libya, where armed resistance could potentially serve as an alternative political power, there is no telling where Syria is headed. Will it end up as chaotic as Iraq, which suffered a difficult period of civil strife after the fall of Saddam? Will a new Syrian regime look toward Iran or the West for support? Will Turkey be able to rely on a new regime with an unchanged military to block the Kurdish PKK party from gaining power? Does the Saudi monarchy prefer a despised, yet well-known leader with whom it could negotiate for hefty sums of money? Such questions also preoccupy the West, which has not yet called for Assad to leave his castle.
> 
> In the absence of any outside military pressure, and while Syria can lean on Iran's power of deterrence, it is difficult to determine whether Assad's days are numbered. The military has implemented a strategy of separating the country into isolated cities, giving each one its own special "treatment" that the government hopes will serve as a lesson for others. This is the tale of cities such as Dara, Dir al-Zur, Idlib, Hama, and others that have essentially turned into ghost cities, or areas that where leading a normal life has become quite difficult.
> 
> This strategy, which presumes that the uprising could last for quite some time, has developed steadily over the last five months. Assad himself has even said that the rebellion may last up to two years. And despite the number of defectors (approximately 2,000), the president is able to preserve unity within his military's ranks. For now, at least, it seems as though Assad is here to stay.


----------



## aesop081

reason said:
			
		

> i cant help but think its possible tho.



Your use of capitalization is also possible.


----------



## Danny_C

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Your use of capitalization is also possible.



I can't help but post this quote I saved from George Wallace.

_ "Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse."_
George Wallace, Milnet


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Canada reiterates its strong condemnation of the ongoing violent military assault by the Assad regime against the Syrian people. This campaign of terror must stop.
> 
> The Assad regime has lost all legitimacy by killing its own people to stay in power.
> 
> *I join with President Obama and other members of the international community in calling on President Assad to vacate his position, relinquish power and step down immediately. The Syrian people have a right to decide for themselves the next steps for Syria's future.
> *
> Canada has taken decisive action imposing sanctions that directly target members of the current Syrian regime and those who provide it with support.
> 
> Canada stands with the Syrian people in their efforts to secure freedom and democracy, and looks forward to a new Syria that respects the rights of all of its people and lives in peace with its neighbours.


PM statement, 18 Aug 11


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Experts Skeptical Syria's Assad Will Resign
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Experts-Skeptical-About-Assad-Departure-128006503.html
Cecily Hilleary | Washington August 18, 2011

President Barack Obama has issued his strongest call to date for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to relinquish power. In a statement released Thursday the U.S. leader has said that "the future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way."

article continues.......

President Obama: "The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/18/president-obama-future-syria-must-be-determined-its-people-president-bashar-al-assad
Macon Phillips on August 18, 2011 

Today, President Obama called for the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, to step aside and took the strongest financial  action against the Syrian regime thus far.  Here is President Obama's full statement on the situation in Syria: (at link)
                                            ________________________________________

Photo:
A demonstrator poses with an effigy of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad during a protest Istanbul June 24, 2011. Due to restricted foreign media access, few images of anti-government protests within Syria have made it out of that country.


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Harper, Obama call on Assad to step down — but military action ruled out
Steven Edwards/Postmedia News/18 August

http://www.canada.com/news/Harper+Obama+call+Assad+step+down+military+action+ruled/5272684/story.html#ixzz1VQo8BWvj

UNITED NATIONS — The United States on Thursday ruled out launching military action to protect civilians in Syria as it led co-ordinated calls with Canada and other U.S. allies for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down over the Syrian government's escalating bloody crackdown on peaceful protesters.


While U.S. President Barack Obama said in a statement that Syrian civilians had "braved ferocious brutality at the hands of their government," a senior administration official said during a White House briefing for journalists that the call for Assad's departure did not come with a military protective screen for the protesters.


The position is in stark contrast to that which the United States and many of it allies — among them Canada — took with their decision to launch strikes against Libya to protect Libyan civilians under threat from dictator Moammar Gadhafi's forces.


"I don't think that anybody believes that (military intervention) is the desired course in Syria — not the United States and our allies, nor the Syrian people themselves," said the administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were to be the public faces for the new measures against Syria.


"So the simplest way to bring this to a conclusion is for the Syrian people to get the democratic transition they are demanding and for President Assad to step aside."


Administration officials stressed how the stepped-up pressure on Syria came from a "chorus" of U.S. allies, while Clinton emphasized at a news conference that the United States "understood the strong desire of the Syrian people that no foreign power should intervene in their struggle."


The Syrian crackdown has been one of the bloodiest within the broader Arab Spring uprisings, which have forced the collapse of governments in Tunisia and Egypt, sparked civil war in Libya and significant unrest elsewhere — but which have also hastened substantial reform in Morocco.


The United Nations has said that at least 2,000 people have been killed in Syria since the uprising began in mid-March, and that thousands were missing or detained.


But Obama's statement early Thursday marked the U.S. government's first explicit call for Assad to step down. Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued his own communique a short time later, as part of a co-ordinated campaign that also saw a joint statement from the leaders of Britain, France and Germany and another from the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton.

article continues...


----------



## Journeyman

From CBC


> *UN votes to demand Syria end bloody crackdown *
> 
> The United Nations' top human rights body voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to demand that Syria end its
> bloody crackdown and co-operate with an international probe into possible crimes against humanity.



Well, since they voted _overwhelmingly_, I guess this crisis is pretty much wrapped up.   :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> From CBC
> Well, since they voted _overwhelmingly_, I guess this crisis is pretty much wrapped up.   :nod:


"Harsh Letter to Bad Guy Team - UP!"


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> "Harsh Letter to Bad Guy Team - UP!"


Well, they didn't actually make any demands of Syria -- they just voted overwhelmingly that at some point they were going to.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, they didn't actually make any demands of Syria -- they just voted overwhelmingly that at some point they were going to.


Ah, then more like, "Harsh Letter to Bad Guy Team - Prepare to move!"


----------



## sean m

Interesting video, the journalist is in Syria and gets the opinions of Syrian citizens. Who knows if this video is bias or not.  Seems odd, since I had thought, that the Assad regime did not let in foreign media. The reporters seems to be transported by the Syrian government, it is ironic that almost everyone he meets are pro Assad or more anti protesters. The video states that the protestors are mainly sunni. 

http://www.youtube.com/user/journeymanpictures?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/3A4C018BB1B234EC/2/Zh7ksVJuseg


----------



## PJGary

Thoughts, Gentlemen? I find it interesting that there is even the slightest talk of military action.

from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/16/pol-syria-mackay.html



> Canada is watching violence in Syria but stepping in would require more thought and possibly a UN resolution, Defence Minister Peter MacKay says.
> 
> MacKay spoke about Syria hours before meeting with Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak to talk about regional security and a series of agreements on defence cooperation between Canada and Israel.
> 
> As France pulls its ambassador from Damascus, Syria's capital, and the country's suspension from the Arab League takes effect, MacKay says any possible military action needs "further contemplation" and possibly a UN Security Council resolution "to mirror the path that we followed with respect to Libya."
> 
> "There's a number of things that would have to happen. It is a much more complex situation in many ways, given the circumstances on the ground in Syria," MacKay said Wednesday morning.
> 
> "But I can assure you in our capital and in capitals around the world, NATO countries are discussing what is happening in Syria."
> 
> The mission in Libya was a UN-sanctioned NATO mission intended to protect civilians from attacks. That mission started in March and culminated with deposed leader Moammar Gadhafi being captured and killed in October. It has raised questions about why, with Syrian civilians facing similar danger, western countries haven't intervened.
> 
> In the House of Commons, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Canada has imposed sanctions on the regime's key players and called on President Bashar al-Assad to resign.
> 
> "The campaign of violence and terror against the Syrian people must end," he said.
> 
> "Canada stands with the Syrian people at their time of need."
> 
> Baird also repeated a recommendation that any Canadians still in Syria leave the country while there are still commercial flights.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Update:  DefMin quoted saying "ready if needed":


> While any intervention in Syria would have to follow a series of United Nations sanctions, Canada's armed forces are ready to offer assistance if necessary, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Sunday.
> 
> In an appearance on CTV's Question Period, MacKay said there are a "cascading number of sanctions that would have to happen before there would be any type of intervention."
> 
> But, speaking from the Halifax International Security Forum, he added that "Canada has certainly a great deal of ability to lend support in a situation, as we saw in Libya."
> 
> MacKay said there is constant planning taking place at armed forces headquarters and, as a result, "certainly we've prepared for all inevitabilities."
> 
> The defence minister said he finds it encouraging that some of Syria's military have been defecting rather than follow orders to attack civilians. The UN estimates more than 3,500 people have been killed in the government crackdown on dissent.
> 
> "That is exactly what we wanted to prevent and did prevent in Libya," he said ....


CTV.ca, 20 Nov 11


----------



## 57Chevy

From Haaretz and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

I never doubted this maneuver from the Russian Federation.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-russia-warships-to-enter-syria-waters-in-bid-to-stem-foreign-intervention-1.396359

Russian warships are due to arrive at Syrian territorial waters, a Syrian news agency said on Thursday, indicating that the move represented a clear message to the West that Moscow would resist any foreign intervention in the country's civil unrest.
Article continues.....


----------



## Edward Campbell

A UNSC Resolution is needed, MND MacKay says, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/un-must-okay-any-military-move-on-syria-mackay-says/article2242729/


> UN must okay any military move on Syria, MacKay says
> 
> STEVEN CHASE, LES PERREAUX AND OLIVER MOORE
> OTTAWA AND HALIFAX— Globe and Mail Update
> 
> Published Sunday, Nov. 20, 2011
> 
> Canada is ready to assist an international military intervention in Syria should sanctions and diplomacy fail, but the United Nations authorization that Ottawa says it would first require is neither imminent nor inevitable.
> 
> Still, the Harper government announced Sunday it was posting a warship to the Mediterranean until the end of 2012, a frigate that could be useful for evacuations or naval blockades if the violence in Syria descends into civil war.
> 
> Barely three weeks after the Harper government formally ended its role in the NATO bombing mission that helped oust Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Ottawa says it’s prepared to offer assistance if necessary in Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s bloody campaign of oppression against his own people has killed about 3,500.
> 
> There is deep unease, however, among Canadian decision-makers and the international community about the prospect of sending armed force to Syria to protect civilians – a conflict that could easily ignite a regional war and transform into a quagmire.
> 
> Syria borders Israel and Turkey and has strong ties to Iran; and the Syrian air force is far bigger and more modern than Libya’s, with a daunting array of anti-aircraft missiles.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who spent the weekend with major international military and security players at a forum in Halifax, said nobody is eager to enter the fray.
> 
> “With all of the brainpower that we had in this building in the last 72 hours, I didn’t hear anybody say ‘Let’s charge into Syria,’ ” he told reporters.
> 
> “What I heard was ‘Let’s contemplate the next move very cautiously,’ knowing … if you break it you own it.”
> 
> Mr. MacKay said he hopes that China and Russia can be persuaded to agree to levy economic sanctions on Syria through the United Nations as a next step.
> 
> He told CTV’s Question Period that Canada’s armed forces are “prepared for all inevitabilities” but said in the case of Syria, there are a “cascading number of [international] sanctions that would have to happen before there would be any type of intervention.”
> 
> The Defence Minister said a UN Security Council resolution is a “necessity in this instance” before Canada would agree to join an international effort to intervene in Syria, where Mr. al-Assad is viciously cracking down on protestors.
> 
> “I think it’s fair to say that a lot of dictators are on notice, that this type of behaviour is not going to be tolerated,” Mr. MacKay said.
> 
> “Now how we go about it and what comes next, is done on a some would call it an escalating scale, before making any final decisions around intervention.”
> 
> The Conservative government said HMCS Vancouver, which helped patrol the waters off Libya, will remain in the Mediterranean as part of a NATO counterterrorism effort, Operation Endeavour, until relieved by HMCS Charlottetown in early 2012.
> 
> “There’s no question that [Syria is] weighing heavy on our mind,” Mr. MacKay said. “The primary purpose is to contribute to antiterrorist operations in the region. But there’s no question having a ship in the region, in the event that Canadians need direct assistance or evacuation … gives us that capability to respond, should certain things transpire.
> 
> Asked if he would take military intervention against Syria off the table, Canada’s defence minister told Global TV’s The West Block that he would not.
> 
> “We, again I would say to you, are very cautious when you get into the projecting of military intervention. But to answer your question, no, I don’t think we should suggest that it’s not an option. It’s not the preferred option, it never is.”
> 
> Mr. MacKay told the Halifax International Security Forum this past weekend that the NATO-led airstrikes that helped oust Mr. Gadhafi are not a template for actions elsewhere.
> 
> Iran is a nuclear threat, Egypt is again in turmoil and Yemen teeters on the brink of collapse, but it was Syria that caused the most squirming at a weekend gathering of top global security officials.
> 
> The generals and defence ministers who met at the Halifax forum shared many congratulatory slaps on the back for their role in ridding the world of Mr. Gadhafi.
> 
> But they worked at every turn to dampen expectations Western countries would take similar action to help oust Mr. al-Assad.
> 
> Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, the Royal Canadian Air Force general who led the NATO mission in Libya, cautioned against applying the Libyan model to Syria.
> 
> “Libya should not be a blueprint for the future. Libya is just one more campaign from which we should take lessons,” Lt.-Gen. Bouchard said.
> 
> “One is in the Middle East, the other is in North Africa. I don’t want to sound flippant, but the neighbours make a difference,” he added, pointing out the border Syria shares with Turkey is just one factor that seriously complicates matters compared to Libya.
> 
> James Appathurai, a top NATO political official, pointed out that just on process the groundwork is far from being laid. The NATO mission in Libya was backed by a UN Security Council mandate and had broad regional support.
> 
> The Syrian uprising causes discomfort among decision-makers for good reason, according to Radwan Ziadeh, co-founder of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic studies. While Middle Eastern regimes like Iran must temper despotic impulses because of the need to sell oil, Syria is far less constrained by diplomatic considerations.
> 
> “For years now, Syrian foreign policy has hinged on making trouble with its neighbours,” said Mr. Ziadeh. “Syria depends on unrest among neighbours. If you want to bring stability to Iraq, to Lebanon, to Syria, to Iran, you have to change the Assad regime.”
> 
> But the way to do that is far from clear.
> 
> Mr. Ziadeh said the West could be honest about the limitations of its power and the double standard it applies in these cases. The West intervened in Libya because the mission was relatively easy. It won’t intervene in Syria because it would be bloody and expensive.
> 
> Senator John McCain said he favours recognizing Syria’s transitional council, a move also favoured by Mr. Ziadeh and a number of other experts.
> 
> Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak suggested Mr. al-Assad’s downfall is well underway and may be complete without much Western help.
> 
> “I think that [al-Assad] went beyond the point of no return, there’s no way he will resume his authority or legitimacy over his people,” Mr. Barak said during an on-stage interview at the forum.
> 
> “It’s not a linear process, but now will go on an even steeper slope. People within his armed forces, civil service, start to see the end, how to hedge their personal bets.”




This, requiring a UN _imprimatur_ for military actions, would be (broadly) consistent with 60+ years of Canadian policy under both Conservative and Liberal governments. (Yes, I am aware of the exceptions.)


----------



## 57Chevy

From Prison Planet and  shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Russia Arms Syria With Missiles To Defend Against NATO Attack
Paul Joseph Watson, 24 Nov
http://www.prisonplanet.com/russia-arms-syria-with-missiles-to-defend-against-nato-attack.html

We now know what those six Russian warships that reportedly entered Syrian territorial waters last week were carrying. Aside from representing a show of strength to discourage NATO powers from launching a military attack, on board were Russian technical experts ready to help Damascus set up a sophisticated missile defense system sold to them by Moscow.

“Russian warships that have reached waters off Syria in recent days were carrying, among other things, Russian technical advisors who will help the Syrians set up an array of S-300 missiles Damascus has received in recent weeks, a report in the London-based Arabic language Al Quds-Al Arabi said Thursday. Citing sources in Syria and Russia, the paper said that Moscow sees a Western attack on Syria as a “red line” that it will not tolerate,” reports Arutz Sheva.

The S-300 missiles, which according to the report will be used to “deflect a possible attack by NATO or the U.S. and EU,” are long range surface-to-air missiles developed by Russia in 1979 for the purpose of protecting large industrial and military bases from enemy attack aircraft and cruise missiles.

The system is widely regarded as one of the most powerful anti-aircraft arrays in modern warfare, having the ability to track up to 100 targets and engage 12 at any one time. Russia recently tried to sell the same system to Iran but the transaction was halted after pressure from the U.S. and Israel.

article continues at link
                               ______________________________________________

Russian S-300 Surface to Air Missile System
http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/russian-s-300-surface-to-air-missile-system/

The S-300P surface-to-air missile system—currently manufactured, deployed, and exported by the Russians—is designed to detect, track, and destroy incoming ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and low-flying aircraft. Also known by its NATO designation, SA-10 Grumble, the system has been modified several times since its inception: the most recent variants are the S-300PMU-1 (SA-10D) and the S-300PMU-2 (SA-10E Favorit).

more at link


----------



## Retired AF Guy

57Chevy said:
			
		

> From Prison Planet and  shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
> 
> Russia Arms Syria With Missiles To Defend Against NATO Attack
> Paul Joseph Watson, 24 Nov
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/russia-arms-syria-with-missiles-to-defend-against-nato-attack.html
> 
> We now know what those six Russian warships that reportedly entered Syrian territorial waters last week were carrying. Aside from representing a show of strength to discourage NATO powers from launching a military attack, on board were Russian technical experts ready to help Damascus set up a sophisticated missile defense system sold to them by Moscow.
> 
> “Russian warships that have reached waters off Syria in recent days were carrying, among other things, Russian technical advisors who will help the Syrians set up an array of S-300 missiles Damascus has received in recent weeks, a report in the London-based Arabic language Al Quds-Al Arabi said Thursday. Citing sources in Syria and Russia, the paper said that Moscow sees a Western attack on Syria as a “red line” that it will not tolerate,” reports Arutz Sheva.
> 
> ...........................



i would take anything coming out of Alex Jones with a grain of salt. First, there have been no indications that the Syrians have recently received the S-300 missile system. Even if they did it would take time (months?) to make the systems operational. The other thing is that there are no indications that NATO or anyone else is planning on attacking/intervening in Syria. Finally, the biggest threat to Assad is not external, but internal.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Israelis defeated Russian air defenses when they took out the nuclear reactor that the North Koreans had given them.

The Free Syrian Army killed 10 regime air force personnel including 6 pilots.The Syrian Air Force is a bastion of the regime.Targeting the air force would be key in overthrowing the regime.


----------



## 57Chevy

Tomahawk,
                   Agreed about the grain of salt. The Russians may be there more for intel reasons.
However Syria announced an intention to buy the S-300P in 1991 and now seems to possess the system according to Wikipedia.

From Debkafile and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
US carrier strike force enters Syrian waters. Russian carrier en route 
Special Report 26 Nov
http://www.debka.com/article/21521/
The Syrian crisis aassumed a big power dimension this week with the build-up of rival United States and Russia naval air carrier armadas in Syrian waters, debkafile's military sources report.

The USS George H.W. Bush arrived Wednesday, Nov. 23, in the wake of the three Russian warships anchored earlier opposite Tartus which established a command post in the Syrian port. They will be augmented by Russia's only air carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is due in mid-week.

By deploying 70 ship-borne fighter-bombers plus three heavy guided missile cruisers and five guided missile destroyers opposite Syria, Washington has laid down military support for any intervention the Arab League in conjunction with Turkey may decide on.

Bashar Assad can see for himself that Washington has hoisted a nuclear aerial umbrella to protect its allies, Israel, Turkey, and Jordan, against the retaliation his armed forces high command pledged Friday for the deaths of six Syrian air force elite pilots in an ambush Thursday.

For some time, Ankara has been weighing the creation of a protected haven for rebels and refugees inside Syria. France has proposed slicing "humanitarian corridors" through Syria for them to flee safely from military tank and gunfire and secure supply of food, medicines and other essential supplies to the cities under army siege.

Both plans would depend on being safeguarded by substantial ground and air strength inside Syria which would certainly face fierce resistance from Assad's military.

The Arab League has scheduled weekend meetings to decide how to proceed after Damascus ignored its Friday deadline for accepting hundreds of monitors. Saturday, Nov. 26, AL finance ministers will discuss economic sanctions. In the past 48 hours, at least 70 people were reported killed as the Syrian army continued its crackdown in the face of spreading armed opposition. 

The Russian Kuznetzov carrier and its accompanying strike vessels will join the three Russian warships parked opposite Tartus for more than a week. It will enter the same Syrian offshore waters as the USS Bush and the US Sixth Fleet, which is permanently posted in the Mediterranean.

The Syrian crisis is therefore building up to a superpower face-off unparalleled since the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union ended in the nineties, debkafile's military sources note.

While Washington clearly stands ready to back operations against the Assad regime, Moscow is drawing a red line around his presidential palace in Damascus. The Kremlin is warning the US, NATO and the Arab League that they will not be allowed to repeat their feat in Libya of overthrowing Muammar Qaddafi against Assad.

In the face of this escalating big power standoff and the high possibility of the Syrian ruler deciding to lash out against his country's neighbors, the Israeli, Jordanian and Turkey armies have declared a high state of war preparedness.
           _____________________________________________________________

France on the "humanitarian corridors" and also shared as above.

France seeking support for intervention in Syria
Dina Zayed and John Irish
Reuters 24 Nov
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/24/france-seeking-support-for-intervention-in-syria/

CAIRO/PARIS — France will seek Arab support on Thursday for a humanitarian corridor in Syria, the first time a major power has swung behind international intervention in the eight-month uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.

Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, who first floated the proposal for a humanitarian intervention on Wednesday, gave more details of the plan and said he would propose it to a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers gathering in Cairo to discuss Syria.

After months in which the international community has seemed determined to avoid any direct entanglement in one of the core countries of the Middle East, the diplomatic consensus seems to be changing.

The Arab League suspended Syria’s membership two weeks ago, accusing Assad of failing to fulfill a Nov. 2 pledge to halt the violence and withdraw troops from cities.

This week, the prime minister of regional heavyweight Turkey — a NATO member with the military wherewithal to mount a cross-border operation — compared Assad to Hitler, Mussolini and Gaddafi, and called on him to quit.

Juppe said international monitors should be sent to protect civilians, with or without Assad’s permission. He insisted the proposal fell short of a military intervention, but acknowledged that humanitarian convoys would need armed protection.

“There are two possible ways: That the international community, Arab League and the United Nations can get the regime to allow these humanitarian corridors,” he told French radio on Thursday. “But if that isn’t the case we’d have to look at other solutions … with international observers.”
                       ___________________________________________________

Map at link.


----------



## The Bread Guy

"Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:





> “Canada welcomes the Arab League’s courageous decision to put sanctions on the Assad regime.
> 
> “This is another important signal from Syria’s neighbours that the egregious behaviour of the Assad regime will not be tolerated.
> 
> “We are encouraged to hear of the Arab League’s plans to engage with the United Nations. The senseless violence occurring in Syria can no longer be ignored by the United Nations. We call on the UN to follow the Arab League’s decision and further isolate this reckless and illegitimate regime.
> 
> “We stand with the Syrian people, who seek to realize a brighter future for themselves—one that respects freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
> 
> “Canadians in Syria should leave now by commercial means while these are still available.”


----------



## 57Chevy

Americans have been asked to leave immediately (Nov 23)
Breaking: Americans urged to leave Syria “immediately”
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10940707-breaking-americans-urged-to-leave-syria-immediately
                                _____________________________________-

In case someone wants to know

Canadian Embassy in Syria

Contact Information for the Canadian Embassy in Syria

Canadian Embassy - Damascus, Syria 
Lot 12, Autostrade Mezzeh 
PO Box 3394 
Damascus, Syria 
Tel: 963 (11) 611-6692 
Fax: 963 (11) 611-4000


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


UN says 'crimes against humanity' committed in Syria 
You Tube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4uccjTC0cg


----------



## Jarnhamar

Nice place



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/11/28/syria-sanctions-reaction.html?cmp=rss



> A United Nations probe has found that Syrian troops killed hundreds of children and committed other "crimes against humanity" since the government crackdown began in March.
> 
> A panel of independent experts says at least 256 children were killed by government forces as of early November, with some boys sexually tortured and a two-year-old girl shot to death just to prevent her from growing up to be a demonstrator.


----------



## The Bread Guy

If Jack Granatstein's assessment of this Debka web site info ("usually reliable") is correct, Canadians _*may*_ be part of a team looking at "humanitarian corridors" in Syria:


> .... Monday, Nov. 28, debkafile reported a group of military officers from NATO and Persian Gulf nations had quietly established a mixed operational command at Iskenderun in the Turkish Hatay province on the border of North Syria:
> 
> Hailing from the United States, France, Canada, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, with Turkish officers providing liaison, they do not represent NATO but are self-designated "monitors." Their mission is to set up "humanitarian corridors" inside Syria to serve the victims of Bashar Assad's crackdown. Commanded by ground, naval, air force and engineering officers, the task force aims to move into most of northern Syria.
> 
> Laying the groundwork for the legitimacy of the combined NATO-Arab intervention in Syria, the UN Independent International Commission set up to assess the situation in Syria published a horrendous report Monday, Nov. 28 on the Assad regime's brutalities. It documented "gross violations of human rights" and "patterns of summary execution, arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance, torture including sexual violence, as well as violations of children's rights." ....


Full Debka report attached for a touch more context.


----------



## Kirkhill

Strangely enough the dominant ethnicity in N. Syria is (IIRC) Kurd.  The same people that the Turks have trouble with.  The same people the Iraqis have trouble with.  The same people that were protected under a No Fly Zone in Iraq after Gulf War I.

Will the new Turkish government support a Kurdish State based on Aleppo-Latakia - A "friendly" muslim buffer between the Turks and the Arabs (and the Persians)?


----------



## 57Chevy

Would this mean that it's alright to use force, but not to exagerate ?  :

From Reuters and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Islamic body urges Syria to stop "excessive force"
Asma Alsharif, JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia 01 Dec

(Reuters) - The world's largest Islamic body urged Syria on Wednesday to "immediately stop the use of excessive force" against its citizens to avert the threat of foreign intervention.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, told a news conference in the Red Sea City of Jeddah that foreign ministers attending an OIC meeting called on Damascus to quickly enter into a dialogue with its opponents and rejected foreign intervention in Syria.

"The executive committee (of the OIC) ... urges the Syrian authorities to immediately stop using excessive force against citizens and to respect human rights," a final statement said.

Syrian security forces have been using lethal force to crack down on demonstrations that began in March against 41 years of rule by Bashar al-Assad's family. Assad says his forces are confronting saboteurs inspired by foreign powers.

Wednesday's OIC meeting came after the Arab League suspended Syria and imposed sanctions over its violent crackdown on eight months of protests.

The League has demanded that Damascus allow a 500-strong monitoring mission into Syria.

A technical committee of the Arab League is scheduled to meet in the Qatari capital Doha on Saturday to discuss and announce what sanctions will be imposed on Damascus.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem left after the end of the meeting on Wednesday without speaking to journalists.

NO TO OUTSIDE INTERVENTION

Ihsanoglu earlier said the 57-member body wanted to try to resolve the crisis in Syria within the OIC without foreign intervention, saying the group opposed any plans to take the issue to the international community.

"We are keen to preserve Syria's safety, security and stability, and insist on rejecting the internationalisation of the Syrian crisis and on working towards resolving it within the broader Islamic family as represented by the OIC," Ihsanoglu said at the start of the meeting.

"We need to reiterate our stand against any internationalisation of the Syrian crisis," he told the meeting.

But at a news conference after the session, Ihsanoglu warned that Syria's failure to heed calls for a peaceful resolution would make internationalisation inevitable.

"If this problem is not solved within this family, it will go to other places ... We think and Syria thinks that it is better to solve the problem within this framework," he said.

Asked if the OIC had considered expelling Syria from its ranks, Ihsanoglu said that was not considered.

"Even in the Libyan crisis lately, the organisation did not take such a decision because expulsion does not achieve any goals but cuts lines of communication," he said.

Syria's biggest trade partner Turkey suspended all financial credit dealings with it on Wednesday and froze its government's assets, joining the Arab League in isolating President Bashar al-Assad over his military crackdown on opponents.

United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said he was still hoping Syria would admit observers and avoid sanctions.

European and Arab diplomats say the top United Nations human rights forum will paint a grim picture of events in Syria at a special session on Friday which is likely to condemn the Syrian government for crimes against humanity.

A U.N. report said on Monday Syrian forces have committed murder, torture and rape against pro-democracy protesters.


----------



## Jed

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If Jack Granatstein's assessment of this Debka web site info ("usually reliable") is correct, Canadians _*may*_ be part of a team looking at "humanitarian corridors" in Syria:Full Debka report attached for a touch more context.



I seem to recall that these plans were CONOPS done by tasked pers in the old UNTSO or UNDOF missions.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If Jack Granatstein's assessment of this Debka web site info ("usually reliable") is correct, Canadians _*may*_ be part of a team looking at "humanitarian corridors" in Syria:Full Debka report attached for a touch more context.



In the past, I've always taken anything from Debka with a grain of salt. The same goes for the reports here, especially the part about Canadian officers going to Turkey to setup some kind of intervention force in Syria. The thing is that I seem to remember our defence minister stating, recently, that Canada has no plans to intervene in Syria. The one part that I could believe is about the Turks intervening in northern Syria, but they've been saying that for some time, so nothing really new here.


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Russia delivers missiles to Syria
AFP 01 Dechttp://www.yourmiddleeast.com/news/russia-delivers-missiles-to-syria_3246

Russia has delivered supersonic cruise missiles to Syria despite the violence shaking the Arab country and Israel's furious condemnation of the deal, a news report said on Thursday.

"The Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles have been delivered to Syria," a military source told the Interfax news agency without disclosing when the shipment was made.

Russia signed a contract reportedly worth at least $300 million (222 million euros) in 2007 to supply its traditional Arab world ally with a large shipment of the cruise missiles.

Reports said Russia intended to deliver 72 of the missiles to Syria in all.

The deal immediately angered Israel, which fears the weapons may fall into the hands of Hezbollah militants in neighbouring Lebanon.

Russia has since also come under growing pressure from Washington, which wants all military sales to President Bashar al-Assad's regime halted because of his deadly crackdown on Syrian street protests.

But Moscow has defended Assad against global pressure and this week argued that its arms sales were permitted under international law and would continue.
                                     ___________________________________________

P-800 Oniks (Yakhont)

The P-800 Oniks (Russian: П-800 Оникс, alternatively termed Yakhont (Яхонт) for export markets; "Oniks" is onyx, and "Yakhont" is ruby or sapphire in English) is a Russian (former Soviet) supersonic anti-ship cruise missile developed by NPO Mashinostroyeniya as a ramjet version of P-80 Zubr. Its GRAU designation is 3M55. Development reportedly started in 1983, and by 2001 allowed the launch of the missile from land, sea, air and submarine. The missile has the NATO reporting codename SS-N-26. It is reportedly a replacement for the P-270 Moskit, but possibly also for the P-700 Granit. The P-800 was reportedly used as the basis for the joint Russian-Indian supersonic missile the PJ-10 BrahMos.

Sergei Prikhodko, senior adviser to the Russia President, has said that Russia intends to deliver P-800 to Syria. However Syria lacks any aircraft that can launch this missile and any ability to track targets over the horizon for it, so will be limited to line of sight attacks from ships and ground platforms. Israel is more concerned that these missiles may be transferred to Hezbollah for a repeat of the INS Hanit incident.
                                 ____________________________________________

YouTube
P-800 Oniks (Yakhont) Anti-ship Cruise Missile Launch 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNztSsjmLYU


----------



## tamouh

sean m said:
			
		

> Interesting video, the journalist is in Syria and gets the opinions of Syrian citizens. Who knows if this video is bias or not.  Seems odd, since I had thought, that the Assad regime did not let in foreign media. The reporters seems to be transported by the Syrian government, it is ironic that almost everyone he meets are pro Assad or more anti protesters. The video states that the protestors are mainly sunni.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/journeymanpictures?blend=1&ob=4#p/c/3A4C018BB1B234EC/2/Zh7ksVJuseg



Fully biased journalisim. It is a matter of fact that foreign journalists are not allowed in Syria, and if anyone allowed would be on the condition they travel with a government designated personnel (claim for security, but really to manipulate where/what they can see).

If you want unbiased journalism, check France, SkyNews, BBC whom sent undercover journalists to Syria in the past few months. Some of the journalists had to smuggle themselves into the country. Others, came down as tourists and disappeared.

Exmaple of the how difficult it will be to get in even as a tourist, Try to land in Damascus airport, and just bring up you're remotely associated with the BBC, the security agents will not let you leave the airport at best!


----------



## 57Chevy

From the Vancouver Sun and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


Canada arranging 'voluntary evacuation' from Syria
Postmedia News, 15 Dec
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Canada+arranging+voluntary+evacuation+from+Syria/5864932/story.html

Urging Canadians to flee the volatility in Syria now before it's too late, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird on Thursday announced Canada is launching a "voluntary evacuation" to help the estimated 5,000 Canadians who are believed to be in that country.

Baird expressed concerns sanctions imposed by the Arab League on Thursday, limiting air travel, could leave Canadians trapped if they don't move quickly to flee the deteriorating situation.

"The time to leave Syria is now," he told a news conference in Ottawa.

"The writing on the wall could not be more clear."

Baird said that, as part of the voluntary evacuation, Canadian officials "will provide facilitated services to assist Canadians in preparing for their departure."

The minister also said that military involvement in Syria — such as Canada undertook during the NATO mission to Libya — is not something this country is considering.

The uprising in Syria against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad is now in its 10th month.

Syria has also imposed restrictions on the movements of Canadian diplomats in the country, Baird said.

Diane Ablonczy, the minister of State of Foreign Affairs, said Thursday that Canadians can go to the embassy in Damascus for help, go online, or call the hotline.

Expedited visas will be made available for people travelling with Canadians, Baird said.

There are about 1,500 Canadians registered as being in Syria and an estimated 5,000 believed to be there in total.

"The government is ready to provide specialized consular services to those who wish to leave," Baird explained.

"Our embassy in Damascus is also available to assist Canadians in Syria, as well as their spouses and their dependent children, with the needed travel documents, visas between now and Jan. 14, 2012.

"I must warn that should Canadians stay in Syria, we will not be able to guarantee the current service at our embassy or that commercial options to leave the country will remain available. I will end by re-iterating again, we strongly encourage Canadian citizens and their spouses and dependents to apply for travel documents now."

He added that while there are no plans at the moment to close the embassy in Syria, officials have relocated the children of embassy staff.

Canadian citizens in Syria requiring consular assistance should contact the Canadian Embassy in Damascus at 963 (11) 611-6692, 611-6851, or 611-6870, or call Foreign Affairs Canada's Emergency Operations Centre collect at 613-944-2471.


----------



## 57Chevy

From BBC News and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Syria crisis: Russia circulates surprise UN resolution
15 Dec
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16210330

Russia has circulated a UN Security Council resolution aimed at ending the crisis in Syria, in a move that surprised the Western nations.

The draft condemns the violence by both Syria's government and the opposition, but does not mention sanctions.

Western nations said the proposal was not tough enough, but that they were prepared to work on the document.

article continues at link...


----------



## Journeyman

From CBC today:
UN tells Syrian leader to 'stop killing your people'

Finally. That ought to quiet things down.   :




Someone please tell me again why we even bother with League of Nations 2


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Russia circulates revised Syria resolution 17 Jan 
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle11.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2012/January/middleeast_January454.xml&section=middleeast

Russia circulated a revised UN Security Council resolution on the violence in Syria but Western diplomats said it fell short of their demand for strong condemnation of President Bashar Assad’s crackdown on civilians. 

The Security Council has been unable to agree on a resolution since the violence began in March because of deep divisions between its veto-wielding permanent members. 

In October, Russia and China vetoed a West European draft resolution, backed by the U.S., that condemned Assad’s attacks and threatened sanctions. 

Moscow and Beijing oppose any mention of sanctions and say Assad’s militant opponents must also be condemned, but Western nations say there can be no equivalence between the violence caused by the Syrian regime and the attacks by militant opponents of Assad. 

Russia took the council by surprise in mid-December, introducing a draft resolution that called on all parties to stop the violence. It cited the ‘disproportionate use of force by Syrian authorities’ and urged the Syrian government ‘to put an end to suppression of those exercising their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association’ but contained no threat of sanctions. 

Although the Russian draft didn’t meet Western demands, the US and its European allies saw it as a potentially positive sign and submitted a series of amendments. Western nations have complained publicly and privately at Russia’s slow response in coming up with a revised text — a charge Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin rejected in late December. 

Diplomats said the draft resolution sent to the 15 council nations Monday doesn’t appear to be a compromise. 

Rather than producing new language, diplomats said, the Russians included their original text alongside most amendments proposed by other council members — but Moscow didn’t make clear whether it has accepted any changes or not. 

The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the text has not been make public, said council experts would meet Tuesday afternoon to discuss the new draft.


----------



## a_majoor

Syria still has friends:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/01/19/tehran-and-moscow-double-down-in-syria/



> *Tehran and Moscow Double Down in Syria*
> 
> The Syrian outlook continues to worsen.
> 
> Latest update: Russia and Iran have been caught with their hands in the Syrian cookie jar. The U.S. Treasury Department recently exposed Iran’s efforts to help Syria evade international sanctions on oil exports, while Russia was caught shipping weapons to Assad. The WSJ reports:
> American officials investigating the Iranian operation said it is designed to quietly ship Syrian crude oil to Iran, where it can be sold on the international market, with revenue going back to Damascus…
> 
> This month, Cyprus intercepted a St. Petersburg-based ship, the Chariot, that was moving four containers of munitions bound for the Syrian port of Tartus, according to Cypriot officials. Cyprus eventually released the ship after assurances from its Russian owners that it wouldn’t complete the delivery, according to Cypriot officials.
> 
> But Moscow this week confirmed the arms shipment was made.
> 
> With this kind of material and financial support, Assad hopes to keep his side in the game.  Currently, the Free Syrian Army is reported to consist of just a few hundred soldiers; nor do they have the necessary equipment to fight a civil war. Meanwhile, the Syrian political opposition, mostly operating from abroad, is tentatively united, but lacks a clear plan and concrete support.
> 
> How will regional powers, like Turkey and Qatar respond? Probably by arming the opposition. If so, we can expect the conflict to grow bloodier still and the sectarian passions ripping at what is left of the fabric of Syrian society will have time to intensify.
> 
> For Syria’s sake, and the region’s, the Assad family and its closest friends need to leave.  Via Meadia likes to see murderers behind bars as much as anybody else, but under the circumstances an offer of amnesty and a reasonable cash settlement seem in the best interests of all concerned. Perhaps there are some nice empty dachas somewhere on the Black Sea.


----------



## 57Chevy

They are also creating enemies.
Unlike Saleh of Yemen who seeks forgiveness and offers up apologies for his shortcomings,
Assad is gearing up for a tarring from the Saudis.
Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act.

Pressure mounts on Syria's regime

Saudis pull out; Join Qatar in call for international action

By RICHARD SPENCER and RUTH SHERLOCK, The Daily Telegraph January 23, 2012

Saudi Arabia joined Qatar in calling for international action in Syria Sunday and announced it was pulling its members out of an Arab League monitoring mission.

The region's major oil power put new pressure on President Bashar Assad, accusing his regime of using the month-long mission to "hide its crimes."

"It is not a quality of Arab leaders to kill their people," said Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister.

The statement overshadowed an Arab League proposal to renew the mission for another month. Qatar called for a review of the mission possibly leading to the dispatch of Arab troops to act as peacekeepers.

Opposition groups reacted angrily to Arab League Secretary-General Nabil al-Araby's proposal, which made no mention of referring the crisis to the United Nations.

"The observers don't do anything," said Rami Shaheen, who had been jailed in the city of Dera'a, but has since managed to flee to Egypt.

"Now our revolutionaries are asking that they refer this to the UN Security Council."

Araby attacked the Assad regime, saying it had not fulfilled its promises to implement the League's peace plan. But he also said the mission was encouraging Syrians to express themselves more freely.

In Douma, clashes began on Saturday night at the funeral of Mohammed Said Maddah, a protester who had been shot.

"The criminal Assad gangs waged a surprise attack and shot at them, using machine guns, rockets and snipers as they approached the Hawwa mosque," said Omar al-Khani, of the Syrian Revolutionary Command in Damascus. "We have confirmation of dozens of casualties."

The Free Syrian Army stepped in, Khani said. Fighting broke out and spread until the army withdrew.

"The FSA managed to kill seven or eight troops and capture one officer," said an activist who claimed to have been present at the funeral.

Video from the town on Sunday showed armed FSA rebels patrolling openly.

Douma is the second town in the vicinity of Damascus to have declared itself free of government control, after Zabadani.

"He is losing his forces, that is apparent. He is getting weaker day by day. More frequently now the leaders of the troops run away," said an activist in Douma.

The Arab League argues that the regime is softening its stance because of the monitors' presence.

The regime may have been keen to avoid the fighting that would be necessary to reclaim the two towns while the League decided on its next steps.

A majority of Arab states, including Tunisia and Egypt, fear that international action might trigger further violence.

However, Saudi Arabia's political clout and Qatar's growing assertiveness mean that those hoping for continued engagement with the Assad regime are holding an ever thinner line.


Photo:
Saudi Prince Saud al-Faisal opposes the Arab League plan.
Photograph by: KHALED DESOUKI AFP, GETTY IMAGES, The Daily Telegraph


----------



## GAP

Russia closes deal on $550 million worth of warplanes for Syria

Russia has remained a staunch supporter of Syria's President Assad, blocking UN efforts to impose an international arms embargo. 

By Fred Weir, Correspondent / January 23, 2012 
Article Link

Russia has closed a contract to sell half-a-billion dollars worth of warplanes to Syria, just the latest sign that Moscow intends to carry on business-as-usual with the embattled regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

According to the Moscow business daily Kommersant, the $550 million contract to purchase 36 Yak-130 Mitten combat trainers was signed in December, even as the 11-month-old uprising against four decades of rule by the Assad family was gathering steam and turning very bloody. According to United Nations estimates, more than 5,400 people have died since March, when the uprising began. 

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov last week dismissed any questions about Russian arms sales to Syria by saying "we don't consider it necessary to explain ourselves or justify ourselves, because we are not violating any international agreements or any [UN] Security Council resolutions."

The European Union approved an arms embargo on Syria last year. The UN Security Council has sought to do the same, but has been blocked by Russia, which has veto power. 
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6

Assad's forces are trying to retake the Ghouta district, a suburb of Damascus.Two thousand troops backed by armor went in at dawn. The revolution is getting closer to the regime every week.


----------



## tamouh

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Assad's forces are trying to retake the Ghouta district, a suburb of Damascus.Two thousand troops backed by armor went in at dawn. The revolution is getting closer to the regime every week.


There is continued fighting in the Ghotta district. Yesterday Al-Arabiya and several news outlets had reported Damascus airport was shutdown and the main highway linking Damascus to the airport was heavily fortified by Al-Assad army. Today, the neighbourhood of Saqba in the suburb of Damascus is still in the hands of the FSA (Free Syrian Army). There are reports that the FSA continues to hold ground in the Ghoutta district despite Al-Assad army entering that district.

Fighting is also intensifying in the Deir Zour - eastern city of Syria, Rastan near the restive city of Homs.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Assaud's wife was supposedly stopped trying to get to the airport with her children and was turned around by rebel forces.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093479/Assads-British-born-wife-children-caught-trying-flee-Damascus-Syrian-rebels-blow-key-gas-pipeline.html


----------



## a_majoor

Sadly, there isn't much hope for more than a stalemate right now, and time is not on the side of the revolution:

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/29/why-syrias-regime-is-surviving-a-revolution/?print=1



> *Why Syria’s Regime Is Surviving a Revolution*
> 
> Posted By Barry Rubin On January 29, 2012 @ 4:42 pm In Uncategorized | 28 Comments
> 
> Despite what is now the longest-running revolution in Middle Eastern history, the Syrian regime will probably be in power on December 31, 2012. I don’t say that because it’s what I want to happen — Syria’s revolution is more democratic-minded than those in Libya or Egypt; the government is far more repressive than the former dictatorships in Tunisia or Egypt — but because it seems inevitable.
> 
> Why is it that, after so many months of massive demonstrations and really bloody repression, President Bashar al-Assad seems likely to survive? Of course no one knows what will happen, but there are three reasons to think that Assad’s regime is surviving, though the cost of that will be a great deal of suffering and the wrecking of the country.
> 
> First, the rulers know that it is a case of kill or be killed. Given the hated and sectarian nature of the regime — overwhelmingly dominated by Alawites who comprise only about 12 percent of the population — the elite can expect no mercy if it falls. At least, the Alawite elite and its closest allies among the Sunni Arab Muslims will lose their wealth and power; at most, they and even their families will lose their lives.
> 
> A negotiated solution of any sort is not a real possibility and the elite’s members — including army generals — are aware that they must all hang together or they will all hang separately. When they look at Egypt, where they see the former president on trial and the armed forces under serious challenge, they are not encouraged to believe they should compromise with the opposition. And when they saw the former leaders of Iraq and Libya executed, that conclusion is reinforced.
> 
> Second, the revolutionaries don’t have a strategy for seizing state power. Daily they hold courageous demonstrations and suffer severe losses through killings and repression, yet the protests cannot force a determined dictatorship out of power. As in Iran — but not as in Egypt and Tunisia, where the armies were unwilling to mow down their own people — the regime’s ruthlessness makes it quite willing to pursue a strategy of brutality.
> 
> The Free Syrian Army is the opposition’s other potential route to power. But it remains too small, too inexperienced (many or most of its recruits are not former soldiers), and too lacking in international support to overthrow the dictatorship by force.
> 
> Third, the Syrian dictatorship is receiving ample international support, mainly from Iran but also from Russia. While the Arab League has supposedly come out against the regime, its intervention is so toothless and time-wasting that it serves the regime: as long as the League doesn’t call for tougher measures, neither will Western countries.
> 
> The lack of Western intervention is another international problem for the opposition and advantage for the regime. At present, the opposition has two main requests, drawn from experience in Iraq and Libya. It asks that the West impose a no-fly zone on the Syrian military and that it help establish an exclusion area along the Turkey-Syria frontier where refugees and dissidents can flee, an opposition government can create a liberated zone, and the Free Syrian Army can mobilize.
> 
> There does not appear to be the slightest chance of this happening. Why? I almost wish that I could say it was due to Western fear of an Islamist takeover of Syria. In fact, however, the U.S. government has actually helped the Islamists there. The real reason is fear of making another Middle East commitment, along with a strange radical ideology in the West which makes it more eager to help anti-Western forces than friendly ones.
> 
> Obviously, no one could seriously propose sending Western forces to Syria. Yet enforcing a no-flight zone would be a relatively easy, low-cost effort that might help break the regime that has been the main Arab sponsor of terrorism (always exceeding Iraq in that respect) during the last forty years, and also the Arab government that has done the most to sabotage any Arab-Israeli negotiated settlement. Again though, there isn’t any chance of this happening, certainly not under an Obama administration. Indeed, Russia is selling Syria advanced warplanes so the regime can attack the opposition more effectively! So much for a no-fly zone.
> 
> What might break President Bashar al-Assad’s regime? Other than his being assassinated, the only likely development would be if some Syrian generals decided that the rest of the elite can only survive by eliminating him and his family. Even then, though, they would probably try to continue the regime under a different name, offering the opposition a face-saving compromise of making some concessions in exchange for an end to the revolt. This is an offer the opposition, unless it is really desperate by that point, might well reject as insufficient.
> 
> Nevertheless, the prospects are quite likely that Assad will be in power when the year ends. If the deadlock goes on without apparent end, the revolution might die down as it did in Iran. Syria will then be another case to show that revolutions usually succeed only when the elite is divided and loses its nerve, rather than being an inevitably victorious response to oppression.
> 
> It will also show that in the Middle East only pro-Western regimes (including the temporarily “cooperative” Libyan dictatorship) get overthrown. In contrast, anti-Western governments prosper, often with Western protection or help. Go figure.
> 
> Article printed from Rubin Reports: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/29/why-syrias-regime-is-surviving-a-revolution/



Thinl back to the 2009-2010 Green Revolution, when tens of thousands of Iranians were protesting in the streets. The reason their signs were in English was their hope that the US Administration would provide some sort of support, but no help was forthcoming then, and the Syrians know no help is coming now.


----------



## tamouh

> Thinl back to the 2009-2010 Green Revolution, when tens of thousands of Iranians were protesting in the streets. The reason their signs were in English was their hope that the US Administration would provide some sort of support, but no help was forthcoming then, and the Syrians know no help is coming now.



Initially I used to think the same way, however, the situation on the ground had changed so drastically that the resemblance with the Iranian Green Revolution is not plausible. The Green Revolution did not evolve into an urban warfare with small, yet determined, soldiers securing whole neighbourhoods and even cities. 

Few things to consider when constructing scenarios for how things will progress in Syria:

a) Corruption is rooted deep in the Syrian regime.  A clear example is how for 8 or so months, the FSA (Free Syrian Army) continues to arm itself.  Another example, many of the brutal videos that showed Assad militiamen torturning and abusing civilians were bought off the person who recorded them. Anything and everything is up for sale.

b) The majority of the population is against the Assad regime. This creates an atmosphere friendly for the opposition and FSA.

c) Economic sanctions are hitting the regime hard. The move to cut off the Syrian regime economically and swiftly has accelerated the deterioration of the regime. Yes, Iran and Russia can still provide support, but the Syrian Lira had dropped 50% in value in the past 3 months. Inflation is running rapid and energy supplies are scarce.

d) The pressure is increasing on the regime both internally and externally. The FSA though small in number have been able to penetrate Damascus to the level they've secured whole neighbourhoods as close as 20 minutes from the presidential palace. This is significant because not until recently, the FSA was limited to the mountain areas and Homs province.  Try to imagine the thoughts in Bashar Al-Assad's head when he hears the shelling and gunfire in his own comfortable palace while everyone around falsely assures him everything is under control.

I doubt Bashar Al-Assad will survive for 3 more months, but his regime and the security state his father had founded may still exist after he is gone. This will all depend on who blinks first, the regime or the people. Though everyone knows the Assad regime has not ran out of options. Until now, heavy weaponry and airplanes have not been used (Lessons learned from Libya perhaps).


----------



## 57Chevy

Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Mideast officials slam UN, urge diplomatic break with Syria
Agence France-Presse February 5, 2012
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Mideast+officials+slam+over+Syria/6104634/story.html#ixzz1lWNdB5dR


MUNICH, Germany — Arab leaders and officials attacked the UN Sunday after Russia and China blocked a resolution condemning the Damascus regime, as Tunisia urged the world to cut diplomatic ties with Syria.

Tunisian Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali said Moscow and Beijing's actions showed the veto system of the Security Council was flawed and said the two countries had "misused" their right to block the resolution against Syria.

"Undoubtedly the international community has to reconsider this mechanism of decision taking," said Jebali.

Turkey's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said that "Cold War" logic had prevailed in the Security Council and that Russia and China "did not vote on existing realities."

On Saturday, Russia and China employed their veto to block a UN resolution against Syria that aimed to end violence there after one of the bloodiest weekends since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad erupted about 11 months ago.

Militants said more than 230 civilians perished under bombardment by Syrian forces in the city of Homs overnight Friday.

Egypt's foreign minister, Mohamed Amr, said the Arab League would convene in Cairo on Saturday and "evaluate" the situation following the Security Council vote.

"Bloodshed has to stop. This is a tragedy that cannot be allowed to continue in our midst," he said.

The criticism was not limited to politicians, with the director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, saying the veto had rendered the United Nations "irrelevant".

Jebali said that in the absence of strong UN action, countries should take their own action by cutting all diplomatic ties with Damascus, as Tunisia has already done.

"We have to expel Syrian ambassadors from Arab and other countries," the prime minister said.

"The Syrian people do not expect from us today long statements . . . they are expecting deeds, they are expecting concrete measures . . . the very least we can do is to cut all relations to the Syria regime," he added.

Qatari minister of state for foreign affairs, Khalid Mohamed al-Attiyah, described Saturday as a "sad day".
He said Russia and China's move was a "bad signal to Assad that gives a license to kill, full stop."

Speaking at the same event, Yemeni Nobel peace laureate Tawakkul Karman also called on the international community to expel Syrian ambassadors from their countries and recall diplomats in the wake of the violence there.

"I urge you in the name of the peaceful rebels to expel Syrian ambassadors from your countries and I urge you to call back your ambassadors in Damascus," Karman said.

With their veto, China and Russia "bear the moral and human responsibility for these massacres," she said.

U.S. independent Senator Joe Lieberman said that with their actions, China and Russia were "on the wrong side of history" and they could find themselves as isolated as Assad if they refused to budge.

The United States should look at providing weapons and other aid to Syrian rebels if Russia and China refuse to reconsider, said Lieberman.

"We have a range of support we can give them," he told the panel.

"Some of it is non-lethal, including medical supplies . . . and then ultimately it is providing them with weapons," said the senator.


----------



## WRC559

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hmmm.....a collection of workshops, empty barracks, and some logistic assets intended to support the Russian Mediterranean Squadron -- which was disbanded in 1991.
> 
> Yep, that's a pretty compelling reason to believe armageddon is on the horizon.  op:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit to add: While I regret giving the tinfoil-hat wackjob "wrc559" any further attention, citing his website as a source for _anything_ (other than to chuckle at conspiracy theorists) speaks volumes about one's "reason."  :



Not a problem mate, We will be looking out for you too.
us "Tin Foil Hat" wearers are pretty scary to be around, especially while the SUPERbowl is on. (We are all entitled to our own opinions) So we hope you enjoy the information we share at WRC559.com and that you can benefit from some information there.

All the best!
WRC559


----------



## WRC559

reason said:
			
		

> lol. yeah, maybe i was starting to believe in the conspiracy a little too much about a WW3.
> i cant help but think its possible tho. with iran and syria being very close allies also having ties to russia, turkey and saudi want to intervene, backed by nato, israel / rest of the arab nations likley to get involved. who knows what will happen.
> 
> 
> im continually following the news in syria.



You my friend, are on the path to success, when we talk of WW3, Why are we classified as Conspiracy theorists. When your american media tells you that the economy is fine, Giving you nothing but false information why are they not discredited. When the Conspiracy theorists have many theories that have been correct, are still put down.. Oh its because we are all trained to follow the crowed. Perhaps remember, Nothing is more powerful then the ability to think for ones self.


ALL THE BEST
WRC559


----------



## tamouh

Source: BBC News Journalist Paul Wood - on the ground from Homs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16912756



> Mortars began to fall, steadily, a few minutes after 06:00. Each blast echoed around the narrow streets.
> 
> At first, that caused defiant cries of "God is great". But then heavy artillery was used; then airburst bombs.
> 
> Now this part of Homs appears deserted. There are no voices outside, only the din of shells coming in and exploding.
> 
> Occasionally a frightened resident peers quickly out of a window before disappearing.
> 
> "There is rubble in everywhere," said a local cameraman, running back inside, breathless, a moment ago. "Power lines are down. There is not a single person on the street."
> 
> Under the constant shell-fire, people were becoming slightly hysterical: The army was "about to attack with chemical weapons"; The army was "already invading with ground troops".
> 
> Neither was true, though one credible eyewitness said he had seen troops moving up to the edge of this area.
> 
> The security forces seem to be about one kilometre away. There is no invasion yet - and perhaps there won't be one - but that is what people fear and expect.
> No safe place
> 
> In the first hour or so, we heard a lot of gunfire from rebel fighters of the Free Syria Army. It was a futile gesture - Kalashnikovs against artillery.
> 
> Now their commanders have given an order for ammunition to be preserved. It will be used later, either to counter-attack or if the regime's forces enter, they say.
> Continue reading the main story
> 
> Opposition activists have counted more than 25 dead in Homs so far on Monday (though there is no independent confirmation of that figure). The houses here don't have basements. There is nowhere safe to hide.
> 
> Syrian state television denied that there had been any bombardment. It said residents were setting fire to piles of rubbish on the roofs of their homes to trick the world into thinking that there was an attack.
> 
> There is no doubt, however, from what we have seen and heard, that hundreds of shells and mortars have been fired at this place during the day.
> 
> As I write this, the windows of the house we are in are still reverberating from the impact of a shell, probably in the next street.
> 
> It is true that people have been setting fire to rubbish in the streets. They believe it will confuse the guidance systems of rockets apparently being fired at them. They are probably mistaken.
> 
> People in this part of Homs say these are the worst days they have known since the beginning of the uprising, almost a year ago. The bombing has been going on for several days now.
> 
> Most of the casualties we have seen were civilians. We were at a field clinic on Sunday during a mortar attack lasting several hours. A teenaged boy was brought in with horrific injuries, most of his face gone.
> 
> In the corridor, a woman was screaming. Her only son had just been brought in on a stretcher, his left foot severed by the blast. She was hysterical, but not incoherent. "Give us guns, we cannot defend ourselves," she shouted, before someone led her away.
> Continue reading the main story
> 
> 
> It is also true that some of the dead are fighters. We went to the prayers for one on Sunday, a member of the Free Army, as the rebels call themselves. His body was laid on the carpeted floor of the mosque, flowers on his chest. Two men - perhaps brothers - knelt over him, kissing his forehead, and weeping.
> 
> The man had died a couple of hours earlier while attacking a government base said to be used by snipers.
> 
> The regime accuses the Free Army - "terrorists" or "armed gangs" in the language of official spokesmen - of causing most of the violence.
> 
> I put that to the Free Army commander in this part of Homs.
> 
> "No," said Captain Mohammed Idris, who defected from the regime's army only in December. "Everything we do is to defend our people. The regime can't get to us - so it retaliates against civilians instead."
> Little dignity
> 
> Civilians are certainly paying the price. In the field clinic, a man was carefully wrapping the body of a seven-year-old girl in a white sheet. She had been killed when a mortar fell on her home. They wrote her name on the shroud, Nuha al Manal.
> 
> Like all the dead in this part of Homs, she was buried in darkness. They have been doing that here for many months; daytime is too dangerous. In the pitch black, a volunteer ran across the graveyard carrying her body.
> 
> There was no family; no prayers, and little dignity, just a hurried burial. Even as they covered her body with earth, there were shots fired in their direction.
> 
> "The UN abandoned us," one Homs resident told me. "Who's going to help us now, who's going to help us now?"
> 
> People said that to me over and over; that they felt abandoned, alone.
> 
> After the failure of the vote in the UN Security Council at the weekend, they have lost hope that the outside world will help.
> 
> They expect the worst from a regime they fear can now act without restraint.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A couple of new Canadian tidbits....


> The official Opposition wants Canada's ambassador recalled from Syria, but the government says he will stay in the besieged country to blast President Bashar Assad for his attacks on domestic dissenters.
> 
> NDP foreign affairs critic Helene Laverdiere urged the government to recall the envoy because she said it would send a strong message to Assad, who has waged a bloody 11-month crackdown on dissent in his country that has left thousands dead.
> 
> A Syrian military offensive against people in the city of Homs has entered its third straight day.
> 
> The Obama administration closed the U.S. embassy in Damascus on Monday and recalled all diplomatic staff. Britain recalled its ambassador to Syria and expressed its disgust over the situation.
> 
> "It's not a question of cutting diplomatic ties completely," Laverdiere said Monday. "Our position does not go as far as that of the United States."
> 
> Chris Day, spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, indicated that Canada had no plans at this time to further draw down its diplomatic staff after calling home several diplomats last week.
> 
> Canada reduced its staff to "core personnel only" but kept Ambassador Glenn Davidson at his post, with a small skeleton staff ....


The Canadian Press, 6 Feb 12



> Canada will raise China and Russia’s “deeply disappointing” decision to veto the condemnation of the Syrian government’s crackdown on civilian protests during this week’s trade mission, Canadian officials said Sunday.
> 
> Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs, told CBC News that Canada would pursue “diplomatic efforts” with China and Russia.
> 
> "We will be talking to the Chinese and to the Russians, and explaining to them our view, as to why their veto is wrong," Obhrai said Sunday.
> 
> On Saturday, China joined Russia to veto the United Nations Security Council’s move for a tougher response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Thirteen countries voted for the resolution drafted by Arab and European nations which would have given strong backing to an Arab League plan to end the crisis in Syria.
> 
> Chris Day, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s spokesman, told Postmedia News that discussions regarding the region will take place on the trip to the middle kingdom.
> 
> “We will discuss a range of global issues with our hosts, including the situation in the Middle East,” Day said ....


Postmedia News, 6 Feb 12


----------



## exabedtech

Oh yes!  It sure would send a STRONG message.  I expect that if we closed our embassy, peace would break out immediately and they'd open a McDonalds on every street corner.  :sarcasm:  
Just my opinion... but I'd think that if you're after a diplomatic solution, you may want to have the odd diplomat handy.


----------



## GAP

Syria's most senior defector: Assad's army is close to collapse
Bashar al-Assad's army is close to a collapse that could plunge the Middle East into a "nuclear reaction", its most senior defector has told The Sunday Telegraph. 
Article Link
 By Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent 05 Feb 2012

In his first full-length newspaper interview, General Mustafa al-Sheikh, who has taken refuge in Turkey, gave an apocalyptic insider's view of the state of the regime – despite its attempt to reassert control this weekend.

He said only a third of the army was at combat readiness due to defections or absenteeism, while remaining troops were demoralised, most of its Sunni officers had fled, been arrested, or sidelined, and its equipment was degraded.

"The situation is now very dangerous and threatens to explode across the whole region, like a nuclear reaction," he said.

The failure of President Assad to keep a tight grip even on the towns and suburbs around Damascus, some of which have driven out the army for periods in recent weeks, has led to a reassessment of his forces' unity.

When Gen Sheikh fled over the border from his town in the north of the country in the second half of November, he thought the army could hold out against a vastly outnumbered opposition for a year or more. Now, he said, attacks by the rebels' Free Syrian Army were escalating as the rank and file withered away due to lack of belief in the cause. 
More on link


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'd say it's totally up to the Arab League to put together a coalition, amongst themselves, and go in and sort it. They have the men and equipment. It's about time they took care of their own problems.


----------



## tamouh

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'd say it's totally up to the Arab League to put together a coalition, amongst themselves, and go in and sort it. They have the men and equipment. It's about time they took care of their own problems.



Sure, but who is gonna back them up? The Syrians themselves can oust the regime without the need for NATO or US to intervene. If the West or even Arabs just provide the logistics for the people on the ground, the Assad regime will not last for long. 

You see all these nations coming up on TV claiming they support the protestors? They are just talk. Turkey does not even allow the delivery of medical supplies to Syria, the same thing with Jordan. Lebanon and Iraq are on the side of the Assad regime.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Now the Arab League wants a UN _peacekeeping_ force, according to this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/arab-league-calls-for-un-joint-peacekeeping-in-syria/article2335441/


> Arab League calls for UN joint peacekeeping in Syria
> 
> HAMZA HENDAWI
> 
> Cairo— The Associated Press
> Published Sunday, Feb. 12, 2012
> 
> 
> The Arab League will call Sunday for the U.N. Security Council to create a joint peacekeeping force for Syria, the latest effort by the regional group to end the 11-month old crisis that has killed more than 5,000 people.
> 
> The new effort is spelled out in a draft resolution obtained by The Associated Press and expected to be adopted by League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo. However, Syria is unlikely to accept a joint U.N.-Arab League peacekeeping force.
> 
> Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal conveyed the League's frustration with Syria by telling delegates it was no longer appropriate for the league to stand by and watch the bloodshed in Syria.
> 
> “Until when will we remain spectators?” he said. “It is a disgrace for us as Muslims and Arabs to accept” the bloodshed in Syria, he said.
> 
> The Arab League has been at the forefront of regional efforts to end 11 months of bloodshed in Syria. The group put forward a plan that President Bashar al-Assad agreed to in December, then sent in monitors to check whether the Syrian regime was complying. But when it became clear that Mr. al-Assad's regime was flouting the terms of the agreement and killings went on, the League pulled the observers out last month.
> 
> The draft resolution calls for an immediate cease-fire in Syria and demands regime forces lift the siege on neighborhoods and villages and pull troops and their heavy weapons back to their barracks.
> 
> It urges Syrian opposition groups to unite ahead of a Feb. 24 meeting in Tunisia of the “Friends of Syria” group,” which includes the United States, its European allies and Arab nations working to end the uprising against Assad's authoritarian rule.
> 
> The creation of the group came after last weekend's veto at the U.N. by Russia and China of a Western and Arab draft resolution that would have pressured Mr. al-Assad to step down. That resolution also would have demanded that Mr. al-Assad halt the crackdown on dissent and implement the Arab League peace plan that calls for him to hand over power to his vice president and allow creation of a unity government to clear the way for elections.
> 
> The League also wants to provide the opposition groups with political and material support. It calls for a halt to all diplomatic contacts with Syria and for referring officials responsible for crimes against the Syrian people to international criminal tribunals. It urges a tightening of trade sanctions previously adopted by the League but not been fully implemented.
> 
> The group meeting in Cairo was also considering a proposal to expel Syrian ambassadors from Arab capitals.
> 
> The League officials said the group would also call on Syrian opposition groups to close ranks and unite under one umbrella, a move that they said would place more pressure on the al-Assad regime.
> 
> Washington piled more pressure on Syria.
> 
> President Barack Obama's Chief of Staff Jacob Lew said it was only a matter of time before Assad's regime collapsed.
> 
> “The brutality of the Assad regime is unacceptable and has to end,” he told “Fox News Sunday.” The U.S. is pursuing “all avenues that we can” and that “there is no question that this regime will come to an end. The only question is when,” he said.
> 
> Late Saturday, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri threw the terror network's support behind Syrian rebels trying to topple President Bashar al-Assad, raising fears that Islamic extremists are exploiting the uprising that began peacefully but is quickly transforming into an armed insurgency. The regime has long blamed terrorists for the revolt, and al-Qaeda's endorsement creates new difficulties for Western and Arab states trying to figure out a way to help force Mr. al-Assad out of power.
> 
> “The time has come for a decisive action to stop the bloodshed suffered by the Syrian people since the start of last year,” Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby told the Arab foreign ministers. “We must move quickly in all directions ... to end the cycle of violence in Syria.”
> 
> Foreign ministers from the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain — are also proposing the expulsion of Syrian ambassadors from all Arab League nations during the meeting in Cairo. The GCC ministers also proposed that Arab nations withdraw their ambassadors from Damascus, according to the officials.
> 
> The six nations, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have been campaigning for a tougher stand against Assad's regime and may offer formal recognition of the National Syrian Council, the largest of Syria's opposition groups, at Sunday's meeting.
> 
> Mr. al-Assad's regime has pursued a harsh crackdown against the uprising since it began last March. The U.N. estimates that 5,400 people have been killed since March, but that figure is from January, when the world body stopped counting because the chaos in Syria has made it all but impossible to check the figures. Hundreds are reported to have been killed since.
> 
> Arab League officials said that Mr. Elaraby has accepted the resignation of General Mohammed Ahmed Al-Dabi, the head of the Syrian observer mission, and nominated former Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul-Illah al-Khatib as the new envoy. A decision on Mr. al-Khatib's nomination would be made later in the day by Arab foreign ministers meeting in the Egyptian capital.
> 
> There was no word on the reasons behind Mr. al-Dabi's resignation, but the Sudanese general was harshly criticized for his management of the monitors mission, which was perceived by the Syrian opposition and many protesters to have provided a cover for the regime's continued crackdown.
> 
> Mr. Al-Dabi was also criticized for being a longtime aide of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, himself indicted by the Hague-based International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity in Sudan's western Darfur region, where a revolt against the Khartoum government began in 2003 but has petered out about five years later.
> 
> “The new mission must be totally different from the previous one,” Mr. Elaraby told the foreign ministers as he proposed a joint Arab League-U.N. mission to Syria. “The previous experience has shown that there can be no restoration of security without a political vision.”
> 
> The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject and also because the proposals have not yet been adopted.




I am curious ... what _peace_ is there to _keep_? Or, perhaps, the Arab League wants a _peacemaking_ force - one that will give Assad the boot and install a government that is more favourable to Saudi and Egyptian interests, one which is, therefore, less favourable to Iran and Russia.

Give the Russian and Chinese vetos - both likely for two different reasons - the force, if there is to be one, will have to be created in the UN General Assembly using the "Acheson Plan," the "uniting for peace" resolution mechanism. Since neither Russia nor China is likely to support such a mission the force, if it is created, will appear to be more US meddling in the Arabs' internal affairs and we all know how well that will go down on the "Arab street."

On the other hand, a Western-Arab force created by a "uniting for peace" resolution might be the straw that breaks the Iranian camel's back and it could plunge the whole region into a nice, long, bloody, internecine (and, ultimately useful) war which might even push Pakistan into another war with India. For those who think that both the Middle East and India/Pakistan disputes have been at _stalemate_ for too long this is not necessarily an unwelcome prospect - except that it will mess up the stock markets.


----------



## GAP

I keep getting the impression that the Arabs are fearfull that Assad will prevail simply by killing off most of the opposition, much like his father did.


----------



## tamouh

Documents proving Iranian money flowing to the Syrian regime:
Source: Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-syria-documents-show-iran-helping-assad-to-sidestep-sanctions-1.412353


> Iran has been helping Syria bypass the international sanctions imposed on it for massacring civilians, according to documents from the Syrian president's office obtained by Haaretz.
> 
> The documents show that Iran has given the Syrian regime more than $1 billion, which would help it overcome the oil embargo and other moves including restrictions on flights and sanctions against the central bank.
> Ahmadinejad, Assad
> 
> Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad
> Photo by: AP
> 
> 
> 
> The documents were leaked following a cyber-attack by hackers known as Anonymous against the e-mail server of the Syrian president's office. Seventy-eight employees in President Bashar Assad's office had their e-mail hacked. One of these accounts belonged to the minister of presidential affairs, Mansour Azzam; it included two documents signed by him that dealt with relations between Syria and Iran.
> Syria document - 12022012
> 
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views.
> 
> The two documents were authored two months ago and detail discussions by senior Iranian delegations visiting Syria. The documents are written in ambiguous language and only in a number of places do they detail ways Syria would be aided to bypass sanctions. The document repeatedly refers to Syria's wish to "learn from the Iranian experience in this area."
> 
> The United States, Turkey, the European Union, the Arab League and other countries have imposed severe sanctions on Syria due to the regime's attacks on civilians. As part of the sanctions, all Arab League members have ceased contact with the Central Bank of Syria, and commercial flights from Arab countries to and from Syria have stopped. The European Union has imposed an oil embargo on Syria.
> 
> Around 20 percent of Syria's gross domestic product derives from oil sales, with 90 percent of Syrian oil being exported to the EU.
> 
> On December 8, Azzam sent Assad and other senior figures a document entitled "Memo on the visit of the Iranian delegation to Syria." The delegation included 10 senior members of the office of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and representatives of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian ministries. The delegation met with Syrian Prime Minister Adel Safar, the head of the Syrian central bank, and the ministers of finance, trade and oil.
> 
> As a result of the disturbances around the country and the sanctions, the Syrian regime is undergoing an economic crisis. The regime needs revenue, in part to pay the armed forces and the gangs of thugs - the Shabiha - it uses against the demonstrators. It also needs to pay the salaries of the tens of thousands of officials whose loyalty is vital.
> 
> According to the document authored by Azzam, the Iranian delegation announced that it has allocated $1 billion so Iran could buy basic supplies from Syria. Most of the items are very basic and include meat, poultry, olive oil and fruit. It is unclear if Iran actually needs these items or if this is a way to pump up the Syrian economy.
> 
> In parallel, the Iranians agreed to export to Syria fertilizer and raw materials for the petrochemical industry; it would spread out payments over a long period.
> 
> The Iranian delegations also discussed ways the Syrians could bypass the embargo on oil exports. The Iranians, who have large petroleum deposits, promised to examine the purchase of 150,000 barrels of oil from Syria per day for a year "to use it domestically or resell it to others." This way Syria would be able to continue to export oil despite the sanctions.
> 
> In return, Iran would supply Syria spare parts for the petroleum industry that are hard to come by due to the sanctions.
> 
> The document also shows that the two countries discussed ways to bypass sanctions on flights and air cargo. Turkey, for example, has closed its airspace to aircraft traveling to or from Syria, and most Syrian flights cannot land in most airports in Europe and the Arab world.
> 
> One option discussed is the creation of a hub in Iran for Syrian aircraft, bypassing the current hub in the United Arab Emirates. The Iranians also offered to service Syrian Air's planes.
> 
> The Iranians also proposed the creation of an air-and-ground corridor for transferring goods to and from Iran. This would be done through Iraq, bypassing Turkey.
> 
> As for banking, they discussed setting up a joint bank for transferring money through Russia and China, which are not taking part in the international sanctions against Syria and Iran.
> 
> "Iran has promised to relay to Syria its know-how on ways for transferring funds from the country abroad and back, based on the experience Iran has accumulated in this field," it says.
> 
> The second document, dated December 14, 2011, states that "the central banks of Syria and Iran agreed to use banks in Russia and China to ease the transfer of funds between the two countries, in view of the current conditions in Syria and Iran."


----------



## GAP

Arab states agree to provide guns to Syria rebels, may begin true civil war
Reuters  Feb 14, 2012
Article Link

AIRO — After a bruising meeting in a five-star Cairo hotel, Arab foreign ministers led by Gulf states hinted to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that unless he halts his violent crackdown, some Arab League members might arm his opponents.

The message was folded into Article 9 of a League resolution passed on Sunday that urges Arabs to “provide all kinds of political and material support” to the opposition, a phrase that includes the possibility of giving weapons to Assad’s foes. Diplomats at the meeting confirmed this interpretation.

The resolution came as Syria’s army killed at least six civilians Tuesday in the heaviest shelling of Homs for several days and as the international community warned of a humanitarian disaster in the city.

The top human rights representative at the United Nations said the world body’s inaction had “emboldened” Syria’s government to unleash overwhelming force against its own civilians.

“The failure of the Security Council to agree on firm collective action appears to have emboldened the Syrian government to launch an all-out assault in an effort to crush dissent with overwhelming force,” said Navi Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The assault has been heaviest in the central city of Homs, which has been under a relentless barrage of heavy machinegun fire, tank shells, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades for 10 days.
More on link


----------



## 57Chevy

GAP said:
			
		

> Arab states agree to provide guns to Syria rebels, may begin true civil war



Which will add much fuel to an already raging fire, and IMO will cause a civil war
Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

UN panel compiles list of top Syrian officials who could face 'crimes against humanity' probe 
http://www.medicinehatnews.com/world-news/un-panel-compiles-list-of-top-syrian-officials-who-could-face-crimes-against-humanity-probe-20120223.html

GENEVA - The United Nations has a secret list of top Syrian officials who could face investigation for crimes against humanity carried out by security forces in their crackdown against an anti-government uprising, a panel of U.N. human rights experts said Thursday.

The U.N. experts indicated that the list goes as high as President Bashar Assad.

Thousands of Syrians have died in the violence since March and the panel, citing what it called a reliable source, said at least 500 children are among the dead.

"A reliable body of evidence exists that, consistent with other verified circumstances, provides reasonable grounds to believe that particular individuals, including commanding officers and officials at the highest levels of government, bear responsibility for crimes against humanity and other gross human rights violations," said the report by the U.N.-appointed Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria.

"The commission has deposited with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights a sealed envelope containing the names of these people, which might assist future credible investigations by competent authorities."

It doesn't say who these investigating authorities might be, but the U.N.'s top human rights official has previously called for Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Members of the 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council are expected to hold a special meeting on Syria in Geneva next week, at which the panel's report will be formally presented.

The panel led by Brazilian professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro said its list also identifies some armed opposition cells thought to have committed gross abuses.

International pressure has been building on Assad's government to halt its violent suppression of the opposition. Earlier this week the International Committee of the Red Cross called for temporary cease-fires so it could reach those trapped and wounded in the worst-affected areas.

But human rights groups say the violence is only increasing, with dozens dying every day from government shelling of cities like Homs, a rebel stronghold.

The U.N. panel was denied entry to Syria by the government, which accused it of ignoring official information and exceeding its mandate. The panel instead gathered much of its information from sources outside the country, including human rights activists and Syrian army defectors.

The report claims that the ruling Baath Party's National Security Bureau was responsible for translating government policies into military operations that led to the systematic arrest or killing of civilians.

It says the four main intelligence and security agencies reporting directly to Assad â€” Military Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, the General Intelligence Directorate and the Political Security Directorate â€” "were at the heart of almost all operations."

The report details how businessmen helped hire and arm informal pro-government militias known as the Shabbiha.

"In a number of operations, the commission documented how Shabbiha members were strategically employed to commit crimes against humanity and other gross violations," it said.

The report also identifies 38 detention centres "for which the commission documented cases of torture and ill-treatment since March 2011."

Armed opposition groups, loosely connected under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army, also committed some gross human rights abuses, the panel said. It cited the torture and execution of soldiers or suspected pro-government militia members.

But such actions were "not comparable in scale and organization with those carried out by the state," it added.


----------



## 57Chevy

They may say that Syria has become critical and "friends of Syria" may be sending "strong messages" for the regime to step down, even offerring immunity and possible political asylum but it may be better to call it "MELTDOWN" because the international community has just about had enough.
The fuse as I see it has burnt to the short end. Vetos will carry no more weight.

Articles shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
U.S. warns Assad he will pay the price as Syria talks open
By Michael Mainville, AFP, 24 Feb
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/warns+Assad+will+price+Syria+talks+open/6204629/story.html

excerpt: (read the full article at link)
...
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said embattled President Bashar al-Assad would pay a "heavy cost" for ignoring the will of the international community after almost a year of brutal crackdowns on protesters.
...
                                             _________________________

And this is what really gets me boiling:

Why does the media paint such a glowing portrait of the dictator Bashar Assad and his wife Asma?

[VIDEO] Syria’s Assads: Kidders or Killers?
http://unitedwithisrael.org/kidders-or-killers/

Be prepared to be shocked and outraged when you see the “lighter side” of the Assads. The media wants you to believe that they are a normal, fun, giggly family raising young kids, not the killers they actually are.
_______________________

atrocious Youtube videos: 

Bashar al Assad the kids killer in Syria 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRmk1Tv3Yo0

Many more suggestions at link.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is a report on a misguided, in my view, diplomatic meeting aiming to _respond_ to Syria; it is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/diplomats-torn-over-support-for-fractured-syrian-opposition/article2349835/


> Diplomats torn over support for fractured Syrian opposition
> 
> GRAEME SMITH  AND CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> YAYLADAGI, TURKEY AND OTTAWA— From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> Published Friday, Feb. 24, 2012
> 
> Damascus is reacting to the growing calls for intervention in Syria with a renewed offensive near the Turkish border.
> 
> As white smoke drifted over hills near the country’s northern frontier on Friday, forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad intensified their crackdown on rebel positions, cutting several key opposition supply lines and killing at least seven people within a few kilometres of the border in an apparent effort to thwart discussions of foreign intervention.
> 
> In Tunis, foreign ministers spoke with unusual frankness about their options: smuggling arms to Syrian rebels, protecting humanitarian shipments to rebellious cities, or other forms of intervention. The so-called “Friends of Syria” meeting, which included U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ended without agreement on immediate action.
> 
> More than 60 nations and international groups called for a civilian United Nations peacekeeping mission that would deploy after the violence ends, however, and Saudi Arabia’s delegation argued in favour of giving weapons to the opposition. Other ministers urged their colleagues to accept the idea of humanitarian corridors, from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, which would require military support for aid shipments to embattled cities.
> 
> Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird joined in pressing the Assad regime to open the country to international assistance, pledging $1.5-million in Canadian aid. The Friends of Syria group said that supply depots would be set up along the Syrian border, but it’s unclear how the aid will make it into the country without the approval of the Syrian government.
> 
> “We call on Syria to immediately allow full, safe, rapid, and unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance to all those in need,” Mr. Baird told the conference, according to a copy of his speech.
> 
> The Assad regime did not reply directly to the proposals on Friday, but appeared to be answering with tanks. Syrian activists, refugees and rebels say that all but one of their major smuggling routes from Turkey into rebel-held enclaves have been shut down in the last 10 days. Truck drivers and travellers arriving from Syria described unprecedented numbers of Syrian tanks and artillery units near the border.
> 
> Some activists said the Syrian forces had started a renewed campaign of placing land mines along the border, where minefields are already a well-known hazard. On Wednesday night, a local farmer complained that one of his pigs was blown up by a hidden bomb while foraging in a previously safe area.
> 
> “They are trying to close all the ways that lead inside Syria,” said Raed Al-Saleh, 27, a Syrian refugee. From the Turkish Red Crescent camp near the border where Mr. Al-Saleh now works as an organizer, he could see smoke rising from the nearby Syrian town of Salken; phone calls from his friends inside Syria confirmed that fighting was under way.
> 
> Near another camp, Shaban Khatib, 29, who described himself as a member of the Free Syrian Army, said that he made regular trips on foot among the olive orchards between Syria and Turkey, but those journeys have recently become more dangerous.
> 
> “Two weeks ago it was much easier,” Mr. Khatib said. “If we had weapons maybe we could face them, but we have nothing.”
> 
> The young rebel was attending the funeral of a friend, Mustafa Sher Mohammed, 28, a shopkeeper who took up arms against the regime. Mourners said that a Syrian government sniper killed Mr. Mohammed near a border crossing on Wednesday.
> 
> Truckers at the nearby crossing of Cilvegozu reported dozens of tanks gathered at an old customs depot about five kilometres inside Syrian territory. The crackdown had eliminated some pockets of rebel control along the trucking route, they said; this caused a rush of traffic at the crossing, as drivers scrambled to get their freight through the treacherous border while the government had control. One trader estimated that 80 trucks crossed at Cilvegozu on Thursday, a far greater number than during previous weeks.
> 
> The regime’s apparent advances against the rebels in the border region served as another reminder of the opposition’s weakness in Syria. At the conference in Tunis, participants signalled they would step up ties to the Syrian National Council, the opposition umbrella group, calling it “a legitimate representative” of the Syrian people.
> 
> But the ministers also expressed concerns that the umbrella group still has not unified opposition factions across political and sectarian lines – and Mr. Baird urged opposition forces to forge a united plan.
> 
> “The opposition needs to develop a clear vision for a post-Assad era,” Mr. Baird told the conference. “Canada strongly believes that the protection of religious minorities must be an important part of that plan.”




At the risk of repeating myself, there is no "good" or "useful" military response to a Syrian domestic problem,* the best _diplomatic_ solution is *isolation*: close all (possible)** land, sea and air borders with Syria - no one gets in or out and, especially no aid, of any kind for any faction, gets in. Let the Syrians sort themselves out however long it takes and however desperate the suffering of the innocents becomes. Then do the same to its neighbours and their neighbours, too ...


__________
*   Readers may recall that I opposed military intervention in Libya, too, and I remain convinced that it did nothing useful - nothing useful for us, anyway.
** Some of the borders are geographically very difficult and some military force would be required to seal off the country


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'll also repeat myself.

This isn't our problem. If the Arab world is upset at Syria, they have the ways and means to involve themselves, even militarily, if the choose.

What they are lacking is the balls and guts to take responsibility for an out of control member of their neighbourhood. They want us to take the lead in case things go pear shaped.

Time for them to take off their skirt, grow a mustache and sort their own problems out...........without our monetary, military or diplomatic help.

We have no business at meetings, or conferences to help them excise a wart from their own body.


----------



## sean m

"Saudi Arabia Is Arming the Syrian Opposition"

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/saudi_arabia_is_arming_the_syrian_opposition?page=0,0

This is a pretty heavy accusation, the author backs it up by referring to how news media and the syrian opposition movement have backed up these allegations.  The Author refers to Syria's desire for the Assad regime to fall is due to Iran and Russia. They desire to lessen the presence of both nations in the region. Yet as the author states, the last time the Saudi monarchy backed an insurgency it lead to the radical groups created in Afghanistan ex. Taliban. The author also refers to the Saudi's fight against the Soviet regime when it was in place. As the author states at the end "This is not an empty threat. The Saudis know how to procure and move weapons, and they have no shortage of cash. If Riyadh wants to arm the opposition, armed it shall be. And those who receive the weapons will likely be at least amenable to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam that has spawned dangerous Islamist movements worldwide."

Would this force the West into taking more action in Syria, since past Saudi involvment in resistance movements have not turned out so good.  The last thing we want is radical islam sprouting out of that nation as well.


----------



## Jed

sean m said:
			
		

> "Saudi Arabia Is Arming the Syrian Opposition"
> 
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/saudi_arabia_is_arming_the_syrian_opposition?page=0,0
> "This is not an empty threat. The Saudis know how to procure and move weapons, and they have no shortage of cash. If Riyadh wants to arm the opposition, armed it shall be. And those who receive the weapons will likely be at least amenable to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam that has spawned dangerous Islamist movements worldwide."
> 
> Would this force the West into taking more action in Syria, since past Saudi involvment in resistance movements have not turned out so good.  The last thing we want is radical islam sprouting out of that nation as well.



So what are you suggesting? For the West, majority christian based religions, it is probably better the current Syrian regime remains in power than whatever falls out of all this revolutionary foment. 

It is an Arab world problem, Let them deal with it. We should just picket and bypass.


----------



## sean m

@ Mr. Jed,

I am not suggesting anything, if that it what seems to be projected from the statement then I am sorry.  It may sound cheesy, especially since there are  so many human rights abuses taking place all over the world, yet considering that the Assad regime has killed so far 7,500 according to the UN is there a point when we say enough is enough. Of course it is difficult considering economic and political difficulties. The article seems to be important since, which the author states, the Saudis have supported insurgent groups before who have turned against us. Maybe- perhaps, the Saudis do not have the West's best interests in mind when they may be taking these actions. Perhaps what the author is alluding is right and radical islam could sprout from this country, it may be an Arab problem at first but it maybe has the potential of becoming a global problem if radical islam is involved.  Considering the information from the article, I was curious what some were thinking on what the West should do next?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

sean m said:
			
		

> @ Mr. Jed,
> 
> I am not suggesting anything, if that it what seems to be projected from the statement then I am sorry.  It may sound cheesy, especially since there are  so many human rights abuses taking place all over the world, yet considering that the Assad regime has killed so far 7,500 according to the UN is there a point when we say enough is enough. Of course it is difficult considering economic and political difficulties. The article seems to be important since, which the author states, the Saudis have supported insurgent groups before who have turned against us. Maybe- perhaps, the Saudis do not have the West's best interests in mind when they may be taking these actions. Perhaps what the author is alluding is right and radical islam could sprout from this country, it may be an Arab problem at first but it maybe has the potential of becoming a global problem if radical islam is involved.  Considering the information from the article, I was curious what some were thinking on what the West should do next?


Mind our business, and borders, and keep our nose out of it.


----------



## sean m

@ Mr.recceguy,

Thank you for your response, it is definetly safer for us if we don't do anything. we will just have to see how things turn out. Here in montreal at Concordia university, there are a number of students of Syrian origin protesting for military intervention in Syria. It is not a big protest movement, yet perhaps there are others in the country. Do you or anyone else here think that the West may be forced to intervene because of internal politics, in order to save their comfortable positions in government. 

The Venezuelans are supplying Syria with oil, according to the Washington Post and don't plan to stop

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/venezuela-sends-fuel-to-syria-no-plans-to-halt-shipments-aimed-at-aiding-assad-regime/2012/02/28/gIQAUbdmgR_story.html


----------



## jollyjacktar

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll also repeat myself.
> 
> This isn't our problem. If the Arab world is upset at Syria, they have the ways and means to involve themselves, even militarily, if the choose.
> 
> What they are lacking is the balls and guts to take responsibility for an out of control member of their neighbourhood. They want us to take the lead in case things go pear shaped.
> 
> Time for them to take off their skirt, grow a mustache and sort their own problems out...........without our monetary, military or diplomatic help.
> 
> We have no business at meetings, or conferences to help them excise a wart from their own body.



 :goodpost:

Sticking our oar in here and there is what has caused us all this grief these past 20+ years.  Leave them to their own devices.


----------



## tamouh

> At the risk of repeating myself, there is no "good" or "useful" military response to a Syrian domestic problem,* the best diplomatic solution is isolation: close all (possible)** land, sea and air borders with Syria - no one gets in or out and, especially no aid, of any kind for any faction, gets in. Let the Syrians sort themselves out however long it takes and however desperate the suffering of the innocents becomes. Then do the same to its neighbours and their neighbours, too ...



The Assad regime is backed strongly by Iran, Hezbollah, N. Korea, China, Russia and partially by Iraq. Closing the borders will only increase the suffering on the civilian population or those trying to seek refuge out but will have little effect on the Assad government or military (just like we've witnessed - 1 year and the tanks still rolling, artillery is now being used).

What happens to Syria is very pivotal to the security of the world today (yes, the whole world). Take two scenarios:

1. Regime controls the uprising (though far fetched): The Assad regime will emerge stronger, more bitter. They'll Allie themselves with the countries and groups above. They'll arm themselves to the teeth and Nuclear Weapons will be something they seek especially if Iran ends-up acquiring the technology. You now have a mad man willing to destroy his own country/people at the doorsteps of Turkey/Israel. Significantly increasing tension in the area. This will spill over to Iraq, Lebanon and most likely ignite a cold war that will eventually turn into another war in the region.

2. Do nothing and the Opposition wins: The more time this uprising takes, the more chance radicals and extremists get to pray on the soul of the weak or those whom experience trauma/loss. We're already witnessing that elements of Al-Qaeda is beginning to shift its focus from Iraq to Syria. This is now their new found holy war. In some of the neighbourhoods in Homs, there are already sensitivities between members of the FSA (Free Syrian Army) and other armed groups. It will quickly disintegrate into a religious civil war that will engulf with it Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and perhaps Turkey.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tiamo said:
			
		

> The Assad regime is backed strongly by Iran, Hezbollah, N. Korea, China, Russia and partially by Iraq. *Closing the borders will only increase the suffering on the civilian population or those trying to seek refuge  ~ which is an unfortunate (unavoidable?) side effect of doing anything or nothing, it's a neutral factor* out but will have little effect on the Assad government or military (just like we've witnessed - 1 year and the tanks still rolling, artillery is now being used).
> 
> What happens to Syria is very pivotal to the security of the world today (yes, the whole world). Take two scenarios:
> 
> 1. Regime controls the uprising (though far fetched): The Assad regime will emerge stronger, more bitter. They'll Allie themselves with the countries and groups above. They'll arm themselves to the teeth and Nuclear Weapons will be something they seek especially if Iran ends-up acquiring the technology. You now have a mad man willing to destroy his own country/people at the doorsteps of Turkey/Israel. Significantly increasing tension in the area. This will spill over to Iraq, Lebanon and most likely ignite a cold war that will eventually turn into another war in the region. *And this is a problem? How, exactly? All we need do is stand back and do nothing ... except, maybe, pick up a couple of million Israeli refugees.*
> 
> 2. Do nothing and the Opposition wins: The more time this uprising takes, the more chance radicals and extremists get to pray on the soul of the weak or those whom experience trauma/loss. We're already witnessing that elements of Al-Qaeda is beginning to shift its focus from Iraq to Syria. This is now their new found holy war. In some of the neighbourhoods in Homs, there are already sensitivities between members of the FSA (Free Syrian Army) and other armed groups. It will quickly disintegrate into a religious civil war that will engulf with it Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and perhaps Turkey. *See my previous comment.*
> 
> All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. *Agreed, in principle, but sometimes doing nothing is a good choice ...*


----------



## sean m

Free Syrian Army claim French and US assistance- Telegraph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQi_TLyj46s


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... on the need for military force - from Hansard (highlights mine):


> *Hon. Hugh Segal:*  Honourable senators, the constant bombardment of civilian sites and communities by Syrian armed forces evokes every possible aspect of the responsibility to protect doctrine proclaimed some years ago by the United Nations on the advice of a task force in which Canada and its then foreign minister, Mr. Axworthy, played a major role.
> 
> The engagement in Libya was appropriate and necessary, and Canadian and allied forces, both at sea and in the air, performed a serious humanitarian mission in keeping Gadhafi's air force and artillery from killing Libyan civilians. There, NATO had allies and partners in the Arab League, some of whom flew missions alongside our own pilots.
> 
> The Arab League has tried valiantly to seek a non-violent solution to the present violence in Syria. Armed military state violence against women, children, defenceless men and journalists has continued unabated. Not even the Red Crescent and the Red Cross could be allowed assured access to Homs, where so many state-sponsored, military mass murders took place, a city without a single military target. The Arab League is now talking about an Arab-led stabilization force. Canada should encourage NATO to support such a force and to make independent plans to use air assets to contain and restrain the Syrian military, which seems to have no difficulty bombing their own people at will.
> 
> Senator McCain of Arizona is quite correct when he said yesterday, "Time is running out. Assad's forces are on the march." Without a readiness to deploy air assets against Syrian government forces, the carnage will continue. The time for a double standard with the people of Syria on the losing end all the time has passed. Refugees are already piling over the Lebanese and Turkish borders. Russia and China have some serious answering to do in view of the deaths that have multiplied since their offensive veto at the Security Council, a veto that raised self-interested cynicism in that body to a new level.
> 
> Canada should act in concert with our Turkish, American and Arab League partners and seek a *substantive joint Arab-led military engagement* in defence of the people of Syria and their right to self-determination. The time for action has come; the time for inaction has passed.


----------



## Edward Campbell

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> [Senator Hugh Segal agrees with McCain...] on the need for military force - from Hansard (highlights mine):




"A substantive joint Arab-led military engagement" _might_ be useful. Many of the Arab nations have sunstantial and modern military forces, and they ought not to need any Western ground forces, not a single soldier. Perhaps there will be a role for some Western naval and air support (based in israel?  : ) but, if we are going to _help_, we should aim to do less than in Libya, thereby forcing the Arab League to do more. In the long run it is a regional problem and only a regional solution will work.


----------



## GAP

Yeah, but political considerations are everything. 

The US via NATO will rise to the bait. The Arabs may have the equipment, but the quality of their combat capabilities leaves much to be desired.

I would love to see the Arab nations take this one on.....it would give them some much needed credibility......


----------



## tamouh

I don't think armies need to be involved. In fact, it may get more complicated if NATO or the Arab League sends their armies on the ground. What the rebels need are weaponry and some training. What had worked in Libya could very well work in Syria. 

If you pay close attention to the army defections that have been occurring over the past year, many of the defectors are officers. There is a focus by the FSA on attracting as many officers as they can. Following some of the larger scale operations, it is clear they're well planned and executed (like the one attacking Aleppo's most feared security headquarters in early dawn hours).

I've heard of some FSA groups requiring anyone to join to have some military experience and had finished their middle school studies. 

The major obstacle to the FSA is finding the proper weapons to counter attack tanks on the ground. Russia and Iran have been arming the regime side in hope it could suppress the revolution. On the other hand, the rebels are dependent on smuggling light weaponry and things they would seize during raids.


----------



## Old and Tired

Many, many years ago, when my father returned from a year long stint with UNTSO/UNDOF he said he had a solution to the problems in the Mideast.  Close the place off (Nod to you Edward) then give everyone, man woman or child a baseball bat and let them go at it.  Once all the noise stops take a look to see what's left.  Last person standing gets passed a Broom and dust pan and told to clean up the mess.  15 years later I went over to the Golan.  Nothing had changed all that much.  Well the Lebanese Civil war (part 1) had ended but pretty much everything else had stayed they same.

Outside of being disinterested observers to make sure they keep the fight in their own play ground we have no dog in this fight, be it Syria, Libya, Tunisia et al.

My question to people that ask me is, "How or why is this our problem?"  No one has given me an answer that would justify the potential risks.  I suppose we could through this whole mess into the lap of the British and French as well as Turkey as they contributed to creating the problem, but that wouldn't get us very far either.

Lets mind our own business on this one shall we?


----------



## a_majoor

Amen to that. Containment also keeps the embittered losers (or winners) from spilling the conflict over the borders to other nations. Here is the take of Walter Russel Mead on the current situation (and if you read closely, an affirmation on why we should not be assisting the rebel faction):

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/03/18/syria-descending-toward-madness/



> *Syria Descending Toward Madness*
> 
> This morning there was a car bomb in Aleppo. Yesterday saw two explosions in Damascus with heavy casualties. Syria is descending into the kind of communal madness that produces bloodbaths and anarchy; it is looking more like Iraq and civil war era Lebanon every day.
> 
> The violence seems to be coming both more sectarian and more personal: killings across religious and ethnic lines intensify the hatred and suspicion these groups feel for one another, and waves of killings are launched as each round of murder inspires the relatives and friends of the dead with the lust for revenge.
> 
> The killing could go on for some time and become even worse. The Syrian opposition remains inchoate, factionalized and incompetent a year after the protests began. The Syrian government shows no signs of being able either to crush its opponents or compromise with them. The “international community” is as usual divided, risk averse and given to blending fine words with shabby deeds. The neighbors have no idea what to do.
> 
> The Syrian government and its opposition are each their own worst enemy. Butcher Assad is the worst of all combinations: a bumbling murderer. He can and will kill, but he cannot govern. Yet the opposition has lost credibility even as Syrians put their lives on the line every day. Its inability to organize a coherent alternative to the government underlines the key point of Assad propaganda: that the only alternative to the goon squad currently in power is anarchy and, perhaps, genocidal wars of revenge by fanatical sectarian killers.
> 
> The longer this tragedy continues, the more dangerous it becomes — for Syrians and for others in the region. A new wave of fanatical sectarian zealots is emerging from the horror of Syria: there is no better recruiting ground for the agents of Al-Qaeda like movements than a fight of this kind. The violence shows signs of spreading into Lebanon and Iraq. Not even Turkey is immune from the spillover of passion (to say nothing of refugees).
> 
> At the moment, there seem to be three possible outcomes. The government can fall, with or without outside forces supporting the rebels, and the rebels can establish a reasonably stable government in place of the Assads. The government can crush the rebels, going on to rule a sullen and embittered, but cowed, population for some time to come. Or the current violence can continue indefinitely, going through phases of greater and lesser intensity.
> 
> At the moment, the latter scenario of indefinite chaos and bloodshed seems most likely — either in a country divided between rebels and the current government, or in a weak and divided country following the overthrow of the Assads and the failure of the opposition to establish a viable regime in place of the Baathist nightmare now in control.
> 
> The Russian and Chinese position (of encouraging a peace process leading to some kind of compromise between government and opposition) has the merit of recognizing that the current state of affairs is both dangerous and destabilizing. It also recognizes that the regime is stronger and the opposition is uglier, weaker and less competent than the humanitarian hawks in the west have wanted to admit.
> 
> The Russian-Chinese initiative, however, is not likely to succeed. Neither the government nor the opposition are ready to settle.
> Worse, the ugliest, most sectarian wing of the Syrian opposition is going to have a lot of support. Sunni chauvinists fighting the sectarian war against heresy and Shiism can draw on support from more mainstream figures in the Gulf who hope to defeat Iran in Syria and then use a Sunni Syria to further pressure Iran and its Shiite allies in Iraq. This is not a movement that seeks democracy or liberalism; it is an old fashioned (and powerful) mix of sectarian hatred and Realpolitik.
> 
> Sensing a Sunni surge across the region, the sectarians aren’t ready to compromise over Syria. Obsessed both by the Iranian threat and by what looks to some like US unwillingness to confront it, the Realpolitikers also aren’t in a compromising mood. That combination, with or without open official backing, is fully capable of keeping enough money and support flowing to keep the rebellion alive as long as the Syrians are willing to fight.
> 
> The most likely outlook at this point: continuing and even worsening violence, with a growing potential for contagion in Lebanon and Iraq. The best policy option for the US: watch, wait and work with others to try to build the Syrian opposition into a viable political force that at least conceivably could govern the country with some kind of minimal effectiveness. That, and do our best to monitor the financial and arms flows to understand new terror networks that may be taking shape — and keep a close eye on the people involved.


----------



## tomahawk6

Heavy fighting reported in Damascus.Bad news for the regime if they cant keep the rebels out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17425062

A firefight is reported to have erupted in Syria's capital, Damascus, between the rebel Free Syria Army and the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

Witnesses say the sound of machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades can be heard from the district of al-Mezze.

The neighbourhood, in the centre of Damascus, is home to several security facilities and is one of the most heavily guarded parts of the capital.

In January the Free Syria Army briefly seized several Damascus suburbs.

Al-Mezze has been the scene of large anti-government protests.

"There is fighting near Hamada supermarket and the sound of explosions there and elsewhere in the neighbourhood," a resident told Reuters news agency.

"Security police have blocked several side streets and the street lighting has been cut off."

Opposition activist Amer al Sadeq told the BBC's World Today programme he had spoken to a contact in al-Mezze who reported four blasts within five minutes and then heavy gunfire.

The incident follows bomb blasts in Damascus and the northern city of Aleppo over the weekend.

On Sunday a car bomb exploded in Aleppo, killing at least two people and injuring 30 others.

A day earlier, at least 27 people were reported to have been killed and 97 wounded in two explosions in the capital.

State TV described the blasts as "terrorist" attacks. 

However, activists have accused the authorities of staging incidents to discredit opposition groups.

In another development, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said security forces beat and arrested senior opposition figure Mohammed Sayyed Rassas on Sunday.

Mr Rassas, a leader of the National Co-ordinating Body for Democratic Change (NCB), had been taking part in a protest march in Damascus, the group said.

President Assad is trying to quell an increasingly armed rebellion that sprang from a fierce crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy protests a year ago.

The UN estimates that more than 8,000 people have died in the clashes.

President Assad insists his troops are fighting "armed gangs" seeking to destabilise Syria.


----------



## Edward Campbell

A comment on Bashar al-Assad's dilemma by Michael Ignatieff, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-parallel-universe-of-bashar-al-assad/article2374015/


> The parallel universe of Bashar al-Assad
> 
> MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
> 
> Globe and Mail Update
> Published Tuesday, Mar. 20, 2012
> 
> Imagine what it is like to be Bashar al-Assad, dictator of Syria. Imagine what his parallel universe looks like.
> 
> If you are Mr. Assad, you have waged war on your people for a year. You have bombed Homs into submission, shelled other cities and laid mines on your border to keep your people from going in or out.
> 
> In this looking-glass world, your security people keep telling you it is all over, bar the clean-up. But the blurry images of horror from the cellphone cameras in Aleppo and Damascus keep appearing on al-Jazeera. You wanted to impose silence and your people will not be silenced. The thugs in your security system, the mukhabarat and shebbiha, have not cracked, but neither have the people.
> 
> You counted on your ability to make Alawites, Christians and Sunnis fear each other and cling to you for fear of something worse. You have divided the exiles in opposition, true enough, but the people in the street no longer care what the political exile groups say. They are learning to speak for themselves, and what they say on the street is that they want you dead.
> 
> Your last remaining friend on Earth is Vladimir Putin. He told you to go ahead and bomb Homs, since that worked in Grozny against the Chechen rebels. Your own father, Hafez, taught you the same lesson. Make them fear you. Now you are living week to week, putting all your trust in terror.
> 
> You also know that the loyalty of Mr. Putin is not cast in stone. You are an embarrassment, but he is using you to teach the Americans a lesson, as well as the Turks, the Saudis and the Gulf Arabs. He helps you survive to secure respect for Russian power.
> 
> So much the better if the world believes you survive only thanks to Mr. Putin. In fact, it is not him, but your tank commanders, whom you depend on. Unlike the officers who betrayed Hosni Mubarak, your commanders are still willing to slaughter their own people.
> 
> This is why it was easy to turn down Kofi Annan when he came to Damascus. You could dismiss all his proposals with the back of your hand. A ceasefire? Only after every last insurgent has been killed. Humanitarian access? Only after every wounded has been shot in their hospital beds. A political dialogue? You only dialogue with toadies.
> 
> You are gambling that if you can give your tank commanders a few more weeks, you can crush your people and send Mr. Annan, the United Nations and everyone packing, including the Russians.
> 
> You know that the Americans may blame the Russians and Chinese for their veto but it is a convenient alibi. The Americans don’t want to own Syria: they want it to go away.
> 
> Only it won’t go away. A full-blown civil war in Syria draws the Iranians and Russians in on the side of the regime, the Saudis and Gulf states on the side of the Sunnis, and worst case, the conflict spills over into fragile Jordan and unstable Lebanon.
> 
> Mr. Assad’s gamble for survival depends on convincing everyone – his middle class, his neighbours and the outside world – that his tyranny is a better guarantee of regional stability than civil war.
> 
> There is just one problem. It’s his tyranny that is making the coming civil war inevitable and even more pitiless in its consequences.
> 
> If we leave this parallel universe, the only chance of avoiding the worst – a Syrian civil war that spreads violence throughout the Middle East and damages global economic recovery – is for Mr. Annan to persuade Mr. Putin to dump Mr. Assad and then bring the Chinese on side to ratify the deal.
> 
> The argument to Mr. Putin goes like this: You want respect? You can’t gain it by backing a tyrant whose rule destabilizes a region. What worked in Grozny doesn’t work here, not in the age of the cellphone camera. Help us create a future Syria that owes as much to you as it does to the Americans. Give the Russians a stake in the future of Syria, free them from being hostage to its tyrannous past and there is a chance Mr. Assad’s parallel universe will come crashing down.
> 
> The time to make this happen will evaporate if Mr. Assad’s tank commanders reduce the people to silence. The time to make it happen is now.
> 
> _Michael Ignatieff teaches international politics at the University of Toronto. On Tuesday evening, he will be in conversation with Robert Fowler as part of this year’s Walter Gordon Symposium addressing the future of multilateral approaches to security, global finance and sustainability._




I think Ignatieff is putting the "blame" where it belongs: on Putin and the Russian oligarchy.


----------



## PanaEng

nothing new but corroborates some previous posts: (shared according to law)

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-anti-terror-troops-arrive-syria-164035966--abc-news.html

The Russians have a stake in Syria and are getting more and more involved with ground troops (advisors!, for now)


----------



## tamouh

PanaEng said:
			
		

> nothing new but corroborates some previous posts: (shared according to law)
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/russian-anti-terror-troops-arrive-syria-164035966--abc-news.html
> 
> The Russians have a stake in Syria and are getting more and more involved with ground troops (advisors!, for now)



Russia does have a stake in Syria, but that begs the question. If Russisa wants assurances its only naval base in the ME will continue to be accessible, then the opposition could have struck a deal for something like that early on.

I still to this point don't know why Russia stood behind Assad regime. It makes no sense. Had the world powers put true and real pressure 6 months ago, this engagement would not have become this bloody.

It is either the Russians/Chinese/US know that Bashar Al-Assad regime will not step down no matter what, so they didn't want to seem like they're enforcing this idea or something else that I can't quite put my finger on it.

Even Hamas recently recognized Syria was not going to be the same, so they moved their mission to Tunisia.

There is no doubt to any military or political observer that Assad regime days are numbered. Syria is suffering very hard economically, politically, ethnically. Six months ago we hardly heard of demonstations in central Damascus or Aleppo. Now it is more common, and further the rebels are staging operation in the area.

The regime for so long had guaranteed its security but neglected to provide its citizens with the same sense of safety/peace. Now, nobody is safe in Syria anymore. The question is not when the regime will fall, but how many will come to lose their lives before this happen.


----------



## Old Sweat

This oped piece from today's Ottawa Citizen notes that the Turkish PM briefly mentioned invoking Article V of the NATO treaty to protect Turkey's border with Syria, which is why I have posted it here. His comment seems to me to be noteworthy, and it seems strange that it has not raised more overt attention than it has. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.


Turkey could be a problem for NATO

By Eric Morse

April 13, 2012


Late Wednesday afternoon a five-line item came through on a private news service buried among 50 other snippets bearing esoteric titles like “Japan: Bahraini King Meets With PM,” or “Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood To Hold Million-Man March.” And there, nearly lost in the heap, was “Syria: Turkey May Invoke NATO’s Protection — Erdogan.” That one was a head-turner. It was followed by a more detailed report from Reuters.

Apparently, on Wednesday Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a plane full of Turkish journalists somewhere over China that Turkey might invoke Article V of the NATO Charter to protect its southern border against Syrian incursions. (Syrian forces have been violating the border regularly in pursuit of refugees from the insurrection, with ground forces and artillery fire).

As it happens, Article V is the “an attack on one is an attack on all” clause that was famously invoked in 2001 to involve NATO countries in the Afghanistan war. In fact, that is the only time Article V has ever been invoked since NATO was founded in 1949. So for Erdogan to have brought it up is not petty or picayune, even if it was said in a flying scrum.

The leader of a NATO member country is talking about invoking a Charter clause that could conceivably involve much of the alliance in operations up to and including combat on Turkey’s southern frontier. That’s important, but few major media ran with it.

The problem is, there was no context. It’s a single story that pops up and then fades because it’s a little arcane, nobody’s feeding it with follow-ups, and it was said at the wrong time and in the wrong place to get Western media attention.

Presumably, if Erdogan was serious about this — and you have to take him at face value until shown otherwise — NATO has not yet received any kind of formal approach. It would take a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, the highest body in NATO, to authorize and shape collective intervention in support of Turkey. And if the idea is still afloat in Ankara, there have to be more than a few NATO-country diplomats working like mad to convince Erdogan that it may not be the best idea in the world.

In fact a formal request from Turkey under Article V would put NATO and its members in a major bind. Turkey is an important member of NATO and a growing force in the Middle East, but it is not what you’d call a typical NATO country, being the only Middle Eastern and Muslim-majority member.

It joined NATO originally because of a mutual interest — containing the Russians — that still exists to this day, but it’s definitely different. It is a vital geopolitical anchor for NATO because of its strength and location. It also has an Islamist-but-pragmatic leader (Erdogan) even though officially it’s a militantly secular state.

NATO can’t afford to treat an Article V request from Turkey in any way that would suggest that its security concerns were less important than anyone other member’s. Added to which, Afghanistan was an “out-of-theatre” exercise in which some had serious doubts. You can’t say that about Turkey, its southern border is also NATO’s.

But NATO desperately does not want to get involved on the Turkish-Syrian border, partly for the same reasons the West does not want to get involved in a direct attack on Syria — a thing that’s almost impossible to do in practice — but also because the southern Turkish border is hideously complex, a potential multi-front war on a single front. In the western segment, there is Syria and all its sectaries, then Iraq and the non-state of Kurdistan straddling the border, and finally Iran itself — and that is a drastic oversimplification.

So NATO has to hope that cooler heads will prevail in Istanbul, and that they don’t get a formal Article V request from the Turks. The intervention in Afghanistan has been a very difficult experience for the alliance, at least as much because of institutional problems like differing rules of engagement within the force as because of the enemy, and it is not one that NATO would choose to repeat any time soon, in or out of theatre.

Eric Morse, a former Canadian diplomat, is vice-chair of security studies at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Turkey+could+problem+NATO/6456220/story.html#ixzz1s1BQVamy


----------



## GAP

Why not....here's the perfect opportunity  for this....................

U.S. Military Desperate To Be Handed Just One Solid War It Can Knock Out Of The Park
March 28, 2012 
http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-military-desperate-to-be-handed-just-one-solid,27770/

 ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

I wonder if Prime Minister Recep Erdogan isn't trying to separate Turkey from NATO by setting up a strawman that he knows NATO will reject.

The Europeans have, consistently, rejected Turkey's overtures to join _Europe_ and, it seems to me, Turkey has taken the message and has turned East - leaving Europe behind and aiming to become a leader in the 'Near East' and 'Middle East.' Being rejected by NATO would give  Erdogan an opportunity to withdraw from the alliance, further burnishing his reputation with the Arabs and Persians _et al_.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This oped piece from today's Ottawa Citizen notes that the Turkish PM briefly mentioned invoking Article V of the NATO treaty to protect Turkey's border with Syria ....


So far, it appears only the UK _Telegraph_ ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9200822/Syria-Turkey-threatens-to-invoke-Natos-self-defence-article.html
.... have picked up the Turkish PM's statement, and Russian media has taken it a step further suggesting Canada's John Baird said if NATO helps, we will too (but only if Turkey is attacked - as opposed to raided, I guess?) - _Rossiyskaya Gazeta_ article in Russian here, (clunky) Google English version here, and an Armenian media short paraphrase/summary here (caveat:  beware the "passing message from one ear to another" distortion on the third-hand Armenian version):


> NATO can help Turkey only if the Syrian forces cross the border with Turkey, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said in response to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s statement. Erdogan announced that Turkey can appeal to NATO with the request to apply Article 5 of the NATO charter. According to it, any aggression against each member states is perceived as aggression against the entire alliance. Baird recalled that Canada is a member of NATO and if Syrians want to carry out military action in one of member-states of the alliance, then they will respond, _Rossiyskaya Gazeta_ reports.


----------



## tamouh

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So far, it appears only the UK _Telegraph_ ....
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9200822/Syria-Turkey-threatens-to-invoke-Natos-self-defence-article.html
> .... have picked up the Turkish PM's statement, and Russian media has taken it a step further suggesting Canada's John Baird said if NATO helps, we will too (but only if Turkey is attacked - as opposed to raided, I guess?) - _Rossiyskaya Gazeta_ article in Russian here, (clunky) Google English version here, and an Armenian media short paraphrase/summary here (caveat:  beware the "passing message from one ear to another" distortion on the third-hand Armenian version):



I'd see it very unlikely Turkey will do anything at the current time. While Erdogan is full of rhetoric, his actions do not match. The FSA had many times indicated their frustration with Turkey's support. Many even suspect Turkish intelligence passing on vital information to Syrian intelligence about FSA activities. Many FSA members suspect Col. Harmoush (one of the earliest defectors) was kidnapped from Turkey and passed on to Syrian intelligence by MIT (Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı).

The Turkish situation is very fragile. Run by a Sunni sympathizing government, but kept in check by a secular, uncompromising military. For Turkey, going to war with Syria (even if it entailed NATO cover) is a recipe for incresed internal tensions.

I found this article from Reuters true to its core. Very valid observation and possibly a predictable outcome. Many now in both opposition and loyalists are bracing themselves for a long fight:

Source/Copyright to: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-syria-assad-idUSBRE83C0VY20120413



> (Reuters) - Having crushed a popular uprising, he rules by force over an Arab land shattered by conflict and sanctions, his people too exhausted and cowed to resist.
> 
> Is this the fate awaiting Syria under Bashar al-Assad?
> 
> Saddam Hussein lasted for 12 years after his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War until a U.S.-led invasion unleashed chaos and carnage from which Iraq, for all its oil, has yet to recover.
> 
> The trajectories of the two Baathist leaders are far from parallel, but Saddam's prolonged survival is a warning to anyone who believes Assad will fall simply because he has alienated the West and its Arab allies or earned the hatred of countless Syrians, including perhaps most of its Sunni Muslim majority.
> 
> Kofi Annan's U.N.-backed ceasefire may temporarily calm a conflict that has already cost more than 9,000 dead, but it is hard to see a compromise emerging between Assad's ruling Alawite elite and those bent on ending its four decades in power.
> 
> After so much blood, both sides now see it as a life or death struggle from which they cannot step back, and the United Nations lacks the international consensus to make them.
> 
> Time may not be on Assad's side, but while the 46-year-old president hangs on, sectarian rifts he has exploited are likely to widen as Syria descends towards all-out civil war.
> 
> In recent weeks, some of Assad's visitors reported him confident he could weather the storm, as his forces unleashed withering bombardments of towns and cities where lightly-armed rebels had possibly unwisely attempted to hold ground.
> 
> Military assaults persisted right up to Thursday's dawn ceasefire, which was not preceded by a withdrawal of tanks, troops and big guns as stipulated in Annan's six-point plan.
> 
> For now, the Syrian leader remains entrenched, albeit in a battle-scarred landscape and a ruined economy in which his legitimacy and his international repute have been shredded. Parts of restive cities like Homs have been reduced to rubble.
> 
> Russia and China still shield Assad from U.N. Security Council action. Iran and its Lebanese Hezbollah ally back him to the hilt, while Lebanon and Shi'ite-led Iraq offer open borders to mitigate the impact of sanctions on their Syrian neighbor.
> 
> ECONOMIC HARDSHIP
> 
> "The economy is very deeply in the red," said Jihad Yazigi, editor of the economic Syria Report online newsletter.
> 
> The only bright spots were a rise in exports to Iraq and a good rainy season, he said, although two of Syria's best farming areas have suffered severe disruption during the unrest.
> 
> "Daily life is increasingly harsh," Yazigi said, declining to predict how this might affect prospects for political change.
> 
> Sanctions have at best a patchy record, and the crippling U.N. measures against Iraq failed to loosen - and may have reinforced - Saddam's grip on power for more than a decade. Sanctions and hardship could similarly perpetuate Assad's reign.
> 
> "If the middle classes emigrate ... then an exhausted population ruled over by a state tightly controlling the supply of food and fuel could look very much like the Saddam model," said Chris Phillips, a Middle East lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London.
> 
> Russia and China have twice vetoed draft resolutions on Syria in the U.N. Security Council. Assad has long derided Western sanctions targeting him and his entourage, but which have now been extended to Syria's small but vital oil sector.
> 
> Decades of isolation have had little impact on Assad's policies and his Western adversaries, weary of costly foreign wars, have disavowed any military option, even when the bloody siege of Baba Amr in Homs was at its height in February.
> 
> Careful not to provoke outside intervention, Assad has kept assaults on cities a notch below the one meted out to Hama in 1982 when his father Hafez al-Assad crushed an armed Islamist revolt by razing neighborhoods and killing many thousands of civilians in a three-week attack that had a lasting deterrent effect.
> 
> Despite Saudi and Qatari promises of weapons and money, the assorted army deserters and civilians who took up arms after Assad's relentlessly violent response to initially peaceful protests remain mostly on their own, ill-trained and outgunned.
> 
> POWERFUL NEIGHBOUR
> 
> The wild card may be Turkey.
> 
> Having shifted from amity to hostility as Assad turned his tanks on civilians and rebels alike, the Turks are now incensed by an influx of 25,000 Syrian refugees. After Syrian soldiers fired over the border this week, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan asserted Turkey's right to ask its NATO partners to defend it.
> 
> In 1991, Turkey prodded its Western allies to create a safe haven in Iraq after half a million Kurds fled from Saddam's helicopter gunships. It has floated the same idea for Syria, while signaling any such move would need U.N. or NATO cover.
> 
> Turkey almost went to war with Syria in 1998 over its support for Turkish Kurd rebels. Assad's father caved in, expelling Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan and opening the way for a surprise rapprochement with Ankara.
> 
> Phillips said the spectre of Turkish military intervention was more likely to alarm Assad than any Gulf Arab effort to channel weapons to disparate insurgent groups - something which would fit Syria's portrayal of the unrest as the work of "terrorist" gangs fighting at the behest of foreign enemies.
> 
> Extra weaponry for opposition groups might speed Syria's descent into civil war, but would scarcely tip the military balance against Assad. In Libya last year, it was NATO warplanes, not rebel guns, that decided Muammar Gaddafi's fate.
> 
> "But if Turkey launched some full-frontal assault using air power on Syrian military bases, Bashar might be concerned about his own military turning on him and saying, 'We're going to be destroyed by this, it's time for you to go'," Phillips said.
> 
> So far Assad's Alawite-led military and security forces have remained generally cohesive, despite a flow of desertions to the rebel Free Syrian Army, which has its own internal divisions.
> 
> MURKY AID EFFORT
> 
> It is unclear how much aid Assad's opponents are getting from Gulf Arab states, despite reports of $100 million pledged at a "Friends of Syria" meeting in Istanbul this month.
> 
> "There is nothing of the sort," said one official of the opposition Syrian National Council. The group, he said, had previously been promised $50 million, with $5 million to be paid every two weeks. "But it's not coming regularly," he complained.
> 
> The Saudis are eager for the demise of Assad, a close ally of their regional nemesis Iran, but even they may be allowing private Saudi citizens to fund groups in Syria, rather than setting up any government channels, a Western diplomat said.
> 
> Such methods, reminiscent of previous Saudi backing for Islamist militants in Afghanistan and elsewhere, might disquiet Western powers concerned lest armed Sunni radicals shoulder aside more moderate and secular elements in the opposition.
> 
> Some rebel groups have named themselves after Sunni warriors of old, and are beyond Free Syrian Army control, said Marwa Daoudy, a visiting Middle East scholar at Princeton University.
> 
> This was "raising fears that the conflict is evolving into an armed struggle between Sunni-led groups and the Alawite-dominated regime", she said, while stating that minority Druze, Christians and Ismailis were represented in the opposition.
> 
> But Assad also has support from some in these groups who prefer the leader they know to an uncertain fate if Syria should fall under hardline Sunni rule, fears shared by some wealthy Sunni merchant families long allied with the governing elite.
> 
> From the outset of the revolt, the Syrian leader has played on sectarian fears to shore up his Alawite base.
> 
> "Long before the protest movement had turned violent, the authorities sought to convince the Alawite community that it risked slaughter at the hands of an opposition movement depicted simultaneously as a minority of murderous terrorists, a majority of hegemonic Sunni fundamentalists and an alien fifth column working on behalf of a global conspiracy," the International Crisis Group (ICG) said in a report this week.
> 
> Tit-for-tat sectarian killings and kidnappings have been on the rise, notably in the scarred city of Homs, and the ICG warned of a "growing disconnect between an insurgency and a popular movement" that were previously intertwined.
> 
> PEACE PLAN
> 
> Syria's violent dynamics may prove unstoppable, although a glimmer of hope could emerge if the truce holds - and many of Assad's foes say he cannot afford to stop shooting as people will demonstrate in vast numbers if they feel safe to do so.
> 
> Annan will have a hard job to achieve what his plan calls "an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people", gliding over the opposition demand for Assad's removal.
> 
> The Security Council, including Russia and China, has endorsed the plan, which Daoudy described as "one of the last political solutions available to the Assad regime in its interactions with the international community".
> 
> "If it fails to seize the opportunity, it might very well alienate its Russian and Chinese allies," she said.
> 
> Assad has unilaterally decreed political reforms, including a planned parliamentary election next month that his opponents have dismissed as a cynical ploy given Syria's bloody upheaval.
> 
> Syria's U.N. envoy Bashar al-Jaafari told U.S. PBS television's Charlie Rose his country only needed time to meet popular demands but that "collective suicide" was not the way.
> 
> "We are saying to our external wing opposition as well as to the people inside, 'Let us reform our country collectively speaking without the bloodshed'," Jaafari said on Thursday.
> 
> Asked if this could lead to a change of president, he said this was "up to the people's will" and accused countries such as the United States, France, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia of meddling in Syria's affairs by backing Assad's domestic enemies.
> 
> For those opponents, the idea that the Syrian autocrat would voluntarily cede power in a democratic process seems a sick joke, although a withdrawal of crucial Russian support might conceivably force Assad to rethink his calculations.
> 
> There has been no sign of a shift in Russia's position, but Western diplomats say Moscow does expect Assad to step aside although it sees someone from his Alawite circle taking over.
> 
> Without some agreed political transition, Syria risks even bloodier turmoil, with incalculable consequences for its 23 million people and for an already unstable Middle East.
> 
> "There is the potential for radicalization and sectarianism," said Phillips, "and a major possibility of it turning into a Lebanon- or Iraq-type civil war."


----------



## tamouh

Syrian Army possibly running out of fuel:

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/us-syria-diesel-idUSBRE8470KY20120508



> (Reuters) - Syria is facing a halt in imports of diesel needed to power heavy vehicles including army tanks, as a stream of shipments from Russia and other sources has dried up over the past four weeks, industry sources say.
> 
> Not one cargo of gasoil, which can be marketed as diesel, has been delivered to Syria's oil ports Banias and Tartous over the past four weeks, according to port data provided by a shipper. Average cargoes contain around 30,000 tonnes of fuel.
> 
> As many as nine cargoes of gasoil were delivered in March, with the last two shipments arriving in early April. The bulk of these deliveries came from Russian ports, but gasoil was also delivered from Iran.
> 
> Industry sources say no further shipments of refined oil have been seen to reach Syria since the Cape Benat arrived on April 11.
> 
> Oil producer Syria has two refineries, but also needs to import large amounts of gasoil and other fuels to meet domestic demand, both for heating and for transport.
> 
> The last cargo was delivered by a Monaco-based shipper who said a tightening of EU sanctions in March had forced the firm to cut ties with Syria's distribution company Mahrukat.
> 
> Non-EU firms could take over as intermediaries, but so far none appear to have acted on the opportunity to step in.
> 
> It is not clear why Iranian shipments have also dried up. An Iranian tanker in late March reached Syria with a cargo of gasoil, and left in April with a cargo of Syrian gasoline, in what appeared to be an exchange of refined oil products between allies.
> 
> Venezuela's government confirmed it had sent at least two shipments of fuel to Syria in February, but has not sent any since.
> 
> Western sanctions prohibit EU and U.S. firms from buying Syrian oil or doing business with Syrian companies handling imports of crude and refined products.
> 
> The EU's move also forced Greek company Naftomar, previously a mainstay of Syrian imports, to halt deliveries of the heating fuel liquefied petroleum gas used in Syrian homes and businesses.
> 
> (Reporting by Jessica Donati; editing by Keiron Henderson)


l


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Multinational force massed on Jordanian-Syrian border as 55 killed in Damascus bombings
DEBKAfile 10 May
http://www.debka.com/article/21989/

Beset on two fronts, Bashar Assad rushed his elite Presidential Guard Division to Damascus Thursday, May 10, as two massive car bombs in the al Qaza district of Damascus demolished the command center of the Syrian military security service’s reconnaissance division, killing 55 people and injuring more than 300. Over  to the southeast, 12,000 special operations troops from 17 nations, including the US and other NATO members, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, were poised on the Jordanian side of the Syrian border for an exercise codenamed “Eager Lion.”

debkafile’s military sources also disclose that the bomb attack on Damascus was the most serious his regime had suffered against a military target since the 14-month Syrian uprising began. For the first time, Assad moved his most loyal unit, the Republican Guard Brigade, into central Damascus.

Western and Arab pressure is building up to an intolerable pitch for the Syrian president to step down and save his people from the descent into the ultimate agony of a full-blown civil war. It is coming from two directions:

1. Special forces units of the US, France, Britain, Canada and other NATO members have gathered in Jordan alongside Saudi, Jordanian and Qatari special units for a large-scale ten-day military exercise in Jordan starting May 15. 

The exercise was set up by the US Special Operations Command Central. It is the Obama administration's message to the Islamic rulers of Iran, Bashar Assad and his Moscow backers, as well as its answer to the complaints from Arab and other Western governments that America is doing nothing to stop the horrors perpetrated in Syria.

Since all 12,000 troops massed in Jordan are commandos, they stand ready at all times to cross the border into Syria if this is deemed necessary.


2.  Syrian cities, especially the capital, are being targeted for violent bombing attacks designed to bring the Assad regime tumbling down. Behind these attacks are Persian Gulf emirates led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. debkafile’s intelligence sources disclose they have been joined in the last few days for the first time by Turkey which is contributing intelligence input. The military pressure on the Assad regime is thus reinforced by a campaign of terror against its props.

No connection is admitted between the multinational force on the Jordanian-Syrian border and the spate of bombings. However, if Saudi or Qatari intelligence did play a hand in the Damascus bombings, their special forces in Jordan will have been in the picture.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
> 
> Multinational force massed on Jordanian-Syrian border as 55 killed in Damascus bombings
> DEBKAfile 10 May
> http://www.debka.com/article/21989/
> 
> Beset on two fronts, Bashar Assad rushed his elite Presidential Guard Division to Damascus Thursday, May 10, as two massive car bombs in the al Qaza district of Damascus demolished the command center of the Syrian military security service’s reconnaissance division, killing 55 people and injuring more than 300. Over  to the southeast, 12,000 special operations troops from 17 nations, including the US and other NATO members, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, were poised on the Jordanian side of the Syrian border for an exercise codenamed “Eager Lion.”
> 
> debkafile’s military sources also disclose that the bomb attack on Damascus was the most serious his regime had suffered against a military target since the 14-month Syrian uprising began. For the first time, Assad moved his most loyal unit, the Republican Guard Brigade, into central Damascus.
> 
> Western and Arab pressure is building up to an intolerable pitch for the Syrian president to step down and save his people from the descent into the ultimate agony of a full-blown civil war. It is coming from two directions:
> 
> 1. Special forces units of the US, France, Britain, Canada and other NATO members have gathered in Jordan alongside Saudi, Jordanian and Qatari special units for a large-scale ten-day military exercise in Jordan starting May 15.
> 
> The exercise was set up by the US Special Operations Command Central. It is the Obama administration's message to the Islamic rulers of Iran, Bashar Assad and his Moscow backers, as well as its answer to the complaints from Arab and other Western governments that America is doing nothing to stop the horrors perpetrated in Syria.
> 
> Since all 12,000 troops massed in Jordan are commandos, they stand ready at all times to cross the border into Syria if this is deemed necessary.
> 
> 
> 2.  Syrian cities, especially the capital, are being targeted for violent bombing attacks designed to bring the Assad regime tumbling down. Behind these attacks are Persian Gulf emirates led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. debkafile’s intelligence sources disclose they have been joined in the last few days for the first time by Turkey which is contributing intelligence input. The military pressure on the Assad regime is thus reinforced by a campaign of terror against its props.
> 
> No connection is admitted between the multinational force on the Jordanian-Syrian border and the spate of bombings. However, if Saudi or Qatari intelligence did play a hand in the Damascus bombings, their special forces in Jordan will have been in the picture.



What Debka is talking about is  Ex Eager Lion 12  which is a large scale, multi-national exercise presently taking place in Jordan. Besides US, Jordanian, French, Turkish and Saudi participants, I couldn't find any of who the other participants are, let alone any Canadian involvement. 

I'm sure, come Monday, Thomas Mulchair and Bob Rae we be asking the PM whether Canadian troops are involved.


----------



## a_majoor

The Syrian opposition is perhaps falling under the influence of radical groups, with serious consequences for the surrounding region. Of course, there is always a silver lining; if Syria collapses into civil war and drags Lebanon with it, a lot of Iranian attention will be drawn away from other issues as they work to salvage their allies and Isreal will receive a breather:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/garfinkle/2012/05/11/syria-spins-out-of-control/



> *Syria Spins Out of Control*
> Adam Garfinkle
> 
> Yesterday’s massive bombings in Damascus portend a new stage of the Syrian crisis. The apparent involvement of al-Qaeda in Iraq in these bombings, and other evidence of the increased jihadi radicalization of the opposition movement, puts an end most likely to any prospect of an organized external military intervention in Syria.
> 
> That intervention was unlikely anyway, because the key actor in any such effort, the United States, absented itself long ago for reasons having to do with domestic politics. I suggested months ago a Turkish-led intervention, backed by the United States and NATO and the Arab League, designed to trigger a coup in Syria against the Assad regime. I suggested that along with that operation a diplomatic contact group be established to ease the transition to a better, perhaps even in some form a democratic, constitutional arrangement in Syria. The Obama Administration refused even to discuss the matter privately with the visiting Turkish Foreign Minister when he raised the question.
> 
> I (and others) also warned at the time that, absent an intervention to put an end to the conflict, the longer it went on, the more likely it would be radicalized. A very similar pattern manifested itself in Bosnia, and has done so also in other places. That warning now seems to have been validated.
> 
> I would be worried right now if I were a Lebanese. It is impossible to say if the Assad regime can hold out against a radicalized Syrian opposition, with volunteer support pouring in from neighboring countries. Most likely, in my view, it cannot. But it could take many months, even a year or two, for this bloody drama to play out. In the meantime, the conflict will pour across borders, including the Lebanese border, as it has already begin to do. If, in the fullness of time, a jihadi-led or strongly influenced state arises in Syria, or parts of it, then it is virtually inevitable that the Shi’a-tilted status quo in Lebanon will be upset. Sunni radicals in Damascus will not get along with Hizballah, and there are homegrown Sunni radicals in Lebanon that “friends” in Damascus would encourage and support on their behalf. The likely result? A new civil war, with a beginning epicenter most like in and around Tripoli.
> 
> I would also be concerned if I were an Iranian leader, because radical Sunnis in Damascus will not be able to get along with the mullahs in Iran either. From the U.S. point of view, that is not such a bad result, but losing its only state ally could nudge the Iranian leadership further toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons. In any event, the complexities of the three- and four-sided rivalries that will emerge in the region are very hard to predict, but the results will not be pretty or easily influenced by outside powers.
> 
> All of this is, of course, sort of tragic, because strong American leadership, a leadership that understood the strategic stakes involved in Syria and showed itself willing to take commensurate risks to secure them, probably could have prevented all this. Too late now.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A good reminder of Canadian troops overlooking the Golan between Israel and Syria.....


> The escalating violence and unrest in Syria has added to the risks and challenges faced by Canadian Forces (CF) members working for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).
> 
> Recent events that have been widely reported in the media have added challenges to the entire UNDOF team, as well as the three Canadians who serve in it.  Maj Catry, a Royal Canadian Dragoon officer based out of CFB Kingston, has noted that because of the unrest in Syria, as well as Nakba and Naksa Day protests last year, UNDOF’s work load, tempo and intensity have increased dramatically in maintaining the peace in the Golan Heights.
> 
> As the Military Assistant/Advisor to the Force Commander of UNDOF and as the Force’s Senior Staff Officer for personnel respectively, Maj Catry says he and Lieutenant-Commander Rohe, a Royal Canadian Navy Finance Officer from Ottawa, are busier than usual dealing with contingency plans and preparations.
> 
> "“My job has changed in the sense that it has become busier and slightly more tension filled due to the increasingly more complex situation,”" says Maj Catry. "“Whenever UNDOF goes high-tempo, we go high-tempo.”"
> 
> Maj Catry says the recent events have made the environment more complex and risky, but adds that the experience the CF members have from previous deployments helps them adjust to the dynamic situation in Syria. They take care to identify and avoid problematic areas in Damascus, and keep their protective gear close at hand.
> 
> A key new addition to the team, however, is also providing helpful insight to both the CF team and UNDOF.  Major Islam Elkorazati deployed to the Golan Heights in September 2011 as the Liaison Officer to the Senior Syrian Arab Delegate. He joined Major Chris Catry and Lieutenant-Commander Peter Rohe as the newest member of Operation GLADIUS, the CF contribution to UNDOF as part of Canada’s support for peacekeeping operations in the region.
> 
> Maj Elkorazati is the communications link between UNDOF and the Syrian government regarding the Golan Heights, an area characterized by an ‘Area of Separation’ rather than a border between two nations technically still at war. He shares information with both offices and resolves issues between UNDOF and the Syrian government. The position was previously held by an officer from Ireland. At the request of Canada it became a position to be filled permanently by a CF officer last autumn .....


CEFCOM Info-machine, 15 May 12

More on OP Gladius (Canada's contribution to UNDOF) here, on the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force here and on whazzup in Syria here (Google News) and here (European Commission news aggregator)


----------



## tamouh

Head of Intelligence: Assef Shawkat confirmed dead through poisoning. Though the SY media denied it, reports from the ground from multiple sources confirm he and 2 others are dead. It would be a great blow to the Syrian regime that may possibly cause cracks. Reports from Damascus indicate unusual military presence by the national guard.

Story carried by AFP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hJof8hnDlLVeV_T9ydV8r0ekZYPg?docId=CNG.b474f90df2945e3d6ed3dcac07a3dceb.251



> Speculation over 'killing' of Assad brother-in-law
> 
> (AFP) – 5 hours ago
> 
> BEIRUT — Speculation was rife on Wednesday among Syrian anti-regime activists over the alleged "killing" of President Bashar al-Assad's brother-in-law who is also Syria's deputy defence minister.
> 
> Assef Shawkat, former head of military intelligence, was poisoned, according to anti-regime activists. The authorities in Damascus could not be reached for comment and have not responded publicly to the claim.
> 
> According to anti-regime activists, Shawkat was being buried on Wednesday in his hometown, which they identified as Madhale, near the Mediterranean coastal city of Tartous.
> 
> Several activists quoted by Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya television said black flags were flying in Madhale in mourning.
> 
> On their Syrian Revolution Facebook page, online anti-regime activists wrote that: "Assef Shawkat is being buried right now in his home town Madhale ... God curse him. He was poisoned."
> 
> They said Shawkat's body was transported to a hospital near his hometown that was emptied of patients on Tuesday evening.
> 
> Speculation over Shawkat's fate first emerged on May 20 when Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya television broadcast an amateur video showing a man claiming responsibility on behalf of a rebel group for killing six regime stalwarts.
> 
> They included Shawkat, Interior Minister Mohammed al-Shaar, Defence Minister Daoud Rajha, national security chief Hisham Bakhtiar and Hassan Turkmeni, assistant to the vice president.
> 
> Turkmeni appeared on state television this week to dismiss the reports, while Shaar denied them in a telephone interview, accusing Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya of "lies and slander."
> 
> But Shawkat has not made any public appearance or personally denied the reports, though he rarely makes public statements.
> 
> According to Peter Harling, an expert on Syria with the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, the reports are "essentially unconfirmed for now.
> 
> "What is interesting is this story's success, regardless of its factual grounding," Harling told AFP. "A month ago, Syrians would not have believed, conveyed, invested in such news and it would not have spread.
> 
> "The regime then appeared particularly strong. Now there is a sense that the armed opposition is on the offensive."
> 
> A member of the inner circle of former Syrian president Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar, Shawkat rose quickly through the ranks of power after he married the late leader's only daughter, Bushra, in the 1990s.
> 
> But Shawkat's relations with the Assad clan were not always smooth. Bashar's powerful brother Maher al-Assad allegedly shot him in the stomach in 1999.
> 
> The two men were named in leaked version of a preliminary UN report as possible suspects in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese ex-premier Rafiq Hariri.
> 
> Copyright © 2012 AFP


----------



## tamouh

Crisis Management Team leaders were poisioned but survived

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/syrian-rebels-tried-to-kill-assad-s-top-aides-israeli-officials-confirm-1.432505



> A senior Israeli official said the information obtained indicates that the food at the meeting really was poisoned. "All those who ate the food were rushed to the hospital and saved at the last minute by medical attendants," he said. "The bodyguard who slipped the poison in was smuggled out of Syria."
> 
> Another Israeli official said the information published by the Syrian opposition after the incident is deemed credible by Israel. "There was an attempt to poison Shawkat and the other senior officials, but it failed, and all those who were at the meeting are still alive," he said.


----------



## 57Chevy

From Spiegel and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act 

The World from Berlin 
'Only Russia Can Exert Influence on Syria'
30 May
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-prospects-for-a-political-solution-in-syria-a-835977.html


On Tuesday, the diplomatic war began in earnest. With the United Nations citing indications that many of the 108 people killed in last Friday's massacre in Houla, Syria were executed by pro-government militiamen, several Western nations expelled Syrian diplomats. In a coordinated move, the United States, Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, France and Switzerland all told Syrian ambassadors in their countries that they would have to leave. Japan did the same on Wednesday.

 There has been widespread international outrage over the bloodshed, in which dozens of children also lost their lives -- many of them, according to eyewitnesses, having been shot in the head at close range. Nevertheless, it appears unlikely that the UN will authorize a military intervention. Both China and Russia on Wednesday reiterated their opposition to such a move.

Their comments came as French President François Hollande indicated on Wednesday that he would not rule out the possibility of a military intervention in the country. "It is dependent on me and the others to convince the Russians and the Chinese" not to veto military action in the United Nations Security Council, Hollande said. "We cannot allow Syrian President Bashar Assad to continue massacring his own people." Hollande plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday.

It seems unlikely that he will have any luck, though. Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said on Wednesday that Moscow remains categorically opposed to military intervention in Syria, Russian news agency Interfax reported. Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday that his country "opposes military intervention and does not support forced regime change." Even the US is against taking action, with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney saying that "we do not believe that further militarization of the situation in Syria at this point is the right course of action."

'Tipping Point' 

The Houla massacre is thought to be the most horrifying slaughter so far in the months-long unrest in Syria. On Tuesday, the UN said that initial investigations concluded that fewer than 20 of those killed on Friday night lost their lives in the artillery bombardment launched by pro-regime fighters. Most of the rest were killed by summary executions, with eyewitnesses reporting gunmen sweeping through Houla stabbing and shooting victims to death.

It is clear, said UN rights spokesman Rupert Colville on Tuesday, "that this was an absolutely abominable event that took place in Houla, and at least a substantial part of it were summary executions of civilians -- women and children." He added that "at this point it looks like entire families were shot in their houses." The UN Human Rights Council announced on Wednesday that it plans to hold an emergency session on Friday to address the events in Houla.

Kofi Annan, special UN envoy to Syria, travelled to Damascus on Tuesday to urge Assad to stop the killing. After the meeting, he said the country was at a "tipping point" and urged Assad's troops and pro-regime militias to exercise restraint.

German commentators take a closer look at the situation again on Wednesday.

Center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The Syrian crisis has now reached a point which allows us to see how reality and diplomacy sometimes exist in parallel worlds. Diplomacy is the horrified statements from the foreign ministries; the expulsion of envoys who, as protocol would have it, must depart their host countries within 72 hours; and the international peace broker who really doesn't have anything left to broker, but shakes hands nonetheless. Reality is the tanks, the mortar fire and the mob which murders women and children on behalf of the Syrian regime."

"These two worlds no longer have anything to do with one another. The one is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations from April 18, 1961. The other is war. One shouldn't harbor any illusions: The tools of the one world will not be able to stop the murder in the other."

Left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:

"A civil war on the model of Lebanon is beginning to take shape in Syria -- one in which everyone seems to be fighting everyone. Ethno-religious motivations are mixing with political preferences, Shiite Alawis are being played against orthodox Christians and Sunni Muslims. And then there are the al-Qaida groups, jihadists and all manner of mercenaries who are involved in this war -- and that's not counting influence from Iran and the Gulf states. The regime has intentionally stoked the conflict to present itself as a neutral guarantor of peace. In the wake of Houla, this lie has lost its last shred of credibility."

"After more than 10,000 dead in the Syrian revolt, only the most pigheaded can still believe that a political solution to the crisis can be achieved with the Assad regime. As such, the mission of Kofi Annan was predestined to fail because it presupposed that the Assad clan was able to arrive at a realistic assessment of the situation. But holding on to power is the only thing that counts for him. At any price."

"Not even the West is interested in a military intervention like the one in Libya, Russia and China also realize that fact. But a long civil war like the one that appears to be taking shape would likely hurt Russian and Chinese interests in the region more than a sudden overthrow of the despotic Assad clan. It is time to rethink things in Beijing and Moscow."

Financial daily Handelsblatt writes:

"After the Houla massacre, the rifts are so deep and the anger so intense that any political efforts seem doomed to failure. Yet diplomacy nevertheless offers the only way out of the difficult situation. The UN cannot fulfil the task, at least not alone. It has neither the means nor the strength. Its half-hearted resolutions, appeals and threats have all missed their mark. As long as the UN Security Council does not speak powerfully with a single voice, Assad can continue his inhuman activities unhindered. The Europeans and Americans are too busy with themselves at the moment to even consider a dangerous military intervention."

"The only power that can exert a certain amount of influence on Damascus is Russia. In Syria, however, Russia has an ally that offers it strategically vital access to the Middle East and it cannot give that up. Which is why the Russian government continues to protect Assad, even if it has become visibly more uncomfortable for Moscow to do so. But even Moscow must slowly realize that a diplomatic solution, which Russia has insisted it wants, is no longer possible with Assad. Therefore, the only option is to force Assad to give up power. And only Moscow could do that."

Conservative daily Die Welt writes: 

"Expelling an ambassador is the strongest weapon available to diplomacy. But that won't put an end to the public outrage (over the Houla massacre). The United Nations have pinpointed the pro-regime shabiha militia as being responsible for this crime against humanity. It might be that President Assad does not personally lead this group of fighters, but he is ultimately responsible when his people are murdered by marauding mercenaries. In Syria, the chain of command ends with him, the dictator. Personal weakness does not protect one from culpability."

"Nevertheless, it is right of UN special envoy Kofi Annan to cling to his peace plan. Because it is still not too late for a 'Yemeni solution,' which would involve the Assad clan stepping down in exchange for political exile. Some might find that dissatisfying because it would allow Assad to escape justice. But any other solution to the Syrian tragedy would cost a much greater price in bloodshed."
Charles Hawley
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe that soldiers of civilized nations do not take too kindly the massacre of civilians, especially women,
and so much more of little children.
That is one big reason why Nations have soldiers.
IMO, the Houla massacre will not only cause a rift, but also the beginning of a separation between a Nuclear Iran
and a Syrian madman. 
I agree that Moscow must exert its influence.


----------



## bridges

Did a search, but not sure if this is the right thread for this story; if not, please move it.  This is from the AP via CBC, reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/05/30/houla-massacre-syrian-boy.html

My heart goes out to this kid.   

"How an 11-year-old survived Houla massacre"



> When the gunmen began to slaughter his family, 11-year-old Ali el-Sayed says he fell to the floor of his home, soaking his clothes with his brother's blood to fool the killers into thinking he was already dead.
> 
> The Syrian boy tried to stop himself from trembling, even as the gunmen, with long beards and shaved heads, killed his parents and all four of his siblings, one by one.
> 
> The youngest to die was Ali's brother, six-year-old Nader. His small body bore two bullet holes —one in his head, another in his back.
> 
> "I put my brother's blood all over me and acted like I was dead," Ali told The Associated Press over Skype on Wednesday, his raspy voice steady and matter-of-fact, five days after the killing spree that left him both an orphan and an only child.


.....


> By most accounts, the gunmen descended on Houla from an arc of nearby villages, making the deaths all the more horrifying because the victims could have known their attackers.
> 
> Ali, the 11-year-old, said his mother began weeping the moment about 11 gunmen entered the family home in the middle of the night. The men led Ali's father and oldest brother outside.
> 
> "My mother started screaming 'Why did you take them? Why did you take them?"' Ali said.
> 
> Soon afterward, he said, the gunmen killed Ali's entire family.
> 
> As Ali huddled with his youngest siblings, a man in civilian clothes took Ali's mother to the bedroom and shot her five times in the head and neck.
> 
> "Then he left the bedroom. He used his flashlight to see in front of him," Ali said. "When he saw my sister Rasha, he shot her in the head while she was in the hallway."
> 
> Ali had been hiding near his brothers Nader, 6, and Aden, 8. The gunmen shot both of them, killing them instantly. He then fired at Ali but missed.
> 
> "I was terrified," Ali said, speaking from Houla, where relatives have taken him in. "My whole body was trembling."
> 
> Ali is among the few survivors of the massacre, although it was impossible to independently corroborate his story. The AP contacted him through anti-regime activists in Houla who arranged for an interview with the child over Skype.
> 
> Days after the attack, many victims remain missing.
> 
> Ali can describe the attack on his family. But al-Qassem said the full story of the massacre may never emerge.
> 
> "There are no eyewitnesses of the massacre," he said. "The eyewitnesses are all dead."


----------



## tamouh

Russia is playing with fire. On one hand they're claiming to be a broker for peace. They do abruptly come out and claim they don't want military intervention or armament of the opposition to prevent civil war. However, their actions show something different. Their supply ships docking with ammunition and fuel to the Syrian regime: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXTte72iC-_0AsX7TRnPxIGEeBng?docId=CNG.d99aea8c4dec4723aea914b35c1dd520.f71  





> US envoy slams 'reprehensible' Russia arms sales to Syria



I don't believe the US or Europe is waiting on Russia's approval or not of any military intervention. The Russian know that Assad regime in all eventuality going to be removed from power. Yet, they've still not offered an alternative solution.

The fractured opposition and the weak militia with very little communication or structure is probably the only cause for this prolonged crisis. The West does not want to risk armed soldiers on the ground, and Turkey will not intervene unless directly attacked. So Syria is at a stand still until something new comes along.


----------



## The Bread Guy

From Hansard yesterday:





> Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion on Syria. I move, seconded by the Minister of International Cooperation and the member for Mount Royal:
> 
> *That the House continue to support measures which
> (a) condemn the brutal massacre of Syrian civilians by government forces in clear violation of earlier commitments;
> (b) call for an immediate end to the violence, especially the attacks on civilians;
> (c) support the Joint Special Envoy of the UN and Arab League efforts to establish a ceasefire and implement the six-point peace plan;
> (d) call for unrestricted access to the country for the international media;
> (e) support the government's decision to expel Syrian diplomats in protest to the latest atrocities in Syria;
> (f) call on the international community to speak with one voice clearly and categorically condemning the violence and working to bring about a complete cessation of hostilities;
> (g) urge the leadership of China and Russia to play an active and decisive role in achieving an effective ceasefire that saves the lives of innocent civilians as well as negotiating a road map to reforms that respond to the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people;
> (h) continue Canada's humanitarian aid to refugees and to internally displaced persons fleeing violence in Syria, as needed, and;
> (i) stand in solidarity with those who aspire for peace, democratic governance and the protection of human rights.*
> 
> The Speaker:  Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
> 
> Some hon. members: Agreed.
> 
> The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
> 
> Some hon. members: Agreed.
> 
> (Motion agreed to)


----------



## Montealer10

More news from Syria. 





http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/06/children-killed-bodies-burned-in-syrian-massacre-that-killed-86-opposition/


----------



## a_majoor

While there is no upside to the West getting involved in Syria, there is still a serious downside to the possible outcomes there. Watching the Saudis arm the rebles (and knowing the rebles are either radical Islamists or will be overtaken by them) is hardley encouraging news. The best possible outcome is most likely to let each side fight it out to a stalemate, horrible as it might sound. Often we are confronted by making the least bad choice:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/09/the-real-news-from-syria/



> *The Real News From Syria*
> 
> There’s a lot of noise coming out of Syria and the various international chat-fests being organized around it these days. Stern warnings from the State Department, charges and counter charges of massacres and atrocities on the ground in Syria, soothing platitudes from Kofi Anan, diplomatic warnings from Russia: most of it can be summarized as “blah, blah, blah.”
> 
> None of this has much bearing on what will happen. It is mostly posturing — the Russians are trying to look like they matter, the Turks want to look busy while minimizing their risks, the Americans want to feel good about themselves by mounting rhetorical assaults against atrocities they have no will to prevent, and so it goes. The legacy press covers this stuff because it can, and because it often buys into the establishment’s diplomatic narrative, but serious students of international affairs should not be misled: most of what is written about Syria these days is fluff and filler rather than news.
> 
> For insight into the future of Syria, try this story in the (paywall protected) Financial Times. Support for arming the rebels is growing, as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and wealthy Syrian expats and others step up funding for the military resistance to Assad.
> The weapons being provided include light infantry arms and, increasingly, anti-tank weapons. Better armed rebels are credited with increasing the death toll among Assad’s soldiers as well as growing numbers of tanks destroyed.
> 
> Much of the funding comes from official channels, but it’s not clear who exactly is getting the money. While the “Free Syrian Army” is developing a more organized structure around the country, there are many groups in the chaotic resistance movements and, given the atmosphere of lawlessness and smuggling that has been a persistent feature in parts of Syria, it’s not at all clear where these weapons end up.
> 
> The FT also notes that radical and Salafist sheikhs and organizations in the Gulf are getting into the weapons delivery act. For many jihadis, the fight against Assad is first and foremost a struggle against Alawite “heretics”, and the goal is to build a radical Islamic state on the ruins of Ba’athist, secular Syria.
> 
> It’s been a classic Saudi ploy to keep the radicals quiet at home by letting them fight and support fighters abroad; this dates back at least as far as the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and has been a pattern in many conflicts since. It seems likely that in this case, when the Saudi state interest in weakening Iran and strengthening the Saudi voice in both Lebanon and Damascus coincides with the jihadi hunger for a Syrian religious war, that Saudi authorities will see radical enthusiasm for Syria as an asset.
> 
> What’s happening in Syria is a true civil war, and like most civil wars it won’t come to an end until one side loses or until both sides realize that they can’t win. What the Arabs and others are doing to arm the rebels has much more to do with this war than the choreographed posturing of diplomats and the elegant pirouettes of moral concern performed by world leaders trying to make themselves look good against a background of chaos and blood.
> Will the rebels get the strength and the international backing to drive Assad from power, or will Assad finally manage to crush his opponents once and for all? Or will a stalemate gradually emerge as both sides do everything they can, but neither can quite beat the other? If the rebels do start to succeed, who will win the power struggle among the many different factions into which the regime’s enemies are divided?
> 
> Those are the real questions in Syria, and understanding the flow of money and arms to rebel groups is almost infinitely more important than following the travel schedule of Kofi Annan as we try to see what comes next.


----------



## tamouh

> While there is no upside to the West getting involved in Syria, there is still a serious downside to the possible outcomes there. Watching the Saudis arm the rebles (and knowing the rebles are either radical Islamists or will be overtaken by them) is hardley encouraging news. The best possible outcome is most likely to let each side fight it out to a stalemate, horrible as it might sound. Often we are confronted by making the least bad choice:
> 
> http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/09/the-real-news-from-syria/



doing nothing right now means allowing Syria to get down to a very deep civil war with hundreds of thousands of people killed or murdered. The recent events in Tripoli, Lebanon also serve a reminder that what happens in Syria will affect the whole region as a whole.

I still think the UN will do something once the death toll reaches the magic number of 100,000 killed. When it is too little, too late.

Radical Islamists need empathy to rise in Syria. Syria had never elected a radical gov't before. Most of the population is considered moderate if not liberated, especially in the major cities. I can't see an Iranian style islamists take over. The only worry that if this situations continues with the status quo that Islamists will gain more sympathy (out of desperation...).

In other news, Syrian National Council elected a new leader from the Kurdish-Syrian minority. UK PM saying Syria resmebles Bosnia in 1990s. The city of Homs resmebles Sarajevo in many aspects. Many parts of the city are deserted with only FSA members and families whom have no where else to go are holding the grounds. The Syrian army on the outskirts with artillery fire and many attempts to push through the FSA controlled areas.  The Syrian army is sending more logistical support to the province of Homs. Surprisingly, most of the equipment is made for urban warfare (little if any tanks), mostly pickup trucks with machine guns mounted at the backز


----------



## Jed

I still think the UN will do something once the death toll reaches the magic number of 100,000 killed. When it is too little, too late.
[/quote]

Tiamo, how many people died in the African debacles such as Rwanda or Somalia? I don't think large numbers of civilian deaths will make any difference to UN effectiveness in dealing with this situation.


----------



## bridges

I tried to vote in the poll at the top of this page, then realized it's almost a year old.  Maybe it's time for an updated poll on foreign intervention in Syria-?


----------



## a_majoor

Radical Islamists only need to be the baddest cats in the valley of death; once everyone else is cowed into inaction they can rape and pillage to their heart's content. Since they are already organized and supplied by outside backers, they have huge advantages over any home grown opposition, just ask the Egyptians.

The death count is irrelevant to the UN. Look at what happened in the Sudan; tens of thousands of people dead were obviously some sort of coincidence; no genocide there...


----------



## The Bread Guy

If Debka.com is to be believed....





> US President Barack Obama has ordered the US Navy and Air Force to accelerate preparations for a limited air offensive against the Assad regime and the imposition of no-fly zones over Syria, debkafile reports. Their mission will be to knock out Assad’s central regime and military command centers so as to shake regime stability and restrict Syrian army and air force activity for subduing rebel action and wreaking violence on civilian populations.
> debkafile’s sources disclose that the US President decided on this step after hearing Russian officials stating repeatedly that “Moscow would support the departure of President Bashar al-Assad if Syrians agreed to it.”  This position was interpreted as opening up two paths of action:
> 1.  To go for Assad’s removal by stepping up arms supplies to the rebels and organizing their forces as a professional force able to take on the military units loyal to Assad. This process was already in evidence Friday, June 8, when for the first time a Syrian Free Army (which numbers some 600 men under arms) attacked a Syrian army battalion in Damascus. One of its targets was a bus carrying Russian specialists.
> 2.  To select a group of high army officers who, under the pressure of the limited air offensive, would be ready to ease Assad out of power or stage a military coup to force him and his family to accept exile ....


----------



## Macrinus88

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Radical Islamists only need to be the baddest cats in the valley of death; once everyone else is cowed into inaction they can rape and pillage to their heart's content. Since they are already organized and supplied by outside backers, they have huge advantages over any home grown opposition, just ask the Egyptians.
> 
> The death count is irrelevant to the UN. Look at what happened in the Sudan; tens of thousands of people dead were obviously some sort of coincidence; no genocide there...



Many Radical Islamist groups are directly armed and supported by the US government. The Egyptian crisis was a successful revolution but all these revolutions have had US involvement. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSNyPS0fXpU   All these wars were planned. US Empire is obviously behind schedule with their plans, they always have France and UK on board with their plans, both significant former Imperial Powers.

Libya was the same and Canada supported this war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgim5hS7qiE  CIA spotted with Libyan Rebels.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=XorKTwkFPDU&NR=1  This was the Libya before the war, a benevolent dictatorship in my opinion.


----------



## GAP

oh joy, another one!!!


----------



## aesop081

Macrinus88 said:
			
		

> This was the Libya before the war, a benevolent dictatorship in my opinion.



 :rofl:


----------



## Edward Campbell

I heard a report this morning describing another attack on another Syrian town and the local person being quoted said, apparently, that the attackers were from the next village - and they had many old scores to settle with the victim village. The reporter/commentator suggested that both sides, the Syrian administration and the _opposition_ (whoever and whatever that is, are both exploiting local feuds to further their ends. Elsewhere, here on Army.ca, a senior member agreed with me that many of the problems in a different region (Africa) are "tribal" in nature; I suspect that we have at least some of the same thing in the Middle East: opposing forces (governments and insurgents) can and will exploit intrareligious (Sunni vs Shia, Alawites vs other Sias and Sunnis, and so on) and local differences to fight proxy battles.

In my opinion we - the UN members who pay the bills - ought not to do anything to exacerbate the current problems, and that includes (my opinion again) taking military action or offering military aid. (Heaven knows if here's one thing we do not need more of in Africa and the Middle east it's weapons.)


----------



## tamouh

> In my opinion we - the UN members who pay the bills - ought not to do anything to exacerbate the current problems, and that includes (my opinion again) taking military action or offering military aid. (Heaven knows if here's one thing we do not need more of in Africa and the Middle east it's weapons.)



When one side is being heavily supported and armed by UN members, why should we expect to allow them to ruin the whole region? Sure, I'd like this problem be settled without a war. Many of the things you've mentioned are expected results of the fall of the regime. There will be old score settling, but that is only because this has dragged on for so long. The longer the situation in Syria continues, the more scores need to be settled (villages vs village, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion...etc)

Debkafile has reported Obama is planning for an airstrike, any confirmations?

As for radical Islamists, they've always existed since the birth of Islam and before then they were radical something else. Turkey has a radical islamic government, they just learned to become moderate. I always go back to history and look at what it means to be radical islamist government. Were the Ummayads, Abassi and Saladdin radical Islamists as well? If so, then why Christians and other minorities continues to live in those areas? There are many parts in northern ME where mosques and churches share the same street and even some the same walls.

I do reject the notion of radical islamists government in the ME. This is not Iran led by a Khomeini whom been granted assylum in France until he is returned to his realm!!

Further, there is a big difference in the structure of Sunni and Shia'a Islam. Shia Islam from all around the world follows the leader (Khomeini or whomever be) - think about him as the Pope for Shia. While Sunnis do not have that type of structure. Every country has their own "Mufti" - someone who makes religious orderings but he is under the direct control of the President or King and most of the time appointed directly by him.

There are some pockets like Al-Qaeda who'd like to establish the Caliphate rule. But that is a far fetched dream. I've lived and mixed with ME people and know that 90% don't believe in that shit. Most of Al-Qaeda supporters come from poor families with little education. The rest are educated anti-western nationalists like some extreme branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.


----------



## a_majoor

The radical Islamists have organization, a coherent plan (at least coherent in their eyes) and the will to execute it. It does not matter if they are a minority or come from a particular social stratum; they are more prepared to take charge of the situation, kill or cow their opponents and offer stability to the long suffering masses; who will accept with gratitude.

This is how the Taliban were able to seize control of large portions of Afghanistan, or going back farther in history, how the Bolsheviks were able to gain and consolidate power in Russia, or how Napoleon eventually came to power in the chaos of the French revolution. "The man on the white horse" isn't there for you, but his offer is tempting enough that many (maybe most) people will clutch at it.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Macrinus88 said:
			
		

> This was the Libya before the war, a benevolent dictatorship in my opinion.



Tell that to the families of all the innocent victims who were killed/maimed by various terrorist groups (PLO/PFLP/IRA, etc) that Qaddafi supported over the years.


----------



## tamouh

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The radical Islamists have organization, a coherent plan (at least coherent in their eyes) and the will to execute it. It does not matter if they are a minority or come from a particular social stratum; they are more prepared to take charge of the situation, kill or cow their opponents and offer stability to the long suffering masses; who will accept with gratitude.
> 
> This is how the Taliban were able to seize control of large portions of Afghanistan, or going back farther in history, how the Bolsheviks were able to gain and consolidate power in Russia, or how Napoleon eventually came to power in the chaos of the French revolution. "The man on the white horse" isn't there for you, but his offer is tempting enough that many (maybe most) people will clutch at it.



Sure, but there has been other successfull revolutions. Just because there are bad apples digging their claws to ride a popular wave does not prevent us from supporting what is right. Obviously whomever these radicals are and their plans, the best way to counter them by offering support to the more streamline, moderate alternative


----------



## Macrinus88

Yea some of you will laugh at my post simply because you are ignorant. It has been well documented that the CIA/US has armed and supported many Jihadist groups to destabilize nations in the Middle East.  What Former General Westley Clarke said in that video is only more proof that supports this fact. The issue is not about the internal complications with the nation but the external foreign powers who are supporting these terrorist groups to take over these nations. 

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/benghazi-libya-al-qaeda.jpg

Yay! Humanitarian war of freedom in Libya! Now it is a CIA Armed Alqueda infested Extremist no mans land.


----------



## Macrinus88

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Tell that to the families of all the innocent victims who were killed/maimed by various terrorist groups (PLO/PFLP/IRA, etc) that Qaddafi supported over the years.



I know Qaddafi's regime wasn't perfect, if you oppose a dictatorship you will obviously be killed and he also started some regional wars but Libya was obviously better off with him then what it is now. Ha, but those groups were all foreign and another mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Isreal is nothing but a segregated Zionist regime, they are very prejudice towards the muslims and settlers expand into their lands. They used White phosphorous chemical weapons on Palestinians before.


----------



## 57Chevy

Macrinus88 said:
			
		

> Isreal is nothing but a segregated Zionist regime, they are very prejudice towards the muslims and settlers expand into their lands. They used White phosphorous chemical weapons on Palestinians before.



Lets keep the facts in order.

Gaza Belt Leader Writes UN: Hamas Guilty of War Crimes’
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104024.0.html


----------



## GAP

This thread needs to be renamed to "The Tinfoil Hat, Conspiracy Theory Soapbox Thread"............ :


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tiamo said:
			
		

> When one side is being heavily supported and armed by UN members, why should we expect to allow them to ruin the whole region? Sure, I'd like this problem be settled without a war. Many of the things you've mentioned are expected results of the fall of the regime. There will be old score settling, but that is only because this has dragged on for so long. The longer the situation in Syria continues, the more scores need to be settled (villages vs village, tribe vs tribe, religion vs religion...etc)
> 
> Debkafile has reported Obama is planning for an airstrike, any confirmations?
> 
> As for radical Islamists, they've always existed since the birth of Islam and before then they were radical something else. Turkey has a radical islamic government, they just learned to become moderate. I always go back to history and look at what it means to be radical islamist government. Were the Ummayads, Abassi and Saladdin radical Islamists as well? If so, then why Christians and other minorities continues to live in those areas? There are many parts in northern ME where mosques and churches share the same street and even some the same walls.
> 
> I do reject the notion of radical islamists government in the ME. This is not Iran led by a Khomeini whom been granted assylum in France until he is returned to his realm!!
> 
> Further, there is a big difference in the structure of Sunni and Shia'a Islam. Shia Islam from all around the world follows the leader (Khomeini or whomever be) - think about him as the Pope for Shia. While Sunnis do not have that type of structure. Every country has their own "Mufti" - someone who makes religious orderings but he is under the direct control of the President or King and most of the time appointed directly by him.
> 
> There are some pockets like Al-Qaeda who'd like to establish the Caliphate rule. But that is a far fetched dream. I've lived and mixed with ME people and know that 90% don't believe in that shit. Most of Al-Qaeda supporters come from poor families with little education. The rest are educated anti-western nationalists like some extreme branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.




I've read this several times but I cannot find a _casus belli_, a good, justifiable reason for us - some coalition, including countries like America, Britain and Canada - to go to war. What has Syria done to us? Oh, I know about, but like everyone else, do not understand R2P; I know the Syrian regime is unpleasant, to be charitable, but is that really a good reason to invade, or at least bomb, Syria? What if, on *principle* (remember principles?), China refuses to agree a UNSC Resolution, what if we cannot do another _Uniting for Peace_ in the UN General Assembly; will we invade/bomb anyway?

For the record, I opposed military intervention in Libya, too and, notwithstanding the stellar performance of the CF in the operation, including that of several members of Army.ca, some of whom I know and count amongst my friends, I remain convinced hat it was, at best, unnecessary, more likely unproductive.


----------



## Montealer10

Macrinus88 said:
			
		

> Yea some of you will laugh at my post simply because you are ignorant. It has been well documented that the CIA/US has armed and supported many Jihadist groups to destabilize nations in the Middle East.  What Former General Westley Clarke said in that video is only more proof that supports this fact. The issue is not about the internal complications with the nation but the external foreign powers who are supporting these terrorist groups to take over these nations.
> 
> http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/benghazi-libya-al-qaeda.jpg
> 
> Yay! Humanitarian war of freedom in Libya! Now it is a CIA Armed Alqueda infested Extremist no mans land.




When you say it's "been well documented" I suppose you mean that that is proof? Well let me tell you something, even proof is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## tamouh

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I've read this several times but I cannot find a _casus belli_, a good, justifiable reason for us - some coalition, including countries like America, Britain and Canada - to go to war. What has Syria done to us? Oh, I know about, but like everyone else, do not understand R2P; I know the Syrian regime is unpleasant, to be charitable, but is that really a good reason to invade, or at least bomb, Syria? What if, on *principle* (remember principles?), China refuses to agree a UNSC Resolution, what if we cannot do another _Uniting for Peace_ in the UN General Assembly; will we invade/bomb anyway?
> 
> For the record, I opposed military intervention in Libya, too and, notwithstanding the stellar performance of the CF in the operation, including that of several members of Army.ca, some of whom I know and count amongst my friends, I remain convinced hat it was, at best, unnecessary, more likely unproductive.



There is probably not a very direct benefit for Canadian intervention in Syria (The US/Europe is a different case). However, the world is shrinking ever smaller. What happens in Japan affect us in Canada. What is happening in the ME will affect us in N. America. Technology is advancing, communications are ever more rapid. This means we are involved in the situation as a nation participating in this world. 

It is in th best interest of Canada and the rest of the world to have a stable ME. One that contributes to the prosperity of humanity instead of being the plague it has been for centuries. The geogrophical location of Syria is critical for EuroAsia transportation hub. It is important to have stability in that region, peace and governments that participate in building a better future.


----------



## teabag

Indeed.  I'm certain we cry ourselves to sleep at night thinking about the plight of people in the Middle East.  I think we pray for them at Church.  Maybe.  We must be experts on the Middle East by now - I bet at least one of us has spoken to someone whose boots touched the soil in that geographical area within the last twelve months.  I do wonder how many of us know a Muslim or have friends who are Muslim?  Would their thoughts and opinions be a part of the 'tin foil hat area' as well?  Has anyone spoken to a radical Islamist?  Can any of us claim that we understand them?  Or are we just confident in our moral superiority?   

The world is not shrinking; however there are groups that would like to homogenize it with utter disregard for cultural differences.  Why is the Middle East being spoken of as if they are just a means to an end?  Every person is entitled to live and fight as they wish, no?  And if we are in agreement, then can we at least admit that any military intervention in that area is not for humanitarian reasons?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Urmimu said:
			
		

> Indeed.  I'm certain we cry ourselves to sleep at night thinking about the plight of people in the Middle East.  I think we pray for them at Church.  Maybe.  We must be experts on the Middle East by now - I bet at least one of us has spoken to someone whose boots touched the soil in that geographical area within the last twelve months.  I do wonder how many of us know a Muslim or have friends who are Muslim?  Would their thoughts and opinions be a part of the 'tin foil hat area' as well?  Has anyone spoken to a radical Islamist?  Can any of us claim that we understand them?  Or are we just confident in our moral superiority?
> 
> The world is not shrinking; however there are groups that would like to homogenize it with utter disregard for cultural differences.  Why is the Middle East being spoken of as if they are just a means to an end?  Every person is entitled to live and fight as they wish, no?  And if we are in agreement, then can we at least admit that any military intervention in that area is not for humanitarian reasons?




Yes, indeed ... and they are equally "entitled" to do their fighting (and living and dying) without outside _interference_, including help from Russia (or America and its allies).


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Russia accuses US of arming Syria rebels
Mohammad Davari | AFP
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russia-accuses-us-arming-syria-rebels-134113113.html

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday accused the United States of supplying weapons to Syria's rebels, worsening the conflict engulfing Moscow's allied regime in Damascus.

Russia was supplying "anti-air defence systems" to Damascus in a deal that "in no way violates international laws," Lavrov told a news conference during a brief visit to Iran.

"That contrasts with what the United States is doing with the opposition, which is providing arms to the Syrian opposition which are being used against the Syrian government," he said.

It was the first time Moscow has directly pointed the finger at Washington. Previously, it had said unidentified "foreign powers" were arming Syria's opposition.

Lavrov's accusation followed a charge by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday that she had information Russia was sending to Syria "attack helicopters... which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically."

Asked in the Tehran news conference specifically about the helicopter allegation, Lavrov said only that Moscow was giving Damascus "conventional weapons" related to air defence, and asserted that the deal complied with international law.

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told reporters last month that Moscow believed "it would be wrong to leave the Syrian government without the means for self-defence."

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in the same news conference with Lavrov on Wednesday that Tehran and Moscow were "very close" on the Syria issue.

Western and Arab nations, he said, "are sending weapons to Syria and forces to Syria, and are not allowing the reforms promised by the Syrian president to be applied."

Reports in Iran allege that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United States are arming Syria's rebels -- termed "terrorists" by Damascus -- while US officials claim Iran is giving arms and military advisors to Syria's regime.

Some observers fear the conflict, which the UN's chief peacekeeper agrees now resembles a civil war, could blow up into a struggle between forces helped by outside nations.

"There is a real risk of it sliding into a proxy war as certain states support the regime or 'the opposition'," one Western diplomat told AFP, speaking on condition on anonymity.

"The conflict in Syria certainly appears to be getting more brutal -- and not just on one side," the diplomat warned.

Monitors say at least 14,100 people have been killed in the 15-month uprising against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Russia came under fierce criticism from Western and Arab countries for vetoing two UN Security Council resolutions that would have sanctioned Assad for his use of force.

Moscow is now trying to organise an international conference on Syria that would include several nations with influence over the conflict, including Iran. The United States, Britain and France, though, object to Iran taking part.


----------



## tamouh

> Yes, indeed ... and they are equally "entitled" to do their fighting (and living and dying) without outside interference, including help from Russia (or America and its allies).



That would be fair, but we do know that the Syrian regime is being supplied ammunition and fuel by outside force for the single purpose to crush its citizens.



> "That contrasts with what the United States is doing with the opposition, which is providing arms to the Syrian opposition which are being used against the Syrian government," he said.



The US nor Europe had supplied any weapons to the FSA (yet!). Had they done so, you'll notice a significant change in the battle on the ground. When you hear about helis falling out of the sky or T72 tanks with reactive armor being destroyed then know the US had begun supplying weapons.

Until then, as far as I'm aware, most weapons are bought and smuggled by the opposition or captured during operations. There are very few weapons as well that are being modified or manufactured locally.


----------



## aesop081

Tiamo said:
			
		

> That would be fair, but we do know that the Syrian regime is being supplied ammunition and fuel by outside force for the single purpose to crush its citizens.



Stop, i think you are going to make me cry.


----------



## tamouh

This article is basically very true to what is happening on the ground right now:

With smuggling choked, Syrian rebels feel shortage of heavy weapons

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/May-25/174603-with-smuggling-choked-syrian-rebels-feel-shortage-of-heavy-weapons.ashx#ixzz1xgzpqZIM



> BEIRUT: Mohammad Nizar says he and his fellow rebels have the will, the fervor and the money to bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad. What they lack, he says, is the firepower.
> 
> “If I make a phone call, I’ll have maybe 2,000 Stingers,” Nizar said, then acknowledged he could not get the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles because the government is choking off all the main smuggling routes into Syria.
> 
> Small arms purchased on the black market are being smuggled in, but for all the international community’s talk of helping the rebels to bring down Assad, no government is known to be arming them.
> 
> Libya’s new rulers, fresh from their own revolution that toppled longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi, have pledged support for the Syrian rebels, but actually transferring weapons is tricky. Last month, Lebanese authorities seized a ship carrying rocket-propelled grenades and heavy caliber ammunition, possibly bound for Syrian rebels.
> 
> The fighters’ attempts to bring in heavier arms that could change the course of the 15-month-old uprising so far have been stymied at every turn, even by countries sympathetic to the revolt. All are wary of being drawn into the fight.
> 
> Any attempt by foreign governments to arm the rebels has been seen as a gamble because it could set the stage for a proxy war in an already volatile region. Such a scenario could entail Russia and Iran backing the Assad government, with the U.S. and its Arab and European allies supporting the rebels.
> 
> On the other hand, the lack of weaponry to resist a powerful crackdown by Assad’s forces has broad implications for the revolt, and it could push rebels toward desperate tactics.
> 
> Already, Syria’s rebels are shifting gears to smaller-scale guerrilla tactics like roadside bombs and hit-and-run attacks as the government chokes off the main smuggling routes.
> 
> AP interviews with security officials, rebels and arms dealers indicate that individual rebel units scrounge for weapons with almost no central organization or import routes for anything heavier than automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.
> 
> “An RPG is the biggest gun we have,” said Nizar, who handles logistics and weapons procurement for the Free Syrian Army, the loose umbrella group for rebel factions. He said it receives no equipment from foreign governments and has not seen any American aid.
> 
> That contrasts sharply with the direction the conflict appeared to be taking earlier this year. Outraged by a bloody assault to crush the opposition in the city of Homs, Western and Arab governments spoke of supplying the rebels with cash.
> 
> The Obama administration says it has started delivering a package of $12 million in communications, medical and other “non-lethal” assistance to the opposition, but there have been no obvious changes on the ground.
> 
> Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Libya have spoken positively of the idea of arming the Syrian rebels, but no country is known to be doing so now.
> 
> Speaking to the AP in Turkey, where he is based, Nizar said rebels have managed to seize some 30 armored vehicles including tanks and were using some of them, and that some rebels are trying to set up their own arms industry. He did not say what they are producing.
> 
> In April, Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Arab Gulf states promised to set up a multimillion-dollar fund designed to prop up Syria’s rebels and entice defections from the army, but no money is known to have been distributed yet.
> 
> Nizar said money is not the issue – plenty pours in from Syrians in exile. He said the biggest need is for anti-tank and anti-helicopter weapons, including rockets.
> 
> The rebels have cast a wide net, contacting weapons dealers in Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia and Azerbaijan, he said. Libya has “opened the store” for Syrian rebels, eager to help fellow “revolutionaries” and, more important, to get rid of its destabilizing overstocks of weapons from last year’s civil war, he said.
> 
> But the problem is transporting the weapons into Syria. Light arms used to flow relatively easily into Syria through small-scale smuggling networks. But Syria’s neighbors all have good reasons to stay out of the fight, and are wary of openly arming the rebels. In recent weeks they appear to be clamping down on smuggling.
> 
> Nizar said Turkey’s position is “live in our country and don’t make problems.” Jordan keeps even tighter control on FSA members on its soil. Syria’s border with Israel is sealed, Iraq says it has deployed troops to curb smuggling across its border with Syria, and Lebanon is too divided to take any sort of unified stance on Syria. Russia, Syria’s chief backer, has a naval base on the country’s Mediterranean coast.
> 
> Lebanese authorities have been cracking down on weapons believed to be heading for Syria, particularly through the northern port city of Tripoli, where sympathy for the rebels is widespread.
> 
> On May 7, Lebanese authorities said they seized 60,000 rounds of ammunition hidden in a ship that arrived in Tripoli carrying used cars. Last month, they seized a ship headed to Tripoli carrying Libyan weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades and heavy caliber ammunition.
> 
> Abu Raed, 40, a former smuggler living in north Lebanon near the border with Syria, said weapons flowed freely until Syria clamped down.
> 
> “There were many ways to smuggle weapons inside Syria, especially at the beginning when areas close to the northern border were free of army presence,” he said.
> 
> Then the Syrian army mined the border and closed most of the smugglers’ crossings, he said. “This has limited the work of smugglers noticeably.”
> 
> Early in the uprising, rebels would hold ground and even entire neighborhoods or towns where opposition sentiment was high. But lack of weapons and the government’s firepower forced a shift in tactics and rebels appear to have turned to roadside bombs, hit-and-run ambushes and assassinations.
> 
> Since late December, Al-Qaeda-style suicide bombings have become increasingly common, although the FSA denies having anything to do with those. Instead, they say, they target military vehicles and soldiers to chip away at the government.
> 
> “At least in recent weeks, you no longer have these big battles like one had in Homs,” Jakob Kellenberger, president of International Committee of the Red Cross, told reporters on May 8 in Geneva.
> 
> “You have more guerrilla attacks and bomb attacks,” he said.
> 
> Syrian army units have stepped up their firepower. Some are using Russian-made 2S4 Tyulpan 240mm self-propelled mortars, the world’s heaviest mortars, said Nic Jenzen-Jones, an Australia-based small arms consultant.
> 
> “Even assuming significant quantities of weapons end up in opposition hands, the regime might feel it has little reason to worry,” the International Crisis Group said in a recent report.
> 
> “In Libya, the massive NATO air campaign almost certainly did more to defeat Gadhafi’s forces than whatever assistance was provided to rebel groups; even then, it took months to achieve victory.”


----------



## a_majoor

As always, we are i9n the position of having to make the least worst choices:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/12/wilsonian-wars-wilsonian-ruin/



> *Wilsonian Wars, Wilsonian Ruin*
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> After we expressed our concerns during NATO’s Libyan war that the afterparty was likely to be chaotic and unpleasant, we’ve been watching the horrific humanitarian and political consequences unwind in several places.
> 
> Most recently, Via Meadia has been keeping a careful eye on the growing troubles in northern Mali and the storied historical city of Timbuktu for some time. Two groups — the Tuareg independence movement MNLA and the al-Qaeda affiliated Ansar Dine — are involved in a struggle for control of a large part of northern Mali. Together, both groups put up a united front in dealing with Mali’s feeble and divided central government, with the result that they’ve seized control of large parts of the country. They then declared a “union” and announced their intention to establish an Islamic, well, something, and began the usual persecutions of and reprisals against their enemies. Due to both tribal and religious differences, their alliance is tenuous and they are held together only by their loathing and jealousy of the south — and their fear that outside groups like the group of west African nations known as ECOWAS will send troops against them.
> 
> To make matters more complicated, many of Timbuktu’s original residents, who are displeased with the newcomers, decided to establish their own armed movement — the Patriots’ Resistance Movement for the Liberation of Timbuktu. At this point we have something that looks partly like something out of Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop, partly like a Monty Python sketch, partly like a terrible human tragedy and partly like something much more ominous: a jihadi center organizing itself in an area of weak states and deep regional and ethnic rivalries.
> 
> And of course we have hundreds of thousands of refugees, most living in misery far from their homes, various people killed in the fighting and in the revenge killings and reprisals that are taking place, and the destruction of the economy across much of the north. These are all consequences of NATO’s much ballyhooed “humanitarian war” in Libya that, if anybody remembers, was originally launched because of fears that victorious Qaddafi forces would carry out massacres when they retook the rebel city of Benghazi.
> 
> NATO didn’t so much prevent massacres as move them offstage; the noble idealists and brilliant strategists in the White House who gave the go ahead for the Libyan war must now adjust their consciences as best they can as the consequences of their intervention roll on through Mali and elsewhere.
> 
> Nobody really knows where the mess in Mali will lead. There have been hints African forces will intervene against the Tuareg amid parallel fears that northern Mali would otherwise turn into a haven for international terrorists. The French, who have quietly run parts of west Africa as a neo-colonial fief for the last fifty years, are calling for yet another international intervention. Most of the world’s humanitarians and idealists, however, are so busy calling for a humanitarian war in Syria that they don’t have the energy to simultaneously call for another humanitarian war in Mali. (Nick Kristof, on the other hand, also wants a humanitarian war in Sudan.)
> 
> The mess in Mali really is a consequence of the Libyan war. Mali had plenty of problems, but things were running along mostly as usual until Gaddafi-armed Tuareg rebels ditched Libya and returned to northern Mali, where they won a series of skirmishes against poorly equipped Malian government troops. Some of those soldiers’ colleagues in Bamoko then overthrew their democratically elected president just a few weeks before elections (which would have been Mali’s fifth straight) because he was losing territory to the Tuareg and not, in their opinion, doing enough about it. Now the junta in Bamoko is refusing to hold elections while rebels establish themselves in the north and civilians are forced to arm themselves and dig deep in the desert sands for water because resources have become exceedingly scarce.
> 
> One of Africa’s more promising democratic experiments is in ruins today because of the Wilsonian war in Libya, and we will never know how many Malians have died so that western idealists could feel better about themselves for a while.
> 
> Mali isn’t the only place where the aftermath of this Wilsonian kinetic action don’t look particularly Wilsonian. Back in Libya, dozens of people were killed during fighting in the southern city of Kufra, where plentiful weapons are reigniting old rivalries and hatreds between tribes on all different sides of Libya’s borders with Chad and Sudan and between southern tribes and Libya’s current government which, ensconced on the Mediterranean coast, can seem far, far away indeed. Yet the trouble isn’t limited to Libya’s farflung desert towns — members of one of the numerous militias shut down Tripoli International Airport last Monday, blowing up a hangar and trading fire with other armed groups on the runway.
> 
> Western interventionists pushed for the NATO bombing campaign that eventually helped defeat Qaddafi partly because Libya to them seemed simple: On one side were the rebels, hopelessly outgunned, on the verge of a last stand outside Benghazi, defending their city and their women and children against the forces of a brutal dictator who had ruthlessly terrorized the country for decades. Clear cut conflict, right? A no-brainer, a simple choice between Right and Wrong.
> 
> Much, of course, like the no-brainer the humanitarians now see before them in Syria, where the brutal dictatorship isn’t only threatening to massacre its citizens, it is actually massacring them day by day.
> 
> But Syria is almost infinitely more complicated and both the “humanitarian” war and its afterparty are likely to be messier than anything that happened in Libya and surrounding countries. Syria is far smaller and more densely populated by communities that vary more widely in religion and ethnicity than Libya. Syria is in a tough neighborhood and is not isolated by desert and ocean the way Libya is. Lebanon is occupied by an equally unstable cauldron of communities that have already proven themselves quick on the trigger in their own vicious history of brutal civil wars and now in support of one side or the other in the war next door. There is a desert separating Syria from Iraq, but it is not the Sahara. Refugees and fighters — whether Iraqi, Syrian, Kurdish, Alawite, Christian — continually cross it, fleeing or joining fighting wherever it erupts. Arms traders also work this terrain; wars spread. Turkey is already dealing with thousands of refugees and on at least one occasion fighting has spilled over from the Syrian side of the border.
> 
> A nice festive humanitarian intervention in Syria, banners waving, bands playing, choirs singing and ourselves feeling incredibly righteous and smug as we exhibit the beautiful plumes of our fine moral sensibilities to an admiring world, as we bomb the evil doers from 30,000 feet and rain drones down on their heads until they see the error of their ways: the war will have a glamorous start but is unlikely to have a storybook ending.
> 
> Unlike the isolationists and the doctrinaire realists, Via Meadia doesn’t slam the door shut on all humanitarian interventions all the time.  There can be times in this world when you must act on humanitarian grounds if you can. But those times are rare; bombing the bad guys is not the solution to every crisis, cannot be the solution we trot out three times a week.
> 
> The question of Syria is a complicated one. Humanitarian, strategic and practical questions are tangled up in ways that make it very hard to choose a course of action. And one problem is that if we don’t act, others will. The arming of the Sunni opposition by Gulf Arabs, some with Salafi sympathies, will go on no matter what we think or say, and that is likely both to affect the balance of power within the Syrian opposition in ways we don’t like and to change what happens on the ground. At the same time, our strategic interest in pressuring Iran and in that way hoping to avoid a war between the US and Iran makes the ouster of the Syrian regime a much more important goal than it might otherwise be.
> 
> There are only two things we can say with any certainty about Syria now. One is that the humanitarian case for intervention is much weaker than its advocates fully grasp because the likelihood of chaos and destruction in the aftermath of a war is so great; the other is that the American policymakers who try to guide us through this morass will have to make second and third best choices. None of the alternatives is particularly attractive, and the situation is so complicated that it is not really possible to predict what the outcomes of any policy will be.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Russia confirmed that it was preparing to send an elite unit of marines to its naval base in Syria on Monday, sharply raising the stakes in its confrontation with the West over the future of the Assad regime.
> 
> The planned deployment was designed to send a powerful signal that Russia would not tolerate foreign military intervention in Syria, according to a Western defence source.
> 
> It was apparently ordered after the Kremlin came to conclusion that Western powers were preparing to circumvent the United Nations Security Council – where Russia holds a veto – by unilaterally authorising Nato military action in Syria. The source said that Russia had "completely misunderstood" Western intentions.
> 
> Classified US satellite images last week indicated that loading work had begun on two amphibious landing vessels, the Nikolai Filchenkov and the Caesar Kunikov, at the Crimean naval base of Sebastopol.
> 
> After initially remaining silent on the subject, a senior naval commander yesterday confirmed that both ships would shortly be heading to the Russian base at the Syrian port of Tartus, the Interfax news agency reported.
> 
> The officer said that they would carry marines charged with protecting the security of Russian citizens and evacuating a part of the base, marking the first time Moscow has sent troops to Syria since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began more than 15 months ago ....


The Telegraph (UK), 18 Jun 12


----------



## Old Sweat

And according to the CP, contingency planning towards possible roles in the event of action involving Syria is underway. As one who has done this sort of thing on a number of occasions, I emphasize this is a normal precaution and should not be construed as anything sinister. The story from the Globe and Mail site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.



Canadian military planners spin Syria scenarios as UN suspends mission


Murray Brewster 

Ottawa — The Canadian Press


Published Thursday, Jun. 21 2012, 4:24 AM EDT

Last updated Thursday, Jun. 21 2012, 4:28 AM EDT

The Canadian military is drawing up contingency plans in case the Harper government chooses to join any international intervention in the Syrian crisis.

Defence sources say the work recently got under way when it became evident that UN-led peace efforts were unravelling and that unarmed observers have suspended patrols amid escalating violence.

The sources emphasized the effort is a normal part of military planning, is not the result of government direction, and is intended to give cabinet “a range of options depending on the international circumstances.”

A broad set of scenarios are under consideration, one high-ranking official at National Defence told The Canadian Press.

Another source said the different commands have not yet been asked to identify units for inclusion in any mission.

A complicating factor is the speed with which events are unfolding, notably the deployment of two Russian amphibious assault ships and 1,000 Russian marines to protect the country’s naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, and a proposal by the Red Cross to evacuate wounded from the embattled city of Homs.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay said late Wednesday talk of a military assistance mission is premature.

“As always, the Canadian Forces stand ready to assist both at home and abroad, if and when called upon,” Jay Paxton said in an e-mail note.

“Canada continues to explore all diplomatic means available to support the people of Syria.”

France has called for a UN-enforced no-fly zone, and retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie said participating is almost certainly one of the options Ottawa would consider.

But he cautioned Canada should support only a traditional no-fly zone and not a mission similar to that in Libya, which saw NATO warplanes stretch the UN mandate to help oust Moammar Gadhafi with attacks on command centres, missile batteries and armoured vehicles.

“That would unfortunate because that’s what pissed off the Chinese and the Russians, which partially got us into this current situation,” he said.

Both major powers felt NATO went beyond its mandate in Libya.

Beijing and Moscow have repeatedly blocked UN attempts to deal with the Syrian crisis, including the use of their veto over a UN Security Council resolution that called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up power.

Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said Syria is in a civil war and he hoped Russia would set aside its reservations and agree to invoke the UN’s Chapter 7. That allows the Security Council to take military action to restore the peace.

The French want to use a no-fly zone as the first stage to get humanitarian aid into the country, according to published reports.

Mr. MacKenzie said that is a possibility “providing the situation would permit that to even start,” but the government needs to ask whether that scenario would require low-level air cover.

The secretary-general of the Arab League called on Monday for the international community to deploy a peacekeeping force, which observers have suggested could lead to the establishment of safe havens, similar to the UN-mandated zones set up during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

“If they established safe havens tomorrow, half the world would sigh a sigh of relief and say, ‘Oh, my God. Good. We’ve done that. We’ve done something,“’ said Mr. MacKenzie, who commanded peacekeepers during the siege of Sarajavo.

“It would take it off the front page, but the problem is the government and the rebels carry on with their confrontation.”

Mr. MacKenzie said the government should resist the call to put troops on the ground, including special forces.

“I think they would be very dumb to get involved in a situation like that because it’s not going to receive UN authorization, so therefore we’d have to be led by someone, whether it’s France, the Brits or the Americans or whatever,” he said.

“I don’t foresee any circumstance in Syria, no matter how serious it gets, where Canadian boots will be on the ground.”


----------



## jollyjacktar

And so it begins...


----------



## SoldierInAYear

*Syrian military says it downed Turkish fighter jet*

Sauce: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18561219



> The Syrian military has said it shot down a Turkish plane "flying in airspace over Syrian waters", according to state-run news agency Sana.
> 
> "[The jet] was dealt with in accordance with the laws that govern such situations," a military spokesman said.
> 
> Turkey had earlier said it believed that one of its F-4 fighter jets had been shot down by Syrian forces.
> 
> A search for the two crew members is under way, involving Turkish and Syrian coast guard ships.
> 
> The F-4 Phantom disappeared over the Mediterranean, south-west of Turkey's Hatay province, near the Syrian coast.
> 
> The Turkish military said it lost radio contact with the F-4 while it was flying over Hatay, about 90 minutes after it took off from Erhac airbase in the province of Malatya, to the north-west.
> 
> A Syrian military spokesman told Sana that an "unidentified target" had broached Syrian airspace from a westerly direction at 11:40 local time (08:40 GMT) on Friday.
> 
> The target was flying at high speed and at low altitude, the spokesman said.
> 
> Anti-aircraft defences had hit the plane with artillery, bringing it down in the sea off the coast of Latakia province, 10km (six miles) from the village of Um al-Tuyour, he added.
> 
> "It later became clear the target was a Turkish military plane which had entered our airspace," he continued.
> 
> 'Decisive response'
> 
> Earlier on Friday evening, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan held a two-hour emergency meeting with his interior, defence and foreign ministers and the Chief of the General Staff, Gen Necdet Ozel.
> 
> Mr Erdogan's office said that Turkey would respond decisively once all the circumstances were established.
> 
> 
> Given the breakdown in relations between the two countries over the Syrian conflict, this incident has the potential to provoke a serious crisis, the BBC's Jonathan Head in Istanbul reports.
> 
> Much will depend on whether or not the Turkish pilots have survived, our correspondent says.
> 
> If not, public anger might push the government into some kind of punitive action against Syria, he adds.
> 
> Relations between Nato-member Turkey and Syria, once close allies, have deteriorated sharply since the uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011.
> 
> Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have fled the violence across the border into Turkey.
> 
> Aleppo violence
> 
> Inside Syria, the violence continued on Thursday with state media reporting that "armed terrorist groups" had abducted and massacred 25 villagers in Aleppo province.
> 
> Activists said that rebels had shot dead 26 government supporters who were believed to be militiamen.
> 
> In Aleppo city, activists said a number of people died when security forces opened fire on a demonstration after Friday prayers.
> 
> Meanwhile, international envoy Kofi Annan has said it is time for the world to exert greater pressure to help bring the violence in Syria to an end.
> 
> Mr Annan called for Iran to be involved in attempts to end the violence, a proposal put forward by Russia but rejected by the US.
> 
> In a separate development, the BBC has learned that UK government officials have decided to prevent the head of the Syrian Olympic Committee, Gen Mowaffak Joumaa, from travelling to London for the Games.
> 
> The visa ban is believed to be linked to his relationship to President Bashar al-Assad's government.


----------



## cupper

Paul_Ontario said:
			
		

> *Syrian military says it downed Turkish fighter jet*
> 
> Sauce: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18561219



Oops. :facepalm:


----------



## aesop081




----------



## Popurhedoff

Turkey has requested consultations under article 4 of NATO's founding Washington Treaty. Under article 4, any ally can request consultations whenever, in the opinion of any of them, their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened," Oana Lungescu said.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201262465711936449.html

This will make it very interesting.

Cheers
Pop


----------



## MasterInstructor

I don't know how much info you get from Canadian news but today, Turkish Government made a statement after analyzing the data...

!- Plane was in International waters, 1 mile away from Syrian air space when shot down. After fire upon, tried to make it to Syrian land for ejection but crashed 4 miles away, 3 miles in Syrian airspace, 8 miles from shore

2- IFF was on and identified as Turkish 

3- No FC radar was on 

4- It was aircraft with no weapons capability. 

5- No warnings were issued. 

6- 15 minuted before getting shot down, accidently it entered the Syrian Airspace briefly and immediately left the airspace. 

7- Its mission was to test the Turkish radar systems by flying low at high speed. 

Prime Minister talked with all political party leaders and all consulates of UN, NATO and Arab League nations over the weekend and called for emergency NATO meeting which will be held Tuesday 

This is the latest news from Turkey


----------



## Edward Campbell

Popurhedoff said:
			
		

> Turkey has requested consultations under article 4 of NATO's founding Washington Treaty. Under article 4, any ally can request consultations whenever, in the opinion of any of them, their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened," Oana Lungescu said.
> 
> http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201262465711936449.html
> 
> This will make it very interesting.
> 
> Cheers
> Pop




I think Turkey is making a wee, tiny bit of mischief.

Turkey has been _rejected_ by Europe, it's been, _de facto_, declared to be "not European enough" for the EU, but when Europe wanted to "display leadership" by leading NATO into operations in neighbouring oil supplier Libya it needed Turkish support. Now Turkey has issue with its neighbour, one with which it (and NATO) shares a common land border ~ it wants, at least, to force the Europeans to acknowledge that Turkey is part of the "North Atlantic" (Euro-American) alliance.

I doubt the Turks expect or even, really, want NATO support. Turkey is re-inventing itself as a major Muslim power (its population is about the same as acknowledged Muslim "powers" Egypt and Iran but its GDP is about the same as Egypt and Iran *combined*), bordering but separate from Europe.


----------



## brihard

MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> I don't know how much info you get from Canadian news but today, Turkish Government made a statement after analyzing the data...
> 
> !- Plane was in International waters, 1 mile away from Syrian air space when shot down. After fire upon, tried to make it to Syrian land for ejection but crashed 4 miles away, 3 miles in Syrian airspace, 8 miles from shore
> 
> 2- IFF was on and identified as Turkish
> 
> 3- No FC radar was on
> 
> 4- It was aircraft with no weapons capability.
> 
> 5- No warnings were issued.
> 
> 6- 15 minuted before getting shot down, accidently it entered the Syrian Airspace briefly and immediately left the airspace.
> 
> 7- Its mission was to test the Turkish radar systems by flying low at high speed.
> 
> Prime Minister talked with all political party leaders and all consulates of UN, NATO and Arab League nations over the weekend and called for emergency NATO meeting which will be held Tuesday
> 
> This is the latest news from Turkey



I don't buy it.

1. The wreck was found about 13km offshore. Considerably closer than that account claims.

2 & 3. Any independent verification of this, or just Turkey's say so?

4. Turkey has acquired 40 RF-4Es. 32 of them were second hand from the German air force, which upgraded its recce aircraft to be capable of ground attack. Turkey further has a good supply of conventionally equipped F-4s. There is no reason to expect a nation defending its airspace to be able to discern that the F-4 in question is one of the very small number that Turkey has that are not capable of bearing arms.

5. Same question, any independent corroboration? Do we really believe that in a regime like Assad's low level military leaders are going to take the risk on their own initiative of engaging an aircraft that is not with certainty flying a hostile flight profile? It smells fishy.

6. He said / she said. One side is telling (more of) the truth and one is lying.

7. How low and fast are we talking here? It got hit hard at low altitude and high speed and still made it halfway to shore? And the crew were in good enough shape to do that, but not to punch out?


Some other inconsistencies- what the hell kind of gun does Syria have that can successfully engage a small, high speed fighter aircraft at 22km, can hit it, but doesn't kill it outright? Does such ground based AAA even exist with that kind of range and accuracy? And yet subsequently fail to achieve a subsequent hard kill after the aircraft turns directly into Syrian airspace and begins decreasing altitude- which must, on radar, appear to be even more hostile than it must have been to begin with?

If Turkey is going to be mapping its own AA coverage that close to Syrian airspace, one would think the pilots would be skilled enough to exercise more care- particularly if they've already been in Syrian airspace one shortly before.

If someone can tell me that AAA is in fact that effective, I'll have to adjust how I'm looking at it, but I'm seriously doubtful. Occam's razor suggests that Syria's story is much more believable in this. The Turks look to have been caught playing some sort of games, and are trying to save face. I could be wrong of course, but things just don't add up.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Brihard said:
			
		

> I don't buy it.
> 
> ...................
> 
> Some other inconsistencies- what the hell kind of gun does Syria have that can successfully engage a small, high speed fighter aircraft at 22km, can hit it, but doesn't kill it outright? Does such ground based AAA even exist with that kind of range and accuracy? And yet subsequently fail to achieve a subsequent hard kill after the aircraft turns directly into Syrian airspace and begins decreasing altitude- which must, on radar, appear to be even more hostile than it must have been to begin with?



The Syrians have stated that the F-4 was within 1 km of its coastline, well within range of AAA systems such as the  57mm S-60 . Depends on who you want to believe. 

Having said that, I think we have to be careful with the phrase "fired upon;" on hearing that phrase we assume that it means AAA, when in fact it can also refer to a SAM launch. In my mind a SAM is the most likely culprit, with the honours going to the  SA-2 Guideline . Here is link to the  IMINT and Analysis website  that provides a breakdown of the  Syrian Air Defense network. The second slide has the range rings for the various strategic SAM systems with the SA-2 in red. Where the Turkish F-4 was downed is within the red range circle. 

Here is a link to a  BBC article  on the downing that includes a map  showing the purported flight path and timeline of the incident.


----------



## winnipegoo7

Pantsir-S1 might have been the culprit according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1#Operators_and_combat_history

http://www.debka.com/article/22112/Newly-supplied-Russian-Pantsyr-1-anti-air-missile-used-to-down-Turkish-warplane


----------



## Retired AF Guy

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> Pantsir-S1 might have been the culprit according to Wikipedia.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1#Operators_and_combat_history
> 
> http://www.debka.com/article/22112/Newly-supplied-Russian-Pantsyr-1-anti-air-missile-used-to-down-Turkish-warplane



Sorry, there's nothing in the Wiki article that confirms that Syria has the Pantsir-S1. As for the Debka article, gag me with a smurf.


----------



## brihard

Syria has explicitly stated 'antiaircraft artillery', and Turkey was stating the same for a while too. That's why I buy the Syrian story more than the Turkish one- at close prximity to the coast a 57 or a ZSU or some such is absolutely believable. In international airspace though? Certainly not.

The Syrian story is consistent and believable, frankly. Turkey's has too many holes in it. The simplest explanation likely being true, I think it's more likely that Turkey got caught with its pants down in a recce and an F-4 got splashed. Now, in typical middle eastern fashion, they're esperately trying to save face by spinning a tale.


----------



## winnipegoo7

I agree that Wikipedia isn't the best source. It was the only source I could find that was claiming a specific weapon system was used. There is now a JP article that quotes a Turkish tabloid claiming it was a SA-11, but I guess we will find out what did it in time.

According to Janes, Syria received delivery of some Pantsir-S1 in 2008/09, but may have sold some of them to Iran.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> I agree that Wikipedia isn't the best source. It was the only source I could find that was claiming a specific weapon system was used. There is now a JP article that quotes a Turkish tabloid claiming it was a SA-11, but I guess we will find out what did it in time.



If you go to the Wiki article in question and click on the source for the report it takes you to ... wait for it .... the Debkafile report you had quoted earlier. 



> According to Janes, Syria received delivery of some Pantsir-S1 in 2008/09, but may have sold some of them to Iran.


 I remember hearing the same thing. If Syria had any operational Pantsir-S1 we would probably have evidence of it by now (e.g. radar intercepts, imagery (handheld and/or overhead), defectors reports, etc).


----------



## Retired AF Guy

From "tomorrow's" Turkish Daily News.



> * Syria shot Turkish jet in front of many eyewitnesses *
> 
> The eastern Mediterranean is surrounded by many watching military eyes, leading many to wonder why no one witnessed the shooting down of a Turkish jet
> 
> In his address to his Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) in the Parliament today, June 26, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan is expected to make an important statement about the country’s next move regarding Syria’s shooting down of a Turkish reconnaissance plane on June 22 off Syrian coast.
> 
> Following the June 25 cabinet meeting with all three main opposition parties in the Parliament, a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Ankara on June 24 and high-level security meetings on June 23 there has been a heavy diplomatic traffic denouncing Syria since the day the incident occurred, and now all eyes will be on Erdoğan.
> 
> Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, in an interview with state-run television channel TRT on June 24, gave a detailed, minute-by-minute account of the incident and said it was a deliberate attack on an unarmed, open ID plane located outside Syrian territorial waters and without any advance warning given. Davutoğlu is operating as the coordinator of this crisis in Ankara. Despite Davutoğlu’s statements the Syrian government insists the plane was in Syrian territory and quite close, allowing it to be shot by a 2.5 kilometer range anti-aircraft gun.
> 
> Syrian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Jihad Makdissi claimed that they had presented a part of an American made Turkish F-4 plane with bullet holes on it (thus proving the plane was not shot down by a rocket) to Turkey, but no Turkish source has so far confirm that. Turkish search and rescue efforts, on the other hand, found some parts of the cockpit and seats in open sea waters, which are reported to have traces of explosion and fire. The two Turkish pilots are still missing with hopes for their survival decreasing.
> 
> Now Hürriyet Daily News has additional information from official Turkish sources saying the plane was shot at 11:56 a.m. on June 22 (when the radio contact was lost) and crashed into the sea at 11:58 a.m. (when the radar track was lost) and during the one plus minute it glided down into Syrian territorial waters. Turkey says it has given all chronological accounts, including radar tracks and radio communications to its NATO allies and United Nations representations. The European Union Commission imposed new sanctions on Syria and denounced its militaristic politics on June 25. NATO has been called by Turkey for a meeting scheduled today for a presentation of the attack.
> 
> The attack actually took place in front of many eyewitnesses. The north corner of the East Mediterranean is one of the most condensed spot in the world when it comes to military and intelligence activities.
> 
> The Malatya, Erhaç air base of Turkey (see map on the front page) hosts a major early warning radar system for the NATO missile shield defense system, which started operation following the NATO summit in May, serving as a major issue between the United States and Russia. In Tartus, south of the main Syria city of Latakia where the Turkish plane was shot down off the coast, lies Russia’s main naval base in the Mediterranean with important intelligence capabilities. It is important for Russians to be close to three important targets at once; that is the main reason for them to back the actions of the Beshar Al-Assad regime against its own people: Incirlik NATO base, south of Turkey is one of biggest of its kind in the world is north of Tartus. Right to its west there is the Dikelia base of the United Kingdom, a main military and intelligence facility which also keeps an eye on the Suez channel and Aegean. To its south there is Israel, the main threat of its best ally in the region and its host regime, Syria. Perhaps there is no need to say that Israel is trying its best not to miss anything in this highly strategic part of the region.
> 
> There is no need to say that for many countries having satellites, this is a pretty attractive location to watch.
> 
> And so the question is: Is it possible not to see the attack with so many witnesses around? Another question: Is it possible to hide the truth when there are so many eyes watching?
> 
> June/26/2012



 Article Link.  The link also has a map showing the purported flight path of the aircraft. The article does make a good point in that the area in question, is well monitored by various countries and their respective military/intelligent agencies.


----------



## tomahawk6

Assad's palace defenses are under attack. There are reports of SAS entering Syria to establish "safe" zones. Maybe its the end of the line for Assad and the Baath Party.


----------



## cupper

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Assad's palace defenses are under attack. There are reports of SAS entering Syria to establish "safe" zones. Maybe its the end of the line for Assad and the Baath Party.



Hope so. My company is in the process of starting up an office in Turkey, and there is a good possibility I could end up going over some time in the next few months.


----------



## SoldierInAYear

Turkey - deploys rocket launchers and artillery along Syrian border  

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18622140



> *Turkey has begun deploying rocket launchers and artillery along its border with Syria after last week's shooting down of a Turkish plane.*
> 
> Columns of military vehicles have been seen moving from bases in Iskenderun and Diyarbakir to the border, close to the area where the jet came down.
> 
> The F-4 Phantom jet crashed into the sea after straying into Syrian airspace. The pilots are still missing.
> 
> Turkey has responded by changing its terms of military engagement.
> 
> Announcing the decision to step up its border defences on Tuesday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that any "military element" that approached the Turkish border from Syria would be treated as a threat and a military target.
> 
> He described Syria as a "clear and present threat".
> 
> Turkish TV showed pictures of a small convoy of lorries carrying anti-aircraft guns into a military base near the border town of Yayladagi.
> 
> Other military vehicles had travelled to the border town of Reyhanli in Hatay province, reports said.


----------



## a_majoor

Getting to the end game now. The Syrian regime still has a much larger and more formidable military force than many of the other "Arab Sprinjg" nations, and this military is not sitting on the sidelines or siding with the rebels either, so this could be a long, drawn out process:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/30/kelly-mcparland-assads-last-calculation-to-quit-and-live-or-fight-on-and-die/#more-83547



> Kelly McParland: Assad’s last calculation — to quit and live, or fight on and die?
> Kelly McParland  Jun 30, 2012 – 1:16 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 29, 2012 4:21 PM ET
> 
> A member of the Free Syrian Army holds a burning portrait of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Al-Qsair, 25 kilometres southwest of Homs
> 
> At what point do you suppose it will occur to Bashar Assad that it isn’t going to get better?
> 
> There are turning points in every insurgency, where the momentum shifts irreversibly in one direction. The regime does everything it can to halt its opponents. It abandons any pretense of caring for human life. It throws aside any remnant of restraint and focuses all its effort on eliminating the threat by simple slaughter. If that doesn’t work, it has nothing left.
> 
> Syria shows every sign of having reached, and passed, that point. When a government is willing to indiscriminately murder women and children, not as collateral damage but for the sheer effect of the terror, it has stopped fighting for any cause other than its own skin. And yet the Syrian insurgency hasn’t stopped, hasn’t even diminished. It has grown, in size and bloodshed, and now it’s in Damascus itself.
> 
> The New York Times reports that opposition figures claim Thursday was the most lethal day of the civil war, with 190 casualties. The figures can’t be confirmed but other observer groups report similar figures. Whatever the real number, it’s clear the capital has become part of the battlefield.  That puts it on Assad’s very doorstep. Three more generals are said to have been captured, and two shown on videos.  Turkey has moved troops and anti-aircraft guns to the Syrian border. Russia, Assad’s most powerful remaining ally, has stopped insisting the West mind its own business and is now discussing a proposal that stipulates  “a transitional unity government would have to exclude those whose continued presence and participation would undermine the credibility of the transition and jeopardise stability and reconciliation.”  That means Assad and his closest cronies.
> 
> So when will it dawn on the dictator that it’s over? That he won’t be able to defeat the insurgents, won’t be able to return peace and repression to the country, won’t be able to go back to the way it was. The key question of the next few weeks will be whether he survives. He could probably still flee the country and live out a comfortable existence in some accommodating  sanctuary. His appalling wife could get back her charge accounts at the best stores in Paris. The kids could be kept in posh private schools. But if he stays, his chances of survival appear slim. Either the rebels get him and execute him, or worried men at the heart of his government try to save their necks by sacrificing his.
> 
> Saddam Hussein stuck it out until the end, which for him was a hole in the ground where he was captured by U.S. forces. Iraqis  later hanged him.  Muammar Gaddafi kept running until he landed in a drainage pipe, and was executed by his captors. Hosni Mubarak was pushed out by his generals, who are still jockeying for position with a new replacement government. Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia with his family. His wife claims he was betrayed by his security forces; if he ever returns home he faces a sentence of life in prison.
> 
> External evidence suggests they all thought they could survive their individual revolts. Unleash the army, issue orders to shoot to kill, ensure everyone knows you’re prepared to sacrifice a thousand lives to save your own, or bring down the entire country, if that’s what it takes to remain in power. Only when someone finally points a weapon at them, or hustles them to the airport, do they finally realize they can’t win.
> 
> When do you think it will occur to Assad? Early enough that he lives, or so late that he dies?
> 
> National Post


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Celebrated ocean explorer and Titanic finder Bob Ballard, working for the Turkish government, has located the bodies of two Turkish pilots shot down by Syria over the eastern Mediterranean last month, the Turkish military said in a statement released Wednesday.
> 
> Ballard and his crew aboard his research vessel Nautilus are now working to recover the remains, the statement said. Turkey did not disclose whether the bodies were found in Syrian or international waters, and a Ballard representative aboard the ship declined to comment.
> 
> After recovering the bodies, the Nautilus will resume its hunt for the wreckage of the F-4 jet downed by Syria on June 22, the Turkish military statement said.
> 
> The Nautilus was anchored in Istanbul preparing for a two-month scientific expedition when the Turkish government asked for Ballard's assistance in its hunt for the U.S.-built jet and the two pilots ....


_Washington Post_, via _Seattle Times_, 4 Jul 12


----------



## cupper

Wikileaks stikes again.

Just heard on the news that a spokesperson from Wikileaks that they are about to release a huge cache of e-mails regarding / from Syria which they claim will be severely embarrassing to the Assad Regime and the Western Allies challenging it.

I'll see if I can track down a news link and post here. 

Update:

*WikiLeaks has data from 2.4 million Syrian emails*

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-wikileaks-syria-emails-20120706,0,4177079.story



> The secret-spilling group WikiLeaks said Thursday it was in the process of publishing material from 2.4 million Syrian emails -- many of which it said came from official government accounts.
> 
> WikiLeaks' Sarah Harrison told journalists at London's Frontline Club that the emails reveal interactions between the Syrian government and Western companies, although she declined to go into much further detail.
> 
> Harrison quoted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as saying that "the material is embarrassing to Syria, but it is also embarrassing to Syria's external opponents."
> 
> WikiLeaks only posted a handful of the documents to its website Thursday, but the disclosure -- whose source WikiLeaks has not made clear -- wouldn't be the first major leak of Syrian emails.
> 
> In February, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published excerpts of what it said were emails hacked from Syrian servers by Anonymous, the shadowy Internet activist group. In March, Britain's Guardian newspaper published emails it sourced to Syrian opposition activists.
> 
> The messages appeared to catch the glamorous wife of Syrian President Bashar Assad shopping for pricey shoes while her country slipped toward civil war.
> 
> Harrison said the WikiLeaks emails dated from August 2006 to March 2012 and originated from hundreds of different domains, including Syria's ministry of presidential affairs.
> 
> Harrison said her group was "statistically confident" that the body of material was genuine.
> 
> Assange, who is currently seeking asylum at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, was not at the brief presentation. He is wanted by British police for possible extradition to Sweden to face questions about alleged sexual misconduct there.
> 
> He has denied wrongdoing but faces arrest if he leaves the embassy.
> 
> Harrison acknowledged that WikiLeaks is facing "a difficult time at the moment" but said "we are continuing to work through that."



And for what it's worth, here is the link to the e-mails released so far.

http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/


----------



## a_majoor

The possible end state of Syria; a Balkanized cluster of mutually hostile splinter groups and states, each looking for some outside agency to provide support and comfort. Turkey, Iran and the Kurds will all be major players in a post Syrian state (the boundaries of "Syria" may remain, but the facts on the ground may resemble Lebanon more than any nation state):

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/06/gary-gambill-bashar-assad-can-always-find-refuge-with-the-alawites/#more-83973



> *Gary Gambill: Bashar Assad can always find refuge with the Alawites*
> Gary Gambill, National Post  Jul 6, 2012 – 7:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Jul 6, 2012 9:29 AM ET
> 
> President Bashar al-Assad waving upon his arrival in parliament in Damascus to give a speech on June 3, 2012. Assad paid tribute to civilian and military "martyrs" of the violence in Syria, saying their blood was not shed in vain.
> 
> Comments Email Twitter Sixteen months into the Syrian uprising, Obama administration officials are still hopeful that President Bashar Assad (or an ambitious subordinate) can be pressured to peacefully surrender power, if only the Russians would read him the riot act. Don’t hold your breath.
> 
> The belief that leaders of the Syrian regime can be persuaded to yield power peacefully is plausible at first glance, as they clearly can’t win the looming civil war. The country’s disenfranchised Sunni Arab majority has a fivefold demographic advantage over Assad’s Alawite sect, which controls the commanding heights of government and mans the elite security forces charged with its defense. Surrounded by sympathetic Sunni states, porous borders and an international community gunning for Assad’s ouster (literally, if some have their way), the rebels are steadily growing stronger and will eventually gain the upper hand. Faced with the bleak prospect of fighting to the bitter end, the reasoning goes, key regime stakeholders should be willing to peacefully opt out in return for security guarantees, immunity from prosecution and other material inducements.
> 
> In practice, however, it’s impossible to provide credible promises of protection to those with the means and will to obstruct a peaceful transition. Everyone in a position of authority to deliver regime concessions now has too much blood on their hands to live safely in Syria after relinquishing power, whatever formal guarantees they might receive.
> 
> Thousands of others who played more modest roles in government or profited unfairly from it will also face considerable dangers when the walls come crashing down. The fall of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-led minoritarian regime led to several hundred extrajudicial executions by Iraqi Shiites within a year, many of them lone wolf acts of vengeance against relatively low-ranking officers and civil servants — all of this despite the presence of U.S.-led coalition forces (a firewall that Syria presumably will not have).
> 
> While lower echelon officials can disappear abroad, there are few places of exile where Assad and his henchmen would be safe from extradition or assassination once they have nothing to offer their hosts in return. Syrian Alawites have no natural outside ally bound by historical and cultural ties to provide aid and refuge in times of trouble. Whatever accommodations the Russians may offer Assad to facilitate his departure, they will surely seek to rebuild bridges with the Sunni Arab world once the smoke clears. Years from now, even Tehran may prove to be an unreliable sanctuary.
> 
> For Assad, staying and fighting to the bitter end doesn’t mean going down with the ship. When the day comes that he can no longer stave off the fall of Damascus, his minions can easily fall back to Alawite areas in the mountains and coastal plains of northwestern Syria. Tehran, preferring a fragmented Syria to a unified hostile Syria, will happily continue providing them with arms and financing. Even with Turkey and the Arab Gulf states supporting opposing proxies, former regime forces and affiliated Alawite paramilitaries (shabiha) can hold out for years. Having intervened extensively in Lebanon for decades, they have the perfect skill set for surviving the Lebanonization of Syria.
> 
> The Syrian dictator may not have abandoned all hope of avoiding this scenario, but he is surely preparing for it. The shabiha, led by his relatives and clansmen, are steadily proliferating and assuming an ever-greater role in combating the rebels, particularly in Sunni villages and urban neighbourhoods that abut Alawite communities.
> 
> When the time comes, Assad won’t have much difficulty rallying Alawites (and many other non-Sunnis) behind the de facto cantonization of Syria. Given centuries of pre-existing Sunni hostility to heterodox Muslims and the scale of regime atrocities during the past four decades, Alawite fears of violent retribution are well-grounded and ripe for exploitation. Because the regime has heavily suppressed independent Alawite religious and social institutions over the years, the community has little capacity to mobilize around alternative leaders. By hook or by crook, Assad will lead it into the abyss


----------



## cupper

With the fall of Syria, what becomes of Lebanon?

Does it revert to a civil war since one of it's major political benefactors is gone, and opens up a power vacuum? Will the more radical religious groups move to fill that hole. Can Iran take Syria's place?


----------



## GAP

> Can Iran take Syria's place



It's sure gonna try


----------



## SoldierInAYear

Syria fires artillery into Lebanon, killing 3  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18751199




> At least three people have been killed and nine injured in northern Lebanon in shelling from across the Syrian border, local officials and residents say.
> 
> The attacks took place in the Wadi Khaled region, where both Syrian armed rebels and civilians have taken refuge from the violence at home.
> 
> There have recently been clashes between armed men on the Lebanese side and the Syrian military.
> 
> There are fears the Syrian conflict will spread to neighbouring countries.
> 
> 'Panic and fear'
> 
> The first artillery shells from across the border landed on farm buildings early on Saturday, killing one woman, local residents say.
> 
> Two more people were killed in the second strike just hours later.
> 
> Children are believed to be among the injured, with the Lebanese National News agency reporting that local residents were fleeing their villages "in a state of panic and fear".
> 
> It was not immediately clear whether the victims were Lebanese or Syrian nationals and whether the buildings were hit deliberately or caught in crossfire during a battle between the Syrian army and opposition fighters, the BBC's Richard Colebourn in Beirut reports.
> 
> The border area has become increasingly volatile in recent weeks, and fears are now growing that Lebanon could be sucked into the 16-month Syrian conflict.
> 
> Like Syria's other neighbours - Turkey, Iraq and Jordan - Lebanon has absorbed thousands of refugees fleeing from the violence.


----------



## VIChris

Some raw footage from Homs, Syria.

http://bambuser.com/v/2813860


----------



## SoldierInAYear

VIChris said:
			
		

> Some raw footage from Homs, Syria.
> 
> http://bambuser.com/v/2813860



Reccomend you turn your volume down before watching this live feed.


----------



## tamouh

It is very difficult right now to determine what is exactly happening on the ground in Syria. Even the same side is unable to elaborate the same information.

For example, Manaf Telas , the son of the ex-Defense minister had escaped to Paris, French newspapers reported. Then it was denied by 4 Syrian gov't news agencies with varying responses (some claimed he doesn't exist, others claims he is on a visit). To complicate things, Manaf Father has been in Paris for few months now though he claims he is not in support of the regime nor against it!!

The irony, the cousin of Manaf Telas is Abdul Razzak Telas , one of the leading rebel leader in Homs province. He joined the rebels mid 2011. The Telas family comes from a city near Homs called Rastan and has been a very strong opposition to the Syrian regime.

Another example, video surfaced few days ago a woman dressed in military attire and joined with armed men claimed she is the engineer Thuayba Kenfani from Canada and had joined the rebel FSA in aleppo. Today, video surfaced by someone claiming to be the leader of that group claiming no woman had joined their ranks!! 

The area around Aleppo in particular seems to be experiencing problems between the different rebel groups in the area.

Kofi Annan trip is nothing but to buy more time for regional powers to reach an understanding on the Syrian crisis. Russia is circulating a new UN resolution to extend UN mission but change its purpose from observe cease fire to engage in peace negotiation dialogue:

Source: http://www.wset.com/story/18995772/russia-circulates-new-draft-resolution-on-syria

The Syrian regime is going to stick it to the end at the cost of probably igniting a regional war (in my opinion). They are arming different opposing groups (Like PKK against KNC and PYD) and now Arab tribes against Kurds. This would significantly concern Turkey whom been trying to contain the Kurdish population along their borders:

Source: http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4943.html


----------



## sean m

Israel Preparing for Action in Syria, Says Former Mossad Chief

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/157799#.T_-jUo62va4


Former Mossad chief Danny Yatom said on Thursday that Israel is preparing for the possibility of military action in Syria, in case its chemical weapons were to end up in the hands of Hizbullah or other terrorist organizations in the region.

Yatom spoke to the British Sky News, which reported that Israel is deeply concerned that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad may deliberately give Hizbullah chemical weapons or that they could end up in the hands of other terror groups

In either case, this could lead to a regional war, Yatom told the network.

“The conventional wisdom should be that we cannot exclude a non-conventional attack on Israel,” he said. “We would have to pre-empt in order to prevent it. We need to be prepared to launch even military attacks... and military attacks mean maybe a deterioration to war.”

Sky News reported that Middle Eastern and other intelligence sources say that Syria has the biggest stockpiles of the nerve gasses VX and Sarin, as well as mustard gas, in the Middle East.

Investigations by Sky News have identified four sites where the agents are produced: Hama, Latakia, Al Safira, near Aleppo and at the Centre D'Etude et Recherche Scientifique laboratories in Damascus.

Storage sites have also been found at Khan abu Shamat, Furqlus, Hama, Masyaf, Palmyra, the report said.

Biological weapons are believed to be stored at Cerin while there are also numerous 'dual use' civilian pharmaceutical laboratories which are capable of producing bio-weapons such as botulism and anthrax.

Al Qaeda-related groups are known to be operating inside Syria, and its leadership has frequently extolled members or followers to try to get hold of chemical weapons.

A top IDF officer said recently that Israel is “in preparations for the possibility of war and in the midst of deployment with the situation in Syria in mind.”

The greatest challenge facing Division 36, which is placed in the Golan, is the possibility of facing a surprise attack, said the officer, Brig. Gen. Tamir Heiman, Commander of Division 36. “The biggest concern is a combined terror attack and we are preparing for this in the Golan area.”

The essential changes that have taken place in Syria provide the potential for a terror attack coming out of Syria and crossing the border, which has been very quiet in recent years.

The IDF’s Northern District Commander Yair Golan has warned that the battle being waged in Syria between opponents of the Assad regime and Assad loyalists may have an effect on what is happening in Israel.

“Al-Qaeda related factors that are active there now and working against the regime may operate against us over time,” he said. “The Syrian threat to Israel requires attention. It will not happen tomorrow morning, but it can occur within a few months.”

Golan added, “Syria has weapons of mass destruction along with a very heavy arsenal of weapons, including surface-to-ground missiles and chemical weapons. The fact that Syria is a storehouse of weapons which fuels terrorists in the region is very unsettling.”

What are your opinions, does anyone believe that maybe the israelis are bluffing and trying to scare Assad, if they did go in wouldn't that give Assad a means to rationalize his barbaric attacks?  Maybe it is possible to believe that the Arab world would turn towards aiding Assad against the israelis?


----------



## tamouh

There were rumors prior to this news release of chemical weapon movement, this basically confirms it:

Source: http://news.sky.com/story/959953/syria-military-moves-chemical-weapons-to-homs



> Intelligence has emerged suggesting the Syrian regime has moved chemical weapons to the Homs region, a source has told Sky News.
> 
> A senior British intelligence official questioned about claims in the US that several streams of signal intelligence detailing the transfer of a chemical agent said they believed the account to be a "pretty accurate description" of what the UK believes is going on.
> 
> Fox News reported a senior US defence source as saying it was not clear wether the movement of the agent, possibly Sarin nerve gas, had been authorised by President Bashar al Assad or local Syrian military commanders frustrated by the ongoing uprising in Homs.
> 
> The agents, which may not yet have been weaponised, were moved from previously known stockpile locations, the report said.
> 
> Recent investigations by Sky News identified four sites where chemical agents are produced: Hama, Latakia, Al Safira, near Aleppo and at the Centre D'Etude et Recherche Scientifique laboratories in Damascus.
> 
> Storage sites were also found at Khan abu Shamat, Furqlus, Hama, Masyaf, Palmyra.
> .....
> ....
> ..... check above link to read full article



From unconfirmed sources, these stock pile chemicals are being shipped to the Lebanese border in what appears to be an exchange with Hezbollah and final destination to Iran.


----------



## tamouh

cupper said:
			
		

> With the fall of Syria, what becomes of Lebanon?
> 
> Does it revert to a civil war since one of it's major political benefactors is gone, and opens up a power vacuum? Will the more radical religious groups move to fill that hole. Can Iran take Syria's place?



The fall of Assad regime in Syria will re-balance the region in a way. Hezbollah will lose an important route for tunneling weapons from Iran->Iraq->Syria->Lebanon. The Suez canal is tightly controlled by Egypt for any Iranian shipments, so no option of getting weapons through the sea. 

Iran backed parties in Iraq will feel there is a counter force to their presence. The Assad regime in my opinion has long been a destabilizing force in the ME. They've constantly interefered in Lebanon and then Iraq to keep the region boiling. Destability has been a great source of revenue for the regime elites in arms, commercial trade and corruption bribes.

Iran and Hezbollah will have to re-align their strategies and either moderate their rhetoric or expect to be isolated and surrounded by majority Sunni group whom had lost all empathy to them since the 2008 war with Irsael. If you do recall, the Arab world was in strong support of Hezbollah during the 2008 war, however, these days they are considered the enemy after what happened in Syria.

That could be another reason the Russians don't want an intervention in Syria, they fear it will put their ally Iran in a very tight spot.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There are thoughts that Assad Plan B is a Alwiite homeland in part of what would once have been Syria.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Yes, indeed; and we still enjoy the benefits of Sykes-Picot after nearly 100 years.


----------



## cupper

Was listening to news reports yesterday about fighting in Damascus, and one item noted was the killing of a Palestinian Refugee. There are several large camps in and around Damascus. So far they have stayed out of the conflict, with the Assad Regime reminding them that they are guests in Syria.

Would it be a surprise that if they did decide to enter the fray that Assad might decide to either force them out, or plow them under as punishment. And if he does, how would it go over in the Arab world? And would it finally make the Russians and Chinese say enough is enough?


----------



## tamouh

cupper said:
			
		

> Was listening to news reports yesterday about fighting in Damascus, and one item noted was the killing of a Palestinian Refugee. There are several large camps in and around Damascus. So far they have stayed out of the conflict, with the Assad Regime reminding them that they are guests in Syria.
> 
> Would it be a surprise that if they did decide to enter the fray that Assad might decide to either force them out, or plow them under as punishment. And if he does, how would it go over in the Arab world? And would it finally make the Russians and Chinese say enough is enough?



The Palestinian refugees in the ME are literally "disposable" to the countries they settled within. I'm not exaggerating, Palestinians were kicked out of Kuwait after Gulf War I because Arafat supported Saddam since he sent rockets over to Israel! At the same time, Libyan Gaddafi shipped them out to Gaza once the peace process was started.

Hafiz Al-Assad , Syrian ex-Dictator has bulldozed Palestinian refugees near Beirut in 1976, killing about 3,000 people in its aftermath.

I know for a fact that Jordanian authorities are refusing any Syrian refugee entry into Jordan whom of Palestinian origin or holding a Palestinian identication.

So, what would Bashar do with the tens of thousands refugees in Damascus? I don't doubt he'll not hesitate to unleash his most ruthless military campaign, and the Arab world will cry and weep then everyone forget about it.


----------



## SoldierInAYear

*Syrian cabinet bodyguard goes rogue; kills defence minister and deputy, security chief and interior minister *  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18882149




> Syria's defence minister and his deputy, President Assad's brother-in-law, have died in a suspected suicide bombing at security headquarters in Damascus, state TV says.
> 
> Daoud Rajiha and Assef Shawkat were attending a meeting of senior officials at the time.
> 
> The national security chief and interior minister are said to be critically hurt.
> 
> The attack comes amid claims of a major rebel offensive on the city.
> 
> "The minister of defence was martyred by the terrorist bombing that targeted the national security building," the TV report said, adding later that Gen Shawkat was dead.
> 
> Security sources say the suspected bomber worked as a bodyguard for members of President Bashar al-Assad's inner circle.
> 
> Gen Rajiha has been defence minister for less than a year, serving previously as chief of staff, and is on a US blacklist for his role in the suppression of dissent.
> 
> He is believed to be an Orthodox Christian - a rarity in the Alawite-dominated Syrian military and government.
> 
> Gen Shawkat is considered a top security chief and a member of the inner circle of the regime. He is married to Mr Assad's sister Bushra.
> 
> Diplomatic efforts
> 
> The attack comes as UN chiefs have been trying to persuade China and Russia to agree tougher measures on Syria, ahead of a Security Council vote on Wednesday on imposing sanctions.
> 
> UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan held talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met Chinese leader Hu Jintao in Beijing.
> 
> The UN has until Friday to renew the mandate for observers in Syria, although a vote is expected in New York on Wednesday afternoon.
> 
> Western nations want a new resolution threatening measures short of the use of force.
> 
> The Western-backed draft resolution to be discussed gives the Syrian government 10 days to withdraw heavy weapons from cities and return troops to barracks, otherwise a further resolution on sanctions will be submitted to the Security Council.
> 
> But the BBC's Jim Muir in neighbouring Lebanon says that with Russia resisting all efforts to persuade it to take a tougher line with Syria, there is virtually no hope of concerted international action to pull the country back from the brink.
> 
> In other developments:
> 
> • Turkish officials report two Syrian generals are among hundreds of refugees who fled into Turkey overnight, bringing the total number of fleeing generals to 20
> • Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to discuss the Syrian crisis with Russian President Vladimir Putin
> • Iraq warns its citizens to flee the violence, hours after the bodies of two killed journalists were handed over by the Syrian authorities
> 
> 'Damascus volcano'
> 
> The area around the national security building, in Rawda district, has been sealed off.
> 
> Witnesses at the site of the bombing said journalists were banned from approaching.
> 
> "The terrorist explosion which targeted the national security building in Damascus occurred during a meeting of ministers and a number of heads of [security] agencies," the TV said.
> 
> The reports say that Hisham Ikhtiar, director the National Security Bureau, and Interior Minister Mohammad Ibrahim al-Shaar, were among those injured in the attack.
> 
> Earlier activists reported more clashes during the night in several areas around the south-west of Damascus.
> 
> They said the government had brought more troops and armour into some districts, and that several people had been killed in clashes and bombardments.
> 
> A rebel spokeswoman, Susan Ahmad, told the BBC the entrances to Damascus were closed in the morning.
> 
> "We heard the sounds of explosions every now and then all around Damascus," she said.
> 
> "Now tanks are storming into al-Qaboun [district], shelling everything, shelling residential houses, shooting every moving thing and they are trying to arrest people and kill.
> 
> "People are trying to run away and get out of al-Qaboun."
> 
> Activists have also posted on the internet pictures of what they say is a barracks on the heights overlooking the city engulfed in flames.
> 
> They believed it had been hit by fire from Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, and said the barracks is involved in providing security for the presidential palace complex below.
> 
> State media said security forces fought off attacks by small groups of armed terrorists in the city.
> 
> But the TV carried night-time footage of troops deployed in the Midan quarter, in some very tense and deserted streets.
> 
> The rebels have declared a final battle for the capital, calling it Operation Damascus Volcano, and have been fighting troops in several parts of Damascus for the past three days.
> 
> The fighting reached central areas on Tuesday, with gunfire and plumes of smoke reported in a street near parliament.
> 
> The Free Syrian Army said the operation was well planned, and they had sent hundreds of fighters to the capital last week to be in place for the assault.
> 
> The rebels and the government often publish contradictory accounts of the same incidents.
> 
> Western journalists are under heavy restrictions in Syria, making it difficult to verify the claims of either side.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Don't worry everyone this is why we have the U.N.  they got this..


----------



## tamouh

Israel Says Syria Pulls Troops from Golan to Suppress Revolt Elsewhere. I do believe there is a coup in progress right now, it may take few weeks for things to become clear.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/world/middleeast/israel-says-syria-pulls-troops-from-golan-to-suppress-revolt-elsewhere.html?_r=1



> JERUSALEM — Israel’s military intelligence chief said on Tuesday that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had moved forces to Damascus from along the Golan Heights region, bordering on Israeli-controlled territory, after street battles raged in the capital between rebels and Syrian Army forces.
> Related
> 
> In a security briefing to a parliamentary committee, the intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, estimated that Mr. Assad “will not survive the uprising, even if it takes some more time.” He said that 13,000 soldiers and officers had defected from the Syrian Army, and that 60 to 70 senior officers had been killed by the opposition, according to the spokesperson’s office of the Israeli military.
> 
> But the general said the opposition had failed to coalesce into a united front and instead comprised many groups with different ideologies. “We don’t see organized opposition forces leading an uprising,” General Kochavi said.
> 
> In the briefing, the general said that satellite images show that Mr. Assad’s forces are directing artillery at highly populated regions and acting “extremely brutally, which displays their desperation and indicates they are unable to find more efficient solutions to pacify the uprisings.”
> 
> .......


----------



## Infanteer

Looks like Assad is on the list to be the next dictator pulled out of a culvert and executed by his own people - _sic semper tyrannis_, I guess....


----------



## Foxhound

Looks like Jonathan Kay thinks the fat lady has sung.

Jonathan Kay on Syria: How Obama’s hands-off policy paved the way for the Assads’ (and Hezbollah’s) downfall

The good news is that Bashar Assad’s Syrian regime is on its last legs — the other legs having been blown out from under it by a Wednesday bomb attack in Damascus, which killed at least three top regime security officials.

Here’s the better news: Hezbollah could go down with the Syrian ship, thereby providing the civilized world with a “two-fer” rogue-power takedown — dethroning not only the dictator in Damascus, but also his Lebanese-based, Iranian-funded terrorist ally next door.

Now here’s the best news: All this has happened without the West firing a shot. Notwithstanding all those Washington hawks demanding armed intervention, it turns out that Barack Obama played his cards exactly right — by doing virtually nothing.

The West’s response to Syria’s uprising — discreetly providing the rebels with limited behind-the-scenes logistical support through the Turkish border, while pushing blame onto bad-cop Russia for the failure to do more — undercut Bashar Assad’s early claim that the rebellion was a giant foreign conspiracy. Had the West gotten involved militarily, the entire narrative would have been about which American bomb hit which Syrian target, and whether the people who died as a result were civilians or fighters — the same narrative Israel faced when it attacked Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon six years ago.

More at link.

I believe that the West's policy of less-than-obvious support of the Syrian Opposition has been more or less sound, but does President Obama deserve this much credit?


----------



## cupper

It still doesn't answer the question, what could the west do in first place?


----------



## Jed

A couple of thoughts wrt to Foxhound comments;

I am not so sure there is any significant push from the west to jump into this foray other than a few misguided and ill informed souls.

A lot of folks are pretty choked with Israel for blatantly taking out a known UN position (albeit in error) to get at the bad guys and the extremely heart wrenching fallout from that.


----------



## a_majoor

Another potential issue with the disintegration of the Syrian regime. What else is hidden away in Syria?

http://news.investors.com/article/618875/201207191902/syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm?p=full



> *Syria's Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam's Iraq
> *
> Posted 07/19/2012 07:02 PM ET
> 
> War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they were the WMDs we didn't find in Iraq.
> 
> King Abdullah of neighboring Jordan warned that a disintegrating Syria on the verge of civil war puts Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons at risk of falling into the hands of al-Qaida.
> 
> "One of the worst-case scenarios as we are obviously trying to look for a political solution would be if some of those chemical stockpiles were to fall into unfriendly hands," he said.
> 
> The irony here is that the chemical weapons stockpile of Syrian thug Assad may in large part be the legacy of weapons moved from Hussein's Iraq into Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom.
> 
> If so, this may be the reason not much was found in the way of WMD by victorious U.S. forces in 2003.
> 
> In 2006, former Iraqi general Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book, "Saddam's Secrets."
> 
> It details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein's WMD threat.
> 
> As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded the planes with chemical weapons materials.
> 
> There were 56 flights disguised as a relief effort after a 2002 Syrian dam collapse.
> 
> There were also truck convoys into Syria. Sada's comments came more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."
> 
> Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence observed large truck convoys leaving Iraq and entering Syria in the weeks and months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts held in Arlington, Va., in 2006.
> 
> According to Shaw, ex-Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, went to Iraq in December 2002 and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
> 
> Anticipating the invasion, his job was to supervise the removal of such weapons and erase as much evidence of Russian involvement as possible.
> 
> The Russian-assisted "cleanup" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achalov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."
> 
> Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achalov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003. Apparently they did their job well.
> 
> An article in the fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on Dec. 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated: "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." According to the article, about three weeks later, Israel's foreign minister repeated the accusation.
> 
> Syria has long had its own chemical weapons program, but the extent it may have been aided by weapons and materials transferred by Iraq before the war has only been the source of conjecture.
> 
> We may soon find out what happened to much of Saddam's WMD.


----------



## Jed

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another potential issue with the disintegration of the Syrian regime. What else is hidden away in Syria?
> 
> http://news.investors.com/article/618875/201207191902/syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm?p=full



As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded the planes with chemical weapons materials.

There were 56 flights disguised as a relief effort after a 2002 Syrian dam collapse.


I guess this is one reason the Syrian officials blew us off when we at the UNDOF mission offered to help when the ' Dam disaster' occurred.


----------



## George Wallace

Jed said:
			
		

> As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded the planes with chemical weapons materials.
> 
> There were 56 flights disguised as a relief effort after a 2002 Syrian dam collapse.
> 
> 
> I guess this is one reason the Syrian officials blew us off when we at the UNDOF mission offered to help when the ' Dam disaster' occurred.



WOW!   Back to speculation/conspiracy theory/etc. on Saddam's WMDs.


----------



## fraserdw

Those chemical weapons are more likely to end up being used against the Putinites in Dagestan.  Very ironic, indeed.


----------



## a_majoor

And the front continues to expand. It would not surprise me greatly if a similar case were to surface in Canada:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/20/virginia-man-sentenced-for-spying-for-syrian-government/?mod=WSJBlogtab/print/



> *Virginia Man Sentenced for Spying for Syrian Government*
> 
> By Chelsea Phipps
> 
> A Virginia man was sentenced to 18 months in prison for passing intelligence to the Syrian government, the Justice Department said.
> 
> Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid was accused of collecting information, audio and video of individuals protesting the Syrian government in the U.S. and Syria and giving it to Syrian intelligence agencies.
> 
> “While the autocratic Syrian regime killed, kidnapped, intimidated and silenced thousands of its own citizens, Mr. Soueid spearheaded efforts to identify and intimidate those protesting against the Syrian government in the United States,” said Neil MacBride, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, in a statement.
> 
> Mr. Soueid, a Syrian-born naturalized U.S. citizen, pleaded guilty to six counts of acting as an agent of a foreign government. Prosecutors said he recruited individuals in the U.S. to help gather information and supplied the Syrian government with contact information for key protesters in the U.S. and others.
> 
> Mr. Soueid hand-wrote a letter of support to a Syrian official in April 2011, saying that he believed the dissension should be disposed of in a quick and decisive manner even through violence, home invasions and arrests.
> 
> Haytham Faraj,  who represented Mr. Soueid before he ran out of money, called Mr. Soueid’s sentence “laughable,” next to the charges he had faced.
> 
> “He was facing many years in prison. They claim that he was responsible for the deaths of many people,” Mr Faraj said.
> 
> Michael Nachmanoff, the Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of Virginia, said the sentence reflected that “Soueid was motivated by a desire to prevent Islamic radicals from taking over his home country of Syria.”


----------



## GAP

The Syrian Air Force hasn't been a factor up until now....if Assad gets desperate he might just start using them......

Syrian Air Force Worries U.S.
By Richard Sisk Monday, July 23rd, 2012
Article Link

Pentagon officials put it out there almost as an aside with the announcement last week that the carrier Stennis was going back to the Gulf early to keep two carriers in the region indefinitely as a signal to Iran. It was meant for Syria too, they said.

The debate within the Obama administration on whether to arm the Syrian rebels has shifted recently with reports that the tottering regime of President Bashar al-Assad has started moving some of its chemical weapons out of storage. The concerns now are on what the repercussions would be if Israel moved to seize or destroy them, or the U.S. acted on its own.

But the more immediate problem for the U.S. could be posed by the Syrian air force. To date, Assad has used helicopter gunships but kept his more than 400 Russian-made Mig21, Mig23, Su22 and Su24 attack planes, and Mig29 fighters in reserve, possibly out of fear that the pilots would defect and also out of fear that airstrikes would bring a U.S. response.

Strikes against the rebels by fixed-wing Syrian aircraft would put enormous political pressure on the administration to set up a no-fly zone over Syria, something Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others have advocated for months, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff have warned that it wouldn’t be easy.

Adm. James (Sandy) Winnefeld, vice chairman of the JCS and a veteran combat pilot, went on record a few weeks back:  “If we were to use force in Syria, it’s a challenge. It’s a large country. It’s got a very, very capable, integrated air defense system. They have some 1,500 tons of chemical and biological weapons in that nation that we have to take seriously. So it is not an insignificant military challenge, as opposed to, for example, what we saw in Libya.”

As a guest on the Sunday talk shows, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was losing patience with the U.S. stance on both Iran and Syria.  “Do I seek action, no. Do I preclude it, no,” he said.

Netanyahu said he was okay with more negotiations with Iran on halting its nuclear programs – “Yeah, if you stop the programs.”

On Syria, Netanyahu said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “we’ll be in for a rougher ride, and we’ll have to rough it out.”

Read more: http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2012/07/23/syrian-air-force-worries-u-s/#ixzz21U6ZAfUL

More on link


----------



## GAP

Turkey Watches Warily as Kurds Mobilize in Northern Syria
By Catherine Cheney, on 27 Jul 2012
Article Link

With his grip over Syria apparently loosening, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has abandoned the border area between Syria and Turkey, allowing Kurdish militants to take control of several towns in northern Syria. The development heightens the possibility of involvement by Iraqi Kurds as well as by Turkey, introducing new tensions to the Syrian conflict.

“Syria is fragmenting, and for the first time in recent history Kurds are taking matters into their own hands,” said Hugh Pope, Turkey and Cyprus project director for the International Crisis Group. Pope explained that it is still unclear whether Syrian Kurds will unite to push for full rights within the Syrian state or whether they will work toward an autonomous Syrian Kurdish solution. “Certainly, the most important trend line, as can be seen on Kurdish Twitter feeds, is the sense that Syrian Kurds, like the Iraqi Kurds before them, are at last breaking through to some self-rule and international sympathy.”

Henri Barkey, a professor of international relations at Lehigh University, said the developments potentially represent “the beginning of the redrawing of Middle Eastern boundaries.”

“The Kurds will drive a hard bargain and want a federal arrangement of some sort for themselves,” he added.

However, Michael Gunter, an expert on Kurds in Turkey and Iraq and professor of political science at Tennessee Tech University, said he thinks it is unlikely the Syrian Kurds will be able to create an independent Kurdish state in northern Syria.

“The Kurds in Syria are a relatively small minority compared to Turkey, and especially compared to Iraq and Iran,” he said. “Not only do they make up only 10 percent of the population, but they are also divided geographically and ideologically.”

Given these divisions, Pope said, it is possible the Syrian Kurds will “fragment themselves and fight among each other,” particularly since the Democratic Union Party of Syria (PYD), which is aligned with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), has an ideology and perspective that sets it apart from other Syrian Kurds.

For now, Pope added, the Syrian Kurds have put many of their differences aside, working under the aegis of Massoud Barzani, the president of Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Barzani has supported Syrian Kurds in part by providing military training to Kurdish defectors from the Syrian military.

With Syria imploding, Gunter said, Barzani is “practically being handed” the key to the pan-Kurdish state so many Kurds desire.

However, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan recently warned that he would not hesitate to intervene in response to any threat to Turkey from PKK-linked Kurdish groups in northern Syria. And today, Turkey announced that Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu would be heading to Irbil to express Ankara’s displeasure over Barzani’s decision to provide military training to Syrian Kurds.

“Many Syrian Kurds living near the border come from Turkey, and it is particularly upsetting to Turkey to know that right on their border there are Turkish exiles who are thinking of maybe coming home and reclaiming the homeland,” Gunter said. “But the most immediate problem is that this newfound Kurdish autonomy in Syria right on the Turkish border is an unwanted magnet for the Kurds living in Turkey who are so restless anyway.”

Pope said that despite its warnings, Turkey will likely stay on the sidelines “as long as the PKK sister party PYD remains in a front with the other Kurds, and does not threaten or attack Turkey.”

“Ankara, too, is focused on the major prize of how and when the Damascus regime will change,” he explained.
More on link


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Is this the end of Sykes-Picot?


----------



## Journeyman

A main concern regarding the Kurds is that they inhabit the real estate of the Southeastern Anatolia Project, damming the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, particularly the massive Ataturk Dam. Turkey has already been accused by Syria and Iraq of withholding water-flow as a weapon -- a major reason why Syria actively supports the PKK. 

If it appeared that the Kurds were seriously threatening any of the major dams in the system, I suspect another Armenian-style genocide could be a Turkish option.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> A main concern regarding the Kurds is that they inhabit the real estate of the Southeastern Anatolia Project, damming the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, particularly the massive Ataturk Dam. Turkey has already been accused by Syria and Iraq of withholding water-flow as a weapon -- a major reason why Syria actively supports the PKK.



At one time Syria was a big time supporter of the PKK, but about 10 years ago the Turkey's gave the Syrians an ultimatum; "Keep providing support and we come across the border." The Syrians knew the Turks weren't bluffing and kicked the PKK out of the country. That's one of the reasons Turkish special forces were able to capture the leader of the PKK. 



> If it appeared that the Kurds were seriously threatening any of the major dams in the system, I suspect another Armenian-style genocide could be a Turkish option.


 Retaliation yes, genocide no. Anything like ethnic cleansing/genocide would be both a domestic and foreign relations disaster.


----------



## Journeyman

Well, Syria continues to support/is once again supporting PKK; they are quite active within Syria's northern frontier according to open source reporting.

It's a matter of degree and speculation between saying "Armenian-style genocide could be a Turkish _option_," and your use of generic "retaliation." The Southeastern Anatolia Project is _very_ dear to the Turks -- I suspect that any threat would warrant more than a wrist-slapping.

*Not* meant as an insult, but I also suspect that my info may be slightly more current than from whenever you transitioned out of Int.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Turks will get uncomfortable with yet another "Kurdish autonomous region on their borders. I wonder if this area splits off and with the Iraq Kurds not that keen on being part of Iraq, we might be witnessing the birth of Kurdistan? 

Another thought, Turks cross the border in force to "protect" citizens, etc, Syria attacks them with gas, how many think Turkey will pull the NATO card?


----------



## a_majoor

Large info graphic about the battle for Aleppo: http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/toronto-fo0803_aleppo1.jpg


----------



## Journeyman

According to al Jazeera, the UN General Assembly just passed a resolution (133 votes for, 12 against, and 31 abstentions) denouncing the Syrian use of tanks, artillery, helicopters and warplanes on the people of Aleppo and Damascus. 

_~whew~_  Another conflict now gripped.

The resolution also resolution bitch-slaps the Security Council, 'deploring its failure to act'....so we can expect the UNSC to be working more effectively now too.

      :nod:


/sarcasm


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_ is an article that gets to the real goal - how to ferment a real revolution in Iran, one that will topple the current theocracy:
> 
> http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137803/michael-ledeen/tehran-takedown?page=show
> 
> 
> 
> Tehran Takedown
> *How to Spark an Iranian Revolution*
> 
> Michael Ledeen
> 
> July 31, 2012
> 
> The nuclear question is at the center of most countries' Iran policies. China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all engaged in negotiations to convince Tehran to give up its presumed quest for the bomb. Now, with talks sputtering, Western powers have implemented increasingly tough sanctions, including the European Union's recent embargo on Iranian oil, in the hope of compelling the regime to reverse course.
> 
> Yet history suggests, and even many sanctions advocates agree, that sanctions will not compel Iran's leaders to scrap their nuclear program. In fact, from Fidel Castro's Cuba to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, hostile countries have rarely changed policy in response to Western embargoes. Some sanctions advocates counter that sanctions did work to get Chile to abandon communism, South Africa to end apartheid, and Libya to give up its nuclear program. But the Chilean and South African governments were not hostile -- they were pro-Western, and thus more amenable to the West's demands. And Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi ended his nuclear pursuit only after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, fearing that he would suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein.
> 
> ...
> 
> That is why the time has come for the United States and other Western nations to actively support Iran's democratic dissidents. The same methods that took down the Soviet regime should work: call for the end of the regime, broadcast unbiased news about Iran to the Iranian people, demand the release of political prisoners (naming them whenever possible), help those prisoners communicate with one another, enlist international trade unions to build a strike fund for Iranian workers, and perhaps find ways to provide other kinds of economic and technological support. Meanwhile, the West should continue nuclear negotiations and stick to the sanctions regime, which shows the Iranian people resistance to their oppressive leaders.
> 
> Iran's democratic revolutionaries themselves must decide what kind of Western help they most need, and how to use it. But they will be greatly encouraged to see the United States and its allies behind them. There are many good reasons to believe that this strategy can succeed. Not least, the Iranian people have already demonstrated their willingness to confront the regime; the regime's behavior shows its fear of the people. The missing link is a Western decision to embrace and support democratic revolution in Iran -- the country that, after all, initiated the challenge to the region's tyrants three summers ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, Michael Ledeen is suggesting that we prevent the Iranian bomb by finding and funding those opposition movement that are most likely to rise up and overthrow the ayatollas.  Works for me!
Click to expand...



So, we have, in Syria, what I think we want in Iran and, indeed, throughout the Middle East and West Asia: a nice Arab civil war with some potential to grow into a internecine regional conflict. 

What's the downside?

     Oil? No, while the price of oil will rise - it will do so anyway - that will have the desirable effect of making more unconventional oil supplies marketable. Arab oil will, eventually, come back on to the market and stabilize the global price.

     Innocent civilians? There is, I suggest, no such thing in civil wars and, in any event, preventing harm to innocent civilian matters only when we (Canadians) are involved, directly, in the conflict.

     Israel? It can look after itself.

Now, while I accept that the Arabs will still hate us even as they kill one another, they will be less likely to do us any harm while they are busy slaughtering their own.

Napoleon famously cautioned us against interfering with our enemy when he is making a mistake. The Arabs and Iranians and so on are our enemies and they are making mistakes ~ let's leave them to it.


----------



## tamouh

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Basically, Michael Ledeen is suggesting that we prevent the Iranian bomb by finding and funding those opposition movement that are most likely to rise up and overthrow the ayatollas.  Works for me!
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have, in Syria, what I think we want in Iran and, indeed, throughout the Middle East and West Asia: a nice Arab civil war with some potential to grow into a internecine regional conflict.
> 
> What's the downside?
> 
> Oil? No, while the price of oil will rise - it will do so anyway - that will have the desirable effect of making more unconventional oil supplies marketable. Arab oil will, eventually, come back on to the market and stabilize the global price.
> 
> Innocent civilians? There is, I suggest, no such thing in civil wars and, in any event, preventing harm to innocent civilian matters only when we (Canadians) are involved, directly, in the conflict.
> 
> Israel? It can look after itself.
> 
> Now, while I accept that the Arabs will still hate us even as they kill one another, they will be less likely to do us any harm while they are busy slaughtering their own.
> 
> Napoleon famously cautioned us against interfering with our enemy when he is making a mistake. The Arabs and Iranians and so on are our enemies and they are making mistakes ~ let's leave them to it.



The Arabs are not our enemy last time I've checked. Has it not been for many of the Arab states that currently exist (Qatar,Saudi,Jordan,UAE,Egypt), the entire ME map would have looked different. The risk of regional war that will drain significant portion of Wes/East resources is possible in the event of Iran/Arabs confrontation. Remember 1980s Iraq vs Iran war? That led to Iraq invading Kuwait, GW-I, GW-II. 

Any regional war in the ME will involve the US and its allies, Russia and their allies. Lets not forget, Turkey is a NATO member and will be involved. US has tropped in Iraq and they'll be involved too.


----------



## tamouh

Syrian rebels acquire early SA-7 heat-seeking missiles (now you can claim the FSA is receiving direct outside support):

(In Syria, Potential Threat to Government Air Power Emerges)

Sources:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/the-3-step-method-to-analyzing-video-of-weapon-systems-in-syria/

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/in-syria-potential-threat-to-government-air-power-emerges/

Video of gun fire against heli in Aleppo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCvGPg8qUlA


----------



## Journeyman

Tiamo said:
			
		

> Has it not been for many of the Arab states that currently exist (Qatar,Saudi,Jordan,UAE,Egypt), the entire ME map would have looked different.


That's a pretty self-obvious statement -- if any one of our current provinces didn't exist then Canada's map would look different too. Whatever point you're trying to make, isn't.



> Any regional war in the ME will involve the US and its allies, Russia and their allies. Lets not forget, Turkey is a NATO member and will be involved. US has tropped in Iraq and they'll be involved too.


By your ongoing posting in this thread, it's obvious that you have an interest in Syria. I _suspect_ that that interest is causing you to overstate Syria's significance. I currently see no great risk of a regional war; the regional -- and global -- consensus appears to be a willingness to let a civil war play itself out.

The major concern is Turkey having sufficient accommodations for all the fleeing Syrian political and military leadership.


----------



## tamouh

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That's a pretty self-obvious statement -- if any one of our current provinces didn't exist then Canada's map would look different too. Whatever point you're trying to make, isn't.
> By your ongoing posting in this thread, it's obvious that you have an interest in Syria. I _suspect_ that that interest is causing you to overstate Syria's significance. I currently see no great risk of a regional war; the regional -- and global -- consensus appears to be a willingness to let a civil war play itself out.
> 
> The major concern is Turkey having sufficient accommodations for all the fleeing Syrian political and military leadership.



I'd be more concerned about Jordan or Lebanon. They already have their hands full dealing with Palestinians and Iraqis, add the Syrian mix and you'd more likely observe destabilized states. My concern with Turkey is only in the event of Iranian 'intervention' or Kurds attempt to axe northern Syria/Iraq.


----------



## tamouh

Tiamo said:
			
		

> I'd be more concerned about Jordan or Lebanon. They already have their hands full dealing with Palestinians and Iraqis, add the Syrian mix and you'd more likely observe destabilized states. Additionally, Lebanon can descend back into civil war should the Assad regime with Iran's help should decide to prop-up Hezbollah.
> 
> My concern with Turkey is only in the event of Iranian 'intervention' or Kurds attempt to axe northern Syria/Iraq.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tiamo said:
			
		

> I'd be more concerned about Jordan or Lebanon. They already have their hands full dealing with Palestinians and Iraqis, add the Syrian mix and you'd more likely observe destabilized states. Additionally, Lebanon can descend back into civil war should the Assad regime with Iran's help should decide to prop-up Hezbollah.




I almost agree with you ... except that I'm not concerned. I think they (well not Jordan quite so much) already are "destabilized states" so the descent into civil wars and the _merger_ of all those civil wars into a regional war is highly likely and, in my opinion, desirable.* I think Hezbollah may be the catalyst that draws Iran into a regional war against the Arabs.


__________
* Those who have followed my ramblings over the years will recall that I think Islam IS a problem, not because it is Islam but because Islam, as practiced in the Arab/Persian/West Asian region, is decidedly in need of an _enlightenment_ and I suspect than an enlightenment will need to be preceded by a _reformation_ which I guess will be violent.


----------



## tamouh

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I almost agree with you ... except that I'm not concerned. I think they (well not Jordan quite so much) already are "destabilized states" so the descent into civil wars and the _merger_ of all those civil wars into a regional war is highly likely and, in my opinion, desirable.* I think Hezbollah may be the catalyst that draws Iran into a regional war against the Arabs.



Agree, they're all held together by a duct tape. But why would a regional war be desirable? What benefit do we or the international community get from a regional war in the ME?


----------



## GAP

Tiamo said:
			
		

> What benefit do we or the international community get from a regional war in the ME?



As quoted by ERC



> * Those who have followed my ramblings over the years will recall that I think Islam IS a problem, not because it is Islam but because Islam, as practiced in the Arab/Persian/West Asian region, is decidedly in need of an enlightenment and I suspect than an enlightenment will need to be preceded by a reformation which I guess will be violent.


----------



## tamouh

GAP said:
			
		

> As quoted by ERC



If we consider that Salafists and other extremists (even many moderate) Muslims believe there will be a war in Al-Sham (which is current day Syria) that will change the current regimes and bring back the Caliphas. Then, I'll doubt any war in that region no matter how violent will bring about moderate Islam. In fact, very likely due to scriptures and Imam's preaching the people will believe it is the end of day and they'll side blindly with an islamic extremist government that will be much worse than any of the factions we've seen involved in the conflicts thus far.

In other words, allowing a war in the ME would be seen to many in the ME as a fulfillment of the end of day prophecy. If we consider it from that angle, we'd be leaving the region to worse things.

I believe the ME needs more peace, better communication technology. More internet access and wide spread of ideas alike freedom of expression and freedom of thoughts. That is the only way to combat extremisim, but another regional war is exactly what the 'Islamists' desire right now.


----------



## GR66

Tiamo said:
			
		

> If we consider that Salafists and other extremists (even many moderate) Muslims believe there will be a war in Al-Sham (which is current day Syria) that will change the current regimes and bring back the Caliphas. Then, I'll doubt any war in that region no matter how violent will bring about moderate Islam. In fact, very likely due to scriptures and Imam's preaching the people will believe it is the end of day and they'll side blindly with an islamic extremist government that will be much worse than any of the factions we've seen involved in the conflicts thus far.
> 
> In other words, allowing a war in the ME would be seen to many in the ME as a fulfillment of the end of day prophecy. If we consider it from that angle, we'd be leaving the region to worse things.
> 
> I believe the ME needs more peace, better communication technology. More internet access and wide spread of ideas alike freedom of expression and freedom of thoughts. That is the only way to combat extremisim, but another regional war is exactly what the 'Islamists' desire right now.



I think the great mistake of many well meaning people is to believe that by exposing other cultures to our "ideas like freedom of expression and freedom of thoughts" that those cultures will naturally internalize those same values.  I simply do not believe that.  We (the collective "We" from the West) only came to hold those values through a long and painful process of reformation and revolution.  Without having gone through the horrors of events like the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the US and English Civil Wars, the American and French Revolutions, etc. we would not collectively have developed the shared values we hold today. 

Unfortunately a similarly painful process will be required before other cultures experience any fundamental changes.  I think that this is why our historic successes in "exporting democracy" have been generally underwhelming.  These cultures have to learn for themselves (likely the hard way like we did) the lessons that we have learned.  The best we can hope for is to contain as much as possible the mess while they go through the process.


----------



## Journeyman

Tiamo said:
			
		

> In other words, allowing a war in the ME would be seen to many in the ME as a fulfillment of the end of day prophecy.


How paternalistic. Do you believe that intervention by forces of the Christian-dominated West, saying "sorry, we can't allow you to sort out your own destiny" will be greeted with open arms?

I suspect that such a move _would_ bring some unity to disparate Islamic factions.....but you're not going to like the result.


----------



## tamouh

GR66 said:
			
		

> I think the great mistake of many well meaning people is to believe that by exposing other cultures to our "ideas like freedom of expression and freedom of thoughts" that those cultures will naturally internalize those same values.  I simply do not believe that.  We (the collective "We" from the West) only came to hold those values through a long and painful process of reformation and revolution.  Without having gone through the horrors of events like the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the US and English Civil Wars, the American and French Revolutions, etc. we would not collectively have developed the shared values we hold today.
> 
> Unfortunately a similarly painful process will be required before other cultures experience any fundamental changes.  I think that this is why our historic successes in "exporting democracy" have been generally underwhelming.  These cultures have to learn for themselves (likely the hard way like we did) the lessons that we have learned.  The best we can hope for is to contain as much as possible the mess while they go through the process.



The ME had seen its own shares of war. I believe it's been a war ridden region for 5,000+ years. There will be no change with another war. Peaceful progress through the use of Internet and Media had made quite a difference in people opinion and way of thinking. Yes, there are extremists, but we also now have more moderates in the ME region. I am afraid any progress made through technology will be wiped out in a regional war.

Most of the population will flee their homes seeking refuge at the West. The only people will be left to fight that war are extremists, poor families, nationalists and sympathizers for either side. Thus a regional war would create exodus to the west (1980s lebanon anyone?). It will leave fragile, more extreme and hostile groups or government in the ME.


----------



## Journeyman

So what would you have us do?    op:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tiamo: my reading of history is, clearly, different from yours.

First of all: historically, people do not migrate in great numbers, not even under HUGE stresses. The truly great migrations, such as Europe around 500 CE and even China, in the late 20th century, have been economic, not people fleeing strife. Starvation will make people migrate, not war.

Second: the Arab/Persian Middle East looks a lot, to me, like Europe 500 years ago and I think it is ripe for a long, terrible series of wars - a generation or two of wars, at least.

The "output" of a generation or three of European wars (1588 to 1688), some horribly bloody and destructive, were, broadly, very positive; we can hope that there will be a similar "output" for the Middle East and West Asia.

I'm afraid that _Twitter_ and social media are not going to be enough; I think some suffering - a lot, actually - will be necessary to force the sorts of socio-cultural changes that I believe are necessary for the Arabs, Iranians and West Asians.


----------



## tamouh

E.R.: I do believe there are many issues still need to be worked out in the ME. Any solution needs to be from within the region and to resolve the region own problems. Given that, I'd still think a regional war can be avoided if there are enough enlightened leaders who are willing to compromise and leave in peace.


John Baird's Mideast trip to boost Canadian role in Syria crisis 

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/john-bairds-mideast-trip-to-boost-canadian-role-in-syria-crisis/article4472794/



> Foreign Minister John Baird flies to the Middle East Friday on a hastily organized mission intended to show Canadian support for two countries inundated with refugees fleeing the raging conflict in Syria.
> 
> A trek to visit the teeming masses of displaced people – and announce aid for them – will allow Mr. Baird to be seen taking some action to help the victims of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a long-running conflict that has frustrated Western nations.


----------



## tamouh

This is a first and just before Baird's visit:

Clash reported between Jordan and Syria in border area

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-syria-crisis-jordan-idUSBRE8791B420120810


----------



## tamouh

Interesting read on the makeup of the FSA dating back to March, 2012. Some factual errors on effective battalions locations and unit commanders. I guess that is the result of internet reporting/analyzing,  but the report has some good insights:

Source: http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Syrias_Armed_Opposition.pdf



> Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7,
> 2012 about issues that were restraining the United States from supporting the armed opposition in Syria.
> “It is not clear what constitutes the Syrian armed opposition – there has been no single unifying military
> alternative that can be recognized, appointed, or contacted,” he said.


----------



## a_majoor

Tiamo

While the communications revolution has changed many things, you should note that all sides are becoming adept at this. The Iranian "Green" revolution used Internet tools in an attempt to overthrow the theocracy, but failed (hard power tools still prevail, and the US led west refused to offer any sort of help or recognition), while the Muslim Brotherhood has used tools like Twitter extensively to support their political ground game and effectively freeze out democrats and moderates from political power in Egypt.

The ME is difficult to characterize because it is overlain by so many different divisions (most of which are not congruent). Religion, ethnicity, languages and even former "Imperial" boundaries (Ottoman and Persian empires, plus the imposed boundaries of the British and French) cover the landscape like spaghetti. As ERC says, the current configuration is unstable and only a violent series of shocks will shake the system into some new equilibrium. 

If we will like the new equilibrium or not is a different story


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Why you shouldn't do urban tanking without infantry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjA3REyOJM&feature=related


----------



## hagan_91

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Interview+Russia+says+Syrian+guarantees+that+chemical+weapons+will/7133727/story.html


----------



## a_majoor

One of the many possible outcomes of the Civil War. I'm not entirely certain that an independent state is possible, given there will be almost no functioning economy and the borders will be surrounded by a very hostile majority population. IF the terrain provided natural boundaries and defensible positions, maybe (the examples of the Kurds building strength in their mountainous strongholds comes to mind), but I don't really see this.

The point about Alawite "boat people" could also lead to a greater tragedy; what if the surrounding nations point blank refuse to take them in? There is little sympathy for them in the region, Europeans are already struggling with populations of unassimilated Muslims from Turkey and North Africa so would hardly be welcoming; where would they go?

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/08/24/lawrence-solomon-the-next-boat-people/



> Lawrence Solomon: The next boat people
> 
> Lawrence Solomon | Aug 24, 2012 10:44 PM ET
> More from Lawrence Solomon
> 
> UNHCRSyria may see an exodus by sea, like Vietnam in the 1970s and 1980s, above.
> Twitter Google+ LinkedIn Email Comments More
> Syria’s Alawites may take to the sea, like the Vietnamese
> 
> If President Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite minority lose Syria’s civil war to the Sunni majority, as Western governments have predicted for more than a year now, the real bloodbath begins. The Sunnis, in revenge for four decades of often-murderous Assad family rule, are sure to seek retribution for the 20,000 brutally killed by Assad in the last 18 months; for the 10,000 wiped out by Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, in a chemical-weapons massacre that put down a 1982 rebellion; and for the countless indignities and injustices throughout the period when the Alawite minority ruled over the Sunni majority.
> 
> Anticipating wholesale slaughter — calls for genocide against the Alawites abound — many if not most of the country’s two million-plus Alawites would flee in panic. Because Syria’s immediate neighbours to the north, south and east have neither the capacity nor the desire to accept large numbers of Alawites — seen as heretics by Sunni and Shia Muslims alike — many Alawites will take to the sea in an attempt to get to the West. This would create the greatest refugee crisis for the West since the end of the Vietnamese civil war in the 1970s, which saw the West first detain and then ultimately resettle more than one million boat people in the 1970s and 1980s.
> 
> A humanitarian disaster of epic scale is thus unfolding, one that would also strain Western budgets in this time of austerity — the cost of detaining Vietnamese refugees in the 1980s, when security was less of an issue, could cost as much as US$75,000 per person per year. Yet these looming costs, as well as the looming humanitarian disaster, are avoidable. Not under the West’s present strategy of regime change — replacing the Assad regime with a Sunni-led-coalition while keeping Syria’s borders intact – but by creating a state within Syria’s present borders for its Alawite population.
> 
> Such a state — called The Alawite State — actually existed after the First World War, when Alawites rebelled against French colonial rule over their homeland along the Mediterranean coast in a northwest corner of present-day Syria. With the blessings of the League of Nations, The Alawite State lasted from 1920 to 1936, when it joined Syria, a protectorate of various disparate minorities created by the Western colonial powers. Alawites — known for their military prowess — later became powerful in the fascist Baath Party that has ruled Syria in a military dictatorship.
> 
> That fascist Baath Party is now crumbling, as have other secular regimes in the Middle East, most of them artificial creations of the British and French in carving up the spoils of the Ottoman Empire. If the Western powers today were not adamant in preserving the country’s present borders, an Alawite state would be a likely outcome — the Alawites are in fact fortifying their traditional homeland, to allow them a retreat and, if necessary, a last stand. Syria’s Kurds are likewise fortifying traditional Kurdish parts of Syria, to protect themselves from bloodshed regardless of who ultimately assumes power.
> 
> But the West opposes a breakup of Syria, as do the governments of Syria’s neighbouring states — all fear the consequences of setting a precedent that encourages the national aspirations of the many other minorities in the Middle East. Local sectarian wars may well erupt in that grudge-filled part of the world.
> 
> Yet the consequences of insisting that Syria’s borders remain unchanged, and of forcing the Alawites and the Sunni majority to live together, are unconscionable: a continuation of the current killing of Sunni innocents at the hands of Assad’s Alawite forces, followed by a killing of Alawite minority innocents should the Sunni rebels win. In contrast, the case for quickly carving out an Alawite state is compelling, not least because it raises the prospects of a shortened and less reprehensible end to the current civil war.
> 
> Because Alawites don’t have a safe harbour in a state of their own, they are fighting furiously, and if necessary may resort to chemical weapons. If they do lose, and if the Sunni victors invade and overrun the Alawite strongholds, laying siege to the Alawite capital of Latakia on the Mediterranean, their backs will literally be to the sea.
> 
> Latakia, as the country’s largest port, will then oversee a large-scale evacuation of the populace by sea. And the West would oversee a refugee problem largely of its making.
> 
> Financial Post
> 
> lawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com


----------



## tamouh

Iran Said to Send Troops to Bolster Syria

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444230504577615393756632230.html

BEIRUT—Iran is sending commanders from its elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and hundreds of foot soldiers to Syria, according to current and former members of the corps.


----------



## tamouh

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Tiamo
> 
> While the communications revolution has changed many things, you should note that all sides are becoming adept at this. The Iranian "Green" revolution used Internet tools in an attempt to overthrow the theocracy, but failed (hard power tools still prevail, and the US led west refused to offer any sort of help or recognition), while the Muslim Brotherhood has used tools like Twitter extensively to support their political ground game and effectively freeze out democrats and moderates from political power in Egypt.
> 
> The ME is difficult to characterize because it is overlain by so many different divisions (most of which are not congruent). Religion, ethnicity, languages and even former "Imperial" boundaries (Ottoman and Persian empires, plus the imposed boundaries of the British and French) cover the landscape like spaghetti. As ERC says, the current configuration is unstable and only a violent series of shocks will shake the system into some new equilibrium.
> 
> If we will like the new equilibrium or not is a different story



I'm in full agreement with most of what you've said. However, I'm not seeing a war as the eventual solution. I do believe that it will take generations of Middle Eastern youth to re-shape the ME into a stable zone. If 3 wars with Israel, 15 yrs civil war in lebanon, 2 wars in Iraq did not make a dent then no future wars will make a change.


----------



## tamouh

Tiamo said:
			
		

> I'm in full agreement with most of what you've said. However, I'm not seeing a war as the eventual solution. I do believe that it will take generations of Middle Eastern youth to re-shape the ME into a stable zone. If 3 wars with Israel, 15 yrs civil war in lebanon, 3 wars in Iraq (forgot the Iran-Iraq war) and numerous other revolutions from North Africa to South India did not make a dent to the way people deal with each other, then I doubt any future wars will make a change.


----------



## a_majoor

Tiamo said:
			
		

> I'm in full agreement with most of what you've said. However, I'm not seeing a war as the eventual solution. I do believe that it will take generations of Middle Eastern youth to re-shape the ME into a stable zone. If 3 wars with Israel, 15 yrs civil war in lebanon, 2 wars in Iraq did not make a dent then no future wars will make a change.



Robert A Heinlein summed this attitude up well in the book "Starship Troopers"

(Paraphrase)

Student: My parents say that war and violence don't solve anything.
Teacher: Tell that to the people of Carthage

It takes really apocalyptic wars to make major changes; the World Wars of the last century, the 30 year's war and the Peloponesian wars come to mind as events that shifted the landscape and created entirely new orders in the political landscape. Maybe if the current crop of regional wars start to run together we will destabilize enough "pieces" to get the shifts needed for an Islamic "Reformation".


----------



## Sythen

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/08/syria-crisis-jihad-idUSL6E8K80WG20120908



> Jihadists join Aleppo fight, eye Islamic state, surgeon says
> 
> 
> * French surgeon returns after 2 weeks in Aleppo hospital
> 
> * Says French fighters inspired by Toulouse gunman Merah
> 
> * Says Turkey flooding parts of border to stop refugees
> 
> By John Irish
> 
> PARIS, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Foreign Islamists intent on turning Syria into an autocratic theocracy have swollen the ranks of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad and think they are waging a "holy war", a French surgeon who treated fighters in Aleppo has said.
> 
> Jacques Beres, co-founder of medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres, returned from Syria on Friday evening after spending two weeks working clandestinely in a hospital in the besieged northern Syrian city.
> 
> In an interview with Reuters in his central Paris apartment on Saturday, the 71-year-old said that contrary to his previous visits to Homs and Idlib earlier this year about 60 percent of those he had treated this time had been rebel fighters and that at least half of them had been non-Syrian.
> 
> "It's really something strange to see. They are directly saying that they aren't interested in Bashar al-Assad's fall, but are thinking about how to take power afterwards and set up an Islamic state with sharia law to become part of the world Emirate," the doctor said.



More on link. I wonder how long it will be before another caliphate is set up in the middle east? And I wonder what the war between the Sunnis and Shias will look like when they end up fighting for control of it. War by proxy is working and effective for both sides in the short to medium term, but there will come a day when their 'cold war' will go hot.


----------



## Edward Campbell

We need to remember that Turkey is a regional *power* with strong historical claims to being the _natural leader_ of the Arabic, Persian and West Asian Muslims and the military wherewithal to press that claim.


----------



## a_majoor

One result of the disintigration of "old" regimes is that many of the pressing issues of the Great War may finally come to a resolution. The Kurds already have a de facto state in northern Iraq, now a new Kurdish enclave has been created in Syria. The Turks are not too pleased by this, and I imagine this will also become a large and growing thorn in the side of the Iranians as well. This isn't to say that there is a prospect for a united Kurdistan any time soon; Kurds don't seem to work very well together either:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/09/24/get-ready-for-syrian-kurdistan-3/



> *Get Ready for Syrian Kurdistan*
> 
> Kurdish areas of the Middle East (in red).
> 
> Syria’s Kurds once waged a fruitless struggle with Damascus against discrimination and for basic rights like citizenship and official recognition of a distinct Kurdish language and culture. Now, however, the equation has changed, and large chunks of northeastern Syria are now under the sole control of the Kurds.
> 
> Back in July, Butcher Assad ceded the responsibility of governing and maintaining law and order in northeastern Syria to Kurdish leaders. In return they would keep out of the uprising. Syrian Kurdish leaders have taken this responsibility and run with it. In a recent interview, well-known Kurdish leader and PKK advisor Muhammad Amin Penjweni described the situation in northeastern Syria:
> 
> The Democratic Union Party (PYD) is a very active party in Syrian Kurdistan. Since the start of the uprising, the PYD’s cadres have gone back into the general population and started organizing them. They have formed councils in all areas, and the councils have formed a bigger council called the People’s Council. Now the People’s Council has formed another council with the Kurdistan National Council (KNC), each with five members. . . .
> This is the reality in Syrian Kurdistan, whether Turkey wants it or not. The freedom achieved there — whether by bravery, or the Syrian regime giving the areas up — is a development for the Kurdish question.
> 
> Meanwhile, Assad also eased restrictions on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. The PKK is mostly based in Turkey, and its insurgency there has grown more intense in tandem with the Syrian civil war; observers suspect Assad is using the PKK to distract and annoy Turkey. The PKK, according to reports, now occupies towns along much of Syria’s border with Turkey. The past few months have seen an intensifying battle between the Turkish state and the PKK. Ankara claims to have killed hundreds of insurgents, and the PKK has been blamed for a spate of recent attacks on policemen and army checkpoints. A recent article in Turkey’s Zaman newspaper likened the PKK to the Taliban and described widespread drug cultivation in areas of Turkey controlled by the PKK, with enormous profits from the drug trade filling the coffers of Kurdish groups.
> 
> All this suggests a renewed struggle in the Middle East between the Kurds and their host countries (see map above). We’re likely to see Syrian Kurds start to push harder and more successfully for the same kind of regional autonomy as in Iraqi Kurdistan. Depending on inter-Kurdish politics, we might see the PKK establish a safe haven and base of operations in northeastern Syria from which to launch attacks in Turkey. This could in turn lead to Turkish incursions into Syria. Another variable is the Syrian civil war: So far the leaders of the uprising against Assad have offered no hint that they are on especially friendly terms with Syria’s Kurds, and should Assad fall, the future of Syria’s Kurdish communities (just like other non-Sunni non-combatant communities) becomes an ominous question.
> 
> All in all, a messy and complicated state of affairs.


----------



## aesop081

Tiamo said:
			
		

> I do believe that it will take generations of Middle Eastern youth to re-shape the ME into a stable zone.



They will follow in the footsteps of the youth currently making a**es of themselves "protesting" over a Youtube video.


----------



## Edward Campbell

As Turkey shells Syria, today, this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_ is timely:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138104/halil-karaveli/turkey-is-no-partner-for-peace?page=show


> Turkey Is No Partner for Peace
> *How Ankara’s Sectarianism Hobbles U.S. Syria Policy*
> 
> Halil Karaveli
> 
> September 11, 2012
> 
> At first glance, it appears that the United States and Turkey are working hand in hand to end the Syrian civil war. On August 11, after meeting with Turkish officials, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement that the two countries’ foreign ministries were coordinating to support the Syrian opposition and bring about a democratic transition. In Ankara on August 23, U.S. and Turkish officials turned those words into action, holding their first operational planning meeting aimed at hastening the downfall of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> Beneath their common desire to oust Assad, however, Washington and Ankara have two distinctly different visions of a post-revolutionary Syria. The United States insists that any solution to the Syrian crisis should guarantee religious and ethnic pluralism. But Turkey, which is ruled by a Sunni government, has come to see the conflict in sectarian terms, building close ties with Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood–dominated Sunni opposition, seeking to suppress the rights of Syrian Kurds, and castigating the minority Alawites -- Assad’s sect -- as enemies. That should be unsettling for the Obama administration, since it means that Turkey will not be of help in promoting a multi-ethnic, democratic government in Damascus. In fact, Turkish attitudes have already contributed to Syria’s worsening sectarian divisions.
> 
> Washington is pushing for pluralism. In Istanbul last month, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon emphasized that “the Syrian opposition needs to be inclusive, needs to give a voice to all of the groups in Syria . . . and that includes Kurds.” Clinton, after meeting with her Turkish counterpart, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, stressed that a new Syrian government “will need to protect the rights of all Syrians regardless of religion, gender, or ethnicity.”
> 
> It is unclear, however, whether Ankara is on board. As it lends critical support to the Sunni rebellion, Turkey has not made an attempt to reach out to the other ethnic and sectarian communities in the country. Instead, Turkey has framed the Syrian conflict in alienating religious terms. The governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), a Sunni conservative bloc, singles out Syria’s Alawites as villains, regularly denouncing their “minority regime.” Hüseyin Çelik, an AKP spokesperson, claimed at a press conference on September 8, 2011, that “the Baath regime relies on a mass of 15 percent” -- the percentage of Alawites in the country. Such a narrative overlooks the fact that the Baath regime has long owed its survival to the support of a significant portion of the majority Sunnis.
> 
> The AKP has antagonized not only Syria’s Alawites but also its Kurds. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has insisted that his country would resist any Kurdish push for autonomy in parts of northeastern Syria, going so far as to threaten military intervention. The Turkish government’s unreserved support for the Sunni opposition is due not only to an ideological affinity with it but also to the fact that the Sunni rebels oppose the aspirations of the Syrian Kurds.
> 
> Meanwhile, the AKP has sought to sell its anti-Assad policy to the Turkish public by fanning the flames of sectarianism at home. The AKP has directed increasingly aggressive rhetoric toward Turkey’s largest religious minority, the Alevis, and accused them of supporting the Alawites out of religious solidarity. The Alevis, a Turkish- and Kurdish-speaking heterodox Muslim minority that comprises approximately one-fifth of Turkey’s population, constitute a separate group from the Arab Alawites. But both creeds share the fate of being treated as heretics by the Sunnis.
> 
> At the September 2011 press conference, Çelik insinuated that Kemal Kiliçdaroğlu, an Alevi Kurd who leads Turkey’s social democratic Republican People’s Party (CHP), based his opposition to Turkey’s entanglement in the Syrian civil war on sectarian motives. “Why are you defending the Baath regime?” he inquired. “Bad things come to my mind. Is it perhaps because of sectarian solidarity?” In a similar vein, Erdogan claimed in March that Kiliçdaroğlu’s motives for supposedly befriending the Syrian president were religious, stating, “Don’t forget that a person’s religion is the religion of his friend.”
> 
> On the face of it, the Obama administration’s positions on Syria are consistent with those of Turkey. In their meetings in Turkey, Clinton reiterated that Washington “share(s) Turkey’s determination that Syria must not become a haven for [Kurdish] terrorists,” and Gordon underlined that the United States has “been clear both with the Kurds of Syria and our counterparts in Turkey that we don’t support any movement towards autonomy or separatism which we think would be a slippery slope.” Such statements may comfort the Turkish government, but the preferred U.S. outcome of a Syria where all ethnic and religious communities enjoy equal rights would nonetheless require accommodating the aspirations of the Kurds to be recognized as a distinct group. And that is precisely what Turkey deems unacceptable. Consider the fact that Turkey has persecuted its own Kurdish movement for raising the same demand; in the last three years, Ankara has arrested 8,000 Kurdish politicians and activists to keep the nationalist movement in check.
> 
> None of this is to suggest that the United States should not work with Turkey, especially since Saudi Arabia, the other main participant in the effort to bring down Assad, has even less of an interest in promoting democracy. But to have a reliable partner in the Syria crisis, Washington will have to pressure Ankara to rise above its ethnic and sectarian considerations.
> 
> The United States should therefore confront these differences in approach head-on and encourage Turkey to see the benefits of pursuing a more pluralistic policy. Despite its fear of Kurdish agitation at home, Turkey would stand to gain from establishing a mutually beneficial relationship with the Kurds in Syria, like the one that it has come to enjoy with the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq. Indeed, representatives of the leading Syrian Kurdish party, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), have urged Ankara to forge a similar partnership. In an interview with the International Middle East Peace Research Center, Salih Muhammad Muslim, the leader of the PYD, said that Turkey should get over its “Kurdish phobia.” Erdogan’s government seems reluctant to do so, fearing that by reaching out to Syria’s Kurds and other minorities, and accepting the idea of a pluralistic Syria, Turkey would encourage its own ethnic and religious minorities to seek constitutional reform and equality. But if Turkey allows ethnic and sectarian divisions in Syria to further spiral out of control, those divisions may spill over its own borders.
> 
> By now, it should have dawned on Ankara that shouldering the Sunni cause to project power in its neighborhood courts all kinds of dangers. Framing Turkey’s involvement in Syria in religious terms leads Sunni Turks to imagine that they are waging a battle for the emancipation of faithful Muslims from the oppression of supposed heretics. This fanning of sectarian prejudice against Syria’s Alawites naturally engenders hostility toward religious minority groups in Turkey, leading the country’s already fragile social fabric to fray.
> 
> There is a bigger risk here, too. The AKP’s pro-Sunni agenda in Syria threatens to embroil Turkey in the wider Sunni-Shiite conflict across the Middle East. By taking on Iran’s ally, Turkey has exposed itself to aggression from the Islamic Republic. In a statement last month, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s chief of staff, General Hasan Firouzabadi, warned that Turkey, along with the other countries combating Assad, can expect internal turmoil as a result of their interference. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Kurdish rebel group considered a terrorist organization by Turkey and the United States, stepped up its attacks over the summer, notably staging a major offensive in Turkey’s Hakkari Province, which borders Iran and Iraq. Iran denies any responsibility for the PKK attacks, but Turkish officials assume that Tehran is involved and that PKK militants cross into Turkey from Iran.
> 
> Until now, the Sunni bent of Turkish foreign policy has suited the geopolitical aims of the United States, as it has meant that Turkey, abandoning its previous ambition to have “zero problems” with its neighbors, has joined the camp against Iran. That advantage quelled whatever misgivings U.S. officials may have harbored about Turkey’s sectarian drift. But if the United States achieves, with Turkish help, its strategic objective of ousting Assad, it will need a different kind of Turkey as its partner for what comes after.




I believe, based on scant evidence I admit, that Turkey is eschewing its 20th century European ambitions and is, now, looking South and East - to the Middle East, West Asia and North Africa - for opportunities to play a leadership role: frustrating the ambitions of Iran and Egypt and displacing the USA.


----------



## tamouh

> I believe, based on scant evidence I admit, that Turkey is eschewing its 20th century European ambitions and is, now, looking South and East - to the Middle East, West Asia and North Africa - for opportunities to play a leadership role: frustrating the ambitions of Iran and Egypt and displacing the USA.



I disagree. If Turkey was seeking to become a regional power, they would have intervened in Syria long time ago. They would have provided better support to the FSA as an example.  I believe Turkey does not want to intervene in Syria and really has little interest in it except for the Kurds and commercial truck traffic. 

Syria since its independence in late 1940s and until the Hafez Al-Assad coup in 1969 have had 4 successfull military coups and 2 "corrective" revolutions. Between 1961-1969, Syria have had numerous failed military coups that are too many to even count. 

Thus, any country looking to intervene in Syria knows very well that the road to stability is very long and treturous one. This is my reasoning why nobody had stepped up to "own" the Syrian problem.

Further, Saudi Arabia is the main financier of the Armed Syrian opposition (through military councils, religious figures and others). Saudi in itself may have little interest in Syria except for countering the Iranian Shiaa expansion. Turkey is basically the gateway for Saudi Arabia to mingle in Syria. If any country in the ME is seeking a leadership role, it is probably Saudi.

As a side note, one of Saudi Arabia's King Abduallah wives is the sister of Rifaat Al-Assad (Bashar Al-Assad uncle) whom is currently living in Paris, France after he had been forced out of power by Bashar Al-Assad late Father, Hafez Al-Assad. Rifaat Al-Assad is most enfamous for his Hama massacre in which most of the city was leveled to the ground. He had also attempted a coup against his brother Hafez Al-Assad, but failed. He used to command the elite army unit known today as the 4th Battalion.


----------



## a_majoor

Various old and new "power groupings" exist in the Middle East, it would take an archeological expedition to find the roots of all of  these.

The Turks are a distinctive Ethnic group, and have historical aspirations based on ruling the Middle East in the recent past as the Ottoman Empire (note, in this part of the world, recent seems to be the Crusades. 1918 is practically yesterday)

The Persians are also a distinct Ethnic and religious grouping, who also have historical claims to regional hegemony

While the Saudis are "new kids" relatively speaking, they have a malevolent interpretation of Islam and lots of money to push it. Wahhabi madrasas are springing up everywhere, a rather novel approach to projecting power.

Egypt is a very old civilization, and Egyptians still see themselves as being very important in the grand scheme of things. They are currently a secular power, but with the Arab Spring being hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhoods, will probably evolve into another sectarian faction with lots of military and economic muscle.

The Ba'athist party is/was a Fascist wannabe secular movement. While it is no longer a power in Iraq, it is still the guiding force behind the Assad regime in Syria, and has adherents throughout the Middle East seeking a secular alternative to sectarian rule.

Throw in the Jews, the Kurds and dozens of smaller ethnic and religious factions and you have another fine mess. Syria is currently allied to Iran but historically belongs in the Turkish orbit, and the ultimate fate may well be a series of mini "states" and areas absorbed by other nations (Kurdish Syria may well blend into Iraqi Kurdistan, for example, and various minority groups in Syria may try to create enclaves as safe havens as the Civil War reaches its climax). The greater regional powers fighting over the remains may well be the trigger of the Regional War that threatens to engulf the entire Middle East.


----------



## Bigmac

> Turkey returns fire after Syrian bomb crosses border
> 
> Shelling marks fourth day of Turkish retaliation as cross-border attacks threaten to escalate into war
> 
> Turkey has returned fire after a mortar bomb shot from Syria landed in a field in southern Turkey.
> 
> The exchange came the day after Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, warned Damascus that his country would not shy away from war if provoked.
> 
> It was the fourth day of Turkish strikes in retaliation for mortar bombs and shelling by Syrian forces that killed five Turkish civilians further east on Wednesday.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/06/turkey-returns-fire-syria


It looks like the Kurds in Syria may provoke Turkey to cross the border. The Middle East is turning into quite the powder keg!


----------



## tomahawk6

The big winner would be the Free Syrian Army.


----------



## Old Sweat

There are a couple of ways of looking what might happen. Neither is all that appealing.

First - Turkey goes to war, maybe with limited objectives, taking the heat of the west to intervene. Hopefully this will not prompt Russia, iran or China to aid Syria and it will not rally the Free Syria movement to join the Assad regime in defending the homeland. In any case the region is destabilized even more and fractures begin to develop along ethnic fault lines. When the dust clears and the bodies are buried, we all have to relearn our geography.

Second - this turns into a replay of the events of the spring and summer of 1914.

And the wild card is what if somebody decides to blame it all on the Joos and launches a strike on Isreal?

Hopefully my new tin foil hat is working and these scenarios are just the product of an overactive imagination.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More grist for the mill....

2 Aug 12 (via Pentagon Info-machine):


> Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta today pledged to explore ways to continue U.S. help in providing humanitarian aid to those affected by violence in Syria.
> 
> A meeting between Panetta and King Abdullah in Amman, Jordan, focused on regional security challenges, most notably Syria and recent refugee flows into Jordan, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said.
> 
> “They talked not only about how to deal with the current crisis that is being fueled by the intolerable acts of the Assad regime,” Little said in a written statement, “but also the prospects for political transition in a post-Assad Syria.”
> 
> Panetta and King Abdullah agreed that strong international pressure must be sustained to make it clear that Syrian leader Bashar Assad must go, and that the Syrian people deserve to determine their own future, the press secretary said.
> 
> Panetta also reiterated the U.S. commitment to its strategic relationship with Jordan and to the strong defense relationship between the two countries, Little added ....



9 Oct 12 (via NY Times):


> The United States military has secretly sent a task force of more than 150 planners and other specialists to Jordan to help the armed forces there handle a flood of Syrian refugees, prepare for the possibility that Syria will lose control of its chemical weapons and be positioned should the turmoil in Syria expand into a wider conflict.
> 
> The task force, which has been led by a senior American officer, is based at a Jordanian military training center built into an old rock quarry north of Amman. It is now largely focused on helping Jordanians handle the estimated 180,000 Syrian refugees who have crossed the border and are severely straining the country’s resources.
> 
> American officials familiar with the operation said the mission also includes drawing up plans to try to insulate Jordan, an important American ally in the region, from the upheaval in Syria and to avoid the kind of clashes now occurring along the border of Syria and Turkey.
> 
> The officials said the idea of establishing a buffer zone between Syria and Jordan — which would be enforced by Jordanian forces on the Syrian side of the border and supported politically and perhaps logistically by the United States — had been discussed. But at this point the buffer is only a contingency ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I could see Turkey moving into parts of Syria to protect it's population from shelling and to pursue the PPK, the move would be announced as a tempoary measure to prevent attacks on it's soil and to provide humanitarian aid to displaced people. The FSA will welcome it and use the area as a refugee gathering area and safe haven. Assad and gang might try to provke the Kurds in attacking the turks or at least PPK and allies. I suspect(hope) that most Kurds see little advantage in such attacks, but the turk's heavy hand might force them to fight back. Syria might decide to fight the intrustion in the politcal arena such as the UN, with Russian and Iranian support, but avoid confrontation directly with the Turkish army. If assad puts down the rebellion, he will then be in a postion to move his army to face the Turks. At this point all bets are off, what is the turkish public mood, what sort of protections will be put in place for the displaced people, will the UN agree to put observers in?


----------



## Bigmac

> *Turkish PM says intercepted Syrian plane carrying ammunition*
> 
> Canada's foreign affairs minister commends halting of arms shipment
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> Posted: Oct 11, 2012 5:02 AM ET
> 
> Last Updated: Oct 11, 2012 7:09 PM ET
> 
> 
> Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird commended Turkey on Thursday for stopping a possible shipment of weapons reportedly on its way to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
> 
> Escalating tensions with Russia, Turkey defended its forced landing of a Syrian passenger jet en route from Moscow to Damascus, saying Thursday it was carrying Russian ammunition and military equipment destined for the Syrian Defence Ministry.
> 
> Syria branded the incident piracy and Russia called the search illegal, saying it endangered the lives of Russian citizens aboard the plane.
> 
> The accusation by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan contradicted denials by both Russia and Syria that anything illegal had been aboard the Airbus A320 that was intercepted over Turkish airspace late Wednesday.
> 
> "Equipment and ammunitions that were being sent from a Russian agency ... to the Syrian Defence Ministry," were confiscated from the jetliner, Erdogan told reporters in Ankara. "Their examination is continuing and the necessary (action) will follow."



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/10/11/turkey-syria-plane.html


Russia involved in arms dealing with another nation?   
Says the Russian "civilian" passenger: " Nyet, that rocket launcher is not mine, I was holding it for a friend! "  :


----------



## tamouh

Syrian regime is using cluster bombs in Homs/Aleppo:

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-10-14/syria-gunmen-kill-4-on-factory-bus-in-homs

By AP News



> The Syrian regime was accused Sunday of dropping cluster bombs — indiscriminate scattershot munitions banned by most nations — in a new sign of desperation and disregard for its own people..........


----------



## aesop081

Tiamo said:
			
		

> Syrian regime is using cluster bombs in Homs/Aleppo:



Tiamo,

If you have not noticed yet, no one cares what goes on in Syria. Cluster bombs won't change that, they are just another weapon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

_Let me add a bit of anecdotal evidence regarding this from my own time in Syria. The hatred felt by FSA and other Syrian insurgent fighters toward Hezbollah is very intense. It of course also has a sectarian element. I have seen Hezbollah flags burned at opposition demonstrations in Idlib Province. In Aleppo last month, I interviewed a Tawhid Brigade fighter who referred constantly to the party as ‘Hizb a Shaytan’ (party of Satan.) It created a weird dynamic in our conversation because I would keep asking about ‘Hezbollah’ (party of God) and he would keep replying by referring to ‘Hizb a Shaytan’ until in the end I started feeling like I was acting as some kind of apologist for Hezbollah. Which I’m not. As you know._


read the rest at  http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blogs/michael-j-totten
The Israeli Who Sneaked into Syria


----------



## a_majoor

More cracks are opening in the region. It seems Turkey was much more hevily involved even from the beginning, and we might see one aspect of the Syrian conflict as a proxy battle between Iran (which supports the regime) and Turkey. Of course several other struggles are also going on at the same time. All the more reason to be very careful in how we approach the conflict, and avoid being drawn in if at all possible:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/16/sleepwalking-into-disaster-over-syria/



> *Sleepwalking into disaster over Syria*
> 
> Araminta Wordsworth | Oct 16, 2012 8:51 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 16, 2012 9:37 AM ET
> More from Araminta Wordsworth
> 
> AP Photo / SANA 'They make a desert and call it peace': Downtown Aleppo
> 
> Full Comment’s Araminta Wordsworth brings you a daily round-up of quality punditry from across the globe.  Today: The escalation of hostilities between Ankara and Damascus should be alarming the rest of the world.
> 
> Instead, international powers seem to be sleepwalking into a major war as Turkey and Syria exchange fire and impose tit-for-tat bans on using each other’s airspace.
> 
> Maybe it’s because they — and we — have become numbed by the grinding horrors of the last 18 months: the deaths of thousands of civilians caught in the crossfire or tortured to death by the Assad regime, and the rebels, albeit on a lesser scale; the hundreds of thousands more displaced; the cities turned into heaps of rubble.
> 
> Some in the U.S. are even jingoistically sabre-rattling. They have obviously learned nothing from the waste of blood and money in previous American adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. All-out war between Syria and Turkey could also drag in regional powers, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, maybe even Russia, Bashar al-Assad’s continuing best friend.
> 
> As the London newspaper The Independent points out in an editorial,
> 
> With violence raging in parts of Syria, cross-border clashes – either by mistake … or deliberately, in pursuit of rebel fighters sheltering in Turkey – become ever harder to prevent. The UN has so far been unable or unwilling to halt Syria’s descent into civil war. But the real risk now is that the conflict will spread, escalating into regional conflagration. Better late than never, this is the point at which Russia and China must make common cause with the other Big Five powers – or be culpable in what happens next.
> 
> From neighbouring Lebanon, which knows better than most the horrors of civil war, editorial writers at the Daily Star are sounding the alarm.
> 
> [L]ast week’s events on the border with Turkey represent a potentially catastrophic turning point which could turn the civil war into a regional one … as the history of wars often reveals, many of the worst conflicts have started due to a seemingly small miscalculation, miscommunication or stray bullet.
> With the region as much of a powder keg as it has ever been, this escalation of activities on the borders promotes nothing but chaos and further bloodshed. Common sense and clear thinking is desperately needed before the border clashes draw in regional, or international partners, and all the while the Syrian people who are really suffering will continue to be ignored.
> 
> Another editorial, this one in the Jerusalem Post helps explain why the international response has been muted: self-interest.
> 
> _t is difficult to know who to root for. While it would be morally reprehensible to back Assad’s ruthless regime, the alternative – the rise of a Syrian version of the Muslim Brotherhood, followed by the wholesale slaughter of the hated Alawite minority (and perhaps of other minorities such as Druse and Kurds who remained loyal to Assad) – hardly promises to be an improvement.
> From Israel’s point of view, regime change in Syria and a warming of ties with Turkey would be welcome developments … But when it comes to changes in the Arab world, as we learned in the Gaza Strip and then with the so-called Arab Spring, one must be careful what one hopes for.
> 
> At the political magazine CounterPunch, Ramzy Baroud demolishes the argument Turkey is being dragged into a conflict not of its making.
> 
> When Syrians rebelled, Turkey was prepared. Its policy was aimed at taking early initiative by imposing its own sanctions on Damascus. It went even further as it turned a blind eye while its once well-guarded border area became awash with smugglers, foreign fighters, weapons and more. Aside from hosting the Syrian National Council, it also provided a safe haven for the Free Syrian Army that operated from the Turkish borders at will. While much of that was justified as righteous Turkish action to deter injustice, it was one of the primary reasons which made a political solution unattainable. It turned what eventually became a bloody and brutal conflict into a regional struggle. It allowed for Syrian territories to be used in a proxy conflict involving various countries, ideologies and political camps.
> 
> Finally, an editorial in the pan-Arab daily al-Quds al-Arabi offers a cynical view, according to a translation provided by the Co-Generation & Onsite Power Production website.
> 
> We do not believe that [NATO], which has been fighting a losing war in Afghanistan over the past 11 years, is ready to fight another war in Syria which could develop into a regional war —  into a Third World War, in fact. After all, Turkey is a Muslim country, and there is no oil in Syria. NATO can intervene to protect Israel, even though it is not a member of the alliance. It can intervene to abort any possible threat to it, as happened when it invaded Iraq. Or it can intervene to serve strategic Western economic interests, such as Libya’s oil wells. But we doubt that it will intervene in Syria militarily as long as the victims on both sides in case of war would be Muslims. Its stance will be simply: “Let them destroy each other.”
> 
> compiled by Araminta Wordsworth
> awordsworth@nationalpost.com
> _


----------



## Edward Campbell

There's nothing really new or earth shattering in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Xinhua_, but it does give you a pretty clear picture of the _official_ Chinese  position on Syria:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-10/31/c_131942913.htm


> China announces new proposals on Syria
> 
> English.news.cn
> 
> 2012-10-31
> 
> *STORY HIGHLIGHTS*
> 
> • Chinese FM Wednesday elaborated China's proposals on a political resolution to the Syrian conflict.
> • Yang said, "A political resolution is the only pragmatic option in Syria."
> • China has always supported the diplomatic mediation efforts of Brahimi and former envoy Kofi Annan
> 
> BEIJING, Oct. 31 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Wednesday elaborated China's new four-point proposals on a political resolution to the Syrian conflict, urging all parties in Syria to cease fire and violence and begin political transition at an early date.
> 
> Yang made the proposals during his talks with UN-Arab League Joint Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who is visiting China for the first time since replacing former UN chief Kofi Annan as the international mediator on Syria on Sept. 1.
> 
> The situation in Syria is at a crucial stage, and is important to the fundamental interests of the Syrian people as well as peace and stability in the Middle East, Yang said, adding, "A political resolution is the only pragmatic option in Syria."
> 
> The future of the Middle Eastern country should be determined by the Syrian people themselves, and its sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity should be respected and preserved, according to Yang.
> 
> He called on the international community to spare no efforts to collaborate with and support diplomatic mediation, while enhancing humanitarian assistance to Syria.
> 
> Yang said the Chinese government attaches great importance to Syrian mediation and expressed appreciation for Brahimi's active role in the area.
> 
> China has always supported the diplomatic mediation efforts of Brahimi and former envoy Kofi Annan, and is willing to work with the international community to make continuous efforts to achieve a "fair, peaceful and appropriate" resolution, Yang said.
> 
> Brahimi introduced the latest developments in Syria and his recent mediation efforts, especially his visit to the country itself and related nations. He said political resolution is the only feasible approach to the complicated and sensitive situation in Syria and all parties involved should cease fire and violence so as to create conditions for a political resolution.
> 
> Brahimi thanked China for its firm support for his mediation. He also expressed appreciation for Chinese efforts toward a political resolution in Syria, as well as his hope that China will continue to play a positive and constructive role in this regard.




This means that any actions the UN Security Council might propose needs to satisfy these four principles, outlined here:

1. "Urge in a balanced way the Syrian government and the opposition to earnestly implement Mr. Kofi Annan's six-point proposal and relevant Security Council resolutions, put an end to fighting and violence, protect civilians, start as soon as possible an inclusive political dialogue with no preconditions attached and no prejudged outcomes, and jointly push forward the political process;"

2. "Give firm support to [UN sponsored] mediation efforts;"

3. "Respect the independent choice of the Syrian people:' and

4. "Have a sense of urgency and at the same time remain patient in seeking a political settlement."

They are very, very Chinese and equally self serving principles but the Chinese are unlikely to change course any time soon.


----------



## tamouh

China is only looking after its own self interest. They have little stake in Syria and thus really don't care much about what happens there. On the other hand, any UN security intervention could and would sit a precedent causing significant alarm for China & Russia. Both countries undemocratic and fear uprisings sooner or later.

On the ground in Syria, the rebels are slowly turning the tide. Aleppo is almost in its entirety under their control. Anything North of Idlib city is also under their control for the most part. What we'll begin to see is an intensification of rebels attacks southward towards Damascus and Homs. 

Homs serves as an airforce hub, while Damascus houses the republican guard elites. The supply line for the rebels from Aleppo to Turkey is short and feasible. However, once the attacks extend more south towards Damascus (400km south of Aleppo), the rebels will face a dilemma of how to protect their supply line without air power.

On the other hand, unlike Libya that saw the rebels attacking mainly from the East. The Syrian rebels have relatively well equipped units in every city that can organize quickly if given the right environment.

There is no doubt the rebels are gaining momentum. This may indicate there is now a consensus among several countries to support the armed uprising and topple Assad government. China & Russia are displeased as usual, but are willing to do nothing to that effect. Their interest is minimal. The Iranians and Hezbollah are literally being squeezed both at their home and in Syria.


----------



## tomahawk6

British troops to the Syrian Border. The Brits dont have the manpower to do much to affect the civil war. Their airpower could be helpful to the Free Syrian Army. But the big dog is Turkey.They could easily intervene but it would probably kill their reapproachment with Iran.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uk-troops-may-be-sent-to-syrian-borders-8305055.html

British troops could be deployed around Syria's borders in the event of a worsening humanitarian crisis, the head of the armed forces warned yesterday.

General Sir David Richards, the Chief of General Staff, said that contingency plans for military intervention are being "continually brushed over" as Syria's civil war continues.

He stressed that any troop involvement would be limited and conditional on the support of people in the affected area, but his remarks raise the spectre of the UK being involved in another conflict at a time when the West is trying to extract itself from the 11-year war in Afghanistan.

General Richards told BBC1's Andrew Marr programme that the UK's main concern is preventing the Syrian civil war from spilling across borders into Jordan, Lebanon, or especially Turkey, a Nato ally.

But with the humanitarian situation likely to worsen over the winter, he anticipated that political pressure for the Army to intervene would increase, though they would have to be "very cautious" about embarking on what would be a "huge effort".

"Obviously we develop contingency plans to look at all these things. It is my job to make sure that these options are continually brushed over to make sure that we can deliver them and they are credible," he said. "The main thing for now that we are all focusing on is to contain the crisis so that it doesn't spill over into countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey.

"That's our primary focus but that would also accommodate a humanitarian crisis because we could help deal with that through that primary mechanism. So we're keeping our awareness levels very high and in the meanwhile we're preparing plans to make sure that when some disaster happens, we're able to deal with it." The military also has to be ready for the possibility of being sent into Iran, he added. An attack on Iran would be "fraught with risk", but since Barack Obama and David Cameron have both said that "nothing is off the table" when dealing with the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons, "I have to continue to keep that one alive as well," he said.


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting bit of speculation that potentially ties the events in Lybia on 9/11/12 to the arming of the rebel groups in Syria. Remember, this is speculation, but the question of motive for the attack is still unanswered:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-did-al-qaeda-target-ambassador-stevens/



> *Why Did Al-Qaeda Target Ambassador Stevens?*
> Was he murdered for reasons other than being an American on 9/11?by
> Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen
> 
> November 12, 2012 - 12:00 am     Most of the questions related to the Benghazi debacle are about the mechanics, both offensive and defensive. What did the White House know and when? What assets were available to the military? Did someone order a stand down, and if so, who? Why was “the video” blamed long after the administration knew the truth — and didn’t the administration know the truth from the beginning? If it didn’t, why didn’t it?
> 
> All reasonable questions, but a generally unasked one deserves attention: “Why did al-Qaeda want to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens?”
> 
> The ambassador had good relations with some of the most extreme Libyan militias, including those with al-Qaeda ties. Did he upset them with something he did, or didn’t do? Was the White House fully apprised of his connections and dealings with the militias? Was he killed because of something the administration told him to start doing or to stop doing?
> 
> There are things we know and things upon which we must speculate, including the entry of surface-to-air missiles to the Levant.
> 
> ———————————–
> 
> Emerging from the chaos is a dim understanding that the U.S. was operating a clandestine arms operation from the CIA post that was loosely — and incorrectly — described as a “consulate.” Before and during the revolution, Ambassador Stevens had helped arm the anti-Gaddafi militias, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIF), whose leader Abdulhakim Belhadj later became the head of the Tripoli Military Council.
> 
> The LIF’s Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper in 2011 (later reported in the British Telegraph) that he had fought the “foreign invasion” in Afghanistan. Captured in Pakistan, al-Hasidi was handed over to the U.S. and returned to Libya, where he was released from prison in 2008. Speaking of the Libyan revolution, he said:
> 
> Members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.
> 
> Belhadj met with Free Syrian Army representatives in October 2011 to offer Libyan support for ousting Assad. Throughout 2011 and 2012, ships traversed the Mediterranean from Benghazi to Syria and Lebanon with arms for the Syrian rebels. Turkish and Jordanian intelligence services were doing most of the “vetting” of rebel groups; in July 2010, the Washington Post reported that the CIA had no operatives on the ground and only a few at border posts even as weapons were entering Syria. Said a U.S. official, addressing the question of even non-lethal aid:
> 
> We’ve got to figure out who is over there first, and we don’t really know that.
> 
> In August, a report by Tony Cartalucci, a supporter of the Syrian nationalist opposition, detailed the extent of Libyan and al-Qaeda involvement in Syria, calling it a “foreign invasion.” In November, the Washington Post noted a $20 million contribution by the Libyan government to the Syrian National Council — of which the Muslim Brotherhood is a member.
> 
> Ambassador Stevens would have known all of that; he was the go-to man. He didn’t seem to have a problem with it, so why did they want to kill him?
> 
> In 2011, it was reported that the Libyan rebels had acquired surface-to-air missiles from Gaddafi’s arsenal, and smuggled them into their own. They were not used in the revolution because the skies were filled with allies of the militias, but American sources worried that as many as 15,000 MANPADs (man-portable air defense systems — or mobile surface-to-air missiles) might have “gone missing.” Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told USA Today:
> 
> The frank answer is we don’t know (how many are missing) and probably never will.
> 
> He added that the Obama administration took “immediate steps” to secure the weapons, launching an effort to recover them even before collapse of the regime. Which is interesting, because the U.S. claimed to have no “boots on the ground.”
> 
> So who was looking for them? And if they found them, what did they do with them?
> 
> Some, at least, appear to have emerged in Syria — in August there was a report of a Syrian government plane downed by the rebels. In October, the Russians claimed the rebels had U.S.-origin Stinger missiles. (Stingers are designed to hit helicopters and low-flying planes — they wreaked havoc with Russian aircraft during the war in Afghanistan.) The BBC reported that the Syrians had old Soviet SA-7 missiles that can destroy an airplane flying at higher altitudes.
> 
> Whether Russian or American, the introduction of MANPADS into the region would be cause for alarm. The Levant is not isolated to Afghanistan, and the multinational nature of the Syrian rebels puts a number of countries and their interests in harm’s way. A stray shot — or a deliberate diversion — could be used against Israeli commercial or military aviation. Or American aviation. Turkey would have to worry that the Kurdish part of the anti-Assad revolution might divert its energies to assist in the Kurdish guerrilla movement against Turkey; Turkey’s war against the PKK is largely conducted with helicopters. Jordan would have to worry that the Muslim Brotherhood part of the Syrian rebellion could divert its energies to assist the MB in Jordan against U.S. ally King Abdullah II. Russia would worry that missiles could be diverted to the anti-Russian Sunni jihadists of the Caucasus or Central Asia.
> 
> In October, the IDF confirmed that a surface-to-air missile, said to be an SA-7, was fired at a helicopter from Gaza. Iran had not provided such weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, perhaps understanding that such an escalation would produce Israeli retaliation. The fact that Israel struck the Sudanese Yarmouk rocket/missile factory at the end of October may have been a reminder of the consequences of escalation.
> 
> So far, only the last bit is speculation.
> 
> But what if Turkish, Jordanian, Russian, or Israeli concerns about the appearance of MANPADS close to their borders made the administration decide that it had to exercise more control over weapons shipments to the Syrian rebels? What if the State Department told Ambassador Stevens to clamp down on the shipments or to stop them all together? If Stevens had told his militia allies that he was cutting back or cutting off the CIA-organized shipments to Syria, could they have been angry enough to kill him?
> 
> Al-Qaeda operatives knew of the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi — either because they had operatives in Tripoli or because they had them in Benghazi. They knew where he was and they attacked after the Turkish ambassador left the compound. This raises the question of why Stevens and the Turkish ambassador were meeting in Benghazi at all, when both are stationed in Tripoli.
> 
> Another “what if” involves the administration response to the attack, both initially and when senior members — including the secretary of State, the president’s press secretary, and the U.S. ambassador to the UN — all insisted that the attack was the result of “the video.” Two full weeks later, President Obama pounded the lectern at the United Nations and denounced “the video.”
> 
> What if they needed for Ambassador Stevens’ death to be part of a larger event, unrelated to the specifics of arms, militias, al-Qaeda, and Syria?
> 
> Remember, we’re speculating here. But if the truth of an arms relationship came out, the administration would have been caught in a major falsehood right before the election — that’s not speculation. Mrs. Clinton had flatly told CBS News in February that the U.S. would not arm Syrian rebels, specifically because of the potential for arming radicals with which the U.S. would not be associated:
> 
> What are we going to arm them with and against what? We’re not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. … We know [al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri] is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaeda in Syria?
> 
> It may still fall into the realm of speculation, but it seems we were, and if we were there would be a price to pay.
> 
> In what appears to be a related event, in early November Secretary Clinton withdrew U.S. support from the Syrian National Council and proposed a differently comprised coalition that would reduce the SNC’s influence. She said it was needed in part because:
> 
> We need an opposition that will be on record strongly resisting the efforts by extremists to hijack the Syrian revolution. There are disturbing reports of extremists going into Syria and attempting to take over what has been a legitimate revolution against a repressive regime for their own purposes.
> 
> She didn’t mention their American interlocutors.
> 
> That appears to be the final backing-away from an American relationship with al-Qaeda-related militias in Libya that ultimately resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty, and State Department computer specialist Sean Smith.
> 
> Dr. Stephen Bryen, President of SDB Partners, LLC, was Deputy Undersecretary of Defense and the first Director of the Defense Technology Security Administration. Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center and has more than 30 years experience as a defense policy analyst.


----------



## GAP

Syrian Islamist groups reject Western-backed opposition, declare Islamic state in key city
By: Elizabeth A. Kennedy, The Associated Press 11/19/2012
Article Link

BEIRUT - Syria's increasingly powerful Islamist rebel factions rejected the country's new Western-backed opposition coalition and unilaterally declared an Islamic state in the key battleground of Aleppo, a sign of the seemingly intractable splits among those fighting to topple President Bashar Assad.

The move highlights the struggle over the direction of the rebellion at a time when the opposition is trying to gain the West's trust and secure a flow of weapons to fight the regime. The rising profile of the extremist faction among the rebels could doom those efforts.

Such divisions have hobbled the opposition over the course of the uprising, which has descended into a bloody civil war. According to activists, nearly 40,000 people have been killed since the revolt began 20 months ago. The fighting has been particularly extreme in Aleppo, Syria's largest city and a major front in the civil war since the summer.

Salman Shaikh, director of The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, said Monday the Islamists' declaration will unsettle both Western backers of the Syrian opposition and groups inside Syria, ranging from secularists to the Christian minority.

"They have to feel that the future of their country could be slipping away," Shaikh said. "This is a sign of things to come the longer this goes on. The Islamist groups and extremists will increasingly be forging alliances and taking matters into their own hands." The West is particularly concerned about sending weapons to rebels for fear they could end up in extremists' hands.
More on link


----------



## Journeyman

GAP said:
			
		

> ....... a sign of the seemingly intractable splits among those fighting to topple President Bashar Assad.


Ah yes, splitters -- the Judean People's Front.   :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ah yes, splitters -- the Judean People's Front.   :nod:


You mean the Judean Popular People's Front....


----------



## tomahawk6

The opposition has been busy while we were focused on Gaza.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/21/gunning_for_damascus

Mideast conflicts have a nasty habit of occurring all at once. And while all eyes have been on Gaza and Israel this past week, several major diplomatic and military developments have occurred on the Syrian front -- some of which may prove decisive to the end game of a 20-month old crisis.

The rebels are winning.  The insurgents on the ground in Syria appear to be winning more and more territory and confiscating more and more high-grade materiel from President Bashar al-Assad's regime. Just as Operation Pillar of Defense was kicking off over Gaza on Nov. 14, the Free Syrian Army took the entire city of al-Bukamal along the Iraqi border, where they also sacked two major airbases, giving the opposition a strong military foothold in Syria's easternmost province, a vital smuggling route for weapons. 

 The rebels then claimed a massive victory on the night of Nov. 18, sacking the Syrian Army's 46th Regiment, 15 miles west of Aleppo, after a 50 day-long siege. The real score, though, was in confiscated materiel: Rebels made off with tanks, armored vehicles, Type-63 multiple rocket launchers, artillery shells, howitzers, mortars, and even SA-16 surface-to-air missiles. Gen. Ahmed al-Faj of the Joint Command, a consortium of different rebel battalions, told the Associated Press: "There has never been a battle before with this much booty." (For a seemingly comprehensive video accounting of the rebel haul, check out Brown Moses's blog.) 

 The gains have only continued in the past week. On Nov. 20, rebels hit the Syrian Information Ministry in Damascus with two mortar rounds and stormed an air defense base at Sheikh Suleiman, about 11 miles from the Turkish border, where they seized stocks of explosives before withdrawing to elude retaliatory air strikes. "Assad's forces use the base to shell many villages and towns in the countryside," one rebel said. "It is now neutralized." 

 There are also signs that bigger gains are on the way. It's "March to Damascus Week" for the revolutionaries, as a multi-pronged offensive has taken shape in and around the capital. On Nov. 19, Ansar al-Islam and Jund Allah Brigades, two Islamist rebel groups, seized the Syrian Air Defense Battalion headquarters near Hajar al-Aswad, just south of Damascus. Another base in Ghouta, a region in the Damascus countryside, was also sacked. Opposition forces are also holding Daraya, a southwest suburb of the capital, despite days of intense aerial bombardment from Assad's Republican Guard. 

 This map, courtesy of the wonderfully obsessive EA Worldview website, shows how rebel operations have arrived right at Assad's doorstep the last 48 hours. Meanwhile, as EA Worldview's Jim Miller points out, the Syrian north is now effectively anti-Assad country: "The regime has not won a noteworthy military victory in this territory in over two months." 

Syria's political opposition is getting its act together. The six Gulf Cooperation Council member states, France, Libya, Turkey and Britain have now all recognized the Syrian National Coalition, which was formed in Doha on Nov. 11, as "the" (not "a," an important distinction in diplomatese) legitimate representative of the Syrian people, in effect making it the new government-in-exile for all those countries. The anti-Assad opposition group has even appointed its own ambassador to France, Munzer Makhous, an Alawite with a background in academia, no doubt selected to signpost its minority-friendly inclusiveness. These moves have led to intense speculation about whether Western countries are prepared to supply the rebels with military assistance, or even the possibility of an Anglo-French-led effort at intervention.

Yet that all still hangs on the United States, which stopped short of fully recognizing the coalition. State Department spokesman Mark Toner called the newborn body, which Foggy Bottom helped midwife, simply "a legitimate representative of the Syrian people" -- the same language Washington used with the Syrian National Council. The EU foreign ministers' statement was even more wishy-washy, recognizing the coalition merely as "legitimate representatives of the aspirations of the Syrian people." 

 This fudge is deliberate, and there are at least two reasons behind it. First, Washington and Brussels understand that while the coalition's optics and rhetoric might be encouraging (President Moaz al-Khatib's alarming website notwithstanding), it still has much work to do in expanding its ranks, building a viable transitional government, and -- most important -- proving rather than simply asserting that it controls the bulk of the armed rebels. 

 Its control over the men who are waging the insurgency against Assad's military was cast in doubt last week, when members of the Islamist Tawhid Brigade, the largest rebel faction in Aleppo, rejected the new coalition as a "conspiracy" against the uprising. The group quickly reversed course: On Tuesday, a new YouTube video showed Tawhid Brigade spokesman Abdel-Qader Saleh affirming the group's support for the coalition, "as long as it adheres to the objectives of and aspirations of the revolution" and characterizing the earlier statement as a rogue demarche based on the "marginalization of revolutionary groups with an actual presence on the ground, which are leading the liberation of Aleppo." 

 President Barack Obama's administration may also be wary of going all in with the coalition because it realizes that it could increase the pressure to intervene in Syria, which it is loathe to do. If the coalition is described as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, then a credible case can be made to designate Assad's forces an "invading" presence in Syria -- making it all the more urgent to expel them by force. 

Turkey gets its Patriots. For the last fortnight, Turkey had been playing its usual will-we-or-won't-we games with the media over whether it would move for NATO to position Patriot missile systems on its border with Syria. It ended the suspense on Nov. 20, when Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that a deal had indeed been struck to better fortify Turkey's 560-mile border with Syria with the kind of surface-to-air batteries that made Saddam Hussein's life very unpleasant in two Gulf wars. Though NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has claimed that the Patriots would exclusively be used to counter cross-border Syrian mortar rounds, there's always the chance they could be used to shoot down Syrian aircraft that fly too close to the border, thus creating a no-fly zone. 

 Creating a no-fly zone might not require too much heavy lifting for the United States. Lt. Col. Eddie Boxx and Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Peace have argued that if Patriot systems were stationed on the Turkish and Jordanian borders and were used in conjunction with three types of U.S. aircraft -- the E-3 AWACS, RC-135 Rivet Joint, and E-8 JSTARS -- they could "give the FSA a protected arc some 40-50 miles from the borders."


----------



## a_majoor

Events may be spiraling from bad to worst. Reports of activity around Syrian Chemical and Biological weapons sites have morphed form activities designed to protect them from the rebels to reports of preparation for use. (One might also ask just where these weapons came from in the first place? I can find little or no open source literature indicating Syria ever had a WMD program until their presumptive nuclear reactor was destroyed by the Israeli Air force.) Releasing WMD for any reason will probably be the trigger for interventions by outside parties, with all the issues that would bring:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/03/matt-gurney-syrian-chemical-weapons-activity-draws-warning-from-washington/



> *Matt Gurney: Syrian chemical weapons activity draws warning from Washington*
> 
> Matt Gurney | Dec 3, 2012 11:45 AM ET
> More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney
> 
> There’s something afoot at Syria’s chemical weapons storage facilities. And it has Washington and the allies worried.
> 
> Syria, which remains in the grips of a full-on civil war, has long been known to possess enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons — including ultra-lethal nerve gases. Several months ago, the regime surprised observers by suddenly confirming that it did indeed have chemical weapons, and biological ones, too, before quickly walking back the admission. On top of whatever weapons the regime possesses, it also has surface-to-surface weapons sufficient to deliver them to targets in neighbouring countries — long a very real concern of Israel.
> 
> Months ago, when the above-mentioned admission was made by Syria, Washington officials quietly told the press that they weren’t worried. There had been quite a bit of activity at Syria’s weapons depots, the officials granted, but the activity all seemed indicative of defensive measures Syria was undertaking to safeguard its stockpiles from destruction or seizure by the rebels. The increased activity at the sites, rather than alarming the West, actually reassured officials here. It showed that Syria was taking the risk of these weapons falling into the wrong hands or being accidentally released during a firefight seriously — exactly what we wanted to see.
> 
> But something seems to have changed. NATO-member Turkey, next door to Syria and site of several recent border clashes with Syrian forces, urgently requested NATO Patriot missile batteries. The reason: To defend itself against any possible missile attack from Syria, missiles that would potentially be carrying chemical or biological payloads. NATO is considering the request, which would not be well received by Syria, but is expected to agree to the deployment.
> 
> Beyond Turkey’s concerns, there is increasing worry among NATO allies that Syria is, simply put, up to something. U.S. defence officials, speaking anonymously, say that there is renewed activity at the chemical weapon depots, including the transfer of parts and components. A U.S. official tried to sound a reassuring note when he said that there seem to be no imminent signs of hostile intentions, and that’s good news as far as it goes.
> 
> But it’s also a very different note than was being struck before. The last time we detected activity at Syria’s chemical weapons sites, everyone over here was relieved by that, because it showed that Syria was tightening up its security protocols and making sure its most dangerous weapons stayed securely tucked away. Now? The best we can seem to conclude is that there appears to be no imminent risk.
> 
> Ahead of a NATO meeting that will consider (and likely approve) Turkey’s request for Patriot missiles, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Syria that the U.S. would consider any move toward using chemical weapons a “red line” that would trigger an unspecified U.S. response. In reality, this would almost certainly mean a major U.S.-NATO assault on Syria’s air defence network, to blow open a gap that would permit a precision strike against Syria’s weapons stockpiles.
> 
> Blowing up chemical and biological weapons on the ground, or in hardened bunkers, is risky and complicated — there’s a high risk of exploded warheads scattering contaminants whichever way the wind is blowing. It would require a considerable effort to get enough bombers into Syria, carrying enough firepower, to not just destroy the weapons, but thoroughly destroy them, so as to minimize any potential downwind fallout. And that attack could only happen amid a general smashing of Syria’s air force, which would itself be a challenging task. The heavy American aircraft best suited to bombing runs against hardened targets are also those most vulnerable to the kind of defences Syria possesses.
> 
> But despite Washington’s clear (and justified) reluctance to get into the thick of things with Syria, Ms. Clinton should be taken at her word. The U.S. might not see any strategic reason to get involved in a Syrian civil war that stays contained within Syria. It might not even feel compelled to do much if it spills over a bit into neighbouring countries. But if there’s even a chance that Syria might be preparing to use its weapons of mass destruction, on its own rebellious population or its neighbours, expect a forceful American response. A short, focused pre-emptve air war against Syria is a far preferable option than dealing with a Middle East caught in the grips of an escalating exchange of weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> National Post
> mgurney@nationalpost.com


----------



## tomahawk6

Assad wouldnt really use chemical weapons against his enemies would he ?


----------



## tamouh

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Events may be spiraling from bad to worst. Reports of activity around Syrian Chemical and Biological weapons sites have morphed form activities designed to protect them from the rebels to reports of preparation for use. (One might also ask just where these weapons came from in the first place? I can find little or no open source literature indicating Syria ever had a WMD program until their presumptive nuclear reactor was destroyed by the Israeli Air force.) Releasing WMD for any reason will probably be the trigger for interventions by outside parties, with all the issues that would bring:
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/03/matt-gurney-syrian-chemical-weapons-activity-draws-warning-from-washington/



Syria have had chemical & biological weapons since mid-late 1970s. Syria have had active chemical and biological weapons program long before the nuclear reactor destruction. As for how they got them, most likely through Soviet facilitation from Eastern Europe. The Baath parties in Syria and Iraq are foes for most of the 1980s/1990s. There is even suggestion that they've might tried to topple each other regime. So it would be logical if Iraq possessed chemical weapons during the 80s that the Syrians had that same capability at the time.

As far as I'm aware, Syria had never used their biological/chemical weapons before. The stockpile is old but could have been reproduced or refurbished in the past 10-15 years.

I think the Syrian regime will not hesitate to use anything at their disposal in the final hours, or at the very least create a havoc in the region by either transporting some sensitive weaponary to Hezboallah or in the hands of extremist elements.


----------



## a_majoor

Tiamo said:
			
		

> Syria have had chemical & biological weapons since mid-late 1970s. Syria have had active chemical and biological weapons program long before the nuclear reactor destruction. As for how they got them, most likely through Soviet facilitation from Eastern Europe. The Baath parties in Syria and Iraq are foes for most of the 1980s/1990s. There is even suggestion that they've might tried to topple each other regime. So it would be logical if Iraq possessed chemical weapons during the 80s that the Syrians had that same capability at the time.



Sources?


----------



## tamouh

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sources?



Among others:

2007 Interview published with Dr. Jill Dekker:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Jerry_Gordon/Syria%27s_Bio-Warfare_Threat%3A_an_interview_with_Dr._Jill_Dekker/

I quote from that interview: "Contrary to how the US State Department and other agencies tend to downplay the sophistication of the Syrian biological and nuclear programs, they are very advanced. Syria has always had the most advanced chemical weapons program in the Middle East"


2012 OPCW Statement:
http://www.opcw.org/special-sections/the-opcw-and-syria/syria-and-the-opcw/


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting links, and providing a few clues to follow up:

In the mean time, there is one possible "out" for the Assads and a few choice henchmen. In the larger game, the minorities may well have to start planning a retreat into whatever defensible terrain exists and hold out from there; or become victims to a vengeful majority:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/05/jonathan-kay-the-best-hope-for-syria-putting-the-assads-in-a-russian-dacha/



> *Jonathan Kay: The best hope for Syria? Putting the Assads in a Russian dacha*
> 
> Jonathan Kay | Dec 5, 2012 1:16 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 5, 2012 1:26 PM ET
> More from Jonathan Kay | @jonkay
> 
> An estimated 40,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war, and many more have been displaced or wounded. By now, Bashar Assad must realize that his days as the country’s dictator are limited: Fighting has metastasized to the capital, Damascus. And the Syrian army is spread too thin to secure even critical installations such as airports and border crossings. Moreover, even Syria’s once-steadfast great-power supporter, Russia, is now wavering. Apparently, Vladimir Putin does not want to be on the losing side of history.
> 
> The Russians have an interesting status on the world stage — that of what might be called a “semi-rogue,” or perhaps “rogue-enabling” state. On one hand, they have a veto on the UN Security Council, and are high-level players in everything from the oil trade to the G8. Yet Mr. Putin also does business with Iran, sells weapons to Syria, and generally takes every chance to poke Uncle Sam in the eye. This includes filling the Russian television media with anti-American conspiracy theories, and accusing Western NGOs of acting as presumptively subversive foreign agents within Russia’s borders.
> 
> Yet Russia’s Jekyll-and-Hyde status may actually prove useful in finding a solution in Syria. The West can’t do business with the full-on rogue state of Iran, Syria’s other ally. But Russia is another story: It’s semi-rogue status means it is just benign enough to be an interlocutor for the West, and just malign enough to be an interlocutor for Syria.
> 
> If Mr. Assad is amenable to some sort of peaceful relinquishment of power in Damascus, and foreign exile, Moscow may be the key to making it happen. Just as Saudi Arabia eventually provided exile to Uganda’s murderous Idi Amin, perhaps the Assad clan can be allowed to live out their years in a well-guarded Russian dacha.
> 
> In a perfect world, of course, that wouldn’t happen: Mr. Assad would be put to justice at the ICC or a regional tribunal, such as was the case with Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic and Liberia’s Charles Taylor. (Or justice would be rendered George Jonas-style, and Bashar would simply be shot.)
> 
> But the world isn’t perfect, and the primary goal of civilized nations must be to stop the slaughter in Syria, not obey the principles of due process. If Mr. Putin can get Mr. Assad out of Damascus, and end Syria’s civil war (or, at least, end the Assads’ role in it), the nations of the West, Canada included, should provide their support.
> 
> National Post
> jkay@nationalpost.com
> Twitter @jonkay


----------



## muskrat89

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15706380-syria-loads-chemical-weapons-into-bombs-military-awaits-assads-order?lite



> The military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs that could be dropped onto the Syrian people from dozens of fighter-bombers, the officials said.
> 
> As recently as Tuesday, officials had said there was as yet no evidence that the process of mixing the "precursor" chemicals had begun. But Wednesday, they said their worst fears had been confirmed: The nerve agents were locked and loaded inside the bombs.
> Sarin is an extraordinarily lethal agent. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's forces killed 5,000 Kurds with a single sarin attack on Halabja in 1988.
> 
> U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, one of the officials said, "there's little the outside world can do to stop it."
> 
> Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reiterated U.S. warnings to Assad not to use chemical weapons, saying he would be crossing "a red line" if he did so.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Assad's have made asylum inquiries with a few Latin American countries. Probably countries that dont have extradition agreements.


----------



## cupper

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Assad's have made asylum inquiries with a few Latin American countries. Probably countries that dont have extradition agreements.



He could move into the German ex-pat community. ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

It would appear that the response to the Syrian Air Force preparing bombs with sarin,are threats by NATO to intervene in Syria using the Libya model. The US,UK and France have an array of major warships with Marines off the coast of Syria.A Special Operations task force is in place.Intervention could occur at any time or the threat of intervention may be enough to get Assad to leave the country now.


----------



## Edward Campbell

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It would appear that the response to the Syrian Air Force preparing bombs with sarin,are threats by NATO to intervene in Syria using the Libya model. The US,UK and France have an array of major warships with Marines off the coast of Syria.A Special Operations task force is in place.Intervention could occur at any time or the threat of intervention may be enough to get Assad to leave the country now.




Or we could just leave them alone to keep on killing one another and wait to see what comes out at the end.

I am about 99% certain that we will not much like the outcomes, no matter how much we might intervene ... or not.


----------



## a_majoor

Bad idea alert. We have even less compelling national interests to intervene in a Syrian civil war than we did in Libya, and being sucked into a regional war in the Middle East is something we are neither prepared or equipped to do:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/07/canada-not-ruling-out-syria-action-as-baird-warns-of-serious-consequences/



> *Canada not ruling out Syria action as Baird warns of ‘serious consequences’*
> 
> Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News | Dec 7, 2012 9:43 AM ET
> More from Postmedia News
> 
> OTTAWA — Canada joined the international community Thursday in warning of “serious consequences” if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons against rebel forces and civilians.
> 
> The warning came amid signs Russia may be backing off its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, and as a report emerged in France that some NATO members are preparing a military attack against Assad’s chemical-weapon stockpiles.
> 
> Asked about the French report of a Western strike, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Canada has been “actively talking” with its allies about Syria, but he would not confirm that an attack is in the works, or whether Canada would be involved.
> Related
> 
> The international community has long known the Syrian government possesses chemical weapons like sarin gas, and has warned Assad and his forces against their use throughout the country’s more than 20-month civil war.
> 
> But U.S. intelligence reports this week indicated Assad’s forces may be preparing to deploy the weapons against anti-government forces and civilians.
> 
> This comes after Syrian rebels scored a number of victories throughout the country, even taking the fight to the suburbs of the capital Damascus.
> 
> U.S. President Barack Obama said earlier this week that the use of chemical weapons is “totally unacceptable” and would result in unspecified consequences, a threat Baird echoed in the House of Commons on Thursday.
> 
> “These reports are deeply disturbing and are absolutely unacceptable,” Baird said. “Our government has been very clear that the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime on the Syrian people.”
> 
> Like Obama, Baird did not say what consequences the Assad regime might face.
> 
> For its part, the Syrian government has rejected allegations it is about to deploy chemical weapons, describing the reports as a pretext for Western military intervention.
> 
> Baird also reiterated calls for Russia and China to use what leverage they have “to prevent this serious crisis from entering a new disastrous phase.”
> 
> A government official said Baird addressed the issue of Syria’s chemical weapons during a meeting with China’s ambassador to Canada earlier this week.
> 
> CHEMICAL ARSENAL
> 
> U.S. intelligence agencies say Syria has spent decades developing chemical weapons, starting with the help of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The work includes stockpiling the necessary ingredients and working out how to weaponize aircraft, ballistic missiles and artillery rockets
> 
> The chemicals are thought to include the blister agent mustard gas, used in the First World War, and highly toxic nerve agents, such as sarin (used by the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult in its 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway), tabun and the hard to produce VX, one of the V series of toxins
> 
> Turkish, Arab and Western intelligence agencies estimate Syria’s chemical weapons’ stockpile at approximately 1,000 tonnes, stored in 50 towns and cities.
> 
> Plants are thought to be located in As-Safir, southeast of Aleppo; near Latakia on the Mediterranean coast; near Dumayr, 25 km northeast of Damascus; Khan Abu Shamat, 35 km east of Damascus; and Al-Furqlus, Homs province.
> 
> Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention or ratified the Biological & Toxin Weapons Convention
> 
> The trigger for the latest concern is the apparent recent loading of mixed nerve agents into aerial bombs near or on Syrian airfields.
> 
> Sources: Center for Strategic & International Studies, Royal United Services Institute for Defence & Security Studies
> 
> The official said Canadian diplomats in Moscow and Beijing have also been instructed to highlight Canada’s position with Chinese and Russian officials.
> 
> This comes as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, met to discuss Syria on the sidelines of a conference in Dublin on Thursday.
> 
> The meeting ended with hopes the Russian government might scale back its support for Assad after months of providing his forces with weapons and blocking United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for international action.
> 
> That might pave the way for a Western military strike, which a French magazine reported this week is already in the works.
> 
> Le Point reported that France is preparing a military strike that would involve other NATO nations, including the United States, United Kingdom and possibly Turkey. There was no mention of Canada.
> 
> The article indicated the attack would not consist of a ground invasion or a sustained air-and-sea campaign like that used in Libya.
> 
> Rather, it would be comprised of special forces soldiers supported by helicopters and aircraft who would hit the Assad government’s chemical weapons stockpiles and perhaps its military aircraft as well.
> 
> The Canadian Forces admitted over the summer it was drawing up its own plans on how to intervene in Syria.
> 
> But it said such planning is done as a matter of course to ensure the military is ready should the government call upon it to get involved in the conflict.
> 
> It was unclear from Le Point whether France was planning an imminent strike or simply preparing should circumstances — such as the use of chemical weapons — dictate a response.
> 
> Asked about the French report in the House of Commons, Baird refused to comment on any specifics, saying only that “we have for some time been actively talking with our allies.”
> 
> “I think President Obama spoke loudly and clearly for the civilized world when he said these actions, if they did follow through on them, would be absolutely unacceptable and there would be serious consequences to be paid.”
> 
> Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said the threat of chemical weapons being used on the Syrian population is extremely serious, and said Canada should be ready to act with its allies.
> 
> However, he held out hope that the talks between Clinton and Lavrov would result in some type of solution that would keep the Assad government from deploying its chemical stockpile and prevent the need for Western military action.
> 
> NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar supported Canada drawing a line in the sand on the use of chemical weapons, but said it is too early to consider military intervention.
> 
> “China and Russia have to understand that this is a line that can’t be crossed,” he said. “We have to work with the UN, the international community to ensure prevention of these weapons being used.”
> 
> If Canada and its allies launched a military attack on Syria, they would find a very different situation from what existed in Libya.
> 
> Libya was a thinly populated, internationally isolated country with a small, poorly equipped military that was almost custom-built for a bombing campaign.
> 
> Syria’s population of 22.5 million is fives times that of Libya, yet packed into a space one-tenth the size, significantly increasing the chances of civilian casualties from the air.
> 
> In addition, the Syrian military is also much larger and better equipped, complete with a complex anti-aircraft network, and there are no clear battle lines between government and rebel forces.
> 
> Further, the West and its Arab allies would be reluctant to launch attacks against Assad’s forces for fear of Russia becoming involved.
> 
> There are also concerns about the conflict spilling over into neighbouring countries, including Iran, Turkey, Lebanon and possibly even Israel.
> 
> And it remains unclear whether Canada and its allies have the stomach for another military intervention.


----------



## GR66

Totally naive question here.  Would there be any possibility that the Syrians could load their most valuable nerve agents (VX?) on aircraft and try to dash across northern Iraq to Iran (200km or so?) if there is a real risk of the rebels winning?  That would give the regime some sort of at least hope of restoration.  Iran would gain a serviceable air force as well as a chemical detergent to bridge the gap until they can produce nuclear weapons.


----------



## a_majoor

If you can make a chemical detergent you have the science and technology to make chemical weapons as well (sorry, couldn't resist).

On a more practical note, chemical weapons have lots of issues in their logistics and use which means they are really only effective in relatively specialized circumstances, and the same amount of effort and energy used to produce chemical weapons may be more profitably expended on something else. This also explains Iran's monomaniacal obsession with nuclear weapons vs chemical or biological weapons; in many way nuclear weapons are more "practical" and dependable as weapons of war than chemical or even biological weapons.

In terms of "dashing" across Iraq with aircraft loaded with chemical weapons, the idea is a total non starter. The reaction of the Iraqis, much less the Americans, of having chemical weapons ferried across Iraqi territory would be terrible to behold. Now imagine an aircraft doing this has an accident and crashes.....


----------



## kevincanada

Why the sudden rhetoric on Syria chemical weapons?  All these warnings pop up from different nations over the last day or two..  We all know Syria has them.  This isn't new.  Unless some nations are looking for a reason to invade Syria.

Lets say Syria looses the war, then what?  If we look to Egypt for example, While I'll bite my tongue and give Mohamed Morsi the benefit of the doubt until after the constitution vote to see if he gives his powers back to the hands of the people. If not.  Whose to say they don't just come up with a new dictator in Syria as again, biting my tongue here maybe happening in Egypt.

Futhermore.  How is threatening Assad a good idea?  I'm assuming Assad is well aware of what happen to Gaddafi.  Pushing Assad into a corner with the threat of a possible fate of Gaddafi.  Sounds almost like encouragement for him to use chemical weapons.

I think it's a mistake to threaten Assad,  doing so in my opinion is just backing a pissed off bull into a corner.
But it's just my 2 cents on it.


----------



## tomahawk6

Interesting Stratfor article summing up the current situation in Syria.

"Al Assad&#039;s Last Stand is republished with permission of Stratfor."







http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/al-assads-last-stand?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20121206&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=3d69d77bdd304edea6dc0391a302e86b

By Omar Lamrani

The battle for Damascus is raging with increasing intensity while rebels continue to make substantial advances in Syria's north and east. Every new air base, city or town that falls to the rebels further underlines that Bashar al Assad's writ over the country is shrinking. It is no longer possible to accurately depict al Assad as the ruler of Syria. At this point, he is merely the head of a large and powerful armed force, albeit one that still controls a significant portion of the country.

The nature of the conflict has changed significantly since it began nearly two years ago. The rebels initially operated with meager resources and equipment, but bolstered by defections, some outside support and their demographic advantage, they have managed to gain ground on what was previously a far superior enemy. Even the regime's qualitative superiority in equipment is fast eroding as the rebels start to frequently utilize main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, rocket and tube artillery and even man-portable air-defense systems captured from the regime's stockpiles.

Weary and stumbling, the regime is attempting to push back rebel forces in and near Damascus and to maintain a corridor to the Alawite coast while delaying rebel advances in the rest of the country. Al Assad and his allies will fight for every inch, fully aware that their power depends on the ability of the regime forces to hold ground.

The Battle for Damascus

It is important to remember that, despite considerable setbacks, al Assad's forces still control a sizable portion of Syria and its population centers. After failing to take Damascus in Operation Damascus Volcano in July, the rebels are again stepping up their efforts and operations in the Damascus area. However, unlike in their previous failed operation, this time the rebels are relying on an intensive guerrilla campaign to exhaust and degrade al Assad's substantial forces in Damascus and its countryside.

After the last surge in fighting around Damascus in July and August, the regime kept large numbers of troops in the area. These forces continued search and destroy operations near the capital despite the considerable pressure facing its forces in the rest of the country, including in Aleppo. Once the rebels began to make gains in the north and east, the regime was forced to dispatch some of its forces around Damascus to reinforce other fronts. Unfortunately for the regime, its operations in the capital area had not significantly degraded local rebel forces. Rebels in the area began intensifying their operations once more, forcing the regime to recall many of its units to Damascus.

Aware of the magnitude of the threat, the regime has reportedly shifted its strategy in the battle for Damascus to isolating the city proper from the numerous suburbs. The rebels have made considerable headway in the Damascus suburbs. For example, on Nov. 25 rebels overran the Marj al-Sultan military air base in eastern Ghouta, east of the capital. Rebel operations in the outskirts of Damascus have also interrupted the flow of goods to and from the city, causing the prices of basic staples such as bread to skyrocket.
Rebel Gains in the East and North

Damascus is not the only area where the regime is finding itself under considerable pressure. The rebels have made some major advances in the last month in the energy-rich Deir el-Zour governorate to the east. Having seized a number of towns, airfields and military bases, the rebels have also taken the majority of the oil fields in the governorate. They captured the Al-Ward oil field Nov. 4, the Conoco natural gas reserve Nov. 27 and, after al Assad's forces withdrew from it on Nov. 29, the Omar oil field north of the town of Mayadeen. Al Assad's forces now control only five oil fields, all located west of the city of Deir el-Zour. With the battle for the city and its associated airfield intensifying, even those remaining fields are at risk of falling into rebel hands.

The rebel successes in Deir el-Zour have effectively cut the regime's ground lines of communication and supply to Iraq. They have also starved the regime of the vast majority of its oil revenue and affected its ability to fuel its war machine. At the same time, the rebels are reportedly already seeking to capitalize on their seizure of the eastern oil fields. According to reports, the rebels are smuggling oil to Turkey and Iraq and using the revenue to purchase arms. They are also reportedly using the oil and natural gas locally for power generators and fuel.

While all of eastern Syria may soon fall into rebel hands, rebels in the north have continued to isolate al Assad forces in Idlib and Aleppo governorates, particularly in the capital cities of those two provinces. After overrunning the 46th regiment near Atarib on Nov. 19 following a two-month siege, the rebels are now looking to further squeeze remaining regime forces in Aleppo by taking the Sheikh Suleiman base north of the 46th regiment's former base.
The Rebels' Improved Air Defense Capability

Isolated and surrounded, regime forces in the north are increasingly relying on air support for both defense and supply. However, this advantage is deteriorating every day and is increasingly threatened by the rebels' improved air defense arsenal and tactics.

The rebels first attempted to acquire air defense weaponry by seizing heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft artillery. They captured a number of air defense bases, taking 12.7 mm DShK heavy machine guns, 14.5 mm KPV heavy machine guns and even 23 mm ZU-23-2 autocannons. Over time, the rebels became more proficient with these weapons, and an increasing number of Syrian air force fixed-wing and rotary aircraft were shot down. The rebels also formed hunter-killer groups with air defense equipment mounted on flatbed trucks that provided them mobile platforms for targeting regime air and infantry units.

As more and more regime bases were taken, the rebels were able to bolster their air defense equipment through the capture of a number of man-portable air-defense systems. At the outset of the conflict, the Syrian military maintained a large inventory of shoulder-fired air-defense missiles, likely thousands of missiles ranging from early generation SA-7s to very advanced SA-24s. These missiles were stored in army bases across the country. There are also unconfirmed reports that Qatar and Saudi Arabia may have transferred some man-portable air-defense systems to the rebels through Turkey.

The rebels tallied their first confirmed kill with shoulder-fired air-defense missiles Nov. 27, when they shot down a Syrian Arab Air Force Mi-8/17 helicopter near Aleppo city. The weapon system used in the attack was likely an SA-7, SA-16 or SA-24 captured from the 46th regiment. The surface-to-air missiles are a serious upgrade in the rebels' air defense capability.
The Fight Continues

Having isolated al Assad's forces in the north and made substantial advances in the east, the rebels are poised to push farther into the Orontes River Valley to relieve the beleaguered rebel units in the Rastan, Homs and al-Qusayr areas of Homs governorate. For months, regime forces have sought to overwhelm the remaining rebel forces in Homs city, but the rebels have managed to hold out. The rebels are also set to begin pushing south along the main M5 thoroughfare to Khan Sheikhoun and the approaches to Hama. However, first they need to overwhelm the remaining regime forces in Wadi al-Dhaif near Maarrat al-Numan.

Alternatively, the regime is fighting hard to maintain its control over the Orontes River Valley around Homs in order to keep an open corridor linking Damascus to the mostly Alawite coast. Not only is this corridor at risk of eventually being cut off, but the regime is also facing a substantial push by rebel forces into northeastern Latakia governorate from Idlib. Rebels have advanced in the vicinity of the Turkman Mountain, have taken control of Bdama and are now fighting their way down in the direction of Latakia city.

While events in Damascus and Rif Damascus are increasingly worrisome for the regime, al Assad's forces in the rest of Syria are also under considerable pressure from rebel advances. It is by no means certain that al Assad's forces are under imminent threat of collapse because they still hold a great deal of territory and no major city has yet been completely taken by the rebels. The retreat and consolidation of al Assad's forces also allows them to maintain shorter and less vulnerable lines of supply. However, it is clear that the regime is very much on the defensive and has been forced to gradually contract its lines toward a core that now encompasses Damascus, the Orontes River Valley and the mostly Alawite coast. With the regime's situation rapidly deteriorating, even the attempt to stage a gradual withdrawal to the core is risky.


----------



## a_majoor

A look at some of the ways WMD could e neutralized or destroyed in situ:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/how-the-us-could-take-out-syrias-chemical-weapons-14826307?click=pm_news



> *How the U.S. Could Take Out Syria’s Chemical Weapons*
> 
> The Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency develops "agent defeat" weapons specifically designed to thwart chemical threats. If the U.S. ever decided to act against Syria’s reported chemical agent buildup, this is what it would use.
> By David Hambling
> 
> Satellite image of a location widely reported as a chemical weapons facility in Al Safirah, Syria collected on August 1, 2012.
> 
> December 11, 2012 11:45 AM
> 
> Intelligence reports coming out of the war in Syria have said that Bashar al-Assad’s regime could be mixing components to produce sarin nerve gas to fill artillery shells or bombs. President Obama has warned the Syrian regime that the use of chemical weapons would be unacceptable and would result in "consequences," while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Assad using chemical weapons against his own people would mean crossing "a red line for the United States." Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said today that there were no signs of aggressive new steps by Assad, but the standoff remains tense.
> 
> One possible response, if the situation worsens, would be to neutralize Syrian chemical stockpiles. Attacking Syria would be a huge leap into the conflict for the U.S. But if it did this, the Pentagon could turn to exotic "agent defeat" weapons specially developed for the purpose.
> 
> The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has provided the Pentagon with scientific, technical, and operational support against all types of weapons of mass destruction since 1998. This includes finding means of destroying WMD before they can be deployed. The agency’s most famous product might be the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bunker buster. But the DTRA also has built subtler technology that could be deployed against chemical agents.
> 
> Specialized weapons are needed for the task because conventional explosives create a risk of dispersing the agents though the blast and heat of an explosion. The plume that appears after a bomb detonation shows how high debris can rise—and from that altitude it can travel downwind for many miles. This creates a lethal threat to large numbers of civilians.
> 
> One approach to get around this problem is to build a bomb with no explosives—one that’s simply intended to puncture storage containers. The CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon is a 1000-pound bomb that breaks open in the air to produce a shower of 3700 steel and tungsten darts ranging in size from an ounce to a pound, which hammer an area two hundred feet wide. This might seem like a poor solution, since the chemical agents still release into the air. But many chemical agents are heavier than air and won’t travel far if released at ground level. Plus, the action of sunlight and air will degrade them.
> 
> The best defense is to destroy the chemical agents as rapidly as possible, and this is the thinking behind the BLU-119/B CrashPAD bomb developed in 2004. PAD stands for Prompt Agent Defeat. Like the CBU-107, CrashPAD throws out shrapnel to pierce chemical storage containers. But this weapon also carries a main payload of more than 400 pounds of white phosphorus, which burns at a high temperature and rapidly breaks down chemical agents. In 2007, the DTRA also developed a penetrating version called Shredder to attack chemical stockpiles in underground bunkers.
> 
> The Pentagon has been secretive about the projects that have been in development since then. But from unclassified documents we know that newer weapons are likely to be more sophisticated. The latest DTRA R&D budget mentions funding for new "payloads capable of neutralizing large amounts of WMD agent." Candidates include intermetallic reactions, novel types of thermite (metal reacting with metal oxide with pyrotechnic consequences), new energetic nanomaterials, and thermobaric materials—fuel-rich explosives that react with oxygen in the air and produce high temperatures.
> 
> For example, there was a proposal for a spin-off from an incendiary known as Vulcan Fire, which would have been developed for Special Operations command. This is described as "thermo-corrosive" because of its combination of incendiary and chemical effects. In the first stage, powdered titanium meets boron in a high-energy reaction. As the temperature climbs past 450F, the warhead fires out metal projectiles to rupture chemical storage vessels and release their contents, then scatters wicking material to soak up pooled chemicals. Finally the warhead would release lithium perchlorate. This reacts with the titanium diboride from the incendiary reaction, generating monatomic chlorine intended to neutralize any remaining chemical agents.
> 
> Another proposed agent-defeat weapon combines a thermite mixture, such as powdered iron oxide and aluminum with a foaming agent. When triggered, this produces molten metallic foam that smothers the chemical storage area. The foam then undergoes a reaction producing temperatures of 2000 degrees F, neutralizing any chemicals. This technique was patented in 2010, which suggests development is continuing.
> 
> One DTRA development we do know to be in its final stages of development is a warhead filled with self-propelled kinetic fireball incendiaries, or "rocket balls." These are hollow balls made of compacted rocket fuel, loaded into a bunker-busting bomb in place of a normal explosive warhead. When the bomb penetrates the target and releases the payload, the ignited fireballs ricochet around at high speed, heading down corridors and tunnels and filling the entire facility. They burn at high temperature, igniting anything flammable and destroying chemical or biological stores.
> 
> The major caveat: Even if these kinds of weapons work exactly as planned, knocking out Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles is not just a weapons engineering challenge. Intelligence is key and, as the war in Iraq showed, pinning down WMD is notoriously difficult. It’s no use taking out a warehouse with the latest hardware if the chemicals were never there, or if they were moved out the previous day. And any action on a stockpile is hazardous. Anything less than 100 percent destruction risks exposing innocent civilians to lethal chemical agents. Agent defeat weapons might offer some options in an unstable and dangerous situation in Syria, but they are certainly not an easy, risk-free solution.
> 
> Read more: How the U.S. Could Take Out Syria’s Chemical Weapons - Popular Mechanics


----------



## tomahawk6

The US,Germany and the Netherlands are going to deploy 6 Patriot batteries in Turkey. I assume that a battalion or brigade HQ would be deployed for command and control.


----------



## Ducimus BTC

> (CNN) -- The United States gave the go-ahead Friday to deploy Patriot anti-ballistic missiles to Turkey along with enough troops to operate them as the heavily embattled government in neighboring Syria again vehemently denied firing ballistic missiles at rebels.
> 
> The United States has accused Damascus of launching Scud-type artillery from the capital at rebels in the country's north. One Washington official said missiles came close to the border of Turkey, a NATO member and staunch U.S. ally.
> 
> Syria's government called the accusations "untrue rumors" Friday, according to state news agency SANA. Damascus accused Turkey and its partners of instigating rumors to make the government look bad internationally.
> 
> U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order while en route to Turkey to send two Patriot missile batteries and 400 U.S. troops to operate them. The surface-to-air interceptors will help in "dealing with threats that come out of Syria," Panetta said after landing at Incirlik Air Base, a U.S. Air Force installation about 80 miles from Syria's border.
> 
> Panetta was unconcerned about possible reactions from Damascus to the Patriot deployment. "We can't spend a lot of time worrying about whether that pisses off Syria," he said, adamant that helping Turkey was the priority.
> Assad staying despite slide in power
> The soundtrack of life in a refugee camp
> Syrian, 17, risks life to rescue
> Signs of Syrian regime weakening
> 
> Panetta did say he was worried what Bashar al-Assad's government may do if it feels it is near collapse.
> 
> Descriptions provided to CNN by U.S. officials familiar with the latest intelligence suggest the Syrian leader's problems have accelerated internally as the opposition continues to capture more territory.
> 
> "It's at its lowest point yet," said one senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the latest assessments. "The trend is moving more rapidly than it has in the past."
> 
> The officials agreed to talk on the condition their names not be used because they were not authorized to discuss the information with the media.
> 
> When asked what the response might be if Syria deployed chemical weapons, Panetta said that the U.S. military had "drawn up plans" but that "it's not easy" to defend against them.
> 
> Germany and the Netherlands have shown willingness to add two Patriot batteries each from their countries, NATO said Friday, to defend Turkey and "de-escalate the crisis on NATO's southeastern border."
> 
> NATO has also said it detected what appeared to be ballistic missile launches within Syria and condemned their possible use as "utter disregard for the lives of the Syrian people."
> 
> Turkey and NATO insist the Patriot system would be used only for defense.
> 
> Patriots are constructed to take out threats from warplanes and tactical ballistic missiles to unmanned aircraft by impacting with them in midair, according to Raytheon Co., which builds them. The U.S. military used to take out Scud missiles during the Iraq war.


----------



## Old Sweat

And here is the AP story to support T6's report. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.


U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has signed orders to send Patriot missiles, personnel to Turkey. 


INCIRLIK AIR BASE, Turkey — The U.S. will send two batteries of Patriot missiles and 400 troops to Turkey as part of a NATO force meant to protect Turkish territory from potential Syrian missile attack, the Pentagon said Friday.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed a deployment order en route to Turkey from Afghanistan calling for 400 U.S. soldiers to operate two batteries of Patriots at undisclosed locations in Turkey, Pentagon press secretary George Little told reporters flying with Panetta.

Germany and the Netherlands have already agreed to provide two batteries of the U.S.-built defense systems and send up to 400 German and 360 Dutch troops to man them, bringing the total number of Patriot batteries slated for Turkey to six.

German lawmakers voted 461-86 Friday to approve the deployment of two Patriot missile batteries. The mandate allows Germany to deploy a maximum 400 soldiers through January 2014. NATO foreign ministers endorsed Turkey's request for the Patriots on Nov. 30.

A number of Syrian shells have landed in Turkish territory since the conflict in the Arab state began in March 2011. Turkey has condemned the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad, supported Syrian rebels and provided shelter to Syrian refugees. Ankara is particularly worried that Assad may get desperate enough to use chemical weapons.

During a brief stop at Incirlik Air Base, Panetta told U.S. troops that Turkey might need the Patriots, which are capable of shooting down shorter-range ballistic missiles as well as aircraft.

He said he approved the deployment "so that we can help Turkey have the kind of missile defense it may very well need to deal with the threats coming out of Syria," he said.

The U.S., Germany and the Netherlands are the only NATO members who have the upgraded PAC-3 missiles, capable of missile interception. Each battery has an average of 12 missile launchers, a NATO official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because alliance regulations do not allow him to speak on the record.

In a statement issued Friday NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said "the deployment will be defensive only."

"It will not support a no-fly zone or any offensive operation. Its aim is to deter any threats to Turkey, to defend Turkey's population and territory and to de-escalate the crisis on NATO's south-eastern border," Lungescu said.

Panetta did not mention how soon the two Patriot batteries will head to Turkey or how long they might stay.

Earlier this week in Berlin, German Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Link told lawmakers that current plans call for the missile sites to be stationed at Kahramanmaras, about 60 miles north of Turkey's border with Syria. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said Thursday that the Netherlands, Germany and the U.S. are working closely with Turkey "to ensure that the Patriots are deployed as soon as possible." But he predicted they would not become operational before the end of January. Turkey joined NATO in 1952, three years after the alliance was formed.

At Incirlik Air Base, about 60 miles north of the Syrian border, an Air Force member asked Panetta what the US would do if Syria used chemical or biological weapons against the rebels. Panetta said he could not be specific in a public setting, but added, "we have drawn up plans" that give President Barack Obama a set of options in the event that U.S. intelligence shows that Syria intends to use such weapons.

Asked by another Air Force member whether he thought Syria would "react negatively" to the Patriot deployments, Panetta said, "I don't think they have the damn time to worry" about the Patriots since the regime's leaders are struggling to stay in power.

He indicated that Syria's reaction to the Patriots was not a major concern to him.

Separately, NATO will deploy its Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft, or AWACS, to Turkey on a training exercise this month, the NATO said.

He said the exercise was not connected to the deployment of the Patriots.

The aircraft, which can detect launches of ground-to-ground missiles, will exercise command and control procedures as well as test the connectivity of various NATO and Turkish communications and data sharing systems, the official said.


----------



## a_majoor

Russia could be another victim of the events in Syria, although in this cse it is entirely self inflicted:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/12/13/russia-reveals-its-weakness-in-syria/



> *Russia Reveals Its Weakness in Syria*
> 
> Is Russia finally giving up on Assad? It certainly seems like it. The BBC has the story:
> 
> [Russian Deputy Foreign Minister] Mr Bogdanov said on Thursday: “Unfortunately, we cannot rule out the victory of the Syrian opposition.”
> 
> Mr Bogdanov repeated Russia’s call for dialogue between the two sides, predicting that the fighting would grow more intense.
> 
> “If such a price for ousting the president seems acceptable to you, then what can we do? We consider it unacceptable,” he said.
> 
> Mr Bogdanov said plans were being drawn up for a possible evacuation of Russian citizens.
> 
> This is huge. After years and years of providing generous support and political cover to the Assad regime, Russia is finally admitting that it simply can’t do much to keep its close ally in power. Clearly, this is a bad omen for Assad, but Russia’s resignation here highlights just how impotent the ex-superpower remains in a part of the world that is of vital interest to it. Beyond its leverage on the Security Council, Russia simply lacks the ability to influence events on the ground in Syria.
> 
> Rest assured, this lesson will not be lost on other countries in the region. And from the Kremlin we should expect an attempt to distract attention abroad and at home from the spectacle of Russian impotence. For President Putin, whose appeal and prestige at home has always been tied to perceptions that he has been leading Russia back to the center of world politics, the failure in Syria is a domestic as well as a foreign policy setback.


----------



## Spector83

Rebels seize Syrian army infantry school in Aleppo 15/12/2012

Syrian rebel forces on Sunday seized an army infantry school in the town of Musalmiyeh, 16 km (10 miles) north of the city of Aleppo, a senior military defector based in Turkey and rebel sources inside Syria said.

"This is of big strategic and symbolic importance. The school has ammunition depots and armored formations and it protects the northern gate to Aleppo," Brigadier General Mustafa al-Sheikh told Reuters by phone from the town of Apayden on the Turkish border with Syria.

"I cannot tell you the details but I can say that the morale of the Syrian army is collapsing," he said.

Rebel sources in the northerly Aleppo province said the facility had been seized following a firefight and defections within the school. They said several loyalist officers had been captured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkKvWjGP9qk


----------



## tomahawk6

Assad's troops like Khaddafi's have no way out. If they surrender they will be executed. The tops guys can run. There is no place to go for the privates and Lt's.


----------



## tomahawk6

NBC's Richard Engel is missing in Syria since the 11th. Not good.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249562/Award-winning-NBC-News-foreign-correspondent-Richard-Engel-missing-Syria-Thursday.html

NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, one of the most prominent and accomplished international correspondents in the world, is reportedly missing in Syria.

Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reports that Engel, together with Turkish journalist Aziz Akyavaş, were last known to be in Syria and haven't been in contact with NBC News since Thursday morning. 

While the Turkish media have been circulating the report for several days, American outlets had been operating under a news blackout requested by NBC until today.


----------



## tamouh

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> NBC's Richard Engel is missing in Syria since the 11th. Not good.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249562/Award-winning-NBC-News-foreign-correspondent-Richard-Engel-missing-Syria-Thursday.html
> 
> NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, one of the most prominent and accomplished international correspondents in the world, is reportedly missing in Syria.
> 
> Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reports that Engel, together with Turkish journalist Aziz Akyavaş, were last known to be in Syria and haven't been in contact with NBC News since Thursday morning.
> 
> While the Turkish media have been circulating the report for several days, American outlets had been operating under a news blackout requested by NBC until today.



I would hate to speculate on a man's life. However, if NBC had requested the blackout then they likely know where he is located, but unable to reach him. He could possibly be with a group that got surrounded by the Syrian army and unable to make further communications until they break out.


----------



## tomahawk6

Engel has been released unharmed.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15985279-richard-engel-and-nbc-news-team-freed-from-captors-in-syria?lite



> NBC News’ Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel and members of his network production team were freed from captors in Syria after a firefight at a checkpoint on Monday, five days after they were taken prisoner, NBC News said early Tuesday.
> 
> “After being kidnapped and held for five days inside Syria by an unknown group, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel and his production crew members have been freed unharmed. We are pleased to report they are safely out of the country,” the network said in a statement. The captors were unidentified.
> 
> Engel, 39, along with other employees the network did not identify, disappeared shortly after crossing into northwest Syria from Turkey on Thursday. The network had not been able to contact them until learning that they had been freed on Monday.


----------



## Journeyman

Another post from Stratfor, provided in accordance with their policy.


> *Syria: U.N. Considering Sending Peacekeepers*
> The United Nations is considering sending between 4,000 and 10,000 peacekeeping troops to Syria, a diplomatic source said Dec. 15, RIA Novosti reported. However, the United Nations' resources are limited and to send peacekeepers to Syria it would have to withdraw them from other countries, the source said.



Stand-up comedy at its finest.  :rofl:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Is Syria a part of the UN?
Maybe the UN could send Syrian peacekeepers to Syria- save on transportation ya know?


----------



## 57Chevy

From News.com.au and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
The US is concerned about securing Syria's chemical weapons should President Bashar al-Assad fall. 

What !!!
 Is no one else concerned ? 

Syria to be discussed by UN, Russia, US 
 Article link 

UN-ARAB League peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is set to meet top US and Russian officials on Friday to discuss the Syrian conflict, a day after Damascus denounced his "bias" against President Bashar al-Assad.
.......


----------



## 57Chevy

Plain and simple,
an attack from terrorists with chemical or biological weapons is more dangerous
and would be more devastating than most realize.


Attack on the Homeland - Bio-Chemical Weapons in the Hands of Terrorists 
Hell Unleashed  <<<<<<Link

What a complacent world we live in, the modern age. The average guy drinking his early morning Starbucks while checking his Facebook page from his mobile phone just doesn't realize how badly terrorists want to inflict harm on America -- and not just America -- though it is at the top of the list of most terrorist organizations.

If we could look into the minds of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Islamic radicals we would likely see that many obsess over the day they can play a part in the slaying of the Great Satan, as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likes to calls the United States of America.

Enough terrorists have been caught and enough intelligence gathered by western governments to know that terrorists are actively seeking nuclear weapons, as well as chemical and biological weapons, and have been for several years. Rumors abound of Russian nukes making their way to the black market, as well as nuclear-armed North Korea in an alliance with Iran, helping Iranian scientists in the development of nuclear weapons. Those are the rumors anyway. Add Russian scientists to that list by the way.

The odds of a major terrorist strike aren't going away simply because more time is passing since 9-11. A smart bet, considering all the evidence, is that terrorists will strike, and America will suffer a serious set back at some point in the near future.
 Every year that Radical Islam grows in global reach and people sworn to it's cause is like a game of Russian roulette, where America just keeps getting lucky. Odds are that luck is going to run out.

On the topic of survival, let's talk about this threat of biological and chemical weapons (or simply "bio-chemical weapons"). If you're like one of millions of Americans, there's a good chance you live in or near a major city that may just suffer a bio-chemical attack.

Think back to the two major world wars in the first half of the 20th century, and even back to the 19th century -- bio-chemical weapons have been used to kill enemy populations, such as Native Americans being given blankets by U.S. forces that were previously exposed to small pox.

Many Native Americans died as a result of these small-pox laced blankets. Then there are other types of bio-chemical weapons, such as anthrax. According to one report, the U.S. military is so concerned about the threat of anthrax that they hope to take steps to give vaccines to 2.4 million of their active troops to protect them from enemy attacks.

Article shared with provisions of the Copyright Act and continues at Link above.


----------



## cupper

It looks as if the Regime may have crossed a red line.

*Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria*

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria?wp_login_redirect=0



> A secret State Department cable has concluded that the Syrian military likely used chemical weapons against its own people in a deadly attack last month, The Cable has learned.
> 
> United States diplomats in Turkey conducted a previously undisclosed, intensive investigation into claims that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons, and made what an Obama administration official who reviewed the cable called a "compelling case" that Assad's military forces had used a deadly form of poison gas.
> 
> The cable, signed by the U.S. consul general in Istanbul, Scott Frederic Kilner, and sent to State Department headquarters in Washington last week, outlined the results of the consulate's investigation into reports from inside Syria that chemical weapons had been used in the city of Homs on Dec. 23.
> 
> The consul general's report followed a series of interviews with activists, doctors, and defectors, in what the administration official said was one of the most comprehensive efforts the U.S. government has made to investigate claims by internal Syrian sources. The investigation included a meeting between the consulate staff and Mustafa al-Sheikh, a high-level defector who once was a major general in Assad's army and key official in the Syrian military's WMD program.
> 
> An Obama administration official who reviewed the document, which was classified at the "secret" level, detailed its contents to The Cable. "We can't definitely say 100 percent, but Syrian contacts made a compelling case that Agent 15 was used in Homs on Dec. 23," the official said.
> 
> The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would cross the "red line" President Barack Obama first established in an Aug. 20 statement. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation," Obama said.
> 
> To date, the administration has not initiated any major policy changes in response to the classified cable, but a Deputies Committee meeting of top administration officials is scheduled for this week.
> 
> The report confirms the worst fears of officials who are frustrated by the current policy, which is to avoid any direct military assistance to the Syrian rebels and limit U.S. aid to sporadic deliveries of humanitarian and communications equipment.
> 
> Many believe that Assad is testing U.S. red lines.
> 
> "This reflects the concerns of many in the U.S. government that the regime is pursuing a policy of escalation to see what they can get away with as the regime is getting more desperate," the administration official said.
> 
> The consulate's investigation was facilitated by BASMA, an NGO the State Department has hired as one of its implementing partners inside Syria. BASMA connected consular officials with witnesses to the incident and other first-hand information.
> 
> The official warned that if the U.S. government does not react strongly to the use of chemical weapons in Homs, Assad may be emboldened to escalate his use of such weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> "It's incidents like this that lead to a mass-casualty event," the official said.
> 
> Activist and doctors on the ground in Homs have been circulating evidence of the Dec. 23 incident over the past three weeks in an attempt to convince the international community of its veracity. An Arabic-language report circulated by the rebels' Homs medical committee detailed the symptoms of several of the victims who were brought to a makeshift field hospital inside the city and claims that the victims suffered severe effects of inhaling poisonous gas.
> 
> Activists have also been circulating videos of the victims on YouTube and Facebook. In one of the videos, victims can be seen struggling for breath and choking on their own vomit. (More videos, which are graphic, can be found here, here, here, here, here and here.)
> 
> Experts say the symptoms match the effects of Agent 15, known also by its NATO code BZ, which is a CX-level incapacitating agent that is controlled under schedule 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria is a party.
> 
> "The symptoms of an incapacitating agent are temporary. If someone is exposed to BZ, they are likely to be confused, perhaps to hallucinate," said Amy Smithson, a senior fellow with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "While it is not good news that a chemical agent of any kind may have been used in the Syrian conflict, this Agent 15 is certainly on the less harmful end of the spectrum of chemical warfare agents believed to be in the Syrian arsenal."
> 
> The Cable spoke with two doctors who were on the scene in Homs on Dec. 23 and treated the victims. Both doctors said that the chemical weapon used in the attack may not have been Agent 15, but they are sure it was a chemical weapon, not a form of tear gas. The doctors attributed five deaths and approximately 100 instances of severe respiratory, nervous system, and gastrointestinal ailments to the poison gas.
> 
> "It was a chemical weapon, we are sure of that, because tear gas can't cause the death of five people," said Dr. Nashwan Abu Abdo, a neurologist who spoke with The Cable from an undisclosed location inside of Homs.
> 
> Abdo said the chemical agent was delivered by a tank shell and that the range of symptoms varied based on the victim's proximity to the poison. The lightly affected people exhibited gastrointestinal symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, he said. Victims who received a higher concentration of the poison, in addition to the gastrointestinal symptoms, showed respiratory symptoms as well.
> 
> "The main symptom of the respiratory ailments was bronchial secretions. This particular symptom was the cause of the death of all of the people," he said. "All of them died choking on their own secretions."
> 
> The doctors said their conclusion that the poison was a chemical agent and not tear gas was based on three factors: the suddenness of the deaths of those who were directly exposed, the large number of people affected, and the fact that many victims returned with recurring symptoms more than 12 hours after they had been treated, meaning that the poison had settled either in their nervous systems or fat tissue.
> 
> "They all had miosis -- pinpoint pupils. They also had generalized muscle pain. There were also bad symptoms as far as their central nervous system. There were generalized seizures and some patients had partial seizures. This actually is proof that the poison was able to pass the blood-brain barrier," Abdo said. "In addition, there was acute mental confusion presented by hallucinations, delusions, personality changes, and behavioral changes."
> 
> The doctors on the scene said they were not able to pinpoint the poison because they lacked the advanced laboratory equipment needed. They took blood, hair, saliva, and urine samples, but those samples are no longer viable for testing because too much time has passed, they said.
> 
> "We took many samples, we kept them, but we cannot get them anywhere because we are in the besieged Homs area," he said. "We are not 100 percent sure what poison was used, but we can say with firm statement that it was not tear gas, that's for sure."
> 
> The State Department, in response to inquiries from The Cable, declined to comment on the secret cable from Istanbul or say whether or not chemical weapons were used in the Homs attack, but said that the administration believes Assad's chemical weapons are secure.
> 
> "I'm not going to comment on the alleged content of a classified cable," State Department Spokesman Patrick Ventrell told The Cable. "As you know, the United States closely monitors Syria's proliferation-sensitive materials and facilities, and we believe Syria's chemical weapons stockpile remains secured by the Syrian government. We have been clear that if Assad's regime makes the tragic mistake of using chemical weapons or failing to secure them, it will be held accountable."
> 
> Shifting red lines
> 
> The White House's threats to react to Assad's WMD activity have softened over time. In Obama's Aug. 20 statement, he indicated that "a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around" would trigger U.S. action.
> 
> Obama then shifted his warning to Assad about red lines in December, after intelligence reports stated that the Syrian regime had moved some precursor chemicals out of storage and mixed them, making them easier to deploy. Now, Obama's red line is that the United States will react if Syria uses these weapons.
> 
> "The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable," Obama said Dec. 3, directing his comments at Assad. "If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable." That same day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added: "we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur."
> 
> Outside analysts worry that the administration's red line may have shifted again.
> 
> "Given the fact you have that in a cable, this indicates that the Obama administration may not simply jump into the conflict because chemical agents are used," said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Assad has a much better idea now of what he can do and get away with."
> 
> "This shows that actually the red line on chemical weapons is not clear and that the regime may be able to use some chemical agents, and the response might not be immediate," he said.
> 
> On Jan. 11, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said that the U.S. government and the international community doesn't have the capability to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons if he chooses to do so.
> 
> "The act of preventing the use of chemical weapons would be almost unachievable... because you would have to have such clarity of intelligence, you know, persistent surveillance, you'd have to actually see it before it happened, and that's -- that's unlikely, to be sure," Dempsey said. "I think that Syria must understand by now that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. And to that extent, it provides a deterrent value. But preventing it, if they decide to use it, I think we would be reacting."
> 
> Abdo, the Syrian neurologist, said that the doctors treating civilians inside Homs have run out of even the basic medicines they have been using to bring a level of comfort to the victims, such as the drug atropine.
> 
> "We hope this information will reach the people in the American government so maybe they will help us," he said. "If the regime does this one more time, we don't have the antidote in our hands anymore and we can't treat it. It's very urgent."


----------



## Journeyman

Interesting turn of events, given that _Stratfor_TM is reporting that al Assad is not currently in Syria, but is aboard a ship in the Med, with security provided by the Russians.


----------



## jollyjacktar

More on that.



> President Assad and his family 'are now living on a warship guarded by the Russians off Syrian coast'
> -Syrian president Bashar Assad moved on to warship with family and aides
> -Russian naval forces believed to be protecting the embattled dictator
> -Position is also thought to allow quick evacuation to Moscow, if necessary
> 
> By James Rush
> PUBLISHED: 02:09 GMT, 16 January 2013 | UPDATED: 12:03 GMT, 16 January 2013
> 
> Syrian president Bashar Assad and his family are living on a warship guarded by the Russian navy, it has been claimed.  The embattled dictator is said to have moved with his family and a select band of aides to the warship off Syria's coast.  The move, which is said to have come about after the president lost confidence in his own security detail, sees Assad travel by helicopter to Damascus to attend meetings in his presidential palace.
> 
> Intelligence sources told the Saudi daily paper al-Watan the president was being protected by Russia, which effectively amounted to political asylum, The Times of Israel has reported.  Al-Watan was told Assad's fear of advances by the opposition in the capital was one of the reasons why he has moved to the ship.  His current position is also thought to allow a quick evacuation to Moscow if it became necessary.
> 
> Russia has remained an ally of the regime since the popular uprising in March 2011, during which time the UN estimates more than 60,000 people have been killed.  Russia also endorsed a speech by Assad last week where he offered an end to the crisis by calling national elections and forming a new government.  In his first public speech in six months last week, the dictator urged Syrians to mobilise in a 'war to defend the nation'.
> 
> His defiant call to arms came in an hour-long speech to cheering loyalists in the opera house in the capital Damascus.  Assad unveiled what he claimed was a peace initiative to end the violent uprising against his rule.  But he declared he would not talk to those he called extremists ‘who only understand the language of terrorism’ or to ‘puppets’ of the West.
> 
> Meanwhile, as the death toll continued to grow steadily in Syria, an aid agency working in the conflict zone has said that doctors are being murdered to stop the wounded getting treated.  In a report released by International Rescue Committee's Commission on Syrian Refugees, they said that partner organisations which provide emergency medical services and supplies say the health care system has been decimated.
> Physicians described 'intimidation, torture and the targeted killing of doctors and other medical staff in retribution for treating the wounded'.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263110/President-Assad-family-living-warship-guarded-Russians-Syrian-coast.html#ixzz2I9qEpzot
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



If this is true, and he does now commute via chopper, it does make me wonder if that might be exploited in some way.


----------



## 57Chevy

Quotes from article above;
"Russian naval forces believed to be protecting the embattled dictator  
"Position is also thought to allow quick evacuation to Moscow, if necessary."
 :

He's probably getting chewed out by the bear, allegedly speaking. 
(See also reply #555 link)


Russia Says It Supports U.N. Envoy for Syria (dated 12 Jan)
 The New York Times 

MOSCOW (Reuters) — Russia voiced support on Saturday for Lakhdar Brahimi, the special Syria envoy from the United Nations and the Arab League, but insisted that the exit of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, could not be a precondition for a deal to end the country’s conflict.

A Foreign Ministry statement after talks in Geneva on Friday with the United States and Mr. Brahimi, who the Syrian government has said is “flagrantly biased,” reiterated calls for an end to the violence in Syria, where more than 60,000 people have been killed since March 2011. 

At the meeting with Mr. Brahimi and an American deputy secretary of state, William J. Burns, a Russian deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, “expressed unfailing support for Brahimi’s mission as the U.N.-Arab League special envoy on Syria,” the statement said. 

The issue of Mr. Assad — who the United States, European powers and gulf-led Arab states say must step down to end what has escalated into a civil war — appeared to be a sticking point at the meeting. 

“As before, we firmly uphold the thesis that questions about Syria’s future must be decided by the Syrians themselves,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said, “without interference from outside or the imposition of prepared recipes for development.” 

Russia has been Mr. Assad’s most powerful international supporter during the nearly 22-month conflict, joining with China to block three Western- and Arab-backed United Nations Security Council resolutions intended to pressure him or push him from power. 

In Geneva, Russia called for “a political transition process” based on an agreement by foreign powers last June. 

Mr. Brahimi, who is trying to build on the agreement reached in Geneva on June 30, has met three times since early December with senior Russian and American diplomats, and he met Mr. Assad in Damascus. 

Russia and the United States disagreed over what the June agreement meant for Mr. Assad, with Washington saying it sent a clear signal that he must go and Russia contending it did not. 

In Washington, a spokeswoman for the State Department, Victoria Nuland, said there had been some progress toward a common view at Friday’s meeting, but she did not provide details. 

Moscow says it is not propping up Mr. Assad and, as rebels gain ground in the war, it has given indications it is preparing for his possible exit. But it continues to insist he must not be forced out by foreign powers. 

Analysts say President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia wants to prevent the United States from using military force or support from the Security Council to bring down governments it opposes. 

(Article is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act)


----------



## Journeyman

57Chevy said:
			
		

> _Analysts say_ President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia wants.....


Which analysts?  It sure is easier to assess something when you have a more complete picture -- in this case, the source's credibility, potential biases, and possibly context of where this was "said."


----------



## tamouh

> Intelligence sources told the Saudi daily paper al-Watan the president was being protected by Russia..........



Considering the source, I'm going to see there is no basis for it. Saudi media outlets are the least dependent in terms of real facts.


----------



## 57Chevy

An interesting article on the soon to come implosion of Syria from Altantic Council (Viewpoint) and shared with provisions of the Copyright Act

Syria: Is It Too Late ?
by: Frederic C. Hof , dated 14 Jan
 Article link 

(Frederic C. Hof is a senior fellow of the Rafik Hariri Center
for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council and the former
Special Advisor for Transition in Syria at the US Department of State.)

Syria is dying. Bashar al-Assad has made it clear that the price of his removal is the death of the nation. A growing extremist minority in the armed opposition has made it clear that a Syria of citizenship and civil society is, in its view, an abomination to be killed. And those in the middle long begging for Western security assistance are increasingly bemoaning that it is already too late. Between the cold, cynical sectarianism of Assad and the white-hot sectarian hatred of those extremists among his opponents Syria already is all but gone, a body politic as numbingly cold and colorless as the harsh wintry hell bringing misery and hopelessness to untold numbers of displaced Syrians.

It might in fact be too late to save Syria from the diabolical ministrations of Assad and his enabling Salafist enemies. Indeed, the single-minded, self-centered destructiveness of foes who once cooperated in the killing of Iraqis and who now collaborate in the murder of Syria may be sufficiently powerful to block any effort at national salvation regardless of its source. By facilitating Assad's poison pill sectarian strategy Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia have facilitated the implantation of al-Qaeda (in the form of the Nusra Front) in Syria. By funneling arms and money to those calling for death to Alawites and the establishment of a Syrian emirate, donors in certain Gulf countries, Turkey, and elsewhere have advanced Assad's survival strategy with a toxic blend of tactical skill and strategic stupidity. As in “Murder on the Orient Express,” many hands have plunged the knife into a victim perhaps too far gone to be saved.

Yet even if one accepted, analytically, the "it's too late to save Syria" thesis, and the argument that saving Syria was never something the United States and its allies could do, can this be the basis of prudent policy? If Syria, as now appears likely, becomes a death star of failed statehood, will the effects of its ravaged carcass on the surrounding neighborhood be so benign as to present no challenges to US statecraft far more perilous than those presented by Syria now? Will the great sucking sounds of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and perhaps Iraq being pulled into the black hole of what was once Syria become the next normal; chapter two in the "it's too late" saga? Will Americans at that point look back with regret at our reluctance to try to shape and influence when we may at least have had a chance to do so?

No doubt the foreign policy, intelligence, and national security organs of the US government have this matter under urgent review. While it would be wonderful if UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, with Russo-US help and Assad's acquiescence, could pull the "peaceful, managed transition" rabbit out of his hat, the odds of him doing so are low. Syria's course will most likely be determined by force of arms inside Syria. Those who fight will have much to say about how Syria (or pieces of Syria) will be ruled and by whom. If the United States decides that it will not enter this arena—that it will not try to dominate the logistical system governing the flow of arms into Syria so as to influence the emergence of winners and submergence of losers—then the decision should be a conscious one based on a thorough evaluation of capabilities, costs, and benefits.

Article continues at link.


----------



## a_majoor

The fighting continues. The Syrian forces are unable to dislodge the rebels, but the rebels do not have enough manpower, equipment or support to prevail either. This could become a prolonged slugfest like the Lebanese civil war of the late 1970's, or settle into a long running insurgency with multiple "sides" as the rebel coalition disintigrates and various religious and ethnic groups try to secure some sort of defensible enclave for themselves. We also need to be aware of what the various regional powers seek to gain in Syria as well, if we want to try and guess at the end state:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/24/syrian-jets-bomb-rebel-areas-near-damascus-as-assads-troops-battle-opposition-fighters-for-control-of-key-road/



> *Syrian jets bomb rebel areas near Damascus as Assad’s troops battle opposition fighters for control of key road*
> Barbara Surk, Associated Press | Jan 24, 2013 6:03 PM ET
> More from Associated Press
> 
> BEIRUT – Syrian warplanes bombed rebel areas near Damascus on Thursday as President Bashar Assad’s troops battled opposition fighters for control of the road linking the capital to the country’s largest airport.
> 
> Assad’s forces are trying drive out rebels who have established enclaves in the suburbs. While the government has lost control of large swaths of territory in the country’s north and east, including parts of the northern city of Aleppo, the capital remains tightly secured.
> 
> Conditions in the city have worsened however, with prices for basic goods rising and fuel in short supply. U.S. officials said Thursday they believe Assad’s sister and mother have left the country, suggesting that hardship has reached even the leadership’s families.
> 
> Related
> David Frum: Testing Obama’s ‘red lines’ on Syria
> Casualties in Aleppo after explosion rocks main university: Syrian state-run TV
> Syrian rebels free 48 Iranian detainees in first major prisoner swap of civil war
> .
> As the fighting continued, France’s foreign minister suggested that Assad’s fall was not imminent – a stark admission by a country that has been one of the most ardent supporters of the Syrian rebels.
> 
> Speaking in Paris, Laurent Fabius told reporters: “The solution that we hoped for – that is to say, Bashar’s fall, the rise of the opposition to power – there are no recent signs that are as positive as that.”
> 
> Meanwhile the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported bomb attacks and clashes in a number of Damascus suburbs, saying at least 13 people were killed. The group, which relies on a network of contacts inside Syria, said fighter jets bombed the southwestern suburbs of Daraya and Moadamiyeh, where rebels have been fighting regime forces for weeks.
> 
> Because of its strategic location near a military airport, Syrian troops have been pounding rebel positions in Daraya for weeks. Earlier this month, the government claimed its troops had regained control of much of the district.
> 
> Activists posted a video of the Daraya fighting online that showed artillery shells slamming into concrete buildings, sending plumes of thick, gray smoke into the sky.
> 
> Daraya is flanked by the districts of Mazzeh, home to the military air base, and Kfar Sousseh, where the government headquarters, the General Security intelligence agency’s head office and the Interior Ministry are located.
> 
> The Observatory also reported heavy fighting near Damascus International Airport and said the regime was shelling the town of Aqraba along the airport road.
> 
> State-run news agency SANA said troops have been battling rebels in the oil-rich province of al-Hasaka in the country’s northeast, killing and wounding several “terrorists” – the term the government and state media use to refer to rebels.
> 
> Also in the north, SANA said terrorists shot and killed a math teacher, Nabih Jamil al-Saad, on Wednesday near his home in the town of Hmaida in Raqqa province. A day earlier, rebels killed Mamdouh Abudllah Bin Abd Dibeh, a cardiologist, in front of his clinic in Sheik Mheddin area of Damascus, SANA said.
> 
> It was not clear if either the teacher or the doctor had ties to the regime. Rebels have targeted government officials, civil workers and prominent personalities, such as actors, who are known Assad supporters.
> 
> In a separate report, SANA said many residents of the central town of Salamiya in Hama province took part in a funeral procession for those killed in a car bomb explosion late Monday. The Observatory said earlier that at least 42 people were killed in an attack targeting the headquarters of a pro-government militia. SANA did not say how many died.
> 
> In photographs published by the official news wire, dozens of men are seen standing in front of 11 caskets, wrapped into Syrian flags. Another photograph by SANA shows hundreds of men rallying at what the official news wire said was a funeral procession at Salamiya’s al-Huriyeh square.
> 
> Also on Thursday, in what Syrian state TV said was a live broadcast, Assad was seen sitting cross-legged on the floor of the al-Afram mosque in Damascus during prayers marking Prophet Muhammad’s birthday.
> 
> Assad’s public appearances have become rare as the civil war has consumed the country. He last appeared on January 6 at the Damascus Opera House, where he vowed in a televised address to keep fighting.
> 
> The U.S. officials who spoke about Assad’s family said they did not know where his mother, Anisa, was, although they thought his sister, Bushra, was in the United Arab Emirates. Bushra was married to Deputy Defense Minister Gen. Assef Shawkat, who was killed in a Damascus bomb attack in July that also killed three other top officials.
> 
> UAE officials have declined to comment on the issue, but have noted that Assad’s sister lived previously in the UAE and suggested she could have valid residency documents.
> 
> All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
> 
> According to the United Nations, more than 60,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which began almost two years ago when opposition supporters took up arms to fight a brutal government crackdown on dissent.
> 
> - with files from Associated Press writers Albert Aji in Damascus, Syria, Matthew Lee in Washington and Brian Murphy in Dubai.


----------



## 57Chevy

Syrian Chemical weapons threat weighs in worries for Israel that are overlaping the nuclear threat from Iran.
This article By Ian Deitch from Associated Press indicating the possibility of a pre-emptive strike
is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act.

Israel Warns of Attack on Syrian Chemical Weapons
 ABC News 

Israel could launch a pre-emptive strike to stop Syria's chemical weapons from reaching Lebanon's Hezbollah or al-Qaida inspired groups, officials said Sunday.

The warning came as the military moved a rocket defense system to a main northern city, and Israel's premier warned of dangers from both Syria and Iran.

Israel has long expressed concerns that Syrian President Bashar Assad, clinging to power during a 22-month civil war, could lose control over his chemical weapons.

Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said Sunday that Israel's top security officials held a special meeting last week to discuss Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. The fact of the meeting, held the morning after a national election, had not been made public before.

Shalom told the Army Radio station that the transfer of weapons to violent groups, particularly the Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah, would be a game changer.

"It would be crossing a line that would demand a different approach, including even action," he said. Asked whether this might mean a pre-emptive attack, he said: "We will have to make the decisions."

Israel has kept out of the civil war that has engulfed Syria and killed more than 60,000 people, but it is concerned that violence could spill over from its northern border into Israel.

Israel deployed its Iron Dome rocket defense system in the northern city of Haifa on Sunday. The city was battered by Hezbollah rocket fire during a war in the summer of 2006. The military called the deployment "routine."

Iron Dome, an Israel-developed system that shoots down incoming short-range rockets, was used to defend Israeli cities during a round of hostilities with Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, on Israel's southern flank, last November.

Yisrael Hasson, a lawmaker and former deputy head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency, said Israel was closely following developments in Syria to make sure chemical weapons don't "fall into the wrong hands."

"Syria has a massive amount of chemical weapons, and if they fall into hands even more extreme than Syria like Hezbollah or global jihad groups it would completely transform the map of threats," Hasson told Army Radio.

"Global jihad" is the term Israel uses for forces influenced by al-Qaida. Syria's rebels include al-Qaida-allied groups.

Syria has rarely acknowledged possessing chemical weapons.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to threats from Syria and Iran at a Cabinet meeting Sunday. Iran is Syria's main regional ally.

"We must look around us, at what is happening in Iran and its proxies and at what is happening in other areas, with the deadly weapons in Syria, which is increasingly coming apart," he said.

Article continues at link...


----------



## cupper

*Mass killing discovered in Aleppo*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/mass-killing-discovered-in-aleppo/2013/01/29/d22add00-6a22-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html?hpid=z1



> BEIRUT — The bodies of least 65 people shot in a mass killing were found in Aleppo on Tuesday, according to opposition activists.
> 
> A video posted online Tuesday showed many of the victims lying on the muddy banks of the Quweiq River in the Bustan al-Qasr neighborhood of southwestern Aleppo with their hands bound. Most appeared to have been shot in the head, and some of the victims appeared to be teenagers.
> 
> Bustan al-Qasr has been the site of heavy fighting in recent days as the Syrian military has launched several attacks to retake the neighborhood from rebel control.
> 
> Opposition activists said it was not clear who carried out the mass killing, when it happened or why. Since the bodies were fished out of the river, it was possible that the victims were shot somewhere outside the city, they said.
> 
> Some activists said the killing was probably carried out by the Syrian military or the pro-government shabiha militia and surmised that the victims could have been political detainees.
> 
> “We have a fear that they might be political prisoners from the central prison of Aleppo,” a reporter with the opposition Shaam News Network who goes by the name Majed Abdul Nour said in a Skype interview from Aleppo. “This river where we found them passes by the central prison.”
> 
> Opposition groups said they expected the number of dead to increase.
> 
> News of the massacre surfaced as President Obama pledged an additional $155 million in humanitarian aid for Syria on Tuesday.
> 
> “We’re under no illusions. The days ahead will continue to be very difficult,” Obama said in a statement. “But what’s clear is that the regime continues to weaken and lose control of territory.”
> 
> The announcement of increased aid comes a day before the International Pledging Conference for Syria is scheduled to be held in Kuwait. The conference, to be chaired by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, aims to raise funds to address the dire humanitarian needs of Syrian civilians inside the country as well as the tens of thousands of refugees who have escaped the fighting.
> 
> In New York, meanwhile, Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy to Syria, prepared to deliver what was expected to be a grim report on the situation in the country to the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday.
> 
> Brahimi appeared to be making some progress late last month in talks with Russia, the Syrian government’s most powerful foreign ally. But his efforts were undercut by a speech by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in early January that made it clear he would not leave power, one of the key demands of the opposition.
> 
> The United Nations recently announced that at least 60,000 people have been killed in the bloody fighting in Syria since the uprising began in March 2011. But the international body’s inability to stop that killing has angered some opposition activists.
> 
> “The United Nations doesn’t do anything,” said the director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group based in Britain, who uses the pseudonym Rami Abdulrahman. “They should investigate these bodies in Bustan al-Qasr. We gave them a lot of evidence of other killings, too, but they don’t act.”
> 
> In the video posted online Tuesday, the cameraman repeatedly mutters “God is great” while filming row after row of bodies in muddy clothes, many of them with pools of blood gathering beneath their heads on the banks of the Quweiq River. After a little more than three minutes of filming, shots ring out and the cameraman begins to run.
> 
> “The sniper is targeting me,” he says, before the video cuts off.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Israel attacks convoy near Syrian border - Reuters
As concerns rise over the fate of Syria's chemical weapons, the Lebanese Army reports IAF sorties over south Lebanon.

As Israel is becoming increasingly worried about the fate of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, "Reuters" reports that Israeli aircraft have attacked a convoy allegedly transporting arms from Syria to Lebanon. An eye witness, a diplomat, said there was definitely a hit in the attack. The IDF spokesman declined to deny or confirm the report.

Earlier the Lebanese Army reported that the Israel Air Force (IAF) carried out sorties over south Lebanon yesterday and last night. The Lebanon media reports that at least seven IAF jets flew over coastal areas near Zidon. The Lebanese claim that, since Friday, IAF jets have repeatedly entered the country's air space, including over Baalbek near the Syrian border. The sources claim that the IAF conducted maneuvers for over nine hours.

Meanwhile, in Israel, rising fears that Syria's chemical weapons could end up in the hands of Hizbullah and other terrorist organization, Israel Postal Company Ltd. reports a three-fold rise in requests for gas masks at its distribution points nationwide. The number of gas masks distributed has risen from an average of 1,400 a day last week to over 4,000 gas masks distributed yesterday.

The Post Office has distributed 4.7 million gas masks to day. In the face of rising demand, it has asked the public to use call service, 171, to place orders for gas masks, which will be delivered by messenger to the callers' homes, instead of going to the distribution points. 

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000818276&fid=1725


----------



## a_majoor

I suspect the rebels were behind this (despite everyone blaming Israel), regardless, anything which lessens Iranian influence in the region should be welcomed.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/15/senior-commander-of-irans-revolutionary-guards-assassinated-in-syria-reports/



> *Senior commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards assassinated in Syria: reports*
> 
> Associated Press | Feb 15, 2013 12:31 AM ET
> More from Associated Press
> 
> Prominent Iranian politicians and clerics led mourners at a funeral Thursday for a senior commander of the country’s powerful Revolutionary Guards who was killed this week while traveling from Syria to Lebanon, local media said.
> 
> The semiofficial Fars news agency identified the slain commander as Gen. Hassan Shateri, and said he was in charge of reconstruction projects in southern Lebanon. He was killed on the road linking Damascus with Beirut on Wednesday, it said.
> 
> The exact details surrounding Shateri’s death – such as where he was killed and who killed him – were still murky two days later. Fars did not specify whether the slaying took place on the Lebanese or Syrian side of the border, although an Iranian official in Damascus said Shateri was killed inside Syria.
> 
> Guards spokesman Gen. Ramazan Sharif was quoted by Fars as saying “mercenaries and supporters” of Israel were responsible. It was unclear whether that allegation meant to implicate the Jewish state itself or rebels fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> The Israeli military had no comment.
> 
> Syria and its supporters often refer to the rebels as “terrorists” and “mercenaries” backed by foreign powers, including Israel, although Israel is not known to have any links with Syria’s rebels.
> 
> None of the dozens of rebel groups fighting in Syria claimed responsibility for the killing, though all are outspoken about their enmity for Iran because of its consistent support for Assad’s regime.
> 
> Shateri’s death points to the support that Iran, the region’s Shiite power, provides to both Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Lebanese militant Shiite movement Hezbollah. Tehran lends political and military support to Damascus, a close ally, as well as Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in the region.
> 
> The Syrian regime and Hezbollah are both critical to Iran’s Middle East strategy, and Tehran has pledged to continue its support for Assad as he tries to fend off a relentless and bloody rebellion aimed at toppling his family’s 40-year rule.
> 
> Related
> 
> Israel will regret ‘latest aggression’ against Syria: Iran
> Israel indicates it was behind airstrike in Syria
> Israeli warplanes fly over Lebanon as new Syrian warning heightens tensions
> ‘It’s not a war Syria could win’: Israel’s air strike may be a taste of things to come, experts predict
> 
> Tehran counts on Syria as a bridge to Hezbollah – a dominant political force in Lebanon – and an important foothold for the Guard.
> 
> In September, the Guard’s top commander, Jafari, made a rare public acknowledgment that the elite unit has had high-level advisers in Lebanon and Syria for a long time, but was not more specific. Those comments marked the clearest indication of Iran’s direct assistance to its main Arab allies.
> 
> Thursday’s funeral for Shateri took place at a mosque in north Tehran, Fars and ISNA said.
> 
> Several high-ranking Iranian figures attended the service, including Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, Guard chief Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari and the head of the Guard’s Quds Force, Gen. Ghasem Soleimani. Senior clerics, such as Ayatollah Ali Saeedi, the representative of Iran’s supreme leader to the Guards, also took part.
> 
> Footage of the service broadcast on state TV showed footage of mourners carrying aloft a coffin.
> 
> It is unclear what Shateri was doing in Syria. The Iranian official in Damascus said Shateri was on a work visit and that three of his assistants were wounded in the attack. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media.
> 
> Fars, which is close to the Guards, said Shateri was a veteran of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, and served in Afghanistan before moving to Lebanon. He is to be buried Friday in his hometown of Semnan, some 150 kilometers east of Tehran.
> 
> Lebanese news reports provided a similar account of the killing but a different name.
> 
> Al-Manar TV, which is owned by Hezbollah, identified the dead man as Houssam Khosh Nweis. It said he was the director of the Iranian Council for Reconstruction in Lebanon, and that he had lived in the country since the end of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.
> 
> The difference in the name could not immediately be reconciled, but Iranian military officials in Lebanon often work under an assumed name because their presence in the country is not publicized by Hezbollah.
> 
> Lebanese security officials told The Associated Press there was no indication that the Iranian official was killed on Lebanese soil. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.


----------



## 57Chevy

What a mess !
Both sides guilty of war crimes no matter the scale
and (I think) 'intensity' has nothing to do with it.

Syrian violence rages near Aleppo as UN warns of war crimes The Associated Press, 18 Feb
---
A UN-appointed panel released a 131-page report on the Syrian conflict. It claims regime forces and affiliated militias committed crimes against humanity such as murder, torture and rape. It said anti-government armed groups have committed war crimes, including murder, torture and hostage-taking, but said these did not reach the "intensity and scale" of the government's violations.
---
continues at link...
                                                  ______________________________________

 Climate Right for U.S.-Russia Agreement on Syria  
Article By Joyce Karam 15 Feb

More of the pieces seem to be falling in place for the U.S. and Russia in trying to find common ground on Syria. The diplomatic pitch led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is enforced by fears in both capitals about the increased radicalization of the conflict and possible regional spillover if no political settlement is achieved in the near future.

Common Ground

By process of elimination and after rejecting both arming the Syrian opposition and an outside military intervention, the Obama administration has set its sails towards a political settlement in Syria with the help of Russia. Kerry promoted this direction last Wednesday, voicing hope that “there may be an equation where the Russians and the United States could, in fact, find more common ground” on Syria. His approach is supported by U.S. President Barack Obama, and Vice President Joseph Biden who recently met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Munich, as well as National Security advisor Tom Donilon who will be heading to Moscow this month. 

Politically, the effort drives its momentum from increasing concerns over the radicalization of the conflict. There is also a realization in Russia and the U.S., that after two years of fighting and 70,000 dead, neither side can win militarily, and the possible consequence might be the collapse of the Syrian state. The U.S. designation of the rebel group Jabhat Nusra on the terrorism list last December spoke volumes to the degree that Washington is concerned about the militarization of the conflict and Al-Qaeda exploiting the unrest. Those fears echo an early Russian worry of rising Islamic militancy in Syria as an alternative to the Assad regime, whom Moscow has been supporting since the beginning of the uprising. 

As rebels gain ground especially in Northern Syria taking control of a dam and an airbase this week, however, there is a higher sense of urgency for Russia to seek a political settlement. Syria is Russia’s closest ally in the Middle East with investments estimated at 19.4 billion dollars (The Moscow Times). Syria also hosts Russia’s only naval base outside the former Soviet Union in the city of Tartus.

The fear of a regional spill over as well as the risk of Assad using or transporting Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons is a common U.S.-Russian concern. Lavrov called any use of those weapons a “political suicide”, and the recent reported Israeli raid on a research center near Damascus, exposes the volatility of the situation. King Abdullah of Jordan has also expressed similar concerns, and is expected to visit Moscow in the coming weeks. 

Lingering Differences

 While Moscow and Washington largely agree on the end terms of the conflict, their differences remain on the roadmap to achieve these goals. The U.S. has insisted on the departure of the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and his “clique” overseeing the crackdown, as part of any transition, whereas Russia indicated that “only the Syrian people can decide Assad’s fate.”

Such a move is not surprising from Moscow and might have to do more with the post-Assad military and intelligence structure than with Assad himself. Russia’s arms contracts exceed 4 billion dollars in Syria, and Moscow maintains good relations with the heads of security and intelligence including director of National Security Ali Mamlouk and the head of Syrian air force Jamil Hassan. Both Mamlouk and Hassan qualify in the clique that Washington would like to see departing with Assad, as well as Assad’s brother, Maher, his first cousin and head of General security in Damascus Hafez Makhlouf, and the deputy director of national security Abdul Fatah Qudssiye among others. 

Mouaz Khatib Plan?

 Against this background emerges the Mouaz Khatib plan. The head of the Syrian National Coalition -the major opposition group-, has come out in favor of direct talks with the Assad regime about the transition period, thus eliminating Assad’s departure as a precondition for such talks. His formula which started as a Facebook post, has attracted wide international support and scored him meetings with Biden, and both Iranian and Russian representatives. Khatib is also expected to visit Moscow end of this month.

The success of the Khatib initiative will ultimately launch negotiations under an international umbrella and increase the prospects of a U.S.-Russian agreement behind a political settlement. Such an outcome might not be enough to end the fighting or force Assad to change his calculations, but it remains a prerequisite to achieve any settlement or produce international consensus. 

                                                  Both articles shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


----------



## a_majoor

A depressing analysis. The disintegration of Syria and the expanding Shia/Sunni conflict is the worst case outcome, and it is hard to see how we (both *we* in Canada and *we* in the West in general) won't get sucked into this eventually. Even just throwing up a containment perimeter and hoping the conflict will burn out inside the region does not seem to be a feasible strategy in the age of the Internet and cheap global travel, and we have also seen examples (detailed on other threads) of nominally Canadian and Western citizens converting to the Jihadi cause right here, so trouble can arrive with the "fifth column" as well:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/02/23/did-obama-make-the-wrong-call-on-syria/



> *Did Obama Make the Wrong Call on Syria?*
> 
> A jarring cover fronts next week’s Economist: “Syria: The Death of a Country” is the headline article inside. The whole piece is worth the read, but here’s a juicy bit that backs up what Via Meadia has been arguing for some time now.
> 
> … President Barack Obama has suggested that saving lives alone is not a sufficient ground for military action [in Syria]. Having learnt in Afghanistan and Iraq how hard it is to impose peace, America is fearful of being sucked into the chaos that Mr Assad has created. Mr Obama was elected to win economic battles at home. He believes that a weary America should stay clear of yet another foreign disaster.
> 
> That conclusion, however understandable, is mistaken. As the world’s superpower, America is likely to be sucked into Syria eventually. Even if the president can resist humanitarian arguments, he will find it hard to ignore his country’s interests.
> 
> If the fight drags on, Syria will degenerate into a patchwork of warring fiefs. Almost everything America wants to achieve in the Middle East will become harder. Containing terrorism, ensuring the supply of energy and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction: unlike, say, the 15-year civil war in Lebanon, Syria’s disintegration threatens them all.
> 
> About a fifth of the rebels—and some of the best organised—are jihadists. They pose a threat to moderate Syrians, including Sunnis, and they could use lawless territory as a base for international terror. If they menace Israel across the Golan Heights, Israel will protect itself fiercely, which is sure to inflame Arab opinion. A divided Syria could tear Lebanon apart, because the Assads will stir up their supporters there. Jordan, poor and fragile, will be destabilised by refugees and Islamists. Oil-rich, Shia-majority Iraq can barely hold itself together; as Iraqi Sunnis are drawn into the fray, divisions there will only deepen. Coping with the fallout from Syria, including Mr Assad’s arsenal of chemical weapons, could complicate the aim of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
> 
> President Obama had an opportunity to intervene in Syria before it spiralled so far out of control. Indeed, that was precisely what a number of his top military and political advisors urged the President to do: arm the moderate rebels and work with allies to boot out Assad.
> 
> Now, however, Syria is in a much more complex position. And America’s interests are threatened. The best-equipped and most determined fighters who have risen to become Assad’s most dangerous enemies are not America’s friends; moderate rebels are few and weak. Israel has been drawn unwillingly into the war, protecting itself by preventing Hezbollah from seizing powerful weapons.
> 
> VM doesn’t suggest that had Obama acted all would now be well in the Levant. But it’s clear that as the Syrian war drags on, the likelihood grows of it dragging in the U.S. and/or Israel increases in one way or another, despite Obama’s best efforts. As the Economist notes darkly, “Mr Obama wanted to avoid Syria, but Syria will come and get him.”


----------



## Edward Campbell

I respect Mead's opinions but I remain unconvinced that he, or America, (and certainly not I) understands what's going on in that region. Maybe the best course of action is to just let the whole damn region disintegrate back into its more natural _"patchwork of warring fiefs"_ and then see if we, the US led West, can help it to rebuild itself on more culturally acceptable correct appropriate, for the 21st century, lines.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Frankly I would throw my support behind the Kurds, might make a useful balance against Turkey in the long run. The Kurds and Israelis get along which would make for some interesting geopolitics.


----------



## a_majoor

While I am not in the camp that says Geography is history, Robert Kaplan does have some very interesting observations about the region in his latest book: The Revenge of Geography. Essentially, both Turkey and Iran are solid "anchors" of civilization based on their relatively protected status (sheltered behind mountains and seas), while  many of the nations in the rest of the Middle East are much less geographically based. Farther to the south, civilization is based more on caravan routes and the locations of oasis, leading to a collection of tribal areas as the natural form of organization.

I am not totally convinced of this, since history tells us that there were nations and even fairly high population densities in historic times (many Empires flourished during antiquity, and this was the heartland of civilization during the Hellenistic age, an area of importance during the Roman Empire and into the Byzantine period, which tells me that there has been a profound change in political organization and culture in the region since the fall of the Byzantine Empire.

So maybe we need to have the internal collapse that Edward warns us about so that *we* in the US led west can lead a cultural reset.


----------



## larry Strong

Rebels 1 T-72 0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9u_ne1JmcU


----------



## CougarKing

Hugh Segal attempts to make a case on how intervening in Syria is in our (and other Western nations') national interest...

National Post



> *Hugh Segal: We must intervene in Syria to protect ourselves*
> Hugh Segal, National Post
> 
> 
> As we near the second anniversary of the beginning of the Syrian government’s brutal assault on its own people, marked by ineffective Western bluster and growing al-Qaeda presence among the disparate anti-government forces, the sense that this crisis could easily evolve from a local humanitarian disaster into a global crisis becomes harder to ignore.
> 
> The situation is dire enough already. Tens of thousands of Syrian civilians have already been killed, and the country’s deep sectarian and religious divisions have been immeasurably widened. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled into neighbouring countries. Syria’s economic infrastructure has been devastated. Even if all fighting stopped today, it would still take years for Syria to recover.
> 
> But the conflict is increasingly taking on international dimensions. Russian, Iranian and Chinese diplomatic and military support have kept the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in power far longer than would otherwise have been possible. *The fighting, which has repeatedly spilled over into neighbouring states, has now called into question the security of Syria’s enormous stockpile of chemical weapons (and the delivery systems needed to deploy them). Reports are suggesting that the United States, Israel, Turkey and Jordan are planning a joint command to prepare for the worst-case scenario of these deadly weapons falling into the hands of anti-Assad forces that are also anti-Western*. This would be a particular threat to Israel, which is directly to Syria’s south.
> 
> It is no surprise that the situation has deteriorated to this point. Indeed, the absence of meaningful Western intervention early on in the conflict made it practically inevitable. Syrian military forces loyal to Assad have not hesitated to use heavy firepower against rebels, and civilians, including artillery, missiles and air strikes. Given the West’s refusal to intervene — even only to impose a no-fly zone that would have neutralized Assad’s air force — the rebels have been forced to take weapons from whatever sources are willing to provide them. This was a golden opportunity for al-Qaeda and other Islamist terror organizations, who did not hesitate to arm militias that supported their political aims.
> 
> The result? *Syrian groups that sought liberalization and democracy have been annihilated for want of weapons and money, while the militias the West would never want to see take over Syria have become the best-armed, most effective elements within the rebellion.*
> 
> It is not too late to engage. *A coalition composed of Arab and NATO countries could still intervene decisively with a targeted air campaign, reducing Assad’s military capabilities and giving the remnants of pro-democracy forces a fighting chance. Western special forces units could also enter Syria, link up with pro-democracy forces and provide an immediate counter to the superior firepower of the Islamist groups. Turkey, NATO’s only Muslim country, would be the logical leader for this operation (which would also suit U.S. President Barack Obama’s preference for “leading from behind”).*
> 
> What Bosnia, Afghanistan and Libya have taught us is not that interventions fail, but *that imperfect and messy results are still better than the alternative of no engagement at all.* The same countries that considered *an al-Qaeda-controlled Afghanistan an unacceptable risk to the West cannot be blind to the much greater threat that an Islamist, unstable Syria would pose, not just to Israel, but the entire region.*
> 
> This is no longer only about our moral responsibility to protect Syria’s helpless civilians. It’s about protecting our allies, and ultimately, ourselves.
> 
> National Post


----------



## cupper

It would appear that the Desert Kingdom is exporting it's troublemakers to Syria to keep them from making trouble at home.

*With Official Wink And Nod, Young Saudis Join Syria's Rebels*

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/13/174156172/with-official-wink-and-nod-young-saudis-join-syrias-rebels



> Following a circuitous route from Saudi Arabia up through Turkey or Jordan and then crossing a lawless border, hundreds of young Saudis are secretly making their way into Syria to join groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, GlobalPost has learned.
> 
> With the tacit approval from the House of Saud and financial support from wealthy Saudi elites, the young men take up arms in what Saudi clerics have called a "jihad," or "holy war," against the Assad regime.
> 
> Based on a month of reporting in the region and in Washington, more than a dozen sources have confirmed that wealthy Saudis, as well as the government, are arming some Syrian rebel groups. Saudi and Syrian sources confirm that hundreds of Saudis are joining the rebels, but the government denies any sponsoring role.
> 
> The Saudis are part of an inflow of Sunni fighters from Libya, Tunisia and Jordan, according to Aaron Zelin, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
> 
> "Most of the foreigners are fighting with al-Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham," both extremist groups, Zelin said.
> 
> Sunni extremist fighters are now part of a vicious civil war that has killed an estimated 70,000 people and created more than a million refugees.
> 
> The Saudis hope to weaken their regional competitor Iran, a Shiite theocracy that is backing Assad. Saudi officials also hope to divert simmering political unrest at home by encouraging young protesters to instead fight in Syria, according to Saudi government critics.
> 
> The government seeks to "diffuse domestic pressure by recruiting young kids to join in another proxy war in the region," said Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani, a human rights activist and economics professor at the Institute of Diplomatic Studies in Riyadh. They are joining ultraconservative groups who "definitely are against democracy and human rights. The ramifications could be quite serious in the whole region."
> 
> In one documented case, a Saudi judge encouraged young anti-government protesters to fight in Syria rather than face punishment at home. Mohammed al-Talq, 22, was arrested and found guilty of participating in a demonstration in the north-central Saudi city of Buraidah.
> 
> After giving 19 young men suspended sentences, the judge called the defendants into his private chambers and gave them a long lecture about the need to fight Shiite Muslims in Syria, according to Mohammed's father, Abdurrahman al-Talq.
> 
> "You should save all your energy and fight against the real enemy, the Shia, and not fight inside Saudi Arabia," said the father, quoting the judge. "The judge gave them a reason to go to Syria."
> 
> Within weeks, 11 of the 19 protesters left to join the rebels. In December 2012, Mohammed al-Talq was killed in Syria. His father filed a formal complaint against the judge late last year, but said he has received no response.
> 
> Saudi Arabia shares no border with Syria, so young fighters such as Mohammed must travel through Turkey or Jordan.
> 
> Those without criminal records can fly as tourists to Istanbul. Those convicted of crimes or on government watch lists cannot travel without official Ministry of Interior permission. Critics say the government allows such militants to depart with a wink and a nod. Then they sneak across the Jordanian border into southern Syria.
> 
> The young militants are sometimes funded by rich Saudis. They acquire black market AK-47s and cross at night along the now porous Syrian borders, according to a local journalist.
> 
> Sami Hamwi, the pseudonym of an exiled Syrian journalist who regularly reports from inside the country, has carefully observed the flow of the Saudi fighters to Syria. He told GlobalPost that groups of three to five Saudis often join Jabhat al-Nusra, a prominent rebel faction the United States says has links to al-Qaida.
> 
> Many Syrians "like the fact that Saudis come with a lot of money," Hamwi said. "Civil society activists do not like foreign fighters. They think they will cause more trouble."
> 
> The term "civil society activists" refers to the largely secular, progressive Syrians who led the initial stage of the Syrian uprising but who have since been eclipsed by the armed militias.
> 
> Saudi officials deny that the government encourages youth to fight in Syria. But they also admit they have no control over people who legally leave the country and later join the rebels.
> 
> *Fighting with the rebels in Syria is illegal, declared Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, a spokesman for the Ministry of Interior. "Anybody who wants to travel outside Saudi Arabia in order to get involved in such conflict will be arrested and prosecuted," he said. "But only if we have the evidence before he leaves the country."*
> 
> Human rights activist al-Qahtani called the Saudi stand a "don't ask, don't tell policy." Saudi authorities have a strategic goal in Syria, he said.
> 
> "Their ultimate policy is to have a regime change similar to what happened in Yemen, where they lose the head of state and substitute it with one more friendly to the Saudis," al-Qahtani said. "But Syria is quite different. It will never happen that way."
> 
> Last week, a Saudi court sentenced al-Qahtani to 10 years in prison for sedition and providing false information to foreign media. Human rights groups immediately defended al-Qahtani, saying he is being persecuted for his political views and human rights work.
> 
> Meanwhile, evidence mounts that Saudis are pouring into Syria.
> 
> Last year, a close friend of Abdulaziz Alghufili bought a Kalashnikov rifle and slipped into Syria to join an extremist militia fighting the Assad regime. "My friend is putting his life at risk," said Alghufili, an electrical engineer not involved in his friend's activities.
> 
> So far his friend remains alive. But dozens of Facebook pages and Twitter feeds document the deaths of other Saudis not so fortunate. Almost all joined the al-Nusra Front.
> 
> "Most people going there don't think they will come back," Alghufili said. "They will fight to die or win freedom."
> 
> Al-Qahtani argues that Saudi support for al-Nusra resembles their aid to the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
> 
> But he notes that the support for Syrian rebels falls well below the massive effort in Afghanistan, in part because the Obama administration has tamped down Saudi efforts, worried about the growth of extremist groups.
> 
> Some U.S. officials and analysts argue that the Saudi government doesn't arm extremist groups at all, having been chastened by the Afghan experience. A State Department official described Saudi Arabia as an opponent of Syrian extremist groups.
> 
> "The Saudi government and Arab League share the same concerns about Nusra," he said. "Nobody wants instability."
> 
> Randa Slim, a scholar with the Middle East Institute in Washington, says the Saudi royal family doesn't want a repeat of terrorist fighting on its own soil, nor does it want to anger its chief ally, the United States.
> 
> "To avoid U.S. ire, they can have individuals fund al-Nusra while the government funds groups vetted by the U.S.," she said. "The Saudis are outsourcing the fight."
> 
> The activities of Saudi Arabia — along with Turkey, Qatar, Iran and the United States — have significantly complicated the Syrian civil war, according to Saudi human rights activists.
> 
> "The people of Syria want their revolution to be as clean as possible," al-Qahtani said. "Once foreigners are involved, it could lead to the situation of Afghanistan. It could give an excuse for the Syrian regime that it is foreigners who are fighting, which is a wrong policy."


----------



## Old Sweat

This story from Reuters states that chemical weapons have been used in Northern Syria. It is not clear by whom at this time as both sides are blaming their foes. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

By Dominic Evans

BEIRUT | Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:18am EDT 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syria's government and rebels accused each other of launching a deadly chemical attack near the northern city of Aleppo on Tuesday in what would, if confirmed, be the first use of such weapons in the two-year-old conflict.

Syria's information minister said rebels had fired a rocket carrying chemical agents that killed 16 people and wounded 86. State television said later the death toll had risen to 25.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict using a network of contacts in Syria, put the number of dead at 26, including 16 soldiers.

A Reuters photographer said victims he had visited in Aleppo hospitals were suffering breathing problems and that people had said they could smell chlorine after the attack.

"I saw mostly women and children," said the photographer, who cannot be named for his own safety.

"They said that people were suffocating in the streets and the air smelt strongly of chlorine."

The photographer quoted victims he met at the University of Aleppo hospital and the al-Rajaa hospital as saying: "People were dying in the streets and in their houses."

President Bashar al-Assad, battling a two-year-old uprising against his rule, is widely believed to have a chemical arsenal.

Syrian officials have neither confirmed nor denied this, but have said that if it existed it would be used to defend against foreign aggression, not against Syrians. There have been no previous reports of chemical weapons in the hands of insurgents.

Information Minister Omran al-Zoabi said rebels fired a rocket with chemical weapons at the town of Khan al-Assal, southwest of Aleppo, in what he called a "dangerous escalation".

He said the rocket had been launched from Aleppo's southeastern district of Nairab, part of which is rebel-held.

"SCUD MISSILE"

But a senior rebel commander, Qassim Saadeddine, who is also a spokesman for the Higher Military Council in Aleppo, denied this, blaming Assad's forces for the alleged chemical strike.

"We were hearing reports from early this morning about a regime attack on Khan al-Assal, and we believe they fired a Scud with chemical agents," he told Reuters by telephone from Aleppo.

U.S. President Barack Obama, who has resisted overt military intervention in Syria's two-year-old civil war, has warned Assad that any use of chemical weapons would be a "red line".

Washington has also expressed concern about chemical weapons falling into the hands of militant groups - either hardline Islamist rebels fighting to topple Assad or his regional allies.

Israel has threatened military action if any chemical weapons were diverted to the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi'ite movement Hezbollah.

Zoabi said Turkey and Qatar, which have supported rebels, bore "legal, moral and political responsibility" for the strike - a charge dismissed by a Turkish official as baseless.

Syrian state TV aired footage of what it said were casualties of the attack arriving at one hospital in Aleppo.

Men, women and children were rushed inside on stretchers as doctors inserted medical drips into their arms and oxygen tubes into their mouths. None had visible wounds to their bodies, but some interviewed said they had trouble breathing.

Three boys lay on the floor beside each other with drips in their arms. One man was taken from an ambulance wearing combat trousers. An unidentified doctor interviewed on the channel said the attack was either "phosphorus or poison".

Saadeddine, a spokesman for the rebel Higher Military Council in Aleppo, said its forces were not behind the attack.
Two weeks ago rebel fighters seized a police academy in Khan al-Assal, about eight km (five miles) southwest of Aleppo, which was being used as an artillery base by Assad's troops.

But the Syrian Observatory said Assad's forces had since retaken at least part of the town.

"PINK SMOKE"

A rebel fighter in Khan al-Assal said he had seen pink smoke rising after a powerful blast shook the area.

Ahmed al-Ahmed, from the Ansar brigade in a rebel-controlled military base near Khan al-Assal, told Reuters that a missile had hit the town at around 8 a.m. (02.00 a.m. EDT).

"We were about two kilometers from the blast. It was incredibly loud and so powerful that everything in the room started falling over. When I finally got up to look at the explosion, I saw smoke with a pinkish-purple color rising up.

"I didn't smell anything, but I did not leave the building I was in," said Ahmed, speaking via Skype.

"The missile, maybe a Scud, hit a regime area, praise God, and I'm sure that it was an accident. My brigade certainly does not have that (chemical) capability and we've been talking to many units in the area, they all deny it."

Ahmed said the explosion was quickly followed by an air strike. A fighter jet circled a police school held by the rebels on the outskirts of Khan al-Assal and bombed the area, he said.

His account could not be independently verified.

In the capital Damascus, activists released video footage on Tuesday showing men and boys lying in a medical center, all of them receiving oxygen, in the aftermath of what they said was a separate chemical attack.

They gave no details or casualty toll for what they said was an attack in Otaiba, east of Damascus. Like other videos and activist reports, it could not be independently verified.

One boy in a light blue sweater lay apparently unconscious on a medical bed with mucus around his mouth and nose. A man was using a suction tube to remove the mucus from inside his nose and the boy twitched.


----------



## a_majoor

Attacking another pillar of the Assad regime. The article also points out multiple flash points that could draw other regional powers into the war despite their desires not to do so. The alternative of intervention would require a massive blow struck at one side or the other, followed by a prolonged period of occupation to stabilize the area along the lines desired by the intervening power (something we haven't really learned to do well in the past):

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/21/syria-suicide-bombing-kills-top-pro-assad-sunni-muslim-preacher/



> *Syria suicide bombing kills top pro-Assad Sunni Muslim preacher*
> 
> ZEINA KARAM, Associated Press | 13/03/21 11:57 PM ET
> More from Associated Press
> 
> The Associated PressSheikh Mohammad Said Ramadan al-Buti, an 84-year-old cleric known to all Syrians as a religious scholar, speaks at a press conference. Al-Buti, a top Sunni Muslim preacher and longtime supporter of President Bashar Assad was killed in a suicide bombing in the Eman Mosque, at the Mazraa district, in Damascus, Syria on Thursday.
> 
> A suicide bomb ripped through a mosque in the heart of the Syrian capital Thursday, killing a top Sunni Muslim preacher and outspoken supporter of President Bashar Assad in one of the most stunning assassinations of Syria’s 2-year-old civil war. At least 41 others were killed and more than 84 wounded.
> 
> The slaying of Sheikh Mohammad Said Ramadan al-Buti removes one of the few remaining pillars of support for Assad among the majority Sunni sect that has risen up against him.
> 
> It also marks a new low in the Syrian civil war: While suicide bombings blamed on Islamic extremists fighting with the rebels have become common, Thursday’s attack was the first time a suicide bomber detonated his explosives inside a mosque.
> 
> A prolific writer whose sermons were regularly broadcast on TV, the 84-year-old al-Buti was killed while giving a religious lesson to students at the Eman Mosque in the central Mazraa district of Damascus.
> 
> The most senior religious figure to be killed in Syria’s civil war, his assassination was a major blow to Syria’s embattled leader, who is fighting mainly Sunni rebels seeking his ouster. Al-Buti has been a vocal supporter of the regime since the early days of Assad’s father and predecessor, the late President Hafez Assad, providing Sunni cover and legitimacy to their rule. Sunnis are the majority sect in Syria while Assad is from the minority Alawite sect – an offshoot of Shiite Islam.
> 
> “The blood of Sheik al-Buti will be a fire that ignites all the world,” said Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddine Hassoun, the country’s top state-appointed Sunni Muslim cleric and an Assad loyalist.
> 
> Syrian TV showed footage of wounded people and bodies with severed limbs on the mosque’s blood-stained floor, and later, corpses covered in white body bags lined up in rows. Sirens wailed through the capital as ambulances rushed to the scene of the explosion, which was sealed off by the military.
> 
> Among those killed was al-Buti’s grandson, the TV said.
> 
> The bombing was among the most serious security breaches in the capital. An attack in July that targeted a high-level government crisis meeting killed four top regime officials, including Assad’s brother-in-law and the defense minister.
> 
> Related
> 
> U.S. investigating chemical weapons use in Syria, which Obama says would cross ‘red line’
> ‘What are they doing to our children?’ Civilians angered by Syrian rebels who reportedly seize goods, recruit teens
> Israel warns it will attack Syria to prevent transfer of chemical weapons to Hezbollah
> David Frum: Testing Obama’s ‘red lines’ on Syria
> Graphic: Nuclear, Chemical , Biological, Conventional — Syria has a missile for that
> 
> Last month, a car bomb that struck in the same area, which houses the headquarters of Syria’s ruling Baath party, killed at least 53 people and wounded more than 200 others in one of the deadliest Damascus bombings of the civil war.
> 
> A small, frail man, al-Buti was well known in the Arab world as a religious scholar and longtime imam at the eighth-century Omayyad Mosque, a Damascus landmark. State TV said he has written 60 books and religious publications.
> 
> In recent months, Syrian TV has carried al-Buti’s sermons from mosques in Damascus live every week. He also has a regular religious TV program.
> 
> There was no immediate claim of responsibility for Thursday’s attack.
> 
> Among the opposition, there was a mixture of suspicion and shock that an elderly religious figure such as al-Bouti would be targeted by a suicide bomber inside a mosque.
> 
> I don’t know of a single opposition group that could do something like this
> 
> “I don’t know of a single opposition group that could do something like this,” said Walid al-Bunni, a spokesman for the Syrian National Coalition opposition group, speaking on Al-Arabiya TV.
> 
> Syrian TV began its evening newscast with an announcement from the religious endowments minister, Mohammad Abdelsattar al-Sayyed, declaring al-Buti’s “martyrdom” as his voice choked up. It then showed parts of al-Buti’s sermon from last Friday, in which he praised the military for battling the “mercenaries sent by America and the West” and said Syria was being subjected to a “universal conspiracy.”
> 
> Assad’s regime refers to the rebels fighting against it as “terrorists” and “mercenaries” who are backed by foreign powers trying to destabilize the country. The war, which the U.N. says has killed more than 70,000 people, has become increasingly chaotic as rebels press closer to Assad’s seat of power in Damascus after seizing large swaths of territory in the northern and eastern parts of the country.
> 
> On Thursday, rebels captured a village and other territory on the edge of the Golan Heights as fighting closed in on the strategic plateau that Israel captured from Syria in 1967 and later annexed, activists and officials said.
> 
> The battles near the town of Quneitra in southwest Syria sent many residents fleeing, including dozens who crossed into neighboring Lebanon. The fighting in the sensitive area began Wednesday near the cease-fire line between Syrian and Israeli troops.
> 
> One of the worst-case scenarios for Syria’s civil war is that it could draw in neighboring countries such as Israel or Lebanon.
> 
> There have already been clashes with Turkey, Syria’s neighbor to the north. And Israel recently bombed targets inside Syria said to include a weapons convoy headed for Hezbollah in Lebanon, a key ally of the Damascus regime and an arch-foe of the Jewish state.
> 
> If the rebels take over the Quneitra region, it will bring radical Islamic militants to a front line with Israeli troops. The rebels are composed of dozens of groups, including the powerful al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra, which the Obama administration labels a terrorist organization.
> 
> Israel has said its policy is not to get involved in the Syrian civil war, but it has retaliated for sporadic Syrian fire that spilled over into Israeli communities on the Golan Heights.
> 
> The Golan front has been mostly quiet since 1974, a year after Syria and Israel fought a war.
> 
> The Britain-based activist group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said rebels seized control of parts of villages a few kilometers from the cease-fire line with Israel after fierce fighting with regime forces.
> 
> The Local Coordination Committees, another anti-regime activist group, reported heavy fighting in the nearby village of Sahm al-Golan and said rebels were attacking an army post.
> 
> The Observatory said seven people, including three children, were killed Wednesday by government shelling of villages in the area.
> 
> Rami Abdul-Rahman, who heads the Observatory, said the fighting around the town of Arnabeh intensified Thursday, a day after rebels captured it. He added that the rebels captured two nearby army posts.
> 
> In Lebanon, security officials said 150 people, mostly women and children, walked for six hours in rugged mountains covered with snow to reach safety in the Lebanese border town of Chebaa. They said eight wounded Syrians were brought on mules from Beit Jan and taken in ambulances to hospitals in Chebaa.
> 
> The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the Syrians fled from the town of Beit Jan, near the Golan Heights.
> 
> The Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade, a rebel group active in southern Syria, said in a statement on its Facebook page that its fighters stormed an army post between the villages of Sahm al-Golan and Shajara.
> 
> Activists on Facebook pages affiliated with rebels in Quneitra announced the start of the operation to “break the siege on Quneitra and Damascus’ western suburbs.”
> 
> The fighting moved closer to Israel as President Barack Obama was visiting the Jewish state for the first time since taking office more than four years ago.


----------



## a_majoor

Pro interventionists should take note. Without a viable "pro western" force capable of toppling the Assad regime, any help given will simply bring the day closer that Islamic extremists will carry the field. Since there is (or at least were) a larger number of rebel groups operating in Syria, there may be an argument to simply provide "enough" aid to keep the fight going and cause the States that sponsor Islamic extremism, Russia and Iran to piss away time and resources in an attempt to seize power or prop up the Assad regime (although from every indication there seems to be quite enough of that going around _without_ Western intervention or aid).

From a very cynical POV, this is a classic bit of Mackinderism; various regional powers like Russia, Iran and Turkey are getting embroiled in the Syrian mess and working at cross purposes. Because of this, no power will be able to emerge as a Regional Hegemon in the "Heartland" and thus be able to dominate "The World Island" and therefore the world.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/24/western-backed-syria-opposition-coalition-falls-into-disarray-as-leader-quits/



> *Western-backed Syria opposition coalition falls into disarray as leader quits*
> 
> Ben Hubbard And Jamal Halaby, Associated Press | 13/03/24 | Last Updated: 13/03/24 1:45 PM ET
> More from Associated Press
> Former Syrian National Coalition (SNC) President Mouaz al-Khatib speaks during a meeting on the situation in his country, in Ankara, on March 21, 2013.
> 
> BEIRUT — Syria’s Western-backed opposition plunged into disarray on Sunday as its president resigned and its military leader refused to recognize a prime minister recently elected to lead an interim rebel government.
> 
> The chaos inside the opposition Syrian National Coalition threatened to undermine its bid to unite the forces battling President Bashar Assad and better organize the fight to oust his regime. It also could hamper support from the U.S. and other powers, who have hoped the Coalition would emerge as the most credible body to channel aid to anti-Assad groups inside Syria and undermine the Islamic extremists who dominate the fight on key fronts of the nation’s civil war.
> 
> As the opposition’s political leadership stumbled, rebel fighters inside Syria pressed ahead Sunday with their offensive in a restive southern province that borders Jordan. Also, Israel’s military said its forces in the occupied Golan Heights responded to fire across the border by shooting at a target inside Syria.
> 
> In his surprise resignation Sunday, Coalition president Mouaz al-Khatib expressed frustration with the both the international community and the opposition body itself. Al-Khatib, a respected preacher who has led the Coalition since its creation late last year, said in a statement posted on his Facebook page that he was making good on a vow to quit if certain undefined “red lines” were crossed.
> 
> Related
> 
> Syrian opposition failing to provide basic services in rebel-controlled areas
> Syria suicide bombing kills top pro-Assad Sunni Muslim preacher
> 
> “I am keeping my promise today and announcing my resignation from the National Coalition so that I can work with freedom that is not available inside the official institutions,” he said.
> 
> He also blamed world powers for providing what he deemed insufficient support for the rebel cause, and complained that many “international and regional parties” have insisted on pushing the opposition toward dialogue with the regime. Most opposition leaders and activists say Assad’s regime has killed too many people to be part of a solution to the conflict.
> 
> “All that has happened to the Syrian people — from destruction of infrastructure to the arrest of tens of thousands to the displacement of hundreds of thousands to other tragedies — is not enough for an international decision to allow the Syrian people to defend themselves,” the statement said.
> 
> Despite electing a new, U.S.-educated prime minister to head a planned interim government last week, the Coalition has failed to establish itself as the top opposition authority on the ground in Syria, where hundreds of independent rebel brigades are fighting a civil war against Assad’s forces.
> 
> The Coalition’s media office distributed al-Khatib’s statement, but did not comment on how his replacement will be chosen.
> 
> Al-Khatib’s spokesman, Ali Mohammed Ali, confirmed the authenticity of the statement in a phone call with The Associated Press. He declined to discuss any issues inside the Coalition that could have influenced al-Khatib’s decision.
> 
> Burhan Ghalioun, the former head of the Syrian National Council, which preceded the Coalition, said that he and other Coalition members were surprised by the resignation.
> 
> Speaking on Al Arabiya TV, Ghalioun also said he assumed the decision was a protest against world powers that have not provided the opposition with the aid it needs, as well as against unnamed countries that have interfered in the Coalition’s operations and other Coalition members who have impeded al-Khatib’s work.
> 
> “I lived this, so I know what it means,” Ghalioun said, speaking of his own resignation as head of the SNC last year.
> 
> Secretary of State John Kerry said he was sorry to learn of al-Khatib’s resignation, but that it won’t affect U.S. co-operation with the Coalition on aid.
> 
> He called such transitions natural, adding that it shows “an opposition that is bigger than one person, and that opposition will continue.”
> 
> The second blow Sunday to the opposition leadership was delivered by the head of the Coalition’s own military branch, Gen. Salim Idris, who refused to recognize the body’s new prime minister, saying he did not represent many anti-Assad groups.
> 
> Last week, the Coalition elected a little-known U.S.-educated IT expert named Ghassan Hitto to head a rebel interim government.
> 
> But in a video statement posted online and distributed by his aides Sunday, Idris said his group would only support a prime minister with broad backing.
> 
> “For the purpose of giving power to a prime minister to unite the revolutionary forces and lead the Syrian revolution toward certain victory, we unequivocally declare that the Free Syrian Army in all of its formations and revolutionary powers conditions its support and co-operation on the achievement of a political agreement on the name of a prime minister,” he said.
> 
> A Salim aide, Louay Almokdad, said many prominent Syrian figures had opposed Hitto’s election.
> 
> Hitto received 35 out of 48 votes cast by the 63 active members of the opposition Syrian National Coalition last week.
> 
> Observers and some members of the Coalition complained after the vote that Qatar, which heavily finances the opposition, and the Muslim Brotherhood exercise outsized power inside the Coalition.
> 
> The Syrian government has largely ignored the opposition Coalition and says the civil war is an international conspiracy to weaken Syria.
> 
> Syria’s conflict has split regional and world powers, with some backing the rebels and others standing by Assad. Russia, China and Iran remain the regime’s strongest supporters.
> 
> On Sunday, Kerry told reporters during an unannounced trip to Baghdad that he had made it clear to Iraq, Syria’s eastern neighbour, that it should not allow Iran to use its airspace to shuttle weapons and fighters to Syria.
> 
> Kerry said he told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the transfer of anything that supports President Bashar Assad and his regime is “problematic.”
> 
> Inside Syria, rebels pushed forward in the restive southern province of Daraa, which borders Jordan.
> 
> A victory on the frontier with Jordan would be a significant advance for the opposition. It would deprive Assad of control over a supply lifeline also used by refugees fleeing his military onslaught, and could facilitate the entry of arms and equipment to the rebels.
> 
> Since summer, 2012, rebels have seized control of large swathes of land near the Turkish and Iraqi borders to the north and east, respectively, and used these areas to organize their forces and build supply lines. But the opposition has struggled so far to carve out a similar area in the south from which they could marshal their forces for a more sustained push north toward Damascus.
> 
> Rami Abdul-Rahman of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said heavy clashes raged in three towns in Daraa on Sunday.
> 
> A Jordanian border official said he heard heavy artillery and saw smoke rising from areas in the province’s Yarmouk Valley, a route used by Syrian refugees fleeing the fighting to Jordan. The official insisted on anonymity, citing army regulations.
> 
> On Saturday, rebels seized several army checkpoints, clearing a 25-kilometre (15-mile) stretch along the Syrian-Jordanian border.
> 
> Also Sunday, Israel’s military said its soldiers were on routine patrol in the Golan Heights when they were fired upon and responded. It did not say what weaponry was used or specify if those firing from Syria were rebels or government forces.
> 
> For the last week, Syrian rebels have been capturing territory at the foot of the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau that Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war and later annexed.
> 
> The Syrian Observatory also reported clashes in two districts in the Syrian capital, including near the Damascus international airport. It said the army, backed by warplanes, struck at rebel targets in the northern city of Hama.
> 
> The U.N. says more than 70,000 people have been killed since the crisis began in March, 2011.
> 
> Halaby reported from Amman, Jordan.


----------



## tamouh

Western intervention or lack of it is one of the primary causes for the rise of extremism. Just like we've seen in Afghanistan (intervene), Iran (no intervene), Lebanon (no intervene), Iraq (intervene), Bosnia (no intervene). It seems like the "West" intervenes or does not intervene at the wrong time, the wrong place. In my opinion Islamic democratic parties will provide as much alternative to the current secular parties in the ME as much as did the Christian democratic parties do after WW-II in Europe, though acknowledging the differences between the two.


----------



## Jed

I'm sorry, Tiamo. I do not follow your logic wrt Intervene / not intervene of the west. Could you please give this another try?


----------



## cupper

Tiamo said:
			
		

> Western intervention or lack of it is one of the primary causes for the rise of extremism. Just like we've seen in Afghanistan (intervene), Iran (no intervene), Lebanon (no intervene), Iraq (intervene), Bosnia (no intervene). It seems like the "West" intervenes or does not intervene at the wrong time, the wrong place.



You've essentially just argued that no matter what the West does, extremists will still rise up. 

That's like saying if it's sunny or cloudy tomorrow, it will be dark tomorrow night.


----------



## Edward Campbell

cupper said:
			
		

> You've essentially just argued that no matter what the West does, extremists will still rise up.
> 
> That's like saying if it's sunny or cloudy tomorrow, it will be dark tomorrow night.




And, in a perverse way, he's right.

We, the _commentariat_ especially, make the fundamental error of believing (wishing?) that our _interests_ are coincident with the interests of peoples elsewhere.

It maybe be, almost certainly is "true" that all people are alike, we all have the same basic needs (Maslow and all that) and desires. But we are framed - penned in, if you like - by our cultures which exert an enormous influence on our _collective_ "needs." We, in the US led West, take out liberal, secular, capitalist, democratic culture for granted and we assume that our cultural values are applicable in a deeply conservative theocracy; that's a false assumption, in my opinion.

Thus whatever we do, or fail to do, in the world will be wrong in someone's eyes - usually in the eyes of someone with different interests and perspectives.


----------



## Jed

Thank you Mr. Campbell. I can understand that logic.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jed said:
			
		

> Thank you Mr. Campbell. I can understand that logic.




Don't get me wrong; I doubt Tiamo applied any logic; it is just that in, as I said, a perverse way, he happens to be right ~ rather like a broken clock that just happens to be right twice a day.


----------



## tamouh

Jed said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, Tiamo. I do not follow your logic wrt Intervene / not intervene of the west. Could you please give this another try?



The way E.R. Campbell had explained it is more in line. However, I'd add that the West does not comprehend how the East thinks. In particular, I find the West at odds with Latin America, and ME. The culture is different, how people perceive things are different in these regions are different.

From my opinion only, I find the West unable to think beyond a decade when intervening or not intervening in a region. Perhaps, I may need to be reminded of a successful intervention or non-intervention by the West in recent history. Only thing came to mind was Georgia.

In other news:

- Syrian opposition takes the seat of the Syrian Gov't at the Arab League, a symbolic gesture
- The Arab League commit to arming the Syrian rebels (allowing member states to supply arms...pending...)
- For the first time we hear a figure about the size of US assistance to the opposition. Moaz Al-Khatib (who supposedly resigned, but then not resigned from heading the Syrian opposition) declared in his speech to the Arab League that the US had provided $365 Mil. in humanitarian funding.
- Further, from the Arab League speech appears like a request was made by the Syrian opposition to the US requesting deployment Patriot missiles 100 km inside Syrian territory to protect the northern part of the country that has been liberated and allowing for the establishment of transitional government. That request was rejected hours after.


----------



## tamouh

US Congress preparing bills to support the Syrian opposition and possibly establishing safe zones:

Source: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/03/28/congress-takes-action-on-syria-when-president-obama-wont



> First, Senators Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Bob Casey, D-Pa., introduced the Syria Democratic Transition Act of 2013, which would provide vetted opposition groups with non-lethal military equipment, training on human rights and international laws of war, and also impose harsher sanctions on the Central Bank of Syria. Rubio has also publicly endorsed providing ammunition to members of the armed opposition.
> 
> [See a collection of political cartoons on Syria.]
> 
> Second, Senators Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and John McCain, R-Ariz., expressed their support for military action in order to degrade the Assad regime's airpower and to create a safe zone inside Syria's northern border in a letter to President Obama. Toward that end, Congressmen Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., introduced the Free Syria Act of 2013, which would support the deployment of anti-aircraft systems to prevent the Assad regime's air force from attacking free Syrians.
> 
> A safe zone would provide shelter for refugees; shield civilians from attacks by regime forces; allow opposition forces to organize; and help the United States and its allies better identify, equip, and train moderate groups. As McCain recently remarked,
> 
> .....
> .....


----------



## a_majoor

A bit of overheated rhetoric, but some of the speculation seems well grounded. A "Northern" Syria under control by the Islamists and a "Southern" Syria under control of more moderate elements as a buffer is a possible configuration (and may be favoured by various powers for the reasons mentioned). I think the authour has not fully contemplated the various moving parts; the Christians and Awaites may make a stand in and around Aleppo, while the Kurds may use their ability to tap into "Iraqi Kurdistan" to create a de facto state of their own associated with their Kurdish counterparts in Iraq.

The fate of Ambassador Stevens is still murky; this scenario is perhaps as plausible as any other, but since the Administration is stonewalling any inquiries it is difficult to tell:

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/04/03/flash-threat-from-rebel-syria-becomes-clear-and-what-really-happened-in-the-benghazi-murders/?singlepage=true



> *Flash! Threat from Rebel Syria Becomes Clear and What Really Happened in the Benghazi Murders*
> 
> April 3rd, 2013 - 9:40 pm
> 
> While far too late, the Obama administration may be adopting a sensible policy on Syria. The strategy, however, is unlikely to succeed. Oh, and there is also a very important clue—I think the key to the puzzle—about what really happened in Benghazi.
> 
> Let’s begin with Syria. As U.S. officials became increasingly worried about the visible Islamist domination of the Syrian opposition—which their own policies had helped promote—they have realized the horrible situation of creating still another radical Islamist regime. (Note: This column has been warning of this very point for years.)
> 
> So the response is to try to do two things. The first is to train, with Jordanian cooperation, a more moderate force of Free Syrian Army (FSA) units.  The idea is to help the non-Islamists compete more effectively with the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist, and especially al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra group) affiliated units.
> 
> The second is supposedly to create a buffer zone along Syria’s borders with Jordan and perhaps later Israel and even Iraq in order to avoid the conflict spilling over—i.e., cross-border jihad terror attacks—to those countries.
> 
> According to the Washington Post:
> 
> “The last thing anyone wants to see is al-Qaeda gaining a foothold in southern Syria next to Israel. That is a doomsday scenario,” said a U.S. diplomat in Jordan who was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject.”
> 
> Someone has also figured out that it isn’t a great idea to have a border with Iraq controlled by Syrian Sunni Muslim terrorist Islamists allied with the Sunni terrorists in Iraq who killed so many Americans.
> 
> Well, might someone not have thought about that a year or two ago? Because, while nothing could have been more obvious there was no step taken to avoid this situation happening.
> 
> I should point out an important distinction. The problem is not merely al-Qaeda gaining a foothold but also other Salafists or the Muslim Brotherhood doing so. That, however, is not how the Obama administration thinks. For it, al-Qaeda is evil; the other Salafists somewhat bad; and the Muslim Brotherhood good.
> 
> What are the other problems here? As so often happens with Western-formulated clever ideas to deal with the Middle East, there are lots of them.
> 
> –The United States has stood aside or even helped arm the Islamists through Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. So now the Islamist forces are far stronger than the non-Islamists. That cannot be reversed at this point.
> 
> –Might this be laying the basis for a second Syrian civil war in which the Islamists band together against the FSA? In other words, here is this buffer zone that is backed by the West (imperialism!) to “protect” Israel (the Zionists!), Jordan (traitorous Muslims!), and Iraq (Shia heretics!)
> 
> –The training is limited and the FSA is badly divided among different commanders, defected Syrian army officers, and local warlords. The Brotherhood militia is united and disciplined. The result: worse than Afghanistan because the Islamists would have both the government and the stronger military forces.
> 
> -A situation is being set up in which a future Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria can blackmail the United States. Either it will force Washington to accept whatever it does (including potential massacres) by threatening to unleash Salafist forces on its borders or it will actually create confrontations.
> 
> –Why isn’t the United States working full-time to stop the arms flows to the Islamists by pressuring the Saudis and Qataris (perhaps the point of Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip but hardly effective) and to rein in Turkey’s enthusiasm for a Syrian Islamist regime?
> 
> Speaking of Turkey, now we see the reason for the attempted Israel-Turkey rapprochement, because on top of everything else there will be a Kurdish-ruled zone not run by moderates but by the Syrian affiliate of the radical PKK, which is at war with Turkey.
> 
> –These proposed buffer zones would not receive Western air support or international forces. –Israel has the experience of maintaining a buffer zone in southern Lebanon for years by supporting a militia group. It succeeded for a long time by sending in Israeli troops covertly and taking casualties. In the end, rightly or wrongly, the effort was given up. Now Hizballah—the equivalent though not the friend of the Syrian Salafists—is sitting on the border and already one war has been fought. It should be noted that Israel has by far the most defensible border with Syria.
> 
> Another question, however, is whether the buffer zone idea is real because it might camouflage something else. Suppose the United States wants to do something else entirely. This could mean to create a moderate, secularist force that might win a second Syrian civil war in which the rebels fought each other for power. Alternatively, since northern Syria is now dominated by radical Islamists perhaps the U.S. policymakers hope that the southern part of the country could be a non-Islamist enclave. Control over that region might strengthen the hand of the non-Islamists in negotiating the new order in Syria or as a base for waging a second civil war.
> 
> So this is the likely fruit of the Syrian civil war, though that conflict is far from over. The old regime is still alive. What U.S. policy has helped to do is to create a big new threat to Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. It’s also a threat to Lebanon, but since the Syrian Islamists will target the Iran-backed Hizballah there, Washington doesn’t mind.
> 
> What does this have to do with Benghazi? Find out on the next page.
> 
> Read this paragraph from the Washington Post:
> 
> Obama administration officials have expressed repeated concern that some of about 20,000 of the weapons, called MANPADS, have made their way from the arsenals of former Libyan dictator Moammar (sic) Gaddafi to Syria.
> 
> This weapons system might be the most technologically impressive arms ever to fall into the hands of terrorists. Once Libya’s regime fell (another U.S. foreign policy production), these weapons were grabbed by the Libyan rebels and sold to the Saudis and Qataris, who supplied them, respectively, to the Syrian Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> According to reliable sources, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi trying to get those MANPADS back and was negotiating with radical militias toward that goal. Stevens was doing something good—trying to take weapons out of the hands of terrorists—and not running weapons to terrorists.
> 
> Yet that doesn’t mitigate the mess unleashed by the administration’s policy. At any rate, Stevens and these efforts failed. The money was too good for the Libyan insurgents to pass up, not to mention helping fellow Islamists and anti-Americans. And now thousands of advanced, easily launched anti-aircraft systems are in the hands of anti-Jordanian, anti-Iraqi, anti-Israeli, and possibly anti-Turkish terrorists.
> 
> And just imagine the very real possibility of commercial passenger planes being shot at, or even shot down, by terrorists armed with a weapon they obtained because of U.S. government ineptitude or even involvement.


----------



## cupper

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A "Northern" Syria under control by the Islamists and a "Southern" Syria under control of more moderate elements as a buffer is a possible configuration (and may be favoured by various powers for the reasons mentioned). I think the authour has not fully contemplated the various moving parts; the Christians and Awaites may make a stand in and around Aleppo, while the Kurds may use their ability to tap into "Iraqi Kurdistan" to create a de facto state of their own associated with their Kurdish counterparts in Iraq.



Wouldn't an islamist controlled north create some issues for the Turks?

I can more likely see an islamist south with support from elements in Lebanon, and a secular moderate north with support from Turkey. And the Kurds left hanging in the wind like they usually do.


----------



## leroi

cupper said:
			
		

> It would appear that the Desert Kingdom is exporting it's troublemakers to Syria to keep them from making trouble at home.
> 
> *With Official Wink And Nod, Young Saudis Join Syria's Rebels*
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2013/03/13/174156172/with-official-wink-and-nod-young-saudis-join-syrias-rebels



I don't think it's the Saudi government under the present aging king exporting the "troublemakers;" rather it's wealthy Saudis--the one's who have the money/clout, hate the west, hate the king and can't wait for him to die and hold extreme Wahabi religious views.  I would agree however that the kingdom should be doing more to prevent citizens from radicalizing.  The youth here have nothing to do--much unemployment which is part of the problem. 
 Only my two cents.


----------



## a_majoor

Cupper, I'm sure the Turks woud be much more pleased with the configuration that you have laid out, but  (big but) the Western powers are starting to wake up to what has been happening and can influence things on the ground better from Jordan, Lebanaon and (very quietly) Israel, which makes a moderate "south more likely oin the short term.

If we really want to speculate, I would suggest the next phase would be the Salafists and Islamic radicals having it out with the moderates, while trying to hold off the Turks. The Turks may end up having some sort of de facto truce with the Kurds, in order to focus on the Islamic radicas while not having distractions inside the Turkish state (there may be subtle and not so subtle pressures for Kurds in Turkey to join their compatriots in Syria, Iraq and Iran).

The remaining minorities will have been backed into a small enclave on the coast (centered on Aleppo) and will be a locus of fighting as well (the Islamic radicals will be in a multi dimensional battle against all they see as heretic and apostate), with this as the focus of Iranian, and perhaps Russian support. Lebanon will also be undergoing a political realignment (how violent this is depends on many factors) as Hezbollah is cut off from major logistical and financial support from Iran and Syria.

With luck, the Islamic radicals will be overextended and crushed, but Syria as a State will have ceased to exist, and the fallout of the disintigration could include a Christian mini state along the coast, a de facto Kurdistan centered on northern Iraq and a region that has returned to tribal governance in the center. This should also burn up a lot of the logistical, financial and human support of the Islamic radicals, and exhaust the supporting States as well.

YMMV


----------



## cupper

No matter how things play out, should make my upcoming trip to Turkey a touch more interesting. Won't be near the Syrian border regions, but could make for interesting dinner conversation.


----------



## a_majoor

Enjoy your trip and stay safe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the way things are going plays a big part in the PPK making peace with Turkey, why fight for that when there is parts of Syria and Northern Iraq to win as a Greater Kurdistan and that would require peaceful trade with Turkey. Anytime someone shoves the "Palestinian issue" into my face, I respond with "Free the Kurds first"!


----------



## CougarKing

Colin P said:
			
		

> Anytime someone shoves the "Palestinian issue" into my face, I respond with "Free the Kurds first"!



Good reply. Tell me about it. In a number of my grad. school classes, I had several foreign classmates from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Egypt and guess what their favourite topic was???  :


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Good reply. Tell me about it. In a number of my grad. school classes, I had several foreign classmates from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Egypt and guess what their favourite topic was???  : My reply would have been "Free the Uighurs first!"




I would appreciate your thoughts, in our China Superthread, on what "freedom" might mean for the Uighurs, for Xinjiang and for Central Asia.


----------



## CougarKing

An update: a precursor to Washington preparing for intervention into the Syrian conflict? 



> Military.com link
> 
> *200 US Troops to Jordan Could Jump to 20,000*
> 
> Apr 18, 2013
> 
> The Pentagon will send some 200 U.S. soldiers to Jordan to control spillover violence from the Syrian civil war, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the Senate.
> 
> *But the troops, near Jordan's border with Syria, could be the forerunner of 20,000 or more U.S. troops deployed if the Obama administration decides to intervene in the 2-year-old civil war, senior U.S. officials told the Los Angeles Times.
> 
> The 200 or so troops from the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas, will work alongside Jordanian forces to "improve readiness and prepare for a number of scenarios," Hagel told the Senate Armed Services Committee.*
> 
> Those scenarios could include securing chemical weapons arsenals or to prevent the war from spilling into neighboring countries, he said.
> 
> *But the Pentagon has drawn up plans to possibly expand the force to 20,000 or more, the officials told the Times.
> 
> These forces could include special operations teams to find and secure Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, U.S. air defense units to protect Jordan's airspace and conventional military units capable of moving into Syria if necessary, the Times said.*
> 
> Defense Department officials consider the move as preparing the United States for possible direct military involvement in Syria, the Times said.
> 
> The Pentagon had no immediate comment on the report.
> 
> "Military intervention is always an option, but it should be an option of last resort," Hagel told the committee.
> 
> He warned a major deployment could "embroil the U.S. in a significant, lengthy and uncertain military commitment."
> 
> Hagel told the panel the new forces will initially help deliver humanitarian supplies and help the Jordanian military cope with the flood of Syrian refugees.
> 
> *The will replace an ad hoc group of U.S. troops "pulled from various units and places" who have been in Jordan since last year, he said. That group included U.S. Army Special Forces, also known as Green Berets.*
> 
> Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who testified with him, if Obama had asked the Pentagon to recommend how to apply "any additional military pressure" on the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad.
> 
> "We've had national security staff meetings at which we've been asked to brief the options, but we haven't been asked for a recommendation," Dempsey said.
> 
> "We've not been asked," Hagel said. "As I said, I've not been asked by the president."
> 
> Hagel is to be in Jordan next week as part of a Middle East trip that will also take him to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, the Pentagon said Wednesday.


----------



## CougarKing

This update comes from 2 news sources. If the Israeli reports are true, it seems the "intervention" crowd in the Obama administration and other allies may have their justification to do to Assad what they did to Qaddafi/Khadafi/Khadaffy: intervene in an internal conflict against a dictator through "shock and awe".  

Washington Post link



> *Israel says Syria used chemical weapons*
> 
> TEL AVIV —* Two senior Israeli military officials asserted Tuesday that forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have deployed chemical weapons that killed dozens of rebel fighters and civilians, saying their evidence *  — including photographs of victims foaming at the mouth — made them “very close to 100 percent sure.”
> 
> It was the most direct and public claim by Israel that Syria has resorted to chemical weapons, which would mark a steep escalation in a brutal civil war that has stretched on for more than two years. Coming less than a week after France and Britain made similar assertions to the United Nations, the official remarks from a close U.S. ally* add to mounting international pressure on the United States — which has repeatedly said it will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons — to intervene in the Syrian conflict*.
> 
> (...)



From the Saudi Gazette:


> *MID-EAST
> Assad 'using chemical weapons': Israeli army*
> Last updated: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:38 AM
> 
> *JERUSALEM — President Bashar Al-Assad is using chemical weapons, most likely sarin, against rebel forces in Syria, a senior Israeli army officer told a conference on Tuesday.*
> 
> "Assad is using chemical weapons in Syria," said Brigadier General Itai Brun, head of research and analysis in the army's military intelligence division, in remarks quoted on the army's official Twitter feed.
> 
> *In remarks to the annual INSS security conference in Tel Aviv, Brun listed the physical symptoms suffered by those who had apparently been exposed to chemical agents.
> 
> "The pupils are small, the foam coming out of the mouth and other additional signs testify as evidence that use has been made of chemical weapons," he said in remarks broadcast on Israel radio.
> 
> "Which chemical weapons? Apparently sarin."*
> 
> <snipped>


----------



## tomahawk6

The US doesnt have the forces on the ground to intervene in Syria.You definitely wont see Israel invading.The Turks have the ground forces to intervene,I just dont see the will to use the Turkish Army.Could be wrong.Keep an eye on the movement of the 1st Armored Division.If it begins to deploy its armor either by air or sea,then intervention is likely.Follow on forces could come from Germany and the US.

Who takes over in Damascus would be the determining factor for me.Topple Assad and the Muslim Brotherhood probably takes over.This might be a brake on Iranian ambitions.It makes me uncomfortable working with islamo facists.


----------



## Old Sweat

Matthew Fisher does some speculating in this piece from today's Ottawa Citizen. His assumptions are plausible, while his conclusions are perhaps less likely, but still possible. The piece is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.




With chemical weapons used in Syria, we could be part of military intervention


By Matthew Fisher, The Associated Press
April 30, 2013 5:07 AM


Will Canada be going to war any time soon against Syria?

That is unlikely in the near future. But not impossible after that.

The question has taken on fresh meaning recently because of word - first from Europe, then from Israel and finally from Washington - that Bashar Assad's regime may have used sarin gas against his own people.

Until now, there have been no telltale drumbeats from the White House suggesting that it will act, even if Assad sanctioned the use of chemical agents. This is unlike the drum crescendo before the Gulf wars in 1991 and 2003 and the U.S.-led war against Serbia in Kosovo in 1999. To great fanfare, warships, fighters jets and bombers and ground forces were deployed to the Middle East and to the Balkans. As forces massed in nearby waters and neighbouring countries, western politicians and generals issued threats against Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic that made it sound as if war was inevitable.

A quicker version of this well-rehearsed theatre happened before NATO went to war against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi two years ago.

With 70,000 dead already and several million internal and external refugees, the situation in Syria today is dire. This makes Assad as compelling a bogeyman as Hussein and Milosevic. Still, there has been almost no noise yet to suggest that a foreign military campaign to overthrow this tyrant is imminent or inevitable, although U.S. President Barack Obama hinted as much last summer when he said that if Syria used chemical weapons, that would cross "a red line."

There are many different factors at play now than before the conflicts in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan. First and foremost, after the high cost in blood and treasure of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has become so tired of foreign military adventures that even red-meat Republican senators such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham are adamant that no American ground forces should be sent to Syria. What the senators favour is the imposition of a no-fly zone and the unleashing of a torrent of cruise missiles on Assad's airbases.

Another reason for western reluctance to get involved is that while Syria's air defences are not invincible, they are far superior to those that Saddam and Gaddafi had.

With Moscow and Beijing strongly opposed to any intervention and Islamic hardliners poised to seize power if Washington and the West tilt the civil war against Assad, the White House is left with a lot to ponder before deciding what to do. Nevertheless, after a lot of fighting and dying inside Syria, and with the use of chemical weapons now a strong possibility, a consensus appears to slowly be emerging that at some point in the next few months or year Obama will likely order a no-fly zone and, perhaps, some targeted airstrikes. To sell this to the American people and to the world, Washington will once again call on Ottawa and a few other western capitals to ask for their support.

The post-Cold War world has proven to be far more complicated militarily for Canada than at any time since the Korean War. Canada has already put its hand up for the first Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya, with modest leadership roles in the last two of these conflicts. Yet despite that recent history, Canadian politicians and commentators have almost tuned out any discussion of the possibility that Ottawa might go to war in Syria.


Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said last summer that Canada would not be part of any potential military action against Syria. But given the Harper government's tough talk on the Damascus file, its heavy involvement in NATO's Libyan war and its ties to Israel, which is jumpy about what is happening on its northern border, if Syria's use of chemical weapons is the catalyst that finally pushes the U.S. and NATO to become involved in a limited way, Canadian participation is highly likely.

It is a certainty that Lt.-Gen. Stu Beare's Canadian Joint Operations Command has already prepared contingency plans for the government to consider. It is a safe bet that the options include sending Hercules C-130J or C-17 transports to provide logistical support to assist Syrian refugees, re-tasking a Canadian frigate already operating in the Arabian Sea to be part of a maritime blockade of Syria's 120-kilometre long Mediterranean coastline and once again dispatching a dozen or so of Canada's CF-18 Hornets.

If Canada does become involved, something to watch for is whether its most experienced Afghan warrior, Maj.-Gen. Jon Vance - soon to be promoted to lieutenant-general, is given a leading role by NATO.

Vance is to become the deputy commander, Allied Joint Force Command, Naples, in two months. That is exactly the position from which Canada's Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard was named to lead NATO's military intervention in Libya.

A former Israeli defence minister alleged Monday that Syria's chemical weapons are "trickling" to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. It was the first such claim by a senior politician in Israel, but he did not supply evidence to support his assertion.

Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a retired general who is now a lawmaker from the opposition Labor Party, told The Associated Press: "The process of weapon transferral to Hezbollah has begun."

He told Israel Radio that he "has no doubt" that Syrian President Bashar Assad has already used chemical weapons and that "these weapons are trickling to Hezbollah."

His statement on chemical weapons reaching Hezbollah did not represent an official assessment. Defence officials said that while Israeli officials are deeply concerned about such weapons reaching Hezbollah, they have not seen evidence that this has occurred.

Israel has repeatedly expressed concern that Syria's chemical arsenal could fall into the hands of anti-Israel militants like Hezbollah, an Assad ally, or an al-Qaida-linked group fighting with the rebels. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that militants' acquisition of chemical arms or other sophisticated weapons could trigger military action.

Israel is widely believed to have carried out an air strike in Syria early this year on a shipment of sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles.


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/With+chemical+weapons+used+Syria+could+part+military+intervention/8314174/story.html#ixzz2Rx3HFy5n


----------



## observor 69

If Canada takes any action I expect it would be as a partner in a UN mandate. But if Libya is any lesson Obama can be expected to be very concerned over the slippery slope from "no fly zone" to ground attacks to boots on the ground. I regard Obama's present careful pragmatic approach as appropriate at this time.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a useful contribution to considering what Canada is likely, or unlikely, to do and why:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/meet-the-syrian-muslim-brotherhoods-pitch-man-in-ottawa/article11631607/#dashboard/follows/


> Meet the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood’s pitch man in Ottawa
> 
> Campbell Clark
> Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Tuesday, Apr. 30 2013
> 
> Here’s Molham Aldrobi’s difficult task: to convince the Canadian government that the Muslim Brotherhood are moderates in Syria, that extremists don’t dominate the opposition, and that Ottawa should open its purse-strings wider for medical and other aid to rebel-held areas.
> 
> Mr. Aldrobi, a representative of the Syrian opposition who lives in Toronto, is pitching something that’s been a hard sell for a long time now. The Harper government has come to view the Syrian opposition as a Pandora’s Box of sectarian squabblers and jihadists. Among western nations, Canada has stood out by refusing to recognize the National Coalition as the voice of the people.
> 
> The question now is whether Ottawa will start to feel that it’s time to do more to help a flawed Syrian opposition, to help prevent things from turning worse, and bolster moderates.
> 
> Reports that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons have increased pressure on the U.S. to intervene, but the Obama Administration is investigating, not rushing. A spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Canada is talking to allies about what would be a “heinous crime” – western nations fear military intervention might only increase chaos without a simple end.
> 
> Still, the U.S. is upping “non-lethal” aid, and urging others to do the same.
> 
> Mr. Aldrobi and Hassan Hashimi, representatives of the Syrian Nation Council – an umbrella group within the bigger umbrella Coalition – are in Ottawa trying to explain away some of the Canadian government’s concerns. They’re delivering a wish list – medical and other aid for opposition areas, expedited immigration for relatives of Canadians, and opposition recognition – that frankly isn’t much different from what Syrian-Canadians have sought for over a year. Mr. Baird will meet with an aid organization, Heart of Syria, on Wednesday.
> 
> But Ottawa’s worries have steered its reaction. There’s been aid – $48.5-million sent through UN agencies for food and help for refugees from the civil war, and $25-million for the Jordanian government to deal with refugees. But what the Syrian opposition really wants, if it can’t get guns, is more aid for “liberated” areas under its control. They feel Ottawa has done little.
> 
> “If you want to help, there are plenty of ways. This is what we are trying to tell them. The Syrian opposition are not extremists, they’re not terrorists. They’re freedom fighters,” Mr. Aldrobi said.
> 
> He says they’ll meet with federal officials to clarify “misunderstandings.” He knows the Harper government has emphasized concerns about jihadists like al-Nusra Front fighting alongside the Free Syrian Army and other opposition militias, but insists it’s an exaggeration. It’s too much to expect completely unified opposition, he says, but Ottawa should accept an “80-20 rule” – 80 per cent generally united moderates, with 20 per cent of groups they can’t control.
> 
> In Syria, though, the make-up of moderates makes the Harper government uneasy. It feels it’s too Sunni-dominated. The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood raises qualms, too. It’s fractious, and there are doubts exiled political leaders represent the patchwork of militia and councils in Syria. Mr. Aldrobi, a member of the executive of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, argues there’s no reason to fear it: it won’t dominate post-Assad Syria, dislikes Iran’s influence and Hezbollah, and it’s seeking a pluralistic state in Syria, he said. Mr. Aldrobi is diplomatic: he says he wants a “partnership” with Canada.
> 
> But there’s general frustration. Faisal Alazem was part of a delegation that met Mr. Baird about a year ago asking for similar things.
> 
> He argues the west, including Canada, should have jumped in two years ago. Jihadists moved into a vacuum, and desperate Syrians accepted it, he said, but there’s still time to strengthen the moderates. Western nations like Canada can at least provide aid to rebel-held areas, and that means funding groups working there, not just UN agencies, he said. But he sounds pessimistic.
> 
> “There is a general sense that Canada does not really want to be involved,” he said.
> 
> _Campbell Clark covers foreign affairs in the Ottawa bureau._




Faisal Alazem is right: Canada, offical Canada and, I suspect the people, at large, _"does not really want to be involved,”_ because we recognize that the Middle East is a strategic cesspool and almost anything we do is, most likely, going to be wrong. Left to their own devices and when given the chance to choose, the North Africans and Arabs and Persians and West Asians all seem inclined to make a similar choice: hard line political Islam. Why on earth would we want to help them? Let the Saudis and Iranians send them money and weapons and then they can all kill one another. We can come in later, bury the dead and pump the oil - or maybe the Chinese will do that.


----------



## cupper

US News outlets are announcing that Israel has hit at least one military targets inside Syria. Unnamed US officials indicate that it was possibly weapons headed to Hezbollah in Lebanon.


----------



## CougarKing

cupper said:
			
		

> US News outlets are announcing that Israel has hit at least one military targets inside Syria. Unnamed US officials indicate that it was possibly weapons headed to Hezbollah in Lebanon.



From CNN:



> (CNN) -- *The United States believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria, two U.S. officials tell CNN.*
> U.S. and Western intelligence agencies are reviewing classified data showing Israel most likely conducted a strike in the Thursday-Friday time frame, according to both officials. This is the same time frame that the U.S. collected additional data showing Israel was flying a high number of warplanes over Lebanon.
> 
> One official said the United States had limited information so far and could not yet confirm those are the specific warplanes that conducted a strike. Based on initial indications, the U.S. does not believe Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace to conduct the strikes.
> 
> *Both officials said there is no reason to believe Israel struck at a chemical weapons storage facilities. The Israelis have long said they would strike at any targets that prove to be the transfer of any kinds of weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, as well as at any effort to smuggle Syrian weapons into Lebanon that could threaten Israel.
> 
> The Lebanese army website listed 16 flights by Israeli warplanes penetrating Lebanon's airspace from Thursday evening through Friday afternoon local time.*
> 
> The Israeli military had no comment. But a source in the Israeli defense establishment told CNN's Sara Sidner, "We will do whatever is necessary to stop the transfer of weapons from Syria to terrorist organizations. We have done it in the past and we will do it if necessary the future."


----------



## cupper

Yeah. Like CNN is a credible source. ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Globe and Mail_ is reporting that "Israeli warplanes struck areas in and around the Syrian capital Sunday, setting off a series of explosions as they targeted a shipment of highly accurate, Iranian-made guided missiles believed to be on their way to Lebanon's Hezbollah militant group ..."


----------



## a_majoor

From the National Post, more on the Israeli airstrike. As the Syrian regime loses control over more of its territory and institutions, you may epect more actions like this to prevent or reduce the transfer of weapons from Syria to terrorist groups. This has a secondary effect of further reducing Iranian influence in the region, as Iranian allies Syria and Hezbollah are shorn of the ability to effetively strike Israel (or project power anywhere, for that matter). Large infographic on page as well:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/05/israel-escalates-involvement-in-syria-conflict-with-airstrikes-on-hezbollah-bound-missiles/



> *Israel escalates involvement in Syria conflict with airstrikes on Hezbollah-bound missiles*
> 
> Bassem Mroue And Ian Deitch, Associated Press | 13/05/05 | Last Updated: 13/05/05 2:40 PM ET
> More from Associated Press
> 
> BEIRUT — Israeli warplanes struck areas in and around the Syrian capital Sunday, setting off a series of explosions as they targeted a shipment of highly accurate, Iranian-made guided missiles believed to be on their way to Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group, officials and activists said.
> 
> The attack, the second in three days, signalled a sharp escalation of Israel’s involvement in Syria’s bloody civil war. Syrian state media reported that Israeli missiles struck a military and scientific research centre near Damascus and caused casualties.
> 
> An intelligence official in the Middle East, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to disclose information about a secret military operation to the media, confirmed that Israel launched an airstrike in the Syrian capital early Sunday but did not give more precise details about the location. The target was Fateh-110 missiles, which have precision guidance systems with better aim than anything Hezbollah is known to have in its arsenal, the official told The Associated Press.
> 
> The airstrikes come as Washington considers how to respond to indications that the Syrian regime may have used chemical weapons in its civil war. President Barack Obama has described the use of such weapons as a “red line,” and the administration is weighing its options — including possible military action.
> 
> Iran, a close ally of the Assad regime, condemned the airstrikes but gave no other hints of a possible stronger response from Tehran.
> 
> Israel has said it wants to stay out of the Syrian war, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated the Jewish state would be prepared to take military action to prevent sophisticated weapons from flowing from Syria to Hezbollah or other extremist groups.
> 
> Israel and Hezbollah fought a monthlong war in mid-2006 that ended in a stalemate.
> 
> Related
> Israel says latest airstrike against Syria targeted Hezbollah-bound missile shipment
> 
> Israel shoots down drone approaching country’s northern coast, Hezbollah denies involvement
> 
> Canadians drawn into Syrian conflict a threat to return radicalized: authorities
> 
> ‘It’s not a war Syria could win’: Israel airstrike may be a taste of things to come, experts predict
> 
> Syria’s state news agency SANA reported that explosions went off at the Jamraya military and scientific research centre near Damascus and said “initial reports point to these explosions being a result of Israeli missiles.” SANA said there were casualties but did not give a number.
> 
> Damascus-based activist Maath al-Shami said the strikes occurred around 3 a.m. “Damascus shook. The explosion was very, very strong,” said al-Shami adding that one of the attacks occurred near the capital’s Qasioun mountain that overlooks Damascus.
> 
> He said the raid near Qasioun targeted a military position for the elite Republican Guards that is in charge of protecting Damascus, President Bashar Assad’s seat of power.
> 
> Mohammed Saeed, another activist who lives in the Damascus suburb of Douma, said “the explosions were so strong that earth shook under us.” He said the smell of the fire caused by the air raid near Qasioun could be felt miles away.
> 
> There has been no official statement from the Syrian military.
> 
> The strikes put the Assad regime in a tricky position. If it fails to respond, it looks weak and leaves itself open to such airstrikes becoming a common occurrence. But if it retaliates militarily against Israel, it risks dragging the Jewish state and its powerful military into a broader conflict.
> 
> After the airstrikes overnight, Israel’s military on Saturday deployed two batteries of its Iron Dome rocket defence system to the country’s north. It described the move as part of “ongoing situational assessments.”
> 
> The Iron Dome protects against short-range rockets. Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets at Israel during the 2006 war, while Israeli warplanes destroyed large areas of south Lebanon.
> 
> Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel’s military intelligence, said the strike is a signal to Syria’s ally, Tehran, that Israel is serious about the red lines it has set.
> 
> “Syria is a very important part in the front that Iran has built. Iran is testing Israel and the U.S. determination in the facing of red lines and what it sees is in clarifies to it that at least some of the players, when they define red lines and they are crossed, take it seriously,” he told Army Radio.
> 
> In Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast condemned an Israeli airstrike against Syria and urged countries in the region to remain united against Israel, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency. The brief statement gave no details.
> 
> The Fateh-110, or Conqueror, is a short-range ballistic missile developed by Iran and first put into service in 2002. The Islamic Republic unveiled an upgraded version in 2012 that improved the weapon’s accuracy and increased its range to 300 kilometres (185 miles).
> 
> Iranian Defence Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said at the time that the solid-fueled missile could strike with pin-point precision, making it the most accurate weapon of its kind in Iran’s arsenal.
> 
> An airstrike in January also targeted weapons apparently bound for Hezbollah, Israeli and U.S. officials have said. The White House had no immediate comment on Sunday’s reported missile strikes.
> 
> The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an activist group, also reported large explosions in the area of Jamraya, a military and scientific research facility northwest of Damascus, about 15 kilometres (10 miles) from the Lebanese border.
> 
> Hezbollah’s al-Manar TV said the research centre in Jamraya was not hit. It added that an army supply centre was targeted by the strike. It quoted unnamed Syrian security officials as saying that three sites including military barracks, arms depots and air defencecentre were targeted by the strike.
> 
> The station aired footage of what it said was a facility in Jamraya that was hit in the airstrike. It showed a heavily damaged building as well as what appeared to be a chicken farm with some chickens pecking around in debris scattered with dead birds.
> 
> The raid appeared to have taken place next to a major road that was filled with debris, and shell casings were strewn on the ground. A blue street sign on the side of the road referred to the direction of the Lebanon border and the Syrian town of Zabadani near the frontier.
> 
> Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen TV, that has several reporters around Syria, said one of the strikes targeted a military position in the village of Saboura, west of Damascus and about 10 kilometres (six miles) from the Lebanon border.
> 
> An amateur video said to be shot early Sunday in the Damascus area showed fire lighting up the night sky. The video appeared genuine and corresponded to other AP reporting.
> 
> Uzi Rubin, a missile expert and former Defence Ministry official, told the AP that if the target were Fateh-110 missiles as reported then it is a game changer as they put almost all Israel in range and can accurately hit targets.
> 
> Rubin emphasized that he was speaking as a rocket expert and had no details on reported strikes.
> 
> “If fired from southern Lebanon they can reach Tel Aviv and even (the southern city of) Beersheba.” He said the rockets are much five times more accurate than the scud missiles that Hezbollah has fired in the past. “It is a game changer because they are a threat to Israel’s infrastructure and military installations,” he said.
> 
> Israel’s first airstrike in Syria, in January, also struck Jamraya.
> 
> At the time, a U.S. official said Israel targeted trucks next to the research centre that carried SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles. The strikes hit both the trucks and the research facility, the official said. The Syrian military didn’t confirm a hit on a weapons shipment at the time, saying only that Israeli warplanes bombed the research centre.
> 
> Israeli lawmaker Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister and a former chief of staff, declined to confirm the airstrike but said Israel is concerned about weapons falling into the hands of the Islamic militant group amid the chaos of Syria’s civil war.
> 
> “We must remember that the Syrian system is falling apart and Iran and Hezbollah are involved up to their necks in Syria helping Bashar Assad,” he told Israel Radio. “There are dangers of weapons trickling to the Hezbollah and chemical weapons trickling to irresponsible groups like al-Qaida.”


----------



## CougarKing

A repost from the Washington DC-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS-not to be confused with the Canadian intelligence agency with the same acronym):

link



> *Syria's Uncertain Air Defense Capabilities*
> 
> By Anthony H. Cordesman
> 
> May 6, 2013
> 
> Over the weekend of May 3-5, Israel carried out airstrikes against targets in Syria, specifically against a shipment of missiles believed to be headed towards Lebanon. This is the third set of Israeli strikes that has hit Syrian targets without reports of effective Syrian resistance or Israeli losses since the start of 2013. It also follows on the successful Israeli air strikes that destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction in the Deir ez-Zor region on Syria on September  6, 2007.
> 
> Israel’s success does indicate that the purely military risks in enforcing some form of no fly or no move zone are now more limited that when the fighting in Syria began. At the same time, this does not mean that Syria could not put up a defense or that the US could simply rely on a few strikes or threats to either destroy Syria’s air defense or intimidate it into complying with US demands.
> 
> The practical problem is that we do not know how many stand-off weapons were used, how far the Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft had to penetrate, or the real-world readiness of Syrian air defenses.
> 
> We do not know if Syria has seriously tried to halt IAF attacks. Syria has not been able to use these systems effectively against Israel since the early 1980s. Syria may be willing to wait out limited IAF strikes rather than reveal the electronic order of battle and send signals that would help Israel develop improved methods of suppression during a limited attack.
> 
> We know most of the Syrian* longer-range surface-based air defenses * are still largely active and provide overlapping coverage of much of the country. But they also have *aging surface-to-air missiles (SAM) * that have been only partially upgraded and are vulnerable to jamming and other electronic countermeasures, as well as antiradiation missiles.
> 
> There are no reliable estimates of what is left or active. Before the civil war intensified, the IISS and Jane's estimated that they included *25 AD brigades with some150 SAM batteries*. These include a mix of aging low altitude defense systems, largely developed in the 1970s or earlier, using *S-125 Pechora (SA-3 Goa), 2K12 mobile, short-range Kub (SA-6 Gainful), obsolete medium to high altitude defenses with S-75 Divna (SA-2 Guideline), and 2 AD regiments with 2 battalions each, which each had 2 batteries with S-200 Angara (SA-5 Gammon).*
> 
> We also know that Syria has sought far more *modern Russian systems like the S-300 and S-400* for more than two decades and every attempt has failed—largely because of Syrian financing problems and Russian sensitivity to Israeli views. It is also clear that Syria has had to relocate substantial parts of these forces to avoid rebel forces taking them. Syria had also over-concentrated them around its cities and near Israel before the civil war, leaving vulnerable "corridors" in the north and the west, while IAF aircraft could also fire from Lebanese air space.
> 
> Syria has more modern short ranges and manportable surface-based air defenses. The IISS-Jane's estimates indicate they include the following mobile systems: *14 9K33 Osa (SA-8 Gecko), 20 9K31 Strela-1 (SA-9 Gaskin), 20 9K37 Buk (SA-11 Gadfly), 30 9K35 Strela-10 (SA-13 Gopher), 96K6 Pantsir-S1 (SA-22 Greyhound), and the 9K317 Buk-M2 (SA-17 Grizzly). The manportable systems include 9K32 Strela-2 (SA-7 Grail), 9K38 Igla (SA- 18 Grouse), 9K36 Strela-3 (SA-14 Gremlin), and the 9 K 338 Igla-SS (SA-24 Grinch).*
> 
> The newest of these systems could be effective if their location was unknown but IAF aircraft had standoff weapons that allow them to strike outside the range of such systems and advanced countermeasures that will seriously degrade most of these systems. The Assad regime may also be scared of distributing them because of the risk that they would fall into rebel hands.
> 
> The Syrian air force had some *365-385 combat aircraft when the fighting started. It is not clear how many are now active but a rough estimate is probably about 50 percent with very low sustainability against an active air attack, limited pilot training, and low daily sorties generation rates*. It had no modern air defense fighters and operational readiness standards have almost certainly degraded. Syrian holdings of *air defense fighters included 85 aircraft with aging avionics* and which are very vulnerable to both IAF and U.S. fighters, air-to-air missiles, and air combat systems like the AWACs. These include: *50 obsolescent MiG-23MF/ML/UM Flogger, 35 export versions of the MiG-29A/U Fulcrum with limited computer and radar capabilities for look-shoot down and long range BVR combat. According to the IISS, a large number of these systems were not operational before the civil war: 30 MiG-25 Foxbats and 2 MiG-25U Foxbats.*
> 
> The rest of the Syrian air force was attack-oriented in spite of the fact that it had little chance of surviving Israel's air defenses. Again, the IISS and Jane's estimate it included some *105 obsolete MiG-21MF/bis Fishbed, 15 obsolete MiG-21U MongolA, 50 obsolescent MiG-23BN/UB Floggers, 50 limited-capability Su-22 Fitter D, and 20export versions of the Su-24 Fencer with limited computer and avionics capabilities.* It is possible that the Syrian air force has rules of engagement that preclude the use of fighter aircraft for anything other than all-out war given the massive losses they suffered fighting the IAF in 1982.
> 
> *This makes the Syrian forces vulnerable to U.S. military action to enforce some form of no fly/no move zone, but Syria still has a much larger and more capable mix of forces than Libya possessed. It would take a massive U.S. air and cruise missile attack to suppress it quickly and would be difficult for even two carrier groups to carry out and sustain. As a result, the United States would certainly desire land-bases from allies like Jordan and Turkey and the use of Qatari and/or Saudi bases.*
> 
> Syria could also choose to ride out a U.S. threat and then constantly push the U.S. by appearing to prepare its forces, locking on radars, etc. These are tactics that would stress any U.S. forces enforcing a zone. Syria also knows all about them from U.S. operations in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. In short, Syria does not haves not strong air defenses by U.S. standards but it is still very large. It would take a major U.S. air effort to accomplish quickly and the United States might well take some losses if Syria fought back and would have to have a sustained presence if Syria chose not fight.
> 
> There is also the question of how broad a U.S. no-fly zone would really be. If the United States included civilian protection areas, it would have to be prepared to use airpower to stop pro-Assad ground forces as well. If it was a true “no fly” zone, it would have to deal with Syrian helicopters as well, and they have been key threats. (IISS pre-civil war estimates were 33 Mi-25 Hind D attack helicopters, Mi-17 Hip H and 30 SA342L Gazelle multi-role armed helicopters, and 40 Mi-8 Hip transport helicopters, and some 60 percent are probably still operational).
> 
> Moreover, "no fly" would presumably mean no Syrian missiles and rockets and Syria still has a significant inventory of such systems.  In short, even though the events of the past weekend may suggest air power’s efficacy in responding to the civil war, it will be no easy task to expand this into a wider campaign.
> 
> Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).


----------



## cupper

Love the response to a Conspiracy theorist caller to CSPAN show about Neocons beating the war drums to defend Israel.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/07/eli-lake-shuts-down-anti-israel-conspiracy-theorist.html


----------



## CougarKing

Perhaps most of the MSM were wrong with their predictions that Assad was on his last legs?

CBC link



> *Brian Stewart: Is Syria's Assad turning the tide of battle?*
> 
> Western intelligence revising its Syrian war predictions
> 
> A surprisingly effective counteroffensive by the Syrian government in recent weeks is reminding rebels, foreign intelligence services and the media alike that the fortunes of war are wildly unpredictable.
> 
> *For most of Syria's 28-month-long civil war, it has been widely assumed, at least in the West, that dictator Bashar al-Assad was a walking dead man when it came to hanging on to power.
> 
> Optimists were highly vocal in insisting the end wouldn't be long in coming. Surely, they felt, not even resuscitation efforts by Syria's lone allies (and arms suppliers), Russia and Iran, could save the thuggish family-run regime from ignominious collapse.
> 
> Well that's not how it's turning out. Right now it's the disunited and fractious rebel alliance that appears to be increasingly on the defensive while Assad's far better armed and notoriously ruthless elite forces are gaining ground.*
> 
> "Strategically, the regime has the advantage — taking the initiative, using new tactics, opening up counteroffensives or new fronts over the last two-to-four months," says Yezid Sayigh, senior analyst with the Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut.
> 
> He is just one of several Syria watchers now who are seeing dramatic shifts on the ground.
> 
> Some are even scrambling to update the odds in Assad's favour, at least for the coming months.
> 
> Revised intel
> 
> Among the red faces at the moment are the Syrian analysts in the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND). Just last year they were telling politicians that Assad would likely fall in early 2013.
> 
> Now, intelligence chief Gerhard Schindler, according to Der Spiegel magazine, is warning his bosses that Assad's new offensives might, by year end, retake the critical south, which would be a huge loss to the rebels.
> 
> Even the most hardline U.S. politicians, like Senator John McCain, who have been demanding a U.S.-imposed no-fly zone over Syria, now see the once doomed dictator actually tightening his grip on power.
> 
> Just back from a surprise trip into Syria to meet rebel leaders, McCain warned that the insurgents are being heavily battered. "We are seeing, unfortunately, a battlefield situation where Bashar Assad now has the upper hand, and it's tragic, while we sit by and watch."
> 
> Of course one reason why President Barack Obama and other Western leaders are staying well on the sidelines in this conflict may be precisely due to the intelligence reports warning that Assad is a far harder nut to crack than previously thought.
> 
> That and the fact that the rebels are no closer to forming a winning, united or even trustworthy insurgency.
> 
> This is not to say, let's be clear, that a resurgent Assad is now bound to win in the long run. Rather, it is that a tyrant wounded, but not destroyed, is a profoundly dangerous foe.
> 
> *What this likely means is that we are now likely to witness a different type of war, perhaps even bloodier, as the embattled regime seeks to win back the 50 per cent or so of the country that it lost or abandoned to the rebels in the early stages.
> 
> In other words, a war that may drag on for years.*
> 
> So what happened? What accounts for Assad's survivability, apart from sheer brutality, in the face of so many eager predictions of his doom?
> 
> Some of these factors have been well examined, including the fact that the Assad family has been able to count on the support of its own Alawite sect, as well as a Christian community of about 2.6 million and, indeed, moderates from other religious groups who fear fundamentalist Salafists and even al-Qaeda elements among the rebels.
> 
> The large urban merchant class and civil servants no doubt also feel they have a stake in regime survival.
> 
> In short, Assad has deep, even if minority, wellsprings of support at home to go with an increasingly steady flow of help from three critical friends: Russia, Iran and, more recently, Hezbollah, the Shia Islamic movement (military and political) based in Lebanon.
> 
> Assad's order of battle
> 
> Still, important as these pillars are, they could not alone have saved Assad had he not been able to count on perhaps the most vital if often overlooked source of power at his disposal — the unexpected cohesion of Syria's military, especially its army.
> 
> *Despite a large number of defections, the Syrian military remains one of the largest and best trained forces in the Arab world, at around 290,000 strong.*
> 
> Early in the war, it was believed the army would disintegrate as most of its conscripts were Sunni (who are the majority in Syria and the source of the rebel opposition) while 80 per cent of the officer corps were minority Alawites, a Shia offshoot.
> 
> But according to a recent in-depth study by the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War, the Syrian army is still a "disciplined and motivated force."
> 
> What's more, when you look at the Syrian order of battle, it seems that Assad has not tried to test the loyalty of most of the army units, and has instead left all the toughest fighting to what amounts to a Praetorian guard of trusted elite units, the 4th Armoured Division, Republican Guards, and special forces.
> 
> The Syrian army responded poorly at the start of the war, in part because its doctrines dated back to earlier, Soviet-style training, which had prepared it for a conventional land war against neighbouring Israel.
> 
> Since then, however, it has reshaped its security forces, given them more modern arms from Russia and Iran, and adopted a more flexible counterinsurgency style of warfare.
> 
> While the UN says there are reasonable grounds to suspect the regime has used limited chemical weapons, its conventional arsenal is terrifying enough.
> 
> Rebels complain that government's precision weapons and artillery are more accurate, while armed helicopters, SU-22 strike aircraft and, since December, even Scud missiles have been pounding rebel positions even in civilian areas.
> 
> *The key problem for the rebels is their lack of secure logistics and their own flimsy command structure, which is distrusted in the West.
> 
> In a long war of attrition like this, the side best supplied has a vast advantage. Assad's military has the benefit of military supplies from Moscow and Tehran, and has held critical supply routes open against rebel attack.
> 
> Now, as French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned recently, the arrival of up to 4,000 Hezbollah fighters in Syria to fight for Assad, many of them veterans of fierce battles with Israeli forces in 2006, gives him a new edge as he turns his attention to reducing rebel territory.*
> 
> Lest anyone doubt the relevance of this warning, Fabius added "When you have fighters that are really well-armed, that are prepared to die and they are several thousand, that makes a difference."
> 
> I'd say that's one prediction, at least, that you can probably bank on.


----------



## Zartan

It certainly doesn't hurt Assad that the rebels are busy killing each other, or declaring war on the Kurds whenever they are free. Assad is not General Franco, but it helps when you share opponents similar in that one particular respect. One has to wonder how much popular opinion remains on the side of the fractious rebels... Assad is not doing as well as the media is reporting (especially above), but the question of morale is not grounded on facts, but popularity. Qusair is a galvanizing victory or a demoralizing defeat, depending upon which side you fall. People follow power.

The rebels certainly could have won, or at least overthrown Assad, I believe. I believe that they've thrown those opportunities away. I feel satisfied that it is probably for the best that they did.


----------



## BrendenDias

That article explaining about the Hezbollah fighters is troubling. They are ready to fight now, after the short war with Israel in 2006. The Syrian rebels will lose this civil war unless there is a major military intervention... however nations that would intervene, such as the US, will be careful not to upset the Russians, as they are allied with Assad's regime. 
The rebels are not ready to run a government. Sure, many, many people have perished under Assad, however imagine the thousands more that could easily die with an unstable "rebel" government. Terrorist groups and such would flood into Syria to get a foothold, since it would be easy also.  They'd have to set up a provisional one until they find a suitable leader.. I do not believe it could be done. 
 :2c:


----------



## Zartan

Terrorists already have more than a foothold in Syria. In effect it is a beachhead. Al-Nusra alone is estimated to have what, 6000-10,000 fighters? More than enough for one Normandy beach... 

Events bring curious, or hilarious change. A year ago it could easily be said that we should be supporting the rebels wholeheartedly. We could with conviction that their government is the only rightful government, and that their FSA is fighting for the ideals of the Syrian people. Only a year later and conditions have changed enough (I won't claim we've learned enough) that all of those statements are not merely wrong, but worse, ridiculous. Even more to the point - things have changed enough that if we are indeed still serious about this War on Terror business, Assad, consciously, or more likely, unconsciously, is our best friend.

But, who knows how things will be in another year?


----------



## CougarKing

Breaking news from CNN on TV: US says it will provide military assistance to Syrian rebels. Senator McCain is seen saying on TV that a no-fly zone should be established. Reporters such as CNN's Candy Crowley are saying the increased presence of Hezbollah was another factor that drove the White House to step up its assistance to those in the rebel/opposition that they trust.

CNN link



> Washington (CNN) -- [Breaking news update, 5:25 p.m. ET]
> 
> The White House acknowledged Thursday the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale a number of times, according to a statement.
> 
> *The administration also indicated it will increase the "scope and scale of assistance" to rebels in Syria *  following its acknowledgment that the Bashar al-Assad government has used chemical weapons in the civil war, according to the statement.
> 
> [Original story published at 5:12 p.m. ET]
> 
> Sources: U.S. to acknowledge Syria crossed 'red line' with use of chemical weapons
> 
> Congress has been notified that the United States will acknowledge that Syria used chemical weapons on a small scale multiple times and that a "red line" has been crossed, congressional sources told CNN on Thursday.
> 
> *The intelligence community has concluded that sarin gas was used in the Syrian civil war, and that between 100 and 150 people died as a result, a senior intelligence official said.*
> 
> Earlier this year, the United States said its intelligence analysts had concluded "with varying degrees of confidence" that chemical weapons had been used in the Syrian civil war. But President Barack Obama said "intelligence assessments alone are not sufficient."
> 
> CNN's Jessica Yellin contributed to this report.


----------



## tamouh

Kernewek said:
			
		

> Terrorists already have more than a foothold in Syria. In effect it is a beachhead. Al-Nusra alone is estimated to have what, 6000-10,000 fighters? More than enough for one Normandy beach...
> 
> Events bring curious, or hilarious change. A year ago it could easily be said that we should be supporting the rebels wholeheartedly. We could with conviction that their government is the only rightful government, and that their FSA is fighting for the ideals of the Syrian people. Only a year later and conditions have changed enough (I won't claim we've learned enough) that all of those statements are not merely wrong, but worse, ridiculous. Even more to the point - things have changed enough that if we are indeed still serious about this War on Terror business, Assad, consciously, or more likely, unconsciously, is our best friend.
> 
> But, who knows how things will be in another year?



Bashar is our best friend? Really? His regime had been funneling fighters to Iraq and Lebanon for many years now. Just because there are now more extreme elements in Syria , that Bashar ends up sounding like a good guy! Man who uses missiles against his own people in my opinion is unreliable (if unstable).

I would love to say: I told you so...2 years ago I've said this conflict if left unchecked would disintegrate into a worse situation. The typical response was it's not our problem! Seems like there is renewed interest now that new problems arise (sarcastically, who thought this would happen!!!) Hezboallah, Salafi Extremists, Chemical Weapons and close to 5 Million refugees.

I still believe Bashar regime is going to go. No matter how much muscle it may flex, other regional powers and the US no longer want him there and that means he is going to go. The question that had always remained, how much destruction and chaos has to consume the region before this happens.


----------



## kevincanada

Tiamo said:
			
		

> Bashar is our best friend? Really? His regime had been funneling fighters to Iraq and Lebanon for many years now. Just because there are now more extreme elements in Syria , that Bashar ends up sounding like a good guy! Man who uses missiles against his own people in my opinion is unreliable (if unstable).
> 
> I would love to say: I told you so...2 years ago I've said this conflict if left unchecked would disintegrate into a worse situation. The typical response was it's not our problem! Seems like there is renewed interest now that new problems arise (sarcastically, who thought this would happen!!!) Hezboallah, Salafi Extremists, Chemical Weapons and close to 5 Million refugees.
> 
> I still believe Bashar regime is going to go. No matter how much muscle it may flex, other regional powers and the US no longer want him there and that means he is going to go. The question that had always remained, how much destruction and chaos has to consume the region before this happens.




Sadly I think the Status Quo needs to have a significant change.  As it stands I would not be surprised if the war continues on for months even a few years as it has down the same path.  My reasoning for this is you have power on both sides of the fence (USA and Russia) being the two biggest players and both sides have clearly drawn lines in the sand and neither will tread over that line without a good reason.

I'm betting Assad knows this.  It helps to drag his war on.  Likewise the chances of him using chemical weapons?  I think is extremely unlikely unless he is back real tight into a corner then maybe out of desperation for his own life he may use them.  Until then anything I hear in the media I want to see actual proof.  It's not in Assad's favour to use chemical weapons.  Ergo I see the stalemate on what to do with Syria continue.   Assad maybe a tyrant.  One thing I believe he is not judging by some interviews I seen of him is stupid.  He appeared to be very calculated and choose his words carefully when speaking.

As always just my opinion, take it lightly.  Time will tell.


----------



## BrendenDias

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/13/syria/

_"Canadians join fight in Syria as civil war turns nation ‘into hub for terrorist activities’: report"_

Found this interesting..
No, it is not the Canadian Armed Forces that have joined the fighting as the title may mislead..


----------



## tomahawk6

I think its a mistake to get involved in Syria.The US sided with the islamists in Libya and Egypt and now we see a resurgent islam which is not a good thing.


----------



## Edward Campbell

:ditto:

I agree, the _Arab Spring_, and all the fallout therefrom is _Arab_ business; they have to find their own way into the 21st 17th century and I fear the process will be messy and bloody. We are best to leave them to it.


----------



## Zartan

Tiamo said:
			
		

> Bashar is our best friend? Really? His regime had been funneling fighters to Iraq and Lebanon for many years now. Just because there are now more extreme elements in Syria , that Bashar ends up sounding like a good guy! Man who uses missiles against his own people in my opinion is unreliable (if unstable).



We must acknowledge two things: first, Assad and the West have common enemies (and some uncommon ones, too). Second: he's doing more damage to them than we have in many years. So yes, "best friend," in the good old cold war sense. What he's done in the past is irrelevant. He's thrashing our enemies, real or potential, for free. I do not like the man, he is certainly no good guy, but at the present time he is more useful to us than anyone else in Syria. That is what matters.


----------



## BrendenDias

Kernewek said:
			
		

> We must acknowledge two things: first, Assad and the West have common enemies (and some uncommon ones, too). Second: he's doing more damage to them than we have in many years. So yes, "best friend," in the good old cold war sense. What he's done in the past is irrelevant. He's thrashing our enemies, real or potential, for free. I do not like the man, he is certainly no good guy, but at the present time he is more useful to us than anyone else in Syria. That is what matters.



Under Assad around a hundred thousand lives have been lost. Thousands have been children also.
The Syrian civil war is a harbor for terrorist organizations and could mean that even Al-Qaeda will re-gain their might as a terrorist group. Not to mention the other groups..
 Hezbollah is fighting * with * Assad against the rebels.. (Hezbollan-backed government).
The list goes on, and this could complicate later on, and I know Canadians have had articles on Al-Qaeda's comeback lately.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sigh a long winded post disappeared into the nether world. basically expect a 3 part Syria, Kurdish, Alwatti and Sunni. Expect the Kurds to eventually saying F*ck it to Iraq and Syria and form "Greater Kurdistan" all dependent on good relations with Turkey.


----------



## GAP

They have wanted to do that ever since they set their silly borders that broke up ethnic groupings that had existed before the war.


----------



## Haletown

Image from the FSA . . . . anyone know what this is?


----------



## George Wallace

Haletown said:
			
		

> Image from the FSA . . . . anyone know what this is?



Looks a bit like a M-240 240mm mortar with the top 2/3 of barrel removed.


----------



## George Wallace

I am amazed that the US and the West have not learned from the historical results of supplying arms to insurgents in not only SW Asia, but also South America and other hell holes, that once they are at a certain stage of their insurgency, they turn their guns on Westerners.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Much of the silly borders came from the Ottomans, whose wreckage the west took over. With Syria weakened, Iraqi Shiites in a battle with Sunni's both domestically and in Syria's, the Kurds might quietly tip toe out the door. Frankly if we are going to arm anyone in that area, arm the Kurds, require as part of the deal that they protect Druze and Christians in their area's and work out peace agreements with Turkey. Then we will have a rapidly building Kurdistan and Israel to keep the rest of the nutters in check.


----------



## Jed

Colin P said:
			
		

> Much of the silly borders came from the Ottomans, whose wreckage the west took over. With Syria weakened, Iraqi Shiites in a battle with Sunni's both domestically and in Syria's, the Kurds might quietly tip toe out the door. Frankly if we are going to arm anyone in that area, arm the Kurds, require as part of the deal that they protect Druze and Christians in their area's and work out peace agreements with Turkey. Then we will have a rapidly building Kurdistan and Israel to keep the rest of the nutters in check.



Now I can buy that logic.


----------



## tamouh

Kernewek said:
			
		

> We must acknowledge two things: first, Assad and the West have common enemies (and some uncommon ones, too). Second: he's doing more damage to them than we have in many years. So yes, "best friend," in the good old cold war sense. What he's done in the past is irrelevant. He's thrashing our enemies, real or potential, for free. I do not like the man, he is certainly no good guy, but at the present time he is more useful to us than anyone else in Syria. That is what matters.



I'd disagree in that assessment. If it wasn't for Bashar hardheaded approach, Syria would not have been dragged into this. Anywhere you see chaos, there will be extremists. Extremism survives on fear and hopelessness.

In fact, I see the Syrian regime a major contributing factor in increasing extremism. It gives a 'cause' for extremists to recruit more young men and women. Bring Hezbollah into the equation and I'd be wondering how all this would be true!


----------



## Zartan

Tiamo said:
			
		

> I'd disagree in that assessment. If it wasn't for Bashar hardheaded approach, Syria would not have been dragged into this. Anywhere you see chaos, there will be extremists. Extremism survives on fear and hopelessness.
> 
> In fact, I see the Syrian regime a major contributing factor in increasing extremism. It gives a 'cause' for extremists to recruit more young men and women. Bring Hezbollah into the equation and I'd be wondering how all this would be true!



I agree with most of your premises, but the thing that undermines it is that many, if not most of the extremists, are not Syrians. Second, while chaos can breed extremism - so can its opposite, authority. Syria was anything but chaotic prior to the onset of this war. The fact is that modern Islamic extremism is the product of history, going back far beyond the lifetime of Assad (but perhaps not his father). Whether there is a civil war today, or a peaceful handover of power in 2011 doesn't change that extremism would persist - it would merely be less obvious.

As for his hardheaded approach, I will admit that what he played a part in creating the current civil war. As the saying goes, however, it takes two to tango. If I may be hypothetical the rebels were probably better off as non-violent protesters. However you are being very hypothetical if you believe that there is a better alternative to Assad. I certainly hope that is so, but I seriously doubt it. Given that Syria is a proxy war between the Sunni and Shia powers, each as fundamentalist as their populations will allow (or suffer), I fear a new Syrian regime would go much the same way as the new Iraqi one. However, the war is changing the current regime from within. There is no foretelling what political form Syria may take after an Assad victory. All that is certain is that the status quo is beyond retrieval.


----------



## Edward Campbell

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Policy_, a former CIA officer offers a timely reminder about unintended consequences:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/14/interview_milton_bearden_arming_syrian_rebels?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full


> 'Don't Try to Convince Yourself That You're in Control'
> *Afghan lessons for arming the Syrian rebels from the CIA's mujahideen point man.*
> 
> BY JOSHUA E. KEATING
> 
> JUNE 14, 2013
> 
> Thirty-year CIA veteran Milton Bearden knows a thing or two about providing arms to rebels. As a field officer in Pakistan and Afghanistan from 1986 to 1989, he oversaw the $3 billion covert program to arm the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviet occupation -- a program that has become the textbook example of how arming rebel groups can have unintended consequences once the war is over.
> 
> With the announcement that the United States is planning to begin providing small arms to rebel groups in Syria, Bearden is blunt as to what the CIA's experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s should teach us. "The lesson here is that once we start providing anything to the rebels, we better understand that if they win, we own it," he told Foreign Policy on Friday, June 14. "The big cheerleaders on the Hill for doing this aren't focused on this. The biggest lesson from the Afghan thing was that over a 10-year period we supplied all this stuff and then walked away once the Soviets left. The same Congress that was cheerleading the brave freedom fighters against the Soviet occupation -- and they were brave and they did suffer brutally -- just walked away and wouldn't give them a nickel. If we start arming anyone in this enterprise, implicit in that is that we own it once the Assad regime falls."
> 
> Bearden also believes the administration should think carefully before providing the anti-aircraft systems that the Syrian rebels have requested. "If you do, don't try to convince yourself that you're in control," he said. "It was the right thing to give the Afghans the Stinger missile. It was a moral. Otherwise, we were just fighting to the last Afghan and letting them die with a little more dignity. The Stinger did turn things around and force the Soviets to change tactics. But there are still some of those Stingers lying around over there. A shoulder-fired weapon is really something you have to contemplate. Into whose hands should they fall?"
> 
> Since last year, media reports have suggested that the CIA is already involved in "vetting" the rebel groups receiving aid from neighboring countries, separating acceptable Syrian combatants from those affiliated with al Qaeda or other anti-Western militants. In Bearden's experience, distinguishing "good" from "bad" rebels is a tricky task.
> 
> "People have criticized the CIA effort in Afghanistan because we gave weapons to Islamic fundamentalists," he said. "Well, I don't know how many Presbyterians there are over there. The implication is that if only some history professor could have told us who to give the weapons to, we would have found the Methodists and the Presbyterians. You can try, but you can't do that very well. It's their rebellion. They have their agenda. Our agenda now is to turn up the heat on Bashar al-Assad. [The rebels] have an agenda that goes beyond that, and certainly beyond what they understand on Capitol Hill."
> 
> In any event, such vetting only has limited usefulness, said Bearden, since "once you begin arming any rebellion that involves fractious parties in the same rebellion against a common enemy, you've got to understand that the materials you give to the group of your choice will be sold, traded, bartered to most of the other players."
> 
> The nature of the operation also determines the type of guns you'll want to send. In Afghanistan, the U.S. aid program was a covert operation, "even though the whole world seemed to know," Bearden said. The CIA, therefore, chose to supply the rebels with Soviet-designed AK-47s purchased from China and Egypt in order to maintain plausible deniability. But Warsaw Pact weapons also had a tactical advantage, since they were interoperable with the weapons already in the field: If the mujahideen captured a Soviet ammunition cache, they could just load the bullets into their own U.S.-provided rifles.
> 
> While this is also presumably also true for the rebels fighting Assad's Russian- and Iranian-backed military, Bearden suggests that providing the rebels with "Made in the USA" guns might be one way to control how they're used.
> 
> "Since this is not a covert thing, and we're not trying to conceal the U.S. hand in it, you can limit the mobility of the weapons you provide if you were to not use Warsaw Pact equipment," he said. "If you had a specific group you wanted to arm and not have that bleed into the other groups, you could give them U.S. equipment. The ammunition would not be interchangeable with the stuff that's on the battlefield right now. You can then control what happens by monitoring or turning on or off the supply of ammunition to those systems."
> 
> But beyond tactics, Bearden says the biggest lesson of Afghanistan is to begin planning for how to handle the aftermath -- before you start sending guns. He believes this could have saved both countries years of grief.
> 
> "We needed to say, 'You just lost a million people dead, and million and a half wounded, you have 5 million people driven out into exile in Pakistan and Iran and maybe a million and a half internally displaced persons and a totally destroyed country. We're going to help you!'" Bearden said. "There were seven separate parties, and when we walked away they did what was natural -- [they] began to fight for a very small pie. We now have had to come back in there primarily because of that and have had to spend close to $1 trillion. I have no idea what it would have cost us in 1989, but I guarantee it wouldn't be approaching $1 trillion."
> 
> Bearden also believes U.S. politicians should be under no illusions about who will ultimately be held responsible for the outcome in Syria: "Don't say, 'Oh, it's a coalition with the British and the French.' No, it's us. We had a coalition supporting the Afghans against the Soviets. We had the U.K.; we had the Saudis; we had the Chinese for God's sakes! But when it was over, we owned it. And we walked away."




I guess Joel Chandler Harris' _Uncle Remus_ tales are politically incorrect these days; that's too bad because all policy makers should be required to read the story of The Tar Baby. 







Poor _Br'er Rabbit_, trying to solve a small problem, gets stuck to
the Tar Baby and the more he flails about the worse his situation
becomes until, finally, his mortal enemy Br'er Fox comes along ...
... but that's another story with a different lesson.


----------



## CougarKing

> *U.S. puts jets in Jordan, fuels Russian fear of Syria no-fly zone*
> By Oliver Holmes
> BEIRUT | Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:06pm EDT
> 
> *(Reuters) - The United States said on Saturday it would keep F-16 fighters and Patriot missiles in Jordan at Amman's request, and Russia bristled at the possibility they could be used to enforce a no-fly zone inside Syria.*
> 
> more of the news article here.


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am amazed that the US and the West have not learned from the historical results of supplying arms to insurgents in not only SW Asia, but also South America and other hell holes, that once they are at a certain stage of their insurgency, they turn their guns on Westerners.



Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. 

Stay out of Syria.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The latest on Canada vs Syria in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-rules-out-arming-syrian-rebels-lashes-out-at-putin/article12589214/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper rules out arming Syrian rebels, lashes out at Putin
> 
> PAUL WALDIE
> DUBLIN — The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Sunday, Jun. 16 2013
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ruled out Canada’s support for arming rebel forces in Syria and lashed out at Russian President Vladimir Putin for supporting the “thugs of the Assad regime.”
> 
> “We want to see the opposition in Syria become more representative, less sectarian,” Mr. Harper told reporters after meeting Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny in Dublin. “We do worry about extremist elements in the opposition, we’re very clear about that.”
> 
> He added: “Our aid at the present time, our aid for now, will continue to be humanitarian.”
> 
> Mr. Harper’s statements comes on the eve of the G8 meeting in Northern Ireland where Syria is certain to be a major topic. The United States has said it will begin providing some weapons to the rebels after confirming that it believes the Syrian regime has used chemcials weapons. Britain and France have also said Syrian forces used chemical weapons but have yet to indicate if they will support a move to provide arms to the rebels.
> 
> Mr. Harper has agreed with the American claims of chemical weapon use, but has gone further than Britain or France in ruling out military support.
> 
> The Syrians have rejected the claims, saying the American evidence is based on lies and fabrication. Russia has also questioned the evidence and is preparing to provide weapons to the Syrian government.
> 
> “I think you will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines, in front of the public and cameras,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a joint news conference in London Sunday after meeting with British Prime Minister David Cameron. “Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons?”
> 
> Mr. Harper took exception to Mr. Putin’s stance.
> 
> "I don’t think we should fool ourselves. This is G7, plus one. That's what this is, G7 plus one," he said.
> 
> He added that the West has a very different view than the Russian President.
> 
> “Mr. Putin and his government are supporting the thugs of the Assad regime for their own reasons that I do not think are justifiable and Mr. Putin knows my view on that.”
> 
> He added that he does not believe any agreement with Mr. Putin is possible at the G8 unless he changes his position.
> 
> The Russian President is expected to meet U.S. President Barack Obama at the G8, which begins Monday at the Lough Erne resort.




One can only hope - in vain, to be sure - that other leaders would listen to Harper; they won't of course ... and see my _Tar Baby_ comment from a couple of days ago.


----------



## Nemo888

Assad and his Alawites are only 14% f the populations. With the level of violence we now see they should expect to be ethnically cleansed if they lose. This is a fight to the bitter end. There is no right side now. I may be jaded but I think the US is arming the rebels because they were losing. They are prolonging hostilities to get at an old Cold War enemy and thorn in Israel's side. 

I always though Saddam gave his chemical weapons to Assad.


----------



## CougarKing

An update at the Iran superthread that sees Iran more deeply involved in Syria than before with just its Hezbollah proxies:

Iran sends 4,000 Revolutionary Guard troops to help Assad


----------



## tomahawk6

The US should avoid the Syrian civil war.If Assad falls the islamists will take over.Right now the best thing for the US is to protect Jordan and Turkey and let the bad guys kill each other.


----------



## Haletown

Caption contest.  Because you know this is a very, very awkward moment.

"How did you end up sending weapons to Syria?"


----------



## sean m

Here is an interesting video from CFR on the threat of spillover from Syria into Iraq, Jordan and Libya. It *seems* that there is evidence that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are funding the Sunnis, perhaps it is now safe to assume that. As in this video, as well as others from various sources including Frontline, the Qataris, it *seems * from listening to these experts, are the ones who *seem * to be only funding the jihadis. There *seems* to be, I thought,  the mention that Saudi Arabia, has been funding various rebel groups with different ideologies. Does anyone possibly have an idea as to why and if so what interest Qatar has in seeming to fund only more radical jihadi groups.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq1awsHhJog


----------



## CougarKing

Since the Iranians are their main rival for influence over this region, it's not surprising that the Saudis are embroiled in this struggle for Syria as well:

link

article excerpt:


> (...)
> 
> New evidence emerged of escalating foreign support for the rebels, with a Gulf source telling Reuters that *Saudi Arabia had equipped fighters for the first time with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, their most urgent request. Rebels said Riyadh had also sent them anti-tank missiles.*
> The weapons deal was disclosed as rebel fighters confront government troops and hundreds of militants from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia seeking to retake the northern city of Aleppo, where heavy fighting resumed on Monday.
> 
> (...)


----------



## a_majoor

sean m said:
			
		

> Here is an interesting video from CFR on the threat of spillover from Syria into Iraq, Jordan and Libya. It *seems* that there is evidence that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are funding the Sunnis, perhaps it is now safe to assume that. As in this video, as well as others from various sources including Frontline, the Qataris, it *seems * from listening to these experts, are the ones who *seem * to be only funding the jihadis. There *seems* to be, I thought,  the mention that Saudi Arabia, has been funding various rebel groups with different ideologies. Does anyone possibly have an idea as to why and if so what interest Qatar has in seeming to fund only more radical jihadi groups.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq1awsHhJog



Saudi Arabia used to fund Islamic radicals to go to Afghanistan in the 1980's as a means of getting rid of them (both physically removing themselves from Saudi Arabia and with the hope that the Russians or local Muhajadin would deal with them on a more permanent basis). I imagine Quatar is thinking along the same lines, but historical examples suggest they will be having regrets in the near future....

I think the Turks may decide to get involved soon, both to clear the radicals from the Turkish border and to put a lid on the Kurds, who have essentially been given a free ride to this point and may soon link up with the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq.

This is one of those contests where the best outcome is that EVERYONE loses.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Something I never thought I would say ... Sarah Palin is right on an important foreign policy issue, here: 'Let Allah sort it out' says Palin on Syria.


----------



## AliG

Arming the rebels might end up costing much more than forecast, as extremists appear to be in ascendance in the country.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/us-syria-rebels-islamists-specialreport-idUSBRE95I0BC20130619



> Special Report: Syria's Islamists seize control as moderates dither
> 
> By Oliver Holmes and Alexander Dziadosz
> 
> ALEPPO, Syria | Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:10am EDT
> 
> (Reuters) - As the Syrian civil war got under way, a former electrician who calls himself Sheikh Omar built up a brigade of rebel fighters. In two years of struggle against President Bashar al-Assad, they came to number 2,000 men, he said, here in the northern city of Aleppo. Then, virtually overnight, they collapsed.
> 
> Omar's group, Ghurabaa al-Sham, wasn't defeated by the government. It was dismantled by a rival band of revolutionaries - hardline Islamists.
> 
> The Islamists moved against them at the beginning of May. After three days of sporadic clashes Omar's more moderate fighters, accused by the Islamists of looting, caved in and dispersed, according to local residents. Omar said the end came swiftly.
> 
> The Islamists confiscated the brigade's weapons, ammunition and cars, Omar said. "They considered this war loot. Maybe they think we are competitors," he said. "We have no idea about their goals. What we have built in two years disappeared in a single day."
> 
> The group was effectively marginalized in the struggle to overthrow Syria's President Bashar al-Assad. Around 100 fighters are all that remain of his force, Omar said.
> 
> It's a pattern repeated elsewhere in the country. During a 10-day journey through rebel-held territory in Syria, Reuters journalists found that radical Islamist units are sidelining more moderate groups that do not share the Islamists' goal of establishing a supreme religious leadership in the country.
> 
> The moderates, often underfunded, fragmented and chaotic, appear no match for Islamist units, which include fighters from organizations designated "terrorist" by the United States.
> 
> The Islamist ascendancy has amplified the sectarian nature of the war between Sunni Muslim rebels and the Shi'ite supporters of Assad. It also presents a barrier to the original democratic aims of the revolt and calls into question whether the United States, which announced practical support for the rebels last week, can ensure supplies of weapons go only to groups friendly to the West.
> 
> World powers fear weapons could reach hardline Islamist groups that wish to create an Islamic mini-state within a crescent of rebel-held territory from the Mediterranean in the west to the desert border with Iraq.
> 
> That prospect is also alarming for many in Syria, from minority Christians, Alawites and Shi'ites to tolerant Sunni Muslims, who are concerned that this alliance would try to impose Taliban-style rule.
> 
> REPROBATES AND OUTLAWS
> 
> Syria's war began with peaceful protests against Assad in March 2011 and turned into an armed rebellion a few months later following a deadly crackdown. Most of the rebel groups in Syria were formed locally and have little coordination with others. The country is dotted with bands made up of army defectors, farmers, engineers and even former criminals.
> 
> Many pledge allegiance to the notion of a unified Free Syrian Army (FSA). But on the ground there is little evidence to suggest the FSA actually exists as a body at all.
> 
> Sheikh Omar told the story of his brigade while sitting in a cramped room at his headquarters, a small one-storey building surrounded by olive tree fields in Aleppo province. Wrapped around his chest he wore a leather bandolier that held two pistols, grips pointing outwards, ready to be drawn by crossing his arms.
> 
> He said he was from a poor background in rural Aleppo province. When he and a handful of others had started a rebel group to oppose Assad, fear had made it hard to recruit. The rich and law-abiding were scared. Only outlaws and reprobates would join him at first.
> 
> "We were looking for good people. But who was willing to work for me and help me? Those who used to go to bars, to fight with people and steal. Those are the people who allied with me and fought against the regime." As he spoke some of his remaining fighters tried to interject; he silenced them, saying he wanted to be honest.
> 
> LOOTING
> 
> Ghurabaa al-Sham started with modest aims, Omar said. They would enter small police stations and negotiate a handover of weapons in return for free passage out of the area for the police.
> 
> But their numbers grew to 2,000 men, he said, and they fought battles to take border posts with Turkey and were one of the first rebel brigades to move into Aleppo, Syria's most populous city with 2.5 million inhabitants.
> 
> More than half of the city fell to the rebels, but Assad's army pushed back, fighting street by street for months. A stalemate ensued. Very little progress has been made from either side for almost a year.
> 
> Where the government forces did cede ground, Aleppo's residents did not welcome the rebels with open arms. Most fighters were poor rural people from the countryside and the residents of Aleppo say they stole. Omar acknowledged this happened.
> 
> "Our members in Aleppo were stealing openly. Others stole everything and were taking Syria's goods to sell outside the country. I was against any bad action committed by Ghurabaa al-Sham. However, things happened and opinion turned against us," he said as his men squirmed in their seats, uncomfortable with his words.
> 
> Ghurabaa al-Sham was not the only group to take the law into its own hands. In Salqin, a town in Idlib province bordering Turkey, fighters from a rebel brigade called the Falcons of Salqin have set up checkpoints at the entrances to the town.
> 
> Abu Naim Jamjoom, deputy commander of the brigade, said the rebels take a cut of any produce - food, fuel or other merchandise - that enters Salqin. The goods are distributed to the town's residents, he said, but some rebel groups steal this "tax" for themselves.
> 
> Part of the problem is that the rebel groups are poorly equipped and badly coordinated. Jamjoom said he had 45 men with guns and two homemade mortar launchers but was desperately low on ammunition. "Everything we have has been looted from the regime," he said, echoing the response of most rebel commanders when asked if they have received any outside support.
> 
> Jamjoom, who wore a blue camouflaged outfit and kept a grenade in his left pocket, said he had registered his group with the Supreme Military Council, a body set up by the U.S.-backed Syrian National Coalition of opposition groups to help coordinate rebel units.
> 
> "We haven't received any help from the military council," Jamjoom said, drinking sweet tea on the balcony of his headquarters, the house of a pro-Assad dignitary who had fled the area. "We have to depend on ourselves. I am my own mother, you could say."
> 
> He tugged at his uniform. "I bought this myself, with my money," he said. He also said his group buys weapons from other brigades, "from those who have extra." Weapons trading by rebel groups raises the risk that arms supplied by Western powers may fall into the hands of Islamist groups.
> 
> Western officials say military aid will be channeled through the Supreme Military Council. A Western security source told Reuters the council is trying to gain credibility, but as yet it has little or no authority.
> 
> Meanwhile, Jamjoom and his men were largely staying around Salqin, low on ammunition and low on energy. Inside the mansion they have commandeered, rebels lazed about on the gaudy fake-gold furniture in a room full of books, including religious texts and a copy of "The Oxford Companion to English Literature."
> 
> ISLAMIST ARBITERS
> 
> The Islamists are more energetic and better organized. The main two hardline groups to emerge in Syria are Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, an al Qaeda offshoot that has claimed responsibility for dozens of suicide bombings, including several in Damascus in which civilians were killed.
> 
> But Islamist fighters, dressed in black cotton with long Sunni-style beards, have developed a reputation for being principled. Dozens of residents living in areas of rebel-held territory across northern Syria told Reuters the same thing, whether they agreed with the politics of Jabhat al-Nusra or not: the Islamists do not steal.
> 
> Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who researches Islamic militants, said the main reason groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham have become popular is because of the social provisions they supply. "They are fair arbiters and not corrupt."
> 
> In Aleppo four Islamist brigades, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, have taken over the role of government and are providing civilians with day-to-day necessities. They have also created a court based on Islamic religious laws, or sharia.
> 
> The Aleppans call it "the Authority" and it governs anything from crimes of murder and rape to business disputes and distributing bread and water around the city. The power of such courts is growing, Authority members and rebels said, and is enforced by a body called the "Revolutionary Military Police."
> 
> At the police's headquarters, a five-storey building surrounded with sandbags, a large placard outside read: "Syrian Islamic Liberation Front." It referred to a union of several Islamist brigades, forged in October 2012, which seeks to bring together disparate fighting groups. Its Islamist emphasis has already alienated some other fighters.
> 
> The head of the Aleppo branch of the Revolutionary Military Police, Abu Ahmed Rahman, comes from Liwa al-Tawhid, the largest rebel force in Aleppo. Ostensibly al-Tawhid has pledged its support for the U.S.-recognized Syrian National Coalition, but its role in the Authority alongside Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra shows an alliance with more radical groups.
> 
> As Rahman sat at a large desk on the ground floor, people rushed in and out, asking him to stamp and sign documents. He said that the worst problem the police had encountered so far was with Ghurabaa al-Sham, who had clashed with a sub-division of Liwa al-Tahwid for control of Aleppo's industrial city, a complex of factories and office blocks sprawling over 4,000 hectares on the north-east outskirts of the city.
> 
> "Ghurabaa al-Sham fighters were annoying people, looting," he said. The industrial area offered plenty of plunder. Residents of Aleppo said rebels found machinery and equipment in the factories that could be sold in Turkey.
> 
> Rahman said the Authority summoned Ghurabaa al-Sham to a hearing but they didn't show up. "Then all the brigades went to get them. Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and other rebel units," he said.
> 
> Abu Baraa, an employee at the Authority, said: "We gathered a lot of people with guns and everything. We went to the industrial city and we arrested everyone who was there. Then we did the interrogation. Those who did not steal were set free, and the others were put in prison.
> 
> "Before this Sharia Authority, every brigade did whatever it wanted. Now they have to ask for everything. We are in charge now, God willing. We are the supervisors. If you do something wrong, you will be punished."
> 
> A POWER STRUGGLE
> 
> Members of Ghurabaa al-Sham gave a different version of events and have a different world view. "Why is the Sharia Authority allowed to control us? We didn't elect them," said Abdul-Fatah al-Sakhouri, who works in the media center for Ghurabaa al-Sham, an old taxi station in Aleppo where he and some other fighters upload videos of battles against the Syrian army onto YouTube.
> 
> Al-Sakhouri, previously a mathematics teacher, said the head of the Ghurabaa al-Sham unit in the industrial city had gone to the Authority to sort out the dispute. "Commander Hassan Jazera was there for three hours and then left. It shows that they didn't arrest him and there were no real charges against us," he said.
> 
> The dispute, Ghurabaa al-Sham fighters said, was really about power. They said their brigade, made up of fighters ranging from Islamists to secularists but all in favor of a civilian state, was not part of the Islamist alliance formed between Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and Liwa al-Tawhid.
> 
> Another member of Ghurbaa al-Sham, who called himself Omar, said the Islamist alliance wanted to weaken his group because it disagrees with Islamist ideology and seeks democracy.
> 
> Illustrating his fear of Islamist cultural restrictions, Omar said he was a fan of the American heavy metal band Metallica and pulled out a mobile phone to show a Metallica music video. The 24-year-old said Syrian businessmen once promised millions of dollars to bring Metallica to Aleppo but, in the end, the government rejected the plan.
> 
> "Jabhat al-Nusra wouldn't want this either," he said.
> 
> So far the Islamist groups have been the ones to attract outside support, mostly from private Sunni Muslim backers in Saudi Arabia, according to fighters in Syria.
> 
> With the help of battle-hardened Sunni Iraqis, these groups have been able to gain recruits. "They had military capabilities. They are actually organized and have command and control," said Zelin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
> 
> As moderate rebel groups dithered, so did their backers outside the country. Bickering among the political opposition, a collection of political exiles who have spent many years outside Syria, also presented a problem for the United States about whether there would be a coherent transition to a new government if Assad fell.
> 
> But most importantly, Western powers fear that if weapons are delivered to Syrian rebels, there would be few guarantees they would not end up with radical Islamist groups, such as Jabhat al-Nusra, who might one day use them against Western interests.
> 
> The moderates are losing ground. In many parts of rebel-held Aleppo, the red, black and green revolutionary flag which represents more moderate elements has been replaced with the black Islamic flag. Small shops selling black headbands, conservative clothing and black balaclavas have popped up around the city and their business is booming.
> 
> Reuters met several Islamist fighters who had left more moderate rebel brigades for hardline groups. One member of Ahrar al-Sham, who would only speak on condition of anonymity, said: "I used to be with the Free Syrian Army but they were always thinking about what they wanted to do in future. I wanted to fight oppression now."
> 
> (Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in Washington; Editing By Richard Woods and Simon Robinson


----------



## MilEME09

If they armed the rebels before Al-Nursra and other extremist groups gained most of the power, maybe we could have kept them in check, but those who are fighting Assad see the extremists as the only ones who can take on assad and win


----------



## PanaEng

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I think the Turks may decide to get involved soon, both to clear the radicals from the Turkish border and to put a lid on the Kurds, who have essentially been given a free ride to this point and may soon link up with the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq.


Wonder what secondary arrangements the Kurd leader in Turkey negotiated for his release - other than stopping Kurd aggression in Turkey?


----------



## tamouh

Kernewek said:
			
		

> I agree with most of your premises, but the thing that undermines it is that many, if not most of the extremists, are not Syrians. Second, while chaos can breed extremism - so can its opposite, authority. Syria was anything but chaotic prior to the onset of this war. The fact is that modern Islamic extremism is the product of history, going back far beyond the lifetime of Assad (but perhaps not his father). Whether there is a civil war today, or a peaceful handover of power in 2011 doesn't change that extremism would persist - it would merely be less obvious.
> 
> As for his hardheaded approach, I will admit that what he played a part in creating the current civil war. As the saying goes, however, it takes two to tango. If I may be hypothetical the rebels were probably better off as nonviolent protesters. However you are being very hypothetical if you believe that there is a better alternative to Assad. I certainly hope that is so, but I seriously doubt it. Given that Syria is a proxy war between the Sunni and Shia powers, each as fundamentalist as their populations will allow (or suffer), I fear a new Syrian regime would go much the same way as the new Iraqi one. However, the war is changing the current regime from within. There is no foretelling what political form Syria may take after an Assad victory. All that is certain is that the status quo is beyond retrieval.



I am going to focus on few matters pertaining to the US security. I don't think Syria in itself has any interest for Canada. This is big nations game, and I feel Canada is not in this game.

Lets take two scenarios since the beginning of the uprising in Syria (both scenarios will disregard the large casualties and human sufferings):

Scenario 1: The uprising started and brutally quelled just like happened in the 1980s. No outside force intervention. Bashar regime feels more empowered, ascertain this was an outside monopoly (always blame it on America and Israel), Iran feels confident its ally is stable and capable of continuing. Expect decades of brutal authoritarian-sectarian purging just like happened in the 1980s. Hezbollah will be strengthened, Iran strengthened and countries like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi will feel threatened. This would be big for Bashar regime, it had survived when other regimes did not.  What benefit is this for the US? This would basically keep the status quo. It may not necessarily be bad for the US, but could be an inconvenience depending on US long term strategy for the region.

Scenario 2: The current one playing in front of our eyes now. While the outcome has not been determined yet. I do feel that this scenario is working in favor of US Foreign Policy. On one hand, the Bashar regime is weakened. On the other, the war is bleeding Iranian treasury. Last, Hezbollah is being hit hard without a single bullet fired by Israel. All the US has to do now is balance the battle as it sees fit until both sides are completely weakened.

I'm going to put aside all this extremist talk because you won't find more Salafis than the Saudis and they are the US biggest allies. I'm against the notion that Saudi gets rid of its extremists by sending them to Afghan, Bosnia, Chechnya or Syria. You do need to understand how Saudi Arabia operate to know how these things work out. But to sum it up, the Afghan Mujaheddin were supported by Saudi Arabia through Pakistan in coordination with the US to exhaust the Soviets in Afghanistan. I don't believe the US had in plan for the Taliban to take over Afghanistan (rather, that was a Pakistani venture mainly to secure its Sunni border. To this day, Pakistan continues to support the Taliban even as the US forces fight against them). The latest initiative to hold peace talks with Taliban directly did not come out of thin air. This basically means Pakistan will install its puppet regime.

What is the role of Saudi Arabia or Qatar in all of this? They are the financiers, nothing more or less. I don't claim to know why Qatar wants to play big games in the region, but someone once pointed out that little countries like to feel important on the international stage. For a wealthy country like Qatar, this could be the case.


----------



## Robert0288

Wealthy countries can also toss around money to people sharing their beliefs.  Keeps your own people's conscience happy without having to expose yourself to too much risk.

As for US involvement, I would have no issue with them launching a couple cruise missiles in targeting chemical weapon stockpiles if the situation arises.


----------



## Zartan

Tiamo,

Thank you for your reply. You'll be relieved to know that I agree with your points, especially that Canada has no part in this event. I must only add that I don't believe that even were Assad to win this war, would his position in any way be strengthened. His victory can only be Pyrrhic. I can only imagine that his supporters are behind him less for charismatic reasons and more for reasons of survival. Should his side win he will remain a liability to the stability of Syria, and based upon what I've read, the fighters on the government side seem to know that (I will admit that I am limited to Robert Fisk for much of this). 

I also just want to state that it is illogical to assume that a faction at war always returns strengthened through combat experience. If that were true, Italy would have been the biggest (real) threat in Europe in 1939. In reality years of war had critically degraded the Italian military and politics to an irreparable state. I feel that Hezbollah will find itself in a similar position - win or lose. For, it is dependent on outside arms and to some extent, training. Hezbollah has lost more men in Syria than it has lost to the Israelis in my lifetime (I would guess), and losses of ammunition, weapons and experience will take a very long time to replace, especially given that Iran would be more likely to support Syria with its diminishing capital than a relatively small, albeit prominent Lebanese faction.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Prime Minister Harper has encouraged caution in dealing with the anti-Assad forces, suggesting that they are not quite that which we might expect for which we might hope. This video CAUTION - graphic illustrates why his advice is sound.

The text that accompanies the video says that one of the victims is "Syrian priest François Murad," he "was killed in Gassanieh, in northern Syria, in the convent of the Custody of the Holy Land where he had taken refuge. This is confirmed by a statement of the _Custos of the Holy Land_ sent to _Fides Agency_. The circumstances of the death are not fully understood. According to local sources, the monastery where Fr. Murad was staying was attacked by militants linked to the jihadi group Jabhat al-Nusra."

I believe - maybe just sincerely hope - that the North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian _Islamic_ region is due for a series of wars and insurrections that will put the Thirty Years War to shame in terms of both savagery and death toll and in (eventual) positive outcome. The problem, I reiterate, in not (in my opinion) Islam, itself; it is the primitive, even retarded North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian culture which still thinks that public executions like this, so called "honour killings" and female genital mutilation are cause to shout "God is great!" That culture is unacceptable in the 21st century West; either the Muslims change it or we change them ... probably into ash. In the interim we should isolate them - sell them arms, by all means, so long as they can pay cash on the barrel head, but cut off all immigration, student visas, tourism, trade and so on for a generation or two.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Prime Minister Harper has encouraged caution in dealing with the anti-Assad forces, suggesting that they are not quite that which we might expect for which we might hope. This video CAUTION - graphic illustrates why his advice is sound.
> 
> The text that accompanies the video says that one of the victims is "Syrian priest François Murad," he "was killed in Gassanieh, in northern Syria, in the convent of the Custody of the Holy Land where he had taken refuge. This is confirmed by a statement of the _Custos of the Holy Land_ sent to _Fides Agency_. The circumstances of the death are not fully understood. According to local sources, the monastery where Fr. Murad was staying was attacked by militants linked to the jihadi group Jabhat al-Nusra."
> 
> I believe - maybe just sincerely hope - that the North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian _Islamic_ region is due for a series of wars and insurrections that will put the Thirty Years War to shame in terms of both savagery and death toll and in (eventual) positive outcome. The problem, I reiterate, in not (in my opinion) Islam, itself; it is the primitive, even retarded North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian culture which still thinks that public executions like this, so called "honour killings" and female genital mutilation are cause to shout "God is great!" That culture is unacceptable in the 21st century West; either the Muslims change it or we change them ... probably into ash. In the interim we should isolate them - sell them arms, by all means, so long as they can pay cash on the barrel head, but cut off all immigration, student visas, tourism, trade and so on for a generation or two.



A JDAM dropped on that group would do the world wonders

I completely agree with you though, we should not be supporting these "liberation" movements in this country or in the wider Muslim world.  I would much rather throw my money at a group like the Assad's because at least they can be controlled.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I believe - maybe just sincerely hope - that the North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian _Islamic_ region is due for a series of wars and insurrections that will put the Thirty Years War to shame in terms of both savagery and death toll and in (eventual) positive outcome. The problem, I reiterate, in not (in my opinion) Islam, itself; it is the primitive, even retarded North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian culture which still thinks that public executions like this, so called "honour killings" and female genital mutilation are cause to shout "God is great!" That culture is unacceptable in the 21st century West; either the Muslims change it or we change them ... probably into ash. In the interim we should isolate them - sell them arms, by all means, so long as they can pay cash on the barrel head, but cut off all immigration, student visas, tourism, trade and so on for a generation or two.



I agree. The fighting/rioting taking place in North Africa and Syria may be the first shots in a Muslim version of our Protestant Reformation that tore Europe apart in the 16-17th centuries. Here the conflict is between the more modernized/secular Muslims and the Islamic fundamentalists that are trying to install a medieval theocracy.  And like Mr. Campbell said, its going to be long and bloody.


----------



## CougarKing

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I believe - maybe just sincerely hope - that the North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian _Islamic_ region is due for a series of wars and insurrections that will put the Thirty Years War to shame in terms of both savagery and death toll and in (eventual) positive outcome. The problem, I reiterate, in not (in my opinion) Islam, itself; it is the primitive, even retarded North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian culture which still thinks that public executions like this, so called "honour killings" and female genital mutilation are cause to shout "God is great!" That culture is unacceptable in the 21st century West; either the Muslims change it or we change them ... probably into ash. In the interim we should isolate them - sell them arms, by all means, so long as they can pay cash on the barrel head, but cut off all immigration, student visas, tourism, trade and so on for a generation or two.



And below is an example of the barbarism of that culture:




> *Catholic priest beheaded in Syria monastery attack*
> 2 July 2013 Last updated at 01:27 GMT
> 
> BBC link
> 
> Quote:
> 
> A Syrian Catholic priest has been beheaded by rebels at a monastery in the northern Syria, the Vatican says.
> 
> Father Francois Murad, 49, was beheaded on 23 June when militants attacked the convent where he was staying.
> 
> The Vatican news agency said the circumstances of the killing were not fully clear.
> 
> But local sources said the attackers were linked to the jihadist group known as al-Nusra Front.


----------



## a_majoor

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I agree. The fighting/rioting taking place in North Africa and Syria may be the first shots in a Muslim version of our Protestant Reformation that tore Europe apart in the 16-17th centuries. Here the conflict is between the more modernized/secular Muslims and the Islamic fundamentalists that are trying to install a medieval theocracy.  And like Mr. Campbell said, its going to be long and bloody.



I'd say it is more like the counter-reformation. The secular "opposition" is very small in influence and overall numbers; in Egypt it looks like the battle might devolve into a three way contrest between the Army, the Muslim Brotherhoods and the Salafis (who are even more radical theocratically than the Brotherhoods). For Syria the secularists have more or less been marginalized, you may eventually have to choose between a fascist "Ba'athist" state or your pick of Shiite or Sunni medieval theocracies (worst choice; the Syrian State disintegrates into ethnic and religious cantons in the manner of Bosnia; now you can have all three and a Kurdish rump state as well).

I agree that this will make the 30 years war look like a pleasant outing.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I agree that this will make the 30 years war look like a pleasant outing.




And it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch, right?  :nod:


----------



## Jed

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Prime Minister Harper has encouraged caution in dealing with the anti-Assad forces, suggesting that they are not quite that which we might expect for which we might hope. This video CAUTION - graphic illustrates why his advice is sound.
> 
> The text that accompanies the video says that one of the victims is "Syrian priest François Murad," he "was killed in Gassanieh, in northern Syria, in the convent of the Custody of the Holy Land where he had taken refuge. This is confirmed by a statement of the _Custos of the Holy Land_ sent to _Fides Agency_. The circumstances of the death are not fully understood. According to local sources, the monastery where Fr. Murad was staying was attacked by militants linked to the jihadi group Jabhat al-Nusra."
> 
> I believe - maybe just sincerely hope - that the North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian _Islamic_ region is due for a series of wars and insurrections that will put the Thirty Years War to shame in terms of both savagery and death toll and in (eventual) positive outcome. The problem, I reiterate, in not (in my opinion) Islam, itself; it is the primitive, even retarded North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian culture which still thinks that public executions like this, so called "honour killings" and female genital mutilation are cause to shout "God is great!" That culture is unacceptable in the 21st century West; either the Muslims change it or we change them ... probably into ash. In the interim we should isolate them   - sell them arms, by all means, so long as they can pay cash on the barrel head, but cut off all immigration, student visas, tourism, trade and so on for a generation or two.



We must take this approach in the West if we are to stop the insidious death of a thousand cuts that is occurring in our free world countries due to Muslim intolerance of all other faiths and non believers.


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I believe - maybe just sincerely hope - that the North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian _Islamic_ region is due for a series of wars and insurrections that will put the Thirty Years War to shame in terms of both savagery and death toll and in (eventual) positive outcome. The problem, I reiterate, in not (in my opinion) Islam, itself; it is the primitive, even retarded North African/Arab/Persian/West Asian culture which still thinks that public executions like this, so called "honour killings" and female genital mutilation are cause to shout "God is great!" That culture is unacceptable in the 21st century West; either the Muslims change it or we change them ... probably into ash. In the interim we should isolate them - sell them arms, by all means, so long as they can pay cash on the barrel head, but cut off all immigration, student visas, tourism, trade and so on for a generation or two.



You  We might both all be getting your wishes.  Interesting opinion editorial from the other day.  Thought of you ER as I read it.

If it does happen, I do hope that it goes down to the deepest darkest road of no return for all those who would flock to it's call.  They're a pack of wild animals and I hope they tear each other to pieces.

Shared under the provisions of the copyright act.  Full article and chart at story link below.



> Is Syrian-related violence the beginning of the Muslim world's Thirty Years' War?
> Posted By Thomas E. Ricks  Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 11:03 AM   Share
> By John T. Kuehn
> 
> Best Defense guest columnist
> 
> The so-called "Arab Spring" has now turned into a larger Mideast autumn that is reflecting warfare and conflict approaching the bloody religious wars that Europe went through during the 16th and 17th centuries.
> 
> We are seeing the beginning of a wider regional war along the Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus axis and beyond -- not an "axis of evil," but rather an axis of instability and conflict. It could go further, linking to similar areas of violence to the east (in Afghanistan-Pakistan) or to the west to the mess in Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa. Instead of democracy breaking out everywhere, it seems that war is breaking out everywhere. Syria is the nexus for the current dangerous inflection point. It is in many ways similar to the Netherlands of the 16th century, that area of rebellion against the Hapsburgs/Catholic Church that rocked the world for over 80 years as the Reformation swirled about.
> 
> As we all know, voices are clamoring in Washington to "make it go away." Or rather to make the critics of the Obama administration quiet down. Most recently, Secretary of State John Kerry argued for airstrikes on airfields reputedly being used by the Assad regime for combat missions, including chemical weapons attacks. Kerry's proposal was vetoed during a recent principals meeting at the White House by none other than General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So much for war-mongering generals. Additionally, in recent months, Hezbollah has entered the conflict with thousands of fighters to help retake the city of Qusayr from the Syrian insurgents. Today, Qusayr is a ghost town with fewer than 500 inhabitants. Recall, too, that Hezbollah are the same bubbas that brought us the Marine Barracks attack in 1983. Reports out today indicate that the Lebanese Army has had several firefights with local Sunnis who support the Syrian rebels. Just great, a re-ignition of the Lebanese civil war might be in the offing.
> 
> Moving to the east we find the "sectarian violence" in Iraq at levels not seen since the American surge in 2007. Could yet another civil war be igniting there -- this time absent the armed umpiring of the United States and its allies? It may already have. The link here is precisely Iran's support for the Assad regime and its client quasi-state farther south, Hezbollah. From a purely military standpoint, Tehran's line of communication with its political allies and co-religionists farther west in Syria and Lebanon runs directly through Iraq. This "rat line" is used by the Quds Force and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and has been in place in various forms ever since the U.S. invasion in 2003. See David Crist's recent book The Twilight War if you doubt me on this issue. The sectarian violence in Iraq is directly related to the Syrian violence -- make no mistake. One way for the insurgents' co-religionist Sunni allies in Iraq to influence events in Syria is to destabilize the pro-Iranian government in Baghdad. In this way they can interrupt the flow of Iranian support to both Hezbollah and Assad through Iraq.
> 
> Afghanistan? There is no need for further discussion; war continues there and is likely to continue -- although the political ties of Tehran to Kabul may strengthen given President Karzai's recent strong denunciation of U.S. efforts to include the Taliban in peace talks. Too, Iran's oil goes to India, which is also a supporter of the Kabul regime, all of which makes Pakistan the odd man out and more likely to support Sunni co-religionists and political allies represented now by insurgents in both Syria and Iraq.
> 
> What about further west? Let's see, Egypt has severed diplomatic ties with Syria, never a good sign. Further south, in the always pleasant Horn of Africa, we find U.N. personnel have been blown up in Mogadishu by al Shabab. Although clear linkages to the conflict to the northeast do not exist, the forces behind this latest attack on the international order are of a religious bent that favors the insurgent-Sunni factions. Too, this sort of violent outburst does nothing to improve the stability of this entire region. Farther west we find the arc of instability running along the Maghreb (Tunisia and Algeria) as well as splitting south through Libya to troubling events in Mali and Nigeria; the latter country is itself in a low state of civil war divided along ethno-religious lines. Finally, to the north of it all is the NATO ally and Sunni co-religionist government of Turkey, warily eying the troublemaking regime of Vlad Putin, which supports Syria. But Turkey is now distracted by widespread, Westernized demonstrations against its own attempts to impose religious conservatism. None of this can be comforting for the major powers, which all have a stake in the Middle East and Africa. Get the picture? Heated outbursts to quiet political audiences are probably -- as Dempsey pointed out to Secretary Kerry -- ill-advised.
> 
> This regional conflict is not just about religion, nor is it all about longstanding political relationships and ethnic tensions -- it is all of the above. I am compelled to ask, what should the United States do that it is not already doing? This presupposes I know the range of action the U.S. government is already engaged in, but I would suggest these steps -- whatever they are -- are probably sufficient for now. Those who predicted the Arab Spring turning into a messy regional war were right. It has arrived.
> 
> This is the time for calm heads to prevail and avoid a much larger general war, but first we must recognize the real potential for this mess to turn into something along the lines of Europe's own wars of religion, something like the grim and destructive Thirty Years' War that began with a "Prague Spring" in 1618.
> 
> John T. Kuehn has taught military history at the Command and General Staff College since 2003 and retired from the Navy as a commander in 2004. He earned his Ph.D. in history from Kansas State University in 2007. He graduated with distinction from Naval Postgraduate School in 1988. He won the Society of Military History Moncado Prize in 2010 and is the author of Agents of Innovation (2008), Eyewitness Pacific Theater (with D.M. Giangreco, 2008), and numerous articles and editorials.
> 
> http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/27/is_syrian_related_violence_the_beginning_of_the_muslim_worlds_thirty_years_war


----------



## OldSolduer

I've just seen the video. I am disgusted, but in no way surprised that these.....whatever they are....would do something like this and air it publicly .

I don't know where this priest was from, but if I were the PM or the leader of that nation, I'd be having a quiet meeting with my Defence Minister, CDS or equivalent and my Spec Ops people.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says that "Canada will accept as many as 1,300 Syrian refugees by the end of 2014."

This is, no doubt, well intentioned, but I hope we all remember what was used to pave the road to hell.

Refugees are, by defition, people who flee their homes in real fear of life or limb. They need and deserve protection. But refugees, also by definition, want to return home. They should, therefore, be protected and cared for as close as possible to the homes from which they fled.

Canada is a rich, generous country; we should promise to take care of more than 1,300 Syrian refugees but we should do so in camps in the Middle East: in Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. We should offer to build and operate first rate, safe, secure camps there - with good schools, adequate medical facilities and, to the extent possible, real jobs for the refugees, themselves.

But we should not bring them to Canada. They are refugees, *not immigrants*; if they applied as potential immigrants it is very likely that the vast majority of the 1,300 would not be accepted because they are unlikely to adapt well to life in Canada as immigrants; they are equally unlikely to adapt well to life in Canada as refugees.


----------



## OldSolduer

:goodpost:

Well said Mr. Campbell


----------



## CougarKing

A US Senator wants more than a no-fly zone for Syria; he wants the US military to essentially be the close air support for the Syrian rebels.

Defense News link



> *Key White House Ally Wants 'Targeted' Strikes in Syria*
> 
> WASHINGTON — The United States should press Syria and Russia to enter into talks to end the Syrian civil war, including “targeted” strikes on Bashar al-Assad’s military forces, a White House ally said Tuesday.
> 
> *Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, an influential Obama administration ally on Capitol Hill, is calling for America and its allies to conduct “limited, targeted strikes at Assad’s apparatus of terror, including airplanes, helicopters, missiles, tanks and artillery.”*
> 
> Such strikes should be “coordinated with the actions of the Syrian opposition on the ground,” the Michigan Democrat said in a joint statement with fellow SASC member Angus King, I-Maine.
> 
> “Such strikes could degrade Assad’s military capabilities, bring some relief to the embattled Syrian people, show we are serious,” said Levin and King.
> 
> The duo just returned from a swing through the Middle East, where they huddled with several anti-Assad leaders.
> 
> *Levin and King would like to see the establishment of a “broad international coalition” that would pressure Assad and his forces.*  They believe a coalition would “boost the morale of the Free Syrian Army, and hopefully bring the Assad regime to the negotiating table.”
> 
> In the statement, the senators note that the White House’s previously announced plans to train and equip “properly-vetted members of the Syrian opposition are underway.”
> 
> “We believe that these efforts should be expanded to help the Syrian people succeed in doing what only they can do — freeing their country from Assad’s brutal regime,” said Levin and King.
> 
> But, they say, more is needed.
> 
> “The asymmetric insurgent tactics of the opposition may not be sufficient to convince Assad that he cannot prevail,” the US lawmakers say, “even with the more lethal weapons which are now coming into the opposition’s possession.”
> 
> *By stating he supports US military strikes in Syria, the typically measured Levin is joining Washington interventionists like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has long called for American military action to end the bloody civil conflict.*
> 
> But, like McCain and others, Levin and King oppose putting American troops on the ground to tip the balance toward opposition forces.
> 
> “We are not calling for American boots on the ground, but rather for supporting the Syrian people’s struggle by helping to train and equip them and by forming a broad international coalition to increase the military pressure on the Assad regime,” the senators said.
> 
> “That is the best way to promote a negotiated transition to a Syria with a constitutional, legitimate government that protects its people instead of attacking them,” Levin and King said.
> 
> The two lawmakers made clear Washington should do more to end the fighting, which some independent groups say has claimed over 100,000 lives. Levin and King on Tuesday called for the US to take the lead in an international effort.
> 
> “We call upon the Administration to convene a meeting of the political, military and intelligence leaders of countries committed to the end of the Assad regime,” they said. “The objective of this summit should be to develop specific options and plans for a range of contingencies and to enlist firm commitments from our friends and allies, so that the Assad regime and its supporters will understand the seriousness of purpose of this joint effort.”
> 
> *If a US-led coalition were to force the embattled Assad from power, Levin and King want diplomats from across the region and globe to craft a plan to ensure the country avoids political chaos, and does not become an al-Qaida base.*
> 
> Experts say both would deliver a major blow to American interests in the Middle East.
> 
> “Unless there is a planned transition to an inclusive political and military structure to provide a secure and stable follow-on to Assad, a longer civil war could replace the current conflict,” Levin and King said.
> 
> “Such a war would bring unspeakable suffering to the Syrian people, could spread through the region, and could create safe havens from which al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations could again bring suffering and terror to the United States and our friends and allies,” the senators said. “The best way to prevent this is a negotiated end to the current hostilities.”
> 
> Any US military involvement in the kinds of “targeted strikes” called for by Levin and King would come with a hefty price.
> 
> As America learned with the Libya intervention, even modern-day aerial bombardments from aircraft and naval vessels are extremely costly. The cost of the Libya mission was around $1 billion, according to Pentagon data released in 2011.
> 
> Congressional sources are mixed about whether a new 2013 emergency spending measure tailored specifically for a Syrian effort would be needed. Some say it would depend on the shape and duration — as well as the level of direct US military involvement — of such a mission.


----------



## tomahawk6

Unless Syria was going to use chemical or biological weapons,I would not favor airstrikes in support of the anti-Assad forces. I don't care for the islamist involvement in the revolution.Should they drive Assad out,Israel will have another radical regime on its border to deal with.


----------



## CougarKing

Seems like the interventionists like Levin won't rest till they get what they want... 

Yikes!

Defense News link



> *US Senator Calls for Multinational Summit To Craft Syrian Strike Options*
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — A prominent US senator on Wednesday called for a multinational summit of military and intelligence officials to draw up plans for “limited actions” in Syria.
> 
> *Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., just returned from meetings with Turkish and Jordanian leaders. Those talks led the veteran senator to conclude that military strikes by the United States and its Middle Eastern allies are “the only way” to bring an end to the years-old Syrian civil war.*
> 
> “Increased military pressure on Assad is the only way to achieve a negotiated settlement in Syria, which in turn is needed to restore stability to a region that certainly doesn’t need any more instability,” Levin said during a morning speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank here.
> 
> *For that reason, Levin is pushing the Obama administration to huddle with Washington’s allies in the Middle East to begin crafting options for military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces.*
> 
> The administration should “begin this process by convening a meeting of the political, military and intelligence leaders of countries committed to the end of the Assad regime,” Levin said.
> 
> “The objective would be to develop specific options and plans for a range of contingencies and to enlist commitments from our coalition partners, so that the Assad regime and its supporters will understand the seriousness of purpose of this joint effort,” the SASC chairman and Senate Intelligence Committee member said.
> 
> Levin told a packed room that he supports reported Obama administration plans to arm rebel forces. Several media reports this week indicate members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees are blocking those plans due to a list of concerns.
> 
> *“The United States should join with other members of the so-called ‘London 11,’ including a number of Arab countries in the region who openly oppose the Assad regime, to comprehensively plan additional steps to up the military pressure on the Assad regime,”* Levin said.
> 
> 
> (...)


----------



## a_majoor

I suspect there won't be many takers.

Even if there is a response, the Turks might decide that striking the Kurdish rump is much more pressing than striking the Assad regime, while the Gulf States will be pressing support to their co religionists (who are generally the radicals as well), leaving Jordan and the United States to weild a big stick for a very small fraction of the opposition.

Better to seal the borders and walk away....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not so sure about that. I am thinking the Kurds are awakening to the fact that Turkey is worth more as an ally than an enemy. The pieces are forming to allow a "Greater Kurdistan" to form out of Syria and Iraq. For it to be viable, they will need Turkey to be an reliable economic link. The withdrawal of the PPK from Turkey went fairly well and if the moderates and long term thinkers on the Kurdish side can keep them under control, then Turkey has no immediate cause to attack the Kurds. the key issue will be if the Kurds can convince the Turks that the creation of a Greater Kurdistan will not threaten to cleave off chunks of Turkey with it. Hopefully the Kurds can do that and are smart enough to go with the birds in the hand rather than the whole bush. I see Kurdistan as a likely positive in the region, they will not be interested in undermining anyone other than Iran (in regards to the Kurds there) and will quietly support Israel, the west and Turkey.


----------



## GR66

I'll eat my hat if Turkey ever willingly accepts the creation of a "Greater Kurdistan" regardless of any and all claims by Kurds that they have no intentions to include the Kurdish areas of Turkey.  It would in one stroke both give Kurdish separatists a clear goal for their struggle and also undermine Turkish objections to Kurdish separatism (since they would have already shown their support for the idea of an independent Kurdish state).

That being said I also don't see any great incentive for Turkey to act aggressively against the Kurds either.  The Kurds are in a pretty strong political position right now and are getting international support by not looking like bad guys making trouble in Turkey.  If the Turks start bombing them they will look like aggressors at the same time as they are facing international pressure over their own internal unrest.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

True there is are lot's of ways for this train to derail, but a Kurdistan would likely also be a sanctuary for a lot of the other minorities in the region and if it's economy picks up enough, Turkey is going to engage because it would be well positioned to make money off of them. I suspect that what will happen is within a decade, the 2 autonomous zones in Syria and Iraq slowly melding together with a border between in name only, followed by an "referendum"  and an announcement that they will become independent. I suspect they will make quiet gestures to the West and Russia beforehand to get the politically, financial and some military support they will need. At that point neither Iraq or Syria will be in a position to contest the outcome. 
I suspect Iraq will be to busy suppressing it's Sunni's and won't be able to fight on two fronts. The other wild car is Iran, who would fear it's own Kurds will get idea's and they might try to derail everything. However they might be to busy with the Baluch in the south who seeing Kurdish success will want the same. That's where a good chunk of Iran's oil/gas comes from as I recall and might force them to use their resource to hold that, weakening their ability to suppress the Kurds.


----------



## CougarKing

Is it just me or isn't there a parallel with this to the time Al Qaeda assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, just before 9/11?  



> *New front opens in Syria as rebels say al Qaeda attack means war*
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - *The assassination of a top Free Syrian Army commander by militants linked to al Qaeda is tantamount to a declaration of war*, FSA rebels on Friday, opening a new front between Western-backed forces and Islamists in Syria's civil war.
> 
> The announcement is the latest sign of disarray in the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has regained the upper hand more than two years into an insurgency that grew out of Arab Spring-inspired pro-democracy protests.
> 
> It follows growing rivalries between the FSA and the Islamists, who have sometimes joined forces on the battlefield, and coincides with attempts by the Western and Arab-backed FSA to allay fears any U.S.-supplied arms might reach al Qaeda.
> 
> read more: link


----------



## OldSolduer

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Is it just me or isn't there a parallel with this to the time Al Qaeda assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, just before 9/11?



Good point, I didn't know that.

Syria was a mess already.......this makes it worse IMO.


----------



## sean m

@ Mr.SMA and others,

If these recent event is tied to that of Shah Massoud and the Taliban.  Can anyone here possibly reason why the jiihadis in Syria maybe  following the same path as those wo fought in Afghanistan? Why are Syrian jihadists possibly opening a second confrontation with the FSA when they are alteady facing Assads forces with support from Hezbollah and Iran.Why now when it might be possible to assume that the battle is far from over?


----------



## a_majoor

The short answer is the Jihadis have a much different end state in mind than either Assad and the Ba'athists or the secular/Sunni moderate majority. 

The other answer might be that they seek to eliminate Western influence in Syria, and since the conduit for Western aid is the FSA, cutting the head of the FSA off may well prevent the FSA from being an effective force, and causing the Western powers to lose the ability to influence events. This is probably much more true today than in 2002, the Afghan Northern Alliance was much stronger and more cohesive than the FSA, and had the wherewithal to operate as the ground troops for the American campaign (backed with 250 SF and SoF operators and an armada of aircraft).

Even if the West was willing to commit that level of resources to the Syrian civil war, the FSA could not provide the manpower and fighting power to take the role of the Northern Alliance, and the Jihadis will see to it that this will not happen.

Destruction of the FSA and a devolution of the Civil War into a grinding WWI style fight isn't considered a "bug" in the plans of the Jihadis, they may see it as a feature to bleed the Apostate Shia's, provide opportunities to glory in Martyrdom and reshape the rest of the ME towards their desired end state.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

If anyone is as bored as I am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecuTPOZSx4I

Educational, yet entertaining


----------



## sean m

@ Mr. Thucydides,

Thank you for your response. If the jihadis are seeking to eliminate the FSA due to the possible belief that the FSA may be support ed by the West. Does abyone here believe that these extremists have the manpower to support such a conflict with both FSA and Assad forces? What of the Kurds, does anyone have an idea how they may react to the Jabhat Al Nusra, if the jihadis gain the upper hand?


----------



## sean m

Here is a report from the *Long War Journal *concerning the killing Kamal Hamami by Jabhat Al Nusra. The FSA is demanding the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader,  to face justice, the leader is Abu al Baghdadi. 

Here is their report.

"Several days ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, the rogue al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, murdered Kamal Hamami, a Free Syria Army military commander who also was a member of the US-backed Supreme Military Council. From Al Jazeera:

Kamal Hamami, a member of the FSA's Supreme Military Council, known as Abu Basir, was killed in the Turkmen mountains near the northern city of Latakia, spokesman Louay Meqdad told Al Jazeera on Friday.
Meqdad said the commander was killed after a heated debate with a local leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in which the leader called the FSA "infidels".

Hamami's brother, who was travelling in the car with him, was also killed, the spokesman said. The brothers and a third man had been on a surveillance mission before a planned attack on government forces, Meqdad said.

A third man was allowed to leave to report the killings.

Another FSA spokesman, Qassem Saadeddine, said the group phoned him to admit the killing.

"[They said] that they will kill all of the Supreme Military Council," Saadeddine said from Syria.

The Free Syrian Army issued an ultimatum to the ISIL: turn over Abu Ayman al Baghdadi, the al Qaeda emir in the Latakia region who executed the FSA commander, or face "justice." The FSA spokesman interviewed by Al Jazeera in the video above makes some bold threats, and then predictably makes a plea to the "international community" to arm the rebels.

"We demand that the international community supply us with arms to get rid of this disease," he says at the end of the interview.

The ISIL was given 24 hours to hand over Abu Ayman al Baghdadi. That deadline has now passed.

It is unlikely that the FSA will turn its guns on the ISIL given the latter's strengths, and the lack of a coherent command structure in the FSA, a hodgepodge of various brigades, many of which are quite friendly to the ISIL and al Qaeda's official affiliate, the Al Nusrah Front. FSA units often fight alongside the Al Nusrah Front against the Syrian military, and some top FSA leaders are sympathetic to or downright supportive of al Qaeda. Also, in the unlikely event of an all-out clash with the FSA, the ISIL will be able to call on other nonaligned Syrian Islamist brigades, and would probably receive support from the Al Nusrah Front, if the FSA decided to make good on its threat.

Additionally, the killing of commanders and fighters by rival rebel groups is nothing new in Syria. Islamists have killed FSA commanders in the past, and vice versa. These incidents often occur due to local rivalries and competition for resources, not for ideological reasons. In this recent killing of an FSA commander, the issue wasn't ideology, but access to a checkpoint in order to deploy forces."


----------



## CougarKing

Seems the Israeli Navy got their money's worth for those German-made _Dolphin_ class subs which can launch land-attack SSMS. A test-run for a future strike against Iran?



> *Report: Israeli submarine strike hits Syrian arms depot*
> Jerusalem Post link
> 07/14/2013 09:20
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Three unnamed US officials told CNN the IAF had* targeted Russian-made Yakhont anti-ship missiles that could pose a threat to Israel*.
> 
> (snipped)
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Qassem Saadeddine, spokesman for the Free Syrian Army’s Supreme Military Council, said *the pre-dawn attack hit Syrian Navy barracks at Safira, near the port of Latakia.* The rebel forces’ intelligence network had identified newly supplied Yakhont missiles being stored there, he said.
> 
> “It was not the FSA that targeted this,” Saadeddine told Reuters. “It is not an attack that was carried out by rebels. *This attack was either by air raid or long-range missiles fired from boats in the Mediterranean.”*


----------



## a_majoor

Maybe, but sailing up the Persian Gulf has a few particular dangers for submariners, including heavy ship traffic and the water being shallow enough that the sub might actually be visually spotted lurking under the surface.

Still, having options is always good, and havibg more options is even better.


----------



## tomahawk6

Israel has to act on its own where their security is concerned.With a civil war going on in Syria and a military takeover in Egypt there has to be concern in Tel Aviv.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Israel has to act on its own where their security is concerned.With a civil war going on in Syria and a military takeover in Egypt there has to be concern in Tel Aviv.



I'm sure there is some degree of concer. But the more unrest in those countries the better for Isreal. Unless of course new hard liners come to power. I think the real concern for Isreal is Iran. Hopefully Iran doesn't become a member the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Otherwise, IMO Isreal will have a less consequence free ability to act.


----------



## CougarKing

A repost: the Pakistani Taliban join the war against Assad, and add to the ranks of the radical Islamist rebel factions.  



> *Pakistan Taliban set up camps in Syria, join anti-Assad war*
> alarabiya.net
> 14 July 2013
> <snipped>
> 
> 
> Quote
> 
> Taliban commanders in Pakistan said they had also decided to join the cause, saying hundreds of fighters had gone to Syria to fight alongside their “Mujahedeen friends.”
> 
> “When our brothers needed our help, we sent hundreds of fighters along with our Arab friends,” one senior commander told Reuters, adding that the group would soon issue videos of what he described as their victories in Syria.


----------



## tomahawk6

Now where are the Chechens ?


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> A repost: the Pakistani Taliban join the war against Assad, and add to the ranks of the radical Islamist rebel factions.




Which is precisely why Prime Minister Harper urged great caution in dealing with these slugs. We may not like Assad, but we're going to like the next lot even less.

The corect course of action is _isolation_ ~ by all means sell arms, if that's your game, to all sides, but don't put even the tiniest scintilla of hope that any outcome is going to be better than the _status quo ante_.


----------



## Edward Campbell

And now the New York Times reports that "After leading a determined push with France to remove legal hindrances to arming Syria’s rebels, Britain is apparently signaling a more cautious approach, even as British newspaper reports say Prime Minister David Cameron has retreated from the idea altogether."

The FSA ~ whatever the FSA might be ~ still has a loud cheering section in Washington and France, of course, will sell any weapon to any thug with cash. But, maybe, cooler heads will prevail and we will just let Arab kill Arab using whatever tools are at hand. The outcome doesn't really matter.


----------



## sean m

Here is an article about clashes between Kurds and Islamists, the Kurds seemed to have managed to push the islamists out of an area. The article mentions the dispute between the groups over cultural values, Secularism vs Islam.  If the conflict in Syria goes in favour of the Islamists and they begin targeting the Kurds and other minorities much more violently, does anyone here believe that the West should intervene, if the Assad regime falls? Would anyone here be possibly more willing to have the West arm the Kurds who are against Assad, since perhaps they share similar values as us. Here is the article 


http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/76750/World/Region/Kurds-expel-jihadists-from-flashpoint-Syrian-town-.aspx

Here is a video of fighting between Kurds and Islamists

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-rP8MUH8oEE


----------



## a_majoor

The problem is there are so many overlapping but non contiguous lines in the current middle east.

Arming the Kurds would certainly be opposed by the Turks, and I imagine the Iranians might not be too happy about that either. The Turks are still nominally our allies and share some of the Western values, while the Iranians are currently our enemies, and so are the Jihadis (who hate the Iranians as Apostates and Persians). Assad is certainly not our friend, and neither are the Russians (who support him). Many of the Jihadis are supported by Saudi and Gulf State money, yet they are notionally our friends. We don't like the Muslim Brotherhoods, but their members have gone to Syria to fight Assad...

This is one of those contests where you really want everyone to lose...


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The problem is there are so many overlapping but non contiguous lines in the current middle east.
> 
> Arming the Kurds would certainly be opposed by the Turks, and I imagine the Iranians might not be too happy about that either. The Turks are still nominally our allies and share some of the Western values, while the Iranians are currently our enemies, and so are the Jihadis (who hate the Iranians as Apostates and Persians). Assad is certainly not our friend, and neither are the Russians (who support him). Many of the Jihadis are supported by Saudi and Gulf State money, yet they are notionally our friends. We don't like the Muslim Brotherhoods, but their members have gone to Syria to fight Assad...
> 
> This is one of those contests where you really want everyone to lose...



 :goodpost:

I think Thucydides has summed up the situation very well.


----------



## a_majoor

Very long article in Wired Magazine on the DIY armourers who supply the various Syrian opposition groups with weapons and bombs. The level of inginuity and effort are quite high, although the tactical application isn't to the same standard (perhaps thankfully. About 2/3 of the way into the article is an account of one unit using these devices; they fail to follow through with an attack once they make a breach with a large IED and improvised grenades, but take a lunch break instead...)

Follow the link: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/diy-arms-syria/


----------



## CougarKing

It seems the interventionists continue to have an influence on Obama. After all, he did involve the US in the Libyan conflict, which was similar in some respects. As others have strongly emphasized on this thread, if he listens to the interventionists and leads the US into this mess, it will be a BIG mistake...



> *Top US military officer says Obama administration considering use of military force in Syria*
> The Canadian Press
> 
> link
> 
> WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military officer told a Senate panel Thursday that the Obama administration is deliberating whether to use military power in Syria, where a civil war entering its third year has killed almost 93,000 people.
> 
> Amid an increasing clamour among President Bashir Assad's opposition for active U.S. involvement, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said during congressional testimony that he has provided President Barack Obama with options for the use of force.  But he declined to detail those choices, saying "it would be inappropriate for me to try to influence the decision with me rendering an opinion in public about what kind of force we should use."
> 
> The remarks by the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman came after Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican, asked him which approach in Syria would carry a greater risk: continued limited action on the part of Washington or more significant actions such as the establishment of a no-fly zone and arming the rebel forces with the weapons they need to stem the advance of President Bashar Assad's forces.
> 
> "Senator, I am in favour of building a moderate opposition and supporting it," Dempsey said. "The question whether to support it with direct kinetic strikes ... is a decision for our elected officials, not for the senior military leader of the nation."
> 
> The use of kinetic strikes, a military term that typically refers to missiles and bombs, "is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government," Dempsey said.
> 
> Asked about Dempsey's comments, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama always asks his military commanders for options "and that is true in an arena like Syria." He said the president is constantly reviewing U.S. options in Syria
> 
> "There are a whole range of options that are out there," Navy Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said of the planning for military action in Syria. "We are ready to act if we're called on to act."
> 
> McCain later told a group of reporters he plans to block Dempsey's confirmation, saying he was dissatisfied with the answers to the questions Dempsey was asked about Syria.
> 
> I want to see him answer the question," McCain said. "Hello!"
> 
> Seeking a compromise, Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat and the committee chairman, asked Dempsey to provide the panel by early next week with an unclassified list of options and the general's assessment of the pros and cons of each. Levin made clear he is not asking Dempsey to share his personal opinion on whether or not to use force in Syria. Dempsey agreed to provide the list.
> 
> Levin said he hoped the assessment from Dempsey would give McCain "greater reassurance."
> 
> "I don't know if it will, but that was the way in which I think a legitimate issue needs to be addressed," Levin told reporters
> 
> Dempsey acknowledged in response to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, that Assad's forces have the upper hand in Syria.
> 
> "Currently the tide seems to have shifted in his favour," the general said.
> 
> The Armed Services Committee is considering Dempsey's and Winnefeld's nominations for a second term. The Democratic-led committee is all but certain to approve the reappointments.
> 
> Leading senators including Levin and McCain, have been pressing Obama to take a more forceful approach to defeat Assad's forces. While the administration has authorized lethal aid to rebel forces battling Assad's troops, it isn't trying to enforce a no-fly zone in which Syria's combat aircraft would be barred from flying, or otherwise intervene militarily to halt the war.
> 
> To avoid getting drawn deeper into Syria's civil war, administration officials have pointed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 as an example of what can go wrong when America's military becomes involved in Middle East conflicts.
> 
> "We've rushed to war in this region in the past. We're not going to do it here," Obama's chief of staff, Denis McDonough, said Sunday on CBS television's "Face the Nation."
> 
> During his exchange with McCain, Dempsey said "situations can be made worse by the introduction of military force" without first understanding how the country would continue to govern and ensuring that government institutions don't fail.
> 
> Dempsey's first term as chairman has been a turbulent one with the military drawing down from lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, he has had to grapple with billions of dollars in budget cuts that have threatened military readiness, the epidemic of sexual assaults in the ranks, the crisis in Syria, and most recently unrest in Egypt.
> 
> __
> 
> Associated Press writers Robert Burns and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> It seems the interventionists continue to have an influence on Obama. After all, he did involve the US in the Libyan conflict, which was similar in some respects. As others have strongly emphasized on this thread, if he listens to the interventionists and leads the US into this mess, it will be a BIG mistake...


----------



## a_majoor

But when a Republican President intervenes it's a _bad_ thing....

Correct answer: It's ALWAYS a bad thing unless you are willing to go all the way to WWII levels of involvement


----------



## sean m

Here is an interesting article from Foreign Affairs Magazine. It discusses the importance of the Syrian military officrr corps and why the officers have mostly remained faithful to the Assads. It doesnt seem, from what the experts are saying,  that the Syrian military officers will be changing allegiances any time soon.

http://m.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139585/zoltan-barany/general-failure-in-syria


----------



## CougarKing

I wasn't aware there was a even internal rift among the Shiites in Iraq and Iran. It seems this Syria War is not just about conflict that pits different Islamic sects against each other (e.g. Sunni vs. Shiite) but conflict within sects as well (e.g. Shiite Najaf vs Shiite Qom in Iraq). So this Syria conflict will be much like the Thirty Years' War of the 1600s then, as some pointed out. 

link



> *Syria war widens rift between Shi'ite clergy in Iraq, Iran*
> Reuters
> 
> By Suadad al-Salhy
> 
> NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - *The civil war in Syria is widening a rift between top Shi'ite Muslim clergy in Iraq and Iran who have taken opposing stands on whether or not to send followers into combat on President Bashar al-Assad's side.
> 
> Competition for leadership of the Shi'ite community has intensified since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 toppled Saddam Hussein, empowering majority Shi'ites through the ballot box and restoring the Iraqi holy city of Najaf to prominence.*
> 
> In Iran's holy city of Qom, senior Shi'ite clerics, or Marjiiya, have issued fatwas (edicts) enjoining their followers to fight in Syria, where mainly Sunni rebels are fighting to overthrow Assad, whose Alawite sect derives from Shi'ite Islam.
> 
> Shi'ite militant leaders fighting in Syria and those in charge of recruitment in Iraq say the number of volunteers has increased significantly since the fatwas were pronounced.
> 
> Tehran, Assad's staunchest defender in the region, has drawn on other Shi'ite allies, including Lebanese militia Hezbollah.
> 
> *Hezbollah's open intervention earlier this year hardened the sectarian tone of a conflict that grew out of a peaceful street uprising against four decades of Assad family rule, and shifted the battlefield tide in the Syrian government's favor.
> 
> The Syrian war has polarized Sunnis and Shi'ites across the Middle East - but has also spotlighted divisions within each of Islam's two main denominations, putting Qom and Najaf at odds and complicating intra-Shi'ite relations in Iraq.*
> 
> In Najaf, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who commands unswerving loyalty from most Iraqi Shi'ites and many more worldwide, has refused to sanction fighting in a war he views as political rather than religious.
> 
> *Despite Sistani's stance, some of Iraq's most influential Shi'ite political parties and militia, who swear allegiance to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have answered his call to arms and sent their disciples into battle in Syria.*
> 
> "Those who went to fight in Syria are disobedient," said a senior Shi'ite cleric who runs the office of one of the top four Marjiya in Najaf.
> 
> "SHI'ITE CRESCENT"
> 
> The split is rooted in a fundamental difference of opinion over the nature and scope of clerical authority.
> 
> Najaf Marjiiya see the role of the cleric in public affairs as limited, whereas in Iran, the cleric is the Supreme Leader and holds ultimate spiritual and political authority in the "Velayet e-Faqih" system ("guardianship of the jurist").
> 
> "The tension between the two Marjiiya already existed a long time ago, but now it has an impact on the Iraqi position towards the Syria crisis," a senior Shi'ite cleric with links to Marjiiya in Najaf said on condition of anonymity.
> 
> "If both Marjiiya had a unified position (toward Syria), we would witness a position of (Iraqi) government support for the Syrian regime".
> 
> *The Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad says it takes no sides in the civil war, but the flow of Iraqi militiamen across the border into Syria has compromised that official position.
> 
> Khamenei and his faithful in Iraq and Iran regard Syria as a important link in a "Shi'ite Crescent" stretching from Tehran to Beirut through Baghdad and Damascus, according to senior clerics and politicians.*
> 
> *Answering a question posted on his website by one of his followers regarding the legitimacy of fighting in Syria, senior Iraq Shi'ite cleric Kadhim al-Haeari, who is based in Iran, described fighting in Syria as a "duty" to defend Islam.
> 
> Militants say that around 50 Iraqi Shi'ites fly to Damascus every week to fight, often alongside Assad's troops, or to protect the Sayyida Zeinab shrine on the outskirts of the capital, an especially sacred place for Shi'ites.*
> 
> "I am following my Marjiiya. My spiritual leader has said fighting in Syria is a legitimate duty. I do not pay attention to what others say," said Ali, a former Mehdi army militant who was packing his bag to travel from Iraq to Syria.
> 
> "No one has the right to stop me. I am defending my religion, my Imam's daughter Sayyida Zeinab's shrine."
> 
> A high-ranking Shi'ite cleric who runs the office of one of the four top Marjiiya in Najaf said the protection of Shi'ite shrines in Syria was used as a pretext by Iran to galvanize Shi'ites into action.
> 
> *"SHI'ITE PROJECT"
> 
> In the 10 years since Saddam's fall, Iran's influence in Iraq has grown and it has sought to gain a foothold in Najaf in particular.
> 
> Senior Iranian clerics have opened offices in Najaf, as well as non-governmental organizations, charities and cultural institutions, most of which are funded directly by Marjiiya in Iran, or the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, local officials said.*
> 
> The Iranian flag flies over a two-storey building in an upscale neighborhood of Najaf, which houses the "Imam Khomeini Institution", named after the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
> 
> The Imam Khomeini Institution is one of many Iranian entities that have engaged in social activities in Iraq, focusing on young men, helping them get married, and paying regular stipends to widows, orphans and students of religion.
> 
> Some institutions also support young clerics and fund free trips for university students to visit Shi'ite shrines in Iran, including a formal visit to Khamenei's office in Tehran, Shi'ite politicians with knowledge of the activities say.
> 
> "We have a big project in Iraq aimed at spreading the principles of Velayet e-Faqih and the young are our target," a high-ranking Shi'ite leader who works under Khamenei's auspices said on condition of anonymity.
> 
> "We are not looking to establish an Islamic State in Iraq, but at least we want to create revolutionary entities that would be ready to fight to save the Shi'ite project".
> 
> (Editing by Isabel Coles and Mark Heinrich)


----------



## Old Sweat

According to this story from Fox News reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has outlined five possible options for US intervention in Syria.

Dempsey outlines Syria options, including deployment of ‘thousands’ of ground forces

Published July 23, 2013 
FoxNews.com

The nation's top military officer has laid out five options the Obama administration is considering on Syria, including "limited" strikes against the Assad regime and an all-out campaign to secure chemical weapons that includes "thousands" of U.S. forces. 

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the options in a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich. The letter was sent as, on the other side of the Hill, the House Intelligence Committee signed off on the administration's call to arm the Syria opposition -- though the committee, which held that up for weeks, continued to voice reservations. 

Dempsey's letter, released Monday, went far beyond arming the opposition in outlining potential options. He sent the letter after taking heat at last week's confirmation hearing from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who pressed Dempsey for his advice on Syria while suggesting the administration had not done enough -- McCain threatened to place a hold on Dempsey's nomination until he got answers. 

In the letter, Dempsey gave five options on Syria beyond providing humanitarian assistance, which the U.S. already is doing. 

At the least invasive end, he said, is the option of training, advising and assisting the rebels. The next level up would be conducting limited strikes on "high-value regime" military targets. 

The three other options are increasingly costly and risky. 

They include: 

 A no-fly zone, which according to Dempsey could cost up to a billion dollars per month and would include shooting down regime aircraft and conducting strikes on their airfields. 

 The establishment of "buffer zones," which would be "specific geographic areas" where the opposition would safely organize and train. This would require thousands of U.S. ground forces, Dempsey said, "even if positioned outside Syria," to protect these zones. 

 A campaign to secure chemical weapons. This would entail destroying portions of Syria's stockpile, interdicting shipments and seizing other components. At minimum, Dempsey said, this would include a no-fly zone and thousands of special operations and other forces to secure critical sites. 

Dempsey stressed that these are just options that have been prepared, and that some options "may not be feasible in time or cost." 

On another front, the House Intelligence Committee gave tentative approval toward arming the opposition. 

Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said that despite "very strong concerns about the strength of the administration's plans in Syria and its chances for success" there was "consensus that we could move forward with what the administration's plans and intentions are in Syria consistent with committee reservations." 

The Intelligence Committee had delayed the administration for weeks from fully implementing its Syria policy, including arming the rebels, Fox News has learned. 

Fox also confirmed that a majority -- but not all -- of the Committee members signed off on moving forward with the plan. 

House Speaker John Boehner, addressing the Syria crisis on Tuesday, said helping "the right set of rebels is in our nation's best interest." 

It was not immediately clear how the new policy would be funded although money could be "reprogrammed" from other accounts, including possibly the defense spending bill.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/22/house-intelligence-committee-signs-off-with-reservations-on-administration-call/?cmpid=prn_aol&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D347796#ixzz2Zthpswkh


----------



## Jed

Looks like more than one throw away COA in this list of options. A real political minefield.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Option six, not mentioned by the Chairman, is to sit back and relax and let (human) "nature" take her own, bloody, course.

I vote for option six.


----------



## OldSolduer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Option six, not mentioned by the Chairman, is to sit back and relax and let (human) "nature" take her own, bloody, course.
> 
> I vote for option six.



Agreed. They are approaching the tar baby situation.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Option six, not mentioned by the Chairman, is to sit back and relax and let (human) "nature" take her own, bloody, course.
> 
> I vote for option six.




_Foreign Policy_ appears to agree. Today's "breaking" report is headlined: "Every Military Option in Syria Sucks." That's a clear, concise and accurate summary of the situation facing US policy makers.


----------



## observor 69

The US's recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Egypt have resulted in a professional military and political analysis of all options in Syria.
According to the talking heads on Tuesdays'  PBS Newshour option six is very attractive.


----------



## tomahawk6

Option six actually would mean an Assad/Hizbollah/Iran victory.What would that mean for Turkey and Israel ? Victory might mean more Assad which would probably be bad for Israel.Not so bad for Turkey. Homs is about to fall to the Assad/Hizbollah forces.Then they will push on to Aleppo.My gut reaction is to let the FSA and Assad's forces fight each other until both sides are exhausted.Syria has become a meat grinder for Hizbollah which is a good thing IMO.It may already be too late for the FSA but I would suggest that the US and its allies provide weapons and ammunition to the FSA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23488855


----------



## CougarKing

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Wonder what secondary arrangements the Kurd leader in Turkey negotiated for his release - other than stopping Kurd aggression in Turkey?



Speaking of the Kurds, they may prove pivotal in the current course of the Syrian Civil War, as stated below, though this PYD Kurdish rebel group in Syria will probably end up as merely a vehicle for Turkey's influence on the conflict...



> *Kurds could help shift course of war in Syria*
> Reuters
> 
> Yahoo News link
> 
> 
> By Ayla Jean Yackley
> 
> ISTANBUL (Reuters) - The head of Turkey's main Kurdish party has welcomed contacts between the Ankara government and Syria's Kurds, saying it could step up pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and help change the course of the civil war,
> 
> Turkish intelligence officers met in Istanbul last week with Saleh Muslim, head of *Syria's Democratic Union Party (PYD),* a Kurdish group whose militias have been fighting for control of parts of Syria's north near the Turkish border.
> 
> The meeting followed Muslim's declaration that Kurdish groups would set up an independent council to run Kurdish areas of Syria until the war ends. Ankara fears that kind of autonomy could rekindle separatist sentiment among its own, much larger Kurdish population as it seeks to end a 30-year-old insurgency.
> 
> "Saleh Muslim's visit to Istanbul is a concrete sign that Turkey is moving towards changing a policy that sees Kurds as a menace," Selahattin Demirtas, head of parliament's Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), told Reuters in an interview.
> 
> "It won't just affect Turkish-Kurdish relations but also the course of events in Syria by creating pressure on the regime," he said.
> 
> "Kurds can be effective in Syria, and we need to increase support for them. Western countries, including the United States, should establish proper ties with Syria's Kurds."
> 
> Turkey is one of the strongest backers of the rebels seeking to topple Assad in a war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives since March, 2011.
> 
> Syria's ethnic Kurdish minority has been alternately battling Assad's forces and the Islamist-dominated rebels for control of parts of the north.
> 
> Turkey wants assurances from the PYD that it will not threaten border security or seek an autonomous region in Syria through violence, and that it will maintain a stance of firm opposition to Assad, officials said.
> 
> Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Friday warned the group against any "wrong and dangerous" moves that could hurt Turkish security.
> 
> PEACE AT HOME
> 
> Demirtas is a main player in Turkey's efforts to resolve a conflict on its own soil with Kurdish militants in which more than 40,000 people, mostly Kurds, have been killed since 1984.
> 
> The 40-year-old party leader has shuttled to the island prison that has held Abdullah Ocalan, the head of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), since his conviction for treason in 1999 and has delivered the rebel leader's messages to his armed followers in northern Iraq.
> 
> The PKK - considered a terrorist group by Turkey, the United States and European Union - announced a ceasefire in March to encourage talks with Ocalan, seen as the best chance yet to end one of the world's longest-running guerrilla wars.
> 
> "He is like a good chess player. He makes his move by predicting the next eight or 10 moves in advance," said Demirtas, who met Ocalan for the first time on Imrali this year.
> 
> Running red worry beads through his hands, he described Ocalan as a master of Middle Eastern politics and connoisseur of literature, philosophy, art and history.
> 
> In recent weeks the rebels have warned that Erdogan's government must show greater commitment if the ceasefire is to hold, and address Kurdish grievances by expanding political and cultural rights.
> 
> The BDP expects legislative action by October, when parliament reconvenes after a summer recess, on demands for the release of thousands of party members in detention on terrorism charges, stronger local rule and Kurdish-language education.
> 
> Turkey banned the use of Kurdish, a distinct language related to Farsi, outright until 1991 and has only recently allowed it to be used in radio and television broadcasts.
> 
> Authorities strictly control access to Ocalan, limiting him to infrequent meetings with family, his lawyers and BDP members involved in the peace process. Supporters would like to see him moved out of his small cell to meet with civic groups and the media, as well as for a hospital to open on Imrali.
> 
> Conditions for the 64-year-old Ocalan must be improved or his frail health could imperil the peace process, Demirtas warned, saying eventually he should be freed.
> 
> "If there is going to be peace in Turkey, if the enmity is to end, if we're going to have forgiveness, then this should happen," he said. "When this peace process is fulfilled and things normalize, no one is going to keep him there."


----------



## a_majoor

At this point the Americans probably won't be coming, so the regional players will be in for the kill, or at least seeking to neutralize the influence of the "others".

The Turks, as pointed out, can manipulate some of the Kurds (and as an interesting aside, they might choose to energize the Kurds living in NW Iran as a better strategic option to achieve their goals), and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States will probably start providing more money and aid to the Salafist/Jihadi groups in order to fight the Shiites and blunt Iran's bid for regional hegemony. 

Israel and Jordan might not like it, but since it solves the short term problem of Iranian reach for regional dominance, they will facilitate the Saudis, or at least look the other way (and hope enough Salafis and Jihadists are killed in the meatgrinder that they won't be dealing with a radical Islamic Syria on their borders). Plan "B" might be to help the Turks, since a neo Ottoman Empire is probably more acceptable than a Radical Sunni Syria for the Israelis and Jordanians.


----------



## CougarKing

Tar baby analogies aside, it seems the Israelis have joined the intervention bandwagon with their primary aim of keeping Iran and its Hezbollah proxies in check. 

However, with a multi-faction war in full swing (Assad loyalists vs. moderate rebels vs. Gulf states/Saudi and Pakistani Taliban-backed Sunni/Islamist rebels vs. Iranian-backed Shiite rebels vs. Turkish-backed Kurds of the SYD) this is definitely a mess neither we nor any western nation should want to join in. Whether the interventionists who have Obama's ear do get their way and their coveted no-fly zone is another story however...


Defense News link




> *Israeli DM Urges US Action in Syria; Warns of 'Axis of Evil'*
> 
> NEW YORK — Warning of protracted, destabilizing conflict in Syria, *Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon urged the visiting chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff to prevent Iran and its Lebanon-based Hezbollah proxies from prevailing on behalf of embattled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad*.
> 
> In the most publicly direct appeal to date for US support of anti-Assad rebels, Ya’alon told Gen. Martin Dempsey, “It is forbidden to allow the axis of evil — Tehran-Damascus-Beirut — to win this conflict.”
> 
> According to a statement released after Ya’alon’s Aug. 13 meeting with the senior-ranking US military officer,* the Israeli defense minister said the two countries must be prepared for “a long conflict” within Syria.
> 
> Ya’alon flagged Iran as the source of much of the region’s instability, insisting “the Iranian regime ... is involved in every conflict in this region.”
> 
> A day earlier, on an Aug. 12 tour of Israel’s northern border, Ya’alon said Assad still controls some 40 percent of the country*. The bloodbath that has claimed more than 100,000 Syrian lives could continue indefinitely, the Israeli said.
> 
> *Dempsey has repeatedly expressed concerns over the costs, benefits and risks associated with US military intervention on behalf of the loosely coordinated, disparate rebel groups battling to oust Assad and his Alawite minority rule of the country.*


----------



## MeanJean

Here is the latest news on Syria.  It will be interesting to see how the global community reacts.

Syria attack renews chemical arms claim
UN Security Council holds emergency meeting
The Associated Press Posted: Aug 21, 2013 5:06 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 21, 2013 10:17 PM ET   

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/08/21/syria-gas-attack-accusation-damascus.html



> Syria attack renews chemical arms claim
> UN Security Council holds emergency meeting
> The Associated Press Posted: Aug 21, 2013 5:06 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 21, 2013 10:17 PM ET
> 
> 
> The images showed lifeless children — wrapped in simple white cloths, their pale faces unmarked by any wound — lined up shoulder to shoulder in a vivid demonstration of what activists say was an attack Wednesday by the Syrian regime that killed at least 130 people with toxic gas.
> 
> The Syrian government has adamantly denied using chemical weapons in an artillery barrage targeting suburbs east of Damascus, calling the allegations "absolutely baseless." The United States, Britain and France have demanded that a team of UN experts already in the country be granted immediate access to investigate the claims.
> 
> Syria’s civil war: key facts, important players
> The UN Security Council held emergency consultations about the purported attack, and UN deputy spokesman Eduardo del Buey said the head of a UN team sent to Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical attacks was in talks with the Syrian government.
> 
> Videos and photographs showed row upon row of bodies wrapped in white shrouds lying on a tile floor, including more than a dozen children. There was little evidence of blood or conventional injuries and most appeared to have suffocated. Survivors of the purported attack, some twitching uncontrollably, lay on gurneys with oxygen masks covering their faces.
> 
> Activists and the opposition leadership gave widely varying death tolls, ranging from as low as 136 to as high as 1,300. But even the most conservative tally would make it the deadliest alleged chemical attack in Syria's civil war.
> 
> For months now, the rebels, along with the United States, Britain and France, have accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons in its campaign to try to snuff out the rebellion against President Bashar Assad that began in March 2011. The regime and its ally, Russia, have denied the allegations, pinning the blame on the rebels.
> 
> The murky nature of the purported attacks, and the difficulty of gaining access to the sites amid the carnage of Syria's war, has made it impossible to verify the claims. After months of negotiations, a UN team finally arrived in Damascus on Sunday to begin its investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. But the probe is limited to three sites and only seeks to determine whether chemical agents were used, not who unleashed them.
> 
> The timing of Wednesday's attack — four days after the UN team's arrival — raised questions about why the regime would use chemical agents now.
> 
> 
> 
> (There is more to read from the link to the article)


----------



## tomahawk6

Intervention on the ground in Syria isn't going to happen.


----------



## Old Sweat

The Russians have claimed that the Syrian rebels attacked their own people, a claim that cannot be confirmed or refuted at this time. As I type this, I am listening to Lew MacKenzie being interviewed on CFRA in which he suggest the same is possible. In that vein, here is an article that appeared on my internet provider's news site that raises the same issue. The article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

My post is purely for informative purposes and does not indicate my support or rejection of the position suggested.

The Truth About Poison Gas In Syria 
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/john-ec-thompson/syria-chemical-weapons_b_3791987.html
Posted: 08/21/2013 4:46 pm

Did the Syrian government launch a nerve gas attack on the night of August 20, 2013, that killed 1,300 people? Yes, no, or maybe... choose your answer. But don't count on knowing if it's accurate.

First, no media report provided by either the Assad Government or the Syrian National Front should be accepted at face value, although -- perhaps -- the Assad government has more of a history of controlling media and less of one of providing fabricated material.

However, various local parties on both sides of the civil war have learned from the Palestinian Authority about the value of providing staged or fabricated media events. "Pallywood", as some reporters and journalists have described it, has a long history of providing exciting or emotional images that have no basis in reality.

Hezbollah moved things to a new level during its 2006 conflict with Israel, when it turned out that their own cameramen provided some images, and there were many carefully staged and choreographed media events. Some local stringers for media outlets even turned out to be members of Hezbollah.
 Hamas tried the same strategy during Operation Cast Lead in 2008/09.

The civil war in Syria is undeniably vicious and there have been plenty of atrocities by both sides, but the allegations of poison gas use have been flying thick and fast.

Syria has been known to have been making its own chemical weapons since the 1980s, particularly blister agents (such as mustard gas) and nerve agents (such as sarin and VX). These, in the main, are "area denial" chemical weapons, and may have been developed with halting an Israeli armoured thrust in mind -- the IDF came perilously close to Damascus in the '73 war.

For gassing people hiding inside buildings and cellars, blister and nerve gases are inefficient; choking and blood agents such as phosgene and cyanogen are far more effective. Syria was not believed to have been manufacturing these prior to 2011.

Using chemical weapons on rebels is an old habit in the Middle East. Egypt used them on Yemeni Royalists in the 1960s, Saudi Arabia on Wahhabi militants in 1979, and both Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi used them in the 1980s. It is very hypocritical for the Arab League to be crying 'foul!' at the Assad regime.

For those with the stomach for it, it is not too hard to find footage on the internet of tests of nerve gas on animals... including al-Qaeda experiments on dogs in their Afghan training bases prior to 9/11. There are also a lot of photographs of victims of blister-agents dating back to WWI.

The footage of purported victims of recent chemical weapons attacks in Syria shows a distressing number of children's corpses... but then both Saddam Hussein and Hezbollah have been accused of stockpiling them in the past to reserve for media events. The Syrian National Front might be no different.
 Dead children are an abomination under any circumstances -- and every propagandist knows it. 

However, film of partly shrouded dead children (showing gray faces but whose bodies are wrapped in thick cloth) yields few obvious clues about the manner of their death.

The victims of the chemical weapons attack in a mosque (again, with an abundance of children) show no signs of the painful blisters that attend exposure to mustard gas or the twitches and convulsions of exposure to nerve gas.

Also, blister and nerve agents tend to be "persistent" which means those who blithely treat casualties without wearing full protection soon become casualties too.

It is possible, indeed probable, that the Assad Regime has used chemical weapons at times on Syrian National Front rebels. It is equally likely that the rebels have returned the favour. However, one could wonder why both sides seem to be randomly firing limited qualities against non-combatants, instead of reserving their stocks to seek some decisive battlefield advantage somewhere.

In a vicious ideologically-driven civil war with plenty of murders and massacres already to the discredit of both sides, it may not be too cynical to submit that chemical weapons -- when used -- are mostly being used for their propaganda value as "proof" of the bestial nature of the foe. We require no further proofs about either side.

_- mod edit to add link - _


----------



## CougarKing

The French again calling for intervention...  

link



> *France says force needed if Syrian chemical attack proved true*
> Reuters
> 
> PARIS (Reuters) - France said on Thursday that the international community would need to respond with force if allegations that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical attack on civilians proved true.
> 
> "There would have to be reaction with force in Syria from the international community, but there is no question of sending troops on the ground," Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told French television network BFM.
> 
> If the U.N. Security Council could not make a decision, one would have to be taken "in other ways," he said, without elaborating.
> 
> Opposition activists accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces of gassing hundreds, including women and children, in Wednesday's attack.
> 
> What would be the world's most lethal chemical weapons attack since the 1980s led to an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council in New York.
> 
> The council did not explicitly demand a U.N. investigation of the incident, although it said "clarity" was needed and welcomed U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon's calls for a prompt investigation by a U.N. inspection team already in Syria.
> 
> The council's statement was watered down to accommodate objections from Russia and China, diplomats said. Moscow and Beijing have vetoed previous Western efforts to impose U.N. penalties on Assad.
> 
> Fabius, who had a working dinner with his British counterpart William Hague in Paris on Wednesday night to discuss Syria, said the alleged attack had come almost exactly a year after U.S. President Barack Obama warned that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a red line.
> 
> The attack highlighted the sense of impunity within Assad's government, he said.
> 
> Fabius said that if Assad refused to let the U.N. inspection team investigate the site, he would have been caught with "his hand in the till."
> 
> (Reporting By John Irish; Editing by John Stonestreet)


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The council did not explicitly demand a U.N. investigation of the incident, although it said "clarity" was needed .....
> The council's statement was watered down to accommodate objections from Russia and China......


It's good to see that the UN continues to step up to the plate with all the decisive, credibile effectiveness of the League of Nations.


----------



## Rifleman62

As does the POTUS.


----------



## CougarKing

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's good to see that the UN continues to step up to the plate with all the decisive, credibile effectiveness of the League of Nations.



We need another sarcasm smiley. :sarcasm:


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The council did not explicitly demand a U.N. investigation of the incident, although it said "clarity" was needed .....
> The council's statement was watered down to accommodate objections from Russia and China......



And we all know how well the last UN investigation into Syria went.    :


----------



## 57Chevy

If is a very BIG word but it is also a very iffy word.

Who can make a real decision based on iffy facts ?

 :argument:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Something from the U.S. Congressional Research Service - here's the summary of the latest version of the report (20 Aug 13)....


> The use or loss of control of chemical weapons stocks in Syria could have unpredictable consequences for the Syrian population and neighboring countries as well as U.S. allies and forces in the region. Congress may wish to assess the Administration’s plans to respond to possible scenarios involving the use, change of hands, or loss of control of Syrian chemical weapons.
> 
> Syria has produced, stored, and weaponized chemical weapons, but it remains dependent on foreign suppliers for chemical precursors. The regime of President Bashar al Asad reportedly has stocks of nerve (sarin, VX) and blister (mustard gas) agents, possibly weaponized into bombs, shells, and missiles, and associated production facilities. Chemical weapons and their agents can deteriorate depending on age and quality. Little is known from open sources about the current size and condition of the stockpile. Syria continues to attempt to procure new supplies of chemical weapons precursors, which are dual-use, through front companies in third countries. Most countries that have had chemical weapons arsenals in the past have destroyed these weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention, or are in the process of destroying them. The U.S. intelligence community cites Iran, North Korea, and Syria as having active chemical weapons programs.
> 
> While the United States and other governments have said they believe the Asad regime has kept its chemical weapons stocks secure, policymakers are concerned about what could happen to these weapons in the course of the civil war, such as diversion to terrorist groups or loss of control during a regime collapse.
> 
> Reports in early December 2012 quoted unnamed officials as saying intelligence showed possible preparations for use, but this was denied by the Syrian government. Since then, press reports have discussed several alleged incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria by both the government and opposition forces. A United Nations chemical weapons inspection team is negotiating with Syria on access to the sites to investigate. On June 13, 2013, the White House released a statement saying that following its investigation, “our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information.” The June 13 statement said that chemical weapons use had resulted in an estimated 100-150 deaths in Syria.
> 
> President Obama and other world leaders have said that the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population would be met with consequences, which could include the use of military force. There is also concern that Syria could transfer its chemical weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Administration officials have stated that the United States has been working with regional allies to detect the movement of chemical weapons, prepare interdiction scenarios, and mitigate possible use against military or civilian populations. The June 13 White House statement said that in response to the Asad regime’s use of chemical weapons, the President has authorized the expansion of military assistance to the opposition forces in Syria.
> 
> During conflict, the intelligence community and Special Forces units would likely play a major role in locating and securing such weapons in a combat environment. The nature and recent course of the conflict in Syria suggests that rapid changes in control over critical military weapons of mass destruction through threat reduction or nonproliferation programs have focused on destruction or scientist redirection in an atmosphere of cooperation. At present, such programs are providing border security assistance to neighboring states. U.S. policymakers and Congress may wish to review and discuss authorities, funding, forces, and scenarios in advance.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Good Grey Globe's_ Brian Gable has it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/damage-claim/article13538502/#dashboard/follows/





Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## OldSolduer

Lets send a letter and if that doesn't work ......a strongly worded letter...... :facepalm:


----------



## CougarKing

The US gathering its forces for a Libya-style strike on Assad's regime? Does anyone here think that there will also be a Russian response to support their client state?

military.com link



> *Hagel Hints At Possible Syrian Strike*
> 
> Aug 24, 2013
> 
> 
> *Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel strongly hinted Friday that naval forces were moving into position for a possible cruise missile strike against Syria.  And President Obama said a decision on military action was imminent following reports President Bashar al-Assad has again used chemical weapons.*
> 
> "The Defense Department has responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies. And that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets, to be able to carry out different options - whatever options the president might choose," Hagel told reporters traveling with him on his trip to Malaysia.
> 
> Obama has asked the Pentagon to provide options on Syria after a reported gas attack has mounted pressure on the White House to respond to the escalated violence in the civil war, Hagel said.
> 
> 
> A defense official told the defense reporters on the plan that the Navy would expand the number of cruise-missile armed warships in the Mediterranean Sea to four.
> 
> *The USS Mahan, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer armed with cruise missiles, was due to return to its home base of Norfolk, Va., but the Sixth Fleet Commander has since ordered the warship to remain in the Mediterranean, a defense official told the reporters according to a Reuters report.*
> 
> In a CNN interview aired Friday, President Obama repeatedly answered "yes" without elaborating when asked if the time frame for a U.S. decision on military action had been dramatically shortened by reports that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons on opposition neighborhoods in the suburbs of Damascus.
> 
> The use of chemical weapons "starts getting to some core national interests that the United States has, both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region," Obama said.
> 
> Obama's remarks heightened speculation among Mideast analysts and in regional media that a U.S. decision on cruise missile strikes or moves to supply the rebels with heavy weaponry was imminent.
> 
> *Syria's alleged large-scale use of chemical weapons has focused attention on the role of a small but growing base called Central Command Forward-Jordan that could serve as an operations hub should the U.S. decide to take action in the civil war.
> 
> About 1,000 U.S. troops are now in Jordan, building on a detachment of several hundred that were left behind at the request of Jordan's King Abdullah II after the Eager Lion training exercises in June.*
> 
> To comply with the War Powers Act, Obama sent a letter to Congress in the June stating that the U.S. presence in Jordan would include "Patriot missile systems, fighter aircraft (F-16s), and related support, command, control and communications personnel and systems."
> 
> "The detachment will remain in Jordan, in full coordination with the government of Jordan, until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed," Obama's letter said.
> 
> Earlier this month, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a brief tour of the Jordan base to reporters traveling with him to Israel and Jordan to discuss the crisis in Syria and other regional issues. Dempsey told the troops that the U.S. presence in Jordan would likely be needed for years.
> 
> The U.S. would stay until the Jordanians "felt themselves fully capable of dealing not only with their humanitarian crisis but also the potential that they would suddenly have to defend Jordan," Dempsey said. "And they would have to reach that point against not only conventional but, likely, unconventional and terrorist threats."
> 
> *U.S. troops in Jordan have been assisting with the refugee crisis, building a sanitation system in the camps for the more than 500,000 Syrian refugees who have fled into Jordan.*
> 
> Dempsey stressed that the U.S. troops were there primarily to aid in the defense of Jordan and to ease the refugee crisis, but regional media said the base was at the forefront of U.S. planning in the event of action against Syria.
> 
> Al Jazeera reported in June that the base was seen as a launch pad "for possible military action in Syria, including scenarios to secure the regime's chemical weapons stockpiles."
> 
> Troops from all the military services were in Jordan, including a headquarters staff from 1st Armored Division that included military planners, communications experts and logisticians, the American Forces Press Service reported.
> 
> Mideast analysts said Obama's declaration that Syria's use of chemical weapons was a "red line" for U.S. policy made military action more likely.
> 
> "A president of the U.S. cannot say something crosses a red line and then go on conducting business as usual," said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
> 
> "Two initiatives come to mind," Haass said in an op-ed for the Financial Times. "The first would be to launch cruise missile strikes against select targets: anything associated with chemical weapons, command and control sites, and airfields used by government forces."
> 
> "The second would be to make good on the promise to supply those opposition forces deemed politically acceptable with significant numbers of anti-air and anti-armor capabilities," Haass wrote.


----------



## CougarKing

That's FOUR US Aegis destroyers nearing Syria...  



> *4 US Destroyers Positioned Near Syria as Obama, Security Team Discuss Options*
> 
> Quote:
> WASHINGTON, D.C. — *US President Barack Obama met with his top national security advisors early Saturday to discuss the response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons, a White House official said.*
> 
> "The president has directed the intelligence community to gather facts and evidence so that we can determine what occurred in Syria. Once we ascertain the facts, the president will make an informed decision about how to respond," the official said.
> 
> "We have a range of options available, and we are going to act very deliberately so that we're making decisions consistent with our national interest as well as our assessment of what can advance our objectives in Syria."
> 
> *Another U.S. defense official tells [Defense News sister publication] Navy Times that there are now four destroyers positioned in the eastern Mediterranean Sea: the Mahan, Barry, Gravely and Ramage.*  The Mahan was initially scheduled to head home, being replaced by the Ramage. But for now, Mahan will remain deployed, the official said.
> 
> 
> Defense News link


----------



## tomahawk6

I wonder what the Russian and Chinese response will be if the US strikes Syria ?


----------



## OldSolduer

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I wonder what the Russian and Chinese response will be if the US strikes Syria ?



Good question. I bet it's not a strongly worded letter......


----------



## Rifleman62

The Chinese will cease selling anything to Wally Mart.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Looky who's getting together for a sit-down and a chat - this from the Jordanian military info-machine:


> The chiefs of staff of Jordan, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and *Canada* will hold a meeting in Amman in the coming few days to discuss regional security and implications of the ongoing crisis in Syria, an official military source at the Jordan Armed Forces said.
> 
> The meeting, which comes at an invitation by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lt, Gen, Mishaal Zaben and Commander of the U.S. Central Command General Lloyd J. Austin, aims also at discussing military cooperation between these countries and Jordan to preserve the Kingdom's security and the safety of its people, the source added. The source affirmed that the meeting is a continuation of bilateral and multilateral meetings that will be followed by other meetings in the future to continue coordination between the participating countries and evaluate current events and their impact on the security of the region in general.


Kuwait News Agency, 24 Aug 13


----------



## CougarKing

London flexes its muscles in anticipation of a Syria strike, while Assad's regime finally allows weapons inspectors to conduct an investigation into the alleged chemical attack.

Question: Wouldn't cruise missiles strikes seem more likely considering that the Assad's military has S300 missile batteries that would make it hard for strike aircraft such as F15Es to linger over Syrian airspace? 

National Post link




> *U.K. prepping warships as West eyes strike on Syria in wake of suspected chemical attack*
> 
> 
> Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.
> 
> *British Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalize a list of potential targets.*
> 
> Government sources said talks between Prime Minister David Cameron and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.
> 
> As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity.”
> 
> *Britain, the U.S. and their allies must show Mr. Assad that to perpetrate such an atrocity “is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed,” he said.
> British forces now look likely to be drawn into an intervention in the Syrian crisis after months of deliberation and international disagreement over how to respond to the long and bloody civil war.*
> 
> The possibility of such intervention will provoke demands for Britain’s Parliament to be recalled this week.
> 
> The escalation comes as a direct response to what the government is now convinced was a gas attack perpetrated by Syrian forces on a civilian district of Damascus last Wednesday.
> 
> *The Assad regime has been under mounting pressure to allow United Nations inspectors on to the site to establish who was to blame for the atrocity. One international agency said it had counted at least 355 people dead and 3,600 injured following the attack, while reports suggested the true death toll could be as high as 1,300.*
> 
> Syrian state media accused rebel forces of using chemical agents, saying some government soldiers had suffocated as a result during fighting.
> 
> After days of delay, the Syrian government finally offered Sunday to allow a team of UN inspectors access to the area. However, Mr. Hague suggested that this offer of access five days after the attack had come too late.
> 
> “We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity, that people can be killed in this way and that there are no consequences for it,” he said.
> 
> The Foreign Secretary said all the evidence “points in one direction,” to the use of illegal chemical agents by Assad regime forces.
> 
> A government source added that even if UN inspectors visited the site of the attack, “we would need convincing by the UN team that this was not the regime’s attack because we believe everything points to the fact that it was.”
> 
> Officials said the Assad regime has continued bombarding the area in the days since the attack took place last Wednesday, making it likely that any evidence, which could establish who was responsible, will have been destroyed.
> 
> Mr. Cameron interrupted his holiday in Cornwall for talks with Mr. Obama, Francois Hollande, the French president, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. After discussions via a secure telephone line over the weekend, all the leaders agreed on the need for a “serious response.” Government sources confirmed that military action was among the options “on the table” but said no decisions had been taken.
> 
> The Prime Minister, however, is believed to have abandoned hope of securing any further meaningful response from the UN amid opposition from Russia.
> 
> Labour said Parliament must be recalled if Mr. Cameron was considering a military response, but government sources said this may not be necessary as the Prime Minister retained the right to act urgently if required.
> 
> Mr. Cameron will face criticism for any British military involvement from many MPs, who believe the Armed Forces are already overstretched and must not be committed to another distant conflict.
> 
> Any retaliatory attack would be likely to be launched from the sea as the Syrian air force is judged to be strong enough to shoot down enemy jets.
> 
> 
> *A Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine is said to be in the region while a number of warships recently left Britain for exercises in the Mediterranean.
> 
> Commanders may also need to make use of the RAF base at Akrotiri, Cyprus for air support.
> 
> If military action is approved, the first wave of missiles could start within a week.
> 
> The Royal Navy declined to comment on the current positions of its submarines, but they regularly pass through the area on their way to the Suez Canal.
> 
> America’s Sixth Fleet currently has four guided missile destroyers in the area, each of which could join the attack.
> 
> The Royal Navy also has its rapid response task force in the Mediterranean. The group includes two frigates and the helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious.*
> 
> Navy sources said there were no plans to change the exercises, but the group provided “strategic contingency” if needed.




Plus more on the UN inspections that the Assad regime has allowed:

CNN link




> Damascus, Syria (CNN) -- *As U.N. inspectors get ready to look over the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria, a U.S. official told CNN there is almost no doubt that the Bashar al-Assad regime is responsible.
> *
> "There is nothing credible to indicate that the rebels, either the Syrian National Council or even al-Nusra Front, have used chemical weapons," the official said. "Only the Assad regime is responsible for chemical weapons use."
> 
> Rebel forces and the Syrian regime have been blaming each other for Wednesday's reported attack in a suburb of Damascus, which opposition members say killed hundreds.
> 
> Gruesome video of the aftermath showed numerous bodies, including women and children.
> 
> The official, who is not authorized to speak on the record, said the evidence goes beyond images and open-source reporting from doctors and others and said there is a "wide range of tools" to collect and analyze enough data to make an informed assertion.
> 
> U.S. officials: Tissue samples were collected
> 
> *A second U.S. official told CNN Sunday that tissue samples were collected from the scene in the hours and days after the August 21 attack.*
> 
> The official says the evidence was "collected by multiple international sources" and was being analyzed in secure locations. The official would not say how the samples were collected or specify where the analysis was taking place.
> 
> These developments came as a top Syrian official told CNN on Sunday that the government would allow U.N. inspectors full access to any site of a suspected chemical weapons attack.
> 
> The agreement is effective immediately, Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al Mekdad said.
> 
> *The U.N. secretary-general's office said inspectors hope to begin their investigation Monday at the suspected chemical attack site.* The Syrian government has agreed to cease all hostilities as long as the U.N. inspectors are on the ground. Before Sunday, U.N. inspectors in Syria attempting to gather information were not allowed to visit the site of the recent attack.
> 
> (...)


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dominic Campbell (no relation, as far as I know), founder and director of Futuregov, asks _"How is it that we had all the information we needed to take action against Iraq and Afghanistan yet we are still delaying on Syria?"_ and then answers his own question when he says, _"Bush and Blair had leadership but no moral justification, Obama and Cameron have moral justification but no leadership."_


----------



## Old Sweat

Thomas Mulcair stated on CFRA in Ottawa about an hour ago that he supports action against Syria. While he tap danced a bit, he also did not insist on UN approval.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Not entirely surprising ....


> Young Canadians are hurrying to Syria in record numbers to join rebels in their fight against the Assad regime, raising fears among security services at home about Al Qaeda’s access to Western recruits.
> 
> It is estimated that at least 100 Canadians — mainly in their 20s and coming from Ontario and Alberta — have left for Syria in the past year, joining a steady march of foreigners drawn to the conflict, security sources say.
> 
> “Our government is acutely aware of this issue,” said Frederik Boisvert, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, noting Ottawa passed the Combating Terrorism Act in April, which makes it a crime to leave the country — or even attempt to — to engage in terrorist activities.
> 
> (....)
> 
> Fighters are leaving Canada for various motives. Horrific imagery of the slaughter by forces loyal to President Bashar Assad is spurring some to join the rebel cause. Others had already adopted Al Qaeda’s global agenda while still in Canada. For them, Syria provides a perfect battleground and has surpassed Afghanistan, Iraq, North or East Africa as the destination of choice.
> 
> But the distinction may not matter soon, as Al Qaeda groups extend their territory within Syria, blurring the lines between rebel fighters and those loyal to the terrorist network.
> 
> “If they don’t get killed, the concern is what happens when they come home,” said one Canadian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity ....


_Toronto Star_, 23 Aug 13


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syria-will-require-more-than-cruise-missiles/2013/08/25/8c8877b8-0daf-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205

*Syria will require more than cruise missiles*

Washington Post - Eliot A. Cohen - 25 Aug 13

_Eliot A. Cohen teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He directed the U.S. Air Force’s Gulf War Air Power Survey from 1991 to 1993. _

In 1994, after directing the U.S. Air Force’s official study of the Persian Gulf War, I concluded, “Air power is an unusually seductive form of military strength, in part because, like modern courtship, it appears to offer gratification without commitment.” That observation stands. It explains the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for a massive, drone-led assassination campaign against al-Qaeda terrorists. And it applies with particular force to a prospective, U.S.-led attack on the Syrian government in response to its use of chemical weapons against a civilian population.

President Obama has boxed himself in. He can no longer ignore his own proclamation of a “red line.” The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a breach of proper civil-military relations, has publicly telegraphed his skepticism about any use of force in Syria. But the scale, openness and callousness of the Syrian government’s breaking of an important taboo seems likely to compel this president — so proud of his record as a putative war-ender — to launch the warplanes yet again in the Middle East.

The temptation here is to follow the Clinton administration’s course — a futile salvo of cruise missiles, followed by self-congratulation and an attempt to change the topic. It would not work here. A minority regime fighting for its life, as Bashar al-Assad’s is, can weather a couple of dozen big bangs. More important, no one — friends, enemies or neutrals — would be fooled. As weak as the United States now appears in the region and beyond, we would look weaker yet if we chose to act ineffectively. A bout of therapeutic bombing is an even more feckless course of action than a principled refusal to act altogether.

A serious bombing campaign would have substantial targets — most plausibly the Syrian air force, the service once headed by Assad’s father, which gives the regime much of its edge over the rebels, as well as the air defense system and the country’s airports, through which aid arrives from Iran. But should the Obama administration choose any kind of bombing campaign, it needs to face some hard facts.

For one thing, and despite the hopes of some proponents of an air campaign, this would not be surgical. No serious application of air power ever is, despite administration officials’ claims about the drone campaign, which, as we now know, has killed plenty of civilians. A serious bombing campaign means civilian casualties, at our hands. And it may mean U.S. and allied casualties too, because the idea of a serious military effort without risk is fatuous.

The administration would need congressional authorization. Despite his professed commitment to transparency and constitutional niceties, Obama has proved himself reluctant to secure congressional authorization for the use of force, most notably with Libya in 2011. Even if an authorization is conferred retroactively, it needs to be done here because this would be a large use of force; indeed, an act of war.

And it probably would not end cleanly. When the president proclaimed the impending conclusion of the war with al-Qaeda, he disregarded the cardinal fact of strategy: It is (at least) a two-sided game. The other side, not we, gets to decide when it ends. And in this case neither the Syrian government nor its Iranian patrons, nor its Hezbollah, Russian and Chinese allies, may choose to shrug off a bombing campaign. Chess players who think one move ahead usually lose; so do presidents who think they can launch a day or two of strikes and then walk away with a win. The repercussions may be felt in neighboring countries; they may even be felt in the United States, and there is no excuse for ignoring that fact.

Despite all these facts, not to act would be, at this point and by the administration’s own standards, intolerable.

The slaughter in Syria, tolerated for so long, now approaches the same order of magnitude (with the number of dead totaling six figures at least) as Rwanda, but in a strategically more important place. Already it is late, perhaps too late, to prevent Syria from becoming the new Afghanistan or Yemen, home to rabidly anti-Western jihadis. A critical firebreak, the use of chemical weapons on a large scale, has been breached.

No less important, U.S. prestige is on the line. Why should anyone, anywhere, take Obama’s threats (or for that matter, his promises) seriously if he does nothing here? Not to act is to decide, and to decide for an even worse outcome than the one that awaits us.

“War is an option of difficulties,” a British general once remarked *. The question before the president is whether he will make matters worse by convincing himself that he has found a minimal solution to a fiendish problem. He will convince no one else.

* During the arduous campaign that eventually led to the fall of Quebec and French Canada in 1759, the British commander, James Wolfe, commented that “war is an option of difficulties


----------



## CougarKing

Wasn't there a previous group of UN inspectors who had been fired upon when the Syrian Civil War first started a couple of years ago?

link



> *UN team investigating possible chemical attack in Syria comes under sniper fire*
> 
> DAMASCUS, Syria —* Snipers opened fire Monday at a UN vehicle belonging to a team investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Damascus, a UN spokesman said. The Syrian government accused the rebels of firing at the team.
> 
> Martin Nesirky, spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said the vehicle was “deliberately shot at multiple times” in the buffer zone area between rebel- and government-controlled territory.*
> No one was hurt, but first car in the convoy “was no longer serviceable,” the United Nations said in a statement, forcing the team to turn back.
> 
> 
> “The team will return to the area after replacing the vehicle,” the organization said Monday morning.
> 
> *News of the sniper attack came only a few hours after an Associated Press photographer saw the team members wearing body armour leaving their hotel in Damascus in seven SUVs, headed to the site of the alleged attack.*
> 
> The photographer said UN disarmament chief Angela Kane saw them off as they left but did not go with them.
> 
> Nearly an hour before the team left, several mortar shells fell about 700 metres from their hotel, wounding three people. One of the shells struck a mosque and damaged its minaret, according to an AP reporter on the scene.
> 
> World leaders have suggested that an international response to the attack was likely.
> 
> 
> The United States has said that there is little doubt that Assad’s regime was responsible for the attack on Aug. 21 in the capital’s eastern suburbs. The group Doctors Without Borders said 355 people were killed in the artillery barrage by regime forces that included the use of toxic gas.
> 
> Nesirky said one of the cars used by the team was “no longer serviceable.”
> 
> “It has to be stressed again that all sides need to extend their co-operation so that the Team can safely carry out their important work,” he said in emailed comments to The Associated Press.
> 
> The Syrian government said the UN team was subjected to fire by “terrorist gangs” while entering the Damascus suburb of Moadamiyeh west of Damascus, one of the areas that the opposition says were targeted by toxic gas in last week’s attack.
> 
> *The government also says Syrian forces provided safety for the team until they reached a position controlled by the rebels, where it claimed the sniper attack occurred.*
> 
> “The Syrian government holds the terrorist gangs responsible for the safety of the United Nations team,” said the government statement broadcast on Syrian TV.
> 
> President Bashar Assad denied in remarks published Monday that his troops used chemical weapons during the fighting in the rebel-held suburbs.
> (...)


----------



## baseballfan17

With the recent news of Obama meeting with Cameron and Harper we can only speculate, but what will happen with Canada in all this?

Is it possible that Harper would put troops on the ground in Syria? This seems farfetched and personally I think putting troops on the ground is a very stupid idea.

But in all honesty, what should we make of it?


----------



## cupper

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Good question. I bet it's not a strongly worded letter......



Anyone know what the postage is for a standard cruise missile?

Seems like the rhetoric got turned up a notch, and things may very well get interesting very soon.

*Kerry: Obama determined to hold Syria accountable for using chemical weapons*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html


----------



## 57Chevy

From The Daily Caller and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


Israeli intelligence ties Syrian gas attack to Assad 

Israeli intelligence can tie the recent gas attack against the Syrian rebels to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the German publication Focus reports.

“According to the findings of Israeli intelligence community, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the gas attack in Damascus,” reports the publication.

According to FOCUS, the Israel Defense Forces Unit 8200, the IDF’s signals intelligence unit, intercepted communications of the Syrian army during the attack.

“A former Mossad officer told FOCUS the analysis has clearly shown that the bombardment with poison gas missiles was made by Syrian government forces,” reports the publication.

As of 2010, Unit 8200 was estimated to be the largest unit in the IDF.

U.S. Naval War College Professor John Schindler tweeted the story, adding that Israel shared the information with the U.S. and other allies.


----------



## CougarKing

The Saudis using their oil money to influence the Russians and covertly support the Sunni rebel factions they identify with...

Telegraph link



> *Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.*
> 
> The revelations come amid high tension in the Middle East, with US, British, and French warship poised for missile strikes in Syria. Iran has threatened to retaliate.
> 
> The strategic jitters pushed Brent crude prices to a five-month high of $112 a barrel. “We are only one incident away from a serious oil spike. The market is a lot tighter than people think,” said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review.
> 
> Leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan shed an extraordinary light on the hard-nosed Realpolitik of the two sides.
> 
> *Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria.  “Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets,” he said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin. They met at Mr Putin’s dacha outside Moscow. *
> 
> (...)


----------



## Edward Campbell

And NBC News is reporting that "Missile strikes against Syria could be launched “as early as Thursday,” senior U.S. officials said Tuesday". That will be a blunder - an understandable one from a weak president whose policies are all adrift - but a blunder all the same. There will be no winners, of any kind, in this mess: only losers and we, in the US led West, will lose more than we commit.


----------



## tomahawk6

If Assad falls it will be a victory for the jihadists,just as we saw in Libya.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And NBC News is reporting that "Missile strikes against Syria could be launched “as early as Thursday,” senior U.S. officials said Tuesday". That will be a blunder - an understandable one from a weak president whose policies are all adrift - but a blunder all the same. There will be no winners, of any kind, in this mess: only losers and we, in the US led West, will lose more than we commit.



That is the Clinton plan.  And we know how well that worked in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998.

Commonalities:

Non-military President.
No personal history of self-sacrifice.
Member of the Democratic Party.
Anti-War history.

Lacking moral authority to put American boots on the ground.

Opts to stand back a thousand miles and lob projectiles at the natives for a short while.

Result:

Upset natives looking for revenge against a despised, ineffectual aggressor.


The only long term solution is boots on the ground (aka Advance to Contact).  That course demands blood, treasure and commitment.  And we are short of all of the above.

Obama will "strike from afar".  Harper will supply a 6-Pack of CF-18s to fly from the SBAs in Cyprus and repeat Libya and Kosovo.  (Prediction).

Assad may die.  Nothing will change.


----------



## myself.only

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Assad may die.  Nothing will change.



Well, not change for the better anyway.
Once the dust settles we might as well have gift wrapped this for the jihadists.


----------



## Old and Tired

I said it before up thread and I'll say it again; "This is NOT rpt NOT our problem" we, the west less France and, to much less extent, US had no hand in any of the internal problems that Syria is now grappling with. That One or BOTH sides have used chemical weapons of some kind doesn't matter.  There is no good guy/bad guy in this fight.

Both sides are equally bad.  Neither will think twice about using anything they can get their hands on. Undeniably there is a huge amount of suffering by an equally huge number of people caught in the middle, but it is their problem to sort out.

Sometimes doing nothing is the best there is.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The one thing about which everyone, including Presidents Assad and Obama, had best worry is that, according to _Haaretz_, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says that "We are prepared for any scenario ... We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt to harm us we will respond, and respond forcefully." Unlike President Obama and NATO leaders, Prime Minister Netanyahu has the means and the will to decide this thing, one way or the other, should Israel's vital interests be threatened.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A few updates .....


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama today discussed the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.
> 
> The White House says the two leaders spoke on the telephone about their grave concern over the reported use of the weapons by the Syrian regime against its own people.
> 
> The Obama administration said the two men pledged to continue to consult closely on potential responses by the international community.
> 
> Harper's office has yet to release information about the call.
> 
> The United Nations is investigating whether chemical weapons were dropped on a Damascus neighbourhood last week, while Washington says it has its own intelligence confirming the use ....


The Canadian Press



> President Obama is considering a range of limited military actions against Syria that are designed to “deter and degrade” the ability of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to launch chemical weapons, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.
> 
> Although no final decisions have been made, it is likely that the attacks would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, even though the Obama administration says the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military is the trigger for the planned attack. They said any effort to target chemical sites risks an environmental and humanitarian disaster and could open up the sites to raids by militants.
> 
> Instead, the American assault would be aimed at military units thought to have carried out chemical attacks, the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks and the headquarters overseeing the effort, the officials said.
> 
> (....)
> 
> An American official familiar with the military planning said that the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed. The list includes command and control locations as well as a variety of conventional military targets, official said. Like several other military officials contacted for this report, the official agreed to discuss planning options only on condition of anonymity.
> 
> Planners said that although suspected chemical weapons depots are seductive targets, they are too risky ....


_New York Times_



> .... Even if the Pentagon knew the targets, knew that they contained biological or chemical weapons, knew which specific agents were hidden at each site, had the right vehicles and ordinance to penetrate air defenses and fortifications, determined the agents were sufficiently away from populations and in calm wind conditions, determined their use or insecurity was imminent and that there was a high-probability that all of those factors were correct -- well, it's not that simple.
> 
> "If you put on a bomb that busts a bunker with success, it's pretty sure that if it's a biological container I think it would be a high-probably that all biological agents would be killed by the blast -- or the heat," said Raymond A. Zilinskas, director of the Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
> 
> "Chemical agents are different, they don't destroy that easily." ....


Foreign Policy blog



> BREAKING: Hagel weighing possibility of launching Tomahawk Chuck Norris strike against #Syria.


The Duffle Blog twitter feed - had to throw that one in


----------



## Edward Campbell

_Defenseone_ reports that "...the United States is no longer pursuing a United Nations or NATO stamp of approval to respond with force to the purported deployment of chemical weapons ... Instead, the U.S. has focused on building a rapid coalition consisting of the United Kingdom, France and several Arab states, by sharing intelligence evidence that U.S. officials say proves Bashir al Assad’s regime was responsible for last week’s chemical weapons attack."


This demonstrates that there is neither a legal nor a strategic basis for attacking Syria; but, the US president is facing a domestic political perception that he is a _wimp_, and, by extension his party, is full of _wusses._ This could be a real problem in the 2014 mid-term and 2016 elections so a few missiles will need to rain down on Damascus. The United States is starting to look a lot like Britain in the late 1940s.


----------



## Journeyman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Defenseone_ reports that ....


 That announcement's _only_ glimer of silver-lining is that Canada isn't mentioned amongst the coalition.  

Short-sighted Completely blind politics at its finest, once again reaffirming that 'you can't fix stupid'   :not-again:


----------



## observor 69

Very informative interview:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/syria2_08-26.html.

 Action on Syria Might Send Message to Other Nations, Reinforce Taboo


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some highlights from CTV News' Mercedes Stephenson's Twitter feed:


> In other news, the CDS is not in Ottawa right now... #Syria
> 
> Military sources tell me the military is contingency planning but has received no political direction regarding potential involvement #Syria
> 
> Military source tells me one of the key indicators may be Parl being recalled - q of whether Harper would commit troops w/o parl approval
> 
> This morning Barid's office said it is premature to consider recalling Parliament.
> 
> Available asset near the region is HMCS Toronto, a Cdn warship, but it would have to be pulled off current mission and reassigned.
> 
> In the case of Libya, Canada had assets near by and it still took a week to get geared up, so sources tell me could take longer.
> 
> That is relevant if a strike is imminent. May shape what kind of support Cda could offer if govt decides to contribute.
> 
> Military source tells me special forces are in a perpetual planning enviornment, it is part of what makes them so elite #syria
> 
> However again, there has been no political direction to prepare for a strike. Mil source tells me they're learning stuff from news too.


----------



## Edward Campbell

David Parkins, in the _Globe and Mail_, is almost certainly correct, but that is still neither legal nor strategic justification for intervening in a perfectly nice little civil war:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/damage-claim/article13538502/#dashboard/follows/





Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## sean m

Interesting article from the Long War Journal. 

"A few more questions before we start bombing Syria"

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/08/a_few_more_questions_before_we.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LongWarJournalSiteWide+%28The+Long+War+Journal+%28Site-Wide%29%29


----------



## sean m

From CBC news,

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/08/27/syria-war-clouds-gather.html

It seems to state that minister Baird is not ruling out any possible action against Assad.

In regards to the post about the possible oil deal between the saudis and russians. Would it be too much to ask if people here thouth that there shouls be  similar deal with the iranians and gulf states despite their uneasy relations with each other?


----------



## muskrat89

What an odd reversal of politics. Most on the right want us to stay out of it; this President seems to be intent on acting unilaterally and bypassing Congress to get into a war without a plan - all the things he campaigned against Bush about.


----------



## OldSolduer

I haven't seen any evidence that Syria used chemical weapons. Yep, we've seen videos of sick people but who is to say what made them sick? 

All I have heard is rhetoric and drum beating from the White House.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any evidence that Syria used chemical weapons. Yep, we've seen videos of sick people but who is to say what made them sick?
> 
> All I have heard is rhetoric and drum beating from the White House.



He needs something to deflect the problems he's having at home.

Remember the movie 'Wag the Dog'?

It's not about a sex scandal though. It's the debt, his dysfunctional government and a dozen other things.


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> He needs something to deflect the problems he's having at home.
> 
> Remember the movie 'Wag the Dog'?
> 
> It's not about a sex scandal though. It's the debt, his dysfunctional government and a dozen other things.



I understand that, thanks though for pointing that out.

Nothing good can come of any intervention by Western powers, IMO.


----------



## BurnDoctor

Agree with Jim and all that have echoed that sentiment. Ugly though this may be, it is a Syrian problem, and it begs a Syrian solution....ugly though that will be.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The media is awash, this morning, with suggestions that a forthcoming attack on Syria is not about anything like "regime change,' it is all about "sending a message" saying that chemical weapons are a no-no.

I agree it is about _messaging_, but the messages being sent are:

     1. From Washington ~ President Obama is not a wimp; and

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     2. From Ottawa ~ this, running a country, is serious business, maybe even requiring th prime minister to send the CF into harm's way. Do you really want the "Prince of Pot" making those tough decisions?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Tidbit from the British PM's Twitter feed:


> UK to put fwrd resolution authorising all necessary measures under Ch7 of UN Charter to protect civilians from #chemicalweapons in #Syria


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any evidence that Syria used chemical weapons. Yep, we've seen videos of sick people but who is to say what made them sick?


Point:  _"Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say"_ (Syrians fired the stuff, but was it one unit doing its own thing, or regime ordered?)
(Potential?) counterpoint:  _".... seven suspected individuals from the al-Qaeda-linked Al Nusrah Front were captured in antiterrorist operations in Adana, Turkey, and two kilos (4,5 pounds) of sarin gas were found in their apartments. According to the accompanying reports, they were planning attacks on the Incirlik Base in Adana and in Gaziantep, a city near Turkey’s border with Syria ...."_http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Archives/GSW/201307/Turkey_02.html (Were AQ _really_ going to use it on the base, or maybe bringing it into Syria to make it look like Syria was using it, causing the West to jump in on the side of the anti-Syria folks?)

Wilderness of mirrors ....


----------



## CougarKing

Notable updates:



> *Arab League Rejects Attack Against Syria*
> 
> CAIRO — The leaders of the Arab world on Tuesday blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people last week, but declined to back a retaliatory military strike, denying the United States the kind of broad regional support that U.S. governments have generally sought for interventions in the Middle East.
> 
> *While the Obama administration has robust European backing and quiet Arab support for a strike on Syria, the position of the Arab League and the inability to win a U.N. mandate complicates the legal and diplomatic case for the White House.* The Obama administration has yet to make clear if it has any intelligence linking the Syrian government to the use of chemical weapons, though the White House said there was “no doubt” that had occurred.
> 
> ......
> 
> Boston Globe



And Israel readies for Syrian retaliation:



> *Israel deploys full missile defences against Syria*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Aug 28 (Reuters) - Israel is deploying all of its missile defences as a precaution against possible Syrian retaliatory attacks should Western powers carry out threatened strikes on Syria, Israeli Army Radio said on Wednesday.
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> *Systems employed by Israel's air defence corps include the short-range Iron Dome, the mid-range Patriot and the long-range Arrow II.*
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that his country wanted to keep out of the Syrian crisis but would "respond forcefully" to any attempt to attack it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters link


----------



## Journeyman

> *Obama Weighing His Syria Option*
> 
> WASHINGTON—Facing mounting domestic and international pressure to respond to the deployment of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar al-Assad, White House sources confirmed today that President Barack Obama is carefully weighing his option for dealing with the war-torn Middle Eastern nation. “The president has conferred with his top advisors and is currently considering everything from authorizing missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, to taking out Syrian regime targets with missile strikes—nothing is off the table at this point,” said White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, noting that the president would “take all factors into consideration,” including the well-being of the Syrian people and the strategic interests of the United States, before settling on his only option.
> 
> “The president recognizes that the situation in Syria is extremely delicate and that the U.S. faces complex consequences regardless of what he chooses; that’s why he’s giving the one option in front of him so much thought. He will not act until he’s confident in the inexorable decision he’s making.” At press time, Obama had reportedly narrowed his option down to missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, but stated that he would consider it for several more days before making a final decision.



It's sad when the Onion's sarcastic mocking is probably the truth.   


With more Onion "reporting" here


----------



## vonGarvin

Jus ad Bellum:


> Right authority
> The principle of right authority suggests that a war is just only if waged by a legitimate authority. Such authority is rooted in the notion of state sovereignty.
> 
> Right intention
> According to the principle of right intention, the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests, but rather to re-establish a just peace. This state of peace should be preferable to the conditions that would have prevailed had the war not occurred.
> 
> Reasonable hope
> Just wars must have a reasonable chance of success. According to the principle of reasonable hope, there must be good grounds for believing that the desired outcome can be achieved.  This principle involves weighing the costs and benefits of waging war and emphasizes that human life and economic resources should not be wasted on war efforts that are certain to fail.
> 
> Proportionality
> The principle of proportionality stipulates that the violence used in the war must be proportional to the attack suffered. For example, if one nation invades and seizes the land of another nation, this second nation has just cause for a counterattack in order to retrieve its land. However, if this second nation invades the first, reclaims its territory, and then also annexes the first nation, such military action is disproportional.
> 
> Last resort
> The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.



We don't have a reasonable hope.  We cannot achieve the desired outcome no matter how many bombs are dropped.  We have no choice but to let this war carry on, and stand by to render assistance without interfering.  After all, Assad, who is no saint, is only mildly more brutish with these Islamo-fascist thugs than we are.

And I don't believe for one moment that his government, who is winning and has the support of the majority of his people (coerced or otherwise), used chemical weapons on the savages.  And unlike Saddam some ten years ago, he's complying with the UN, and therefore the international community as his fights his own little counter insurgency against the same people we're trying to kill in other parts of the world.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> .... Assad, who is no saint, is only mildly more brutish with these Islamo-fascist thugs would be if they take over ....


FTFY - good point.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Los Angeles Times_ report that an (unnamed) US official told them that ".... he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia ... "They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said."


And that, *not getting mocked*, is what passes for foreign policy in Washington in 2013.

Henry Stimson and Dean Acheson would be ashamed to be Americans.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More from CTV's Mercedes Stephenson, 140 characters at a time....


> #1. We don't know what Canada might contribute yet because nobody knows what kind of action the US will pursue.
> 
> Until the strategic direction of the mission is determined, it is impossible to know if we'll send planes, a ship or transport capabilities
> 
> The mission could look like a Libya scenario, or a Mali where we were facilitating, but by helping allies get there vs direct participation
> 
> Military sources tell me the Syrian military is VERY well armed and that will influence the calculus on what kind of mission it will be
> 
> Cda will most likely wait until after the initial strike (if there is one) so US and coalition can determine nature of the mission & needs


----------



## vonGarvin

In other words "follow us, we'll be right behind you." 

...


----------



## CougarKing

> *US military strike on Syria 'as early as today'*
> by: John Lyons, Middle East Correspondent
> From: The Australian
> August 29, 2013 12:00AM
> 
> *BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron will make the case to parliament for targeted military action to halt the use of chemical weapons in Syria.*
> Mr Cameron was briefed by his military chiefs yesterday after ordering parliament to be recalled from its summer recess as momentum builds for strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
> 
> After a telephone conversation with Barack Obama, Mr Cameron said Britain would seek UN Security Council backing for action to protect Syrian civilians by submitting a draft resolution later overnight (AEST).
> 
> Mr Cameron is expected to tell lawmakers in today's debate that he foresees targeted military strikes to "degrade" the regime's chemical weapons capability, and will urge them to support such action in a vote.
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> Mr Cameron's office said he and the US President had no doubt Assad's government had used chemical weapons in Damascus on August 21, killing hundreds.
> 
> *"Both leaders agreed that all the information available confirmed a chemical weapons attack had taken place, noting that even the Iranian President and Syrian regime had conceded this," Downing Street.
> *
> <snipped>
> 
> *Mr Cameron's office called his talks with Mr Obama "an opportunity for the PM to hear the latest US thinking on the issue and to set out the options being considered by the government". Senior officials in Washington told NBC news that strikes against targets in Syria could take place as early as today.*
> 
> The Australian


----------



## tomahawk6

I certainly hope the administration resists the urge to attack targets in Syria.Strategically we are better off watch the bad guys kill each other.We don't have any friends there.


----------



## Kirkhill

In 1998 Bill Clinton bombarded Sudan and Afghanistan - Result - Osama bin Laden blew up the World Trade Centre

In 1914 the Kaiser bombarded Whitby - Result - Grandma joined the Queen Alexandra's Nursing Corps 

In 1814 the Royal Navy bombarded Baltimore - Result - "The Star Spangled Banner"

In 1813 the Yanks burned York - Result - The White House got a paint job.

These demonstrations never achieve the desired result.  They do not "pacify".  They merely prod the hornets.


----------



## vonGarvin

The moon phase is wrong for air strikes.  First week of September between Tuesday and Saturday.


My guess.  That will give POTUS et al a bit more time to get out the propaganda and to get the requisite forces in place.


----------



## Journeyman

.....and Monday _is_ Labour Day; can't go to war on a Stat Hol.    :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

Sparta wages no war during the time of the Carnaya.


----------



## myself.only

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The moon phase is wrong for air strikes.  First week of September between Tuesday and Saturday.



And I believe the following week (Sep 9-15) marks the start of one of the four Muslim months of peace: Dhu al-Qi'dah


----------



## The Bread Guy

Latest from Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, via CBC Twitter ....


> Canada to wait for U.S. decision on Syria before acting  . Baird says there's not much Canadian weaponry in region.


----------



## 57Chevy

Ban Ki-moon tells Security Council ‘give peace a chance’ in Syria 

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for weapons inspectors to be given time to determine whether chemical weapons were used.

Speaking at the Hague, Ban urged members of the UN Security Council to look for a diplomatic solution, saying: “Give peace a chance, give diplomacy a chance, stop fighting and start talking.”

His words may have fallen on deaf ears as American, European and Middle East allies have already firmly pinned the blame on President Assad’s forces.

Syria says it believes that Britain, France and the US have helped “terrorists” use chemical weapons in Syria, in order to justify foreign intervention and warned that the same groups would soon use them against Europe.

In Damascus, inspectors have finished their second visit to a suspected chemical weapons strike in the Mouadamiya suburb.

Hundreds of people are reported to have died in the attack on August 21.


Article  Link is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


----------



## The Bread Guy

Even the Afghan Taliban are calling for action - sorta makes ya wonder ....

_Usual disclaimer - if you don't want the Taliban's webmeisters to have your information by clicking on the statement link, there's an alternate link_

*Communiqué of Islamic Emirate regarding the mass killings in Syria* - screen capture of statement at Google Drive
Created on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 19:15 


> Everyone is aware that for the past two years, the oppressed Syrian nation has been burning in a raging fire; more than a hundred thousand men, women and children have died, millions have become refugees and homes and villages have been destroyed however it did not end there! but now chemical weapons have also been used against them.
> 
> On the 21/08/2013 in Ghawtha area near the capital Damascus, the Syrian regime brutally used chemical gas deployed in bombs which resulted in some 1300 innocent civilians, mostly women and children, becoming martyrs in the heinous crime, according to the tally of the locals.
> 
> The Islamic Emirate, while condemning this inhumane action in the strongest of terms, calls on the international community and especially the Islamic world to immediately put a stop to such crimes against humanity and take every necessary step to help the oppressed Syrian nation so to put an end to similar crimes from taking place in the future.
> 
> *The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
> 21/10/1434
> 06/06/1392         28/08/2013*​


----------



## Jed

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Jus ad Bellum:
> We don't have a reasonable hope.  We cannot achieve the desired outcome no matter how many bombs are dropped.  We have no choice but to let this war carry on, and stand by to render assistance without interfering.  After all, Assad, who is no saint, is only mildly more brutish with these Islamo-fascist thugs than we are.
> 
> And I don't believe for one moment that his government, who is winning and has the support of the majority of his people (coerced or otherwise), used chemical weapons on the savages.  And unlike Saddam some ten years ago, he's complying with the UN, and therefore the international community as his fights his own little counter insurgency against the same people we're trying to kill in other parts of the world.



I concur.


----------



## CougarKing

So Berlin might sit this one out as well...

EU Observer link



> *Germany not keen to join France and UK on Syria strike*
> 
> 27.08.13 @ 10:02
> 
> 
> BRUSSELS - *Germany has indicated it will not take part in any military strike on Syria, as France and the UK signal readiness to join a US-led intervention. *
> 
> Philipp Missfelder, the foreign affairs spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party, said in the Leipziger Volkszeitung daily on Tuesday (27 August) that: *"The [German] army has, through its current international operations, already reached the breaking point."*
> 
> He added that a Western strike could create a "spiral of escalating violence" by drawing Iran and the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, deeper into the conflict.
> 
> He also said military action without a UN mandate is "hard to imagine."
> 
> Despite Missfelder's statement, *Merkel in recent days joined British and French leaders in giving credence to reports the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of people on the outskirts of Damascus. *
> 
> A statement by British Prime Minister David Cameron's office noted that Cameron and Merkel spoke by phone on Sunday.
> 
> "They agreed that this was a very grave incident and that there was little doubt that it had been carried out by the regime," it said.
> 
> "They agreed that such an attack demanded a firm response from the international community," it added.
> 
> France on Monday also used strong words.
> 
> "The only option that I am ruling out is to do nothing," French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said on Europe 1 radio.
> 
> The toughest language came from Washington on Monday evening, however.
> 
> US secretary of state John Kerry told media in the US capital: "The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity."
> 
> He added: "There must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people."
> 
> *The US also cancelled a meeting with Russia, due in The Hague on Wednesday, designed to re-launch peace talks between Syrian rebels and Syrian authorities. *
> 
> If the US and some EU countries do strike Syria's chemical weapons depots, elite brigades or air force, the move risks further alienating Moscow.
> 
> *Cameron's office said he also spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, but "the Russian President said Moscow had no evidence as to whether such an attack had taken place or who was responsible."
> 
> Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on Monday spelled out his country's point of view.
> 
> “We are especially concerned to hear talk coming from London and Paris suggesting that Nato could take the lead in bombing in Syria without Security Council approval. This is a very slippery slope," he told Russian press.*
> "Any military action without [UN] Security Council approval would be a crude violation of international law," he noted.
> 
> Asked what Russia would do if a Nato-linked coalition does strike its Middle East ally, Lavrov added that Moscow is "not planning to go to war with anyone," however.
> 
> A UN chemical weapons inspection team arrived on the site of the alleged attack on Monday, with any Western action unlikely to come before it files its report.
> 
> *A former French airforce chief, Jean Rannou, told EUobserver in a previous interview a military strike would most likely be launched from the UK's military base in Cyprus.
> 
> He noted there is a risk that Syria's Russian-made SA-17 missiles could shoot down a handful of Nato planes.*
> 
> But he added: "I don't see any purely military problems. Syria has no defence against Western systems."
> 
> Some defence analysts have also voiced concerns about asymmetric threats.
> 
> *EU countries have troops in UN peacekeeping missions in Lebanon and Syria, which could become targets. *
> Rainer Wendt, the head of Germany's police trade union, also told press on Monday that Syria could react with terrorist attacks in EU countries, including Germany, whether or not it takes part in an assault.


----------



## CougarKing

Moscow says this deployment is not related to the Syria situation...or so they say.



> *Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean*
> 
> Quote
> 
> *Russia will "over the next few days" be sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean as the West prepares for possible strikes against Syria,* the Interfax news agency said on Thursday.
> 
> "The well-known situation shaping up in the eastern Mediterranean called for certain corrections to the make-up of the naval forces," a source in the Russian General Staff told Interfax.
> 
> 
> Quote
> 
> *"Later it will be joined by the Moskva, a rocket cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet which is now wrapping up its tasks in the northern Atlantic and will soon begin a Transatlantic voyage towards the Strait of Gibraltar."
> 
> In addition, a rocket cruiser of the Pacific Fleet, the Varyag, will join the Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean this autumn by replacing a large anti-submarine ship.*
> 
> 
> Quote
> 
> However, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency cited a high-ranking representative of the naval command who said the changes to the country's forces in the region were not linked to the current tensions over Syria and called them "a planned rotation."
> 
> 
> link


----------



## vonGarvin

The Soviet deployment of forces to the med was announced a while back, including their carrier.  They have a friend in Syria......



er...the Russians


----------



## The Bread Guy

While Russian ships head to the Med', and Russia continues to have veto power in the U.N., it appears they're not as confident about stopping missiles/bombs (should they fall of course)  ;D


> Russia is preparing to withdraw personnel from its naval maintenance and supply facility on Syria's Mediterranean coast, Interfax news agency reported on Wednesday ....


----------



## Edward Campbell

A good report from CTV News, here, including a video of Prime Minister Harper addressing the question.


----------



## CougarKing

The US Navy increases its carrier presence in the region as tensions with Syria rise. In spite of what the article below says, perhaps the US is preparing to respond to Iranian threats to destroy Israel if a US-coalition air campaign against Syria is launched?

Military.com link



> *US Officials: Navy Boosts Carrier Presence in Gulf*
> 
> Aug 29, 2013
> 
> Associated Press| by Lolita C. Baldor
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON - U.S. officials say the Navy is beefing up its presence in the Persian Gulf region, increasing the number of aircraft carriers from one to two.
> 
> The *USS Harry S Truman* has arrived in the Arabian Sea and was scheduled to take the place of the *USS Nimitz*, which was supposed to head home. The Navy has ordered the Nimitz, which is in the Indian Ocean, to stay for now.
> 
> *U.S. officials describe the decision as prudent planning and say it doesn't suggest the carrier would play a role in any possible strikes in Syria. *The officials were not authorized to discuss ship movements publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
> 
> 
> The U.S. had kept two carriers in the region, but budget cuts in February forced officials to cut to one.


----------



## 57Chevy

Excerpt of article;

In London, MPs voted against possible military action against Syria.

The government motion - to support in principle British involvement in military action - was defeated in by 285 votes to 272 late on Thursday.

Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear the parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly".

Full article  link 
Syria's Bashar al-Assad will fight Western 'aggression'

                                     Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


----------



## CougarKing

The USN presence just off Syria has been reinforced by another AEGIS destroyer.

military.com



> *Fifth Destroyer Joins US Naval Presence Off Syria*
> 
> Aug 29, 2013
> 
> Military.com| by Richard Sisk
> 
> 
> A fifth U.S. destroyer has arrived in the eastern Mediterranean to boost U.S. firepower should President Obama order strikes against Syria to punish the regime of President Bashar al-Assad for its alleged use of chemical weapons, the Navy said Thursday.
> 
> *The Stout is underway in the Mediterranean where the guided-missile destroyer will join the destroyers Ramage, Mahan, Barry and Gravely off the coast of Syria as part of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, said Lt. Lauryn Dempsey, a Navy spokeswoman.*
> 
> Dempsey also denied regional media reports that the amphibious assault ship Kearsarge with 1,000 Marines aboard was also on station in the Mediterranean. "That is incorrect," said Dempsey, adding that the Kearsarge and two accompanying ships were currently in the Fifth Fleet's area in the North Arabian Sea.
> 
> *The Stout left its Norfolk, Va., homeport on Aug. 18 and initially had been scheduled to replace the Ramage. The Mahan had been due to return to Norfolk last week but was ordered to stay in the Mediterranean following the Aug. 21 rocket attacks on the Damascus suburbs that humanitarian groups and rebel forces have said killed hundreds with the nerve agent Sarin.*
> 
> The buildup of naval power came after U.S. military chiefs consulted with their counterparts on the crisis in Syria and the U.S. response.
> 
> (...)


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Canada has been convinced Western military action is needed against Syria after reports it used chemical weapons, but Ottawa does not plan its own military mission, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Thursday.
> 
> Harper told reporters in Toronto that doing nothing in the face of what he said appeared to be an escalation in the use of chemical weapons by Syria would set "an extremely dangerous precedent."
> 
> "This is a very big risk and we do support our allies who are contemplating forceful action to deal with this," said Harper, who spoke to U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday about Syria and has also talked with British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande.
> 
> "That said, at the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own, to have a Canadian military mission." ....


Reuters, 29 Aug 13

Also, couldn't resist adding the attached cartoon about the world's response.


----------



## MilEME09

From the Washington Times

*Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/


If true his would shake the entire debate


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> From the Washington Times
> 
> *Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official*
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
> 
> 
> If true his would shake the entire debate



 This would not surprise me in the least.


----------



## Inquisitor

British Parliament Votes Against Military Intervention In Syria

link here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/british-parliament-syria-vote_n_3839067.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada

Comment: Kudos to all for the debate and the call back, The Process seems to work. The against side seemed to focus on no clear perp, as well as crying wolf once to often, eg. Tony Bliar and WMD. 

The comment that stands out in my mind is reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the copyright act from Huffington post. 

"Defense Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that British forces would not be involved in any potential strike, something he said would doubtless upset Washington – and please Assad.

"It is certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship," Hammond told BBC radio. "The Americans do understand the parliamentary process that we have to go through....  Common sense must tell us that the Assad regime is going to be a little bit less uncomfortable tonight as a result of this decision in Parliament."

Comment  Not holding my breath, but some in the US Congress might want to use this as a precedent to put the help put executive/legislative branches back into balance. 

One can but hope


----------



## CougarKing

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> From the Washington Times
> 
> *Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official*
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
> 
> 
> If true his would shake the entire debate



Wait a minute. Look at the date when you go to the source link. Isn't that article from wayyyyyy back in May????


----------



## CougarKing

This article below seems to "clear things up" a bit...

The UN official did say the above statement back in May, but ITAR-TASS falsely reported that she said it on August 21; the Russian agency also made her statement sound more alarming. 




> *Russia Goes Ballistic Over Inaccurate Syria Report*
> August 29, 2013
> By Alexander Kolyandr
> 
> Russian state agency ITAR-TASS published a report from Cairo Wednesday quoting a top United Nations official as saying it was Syrian rebels, not government forces, that used poison gas on Aug. 21. ITAR-TASS attributed quotes from Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN’s commission looking into alleged gas attacks, to a Syrian news portal, which in turn was citing an interview on Swiss TV.
> 
> Russian politicians seized on the quote, which appeared to back up Russian government claims that rebels could have been responsible for the attack. Alexey Pushkov, a senior lawmaker from President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, accused Western press of deliberately ignoring Carla Del Ponte’s statement because it destroyed the basis for a military strike.
> 
> *One problem: There was no such statement.*
> 
> That story appears to have passed to ITAR-TASS via the BBC, The Washington Times and Assyrian International News Agency’s website, *with the timing and wording changed.
> 
> Ms. Del Ponte did say something similar—but not quite as stark—back in May*:  “Investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” she told Swiss TV, referring to another alleged attack.
> 
> By the end of Wednesday, *a UN spokesman had told BBC Russian Service that Ms. Del Ponte didn’t say anything about the Aug. 21 attack*,  and that the members of the commission haven’t spoken publicly since June 4.
> 
> ITAR-TASS and Interfax reported the UN’s denial of the quote, but didn’t publish a correction. ITAR-TASS’s desk editor said the agency “took the reporter’s dispatch at face value” and the editors didn’t check it.
> 
> Wall Street Journal


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Wait a minute. Look at the date when you go to the source link. Isn't that article from wayyyyyy back in May????



The date stamp many be dated, but it does show that the rebels did and may still have the capability and intent to use chemical and biological agents.  If they did it less than a year ago, what is to say they did not stage another such event?  As stated in other posts, this Region is know for manipulating the MSM with staged events, often reusing cadavers, etc. to garner support for their side.


----------



## GAP

Assad accused of moving human shields to key military targets as a defence against Western air strikes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2406351/Assad-accused-moving-human-shields-key-military-targets-defence-Western-air-strikes.html

President Assad has moved thousands of Syrian prisoners to key military targets to use as human shields against air strikes, opposition groups claimed last night.

Sources in the capital Damascus report inmates being led from their cells onto buses and being taken to sites the regime fears will be targeted by western forces.

As the international community continues to debate military intervention in the long-running civil war following the alleged use of chemical weapons, opposition groups opposed have accused the Assad regime of murdering and torturing political prisoners.

In a statement released last night, The Syrian Coalition in Istanbul said:  'Assad's fascist regime is amassing detained activists and civilians in prisons inside military locations that may be potential targets for foreign military forces. 

'Using civilians as human shields is a blatant breach of International Humanitarian Law, and those responsible must be held accountable for crimes against humanity.
more on link


----------



## The Bread Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Wait a minute. Look at the date when you go to the source link. Isn't that article from wayyyyyy back in May????


1)  Also reported by Turkish media around that time (see second link below)


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Point:  _"Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say"_ (Syrians fired the stuff, but was it one unit doing its own thing, or regime ordered?)
> (Potential?) counterpoint:  _".... seven suspected individuals from the al-Qaeda-linked Al Nusrah Front were captured in antiterrorist operations in Adana, Turkey, and two kilos (4,5 pounds) of sarin gas were found in their apartments. According to the accompanying reports, they were planning attacks on the Incirlik Base in Adana and in Gaziantep, *a city near Turkey’s border with Syria* ...."_ (Were AQ _really_ going to use it on the base, or maybe bringing it into Syria to make it look like Syria was using it, causing the West to jump in on the side of the anti-Syria folks?)
> 
> Wilderness of mirrors ....


2)  It was between mid-March and late April that chemical weapon claims initially started flying.

However, all that said, before we jump on the "it had to be the rebels" bandwagon too hard, while I don't agree with this blogger's "let's go with the rebels" view, let's consider this ....


> .... the call went out for UN inspectors to investigate the sites, with permission finally granted by the Syrian government on August 25th (Sunday). The Inspectors visited one small site the next day, but only for a few hours before being withdrawn by the Syrian government, and without having had the opportunity to investigate any of the main sites or to remove any of the material believed to be part of the delivery mechanisms (possibly mortar or artillery shells).
> 
> This should be kept in mind by anyone questioning why Assad would allow the Inspectors to conduct a survey of the area if it was him (or members of his regime) who ordered the attacks. The Inspectors were held back for several days, they were only allowed to visit one site and only for a short period of time, and they were denied the opportunity to bring back important evidence that could help identify who launched the attack.
> 
> When combined with the context of the regimes offensive, as well as reports coming from the US that they have both satellite imagery of activity around a known chemical weapons site in the days preceding the attack, as well as rumours of communications intercepts related to the attacks, the evidence against Assad and his regime is beginning to mount ....


----------



## tomahawk6

Its clear from communications intercepts that it was the Syrian Army that gassed the civilians.


----------



## The Bread Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its clear from communications intercepts that it was the Syrian Army that gassed the civilians.


I've read the same thing, although some "anonymous sources" say it's not clear whether the Bosses gave the order, or whether some unit commanders went outside their arcs.  If it was the latter, though, and if Syria didn't want bang-things flying their way, methinks this dude would have been "dealt with" by now.

More along those lines here.


----------



## vonGarvin

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its clear from communications intercepts that it was the Syrian Army that gassed the civilians.


Reading what was intercepted, it's not that clear.  A higher HQ was calling a lower HQ to demand "WTF is going on?"  In short, the higher HQ knew that chemicals were being used, but of course no authorisation came through that HQ.


----------



## CougarKing

France says it is still willing to support the US and other allies, and to punish Syria (a former French colony) without British help.

Reuters link



> *France says ready to punish Syria despite British no vote*
> Reuters
> 
> By Catherine Bremer
> 
> PARIS (Reuters) - France said on Friday it still backed action to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government for an apparent poison gas attack on civilians, despite a British parliamentary vote against it.
> 
> An aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, a close Assad ally, seized on the British no vote as evidence that "people are beginning to understand" the dangers of military action.
> 
> U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said his country would keep seeking an international coalition to act together on Syria, where hundreds of people were killed in last week's reported chemical attacks. Syria denies using chemical weapons.
> 
> "It is the goal of President (Barack) Obama and our government ... whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort," he said.
> 
> *French President Francois Hollande told the daily Le Monde that he still supported taking "firm" punitive action over an attack he said had caused "irreparable" harm to the Syrian people, adding that he would work closely with France's allies.
> 
> Asked if France could take action without Britain, Hollande replied: "Yes. Each country is sovereign to participate or not in an operation. That is valid for Britain as it is for France."*
> 
> The British parliamentary defeat on Thursday of a government motion on Syria has set back U.S.-led efforts to take military action against Damascus.
> 
> Russia fiercely opposes any such action, backing the assertions of Damascus that Syrian rebels were behind the chemical attacks. Putin's senior foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov said the British vote reflected majority opinion in Europe. "People are beginning to understand how dangerous such scenarios are," Ushakov told reporters.
> 
> Any military strike looks likely to be delayed at least until U.N. investigators report back after leaving Syria on Saturday.
> 
> *Hollande is not constrained by the need for parliamentary approval of any move to intervene in Syria and could act, if he chose, before lawmakers debate the issue on Wednesday.*
> 
> 
> (...)


----------



## Journeyman

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its clear from communications intercepts that...


The only thing that's clear to me is that Obama issued an ultimatum, got called on it by _someone_, and is now trying to get everyone.....anyone.....Bueller? .....to back him up.

No thanks; not my fight.


----------



## vonGarvin

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The only thing that's clear to me is that Obama issued an ultimatum, got called on it by _someone_, and is now trying to get everyone.....anyone.....Bueller? .....to back him up.
> 
> No thanks; not my fight.



:nod:

And I think that the Admiral Kuznetzov may cause some concern... once it arrives there in December.


----------



## krustyrl

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The only thing that's clear to me is that Obama issued an ultimatum, got called on it by _someone_, and is now trying to get everyone.....anyone.....Bueller? .....to back him up.
> 
> No thanks; not my fight.



Agreed, I'm guessing due to his ultimatum , he's feeling pretty darn lonely on the worlds stage   :crickets:  
Glad Harper has no plans to enter militarily simply because  that would most likely involve a new round of injured Veterans and he has a hard time looking after the current ones.!  Ooops, my inside voice yelling there.


----------



## myself.only

OK fine, with this august assembly of strategic wisdom on hand, I'll play Devil's Advocate on this... WRT framing a response that deters nations from using WMD, what action, if any, should other nations take against Syria?


----------



## Kat Stevens

myself.only said:
			
		

> OK fine, with this august assembly of strategic wisdom on hand, I'll play Devil's Advocate on this... WRT framing a response that deters nations from using WMD, what action, if any, should other nations take against Syria?



Blockade them and starve them out, worked pretty well on Cuba. Ummm, never mind....


----------



## Edward Campbell

myself.only said:
			
		

> OK fine, with this august assembly of strategic wisdom on hand, I'll play Devil's Advocate on this... WRT framing a response that deters nations from using WMD, what action, if any, should other nations take against Syria?




Why is it necessary to "deter" anyone from using WMD?


----------



## Kat Stevens

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Why is it necessary to "deter" anyone from using WMD?



Exactly.  What precisely makes one Weapon of Mass Destruction any less or more horrific than large scale use of Weapons of Individual Destruction or a bunch of Weapons of Small to Medium Group Destruction?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Standby for a few new soundbites (but no new pictures) shortly ....


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Director of Communications, Andrew MacDougall, along with senior government officials, will hold a briefing on Friday, August 30, 2013, on Prime Minister Harper’s upcoming trip to the G-20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.
> 
> Event: Briefing (open to media only; no cameras)
> Date: Friday, August 30, 2013
> Time: 1 p.m. ET
> Location: National Press Theatre, 150 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario ....


----------



## myself.only

Well without taking the discussion of options down any particular lane too early & off the top of my head....

I would imagine the deterrence camp would say their policy:
 (a) makes it harder to destroy masses of people, 
 (b) discourages the use of weapons viewed to be more likely to indiscriminately produce collateral civilian casualties, and / or 
 (c) is part of a general policy against the proliferation of WMD and WMD technology.

Similarly, these would likely be the perceived differences between killing people with WMDs vice conventional arms as described by Kat.

Needless to say, if someone wants to throw out other objectives / outcomes / presumptions of the deterrence camp, pls add to the list, add to the discussion. 
Or just side-step the why and throw out some how.  I'm sure that'll fuel discussion too.


----------



## The Bread Guy

For the record, here's a map released by the U.S. at a media briefing this hour ....





.... and attached find the U.S. and Brit int assessment documents shared publicly via media.


----------



## Inquisitor

Interesting article from Foreign Policy link here  http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/


An Imaginative, Creative Way to Deal with the Syrian Crisis

Edit used under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act

"Indeed, as Conor Friedersdorf writes in a brilliant piece on the Atlantic's website, this is another elite-driven intervention led by inside-the-Beltway politicos who are addicted to using American power even when vital U.S. interests aren't at stake.  ...

Why not use the crisis over chemical weapons as an opportunity to launch a new diplomatic initiative? Start by referring the matter to the U.N. Security Council, and let everyone on the Security Council see the intelligence that lies behind U.S. suspicions. And as Sean Kay has proposed, for good measure we could ask the Security Council to refer the issue of possible war crimes to the International Criminal Court. But most importantly, before launching punitive strikes that probably won't accomplish anything positive, the United States could invite the European Union, Russia, China, Turkey and -- wait for it -- Iran to a diplomatic conference on Syria. 

What would that accomplish? Plenty. Including Iran would satisfy its long-standing desire to be recognized as a regional stakeholder (which it is, no matter how much the United States tries to pretend otherwise). America would giving Iran the chance to play a constructive role, much as Iran did back in 2002 and 2003 over Afghanistan"


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Standby for a few new soundbites (but no new pictures) shortly ....
> 
> 
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Director of Communications, Andrew MacDougall, along with senior government officials, will hold a briefing on Friday, August 30, 2013, on Prime Minister Harper’s upcoming trip to the G-20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.
> 
> Event: Briefing (open to media only; no cameras)
> Date: Friday, August 30, 2013
> Time: 1 p.m. ET
> Location: National Press Theatre, 150 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario ....
Click to expand...


First summary I've found....


> Canada is convinced that President Bashar al-Assad was behind the August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief spokesman said on Friday, reiterating that Canada has no plans for military action against Syria.
> 
> "The public record is clear and all I can tell you is that based on what we've been shown, we're of the opinion that the Assad regime is behind the attack," Andrew MacDougall, director of communications for the prime minister, told reporters.
> 
> MacDougall said there were no plans to recall Parliament for a debate on the Syria issue.


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> First summary I've found....
> 
> 
> 
> Canada is convinced that President Bashar al-Assad was behind the August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria, and quite frankly, no one gives a damn.
Click to expand...

  Pretty much sums it up.    :nod:


----------



## CougarKing

If true, this adds another dimension to the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria. However, I'm wary of this source below, since no major news outlets seem to be carrying this story, and the other sites that do carry it include dodgy ones like occupy.org  or antiwar.com :

MintPress News



> *EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
> 
> Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group. *
> 
> By Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh |  August 29, 2013
> 
> Article by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh at MintPress News on August 29, 2013:
> 
> *Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.*
> 
> (...)


----------



## Nemo888

I have little interest in Syria but the bit I have heard sounds very strange. Assad invites UN weapons inspectors in and after they arrive stages a chemical attack against civilians ten miles from their hotel. Then takes some pot shots at them but doesn't actually prevent them from investigating. Is this really what happened? If this was a movie plot I would roll my eyes at the terrible writing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I have little interest in Syria but the bit I have heard sounds very strange. Assad invites UN weapons inspectors in and after they arrive stages a chemical attack against civilians ten miles from their hotel. Then takes some pot shots at them but doesn't actually prevent them from investigating. Is this really what happened? If this was a movie plot I would roll my eyes at the terrible writing.



It is a movie plot.


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is a movie plot.


From IMDB, edited  ;D


> _Winifred Ames: _Why Albania Syria?
> 
> _Conrad 'Connie' Brean:_ Why not?
> 
> _Winifred Ames:_ What have they done to us?
> 
> _Conrad 'Connie' Brean:_ What have they done FOR us? What do you know about them?
> 
> _Winifred Ames:_ Nothing.
> 
> _Conrad 'Connie' Brean:_ See? They keep to themselves. Shifty. Untrustable.



This, and "In the Loop", are going to be my long weekend viewing, indeed ....


----------



## Kat Stevens

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> From IMDB, edited  ;D
> 
> This, and "In the Loop", are going to be my long weekend viewing, indeed ....



Squeeze in Pentagon Games also, it's damn funny because it's mostly true.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from a Notice to Airmen from the FAA, shared via Twitter ....





The clock appears to be ticking.

Meanwhile, President Obama has just announced the U.S. ready to go with military strikes against Syrian targets, but before striking, Congress will debate the move, adding all Congressional leaders have agreed to have Congress debate the idea.

Edited to add attached scan of advisory from the US Defence Internet NOTAM system.


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... on Syria, via the Whitehouse Info-machine:


> Good afternoon, everybody.  Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century.  Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.
> 
> Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place.  And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead.  All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered.  Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.
> 
> This attack is an assault on human dignity.  It also presents a serious danger to our national security.  It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.  It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq.  It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.
> 
> In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.
> 
> Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.  This would not be an open-ended intervention.  We would not put boots on the ground.  Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.  But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.
> 
> Our military has positioned assets in the region.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose.  Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.  And I'm prepared to give that order.
> 
> But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.  I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  And that’s why I've made a second decision:  I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.
> 
> Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard.  I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.
> 
> In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security.  And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.
> 
> I'm confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors.  I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.  As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.
> 
> Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.  We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual.  And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.
> 
> A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited.  I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end.  But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.
> 
> Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community:  What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?  What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?
> 
> Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare.  If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules?  To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms?  To terrorist who would spread biological weapons?  To armies who carry out genocide?
> 
> We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.
> 
> So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world.  While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.
> 
> I don't expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made.  Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends.  But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.
> 
> And finally, let me say this to the American people:  I know well that we are weary of war.  We’ve ended one war in Iraq.  We’re ending another in Afghanistan.  And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.  In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve.  And that's why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.
> 
> Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.
> 
> But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.  Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning.  And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations.  We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.
> 
> So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security.  I am looking forward to the debate.  And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.
> 
> Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country.  I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments.  We do what we say.  And we lead with the belief that right makes might -- not the other way around.
> 
> We all know there are no easy options.  But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions.  And neither were the members of the House and the Senate.  I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons.  And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.
> 
> I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage.  Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.
> 
> Thanks very much.


----------



## 57Chevy

What an excellent speech.  
How can anybody disagree with that ! 

After failing to win support from the United Nations and the British public for military action in Syria, the Obama administration is just now trying what some lawmakers say it should have been doing from the beginning -- making the case to the American people.

Polls suggest winning public support will be an uphill climb. A new Reuters’ poll shows U.S. support for intervention has increased over the past week to 20 percent, up from just 9 percent, with more than half of Americans opposing intervention.


Full article  here  which is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


----------



## CougarKing

Since Obama will seek authorization from the US Congress, he has to wait till Sept.9 though for Congress to all return- which unfortunately gives Assad more time to prepare a stronger defense and perhaps move "human shields" into target areas. Looking at it that way, it makes a strike more risky if other options than just cruise missiles are used, especially those options that put US and French troops/airmen/sailors more directly into harm's way. 

The good thing about waiting this long means that the US has more time to secure allies for their coalition and the UN inspectors' findings would have been released by then.

If the US Congress does vote against him, it would make Obama appear weaker. He does have the authority to conduct strikes without even asking Congress, since the US Constitution allows him to go to war without Congressional approval for any action that doesn't last longer than 60 days for most cases. *Perhaps Obama is seeking Congressional approval simply because he expects any US intervention to last longer than 60 days?* One former US diplomat interviewed on NBC, if I can recall correctly, stated that Obama expecting any intervention that long might mean US "boots on the ground"...meaning ground troops, even if the US public is wary of more war.

  

We'll see by Sept.9.


----------



## Nemo888

op: I think we'll just sit this one out. Good luck with that.


----------



## CougarKing

Somehow I doubt that Obama is gonna wait 3 weeks for the UN inspectors' results: 

link




> *Analysing Syrian chemical weapons evidence could take three weeks: agency*
> 
> AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - *Fully assessing the evidence collected by weapons inspectors investigating last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria could take up to three weeks, the organization in charge of the investigation said on Saturday.*The team, which included nine experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and three from the World Health Organisation, arrived at the OPCW's Hague headquarters on Saturday evening after leaving Syria early in the morning.
> 
> "The evidence collected by the team will now undergo laboratory analysis and technical evaluation according to the established and recognized procedures and standards," the OPCW said in a statement. "These procedures may take up to three weeks."
> 
> (Reporting By Thomas Escritt; Editing by Alison Williams)


----------



## Edward Campbell

_Outside the Beltway_ provides a small sample of the (apparently nearly universal) opprobium which is being heaped upon President Obama in this piece which is reproduced from that website:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obamas-hamlet-act/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+%7C+OTB%29


> Obama’s Hamlet Act
> 
> JAMES JOYNER
> 
> SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2013
> 
> As recently as two days ago, it looked as if strikes would commence this weekend. Yesterday, though, the president announced that he would seek permission from Congress, which won’t be back in town for more than a week.
> 
> This Hamlet act is drawing jeers from friend and foe alike.
> 
> David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for the _NYT_, says the president is “tripping on his own red line.”
> 
> Mr. Obama’s own caution about foreign interventions put him in this box. Horrific as the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack was, it was no more horrific than the conventional attacks that caused the deaths of 100,000
> Syrians. Those prompted only a minimal American response — international condemnations, some sporadic arms shipments for a ragtag group of rebels, and an understandable reluctance by an American president
> to get on the same side of the civil war as Al Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.
> 
> Now the crossing of the red line has forced Mr. Obama’s hand. He says he is intervening to stop the use of a specific weapon whose use in World War I shocked the world. But he is not intervening to stop the mass
> killing, or to remove the man behind those attacks. “This is not like the Bush decision in 2003,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said on Thursday. “That intervention was aimed at regime
> change. This is designed to restore an international norm” against the use of poison gases.
> 
> It is a major difference. But the limitation on the use of force may also prove a paralyzing one, undercutting the long-term success of the application of American firepower. That has been the chief critique of those
> who argue that the only thing worse than getting America entangled in another Arab uprising whose inner dynamics we barely understand is to get involved in one and make no difference.
> 
> Trudy Rubin, columnist for the _Philadelphia Inquirer_, is frustrated by the “dithering.”
> 
> Obama’s public dithering is confusing both his allies and his foes. “He seems unable to make difficult decisions,” says Hisham Melhem, the veteran Washington bureau chief of Al Arabiya news channel. “This will
> embolden Assad and the opposition jihadis and demoralize the secular, moderate Syrian opposition. Obama is gambling with his reputation at home and abroad.”
> 
> Why Obama is seeking congressional cover this late in the day is perplexing. He didn’t ask Congress for permission when he backed the NATO operation in Libya in 2011, but he may be feeling lonely after British
> lawmakers rebuffed their government’s plan to cooperate in the strike.
> 
> Now with U.S. ships at the ready in the Mediterranean, there will be days more of debate over should-we, shouldn’t we. If Congress votes no – which is entirely possible – Obama will be humiliated at home and abroad.
> 
> What’s so depressing about this whole mess is that the real rationale for any strike on Syria was to rescue Obama’s credibility – especially with Tehran. The use of chemical weapons does violate a hard-won
> international taboo, and the president has said repeatedly over the past year that Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line.” Last month’s hideous gas attack came after several previous small ones
> had gone unpunished; this time the president had to react with more than rhetoric.
> 
> The _NYT_’s Mark Landler offers these insights into Obama’s about face:
> 
> President Obama’s aides were stunned at what their boss had to say when he summoned them to the Oval Office on Friday at 7 p.m., on the eve of what they believed could be a weekend when American missiles
> streaked again across the Middle East.
> 
> In a two-hour meeting of passionate, sharp debate in the Oval Office, he told them that after a frantic week in which he seemed to be rushing toward a military attack on Syria, he wanted to pull back and seek Congressional approval first.
> 
> He had several reasons, he told them, including a sense of isolation after the terrible setback in the British Parliament. But the most compelling one may have been that acting alone would undercut him if in the next
> three years he needed Congressional authority for his next military confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps with Iran.
> 
> If he made the decision to strike Syria without Congress now, he said, would he get Congress when he really needed it?
> 
> “He can’t make these decisions divorced from the American public and from Congress,” said a senior aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “Who knows what we’re going to face
> in the next three and a half years in the Middle East?”
> 
> The Oval Office meeting ended one of the strangest weeks of the Obama administration, in which a president who had drawn a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, and watched Syrian military forces
> breach it with horrific consequences, found himself compelled to act by his own statements. But Mr. Obama, who has been reluctant for the past two years to get entangled in Syria, had qualms from the start.
> 
> Even as he steeled himself for an attack this past week, two advisers said, he nurtured doubts about the political and legal justification for action, given that the United Nations Security Council had refused to bless
> a military strike that he had not put before Congress. A drumbeat of lawmakers demanding a vote added to the sense that he could be out on a limb.
> 
> Presumably, Obama didn’t expect the British parliament to reject intervention, removing America’s historical ally on the outside of the coalition. That could have been a game changer for two reasons. First, it was a serious blow to the cloak of international legitimacy to an operation lacking the imprimatur of either the UN Security Council or NATO. Second, it might reasonably thrown a splash of cold water into the “we must do something” groupthink. If even the Brits think this is a bad idea, maybe it is.
> 
> Additionally, outside experts have had a chance to weigh in on the risks involved. _CFR_’s Steven A. Cook, who urged serious consideration of intervention in January 2012, argues that the situation on the ground has now deteriorated to the point where an intervention would destroy Syria.
> 
> Assad would remain defiant in the face of an attack. It is not as if he is constrained now, but he would probably step up the violence both to exert control within his country and to demonstrate that the United
> States and its allies cannot intimidate him. At the same time, the regime’s Iranian patrons and Hezbollah supporters would increase their investment in the conflict, meaning more weapons and more fighters pouring
> into Syria — resulting in more atrocities. And on the other side, Syrian opposition groups would welcome a steady stream of foreign fighters who care more about killing Alawites and Shiites than the fate of the
> country. This environment would heighten Syria’s substantial sectarian, ethnic and political divisions, pulling the country apart.
> 
> The formidable U.S. armed forces could certainly damage Assad’s considerably less potent military. But in an astonishing irony that only the conflict in Syria could produce, American and allied cruise missiles would be
> degrading the capability of the regime’s military units to the benefit of the al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting Assad — the same militants whom U.S. drones are attacking regularly in places such as Yemen. Military
> strikes would also complicate Washington’s longer-term desire to bring stability to a country that borders Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Israel.
> 
> Unlike Yugoslavia, which ripped itself apart in the 1990s, Syria has no obvious successor states, meaning there would be violence and instability in the heart of the Middle East for many years to come.
> 
> Further, as Sanger observes,
> 
> [T]he sharply limited goals Mr. Obama has described in explaining his rationale for taking military action now — “a shot across the bow” to halt future chemical attacks, he told PBS — pose risks of their own. If
> President Bashar al-Assad emerges from a few days of Tomahawk missile barrages relatively unscathed, he will be able to claim that he faced down not only his domestic opponents but the United States, which he
> has charged is the secret hand behind the uprising.
> 
> In the words of one recently departed senior adviser to Mr. Obama, “the worst outcome would be making Assad look stronger.”
> 
> Of course, backing out of military strikes that the administration spent days broadcasting to enforce a “red line” that Obama himself drew and has told us has been crossed repeatedly also makes Assad look stronger. Certainly, it makes Obama look weaker. But when all available options are bad, there’s no way to choose a good one. And it’s quite possible that the fallout from backing out of a boldly declared bad policy will be less than carrying out the bad policy. Then again, it’s conceivable that the president will ultimately carry out said policy, anyway, and also look weak and foolish for having hemmed and hawed so publicly.




Can anyone fathom what, beyond President Obama's reputation in the US media, passes for _policy_, much less _strategy_ in Washington?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _New York Times_ is the full article by Mark Landler in which he explains how we got from "bombs away" to "wait, out:"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/president-pulls-lawmakers-into-box-he-made.html?_r=0


> President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made
> 
> By MARK LANDLER
> 
> Published: August 31, 2013
> 
> WASHINGTON — President Obama’s aides were stunned at what their boss had to say when he summoned them to the Oval Office on Friday at 7 p.m., on the eve of what they believed could be a weekend when American missiles streaked again across the Middle East.
> 
> In a two-hour meeting of passionate, sharp debate in the Oval Office, he told them that after a frantic week in which he seemed to be rushing toward a military attack on Syria, he wanted to pull back and seek Congressional approval first.
> 
> He had several reasons, he told them, including a sense of isolation after the terrible setback in the British Parliament. But the most compelling one may have been that acting alone would undercut him if in the next three years he needed Congressional authority for his next military confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps with Iran.
> 
> If he made the decision to strike Syria without Congress now, he said, would he get Congress when he really needed it?
> 
> “He can’t make these decisions divorced from the American public and from Congress,” said a senior aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “Who knows what we’re going to face in the next three and a half years in the Middle East?”
> 
> The Oval Office meeting ended one of the strangest weeks of the Obama administration, in which a president who had drawn a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, and watched Syrian military forces breach it with horrific consequences, found himself compelled to act by his own statements. But Mr. Obama, who has been reluctant for the past two years to get entangled in Syria, had qualms from the start.
> 
> Even as he steeled himself for an attack this past week, two advisers said, he nurtured doubts about the political and legal justification for action, given that the United Nations Security Council had refused to bless a military strike that he had not put before Congress. A drumbeat of lawmakers demanding a vote added to the sense that he could be out on a limb.
> 
> “I know well we are weary of war,” Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden on Saturday. “We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.”
> 
> The speech, which crystallized both Mr. Obama’s outrage at the wanton use of chemical weapons and his ambivalence about military action, was a coda to a week that began the previous Saturday, when he convened a meeting of his National Security Council.
> 
> In that meeting, held in the White House Situation Room, Mr. Obama said he was devastated by the images of women and children gasping and convulsing from the effects of a poison gas attack in the suburbs of Damascus three days before. The Aug. 21 attack, which American intelligence agencies say killed more than 1,400 people, was on a far different scale than earlier, smaller chemical weapons attacks in Syria, which were marked by murky, conflicting evidence.
> 
> “I haven’t made a decision yet on military action,” he told his war council that Saturday, according to an aide. “But when I was talking about chemical weapons, this is what I was talking about.” From that moment, the White House set about formulating the strongest case for military action it could.
> 
> Last Sunday, it issued a statement dismissing the need to wait for United Nations investigators because their evidence, the statement said, had been corrupted by the relentless shelling of the sites. By Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who had long advocated a more aggressive policy on Syria, delivered a thunderous speech that said President Bashar al-Assad was guilty of a “moral obscenity.”
> 
> By midweek, administration officials were telling reporters that the administration would not be deterred by the lack of an imprimatur from the Security Council, where Syria’s biggest backer, Russia, holds a veto.
> 
> Yet the president’s ambivalence was palpable, and public. While Mr. Kerry made his fiery case against Mr. Assad, Mr. Obama was circumspect, sprinkling his words with caveats about the modest scale of the operation and acknowledgments of the nation’s combat fatigue.
> 
> “We don’t have good options, great options, for the region,” the president said in an interview Wednesday on PBS’s “News Hour,” before describing a “limited, tailored” operation that he said would amount to a “shot across the bow” for Mr. Assad.
> 
> White House aides were in the meantime nervously watching a drama across the Atlantic. They knew that Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempt to win the British Parliament’s authorization for action was in deep trouble, but the defeat on a preliminary motion by just 13 votes on Thursday was a jolt. Although aides said before the vote that Mr. Obama was prepared to launch a strike without waiting for a second British vote, scheduled for Tuesday, the lack of a British blessing removed another layer of legitimacy.
> 
> Mr. Obama was annoyed by what he saw as Mr. Cameron’s stumbles, reflecting a White House view that Mr. Cameron had mishandled the situation. Beyond that, Mr. Obama said little about his thinking at the time.
> 
> It was only on Friday that he told the aides, they said, about how his doubts had grown after the vote: a verdict, Mr. Obama told his staff, that convinced him it was all the more important to get Congressional ratification. After all, he told them, “we similarly have a war-weary public.”
> 
> And if the British government was unable to persuade lawmakers of the legitimacy of its plan, shouldn’t he submit it to the same litmus test in Congress, even if he had not done so in the case of Libya?
> 
> Mr. Obama’s backing of a NATO air campaign against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011 had left a sour taste among many in Congress, particularly rank-and-file members. More than 140 lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, had signed a letter demanding a vote on Syria.
> 
> Moving swiftly in Libya, aides said, was necessary to avert a slaughter of rebels in the eastern city of Benghazi. But that urgency did not exist in this case.
> 
> Indeed, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Mr. Obama that the limited strike he had in mind would be just as effective “in three weeks as in three days,” one official said.
> 
> Beyond the questions of political legitimacy, aides said, Mr. Obama told them on Friday that he was troubled that authorizing another military action over the heads of Congress would contradict the spirit of his speech last spring in which he attempted to chart a shift in the United States from the perennial war footing of the post-Sept. 11 era.
> 
> All of these issues were on Mr. Obama’s mind when he invited his chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, for an early evening stroll on the south lawn of the White House. In the West Wing, an aide said, staff members hoped to get home early, recognizing they would spend the weekend in the office.
> 
> Forty-five minutes later, shortly before 7, Mr. Obama summoned his senior staff members to tell them that he had decided to take military action, but with a caveat.
> 
> “I have a pretty big idea I want to test with you guys,” he said to the group, which included Mr. McDonough and his deputy, Rob Nabors; the national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, and her deputies, Antony J. Blinken and Benjamin J. Rhodes; the president’s senior adviser, Dan Pfeiffer; and several legal experts to discuss the War Powers Resolution.
> 
> The resistance from the group was immediate. The political team worried that Mr. Obama could lose the vote, as Mr. Cameron did, and that it could complicate the White House’s other legislative priorities. The national security team argued that international support for an operation was unlikely to improve.
> 
> At 9 p.m., the president drew the debate to a close and telephoned Mr. Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to tell them of his plans.




Last Saturday President Obama said, "... the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.” Why, then, did he spend a week proposing to do just that?


----------



## myself.only

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Last Saturday President Obama said, "... the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military.” Why, then, did he spend a week proposing to do just that?



The objective of the US response to use of WMDs would be retaliation, not resolution.


----------



## Kirkhill

> “He can’t make these decisions divorced from the American public and from Congress,” said a senior aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “Who knows what we’re going to face in the next three and a half years in the Middle East?”



His indecision has made it more likely that he, and the Yanks, and the rest of us, are likely to be faced with unknown unknowns.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> His indecision has made it more likely that he, and the Yanks, and the rest of us, are likely to be faced with unknown unknowns.



And when we see a proof and its a good proof, then we have a proof......

I am not convinced at all.


----------



## vonGarvin

> 'Who knows what we’re going to face in the next three and a half years in the Middle East?”



Therein lies the problem with democracy. Governments are focused on getting elected, not on governing.  And certainly not on doing the right thing, whatever that may be.


----------



## CougarKing

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Polls suggest winning public support will be an uphill climb. A new Reuters’ poll shows U.S. support for intervention has increased over the past week to 20 percent, up from just 9 percent, with more than half of Americans opposing intervention.



Surprise, surprise. Looks like this opposition is manifesting itself in Congress:

from Defense News



> *Opposition To Syria Attack Emerges In Congress*
> 
> Sep. 1, 2013 - 12:30PM   |
> By PAUL SINGER
> 
> WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday he does not believe Congress will reject military action against Syria, but lawmakers are making it clear that the vote will not be easy and the outcome is not assured.
> 
> President Obama announced Saturday that he believes the United States should launch a military attack on Syria in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in Damascus. But he said he would first seek approval from Congress for use of military force.
> 
> *Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he thinks the Senate “will rubber-stamp what (Obama) wants, but I think the House will be a much closer vote.” Paul said he believes “it’s at least 50-50 whether the House will vote down involvement in the Syrian war.”*
> 
> Paul, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it’s not clear whether American interests are at stake in Syria, or whether opponents of the Assad regime would be any more friendly to the United States.
> 
> Paul recalled that Kerry said during the Vietnam War, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
> 
> “I would ask, ‘How do you ask a man to be the first to die for a mistake?’” Paul said. “I’m not sending my son, your son or anybody else’s son to fight for a stalemate.”
> 
> *Paul said he was “proud” of Obama for following the Constitution and asking for congressional support. But he said the president made a “grave mistake” in setting a “red line.” Obama’s push for military action, he said, is an effort to “save face and add bad policy to bad policy.”
> 
> Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the president may have trouble winning the backing of Congress.*
> 
> King, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said, “I think it is going to be difficult,” noting that there is an “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party.
> 
> Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he believes “at the end of the day, Congress will rise to the occasion,” but he also said, “it’s going to take that healthy debate to get there.”
> 
> *But Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., told “Fox News Sunday” that he didn’t think Congress would approve a war resolution. He said budget cuts have rendered U.S. forces “degraded and unready.”*
> 
> Several lawmakers raised objections to military action in the hours after Obama announced he will ask Congress to approve the use of force.
> 
> *Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.Y., an Army veteran with multiple foreign deployments, said Saturday, “I hope my colleagues will fully think through the weightiness of this decision and reject military action. The situation on the ground in Syria is tragic and deeply saddening, but escalating the conflict and Americanizing the Syrian civil war will not resolve the matter.”*
> 
> Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said, “The apparent chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime is an appalling, unconscionable act by a bloodthirsty tyrant. The ‘limited’ military response supported by President Obama, however, shows no clear goal, strategy, or any coherence whatsoever, and is supported neither by myself nor the American people.”
> 
> *Opposition to the use of force is not limited to the Republican Party. Democrat Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said in a statement: “Unilateral U.S. military action against the Syrian regime at this time would do nothing to advance American interests, but would certainly fuel extremist groups on both sides of the conflict that are determined to expand the bloodshed beyond Syria’s borders.”
> 
> While Congress remains on recess, the White House has begun its campaign to sway opinions, holding a classified briefing for lawmakers Sunday to show them evidence against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.*
> 
> “We’re not going to lose this vote,” Kerry said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”


----------



## The Bread Guy

"Human shield" is such a harsh term, no?


> In rejection of the US threats to launch a military strike on Syria, popular sides on Sunday launched the "Over Our Bodies" campaign in al-Umayyad Square in Damascus.
> 
> The campaign aims at stressing the Syrians' firmness and readiness to defend their country and conveying a message to the world that the Syrians will not stand still in front of a possible aggression by the US and its allies on Syria.
> 
> The participants also carried out a sit-in in Mount Qasioun aiming at protecting the civilian institutions, stressing that the Syrian people will not be terrorized and will win their war against terrorism.
> 
> The participants said that the campaign is a youth and popular event that was organized through the social media, adding that there are many groups from many countries that will head to Syria as to express solidarity with Damascus.
> 
> They stressed that they are ready to join efforts with the Syrian Arab Army as to confront any aggression, adding that they will form human shields to protect the threatened areas even in case these areas were under attack.


Syrian government info-machine, 1 Sept 13


----------



## Edward Campbell

According to the UK media, the Brits may have sold Assad the very nerve gas that someone used ...







Now, to be consistent, I don't oppose selling weapons, anything short of nukes, to people, including bad people ... it's not as though it's anything new:






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Remember these guys: Diem of Viet Nam and Pinochet of Chile?

But countries should also be consistent, if the Brits are arming Assad maybe they shouldn't rush to judgement when he uses what they sold him.


----------



## GAP

Gee....this is turning into a contest of who has the most receipts....the US for WMD's to Iraq or Britian to Syria.....


----------



## CougarKing

The Arab League votes in favour of intervening in Syria and condemns Assad's of chemical weapons...

...so why don't they do it themselves without having to rely on any Western power? The Saudis' substantial military were part of the coalition in the first Gulf War against Saddam in 1991, if I can recall correctly.




> *Arab states call for international action against Syrian regime*
> 
> President Barack Obama's surprise move to seek congressional authorization before ordering any military action against the Syrian regime was met with a mixed reception around the world Sunday, *with a chorus of Arab states calling for intervention — while a key Syrian government official disparaged the White House for a lack of leadership.
> 
> At an Arab League meeting in Cairo on Sunday evening, foreign ministers passed a resolution pressing the United Nations and the global community to “take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for,” according to Reuters.
> 
> The ministers also concluded that those responsible for the lethal chemical weapons attack should face trial just like other “war criminals.”*
> 
> And Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said merely condemning President Bashar Assad’s regime for alleging staging the poison gas attack, which the White House has said killed some 1,429 people, was only a half measure.
> 
> “The time has come to call on the world community to bear its responsibility and take the deterrent measure that puts a halt to the tragedy,” al-Faisal said, Reuters reported.
> 
> More at...
> 
> NBC link


----------



## tomahawk6

Iraq's WMD was driven out of Iraq into Syria prior to the collapse of the regime.

The US bound Nimitz strike group has been rerouted to the Red Sea.The Nimitz group had been supporting operations in Afghanistan and had been relieved by the Truman.


----------



## vonGarvin

And Russia sends a spy ship to the region.


----------



## 57Chevy

The best I've heard about this so far is Ban ki-Moon saying  "Give peace a chance". I think it was a clear message
to everybody.
Staying out of the conflict, seeking congress and public opinion is the best overall strategy the allies have taken thus far.
A "Wait Out" is in good order and a concrete response for everyone to just suck back and weigh out everything
in the balance on the world stage. Time to rethink and re-examine possibilities of hidden agendas and unwanted influences.  A time to thoroughly examine all evidence and provide transparency of the results.

Perhaps the Russian Federation will realize that Tehran has exercised too much influence on Syrian internal affairs and before 
long, IMO, Mr. Putin would get extremely hot under the collar seeing that Tehran is way out of line.
The effects would create such a huge rift between Damascus and Tehran that it would eventually collapse their alliance.
The Russian Federation would discover from the tons of feedback, and from their own findings and investigations, 
that they have had a common enemy (once again) with the western world for some time now.
By the time the Admiral Kuznetsov reaches Syrian waters sometime in December,
their mission will have mutated to dealing with the root of the Middle Eastern problem (Iran).

Mother Russia would begin taking responsible stock of their puppet regime and correct the errors of armament procuration
made by their communist era leaders, and thereby paving the way to further reductions in WMDs.

The war in Syria would probably fizzle out and terrorism would suffer a huge setback. The whole world would see
the much needed positive initiation taken by world leaders that it sheds new light on responsible global governance.
Perhaps, even for a short time, we will actually see golf driving ranges between carrier groups. 

One thing for sure, whatever the outcome of this, the given 'red line' will drastically change the future of NBC warfare.

MO 57C


----------



## CougarKing

Turkey already stated they are willing to join a US coalition against Syria...




> The Turkish government has been one of the most vocal critics of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since early on in the uprising. *Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Turkey's Milliyet newspaper that the country was ready to join an international coalition for action against Syria even in the absence of agreement at the UN Security Council.*




BBC link


----------



## CougarKing

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US bound Nimitz strike group has been rerouted to the Red Sea.The Nimitz group had been supporting operations in Afghanistan and had been relieved by the Truman.



More on the rerouting of the _Nimitz_ CVBG:

link



> *The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz along with four destroyers and a cruiser have been ordered to move west in the Arabian Sea toward the Red Sea, so that it can help support a US strike on Syria if requested*,  a US official told Reuters.
> 
> “It's about leveraging the assets to have them in place should the capabilities of the carrier strike group and the presence be needed,” the official told Reuters, adding that it was not clear when the ships would enter the Red Sea.
> 
> The Nimitz carrier group was supporting the US war in Afghanistan and was due to return to its home port in Everett, Washington, after being released from duty by the USS Harry S. Truman strike group.
> 
> Considering the volatile situation and a looming decision on a Syria strike, US military officials have decided to send the Nimitz toward the Red Sea, and possibly the Mediterranean, the source said.
> 
> *Over the weekend a US amphibious Group USS San Antonio were also deployed to the Mediterranean. Although it has “received no specific tasking” it was rerouted to a US naval base on the Greek island of Crete*.
> 
> 
> *The US Navy already has five destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean carrying an estimated load of 200 Tomahawk missiles*.  The naval presence was boosted over the past week in anticipation of an imminent US attack.


----------



## Journeyman

57Chevy said:
			
		

> One thing for sure, whatever the outcome of this, the given 'red line' will drastically change the future of NBC warfare.


"Drastically"?  In what way?


----------



## a_majoor

The decision making process seems rather...opaque:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/09/02/somethings-missing-here/?print=1



> *What The Hell Is Going On?*
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On September 2, 2013 @ 8:36 am In Uncategorized | 41 Comments
> 
> So far as we know, most everyone in the government was expecting the bombing would start on Saturday afternoon, Washington, D.C., time.  Government officials, above all those with expertise in military operations, were told to cancel their Labor Day vacations and show up for overtime work.  No golf for them!  Then President Obama–in the face of most all the advice from his “national security team” (I even heard a national radio network broadcaster call it “the war cabinet”)–changed his mind.  Suddenly.  Unexpectedly.  Surprisingly.
> 
> How?  Why?
> 
> The story about the sudden change of mind has been carefully fed to the scribblers.  It’s been written and rewritten many times.  But it doesn’t make sense, unless you believe in sudden epiphanies, or bolts from the blue, or ongoing revelation, and there’s no evidence that the president believes such things.
> 
> So I ask again:  How?  Why?  We don’t have an answer, which suggests to me that we’re missing some key element in the story.
> 
> Presidential decisions are sometimes driven by real events in the real world, and sometimes by private conversations among a very small group of intimates.  During the Carter years, for example, it was said that you never knew what he was going to do until the last conversation prior to handing down his verdict.  If you were an intimate, you wanted to be the last person on his dance card before the band started to play.  Other presidents have had different methods, but personal interplay is always important.
> 
> Note that this sort of “process” greatly favors people with offices in the White House.  They only have to walk down the hall, whereas the cabinet secretaries have to drive across town, or even across the river.  That takes time.  Access=influence, so the guys and gals down the hall, including the gal who shares the living quarters, have more of it than those across town or on the other side of the Potomac.
> 
> Ergo, it may well be that somebody got to the president late Friday and said something that got him to reverse course.  Those who believe that Valerie Jarrett is the eminence grise of the Obama years will wonder if she prevailed over the War Cabinet, as when she–once?  several times?  accounts vary…–lobbied against the Kill bin Laden operation.  Those who think Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is the key actor will point to the long walk he took with his boss on Saturday morning as the key event.  Those who think Michelle does foreign policy (and those who don’t think first ladies are key players on ALL policy matters should report for reeducation) will look there for the answer.
> 
> If an intimate conversation is the explanation, it likely had to do with personal convictions, and thus with the president’s worldview.  What is America’s proper role in the world?  What does Obama want his legacy to be?  That sort of thing.
> 
> Not that such a conversation could be conducted in isolation from the rest of the world, because the president’s counterparts will have been conducting similar conversations on secure phones, and those themes will surely have been raised.  Messrs Cameron, Hollande and Netanyahu must have weighed in, along with Erdogan, Saudi King Abdullah, and others.
> 
> What others?  What about the Iranians?  We know that Obama sees Iran as the key to “solving” the Syrian mess, and we know that Obama has authorized secret contacts, even before he was elected, and Swiss diplomats are forever brokering meetings and carrying messages back and forth.  What if the Iranians offered him a deal?  Or perhaps the Omanis, who have been key middlemen in the deals leading to the release of American hostages?
> 
> What sort of deal?  Many are possible.  What if the Iranians, the real rulers of Syria today, offered to betray Assad, replace him with a military junta under their control, and organize a peace conference if the Americans lifted unilateral sanctions? (_Interpolation: This is not something that I have sen reported before, but given that Syria is Iran's proxy and provides access to Hezbollah and the sea via Lebanon, it is probably an option that Iran would see as being worth looking at_)
> 
> Obama would certainly be tempted to delay bombing Syria if he were led to believe that a peaceful rabbit could be lifted from a diplomatic top hat by those new moderates in Tehran, or those proven wheelers and dealers in romantic Muscat, wouldn’t he?
> 
> I don’t have an answer to How? or Why?  It’s disconcerting that no one else is even asking.  It bespeaks a lack of curiosity about a major event, suggesting intellectual laziness by the pundits, “investigative journalists,” and the political class.
> 
> Nothing new there, you will say.  And you will be entirely correct.  As usual.
> 
> UPDATE:  Thanks to Instapundit for linking.  Glenn is the greatest.
> 
> UPDATE #2:  Kuwaiti newspaper says the president thought he needed a bit more time to make a deal with his buddy Vladimir Putin.  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171531#.UiUEAT_Nk5R
> 
> Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/09/02/somethings-missing-here/


----------



## CougarKing

From REUTERS:



> INSIGHT - *As Obama blinks on Syria, Israel, Saudis make common cause*
> Reuters
> 
> By Jeffrey Heller and Angus McDowall
> 
> JERUSALEM/RIYADH (Reuters) - If President Barack Obama has disappointed Syrian rebels by deferring to Congress before bombing Damascus, he has also dismayed the United States' two main allies in the Middle East.
> 
> *Israel and Saudi Arabia have little love for each other but both are pressing their mutual friend in the White House to hit President Bashar al-Assad hard. And both do so with one eye fixed firmly not on Syria but on their common adversary - Iran.*
> 
> Israel's response to Obama's surprise move to delay or even possibly cancel air strikes made clear that connection: looking soft on Assad after accusing him of killing hundreds of people with chemical weapons may embolden his backers in Tehran to develop nuclear arms, Israeli officials said. And if they do, Israel may strike Iran alone, unsure Washington can be trusted.
> 
> Neither U.S. ally is picking a fight with Obama in public. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that the nation was "serene and self-confident"; Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal simply renewed a call to the "international community" to halt Assad's violence in Syria.
> 
> *But the Saudi monarchy, though lacking Israel's readiness to attack Iran, can share the Jewish state's concern that neither may now look with confidence to Washington to curb what Riyadh sees as a drive by its Persian rival to dominate the Arab world.
> 
> Last year, Obama assured Israelis that he would "always have Israel's back". Now Netanyahu is reassuring them they can manage without uncertain U.S. protection against Iran, which has called for Israel's destruction but denies developing nuclear weapons.*
> 
> "Israel's citizens know well that we are prepared for any possible scenario," the hawkish prime minister said. "And Israel's citizens should also know that our enemies have very good reasons not to test our power and not to test our might."
> 
> That may not reassure a U.S. administration which has tried to steer Netanyahu away from unilateral action against Iran that could stir yet more chaos in the already explosive Middle East.
> 
> Israel's state-run Army Radio was more explicit: "If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria," it said, "Then clearly on the question of attacking Iran, a move that is expected to be far more complicated, Obama will hesitate much more - and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased."
> 
> *Israelis contrast the "red line" Netanyahu has set for how close Iran may come to nuclear weapons capability before Israel strikes with Obama's "red line" on Assad's use of chemical weapons - seemingly passed without U.S. military action so far.*
> 
> "HEAD OF THE SNAKE"
> 
> Saudi Arabia, like Israel heavily dependent on the United States for arms supplies, is engaged in a historic confrontation with Iran for regional influence - a contest shaped by their leading roles in the rival Sunni and Shi'ite branches of Islam.
> 
> *Riyadh is a prime backer of Sunni rebels fighting Assad, whose Alawite minority is a Shi'ite offshoot. It sees toppling Assad as checking Iran's ambition not just in Syria but in other Arab states including the Gulf, where it mistrusts Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia itself and in neighbouring Bahrain, Yemen and Iraq.
> 
> Saudi King Abdullah's wish for U.S. action against Iran was memorably contained in leaked U.S. diplomatic cables, including one in which a Saudi envoy said the monarch wanted Washington to "cut off the head of the snake" to end Tehran's nuclear threat.*
> 
> Disappointment with Obama's hesitation against Assad came through on Sunday in the Saudi foreign minister's remarks to the Arab League in Cairo, where he said words were no longer enough.
> 
> Riyadh and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) risk ending up empty-handed in their latest push for U.S. backing in their campaign to rein in Iran, said Sami al-Faraj, a Kuwaiti analyst who advises the GCC on security matters:
> 
> "The idea of a punishment for a crime has lost its flavour. We are on the edge of the possibility that military action may not be conducted," he said. "Congress, for sure, ... will attach conditions to what is already going to be a limited strike. At the end, we as Gulf allies, may end up with nothing."
> 
> *Israel does not share the Saudi enthusiasm for the Syrian rebel cause, despite its concern about Assad's role as a link between Iran and Lebanese and Palestinian enemies. The presence in rebel ranks of Sunni Islamist militants, some linked to al Qaeda, worries the Jewish state - though Riyadh, too, is keen to curb al Qaeda, which calls the royal family American stooges.*
> 
> (...)


----------



## The Bread Guy

How's your French?  Attached, the French int summary from the President's office ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Russia has announced that its missile early warning system detected the launch of two missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea fired towards the sea's eastern coastline, and later confirmed in an Israel statement by Reuters news agency.
> 
> Israel initially denied knowledge of the missile launch, but soon after said in a statement to Reuters that it had carried out a joint  missile test with the US, of an "anchor" target missile used in anti-missile systems, the news agency reported.
> 
> The launches took place at 06:16GMT (10:16am Moscow time) and were detected by the early warning system in Armavir in southern Russia, the defence ministry said in a statement quoted by Russian news agencies ....


Al Jazeera English, 3 Sept 13


----------



## The Bread Guy

HAD to share the attached ....


----------



## Jed

Ooops, How dare someone make a cartoon character of Allah. Let's all riot in the streets.


----------



## 57Chevy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "Drastically"?  In what way?



To clarify;

The consequential increase/decrease in the use of such systems.


----------



## Journeyman

Sorry, I'm still not getting it.



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> To clarify;
> The consequential increase/decrease in the use of such systems.


If you're not even sure if this episode will cause an increase or a decrease in these weapons, how will it "drastically change the future of NBC warfare"?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just trying to understand your point.


----------



## 57Chevy

From the proposed congressional resolution;
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to:

1. prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons.
---

Ok, I think I know what you're getting at. 
I understand that it won't be changing the warfare itself.


----------



## myself.only

57Chevy said:
			
		

> From the proposed congressional resolution;
> The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to:
> 
> 1. prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons.
> ---
> 
> Ok, I think I know what you're getting at.
> I understand that it won't be changing the warfare itself.



So... just to get your post correctly: you're predicting that if the US intervenes then we'd see a drastic decrease in the use of NBC wpns?
And if the US does not intervene then you're predicting a drastic increase in the use of NBC wpns?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Iran (via the Syrian info-machine):  _*"Aggression on Syria would first affect the Zionist entity"*_


> Chairman of the Foreign Policy and National Security Committee at the Iranian Shura Council, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, on Tuesday stressed that the parties inciting an aggression on Syria are declining, warning that any such aggression would inflame the whole region.
> 
> (....)
> 
> He warned during a meeting with Lebanese Caretaker Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Adnan Mansour, that any foreign military aggression on Syria would be the beginning of the outbreak of a dangerous crisis in the Middle East region.
> 
> He affirmed that the first party to be affected by the impacts of such a crisis is the Zionist entity ....


SANA, 3 Sept 13


----------



## myself.only

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Iran (via the Syrian info-machine):  _*"Aggression on Syria would first affect the Zionist entity"*_SANA, 3 Sept 13



ooooh the _Zionist entity_... didn't Kirk shack up with that once outside the Neutral Zone?


----------



## CougarKing

Russia sends more warships to join those already in the Med, while the their carrier Kuznetsov carrier group heads there in December:

ITAR-TASS



> *Two large Russian amphibious assault ships sail off to Mediterranean*
> posted Tue 03 September 2013 01:11 PM
> 
> *
> MOSCOW, September 3 (Itar-Tass) - Russia’s Black and Baltic Sea Fleets’ Ropucha-class landing ships Novocherkassk and Minsk have sailed off for the Mediterranean Sea, the press service of the Russian defence ministry told Itar-Tass on Tuesday.*,
> 
> (...)


----------



## cupper

This seems fitting:

http://youtu.be/Emdzsz_XvfA


----------



## observor 69

Great discussion on US  options in Syria from the PBS Newshour.
I was particularly struck by the comments of Gen Jack Keane. Discussion starts at the 7.40 mark.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/


----------



## CougarKing

The US Senate will not be as tough a sell as in the US House of Representatives. 

Defense News link



> *Senate Syria Resolution Would Limit Obama to 90 Days*
> 
> Sep. 3, 2013 - 09:18PM
> 
> WASHINGTON —* Members of the Senate Foreign Relations committee hammered out a deal on Tuesday evening that would set a 60-day deadline for military action in Syria, with one 30-day extension possible, according to a draft of the resolution*.
> 
> The proposal, drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., would also bar the involvement of US ground forces in Syria, according to the draft. Menendez is the chairman of the foreign relations committee and Corker is the top Republican.
> 
> “Together we have pursued a course of action that gives the President the authority he needs to deploy force in response to the Assad regime’s criminal use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, while assuring that the authorization is narrow and focused, limited in time, and assures that the Armed Forces of the United States will not be deployed for combat operations in Syria,” Menendez said in a statement.
> 
> *The resolution could be voted on by the committee as early as Wednesday.*
> 
> Meanwhile, in the House, Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Gerald Connolly, D-Va., introduced a draft resolution that would limit the duration of President Obama’s authority to 60 days.
> 
> *It also specifically prohibits any American forces on the ground in Syria and restricts the president from repeating the use of force beyond the initial punitive strikes unless Obama certifies to Congress that the Syrian forces have repeated their use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Obama has repeatedly said that any military strike against Assad would be limited in scope and duration, and would not include US troops on the ground.* The conflict in Syria has left more than 100,000 dead.
> 
> Earlier on Tuesday, Obama said he was open to lawmakers rewriting his resolution seeking authorization for the use of force, which was criticized as too broad in scope by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
> 
> “I would not be going to Congress if I wasn’t serious about consultations,” Obama said. “I’m confident that we’re going to be able to come up with something that hits that mark.”
> 
> Menendez and Corker introduced their resolution soon after the foreign relations committee met on Tuesday to grill Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, on the president’s plan for a military strike against Syria.
> 
> Obama announced his intention on Saturday to order a strike against the Assad regime, but said that he would first seek congressional authorization.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Out of the mouths of ...

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Huffington Post_





Source: _Huffington Post Comedy_


----------



## Inquisitor

The Wisdom of the Turks

link here http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/syria/articles/20130903.aspx

Key edit reproduced under the fair dealing provison of the copyright act fropm Strategy Page

The West is learning why the Turks were so glad to be rid of their Arab subjects after the Ottoman Empire collapsed a century ago. Then there is the corruption and intense hatreds found among the Arabs. It’s a very volatile and unpredictable part of the world and always has been. For centuries, the West was shielded from this reality because the Ottoman Turks ruled most of the Arabs. Western diplomats often heard the Turks complain about their Arab subjects. A favorite quip among the Turks was, “One should not involve oneself with the affairs of the Arabs.”


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Los Angeles Times_ report that an (unnamed) US official told them that ".... he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia ... "They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said."
> 
> 
> And that, *not getting mocked*, is what passes for foreign policy in Washington in 2013.
> 
> Henry Stimson and Dean Acheson would be ashamed to be Americans.




And, without comment, beyond two highlights, I offer Mark Steyn's assessment of this fiasco in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/04/mark-steyn-the-timid-warmonger/
My emphasis added


> The timid warmonger
> 
> Mark Steyn, Special to National Post
> 
> 13/09/04
> 
> I see the Obama “reset” is going so swimmingly that the President is now threatening to go to war against a dictator who gassed his own people. Don’t worry, this isn’t anything like the dictator who gassed his own people that the discredited warmonger Bush spent 2002 and early 2003 staggering ever more punchily around the country inveighing against. The 2003 dictator who gassed his own people was the leader of the Baath Party of Iraq. The 2013 dictator who gassed his own people is the leader of the Baath Party of Syria. Whole other ball of wax. The administration’s ingenious plan is to lose this war in far less time than we usually take. In the unimprovable formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”
> 
> That would make a great caption for a Vanity Fair photo shoot of Obama gambolling in the surf at Martha’s Vineyard, but as a military strategy it’s not exactly Alexander the Great or the Duke of Wellington. And it’s trickier than it sounds: I’m sure Miley’s choreographer assured her she was “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” and one wouldn’t want to see the United States reduced to twerking arrhythmically to no avail in front of an unimpressed Bashar Assad’s Robin Thicke. Okay, okay, that metaphor’s as thinly stretched as Miley’s talent, so what does unmockable musculature boil down to? From the New York Times: “A wide range of officials characterize the action under consideration as ‘limited,’ perhaps lasting no more than a day or two.”
> 
> Yeah, I know, that’s what Edward III said about the Hundred Years War. But Obama seems to mean it: “An American official said that the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are. The list includes command and control centres as well as a variety of conventional military targets. Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site.”
> 
> I see the Obama “reset” is going so swimmingly that the President is now threatening to go to war against a dictator who gassed his own people. Don’t worry, this isn’t anything like the dictator who gassed his own people that the discredited warmonger Bush spent 2002 and early 2003 staggering ever more punchily around the country inveighing against. The 2003 dictator who gassed his own people was the leader of the Baath Party of Iraq. The 2013 dictator who gassed his own people is the leader of the Baath Party of Syria. Whole other ball of wax. The administration’s ingenious plan is to lose this war in far less time than we usually take. In the unimprovable formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”
> 
> That would make a great caption for a Vanity Fair photo shoot of Obama gambolling in the surf at Martha’s Vineyard, but as a military strategy it’s not exactly Alexander the Great or the Duke of Wellington. And it’s trickier than it sounds: I’m sure Miley’s choreographer assured her she was “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” and one wouldn’t want to see the United States reduced to twerking arrhythmically to no avail in front of an unimpressed Bashar Assad’s Robin Thicke. Okay, okay, that metaphor’s as thinly stretched as Miley’s talent, so what does unmockable musculature boil down to? From the New York Times: “A wide range of officials characterize the action under consideration as ‘limited,’ perhaps lasting no more than a day or two.”
> 
> Yeah, I know, that’s what Edward III said about the Hundred Years War. But Obama seems to mean it: “An American official said that the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are. The list includes command and control centres as well as a variety of conventional military targets. Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site.”
> 
> The BBC footage is grisly; the British media have been far more invested in the Syrian civil war than their U.S. colleagues. But what’s the net effect of all the harrowing human-interest stories? This week, David Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer recess to permit the people’s representatives to express their support for the impending attack. Instead, for the first time since the British defeat at Yorktown in 1782, the House of Commons voted to deny Her Majesty’s Government the use of force. Under the Obama “reset,” even the Coalition of the Willing is unwilling. “It’s clear to me that the British Parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” said the prime minister. So the Brits are out, and, if he goes at all, Obama will be waging war without even Austin Powers’s Union Jack fig leaf.
> 
> “This House will not fight for king and country”? Not exactly. What the British people are sick of, quite reasonably enough, is ineffectual warmongering, whether in the cause of Blairite liberal interventionism or of Bush’s big-power assertiveness. The problem with the American way of war is that, technologically, it can’t lose, but, in every other sense, it can’t win. No one in his right mind wants to get into a tank battle or a naval bombardment with the guys responsible for over 40% of the planet’s military expenditures. Which is why these days there aren’t a lot of tank battles. The consummate interventionist Robert Kagan wrote in his recent book that the American military “remains unmatched.” It’s unmatched in the sense that the only guy in town with a tennis racket isn’t going to be playing a lot of tennis matches. But the object of war, in Liddell Hart’s famous distillation, is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks (or Russian helicopters) but his will. And on that front America loses, always. The “unmatched” superpower cannot impose its will on Kabul kleptocrats, Pashtun goatherds, Egyptian generals, or Benghazi militia. There is no reason to believe Syria would be an exception to this rule. America’s inability to win ought to be a burning national question, but it’s not even being asked.
> 
> Let us stipulate that many of those war-weary masses are ignorant and myopic. But at a certain level they grasp something that their leaders don’t: For a quarter-century, from Kuwait to Kosovo to Kandahar, the civilized world has gone to war only in order to save or liberate Muslims. The Pentagon is little more than central dispatch for the U.S. military’s Muslim Fast Squad. And what do we have to show for it? Liberating Syria isn’t like liberating the Netherlands: In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy. Yes, those BBC images of schoolchildren with burning flesh are heart-rending. So we’ll get rid of Assad and install the local branch of al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood or whatever plucky neophyte democrat makes it to the presidential palace first — and then, instead of napalmed schoolyards, there will be, as in Egypt, burning Christian churches and women raped for going uncovered.
> 
> So what do we want in Syria? Obama can’t say, other than for him to look muscular without being mocked, like a camp bodybuilder admiring himself in the gym mirror.
> 
> Oh, well. If the British won’t be along for the ride, the French are apparently still in. What was the old gag from a decade ago during those interminable UN resolutions with Chirac saying “Non!” every time? Ah, yes: “Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.” Oddly enough, the worst setback for the Islamic imperialists in recent years has been President Hollande’s intervention in Mali, where, unlike the money-no-object Pentagon, the French troops had such undernourished supply lines that they had to hitch a ride to the war on C-17 transports from the Royal Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force. And yet they won — insofar as anyone ever really wins on that benighted sod.
> 
> Meanwhile, the hyperpower is going to war because Obama wandered off prompter and accidentally made a threat. So he has to make good on it, or America will lose its credibility. But he only wants to make good on it in a perfunctory and ineffectual way. So America will lose its credibility anyway.
> Maybe it’s time to learn the accordion …
> 
> _National Review Online_
> 
> _Mark Steyn, a_ National Review_ columnist, is the author of _After America: Get Ready for Armageddon_. © 2013 Mark Steyn. This column originally appeared on_ National Review Online.


----------



## Haletown

Beck makes the case that Putin makes more sense than Obama and all the Washington types supporting him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GfHSPLW63Gg


And from the "How time changes everything" files . . .


----------



## The Bread Guy

A summary of a recent study out of the Rand Corporation....


> As the Syrian civil war drags into its third year with mounting casualties and misery among the civilian population, and the large-scale use of chemical weapons, interest in the possibility of military intervention by the United States and its allies is growing despite U.S. wariness of becoming involved in a prolonged sectarian quagmire. Without presuming that military intervention is the right course, this report considers the goals an intervention relying on airpower alone might pursue and examines the requirements, military potential, and risks of five principal missions that intervening air forces might be called on to carry out: negating Syrian airpower, neutralizing Syrian air defenses, defending safe areas, enabling opposition forces to defeat the regime, and preventing the use of Syrian chemical weapons. It finds that (1) destroying the Syrian air force or grounding it through intimidation is operationally feasible but would have only marginal benefits for protecting Syrian civilians; (2) neutralizing the Syrian air defense system would be challenging but manageable, but it would not be an end in itself; (3) making safe areas in Syria reasonably secure would depend primarily on the presence of ground forces able and willing to fend off attacks, and defending safe areas not along Syria’s borders would approximate intervention on the side of the opposition; (4) an aerial intervention against the Syrian government and armed forces could do more to help ensure that the Syrian regime would fall than to determine what would replace it; and (5) while airpower could be used to reduce the Assad regime’s ability or desire to launch large-scale chemical attacks, eliminating its chemical weapon arsenal would require a large ground operation. Any of these actions would involve substantial risks of escalation by third parties, or could lead to greater U.S. military involvement in Syria.



A bit more detail in the news release:


> .... The five missions are:
> 
> •Negate Syrian airpower by maintaining a “no-fly zone” over Syria, or by destroying the Syrian air force. The likely availability of nearby bases in Turkey and elsewhere make this a relatively easy task for the U.S. and allied forces, although maintaining a prolonged no-fly zone could impose significant burdens on the forces involved. Negating Syrian airpower would have only a marginal direct effect on protecting Syrian civilians, as most civilian casualties have been caused by government ground forces.
> 
> •Neutralize Syria's extensive but mostly antiquated air defenses, which is well within the U.S. military's ability. Syria's integrated air defense system primarily consists of 1970s-era radar and surface-to-air missile technology, which U.S. pilots were able to overcome in Iraq and Serbia. This would begin with intense air and cruise missile strikes against Syrian air bases and air defense systems, followed by a longer hunt for mobile missiles. However, such an effort would be used to facilitate other operations, not an end in itself.
> 
> •Create safe areas where Syrian civilians could be largely — but not completely — protected from air attack, artillery bombardment and direct ground attack by U.S. and allied air forces. Effectively protecting the civilians in these areas would require competent forces on the ground. If not provided by the U.S. and its allies, the forces would need to be provided by the Syrian opposition, in which case protecting safe areas would also amount to providing air cover for anti-regime forces.
> 
> •Enable opposition forces to defeat President Bashar al-Assad's regime, using airpower similar to that employed by the U.S. to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. Such a mission would require the use of fighters, bombers and remotely piloted aircraft to strike Syrian army and other regime targets. The authors assess that the current balance of the war favors the regime, and that the opposition forces would require substantial military support to defeat Syrian ground forces and gain the upper hand. Such a mission, the authors warn, would help both desirable opposition groups and extremists. Moreover, there is a risk that a successful mission could lead to instability spilling over Syria's borders to Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq or beyond, and to widespread retribution against populations associated with the defeated regime.
> 
> •Prevent the use of Syrian chemical weapons by using air attacks to strike Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles and their delivery systems, or deter future use of chemical weapons. Attacking or threatening to attack targets Assad values more than his chemical weapons stockpile would help avoid creating “use-it-or-lose-it” incentives for additional chemical attacks. The authors warn that while airpower could be used to reduce the Assad regime's ability or desire to launch large-scale chemical attacks, eliminating its chemical weapon arsenal would require a large ground operation ....


----------



## Nemo888

Assad is an Alawite. They are roughly 12% of the population. If he loses outright I can guarantee it will be ethnic cleansing time. If he did actually use such weapons he must already be in a very desperate position. You would have to be nuts to take a bite of that shit sandwich. 

Who decided America could act unilaterally anyway? The optics would have been infinitely better if they made Russia use their veto.  This just looks bad and eats away at their credibility.


----------



## Journeyman

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> .....If he did actually use such weapons he must already be in a very desperate position. You would have to be nuts to take a bite of that shit sandwich.


Which presumes he thinks the same way as us; I have my doubts.  Perhaps he sees his adversaries as insignficant, lesser beings -- with no concern as to their feelings or that of world opinion. After all, this is _his_ civil war, presumably the rest of the world has no 'dog in that fight.'



> Who decided America could act unilaterally anyway? The optics would have been infinitely better if they made Russia use their veto.  This just looks bad and eats away at their credibility.


Perhaps you missed it; they've been trying to gather a coalition, preferably with a UN mandate, to avoid unilateral action.  Mind you, very few places have reported on that.   :


----------



## CougarKing

As said earlier, it'll be in the House where Syria will be a harder sell...

National Post link



> WASHINGTON — *A Senate panel has voted to give President Barack Obama the authority to use military force against Syria in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack.
> 
> The vote Wednesday was 10-7, with one senator voting present. The full Senate is expected to vote on the measure next week.*
> 
> It was only 10 short years ago that France was the target of much grumbling and silly insults around town in Washington, D.C. As George W. Bush was assembling his coalition of the willing, France was markedly unwilling, and spoke out loudly and often against U.S.-led plans to invade Iraq. Now, as *President Barack Obama is making his case for a limited military strike against Syria, France is loudly arguing in favour of action. And is being pretty blunt about it, to boot.
> .
> The resolution would permit Obama to order *a limited military mission against Syria, as long as it doesn’t exceed 90 days and involves no American troops on the ground for combat operations.
> 
> In an impassioned appeal for support at home and abroad, Obama said Wednesday the credibility of the international community and Congress is on the line in the debate over how to respond to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. As Obama made his case overseas, Congress debated whether a proposed resolution authorizing military force would shift the momentum after more than two years of Syrian civil war.
> 
> *The Senate Foreign Relations Committee delayed a public meeting and huddled in private for more than three hours after Sen. John McCain, an outspoken advocate of intervention, said he did not support the latest version of the Senate resolution to authorize force.* The Arizona Republican said he wants more than cruise missile strikes and other limited action, seeking a stronger response aimed at “reversing the momentum on the battlefield” and hastening the departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
> 
> On the other side of the debate, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., said he was not persuaded to support military action, saying the military has been “decimated” by budget cuts and “we’re just not in a position to take on any major confrontation.”
> 
> *Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said U.S. involvement could well “make the tragedy worse” in Syria, but he predicted that advocates of military intervention would win in the Senate.*
> 
> “The only chance of stopping what I consider to be bad policy would be in the House,” he said.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

Not surprising considering the Saudis and other Gulf states are most probably rooting for and bankrolling the arms and supplies for the more radical factions among Syria's Sunni rebels...  



> *Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion*
> Aaron Blake
> 
> Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
> 
> “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”
> 
> *Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.*
> 
> “In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this.
> 
> ...
> 
> Washington Post link


----------



## PuckChaser

Are they going to cover the widowers pensions for the countless US/Coalition troops that will die because they don't want to get their hands dirty?


----------



## cupper

Apparently Michael de Adder spiked (or had spiked) an editorial cartoon idea on the whole Syria debacle.

http://deadder.net/2013/08/29/killed-cartoon/


----------



## a_majoor

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Not surprising considering the Saudis and other Gulf states are most probably rooting for and bankrolling the arms and supplies for the more radical factions among Syria's Sunni rebels...



Well, let them fund away. They can enroll and equipthe Muslim Brotherhoods and their own radicals, and throw them into the fray against the Iranian backed Hezbollah fighters and actual Iranian units on the ground as well. 

All *we* need to do is maintain a quarentine around the region and smack down any attempts to embroil the West in the conflict on one side or the other. The Russians and Chinese have enough "interests" in the region that they may feel compelled to go in to support their clients; good for them! and it could not happen to a nicer bunch of people. </sarc>


----------



## tamouh

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Assad is an Alawite. They are roughly 12% of the population. If he loses outright I can guarantee it will be ethnic cleansing time. If he did actually use such weapons he must already be in a very desperate position. You would have to be nuts to take a bite of that crap sandwich.
> 
> Who decided America could act unilaterally anyway? The optics would have been infinitely better if they made Russia use their veto.  This just looks bad and eats away at their credibility.



Not necessarily desperate, but possibly a fluke. This is not the first time Assad forces had used chemical agents in the war, but it is the largest ever. It could have been an under estimation of the world response, or an error in the amount of chemicals loaded on the war head.

US had vetoed almost all UN Security Council resolutions against Israel, how did this affect its credibility? The way I see it, Russia/China don't care much for the Syrian regime, opposition or the whole ME. Historically, Russia and before it the USSR had little appetite to do anything beyond its borders aside from selling weapons. Come to memory their objection at the UN Security Council to the Mission in Bosnia. Exactly similar to Syria's case now.


----------



## Inquisitor

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Not surprising considering the Saudis and other Gulf states are most probably rooting for and bankrolling the arms and supplies for the more radical factions among Syria's Sunni rebels...



I included the original text as well

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion
Aaron Blake

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. 

... 

Washington Post link


Comments -  A satirical comment first "if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost" 

                   Hallulejah!!!! Brothers and Sisters - The day of salvation is at hand!!!! If true all the US has to do is pushing the Enron Accountant  out of jail - Ask Booz Allen Hamilton et all for a full accounting   Get the fornamed parties to submit a hefty retainer, a couple of trillion US Dollars would be a good start. The 14th century condotierri Sir John Blackwood wrote the manual on this sort of stuff.  Presto, one bad guy eliminated, and western economies get a chance to get back on the right track. 

Back in the real world this would still be a mess.  I've seen US Navy commercials advocating it as "A Global Force for good".  Fair enough. 

Getting back to the comment, I suspect that the US is really going to regret it,  just saying. 

Finally he speaks only of the $$$$ costs, what of all the other costs???? Human, Moral, etc ....

A bad deal all around, possibly an unfortunate precedent

I think even Sir John might have walked away from this deal.


----------



## a_majoor

The bungling of the Administration is causing waves even in the US Military:

http://freebeacon.com/misfire/



> *Joint Chiefs Chairman Criticizes Leak of Syria Military Plans, Delay in Syria Strikes as Forces Moved*
> 
> BY: Bill Gertz
> September 3, 2013 6:57 pm
> 
> The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the president’s top military adviser, told the Senate on Tuesday that U.S. plans for attacks on Syria were made more difficult by leaks to the press and the president’s delay in ordering the strikes.
> 
> Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman, said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that despite those setbacks he is confident military strikes will be effective in degrading the Syrian military’s chemical warfare capabilities.
> 
> Dempsey appeared before Congress with Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in the first day of what is expected to be a two-week debate on whether to approve President Obama’s announced plans to take military action along
> 
> Unlike Kerry and Hagel, Dempsey had no prepared statement and provided short answers to most questions.
> 
> Asked by Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.) if public discussion of plans by the United States to use military force had made it more difficult to conduct the strikes, Dempsey said: “Yes, senator, it has.”
> 
> Dempsey said within the past 10 days “there was a significant leak of military planning that caused the regime to react.”
> 
> “So time works both ways,” he said, adding that “we have some pretty significant intelligence capabilities, and we continue to refine our targets.”
> 
> Reports from the Middle East said the Syrian government has begun moving forces and hiding potential targets of a missile strike in anticipation of U.S. military action.
> 
> Obama said Saturday that he was told by his military advisers that any attack could be delayed without undermining the mission and thus he decided to seek congressional approval before an attack.
> 
> Later in the hearing, Dempsey said “for interest of clarity here, what I actually said to the president is the following: The military resources we have in place can remain in place, and when you ask us to strike, we will make those strikes effective.”
> 
> “In other sessions, in the principals committee, not with the president present, we talked about some targets becoming more accessible than they were before,” he said, an apparent reference to intelligence indicating the Syrians had moved forces to locations where they can be more easily attacked.
> 
> However, he said “there is evidence, of course, that the regime is reacting not only to the delay, but also they were reacting before that to the very unfortunate leak of military planning.”
> 
> “So this is a very dynamic situation.”
> 
> Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), also criticized the administration for announcing plans for attacks.
> 
> “When you tell the enemy you’re going to attack them … they’re obviously going to disperse and try to make it harder,” McCain said, adding that Syria is hiding weapons and moving troops and may be moving forces into Syria’s Russian naval base.
> 
> McCain said it was a mistake “to warn the enemy that you’re going to attack.”
> 
> Dempsey said the military planners have prepared “several target sets” and that follow-on strikes could be conducted after initial strikes.
> 
> “What we do know is we can degrade and disrupt his capabilities,” he said.
> 
> Both Democrats and Republicans posed difficult questions to the three officials, including whether an attack on Syria will be effective militarily and strategically, and whether an attack might facilitate al Qaeda-linked rebels’ efforts to take power.
> 
> Others questioned why the administration had not followed through on public statements promising to provide arms to Syrian rebels fighting the Bashar al Assad regime.
> 
> At least five U.S. warships are deployed near Syria in the Eastern Mediterranean and are equipped with cruise missiles.
> 
> Defense officials have said a limited, one-day series of cruise missile strikes would be aimed to attack Syrian artillery, rockets, and missiles near Damascus, where the chemical attack took place.
> 
> U.S. intelligence agencies determined that nerve agent was used, killing some 1,400 people, including more than 400 children.
> 
> Kerry and Hagel, for their part during the hearing, provided halting and sometimes conflicting testimony on what the goal of military action will be.
> 
> ‪At one point, Kerry declined to rule out the dispatch of ground forces to Syria’s civil war, which has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives.
> 
> ‪“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president that might secure our country,” he said.
> 
> ‪After news reports picked up on the comment, Kerry sought to tamp down any notion of ground troops being sent to Syria.
> 
> Kerry said the president was seeking “limited authority” to strike chemical weapons capabilities and deter the further use of the arms.
> 
> “He is not asking for permission from the Congress to go destroy the entire regime or to, you know, do a much more extensive kind of thing,” Kerry said.
> 
> Dempsey also said the resolution sought by the administration is “not asking for permission for the president to be able to use the United States armed forces to overthrow the regime.”
> 
> However, Hagel, under questioning from Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wisc.) said “one option” would be the removal of Assad.
> 
> “I’m trying to reconcile why, if we’re going to go in there militarily, if we’re going to strike, why wouldn’t we try and do some kind of knock-out punch?” Johnson asked.
> 
> Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.) said he has doubts about the planned strikes, which he said appeared to be on “shaky international legal foundations.”
> 
> “I hope this hearing will do more than just rubber stamp a decision that has already been made by this administration,” Udall said. “I have grave concerns about what the administration is asking of us, of our military and of the American people.”
> 
> “We’re being told we’re bombing in order to send a message. But what message are we sending?” Udall asked.
> 
> Udall said he viewed the bombing campaign as a “potential next step toward full-fledged war.”
> 
> Kerry said limited military attacks were needed to send “the unmistakable message” to Syria regarding the Aug. 21 nerve gas attack near Damascus that “we don’t mean sometimes, never means never.”
> 
> “Forcing Assad to change his calculation about his ability to act with impunity can contribute to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament,” Kerry said.
> 
> Hagel said the military options for Syria are designed to “hold the [Syrian leader Bashar al-]Assad regime accountable, degrade its ability to carry out these kinds of attacks, and deter the regime from further use of chemical weapons.”
> 
> “The Department of Defense has developed military options to achieve these objectives, and we have positioned U.S. assets throughout the region to successfully execute this mission,” Hagel said. “We believe we can achieve them with a military action that would be limited in duration and scope.”
> 
> Among the risks of a military strike, Hagel said the regime could conduct “even more devastating chemical weapons attacks.”
> 
> However, he said refusing to act would undermine the credibility of U.S. security commitments, including promises to block Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, Hagel said.
> 
> Dempsey told the panel that the goal of military action would be to degrade Syria’s chemical warfare capabilities.
> 
> The four-star general said any upcoming military strike would be focused on the threat of Syria’s chemical weapons. He said supporting the opposition with arms and assistance could come later.
> 
> The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that promised U.S. military support for the Free Syrian Army has been delayed.
> 
> However, Saudi Arabia and Turkey currently are providing arms to Islamist groups, including two rebel groups linked to al Qaeda, in addition to the Free Syrian Army, a group dominated by former Syrian army officers and troops.
> 
> Assad told the French newspaper Le Figaro this week that western military strikes would lead to a regional conflict in the Middle East, an area he called a “powder keg.”
> 
> France’s government released an intelligence report that confirmed that Syria’s government was behind the gas attack.
> 
> “The attack on Aug. 21 could only have been ordered and carried out by the regime,” the report stated. “We believe the Syrian opposition does not have the capacity to carry out an operation of such magnitude with chemical agents,” it said.
> 
> France’s military is prepared to join the United States in attacks on Syria in response to the gas attacks, although French government spokesmen have said the military would not act on its own and must join a coalition.
> 
> Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said on Monday that “statements from Washington threatening to use force against Syria are unacceptable.” He warned that U.S. action would violate international law, undermine the prospects for a resolution to the Syrian conflict, and provoke further confrontation, Interfax reported.
> 
> Also on Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China has “serious concerns” about plans for military strikes. Hong said international military action must conform to the United Nations charter and basic rules of international relations.
> 
> This entry was posted in National Security and tagged Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, Martin Dempsey, Syria. Bookmark the permalink.


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A summary of a recent study out of the Rand Corporation....
> A bit more detail in the news release:
> 
> 
> 
> As the Syrian civil war drags into its third year with mounting casualties and misery among the civilian population, and the large-scale use of chemical weapons, interest in the possibility of military intervention by the United States and its allies is growing despite U.S. wariness of becoming involved in a prolonged sectarian quagmire. Without presuming that military intervention is the right course, this report considers the goals an intervention relying on airpower alone might pursue and examines the requirements, military potential, and risks of five principal missions that intervening air forces might be called on to carry out: negating Syrian airpower, neutralizing Syrian air defenses, defending safe areas, enabling opposition forces to defeat the regime, and preventing the use of Syrian chemical weapons. It finds that (1) destroying the Syrian air force or grounding it through intimidation is operationally feasible but would have only marginal benefits for protecting Syrian civilians; (2) neutralizing the Syrian air defense system would be challenging but manageable, but it would not be an end in itself; (3) making safe areas in Syria reasonably secure would depend primarily on the presence of ground forces able and willing to fend off attacks, and defending safe areas not along Syria’s borders would approximate intervention on the side of the opposition; (4) an aerial intervention against the Syrian government and armed forces could do more to help ensure that the Syrian regime would fall than to determine what would replace it; and (5) while airpower could be used to reduce the Assad regime’s ability or desire to launch large-scale chemical attacks, eliminating its chemical weapon arsenal would require a large ground operation. Any of these actions would involve substantial risks of escalation by third parties, or could lead to greater U.S. military involvement in Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> (....)
Click to expand...

You can download a PDF of the complete (22 pages) study here.


----------



## Inquisitor

Russia Sends Missile Cruiser "Moskva", Destroyer And Frigate To Syria

Reproduced under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act from zerohedge

 .
It was just yesterday, when we reported on the build up of Russian naval forces in the Meditteranean, in this case two new marine-carrying amphibious assault ships, that we made a simple forecast: "Our prediction: the next ship to be dispatched in direction Syria will be the missile cruiser Moskva, the "flag ship of the Black Sea fleet" and more of its affiliated warships... That, and a whole lot of submarines." We were right.

•RUSSIA SENDS MISSILE CRUISER MOSKVA TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN: IFX
•RUSSIA SENDS DESTROYER, FRIGATE TO EAST MEDITERRANEAN: IFX
•RUSSIA HAS WARSHIPS, SPY VESSELS MONITORING MEDITERRANEAN: IFX
•RUSSIA PREPARED TO ADJUST SIZE OF MEDITERRANEAN BUILDUP: IFX
The deployment is, more than anything, symbolic. It means Russia will no longer take US military build up  in the region on the sidelines. Because while the Mediterranean build up is inevitable (and can be tracked here), the next step will be the arrival of Russian air and land-based support in Syria. Oh, and China. Let's not forget China.

More from Reuters:

Russia is sending a missile cruiser to the east Mediterranean to take over the navy's operations in the region, state agency Interfax quoted a military source as saying on Wednesday, as the United States prepares for a possible military strike in Syria.
President Barack Obama has won backing from key figures in the U.S. Congress in his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.



The ship, Moskva, will take over operations from a naval unit in the region that Moscow says is needed to protect national interests. It will be joined by a destroyer from Russia's Baltic Fleet and a frigate from the Black Sea Fleet.



"The Cruiser Moskva is heading to the Gibraltar Straits. In approximately 10 days it will enter the east Mediterranean, where it will take over as the flagship of the naval task force," the source said.


Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said Russia has no intention of getting dragged into any military conflict over Syria. 


Earlier this week, Interfax reported that Russia was also sending a reconnaissance ship to the region but that it would operate separately from the naval unit.

Elsewhere, rumor has it all of Congress has been nominated for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the blog post _"These Are the 5 Craziest Conspiracy Theories About Syria's Chemical Attacks"_:


> ....OBAMA DID IT!
> 
> The theory: In what is so far the most outlandish allegation surrounding the Syria debate, Yossef Bodansky, a defense analyst, argues that it was in fact Obama who planned the attacks. The allegation -- if it can even be called that -- was given wider circulation on Tuesday, when Rush Limbaugh talked up the story on air, and describes a shadowy network of intelligence agencies who are to have orchestrated the attack.
> 
> (....)
> 
> THE ISRAELIS DID IT!
> 
> (....)
> 
> THE SYRIANS WERE FRAMED!
> 
> (....)
> 
> THE REBELS DID IT!
> 
> (....)
> 
> IT WASN'T REALLY NERVE GAS!
> 
> The theory: Conspiratorial thinking about chemical weapons use in Syria can also take on a more benign form, as in Truthout's allegations that U.S. officials have wildly distorted intelligence on the Aug. 21 attack ....  Truthout relies on the voluminous video record of the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when social media activists sped to the scene to document the carnage. But if it wasn't a chemical weapons attack that Syria's video journalists observed that day, why then did all but one of the media activists at one local coordiantion committee die after spending time filming at the site of the attack?


----------



## Journeyman

A NY Times' opinion piece notes historical similarities when, a century and a half ago, British parliamentarian Sir William Harcourt argued against a public demand for Britain to intervene in the US Civil War. 

Sir William advised that the only aim of intervention should be peace, and that “to interpose without the means or the intention to carry into effect a permanent pacification is not to intervene, but to intermeddle.”  Sure, firing cruise missiles from Aegis cruisers could make the Americans feel that they're a morally-superior world leader, but it would be nothing more than 'intermeddling.'

Sir William also warned that “intervention never has been, never will be, never can be short, simple, or peaceable.”


----------



## 57Chevy

myself.only said:
			
		

> So... just to get your post correctly: you're predicting that if the US intervenes then we'd see a drastic decrease in the use of NBC wpns?
> And if the US does not intervene then you're predicting a drastic increase in the use of NBC wpns?



Yes.

I also believe that the initiative of proposing the resolution is intervention in itself.
That proposition also moots any hardline statements coming out of Iran.
If they had any idea of what democracy is, they would not be making such noise.

One must not forget that we must remain focussed on the war on terror. We can sidestep from it
and deal with various conflicts in the world but we must never turn away from it.


----------



## tomahawk6

Follow the money.Qatar wanted to build a gas pipeline across Syria to the Med,so they could sell gas to Europe.Assad declined which helped the Russians as they currently have a monopoly in supplying gas to Europe,which gives them leverage as well.The Gulf states are looking for regime change,so they can get the pipeline built.


----------



## OldSolduer

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Follow the money.Qatar wanted to build a gas pipeline across Syria to the Med,so they could sell gas to Europe.Assad declined which helped the Russians as they currently have a monopoly in supplying gas to Europe,which gives them leverage as well.The Gulf states are looking for regime change,so they can get the pipeline built.



I usually try to keep comments or questions about political figures to myself, but this is one question that is burning in me:

Is Obama as stupid as he appears?  Or is he surrounded by syncophants?


----------



## myself.only

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Is Obama as stupid as he appears?  Or is he surrounded by syncophants?



I'll go with...

c.  All of the above


----------



## Journeyman

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I usually try to keep comments or questions about political figures to myself......


But when you come out of your shell, you certainly don't beat around the bush.    ;D


----------



## muskrat89

Interesting perspective...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Just to wrap my head around whats going on (in very basic terms).

The US has lost over 4000 soldiers in Iraq with a ton more injured fighting al qaeda.
The President wants to attack the Syrian government which will end up helping al qaeda rebels.

They (President Obama and friends) don't think this will cause some serious butt hurt with US service members and their families?


----------



## CougarKing

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> The President wants to attack the Syrian government which will end up helping al qaeda rebels.



Well supposedly not all the Sunni rebels are affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Some factions are reportedly more moderate and just want to get rid of Assad, though the more radical elements seem to be the ones who are reportedly more dominant now.

If you see other posts above, it's clear the Saudis and other Gulf states want intervention in Syria as well since they identify with those radical Sunni elements. That's why they've offered to pay for a Syria invasion.


 Furthermore, since this is essentially a Sunni-Shiite proxy war, the Saudis/Gulf states want to use this opportunity to counter Iran's influence in the region. Iran actually sent 4000 Revolutionary Guard troops there, alongside the Hezbollah proxies already there supporting Assad.

Once the US and other Western nations (possibly even Canada in the future) get involved, it'll be a horrible mess that'll be nearly be impossible extricate ourselves from.


----------



## Jed

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Well supposedly not all the Sunni rebels are affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Some factions are reportedly more moderate and just want to get rid of Assad, though the more radical elements seem to be the ones who are reportedly more dominant now.
> 
> If you see other posts above, it's clear the Saudis and other Gulf states want intervention in Syria as well since they identify with those radical Sunni elements. That's why they've offered to pay for a Syria invasion.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, since this is essentially a Sunni-Shiite proxy war, the Saudis/Gulf states want to use this opportunity to counter Iran's influence in the region. Iran actually sent 4000 Revolutionary Guard troops there, alongside the Hezbollah proxies already there.
> 
> Once the US and other Western nations (possibly even Canada in the future) get involved, it'll be a horrible mess that'll be nearly be impossible extricate ourselves from.



So just why are our countries even entertaining the idea of get mixed up in this? It is not in our respective countries best interest. The only reason it is still in motion is either a) Save face for the current American President or b) line the pockets of some background organization / group with some serious money.


----------



## CougarKing

Jed said:
			
		

> So just why are our countries even entertaining the idea of get mixed up in this? It is not in our respective countries best interest. The only reason it is still in motion is either a) Save face for the current American President or b) line some background organization / group with some serious money.



[game show format] 

a.) 

final answer.  ;D 

[/game show format]


I'd say the above mainly because Obama did say several months ago that he wouldn't tolerate Syria crossing a red line of using chemical weapons. He's just backing up his rhetoric to save face, as you said, although he seems to be trying to reframe his words again, as the above link reports.


----------



## Jed

But, according to the latest from Sweden it is the international community and the rest of the world that is not being responsible and President Obama did not set any Red line, the international community did that.


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> ...
> I'd say the above mainly because Obama did say several months ago that he wouldn't tolerate Syria crossing a red line of using chemical weapons. He's just backing up his rhetoric to save face, as you said, although he seems to be trying to reframe his words again, as the above link reports.




Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Reaganite Republican_





Source: http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.ca/


----------



## myself.only

:goodpost:


----------



## Inquisitor

A good article from counterpunch portion reproduced under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act

Link here http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/05/when-in-doubt-say-hitler/

When in Doubt Say “Hitler”
by JP SOTTILE


Poor Pol Pot.

He just can’t get any respect.

Despite a solid resume as a crazed, brutal dictator responsible for killing approximately 1.7 million of his own people, his name never comes up when the caretakers of American empire set their sights on an enemy du jour.

The same goes for Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, General Franco, Idi Amin, Attila the Hun, Caligula and Vlad the Impaler.

No, when it’s time to fire up the Great American Fear Factory for another “lobbying blitz” and bellicose “product launch,” America’s policymakers conjure up the darkest star of human history. They say “Hitler.”

Saddam Hussein? Say “Hitler.”

Slobodan Milosevic? Say “Hitler.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Say “Hitler.”

And now, as if on cue, Secretary of State John Kerry said “Hitler.”

Faced with sparse domestic and international support for launching expensive cruise missiles into the middle of a civil war, Kerry re-booted the Hitler franchise by comparing Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to history’s first name in unchecked evil. In fact, he compared Assad to Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Looks like Saddam is now in an elite class of evildoer.

Evoking Hitler is the foreign policy equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Comparisons to Hitler are meant to spark an immediate, visceral reaction and designed to “clear out the building.” Once the dissent leaves the room, the debate has effectively ended. It also demarcates a rhetorical red line. If you cross it, you are siding with Hitler.

And no one wants to be on the side of Hitler.

At least, that’s what Team Obama is banking on with its next “lite” war. The Peace Prize President likes bombs and missiles and drones, and that means war without American body bags and graves and, therefore, much domestic fallout.

Team Obama is also banking on ignorance—of historical context and basic historical facts—on the part of the media, members of Congress and the American people. ..."

Comment - Cant say that I agree with the remark about the American people, the vast majority are on to the scam.


----------



## myself.only

So do you think that that would be an easier sell and legitimately the West's problem if Assad was gassing people of a different ethnicity / religion...?


----------



## Inquisitor

myself.only said:
			
		

> So do you think that that would be an easier sell and legitimately the West's problem if Assad was gassing people of a different ethnicity / religion...?



Most assuredly, since that would likely mean that they weren't Syrian. 

I suggest that the article reinforces what most posters agree on. The situation is tragic.  The hype that the Administration is putting out to justify strike is not helping anyone.

Sarah Paulin may be right to imply its best to Let them sort themselves out on their own. The ones I truly feel for are those that want to but lack the means to get out of the way.


----------



## PMedMoe

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> Sarah Paulin



FTFY.   :


----------



## Scott

"Inquisitor" has been discovered to be a reincarnation of a banned member. It took me a while, but I have enough to send his arse packing.

Nice try. Your manner undid you...again.


----------



## Edward Campbell

_The Onion_ gets it right again.







Today's headline reads:

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Scott said:
			
		

> "Inquisitor" has been discovered to be a reincarnation of a banned member. It took me a while, but I have enough to send his arse packing.
> 
> Nice try. Your manner undid you...again.



Thank you very much.


----------



## 57Chevy

Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

(highlights mine)

Putin says he can work with Obama
By David Jackson  USA Today 

Vladimir Putin says his differences with President Obama aren't personal, or permanent.

"President Obama hasn't been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia," Putin told the Associated Press. "And your humble servant hasn't been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either."

He said, "We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems."

That could include Syria, Putin said in the interview with AP and Russia's state Channel 1.

Though Putin warned the United States and the West against one-sided military action against Syria, he said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting strikes if it can be proved that Bashar Assad's government used chemical weapons against its people.

The Associated Press reports:

"Putin said Moscow has provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria but has frozen further shipments. He suggested Russia may sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without U.N. Security Council backing.

"The interview Tuesday night at Putin's country residence outside the Russian capital was the only one he granted before the summit of G-20 nations in St. Petersburg, which opens Thursday. The summit is supposed to concentrate on the global economy, but it looks likely to be dominated by the international crisis over allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the country's civil war.

"Putin said he felt sorry that President Obama canceled a one-on-one meeting in Moscow that was supposed to have happened before the summit. He expressed hope the two would have serious discussions about Syria and other issues in St. Petersburg."


----------



## Rifleman62

IMHO this is an obvious example of the WH press corp, absolutely and positively in President Obama's pocket, providing intimate support to a POTUS who has got himself in a big, big mess. As a matter of fact, President Obama now denies saying "a red line".

People forget that al Qaeda is Russia's enemy also.



> "First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=avQKLRGRhPU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xKxzF_K2u8

From SDA:



> Robert Spencer at FrontPageMag:
> 
> Obama doesn't even have any real allies inside Syria...The major rebel groups are all allied with al-Qaeda. John Kerry insists they're "secular" and John McCain assures us they're "moderates." None of these groups, however, have shown any sign of being either.
> 
> Vladimir Putin:
> 
> "They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: 'Is al Qaeda there?' He says: 'No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not.' Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this. It was unpleasant and surprising for me - we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It's sad."


----------



## CougarKing

"How many troops?" shouldn't be the only question in mind, but "whose troops?" is probably also relevant, since a US Senate resolution draft called for Obama to put "no boots" on the ground. Whether the Turks, Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Iraqis, etc., will be willing to put troops in Syria to secure these WMD sites is another dilemma altogether...

link



> *75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls*
> Published time: September 05, 2013 15:24
> 
> 
> (AP) The potential of strategic US strikes in Syria has sparked fears Damascus’ chemical weapons could fall into the wrong hands if the government is toppled. *A recent congressional report says 75,000 troops would be needed to safeguard the WMD caches*.
> 
> The Congressional Research Center (CRS) report, issued just one day before the alleged August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb, was compiled with the aim of “responding to possible scenarios involving the use, change of hands, or loss of control of Syrian chemical weapons.”
> 
> *It states that Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles, which a French intelligence report recently estimated at over 1,000 tons, have been secured by Syrian special forces. *
> 
> “Due to the urgency of preventing access to these weapons by unauthorized groups, including terrorists, the United States government has been preparing for scenarios to secure the weapons in the event of the Assad regime’s loss of control,” the document reads
> 
> *Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned the ouster of Assad would present a scenario “100 times worse than what we dealt with in Libya.”
> 
> In order to secure the 50 chemical weapon and production sites spread across Syria, in addition to storage and research facilities, “The Pentagon has estimated that it would take over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons,” the document continues, citing a February 2012 CNN report. *
> 
> Meanwhile, a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad's government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote on Wednesday, although section 3 of the draft ostensibly ruled out US combat operations on the ground.
> 
> *The wording of the text, however, could potentially allow for troops on the ground for the sake of non-offensive operations, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.*
> (...)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> IMHO this is an obvious example of the WH press corp, absolutely and positively in President Obama's pocket, providing intimate support to a POTUS who has got himself in a big, big mess. As a matter of fact, President Obama now denies saying "a red line".
> 
> People forget that al Qaeda is Russia's enemy also.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=avQKLRGRhPU
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xKxzF_K2u8
> 
> From SDA:


If people haven't figured he's the king o' flip flop and the biggest lyin' shyte south of 49, they deserve to spend their time in purgatory , praising him, while the country falls apart around them.


----------



## OldSolduer

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> People forget that al Qaeda is Russia's enemy also.



Throw in the fact that the Chechens aren't exactly Russian pals either.....nor ours as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> *Russian landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov is reportedly heading to the Syrian coast as tension in the region continues to escalate.*
> 
> The deployment of another vessel by Moscow, a key ally of Damascus, comes as the US considers unleashing a military strike against president Bashar al-Assad's regime.
> 
> "The vessel will dock in Novorossiysk where it will take special cargo on board and head to the designated area of military service in the eastern Mediterranean," an unnamed naval source told Russia's Interfax news agency.
> 
> The nature of the cargo is still unclear. The vessel has capacity for 3,300 troops and 1,700 tonnes of cargo, including 20 tanks.
> 
> It is protected by three guns and three missile launchers ....


_International Business Times_, 6 Sept 13

More on the Filchenkov here, and on the Alligator Class of ships here


----------



## tomahawk6

I suspect that the ship will take on additional SAM launchers/radar.


----------



## vonGarvin

I wonder if Canada will get involved?  But I suspect it wouldn't be for a year or so.  I mean, first they would need to set up a Strat Recce into Syria, followed by a Tac Recce, then the HLTA plan would have to be made up, the work up training would have to be booked at Wainwright, etc etc.


/sarcasm


----------



## The Bread Guy

MORE Canadian aid for SYR civilians - from the PM's Info-machine ....


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced further Canadian support to help address the worsening humanitarian situation in Syria.
> 
> “The Government of Canada stands with the people of Syria as they continue to face unfathomable hardships at the hands of the Assad regime,” said Prime Minister Harper.  “Canada’s support, together with that of its allies, will help provide much needed humanitarian assistance to the millions of innocent people whose lives are being destroyed by the conflict in Syria.”
> 
> Canada will provide $45 million in support of humanitarian organizations striving to meet the needs of Syrians affected by the conflict.  This includes providing food, clean water and sanitation, medical assistance, shelter and protection to those Syrians in country, as well as to those who have fled to neighbouring nations.
> 
> With this announcement, Canada has committed $203.5 million for humanitarian assistance to the crisis in Syria since January 2012.



From the backgrounder:


> .... Canada’s support will help humanitarian organizations meet the needs of Syrians affected by the conflict by providing food, clean water and sanitation, medical assistance, shelter and protection to those Syrians in country, as well as to those who have fled to neighbouring nations ....


----------



## OldSolduer

A video was played on CBC Newsworld that allegedly showed the rebels executing seven Syrian Army soldiers.


And the US Government - Obama- wants to bomb the Syrian Army..... :facepalm:

And John Kerry and his outrage is old already.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Prof Bruce Ackerman, writing in _Foreign Policy_ says: President Obama's proposal to the US Congress "is a massive bait-and-switch operation. It authorizes the president to use "the Armed Forces of the United States," including boots on the ground, and to employ military force "within, to or from Syria." What is more, the president can act to deter the "use or proliferation" of "chemical or other weapons of mass destruction" and intervene to "protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons." This is nothing less than an open-ended endorsement of military intervention in the Middle East and beyond."

Prof Ackerman suggests that "The crucial point to recognize is that something special is happening. A dispute with a minor-league despot is provoking a major turning point in American foreign policy. This is a moment for Congress to confront its responsibilities with high seriousness."

I'm not so sure, my _suspicion_ is that, despite a few big brains in the White House and in _Foggy Bottom_, the real planning is both highly political and highly partisan, rather than being either _strategic_ or in America's best interests. I'm _guessing_ that President Obama is sincere when he says he doesn't want to _engage_ in the Middle East. I base that _guess_ on the fact - and I believe it is a fact - that he and his closest advisors neither know nor care much about that region, or any other outside of "Blue America" for that matter. It was another great Democrat, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill who reminded us that all politics, and by extension all policies, even the gravest foreign policy matters, are, ultimately, "local." I think President Obama "sees" the world, and indeed America, through the eyes of an inner city "community activist" ~ in that I think he is just the other side of the same coin from President George W Bush. I, honestly, cannot see much to choose between them in terms of what President George HW Bush famously called "the vision thing."

Unfortunately, for America, it is, yet again, saddled, by choice, with thoroughly second rate leadership, but this time there is no Margaret Thatcher to put some intellectual heft and spine into the leader of the free world.


----------



## CougarKing

Perhaps those Russian ships are carrying further arms to replace those expected to be lost in an upcoming Syria strike?  ???

Fox News link



> *Putin warns Russia could come to Syria's aid over US strike*
> 
> (...)
> 
> *Putin escalated concerns about the fallout from any strike when he indicated in an interview published Wednesday that his country could send Syria and its neighbors in the region the components of a missile shield if the U.S. attacks. *
> 
> U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified this week that *the Russians might even replace any military assets the U.S. destroys in a strike. *
> 
> The warnings raise the possibility of a supposedly "limited" strike on Syria turning into a proxy tit-for-tat between Russia and the U.S.
> 
> Rep. George Holding, R-N.C., went further during a hearing on Syria on Wednesday, pressing military officials on what the U.S. would do "if Russia decided to strike at us in that theater."
> 
> "We can certainly say that Russia would have options to strike us in that theater in retaliation for us striking their ally," he warned.
> 
> Dempsey declined to engage in that discussion, saying only that "Russia has capabilities that range from the asymmetric, including cyber, all the way up through strategic nuclear weapons. And again, it wouldn't be helpful in this setting to speculate about that."
> 
> *Secretary of State John Kerry, though, said the Russians have made clear they don't intend to go to war over a strike on Syria. *
> 
> Perhaps more likely is that Putin's government would continue to aid and prop up the Assad regime, undermining any gains made by a U.S. strike.
> 
> 
> (...)


----------



## Jarnhamar

Isn't Putin too busy with his war against gays?


----------



## Rifleman62

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I wonder if Canada will get involved?  But I suspect it wouldn't be for a year or so.  I mean, first they would need to set up a Strat Recce into Syria, followed by a Tac Recce, then the HLTA plan would have to be made up, the work up training would have to be booked at Wainwright, etc etc.
> 
> 
> /sarcasm



From what I read here @ Army.ca, I am supposing that once WX is finished it will be realized that new boots, tac vest and rucks will be needed, thus development  will commence. The Green, Desert, or Urban decision must be made first. Or will it be Blue for the new Foreign Non Policy of his eminence, Justin Trudeau. The addition of a special tac vest JT pouch may also be mandated.


----------



## myself.only

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Prof Bruce Ackerman, writing in _Foreign Policy_ says: President Obama's proposal to the US Congress "is a massive bait-and-switch operation. It authorizes the president to use "the Armed Forces of the United States," including boots on the ground, and to employ military force "within, to or from Syria." What is more, the president can act to deter the "use or proliferation" of "chemical or other weapons of mass destruction" and intervene to "protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons." This is nothing less than an open-ended endorsement of military intervention in the Middle East and beyond."
> 
> Prof Ackerman suggests that "The crucial point to recognize is that something special is happening. A dispute with a minor-league despot is provoking a major turning point in American foreign policy. This is a moment for Congress to confront its responsibilities with high seriousness."
> 
> I'm not so sure, my _suspicion_ is that, despite a few big brains in the White House and in _Foggy Bottom_, the real planning is both highly political and highly partisan, rather than being either _strategic_ or in America's best interests. I'm _guessing_ that President Obama is sincere when he says he doesn't want to _engage_ in the Middle East. I base that _guess_ on the fact - and I believe it is a fact - that he and his closest advisors neither know nor care much about that region, or any other outside of "Blue America" for that matter. It was another great Democrat, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill who reminded us that all politics, and by extension all policies, even the gravest foreign policy matters, are, ultimately, "local." I think President Obama "sees" the world, and indeed America, through the eyes of an inner city "community activist" ~ in that I think he is just the other side of the same coin from President George W Bush. I, honestly, cannot see much to choose between them in terms of what President George HW Bush famously called "the vision thing."
> 
> Unfortunately, for America, it is, yet again, saddled, by choice, with thoroughly second rate leadership, but this time there is no Margaret Thatcher to put some intellectual heft and spine into the leader of the free world.



ERC, I think several nails hit on heads there.
The lesson learned from keeping Saddam on the Xmas card list while he gassed enemies foreign and domestic is that a minor league despot using WMDs on your watch is a major pain in the legacy.


----------



## myself.only

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Or will it be Blue for the new Foreign Non Policy of his eminence, Justin Trudeau. The addition of a special tac vest JT pouch may also be mandated.



Complete with field clipboard for polling root causes


----------



## a_majoor

Tying the Syria thread to American "Grand Strategy" (or lack thereof); the domestic political considerations around this blunder may be what drive the ultimate decision to go or not go, with unpredictable outcomes for both the Uni9ted States and the West for decades to come:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/09/05/if-obama-doesnt-bomb-syria-now-hes-toast/



> *If Obama Doesn’t Bomb Syria Now, He’s Toast*
> 
> Apologies for another Syria post after this morning’s essay, but sometimes the news gives you no choice. From the Times this morning, we see that the President is still floundering, unwilling or unable to level with himself or the public about just how ugly his self-created Syria predicament has become:
> 
> “I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Stockholm on the first day of a three-day visit to Sweden and Russia, where he will take part in a summit meeting that is likely to be dominated by the war in Syria.
> 
> “My credibility’s not on the line,” he said, appealing to lawmakers and foreign leaders to back his plan to retaliate against President Bashar al-Assad. “The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”
> 
> President Obama could not be more wrong. It is precisely the President’s credibility as a spokesman for the “international community” (whatever that is) and for US foreign policy that is glaringly and horribly on the line. An effective leader would have consulted with key people in Congress and made sure of his backing before making explicit threats of force. Now the President is twisting lonesomely in the wind, and the question is whether Congress will ride to the rescue. If it doesn’t, it will be the closest thing the American system has to a parliamentary vote of “no confidence”, where Congress explicitly declares to the world that the President of the United States does not speak for the country.
> 
> That would be very dangerous. Foreigners will no longer know when and whether to take anything this President says as representing American policy rather than his own editorial opinions. We hate to say it, but that is so dangerous that there’s a strong argument for Congress to back the Syria resolution simply to avoid trashing the credibility of the only President we’ve got.
> 
> If Congress declines to support what even proponents of a Syria strike must agree is a massively screwed up policy, then the President will face another choice. He can do a “Clinton” (President Clinton bombed Serbia in the teeth of congressional disapproval), or he can fold like a cheap suit. If he chooses the latter course, Clint Eastwood’s “empty chair” stunt at the 2012 GOP convention will look eerily prophetic. For purposes of foreign policy, the United States will endure something like a presidential vacancy until Mr. Obama is replaced in 2017 or until he finds a way to restore his authority and prestige.
> 
> Considered in the abstract, the planned attacks on Syria may or may not be smart. But thanks to this latest round of “smart diplomacy,” if bombs don’t fall on Syria, President Obama will have bombed his own credibility into oblivion.


----------



## nn1988

Russia boosting its fleet in the Mediterranean sea seems like a bluff to me, although if  the situation in the Middle East was to escalate drastically and things were to get hairy and awry,. an attack on Israel/US/France etc. by China/Russia/Iran/Syria.. etc would Canada and Great Britain be bound to get involved and defend the former.


----------



## George Wallace

nn1988 said:
			
		

> Russia boosting its fleet in the Mediterranean sea seems like a bluff to me, although if  the situation in the Middle East was to escalate drastically and things were to get hairy and awry,. an attack on Israel/US/France etc. by China/Russia/Iran/Syria.. etc would Canada and Great Britain be bound to get involved and defend the former.



You have heard of an organization called NATO, haven't you?


----------



## nn1988

No. What's that  :-*


----------



## Journeyman

nn1988 said:
			
		

> Russia boosting its fleet in the Mediterranean sea seems like a bluff to me, although if  the situation in the Middle East was to escalate drastically and things were to get hairy and awry,. an attack on Israel/US/France etc. by China/Russia/Iran/Syria.. etc would Canada and Great Britain be bound to get involved and defend the former.


Wow.  Once again, there are opinions and there are_ informed _opinions.    :stars:



Yet _another_ one to the <ignore> pile


----------



## 57Chevy

ref to article posted by Thucydides
Quote
          “I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference in Stockholm....bla bla bla.

is not all what he said.

He said, quote;
             "The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons was abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war," he said. "That was not something I just kind of made up, I did not pluck it out of thin air."

He added: "My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

"Keep in mind, I'm somebody who opposed the war in Iraq, and I'm not interested in repeating mistakes about basing decisions on faulty intelligence," the US president said at a news conference in Stockholm.


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
Standoff In The Mediterranean: The US vs Russian Navies
by Tyler Durden 
 Link  

While the leaders of the two superpowers are shaking hands for the camera in St. Petersburg, their navies are sending a different message. Here is the latest  breakdown of the world's key navies in the Mediterranean theater of naval operations as of last night. By now it is likely woefully outdated, now that there are reports the Chinese have joined the fray too (not on the side of the 'free droning world').


----------



## myself.only

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You have heard of an organization called NATO, haven't you?





			
				nn1988 said:
			
		

> No. What's that  :-*



 :
Well at least we can rest assured that the Soviet Union Russia has.


----------



## a_majoor

57, I am most of the readers here are aware of what he said, but he chose those words to weasle out of admitting he had indeed used the term "red line": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxxwfaIAl_Q


Since he is indeed on record as saying those words (and implying swift action once the "red line" was crossed), then it is his credibility on the line.

The world is simply standing by and watching with interest.....


----------



## OldSolduer

op:

The whole Syria thing is turning into a  :trainwreck:


----------



## CougarKing

Seems these rebels are capable of holding their own...with weapons possibly supplied by the Saudis or other Gulf states that is. 

From the Aviationist:



> *In the meanwhile in Syria Assad’s Mig-21 fighter jets are downed by rebel anti-aircraft fire*
> 
> While U.S. and Russian warships and planes are amassing in the Mediterranean Sea, the Syrian regime is still attacking Free Syrian Army positions across the country.
> 
> And rebels are shooting back with some good results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The image in this post shows a Syrian Arab Air Force (SyAAF) Mig-21 hit by anti-aircraft fire. The aircraft reportedly crashed and the fate of the pilot is unknown.
> 
> Days ago we noticed Syrian Migs were operating over Syria without releasing flares to deceive IR anti-aircraft missiles: a possible sign that MANPADS were not active in the area where the video was taken.*
> 
> Airports used by Assad’s Air Force to launch air strikes on rebels would be among the first targets of an eventual U.S. attack on Syria.
> (...)


----------



## vonGarvin

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Seems these rebels are capable of holding their own...with weapons possibly supplied by the Saudis or other Gulf states that is the United States.
> 
> From the Aviationist:



There, fixed that for you.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The 'International Human Shields' movement, started by a group of activists in Britain and the US, plans to bring to Syria civilians from countries around the globe, who will try to deter US strikes on the country by staking out potential military targets.
> 
> Franklin Lamb, a lawyer recently appointed as the legal adviser for the group said he had been "inundated" with requests from activists including from Canada, France, Italy, the US, and Britain.
> 
> The Syrian regime has not yet indicated whether it will allow the group to enter the country, but it raises the prospect of hundreds of pacifists descending on Damascus, as happened in Baghdad before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
> 
> Many of those volunteering to go to Syria also took part in the 'Human Shields' movement that travelled to Baghdad, initially to protect hospitals and schools, and later, key government infrastructure sites ....


Telegraph, 6 Sept 13


----------



## vonGarvin

That's one way to cull the herd.


If they go to Syria, that's just a really good reason to start bombing....


----------



## Edward Campbell

I was advised by a Muslim acquaintance, who knows my views on the Middle Eastern morass, that _"human shields"_ are considered fair, even "smart" throughout the region. The idea that they are dishonourable, even cowardly, is not, he suggests, shared much beyond the _liberal_ West.

During the China-Mongol wars that led to the _Yuan Dynasty_ Kublai Khan's commanders used "alive boards," walls of Chinese civilians, as human shields. Different Chinese commanders reacted differently: some sacrificed the Chinese human shields to get at the Mongols, others allowed them to serve their purpose. Although I cannot recall, off hand, any direct references to human shields in _Romance of the Three Kingdoms_, which is part of the core Chinese cultural foundation ~ I've never met anyone who doesn't know at least some of the stories ~ that isn't to say that they weren't used, but, generally, Chinese "heroes" try to "serve the people," to use modern terms.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Andrew Coyne makes the case for intervention in a well written column in the _National Post_.

He asks a pertinent question: "One reads the many, many elegant explanations of why the West cannot, must not, need not intervene in Syria — it would be hypocritical, in view of past failures; the distinction between chemical and conventional weapons is an arbitrary one; the credibility of the United States is not on the line (and anyway, credibility is overrated); it is not worth spilling blood in the service of abstractions like the Responsibility to Protect; the rebels are no better than the Assad regime; the UN Security Council has not approved military action; and that old favourite, what’s our end game? — and in none of them will you find a frank acknowledgment of what in fact they are arguing: that we should stand by and do nothing while tens of thousands of civilians are slaughtered; that we should do nothing, even when the means of slaughter escalates to chemical weapons."

I will answer: I am one who says "we should stand by and do nothing while tens of thousands of civilians are slaughtered; that we should do nothing, even when the means of slaughter escalates to chemical weapons." My view on the Middle East would not change if the disputes escalated to nuclear and, as I have said, before even if (when, I think) Israel's very existence is threatened by Arab weapons of mass destruction, of whatever sort, our only response should be to help evacuate Jewish refugees and resettle as many as we can here. (That would be the one case where my general reaction against settling refugees in Canada would not apply. When, rather than if, the Jews are driven out of the Middle East they weill not be looking to return, not anytime soon, anyway and they will integrate well into our society.)


----------



## Nemo888

Maybe the crap sandwich wouldn't look so bad if there was a goal and someone in Washington sounded like they had a clue what was going on. 

 How do you prevent ethnic cleansing of the Alawites if the rebels win? How do you prevent the Islamic radicals  from getting those weapons if they achieve victory? How does intervention help the 2 million refugees and 5 million internally displaced persons? In what way is intervening better than letting them fight amongst themselves? It is starting to look like either there is no plan or it is so stupid they won't reveal it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> op:
> 
> The whole Syria thing is turning into a  :trainwreck:



It is a soup sandwich... Looking back on the past few years I am finding it very comical that Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago  ;D is no institution sacred anymore.

The hawks want to strike but the bomb bank is empty


----------



## myself.only

Thucydides said:
			
		

> 57, I am most of the readers here are aware of what he said, but he chose those words to weasle out of admitting he had indeed used the term "red line": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxxwfaIAl_Q
> 
> 
> Since he is indeed on record as saying those words (and implying swift action once the "red line" was crossed), then it is his credibility on the line.
> 
> The world is simply standing by and watching with interest.....



Well honestly I can't give out cookies and gold stars for that.
Canada and everybody else in the West created a special category for WMDs and spoke out against proliferation and their use very strongly... just luckily nobody was using them at the time. 

Without praising Obama but....

This is not unlike everyone loudly denouncing domestic violence and crowing about how brilliantly noble and good we are to denounce it. Jolly good powerpoints all around!
But when Stephen, Barack, David and Vlad all witness the guy slap his wife... suddenly we realize how little good we can do by getting involved because well, she seemed kind of unsavoury too and really punching the guy out is not going to lead to matrimonial bliss....
And so it's only Obama standing in front of him, secretly wishing he'd never yelled across the room "don't you dare do that!"
And we nurse our beer and watch. 

Hardly moral high ground or brilliant strategic policy IMHO.


----------



## Edward Campbell

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> It is a soup sandwich... Looking back on the past few years I am finding it very comical that Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago  ;D is no institution sacred anymore.
> 
> The hawks want to strike but the bomb bank is empty




I would argue that the Nobel Peace prize has become a bad, sad, partisan political joke. The debasement began in 1973 when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were awarded the prize, jointly, for doing their jobs ~ but the Viet Name war was so unpopular in Europe that the committe tossed aside its standards to appease public opinion. They did it, again and again: Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin in 1978; Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1984, again for doing their jobs; John Hume and David Trimble in 1998; Jimmy Carter in 2002; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Al Gore in 2007 ~ tied for the second worst prize awarded; of course, President Obama in 2009, awarded just to thumb Europe's collective nose a George W Bush; and The European Union in 2012, also in the second worst place tie. In the better eras: 1950 and 1960s, it was common and very sensible to not award a Peace Prize at all; that should be the case in the early years of the 21st century, but as the Obama award shows, it is more important to appease the European left than to give some serious consideration to who should joint the likes of Elihu Root, Robert Cecil, Albert Schweitzer, George C Marshall, Lester B Pearson, Willy Brandt, Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi as real Nobel Peace Prize laureates.


----------



## a_majoor

Where "Smart Diplomacy" meets the WTF? file. The Administration hoped to strip away Russia and Iran from supporting Syria? I guess the "smart" people have never heard of the dictum of nations having permanent interests, or considered why Russia and Iran saw Syria as a partner in the first place. Of course the idea that Iran is pouring vast quantities of resources in developing WMD of its own seems to have escaped them as well:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-team-thought-iran-would-not-tolerate-assads-use-of-wmds/article/2535328



> *Obama team thought Iran would not tolerate Bashar Assad's use of WMDs*
> BY JOEL GEHRKE | SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 AT 4:10 PM
> 
> US United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power speaks about Syria, Friday, Sept. 6, at the Center...\
> 
> Iran is enduring economic sanctions designed to slow the country's nuclear weapons program, but President Obama's team thought the regime might abandon dictator Bashar Assad over his use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war.
> 
> Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, hoped that a team of UN investigators — many of whom, presumably, have a longstanding relationship with Iranian leaders -- could write a report that would convince Iran to abandon its ally at the behest of the United States.
> 
> "We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then worked for more than six months to get them access to the country on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks," Power said at the Center for American Progress as she made the case for intervening in Syria.
> 
> "Or, if not, at a minimum, we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran — itself a victim of Saddam Hussein's monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 — to cast loose a regime that was gassing it's people," she said.
> 
> Rather than "cast loose" Assad after the latest chemical weapons attack, as the Obama team hoped, "Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has warned the Obama administration against any proposed military strike on Syria," as the International Business Times reports.


----------



## CougarKing

Seems the French want to wait for the UN report on the chem. attacks before launching strikes.

Military.com link



> *France Backs off Support for Syrian Strike*
> 
> Sep 07, 2013
> 
> Military.com| by Richard Sisk
> 
> 
> *France backed away Friday from joining the U.S. in swift military action against Syria, isolating President Obama even more as he threatens limited strikes on the Damascus regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons.
> 
> France had been the only nation to agree to the joint use of force with the U.S. against Syria, but French President Francois Hollande said he is now waiting for a report from United Nations weapons inspectors on whether chemical weapons were used in the Aug. 21 rocket attacks on the Damascus suburbs.*
> *"We shall await the report of the inspectors just as we will await [the U.S.] Congress," Hollande said at a news conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, where he was attending an economic summit with Obama and other world leaders.
> 
> 
> UN officials have said the report of the weapons inspectors may not be ready until October, *  and they have stressed that the findings will only show whether chemical weapons were used, and not who was responsible. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly charged that rebel forces may have been to blame, and not the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> *Before President Obama's surprise announcement last Saturday that he would seek Congressional authorization for strikes on Syria, Hollande said that the French military would support U.S. action. France has Rafale and French Mirage 2000 fighters armed with SCALP cruise missiles that could have been used as standoff weapons in an attack coordinated with U.S. air and naval assets.*
> 
> At a meeting with Hollande, Obama did not directly address the French change of course. Instead, Obama thanked Hollande for his general agreement "that the chemical weapons ban is a critical international norm, and that it needs to be enforced."
> 
> At his own news conference before leaving St. Petersburg, Obama said that he would address the nation on Tuesday night on his judgment that that the U.S. must act against Syria, even if traditional allies such as Britain and France have chosen to stay on the sidelines.
> (...)


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> France backed away Friday from joining the U.S. in swift military action against Syria....


Hmmm, France normally waits until the fighting _starts_ before they wave the white flag......    op:


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> France Backs off Support for Syrian Strike
> 
> Military.com link


----------



## Haletown

If this situation was a Shakespeare play, would it be a tragedy or a comedy?

This is truly amateur hour on the Potomac.  When Putin makes more sense than the Americam Secretary of State, you know it is a gong show in the making.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Haletown said:
			
		

> If this situation was a Shakespeare play, would it be a tragedy or a comedy?
> 
> This is truly amateur hour on the Potomac.  When Putin makes more sense than the Americam Secretary of State, you know it is a gong show in the making.




But Putin doesn't make sense, not really. There is a case for punishing Syria: I posted a link, one page back, to Andrew Coyne's statement of the "pro" case; our own Foreign Minister, John Baird, has made the case, too.

The problem is that President Obama has given a _master class_ in how *not* to develop and implement a strategy. And he's done that because he - and his staff - has forgotten the first Principle of War: Selection and maintenance of the AIM, the master principle. If you don't know what you want or need to accomplish then failure is almost guaranteed. President Obama and his team have an AIM, but it is not a strategic aim, it is a narrow, domestic, partisan political aim: "not to be mocked!" They are going to bomb a foreign country because if they don't the American media may laugh at them.

I have to repeat: I am not overly concerned about hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dear Arabs ~ I pity the mothers and children of the victims, many of whom are, indeed, innocent, but I believe their deaths are part, maybe just a small part of the price of change in their world and I believe change is necessary. I hope it will be change for the better.

But there is a cogent, reasoned case for intervention ~ I don't accept it but I agree there is one.


----------



## nn1988

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> President Obama and his team have an AIM, but it is not a strategic aim, it is a narrow, domestic, partisan political aim: "not to be mocked!" They are going to bomb a foreign country because if they don't the American media may laugh at them.


I agree with this. The Western countries are regarded as the saviours or better yet, protectors around the globe. Be it the US, France , UK, Canada, Austrlia, New Zealand, Germany etc. THE WESTERN COUNTRIES When shit dropped in Rwanda, it was depicted as a War Crime, yet the Western Countries were blamed for doing nothing. No one blamed the Russians for sitting back. Obama just wnts to live up to his country's role; it is indeed the world that looks up to the western countries in time of need and support against _aggressive_ dictators.


----------



## Nemo888

nn1988 said:
			
		

> I agree with this. The Western countries are regarded as the saviours or better yet, protectors around the globe. Be it the US, France , UK, Canada, Austrlia, New Zealand, Germany etc. THE WESTERN COUNTRIES When crap dropped in Rwanda, it was depicted as a War Crime, yet the Western Countries were blamed for doing nothing. No one blamed the Russians for sitting back. Obama just wnts to live up to his country's role; it is indeed the world that looks up to the western countries in time of need and support against _aggressive_ dictators.


I don't think you've been many places. I don't know of any foreign countries where they actually think that about us. It is a comforting fable we tell ourselves to make us feel good. It has no reality outside our borders.


----------



## nn1988

Although not a dictator, but belligerent Russia was going to crush Georgia if the EU failed to act and start mediating.


----------



## Nemo888

We have interests, not friends. We want strategic leverage, not moral authority. The real politik is much more nuanced and less naive about countries motivations once you travel. We don't do things for humanitarian reasons unless we get something  out of it. That is just for the media at home.  You should go places and ask people what they really think about us. Get a few drinks in them and wow. America is almost universally hated now. Most think of Canada what we think of Greenland. Totally irrelevant.


----------



## Nemo888

Google Georgia missile defence. We were well paid for our "humanitarian" intervention.


----------



## nn1988

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> We have interests, not friends. We want strategic leverage, not moral authority. The real politik is much more nuanced and less naive about countries motivations once you travel. We don't do things for humanitarian reasons unless we get something  out of it. That is just for the media at home.  You should go places and ask people what they really think about us. Get a few drinks in them and wow. America is almost universally hated now. Most think of Canada what we think of Greenland. Totally irrelevant.



I am guessing this simply reaffirms my point that the US want to attack a foreign country largely to maintain international credibility. If shit goes down in Syria, Iran will be next; both allies of Russia. A strategical and financial strike. And I know, neither the US nor Russia give two shits about the civilians in any of these countries.


----------



## tomahawk6

No one I know supports an attack on Syria.The best thing from the US standpoint would be to let both sides kill each other,until they exhaust themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> But there is a cogent, reasoned case for intervention ~ I don't accept it but I agree there is one.




And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from hte _Guardian_, is another reason argument *for* intervention:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/left-irrational-fear-us-intervention-syria?CMP=twt_gu


> The left's irrational fear of American intervention
> *In Syria, as elsewhere, US military might is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity*
> 
> Niall Ferguson
> The Guardian
> 
> Friday 6 September 2013
> 
> Not for the first time, human rights violations by a Middle Eastern tyrant pose a dilemma for leftists on both sides of the Atlantic. On the one hand, they don't like reading about people being gassed. On the other, they are deeply reluctant to will the means to end the killing, for fear of acknowledging that western – meaning, in practice, American – military power can be a force for good.
> 
> Ever since the 1990s, when the United States finally bestirred itself to end the post-Yugoslav violence in the Balkans, I have made three arguments that the left cannot abide. The first is that American military power is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity. The second is that, unfortunately, the US is a reluctant "liberal empire" because of three deficits: of manpower, money and attention. And the third is that, when it retreats from global hegemony, we shall see more not less violence.
> 
> More recently, almost exactly year ago, I was lambasted for arguing that Barack Obama's principal weaknesses were a tendency to defer difficult decisions to Congress and a lack of coherent strategy in the Middle East. Events have confirmed the predictive power of all this analysis.
> 
> To the isolationists on both left and right, Obama's addiction to half- and quarter-measures is just fine – anything rather than risk "another Iraq". But such complacency (not to say callousness) understates the danger of the dynamics at work in the Middle East today. Just because the US is being led by the geopolitical equivalent of Hamlet doesn't mean stasis on the global stage. On the contrary, the less the US does, the more rapidly the region changes, as the various actors jostle for position in a post-American Middle East.
> 
> Syria today is in the process of being partitioned. Note that something similar has already happened in Iraq. What we are witnessing is not just the end of the Middle East of the 1970s. This could be the end of the Middle East of the 1920s. The borders of today, as is well known, can be traced back to the work of British and French diplomats during the first world war. The infamous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 was the first of a series of steps that led to the breakup of the Ottoman empire and the creation of the states we know today as Syria and Iraq, as well as Jordan, Lebanon and Israel.
> 
> As we approach the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war, there is no obvious reason why these states should all survive in their present form.
> 
> It is tempting to think of this as a re-Ottomanisation process, as the region reverts to its pre-1914 borders. But it may be more accurate to see this as a second Yugoslavia, with sectarian conflict leading to "ethnic cleansing" and a permanent redrawing of the maps. In the case of Bosnia and Kosovo, it took another Democrat US president an agonisingly long time to face up to the need for intervention. But he eventually did. I would not be surprised to see a repeat performance if that president's wife should end up succeeding Obama in the White House. After all, there is strong evidence to suggest Obama agreed to the original chemical weapons "red line" only under pressure from Hillary Clinton's state department.
> 
> Yet the president may not be able to sustain his brand of minimalist interventionism until 2016. While all eyes are focused on chemical weapons in Syria, the mullahs in Iran continue with their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The latest IAEA report on this subject makes for disturbing reading. I find it hard to believe that even the pusillanimous Obama would be able to ignore evidence that Tehran had crossed that red line, even if it was drawn by the Israeli prime minister rather than by him.
> 
> The Iranian factor is one of a number of key differences between the break up of Yugoslavia and the breakup of countries like Syria and Iraq.
> 
> The Middle East is not the Balkans. The population is larger, younger, poorer and less educated. The forces of radical Islam are far more powerful. It is impossible to identify a single "bad guy" in the way that Slobodan Milosevic became the west's bete noire. And there are multiple regional players – Iran, Turkey, the Saudis, as well as the Russians – with deep pockets and serious military capabilities. All in all, the end of pan-Arabism is a much scarier process than the end of pan-Slavism. And the longer the US dithers, the bigger the sectarian conflicts in the region are likely to become.
> 
> The proponents of non-intervention – or, indeed, of ineffectual intervention – need to face a simple reality. Inaction is a policy that also has consequences measurable in terms of human life. The assumption that there is nothing worse in the world than American empire is an article of leftwing faith. It is not supported by the historical record.




Now, I often agree with Prof Ferguson on a range of issues, but not this time.

First: it is not just "leftists" who oppose this intervention. The opposition is found all across the political spectrum; the left is largely united in both its opposition and its (unconvincing) rationale (one large "brick" in the left "wall" is missing: the _Obama uber alles_ group) but opposition is broadly based, albeit inchoate;

Second: I do not think this is a _Balkanization_ of the Middle East. I don't think Prof Ferguson is looking back far enough. He needs to look back four centuries, not one.

Third: while "inaction" does, indeed, have consequences ~ sad and bloody ones for the Syrian people ~ action has worse ones.


----------



## Edward Campbell

In the _Toronto Star_ columnist Haroon Siddiqui makes a more emotional, less reasoned case for intervention. He is, mostly, wrong, but he does offer a neat summary of the _Naysayers_, _Gung-ho Warriors_ and _Reluctant Warriors_ who are circling the issue like vultures. His _advice_ to Prime Minister Harper is 100% wrong ... but of course it is, he writes for the _Star._


----------



## The Bread Guy

Maybe Mr. Siddiqui didn't read this piece on how to write for and against intervention  ;D ....


> If you're anti-intervention, your headline should include the words "Iraq", "Imperialism", "Drones", "Islamophobia" and "Palestine". If you're pro-intervention, use the words, "Israel", "Iran", "Heinous" and "Not Iraq". “War”, "Humanity" and "Children" can be used by both sides.
> 
> Start with what you saw about Syria on television last week, or the week before.
> 
> Note how you haven't slept for several nights since, thinking about what you saw --- it will beef up your credentials as a war weary non-Syrian. For research, it's bad form to read any writing from journalists who have been following Syria for nearly 3 years. There are shorter summaries, that use smaller words, written by people who are just learning themselves. Mention their work so it aligns with your own short-comings.
> 
> Explaining the complexities of life in war-torn Syria defeats the purpose of your article. Nuance is a friend of your enemy, no matter what side you're on. If you can’t convey the entire situation in a sentence, maybe this job isn’t for you.
> 
> Syria was a peaceful land, filled with rivers of honey and mountains of whipped cream before "all of this" happened. Or it was a giant desert, filled with camel-riding Arabs. Neither matters since your piece is not really about Syria. Never mention that its population is close to 23 million. Numbers only matter if they're about how many people died or were liberated in Iraq.
> 
> Be original and use the term "Arab Winter." Be brief, and don't linger on any topic for too long. It's boring and might expose gaps in your knowledge. Everybody else has forgotten that the US, UK and others recognize the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, so you might as well too.
> 
> Don't explain the difference between Shia and Alawite in detail. It's like trying to explain the difference between fried rice and broiled corn to a cat. He won't eat it if he knows. If you’re Arab, emphasize that fact, since all Arabs are exactly alike and every Arab speaks for all Arabdom. Be sure to divide the entire population of Syria into "good guys" and "bad guys". Pretend the Kurds don't exist. It's easier to make your case that way and continues a long tradition.
> 
> Just use "al-Qaeda" as shorthand for Jabhat Al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Of course, if you're anti-intervention, then just use "al-Qaeda" as shorthand for the Free Syrian Army. Throw in at least one outlandish claim about the rebels from a single, unverified source.
> 
> Mention the name of at least one Syrian friend you've had drinks with in Washington D.C. It bolsters your claim of having intimate knowledge of the situation. Even better, if you once spent a weekend in Aleppo or Damascus. Devote at least two paragraphs to how it transformed your life, even if you've never mentioned that before writing this article.
> 
> If you're pro-intervention, mention the words "Israel" and "security" several times. If you're against it, mention Iran and the various abuses it has had to suffer at the hands of the West. You're only peppering in Syria here and there to ensure that your journalistic integrity remains intact.
> 
> Treat the article as if it were a minimalist work of art.
> 
> If you're pro, don't mention Saudi Arabia, at any cost. Don’t talk about past US interventions unless the outcome was positive or too distant for the memory of your audience. If you're anti, the Bosnian, Kosovo or Libyan wars did NOT happen. You must state strongly how any external interference in Syria will make the situation worse, whilst pretending that Russia, Iran, Saudi, Lebanon, Turkey, US, UK, and half the world have sat on their hands and whistled since 2011.
> 
> Don’t talk to any actual Syrians. They will only complicate the argument. Use various tweets by @The_47th, @NuffSilence and @AlexanderPageSY out of context to hide the fact that your piece doesn’t include interviews and to appeal to your millennial readers who can't get enough of Twitter.
> 
> If anti-intervention, talk about US imperialism wherever possible. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine will do very nicely as examples. Don't bring up US interventions in Latin America. Your audience only knows about them if they're a die-hard Immortal Technique fan. To ensure everyone knows how deeply you feel the pain and suffering caused by the indiscriminate murder of huge numbers of civilians, add that you own a copy of Hotel Rwanda.
> 
> If pro-intervention, demonstrate your credibility by saying "I was against the Iraq war, but the situation in Syria is different and demands ‘humanitarian intervention’”. Hopefully nobody will ask you about the Democratic Republic of Congo or Sudan in the comments.
> 
> For maximum impact, use a photo of either dead children or a jihadist committing an atrocity. The more emotions the image stirs, the less you have to worry about the quality of your argument. Don't consult multiple sources and experts on the chemical weapons claims. Just find the one which supports your position the strongest and stick with it.
> 
> Exploit the refugees. Either criticize the West for not doing enough to help, or hammer home the fact that Assad has created over 2 million. Avoid writing about Syria's massive rape crisis. Women in war only matter when they’ve lost a man from their family.
> 
> When sharing your article on social media, tweet something like "I give my thoughts on the Syria debate", because although this isn't about you, there's always the chance that an editor might ask you to write another piece or do a TV interview. Intervention debates can be great for a journalist's career.
> 
> Your last paragraph should include something about Obama lacking a spine or George Bush being a cowboy. Conclude with how you're only doing this so you can sleep better at night or be on the right side of history, since those are the only outcomes of this war that truly matter.


----------



## observor 69

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In the _Toronto Star_ columnist Haroon Siddiqui makes a more emotional, less reasoned case for intervention. He is, mostly, wrong, but he does offer a neat summary of the _Naysayers_, _Gung-ho Warriors_ and _Reluctant Warriors_ who are circling the issue like vultures. His _advice_ to Prime Minister Harper is 100% wrong ... but of course it is, he writes for the _Star._



Well to add balance to your Sunday reading go over to the G&M for an excellent interview with Margaret MacMillan, the award-winning historian and author of the international bestseller Paris 1919.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/historian-margaret-macmillan-on-what-the-war-to-end-wars-can-teach-us/article14174144/#dashboard/follows/


----------



## CougarKing

Syrian warplanes test British air defences at Cyprus: what's the point of the Syrians doing this considering the UK has already decided to sit this one out?

Mirror link



> *Syrian warplanes flee after testing defences at British air base in Cyprus  *
> 8 Sep 2013 00:00
> 
> Bombers had refused to respond to repeated attempts by the control tower at the UK’s Akrotiri air base to make radio contact
> 
> 
> *RAF Typhoon fighters won a mid-air showdown with two Syrian warplanes heading towards Britain’s main base in Cyprus, the Sunday People can ­reveal.
> 
> The dramatic confrontation came after President Bashar al-Assad’s air chiefs sent two Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24s to probe our air defences.
> 
> The Syrian bombers refused to respond to repeated attempts by the control tower at the UK’s Akrotiri air base to contact them.*
> RAF pilots flying the world’s most advanced combat jet were scrambled before the Sukhois could enter our 14-mile air exclusion zone.
> 
> The Typhoons – which can scream from runway standstill to seven miles high in 90 seconds – soared into the sky to make visual contact with the Syrian pilots.
> 
> *But the moment the Syrians ­spotted our planes on their radar they high-tailed for home.
> 
> If the bombers had pressed on into our exclusion zone they would have been shot down, military experts said last night.*
> 
> And despite Parliament’s refusal to sanction military strikes against Syria, the RAF’s swift response is a warning to dictator Assad’s forces not to mess with Britain.
> 
> Defence analyst Edward Hunt told the Sunday People: “If they will not turn back then they have to be shot down.”
> 
> Sukhoi Su-24 A Sukhoi Su-24 like the ones flown towards Cyprus
> 
> The showdown happened on Monday before David Cameron and US President Barack Obama went to the G20 summit in Russia to
> 
> press for strikes against Syria ­following a nerve gas attack in the capital Damascus that killed nearly 1,500 civilians.
> 
> *Two Turkish F-16s were also scrambled from their Incirlik air base in Turkey.
> 
> But they arrived on the scene long after the British Typhoons.*
> And as the Syrian planes codenamed Fencer by Nato were still in international air space all the scrambled allied planes were recalled.
> 
> A military source said: “If there’s no communication between the guys on the ground and the aircraft then this is what we do.
> 
> “These guys were heading in our direction.”
> 
> Flying at 600mph the planes could have reached Cyprus within 15 ­minutes of taking off from their base at Tiyas in the east of the country.
> 
> But AWAC spy planes detected them on radar and signalled the red alert.
> 
> (...)


----------



## tomahawk6

Maybe they were going to defect but forgot they didnt speak english ? ;D


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> .....what's the point of the Syrians doing this considering the UK has already decided to sit this one out?


I saw nothing in the UK Parliament's voting against contributing forces to a military strike, which precludes their bases being used to support such operations.


----------



## Nemo888

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201398151357659161.html

 Assad says no evidence of chemical attack
Syrian president, interviewed by US broadcaster, denies he was behind a chemical weapons attack in Damascus suburbs.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has denied that he was behind a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people and said evidence was not conclusive that there had been such an attack, CBS reported.

"There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," CBS on Sunday quoted Assad as saying in an interview conducted by Charlie Rose in Damascus.

The US, along with other Western and regional countries, accuse the Assad regime of carrying out a chemical attack in Damascus suburbs on August 21, killing hundreds of people.

Speaking on the CBS Sunday morning show Face the Nation, Rose summarised the answers Assad gave in his first interview with an American television network in the last two years .

Rose said that the Syrian president did not confirm or deny that the regime has chemical weapons.

The US and France are seeking to build an international coalition to launch military strikes against Syria in response to the alleged chemical attack.

Member countries of the European Union also blame the Syrian government for the attack said on Saturday that the world should wait for a report from UN weapons inspectors before any US-led military response.

In another media report on Sunday, Germany's Bild am Sonntag paper said Syrian government forces may have used chemical weapons without the personal permission of Assad.

Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied, the paper said.

Bild said the radio traffic was intercepted by a German naval reconnaissance vessel, the Oker, sailing close to the Syrian coast.


----------



## 57Chevy

He makes a "just because" statement;
 ("President Vladmir V. Putin of Russia wants to prevent the United States
from using military force or support from the Security Council to bring down governments it opposes.")
It is no wonder that Hamadi Jebali who resigned as Prime Minister of Tunisia made known in early 2012 that the international
community has to reconsider the mechanism of decision making policy regarding veto action in the Security Council.

A veto decision cannot come to be based solely on such "just because" reasoning by any elected leader.
It is hollow.
In this case, it lacks representation of the predicament of the people of Syria.

Sometimes we need not look too far back to recognize crucial advances to world peace that must be made known
and exercised by the audience it applies to. That audience must include the council itself. 
From a single Security Council Resolution (1325) adopted in 2000 we clearly see reason to make
appropriate changes to the veto mechanism. 
It lacks representation from those who suffer the greatest.
Where is their voice found in such "just because" statements ?

Info;
 Tawakkol Karmen, along with Ellen Johnson Sirleaff and Leymah Gboweee, were the co-recipients of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work.

 The Nobel Committee cited Resolution 1325, which states that women and children suffer great harm from war and political instability and that women must have a larger influence and role in peacemaking activities; it also "calls on all actors involved, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, to adopt a gender perspective."Upon announcing the award, the committee chairman Thorbjørn Jaglandd said: "We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society." He later added that the prize was "a very important signal to women all over the world."


----------



## Haletown

Syria, the strategic view.


----------



## myself.only

Hmmmm could we kill both sides and then rent the place out to the Palestinians?


----------



## PuckChaser

myself.only said:
			
		

> Hmmmm could we kill both sides and then rent the place out to the Palestinians?



I think a lot of them would still want to take on Israel. We'd replace one enemy for another.


----------



## myself.only

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think a lot of them would still want to take on Israel. We'd replace one enemy for another.



Mmmm we could tell them they could be grateful... or perhaps they need us to deploy Celine Dion and Justin Bieber on a Friendship Tour to convince them?


----------



## Quirky

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Syrian warplanes test British air defences at Cyprus: what's the point of the Syrians doing this considering the UK has already decided to sit this one out?
> 
> Mirror link
> 
> "But the moment the Syrians ­spotted our planes on their radar they high-tailed for home."



It would be an interesting scenario if Raptors happened to be scrambled. Would the SU's be able to detect them? If not, would they continue into the exclusion zone therefore getting shot down without even knowing it?


----------



## CougarKing

An unprecedented diplomatic initiative by Putin or just another ploy to buy time for Assad?

Calgary Herald link



> MOSCOW (AP) -- *The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.*
> 
> Sergey Lavrov said Monday that if such a move would help avert a possible U.S. strike on Syria, Russia will start work "immediately" to persuade Syria to relinquish control over its chemical arsenals.
> 
> Lavrov told reporters that Russia would urge Syria to concentrate its chemical weapons in certain areas under international oversight and then dismantle them.
> 
> THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
> 
> *Russian and Syrian foreign ministers on Monday strongly pushed for the return of United Nations inspectors to Syria to continue their probe into the use of chemical weapons and again warned Washington against launching an attack.*
> 
> The statement comes as President Barack Obama, who blames President Bashar Assad for killing hundreds of his own people in a chemical attack last month, is pressing for a limited strike against the Syrian government. It has denied launching the attack, insisting along with its ally Russia that the attack was launched by the rebels to drag the U.S. into war.
> 
> Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said after Monday's talks with his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moallem that U.N. chemical weapons experts should complete their probe and present their findings to the U.N. Security Council
> (...)


----------



## 57Chevy

On the "Red Line"

It was not Mr. Obama that made that line. It was established by our forefathers who had firsthand terrifying experiences
from the use of chemical weapons in warfare.
They recognized right away the dangers to the innocent of future generations. They agreed upon, friend and foe alike, on
measures including mechanisms that were subsequently set in place prior to the population explosion.

The last of those mechanisms is the ultimatum. It is obvious that something must be done.
War is the final word of its definition. The theory is clear;
 "Do something or we shoot !" It must be understood then, "Do nothing, we shoot !". 
It is also clear that when it comes to this point, world leaders suddenly realize the tack in their shoe 
must be dealt with immediately.

Mr Obama (in reality) is correcting a wrong that previous administrations and the whole world
overlooked and allowed to happen.
The initiative he has taken is what should have been done at that time. It could very well have been made by 
most any other nation.
As we all become aware of the possible consequences of the ultimatum, 
we must align ourselves once again, but this time in a direction
to finally extinguish forever the use of these types of weapons from human history.
We'll get there.
I second Mr. Ban ki-Moon statement; "Give peace a chance ".


----------



## CougarKing

In the meantime, many Russians- save for perhaps all those Russian military advisors embedded in Syrian units- are leaving Syria in government-chartered planes ahead of the possible strike.




> *Moscow sends new plane to evacuate Russians from Syria*
> 
> 
> Quote:
> MOSCOW - A Russian plane landed in the Syrian port city of Latakia on Sunday, the government said, as it seeks to evacuate its citizens from the escalating conflict.
> 
> The plane would collect citizens of Russia and other ex-Soviet states "who have expressed a desire to leave the zone of conflict," Russian emergencies ministry spokeswoman Irina Rossius said in a statement.
> 
> *It was not clear how many people would be evacuated on the flight but Russian news agencies said those who wanted to leave were already waiting at Latakia airport.*
> 
> The flights come as expectations grow of Western military action against President Bashar al-Assad's regime over claims it used chemical weapons in an attack outside the Syrian capital in August.
> 
> 
> link


----------



## Old Sweat

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> An unprecedented diplomatic initiative by Putin or just another ploy to buy time for Assad?
> 
> Calgary Herald link



Which ever it is, it has bought time for both Assad and Obama. However, the cynic in me says that the "international community" cannot guarantee that all the Syrian chemical weapons will be collected and turned over to international control, perhaps because the possibility exists that one or more people somewhere down the chain will keep some back just in case. Now I have no idea of the extent of the regime's stocks and chemical weapons are fairly inefficient in that a fair number are required to achieve a militarily significant result. That, also, is dependent upon weather to a fairly large extent. In other words, the amount to be hidden might be large enough to show up in any physical count to verify numbers against records thaT would be out more than a few rounds.

Perhaps the offer provides a face saving device for both Assad and Obama. If Assad refuses, the momentum for a strike may be increased, while if he accepts, the opposite seems to occur. All Obama has to do in the meantime is jut his chin out and make a few emotional speeches while he waits for events to unfold.


----------



## The Bread Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> An unprecedented diplomatic initiative by Putin or just another ploy to buy time for Assad?
> 
> Calgary Herald link


Initial response, via wire service Twitter feed ....


> Syria welcomes Russia's proposal for Damascus to put its chemical weapons under international control: Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moualem


Time will tell ....

Also, some alleged details about the Saudi's contribution to the fight ....


> A top secret memo sent by the Ministry of Interior in Saudi Arabia reveals the Saudi Kingdom sent death-row inmates, sentenced to execution by decapitation, to Syria to fight Jihad against the Syrian government in exchange for commuting their sentences.
> 
> According to the memo, dated April 17, 2012, the Saudi Kingdom negotiated with a total of 1239 inmates, offering them a full pardon and a monthly salary for their families, who were to remain in the Kingdom, in exchange for "...their training in order to send them to Jihad in Syria."
> 
> The memo was signed by Abdullah bin Ali al-Rmezan, the "Director of follow up in Ministry of Interior."
> 
> According to the memo, prisoners were of the following nationalities: Yemenis, Palestinians, Saudis, Sudanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Somalis, Afghanis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Iraqis, and Kuwaitis.
> 
> There were 23 Iraqi prisoners ....


That said, the Assyrian Int'l News Agency isn't exactly pro-opposition in its editorial selection rubric....
_*"Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack"*_
_*"Video Shows Syrian Rebels Executing Bound Government Soldiers"*_

Finally, a bit more info from Russian media to dirty up the information sand box....


> A chemical attack may be launched on Israel by Syrian rebels from government-controlled territories as a "major provocation", a number of sources have told RT.
> 
> The news comes as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov proposed that Syria puts its chemical weapons arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction in order to prevent a possible military strike against the war-torn republic.
> 
> Moscow also urged the Syrian authorities to join the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The offer has already been passed over to the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, who met Lavrov in Moscow for talks on Monday ....


----------



## nn1988

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Which ever it is, it has bought time for both Assad and Obama [...] All Obama has to do in the meantime is jut his chin out and make a few emotional speeches while he waits for events to unfold.



Just like how he declared and talked about chemical weapons represented a "red line" in Syria a year ago? It has been blatently crossed, regardless of which side was responsible; Al-Qaeda; The rebels or Assad. He should probably draw an invisible line this time so we can't tell if it has been crossed. Whatever happened to the CIA arming the rebels which was authorized by the White House this June. Good or not, in the future he should say nothing at all.

Quoting Clifford D. May from the National Post (Make Assad Pay): "It is not helpful to continually insist- against overwhelming evidence- that the "tide of war is receding," and to repeat ad nauseam how "war weary" the West has become. Assad is not war weary. Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei is not war weary. Al-Qaeda commander Ayman al-Zawahiri is not war weary".


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> An unprecedented diplomatic initiative by Putin or just another ploy to buy time for Assad?
> 
> Calgary Herald link
> 
> 
> 
> MOSCOW (AP) -- The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.
Click to expand...



So Vladimir Putin is, all of a sudden, the voice of "reason" and "moderation" in this mess?

The US has two choices:

     1. Bomb Syria, maybe just a little bomb, as Secretary Kerry suggests, maybe more ~ no matter, it will backfire, this is the Middle East, after all, and President Obama will be branded as a warmonger, but a "strong" warmonger so that's OK; or

     2. Stand down and wait and see ~ no matter, it will backfire, this is the Middle East, after all, and President Obama will be branded as a weak kneed vacillator.

In either event Russia comes off looking "reasonable" and "helpful," and China will smile quietly from the rear row, having invested nothing and risked nothing.


----------



## GAP

> In either event Russia comes off looking "reasonable" and "helpful," and China will smile quietly from the rear row, having invested nothing and risked nothing.



And be around to pick up the economic pieces after the dust settles.....


----------



## tomahawk6

This works for Obama,as he really didnt want to bomb Syria.


----------



## George Wallace

What are we facing in the WEST?  Is this what we too could be facing in our future?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28b_1378767064#rUYREsjryDGMiGVy.01



> 'Convert to Islam or die' is the choice 'liberated' Christains in Syria must make
> 
> 
> Terrified Christians claim Syrian rebels ordered them to convert to Islam on pain of death when they ‘liberated’ their ancient village.
> 
> Opposition forces, including fighters linked to Al Qaeda, gained temporary control of the Christian village of Maaloula after fighting with regime forces.
> 
> The reports have reignited fears about western support for the rebel groups, which are increasingly being infiltrated by Islamic extremists.
> 
> One Maaloula resident said the rebels, many of whom had beards and shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is great), attacked Christian homes and churches shortly after moving into the village.
> 
> ‘They shot and killed people. I heard gunshots and then I saw three bodies lying in the middle of a street in the old quarters of the village. Where is President Obama to see what has befallen us?’
> 
> Another Christian resident said: ‘I saw the militants grabbing five villagers and threatening them and saying, “Either you convert to Islam, or you will be beheaded”.’
> 
> Another said one church had been torched, and gunmen stormed into two other churches and robbed them.
> 
> The beautiful mountain village, 25 miles from Damascus, is one of the few places in the world where residents still use the ancient language of Aramaic, which was spoken by Jesus and his disciples.
> 
> It has become a key strategic battleground in the Syrian civil war because of its proximity to the capital. It was held by President Assad’s regime, but taken at the weekend in a rebel advance spearheaded by the hardline Islamist al Nusra Front.
> 
> Villagers said they heard several foreign accents among the rebels, with many feared to be Al Qaeda fighters imported into the conflict. A villager said he heard mainly Tunisian, Libyan, Moroccan and Chechen dialects.
> 
> In a video posted online, a rebel commander shouted at the camera: ‘We cleansed Maaloula from all the Assad dogs and all his thugs.’ But Syria’s state news agency claimed the rebels had withdrawn and the regime had regained the village, saying: ‘The army inflicted heavy losses in the ranks of the terrorists.’
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415586/Syrian-rebels-attack-historic-Christian-village-residents-speak-language-Jesus.html
> Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28b_1378767064#WwsGhKtpujCfiIUd.99



As E.R.C. points out, these barbaric acts are what is defining the spread of this madness throughout that Region.


----------



## cupper

It's interesting that the US press is currently playing up the fact that the Russians took advantage of an off the cuff remark made by Sec. State John Kerry to develop the proposal to put Syria's CW assets under international control. And it seems that everyone and their dog is jumping on this band wagon.

*Obama sees potential ‘breakthrough’ in Russia’s Syria proposal*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/john-kerry-in-london-campaigns-for-world-to-support-military-strike-against-syria/2013/09/09/e8ad7a72-193d-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html?hpid=z1



> Hours earlier, in London, Secretary of State John F. Kerry sketched out a transfer-of-control scenario similar to the Russian proposal, then dismissed it, after being asked by a reporter whether there was anything that Assad could do to avoid an attack. “Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry said. “But he isn’t about to.”


----------



## GAP

Yeah, it puts out that fire that's lighting up Obama's a**&^. Getting your irons out of the fire is the focus, not how you do it...... :


----------



## Jed

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What are we facing in the WEST?  Is this what we too could be facing in our future?
> 
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28b_1378767064#rUYREsjryDGMiGVy.01
> 
> As E.R.C. points out, these barbaric acts are what is defining the spread of this madness throughout that Region.


 Absolute madness, Maloula is very peaceful, very Christian. Why in God's name are we even considering supporting these rebel arseholes?


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So Vladimir Putin is, all of a sudden, the voice of "reason" and "moderation" in this mess?
> 
> The US has two choices:
> 
> 1. Bomb Syria, maybe just a little bomb, as Secretary Kerry suggests, maybe more ~ no matter, it will backfire, this is the Middle East, after all, and President Obama will be branded as a warmonger, but a "strong" warmonger so that's OK; or
> 
> 2. Stand down and wait and see ~ no matter, it will backfire, this is the Middle East, after all, and President Obama will be branded as a weak kneed vacillator.
> 
> In either event Russia comes off looking "reasonable" and "helpful," and China will smile quietly from the rear row, having invested nothing and risked nothing.




And France has just, according to _CBC News_, switched sides: the foreign minister says France will present a resolution (in the UN, I suppose) to "take over" Syria's chemical weapons.

Of course, it will all go wrong (this is the Middle East, after all), but, for the moment Putin saves Obama's political life because it _appears_ that he, president Obama, cannot command Congressional or public support.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And France has just, according to _CBC News_, switched sides: the foreign minister says France will present a resolution (in the UN, I suppose) to "take over" Syria's chemical weapons.


Unusual bedfellows, all ....
*"Syria, Iran and Russia working on counter-proposal to U.S. strike"*


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And France has just, according to _CBC News_, switched sides:



And in other news, the sun will rise in the east this morning, and the Pope is still Catholic.


----------



## George Wallace

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ......., and the Pope is still Catholic.



For the time being.


----------



## Nemo888

Aren't you supposed to have an objective before you start military action?

At least this sounds like a compelling reason to bomb them. Randomly bombing sh!t when it may very likely be rogue commanders responsible made little sense and had no deterrent value. Threatening same rogue commanders and taking away their toys makes sense. Assad is an nerdy ophthalmologist, his brother was supposed to be the leader of the country but he died in a car crash. I suspect he can't reign in his commanders on his own.


----------



## myself.only

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> ....when it may very likely be rogue commanders responsible made little sense and had no deterrent value. Threatening same rogue commanders and taking away their toys makes sense. Assad is an nerdy ophthalmologist, his brother was supposed to be the leader of the country but he died in a car crash. I suspect he can't reign in his commanders on his own.



IMHO I have problems accepting the rogue commander theory: a dictator clinging to power after years of civil war adopts a laissez-faire attitude about WMDs held by commanders whose Intent can probably be summed up as "stay alive"?
Commanders who could easily get it into their heads to manoeuvre themselves to play king maker like Egypt?
Seems a little trusting, no?
Even if Assad said "do what you must, the less I know the better" he shouldn't be off the hook. 
But then again, no one should ever underestimate the power of stupid.
My  :2c:


----------



## myself.only

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And France has just, according to _CBC News_, switched sides....



Well let's be proactive on this.
Please have Ottawa cable them immediately to accept their unconditional surrender.


----------



## CougarKing

According to a CNN report from this morning about US Congress members' war stances, (Sept.10), *166 US House members are against a Syria strike while 26 said they will vote for it. As for the US Senate, 29 Senators were against while 26 were for as of this writing. And 235 undecided as of this morning.*

Furthermore, while it is quite strange for Vladimir to be the "voice of reason" that could avert a war, would the alternative of a regional war be any better, in spite of Kerry's supposed "this will be a incredibly small strike" assurances? Tomahawks or not, pinpricks or not, a Syria strike will only enrage not only Syria's Alawites and Iran, but Muslims across the region as well who hate the US regardless of which side Washington takes.

One of the staunch opponents of any Syria strike is Iraq War veteran Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who used to be a US Army medical operations specialist. 

Anyways, we'll see soon enough whether the US Congress votes for the Syria strike. Obama's address on CNN North America will be at 4 PM Pacific Time, 7 Eastern Time.

military.com link



> *Iraq War Vet in Congress Opposes Syria Strike*
> 
> Sep 09, 2013
> 
> Associated Press| by Donna Cassata
> WASHINGTON - One of the two female Iraq war veterans in Congress said Monday she opposes President Barack Obama's push for punitive military strikes against Syria, underscoring the administration's struggle in trying to rally Democrats to back the use of force.
> 
> *Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii * bemoaned the carnage in Syria after a chemical weapons attack, which the U.S. says killed hundreds of civilians, including children, last month. However, after participating in public and private sessions on Capitol Hill, she said a U.S. military strike would be a serious mistake.
> 
> "As a soldier, I understand that before taking any military action, our nation must have a clear tactical objective, a realistic strategy, the necessary resources to execute that strategy, including the support of the American people, and an exit plan," Gabbard said in a statement. "The proposed military action against Syria fails to meet any of these criteria."
> 
> *Gabbard, who served near Baghdad for a year and was a medical operations specialist, is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
> 
> Gabbard joins other Democrats from Obama's native state, including Sen. Brian Schatz and Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, in opposing aggressive U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war.*
> 
> *Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., lost both legs and partial use of an arm in a rocket-propelled grenade attack in Iraq. She has not made a final decision on whether she would vote for a resolution authorizing force,*  but the freshman lawmaker from Obama's adopted state has serious reservations about any strike.
> 
> "It's military families like mine that are the first to bleed when our nation makes this kind of commitment," Duckworth has said.
> 
> The administration is pressing lawmakers to back Obama's request for military action but faces stiff opposition from Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. With votes looming in Congress, the White House is stepping up its appeals to lawmakers.
> 
> Among other veterans in Congress, Republican *Rep. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, has expressed his support for military action against Syria.*  Cotton is trying to unseat Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, who announced this past weekend that he would oppose military action.
> 
> Military veterans represent a much smaller percentage of Congress from decades past. In the mid-1970s, veterans totaled more than 400 among Congress' 535 members. Today, the number of veterans is slightly more than 100. Most of them served during the Vietnam War.


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> ...
> Anyways, we'll see soon enough whether the US Congress votes for the Syria strike ...
> 
> military.com link




Or not; the US congress might, I'm guessing that the House of Representative will, want to defer and delay for a long, long time, to deny President Obama any sort of "closure."


----------



## 57Chevy

Chemical and Biological Weapons Status at a Glance
 Arms Control Association 

Syria last year confirmed possession of unconventional weapons, has never given an inventory of its stockpile,
never signed a global treaty banning the storage of chemical weapons,
but is a signatory to a 1925 treaty prohibiting their use.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect Russia definition of "International control" is Russia, followed perhaps by Iran or China


----------



## nn1988

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or not; the US congress might, I'm guessing that the House of Representative will, want to defer and delay for a long, long time, to deny President Obama any sort of "closure."



Grandmaster level of Politics! Although I doubt there is a chance a strike passes Congress now.There is no need to, this is what Obama was putting the strikes on hold. If they actually planned this whole thing that's a stroke of genius.




			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect Russia definition of "International control" is Russia, followed perhaps by Iran or China



True. I'm wondering how exactly this will be done, no doubt it's a good move. Now to actually turn words into actions. I am equally certain that, no matter how statesman like the Russians are appearing, they are pursuing their own interests (just like the USA and other governments). Hopefully this will not turn into a political game of who's the biggest and strongest world leader.


Also, "_the most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition_." - Wiki


----------



## CougarKing

Seems Obama's TV speech was delayed from 4 PM Pacific time to 6 PM, which is 5 minutes from now as of this posting. Perhaps this delay was due to some final phone or video conference between US, Russia and Syria?


----------



## cupper

Apparently he just want's to recap what has been in the news for the last few days.

Blah, Blah, Blah.


----------



## Nemo888

He needs a real plan. If the A53 Oker has comms of Syrian officers asking for permission to use chemical weapons they also have geolocatio. I wouldn't mind sending those bastards some air mail.


----------



## a_majoor

Well Putin and Assad totally outmanoeuvred the Administration, and now Russia has strengthened their position and hold on their naval base in Tartus. if Russian troops arrive in strength to "monitor" the chemical weapons stockpile the Syrian Army can free up large quantities of fresh troops and Iran will have strengthened their position in the Middle East in the ongoing Shia/Sunni wars, as well as their claim to regional hegemony.

Mid term, Assad will win unless the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia step up their support for the rebels by an order of magnitude, resulting in even greater levels of repression and most likely allowing Iran to increase its activities in the region (using Syria as a secure forward base and depot for Hezbollah). 

Even if the Administration decides to go against the Congress and public opinion and do some strikes anyway, the certainly won't have any real effect on the conflict in Syria and also will fail the Administration's "acid test" of not being mocked. US foreign policy will have to undertake a major reset in 2016, but the damage will last for decades.


----------



## CougarKing

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I am finding it very comical that Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago  ;D is no institution sacred anymore.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So Vladimir Putin is, all of a sudden, the voice of "reason" and "moderation" in this mess?



K.T. McFarland at Fox News is saying Vladimir Putin deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.   ;D

Sigh...


----------



## sean m

It *seems* that the argument for those Americans, including the President, who want a strike is that if the West does not act that allowing Assad to use chemical weapons wil set a precedent for usage of chemical weapons in the future, and that American interests around the world could be the recipients of such an attack, does anyone here believe that?


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> K.T. McFarland at Fox News is saying Vladimir Putin deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.   ;D
> 
> Sigh...



If you don't think Putin has more of a voice of reason, then review this presentation on The Blaze by Glenn Beck and tell us what you think:  http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/warning-graphic-video-of-syrian-rebels-on-glenn-becks-the-blaze/

In my opinion, neither side deserves our support.  They both are diametrically opposite to our Western values.


----------



## The Bread Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> K.T. McFarland at Fox News is saying Vladimir Putin deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.   ;D


Only because it's not a Republican president in place


----------



## CougarKing

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you don't think Putin has more of a voice of reason, then review this presentation on The Blaze by Glenn Beck and tell us what you think:  http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/warning-graphic-video-of-syrian-rebels-on-glenn-becks-the-blaze/
> 
> In my opinion, neither side deserves our support.  They both are diametrically opposite to our Western values.



I don't have a problem with what he said. I have a problem with who is saying it though. That's why ERC sarcastically said:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So Vladimir Putin is, all of a sudden, the voice of "reason" and "moderation" in this mess?



Can Putin really be believed he was "working in the interest of peace" considering he was one of those in charge when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008?
Syria is Russia's ally/client state, as we all know.

While this unprecedented diplomatic initiative started by Russia calling for Syria to give up its chem. weapons stockpiles seems great, there is no reasonable way for Syria to ever meet (to US, never mind international coalition/UN) standards and prove that they turned over every shell, every rocket that could be delivered.

Why do I say that? Think about this report below...is Assad really in control of all his military units supposedly loyal to him?



> *Report Claims Syrian Troops Used Chemical Weapons Without Assad’s Approval*
> 
> Government forces in Syria may have launched the chemical weapons attack that reportedly killed more than a thousand civilians last month before receiving a go-ahead from President Bashar Assad.
> 
> According to an article published on Sunday in the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, a German spy ship intercepted repeated communications from forces loyal to Assad asking for permission to use chemical weapons; however, their requests were consistently denied.
> 
> .........
> 
> TIME link


----------



## myself.only

sean m said:
			
		

> It *seems* that the argument for those Americans, including the President, who want a strike is that if the West does not act that allowing Assad to use chemical weapons wil set a precedent for usage of chemical weapons in the future, ...does anyone here believe that?



Sure. Put me down for that. 
IMHO if you're contemplating gassing your citizens or neighbors you'd think twice if "the West" would knock out some of your regime assets. Oh, that might play up nicely for you on Al Jezeera or some other media outlets but chances are you've already mobilized anti-Western PR as best you can. You're in a tight spot so it comes down to what helps the insurgents more: you limiting yourself to conventional arms, or the US bombing you.
Now having said that, I don't think US intervention or anything can be a universally effective deterrent; dictators might still mull it over and go ahead with chemical weapons anyway. 



			
				sean m said:
			
		

> It *seems* that the argument for those Americans, including the President, who want a strike is that if the West does not act that ... American interests around the world could be the recipients of such an attack, does anyone here believe that?



IMHO not buying into that so much.  
While the argument re proliferation says promoting their utility / value generally raises the chance that a nation like the US will confront a chemical arsenal, I think the implication is that the US is more likely to face chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists if it doesn't punish Assad.  But I just don't think terrorists will constrain themselves out of fear of retaliation against their operatives, training camps or host governments.


----------



## Haletown

cupper said:
			
		

> Apparently he just want's to recap what has been in the news for the last few days.
> 
> Blah, Blah, Blah.




A real recap of, depending on your view point, a highly flexible Foreign Policy in action, or an incoherent fly by the seat of your pants amateur hour of Foreign Policy  in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clcl0VZhl24


----------



## vonGarvin

Haletown said:
			
		

> A real recap of, depending on your view point, a highly flexible Foreign Policy in action, or *an incoherent fly by the seat of your pants amateur hour of Foreign Policy  in action*.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clcl0VZhl24


Total amateurs.  He's more interested in keeping himself in power.  He has absolutely no idea how to govern.  For example, you don't make an announcement from the Rose Garden, your Vice standing at your side, and then go golfing.  Instead, you retreat for more briefings, updates, engage foreign powers, etc.  This guy is a sham and Putin is, pardon the game-speak, pwning him.


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Can Putin really be believed he was "working in the interest of peace" considering he was one of those in charge when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008?
> Syria is Russia's ally/client state, as we all know.


Yes, and Putin was miffed when the west went into Kosovo contrary to his publically-stated objections.  So when he subsequently went into Georgia, I suspect it was both with a payback attitude, plus one of showing the value of a US "security guarantee"..... knowing full-well that the Americans (and the west) were too bogged down in Iraq/Afghanistan to do anything except wring their hands on _Face the Nation_.

As for this all being a brilliantly thought-out Machiavelli moment by Putin/Assad?  Nahh, neither has shown the capability of thinking this many iterations on.  They're merely exploiting Obama's foot-in-mouth and the idealists' cries of "something must be done" to their advantage.


----------



## George Wallace

This link ( a little dated ) from January 3, 2013 by By Basel Dayoub, al Akhbar - December 19, 2012:  http://gerarddirect.com/2013/01/03/6874/

Al-Qaeda Rebels Abuse and Murder Syrian Christians

This is news from as early as twelve months ago.  The West has known this and said nothing.  What is Obama thinking in throwing his support behind these people?


----------



## cupper

Putin makes a plea for caution in a NY Times OP-ED.

*A Plea for Caution From Russia*

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hpw&_r=0



> MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
> 
> Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
> 
> The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
> 
> No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
> 
> The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
> 
> Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
> 
> Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
> 
> From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
> 
> No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
> 
> It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
> 
> But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
> 
> No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
> 
> The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
> 
> We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
> 
> A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
> 
> I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
> 
> If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
> 
> My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
> 
> Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.


----------



## CougarKing

I wonder if such action would be an air strike? Or perhaps something like the 1976 Entebbe Operation with boots on the ground, considering that experts advised against bombing chemical weapons sites since it might cause an accidental nerve gas release to the local population?



> *Israel Says Will Act If WMDs Transferred To Hezbollah*
> 
> Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon hinted in speeches given in recent days that Israel has red lines, but declined to elaborate. Now, given the international community’s efforts to dismantle the non-conventional weapons Assad has collected,* Jerusalem emphasized that Israel reserved the right to respond to any attempt to arm Hezbollah with weapons of the sort.* According to foreign reports, the IDF carried out operations in Syria several times, hitting shipments of weapons that could have been transferred to the Lebanese terrorist organization and endanger Israel.
> 
> Jerusalem views events on the Syrian front with a discerning eye and cautious optimism, as it also does when considering the attitude of the US towards Iran. “We must see what happens in the end,” said an Israeli official, “but it is clear our stance is that a loaded gun must be placed on the table in the form of a real military threat, and this is the appropriate position to take. Once Assad and the Russians realized that the United States was serious, they led the diplomatic process. This policy holds true for Iran’s future as well.”
> 
> *Even President Shimon Peres said that he believed the current diplomatic efforts to be a better option than a military attack, provided that they lead to the dismantling of chemical weapons Syria.
> 
> Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took a jab at US President Barack Obama in comments he made on Wednesday night, emphasizing his position that Israel cannot trust anyone on security issues.*
> 
> To naval officers at a graduation ceremony in Haifa, Netanyahu said, “These days, perhaps more than ever, the main rule that guides me in my actions as prime minister and on which I am very particular, is: If I am not for myself, who will be? If we are not for ourselves, who will be? We are for ourselves.” Hours later, Ya’alon re-emphasized the same principle, during a ceremony at the Latrun Armored Corps Memorial, “In the fog that covers theMiddle East, we must understand that we need to rely only on ourselves.”
> 
> link


----------



## Edward Campbell

I have been a pretty clear opponent of any intervention in Syria but I have posted several articles by people I respect who take the opposite view. But I remain opposed and now my view is *confirmed* for me because two people I think grossly misunderstand foreign policy, former Canadian Ambassadir to the UN (and minister in Jean Chrétien's cabinet) and former Canadian foreign minister (also in Chrétien's government) Lloyd Axworthy, have taken a stand for intervention which, in my _opinion_ is wrong on every count. Here is their case, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Centre for International Policy Studies_ website:

http://cips.uottawa.ca/syrians-suffer-our-collective-failure/


> Syrians Suffer ‘Our’ Collective Failure
> 
> Posted on September 10, 2013 by Allan Rock
> 
> By Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy
> 
> _Published in the_ Globe and Mail_, September 10, 2013_
> 
> Almost a month has passed since the world learned that chemical weapons were used against the Syrian people. Apart from florid rhetoric, there still has been no response. No consequences for the monstrous regime. No act of global denunciation. More importantly, nothing to deter a further attack.
> 
> This is just the most recent example of “our” collective failure to respond to the tragedy unfolding in Syria. And since “we” respond through political leaders and multilateral institutions, how have they been performing?
> 
> The catastrophe in Syria these past two years has shone an unflattering light on an international cast of characters who have been tested by the crisis and found wanting. The main villains, of course, are the murderous Bashar al-Assad, his callous sponsor Russia and the shamefully complicit China. But there is more than enough blame to go around. Sadly, some of it must be assigned to the very institutions – and some of the international leaders – on whom “we” counted for help.
> 
> Start with the United Nations, where a dysfunctional Security Council has shown once again that major reform is long overdue. Its five permanent members (“the P5”) earned their special seats by winning the Second World War. But that was nearly 70 years ago, and judging by the changes in the distribution of global influence, the interval might as well be 1,000 years. The exclusion of major players such as India, Brazil and South Africa has diminished the Security Council’s legitimacy, and its secretive methods have undermined its credibility. But the council’s most damning defect is the P5 veto, by which any one of these countries can shut down the most powerful international body for even the most self-serving or immoral reasons. Is that any way to run the world?
> 
> The UN’s shortcomings in the Syrian crisis do not end there. In late August, the UN dispatched an inspection team with a mandate to determine whether chemical gas was used, but not to investigate who was responsible. The inspectors’ work will take weeks to complete, delaying any possible response. Meanwhile, Syria’s neighbours face a refugee crisis of massive proportions that is worsening by the day. The UN refugee agency still has no coherent response for a problem everyone saw coming.
> 
> Nor does the UN Secretary-General escape responsibility for the current state of affairs. These past six years, Ban Ki-moon has been an outspoken advocate for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the doctrine unanimously adopted by UN member states in 2005 to deal with cases where states, such as Syria, engage in the mass murder of their own populations.
> 
> But his recent statements fail to reflect the underlying principle of R2P: namely that when such crimes are committed, the international community must respond, with force if necessary, to protect these populations. The P5 veto shutting down the Security Council needn’t be the last word – the Canadian-sponsored commission that recommended R2P envisaged a number of creative alternatives, including initiatives in the General Assembly or action by a coalition of concerned governments. Rather than energetically exploring these avenues, the Secretary-General has chosen to wring his hands and leave the immense moral authority of his office untapped.
> 
> The list of those who have let down the Syrian people continues to lengthen. The G20 ended its meeting last week in disarray, unable to form a unified front even against a tyrant prepared to murder his people by the most appalling means. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister David Cameron appears to have been denied the parliamentary mandate for which he advocated so eloquently simply because he did not effectively whip the vote. To think of so noble a cause foundering for so banal a reason adds a note of farce to the tragedy.
> 
> And then there is U.S. President Barack Obama, whose now legendary caution has begun to look more like chronic indecision, and whose deferral to Congress now feels more like political gamesmanship than respect for the Constitution. Mr. Obama’s gambit may yet end with a triumphant vote of confidence on Capitol Hill, but the chance he is taking by going that route puts at grave risk the one remaining hope that Syrian civilians have for meaningful intervention to deter Mr. Assad from using chemical gas again.
> 
> And while all this has been going on, many opinion leaders have argued against intervention. Abhorring war, preferring diplomacy and hoping for a negotiated solution, they seem unaware that such a possibility has never been more remote. Although time is of the essence, they implore us to wait, ignoring the fact that “military intervention” is already happening, in the form of weapons and material shipped in abundance to Mr. Assad by Russia.
> 
> Our own government has laudably supported intervention, recognizing (as Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last week) that leaving Mr. Assad’s war crimes unanswered establishes a precedent that will haunt the world for generations. Canada has also led the way in humanitarian funding, although it would be good to see us assume the leadership role for which we are so well qualified, making sure that the money is used quickly, and where it can do the most good.
> 
> When the history of the Syrian war is written, it will chronicle massive suffering that the world allowed to go on for far too long. Sadly, the credibility of our lofty collective ideals and the institutions we created to promote them may be among its victims.




Messers Axworthy and Rock give us no idea of what might constitute "meaningful intervention to deter Mr. Assad" nor about *how* prime Minister Harper might make sure "that the [aid] money is used quickly, and where it can do the most good." Instead they offer vague criticisms and platitudes.


----------



## Jungle

I find it ironic that a bunch of hippies in the US, who voted for Obama, woke up one morning and found themselves in favour of military action...  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Total amateurs.  He's more interested in keeping himself in power.  He has absolutely no idea how to govern.  For example, you don't make an announcement from the Rose Garden, your Vice standing at your side, and then go golfing.  Instead, you retreat for more briefings, updates, engage foreign powers, etc.  This guy is a sham and Putin is, pardon the game-speak, pwning him.



A junior senator from Illinois who had in effect zero foreign policy experience. His VP is a joke and I am not enamoured with his SecState either. I can hear the crickets start to tune up waiting for the missiles to fly... :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor

Jungle said:
			
		

> I find it ironic that a bunch of hippies in the US, who voted for Obama, woke up one morning and found themselves in favour of military action...  ;D


----------



## nn1988

Welp, so much for peace.. Please bring out the drums again!

Assad sets conditions in exchange to give up chemical weapons -


Link
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-12/assad-lays-down-his-conditions-deal-depends-us-stopping-aid-terrorists




> Assad Lays Down His Conditions: "US Must Stop Aiding Terrorists", Israel Disposing Of WMDs; Accuses Saudi, Qatar And Turkey
> 
> 
> Assad Lays Down His Conditions:
> 
> It was only a matter of time before Syria's Assad, emboldened by Obama's recent backtracking and confident he has all the leverage and momentum, started laying down his own conditions. And here they are, as per RIA and Interfax citing an interview with Assad to air in its entirety later today on Rossia 24 TV:
> 
> ASSAD CALLS FOR ISRAEL TO DISPOSE OF WMD (!)
> ASSAD: 'REBELS MAY USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST ISRAEL AS PROVOCATION'
> ASSAD SAYS CHEMCIAL ARMS DEAL DEPENDS ON US STOPPING AID TO TERRORISTS
> ASSAD SAYS WILL COMPLETE DEAL ONLY IF US STOPS "POLICY OF THREATS"
> ASSAD ACCUSES TURKEY, SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR OF SUPPORTING TERRORISTS IN SYRIA
> ASSAD EXPECTS TO START HANDING OVER INFO ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS ONE MONTH AFTER JOINING OPCW
> ASSAD: 'ANY WAR AGAINST SYRIA WILL BECOME A WAR THAT WILL DESTROY THE WHOLE REGION'
> ASSAD: 'NO COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, PRIMARILY ISRAEL, SHOULD HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'
> SYRIA TO SEND DOCUMENTS TO UN, CHEMICAL WEAPONS GROUP SOON
> ASSAD SAYS IMPLEMENTATION OF DEAL MAY TAKE A MONTH OR MORE
> If at all. And now, his bluff called, we go back to Barack Obama penning his Pravda Op-Ed.


----------



## CougarKing

Probably not as severe as the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade more than a decade ago during the Operation Allied Force air campaign against Serbia.



> *Syrian Rebels Attack Chinese Diplomats, Embassy*
> 
> In an interview with the Global Times, Zhang Xun, China's ambassador to Syria said that Beijing’s embassy in Damascus has increasingly been caught in the cross-hairs of fighting between rebel and government forces in recent months.
> 
> *In one notable instance, shrapnel and shell fragments from a mortar attack deflected off a nearby building and landed inside the Chinese embassy.*
> 
> “A shell hit the ceiling of a building some 60 meters away and the fragments bounced into our building,” Zhang told reporters from the Global Times, showing them the actual shells, which he kept in an envelope in his office.
> 
> (...)
> 
> source: thediplomat.com


----------



## CougarKing

For a country that said they won't get military involved...that's a lot of firepower they're moving close to Syria.



> *Russia to expand Mediterranean fleet to 10 warships – Navy chief*
> 
> 
> RT link
> 
> 
> The Russian Navy intends to build its presence in the Mediterranean Sea - particularly in the area close to Syrian shores - to up to 10 battleships, announced Admiral of the Fleet Viktor Chirkov.
> 
> “The task is crystal clear: to avoid a slightest threat to the security of the state. This is a general practice of all fleets around the world, to be there when a tension level increases. They are all going to act on operational command plan of the offshore maritime zone,” Chirkov told journalists on Friday. "Russia will be building up its Mediterranean fleet until it is deemed sufficient to perform the task set."
> 
> Russia began military build-up in the Mediterranean in 2012, and starting from December last year the Navy established a constant presence in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> On May 1, 2013 all Russian battleships operating in the area were assigned to a single task force under special offshore maritime zone operation command.
> 
> *Currently there are seven warships deployed in the area: landing craft carriers 'Aleksandr Shabalin’, ‘Admiral Nevelskoy’, ‘Peresvet’, ‘Novocherkassk’ and ‘Minsk’ from Russia’s Black and Baltic Sea Fleets, as well as the escort vessel ‘Neustrashimy’, and large anti-submarine ship ‘Admiral Panteleyev’. *
> 
> 
> (...)


----------



## myself.only

A target rich environment


----------



## AliG

myself.only said:
			
		

> A target rich environment



Tripwires?

I do not trust what Russians do. They know that whatever forces they put in the theatre can only have minimal effects as they can not be for deterrence, and this is a lot of resources apparently wasted.


----------



## Journeyman

AliG said:
			
		

> Tripwires?
> 
> I do not trust what Russians do. They know that whatever forces they put in the theatre can only have minimal effects as they can not be for deterrence, and this is a lot of resources apparently wasted.


"Tripwires," in the hopes that this is the one big moment to spark WW3?  Really?
"Deterrence," with the presence of only one large frigate?
"Resources apparently wasted"?  Navies are used habitually to "signal" government thinking; in this case, I suggest their mere presence shows "Russia is interested."

Look at the composition of the forces deployed.  The majority of the vessels are landing craft carriers -- ships designed to move 'stuff' to/from shore.  Now they _could_ be filled with Naval Infantry just aching to do 'the shores of Tripoli' thing.  Or they _could_ be empty and waiting to evacuate people/stuff should things turn ugly for Russian nationals ashore.


Or the Russians could be cunning dogs, using the Med as a mere staging area for the assault on Lethbridge!


----------



## tomahawk6

The Russians have added the Moskva to their Med Sea Fleet.







The missile cruiser, initially known to Western naval intelligence as “Slava” (Glory), was launched in 1979 and entered service in 1983. It was later renamed the “Moskva” in 1995. Designed to be carrier-killers, the cruisers of Class 1164 are equipped with 16 anti-ship launchers P-1000 Vulkan, or Volcano (SS-N-12 Sandbox anti-ship missiles, according to NATO classification).


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Reading on the Moskva, she sure is a beast.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Or the Russians could be cunning dogs, using the Med as a mere staging area for the assault on Lethbridge!



Then we'll regret getting rid of our chemical weapons  ;D


----------



## Journeyman

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Russians have added the Moskva to their Med Sea Fleet.


The naval balance of power remains overwhelmingly on the US side.  No change to my assessment.




			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Then we'll regret getting rid of our chemical weapons  ;D


  "Wolverines!"


----------



## MilEME09

CTV is now reporting that the report from the UN is expected to confirm chemical weapons use by the Syrian Regime


----------



## myself.only

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Navies are used habitually to "signal" government thinking; in this case, I suggest their mere presence shows "Russia is interested."



In Soviet Russia sabre rattles you!


----------



## cupper

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Look at the composition of the forces deployed.  The majority of the vessels are landing craft carriers -- ships designed to move 'stuff' to/from shore.  Now they _could_ be filled with Naval Infantry just aching to do 'the shores of Tripoli' thing.  Or they _could_ be empty and waiting to evacuate people/stuff should things turn ugly for Russian nationals ashore.



Another possibility is that they could be used to remove CW and transport them to a Russian safe haven for destruction.


----------



## tomahawk6

cupper said:
			
		

> Another possibility is that they could be used to remove CW and transport them to a Russian safe haven for destruction.



Yep thats what I would want my flagship to do.


----------



## cupper

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Yep thats what I would want my flagship to do.



The landing craft units, not the major combatant vessels.


----------



## a_majoor

Opinion piece that demonstrates just how badly the Administration was outmatched in messaging by Vladimir Putin. Now Russia is in the driver's seat, and since her interest is in supporting the Syrian Regime IOT maintain their naval facility and ability to project influence in the region, they have achieved their regional strategic goals, as well as larger strategic goals in keeping the Americans off balance and diminishing Washington's influence and ability to influence events:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323846504579071142312470408.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion



> *Rules for Russians Putin takes a page out of Alinsky.*
> Article
> 
> By JAMES TARANTO CONNECT
> Vladimir Putin's much-discussed op-ed in today's New York Times is a clever piece of work, but the conclusion is diabolical--and we mean that in the original sense of "devilish":
> 
> _My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal._
> 
> That last line is a fallacy of composition. From the premise that all men are created equal, it does not follow that all countries are. But the rhetorical trick is clever. Putin (or perhaps a ghostwriter at Ketchum PR) rests his disparagement of American exceptionalism on its very basis--on the first of the "truths" that the Founding Fathers held "to be self-evident."
> 
> This is right out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals": "The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity." (Putin also appeals to the pope's authority.)
> 
> And the Russian president applies this rule not just to America, but to Obama, whose own ambivalence about American exceptionalism is well known:
> 
> _It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."_
> 
> Can you think of another world leader who rode similar sentiments into office? Hint: He defeated John McCain and Mitt Romney.
> 
> Putin's piece is aimed at influencing American public opinion for the purpose of undermining the effectiveness of American power. It deviously reinforces both dovish and hawkish arguments against the administration's Syria policy. It reminds the doves that military action against Syria goes against everything they believe--and that Obama as a candidate claimed to believe. It reminds the hawks that Obama has shown no inclination or capacity to lead a serious military effort.
> 
> Washington's responses have been pitiful. "That's all irrelevant," CNN quotes a White House official as saying: "[Putin] put this proposal forward and he's now invested in it. That's good. That's the best possible reaction. He's fully invested in Syria's CW disarmament and that's potentially better than a military strike--which would deter and degrade but wouldn't get rid of all the chemical weapons. He now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver."
> 
> In his op-ed, Putin even disputes that the regime used poison gas. "There is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists." He isn't committed to disarming the regime but to keeping it in power--a goal that is served by undermining whatever shred of resolve America might have had to act.
> 
> "I almost wanted to vomit," the Hill quotes the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Bob Menendez, as saying. (Alinsky frequently capitalized on the reflex for physical disgust, too, as in the 1964 O'Hare Airport plan that we noted in April.)
> 
> Sen. John McCain tweeted: "Putin's NYT op-ed is an insult to the intelligence of every American." For an example of an insult to the intelligence, consider McCain's comment last week on a Phoenix radio show--noted here Monday--that "there would be an impeachment of the president" if he put "boots on the ground" in Syria. McCain assumed his listeners were too stupid to see that this was an empty threat, and that if it were not, it would be a reckless one.
> 
> Putin doesn't take his readers for idiots, he takes Obama for a fool--a bumbling improviser who can be rolled by appealing to his vanity and his short-term political needs, and whose actions have no broader purpose. Even the New York Times editorial page acknowledges that last point: "The [Tuesday] speech lacked any real sense of what Mr. Obama's long-term or even medium-term strategy might be, other than his repeated promise not to drag a nation fed up with wars into a 'boots-on-the-ground' fight."
> 
> Yet the Times ends on a hopeful note: "At least Syria has admitted that it has chemical weapons, for the first time ever; Mr. Putin has acknowledged to the world that there must be limits on the blank checks he was writing his client state; and Russia and the United States are working toward a common strategic goal for the first time in a very long time."
> 
> So America has no strategy and is "working" with Russia "toward a common strategic goal"? The only way to reconcile those two assertions is to admit that Putin has capitalized on America's purposelessness in order to advance his own purposes. As a Times news story puts it: "Suddenly Mr. Putin has eclipsed Mr. Obama as the world leader driving the agenda in the Syria crisis."
> 
> "Putin is bluffing that Russia has emerged as a major world power," argues Stratfor.org's George Friedman:
> 
> _In reality, Russia is merely a regional power, but mainly because its periphery is in shambles. He has tried to project a strength that he doesn't have, and he has done it well_.
> 
> Because America is so much mightier than Russia, the American presidency is a much stronger position than the Russian presidency. But a strong man in a position of weakness, if he is ruthless about taking advantage of his adversary's vulnerabilities, can get the better of weak man in a position of strength. Saul Alinsky understood that, and so does Vladimir Putin.



And now, the real origin of the "Red Line" remark. Smart diplomacy in action:

http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/12/obamas-red-line-was-not-a-gaffe/



> *Obama’s Red Line Was Not A Gaffe*
> By: streiff (Diary)  |  September 12th, 2013 at 03:00 PM  |  19
> 
> It is becoming part of the conventional wisdom that Obama committed a gaffe when he set a “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in Syria:
> 
> “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.”
> 
> The New York Times went so far as to report:
> 
> Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.
> 
> “The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.”
> 
> Recently, the White House spokes-urchin, Jay Carney, tried to claim Obama had not made a mistake:
> 
> “The president’s use of the term ‘red line’ was deliberate and was based on U.S. policy,” press secretary Jay Carney told reporters at his daily briefing.
> 
> As much as it pains me to say it, Jay Carney is correct and the New York Times account is totally false. The use of “red line” to describe chemical weapons use in Syria did not originate with Obama going off message, it reflected a calculated use of the term.
> 
> On August 11, 2012, ten days before Obama’s statement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu had a joint press conference in Istanbul.  During that press conference the following exchange happened:
> 
> QUESTION: Madam Secretary, for you, can you tell us a little bit more in detail about your meeting with the opposition activists? Did you get a better sense of whether they are really prepared to be able to be involved in leading a transition? What kind of questions did you ask them about who is actually doing the fighting on the ground? And what kind of answers did you get?
> 
> And then, for both of you, there has been a lot of talk about this common operational picture. What exactly is that common operational picture? Does it involve the potential of this corridor from Aleppo, north to the border here, turning into some kind of safe haven? And does it include anything on how to deal with the chemical weapons that everyone has expressed concern about? Thank you.
> 
> SECRETARY CLINTON: [yadda yadda] And both the minister and I saw eye to eye on the many tasks that are ahead of us, and the kinds of contingencies that we have to plan for, including the one you mentioned in the horrible event that chemical weapons were used. And everyone has made it clear to the Syrian regime that is a _red line for the world_, [italics mine] what would that mean in terms of response and humanitarian and medical emergency assistance, and of course, what needs to be done to secure those stocks from every being used, or from falling into the wrong hands.
> 
> It appears that where Obama deviated from script was in omitting “for the world” and substituting “for us.” Small wonder then that our answer to Metternich insisted that he had meant the world had set the red line, not him:
> 
> “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”
> 
> So, the red line was not a gaffe it was the considered policy of the United States. This, if anything, makes the whole incident more egregious as the nation was consciously committed to acting militarily (see Clinton’s statement about “contingencies” and “response”) in case of chemical weapons use in Syria and yet it is obvious no planning was ever accomplished in anticipation of such an event. Yet another blunder by the administration comes home to roost.


----------



## CougarKing

A breakthrough on the diplomatic front?



> link
> 
> *US, Russia reach deal on framework to secure Syrian chemical weapons, set possible penalties*
> The Canadian Press
> By Matthew Lee And John Heilprin
> 
> GENEVA - *After days of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia reached agreement Saturday on a framework to secure and destroy Syria's chemical weapons by mid-2014 and impose U.N. penalties if the Assad government fails to comply.*
> 
> The deal, announced by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, includes what Kerry called "a shared assessment" of the weapons stockpile, and a timetable and measures for Syrian President Bashar Assad to comply.
> 
> It was not immediately clear whether Syria had signed onto the agreement, which requires Damascus to submit a full inventory of its stocks within the next week. Russia does have a close relationship with Syria and holds influence over its Mideast ally.
> 
> "The world will now expect the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments," Kerry told a packed news conference at the hotel where negotiations were conducted since Thursday night. "There can be no games, no room for avoidance or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime."
> 
> Lavrov added, cautiously, "We understand that the decisions we have reached today are only the beginning of the road."
> 
> (...)



And experts weigh in on why getting rid of Syria's chemical weapons shouldn't take so long:

Reuters link



> *Syrian weapons destruction may not take so long - U.S. expert*
> Edit content preferencesDone
> Reuters Susan Cornwell 16 hours ago
> By Susan Cornwell
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of the creators of the program that has helped Russia dismantle its weapons of mass destruction says the mechanics of destroying Syria's chemical weapons may be easier and quicker than some officials and experts think.
> 
> *Former U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, who helped establish a post-Cold War program to secure and decommission Soviet-era stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, says the United States has recently developed a prototype for a mobile system that can eradicate chemical warfare agents on site.*
> 
> *"We have developed equipment that can go out into the field on fairly short order, set up, and it can move its way through from five to 25 tons of chemical substance a day," Lugar told Reuters.*
> 
> "These people talking about the fact that this (destruction of Syria's chemical weapons) might take months, years, just obviously are not aware" of the new U.S. equipment, Lugar said.
> 
> Russia proposed earlier this week that Washington and Moscow should collaborate to destroy Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. President Barack Obama put on hold plans for U.S. military strikes in response to a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians August 21.
> 
> In addition to the technical challenges of dismantling Syria's chemical arms, there are plenty of political and military obstacles. It is unclear if the United States will accept Russia's plan and hold off on attacking Syria, and the civil war raging there is another big hurdle to decommissioning chemical weapons.
> 
> While Moscow's overture on Syria's chemical weapons was something of a surprise, it was not a totally new idea. Lugar, a veteran disarmament campaigner, first suggested more than a year ago that the United States and Russia work together to secure Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons.
> 
> Lugar made the proposal during a trip to Moscow in August 2012, while he was still a senator and working on an extension of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program that helped secure "loose nukes" and dismantle chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union.
> 
> Lugar had not cleared the idea with the Obama administration in advance and the initial response from the Russians was cool. But he said Friday he is pleased to see the scenario being seriously examined now, despite all the challenges, and was glad that Syria had responded positively as well.
> 
> *TRANSPORTABLE CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTROYERS
> 
> Weapons experts believe Syria has 1,000 tons of chemical weapons spread across some 50 sites. The United States had 30 times that amount, and Russia 40 times as much, before they began destroying their stockpiles under the international Chemical Weapons Convention, which went into effect in 1997.*
> 
> The new U.S. prototype for destroying chemical weapons that Lugar mentioned is called the Field Deployable Hydrolysis System, the Pentagon said. It is transportable, so it can get rid of chemical weapons on site. The chemical weapons do not have to be moved, which is a dangerous prospect anywhere, especially during war.
> 
> The system destroys chemical weapons in bulk and could not be used for materials that have been placed inside munitions - a trickier process. It is not known how much of Syria's stockpile is already inside munitions.
> (...)


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> ...... and impose U.N. penalties  if the Assad government fails to comply


      :rofl:

Yep, Assad will think twice now that the threat of a _sharply_-worded diplomatic note looms over him.   :nod:


----------



## CougarKing

Another fly in the ointment: Syria wants international condemnation of the rebels and their aid cut off as a condition to handing over his CW.

Fat chance this is going to happen, seeing the amount of US arms that are already reaching rebel hands.

Haaretz



> *Assad: We'll give up chemical weapons once U.S. stops arming rebels*


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Los Angeles Times_ report that an (unnamed) US official told them that ".... he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia ... "They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said."
> 
> 
> And that, *not getting mocked*, is what passes for foreign policy in Washington in 2013.
> 
> Henry Stimson and Dean Acheson would be ashamed to be Americans.




Well, the "not getting mocked" thing seems to be a bust, at least in the _Globe and Mail_ where Margaret Wente calls President Obama a 98 pound weakling and Brian Gable suggests he's Putin's waterboy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/xxxxx/article14052163/#dashboard/follows/




Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## nn1988

Syriasly, these countries should set their differences Assad and stop Puting sententious Barackades on a conciliatory approach.


----------



## 57Chevy

Why Chemical Weapons Are Different
Blistering skin, eye damage, and excruciating deaths were just some of the reasons nations decided to ban these substances after World War I. 
Ben W. Heineman Jr.Sep 9 2013, 3:01 PM ET
Article from  The Atlantic  is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

The current global—and Congressional—debate about whether to deploy force against Syria for its use of sarin gas on civilians will depend, in part, on whether the reasons for a post-World War I agreement banning the offensive use of chemical and biological weapons continue to be honored.

The 1925 Geneva Protocol did not focus on World War I's terrible new 20th-century technologies that made 19th-century military tactics obsolete and led to mass slaughter: advancements in barbed wire, machine guns, and artillery led to incomprehensible and horrible effects on combatants. It was the impact of gas use on both the Western and Eastern fronts that led to the prohibition on chemical and biological warfare, even though it had led to only about one percent of the deaths there. The protocol viewed gas warfare as different from the other methods of mass killing, and banned the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases" as well as "bacteriological methods."

At least three strains of reasoning were advanced by the International Red Cross, religious leaders, the military, and politicians to help mobilize public opinion in favor of a special prohibition against chemical and biological warfare.

First, there were the unique methods of killing—and the special suffering—caused by the gases of World War I, which were first used by the Germans in the battle of Ypres in 1915 and then by all the armies. Chlorine damaged ears and eyes and caused death by asphyxiation. It was subsequently replaced by phosgene, a colorless gas that damaged the lungs and caused suffocation in a delayed reaction after exposure. Mustard gas caused blistering of the outer body and internal organs, especially the lungs. Death might come only after prolonged agony. And those who survived often had serious respiratory and other health issues for the rest of their lives.

Second, there was the "indiscriminate" impact of gas warfare. It was diffused broadly in the atmosphere—and could blow back into the offensive users or affect civilian populations. This uncontrolled aspect of gas warfare led to opposition among some military leaders on all sides.

Finally, there was a fear of an unknown future. Despite the relatively small number of actual deaths and casualties from chemical warfare compared to the horrific total, there was worry about its much broader use in the future. The inhuman, terrifying images of soldiers in gas masks fed these emotional concerns.

Together, these reasons led to a special strain of public fear and loathing that prompted the collective action embodied in the 1925 protocol. It stated that such warfare "has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world." Forty nations originally agreed to the protocol. Today that number is more than 130—although the United States did not officially adopt the protocol until 1975. And Syria adopted it in 1968.

The exceptional nature of chemical and biological warfare was reflected in the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in 1997. It sought to remedy many of the defects of the Geneva Protocol by prohibiting manufacturing and stockpiling, requiring destruction of existing stocks, establishing a verification system, and establishing a special monitoring body, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. More than 180 nations have ratified the CWC—but not Syria.

Of course, the conventions by themselves do not have an enforcement mechanism. The legal route to collective action against miscreant states today requires invocation of general UN legal process. And there have been numerous other instances of chemical weapon use before Syria—from Japan against China in the early 40s to Iraq against Iran and the Kurds in the 80s.

Yet, at least in theory and often (though not always) in practice, the world community, going back at least to the 1925 protocol, has made a decision that chemical and biological weapons are morally different from conventional weapons--which, some would say, can kill just as widely, horribly and indiscriminately.

Today, of course, chemical and biological agents are classified as weapons of mass destruction. And the reasons advanced in the 1920s are much the same as advanced now by the Obama Administration in its argument to take action in Syria (although the specter of asymmetrical use by terrorists is added to use by states). Secretary Kerry has said that the deaths of more than 1,400 Syrian civilians because of chemical agents shows "the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world has long ago [agreed] must never be used." He added, "Our sense of basic humanity is offended…by this cowardly crime" involving the "world's most heinous weapons." The administration is showing films of the deaths that, per CNN, reveal "Men sprawled on a tile floor, shirtless and convulsing. Children, too, seemingly unable to control their shaking and flailing. Panic and screams in the background."

The decision about whether to use force against Syria turns, then, on whether the reasons advanced in support of the 1925 Geneva Protocol are still singularly important. Obviously, there are many other considerations, including effectiveness, proportionality, limits, and the broader deterrent effects of any U.S. action that might be supported by certain allies.

The "chemical and biological warfare is different" strand of argument is critical, because if the United States acts it will be doing so, at least ostensibly, for moral reasons. There are strong arguments that there is no authority in international law for U.S. deployment of military force in these circumstances. That is why the reasons behind the protocol cast a long shadow over today's debate—a debate that is now about the ethical necessity, not the questionable legality, of U.S. military strikes to punish the Syrian regime for gassing its civilians.

                                                _______________________________________

French UN draft to give Syria ultimatum
The reference to Chapter 7 has made Russia reluctant to support the draft, UN diplomats say
Reuters Published: 12:59 September 11, 2013
Article from  gulfnews.com  is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

United Nations: An initial French draft UN Security Council resolution would demand that Syria make a complete declaration of its chemical weapons programme within 15 days and immediately open all related sites to UN inspectors or face possible punitive measures.

The elements of the draft resolution, seen on Tuesday, adds that the Security Council would intend “in the event of non-compliance by the Syrian authorities with the provisions of this resolution ... to adopt further necessary measures under Chapter VII” of the UN Charter.

Chapter 7 of the UN Charter covers the 15-nation Security Council’s power to take steps ranging from sanctions to military interventions. It is the reference to Chapter 7, UN diplomats say, that has made Russia reluctant to support the initial French draft.

The draft also makes clear the council considers the government of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad is responsible for the chemical attack on August 21 that killed hundreds and for other attacks. It would demand “the immediate cessation of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian authorities.”


----------



## 57Chevy

John Kerry: U.S., Russia Reach Deal On Syrian Chemical Weapons 
By JOHN HEILPRIN and MATTHEW LEE 09/14/13 06:09 PM ET EDT
Article from the Huff Post World is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

GENEVA — A diplomatic breakthrough Saturday on securing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons stockpile averted the threat of U.S. military action for the moment and could swing momentum toward ending a horrific civil war.

Marathon negotiations between U.S. and Russian diplomats at a Geneva hotel produced a sweeping agreement that will require one of the most ambitious arms-control efforts in history.

The deal involves making an inventory and seizing all components of Syria's chemical weapons program and imposing penalties if President Bashar Assad's government fails to comply will the terms.

After days of intense day-and-night negotiations between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and their teams, the two powers announced they had a framework for ridding the world of Syria's chemicals weapons.

The U.S. says Assad used chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 attack on the outskirts of Damascus, the capital, killing more than 1,400 civilians. That prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to ready American airstrikes on his order – until he decided last weekend to ask for authorization from the U.S. Congress. Then came the Russian proposal, and Obama asked Congress, already largely opposed to military intervention, to delay a vote.

Obama said the deal "represents an important, concrete step toward the goal of moving Syria's chemical weapons under international control so that they may ultimately be destroyed."

"This framework provides the opportunity for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons in a transparent, expeditious and verifiable manner, which could end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people but to the region and the world," he said in a statement.

Kerry and Lavrov said they agreed on the size of the chemical weapons inventory, and on a speedy timetable and measures for Assad to do away with the toxic agents.

But Syria, a Moscow ally, kept silent on the development, while Obama made clear that "if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act."

The deal offers the potential for reviving international peace talks to end a civil war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives and sent 2 million refugees fleeing for safety, and now threatens the stability of the entire Mideast.

Kerry and Lavrov, along with the U.N.-Arab League envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said the chances for a follow-up peace conference in Geneva to the one held in June 2012 would depend largely on the weapons deal.

The U.S. and Russia are giving Syria just one week, until Sept. 21, to submit "a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities."

International inspectors are to be on the ground in Syria by November. During that month, they are to complete their initial assessment and all mixing and filling equipment for chemical weapons is to be destroyed. They must be given "immediate and unfettered" access to inspect all sites.

All components of the chemical weapons program are to be removed from the country or destroyed by mid-2014.

"Ensuring that a dictator's wanton use of chemical weapons never again comes to pass, we believe is worth pursuing and achieving," Kerry said.

For the moment, the deal may not do much to change the fighting on the ground. But the impasse in the international community over how to react could ease somewhat with the U.S. and Russia also agreeing to immediately press for a U.N. Security Council resolution that enshrines the weapons deal.

They will seek a resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which can authorize both the use of force and nonmilitary measures.

But Russia, which already has rejected three resolutions on Syria, would be sure to veto a U.N. move toward military action, and U.S. officials said they did not contemplate seeking such an authorization.

"The world will now expect the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments," Kerry told a news conference at the hotel where round-the-clock negotiations were conducted since Thursday night. "There can be no games, no room for avoidance or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime."

Kerry and Lavrov emphasized that the deal sends a strong message not just to Syria but to the world, too, that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

Lavrov added, cautiously, "We understand that the decisions we have reached today are only the beginning of the road."

In an interview with Russian state television, Lavrov said the groundwork for such an approach to Syria's chemical weapons stockpile began in June 2012 when Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico.

"Both sides expressed serious concern that it could not be ruled out that the chemical weapons which Syria possessed according to American and our information could fall into the wrong hands," Lavrov said. The presidents agreed to share information on a regular basis about Syria's arsenal, he said.

Lavrov said both Russian and U.S. officials went on to contact Syrian leaders to determine the safety of weapons storage.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss details of the negotiations, said the U.S. and Russia agreed that Syria had roughly 1,000 metric tons of chemical weapons agents and precursors, including blister agents, such as sulfur and mustard gas and nerve agents like sarin.

These officials said the two sides did not agree on the number of chemical weapons sites in Syria.

U.S. intelligence believes Syria has about 45 sites associated with chemicals weapons, half of which have "exploitable quantities" of material that could be used in munitions. The Russian estimate is considerably lower; the officials would not say by how much.

U.S. intelligence agencies believe all the stocks remain in government control, the officials said.

Noncompliance by the Assad government or any other party would be referred to the 15-nation Security Council by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That group oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria this past week agreed to join. The U.N. received Syria's formal notification Saturday and it would be in effect Oct. 14.

The weapons group's director-general, Ahmet Uzumcu, spoke of adopting "necessary measures" to put in place "an accelerated program to verify the complete destruction" of Syria's chemical weapons, production facilities and "other relevant capabilities."

The U.S. and Russia are two of the five permanent Security Council members with a veto. The others are Britain, China, and France.

"There is an agreement between Russia and the United States that non-compliance is going to be held accountable within the Security Council under Chapter 7," Kerry said. "What remedy is chosen is subject to the debate within the council, which is always true. But there's a commitment to impose measures."

Lavrov indicated there would be limits to using such a resolution.

"Any violations of procedures ... would be looked at by the Security Council and if they are approved, the Security Council would take the required measures, concrete measures," Lavrov said. "Nothing is said about the use of force or about any automatic sanctions."

Kerry spoke of a commitment, in the event of Syrian noncompliance, to "impose measures commensurate with whatever is needed in terms of the accountability."

The agreement offers no specific penalties. Given that a thorough investigation of any allegation of noncompliance is required before any possible action, Moscow could drag out the process or veto measures it deems too harsh.

Kerry stressed that the U.S. believes the threat of force is necessary to back the diplomacy, and U.S. officials have Obama retains the right to launch military strikes without U.N. approval to protect American national security interests.

"I have no doubt that the combination of the threat of force and the willingness to pursue diplomacy helped to bring us to this moment," Kerry said.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who are among Obama's sharpest foreign policy critics and support greater U.S. assistance for Syria's rebels, said the agreement will embolden enemies such as Iran.

"What concerns us most is that our friends and enemies will take the same lessons from this agreement: They see it as an act of provocative weakness on America's part," they said in a joint statement. "We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California credited the president's "steadfast leadership" for "making significant progress in our efforts to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." She also credited Obama's "clear and credible" threats to use force against Syria for making the agreement possible.

U.N. inspectors were preparing to submit their report on the chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus on Aug. 21. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday that he expected "an overwhelming report" that chemical weapons were indeed used.

A U.N. statement said Ban hoped the agreement will prevent further use of such weapons and "help pave the path for a political solution to stop the appalling suffering inflicted on the Syrian people."

Britain's foreign secretary, William Hague, said Saturday's development was "a significant step forward." Germany believes that "if deeds now follow the words, the chances of a political solution will rise significantly," Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said.

The commander of the Free Syrian Army rebel group, Gen. Salim Idris, said in Turkey that the Russian initiative would "buy time" and that rebels will continue "fighting the regime and work for bringing it down."

He said that if international inspectors come to Syria in order to inspect chemical weapons, "we will facilitate their passages but there will be no cease-fire." The FSA will not block the work of U.N. inspectors, he said, and the "inspectors will not be subjected to rebel fire when they are in regime-controlled areas."

Idris said Kerry told him by telephone that "the alternative of military strikes is still on the table."


----------



## 57Chevy

57Chevy said:
			
		

> All components of the chemical weapons program are to be removed from the country or destroyed by mid-2014.
> Huff Post World



Syrian weapons destruction may not take so long: U.S. expert
By Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:42pm EDT 
Article from Reuters  is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

(Reuters) - One of the creators of the program that has helped Russia dismantle its weapons of mass destruction says the mechanics of destroying Syria's chemical weapons may be easier and quicker than some officials and experts think.

Former U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, who helped establish a post-Cold War program to secure and decommission Soviet-era stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, says the United States has recently developed a prototype for a mobile system that can eradicate chemical warfare agents on site.

"We have developed equipment that can go out into the field on fairly short order, set up, and it can move its way through from five to 25 tons of chemical substance a day," Lugar told Reuters.

"These people talking about the fact that this (destruction of Syria's chemical weapons) might take months, years, just obviously are not aware" of the new U.S. equipment, Lugar said.

Russia proposed earlier this week that Washington and Moscow should collaborate to destroy Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. President Barack Obama put on hold plans for U.S. military strikes in response to a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians August 21.

In addition to the technical challenges of dismantling Syria's chemical arms, there are plenty of political and military obstacles. It is unclear if the United States will accept Russia's plan and hold off on attacking Syria, and the civil war raging there is another big hurdle to decommissioning chemical weapons.

While Moscow's overture on Syria's chemical weapons was something of a surprise, it was not a totally new idea. Lugar, a veteran disarmament campaigner, first suggested more than a year ago that the United States and Russia work together to secure Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons.

Lugar made the proposal during a trip to Moscow in August 2012, while he was still a senator and working on an extension of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program that helped secure "loose nukes" and dismantle chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union.

Lugar had not cleared the idea with the Obama administration in advance and the initial response from the Russians was cool. But he said Friday he is pleased to see the scenario being seriously examined now, despite all the challenges, and was glad that Syria had responded positively as well.

TRANSPORTABLE CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTROYERS

Weapons experts believe Syria has 1,000 tons of chemical weapons spread across some 50 sites. The United States had 30 times that amount, and Russia 40 times as much, before they began destroying their stockpiles under the international Chemical Weapons Convention, which went into effect in 1997.

The new U.S. prototype for destroying chemical weapons that Lugar mentioned is called the Field Deployable Hydrolysis System, the Pentagon said. It is transportable, so it can get rid of chemical weapons on site. The chemical weapons do not have to be moved, which is a dangerous prospect anywhere, especially during war.

The system does not destroy chemical weapons in bulk, so it could not be used for materials that have been placed inside munitions - a trickier process. It is not known how much of Syria's stockpile is already inside munitions.

The new system converts the chemical warfare agents into compounds not useable as weapons, a Pentagon spokeswoman said. She said it was built to destroy bulk chemical agents "wherever they are found," but added that there were no current plans to use the new system in Syria.

The system was designed and built by staff at the U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center.

Lugar, who served more than three decades in the Senate, traveled to Russia many times as part of the Nunn-Lugar program established with former Senator Sam Nunn in the 1990s. The program was extended earlier this year, although it was pared back, with Russia assuming the costs and completing some tasks without U.S. help.

On one trip to Russia in 2005 Republican Lugar took along Obama, who was a new Democratic senator at the time. Lugar said Obama got excited about seeing dangerous warfare agents first hand.

"We went into a laboratory in which there was ... deadly material," Lugar said. "I wouldn't know whether to characterize it as a chemical weapon or a biological weapon, just locked up in the iceboxes as they used to do there. And I can remember vividly that Barack was fascinated by this."

(Additional reporting by David Alexander and Phil Stewart; Editing by Bill Trott)


----------



## Nemo888

I can't shake how often it falls into a pastiche of bad television plot lines. "Syria the Intervention" is so poorly written it reads like bad internet fan fiction.

America has been funding, arming and training the rebels for quite some time. Suddenly when it looked like Assad was winning they needed to bomb him. The various plans looked like it would be a very deliberate attempt to make things a stalemate again. So would it be a fair assessment to say America(and Israel and Saudi) wants them to kill each other till Syria is completely demolished as a power in the region. I do have some issues with the fact that 90%+ of the people there are completely innocent and will bear most of the cost of this policy. This started as an Arab Spring style uprising exacerbated by the worst drought in generations. Interesting how quickly world powers adapted to use such populist events to their own strategic benefit.

This could have been Cyprus if we still had a functional UN.


----------



## 57Chevy

From Refugees of the Syrian civil war (Wikipedia)
September 2013;
Swedish migration authorities ruled that all Syrian asylum seekers will be granted permanent residency in light of the worsening conflict in Syria. The 8,000+ already in Sweden are granted the right to bring their families as well.
                                                              _______________________________

Syrian refugee crisis worsens
 NHK World is shared with provisions of the Copyright Act

An influx of Syrian refugees is becoming more visible in European countries amid the intensifying civil war in Syria.

Syrians continue to flee despite Saturday's US-Russia deal on a framework to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control.

The United Nations said 2 million Syrians have already fled their homeland. The figure is 10 percent of Syria's population.

530 Syrians in boats landed in Italy on Friday and Saturday. 360 were rescued by the Italian coast guard.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees says 3,300 Syrians have escaped to Italy in the past 40 days. The spokesperson says some people agreed to sell their organs to pay for their journeys.

The UN thinks Italy, Greece and other European countries are likely to become destinations for Syria's refugees as Lebanon and other neighboring nations will soon be unable to accept more displaced Syrians.
Sep. 15, 2013 - Updated 15:17 UTC


----------



## CougarKing

Perhaps Ankara should take a more active, overt role in Syria than merely supporting a rebel faction of its choice, considering it's in their interest to ensure that the Syria conflict doesn't spread...

NPR.org link



> *Turkey Says It Shot Down Syrian Helicopter*
> 
> by The Associated Press
> 
> September 16, 2013 2:34 PM
> 
> 
> ISTANBUL (AP) —* A Turkish fighter jet shot down a Syrian military helicopter on Monday after it entered Turkish airspace and ignored repeated warnings to leave, an official said.
> 
> The helicopter strayed 2 kilometers (more than 1 mile) into Turkish airspace, but crashed inside Syria after being hit by missiles fired from the jet, Turkey's deputy prime minister, Bulent Arinc, told reporters in Ankara.*
> 
> Arinc said he did not have any information on the fate of the Syrian pilots, but Rami Abdul-Rahman, director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said rebel fighters captured one of the pilots, while the fate of the other one was unclear.
> 
> The incident is bound to ramp up tension on an already volatile border. Turkey has been at odds with the Syrian government since early in the country's civil war and has backed the Syrian rebels, while advocating international intervention in the conflict.
> 
> Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, speaking in Paris after meetings about Syria with his counterparts from other countries, said Monday's encounter should send a message. "Nobody will dare to violate Turkey's borders in any way again," he said, according to Anatolia, the Turkish state-run news agency. "The necessary measures have been taken."
> 
> Arinc noted that the Turkish military had put its forces on a higher state of alert and changed the rules for engaging with the Syrian military along the border because of "'constant harassment fire from the other side."
> 
> *He also noted that a Turkish jet was shot down by Syrian anti-aircraft over the Mediterranean in June 2012. Turkey says it was hit in international airspace, but Syria insisted it was flying low inside Syrian airspace.*
> 
> Shells from the Syrian conflict have occasionally rained down on the Turkish side of the border, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned Damascus that his country would not tolerate any violation of the border by Syrian forces.
> 
> ____
> 
> AP correspondent Ryan Lucas contributed from Beirut.


----------



## a_majoor

Adding a bit of irony to the already confused situation:

http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Report-Syria-transported-chemical-weapons-to-Iraq-326141



> *Report: Syria transported chemical weapons to Iraq*
> By JPOST.COM STAFF
> 09/15/2013 10:37
> 
> Lebanese daily says 20 trucks crossed into Iraq last week, bearing equipment and material used for manufacturing chemical weapons.
> Bashar Assad gives an interview to Russian TV Photo: Reuters
> Syria has moved 20 trucks worth of equipment and material used for the manufacturing of chemical weapons into neighboring Iraq, the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal reported on Sunday.
> 
> The government in Baghdad has denied allegations that it is helping the Syrian government conceal chemical stockpiles.
> 
> Related:
> Syria chemical weapons sites being dispersed to avoid detection, report says
> US, Russia reach deal on control of Syria chemical weapons
> 
> The report came just a day after the United States and Russia struck a deal stipulating that Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime would destroy its chemical arsenal to avert an American military assault.
> 
> The newspaper reported that the trucks crossed the boundary separating Syria with Iraq over the course of Thursday and Friday. Border guards did not inspect the contents of the trucks, which raises suspicions that they contained illicit cargo, according to Al-Mustaqbal.
> 
> Al-Mustaqbal, a publication that has long been affiliated with anti-Syrian political elements in Lebanon, quoted a spokesperson for Iraq's interior ministry, Saad Maan, as saying that security forces were deployed along the border and were checking all vehicles coming into the country.
> 
> "Iraq today is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq," he said. "It is not an Iraq which resorts to the use of chemical weapons against its own people or against its neighbors."
> 
> "These accusations are all rumors and are useless and no one believes them," he said.
> 
> Last week, the head of the Free Syrian Army told CNN that opposition intelligence indicated Assad was moving chemical arms out of the country.
> 
> "Today, we have information that the regime began to move chemical materials and chemical weapons to Lebanon and to Iraq," General Salim Idriss told CNN.
> 
> "We have told our friends that the regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Lebanon and Iraq. We told them do not be fooled," Idris told reporters in Istanbul.
> 
> "All of this initiative does not interest us. Russia is a partner with the regime in killing the Syrian people. A crime against humanity has been committed and there is not any mention of accountability."



Perhaps a quite predictable response, and if international "inspectors" and "monitors" arrive, there will probably be nothing but empty warehouses and munition bunkers to inspect and monitor.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Adding a bit of irony to the already confused situation:
> 
> http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Report-Syria-transported-chemical-weapons-to-Iraq-326141
> 
> Perhaps a quite predictable response, and if international "inspectors" and "monitors" arrive, there will probably be nothing but empty warehouses and munition bunkers to inspect and monitor.


And not just to Iraq, if this account is to be believed:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171964#.UjbnwH-BW2k


> President Bashar Al-Assad has smuggled part of his chemical weapons arsenal to Hezbollah in a bid to evade international inspection, the Saudi newspaper Al Watan reported Monday.
> 
> The report quoted Syrian National Coalition member Kamal al-Labwani as claiming that: "The Syrian regime has transferred some of its chemical weapons arsenal to its ally Hezbollah aboard trucks used to transport vegetables."
> 
> The article published Monday, also included a claim that the Assad regime had covertly moved significant parts of its chemical weapons aboard Russian ships docked along the Syrian coastline.
> 
> "We have credible information indicating that the Assad regime has smuggled part of its chemical arsenal to Russian ships in barrels," al-Labwani added ....



Also, this from the summary of the UN's report attached....


> .... On the basis of the evidence obtained during the investigation of the Gouta incident, the conclusion of the UN mission is that, on 21 August 2013, chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties of the Syrian Arab Republic on a relatively large scale.  In particular, the environmental, chemical and medical samples collected by the Mission provide clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent were used in the Ghouta area of Damascus.


----------



## MilEME09

If Assad did transfer the weapons, as soon as Israel confirms, it will be Syria's worst nightmare


----------



## Journeyman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If Assad did transfer the weapons, as soon as Israel confirms, it will be Syria's worst nightmare


Why?  What will change?  What will likely occur?


----------



## MilEME09

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Why?  What will change?  What will likely occur?



Well hasn't Israel already said it won't tolerate such acts, they've launched air strikes before for conventional weapons, military action would undoubtedly be launched against targets in Syria and Lebanon if the transfer of chemical weapons is confirmed.


----------



## Journeyman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> ......military action would undoubtedly be launched against targets in Syria and Lebanon if the transfer of chemical weapons is confirmed.


That word seldom applies in Middle East politics.

Assuming that Assad has transferred _some_ chemical weapons elsewhere (anywhere), this would likely give him some capability reserve both in and out of the country.  This would allow him, or allow a proxy, to use such weapons.  The Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities was deemed to be an urgent security matter.  There is no benefit to Israel for striking stockpile remnants within Syria; the circumstances aren't the same.

It's currently within Israel's interest to get _other_ nations to step up and act, diplomatically and militarily, against Syria and Iran.    Unfortunately, I think the US is a very large disappointment just now.


----------



## STJ_Kierstead

Pardon my ignorance but wouldn't bombing a stockpile of chemical weapons do an insane ammount of damage to civilians? Just wondering, not real educated on the weapons or disposal methods, but this seems counter-productive.. Would the U.S stand for such actions - if israel indeed launches an attack?


----------



## Rifleman62

http://jr2020.blogspot.ca/2013/09/obamas-syrian-ops-badge.html



> Obama's Syrian Ops Badge
> From an American friend:
> 
> "Syrian Operations Badge - Just awarded to Oboy and his administration"


----------



## GAP

STJ_Kierstead said:
			
		

> Pardon my ignorance but wouldn't bombing a stockpile of chemical weapons do an insane amount of damage to civilians? Just wondering, not real educated on the weapons or disposal methods, but this seems counterproductive.. Would the U.S stand for such actions - if Israel indeed launches an attack?



They probably wouldn't hit Syria stockpiles, but if the rumors of Hezbollah getting some and moving it into Lebanon are true...there's a good likelyhood of Israel hitting a Hezbollah ammo storage site....and if it happens to be there....


----------



## Journeyman

STJ_Kierstead said:
			
		

> Pardon my ignorance but wouldn't bombing a stockpile of chemical weapons do an insane ammount of damage to civilians? Just wondering, not real educated on the weapons or disposal methods, but this seems counter-productive.. Would the U.S stand for such actions - if israel indeed launches an attack?


a) the Americans, when talking bombing, ruled out attacking the actual stockpiles for just that reason;
b) as noted above, I believe that there's little incentive for the Israelis to actually attack Syria;
c) while cynically, some may argue that the Israelis wouldn't care about chemical fallout from a stockpile attack because it's 'just a Syrian neighbourhood,' the winter winds tend to be from the north/north-west; fallout could mess with Israel too.

Israel attacking Hezbollah is a different matter.  A chemically-armed Hezbollah would likely been seen as a 'clear and present danger' by the Israelis, and all bets are off.



If you want to argue a circle within a circle within a circle......a chemically-armed Hamas!  Despite being Sunni, Iran has supported them before because Israel is a common enemy.  So if Iran/Assad provide chemical weapons to Hamas, knowing that Israel wouldn't hesitate to smack them hard, they don't lose any Shi'a and they can point to Israel as the mad dogs in the region!   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


Yes, I know that a chemically-armed Hamas would just see the weapons back in Syria on the rebel side


----------



## tomahawk6

If Assad can prove he no longer has WMD,he's off the hook IMO.


----------



## a_majoor

If it is deemed actually necessary to destroy the stockpiles or weapons _in situ_, there is an outside possibility that a bomb or missile with a thermobaric warhead or something similar could be used to incinerate the chemicals. 

The downside of this is there is a possibility that a large fraction of the chemicals could be released during the attack and not be incinerated. Of course, larger numbers of special munitions could be programmed for the attack, but this gets into the laws of diminishing returns, as aircraft carrying special bombs have less ordinance for other uses, need more escorts, or more special warheads need to be shipped in theater and mated to missiles, reducing the number of conventional warheads you have ready to be launched, etc.

And of course, if your intelligence is wrong, then you have just spent a lot of money on a really spectacular fireworks show, probably in the middle of a residential neighbourhood or hospital because that is just the way these people think when choosing to store their weapons, secrets or top commanders.


----------



## Jarnhamar




----------



## Journeyman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And of course, if your intelligence is wrong......


If only Canada had some sort of Intelligence Group....or Intelligence Command....that could contribute......   op:


----------



## CougarKing

Not sure what to think about this, considering Brown was SecDef. under Carter...

Defense News



> WASHINGTON — *The US should consider including Iran in any Syrian peace or chemical weapons negotiations, according to Harold Brown, President Jimmy Carter’s defense secretary.*
> 
> “Have a negotiating table that includes ... [the US], the Russians, the Iranians, the Saudis, and inevitably you would have to involve both the Syrian government and some of the opposition, but in peripheral ways,” Brown said in a wide-ranging Sept. 16 interview.
> 
> Negotiations also would need to include Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Brown said.
> 
> “I doubt that that will happen ... because everybody’s interests are very different,” he said.
> 
> The US has been threatening a punitive strike against the Syrian government, which Western allies say is responsible for using chemical weapons that killed about 1,500 civilians.
> 
> US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sept. 18 that a United Nations report found Assad used sarin gas in an August attack. Syria has been ravaged by a civil war for more than two years.
> 
> A US-led military strike — in response to the alleged chemical attacks — has been on hold while a diplomatic solution is sought.
> 
> The US and Russia have ironed out a deal that would allow for international control and eventual destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.
> 
> But Brown said he is pessimistic these efforts will be entirely successful and doubts Assad will cooperate.
> 
> (...)


----------



## Flip

Few thought that the Syrian regime’s promise to destroy its chemical weapons would be the end of the story. Brigadier-General Zaher al-Saket, a former chemical weapons chief in President Bashar al-Assad’s own army, certainly did not.

Brig Gen Saket says he was ordered three times to use chemical weapons against his own people, but could not. He insists that all such orders had to come from the top — President Assad himself — despite insistent denials by the regime that it has never used chemical weapons. He also claims to have his own intelligence that the Syrian president is evading the terms of a Russian-brokered deal to destroy the chemical weapons by transferring some of the stocks to his allies; Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Iran.




http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/22/assad-has-ordered-the-use-of-chemical-weapons-34-times-transfered-stock-to-hezbollah-syrian-defector-says/


----------



## Edward Campbell

Only loosely related, but a reminder that good ideas are always out there in this article and video.


----------



## CougarKing

RT link



> Saudi black op team behind
> Damascus chem weapons
> attack – diplomatic sources
> 
> The August chemical weapons
> attack in the Syrian capital’s
> suburbs was done by a Saudi
> Arabian black operations team,
> Russian diplomatic sources
> have told a Russian news
> agency.
> 
> “Based on data from a
> number of sources a picture
> can be pieced together. The criminal
> provocation in Eastern Ghouta was done by a
> black op team that the Saudi’s sent through
> Jordan and which acted with support of the
> Liwa Al-Islam group,” a source in the
> diplomatic circles told Interfax.
> 
> <snipped>


----------



## CougarKing

*Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons begins*


> The operation, performed by Syrian personnel under the supervision of international disarmament experts, took place under the terms of a UN Security Council resolution that will see Damascus relinquish the banned arms.
> 
> Workers "used cutting torches and angle grinders to destroy or disable a range of items", said a statement released by the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
> 
> The Syrian workers were destroying or disabling a "range of items", including "missile warheads, aerial bombs and mixing and filling equipment", the statement added.
> 
> The team faces the daunting task of disposing of an estimated 1,000 tonnes of the nerve agent sarin, mustard gas and other banned arms at dozens of sites in Syria by mid-2014.


source: Yahoo! News


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting and revealing look at the Chemical weapons inspectors who are "policing" Syria's weapons stockpile and equipment:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/the-dark-side-of-the-nobel-peace-prize-winning-chemical-weapons-inspectors-16028898?click=pm_news



> *The Dark Side of the Nobel Peace Prize-Winning Chemical Weapons Inspectors*
> 
> Announced today, the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize went to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is supposed to investigate suspected chemical weapons makers and stop the proliferation of these terrible agents. But the organization's record isn't as rosy as it might appear.
> By Joe Pappalardo
> 
> October 11, 2013 2:30 PM
> 
> The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the world's darling organization. It received the Nobel Peace Prize, and its inspectors are in Syria on a mission to dismantle the Assad regime's chemical weapons. What could be the problem with a group like that?
> 
> Well, sorry to say, things are not all that squeaky clean when it comes to this organization. The group is not all that effective, it serves as a get-out-of-jail card for the worst chemical weapons offenders, and it is even a likely conduit for spies seeking access to the world's chemical manufacturing plants.
> 
> What Is the OPCW?
> 
> The organization was formed in 1997 as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), an agreement between nations to rid themselves of chemical weapons stockpiles. As of last month, Syria became the 190th signer of this convention (of course, this was only after the Assad regime reportedly gassed Syrian rebels, killing more than 1500 people in one attack alone). The OPCW is the investigative arm of the treaty. It can look and report, but only with the host country's permission and without any tools of enforcement. Their inspectors are supposed to be given access to all declared sites.
> 
> Who Watches the Watchmen?
> 
> The OPCW can't force itself into a country, but it is authorized to conduct so-called challenge inspections, which occur when one CWC signer accuses another of cheating at an undeclared site, and a team of specialists is then authorized to go to the suspected site to look around. But such a snap inspection has never happened. And even if the OPCW tried, a two-thirds majority vote by its governing council could block the inspection. And who is on that 41-seat council? According to the OPCW website, "Each State Party has the right, in accordance with the principle of rotation, to serve on the Council." So the nations with chemical weapons, none of which wants these challenges to happen, could block any challenge. Right now, the Council includes nations that are not known for their human rights or sensible policies on weapons proliferation, including Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Libya, Russia, and Serbia. This is why people complain that verification is nearly impossible, especially because chemical weapons manufacture is easy to mask as peaceful industrial chemistry.
> 
> Furthermore, the OPCW seems easy to dupe. Libya, for example, declared itself to be chemical weapons—free, and the disarmament community rejoiced and used the regime as an example of the CWC's success. But after the United States and European powers helped Libyan rebels throw off the Gaddafi regime, the new government disclosed three clandestine chemical weapons manufacturing plants and many chemical weapons and precursor chemicals.
> 
> Foxes in the Henhouse?
> 
> With the OPCW's access to sensitive chemical sites, the fear is that the OPCW serves as an easy way to conduct espionage on the United States and Europe. This is not an idle fear. There's been at least one fox found in the henhouse: Iran is a member of the OPCW. It joined in 1997, and since then has been accused of failing to disclose its full chemical weapons arsenal. Nevertheless, Iranians sit on the council and offer support staff to serve as investigators. Even worse, the Iranians have tried to slip in staff members who previously have been sanctioned as chemical weapons proliferators. In 2009 the French discovered that one of the Iranian OPCW inspectors was employed by Melli Agrochemical Company, a pesticide maker that is under United Nations sanction for buying nerve agent precursors on behalf of Iran's defense ministry.
> 
> And according to diplomatic cables stolen and released by WikiLeaks, the OPCW has become a farce when it comes to making a recalcitrant member behave. "Of course," one cable from 2010 says, "the two U.S. 90-day CW destruction progress reports will provide Iran ample opportunity for political theater." Translation: Iran and other nations justify their own lack of progress on chemical weapons destruction by citing the reports, which say that the U.S. itself is behind schedule.
> 
> It's not just Iran that has trouble with the OPCW. The United States has limited OPCW inspectors on its own sites. "The Department of Defense has been criticized for narrow, legalistic, and at times confrontational behavior on the part of inspector escorts, and for failing to deliver equipment and training courses promised to the OPCW," reads one paper for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Even more troubling, the U.S. is implementing legislation passed in October 1998 that contains three unilateral exemptions and restrictions on inspections and oversight.
> 
> The idea that foreign governments could get access to chemical plants, pilfer proprietary information, and use some of the information to advance thier own weapons programs is not far-fetched, as the Iranian example shows. Concerns such as this have impeded the 15-year CWC's implementation, especially when it comes to surveying the civilian chemical industry in many nations.
> 
> The OPCW can only be strengthened by the Nobel Peace Prize, and its goal of stemming the flow of chemical weapons certainly makes the world feel safer. Unfortunately, the organization has a way of bettering the positions of those nations that build stockpiles of chemical weapons. When the Assad regime signed the CWC, they are the ones who felt safer.
> 
> 
> Read more: The Dark Side of the Nobel Peace Prize Winning Chemical Weapons Inspectors - Popular Mechanics
> Follow us: @PopMech on Twitter | popularmechanics on Facebook
> Visit us at PopularMechanics.com


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131017/NEWS08/310170015/State-TV-Top-Syrian-army-general-killed-battle

BEIRUT — A top Syrian army general has been killed in fighting with rebels, state-run Syrian television reported Thursday, as the country’s deputy prime minister floated Nov. 23-24 as possible dates for talks on a political solution to the conflict.

The television report said Gen. Jameh Jameh was killed while on duty in eastern Syria. It said Jameh, who was the head of the military intelligence directorate in the eastern province of Deir el-Zour, was killed by rebels in the provincial capital that carries the same name.

Jameh was one of the most powerful Syrian army officers in the country and played a major role in Lebanon when Damascus dominated its smaller neighbor.

The TV report did not say when Jameh was killed. It said he died “while he was carrying out his mission in defending Syria and its people.”

The city of Deir el-Zour has witnessed clashes between troops and rebels for more than a year.

Meanwhile, Qadri Jamil, the Syrian deputy prime minister, said Thursday that “we are closer than ever” to talks in Geneva. “In our contact with the (Russian) Foreign Ministry, we were informed about the approximate and hypothetical dates for holding it,” he said.

Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency quoted him as saying “the conference will be held on the 23rd and 24th of November.”

Alexander Lukashevich, a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, would not confirm or deny that the dates were being considered.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday that efforts are intensifying to try to hold the Geneva meeting in mid-November. Ban did not provide specific dates, and it’s not clear whether the schedule provided by Jamil has been agreed to by any other parties.

The talks have been put off repeatedly, in part because of fundamental disagreements over the fate of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The Western-backed Syrian National Coalition, the main alliance of political opposition groups, has said it will only negotiate if it is agreed from the start that Assad will leave power at the end of a transition period. Many rebel fighters inside Syria flatly reject negotiating with Assad’s regime

The regime has rejected such a demand, saying Assad will stay at least until the end of his term in mid-2014, and he will decide then whether to seek re-election. The regime has said it refuses to negotiate with the armed opposition.

The United States and Russia have been trying to bring the Damascus government and Syria’s divided opposition to negotiations in Geneva for months, but the meeting has been repeatedly delayed. It remains unclear if either side is really willing to negotiate while Syria’s civil war, now in its third year, remains deadlocked.

Also Thursday, the international agency overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile said that inspectors have so far found no “weaponized” chemical munitions, or shells ready to deliver poison gas or nerve agents, and that Syria’s declarations up to now have matched what inspectors found.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations are working to verify Syria’s initial declaration of its weapons program and render production and chemical mixing facilities inoperable by Nov. 1. Their work on the ground involves smashing control panels on machines and destroying empty munitions.

The team has visited 11 of more than 20 sites since Oct. 1 and carried out destruction work at six. “Cheap, quick and low-tech. Nothing fancy,” OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan said of the work.

In the next phase, the work gets more complex and dangerous when actual chemical weapons have to be destroyed — in the midst of full-blown war. Negotiations are still underway as to how and where that will happen.

Syria’s revolt began in March 2011 with largely peaceful protests against the Assad regime before eventually turning into a civil war. The conflict has killed more than 100,000 people, forced more than 2 million to flee the country and left some 4.5 million others displaced within the country.

It has also proven difficult and dangerous for journalists to cover, and press freedom advocate groups rank Syria as the most dangerous country in the world for reporters. Dozens of journalists have been kidnapped and more than 25 have been killed while reporting in Syria since the conflict began.

On Thursday, Sky News Arabia said that a team of its reporters had gone missing in the contested city of Aleppo. The Abu Dhabi-based channel said it lost contact on Tuesday morning with reporter Ishak Moctar, a Mauritanian national, cameraman Samir Kassab, a Lebanese national, as well as their Syrian driver whose name is being withheld at his family’s request.

Sky News Arabia chief Nart Bouran says the crew was on assignment primarily to focus on the humanitarian aspects of the conflict in Aleppo. The channel appealed for any information on the team’s whereabouts and for help to ensure the journalists’ safe return.


----------



## CougarKing

Assad retaliates for the killing of the general mentioned in the above post:

Yahoo News



> *Jets bomb Syrian city after intelligence general killed*
> 
> By Dominic Evans
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - *Syrian air force jets bombarded the eastern city of Deir al-Zor*  on Friday after heavy overnight clashes and the killing of one of President Bashar al-Assad's top military intelligence officers, activists said.
> 
> *General Jama'a Jama'a *was shot dead on Thursday by snipers in the midst of a battle with rebels including forces linked to al Qaeda, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
> 
> His death, celebrated by rebels and opposition activists, marked a significant setback for Assad's bid to retain a hold over the city, capital of the eastern oil-producing province.
> 
> A death notice published on Facebook said Jama'a's body was being flown back for burial on Friday in his home village of Zama in the mountains overlooking the Mediterranean - the heartland of Assad's Alawite sect.
> 
> (...)


----------



## OldSolduer

This has turned into a dogs breakfast.....it's been one since Obama decided that the Syrian government needed a hand slapping.... :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Canada gives some vehicles a lift - but not quite into Syria - more from the CF/DND Info-machine:


> At the request of the United Nations (UN), Canada provided military airlift this week to support the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), whose members are presently operating in Syria.
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) contributed a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CC-177 Globemaster III aircraft from 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario, to deliver 10 armoured civilian vehicles to the OPCW. These vehicles, donated by the United States (U.S.), will be used by the OPCW to safely transport their members, along with UN personnel involved in verifying and destroying Syria’s chemical weapons.
> 
> “Canada is committed to assisting the UN and the OPCW in their efforts to ensure the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria,” said the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of National Defence. “This airlift mission by the RCAF is just another fine example of the capability of the CAF and their readiness to respond rapidly whenever called upon.”
> 
> The 10 armoured civilian vehicles were airlifted from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S. to Lebanon. The vehicles were transported via two flights over a three-day period, starting last Thursday. Another agency is now responsible for moving the vehicles from Lebanon to Syria to assist the work of the OPCW and UN. This aircraft and CAF personnel were not part of any operations in Syria ....


----------



## 57Chevy

Article from the StarTribune is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Norway rejects US request to destroy Syria's chemical weapons arsenal
 Associated Press   25 Oct 

OSLO, Norway — Norway has turned down a U.S. request to receive the bulk of Syria's chemical weapons for destruction because it doesn't have the capabilities to complete the task by the deadlines given, the Norwegian foreign minister said Friday.

Boerge Brende said Norway hadn't been able to identify a port that could receive the weapons and didn't have the capacity to treat some of the waste products resulting from the destruction of the munitions.

In a webcast news conference, Brende said both the U.S. and Norway agreed there was no point in continuing "the evaluation of Norway as a place for this destruction."

Brende said the U.S. is looking at other alternatives but didn't give details.

Norway earlier this week said it was one of the nations that had been asked to take part in the destruction of 50 metric tons of mixed chemicals in the form of mustard gas and some 300-500 metric tons of materials needed to make nerve agents.

The U.S. and Russia set a mid-2014 deadline for the destruction of Syria's arsenal, which Brende said was too tight for Norway.
                                                      ___________________________________________


Having no idea of the actual numbers involved, nor of the weapons and/or systems these chemicals were (or may have been) employed in,
setting a deadline by both the US and the RF was a mistake in the first place. 

It hampers possible introductions of new (or improved) disposal procedures and methods, and the increased stress of the time factor could
create an unsafe working environment.

IMO The deadline should have been based on percentages rather than the totality of stocks.


----------



## a_majoor

More on the disintigration of Syria, as various rebel factions fall on each other. This is an inadvertent variation of the Bush doctrine, while George W Bush thought that establishing a democracy in the heart of the Middle East would destabilize the existing order by inspiring others to throw off their authoratarian governments, this Administration seems content to allow regime change as a result of anarchy or Islamist takeovers (although the end state will in no way result in a peaceful and democratic Middle East).

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/26/syria-obamas-rwanda-moment/



> *Syria: Obama’s Rwanda Moment*
> 
> Besides the main battle in Syria—the rebels against Assad—there is also a nasty little war emerging among the rebels themselves, with the Kurds and moderates squaring off against the radical Islamists. Reuters reports:
> 
> Kurdish militants seized a Syrian border post on the frontier with Iraq early on Saturday, fighters and monitors said, after three days of clashes with an al Qaeda-linked group which had held the crossing since March.
> 
> The armed Kurdish group YPG told Reuters fighting carried on through the day and a senior security official on the Iraqi side of the crossing said he could hear gunshots, mortar fire and shelling.
> 
> The Yarubiya post and surrounding areas in the northeast were taken from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant rebel group, who had seized it from the army, The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
> 
> There may come a time when a civil war between relatively organized factions turns into a generalized condition of anarchy and banditry over much of the country. With no political solution on the horizon, it’s hard to see anything good coming of it.
> 
> Future historians are likely to regard this as President Obama’s Rwanda moment: the United States chose not to make a difference back when it could have done with relative ease, and then watched in horror as a great tragedy unfolded. And just as the Rwanda massacre touched off a series of wars and mass murders that drew in neighboring states and is still convulsing the region after two decades of war, so the Syria disaster is likely to have horrible repercussions for many years to come.
> 
> There is, however, one difference between Rwanda and Syria. Because of geography, Syria is almost infinitely more important to the United States and its allies than Rwanda was. This time we didn’t just miss an opportunity for a humanitarian intervention; we missed a major strategic call to action.


----------



## tomahawk6

Actually Syria may well be the Vietnam of our islamist enemies.Let them kill each other.Like moths drawn to a flame.


----------



## CougarKing

The IDF strikes...

RT link



> *Israeli planes strike Syrian military base - US official confirms to media*
> Israeli warplanes struck a Syrian air defense base near the port city of Latakia on Thursday, US official have confirmed to media.
> 
> *An Obama administration official told AP that the attack happened overnight on Thursday, but provided no details. Another security official told the news agency that it took place in the Syrian port city of Latakia, and that the targets were Russian-made SA-125 missiles.
> 
> 
> Another US official told CNN that the Israelis believed the base near Snobar Jableh, south of Latakia, had sensitive and sophisticated missile equipment that may have been transferred to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah. *
> 
> Earlier, Dubai-based broadcaster al-Arabiya reported two attacks carried out by the Israeli Air Forces – one in Latakia and the other one in Damascus.
> 
> 
> Neither the Syrian nor Israeli governments have commented on the alleged attacks.
> 
> A spokesman for the Israeli Defense Ministry declined to speak on the matter.
> 
> 
> "We're not commenting on these reports," he told Reuters.
> 
> However, an Israeli official speaking anonymously to the news agency said he was inclined to believe that Israel had carried out a strike, although he was not entirely certain.
> 
> *The Lebanese military said it observed six Israeli jets flying over Lebanese territory on Wednesday, Reuters reported. Israeli jets frequently fly over Lebanon, but such high numbers have in the past been an indication of a military strike against Syria.  *
> 
> Earlier in the day, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said there was a series of explosions at a Syrian air defense base in the Mediterranean coastal province of Latakia.
> 
> "Several explosions were heard in an air defense base in the Snubar Jableh area," SOHR director Rami Abdel Rahman said, adding that the reason for the blasts remains “unclear.”
> 
> No casualties have been reported.
> 
> 
> (...)
> Published time: October 31, 2013 19:37


----------



## tamouh

Two interesting news on Syria:

1. Report of Polio outbreak
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24854920

"Europe could be at risk from polio following a recent outbreak in Syria, according to infectious disease experts.

Two doctors in Germany have written to the Lancet journal warning that the cases in Syria - which had been free of wild poliovirus since 1999 - could endanger neighbouring regions.............."


2. Interesting report on KSA training an army for Gen. Idris , rebel commander:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/07/syria-crisis-saudi-arabia-spend-millions-new-rebel-force

"Saudi Arabia is preparing to spend millions of dollars to arm and train thousands of Syrian fighters in a new national rebel force to help defeat Bashar al-Assad and act as a counterweight to increasingly powerful jihadi organisations. ..............."


----------



## a_majoor

In another interesting development (although still more of a "what if"), it seems that Hamas has fallen out with Hezbollah and their Iranian paymasters, and are on the side of the rebels. Will this mean they will start recruiting, training and arming the Palestinians in the refugee camps in Syria (and there are a _lot_ of Palestinians and camps in Syria...). This gives Qatar the ability to create a sort of Foreign Legion from scratch to deal out death and destruction for the Sunni side of the religious wars.

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/hezbollah-vs-hamas



> *Hezbollah vs. Hamas*
> Hezbollah's involvement in Qusayr could drag Lebanon into a broader conflict
> 
> Clashes erupted in Beirut Wednesday night between Palestinians and members of the Amal Movement, MTV television station reported. The clashes took place in the Farhat neighborhood near the Cité Sportive stadium, during which two hand grenades were used.
> 
> Without proper contextualization, this incident could be seen as just another insignificant fight between two armed groups. But it happened shortly after Jabhet al-Nusra declared the beginning of its operations against Hezbollah in Beirut and the Beqaa. Meanwhile, various sources reported that Hezbollah has asked Hamas to leave Dahiyeh (the southern suburbs of Beirut) after it became known that Hamas has been fighting alongside the Free Syrian Army in Qusayr.
> 
> Hamas' alliance with Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Damascus has always given Hezbollah a certain control over the Palestinian camps in Lebanon – but things are drastically different now. Hamas is no longer an ally of Assad or Hezbollah, the organization has shifted alliances and Hamas is now Qatar's best friend and beneficiary.
> 
> Of course, that Hamas is now actually fighting Hezbollah in Syria is hardly surprising news. Sources close to Hezbollah in Lebanon report that most of Hezbollah’s casualties in Qusayr occur by mines which Hezbollah and Hamas used against Israeli forces – both groups were trained by the same army after all. The same sources also mentioned that cluster mines are behind most of Hezbollah’s losses.
> 
> Although Hamas’ leadership in Lebanon officially denied being asked to leave the southern suburbs by Hezbollah, many doubt this actually occurred. Hamas did not and will never declare its military involvement in Syria, as the organization has always been good at playing both sides carefully. Hamas never clearly and officially cut ties with Iran, yet its leadership's new ties to Qatar are a poorly-kept secret.
> 
> After Khaled Meshaal and other Hamas officials were forced to flee the group’s headquarters in Syria, Meshaal has since stationed himself in Qatar, making the small Gulf city-state Hamas' new headquarters. Moreover, in October 2012 Qatar pledged to give Hamas $400 million USD in support, which constitutes a critical funding stream that will supplement major subsidies from Iran.
> 
> Hamas' loyalty is now with Qatar, and the Gulf state is clearly supporting and funding Syrian rebels, particularly Islamist ones. It is only normal that Hamas, being the best trained military faction in the region besides Hezbollah, will be asked to join the rebels in Syria.
> 
> But this also means that Hezbollah is facing a new danger in Lebanon, and Wednesday night's news shows that Palestinian camps could again be used to partake in a conflict on Lebanese soil, this time against Hezbollah.
> 
> So here we have two supposedly resistance groups fighting each other, politically and most probably militarily. Their fight in Syria will soon move into Lebanon, and when Jabhat al-Nusra decides to launch its attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon, it will come as no surprise if Hamas and other Islamist groups in the Palestinian camps carry it out.
> 
> Now that the Lebanese parliament has decided to extend its term for at least 15 months, a new government will probably not be formed anytime soon unless PM-designate Tammam Salam submits to Hezbollah's demand that it maintains control over government and state institutions. This means that Hezbollah is not only still a part of the Lebanese state, it has also managed to maintain its control over Lebanon's institutions.
> 
> Therefore, all of Lebanon's institutions and sectors will be a target to whoever wants to attack or pressure Hezbollah.
> 
> When Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah officially declared his organization’s military involvement in Syria, inviting his opponents to fight him there, Nasrallah’s message was that Lebanon as a state does not matter and it only exists to serve Hezbollah and Iran's interests. Hence, Lebanon is forced to join Hezbollah in its battle in Syria.
> 
> Hezbollah is determined to win the Qusayr battle no matter the consequences, and they are now sending better-equipped and trained troops to Qusayr. Nasrallah has no choice in Qusayr but victory, in order to justify the huge number of casualties coming from Syria every day. Hezbollah's losses in Qusayr are damaging its reputation of invincibility, and winning (like the “divine” victory of 2006) has now become simply non-negotiable.
> 
> However, what does victory mean at this point? Winning the battle in Qusayr may mean losing a bigger war. Even if Hezbollah manages to take over Qusayr, they do not have the power or ability to hold it. Eventually, Hezbollah will be chased back into Lebanon. There are no borders or functioning state institutions to stop their return.
> 
> But, Hezbollah has set a dangerous new precedent with its campaigns into Syria by dragging Lebanon into the neighboring conflict. According to Hezbollah’s ideological and military training – losses, no matter how big, are irrelevant if they result in victory. This mentality is sure to prolong the conflict, something Hezbollah strives on.
> 
> This time, however, is different. Hezbollah has positioned itself, through a calculated sectarian approach, as the enemy of all Sunni Islamists who are taking over most of the region. No matter how strong they are or how costly and long the conflict will drag on, Hezbollah is determined to plow ahead. Yet today they are facing all the Sunnis in the region including Hamas, and Hezbollah will eventually lose the bigger battle as a result.
> 
> As a small, sectarian state, Lebanon will be the biggest loser in this broader regional divide. Therefore, the only choice left for Lebanon is to keep Hezbollah out of any state institution. They cannot be part of the government or parliament anymore. Hezbollah today is an occupying force in Syria, and if they remain in control of Lebanon's institutions, it means that Lebanon will be regarded as an occupying state. Lebanon must therefore change by exercising its real independence.
> 
> Hanin Ghaddar is the Managing Editor of NOW.  She tweets @haningdr


----------



## tamouh

Thucydides said:
			
		

> In another interesting development (although still more of a "what if"), it seems that Hamas has fallen out with Hezbollah and their Iranian paymasters, and are on the side of the rebels. Will this mean they will start recruiting, training and arming the Palestinians in the refugee camps in Syria (and there are a _lot_ of Palestinians and camps in Syria...). This gives Qatar the ability to create a sort of Foreign Legion from scratch to deal out death and destruction for the Sunni side of the religious wars.
> 
> https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/hezbollah-vs-hamas



I believe Hamas had already broken ties with Iran when Mursi was elected as President in Egypt. The story you've quoted are of typical clashes that occur on daily basis in Lebanon. Qatar is still recovering from Mursi's outcast by the Saudis, and they are probably a little bit more busy now trying to convince FIFA they can still host he World Cup in the midst of 45 C temperatures.


----------



## tomahawk6

Hamas and Hezbollah are tied at the hip with Iran.Morsi's overthrow by the Army was a setback for the MB.


----------



## 57Chevy

Article is shared with the provisions of The Copyright Act

So they claim.

Syrian rebels claim they captured government drone, reveal images found inside
 NBC News  By David R Arnott

Syrian rebels this week showed off a miniature drone that they claim to have brought down using frequency interference.

Fighters from the Free Syrian Army told Reuters that the unmanned, remote-controlled aircraft belonged to President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

The rebels released a series of aerial photos that they said had been taken from a camera mounted on the drone. The images show the widespread destruction in the rebel-held city of Homs.

More than 100,000 people have died since the Syrian conflict started two and a half years ago, the United Nations says.


Other photos at link.


----------



## George Wallace

:

Words can not express my feelings on this barbarian act:


LINK

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


> Syrian rebels accidentally decapitate the wrong man, ask for public for ‘understanding and forgiveness’
> National Post
> Richard Spencer,
> Friday, Nov. 15, 2013
> *
> Militant Islamist rebels in Syria linked to Al-Qaeda have asked for “understanding and forgiveness” for cutting off and putting on display the wrong man’s head.*
> 
> In a public appearance filmed and posted online, members of Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham, one brandishing a knife, held up a bearded head before a crowd in Aleppo. They triumphantly described the execution of what they said was a member of an Iraqi Shia militia fighting for President Bashar Al-Assad.
> 
> But the head was recognised from the video as belonging to a member of Ahrar Al-Sham, a Sunni Islamist rebel group that often fights alongside ISIS though it does not share its Al-Qaeda ideology.
> 
> After inquiries, an ISIS spokesman admitted he was Mohammed Fares, an Ahrar commander reported missing some days ago. This could not be independently confirmed, but in an earlier video of a speech by Mr Fares he bears a close resemblance to the severed head in the later video. The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, which monitors deaths in the Syrian conflict, and several activists on social media, said that ISIS misunderstood comments that the man made referring to the Imams Ali and Hussein, the founding fathers of Shiism.
> 
> The ISIS spokesman, Omar Al-Qahtani, made reference to a story in which Mohammed said Allah would forgive a man who killed a believer in error. He said that Mr Fares had been injured and, thinking he had been captured by members of the Shia militia against which he was fighting, asked them to kill him in terms misunderstood by the ISIS members when in fact he meant taking him to hospital.
> 
> It is thought he was wounded in the battle for Base 80, a military zone being fought over near Aleppo. The mistake, of a sort commonly cited as an argument against the death penalty around the world, is also indicative of the chaos within rebel ranks, particularly since the rise of ISIS over the summer. Several other Islamist groups have formed alliances without its participation, but it continues to exercise control over large areas of northern Syria.
> 
> Its ferocity has given rise to an exodus of moderate and secular activists, and brought to an end an uneasy truce between the Free Syrian Army and Kurdish militias, the most prominent of which has in the last month taken on ISIS and driven them out of a number of towns in the north-east.
> 
> Meanwhile, Mr Assad’s forces have used the internal rifts in their enemies’ ranks to make progress on a drive south-east of Aleppo. This week, a group of Islamist rebels put out an appeal for a mass mobilisation against the advance, while there are repeated rumours that major Islamist militias which do not support Al-Qaeda are about to declare a common front.
> 
> Mr Qahtani said the incident would be investigated by the appropriate judicial authorities.


----------



## a_majoor

Beat me to that one!

While Jihadist groups like ISIS are militarily stronger than most of the other FSA, tribal militia and assorted Islamic/Sunni/"Moderate" groups, this sort of barbaric conduct won't win them lots of support, and they will probably divert even more of their strength to occupying and pacifying their newly conquered territories. Pretty much a win-win for the Syrian Army; they get more points for their own propaganda and PSYOPS, and face an increasingly fragmented opposition. I also imagine the Syrians will focus on FSA and other, "lesser" groups since the Salafist and other extremist forces will be busy alienating their captive population, who will probably come to view the Syrian army as their "liberators".


----------



## CougarKing

The issue of the disposal of Syria's chem. weapons in the news again:

Defense News



> *US Offers Ship, New Systems to Destroy Syrian Chemical Weapons at Sea*
> 
> WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials said Thursday that the US government has offered to send about 100 Defense Department civilians and a merchant ship to the Mediterranean to assist in the destruction of the “hundreds of tons” of chemical weapons precursor materials in Syria, but that discussions about how to do so are ongoing.
> 
> Last winter, recently departed Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was tasked with looking for ways that DoD could help destroy Syrian chemical weapons stocks, which resulted in a rapid acquisition effort to build a mobile platform that could destroy the materials without having to ship them overseas.
> 
> *The result was the construction of three field deployable hydrolysis systems (FDHS) the Pentagon plans on mounting in the hold of the Military Sealift Command ship Cape Ray, in order to destroy the chemical weapons at sea.*
> 
> The FDHS is capable of breaking down the mustard gas and sarin precursor materials, transferring them into an inert liquid, a senior defense official said.
> 
> “We think this is a relatively low-risk operation” another senior Pentagon official told reporters on Thursday, adding that “absolutely nothing will be dumped at sea.” Instead, the liquids will be stored and kept on the ship until they can take them to a commercial waste-treatment facility.
> 
> (...)


----------



## larry Strong

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The issue of the disposal of Syria's chem. weapons in the news again:
> 
> Defense News



Wonder how good that will go over, with the tree huggers et al?




Larry


----------



## CougarKing

The Islamists gaining strength in Syria...  



> *Islamists seize Free Syrian Army arms depots*
> 
> Beirut (AFP) - The largest Islamist rebel force in Syria seized arms depots belonging to the mainstream Western-backed Free Syrian Army on Saturday, a watchdog said, highlighting tensions among rebel groups.
> 
> "After combat that lasted all night, fighters from the Islamic Front captured (FSA) general staff positions near the Bab el-Hawa border crossing (with Turkey) and seized their arms depots," the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
> 
> The Observatory said the arms had been brought across the border from Turkey...
> 
> 
> Agence-France-Presse


----------



## a_majoor

In a way, I think letting sitting back and letting ISIS and similar Salafi/Jihadi groups win might be a better long term strategy for us. They will neutralize the Iranians in Syria and probably take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, disrupting or eliminating the Sunni Arc from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean sea, unless Iran can mobilize far more resources to keep its position (and given the current strained financial position, it is not clear if they can, or what they will have to give up to do so). I would not say it is out of the question that these groups would mobilize (or have mobilized by their sponsors, which is almost the same thing) an army of displaced Muslim Brotherhood members and Palestinians to take the fight into Iran (and of course the greater Middle East's moderate Shia governments as well).

As spillover from this, radicals will also be moving into places like Chechnya, the 'Stans and Xinjiang, giving the Russians and Chinese some pretty major headaches and taking thier attention away from other things. This will give the West a bit of a breather and a chance to reorganize and sort out the real roots of the financial crisis (excessive debt and overspending). Mobilizing technologies like fracking and energy conservation to eliminate or drastically reduce Western dependance on ME and Russian oil and natural gas will be a two-fer; we eliminate a large source of their income and their ability to destabilize foreign markets and economies, while becoming self sufficient with our own, low cost energy.

Of course the Islamists will also be hostile to the West, and try to carry the battle to us as well, but as Maritime Powers, we can contain them in Eurasia, and their overall resources are so much smaller than the Western world's that they will only be able to use a small fraction of the effort they will be putting into cleansing the Islamic world of "apostates" and attacking other enemies closer to home, leaving us with a fairly managable defense problem.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course the Islamists will also be hostile to the West, and try to carry the battle to us as well, but as Maritime Powers, we can contain them in Eurasia, and their overall resources are so much smaller than the Western world's that they will only be able to use a small fraction of the effort they will be putting into cleansing the Islamic world of "apostates" and attacking other enemies closer to home, leaving us with a fairly managable defense problem.



I'm sure the families of the victims in the Twin Towers may take issue with your synopsis.

We won't contain these fanatics anywhere.

If they want to come here to do harm, an ocean, our military, border security or otherwise, won't stop them.

That's been proven more than once already.


----------



## a_majoor

Fairly managable is not equal to "easy" or 100% effective.

Since the Islamists are already involved in a civil war, and we are already working to contain them and defend our borders, what I wrote upthread is more an extrapolation of existing trends, and I doubt that we could do much more than to "direct" the attentions of the various Islamic combatents elswhere.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As much as the demographic bulge is against us in the ME now, in 20 years time it may be for us. By the time the new generation comes, they be asking dad (or must likely Mom, as dad is dead) Can I go kill the enemy and who is that anyways, Hezbollah, Hamas, HIG, Uzbek, Kurds, Balch, Iranians, Sunni, Shiite or the West?


----------



## 57Chevy

Article from Press TV is shared with provisions of the Copyright Act
 ‘Real’ US-trained al-Qaeda ‘to wage war on US’ 
Gordon Duff, 11Dec 

In the lead up to the Geneva peace conference, the world is now hearing of terrorist armies dedicated to turning Syria into an al-Qaeda state. 

The European Union is in panic; Jihadists returning from Syria are setting up terror cells in nation after nation, and those who now claim to have been “duped” into supplying and training al-Qaeda are throwing their hands in the air and screaming out, “How did this happen?” 

What they should be screaming out is, “How did we get caught?” 

Will the real “mother of al-Qaeda” please stand up? 

Intelligence sources in the region report that al-Qaeda terror groups are, in fact, not just getting weapons and support from the same sources as the Free Syrian Army but far more dangerous weapons.

Al-Qaeda can now shoot down airliners anywhere in the world, use mini-guns on crowds, killing thousands or deploy poison gas or bio-toxins. 

Americans have supplied all of that and more to al-Qaeda. 

Weapons transfers to al-Qaeda are tied to not just American political leaders and members of the Israel lobby, but powerful defense groups in the US that, during “Sequestration” cut backs, have “gone rogue.” 

Investigations prove conclusively that the “al-Qaeda” Europe is cowering in fear of being armed by American contractors. 

From a Henry Kamen article published in New Eastern Outlook: 

“A Georgian film studio house is now producing an independent documentary film which will explore the role of the United States in the Caucasus region, the plot being based on documents which are now part of criminal investigations. It will also investigate serious allegations of weapons trafficking which are supported both by documentation and a leak which originated from the US Department of Homeland Security.” 

Georgia has long been recognized as a transit point for illegal trade, not only in arms but in drugs and other contraband, a transit hub for criminals who wish to move goods between Asia and Europe, and more recently the rest of the world. Investigating the people involved can provide us with deeply important information regarding the links between certain “interest groups,” including terrorist networks and al-Qaeda fighting in Syria, and the Georgian special services - for example, the head of al-Qaeda in Syria happens to come from Georgia, and was recruited and trained there, with the help of Georgian and American special services. 

Our own investigation discovered an American firm, one paid by the Department of Defense to supply both the Iraqi and Afghan forces with Russian weapons (assembled with several minor American parts), to be the primary source of al-Qaeda’s arsenal in Syria, that and biological and chemical weapons sourced from Georgia. 

Kamen’s continues: 

“Much of the information cited here was shared with Georgian investigative bodies approximately 6 months ago. It includes a two-hour long film which shows a US weapons manufacturer, Dillon Aero, (“allegedly” author’s note) negotiating to illegally ship a cache of weapons from Arizona to Turkmenistan via Georgia and Azerbaijan by means of various ruses and fake documents. 
Legal counsel Mark Barnes and Associates wrote last year, November 27, 2012, 
‘We realize that you are interested in an evidently sensationalist Youtube video… In light of the fact that a Federal Investigation is still ongoing, that is Dillon’s only comment on the matter.’ 
Strangely, the attorney failed to note in this threatening letter his own involvement in arms imports.” 

Al-Qaeda 

As we are being told, the al-Qaeda-backed forces, the ones kidnapping nuns, burning churches and raping women, are infiltrating through Turkey, Jordan and Iraq. 

Minimally, this means they are receiving weapons, training and tactical support from the same sources that supply General Idris and the Free Syrian Army. 

Publicly, this is the CIA, US Army Special Forces under former Vice President Dick Cheney and his Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), Israel and Saudi Arabia. 

Also operating in the region is MI6, French groups and, less publicly, a Turkish/Israeli front tasked with luring Kurdistan out of Iraq with the promise of, not just full autonomy but control of the Kirkuk oil fields. 

Technically, all of these groups are al-Qaeda “affiliates,” including and especially the US and Israeli groups operating across the region, not just under total secrecy but fully in support of terrorist groups. 

In Turkey, this is Israel along with US-based contacting firms, “Google”-based, and suppliers from Georgia, the Ukraine, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. 

Advanced weapons, including mini-guns, a devastating US weapon used in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been supplied using forged “end user certificates” or smuggled by intelligence services. 

The mini-guns sent to al-Qaeda were mounted on three US-built Denali SUVs in a deal brokered by close business associates of Senator John McCain. 

Other weapons have included Sarin gas and American-built Stinger missiles. 

Similarly, US and Israeli forces operating in Jordan, while claiming to support the FSA, have been flying al-Qaeda recruits in from around the world, Saudi-financed, “Wall Street” weapons and Israeli radios and transport. 

Some of that armament is being used in Iraq against the government there. Whenever Assad’s forces push back, al-Qaeda heads “home” to Iraq or Kurdistan, using American and Israeli training and weapons to maintain the continuing level of terrorist activity that has kept Iraq at the edge of civil war. 

Chickens come home to roost 

This “al-Qaeda” will be real. They will be using those mini-guns on crowds at shopping malls or at football games, perhaps even at a political convention. 

The war on terror, the Bush-era imaginary war on terror, may well be a reality now with a real nation of “evildoers,” armed and trained by America and Israel, financed by Saudi Arabia, wreaking havoc around the world. 

Does America have the national resolve to go to war again, this time against its own monstrous orphans? 
                                         _______________________________________________

Gordon Duff
 is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest.


----------



## 57Chevy

An interesting article from The New York Times, shared with provisions of The Copyright Act,
shows positive logistical cooperation amongst Nations regarding the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons.

 Chemical Weapons Agency Unveils Plan for Destroying Syria’s Stockpile  
NICK CUMMING-BRUCE, 18Dec

GENEVA — Helped by a flurry of offers from Russia and China as well as the United States and European countries, the international watchdog agency overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons unveiled details Wednesday of a multinational effort to get toxic agents out of the country but warned that the program faced delays.

Following an offer from the United States last month to destroy the chemical weapons at sea, the Syrian government will start transporting hundreds of tons of toxic agents to the port of Latakia around the end of the year, according to a plan approved by the executive council of the watchdog, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. 

The removal starts a new phase in an agreement reached by Russia and the United States in September that calls for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities by June. Despite initial doubts about the cooperation they could expect from President Bashar al-Assad’s government, international inspectors have confirmed that Syria has already destroyed the means of producing chemical weapons and the munitions for delivering them. 

But the proposal that Ahmet Uzumcu, director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, presented to the executive council in The Hague warned that “technical factors have caused delays regarding some aspects of removal operations and may also affect future implementation activities.” The plan was approved late Tuesday and announced on Wednesday. 

Russia has agreed to provide security for loading operations at Latakia’s port but has not said whether it intends to provide troops for that purpose, a European diplomat following developments at the agency said on the condition of anonymity, in line with diplomatic practice. “The plan now has a lot more offers and a lot more parts to it, but we are realistic that there will be challenges,” the diplomat said. 

Schedules have already been disrupted by a range of factors, including a lack of security in a country convulsed by civil war and bad weather, Mr. Uzumcu reported to the executive council on Tuesday. Clashes in the strategic Qalamoun area and along the key road from Damascus to Homs “pose risks to the timely execution of the operation,” he said. 

In an operation that would be sensitive under any circumstances and becomes particularly hazardous carried out in the middle of a civil war, the Syrian government will be responsible for packing, transporting and protecting the convoys carrying its deadly chemical agents from 12 sites around the country to Latakia, according to the plan Mr. Uzumcu presented. 

To mitigate the risks, Syria will use armored vehicles from Russia, thousands of special containers supplied by the United States, decontamination equipment and GPS locaters, the agency said. 

China will provide 10 ambulances and surveillance cameras and Finland has offered an emergency response team in case of accidents, the agency said. 

Denmark and Norway are providing two roll-on, roll-off ships to transport the chemical weapons and two naval vessels to escort them, and Russia and China have also agreed to provide naval escorts, the diplomat said. 

The cargo ships will link up at an unnamed port in Italy with the American vessel, the Cape Ray, which is being specially fitted with mobile laboratories for destroying the chemicals at sea. Italy’s offer to make the port available, received last week, avoids the risky task of trying to transfer the chemical agents on the high seas. 

In the meantime, Mr. Uzumcu said, the organization will seek offers from commercial companies on Thursday for destruction of the less toxic chemical agents and the effluent the Cape Ray’s operations will produce. The European diplomat said the agency had received 42 expressions of interest from commercial companies. 

The agency had previously planned to complete removal of Syria’s most deadly chemicals by the end of the year and all the remaining chemical weapons precursors by early February. It still hopes to finish those tasks by February, and Mr. Uzumcu is to meet the organization’s 41 council members again on Jan. 8 to update them. 

“The plan might slip by a few days,” the European diplomat said. “I don’t think any of us really knows how big the delay is likely to be.”


----------



## tamouh

I can be anything but cynical right now about Syria. Are they friends, are they foes? It seems when they needed our help the most, when perhaps there were a glimpse of hope Syria could have been a good ally. We turned our back. Then we put our hands up in the air and decried Mujahedin. All a while, we're watching men, women and children being targeted by snipers, indiscrimnately bombed by airplanes, bombarded by artillery. Even medical establishment have become a routine and favorite target.

After all, we wonder how come these people are becoming extremists?! If we were just to put ourselves in these kids shoes. When one is left to defend for themselves, they're going to look for the first ray of hope offered to them, and that was definitely not modern Western Democracy.


----------



## Jed

Tiamo said:
			
		

> I can be anything but cynical right now about Syria. Are they friends, are they foes? It seems when they needed our help the most, when perhaps there were a glimpse of hope Syria could have been a good ally. We turned our back. Then we put our hands up in the air and decried Mujahedin. All a while, we're watching men, women and children being targeted by snipers, indiscrimnately bombed by airplanes, bombarded by artillery. Even medical establishment have become a routine and favorite target.
> 
> After all, we wonder how come these people are becoming extremists?! If we were just to put ourselves in these kids shoes. When one is left to defend for themselves, they're going to look for the first ray of hope offered to them, and that was definitely not modern Western Democracy.



Now that is a pretty flawed segue Tiamo. Many of us care deeply for the people of Syria. We of the West have had our hands tied from the start and about all we can effectively do is try to support the various relief organizations. The big problem is the flood of arab world, non Syrian, sh!t disturbers flooding in for gits and shiggles.


----------



## a_majoor

If you look back over the tread Tiamo, you will see that there were never very good choices for the West, and the political and social will to devote the massive amount of resources needed to actually occupy Syria for the prolonged period needed to tear down and rebuild the Assad regime's institutions into something acceptable to the West and usable by the people of Syria was never in the cards.

Sometimes the least worst choice is to step back and not get involved.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Tiamo said:
			
		

> I can be anything but cynical right now about Syria. Are they friends, are they foes? It seems when they needed our help the most, when perhaps there were a glimpse of hope Syria could have been a good ally. We turned our back. Then we put our hands up in the air and decried Mujahedin. All a while, we're watching men, women and children being targeted by snipers, indiscrimnately bombed by airplanes, bombarded by artillery. Even medical establishment have become a routine and favorite target.
> 
> After all, we wonder how come these people are becoming extremists?! If we were just to put ourselves in these kids shoes. When one is left to defend for themselves, they're going to look for the first ray of hope offered to them, and that was definitely not modern Western Democracy.




Here was my answer, 30 months ago, to the question: "Why don't we, foreigners (the US led West, he meant to say) do _something_?"



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You might want to define "foreign."
> 
> Who has a vital interest in settling Syria's problems? Who has the resources and political will to intervene? Does anyone want to intervene when it will look like it, the intervenor, is doing Israel's bidding? What does Responsibility (R2P) to protect really mean?
> 
> My short answer is: No.




Nothing has transpired, including thousands of dead and hundreds of thousands of displaced _innocent civilians_, to change my _strategic_ rationale. 

There is a temporary solution to the Middle Eastern situation: we ignore the whole place ~ massive non-intervention. No _Middle Eastern Peace_ processes, no Israel/Palestine _peace initiatives_, no standing between Iran and the Saudis. Yes to some, not many, military bases (fewer than today, all in Bahrain, Qatar and UAE). Yes to buying oil. Yes to selling weapons. No to giving a shit about how many of them are killed by one another in the pursuit of whatever.

That, cruel as it sounds, is a sane, achievable, _strategy_.


----------



## CougarKing

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is a temporary solution to the Middle Eastern situation: we ignore the whole place ~ massive non-intervention. No _Middle Eastern Peace_ processes, no Israel/Palestine _peace initiatives_,



So essentially, abandoning Israel? In spite of Prime Minister Harper's announced, coming visit to Israel next year, when it seemed our relationship with them will be re-affirmed?



> (...)
> 
> *Harper announced his trip -- which will also include visits to Jordan and the Palestinian Authority -- during the Negev Dinner in Toronto, an annual event honouring community leaders and supporters of Israel.*
> 
> The Jewish National Fund of Toronto hosted the event Sunday, raising $5.7 million to build a bird sanctuary in Israel to be named after Harper.
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> 
> “We understand that the future of our country and of our shared civilization depends on the survival and thriving of that free and democratic homeland of the Jewish people in the Middle East," Harper told attendees.* "And I’ll tell you friends, we understand that, and that’s why Israel will always have Canada as friend in the world.”*
> 
> (...)
> 
> Read more: CTV link


----------



## tamouh

I'm sure we as individuals have our hearts with those innocent civlians trapped in the midst of the war. We may not be able to do alot, but our institutions could have made a difference. 

I beg to differ that we can isolate the ME from our current life. They are the largest oil supplier. Even on the assumption that we do become oil independent from the ME, the continued turbulance in the region will spill over to neighbouring countries. This will lead to greater humanitarian suffering that will require more of our resources both in terms of immigration, aid and security monitoring.

The other point here, that if we do turn our back on the ME, there are other countries who'll jump on that opportunity. This would be counter intuitive to our national interests. It may on the long term shift the balance of allies in the ME. In a global economy, this could pose potential threat to the West.

When we can no longer support our allies in the region, then they'll look somewhere else. This will have large impact on the balance of power, and the viability of a country.

Last, notwithstanding the above. I try to think of it from a humanitarian side. Do we have a responsibility to help those in need? If a God didn't or "couldn't" help a human. Should a fellow human take on that role?

I do understand that no matter what decision we take as a nation, the consequences are not going to be all positive. Nevertheless, there are two sides for every coin. What is difficult to observe that innocent people are murdered on mass scale while we continue watching. Knowing fully well that our inability to decide will continue to increase the suffering of the region.

EDIT: The West have had a good option from the beginning in regard to Syria that would have worked much better than our current situation. There were a time before artillery were used, and before airplanes were used. There could have been a time when we could have supported the FSA from its beginning before all the foreign fighters have found the opportunity to join in. 

Turkey & Saudi were no fan of the Assad regime. We had allies willing to do something about it. The problem in my view that the US did not want to interfere in the first place for whatever reason. This poorly made decision ended up being the more costly option.


----------



## Edward Campbell

With respect, Tiamo, the US "did not want to intervene" for the very best of reasons: there was, and still is, nothing to be gained. Assad is a thug; the people who replace him ~ no matter what fine words they might utter ~ will also be thugs. It's the Middle fucking East for heaven's sakes; it needs, urgently, a long, bloody series of brutal internecine wars followed by a serious, thoroughgoing religious reformation and then an enlightenment. Call me round about Dec 2263, 250 years from now, when that _might_ have come to pass. In the interim: send money to the Red Cross etc and feel sad for the fate of the people but, at a national level, sit it all out.


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A.: there is no reason why Canada should not continue to support Israel, diplomatically and so on, but there is nothing for the larger, US led West to do about "bringing peace to the Middle East." Peace, real peace, follows big, brutal, bloody wars; they need to come next ... then peace.


----------



## tamouh

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> With respect, Tiamo, the US "did not want to intervene" for the very best of reasons: there was, and still is, nothing to be gained. Assad is a thug; the people who replace him ~ no matter what fine words they might utter ~ will also be thugs. It's the Middle ******* East for heaven's sakes; it needs, urgently, a long, bloody series of brutal internecine wars followed by a serious, thoroughgoing religious reformation and then an enlightenment. Call me round about Dec 2263, 250 years from now, when that _might_ have come to pass. In the interim: send money to the Red Cross etc and feel sad for the fate of the people but, at a national level, sit it all out.



Completely disagree and find your argument contradicting to another post regarding the support of Israel. Your arguments may have had a merit back in 15th century, but not today. We can't support Israel then say hands off because this will simply point the finger back at us.

As I've emphasized earlier, complete hands off in the ME will wreck havoc in the region and more importantly will allow other nations with ambitions to control large amount of area and resources to sweep in. Guess what you can do with 1 billion radicals and infinite amount of oil/gas?

The ME requires a delicate balance of work to ensure it trends on stability until a time comes when the people do realize what matters most in this life. We're not necessary going to export our ideals and judicial law to them. But we need to bring enlightenment in the form of democratic process. Military coups and monarchies are not the solution. Although, Monarchies seem to have had much more success in the ME than Military governance.

If we do leave the ME with complete hands off (sell weapons and buy oil), you'll likely end up without selling any weapons and not buying any oil, why? Because we are not going to sell them weapons that eventually can be used against us, so someone else will sell them these. Further, we're not going to be able to buy any oil because we don't control the routes anymore!

The ME needs help mentally, medically, politically and militarily. This is what advanced nations like the West can do. If we can't accomplish that, then we'd have failed at bringing stability to our selves. The radicals in the ME must be contained. More wars will lead to more radicalisation. They'll eventually run over the area, and Israel. Guess who's next?

To give you an example, 

Iran/Iraq war gave further support/rise to the Khomeini, and whom are we trying to contain now?

Lebanon 20 years war ended up with the rise of one power house Hezboallah. How was that in our best interest?

Bosnian 5 years war ended up with the rise of radical Islam in central Europe. Before 1990, many Bosnian though identified as Muslim were of little to any connection to Islam. I personally didn't hear of Muslims in central Europe until the Bosnian war.

Chechnyan vs Russian war gave rise to Jihdaist groups that are roaming around Asia, Europe and Americas looking for the next big Jihad.

US led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had also created a hot bed for radicals. 

Now we have the Syrian war, again, it is following the same path as the previous ones. 

From what I've observed, radicals are attracted to war. Yes, some get killed. However, much more get recruited in the process. Nothing easier than motivating a youngster to fight when he is convinced the whole world around him is unjust.


----------



## GR66

I think you've got both an overly bleak view of the results of non-intervention and an overly rosy view of the results of intervention.

You point at wars where the West (supposedly) didn't intervene and suggest that later problems resulted.  How about the many times we DID intervene and had very negative results for our interests in the long term?

The underlying problem is that there are conflicts between various groups and interests in the Middle East.  We didn't create these differences, they are long standing, historical, religious and ethnic conflicts and any intervention by the West is not going to eliminate these.  At best it will paper over the differences for a short period of time and allow them to simmer/fester in the background.  At worst they blow up in our faces put us in the middle of conflicts that at their heart don't really have anything to do with us.

There is no way we can "bring enlightenment in the form of democratic process" as you suggest.  The very heart of that concept requires a culture that at its core fully internalizes everything that "democracy" really means.  We (the collective "West") only internalized that through a very bloody process that took years of religious and political wars in Europe, civil wars in Europe and North America, civil rights protests, constitutional challenges and labour unrest.  

When you try and transplant our own system and ideals into a culture that hasn't gone through the same trials that we have you don't get democracy.  At best you get a "de-mock-racy" where you have the outward appearance of our system but none of the real benefits.  Having a parliament, police force, courts and constitution do not a democracy make.  They may have elections but people will try and fix them.  You may have a parliament but dissenting ideas are not permitted.  You may have courts but they make decisions on a political basis.  You may have police but they are corrupt.  Even if they "sort of" work for the most part, when things get really tough they are quickly abandoned for the old system of strongman rule (martial law, one party "democracy" or feudalism).  

If you REALLY want to help the people of the Middle East you need to stop patronizing them and treating them as colonialists, patting their heads when they behave as we like or swatting their butts when they get out of hand.  We've help retard their development and keep them living in an artificial past.  Like restless teenagers we need to let them grow up.  It's not going to be pretty and they might not end up exactly as we had hoped, but they can't live in the past forever.

 :2c:


----------



## tamouh

> There is no way we can "bring enlightenment in the form of democratic process" as you suggest.  The very heart of that concept requires a culture that at its core fully internalizes everything that "democracy" really means.  We (the collective "West") only internalized that through a very bloody process that took years of religious and political wars in Europe, civil wars in Europe and North America, civil rights protests, constitutional challenges and labour unrest.
> 
> When you try and transplant our own system and ideals into a culture that hasn't gone through the same trials that we have you don't get democracy.  At best you get a "de-mock-racy" where you have the outward appearance of our system but none of the real benefits.  Having a parliament, police force, courts and constitution do not a democracy make.  They may have elections but people will try and fix them.  You may have a parliament but dissenting ideas are not permitted.  You may have courts but they make decisions on a political basis.  You may have police but they are corrupt.  Even if they "sort of" work for the most part, when things get really tough they are quickly abandoned for the old system of strongman rule (martial law, one party "democracy" or feudalism).



Nicely said. However, me and you may agree on what you've stated. But you won't get the rest of the world to agree on that. Through out history, there were allies and foes. Before Britain had become an empire from ocean to ocean, different factions were and remained supported by one group or another during turbulant times (french, spaniards). Even the US civil war had supporters on both sides, most notably the Russian CZar for the North and British for the South.

We've also came a long way from 19th century. We (the West) do know where wars will lead. I'm not assuming that democracy is the solution. On the contrary, I believe democracy in its current form is a stage that sooner or later is going to be replaced by another system. What we should be doing is help secure our national interest. Should we leave the ME as it is, there can only be two outcomes in the short term. Radical Salafists (think Taliban) or Radical Shiite (think Hezboallah).

I'm almost certain in 100 years from now, the generation of radicals will slowly become moderated. But before then, I'm as certain few major wars would have broken between east and west.

The reason foreign fighters are drawn into Syria right now in large numbers is due to the belief that this is one of the largest battles. Every Jihadi knows the Hadith by the prophet regarding a war at the end of times its location is Syria. What we're having here is a fulfillment of a prophacy for many of the Jihadist groups. The prophecy states they're going to win the battle (whatever!).

So when you say don't do anything, I'm thinking what about all these Jihadis? If you think Hezboallah or Bashar going to weaken them, then you're likely mistaken. They are going to continue fighting until they win. When that is accomplished, then to them the prophecy has been fulfilled and they can begin establishing their own government. Their prophecies will become self fulfilling as they continue. To leave that unchecked, will be the biggest mistake we can do.

Unless of course, God turns out to be whoever book is claiming he is.....then that side wins and everyone else is screwed!


----------



## a_majoor

Back to the future. The 106mm Recoiless rifle makes an appearance on the various battlefields of Syria. Where these are coming from is a bit murky (see article), but the effectiveness of these is not in question when dealing with hard targets at close range (I have an ancient template which lists the engagement range of the 106mm as 1800m).

Although the 106 was quite popular and common, it isn't the last word in this technology. Russian recoiless rifles are quite common (although they tend to be much smaller: 82mm seems to be a common calibre), and I would expect to see these in action as well.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/ancient-us-weapon-in-syria/



> *Ancient U.S. Weapon Makes a Surprise Reappearance in Syria*
> BY BRENDAN MCNALLY05.31.136:30 AM
> 
> Watch enough YouTube videos of the fighting in Syria, and you’ll start to notice it: a long-tubed gun, mounted on the back of either a jeep or large, fast pickup. Usually it’s blasting bunkers, blockhouses, fortified positions, or places where snipers are hiding. It even goes after tanks. And whenever it fires, the gun seems to kick up way more hell behind it than what it sends out the barrel’s front end. It’s the M40 106mm recoilless rifle, an American-made, Vietnam-vintage weapon that got dropped from the Army and Marine inventory back during the early 1970s. Until recently, the 106mm hadn’t seen much action in the irregular wars that have swept the globe. Then M40s somehow came into the hands of rebels in Libya and Syria. Suddenly, the 106mm – light, cheap, easily transportable, simple to operate, and packing a punch all out of proportion to its modest size — has emerged as a possible Great Asymmetric Weapon of the Day.
> 
> Although the U.S. military no longer officially uses the M40, they still keep some around. A few found their way to Afghanistan where they were put to use by certain Special Forces units. The Danish and Australian armies, which acquired them from the U.S. decades ago under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, used them extensively during their ground operations there.
> 
> In Libya, the M40 was used primarily in urban warfare, killing tanks and fortified positions. How exactly it found its way into the hands of the rebels there is a bit of a mystery. The M40s showed up in Libya along with thousands of brand new Belgian FN rifles, apparently from Western arsenals. That lead many to suspect they were supplied by Western intelligence. The M40s currently being seen in Syria might be coming either from the same sources that supplied the Libyan rebels or even from the Libyans themselves.
> 
> There is also a strong possibility that these weapons might actually be of Iranian origin. Iran’s state-owned weapons arsenal, the Defense Industry Organization, has been manufacturing what was originally a licensed-version of the M40. Now called the “Anti-Tank Gun 106,” it is being offered on the open market, and are probably being supplied to the Syrian Army, which have since lost them to the rebels.
> 
> While the M40 makes a big comeback in the Middle East, dozens of other armies all over the world never stopped using it. The Danish and Australian armies have used the 106mm in Afghanistan with excellent results. It turns out that in many instances they have outperformed the expensive, high tech, anti-tank rockets like the TOW,  the Javelin and others that were supposed to replace the M40 four decades ago.
> 
> While no one is suggesting the replacements aren’t good weapons, all have their shortcomings. Some, like the TOW, don’t operate well in extreme environments. Others, once fired, sometimes require too many rotations before they arm; that limits their effectiveness in close-in situations. Probably the biggest problem is that whenever targets are inside mud-walled buildings (which, in places like Afghanistan, is much of the time), the explosion’s force tends to get seriously dampened. Enter the M40: a home-grown weapon, already in stock, developed and manufactured at the Watervliet Arsenal, the U.S. Army’s own gun factory, and at Benet Laboratories, which has quietly continued the weapon’s advancement during the decades it’s been out of use.
> 
> As weapons go, the M40 is almost amazingly crude. The first thing you notice about the back of the gun is that, unlike conventional cannon, the breech block has big openings. The rounds it fires look different too; the shell casings are also open, more like cages than canisters. But what makes it so different from conventional artillery is its way of dealing with recoil. Rather than try to contain it, as conventional guns do, recoilless rifles endeavor to balance it by offering the propellant gasses the easiest escape possible. That’s why the breech mechanism is vented and open, functioning like a rocket nozzle. It is also why recoilless rifles generate the massive and deadly back blast that can make them such a frightening weapon to be around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though the idea behind the recoilless rifle goes back five hundred years, it wasn’t until the late 19th Century that the key technologies were developed to actually make recoilless rifles practical. The Germans built a 75mm recoilless rifle used by their airborne troops during the invasion of Crete that proved to be a decisive weapon in that campaign. The U.S. developed its own version of the 75mm gun, but it did not reach the battlefield until the last weeks of the European war.
> 
> The present-day M40 106mm was developed following the Korean War and used extensively during the Vietnam War. Since the North Vietnamese almost never used their tanks, the M40 found other tasks for the weapon besides hitting armor. Sometimes it got used against enemy bunkers, but mostly, following the introduction of a steel dart-laden “beehive” round, it became a fearsome anti-personnel weapon. But in Vietnam, the M40 is best remembered for its association with the Ontos, possibly the most downright eccentric armored vehicle ever concocted for the U.S. Military. It was a tiny tank, armed with six M40 recoilless rifles, which were mounted externally on its tiny turret. The Ontos fought in countless skirmishes, but where it became part of Marine legend was in the battle for Hue during the Tet Offensive. There it was involved in some of the fiercest urban fighting in the Corps history. According to one source, the only reason the Fifth Marine Regiment survived Hue was because of the Ontos and the 106mm recoilless rifle.
> 
> And then the U.S. military moved on — or so it seemed. While the M40 was technically replaced, the Army’s scientists, like Dark Ages monks, have continued preserving and even improving it until the day comes for its resurrection.
> 
> Brendan McNally is a defense writer and author endlessly bouncing between Texas and the Czech Republic.


----------



## vonGarvin

Tiamo said:
			
		

> I'm almost certain in 100 years from now, the generation of radicals will slowly become moderated.



Probably not.  They have infiltrated the west, and are breeding at alarming rates.  Soon they will outnumber "us", and will supplant our systems from within.  Why?  Because we value things like flat screen TVs and want to live our lives without the "burden" of children.  Think of what happened to South Africa, but on a global scale.

(In south Africa, the settlers arrived at an essentially un-populated part of Africa, built a civilization, and then through immigration from the north, the country became much like many other failed and failing states in central Africa)


----------



## YZT580

In Obama's address to the American people prior to taking flight to Hawaii for his vacation, he refers to Syria as one of his successes.  Would someone please, please define success?  I always thought that it was a 'positive' achievement.  I must be wrong.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

YZT580 said:
			
		

> In Obama's address to the American people prior to taking flight to Hawaii for his vacation, he refers to Syria as one of his successes.  Would someone please, please define success?  I always thought that it was a 'positive' achievement.  I must be wrong.



Repeat a lie enough times..................


----------



## CougarKing

Assad's air force continues to be a major factor in the fight against the rebels, in spite of past losses to the rebels.

Defense News



> *Truce Near Damascus Broken as Warplanes Bomb Aleppo*
> Dec. 26, 2013 - 01:13PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> BEIRUT — A day-old truce in a besieged rebel-held town near Damascus broke down Thursday as Syrian warplanes bombed the divided northern city of Aleppo for a 12th straight day, activists said.
> 
> By Wednesday, the Aleppo air blitz that began on Dec. 15 had killed at least 422 people, mostly civilians, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based group relying on activists and other sources inside the war-torn country.
> 
> In Moadamiyet al-Sham, near the capital, clashes broke out on Thursday afternoon, a day after opposition and regime sources announced a truce for the town, which had been under a suffocating army siege for a year.
> 
> The opposition blamed President Bashar al-Assad's troops for breaking the truce.
> 
> "They opened heavy machine-gun fire without any reason. It means there are people from the regime who don't want the siege on our town to be lifted. They are trying to end the truce in any way possible," Ahmad, a local activist, told AFP via the Internet.
> 
> The Syrian Revolution General Commission, a network of activists on the ground, confirmed the fighting, and said the army was sending "heavy reinforcements" towards the town.
> 
> On Wednesday rebels raised the national flag above the town in accordance with a ceasefire deal that was supposed to allow food in, but Ahmad said none had arrived.
> 
> Negotiations were under way for another truce in Barzeh, northern Damascus, according to activist Emad al-Barzawi, but he said "there has been no decision yet."
> 
> Barzeh has come under frequent bombardment in recent months, forcing hundreds of residents to flee.
> 
> In Aleppo, the country's second largest city and onetime commercial hub, the air force kept up its offensive a day after 12 people were killed in aerial attacks in and around the city, said the Observatory.
> *
> Regime aircraft launched a fresh attack using TNT-packed barrels against the city's Hanano district, and another air strike against Daret Ezza in the surrounding province, according to the Observatory.*
> 
> The European Union, the United States and the Arab League have condemned the air force's use of barrel bombs, and the US-based Human Rights Watch has described their use as "unlawful" because they do not discriminate between civilians and fighters.
> 
> "When the bombing starts, you feel like you're going to die any second," Abu Omar, an activist in the town of Marea near Aleppo, told AFP via the Internet.
> 
> "The regime sees us all as terrorists — fighters, civilians, men, women, children. To them, anyone who lives in a liberated (rebel) area is a terrorist."
> 
> An estimated 126,000 people have been killed since the start of Syria's uprising, which began with peaceful protests in March 2011 but escalated into a civil war after regime forces fired on demonstrators.
> 
> The regime has always referred to the opposition as "terrorists," even before the rise of powerful jihadist groups among the rebels.
> 
> Pro-regime newspaper Al-Watan said the army had carried out "door-to-door operations" on Wednesday in Adra, northeast of Damascus, where it said 57 "terrorists" have been killed.
> 
> State news agency SANA meanwhile said Islamist rebels assassinated a Muslim cleric in Damascus province "while he was on his way out of the mosque after evening prayers."


----------



## Haletown

Meanwhile, next door in Turkey, some more wheels fall off the bus.


http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/12/27/the-end-of-erdogans-cave-of-wonders-an-i-told-you-so/

The Middle East is coming unglued, centuries old simmering hatreds - Arab vs Persian, Sunni vs Shia are bubbling up and if they are not handled well the region is in for some nasty, bloody times ahead.

Syria could be the fuse.


----------



## vonGarvin

Haletown said:
			
		

> Syria could be the fuse.


Time for another, no-holds-barred crusade?


----------



## PuckChaser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Time for another, no-holds-barred crusade?



And our Army's current boots are just as good as the soldiers from the last Crusades!  ;D


----------



## Lightguns

Shrug as long as they kill one another over there.......


----------



## vonGarvin

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And our Army's current boots are just as good as the soldiers from the last Crusades!  ;D


No.  Theirs were better 



			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> Shrug as long as they kill one another over there.......



I'd agree: but that's not all they're killing


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Anyone that wants to see what Urban warfare with AFV looks like need to subscribe to ANNA news. Lots of very good footage. This one is on tank recovery under sniper fire. Some of the video's have English subtitles others not. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS7TQBEgxsI


----------



## Rifleman62

Looks like one guy is carrying either a AN/PRC-25 or an AN/PRC-77 radio set.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yep apparently the design has been copied quite a bit, it shows up in quite a few of these video's


----------



## CougarKing

More pics from the Syrian War from last month, plus an update on the specially-equipped ship tasked with destroying Syria's chemical weapons at the bottom of this post:












































> *US Ship Equipped To Destroy Syria's Chemical Weapons
> *
> 
> ABOARD THE MV CAPE RAY — *With special machinery installed in the hold of this American cargo ship, the MV Cape Ray is poised to embark on an unprecedented mission to destroy Syria’s lethal chemical agents at sea.*
> 
> At a shipyard in Virginia, the 650-foot (197.5-meter) ship from the Maritime Administration’s reserve fleet has been outfitted with two portable hydrolysis systems designed to neutralize the most dangerous chemicals in Syria’s arsenal.
> 
> “I’m waiting for my sailing orders,” said Capt. Rick Jordan, clad in overalls and a construction helmet.
> 
> The US officer told reporters he expects to get the green light to set off “within about two weeks.”
> 
> Under a deal brokered by Russia and the United States, Syria was supposed to remove its key chemical weapons components by the end of 2013.
> *
> But the country’s raging civil war, logistical problems and bad weather have held up plans to move chemical agents out of Syria to the port of Latakia, according to the joint UN-Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) mission overseeing the effort.*
> 
> The most dangerous elements used for mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin are supposed to be loaded soon onto cargo ships and escorted to Italy by Danish and Norwegian naval vessels.
> 
> In waters off Italy, about 700 tons of chemical agents will then be loaded onto the Cape Ray, according to Frank Kendall, Pentagon undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
> 
> The US ship will then head out to an undisclosed location in the Mediterranean to begin the task of neutralizing the chemical agents.
> 
> Inside the cavernous vessel, all is ready to accommodate a 35-member crew and 63 specialists overseeing the hydrolysis operation, as well as a security team.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Defense News


----------



## CougarKing

Reportedly moderate Syrian rebels fighting against the Al Qaeda-affiliated ISIL rebel group.

Yahoo News via Reuters



> *Syrian rebels launch fierce offensive against al Qaeda fighters*
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian rebel factions battled fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) across north-west Syria on Saturday in the heaviest clashes between President Bashar al-Assad's opponents in nearly three years of conflict, activists said.
> 
> The apparently coordinated strikes against the ISIL come after months of increasing resentment of the powerful al Qaeda-linked group, whose radical foreign jihadis and have alienated many ordinary Syrians in rebel-held territory.
> 
> *Activists said dozens of fighters were killed in the clashes between rival rebel groups which have raged since Friday in Aleppo and Idlib provinces, close to the border with Turkey.*
> 
> Rebel infighting has strengthened Assad's hand ahead of planned peace talks in Geneva on January 22. The president, backed by Shi'ite fighters from Iraq and Lebanon's Hezbollah militia, has pushed back rebels around Damascus and in central Syria, and faces little pressure to make concessions.
> *
> One group of fighters battling ISIL was the newly formed Mujahideen Army, an alliance of eight brigades who accused the al Qaeda affiliate of hijacking their struggle to topple Assad.*
> 
> *They said ISIL fighters were "undermining stability and security in liberated areas" through theft, kidnapping and trying to impose their own brand of Islam, and vowed to fight them until ISIL was disbanded or driven out of Syria.
> *
> In response, ISIL pledged to fight back. "The blood of our brothers will not be shed in vain," it said in a statement.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

> *Hizbullah takes delivery of advanced Syrian weapons*
> 02 January 2014
> 
> The Wall Street Journal reported on 2 January that Yakhont anti-ship missile systems were been disassembled and smuggled into Lebanon, while other advanced weapons are being stored at Syrian sites under Hizbullah's control. It added that the militant group does not as yet have all the components it needs to operate the Yakhont, a supersonic Russian missile that has a range of up to 300 km.
> 
> A US official corroborated the report for The New York Times , saying that *as many as 12 Yakhont missiles are now in Hizbullah's possession inside Syria and some of the components had been taken to Lebanon. The official said that Syria was transferring the missiles to Hizbullah to make it harder for Israel to destroy them with air strikes*. ...
> 
> Hizbullah's ability to exploit the over-the-horizon range of the Yakhonts is also questionable, given its lack of aircraft with target acquisition radars. However, the missiles would be a threat to stationary platforms working in Israel's Leviathan gas field.
> 
> Jane's


----------



## Dissident

"I can't wait until the Middle East really explodes. Ancient hatred and modern weapons. My kind of show, man!"
-George Carlin

Are we there yet?


----------



## OldSolduer

NinerSix said:
			
		

> "I can't wait until the Middle East really explodes. Ancient hatred and modern weapons. My kind of show, man!"
> -George Carlin
> 
> Are we there yet?



Very close if not there.


----------



## tamouh

Some intelligence sources claiming Al-Qaeda is financed in part by the Syrian regime itself even as it fights it. Double game to taint the rebels as terrorists and extremist.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html



> The Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad has funded and co-operated with al-Qaeda in a complex double game even as the terrorists fight Damascus, according to new allegations by Western intelligence agencies, rebels and al-Qaeda defectors.
> 
> Jabhat al-Nusra, and the even more extreme Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS), the two al-Qaeda affiliates operating in Syria, have both been financed by selling oil and gas from wells under their control to and through the regime, intelligence sources have told The Daily Telegraph.
> 
> Rebels and defectors say the regime also deliberately released militant prisoners to strengthen jihadist ranks at the expense of moderate rebel forces. The aim was to persuade the West that the uprising was sponsored by Islamist militants including al-Qaeda as a way of stopping Western support for it.
> 
> The allegations by Western intelligence sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, are in part a public response to demands by Assad that the focus of peace talks due to begin in Switzerland tomorrow be switched from replacing his government to co-operating against al-Qaeda in the “war on terrorism”.
> 
> “Assad’s vow to strike terrorism with an iron fist is nothing more than bare-faced hypocrisy,” an intelligence source said. “At the same time as peddling a triumphant narrative about the fight against terrorism, his regime has made deals to serve its own interests and ensure its survival.”
> .....
> .....


----------



## a_majoor

More Smart Diplomacy tm progress. Only about 5% of the chemical weapons stockpile has been turned over, while Assad continues to receive the material and moral support of Russia and Iran:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/02/05/kerry-calls-broken-chemical-weapons-agreement-in-and-of-itself-a-significant-milestone/



> *Kerry Calls Broken Chemical Weapons Agreement ‘In and of Itself, a Significant Milestone’*
> Posted By Bridget Johnson On February 5, 2014 @ 3:41 pm In Middle East,Politics | No Comments
> 
> Secretary of State John Kerry told CNN that the Obama administration’s policy on Syria hasn’t failed, but “is just very challenging and very difficult.”
> 
> He hailed the chemical weapons agreement, the requirements of which Bashar al-Assad has barely met, “is, in and of itself, a significant milestone.”
> 
> “And it is progressing. Yes, it’s been slowed down a little bit in the last month, but we have been raising that profile of questions about it and I think it’s now speeding up again,” Kerry continued. “…Before we got that agreement, Assad was using those weapons against his people. Now he’s not and he can’t. So we have eliminated a critical grotesque tool that this man was willing to use ruthlessly against his own people. And we’re moving it out.”
> 
> Assad has been dropping barrel bombs — an oil drum packed with explosives, oil and shrapnel — on civilians instead.
> 
> Kerry conceded that the deal with the international community to dispose of his chemical weapons stockpile meant that “Assad has improved his position a little bit,” but “he’s still not winning.”
> 
> “I don’t want to make any excuse whatsoever. We want this to move faster. We want it to do better,” he said. “But I remember talks around Vietnam, where it took Henry Kissinger a year to get the size and shape of the table decided. It took another several years before they even came to some kind of an agreement.”
> 
> “I don’t want it to be years. We don’t have years in Syria. But the point I’m making is that diplomacy is tough, slogging, slow work and hard work. But we’re beginning to see the — the shaping of how you might potentially get somewhere. And we are always in the process of reevaluating whether there’s more we can do, should do. We’ll work with Congress. We’re working internally to figure out if we should — if there’s a way to get more response from the Russians, more response from Assad.”
> 
> Syria missed another deadline in the chemical weapons deal today. Less than 5 percent of its arsenal has been turned over for disposal.
> 
> According to the United Nations’ timeline, by this day on the calendar more than 90 percent of the stockpile should have been relinquished.
> 
> “This is just the latest evidence that the agreement brokered by the United States and Russia has only strengthened Assad. Rather than feeling pressure to leave, with ongoing Russian and Iranian support, Assad has dug in. At talks in Switzerland last month, Assad’s representatives would not even agree to allow humanitarian access to besieged cities such as Homs. Now we see evidence that Assad is up to his old brutal tactics, dropping barrel bombs and indiscriminately killing civilians, including many children,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said today.
> 
> “…We are going to be living with the consequences of the Obama Administration’s failed Syria policy for decades to come. It is time for the administration to increase pressure on Assad instead of giving him more room to maneuver.”


----------



## CougarKing

This update goes hand-in-hand with US SecState John Kerry saying this year that the military option against Syria may be back on the table if Syria continues to delay:

Defense News




> *
> UN: Syria Must Speed Up Removal of Chemical Weapons*
> Feb. 6, 2014 - 07:12PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> UNITED NATIONS — Syria must move faster to remove its deadly chemical weapons stockpile and meet the June 30 deadline set for destroying its arsenal, the UN Security Council demanded Thursday.
> 
> The 15 member nations “call upon the Syrian Arab Republic to expedite actions to meet its obligations,” the council’s president for the month, Lithuania’s UN ambassador Raimonda Murmokaite, told reporters.
> 
> The chemical weapons must be transported to the Syrian port of Latakia “in a systematic and sufficiently accelerated manner,” Murmokaite insisted, after summarizing the closed door discussions the council held earlier Thursday with Sigrid Kaag, who is tasked with coordinating Syria’s disarmament.
> 
> *Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has pledged to eliminate Syria’s entire chemical weapons arsenal by the end of June or face sanctions, including the possible use of force*.
> *
> Less than five percent of the deadly stockpile has been removed from Syria, according to Washington, and Damascus has just missed another key deadline.*
> 
> Rejecting in part Damascas’ explanations for the delay, the Security Council noted that, according to UN assessments, “Syria has sufficient material and equipment” as well as “substantial international support” to transport their chemical weapons stockpile in line with deadlines.
> 
> 
> (...)


----------



## a_majoor

The problem with the failure of US policy in Syria is that it inflames several parties to the conflict and threatens to expand the scale and scope of the war as effects spill over into neighbouring nations and groups. The end result may well be we get drawn in without being prepared or wanting to be part of this at all (and we sure as heck _don't_ want to be drawn into that conflict). Given the total lack of direction or even understanding of what is going on by the Administration, if/when we do get drawn in, it won't be on our own terms either....

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/02/15/slaughter-in-the-cities-ineffectual-mumbling-in-the-white-house/



> *Slaughter in the Cities, Ineffectual Mumbling in the White House*
> 
> This is what a policy looks like when it dies and goes to hell. The FT reports that violence is ramping up in Syria, with Assad agents using devastating “barrel bombs” against rebel areas. More:
> 
> According to the opposition Syrian National Council, 20,000 people have been killed in barrel-bomb campaigns since the start of the conflict in 2011. A Turkish official said about 2,000 had been killed since peace talks began in Geneva last month. The Damascus reg­ime has failed to offer an explanation for the bombing, but insists in its official media and during the Geneva talks that it is fighting a war against terrorists [...]
> 
> Residents say not a single building in rebel-controlled parts of Aleppo has been spared from damage in the bombing. Pictures from the city show entire districts reduced to ruins. One video shows people digging a toddler from the rubble. The little girl survived.
> 
> *The President can only count his one remaining blessing: the press is still busy trying to shield itself from understanding the full damage this administration’s painfully inept Syria policy has done. Our Syria response has harmed America’s position, our alliances in the Middle East, and our relationships around the world — to say nothing of the humanitarian disaster we’ve implicated ourselves in.*
> 
> To bluster heroically about how ‘Assad must go’, then do nothing as he stays; to epically proclaim grandiose red lines and make military threats that fall humiliatingly flat; to grasp with pathetic eagerness an obviously bogus Russian negotiating ploy; to sputter ineffectually as the talks collapse…it is rare that American diplomacy is conducted this poorly for so long a period of time.
> 
> To some degree we sympathize with those in the mainstream media who turn their eyes from the sight. It’s not just the decomposing corpse of Obama’s Syria/Russia policy that’s stinking up the joint. The comforting assumptions and diplomatic ideas of a whole generation of ambitious Washington foreign policy wonks are being discredited. They thought to build a new Democratic consensus foreign policy on the tomb of George W. Bush’s failures, but “smart diplomacy” turns out to be deeply flawed. The left is moving toward the kind of meltdown moment that many neocons had as the Bush foreign policy went off the rails.
> 
> President Obama is actually a much smarter man than his current foreign policy troubles would lead one to suppose. He remains, however, trapped between two sets of impulses.  On the one hand, he feels a  Wilsonian drive to make the world a better place. On the other, he has a Jeffersonian urge to keep America’s head down, reducing the scope and scale of our international commitments and ambitions. In his Wilsonian moments he dreams of nonproliferation, overthrows dictators in Libya, and ‘speaks out’ against human rights violations. But in his Jeffersonian moments, he backs down and works to build ‘realistic’ relationships with the same people his Wilsonian side periodically insults.
> 
> In truth, neither his Wilsonian nor Jeffersonian instincts provide a solid basis for American foreign policy. Moreover, the messy compromises and agonized public hesitations that result when he tries to balance his two sides make things even worse.  This is not just about the use of force.  An aggressive, boots-on-the-ground foreign policy wouldn’t be an improvement over the current mess. The Jeffersonian goals of safeguarding America’s core interests with as little risk and cost as possible are necessary, commendable and sound. But trying to coerce Iran to a nuclear deal while allowing it both to tighten its grip on Syria and to wage a regional sectarian war is about as unrealistic a policy as one can imagine. Begging Russia for help in Syria while spitting ineffectively at its Ukraine policy is a bewildering mix of provocation and appeasement. Both of these approaches betray an immense confusion at the heart of the Washington policy process.
> 
> President Obama’s political ascent was rapid and his opponents were ineffectual. He made it to the Oval Office and won a second term against a series of imploding candidates. For readers old enough to remember those halcyon days of 2008, he swept into office on a tide of unearned adulation that would have gone to anyone’s head He was then quickly greeted with an equally unearned rush of global adulation in the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps because of all of this, he doesn’t seem comfortable with the hard-nosed realities around international power.
> 
> He isn’t a coward or a weakling. He can kill people, and he can order people to fight in faraway wars well enough. But he doesn’t seem to know how to make choices that over time increase his power and prestige on the international scene. His strategic choices don’t get him closer to where he wants to be, and as time as gone by he doesn’t appear to be getting any better at international strategy.
> 
> Bureaucratic inexperience can’t explain this. The President’s foreign policy problems don’t come from his inability to manage a huge and restive bureaucracy. He is sometimes incapable in that way, as we learned when he publicly touted his health care website without knowing it was about to crash and burn. But that inexperience hasn’t been a factor when it comes to foreign policy. Here the president has managed to whip the State Department and the Pentagon into shape, imposing tight White House control over the process in a way that many of his predecessors would envy.
> 
> If he were making better strategic choices, he would be able to impose them on the bureaucracy pretty well. His defenders try to shout down criticism by labeling the president’s critics as reflexively hawkish neocons nostalgic for the Cheney days. Some of the critics do indeed fall into that category, and perhaps this kind of defense can delay the erosion of support for the president among Democrats. But it doesn’t do him any good in the long run. President Obama more than anything else needs to get to grips with the reality that his basic strategic choices aren’t working out. This is personal; the memoirs and reportage coming out of the administration make it perfectly clear that some of his most controversial decisions came when he overruled senior advisors and imposed his own stamp on important policy choices.
> 
> The President needs to get out of the bubble and take a long hard look at what is going wrong. Jimmy Carter (a man whose basic foreign policy instincts are very close to President Obama’s) had a sudden moment of clarity when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. As his defenders correctly point out, the decisions he made in the last 18 months of his presidency prepared the way for Ronald Reagan’s more confrontational approach. It’s a moment like this that President Obama needs. Perhaps at some point the accumulation of snubs, rebuffs, and failures coming out of his Syria policy will help him push the reset button on a foreign policy approach that’s increasingly corroding his and his country’s standing in the world.
> 
> Published on February 15, 2014 10:55 am


----------



## CougarKing

We'll see if the Russian diplomats have any pull/influence on Saudi officials compared to the Saudi imams...

Defense News



> *Russia Warns Saudis Against Giving Syria Rebels Missiles*
> Feb. 25, 2014 - 03:45AM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> MOSCOW — Russia on Tuesday warned Saudi Arabia against supplying Syrian rebels with shoulder-launched missile launchers, saying such a move would endanger security across the Middle East and beyond.
> *
> The Russian foreign ministry said in a statement that it was “deeply concerned” by news reports that Saudi Arabia was planning to buy Pakistani-made shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles and anti-tank systems for armed Syrian rebels based in Jordan.*
> 
> It said that the aim was to alter the balance of power in a planned spring offensive by rebels on the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> “If this sensitive weapon falls into the hands of extremists and terrorists who have flooded Syria, there is a great probability that in the end it will be used far from the borders of this Middle Eastern country,” the foreign ministry said.
> 
> (...)- EDITED


----------



## Kirkhill

880 tanks in Western Russia....

Pakistan to Saudi to Syria to Ukraine????  >


----------



## a_majoor

Iran and Syria come close to victory. A punishing insurgency may continue for some time as the various radical groups continue to fight on, but since they have no real compelling "narrative" for the mass of the Syrian people, they are unlikely to become more than a real annoyance (thinking in Revolutionary Warfare, COIN or 4GW constructs, the radicals have no compelling narrative, are not connected to the population, nor are they close to a secure area where they can regroup or reorganize. They can, however, continue to fight so long as they can receive funding and support from Saudi Arabia, Qatar or other enablers who seek to oppose Iranian hegemony in the region). This leads to an interesting question. Without American guidance or intervention, can the various kingdoms and sheikhdoms combine forces to fight Iran? (I suspect they are now more determined than ever to find a way to do so). If they do continue their opposition to Iranian hegemony, what form will it take, and what is the potential fallout in the West or the global economy?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/03/05/Latest-Victory-Assad-Has-Won-War-Syria



> *With Latest Victory, Assad Has Won the War in Syria*
> 
> DAVID FRANCIS
> The Fiscal Times
> March 5, 2014
> 
> As the eyes of the world and the media turn to Ukraine, Syrian President Bashar al Assad has quietly been making momentous gains in his three-year civil war with rebels that all but assure he will leave office on his own terms.
> 
> Assad’s army has taken Yabroud, the last major town held by Sunni Muslim rebels, located near the Lebanese border. On Tuesday, with support from Hezbollah fighters and local paramilitary groups, Assad’s forces bombarded the town until the rebels retreated.
> 
> Related: Assad Thumbs His Nose at Deal to Remove Chemical Weapons
> 
> Taking Yabroud is an important victory for Assad, who has been fighting for months to control the surrounding region.. He has now effectively cut off rebel supply lines from Lebanon.
> 
> The victory also comes as Syria continues to delay plans to destroy its chemical weapons. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons says Syria has now submitted one-third of its chemical weapons for destruction, far behind the schedule set in negotiations with the United States and its allies last fall. Under that agreement, Syria was supposed to have handed over all of its deadliest agents by Jan. 1, with the rest of the weapons gone by Feb. 6.
> 
> Syria blamed the delay on the ongoing civil war, an argument that western officials have dismissed.
> 
> “Every indication we have is that there is no legitimate reason why that (removal) is not happening now," Secretary of State John Kerry said when the delays were announced. "We want the Syrian regime to live up to its obligations and it is critical that very rapidly all those chemical weapons are moved from their 12 or so sites to the one site in the port (of Latakia) to be prepared for shipment out of Syria.”
> 
> Related: Syria's 'Surrender' Ends Bizarre White House Scheme
> 
> Assad has now submitted a new plan, with all weapons set to be out of the country by the end of April.
> 
> “Given delays since the lapse of the two target dates for removal, it will be important to maintain this newly created momentum," Ahmed Uzumcu, OPCW's general director, said Thursday. "For its part, the Syrian government has reaffirmed its commitment to implement the removal operations in a timely manner."
> 
> Meanwhile, negotiations to end the war are close to collapsing. They ended in mid-February with little progress made. Kerry dismissed critics of the pace of the talks as ignorant of diplomatic history.
> 
> “These people who say that it has failed or it is a waste of time, where is their sense of history, where is any knowledge of past peace processes?” Kerry said. “How many years did the Vietnam talks take? How many years did Bosnia [take]? These things don’t happen in one month. It is just asinine, frankly, to be making an argument that after three weeks the talks failed. It’s a process.”
> 
> Related: The Coming Bloodbath in Syria
> 
> Taken together, Assad’s victory, his continued slaughter of those who oppose him, his repeated human rights violations, his failure to live up to the terms of the deal, and his undermining of the peace talks amount to a stunning defeat of American diplomacy. Nearly 50,000 people have died since the United States confirmed the use of chemical weapons last summer, bringing the total number of casualties to more than 140,000.
> 
> Taken together, this also represents a clear victory for Bashar al Assad. He has accomplished every goal he had when the United States and its partners ignored the so-called “red line” and allowed the war to continue without intervention.
> 
> He has defeated the rebels, splitting them into warring factions. He still has the majority of his chemical weapons. He is still in power, and with negotiations stalled, it’s unlikely he’ll be removed.
> 
> In short, he’s won.
> 
> Former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said as much at a March 1 speech at Tufts University.
> 
> “You have one Al Qaeda faction fighting another Al Qaeda faction. That’s how fractured this is. One sharp sliver fighting another sharp sliver. I bring no good news to you tonight about Syria. The Syrian opposition itself has done a miserable job distinguishing itself from the Al Qaeda elements. There are some really bad people in Syria right now, on the opposition side. Can the opposition show that it is willing to reach out and figure out a way security-wise and politics-wise to reunify across that sectarian divide?"
> 
> Ford said that Assad is likely to leave office on his own terms in June, when Syrians elect a new president. If he doesn’t, the war would continue.
> 
> “I can’t in any way imagine circumstances where most of the rebels who are now fighting against the regime or the countries that are backing them… are going to stand down if Assad remains.”
> 
> - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/03/05/Latest-Victory-Assad-Has-Won-War-Syria#sthash.F96HrX6J.dpuf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Part of the question will be what will Assad offer those non-Islamic fundamentalists rebels to come back into the fold. If he offers the right Olive branch, the rebels might lose the population support that they have who are weary. The dissident side will have no creditability, the Muslim Brotherhood will be a shadow of itself. With some adept handling he can fracture them and take the rug out from the remaining opposition.


----------



## a_majoor

Quite frankly, he will not, nor does he have to, offer an olive branch to the non radical opposition. Crushing them demonstrates his strength of purpose and power, and they are weak and fragmented enough that the verious radicals will eat them for lunch without much prodding on Assad's part anyway.


----------



## CougarKing

Another Syrian plane shot down by Turks since the Syrian crisis started a couple of years ago:

Reuters



> *Turkey shoots down Syrian plane it says violated air space*
> 
> Reuters
> 
> 1 hour ago
> 
> ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkish armed forces shot down a Syrian plane on Sunday that Ankara said had crossed into its air space in an area where Syrian rebels have been battling President Bashar al-Assad's forces for control of a border crossing.
> 
> *"A Syrian plane violated our airspace," Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan told an election rally in northwest Turkey. "Our F-16s took off and hit this plane. Why? Because if you violate my airspace, our slap after this will be hard."*
> 
> Syria condemned what it called a "blatant aggression" and said the jet was pursuing rebel fighters inside Syria. It said the pilot had managed to eject before the plane crashed.
> 
> The Turkish general staff said one of its control centers detected two Syrian MIG-23s around 1 pm (1100 GMT) and warned them four times after they came close to the Turkish border.
> 
> One plane entered Turkish airspace at Yayladagi, east of the Kasab border crossing, it said. A Turkish F-16 fired a rocket at the Syrian jet and it crashed around 1,200 meters (1,300 yards) inside Syrian territory.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Here we go again with the "should we help the rebels?" line of questioning in the White House...  :

Military.com



> *Obama May Allow Air Defense Help for Syria Rebels*
> 
> RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The Obama administration is considering allowing shipments of new air defense systems to Syrian rebels, reversing its earlier opposition to introducing the weaponry into the conflict, a U.S. official said.
> 
> President Barack Obama's possible shift would likely be welcomed by Saudi Arabia, which has been pressing the White House to allow the man-portable air-defense systems, known as "manpads," into Syria. Obama arrived in Saudi Arabia on Friday evening for meetings with King Abdullah.
> 
> *Allowing manpads to be delivered to Syrian rebels would mark a shift in strategy for the U.S., which until this point has limited its lethal assistance to small weapons and ammunition, as well as humanitarian aid.* The U.S. has been grappling for ways to boost the rebels, who have lost ground in recent months, allowing Syrian President Bashar Assad to regain a tighter grip on the war-torn nation.
> 
> The actual manpad shipments could come from the Saudis, who have so far held off sending in the equipment because of U.S. opposition.
> 
> (...EDITED/END EXCERPT)


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Allowing manpads to be delivered to Syrian rebels would mark a shift in strategy for the U.S.......


I guess if one were desperate to find a silver lining in this lunacy, once you give Stinger missiles to terrorists like the Syrian rebel al-Nusra Front, you won't have to spend weeks searching the Indian Ocean for your airliners -- they'll be right off the end of the runway.

         :facepalm:


----------



## CougarKing

Seems that the Saudi government needed a scapegoat for the failure of their efforts of their proxy rebels in Syria to win against Assad and Iran's proxies in Syria...



> *Saudi spy chief, architect of Syria policy, replaced*
> Reuters
> By Angus McDowall 9 hours ago
> 
> 
> RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabian intelligence chief *Prince Bandar bin Sultan*, the architect of Riyadh's attempts to bring down Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has been removed from his post, state media reported on Tuesday.
> 
> His departure, months after he was quoted warning of a "major shift" from the United States over its Middle East policy, may help to smooth relations with Washington as Riyadh pushes for more U.S. support for Syrian rebels.
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> "Prince Bandar was relieved of his post *at his own request *and General Youssef al-Idrissi was asked to carry out the duties of the head of general intelligence," state news agency SPA said, citing a royal decree.
> 
> The decree did not say if Prince Bandar would continue in his other position as head of the National Security Council.
> 
> A former ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar was appointed intelligence chief in July 2012, in charge of helping Syrian rebels bring down Assad, an ally of Riyadh's biggest regional rival Iran.
> 
> He was also* closely involved in Saudi support for Egypt's military rulers after they ousted Islamist president Mohamed Mursi last year*, diplomatic sources in the Gulf have said.
> 
> 
> Yahoo News


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This article is interesting in it purports to the current government support the ISIS with the eventual plan of using them to counter the Kurds

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/17/pipes-turkeys-support-for-isis/


The battle in Iraq consists of “Turkish-backed Sunni jihadis rebelling against an Iranian-backed Shiite-oriented central government,” I wrote in a recent article.

Some readers question that the republic of Turkey supports the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,” the main Sunni group fighting in Iraq. They point to ISIS attacks on Turkish interests within Turkey, along its border with Syria, and in Mosul, and a successful recent meeting of the Turkish and Iranian presidents. Good points, but each of these can be explained.

First, ISIS is willing to accept Turkish support even while seeing the Islamist prime minister and his countrymen as kafirs (infidels) who need to be shown true Islam.

Second, the presidential visit took place on one level while the fighting in Syria and Iraq took place on quite another; the two can occur simultaneously. Turkish-Iranian rivalry is on the rise and, as the distinguished Turkish journalist Burak Bekdil notes in the current issue of the Middle East Quarterly: “Recent years have often seen official language from the two countries about prospering bilateral trade and common anti-Israeli ideological solidarity. But mostly out of sight have been indications of rivalry, distrust and mutual sectarian suspicion between the two Muslim countries.”

Ankara may deny helping ISIS, but the evidence for this is overwhelming. “As we have the longest border with Syria,” writes Orhan Kemal Cengiz, a Turkish newspaper columnist, “Turkey’s support was vital for the jihadists in getting in and out of the country.” Indeed, the ISIS strongholds not coincidentally cluster close to Turkey’s frontiers.

Kurds, academic experts and the Syrian opposition agree that Syrians, Turks (estimated to number 3,000), and foreign fighters (especially Saudis, but also a fair number of Westerners) have crossed the Turkish-Syrian border at will, often to join ISIS. What Turkish journalist Kadri Gursel calls a “two-way jihadist highway,” has no bothersome border checks and sometimes involves the active assistance of Turkish intelligence services. CNN even broadcast a video on “the secret jihadi smuggling route through Turkey.”

Actually, the Turks offered far more than an easy border crossing: They provided the bulk of ISIS‘ funds, logistics, training and arms. Turkish residents near the Syrian border tell of Turkish ambulances going to Kurdish-ISIS battle zones and then evacuating ISIS casualties to Turkish hospitals. Indeed, a sensational photograph has surfaced showing ISIS commander Abu Muhammad in a hospital bed receiving treatment for battle wounds in Hatay State Hospital in April.

One Turkish opposition politician estimates that Turkey has paid $800 million to ISIS for oil shipments. Another politician released information about active-duty Turkish soldiers training ISIS members. Critics note that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has met three times with one Yasin al Qadi, who has close ties to ISIS and has funded it.

Why the Turkish support for wild-eyed extremists? Because Ankara wants to eliminate two Syrian polities, the Assad regime in Damascus and Rojava (the emerging Kurdish state) in the northeast.

Regarding the Assad regime: “Thinking that jihadists would ensure a quick fall for the Assad regime in Syria, Turkey, no matter how vehemently officials deny it, supported the jihadists,” writes Mr. Cengiz, “at first along with Western and some Arab countries, and later in spite of their warnings.”

Regarding Rojava: Rojava’s leadership being aligned with the PKK, the (formerly) terrorist Kurdish group based in Turkey, the authoritative Turkish journalist Amberin Zaman has little doubt “that until recently, Turkey was allowing jihadist fighters to move unhindered across its borders” to fight the Kurds.

More broadly, as the Turkish analyst Mustafa Akyol notes, Ankara thought “anybody who fought al-Assad was a good guy and also harbored an ideological uneasiness with accepting that Islamists can do terrible things.” This has led, he acknowledges, to “some blindness” toward violent jihadists. Indeed, ISIS is so popular in Turkey that others publicly copy its logo.

In the face of this support, the online newspaper Al-Monitor calls on Turkey to close its border to ISIS while Rojava threatened Ankara with “dire consequences” unless Turkish aid ceases.

In conclusion, Turkish leaders are finding Syria a double quagmire, with Mr. Assad still in power and the Kurdish entity growing stronger. In reaction, they have cooperated with even the most extreme, retrograde and vicious elements, such as ISIS. However, this support opened a second front in Iraq which, in turn, brings the clash of the Middle East’s two titans, Turkey and Iran, closer to realization.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/17/pipes-turkeys-support-for-isis/#ixzz3564awBKE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


----------



## dapaterson

Before ISIS gets too excited...


----------



## a_majoor

Syria as a subset of Obama's Iran strategy. It is difficult to see where the success is here...
Part 1

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/consequences-syria



> *The Consequences of Syria*
> 
> 23 June 2014
> 
> The Syrian civil war is no longer the Syrian civil war. It's a regional war that started in Syria, has expanded into Lebanon and Iraq, and has drawn in the Iranians and to a lesser extent the Kurds and the Israelis.
> 
> Wars in North Africa tend to stay local, but wars in the Levant spill over and suck in the neighbors. There's no reason to believe this war has finished expanding or that an end is in sight.
> 
> Lee Smith's new short book, The Consequences of Syria, is about how we got here. Lee is a friend of mine. He and I met nine years ago in Beirut and have traveled elsewhere in the region together. We argue about the Middle East sometimes, but we agree with each other often enough that our arguments are interesting and productive.
> 
> We spoke by phone recently.
> 
> MJT: Tell us about your book.
> 
> Lee Smith: It’s a long essay commissioned by the Hoover Institution, specifically by Charles Hill, one of our country’s great statesmen and historians of grand strategy, as well as Fouad Ajami, who died Sunday at the age of 68. Not only was Ajami a great historian of the modern Middle East, he is also one of the great English language prose stylists. He wrote about the region, but like any writer his real subject was about the human condition, that is, man’s struggle with freedom. It was a huge honor that he and Mr. Hill included me in the Hoover series, “The Great Unraveling: The Remaking of the Middle East,” and I am indebted to them both, professionally and even more so personally. What an honor to get to work with them and other authors in the series, including a book by one of our mutual friends, Samuel Tadros, Reflections on the Revolution in Egypt.
> 
> My essay is an account of the Syrian civil war, which began in March 2011 as a peaceful protest movement. As Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired on unarmed opposition members, the uprising eventually became a rebellion as the opposition took up arms, and the conflict escalated into a full-scale civil war. That’s one aspect of the book.
> 
> The other part of the book concerns the Obama administration’s Syria policy, which has been one of neglect and mendacity. The administration has repeatedly misled the American public, the American media, and allies around the world about its intentions.
> 
> MJT: Give us an example.
> 
> Lee Smith: Look at what happened in May before the president’s speech at West Point. Various media outlets quoted unnamed sources that suggested the president was going to arm and train the rebels.
> 
> The president and his administration have been saying this for two and a half years now, most notably in June 2013 when Ben Rhodes, the president’s deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, said in a conference call with reporters that the administration was ramping up its military support for the rebels.
> 
> Again and again, reporters asked Rhodes if that meant the administration was going to arm the rebels. Rhodes said he couldn’t give us an exact “inventory”—a word he used at least three times—of the assistance the administration would provide. Major media—the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Times, etc.—reported that the White House was indeed going to arm the rebels, but this was all attributed to anonymous sources, which means that there absolutely nothing at stake if the information proved incomplete, inaccurate or just plain false. It was only months later when we found out from interviews with various rebel commanders that no American arms had been received.
> 
> Here it’s worth saying something about the press as well. I would have hoped that after the administration pulled similar stunts over the last few years regarding Syria that editors would’ve demanded more from their reporters. For instance, “Look, these guys are using us as part of an information operation to keep their domestic opponents and foreign allies off guard. We can’t keep publishing these stories straight anymore without someone going on the record and staking their reputation to it. At the very least we have to note that this may be part of a pattern of inaccuracies we’ve already seen with this White House regarding Syria policy.”
> 
> But of course no one did anything of the sort, and the US media has a lot of egg on their face for it. This White House has been bad for the press, and the readership’s faith in our press, but it seems most journalists don’t much care.
> 
> MJT: Why would the administration mislead everyone instead of just coming out and saying Syria is a mess that we don’t want to get sucked into? That’s the popular position in the United States right now. Plenty of people on both the left and the right would applaud him for that. Why the shenanigans?
> 
> Lee Smith: That’s a very good question. Maybe it’s because the administration is worried its foreign policy will haunt it in the mid-term elections. But then again the administration and a lot of its media surrogates keep saying the American public doesn’t care about foreign policy. And yet other polls show the American public does consider foreign policy an important factor in their decision.
> 
> My belief is that we Americans do care about foreign policy, more specifically about America’s role in the world, but we have come to distrust our leadership. Not just Obama but also Republicans, and that’s why I think Rand Paul is getting so much traction. His idea, which I don’t agree with at all, is at least clear: We should stay out of other people’s conflicts.
> 
> Compare that, for instance, to the Democratic frontrunner for 2016, Hillary Clinton. She says all the right things about a strong America projecting our values in the world, but, as we saw in the recent Diane Sawyer interview, Clinton will take no responsibility at all for anything that happened at Benghazi. So it doesn’t matter if she talks tough about our foreign policy—who can possibly trust someone to lead us into the world if that person’s primary interest is covering her own tail?
> 
> MJT: The White House’s Syria policy is about Iran, isn’t it?
> 
> Lee Smith: Part of it of course is that Obama understands himself as the man whose job is to get us out of entanglements in the Middle East, not to further commit American troops and resources. Still—yes, a large part of it has to do with Iran.
> 
> As I explain in The Consequences of Syria, there’s evidence suggesting that the administration feared that helping topple Assad, an ally of Iran, might have angered the Iranians and pushed them away from the negotiating table, and getting a deal with Iran was the White House’s chief goal in the Middle East.
> 
> Look at other exampled of how the White House wanted to stay on the regime’s good side. When the Green Movement took to the streets in June 2009 to protest what was quite likely fraudulent election results, the White House was extremely slow to support it even when the regime was attacking people on the streets just as the Assad regime did a few years later.
> 
> One of the reasons the administration was slow to respond—and we know this because it was reported in the New Yorker article that first put forth the now-infamous phrase “leading from behind”—is because, as one administration official put it, the White House wanted to negotiate with the regime. Same with sanctions relief, which the White House provided to keep the Iranians at the table.
> 
> It’s hard not to conclude that the administration’s Syria policy is a sub-set of its Iran policy. Many people were baffled for a long time, including me, that the president didn’t seem to see Syria strategically, as a way to weaken Iran. Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis said that toppling Bashar al-Assad would constitute the most severe blow against the Iranian regime in 25 years. A number of administration officials seemed to recognize the same thing—from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and ex-CIA director David Petraeus. Only the president seemed to not recognize that or to see Syria in a strategic framework. What we now realize is that the president does see Syria in a strategic framework. He sees that the Syrian regime is an important ally of the Iranians and doesn’t want to be seen toppling the regime for fear of angering the Iranians.
> 
> MJT: Is there any chance that the White House is going to get what it wants from the Iranians this way?
> 
> Lee Smith: If we have a powerful American presence in the Middle East it might be possible to come to some sort of accommodation with Iran. I don’t know exactly what it would look like. But it would have to be demonstrated that the United States still calls the shots in the Persian Gulf and that the United States is still the great power in the Middle East.
> 
> What we’re seeing instead is a United States in retreat in the Middle East. So I don’t see what the accommodation would look like. It’s not a grand bargain with Iran, but an American fire sale, with the US virtually giving away its assets. The US is retreating from the region and leaving it in Iranian hands.
> 
> This is what Obama’s twin-pillars’ policy is about. In various interviews the president has described a new regional framework, a new geopolitical equilibrium, that balances Iran against the Sunni states in the Persian Gulf. This is precisely the idea the impoverished Brits had when they were on their way out of the Persian Gulf at the end of the 1960s. The problem is that there is no way to balance them—Saudi Arabia is incapable of projecting power without American backing. For instance, Riyadh has no equivalent of the IRGC’s Quds Force, its external operations unit, responsible for Iran’s war in Syria, as well as terrorist operations. Accordingly, when the White House says it’s aiming to “balance,” what US allies hear is that the US, like the Brits nearly half a century ago, are on their way out of the region, and are leaving it in Iran’s hands.
> 
> Consider how the administration has effectively partnered with Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Iraq.
> 
> In Lebanon, for instance, American intelligence has teamed up with the Lebanese Armed Forces’ military intelligence, which is at present controlled by Hezbollah. So the United States is indirectly aligned with Hezbollah in Lebanon against Sunni fighters.
> 
> In Iraq we’ve seen the same thing. Up until the ISIS-led takeover of Mosul, the White House supported Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s anti-Sunni policy, even though his allies include Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups with American blood on their hands.


----------



## a_majoor

Part 2



> MJT: Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria recently took over Mosul and Tikrit in Iraq along with some other cities. They're not as big a strategic threat as Iran right now, but they can certainly turn into one, can't they?
> 
> Lee Smith: Let’s be a bit more specific. What we’re seeing in cities like Mosul is a Sunni rebellion against Maliki and the Iranians. In addition to ISIS, there are also former Baath party figures, like one of Saddam’s deputies, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, as well as Sunni tribes. ISIS would appear to be playing the role of Sunni shock troops, who are dispatched to the fronts to terrorize and create havoc. Behind them are the Baathis and the tribes. It was Maliki and the Iranians, in particular Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani, who made this possible.
> 
> The American-led surge of 2006-7 was a success because it got the tribes to fight, and defeat, Al Qaeda in Iraq. What Maliki and the Iranians have done is unite the tribes and ISIS through their anti-Sunni policies. And so now the administration has a dilemma. As it has argued repeatedly regarding Syria, from their perspective the big issue in the Middle East is counter-terrorism against Al Qaeda and the Sunni jihadis. There’s no doubt Al Qaeda is a problem for the United States, but it’s not a strategic threat like Iran and the Iranian resistance axis.
> 
> Compare the two: Al Qaeda and Iran’s government are both radical Islamists, but the difference is that Al Qaeda doesn’t have the strategic resources of state at its disposal like Iran and its allies, including Islamists like Hezbollah as well as the Iraqi armed groups like Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, do.
> 
> A radical Sunni who wants to establish a caliphate, yelling Allahu Akbar with a black flag in one hand and a Kalashnikov in his other hand is crazy and dangerous, but he’s not a strategic threat. How does that caliphate, assuming such a thing is even possible, affect how Americans live? Are they going to impose sharia on us? Are our female friends and relatives going to be forced to wear a veil because of what some guy in Aleppo says?
> 
> When people worry that Sunni Islamists want to create a caliphate in the Middle East they seem to forget that we already have a clerical regime in Iran. What they’re afraid might happen has already happened. And the concern coming out of Tehran isn’t sharia, but the fact that a nuclear weapons program in the hands of an expansionist regime gives them a dangerous say in the flow of energy resources through the Persian Gulf. They don’t have to actually use a bomb to destabilize the region and raise the price of energy around the world. That’s the danger—that Iranian hegemony in the Persian Gulf will affect how Americans, and our trading partners, live.
> 
> The Islamic Republic of Iran is an already-existing Islamist power, with an army, a navy, an air force, a ballistic missile program, a nuclear weapons program. They have a diplomatic corps as well as a terrorist apparatus. Al Qaeda doesn’t have any of that. Iran is the key strategic threat in the Middle East for American interests and American allies.
> 
> MJT: So on balance do you think we would be better off if Al Qaeda ended up controlling Syria or parts of Syria as long as bringing down Assad delivers a big enough blow to Iran.
> 
> Lee Smith: Well, I think it’s unlikely Al Qaeda winds up running all of Syria, but if they do, great. If anything comes out of there endangering American citizens, allies, or interests, then that Al Qaeda controlled Syria, presumably with its capital in Damascus, winds up paying a very steep price.
> I think that American foreign policy works most efficiently when it prioritizes threats. Few people believed during World War II that Joseph Stalin was a great guy, but the immediate threat to the United States, its interests, and its allies came from the Nazis, so we aligned ourselves with the Soviet Union until Hitler was defeated, then we waged a Cold War against the Soviets for nearly half a century. That’s how American foreign policy works best.
> 
> Sarah Palin said she’s content to let Allah sort things out in Syria between Iran and Al Qaeda, but Allah doesn’t always sort things out according to American interests.
> 
> The Obama administration is prioritizing threats, but it’s prioritizing the wrong threat. It’s prioritizing a group of non-state actors over a state.
> 
> MJT: So what would you do if you were in charge of our Syria policy?
> 
> Lee Smith: The first thing I’d do is knock the Syrian air force out of commission. Make sure it can never get off the ground. Even the people worried about Al Qaeda taking over Syria shouldn’t have an objection to that. If Al Qaeda takes over Syria, do we want them to inherit an air force?
> 
> MJT: Of course not.
> 
> Lee Smith: It’s unlikely that Al Qaeda will take over Syria anyway. The jihadist groups are only part of the rebellion. But even in the worst-case scenario, if they do take the whole country and run a caliphate state from Damascus, we’ll all be glad Syria is a generation away from having a functioning air force. What’s the argument against taking the Syrian air force out of the equation? We want Assad dropping barrel bombs loaded with chlorine gas canisters on the opposition because we fear that 7-year-old girls are likely Al Qaeda recruits who will attack the West?
> 
> And it’s standard US policy to back proxies against American adversaries. The fact that we’re not backing moderate rebels to fight the Iranian bloc in Syria tells us something about how the White House views Iran. It doesn’t view Iran as a significant adversary. The White House sees only Al Qaeda as the problem.
> 
> I understand why the president sees Iran this way. He isn’t crazy, he’s just wrong.
> 
> The president has said in various profiles and interviews that while he recognizes the Iranian regime as a problem, it’s nevertheless fundamentally rational. And I think he’s right about that much.
> 
> There has been an argument in Washington for almost a decade now with one side holding that the Iranians are rational and the other side insisting that the Iranians are irrational and likely to do anything, including blow up Iran, because they’re nuts and they want to bring back the Mahdi. That’s not a conversation I’m interested in having.
> 
> One would be hard-pressed to find a regime anywhere in history that has actively sought to destroy itself. The Nazis were crazy, but did they actively seek their own end? No. Of course not. They sought to expand their power and reach, and that’s what the Iranians are doing as well.
> 
> History is nothing but the long chronicle of regimes, peoples, and nations that miscalculate their own power and that of their adversaries and thereby end up destroying themselves, but they did not deliberately seek their own end. Iran is not irrational in that way. Its leaders don’t seek their own end.
> We need to base our policy on their actual behavior, for instance their expansionist policies in the Middle East, their desire to destabilize rivals in the Persian Gulf. Designing a policy based strictly on the fact that a regime is rational or irrational is mistaken.
> 
> The president has said that because the Iranian government is a state, it is susceptible to the various instruments of statecraft—diplomacy, engagement, deterrence, containment, and military action if everything else fails. That’s how the president perceives the Iranians. That’s not a crazy way to look at Iran.
> 
> The reality is, however, that the United States has never been able to deter or contain Iran. No American policy-maker has ever pushed back against the Iranians for their misbehavior. I’m not just faulting Obama here. I’m also faulting the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and the Reagan administration which also sought a rapprochement with the clerical regime. No one has pushed back for 35 years.
> 
> So the idea that the Obama administration can handle this regime solely because it’s a nation-state goes against the entire historical record of American-Iranian relations.
> 
> MJT: What do you think Iran would do with a nuclear weapon? Why exactly should we be concerned about that?
> 
> Lee Smith: I think we have to take Iranian threats against Israel seriously and we have to take the concerns of America’s Gulf Arab allies seriously. The Arab and Israeli concerns are both to an extent existential. When Iran threatens to blow up Israel, it’s a threat that Israeli officials cannot afford to ignore.
> 
> That said, while we have to take that seriously, I don’t think it’s the real problem from an American point of view.
> 
> MJT: I agree. I doubt Iran would actually nuke Israel, but I don’t know that the way I know France won’t nuke Israel.
> 
> Lee Smith: Exactly. So you can’t ignore that if you’re the Israeli prime minister. And we can’t ignore that the Saudis might want to counter an Iranian nuclear weapon with their own nuclear weapon, perhaps purchased from Pakistan. What’s the Persian Gulf going to look like if it’s bristling with nuclear weapons?
> 
> The real problem is that an Iranian nuclear weapon would give Iran the ability to destabilize the Middle East whenever it wants. Look at what Iran is doing around the region. That’s also what my book is about—Iranian expansionism across the Middle East. That’s the real problem.
> If you’re Israeli your concern is that these guys could put a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile and fire it at Tel Aviv, but there’s more. The Iranians are not only on Israel’s border through Hezbollah in Lebanon. They’re on Israel’s border in Syria as well.
> 
> The Assad regime has long been allied with the Iranians, but now we’re seeing Revolutionary Guard troops in Syria. Hezbollah is now in Syria. Further, the Israeli Hezbollah specialist Shimon Shapria has a new paper out explaining how Iran is building a replica of Hezbollah on the Syrian border, on the Golan Heights. And Iran has replicated the Hezbollah model in Iraq. They dispatched Iraqi Shia militias to fight in Syria, as well as Afghani, Yemeni and Gulf Shiites as well. Shapira calls this Qassem Suleimani’s Shiite version of the Comintern. This is what I mean by Iranian expansionism and why Syria is a major concern.
> 
> American allies such as Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon have a massive refugee problem. A lot of journalists are writing about the possible end of Sykes-Picot, that the Middle East’s borders are being eradicated, but the borders aren’t the immediate problem. What we’re seeing instead are massive population transfers. We’ve seen it before, constantly, and it’s happening again now.
> 
> The United Nations estimates there a million or so Syrian refugees in Lebanon, but mutual friends of ours in Beirut put the number at closer to two million. And that’s in a country of barely four million. How is that going to throw off the sectarian balance in Lebanon? What’s going to happen if a million Syrian refugees stay permanently in Jordan?
> 
> These are the consequences of Syria. Iranian expansionism. Destabilization of the region though transfers of population. And a test case for American power.
> 
> The administration has failed that test. Our friends are confused, angry, and perhaps destabilized while our enemies are emboldened and strengthened.
> 
> Lee Smith is the author of The Consequences of Syria.


----------



## CougarKing

An update on the disposal of Syria's chemical weapons:

Defense News



> *US Ship Heads To Italy To Load Syrian Chemical Weapons*
> Jun. 25, 2014 - 03:17PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> (...FULL ARTICLE AT LINK ABOVE)



Plus more on the fighting in Syria:

Military.com



> *Syrian Air Force Strikes ISIL in Northern Iraq*
> 
> Jun 25, 2014 | by Michael Hoffman
> Syrian aircraft executed airstrikes in northern Iraq Tuesday against the Sunni militant group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, according to a report from the Washington Post.
> 
> The U.S. military is aware of these reports and a Pentagon spokesman said the U.S. has "no reason to dispute these reports."
> 
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Somehow I doubt this'll be the last we'll hear of these missiles for Syria...

*Russia to Destroy S-300 Weapons Systems Meant for Export to Syria*



> 11/08/2014
> 
> MOSCOW, August 11 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s anti-aircraft S-300 weapons systems, intended for export to Syria before sanctions were imposed, will be destroyed, the director for the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation said Monday.
> 
> “The S-300 complexes meant for Syria will be destroyed. This decision has been made on the level of the country’s political leadership,” *Konstantin Biryulin* said.
> 
> *Asked if the complexes could be sold to a different country, Biryulin said that it was possible, “but very unlikely.”*
> 
> RIA Novosti


----------



## CougarKing

ISIS continues to be as barbaric in Syria as it is in Iraq:

Reuters


> *Islamic State executed 700 people from Syrian tribe: monitoring group*
> By Oliver Holmes and Suleiman Al-Khalidi
> BEIRUT/AMMAN (Reuters) - The Islamic State militant group has executed 700 members of a tribe it has been battling in eastern Syria during the past two weeks, the majority of them civilians, a human rights monitoring group and activists said on Saturday.
> 
> The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has tracked violence on all sides of the three-year-old conflict, said reliable sources reported beheadings were used to execute many of the al-Sheitaat tribe, which is from Deir al-Zor province.
> 
> The conflict between Islamic State and the al-Sheitaat tribe, who number about 70,000, flared after the militants took over two oil fields in July.
> “Those who were executed are all al-Sheitaat,” Observatory director Rami Abdelrahman said by telephone from Britain. “Some were arrested, judged and killed.”
> Reuters cannot independently verify reports from Syria due to security conditions and reporting restrictions.
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

While the current air campaign in Iraq has caused a lot of damage on ISIS forces, it might not be such a good idea to expand it to Syria considering how Obama hesitated to bomb Assad last year.. and it'll remind the American public how indecisive he was back then.

Reuters



> *U.S. considering taking fight against Islamic State into Syria*
> ReutersBy By Steve Holland | Reuters – 15 hours ago
> 
> EDGARTOWN Mass. (Reuters) - The United States is considering taking the fight against Islamic State militants into Syria after days of airstrikes against the group in Iraq and the beheading of an American journalist, the White House signaled on Friday.
> President Barack Obama, soon to end a two-week working vacation on the Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard, has not yet been presented with military options for attacking Islamic State targets beyond two important areas in Iraq, said White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.
> But Rhodes made clear that going after Islamic State forces based in Syria is an option after the release of a video this week showing one of the group's fighters beheading American journalist James Foley and threatening to kill a second American, Steve Sotloff.
> 
> "We will do what's necessary to protect Americans and see that justice is done for what we saw with the barbaric killing of Jim Foley. So we're actively considering what's going to be necessary to deal with that threat, and we're not going to be restricted by borders," he said.
> (...EDITED)


----------



## tomahawk6

Carrying the air campaign into Syria is the best way to destroy IS forces.This would no doubt help Assad,at this stage he is the lesser of two evils.Keep IS on the ropes and maybe Assad's forces can launch a ground offensive that would destroy IS.


----------



## Edward Campbell

"Carrying the air campaign into Syria" is unlikely to do much of anything ... except to act as a very effective recruiting tool for the _Islamic State_.


----------



## a_majoor

No. Only help your friends and punish your enemies. The Kurds can be considered friends, so help them. 

Let the Iranians and all their proxies expend blood and treasure to deal with the IS and the fighters, I'm all for the Iranian and Syrian air forces doing the attacks, and letting the Quds Brigade and Hezbollah fighters on the ground do the digging out part. The Gulf States and Saudi Arabia can finance the IS to fight back all they want.

We just need to keep the popcorn warm and maintain a cordon around the area to contain the fighting more or less inside the region.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No. Only help your friends and punish your enemies. The Kurds can be considered friends, so help them.
> 
> Let the Iranians and all their proxies expend blood and treasure to deal with the IS and the fighters, I'm all for the Iranian and Syrian air forces doing the attacks, and letting the Quds Brigade and Hezbollah fighters on the ground do the digging out part. The Gulf States and Saudi Arabia can finance the IS to fight back all they want.
> 
> We just need to keep the popcorn warm and maintain a cordon around the area to contain the fighting more or less inside the region.




The _Islamic State_ *will*, not a shred of doubt in my mind, bring the war to us, to Britain, to America and, yes, to Canada and then, and only then, we must respond in a horribly, brutal, bloody, punitive and exemplary manner ... if we respond in any way that doesn't make 99% of us feel ill then our response will be useless. But: no "boots on the ground," massive, brutal (and indiscriminate) air (and naval) attacks but no _direct_ contact ... just retribution. Dresden and Hamburg should be our models:





A tiny bit of the 'outcome' of the raid on Dresden


----------



## George Wallace

The unfortunate part of your plan is that the barbarians have to be in large clusters in areas that can easily be annihilated by air and naval bombardment; not in deep caverns in the mountains or scattered out in the open wastelands.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The responses, to be effective, need to be _punitive_, not focused on the _warriors_.

These folks  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  were, I suppose, "innocent civilians" and the raid on Dresden was, purely and simply, _punitive_, retaliation for the _buzz bombs_ and V-2s. The justification rationale for the bombing was well grounded in a principle of war: Maintenance of Morale; British morale was suffering in 1944/45 from the _second blitz_ and Dresden was designed to raise spirits (amongst civilians and soldiers whose families were being bombed, yet again) by punishing the Germans ... and, the historical records suggests, it did just that.


----------



## George Wallace

I am not sure I would agree that your "punitive" would be effective on this form of barbaric ideology.   Death is their solution, including their own.  Everything about their outlook on this 'jihad' leads to death.  Unless all the heads of this 'hydra' are severed from the body, they will only spread their poisonous barbaric philosophy towards non-believers.


----------



## Jungle

I think the West needs to confront IS directly. We need to find each member of it and kill them, then publish pictures like those above, but of IS bodies. We need to avoid civilian casualties, as the animals do not care about their people's lives but will exploit them to advance their cause and attract recruits.

This is the second part of the Long War, which was appropriately named a decade ago. It is a generational struggle that will eventually see one side impose its will on the other.

William Stevenson wrote, in his 1976 book, Codename: Intrepid (free translation):



> _Do Democraties have the will to survive_[size=12pt]?
> 
> Our mistake, before 1939, consisted in neglecting to ask this question. None of the democraties had seriously considered the dangers that threatened them. They refused to unite, arm, to sacrifice anything to their collective or individual security. Some estimated that the danger was not grave enough. Today, I hear the same talk.



We will eventually need boots on the ground. It will hurt, and it will get ugly. But if we wait until they confront us here, our populations will never forgive us. We are, once again, damned if we do, and damned if we don't...


----------



## George Wallace

I agree with Jungle on this.  Western Democracies are going to have to get tough, unite, and terminate with extreme prejudice ALL those that hold the beliefs and spread the beliefs of those barbarians.  As has been witnessed, they do not value human life, and are not afraid to massacre the innocent.  Our using massive 'punitive' bombardment of civilian populations will only further their cause.  We can already see the use of innocents as human shields in Gaza as an example of how that tactic would work.  If indeed the SAS is venturing into Syria and Iraq to apprehend the murderers of James Foley, it is only a small step.  A much larger operation would be necessary to rid the world of these barbarians.


As Jungle amply put it: "damned if we do and damned if we don't".


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jungle: I don't disagree. In fact, I know so little about _asymmetrical warfare_ that I'm very hesitant to express any opinion at all.

*But* ...

     1. I am pretty sure that the political will to conduct the kind of campaign I think you advocate will be ephemeral, at best, maybe existent for a few weeks, months after an especially horrible attack on America,
         Australia, Britain or Canada; and

      2. I'm not sure, but you will know better than I, that we have the "horses," for it - enough _expendable_ special forces to conduct 'find and kill' missions for years and years and years.

Meanwhile, of course, what does Israel do? Are its current (punitive) tactics working? Is _Hamas_ getting weaker or stronger? Are there lessons for us?


----------



## GR66

I agree that we must make every effort to avoid having many "boots on the ground" in this fight.  They hate us...but they also have their neighbours just as much if not more.  If we don't make ourselves the main target by having a major presence in their back yard then their attacks on our homeland will likely continue to be a secondary effort.  It's easier for them fight the masses of heretics living among themselves than to attack infidels half a world away.  

It will also be easier for the fanatics to mobilize support among the general population if they can point to us as "crusaders" invading their homeland.  Instead let the fanatics try to mobilize them against the person they know next door.  The way to win this is to get the average Arab to turn on the fanatics within their own culture.  The average Arab likely won't be swayed much against the fanatics because they see bombs going off in the distant homeland of an invading army.  They may however turn on the fanatics that hang and gut their local shop keeper because he's from a different sect...or because they force genital mutilation on their little sister...or chop the head off your cousin because his beard wasn't long enough, etc.

Let them have their bloody 100-Years war among themselves and learn the hard way that it's not worth the price in blood they will pay for it.  Spank them hard whenever they try to move the fight outside themselves.  But don't make it easy for them by putting ourselves in the middle of it.

My  :2c:


----------



## GAP

Hmmm.....the Pheonix Program ran for a good long while.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program


----------



## George Wallace

Good points GR66, but as it stands now, it is the "armed" barbarians slaughtering the "unarmed sheep" in the Region.  Even if we stand off and keep them restricted to the Region; attempting to stop any migration of their objectives outside of the Region, we will eventually have to face them as the only ideological presence in the Region who will then attempt to migrate into our spheres of influence.  We will have to face them someday.


----------



## Jungle

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 1. I am pretty sure that the political will to conduct the kind of campaign I think you advocate will be ephemeral, at best, maybe existent for a few weeks, months after an especially horrible attack on America, Australia, Britain or Canada; and



Exactly... this refers to William Stevenson's quote in my previous post.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. I'm not sure, but you will know better than I, that we have the "horses," for it - enough _expendable_ special forces to conduct 'find and kill' missions for years and years and years.



SOF will be a tool in the box, useful to target IS leaders and other HVTs; however there will be a need for conventional Troops to conduct cordon & search, clear and block ops, and to destroy trg sites and large IS groupings.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, of course, what does Israel do? Are its current (punitive) tactics working? Is _Hamas_ getting weaker or stronger? Are there lessons for us?



I don't know... Will hamas unite with IS ? What effect would this have on the Israeli situation ? Will IS be more successful than AQ in rallying muslims to their cause ? It appears that the more brutal the organization, the more people they attract. There are probably more westerners then ever conducting jihad... maybe we can wait and see how the ME situation works out, but if Israel becomes in serious danger, it will need to be rescued.

Regardless of how we approach this, it will eventually become very expensive in resources. In all of them...


----------



## tomahawk6

Foley's killer has been identified as Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary.

http://nypost.com/2014/08/23/british-rapper-a-suspect-in-journalists-beheading-by-isis/


----------



## Transporter

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Foley's killer has been identified as Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary.
> 
> http://nypost.com/2014/08/23/british-rapper-a-suspect-in-journalists-beheading-by-isis/



Might very well have been him, but I believe at this point all news sources are identifying him as a suspect, with nothing confirmed.


----------



## GR66

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Good points GR66, but as it stands now, it is the "armed" barbarians slaughtering the "unarmed sheep" in the Region.  Even if we stand off and keep them restricted to the Region; attempting to stop any migration of their objectives outside of the Region, we will eventually have to face them as the only ideological presence in the Region who will then attempt to migrate into our spheres of influence.  We will have to face them someday.



Yes they are the wolves among the sheep at the moment.  However maybe enough sheep need to be slaughtered (unfortunately) for them to turn their backs on the wolves who are trying to lead them.


----------



## tomahawk6

Peter Curtis was released to US officials on the Golan Heights.Great news !!

http://news.yahoo.com/us-says-american-held-syria-freed-184009076--politics.html


----------



## tomahawk6

Tabqa airbase fell to jihadists after heavy fighting.Not good for Assad.

http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-retreats-north-syrias-homs-monitor-114213356.html;_ylt=A0LEV1liTvpTcAgAQfJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNzl2cjkzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDUwMl8x

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamic State militants stormed an air base in northeast Syria on Sunday, capturing it from government forces after days of fighting that cost more than 500 lives, a monitoring group said.

 The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 346 Islamic State fighters were killed and more than 170 members of government forces had died since Tuesday in the fight over Tabqa base, making it one of the deadliest confrontations between the two groups since the start of Syria's war


----------



## Transporter

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Peter Curtis was released to US officials on the Golan Heights.Great news !!
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/us-says-american-held-syria-freed-184009076--politics.html



He was released to UN peacekeepers (likely UNDOF or potentially UNTSO), and then handed over to US officials.


----------



## a_majoor

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Tabqa airbase fell to jihadists after heavy fighting.Not good for Assad.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-retreats-north-syrias-homs-monitor-114213356.html;_ylt=A0LEV1liTvpTcAgAQfJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNzl2cjkzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDUwMl8x
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamic State militants stormed an air base in northeast Syria on Sunday, capturing it from government forces after days of fighting that cost more than 500 lives, a monitoring group said.
> 
> The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 346 Islamic State fighters were killed and more than 170 members of government forces had died since Tuesday in the fight over Tabqa base, making it one of the deadliest confrontations between the two groups since the start of Syria's war



Since this is one of the conduits for Iranian aid to Syria, you can expect some sort of response, either a large scale offensive by the Syrians themselves, or planned and possibly bolstered by the Iranians and Hezbollah fighters (Iranian commanders providing the planing and possibly heavy or sophisticated support weapons and equipment). 

So long as the US and the West keeps a relatively hands off approach now and leaves most of the fighting to the Iranians and their proxies, then the problem of ISIS can be contained with little cost to us, but a great deal of cost to our enemies.


----------



## Infantryman2b

https://news.vice.com/article/islamic-state-captures-syrian-air-force-base?utm_source=vicenewsfb

More on the fall of the airbase. Video is graphic.


----------



## CougarKing

The Assad regime offers to be a US/western ally against ISIS. How credible will Obama sound to the US public if he decides to take their help, considering all the sabre rattling for air strikes made by his administration against Assad last year? Back then, ultimately no strikes ever happened even if Syria decided to give up its chemical weapons.

BBC



> *Syria will help US fight terrorism, says Walid Muallem*
> 
> Syria's foreign minister has offered to help the US fight the Islamic State (IS) militant group, which has seized swathes of land in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> Walid Muallem said Syria was "the centre of the international coalition to fight Islamic State".
> 
> The US has already bombed IS fighters in Iraq and has hinted it would be willing to take action in Syria.
> 
> Western powers generally shun Syria's government, accusing it of carrying out atrocities in its three-year civil war.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## YZT580

So now ISIS has an air force, albeit one consisting of very old aircraft: 12 squadrons of Mig21s.  That combined with the tanks, transports and heavy artillery taken from the Iraqis and their 70000 odd adherents including several thousand with either European or North American passports makes them and extremely dangerous and highly mobile force, especially since many of them really don't care if they die or not.  It is easy to make jokes and suggest that we have the armaments to facilitate their requests but anyone who recalls the kamikaze attacks by the Japanese will attest that it is a terrifying moment when you realize that unless they run out of people first, you are going to run out of bullets and when that happens....?  I sadly suspect that tasking orders may not be too far in the future.


----------



## Transporter

YZT580 said:
			
		

> So now ISIS has an air force, albeit one consisting of very old aircraft: 12 squadrons of Mig21s.  That combined with the tanks, transports and heavy artillery taken from the Iraqis and their 70000 odd adherents including several thousand with either European or North American passports makes them and extremely dangerous and highly mobile force, especially since many of them really don't care if they die or not.  It is easy to make jokes and suggest that we have the armaments to facilitate their requests but anyone who recalls the kamikaze attacks by the Japanese will attest that it is a terrifying moment when you realize that unless they run out of people first, you are going to run out of bullets and when that happens....?  I sadly suspect that tasking orders may not be too far in the future.



Not to downplay the threat, but I thought I read elsewhere that all flyable aircraft departed before the air base was seized. Judging by the photos of the remaining aircraft, I'm not too sure we have to worry about them getting airborne anytime soon.

Interesting times ahead perhaps.

Where's good ole Saddam when we need him... oh wait.


----------



## George Wallace

Transporter said:
			
		

> Not to downplay the threat, but I thought I read elsewhere that all flyable aircraft departed before the air base was seized. Judging by the photos of the remaining aircraft, I'm not too sure we have to worry about them getting airborne anytime soon.




 >

It would be interesting if they did try to fly those aircraft and sped up their 'trip to meet Allah'.


----------



## CougarKing

WHAT? We've seen this "movie" before. He's gonna ask Congress again like he did over Syria last year...to hide his indecisiveness...

Defense News



> *Obama Feels Pressure to Get Congressional OK Before Ordering Strikes Inside Syria*
> Aug. 27, 2014 - 03:51PM   |  By JOHN T. BENNETT
> 
> WASHINGTON — Pressure from the opposite end of Pennsylvania Avenue is mounting on President Barack Obama to seek congressional approval before launching military strikes inside Syria.
> 
> White House and Pentagon officials reportedly are mulling how and what the US military could hit in Syria to weaken the Islamic State, a violent extremist group that has seized much of northern Iraq and slaughtered minorities.
> 
> The debate around striking on Syrian soil comes almost exactly one year after lawmakers returned early from an August recess to craft a use-of-force resolution aimed at helping rebel forces there in a years-long fight against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
> 
> That late-summer 2014 debate became a brouhaha over whether Obama should even green-light strikes.
> 
> A year later, however, and the debate is mostly about whether Obama should first get Congress to sign off on any plans to hit Islamic State targets in Syria — not whether he should order air strikes.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ISIS captured 40 filipona Peacekeepers, considering the anti-Muslim campaign ongoing down there, they may be used as hostages to force release of Muslim leaders down there.


----------



## CougarKing

Colin P said:
			
		

> ISIS captured 40 filipona Peacekeepers, considering the anti-Muslim campaign ongoing down there, they may be used as hostages to force release of Muslim leaders down there.



From what I read on other sources, it was 43 UN peacekeepers from Fiji that were kidnapped, while the other 83 UN peacekeepers from the Philippines are reportedly trapped but holding their ground in the Golan Heights.

GMA News (Philippines news site)



> *81 PHL troops trapped, 43 UN peacekeepers seized in Golan Heights*
> August 29, 2014 12:20am
> 
> UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations said that an armed group captured 43 UN peacekeepers on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights on Thursday and that an additional 81 Filipino troops were trapped.
> 
> *The 43 detained peacekeepers were from Fiji* and while *the 81 others were from the Philippine contingent*, a diplomatic source told AFP.
> 
> Syrian rebels, including fighters from the *Al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra front*, stormed the crossing at Quneitra on Wednesday, sparking an exchange of gunfire with Israeli troops.
> 
> "Forty-three peacekeepers from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) were detained early this morning by an armed group in the vicinity of Quneitra," a UN statement said.
> 
> An additional 81 peacekeepers were "currently being restricted to their positions in the vicinity of Ar Ruwayhinah and Burayqah," it added.
> 
> UN officials noted that the peacekeepers monitoring the armistice line between Israel and Syria were detained twice last year and released safely.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Transporter

Colin P said:
			
		

> ISIS captured 40 filipona Peacekeepers, considering the anti-Muslim campaign ongoing down there, they may be used as hostages to force release of Muslim leaders down there.



I don't think they're ISIS forces, but another anti-Assad group, or groups, in the region. ISIS on the Israeli border would be a very, very bad thing.


----------



## CougarKing

No air strikes against ISIL in Syria...for now.

Military.com



> *Obama Says No Airstrikes Against ISIL in Syria*
> 
> Aug 28, 2014 | by Richard Sisk
> President Obama said Thursday that *he has yet to develop a strategy* for combating the threat from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that could include expanding the current air campaign into Syria.
> 
> "We don't have a strategy yet on a response to ISIS," Obama said, using another acronym for ISIL. Obama said he had directed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to give him a set of options, but there were no immediate plans to go beyond the current "limited" air campaign in Iraq.
> 
> For weeks, Republican critics led by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, have called for an expanded air campaign and charged that Obama lacked a strategy for confronting ISIL.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

The standoff on the Golan Heights continues:

Israel owes its very existence to the Philippines, because in 1948 during the UN partition of Israel, the Philippines was the one deciding vote that allowed it to happen. It was nearly a tie back then with all the western nations/US allies voting for it and the Arab nations against it etc.

At the very least, the IDF should come to the rescue of those Filipino peacekeepers.

Anyways, here's some updates and a pic from facebook:


----------



## CougarKing

Syrian rebels and UN peacekeepers at another outpost in the Golan Heights were just engaged in a firefight.

Aug 30, 2014 
*Syrian rebels attack UN peacekeepers in Golan*

 [aljazeera]



> Philippine peacekeepers at one UN encampment were attacked, but those at another were "extricated," Defence Secretary Voltaire Gazmin told reporters in a series of text messages, adding that the attack started early on Saturday Syrian time.
> 
> Philippine military spokesman Ramon Zagala told reporters, "there is an ongoing firefight, but all Filipinos are safe."
> 
> There were 40 Filipino troops in the encampment that came under attack, and 35 in the second, according to the Philippine military.
> 
> The Syrian rebels seized 44 Fijian peacekeepers on Thursday.
> 
> The rebels then demanded that the 75 Filipinos manning two separate UN encampments 4 km apart surrender their weapons, but they refused.





> A further 35 Philippines troops were at another site, known as camp 69, about 4 km (2.5 km) away but were not engaged in the firefight.
> 
> The troops are part of UNDOF, a U.N. force that has monitored the disengagement zone between Israel and Syria since 1974 in the wake of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.


source: reuters


----------



## CougarKing

The besieged peacekeepers were rescued:

Haaretz



> *Nearly three dozen UN peacekeepers from the Philippines who had been surrounded for days by Islamist militants on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights were rescued during a firefight on Saturday, UN officials said.*
> 
> "They were safely extracted, nearly three dozen of them," a UN official told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Other UN officials confirmed it. Officials in the Philippines have said all 72 of the trapped Filipino peacekeepers were safe.
> 
> *The UN officials said the other Philippine peacekeepers remained trapped by the militants, who have been battling the Syrian army on the Golan Heights. Another 44 Fijian peacekeepers have been detained by militants nearby since Thursday.*
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## tomahawk6

Great response from the Irish battalion to extricate the PI troops.It must have been the bagpipes that enabled a successful operation without a shot being fired. ;D


----------



## CougarKing

The Indian UN commander of the UNDOF forces in the Golan Heights wasn't thinking when he ordered those Filipino peacekeepers to surrender. Fortunately they didn't listen.

*PH peacekeepers ignored UN commander's order to yield*



> September 1, 2014
> 
> Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Gregorio Pio Catapang on Monday revealed - and called for an investigation of the matter - the order from the commander of the United Nations Disengagement Force for the Filipino peacekeepers to surrender if attacked by the Syrian rebels. The surrender order for Filipinos was apparently meant to spare the lives of UN Fijian peacekeepers, who earlier surrendered to the Syrians but were taken hostage. They remain missing until now.
> 
> *However, the UN Filipino peacekeepers’ commanders on Positions 68 and 69 stood their ground and silently invoked their right to defend themselves rather than be taken hostage and remain unaccounted for for an indefinite period.*
> 
> “The order of the UNDOF commander kept changing. First of all, there's nothing in the terms of reference that says we can be ordered to surrender our firearms. It's because the UNDOF commander wanted to save the Fijians at the expense of the Philippines. It's not our fault that they were taken hostage," Catapang said.  *He said he stressed to the UNDOF commander that it made more sense for him to "save first the Filipinos and then we will help the Fijians later."*
> 
> He did not name the UNDOF commander, who was described as from the Indian military. Military officials later named him as Major General Iqbal Sing Singha.
> 
> Interaksyon (Philippines news site)


----------



## tomahawk6

The UNDOF commander needs to be removed from command and sent packing.
I have the utmost respect for the Filipino commanders and their troops.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Basically offering up the PI troops to try to get a deal on the Fijians, good luck with that. Considering the Philippines is fighting a Muslim insurgency, I can imagine what the ISIS/AQ might do to them or demand for their release.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Fijians are going to be held for ransom IMO.


----------



## CougarKing

Speaking of which...

The nerve of those Syrian rebels to ask "compensation" for 3 of their number killed in the shootout with Filipino and Irish peacekeepers earlier.  :

Military.com



> *Syrian Rebels Issue Demands for Captive UN Troops*
> 
> Associated Press | Sep 02, 2014
> 
> BEIRUT — *Al-Qaida-linked Syrian rebels holding 45 Fijian peacekeepers hostage have issued a set of demands for their release, including the extremist group's removal from a U.N. terrorist list and compensation for the killing of three of its fighters in a shootout with international troops*, an official said Tuesday.
> 
> The Nusra Front seized the Fijians on Thursday in the Golan Heights, where a 1,200-strong U.N. force monitors the buffer zone between Syria and Israel. *The rebels also surrounded two Filipino units, but those U.N. troops escaped over the weekend*.
> 
> Speaking in the Fijian capital of Suva, military commander Brig. Gen. Mosese Tikoitoga said the Nusra Front has made three demands for the peacekeepers' release: to be taken off the U.N. terrorist list; the delivery of humanitarian aid to parts of the Syrian capital of Damascus; *and payment for three of its fighters it says were killed in a shootout with U.N. officers.*
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So can the UN legally mount a military mission to rescue it's soldiers? I suspect it would take a UNSC resolution to do so? If this goes on, it will seriously reduce the number of countries with professional or semi-professional militaries from offering up anymore troops. At the very least I suspect ROE, combat loads and in theater heavy weapons will increase.


----------



## CougarKing

At least one account of the battle states that UN forces were able to call on Assad forces for artillery support during the firefight when the Filipino peacekeepers escaped the encirclement by the Syrian rebels.

Reuters India



> (...EDITED)
> 
> Late on Saturday, U.N. diplomatic sources said militants had reinforced their siege of the 40 peacekeepers trapped at Position 68.
> 
> Colonel Roberto Ancan, head of the Philippine military’s peacekeeping operations centre, said *Syrian government forces fired artillery at the rebels, weakening their positions surrounding the peacekeepers*. None of the peacekeepers were wounded, he said.
> 
> (...END EXCERPT)


----------



## CougarKing

A terrorist Kangaroo court will try the Fijian UN peacekeepers still being held hostage by the Al Nusra rebel group.  

Israel National News



> From Israel National News
> *AL QAEDA REBELS TO TRY UN PEACEKEEPERS UNDER 'DIVINE LAW'*
> by Ari Yashar
> 
> The 45 UN peacekeepers from Fiji who were abducted by Al Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front rebel forces on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights last Wednesday are to "stand trial" under sharia (Islamic law), according to a Britain-based monitoring group.
> 
> Rami Abdul Rahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said that *the commander of Al-Nusra Front has declared that the 45 peacekeepers will be tried under "divine law," according to Asharq Al-Aswat as cited by Yedioth Aharonoth.*
> 
> It was revealed on Monday that the rebels issued three demands for the release of the peacekeepers: to be taken off the UN terrorist list, delivery of humanitarian aid to parts of the Syrian capital Damascus, and compensation for three of its fighters it says were killed in a shootout with UN officers.
> 
> In response, the 15 members of the UN Security Council on Wednesday demanded the "immediate and unconditional release" of the Fijians, denouncing their abduction "in the strongest terms."
> 
> The statement added that "there can never be any justification for attacks on or the detention of UN peacekeepers." Fiji has issued a similar statement calling for the release of its soldiers.
> 
> *In addition to the 45 Fijian troops, 72 Filipino troops were surrounded by the rebel forces; however, the two units of soldiers from the Philippines managed to escaped over the weekend into Israel.
> 
> The Fijians and Filipinos are part of the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) established in 1974 to maintain the ceasefire between Syria and Israel forces in the Golan, and oversee the implementation of a disengagement agreement*.
> 
> The Israeli-Syrian border has been growing increasingly tense, as fighting between Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces and rebel forces has occasionally spilled over.
> 
> Just on Thursday afternoon the IDF returned fire on a Syrian army position after a mortar shell struck Israeli territory. Several mortar shells have hit Israeli territory in recent weeks, and the IDF shot down a Syrian drone last week after it strayed into Israeli airspace.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

A photo of the Fijian peacekeepers currently being held hostage by the Syrian Al Nusra rebel group:



> From: http://www.timesofisrael.com/al-nusra-front-threatens-to-try-un-fijian-peacekeepers/#ixzz3CTmYas6D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Undated image, attached in a statement released on August 30, 2014, on the Hanin Network website, a militant website, shows Fijian UN peacekeepers who were seized by the Nusra Front on August 28, 2014, in the Golan Heights buffer zone between Syria and Israel. (photo credit: AP/Hanin Network Website, File)


----------



## Jungle

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> A terrorist Kangaroo court will try the Fijian UN peacekeepers still being held hostage by the Al Nusra rebel group.



The UN, as the self-licking ice-cream cone that it is, can _strongly condemn_, _reaffirm_, _urge _and _request_ all it wants, it has neither the will nor the means to do anything about this situation. It is, as we speak, holding emergency meetings consisting of endless blah-blah, to be followed by cocktails and photo ops. 

I wish a quick and peaceful resolution to the Fiji Soldiers involved.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jungle said:
			
		

> The UN, as the self-licking ice-cream cone that it is, can _strongly condemn_, _reaffirm_, _urge _and _request_ all it wants, it has neither the will nor the means to do anything about this situation. It is, as we speak, holding emergency meetings consisting of endless blah-blah, to be followed by cocktails and photo ops.
> 
> I wish a quick and peaceful resolution to the Fiji Soldiers involved.



Don't forget the letter, followed by a STRONGLY WORDED letter.....


----------



## tomahawk6

Canada has contributed peacekepers over the years,would a Canadian platoon have surrendered as the Fijians did ?


----------



## OldSolduer

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canada has contributed peacekepers over the years,would a Canadian platoon have surrendered as the Fijians did ?



That depends on which regiment is in theatre at the time.

IIRC a platoon of a certain infantry regiment gave up their weapons etc in Croatia or Bosnia. 

I could be wrong.


----------



## tomahawk6

Obama's strategic alliance with Iran seems to be off to a good start.Syrian forces are poised to launch an offensive against IS held areas.Surveillance from the US is being passed to Iran who then gives it to the Syrians.


----------



## Old Sweat

No, you are right. I think it was April 1994 in Bosnia. A section surrendered and their platoon commander joined them in captivity rather than try to organize their release. It happened, I think, on a Thursday or early on a Friday and they were released Sunday afternoon Ottawa time.

I was in J3 Ops at the time which is why I recall it. However I was not on the ground and am not qualified to judge their actions.


----------



## tomahawk6

Giving up your means of self defense is problematic.As to the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia werent some used as human shields when they were handcuffed to a bridge ?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

One officer was.


----------



## Old Sweat

That was a later incident involving an unarmed UNMO, I believe.


----------



## Lightguns

We lost a fully loaded grizz in that incident too did we not?


----------



## OldSolduer

Lightguns said:
			
		

> We lost a fully loaded grizz in that incident too did we not?



I do believe so. Its been 20 years so its a bit fuzzy.


----------



## Jungle

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> That depends on which regiment is in theatre at the time.
> 
> IIRC a platoon of a certain infantry regiment gave up their weapons etc in Croatia or Bosnia.
> 
> I could be wrong.



Stop walking on egg shells  :, it was a platoon from 2R22R. They did not want to do this, but they were ordered to surrender by the CofC.

Are you telling me that _another_ Regiment woukd have disobeyed orders ?


----------



## CougarKing

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Obama's strategic alliance with Iran seems to be off to a good start.Syrian forces are poised to launch an offensive against IS held areas.Surveillance from the US is being passed to Iran who then gives it to the Syrians.



Speaking of Iran...please take note what was posted at the Iraq crisis thread:

*shadowy Iranian general fights "on US side" against ISIS*


----------



## CougarKing

For those wondering about the Irish contingent that participated in the action to save the Filipino UN peacekeepers earlier...



> *Irish troops facing escalating danger in 'peaceful' mission*
> 
> 07/09/2014
> 
> A contributor to the Irish Military Online forum last week said what many other ex-soldiers are leaving unsaid about the position of Irish troops on the UN's Golan Heights mission: he would rather die fighting "than surrendering and having the chance of being beheaded on al-Jazeera."
> 
> *The al-Nusra Front who are attempting to overrun the UN mission on the Syrian-Israeli border are beheaders*. They decapitated the Franciscan priest Fr Francois Murad in the northern Syrian city of Gassanieh in June last year. The images of his beheading was captured on a mobile phone camera and posted on the web. ...
> 
> The same group is responsible, like its former ally and now rival Islamic State, for ethnic cleansing of Syrian Christians, including the last surviving speakers of Aramaic, the language the Bible was written in. As well as public beheadings, they have been responsible for crucifixions.
> 
> They also claimed responsibility for 57 suicide bombings last year; were caught attempting to smuggle two kilos of the nerve gas Sarin from Turkey; and have murdered what are said to be very large numbers of non-Sunni Muslims, particularly from the Alawite community who share an ethnicity with President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> *All "kuffars" (all non-Sunni Muslims, not just Syrian or Irish Christians or the mainly animist Fijians who are being held captive by al-Nusra) are potential beheading victims.*
> 
> The Minister for Defence Simon Coveney said last week that what our troops were facing in the past week was a "dramatic change in circumstances" in the light of the most recent al-Nusra onslaught on the UN Golan mission. He was not exaggerating.
> 
> Irish Independent


----------



## tomahawk6

Like I said previosly is to withdraw after the Fijians are released.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jungle said:
			
		

> Stop walking on egg shells  :, it was a platoon from 2R22R. They did not want to do this, but they were ordered to surrender by the CofC.
> 
> Are you telling me that _another_ Regiment woukd have disobeyed orders ?



Probably. Mind you we would never have received those orders.


----------



## Jungle

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Probably. Mind you we would never have received those orders.



Yeah... sure.  :

Now, reread this thread:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/36228/post-292333.html#msg292333

Where you will find this:



			
				Mark C said:
			
		

> Before this gets out of hand....
> 
> Lets all just suck back and acknowledge that the capture of this particular Canadian AFV occurred during the latter UNPROFOR days - when ALL military forces in the FRY had been effectively "de-toothed" by the UN and forced to resort to good-will in order to enact (NOT enforce) the UN mandate.   The unit that gave up the Grizzly in question to the Bosnian Serb forces had little choice in the matter.   The extant direction was to surrender equipment (and yes, weapons) if it came to a life-threatening stand-off, as lethal force was not authorized at the time for the protection of mission-essential equipment.
> 
> Without getting into a discussion which would violate OPSEC regarding then-extant ROE, suffice it to say that the soldiers in question had little choice in the matter at the time based on their very clear orders.   They simply did as they were told, as much as it undoubtedly burned their arses as the time.   No different than the Canadian elements that were ordered to withdraw from their well-defended observations posts along the Krijena border when the U.S.-sponsored Croatian "Op Storm" offensive was launched.   Those were utterly stupid and largely "toothless" days, which do not speak well for the UN's gumption on the international stage.   One could argue that it was merely a precursor of things to come.   Which is why those who persist in castigating the Dutch for the Srebenica massacre have their well-intentioned heads up their arses.   Did the vastly out-numbered and out-gunned Dutch contingent safe-guarding that UN-declared "Safe Haven" have a moral obligation to defend the Bosniacs hunkered down within the perimeter?   Arguably yes.   But the Dutch were horribly over-matched and had they elected to do "the honourable thing" (in direct violation of UN orders, I might add), they would have stood no better chance than the Spartans at the Gates of Thermoplaie.
> 
> You (at the time) are a UN soldier.   You do what you are told by the international governing body at the time.   You don't have the luxury of second-guessing your orders, even if you happen to believe that what you are ordered to do will result in a disaster.   Oh, you could make a heroic stand based on what you believe to be the bigger picture and die a glorious death.   But what if in hindsight it turns out that you screwed the international pooch and your actions directly resulted in the needless deaths of untold thousands more?   Well, then you'd (belatedly) feel like a bit of an arsehole, wouldn't you?   Or not, because you are dead for no good reason and your family are left wailing and moaning back in Canada with you dead for nothing.   In fact, you died as the result of a manifest error of personal judgement that directly contributed to thousands more needless deaths.   All because your "heroic stand" derailed a volatile peace negotiation.   Way to go   hero....   Are we starting to grasp just how complicated things were back then when we Canadians (at large) stuck our soldiers in the middle of a "feel good" international cause with zero mandate for success?
> 
> All of the above to say that it is piss-simple to sit back here with the luxury of hindsight and "arm-chair quarterback" some of the decisions made during the insane days of UNPROFOR.   There is no doubt that the UN was way out of its league and screwed the pooch to the detriment of all concerned parties - the locals and all international military contingents included.   That is precisely why NATO moved in and "enforced" the Dayton Accords in 1997 with IFOR and then SFOR.   Using the threat of overwhelming military force to impose compliance upon the three warring factions.   It was only then, after 5 years of UN dithering (with our troops and those of many other nations caught in the middle) that things got sorted out.
> 
> So, let's not sit here and try to pass judgement on what happened back in the early 1990s.   To do so without having served at the time and place would be indicative of utter arse-clownery.   Even to do so having served (no offence to Tess and others) would be mistaken.   Those on the ground at the time had a very limited and frustrating perspective.   No soldier likes the notion of being ordered to surrender their position, or their kit, even when faced with untenable odds.   No soldier likes the idea of having to leave an area knowing that bad things (eg. genocide) will ensue once they are gone.   No soldier likes to back down when faced with an unauthorized road-block.   But it happens, and no doubt the requirement to do all of the above still provides grist for the mental mill amonst those who endured it wearing various national flags.   Such is the life of a soldier under orders.
> 
> All of the above to say that the "captured/surrendered" Grizzly is the function of a very particular time and place.   Its loss is NOT indicative of a particular unit's failings or lack of will.   Rather, it is entirely representative of an untenable military situation created by a dithering world body manifested in the UN.   Full-stop.
> 
> So, no names, no pack-drill.
> 
> I wasn't there at the time.  However, my former unit was there in 1992 and were slated for another UNPROFOR deployment in 1995/96 during which I was fully in the loop.  Thankfully our deployment was re-jigged to the first NATO SFOR deployment in 97, where we actually had some "teeth" to put an end to the stupidity that was the Balkan War.
> 
> FWIW,
> 
> Mark C



Coming from one of yours, no less... there's more in the thread.

Now put aside the ridiculous inter-regt hatred and chest-puffing, it is not serving anyone well. At least now, I know where you stand...

Now let's get back on topic.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jungle said:
			
		

> Yeah... sure.  :
> 
> Now, reread this thread:
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/36228/post-292333.html#msg292333
> 
> Where you will find this:
> 
> Coming from one of yours, no less... there's more in the thread.
> 
> Now put aside the ridiculous inter-regt hatred and chest-puffing, it is not serving anyone well. At least now, I know where you stand...
> 
> Now let's get back on topic.



To be clear I was not trying to disrespect the Van Doos. That is why I'd did not name them in my initial response. Just to be clear, I don't hate them either.

May apologies if this has caused any consternation.


----------



## CougarKing

A question that needs to be asked is how Obama wants the US to confront ISIS in Syria? Merely through air strikes or something more?

Business Insider



> *Here's Why Obama's Middle East Allies Don't Trust Him Against ISIS*
> Business Insider
> By Michael B Kelley and Brett LoGiurato – 11 hours ago
> 
> U.S. President Barack Obama is constructing a strategy for an increasingly complex war he never wanted to enter. And allies in the region are skeptical.
> Now that ISIS controls a third of the combined territory comprising Syria and Iraq, the U.S. is attempting to establish an international coalition to "degrade and destroy" the well-armed and well-funded Islamic State.
> 
> *The administration has begun to outline a three-pronged strategy that could last more than three years — and into the next administration. It consists of continuing to bomb ISIS targets from the air in Iraq, intensely moving to equip and train the Iraqi military and Kurdish forces, and then moving to confront the group in Syria.*
> 
> A successful U.S.-led campaign to eradicate ISIS requires direct military action on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border, several years, billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of troops, according to counterterrorism expert Brian Fishman. "And even then," Fishman said, "success hinges on dramatic political shifts in both Iraq and Syria that under the best of circumstances will require years."
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Obama to make big speech tonight on how he will fight ISIS at 9 pm EST, 6 PM Pacific on North American networks.

CBC



> *Obama ISIS speech: 5 things he must address*
> U.S. president to make 9 p.m. ET televised address laying out plan to destroy militant group
> 
> In a prime-time speech Wednesday at 9 p.m. ET, U.S. President Barack Obama intends to outline for Americans the threat posed by ISIS and his strategy for "degrading and ultimately destroying" the group, according to the White House.
> 
> Obama has been under mounting pressure to lay out a plan, particularly after he said late last month that he didn't have a strategy "yet" and that he was still figuring out exactly how to "get the job done.
> 
> Here are five things Obama is expected to cover off in his address to the U.S. public.
> 
> *1. Airstrikes in Syria*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *2. Boots on the ground*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *3. Permission from Congress*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *4. U.S. won't act alone*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *5. ISIS threat to U.S.*
> 
> (...END OF EXCERPTS)


----------



## a_majoor

And these are the sorts of "allies" that are being recruited on the ground. Far better to simply let the Iranians, Syrians and Hezbollah expend their blood and treasure to fight them (numbers wise, I think radicals like ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhoods have an edge), while we stand off and push the fighting back into the cage when it spills over:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/09/fighter-with-vetted-moderate-syrian-rebel-group-tells-la-times-his-group-fights-alongside-al-qaeda/?print=1&repeat=w3tc



> *Fighter With ‘Vetted Moderate’ Syrian Rebels Tells L.A. Times They Fight Alongside Al-Qaeda*
> Posted By Patrick Poole On September 9, 2014 @ 11:08 am In Politics | 6 Comments
> 
> Last week here at PJ Media, I reported on the ongoing relations between the U.S.-backed “vetted moderate” Free Syrian Army and ISIS. I also noted that, at this time last year, the received wisdom of the Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment was that the Syrian rebels were largely moderate.
> 
> Now, a report in this past Sunday’s L.A. Times from the frontlines in Syria finds that another “vetted moderate” rebel group, Harakat Hazm – which has received anti-tank missiles from the U.S. — has been working with al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra: a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. (HT: Tim Furnish and Tom Joscelyn.)
> 
> As Al-Akhbar reported back in May, in addition to having U.S. backing, Harakat Hazm is also backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, and Qatar.
> 
> As the L.A. Times reporter rides with two U.S.-backed and armed Harakat Hazm fighters, the topic of conversation turns to Jabhat al-Nusra:
> 
> Harakat Hazm, for example, has struggled with being regarded as a U.S. pawn and labeled as secular in the midst of an opposition movement that has grown increasingly Islamist.
> 
> “Inside Syria we became labeled as secularists and feared Nusra Front was going to battle us,” Zeidan said, referring to an Al Qaeda-linked rebel group that has been designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Then he smiled and added, “But Nusra doesn’t fight us, we actually fight alongside them. We like Nusra.”
> 
> But the L.A. Times reporter then immediately adds:
> 
> In July, eight West-backed rebel brigades — all recipients of military aid — released a statement of “rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination” with Al Nusra Front.
> 
> But at the same time Harakat Hazm was supposedly releasing a statement of “rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination” with Nusra, it signed a statement of alliance with Nusra to prevent the Assad regime from advancing into Aleppo. The alliance statement was published on Twitter:
> 
> 
> What the statement and the Aleppo alliance demonstrate is something that I and others have been contending all along: the so-called Syrian rebels given the State Department’s “vetted moderate” imprimatur have been playing a double-game. And the Obama administration, the foreign policy establishment and the establishment media have all gladly played along with our “vetted moderate” Syrian rebel allies.
> 
> When Liz Sly of the Washington Post interviewed the commander of Harakat Hazm as the first group to receive anti-tank missiles from the U.S., he gave a lukewarm, two-faced statement when asked about Nusra:
> 
> LS: You have already participated in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. What are your relations with Jabhat al-Nusra?
> 
> AA: Jabhat al-Nusra is a military formation, a fighting battalion that exists on the ground like any other. We have no strong or meaningful relationship with them. They fight on their fronts, and we fight on ours.
> 
> LS: What do you think of them?
> 
> AA: They hold responsibility for bringing ISIS fighters to Syria from across the world. This was a mistake committed against the Syrian people. I think of them as a group of people fighting to topple the regime, but if they change their ideology to resemble that of ISIS or bring death and destruction upon the Syrian people, then we won’t allow it.
> 
> So they are responsible for bringing ISIS to Syria, but they are fighting to topple the regime.
> 
> On the same day that interview appeared, a policy analysis published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy hailed Harakat Hazm as “Rebels Worth Supporting,” going so far as to say that Hazm was “a model candidate for greater U.S. and allied support, including lethal military assistance.”
> 
> A fair question at this point: how is it that the Obama administration and the D.C. foreign policy establishment continue to allow themselves to be deluded by the “vetted moderate” Syrian rebel narrative, when all of the facts show that U.S. policy is Syria is built on lies and self-deception?
> 
> It’s not that they’re half-wrong, or that that the facts are subject to counter-interpretation. They’re flat-out wrong. And the result is serious weaponry being given directly by the U.S. to these groups.
> 
> And where is Congress in all this?
> 
> Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pjmedia.com/tatler
> 
> URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/09/fighter-with-vetted-moderate-syrian-rebel-group-tells-la-times-his-group-fights-alongside-al-qaeda/


----------



## CougarKing

ISIL fighters in Syria are now fair game, according to Obama.

We'll see if Obama puts his money where his mouth is...

CNN



> *'NO SAFE HAVEN'*
> Obama vows ISIS will be defeated
> 
> President Obama frames the threat posed by ISIS, outlines his strategy to address that threat and shares new proposals on how to fight and destroy the militant group.
> 
> (...FULL VIDEO AT LINK ABOVE)


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> A photo of the Fijian peacekeepers currently being held hostage by the Syrian Al Nusra rebel group:




The Associated Press is _Tweeting_: *BREAKING:* United Nations says 45 captured Fijian peacekeepers are released in Syria's Golan Heights.
https://twitter.com/AP


----------



## Edward Campbell

I suspect most will disagree, but I do agree with Andrew J. Bacevich  in an essay he contributed to _Reuters_ "Great Debate" series. His article is headlined: *Obama is picking his targets in Iraq and Syria while missing the point*.

Prof Bacevich says, "successive U.S. presidents have fastened on that benighted country as a place to demonstrate the implacable onward march of modernity ... The effort failed abysmally ... This much is certain, however: Even if Obama cobbles together a plan to destroy the Islamic State, the problems bedeviling the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East more broadly won’t be going away anytime soon."

He concludes, "All the military power in the world won’t solve those problems. Obama knows that. Yet he is allowing himself to be drawn back into the very war that he once correctly denounced as stupid and unnecessary — mostly because he and his advisers don’t know what else to do. Bombing has become his administration’s default option ... *Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing.*"

I agree. I'm not sure what President Obama is proposing; I'm not sure what Prime Minister Harper thinks he might accomplish ~ other than getting a few "brownie points" with the US administration ("points" we can "cash in," later to get something we really want) which is, very often, the main objective of Canadian policy; I am pretty sure it, everything they and David Cameron and Tony Abbott and all the others, decide to do will like a rudderless, ship, adrfit with all guns blazing.


----------



## GR66

I've often heard the argument that Canada does certain things in order to curry favour with our allies (primarily the USA as our largest and most important trading partner) or to maintain our "seat at the table" internationally.  To my eye though I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of this policy.  It sure seems to me that the US does what it needs to do in order to keep its domestic interests happy.  Can anyone give me an example or two of times that the US gave Canada a "gimme" on an issue of contention between our countries due to support we gave them on another issue?


----------



## PanaEng

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect most will disagree, but I do agree with Andrew J. Bacevich  in an essay he contributed to _Reuters_ "Great Debate" series. His article is headlined: *Obama is picking his targets in Iraq and Syria while missing the point*.
> 
> Prof Bacevich says, "successive U.S. presidents have fastened on that benighted country as a place to demonstrate the implacable onward march of modernity ... The effort failed abysmally ... This much is certain, however: Even if Obama cobbles together a plan to destroy the Islamic State, the problems bedeviling the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East more broadly won’t be going away anytime soon."
> 
> He concludes, "All the military power in the world won’t solve those problems. Obama knows that. Yet he is allowing himself to be drawn back into the very war that he once correctly denounced as stupid and unnecessary — mostly because he and his advisers don’t know what else to do. Bombing has become his administration’s default option ... *Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing.*"
> 
> I agree. I'm not sure what President Obama is proposing; I'm not sure what Prime Minister Harper thinks he might accomplish ~ other than getting a few "brownie points" with the US administration ("points" we can "cash in," later to get something we really want) which is, very often, the main objective of Canadian policy; I am pretty sure it, everything they and David Cameron and Tony Abbott and all the others, decide to do will like a rudderless, ship, adrfit with all guns blazing.


Brownie points, legacy... precisely. I disagree with the author painting this as the same "war" as in 2003. Totally different situation now.


----------



## PanaEng

GR66 said:
			
		

> I've often heard the argument that Canada does certain things in order to curry favour with our allies (primarily the USA as our largest and most important trading partner) or to maintain our "seat at the table" internationally.  To my eye though I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of this policy.  It sure seems to me that the US does what it needs to do in order to keep its domestic interests happy.  Can anyone give me an example or two of times that the US gave Canada a "gimme" on an issue of contention between our countries due to support we gave them on another issue?


Being in their good books is a sensible thing but you are right, I can't readily think of anything. Softwood? beef? farm subsidies? fishing? territorial disputes?


----------



## jollyjacktar

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Brownie points, legacy... precisely. I disagree with the author painting this as the same "war" as in 2003. Totally different situation now.


Spot, on.


----------



## tomahawk6

The President's poorly conceived strategy is already falling apart with Turkey announcing they wont fight IS. :camo:


----------



## CougarKing

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Turkey announcing they wont fight IS. :camo:



They are going back on a promise to do so, as reported below. No matter about Incirlik airbase etc., since the US still has carrier air strikes to rely on as well as the airbases in Kuwait.

Breitbart



> *TURKEY TAKES BACK PROMISE TO FIGHT IS, WON'T ALLOW COALITION TO USE AIR BASES*
> 
> In spite of its promise to NATO to help fight the Islamic State, Turkey will not take part in combat operations against militants and will refuse to allow any US-led coalition to attack jihadists in neighboring Iraq and Syria from its air bases, a government official said Thursday.
> 
> Turkey is the only Muslim country in the coalition of 10 countries who agreed to fight IS at the NATO summit last week in Wales. Turkey is a logical staging area for NATO, as IS militants control large portions of Iraq and much of northern Syria along the Turkish border.
> 
> As reported by The Times of Israel, the official told AFP on condition of anonymity that “Turkey will not be involved in any armed operation but will entirely concentrate on humanitarian operations.”
> 
> Turkey currently views itself as one of the victims of IS. Islamist militants hold 49 Turks hostage, including diplomats and children, abducted from the Turkish consulate in Mosul in Iraq on June 11.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

The Gulf states say they'll fight ISIS...when they actually helped create and fund this ISIS monster in the first place as a foil against Assad.

Military.com



> *Arab Allies Pledge to Fight Islamic State*
> 
> Associated Press | Sep 12, 2014 | by Lara Jakes and Adam Schreck
> 
> JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia -- Key Arab allies promised Thursday to "do their share" to fight Islamic State militants, but NATO member Turkey refused to join in, signaling the struggle the U.S. faces in trying to get front-line nations to put aside their regional animosities and work together to defeat a common enemy.
> 
> The Arab states' endorsement of a broad strategy to stop the flow of fighters and funding to the insurgents, and possibly to join military action, came as the CIA doubled its assessment of how many fighters the extremist group can muster.
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress lined up Thursday behind President Barack Obama's call to combat the militants, a day after he laid out a long-term campaign that would include expanding airstrikes against the fighters in Iraq, launching strikes against them in Syria for the first time and bolstering the Iraqi military and moderate Syrian rebels to allow them to reclaim territory from the militants.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

If the moderate Syrian opposition were supposed to be the linchpin of Obama's Syria strategy...things just got a little more complicated with this update:

RT



> *ISIS and moderate Syrian rebels strike truce… with Al Qaeda’s help – reports*
> Published time: September 13, 2014 15:17 Get short URL
> 
> *The militants of Islamic State have reportedly struck a deal with moderate Syrian rebels not to fight each other and focus on toppling the government. Some reports say the deal was brokered by the Al-Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda branch in Syria.*
> 
> The IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL, is preparing its forces in Syria for likely bombings by the US, which now considers itself at war with the extremist movement. In addition to spreading out from their known facilities, the group that took over portions of Syria and Iraq to build a caliphate is apparently seeking to safeguard itself from attacks of other armed groups in the war-torn country.
> 
> According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based conflict watchdog, the IS has signed a non-aggression pact with moderate fighters, who control the Hajar al-Aswad neighborhood of Damascus.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## tomahawk6

Obama is really hoping to work with Assad against IS.Syrian jets have been striking IS positions using US intel passed to them from Iran.Right now everyone's enemy is IS.After they are destroyed it will be business as usual.


----------



## a_majoor

Once again, backing the wrong horse.

ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhoods, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia are all on the same side against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. 

The main interest of the West is to contain the fighting inside the Middle East. Supplying Israel, the Kurds and various other ethnic groups like the Baloch helps distract the major players in the Shia/Sunni conflict, and provides a few entry points for whatever Western interests are still served in the region.

The West should just sit back, park a carrier battle group in the Med and one in the Arabian sea and start the popcorn. Let them spend their blood and treasure fighting each other.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Once again, backing the wrong horse.
> 
> ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhoods, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia are all on the same side against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.
> 
> The main interest of the West is to contain the fighting inside the Middle East. Supplying Israel, the Kurds and various other ethnic groups like the Baloch helps distract the major players in the Shia/Sunni conflict, and provides a few entry points for whatever Western interests are still served in the region.
> 
> The West should just sit back, park a carrier battle group in the Med and one in the Arabian sea and start the popcorn. Let them spend their blood and treasure fighting each other.




I agree with Thucydides: IS** is a barbaric thing, but barbarism is as old as history, older, probably, and not uncommon, on scales large and small, in many, many (most?) of the regions of the world.

                    --------------------------------------------------

What we have, today, in the Middle East, is some people we dislike intensely (Bashar al-Assad and his friends and followers) killing and being killed by other people we dislike at least as intensely (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his friends and followers) ... 

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I'm not sure air strikes are going to do anything except provide profits for the bomb makers. We've been bombing Iraqi villages for 90_ish_ years ... see e.g. Lionel Charlton, "Boom" Trenchard, Winston Churchill, _et al_; it doesn't seem to have done much good. There is, possibly (probably?), a way to bomb the Middle East into submission but my guess is that it has more to do with Dresden than with precision (surgical) strikes.






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                              Maybe less of this ...                                                                                  ... but more of this will work

What I am sure of is that "boots on the ground," Western troops fighting in what are, essentially, Arab civil wars, will not do us any long term good.

                    --------------------------------------------------

The _root cause_ of IS** is the centuries old and unresolved religious conflict between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. There is nothing much _Christendom_ or East Asia can do about that. One supposes that, eventually, there will be a clash ~ think the _Thirty Years War_ ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I don't _wish_ another Thirty Years war type of experience on anyone ... but I am reasonably confident that such a thing, decades of revolts, rebellions, civil wars and internecine wars between the Africans, Arabs, Persians and West Asians is both inevitable and necessary for the resolution of Islam's own, internal difficulties.

I am absolutely, 100% certain that neither we, the US led, secular, democratic West nor the equally secular Asians have any role, at all, to play in the resolution of Islam's contradictions. Old fashioned, 1950s style, _containment_ is my only suggestion ... but I would take _containment_ farther than did the brilliant George Kennan: I would add a larger dose of isolation.


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile, US SecState Kerry continues enlisting allies to fight against ISIS in Syria: 

Source: The New York Times



> *Arab Nations Offer to Conduct Airstrikes Against ISIS, U.S. Official Says *
> 
> Several Arab countries have offered to carry out airstrikes against militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a senior State Department official said Sunday.
> 
> The offer was disclosed by American officials traveling with Secretary of State John Kerry, who is approaching the end of a weeklong trip that was intended to mobilize international support for the campaign against ISIS.
> 
> “There have been offers both to Centcom and to the Iraqis of Arab countries taking more aggressive kinetic action,” said the State Department official, who used the acronym for the United States Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.funker530.com/germany-bans-all-isis-support-after-sharia-police-were-found-patrolling-german-streets/

Interesting


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I am absolutely, 100% certain that neither we, the US led, secular, democratic West nor the equally secular Asians have any role, at all, to play in the resolution of Islam's contradictions. Old fashioned, 1950s style, _containment_ is my only suggestion ... but I would take _containment_ farther than did the brilliant George Kennan: I would add a larger dose of isolation.




Some further support for the _containment_ option is found in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Times_:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f850056-38ee-11e4-a53b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3DNLmQfU4


> America’s perpetual war on terror by any other name
> *If you embark on something with your eyes half-open, you are likely to lose sight of reality*
> 
> By Edward Luce
> 
> September 14, 2014
> 
> Few have given as much thought as Barack Obama to the pitfalls of waging open-ended war on an abstract noun. On top of its impracticalities – how can you ever declare victory? – fighting a nebulous enemy exacts an insidious toll. Mr Obama built much of his presidential appeal on such a critique – the global war on terror was eroding America’s legal rights at home and its moral capital abroad. The term “GWOT” was purged the moment he took over from George W Bush. In his pledge last week to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, known as Isis, he has travelled almost full circle. It is precisely because Mr Obama is a reluctant warrior that his legacy will be enduring.
> 
> The reality is the US war on terror has succeeded where it was supposed to. Mr Bush’s biggest innovation was to set up the Department of Homeland Security. If you chart domestic terror attempts in the US since September 11 2001, they have become increasingly low-tech and ineffectual. From the foiled Detroit airliner attack in Mr Obama’s first year to the Boston marathon bombings in his fifth, each attempt has been more amateur than the last. The same is true of America’s allies. There has been no significant attack in Europe since London’s July 7 bombings nine years ago. Western publics have acclimatised to an era of tighter security.
> 
> If this is the balance sheet of the US war on terror, why lose sleep? Chiefly because it understates the costs. The biggest of these is the damage an undeclared war is doing to the west’s grasp on reality. Myopic thinking leads to bad decisions. Mr Obama pointedly avoided using the word “war” last week. Although there are more than 1,000 US military personnel in Iraq, and more than 160 US air strikes in the past month, he insisted on calling his plan to destroy Isis a “campaign”. Likewise, the US uniforms are those of “advisers” and “trainers”. These kinds of euphemism lead to mission creep. If you embark on something with your eyes half-open, you are likelier to lose your way.
> 
> In 2011 Mr Obama inadvertently helped to lay the ground for today’s vicious insurgency by withdrawing US forces from Iraq too soon. He left a vacuum and called it peace. Now he is tiptoeing back with his fingers crossed. The same reluctance to look down the road may well be repeating itself in Afghanistan. Mr Obama went out of his way last week to say that the Isis campaign would have no impact on his timetable to end the US combat mission in Afghanistan. The only difference between Iraq in 2011 and Afghanistan today is that you can see the Taliban coming. Nor does it take great insight to picture the destabilisation of Pakistan. In contrast to the Isis insurgency, which very few predicted, full-blown crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan are easy to imagine. So too is the gradual escalation of America’s re-engagement in Iraq.
> 
> Mr Obama’s detractors on both right and left want him to come clean – the US has declared war on Isis. Why else would his administration vow to follow it “to the gates of hell”, in the words of Joe Biden, the vice-president? Last year, Mr Obama called on Congress to repeal the law authorising military action against al-Qaeda that was passed just after 9/11. “Unless we discipline our thinking . . . we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight,” he said. Mr Obama is already vulnerable to what he warned against. His administration is basing its authority to attack Isis on the same unrepealed 2001 law.
> 
> Why does America need to destroy Isis? The case for containment – as opposed to war – has received little airing. But it is persuasive. The main objection is that destroying Isis will be impossible without a far larger US land force, which would be a cure worse than the disease. Fewer than 1,000 Isis insurgents were able to banish an Iraqi army force of 30,000 from Mosul in June – and they were welcomed by its inhabitants. Last week Mr Obama hailed the formation of a more inclusive Iraqi government under Haider al-Abadi. But it has fewer Sunni members than the last one. Nouri al-Maliki, the former prime minister, has been kept on in government.
> 
> The task of conjuring a legitimate Iraqi government looks like child’s play against that of building up a friendly Syrian army. Mr Obama has asked Congress for money to train 3,000 Syrian rebels – a goal that will take months to bear fruit. Isis now commands at least 20,000 fighters. Then there are America’s reluctant allies. Turkey does not want to help in any serious way. Saudi Arabia’s support is lukewarm. Israel is sceptical. Iran, whose partnership Mr Obama has not sought, is waiting for whatever windfalls drop in its lap. The same applies to Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president.
> 
> Whose army – if not America’s – will chase Isis to the “gates of hell”? Which takes us back to where we started. Mr Obama wants to destroy an entity he says does not yet pose a direct threat to the US. Mr Bush called that pre-emptive war. Mr Obama’s administration calls it a counterinsurgency campaign. Is it a distinction without a difference?
> 
> The US president’s aim is to stop Isis before it becomes a threat to the homeland. History suggests the bigger risk is the severe downside of another Middle Eastern adventure.
> 
> It is hard to doubt Mr Obama’s sincerity. It is his capacity to wade through the fog of war that is in question.




I remain persuaded, reluctantly, that no one in Washington ~ not President Obama, not the admirals and generals in the _Pentagon_, not the "big brain" analysts at Fort Meade or Langley, not the out of office talking heads in think tanks ~ have a plan. I think they cannot have a plan because they don't understand the problem, they are, as others have said, drifting aimlessly. We ought not to follow ... I accept that America "asked" and our political position is that w cannot say "no," too often, but if we are going to follow we should, at least, understand that we're following a blind man who is wandering in the fog.


----------



## CougarKing

An update: Obama decides against ground troops in Syria as well.

Source: Military.com



> *No US Ground Troops In Syria Either: White House*
> 
> Sep 15, 2014 | by Richard Sisk
> 
> The Obama administration said Sunday that its stance against U.S. "boots on the ground" in Iraq also applies to Syria in the effort to "degrade and destroy" the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
> 
> *"Ground forces in Syria will be Syrian," said Denis McDonough, the White House chief of staff.*
> 
> "The president made a decision on that, we're not going to do that," McDonough said on "Fox News Sunday" when asked if U.S. ground forces might act in Syria.
> 
> In the effort to organize a long-term strategy against ISIL, McDonough, who went on all the Sunday talk shows, said that Obama will meet Tuesday at the White House with retired Marine Gen. John Allen, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
> 
> Allen has been named a special envoy to coordinate a coalition of Arab states in the region against ISIL and press for the training of "moderate" Syrian opposition fighters to combat ISIL in Syria.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Obama's Gulf state "allies" might not like working alongside the IDF if the situation calls for it...

Defense News



> *US-Israel Accord to Support Coordinated Air Ops in Syria*
> Opposition Leader Urges Active Role in Anti-IS Coalition
> 
> TEL AVIV — A US-Israel defense agreement will support coordinated air power in Syria if and when the Israel Air Force (IAF) is tasked to operate in close proximity to American-led coalition air forces.
> 
> The bilateral accord was signed more than a year ago, sources here said, as part of Pentagon planning for prospective air strikes against chemical weapon-related sites then serving the Syrian regime.
> 
> In interviews here, defense sources said the agreement *codified coordination procedures for scenarios where US and Israeli aircraft may need to operate simultaneously in Syrian airspace.
> *
> (...EDITED)



Plus a warning to Assad:

Reuters



> *US warns of retaliation if Syria interferes with air strikes *
> By: Steve Holland, Reuters
> September 16, 2014 10:57 AM
> 
> President Barack Obama's authorization of the use of American air power against Islamic State's strongholds in Syria has raised the question of whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would respond in some way.
> 
> Senior US officials who briefed reporters said Assad should not interfere, that the United States has a good sense of where Syrian air defenses and command-and-control facilities are located.
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> *The United States has stressed it will not coordinate with the Assad government in any way in its fight against Islamic State.*
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> But air strikes against Islamic State in Syria could have the indirect effect of benefiting Assad because the extremists have been fighting the Syrian government during what is now a three-year civil war.
> 
> Washington wants to train and equip Syrian rebels who are deemed to be moderate to hold territory cleared by US air strikes.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Edward Campbell

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Obama's Gulf states allies might not like working alongside the IDF if the situation calls for it...
> ...




Obama/the USA/the US led West (which includes Israel, in my _opinion_) doesn't have any allies in the Gulf. Jordan is an ally in the Middle East ... and that's about it; the rest range from disinterested freeloaders to real enemies. Anyone who thinks that any Arab/Persian or West Asian state is a _*friend*_ is delusional.


----------



## CougarKing

ISIL/ISIS preparing for incoming US air strikes on Syria:

Reuters



> *Islamic State goes underground in Syrian stronghold*
> BY TOM PERRY
> BEIRUT Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:01pm EDT
> 
> (Reuters) - Islamic State has gone underground in its Syrian stronghold since President Barack Obama authorized U.S. air strikes on the group in Syria, disappearing from the streets, redeploying weapons and fighters, and cutting down its media exposure.
> 
> *In the city of Raqqa, 450 km (280 miles) northeast of Damascus, residents say Islamic State has been moving equipment every day since Obama signaled on Sept. 11 that air attacks on its forces could be expanded from Iraq to Syria.
> *
> Islamic State activists who typically answer questions on the Internet have been off line since then. Its leaders have not given a direct response to Obama: his speech last week was not mentioned in a video released on Saturday showing the beheading of British hostage David Haines by an Islamic State militant.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## Edward Campbell

More on self delusion about IS** in this article, by Micah Zenko, the Douglas Dillon Fellow at the _Council on Foreign Relations_, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Mr Zenko's _blog_ on the CFR's website:

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2014/09/18/why-the-united-states-will-never-defeat-isis/


> Why the United States Will Never Defeat ISIS
> 
> by Micah Zenko
> 
> September 18, 2014
> 
> On the eve of the Iraq War in 2003, while commanding the 101st Airborne Division, then-Maj. Gen. David Petraeus repeatedly asked Rick Atkinson the rhetorical question: “Tell me how this ends.” What began as a private joke between a military commander and an embedded journalist has become a warning for the need to define clear objectives and be cognizant of unexpected outcomes before going to war.  Last week, President Barack Obama attempted to provide clear strategic guidance for the U.S.-led war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL), declaring: “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL.”
> 
> I published a column in _Foreign Policy_ today that highlights two troubling elements about Obama’s declared end state.
> 
> First, other Obama administration officials have offered their own end states that confuse or contradict what the president stated just eight days ago. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough stated on Sunday: “Success looks like an ISIL that no longer threatens our friends in the region, no longer threatens the United States. An ISIL that can’t accumulate followers, or threaten Muslims in Syria, Iran, Iraq, or otherwise.” Yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry declared before the the Senate Foreign Relations Committee something else: “The military action ends when we have ended the capacity of ISIL to engage in broad-based terrorist activity that threatens the state of Iraq, threatens the United States, threatens the region. That’s our goal.” Today, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told the House Armed Services Committee that “success” included “stability in the Middle East.”
> 
> Second, the United States—and any combination of partners or allies—will never “destroy” ISIS. The evidence supporting this assertion is simple: Both Presidents George W. Bush and Obama declared that the Taliban and al-Qaeda and its affiliates would be “defeated” and “destroyed.” Meanwhile, the size and lethality of these groups has increased almost everywhere that they exist. The reason that presidents make such absolutist and totally unachievable pronouncements says more about American political culture than providing realist military campaign objectives. As I wrote in my column, a courageous president would tell the American people the truth, which is:
> 
> “The United States will attempt to diminish the threat that [ISIL] poses to U.S. personnel in the region to the greatest extent possible based upon the political will and resources that the United States and countries in the region are willing to commit.”
> 
> That is a strategy of mitigating ISIS’ threats and containing its influence within Iraq and the surrounding region. Yet, while mitigation and containment will drive the U.S. counterterrorism strategy regarding ISIS as a reality, the Obama administration (and Congress and the media) will pretend that the strategic end state is to defeat and destroy them. So when you hear the White House promise to destroy ISIS, don’t believe them, but consider why it is politically mandatory that they make such an outrageous and impossible claim.




Just so we are all on the same page: we are kidding ourselves. But we do plan to _contain_ IS**.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Obama/the USA/the US led West (which includes Israel, in my _opinion_) doesn't have any allies in the Gulf. Jordan is an ally in the Middle East ... and that's about it; the rest range from disinterested freeloaders to real enemies. Anyone who thinks that any Arab/Persian or West Asian state is a _*friend*_ is delusional.




And KAL, in _The Economist_, gets it:





Source: http://www.economist.com/news/world-week/21618906-kals-cartoon


----------



## CougarKing

And the rain of Tomahawks and other precision-guided munitions begins...



> *US begins airstrikes over Syria*
> 
> The United States launched its first wave of bombing attacks over Syria early Tuesday against an expected 20 to 25 Islamic State targets, U.S. officials said.
> 
> *The operation, expected to last several hours, involved planes launched from U.S.destroyers in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. Planes from five Arab countries also participated in the strikes.
> 
> The first explosions from Tomahawk missiles were heard in northern Syria. Targets were expected to include command and control centers, training camps and weapons depots.*
> 
> President Obama on Sept. 10 authorized U.S. airstrikes inside Syria as part of a broad campaign to root out the Islamic State militant group also known as ISIS and ISIL.
> 
> In a nod to his plans to go into Syria, Obama said then, “I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq.”
> 
> Until now, U.S. airstrikes have been limited to specific missions in northern Iraq.
> 
> Fox News


----------



## McG

So, when do the armies of the five Arab nations engage?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29321136


----------



## tomahawk6

I am very disappointed in Turkey.This is going on along their border and they wont lift a finger against ISIS.Makes you wonder what their agenda is ?


----------



## Edward Campbell

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I am very disappointed in Turkey.This is going on along their border and they wont lift a finger against ISIS.Makes you wonder what their agenda is ?




Until very recently it _appeared to me_ that Turkey was aiming itself to 'join' Europe, but two things happened:

     1. In the middle of the last decade some European countries (most notably Cyprus, for obvious reasons, and France) began to throw up obstacles to EU membership and, I _think_
         that Turks saw the stalling as _racism_; and

     2. In 2003 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became prime minister of Turkey, and, in 2014 he became president. My sense is that then Prime Minister Erdoğan wanted to bring Turkey into the EU
         but he also wants to make Turkey a regional and Muslim power.

I _believe_ that the two aims are in conflict; I think that both Europe and the Arabs _*know*_ that one cannot be, simultaneously, an EU member and a Muslim/Middle Eastern leader. My guess is that President Erdoğan wants to try but, ultimately, knows that he has a better chance of displacing Egypt as the leader in the Middle East than of leading Turkey into Europe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think turkey would not refuse EU membership, but it's purely at this point a "nice to have". The focus changed to be a Regional power and go to country, hence the dropping of Israel as a quiet ally and buttering up to the other countries, all with little success. For Turkey the only success has been on the Kurdish front with much better relations reducing tensions on much of that front. I suspect Turkey suffers from to many hidden agenda's and competing power groups within.


----------



## CougarKing

Another terrorist offshoot of Al-Qaeda, called Khorasan, was also reportedly targeted in the strikes:

CNN



> *U.S. hits Khorasan Group in Syria, which was thought to be plotting against U.S.*
> 
> (CNN) -- *Among the targets of U.S. strikes across Syria early Tuesday was a collection of buildings to the west of Aleppo, some distance from ISIS strongholds.
> 
> While the United States worked with Arab partners to attack ISIS targets, the U.S. military alone took aim at the Khorasan Group, an organization formed by senior al Qaeda members based in Pakistan who traveled to Syria, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen has reported.
> 
> "Khorasan" is an ancient term for an Islamic empire.*
> 
> The sites the United States struck overnight included "training camps, an explosives and munitions production facility, a communication building and command and control facilities," the military said in a statement.
> 
> Strikes target ISIS safe havens in Syria Official: Americans back from Syria Syrians cross into Turkey to flee ISIS
> 
> The group was actively plotting against a U.S. homeland target and Western targets, a senior U.S. official told CNN on Tuesday. The United States hoped to surprise the group by mixing strikes against it with strikes against ISIS targets.
> 
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

more about the F-22's combat debut in Syria:

Defense News



> *Analysis: Long Road for F-22's First Combat Mission*
> Sep. 23, 2014 - 11:35AM   |   By AARON MEHTA
> 
> WASHINGTON — The F-22 Raptor has flown its first combat operation, a major milestone for the small air dominance fleet.
> 
> *An Air Force official confirmed that the Raptor was used over Syria Monday during nighttime operations against the Islamic State (IS) and other militant groups as part of a joint force of US and Arabian Gulf region allies.*
> 
> “A mix of US aircraft and aircraft from within the US Central Command area of operations conducted the strikes,” the Air Force official said in a statement. “We will not specify the exact numbers of US aircraft or the specific munitions they employed. However, the US aircraft participating in the operation included remotely piloted aircraft, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18 and F-22 fighters and B-1 bombers.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## tomahawk6

Several airstike videos from last night.They were neatly togther at Jawa so it saved me time from compiling them from other sources.Enjoy  :camo:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/218855.php

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140923/NEWS04/309230056/Analysis-Syria-airstrikes-introduce-F-22-s-firepower-world


----------



## cupper

The Turks may be trying to walk a fine line on this one. Publicly presenting a face of neutrality or a non-commital stance. But behind the scenes, not for public consumption they may be providing more assistance. Just a thought.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can you imagine an RCAF officer making this statement?

"We’re at that point that we need to be thinking about replacement for capabilities we have today, because 15-20 years from now the F-22 will be 30 years old,” Col. Tom Coglitore, air superiority core function team chief at Air Combat Command, told Defense News."

In a few years the basic F18/CF 18 design will be 50 years old. And there is no replacement in sight.


----------



## CougarKing

Advances by ISIS forces in Syria continue despite a 2nd round of US-led air strikes:

Reuters



> *Islamic State advances on Kurdish town in Syria after U.S.-led air strikes*
> Reuters
> 
> By Jonny Hogg and Tom Perry | Reuters – 5 hours ago
> 
> MURSITPINAR Turkey/BEIRUT (Reuters) -* Islamic State has reinforced fighters who are battling Kurdish forces for control of a Syrian town at the border with Turkey, a redeployment triggered by U.S.-led air strikes on the group elsewhere, a Kurdish military official said.*
> 
> Ocalan Iso, deputy leader of the Kurdish forces defending the town of Kobani at the Turkish border, said more Islamic State fighters and tanks had arrived since the U.S.-led coalition began air strikes on the group on Tuesday.
> 
> *"The number of their fighters has increased, the number of their tanks has increased since the bombardment of Raqqa," *Iso told Reuters by telephone. He repeated calls for the U.S.-led coalition to expand its air strikes to Islamic State positions near Kobani, which is also known as Ayn al-Arab.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I am very disappointed in Turkey.This is going on along their border and they wont lift a finger against ISIS.Makes you wonder what their agenda is ?



And speaking of Turkey, despite a lack of participation in the air campaign, they may actually be sending boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq...

Turkish upgraded M48s and M60s vs ISIS-captured Abrams, anyone?

Defense News



> *Turkey To Broaden Possible Army Operations Against Militants in Iraq, Syria*
> Sep. 24, 2014 - 11:09AM   |  By BURAK EGE BEKDIL   |
> 
> ANKARA —* As it faces increasing security threats from Islamic extremists in its south and southeast, the Turkish government has said it will expand parliamentary authorizations allowing the Army to conduct cross-border operations into neighboring Iraq and Syria.
> *
> “The threats and risks posed from Iraq and Syria have changed. Therefore the content of the existing [parliamentary] motions that will be renewed in October will have to be modified,” Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told a press conference Tuesday.
> 
> The Turkish parliament will debate the motions on Oct. 2, a day after the beginning of the legislative year.
> 
> *Parliament currently has approved two motions authorizing Army operations: one is against the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party based in northern Iraq, and the other is against a potential Syrian offensive toward Turkey.*
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> *Turkey has called on the US to produce a comprehensive strategy that would also help topple the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Turkish upgraded M48s and M60s vs ISIS-captured Abrams, anyone?



Not a problem if ISIS have no ideas how to man and gun an Abrams.


----------



## cupper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not a problem if ISIS have no ideas how to man and gun an Abrams.



In Syria?


----------



## CougarKing

cupper said:
			
		

> In Syria?



You are aware that ISIS controls large swathes of both Iraq and Syria, and thus can move both men and equipment across where the Iraqi-Syria border used to be?

Btw, ISIS/ISIL reportedly has (or had) a large number of captured Abrams tanks from routed Iraqi Army armoured units. Perhaps any Abrams that survived coalition strikes in Iraq in the previous weeks might have been moved to Syria just before the air campaign was expanded to there?

Wall Street Journal



> Today, *we estimate that ISIS has less than a total of 30 working M1 Abrams tanks and howitzers that are either self-propelled or towed behind trucks (based on our knowledge of how the Iraqi army is equipped and what divisions were in the north)*. These are the weapons that gave the Islamic State the advantage over the Peshmerga in recent firefights. Yet ISIS does not have the highly trained maintenance crews that are necessary to keep these weapons in good working order. The same problem exists for its armored Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected personnel carriers. Without maintenance, these captured U.S. vehicles and weapons will break down.
> 
> (...END EXCERPT)


----------



## cupper

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> You are aware that ISIS controls large swathes of both Iraq and Syria, and thus can move both men and equipment across where the Iraqi-Syria border used to be?
> 
> Btw, ISIS/ISIL reportedly has (or had) a large number of captured Abrams tanks from routed Iraqi Army armoured units. Perhaps any Abrams that survived coalition strikes in Iraq in the previous weeks might have been moved to Syria just before the air campaign was expanded to there?
> 
> Wall Street Journal



I knew that they picked up huge amounts of equipment when the Iraqi Army turned tail. My surprise or skepticism is more a question of how would they be able to manage moving them undetected from Iraq to Syria. Not saying it isn't unlikely, but you would have to figure that the US would be keeping an eye on where each one was in case they did have a need to take them out at some point.


----------



## George Wallace

> 30 working M1 Abrams tanks and howitzers




Possessing this equipment and knowing how to operate it effectively are two different things.  Then comes the questions of having qualified 'Maintainers - mechanics, FCS technicians, wpns technicians, etc to keep them in operating condition as well as ammunition to fire.


----------



## CougarKing

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Possessing this equipment and knowing how to operate it effectively are two different things.  Then comes the questions of having qualified 'Maintainers - mechanics, FCS technicians, wpns technicians, etc to keep them in operating condition as well as ammunition to fire.



Would ISIS compensate for this by trying to recruit Sunni members from the Iraqi Army prisoners they have, or at least forcing some of their mechanics to maintain or repair damaged vehicles? As for the parts problem, weren't there a few Iraqi Army vehicle depots at outposts overrun by ISIS?

One would think that this would be less of a problem with the Russian vehicles and equipment and they have in greater quantities. 

----------------------

And in other news, the oil refineries are targeted by coalition aircraft:

Defense News



> *US, Coalition Forces Hit IS Oil Refineries in Syria*
> Sep. 24, 2014 - 06:49PM   |   By DOUG STANGLIN and RAY LOCKER
> 
> *US aircraft and those from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates struck Islamic State targets in Syria Wednesday, including 12 “modular oil refineries,” the US Central Command said.
> 
> The 13 airstrikes used a combination of fighter aircraft and drones, according to Central Command. T*he targets were in the remote eastern part of Syria near the towns of Al Mayadin, Al Hasakah, and Abu Kamal. Another strike hit an IS vehicle near Dayr az Zawr, also in eastern Syria.
> 
> The latest attacks follow strikes early Wednesday on five targets in Iraq and Syria connected to the militant Islamic State terrorist organization, the US Central Command reported.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

It's inevitable that Assad will still benefit from these coalition air strikes against ISIS despite Obama specifically saying they won't work with Assad:

Military.com



> *US, Allies Risk Benefiting Syria's Assad by Striking Militants*
> 
> Stars and Stripes | Sep 25, 2014 | by Travis J. Tritten and Jon Harper
> WASHINGTON — One year ago, the Obama administration considered a cruise missile strike on Syria, but the target was not the Islamic State or al-Qaida.
> 
> The president accused Syrian President Bashar Assad of murdering more than 1,000 citizens with poison gas. But U.S. airstrikes never came. Instead, the U.S. opted to negotiate the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons, and Assad continued a bloody war against his opponents that has killed an estimated 200,000 Syrians over more than three years.
> 
> Administration officials said again this week that Assad must relinquish power. But the new U.S.-led air war there against the Islamic State and al-Qaida offshoots Khorasan and the Nusra Front puts the administration in a precarious position — it is counting on Assad’s ouster while pounding some of his most dangerous enemies from the air.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

Now France is mulling Syrian strikes after one of their citizens is beheaded; they are already engaged in the air campaign over Iraq.

Reuters



> *Hours after tourist killed, France says does not rule out Syria strikes*
> 
> By John Irish and Andrew Callus
> 
> PARIS (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it did not rule out joining U.S.-led air strikes on Syria, just hours after an Algerian Islamist group beheaded a French tourist in retaliation for French military action against Islamic State militants in Iraq.
> 
> France has repeatedly said it would not take part in air action in Syria where Islamic State has its power base. On Thursday it struck its first targets in almost a week since joining the United States in raids against militants in Iraq.
> 
> Paris fears that strikes against Islamic State in Syria would leave a void that only Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces could fill, making it difficult for rebels to counter the more organized Syrian army.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

ISIS-captured tanks caught on the ground? (or more probably former Iraqi Army T-72s or T-62s?)

BBC



> *US air strikes in Syria 'destroy IS tanks'*
> 
> *US-led air strikes on Islamic State (IS) militants have destroyed four tanks and damaged another during a fourth night of bombardments in Syria.*
> 
> The Pentagon said it also carried out seven strikes on IS positions in Iraq, including one on the outskirts of the capital, Baghdad.
> 
> *The Danish government says it is sending seven F-16 fighter jets to join anti-IS operations - but only in Iraq.
> 
> The UK parliament is due to vote on possible air strikes in Iraq on Friday.*
> 
> IS controls much of north-eastern Syria and earlier this year seized swathes of territory in neighbouring Iraq, including the second city, Mosul
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Destroying or preventing ISIS from using their heavy equipment, forces them to operate like Light Infantry, putting them on a level playing field with the Kurds, well not level if the west provides air support and tactical battlefield intelligence.


----------



## CougarKing

Khorasan- just an elite group of Al-Qaeda or another offshoot that will grow into ISIS-propotions?

Yahoo Finance/Business Insider



> *Meet The Khorasan, The Terrorist Group That's Suddenly A Bigger Threat Than ISIS*
> Business Insider
> By Jeremy Bender and Brett LoGiurato – 11 hours ago
> 
> Up until late last week, no US official had ever publicly mentioned the terrorist group known as the Khorasan. On Monday night, the US carried out unilateral airstrikes against the previously unknown group in northwest Syria.
> 
> And on Tuesday, US officials were describing the group as an imminent threat on par with or worse than the group calling itself the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), which has been the focus of US airstrikes for more than six weeks.
> 
> *The key difference between ISIS and Khorasan: US intelligence believes Khorasan poses a threat to the US and its homeland, while it believes ISIS does not currently have the capability to carry out a large-scale attack on the US homeland.*
> 
> Khorasan was involved in "imminent attack plotting" against the US and its interests along with Europe, the Pentagon said Tuesday .* The group has been portrayed as a collection of top Al Qaeda officials from Central Asia who have been taking advantage of the chaos in Syria to establish training camps. *In a  statement from the White House, US President Barack Obama called them "seasoned" Al Qaeda operatives .
> 
> "The intelligence reports indicated that the Khorasan Group was in the final stages of plans to execute major attacks against Western targets and potentially the U.S. homeland," Lt. Gen. William Mayville, the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday.
> 
> *BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray reports that Khorasan appears to have been connected to I brahim al-Asiri , the master bomb maker in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The group is believed to be led by Muhsin al-Fadhli, a senior Al Qaeda operative and a close confidant of Osama bin Laden.*
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## tomahawk6

From what I gather this group doesnt exisat.Obama claimed that AQ was destroyed when that is not true.So the Khorasan group was created.AQ is alive and well.Every time you see Khorasan mentioned think - AQ.


----------



## CougarKing

The coalition air strikes continue:

Reuters



> *U.S. says strike aimed at Syria vehicles adjacent to grain storage*
> Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:16am EDT
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military said on Monday an American air strike overnight targeted Islamic State vehicles in a staging area adjacent to a grain storage facility near the northern Syrian town of Manbij, and added it had no evidence so far of civilian casualties.
> 
> *"We are aware of media reports alleging civilian casualties, but have no evidence to corroborate these claims," *Colonel Patrick Ryder, a spokesman at the U.S. military's Central Command said, adding the military however took such reports seriously and would look into them further.
> 
> A group monitoring the war said on Monday the air strike hit the grain storage areas and added that the operation appeared to have killed civilians, as opposed to Islamic State fighters.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Turkey itching to intervene?

Reuters



> *Obama says misread Islamic State; Qaeda warns of attacks on West*
> Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58am
> 
> BEIRUT/MURSITPINAR Turkey (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has acknowledged that U.S. intelligence underestimated the rise of Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, where the head of an al Qaeda branch warned militants will attack the West in retaliation for U.S.-led air strikes.
> 
> *Turkish tanks took up positions on the Syrian frontier, opposite a besieged border town where Islamic State shelling intesified and stray fire hit Turkish soil.*
> 
> U.S.-led air strikes overnight hit a natural gas plant controlled by Islamic State fighters in eastern Syria, a monitoring body reported, part of an apparent campaign to disrupt one of the fighters' main sources of income
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *At least 15 Turkish tanks were positioned at the frontier, some with guns pointed towards Syrian territory. More tanks and armoured vehicles moved towards the border after shells landed in Turkey on Sunday and Monday.*
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

And speaking of Turkey's mulling whether to intervene:



> *Turkey 'can't stay out' of anti-IS fight: Erdogan*
> 
> Istanbul (AFP) - Turkey cannot stay out of the international coalition fighting Islamic State (IS) jihadists, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Sunday, as Ankara prepares in the coming week to define its military involvement.
> 
> *Turkey has for months frustrated the West with its cautious position against IS, but there appears to have been a sea change in its policy following Erdogan's trip last week to the United States.*
> 
> "We will hold discussions with our relevent institutions this week. We will definitely be where we need to be," Erdogan said in a keynote address to a World Economic Forum meeting in Istanbul.
> 
> "We cannot stay out of this," he added.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> 
> Yahoo News



And a pic of Turkish M60 tanks gathering at the Turkish-Syrian border:


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm sure this isn't _exactly_ how it's being done, but ...






... that's what US policy looks like, to me.


----------



## CougarKing

Raptors doing "bomb truck" duty over Syria:

Defense News



> *F-22 Continuing Operations in Syria*
> Sep. 29, 2014 - 03:45AM   |   By AARON MEHTA
> 
> WASHINGTON — The kid gloves appear to be fully removed from the F-22 Raptor, with a US Air Force general indicating Monday that the fifth-generation fighter will be available for future operations over Syria for the foreseeable future.
> 
> *That doesn’t mean the F-22 is running missions every day, however. The jet is being used for specific mission sets, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations, where its suite of advanced sensors and avionics can make an impact.*
> 
> “Planners are taking a look at the specifics of each mission and determining if they need them or not,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, told reporters. “So it will depend on what the targets are, where they are, and the environment — whether it’s day, night, those kind of things — to determine if it is necessary to flow the F-22 into the package.”
> 
> The F-22 had its first official combat mission during the first day of strikes against Islamic States (IS) forces in Syria. It was a long time coming for the jet, which went operational at the end of 2005 but was largely viewed as being kept in bubble wrap for a potential air-to-air combat situation against another advanced air force.
> 
> *The general confirmed that the F-22 has been used in operations since then. And while its first operation involved dropping a weapon on an IS command and control facility, Harrigian said the jet would not be dropping bombs on every sortie.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Ankara changing their minds after denying coalition forces the use of their airbases for air strikes last month? 

Reuters



> *Turkey vows to fight Islamic State, coalition strikes near border*
> BY AYLA JEAN YACKLEY AND OLIVER HOLMES
> MURSITPINAR Turkey/BEIRUT Wed Oct 1, 2014 10:14am EDT
> 
> (Reuters) - Turkey signalled it may send troops into Syria or Iraq and let allies use Turkish bases to fight Islamic State, as coalition jets launched air strikes on Wednesday on insurgents besieging a town on its southern border with Syria.
> 
> *The government sent a proposal to parliament late on Tuesday which would broaden existing powers and allow Ankara to order military action to "defeat attacks directed towards our country from all terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria".*
> 
> The proposal would also mean Turkey, until now reluctant to take a frontline role against Islamic State, could allow foreign forces to use its territory for cross-border incursions.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The barbarians at it again:

Reuters



> *Islamic State beheads seven men, three women in Syria: monitor*
> Reuters – 11 hours ago
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamic State beheaded seven men and three women in a northern Kurdish area of Syria, a human rights monitoring group said on Wednesday, part of what it described as a campaign to frighten residents resisting the militant group's advance.
> 
> The head of the Syrian Observatory for Human, Rights Rami Abdulrahman, said five anti-Islamic State Kurdish fighters, including three women, and four Syrian Arab rebels were detained and beheaded on Tuesday 14 km (8 miles) west of Kobani, a Kurdish town besieged by Islamic State near the Turkish border.
> 
> He said a Kurdish male civilian was also beheaded.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Turkish troops getting ready to fight ISIS?

US News and World Report



> *Turkey OKs Ground Troops to Fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria*
> 
> NATO has no plans to assist its ally, however, as local defense minister lowers expectations.
> 
> *The Turkish parliament voted Thursday in favor of sending ground troops into neighboring Syria and Iraq to help quell the surging Islamic State group threat, becoming the first NATO ally or U.S. partner to seriously consider deploying the much discussed “boots on the ground” option* from which all others have distanced themselves.
> 
> A resolution in favor of the deployment passed the parliament with three quarters of the vote, according to the BBC. It includes a provision allowing friendly nations to use Turkish soil as a staging ground for launching attacks. The Turkish government had been reticent about involving itself directly in Syria in recent weeks as more than 40 of its citizens were previously held captive by the extremists. The details of their release late last month remain unclear.
> 
> Nonetheless, fierce fighting has taken place along the country’s border with Syria near the village of Kobane.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## CougarKing

The ISIS barbarians behead another Briton:

Reuters



> *Islamic State beheads Briton Henning in new video: SITE*
> Fri Oct 3, 2014 4:43pm EDT
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> The one-minute, 11-second video, titled "Another Message to America and its Allies," showed the British aid worker introducing himself, said SITE. Henning says "because of our parliament's decision to attack the Islamic state, I, as a member of the British public, will now pay the price for that decision," according to SITE.


----------



## CougarKing

Isn't the theological challenge rhetoric more for the consumption of western countries (namely diplomats) than for within Arab countries?

Defense News



> *Arab Leaders Attack IS With Intel, Theological Challenge*
> Oct. 4, 2014 - 11:25AM   |   By AWAD MUSTAFA
> 
> DUBAI — As the international coalition’s military operations against Islamic State (IS) militants have ramped up, Arab leaders also have begun waging an intellectual war while providing intelligence to guide airstrikes.
> 
> According to retired Maj. Gen. Anwar Eshki, an adviser to the joint military council of Saudi Arabia, the coalition operations will continue for some time because it is being structured as a NATO-style force.
> 
> “It will either be an extension of NATO or a NATO-style coalition because the US wants this coalition to include the Middle East joining Eastern Europe,” he said. “It will continue for many years to destabilize terrorism in the region and weaken it,” he added.
> 
> *In addition, Saudi Arabia will be training Syrian rebel forces and has received its first 5,000 recruits, he said, with an expectation to train a total of 15,000 soldiers.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED
> 
> Jordanian armed forces have also used a network of surveillance and monitoring radar systems placed in the Ajloun mountain in the north to collect intel and track movements, he said.
> 
> In Iraq, coalition forces rely on the Iraqi military and intelligence services, although insight into Islamic State-controlled territory is limited. However, according to Eshki, efforts by the Iraqi government to collect support from Sunni groups formerly backing the IS militants have been successful.
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> *Despite the Qatari government long being criticized for hosting and financing Islamic extremists, the rich gulf nation has become a key opponent of the Islamic State in Syria,* contributing two Mirage 2000 jet fighters during the first raids in Syria, according to a Pentagon official’s statements to US press.
> 
> (...END OF EXCERPTS)


----------



## CougarKing

ISIS closing in on the Syrian Kurds: Yikes!  

Reuters



> *Syrian border town still under siege by Islamic State despite allied air strikes*
> BY AYLA JEAN YACKLEY AND SYLVIA WESTALL
> MURSITPINAR/BEIRUT Sat Oct 4, 2014 12:08pm EDT
> 
> (Reuters) - Islamic State forces shelled the Syrian border town of Kobani on Saturday and its Kurdish defenders said they were expecting a new assault to try to capture it.
> 
> U.S.-led coalition warplanes had struck at Islamic State targets overnight to halt the insurgents' advance and Saturday's barrages were less intense than the previous day.
> 
> "Clashes continue now, they are shelling on all three fronts. They tried to invade Kobani last night but they were repelled," senior Kurdish official Asya Abdullah told Reuters from the town on Saturday.
> 
> *"We think they are planning to launch another big attack but YPG is prepared to resist them.," she said, referring to the Kurdish armed group defending it.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

I keep waiting for Turkish intervention to save the town.They did say the other day that they wouldnt let Kobane fall.Warthogs may arrive in time,but will need coordination with the ground.


----------



## CougarKing

The Syrian Kurds continue to hold on despite heavy losses to ISIS's unconventional tactics:

Reuters



> *Thirty Kurdish fighters killed in suicide bombs in Syria's Hasakah: monitor*
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - At least 30 people were killed in two suicide attacks on two checkpoints run by Kurdish fighters in Syria's northeastern city of Hasakah on Monday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
> 
> "The attacks targeted checkpoints run by Kurdish fighters on the western entrance of the city. They occurred within minutes of each other," Rami Abdelrahman from the Observatory said.
> 
> *For more than three weeks, Syria's Kurds have been engaged in heavy fighting with fighters from the Islamic State group which is trying to seize the border town of Kobani after taking large parts of Syria and Iraq.
> 
> On Monday, the radical group raised its black flag on a building on the outskirts of Kobani*.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

The FSA captured a Russian intelligence site on the Israeli border.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/syrian-rebels-seize-russian-spy-station-near-israeli-border.html?via=desktop&source=twitter#

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GDDbYfp7Sc&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## George Wallace

Google Earth

Latitude:   33° 3'46.58"N

Longitude:   35°59'32.37"E

[Edit to add:
Interestingly, if you scroll out a bit, five clearly defined dug-in  anti-aircraft missile battery positions are visible to the Southwest. ]


----------



## MilEME09

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I keep waiting for Turkish intervention to save the town.They did say the other day that they wouldnt let Kobane fall.Warthogs may arrive in time,but will need coordination with the ground.



considering all the forces the turks are putting in place, either A) they still have chess pieces to move, or B) they are waiting for something we don't know about or have over looked


----------



## CougarKing

Mustard gas in ISIS hands?



> *ISIS Using Chemical Weapons against Kurdish Fighters in Kobane? *
> 
> excerpts:
> The MERIA Journal report noted that the type of chemical agent used on the Kurdish fighters in Kobane has been verified by its Israeli experts, who after analysing the blisters formed on the bodies on several Kurdish soldiers found that it was caused by mustard gas.
> 
> The bodies of three Kurdish fighters showed no signs of damage from bullets. Rather "...burns and white spots on the bodies of the dead indicated the use of chemicals, which led to death without any visible wounds or external bleeding," said Kurdish health minister Nisan Ahmed.
> 
> source:
> http://www.ibtimes.co.in/isis-using-chemical-weapons-against-kurdish-fighters-kobane-photos-611223


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Mustard gas in ISIS hands?



So far with all the epic fails that are posted on YouTube, and the likelihood that none of the members of ISIS have any experience in handling Chemical weapons, we may just see another case for the Darwin Awards.


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile, across the border in Turkey...

This could be the main reason why they`re not intervening in Kobani- they don`t want to help the Syrian Kurds get any breathing room from ISIS.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mideast-violence-spreads-turkey-bombs-kurdish-militants-101734509.html



> *Mideast crisis widens as Turkey bombs Kurdish militants*
> Reuters
> 
> By Daren Butler and Humeyra Pamuk | Reuters – 2 hours 19 minutes ago
> 
> By Daren Butler and Humeyra Pamuk
> ISTANBUL/SURUC Turkey (Reuters) - War against Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq threatened on Tuesday to unravel the delicate peace in neighbouring Turkey after the Turkish air force bombed Kurdish fighters furious over Ankara's refusal to help protect their kin in Syria.
> Turkey's banned PKK Kurdish militant group accused Ankara of violating a two-year-old cease-fire with the air strikes, on the eve of a deadline set by the group's jailed leader to salvage a peace process aimed at halting a three-decades-long insurgency.
> 
> At least 35 people were killed in riots last week when members of Turkey's 15-million-strong Kurdish minority rose up in anger at the government for refusing to help defend the Syrian border town of Kobani from an Islamic State assault.
> 
> "For the first time in nearly two years, an air operation was carried out against our forces by the occupying Turkish Republic army," the PKK said. "These attacks against two guerrilla bases at Daglica violated the ceasefire," the PKK said, referring to an area near the border with Iraq.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

An update on the US-led air campaign:



> Defense News
> 
> *US Military: 21 Strikes Slow Islamic State Advance*
> Oct. 14, 2014 - 02:20PM   |  By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> WASHINGTON — US-led aircraft hammered Islamic State jihadists with 21 bombing raids near Kobane on Monday and Tuesday amid signs the strikes had “slowed” the group’s advance on the Syrian border town, the American military said.
> 
> In one of the heaviest bombardments so far against the Sunni jihadists encircling Kobane, *coalition airstrikes “destroyed” two IS staging locations, a building, a truck, two vehicles, three compounds *and damaged several other targets, it said.
> 
> A separate air raid in eastern Syria struck a small oil refinery, it said.
> 
> “Indications are that airstrikes have slowed ISIL advances” around Kobane, US Central Command, which is overseeing the air campaign, said in a statement.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The name of the current air operation over both Iraq and Syria has been chosen:

Defense News



> *Campaign Against Islamic State Named 'Operation Inherent Resolve'*
> 
> The war against the Islamic State now has a name: “Operation Inherent Resolve.”
> 
> That announcement by the Joint Staff comes almost 10 weeks after the US began airstrikes in Iraq and later Syria to blunt the Islamic State, which has carved out a Taliban-like caliphate in both countries.
> 
> The Wall Street Journal reported Oct. 3 that US military leaders had rejected the name “Operation Inherent Resolve” because of a feeling that it was “just kind of ‘bleh,’ ” one unidentified military office told the newspaper.
> 
> Air Force Col. Ed Thomas, a spokesman for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to comment on whether the top brass initially had rejected the name and then reconsidered it.
> 
> According to CENTCOM, the name “is intended to reflect the unwavering resolve and deep commitment of the US and partner nations in the region and around the globe to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community. It also symbolizes the willingness and dedication of coalition members to work closely with our friends in the region and apply all available dimensions of national power necessary — diplomatic, informational, military, economic — to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Kirkhill

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, across the border in Turkey...
> 
> This could be the main reason why they`re not intervening in Kobani- they don`t want to help the Syrian Kurds get any breathing room from ISIS.
> 
> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mideast-violence-spreads-turkey-bombs-kurdish-militants-101734509.html



A bit more context?



> Turkish Strikes On Kurds Complicate Anti-IS Fight (excerpt)
> 
> (Source: Associated Press; published Oct 14, 2014)
> 
> WASHINGTON --- In a fresh test for U.S. coalition-building efforts, Turkey is launching airstrikes against Kurdish rebels inside its borders this week despite pleas from the Obama administration to instead focus on an international campaign to destroy Islamic State militants wreaking havoc in the region.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Turkish airstrikes occurred Monday and marked the country's first major strikes against Kurdish rebels on its own soil since peace talks began two years ago. The strikes came amid anger among the Kurds in Turkey, who accuse the government there of standing by while Syrian Kurds are being killed by Islamic State militants in the besieged Syrian border town of Kobani.
> 
> The Islamic State militants also have targeted Kurds in Iraq, who have to some extent been able to hold off their advances.
> 
> The U.S. has been pressing Turkey - a NATO ally - to take a more active role in the campaign to destroy the Islamic State group, *but unless the U.S.the Turks have said they won't join the fight -led coalition also targets Syrian President Bashar Assad's government*. The Obama administration sees those as separate fights and has no appetite to go to war against Assad. (end of excerpt)



Does that leave open the option that a Kurdish overthrow of Assad and the establishment of Syria as a Kurdish state would be acceptable to Turkey?  ???

Because, if so, that is something that should be jumped on as a war aim.   It has historical antecedents and the current game needs shaking up.


----------



## a_majoor

The problem with overthrowing Assad and making Syria a Kurdish state is there are no historic antecedents: "Kurdistan" encompasses the northern third of Iraq, and adjoining pieces of Syria, Iran and Turkey. Even if the Kurds were to overthrow Assad, the Arab population of Syria would look on them as alien conquerers.

The middle East is a toxic mixture of ethnic and religious chauvinism that cuts across current political boundaries and even across ethic groups (there are Shia and Sunni Kurds, for example).

Sadly this is really a prime example of a situation described by my namesake in the _Melian dialogue_:

" Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"


----------



## CougarKing

What do they intend to do with antiquated MiG21s and MiG23s that have no chance against the fighters that the coalition nations fly?

 :facepalm:

*ISIL training pilots in 3 captured jets -monitor*
World Bulletin/News Desk









> Iraqi pilots who have joined ISIL in Syria are training members of the group to fly in three captured fighter jets, a group monitoring the war said on Friday, saying it was the first time that the militant group had taken to the air.
> 
> ----------------------------
> It was not clear whether the jets were equipped with weaponry or whether the pilots could fly longer distances in the planes, which witnesses said appeared to be* MiG 21 or MiG 23 *models captured from the Syrian military.


World Bulletin


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> What do they intend to do with antiquated MiG21s and MiG23s that have no chance against the fighters that the coalition nations fly?
> 
> :facepalm:



I imagine they are only teaching them how to get into the air.  Although antiquated, they make a very large "Suicide Vest".


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Globe and Mail's_ Jeffrey Simpson is a good, knowledgable commentator on Canadian politics, he is less _certain_ on foreign affairs and what he says must, normally, be taken with a grain of salt, sometimes a whole shovel full of it. But, in a recent column he shows that he does understand Syria:

     "In Syria, of course, there are so many groups fighting each other – from Bashar al-Assad’s secular government dominated by the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiism, to the Islamic State and every shade in between – that the country has become the epicentre of
      intra-Islamic conflict. Syria is a cauldron of chaos into which the West has moved with the noble but nigh-impossible task of identifying and organizing “moderate” Muslims to fight simultaneously against Mr. al-Assad and the Islamic State. A mission less likely to
      succeed can scarcely be imagined."


----------



## CougarKing

Another gas facility targeted by coalition jets:

Canadian Press



> *US-led strike on IS-held gas facility in eastern Syria kills 8*
> The Canadian Press
> 
> MURSITPINAR, Turkey - A U.S.-led coalition airstrike on a gas distribution facility in a stronghold of the Islamic State group set off a series of secondary explosions and killed at least eight people in eastern Syria, activists said Saturday.
> 
> The airstrike targeted a distribution station in the town of Khasham in the oil-rich province of Deir el-Zour late Friday, Deir el-Zour Free Radio, an activist collective, said on its Facebook page. The collective named four of those killed and said another four charred bodies were placed in a nearby mosque. It said the slain men were mostly fuel tanker drivers.
> 
> Another activist group, the Deir el-Zour Network, described "long tongues of flames" from the strike. The incident was also reported by the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which relies on a network of activists inside Syria.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Perhaps the Turks tipped off ISIS on where the likely air drop zones would be?

Military.com



> *ISIS Fighters Seize Airdropped Weapons Meant for Kurds*
> 
> Associated Press | Oct 21, 2014 | by Diaa Hadid
> Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militant group seized at least one cache of weapons airdropped by U.S.-led coalition forces that were meant to suppy Kurdish militiamen battling the extremist group in a border town, activists said Tuesday.
> 
> The cache of weapons included hand grenades, ammunition and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, according to a video uploaded by a media group loyal to the Islamic State. The video appeared authentic and corresponded to The Associated Press’ reporting of the event. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the militants had seized at least once cache, but may have seized more.
> 
> The Observatory, which bases its information on a network of activists on the ground, said the caches were airdropped early Monday to Kurds in the embattled Syrian town of Kobani that lies near the Turkish border. The militant group has been trying to seize the town for over a month now, causing the exodus of some 200,000 people from the area into Turkey. While Kurds are battling on the ground, a U.S.-led coalition is also targeting the militants from the air.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## George Wallace

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Turks tipped off ISIS on where the likely air drop zones would be?
> 
> Military.com



Not necessarily.  A lousy Navigator giving the "Green Light" way off the Drop Zone could cause it; as could changes in the wind; or the Friendlies did not give the correct coordinates, and perhaps were not where they should of been.  A multitude of things could have gone wrong.


[Edit to add:  Early in video, it looks like a box of No. 36 Grenades without primers and fuses.]


----------



## CougarKing

And Assad forces reportedly shoot down 2 of the 3 jets ISIS was said to have:

Reuters



> *Syria says shoots down two of three Islamic State jets*
> 
> (Reuters) - Syria's air force has destroyed two fighter jets operated by Islamic State militants in the north of the country, Information Minister Omran Zoabi said in remarks published on Syria's state news agency SANA late on Tuesday.
> 
> A Syrian monitoring group said on Friday that Iraqi pilots trained under former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had joined Islamic State and were conducting training flights in three captured fighter jets at a air base in Aleppo province.
> 
> The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Islamic State, which has seized swathes of land in Syria and Iraq, had been flying the planes over the captured al-Jarrah military airport east of Aleppo.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Defense News



> *US-Led Strikes Kill More Than 500 Militants in Syria*
> Oct. 23, 2014 - 02:17PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> MURSITPINAR, TURKEY — US-led airstrikes in Syria were reported Thursday to have killed more than 500 jihadists in a month, as Kurdish fighters readied to reinforce the embattled border town of Kobane.
> 
> An AFP correspondent across the frontier in Turkey reported fierce clashes and fresh air raids in Kobane, with heavy gun and mortar fire rocking its western side in the evening.
> 
> The Islamic State (IS) group, which on June 29 declared a “caliphate” over territory it seized in Iraq and Syria, was on Thursday described as the world’s wealthiest “terror” group, earning $1 million a day from oil sales alone.
> 
> The battle for Kobane has become crucial for both IS and its opponents, with a senior US official this week saying that the Kurds there were inflicting heavy losses on the jihadist group.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Many of these mercs are reportedly former Taliban fighters...

Wall Street Journal



> *Iran Pays Afghans to Fight for Assad*
> Offers Them $500 Stipend, Residency Benefits
> 
> Iran has been recruiting thousands of Afghan refugees to fight in Syria, offering $500 a month and Iranian residency to help the Assad regime beat back rebel forces, according to Afghans and a Western official.
> 
> The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, recruits and trains Shiite militias to fight in Syria. Details of their recruitment efforts were posted this week on a blog focused on Afghan refugees in Iran and confirmed by the office of Grand Ayatollah Mohaghegh Kabuli, an Afghan religious leader in the Iranian holy city of Qom. A member of the IRGC also confirmed the details.
> 
> "They [IRGC] find a connection to the refugee community and work on convincing our youth to go and fight in Syria," said the office administrator of Ayatollah Kabuli, reached by telephone in Qom. "They give them everything from salary to residency." Tehran is also offering them school registration for their children and charity cards.
> 
> Many Afghan young men have written to Ayatollah Kabuli to ask whether fighting in Syria was religiously sanctioned, his office said. He responded only if they were defending Shiite shrines. Lately, his office said he has kept silent and not even attended funerals of Afghans killed in Syria.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Kirkhill

How much ideology is left in the trenches?  How many of these guys are just in it for the money and the gore?

During the 30 years war, of fond memory, James VI & I, and Charles I, acted to resolve their problems with Border Reivers (think Anglo-Scots Pathans) by paying to have them formed into regiments and sailed to the continent under Border War Lords like Scott of Buccleuch.  

Many takers were found.  The alternatives being go to Ireland, like the Grahams, and take your chances on being slaughtered by Catholics.  Or stay at home and be hanged for being an Armstrong.

At least in Holland they got a chance to slaughter somebody, meals were almost guaranteed and the booty was good (both ancient and modern usage).

Stop me when it sounds familiar.


----------



## a_majoor

Your analogy works partially WRT the various foreign fighters that the Gulf States have/had been funding (or going farther back, in Afghanistan foreign fighters known to the locals as "the Arabs" who were generally hated and feared by Afghans), but I think we are still early enough into this "30 years war" that religious and ideological dynamics still motivate a lot of people.

When States like Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq lie in ruins (similar to the wreckage in Germany towards the end of the 30 years war) then most of the fighting will be brigandage rather than ideological fighting.

Of course given the larger pool of manpower and resources, it is quite possible that this is going to be a "100 years war", with much of the fighting resembling a _chevauchee_ as one side or the other gains a temporary advantage and despoils the countryside to deprive the others of resources (notice the use of the plural).


----------



## George Wallace

Links to Tank combat footage in Syria:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCECQmi7rvnOXlGl6LsJwcCQ


----------



## CougarKing

The air campaign continues:

Reuters



> *U.S., allies launch barrage of airstrikes against Islamic State*
> 
> (Reuters) - The United States and its allies launched a barrage of attacks against Islamic State over the weekend, conducting *23 air strikes in Syria and 18 in Iraq against the militant group* since Friday, U.S. Central Command said.
> 
> In a statement, U.S. Central Command said the strikes in Syria included 13 aimed near the key border down of Kobani and 10 hit near Dayr Az Zawr.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Another barbaric act...

Military.com



> *Video Shows ISIS Beheading Ex-Army Ranger*
> 
> Associated Press | Nov 16, 2014
> Islamic militants have allegedly beheaded former Army Ranger Peter Kassig, a video circulated on social media shows.
> The video shows Islamic State of Iraq and Syria individual known as Jihadi John murdering Kassig, a 26-year-old US aid worker captured a year ago while on his way to the city of Deir Ezzour in eastern Syria.
> The authenticity of the footage is yet to be verified.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

Several westerners have been identified as part of IS beheading team.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/frenchman-brit-isis-thugs-peter-kassig-behead-tape-article-1.2013430


----------



## CougarKing

These jets are in addition to the Rafales already bombing IS targets in Iraq from their base in the Persian Gulf. The more, the merrier...

Defense News



> *France To Send 6 Mirage Jets To Jordan Against Islamic State*
> 
> Nov. 26, 2014 - 04:03PM   |  By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> PARIS — The French government said that six Mirage fighter jets would be deployed to Jordan on Thursday to assist in the fight against the Islamic State group.
> 
> Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told a weekly cabinet meeting that the deployment of the six fighters would “strengthen our presence in this theater of operations,” according to government spokesman Stephane Le Foll.
> 
> French Prime Minister Manuel Valls had already on Sunday announced the deployment of the fighters to Jordan, to join forces against the extremist group in Iraq but the arrival of the warplanes was expected at the end of the month.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

A Jordanian aircraft crashed in Syria and IS captured the pilot.Prayers for his safe return.

http://news.yahoo.com/downs-warplane-over-syria-claims-capture-jordanian-pilot-085059465.html


----------



## CougarKing

ISIS has a police force? They're probably more like the "religious police" in countries like Iran who punish any deviation from their expected "social norms".

Reuters



> *Islamic State 'police' official beheaded: Syria monitor*
> Tue Jan 6, 2015 6:39am EST
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - A top figure in Islamic State's self-declared police force, which has carried out beheadings, was himself found decapitated in eastern Syria, a monitoring group said.
> 
> The man was an Egyptian national and was known as the deputy "emir" of the al-Hesbah force in a Syrian province, the British-based the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Tuesday.
> 
> His body, which showed signs of torture, was found near a power plant in al-Mayadeen city in the Deir-al-Zor province, it said, citing contacts on the ground.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## George Wallace

I would not be surprised that this is an internal case.  I would not be surprised to learn that someone within ISIL had a "hate on" for this official and probably created 'false' charges against him.   A case of them turning on their own.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> ISIS has a police force? They're probably more like the "religious police" in countries like Iran who punish any deviation from their expected "social norms".
> 
> Reuters



VICE recently went to Raqqa and did a report on the "Inner Workings" of the Islamic State.  They followed a Group of "Police Officers" around on a patrol and were shown how they enforce laws and police the society.  The police would stop and question folks who weren't conforming with Sharia Law and try and persuade them to comply i.e. Women being inappropriately dressed, listening to inappropriate music, using foul language, etc....

The police would also act as a arbitrators and attempt to resolve disputes between people.  They also enforced taxes and made sure shopkeepers, etc... We're trading fairly.

They maintained that they did not normally use violence and were polite in their dealings with people but if people refused to comply, they had other "methods" including violence to persuade them.

I'll attempt to track down the video link as it's very interesting.

Here is a picture of an ISIS police cruiser:


----------



## jollyjacktar

I guess he got a bad PER this year.  Tough crowd, tough crowd...


----------



## CougarKing

More US trainers...this time for Syrian rebels instead of Iraqi troops.

Military.com



> *Upwards Of 1,000 US Troops Could Deploy for Syrian Rebel Training*
> 
> Jan 16, 2015 | by Richard Sisk
> The U.S. effort to recruit and train "moderate" Syrian opposition group fighters to combat ISIS could involve the deployment of upwards of 1,000 U.S. troops to training sites in the Middle East, the Pentagon said Friday.
> 
> *The initial Pentagon announcement on Thursday said that "Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar have agreed to host training sites and we anticipate the program to train and equip the moderate  Syrian opposition will take approximately 400 U.S. trainers."
> 
> However, Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said Friday that the number of U.S. troops deployed "could approach 1,000, might even exceed it. I can't rule it out."*
> 
> Kirby said that special operations troops would mainly handle the training and would be backed up by conventional support and force protection troops.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> More US trainers...this time for Syrian rebels instead of Iraqi troops.
> 
> Military.com


I don't like the sound of giving anyone from Syria training.  Don't trust any of them.


----------



## a_majoor

Wow, talk about working at cross purposes:

The US is fighting ISIS in Iraq alongside Iran, but are training Syrian rebels to fight Iran's ally Syria. What next, train Hezbollah fighters to keep anti Assad rebels from entering Lebanon?

This sort of thing is the reason I advocate for *us* not to get involved. The Iranians and their allies/proxies Syria and Hezbollah are fighting ISIS (and their enablers in the Gulf States). Neither side is going to thank us for helping defeat the other, but redouble their efforts against *us* once they are finished with their current project. Nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are also not our friends, and the best COA is to simply let them fight it out for regional hegemony with their own blood and treasure.

If *we* do need to get involved, then support our friends Israel, Jordan, the Kurds and the Baloch, which will give us an "in" should *we* need to deal with the Middle East


----------



## CougarKing

A gruesome end to one of the Japanese hostages...and the story that led to his unfortunate journey to Syria.

International Business Times



> *ISIS Beheads Haruna Yukawa: Why The Japanese Hostages Were In Syria*
> By  Shuan Sim @ShuanSim s.sim@ibtimes.com on January 24 2015 11:28 AM
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Yukawa and Goto were captured in Syria after returning to the war-torn nation despite being keenly aware of its dangers. For many in Japan, the hostage crisis that unfolded this week before the release of the beheading video raised questions about what the two men were doing in Syria in the first place.
> 
> *Yukawa claimed to be a private military contractor, and Goto was a respected war correspondent. Their capture reflect a tale centered on Yukawa’s chase of his dreams and Goto’s dedication to Yukawa as a friend.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

After months and many dozens of air strikes, the siege of Kobani has been lifted:

Reuters



> *Kurds push Islamic State out of Kobani after four-month battle*
> 
> By Sylvia Westall and Ayla Jean Yackley
> 
> BEIRUT/ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Kurdish forces took control of the Syrian town of Kobani on Monday after driving out Islamic State fighters, a monitoring group and Syrian state media said, although Washington said the four-month battle was not yet over.
> 
> Some Islamic State supporters took to Twitter to say the fight for Kobani, a focal point of the international struggle against the ultra-hardline Islamist group, was still raging.
> 
> Islamist militants launched an assault on the predominantly Kurdish town last year, using heavy weapons seized in Iraq and forcing tens of thousands of locals into exile.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

I hope it cost the barbarians a great deal in dead terrorists to get their curb stomping from the Kurdish forces.  With any luck this will be a trend.


----------



## OldSolduer

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I hope it cost the barbarians a great deal in dead terrorists to get their curb stomping from the Kurdish forces.  With any luck this will be a trend.


I will agree with this sentiment.


----------



## CougarKing

Assad's forces on the move:

Reuters



> *Syrian government launches offensive against rebels in south*
> 
> By Oliver Holmes
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syria's army gained ground from rebels in the south on Tuesday in what a monitoring group described as *a large-scale offensive in the region backed by Lebanese Hezbollah fighters against insurgents including al Qaeda's Syrian wing.*
> 
> The south is one of the last remaining areas where mainstream, non-jihadist rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad have a foothold. Just a short drive to Damascus, the area remains a risk to the Syrian leader, who has otherwise consolidated control over much of the west.
> 
> "The operation started two days ago and is very big," Rami Abdulrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group, said on Tuesday.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Force

Simple, effective, and REAL solution to defeat ISIS. 

-Prohibit the NATO member Turkey from importing terrorists from all over the world.
-Prohibit the NATO member Turkey from training the terrorists
-Prohibit the NATO member Turkey from dispatching the terrorists into Syria and Irak
-Prohibit the NATO member Turkey from buying the stolen oil from Irak and Syria from the terrorists
-Prohibit our Gulf state allies(saudi arabia/Qatar) from funding mosques that are used as recruitment centers and brainwashing centers in our countries
-Prohibit our Gulf state allies(saudi arabia/Qatar) from funding and arming the terrorist with heavy advanced equipement

Once these steps are taken, ISIS won't last more than a month against the Syrian and Iraki army without its main supply lines wich are the gulf states and Turkey.


----------



## CougarKing

Only 1200 slated for the Syrian moderate rebel groups? Seems they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel...  

Reuters



> *U.S. identifies 1,200 potential fighters for Syria training*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has so far identified about 1,200 Syrian opposition fighters for potential participation in a U.S. military-led program to help train and equip them to battle the Islamic State, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.
> 
> *The fighters will undergo vetting for the program, which is expected to begin in March at multiple sites outside of Syria and train more than 5,000 Syrian fighters a year. Some 3,000 could be trained by the end of 2015, a U.S. official said.*
> 
> The program is expected to vet fighters using both U.S. government databases as well as intelligence from regional partners.
> 
> *Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have publicly offered to host the training and Jordan has privately offered to do so*. One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said training is likely to start in Jordan.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## cryco

And what's funny is that the 3 countries offering to host the training are the 3 countries I wouldn't trust under any circumstances.
Makes me wonder if they want to get the 'scoop' on the Syrian fighters to use against them somehow (by leaking the info to ISIS).
Would those volunteers be of the Shia faith perchance?


----------



## CougarKing

Is Turkey eager to be part of this process mainly because they want to train new proxies in Syria who will replace ISIS?

Military.com



> *Turkey, US Sign Deal to Train, Arm Syrian Rebels*
> 
> Associated Press | Feb 20, 2015 | by Desmond Butler
> 
> ISTANBUL -- Turkey and the United States signed an agreement Thursday to train and arm Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State group, said the U.S. Embassy in Ankara.
> The two countries have been in talks about such a pact for several months. The deal was signed Thursday evening by U.S Ambassador John Bass and Turkish Foreign Ministry undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioglu, said embassy spokesman Joe Wierichs. He gave no further details.
> 
> Sinirlioglu called the deal "an important step" in the strategic partnership between Turkey and the United States, according to Turkish state-run Anadolu Agency.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The legacy of the Ottoman Empire era continues to be felt even today, a century later...

To think there's a piece of Turkish territory with the tomb right in the middle of Syrian territory...reminds me of Point Roberts, Washington state, which is cut off from the rest of the state since it surrounded by British Columbia. 

Canadian Press



> *Turkish military launches overnight operation into Syria to evacuate troops, Ottoman tomb*
> 
> By Suzan Fraser, The Associated Press
> 
> ANKARA, Turkey - *Turkish soldiers launched an overnight raid into neighbouring Syria, evacuating dozens of besieged troops guarding an Ottoman tomb and moving the crypt Sunday back to Turkey after ceremonially planting the country's crescent-and-star flag.*
> 
> In a one-line report on the incident, Syria's state news agency denounced what it called a "blatant aggression" by Turkey.
> 
> *The mission, saving Turkish soldiers reportedly stuck for months at the tomb of the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, saw hundreds of troops backed by tanks cross the border near the border town of Kobani once besieged by the Islamic State group*.
> 
> Turkey was widely criticized for not intervening for months in the Kobani battle, which finally saw Kurdish fighters backed by U.S.-led airstrikes push out the extremists.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Even if Qatar recently condemned the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, if I can recall correctly, their state-sponsored jihadist funding has only shifted to other groups.

Reuters



> *Syria's Nusra Front may leave Qaeda to form new entity*
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Leaders of Syria's Nusra Front are considering cutting their links with al Qaeda to form a new entity backed by some Gulf states trying to topple President Bashar al-Assad, sources said.
> 
> Sources within and close to Nusra said that *Qatar, which enjoys good relations with the group, is encouraging the group to go ahead with the move, which would give Nusra a boost in funding*.
> 
> The exercise could transform Nusra from a weakened militia group into a force capable of taking on Islamic State at a time when it is under pressure from bombing raids and advances by Kurdish and Iraqi military forces.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

More talk of mission creep:

Military Times



> *Dempsey does not rule out U.S. ground troops in Syria*
> 
> The military's top officer said Wednesday that American military boots on the ground may eventually be needed in Syria to fight alongside moderate Syrian rebel groups.
> 
> Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified on Capitol Hill that *military commanders may consider the need for small teams of U.S. troops to help local Iraqi and Syrian forces if that is critical for defeating the Islamic State militants.*
> 
> "If the commander on the ground approaches either me or the secretary of defense and believes that the introduction of special operations forces to accompany Iraqis or the new Syrian forces, or JTACS, these skilled folks who can call in close-air support, if we believe that's necessary to achieve our objectives, we will make that recommendation," Dempsey told the House Appropriations Committee's defense panel.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Assad's air force making its presence still felt:

Reuters



> *Syrian air strike kills an Islamic State commander*
> 
> Reuters – 1 hour 52 minutes ago
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - The Syrian army has killed an Islamic State commander in an air strike in central Syria that killed more than two dozen members of the ultra-hardline group, a monitoring group said on Saturday.
> 
> The Islamic State commander was identified as one of the group's self-declared provincial governors by Syrian state media and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the war using sources on the ground.
> 
> Islamic State supporters circulated a statement on Twitter announcing the "martyrdom" of the commander, Deeb Hedijan al-Otaibi, together with photos showing him dead and alive.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Kat Stevens

"Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" sounds quite a bit like "Greatest Snowman Builder in all the Caribbean" to me.


----------



## midget-boyd91

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Assad's air force making its presence still felt:
> 
> Reuters



I have to say that I'm rather surprised that the Syrian Air Force is still flying sorties. I'd have thought that the coalition, especially the USAF, would have implemented a no-fly zone for Assad's air force.


----------



## Ostrozac

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> I have to say that I'm rather surprised that the Syrian Air Force is still flying sorties. I'd have thought that the coalition, especially the USAF, would have implemented a no-fly zone for Assad's air force.



Why? They are our coalition partner. The government of Syria is fighting ISIS, just like we are.

On the slightly more serious side -- No-Fly Zones have historically usually been imposed by UN Security Council resolution -- that was the authority for the NFZs in Bosnia and in Libya. Russia strongly supports Assad, and would veto any resolution put before the UN Security Council.


----------



## vonGarvin

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> I have to say that I'm rather surprised that the Syrian Air Force is still flying sorties. I'd have thought that the coalition, especially the USAF, would have implemented a no-fly zone for Assad's air force.



Syria has one of the most advanced Air Defence systems on the planet.  Having said that, they are all too happy to let the coalition bomb ISIS et al on their territory.  I'm quite certain that they are turning a blind eye to the "incursions", so long as they don't come from Israel....


----------



## The Bread Guy

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> I have to say that I'm rather surprised that the Syrian Air Force is still flying sorties. I'd have thought that the coalition, especially the USAF, would have implemented a no-fly zone for Assad's air force.


For now, the enemy of our enemy ....


----------



## a_majoor

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Syria has one of the most advanced Air Defence systems on the planet.  Having said that, they are all too happy to let the coalition bomb ISIS et al on their territory.  I'm quite certain that they are turning a blind eye to the "incursions", so long as they don't come from Israel....



Syrian air defense may be the most sophisticated stuff the Russians are willing to sell, bout the IDF seems to have little difficulty entering Syrian airspace almost at will to (say) destroy nuclear reactors being built on Syrian territory.

All the same, I'd still rather let Iran do the heavy lifting against ISIS via their own air force, the Syrian Air Force, Hezbollah, the Quds force and all the other various resources at Iran's command. The Turks and the Gulf States can decide for themselves how many resources they want to expend on ISIS to fight the Iranians, and we can observe the fun from the sidelines. Since Saudi Arabia is waging economic war against Iran and Russia (well, us too, but we are better equipped to ride that one out), the ramped up expenditure of resources from those parties to fight ISIS will strain their logistical base and social and economic structures far more than presently. 

That would be a great war for us, where everyone we don't like will loose.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect someone somewhere is talking to the Syrians letting them know what will be tolerated and what will not in regards to airspace.


----------



## CougarKing

Aleppo again.

Reuters



> *Turkey shuts border crossings as fighting worsens around Syria's Aleppo*
> 
> ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey has closed two border crossings with Syria as a security precaution as fighting around the northern Syrian city of Aleppo intensifies, Turkish officials said on Wednesday.
> 
> The crossings at Oncupinar and Cilvegozu in Turkey's Hatay province had been shut to vehicles and individuals crossing from Syria since March 9, officials at both posts told Reuters. Syrians with passports are allowed to cross back into Syria.
> 
> Turkey has kept its borders open to refugees since the start of Syria's civil war four years ago. But it has come under criticism for doing too little to keep foreign fighters crossing and joining militant groups, including Islamic State.
> 
> *Aleppo, around 50 km (30 miles) south of the border, is divided between government forces and insurgent groups fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad in a conflict estimated to have killed 200,000 people.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Are Assad's days numbered now that ISIS is making gains in Damascus?

Reuters



> *Islamic State expands in Damascus, al Qaeda vows sharia for city*
> 
> By Sylvia Westall and Mariam Karouny
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamic State fighters seized most of a Palestinian camp on the outskirts of the Syrian capital Damascus on Wednesday, nearing President Bashar al-Assad's seat of power.
> 
> A rival jihadist group said sharia law would govern a city seized by rebels in the northwest of Syria.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

ISIS has no respect for the dead... 

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027851/Fleeing-horror-IS-atrocities-Syria.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490



> *'I saw ISIS playing with a severed head as if it was a football.*
> 
> They killed children in front of their parents': Refugees in
> Yarmouk reveal atrocities they have seen since Islamic State took over the camp
> Amjad Yaaqub, 16, saw ISIS militants kicking a severed head in the camp
> They also beat the schoolboy unconscious while looking for his brother
> Meanwhile 55-year-old Ibrahim Abdel Fatah said children are being killed
> Extremists are slaughtering innocents in front of their parents he revealed
> 
> A young Syrian boy has revealed how he saw depraved Islamic State militants playing football with a severed head inside the besieged Yarmouk refugee camp.
> Amjad Yaaqub, 16, said he stumbled on the barbaric scene shortly after the terrorists beat him unconscious when they burst into his family home at the camp in the Syrian capital Damascus.
> The schoolboy said the ISIS fighters were looking for his brother, who is a member of the Palestinian rebel group who ran and defended the camp for several years before ISIS carried out a bloody assault that has left more than 200 people dead in just seven days.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

This behaviour is both indoctrination for the ISIS members as well as PSYOPS against anyone who may feel inclined to oppose them.

Reintroducing napalm in the Western arsenal might be an appropriate response since it also sends a very powerful message to the people we are directing it against....


----------



## vonGarvin

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Reintroducing napalm *nuclear carpet bombing* in the Western arsenal might be an appropriate response since it also sends a very powerful message to the people we are directing it against....



There.  Fixed that for you...


----------



## GAP

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This behaviour is both indoctrination for the ISIS members as well as PSYOPS against anyone who may feel inclined to oppose them.
> 
> Reintroducing napalm in the Western arsenal might be an appropriate response since it also sends a very powerful message to the people we are directing it against....



Until you have used and seen and dealt with the aftereffects of napalm....don't even go there...


----------



## TCBF

GAP said:
			
		

> Until you have used and seen and dealt with the aftereffects of napalm....don't even go there...



- On a theoretical level, I am not comfortable with weapons selection being the purview of only those who have "..used and seen and dealt...".

- On a practical level, humans can be crushed, impaled, burned, irradiated, asphyxiated and poisoned. I see no difference between napalm or fuel-air explosives, or fuel and ammunition secondary detonations initiated by HE or kinetic penetration.


----------



## a_majoor

Frankly, given the sorts of barbaric behaviours we see coming of of the so called Islamic State, burning them out with napalm seems rather appropriate (kill them with cleansing fire) and sends a pretty powerful PSYOPS message of our own.

But I am willing to accept the deployment and use of JDAM's, SDB's, Hellfire, thermobaric warheads and all the other paraphernalia of modern war instead.


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Frankly, given the sorts of barbaric behaviours we see coming of of the so called Islamic State, burning them out with napalm seems rather appropriate (kill them with cleansing fire) and sends a pretty powerful PSYOPS message of our own.
> 
> But I am willing to accept the deployment and use of JDAM's, SDB's, Hellfire, thermobaric warheads and all the other paraphernalia of modern war instead.



Perhaps this will be our Lord's way of dealing with them.   One can only hope.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/570239/Asteroid-collision-course-earth


Hope his aim is good.

 :-\


----------



## CougarKing

Assad's forces losing ground?

Reuters



> *Islamist rebels battle Syrian army near Assad heartland*
> 
> AMMAN/BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamist rebels and the Syrian army fought fierce battles in Latakia province overnight close to President Bashar al-Assad's ancestral home, the army and rebels said, after weeks of insurgent gains in the country's northwest.
> 
> Rebels seeking to topple Assad have in the past sought to bring their four-year-long insurgency close to coastal areas in government-held Latakia, heartland of Assad's minority Alawite community.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Seems all that assistance from Iran, Hezbollah and Afghan mercenaries came to no avail:

Military.com



> *Are Assad's Military Forces on Verge of Collapse?*
> 
> Jerusalem Post | May 02, 2015
> Four years and 200,000 deaths later, the regime of Bashar al-Assad may be on its last leg.
> 
> *The Syrian Army, faced with low morale, internal divisions and rapidly decreasing popularity, is facing its most serious challenges since the start of the four-year long Syrian Civil War that has claimed the lives of more 200,000 people.*
> 
> Multiple rebel offenses have seen strategically important cities fall under the auspices of rebel control, such as Idlib and Jisr al-Shegour in the North and a concerted rebel effort making its way towards Damascus in the South.
> 
> "The trend lines for Assad are bad and getting worse," said a senior United States official in Washington who spoke to the New York Times on the condition of anonymity
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Planning for the end game. Knocking out Assad and the Syrian regime is going to ba a major blow to Iran and the Iranian dream of asserting a hegemonic role overthe Middle East, and the physical separation of Iran from their Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon will also make supporting Hezbollah much more time consuming and resource intensive. Splintering the Iranian "Shiite Crescent" allows each part (Hezbollah, Syria and Iran) to be defeated in detail, which is the hope of the Saudis:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/05/26/the-wages-of-leading-from-behind/



> *The Wages of Leading from Behind*
> 
> Turkey’s foreign minister has announced that the United States had agreed to “in principle” provide joint air support to some mainstream opposition forces in their fight against Bashar al-Assad’s government. Though anonymous Obama administration officials said that a final decision had not yet been made, that such escalation is being contemplated probably reflects Washington’s belief that Assad’s days are numbered and a desire to be seen as part of a coalition that ultimately brings him down.
> 
> Over the weekend, details emerged as to how the increased cooperation between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC appeared to be turning the tide on the ground against Assad’s beleaguered troops—something we here at The American Interest have been covering since rumors of such a regional pact first began to leak. Assad’s core demographics seem to be bled white. The moment for his toppling may well be at hand.
> 
> But what could four years ago—or even one year ago—been a U.S. triumph now may be a much darker prospect indeed (if still better than the alternative). In order to make their pact work, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have decided to back al Qaeda’s powerful local franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra; furthermore, in forming the alliance, they pointedly declared that any adverse U.S. opinion to what Ankara and Riyadh were doing “would not have bothered us.”
> 
> Both the Turks and Saudis, resentful of past U.S. inaction on toppling Assad, which each sees as a major priority, will likely to continue to think this way when or if the time comes to make decisions about a post-Assad Syria. And so the United States will wind up not shaping events from the front, nor even leading from behind, but may well wind up running after the bandwagon yelling, “wait for me!”
> We had better hope that somewhere in the West Wing, people are working on strategies that go beyond “sign the Iran deal and everything else will fall into place.”


----------



## tomahawk6

Replacing Assad with the Islamic State is something that few could support.The idea of a partition has been floated but would IS be content with only part of Syria ?I think not.


----------



## OldSolduer

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Replacing Assad with the Islamic State is something that few could support.The idea of a partition has been floated but would IS be content with only part of Syria ?I think not.



Agreed. They want nothing less than world domination.


----------



## a_majoor

From the Saudi position, ISIS is perhaps the "least worst" choice. The so called Caliphate has no real resource or industrial base once it destroys Syria, and most of its fighting power will probably be exhausted fighting the Shiite forces of Hezbollah, Syria and the Iranians. In addition, if the long term goal is to exert hegemony over the Middle East, then the destruction of Iranian power is only one step. The Caliphate of ISIS will also form a "firebreak" to prevent the Turks from exercising any sort of Imperial ambitions of their own, and should also serve to keep other potential competition in its place as well (think of the Kurds and Israelis, who will have to spend the next 50 years fighting an insurgent war on their own borders).

ISIS may be seen as a sort of "DPRK" like state to keep the region unsettled enough to prevent the creation of any countervailing force against the Saudis.


----------



## a_majoor

On a slightly different note, the Al Nusra front seems to be setting itself up to become the post war government of Syria (or whatever rump state is left from the remains):

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/05/28/nusra-we-have-no-western-front/



> *Nusra: We Have No Western Front*
> 
> The leader of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front, has said that the group’s primary objectives are the capture of Damascus and the deposition of Assad, not attacks against the West. The BBC reports:
> 
> [Nusra leader Abu Mohammed al-] Julani said al-Nusra had been instructed by the overall leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to avoiding launching attacks abroad that might jeopardise its operations in Syria.
> 
> “We are only here to accomplish one mission, to fight the regime and its agents on the ground, including Hezbollah and others,” he stressed, referring to the Lebanese Shia Islamist movement that is fighting alongside government forces.
> 
> “Al-Nusra Front doesn’t have any plans or directives to target the West. We received clear orders not to use Syria as a launching pad to attack the US or Europe in order to not sabotage the true mission against the regime. Maybe al-Qaeda does that, but not here in Syria.”
> 
> He also denied the existence of the Khorasan Group, a branch or cell of the Nusra Front which U.S. strikes have also targeted in Syria. Only last week, a CIA official warned of the dangers of this little-known group, saying that it had Western targets in its sights.
> 
> This interview may well be only “self-serving propaganda”, as U.S. officials commented; it is certainly at least partly that. But it also seems to show a greater strategic sophistication. Recently backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, having piled up a string of victories, and facing a weakened enemy, Nusra has good grounds for believing the end of the war is in sight. It seems to be plotting how to win the peace, as well. Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Nusra was conspicuously treating captured territory more gently than ISIS, and in the al-Jazeera interview, Julani “also promised to protect Syrian minorities that disavowed Mr Assad.” Both of these measures are designed to conciliate the Syrian population. Combined with the vow not to attack the West, they also seem designed to placate Western fears. Nusra, in sum, seems to be making a bid to be seen as an acceptable post-war government (or as part of one) by both its subjects and the international community.
> 
> If so, this will put the U.S. in a bind. The U.S. does not want al Qaeda involved in a government in the heart of the Middle East, to put it mildly. On the other hand, there has long been a segment of U.S. foreign policy opinion that has favored working with lesser enemies, no matter how repellent, against greater ones as the quickest way to achieve results for the least U.S. blood and treasure (and, often, with the added bonus of both enemies being bruised in the fighting).
> 
> But whether the U.S. wants such a thing to come to pass or not may be irrelevant; we may have already forfeited our chance to choose. The Saudis and the Turks have made their move, and unless we are willing to seriously increase our involvement in Syria (backing whom—Assad? ISIS?), Nusra seems to be the front runner to take the greater part of the joint. Soon, therefore, we may find ourselves in a world where, fourteen years after 9-11, al Qaeda has moved from the mountains of Afghanistan to the palaces of Damascus. This would be a strategic failure on a monumental scale. The wages of ‘leading from behind’ continue to grow.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Replacing Assad with the Islamic State is something that few could support.The idea of a partition has been floated but would IS be content with only part of Syria ?I think not.



Assad was an idiot trapped in his own thinking, after the US invasion he could have been the darling of the West showing off his secular state where women could have careers, education , etc. Instead he plotted to help destabilize Iraq and stymie the US efforts there. Syria would have benefited from a stable Iraq and could have loosened his grip on Lebanon in exchange for all sorts of deals.


----------



## a_majoor

iran is now buying mercenary fighters to bolster its position in Syria. If this is happening, one has to wonder what has happened to the thousands of Hezbollah fighters and the Iranian Quds force units who are also fighting in the region? But as the American Interest suggests, this is only a foretaste of what will occur if and when sanctions against Iran are lifted and Iran has more revenues to support their goals:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/06/02/assad-broadens-the-sectarian-war/



> *Assad Broadens The Sectarian War*
> 
> What the Middle East doesn’t need right now is a further generalization of the sectarian war. But that is exactly what an increasingly desperate Assad is doing:
> 
> Iran is offering thousands of dollars to Shia mercenaries from Afghanistan and Pakistan to join the fight to keep President Assad of Syria in power.
> 
> According to Shia community leaders in Kabul, the recruitment drive is co-ordinated by the Iranian embassy in the Afghan capital. It provides visas to “hundreds” of Shia men each month willing to fight in Syria. Online Urdu- language recruitment is also taking place in Pakistan, with fighters offered $3,000 each to join up.
> Some analysts believe that as many as 5,000 Afghans and Pakistanis are now fighting for the Assad regime, bolstering government troops whose morale has been battered by a series of reverses since the start of the year. They have lost territory, in the process, to increasingly well-organised rebel units backed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Iran is the main provider of arms, fighters and finance to the Assad regime.
> 
> This increase in mercenary support comes at a time when the Assad regime is thought to control only 20–30% Syria’s territory, and is considering a withdrawal from positions that are not vital to its survival.
> 
> Yet despite the worsening fortunes of Tehran’s longtime ally, Iran’s President Rouhani defiantly proclaimed today that “The Iranian nation and government will remain at the side of the Syrian nation and government until the end of the road.” In another show of support, Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani recently made a visit to Syria’s Latakia region, the heartland of the Assad regime. Soleimani subsequently reaffirmed Iran’s continuing commitment to the Syrian regime, announcing that “The world will be surprised by what we and the Syrian military leadership are preparing for the coming days.”
> 
> Chilling words today—and but a taste of what is likely to happen as Tehran finds extra revenue sloshing around its coffers if and when international sanctions are eased.


----------



## cavalryman

Professor Reynolds has an interesting commentary that sort of follows on to Thucydides' post

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/207917/

Small excerpt:
"Perhaps the foreign policy geniuses in the Obama Administration have taken this advice to heart, and figure that a decade or so of bloody religious strife throughout the Muslim world will produce a renewed appreciation for secularism. I don’t know if this is their plan or not — I mean, if it were, they wouldn’t come out and say so, would they? — but if it is their plan, then congratulations on stellar execution."


----------



## tomahawk6

The Syrian Army is close to collapse under pressure from ISIS and the western backed Syrian rebels.If the Iranians want to save Assad they will have to deploy alot of troops,most likely the IRG.If they do nothing and Assad goes then the jihadists will be facing off against the US backed rebels.What a mess !!


----------



## George Wallace

Perhaps that is why Jon Stewart's  "America in the Middle East: Learning Curves Are For Pussies." from The Daily Show (2015 06 02) seems to be 'censored'.


----------



## a_majoor

How Iran keeps the Assad regime going:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/06/25/how-irans-oil-artery-is-keeping-assad-alive/



> *How Iran’s Oil Artery Is Keeping Assad Alive*
> 
> Direct transfusions of oil from Iran might be one of the few things keeping Bashar Assad on his bloody throne. Bloomberg reports:
> 
> New Bloomberg analysis of tanker movement  suggests Iran has sent about 10 million barrels of crude to Syria so far this year—or about 60,000 barrels a day. With oil prices averaging $59 a barrel over the past six months, that’s about $600 million in aid since January. […]
> 
> With most of Syria’s oil and gas producing regions controlled by either the Kurds or Islamic State, these crude shipments from Iran are vital to the Assad regime’s ability to hang on to power, says Andrew Tabler, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This crude is likely being processed into fuel oil at the Banias refinery, he says, where it can be used for home heating oil, for power generation, and as fuel for what’s left of Assad’s military.
> 
> “Iran is basically fueling the entire country,” says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
> Sounds like a pretty straightforward case of the sort of thing American sanctions are designed to prevent, right? But the U.S., according to Bloomberg, can’t do anything to stop it. Why?
> 
> By simply giving oil to Syria rather than charging for it, Iran is able to skirt U.S. and European Union sanctions designed to limit Iran’s crude exports. Under the sanctions regime imposed in mid-2012 as a penalty for its nuclear program, Iran is allowed to sell oil to only six countries: China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. “This is just a blatant violation of U.S. sanctions,” says Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington and a supporter of tougher sanctions. “It’s allowing Iran to fund Assad’s war machine with no repercussions.”
> 
> This sounds like the sort of thing a creative Administration could figure out a way to stop—quarantines, port or safety inspections, or even more “creative” options. But then again, a creative Administration would have been keen to put pressure on Assad, rather than ostentatiously take its hands off him.
> 
> As each day goes by, the Iran deal is looking less and less likely to stick. We’ve said since the beginning we hope for a good deal, and we continue to wish (some would say, hope against evidence) that Secretary Kerry will emerge from Geneva with something effective. But we’re also realists, and we hope someone in the West Wing is making backup plans. This is exactly the sort of pressure point, useful against both Iran and Syria, that the United States will want to look to squeeze should negotiations fail.


----------



## McG

Is help from an old friend coming?  Vladimir Putin has pledged to continue political, economic and military support Syria as he called on all Middle East nations to join forces against ISIS.



> *Putin says Russia's support for Syria's Assad remains unchanged*
> The Associated Press
> Published Monday, June 29, 2015 7:24AM EDT
> Last Updated Monday, June 29, 2015 7:36AM EDT
> 
> MOSCOW -- In a surprise meeting with Syria's foreign minister, Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged his support Monday for Syrian President Bashar Assad and called on all Middle East nations to join forces to fight Islamic State militants.
> 
> The war in Syria, which began with protests in March 2011, has killed more than 220,000 people. Russia, which has traditionally strong ties to Syria, has been seen as a key to a peaceful solution and has previously rebuffed suggestions that Assad's resignation could help end the war.
> 
> Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem held talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday then was whisked to the Kremlin to meet with Putin.
> 
> Russian news agencies quoted Putin as telling the Syrian envoy that Russia's "policy to support Syria, the Syrian leadership and the Syrian people remains unchanged."
> 
> Putin also urged other Middle East countries to help Syria fight the armed Islamic factions that now control parts of the Syrian capital and large parts of the city's suburbs.
> 
> Putin said Moscow's contacts with the countries in the region, including with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, "show that everyone wants to contribute to fight this evil," he said referring to Islamic State militants.
> 
> He exhorted all nations in the region, whatever their relations with Syria are, to "pull their efforts together" to fight Islamic militants.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/putin-says-russia-s-support-for-syria-s-assad-remains-unchanged-1.2445035


----------



## CougarKing

Pressure from the Saudis and the Gulf states finally made Obama cave in to their demands to target Assad? The Iranians won't be happy that their proxy Assad forces may be targeted.

Reuters



> *U.S. to defend Syrian rebels with airpower, including from Assad*
> Sun Aug 2, 2015 9:59pm ED
> 
> By Phil Stewart
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has decided to allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, U.S. officials said on Sunday.
> 
> The decision by President Barack Obama, which could deepen the U.S. role in Syria's conflict, aims to shield a still-fledging group of Syrian fighters armed and trained by the United States to battle Islamic State militants -- not forces loyal to Assad.
> 
> But in Syria's messy civil war, Islamic State is only one of the threats to the U.S. recruits. The first batch of U.S.-trained forces deployed to northern Syria came under fire on Friday from other militants, triggering the first known U.S. airstrikes to support them.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Talk about sucking and blowing at the same time; the USAF and Western airforces are essentially acting as the _Iranian_ airforce in Iraq and Syria, now they are bombing the Iranian proxies in Syria....

There is no coherent strategy at all in this region anymore by the West. The best way to represent our interests would be to sharply reduce our presence and provide limited support to whatever pro Western factions (or at least factions that will be a thorn in the sides of would be hegemons) still exist. Israel, Jordan (for now), the Kurds and the Baloch all come to mind, perhaps there are other groups with enough numbers and coherence to make a difference as well, but none come to mind right now.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Talk about sucking and blowing at the same time; the USAF and Western airforces are essentially acting as the _Iranian_ airforce in Iraq and Syria, now they are bombing the Iranian proxies in Syria....
> 
> _There is no coherent strategy at all in this region anymore by the West. The best way to represent our interests would be to sharply reduce our presence_ and provide limited support to whatever pro Western factions (or at least factions that will be a thorn in the sides of would be hegemons) still exist. Israel, Jordan (for now), the Kurds and the Baloch all come to mind, perhaps there are other groups with enough numbers and coherence to make a difference as well, but none come to mind right now.




Withdraw ALL Western military forces (Israel can look after itself and it will look after Jordan, too, if it comes to that) and send in ALL the Western arms pedlars Lots and lots of dead Arabs (and Persians and North Africans and West Asians) and lots and lots of cash on the barrelhead arms sales ...
well, we might say:


----------



## CougarKing

Thucydides said:
			
		

> the Kurds



As one can see from the intensity of the Turkish aerial and ground artillery bombardment as seen in this earlier post and these posts below, it may be too late for the Syrian Kurds.

Take note that the Turkish aerial campaign has also targeted Kurdish areas in Iraq as well. 

So essentially Obama sold out the Kurds in Syria and Iraq in exchange for Erdogan/Turkish participation in the war against ISIS?



Reuters



> *Syrian Kurds say hit as Turkish army battles Islamic State*
> 
> By Humeyra Pamuk and Suleiman Al-Khalidi
> 
> ISTANBUL/BEIRUT (Reuters) - Kurdish fighters in northern Syria accused the Turkish army of shelling their positions on Monday, highlighting the precarious path Ankara is treading as it simultaneously battles Islamic State in Syria and Kurdish insurgents in Iraq.
> 
> Long a reluctant member of the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State, Turkey last week made a dramatic turnaround by granting the alliance access to its air bases and bombarding targets in Syria linked to the jihadist movement.



(...SNIPPED)

Erdogan's air force in action:

Reuters



> *Turkish jets strike four Islamic State positions in Syria: Turkish official*
> Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:41pm EDT
> ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkish fighter jets hits four Islamic State targets within Syria early on Friday without crossing the border, a Turkish security official said.
> 
> The air operation that hit the targets across the border from Turkey's Kilis province came a day after a cross-border firefight with Islamic State left one militant and one Turkish soldier dead.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Reuters



> *Turkey launches heaviest air strikes yet on PKK, stoking Kurdish ire*
> Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:59am EDT
> 
> By Humeyra Pamuk and Nick Tattersall
> 
> ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkish jets launched their heaviest assault on Kurdish militants in northern Iraq overnight since air strikes began last week, hours after President Tayyip Erdogan said a peace process had become impossible.
> 
> The strikes hit Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) targets including shelters, depots and caves in six areas, a statement from Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's office said. A senior official told Reuters it was the biggest assault since the campaign started.
> 
> Iraq condemned the air strikes as a "dangerous escalation and an assault on Iraqi sovereignty", saying it was committed to ensuring militant attacks on Turkey were not carried out from within its territory.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)





Plus...US betrayal of the Kurds in return for Turkish participation in the war against ISIS?

Foreign Policy




> *Has the U.S. Just Sold Out the Kurds?*
> The most effective ground force against the Islamic State could become collateral damage under a U.S. deal with Turkey.
> 
> Turkey sent fighter jets into northern Iraq last week to attack an adversary it sees as a grave threat to its national security. But the target was not the Islamic State.
> 
> Instead, *the Turkish warplanes pounded a Kurdish militia in Iraq* that has fought Ankara for years in a bid for self-rule.
> 
> Turkey also bombed Islamic State militants in Syria last week. Yet the strikes against the guerrilla Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Iraq’s Qandil Mountains underscored Washington’s dilemma as it seeks to bring Turkey into the fight against the Islamic State despite Ankara’s long-running conflict with Kurdish separatists.
> 
> *The United States has been pushing Turkey for nearly a year to throw its full weight behind the war against the Islamic State and for months was denied permission to stage airstrikes out of Incirlik Air Base, near the border with Syria. But now, as a consequence of winning Turkey’s permission to use the base for airstrikes, Washington may be allowing Ankara to batter the only forces on the ground that have proved effective against the Islamic State.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> As one can see from the intensity of the Turkish aerial and ground artillery bombardment as seen in this earlier post and these posts below, it may be too late for the Syrian Kurds.
> 
> Take note that the Turkish aerial campaign has also targeted Kurdish areas in Iraq as well.
> 
> So essentially Obama sold out the Kurds in Syria and Iraq in exchange for Erdogan/Turkish participation in the war against ISIS?
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> Erdogan's air force in action:
> 
> Reuters
> 
> Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> Plus...US betrayal of the Kurds in return for Turkish participation in the war against ISIS?
> 
> Foreign Policy



No he sold out the PKK who were never our friends anyways.  The Kurds aren't united and there are different factions.  Kurdistan regional government has good relations with Turkey.  It's all in the details my friend.


----------



## CougarKing

Not exactly an auspicious start for the US-trained Syrian rebels who returned to the war zone:

Reuters



> *In blow, U.S.-trained Syrian rebels captured by al Qaeda wing*
> Tue Aug 4, 2015 9:12pm EDT
> 
> By Phil Stewart
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday it had indications that Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military were captured by fighters from al Qaeda's Syria wing, Nusra Front, in the latest blow to a fledgling program at the center of America's war strategy.
> 
> The Pentagon said in a statement it was monitoring the situation but had "no further details to provide."
> 
> A U.S. defense official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said at least five Syrian rebels were believed to have been captured.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Russia speaking for Assad:

Reuters



> *Russia's Lavrov says U.S. must work with Assad to fight Islamic State*
> Sun Aug 9, 2015 2:15pm EDT
> 
> MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the United States should cooperate with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to fight Islamic State and that this required an international coalition uniting all those for whom the jihadists are "a common enemy".
> 
> Washington currently heads a coalition conducting air strikes on Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and is cooperating with Turkey to provide air cover for rebels inside Syria.
> 
> *But Moscow has criticized the United States for not working in sync with Syria, an ally of Russia*.
> 
> In comments to Russia's state TV published by his ministry on Sunday, Lavrov recounted two meetings with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry amid the recent intensified high-level diplomatic contacts over Syria and fighting the Sunni jihadis.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



More gains by radical rebels who are rivals to ISIS:

Reuters




> *Insurgents recapture villages on Syrian plain vital to Assad*
> Sun Aug 9, 2015 2:15pm EDT
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Insurgents have regained control of several villages in northwest Syria from government forces and have advanced beyond them, edging closer to a coastal stronghold of President Bashar al-Assad, a monitoring group and other sources said on Sunday.
> 
> The insurgents launched a counter-offensive after government forces, backed by allied militant groups, last week recaptured the villages on the Sahl al-Ghab plain, which lies close to the city of Hama and is crucial to the defense of coastal mountains that are the heartland of Assad's minority Alawite sect.
> 
> *The insurgents' 'Army of Fatah' alliance includes al Qaeda's Syrian wing, the Nusra Front, the Islamist Ahrar al-Sham group and other factions.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Russia asking for the Saudis to help Assad?

Reuters



> *Russia, Saudis fail in talks to agree on fate of Syria's Assad*
> Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:44am EDT
> 
> By Katya Golubkova and Gabriela Baczynska
> 
> MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia and Saudi Arabia failed in talks on Tuesday to overcome their differences on the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a central dispute in Syria's civil war that shows no sign of abating despite renewed diplomacy.
> 
> Russia is pushing for a coalition to fight Islamic State insurgents -- who have seized swathes of northern and eastern Syria -- that would involve Assad, a longtime ally of Moscow. But, speaking after talks in Moscow, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir reiterated Riyadh's stance that Assad must go.
> 
> "A key reason behind the emergence of Islamic State was the actions of Assad who directed his arms at his nation, not Islamic State," Jubeir told a news conference after talks with Russia's Sergei Lavrov.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Plus, more gains by ISIS ground forces:

Reuters



> *Islamic State attacks Syrian rebels near Turkish border*
> Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:43am EDT
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamic State has launched a new offensive against Syrian rebels north of Aleppo, gaining ground near the Turkish-Syrian border in an area where Turkey and the United States aim to create an area free of the jihadist group.
> 
> Dozens of combatants have been reported killed on both sides during fighting in and around the town of Marea, 20 km (12 miles) south of the border with Turkey, where Islamic State suicide attackers detonated four car bombs overnight.
> 
> The attack on Marea followed the capture of a nearby rebel-held village, Um Hosh, by Islamic State fighters, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and a rebel commander said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

In spite of the recently announced ceasefire, Assad's forces continue their bombardment:

Reuters



> *Syrian air strikes kill 31, rebels bombard Damascus: monitor*
> Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:45am EDT
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian government air strikes on rebel-held areas near Damascus killed at least 31 people on Wednesday, and insurgents bombarded the capital with rockets that killed at least 13 people, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported.
> 
> The violence came ahead of an expected visit by Iran's foreign minister to Damascus to discuss a new plan to resolve the more than four-year-long civil war.
> 
> Warplanes targeted several areas in the insurgent-held district of Eastern Ghouta on the capital's outskirts, the Britain-based Observatory said, killing at least 31 people and wounding another 120.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

While Turkey is said to have the 2nd largest number of ground troops in NATO after the US, it doesn't seem like they will be rolling into Syria soon, beyond their air strikes against the ISIS and Kurds.

Reuters



> *Turkey does not plan to send ground forces to Syria: foreign minister*
> Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:13am EDT
> 
> ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey does not expect to deploy ground forces in Syria to fight Islamic State but that option should remain on the table, Foreign Minister Mevult Cavusoglu said on Thursday.
> 
> Long a reluctant partner in the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State, NATO member Turkey last month made a dramatic shift in policy, sending warplanes to attack the Islamist hardline group in northern Syria. It has also opened its air bases for use in coalition air strikes.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

And ISIS forces are on the march again in Syria:

Reuters



> *Islamic State takes new ground near Turkish border*
> Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:11am EDT
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamic State has seized new territory from Syrian rebels in northern Syria, advancing in an area where Turkey and the United States are planning to open a new front against the group in coordination with insurgents on the ground.
> 
> The ultra-radical Islamist group and a monitor said it had seized several villages as it stepped up an offensive in northern Aleppo province, in a blow to rebels who are likely partners for Ankara and Washington in any ground campaign.
> 
> In an attack that began on Wednesday night, Islamic State had also mostly encircled the rebel-held town of Marea, some 20 km (12 miles) from the border, the group and a rebel commander in the area said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

In Anbar a suicide bomber killed two Iraqi general officers among others.One was deputy commander for Anbar and the other a BG was a division commander.


----------



## CougarKing

Reportedly, previous air strikes by Turkish jets into Syria were not part of the U.S. Coalition air campaign. Now they officially are. 

Reuters



> *Turkish jets join U.S.-led coalition strikes on Islamic State*
> Sat Aug 29, 2015
> ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkish jets took part in U.S.-led coalition air strikes against Islamic State in Syria for the first time on Friday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said.
> 
> "Our jets started last night to carry out air operations with coalition forces against IS targets in Syria which pose a threat to our security too," a statement released on Saturday said.
> 
> The operation followed a technical agreement with the United States on Aug. 24 about Turkey's role in the campaign against the Sunni Islamists who control large areas of Syria and Iraq.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *On July 24, Turkish warplanes attacked Islamic State targets in Syria, but not as part of the coalition operation.*


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Reportedly, previous air strikes by Turkish jets into Syria were not part off the U.S. Coalition air campaign. Now they officially are.



That really makes a big difference for the people on the receiving end of a 500 lb. bomb  :


----------



## CougarKing

Russian MiGs in Syria vs USAF/Coalition (Turkish, UAE, Omani F16s etc.)  F16s?

Defense News



> *Putin’s MiGs vs. US F-16s in Syria*
> By Shoshana Bryen, senior director of The Jewish Policy Center and editor of inFOCUS Quarterly, and Stephen Bryen, former director of the Defense Technology Security Administration.
> 
> *After four years of devastating civil war with more than 240,000 dead — some from government use of chemical weapons and some from government-induced starvation — Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has admitted he has a manpower problem. In fact, he has a bigger problem than that.*
> 
> Assad’s Russian and Iranian sponsors know that his grip on Syria is far from secure. The Islamic State group has expanded its territory in the north, and fighting in the suburbs of Damascus could trigger a collapse of the regime if one major breakthrough occurs. Thus the Syrian government has turned to brutal bombings of civilians and other measures to try to stave off what is looking more and more inevitable.
> 
> The situation could deteriorate further, and Assad may use even more desperate methods if he can find them.
> 
> *Alongside, and only partly related to the Syrian civil war, the US has moved F-16 fighter jets to Incirlik, Turkey, not far from northeastern Syria. At the same time (a countermove?) the Russians have moved MiG-31M supersonic interceptors to Syria. Where are we headed?*
> 
> The air base at Incirlik would allow the US Air Force to operate much closer to Islamic State group targets in both Iraq and Syria. To get Turkey’s permission, however, the Obama administration had to entertain Turkish demands for a “no-fly zone” in northern Syria. The Turks want to move thousands of Syrian refugees out of Turkey and back onto Syrian soil, and to keep Syrian aircraft from operating near Turkey.
> 
> The Russians countered the notion of restricting Syrian flights by delivering to Assad six MiG-31M aircraft in a deal previously agreed to but canceled in 2009. The superfast MiG-31M is the first Russian plane equipped with a look-down/shoot-down radar.
> 
> Its original mission was to catch and shoot down the American Mach 3+ SR-71 spy plane; the SR-71 was retired, an indication of the MiG’s capability. *Because of its speed and ability to operate at very high altitude, the appearance of the MiG-31 in Syria appears intended to harass the F-16s and make a no-fly zone impossible.*
> 
> Since a no-fly zone is much more complicated than just having American jets in the area, it is unlikely the Turkish plan will come to fruition. And in the first of several conundrums, having the US fly out of Incirlik actually helps the Islamic State group by taking the Syrian Air Force out of the war over territory in the north that the Islamic State group holds. Yes, it switches out one enemy for another, but the US is likely to be a much more cautious, and thus less deadly, enemy to the Islamic State group.
> 
> *In that sense, too, the deployment of MiGs in Syria is a conundrum for Russia, which should appreciate any American activity against the Islamic State group, even if it takes place over Syrian territory. But Russia’s client, Syria, would not.*
> 
> The dance of aircraft is part of the larger crosscurrent regarding the future disposition of the Syrian regime, and the difference between the American position and that of the Russians and their Iranian allies.
> 
> The US wants Assad replaced by a coalition government that could include “moderate Islamists,” and retain the current borders of Syria. The US effort to find and train “moderate Islamists,” however, has been an abject failure, and the war is really between radical Sunnis and the Alawite Shi’a government.
> 
> *The Russians, it appears, would accept some form of partition of Syria with the Assad regime retaining limited powers in the mainly Alawite area. There would also be a Sunni entity, and perhaps enclaves for Christians and Kurds. None of this has been spelled out, however, and where the behind-the-scenes negotiations are going is a guess.
> 
> The American move into Incirlik may be an indication that US-Russian negotiations are failing*. But whatever the Americans and the Russians want, the Islamic State group will have to be at least a tacit party to any Syrian settlement. And unless the Islamic State group and its affiliates are definitively on the run and under siege, there is little chance they would accept any deal. And if they do, there is even less chance they would keep a deal. That leaves both the US and Russians without a dance partner, and neither wants to dance with the Islamic State group.
> 
> *What should appear to be agreed upon action against the Islamic State group by Russia and the US, albeit for different reasons, is now the conundrum of what will happen when an F-16 meets a MiG.*


----------



## Acorn

Russian material support isn't surprising. Playing up the utility of a six-pack of MiG-31s is over-egging the pudding a bit though. Now, if there were Russian pilots manning them, that would truly change the channel, but there's no suggestion of that is there?

Also, I think there was at least a squadron of F16s already at Incirlik. I'm pretty sure there was a wing there a decade or so ago (the last time I was in the region).


----------



## CougarKing

Russian forces going to Syria? Or Assad about to take delivery of Russia's latest export military sales?

Reuters



> *U.S. voices concern to Russia over latest military moves in Syria*
> Sat Sep 5, 2015 10:38pm EDT
> 
> y Matt Spetalnick and Will Dunham
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State John Kerry told his Russian counterpart on Saturday the United States was deeply concerned about reports that Moscow was moving toward a major military build-up in Syria widely seen as aimed at bolstering President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> *U.S. authorities have detected “worrisome preparatory steps,” including transport of prefabricated housing units for hundreds of people to a Syrian airfield, that could signal that Russia is readying deployment of heavy military assets there,* a senior U.S. official told Reuters.
> 
> The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Moscow’s exact intentions remained unclear but that Kerry called Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to leave no doubt of the U.S. position.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Russian forces going to Syria? ....


Or already _in_ Syria?

_"Are there Russian troops in Syria?"_
_"Photo(s) of Russian troops in Syria"_
And from a Ukrainian angle, _"Russia sends military traitors from Crimea to fight in Syria"_
Gotta love social media ....
Meanwhile, one Putin satirist sums it up this way on Twitter:


> Those are not Russian soldiers in:
> Crimea (x)
> Donetsk (x)
> Lugansk (x)
> Syria (x)


----------



## Flanker

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Russian forces going to Syria?



What is the issue?
US have been trying to set fire in Syria for years by supplying arms and instructors for all kind of bands and terrorist dudes called respectfully the "Syrian opposition"?
It is very sad that Canada silently closes eyes on the real organizers of the Syrian bloodbath.


----------



## Kirkhill

I offer, for discussion: Vlad's Playground

The white area is roughly equivalent to Canada east of the Ottawa River (Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Maritimes, complete with the Gulf of St Lawrence)

Centre of Gravity - Ankara and the Black Sea

Red markers are points of East-West Tension.
Yellow markers are available Brigades


----------



## a_majoor

More on the Russians moving to support Assad directly. I can see the countermoves being ISIS fighters being preferentially directed towards inflicting Russian casualties (regardless of the cost to ISIS) and the Salafis taking the fight into the ISlamic areas of the Russian "Near Abroad". Given the costs to the Russian military and economy with the current actions in Ukraine, one can only wonder how much actual support the Russians can supply to Assad?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11846382/Russia-is-building-military-base-in-Syria.html



> *Russia 'is building military base in Syria'*
> 
> American officials express concern about latest intelligence suggesting Moscow is preparing to send hundreds of personnel to prop up Assad regime
> 
> The anonymous officials say Russia has set up an air traffic control tower and transported prefabricated housing units for up to 1,000 personnel to an airfield serving the Syrian port city of Latakia
> 
> Russia is building a military base in Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s heartland, according to American intelligence officials, in the clearest indication yet of deepening Russian support for the embattled regime of Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> The anonymous officials say Russia has set up an air traffic control tower and transported prefabricated housing units for up to 1,000 personnel to an airfield serving the Syrian port city of Latakia.
> 
> Russia has also requested the rights to fly over neighbouring countries with military cargo aircraft during September, according to the reports.
> 
> The claims, which will raise fears that Russia is planning to expand its role in the country’s civil war, will ratchet up tensions between Moscow and Washington over the future of Syria and its brutal ruler.
> 
> Mr Obama on Friday met King Salman of Saudi Arabia to repeat their demand that any lasting settlement in Syria would require an end to the Assad regime.
> 
> It leaves the US and Russia implacably opposed in their visions for Syria.
> 
> John Kerry, Secretary of State, telephoned his Russian counterpart to express US concerns on Saturday.
> "The secretary made clear that if such reports were accurate, these actions could further escalate the conflict, lead to greater loss of innocent life, increase refugee flows and risk confrontation with the anti-Isil coalition operating in Syria," the department said.
> The new US details came in the week that Vladimir Putin gave his strongest admission yet that Russia was already providing some military and logistical support to Syria.
> 
> “We are already giving Syria quite serious help with equipment and training soldiers, with our weapons,” he said during an economic forum in Vladivostok on Friday, according to the state-owned RIA Novosti news agency.
> Until now, Russia's backing has included financial support, intelligence, advisers, weapons and spare parts. Mr Putin insisted it was "premature" to talk of a direct intervention.
> 
> However, images emerged last week that appeared to show a Russian fighter jet operating over Syrian soil and videos of combat troops speaking the Russian language.
> 
> Syrian state television showed images of an advanced Russian-built armoured personnel carrier, the BTR-82a, in combat. Videos also began circulating in which troops shouted orders to one another in Russian.
> 
> Last week the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth cited Western diplomatic sources saying that Russia was on the verge of deploying “thousands” of troops to Syria to establish an airbase from which the Russian air force would fly combat sorties against Isil.
> Those details appear to be backed by satellite images of a Russian base under construction near Latakia, according to anonymous intelligence officials quoted by several American newspapers.
> 
> "If they're moving people in to help the Syrian government fight their own fight, that's one thing,” one told the Los Angeles Times. “But if they're moving in ground forces and dropping bombs on populated areas, that's an entirely different matter."
> Moscow increasingly justifies its support for the Assad regime by pointing to the rise of violent jihadists in Syria.
> The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) has captured a swath of territory since Arab Spring protests in 2011 provoked a heavy-handed regime crackdown.
> 
> The conflict is one of the key drivers for the wave of refugees arriving in Europe. It was from Kobane that Aylan Kurdi and his family set out for Europe. The discovery of three-year-old's body on a Turkish beach this week has provoked a change of attitudes towards migrants.
> 
> This week, Isil stepped up its programme of cultural cleansing, blowing up temples in the historic city of Palmyra.
> And fresh clashes along the border with Turkey claimed the lives of 47 fighters at the weekend, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
> 
> Syria is already home to Russia’s only base outside the former Soviet Union – a naval station in Tartus.
> The reported build-up of military activity, centred on Latakia and Idlib province, is in areas dominated by the Alawite sect, which counts President Assad among its number.


----------



## CougarKing

Did Assad just lose the last source of his oil revenue?

Reuters



> *Islamic State takes Syrian state's last oilfield: monitor*
> Mon Sep 7, 2015 7:43am EDT
> AMMAN (Reuters) - Islamic State fighters have seized the last major oilfield under Syrian government control during battles over a vast central desert zone, a group monitoring the conflict said on Monday.
> 
> The Jazal field was now shut down and clashes were ongoing east of Homs, with casualties reported on both sides, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, without giving dates or more details.
> 
> Syria's army said it had repulsed an attack in the same area but did not mention Jazal or comment on how much of the country's battered energy infrastructure remained under its sway. It said it killed 25 fighters, including non-Syrian jihadists.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More on the Russians moving to support Assad directly. I can see the countermoves being ISIS fighters being preferentially directed towards inflicting Russian casualties (regardless of the cost to ISIS) and the Salafis taking the fight into the ISlamic areas of the Russian "Near Abroad". Given the costs to the Russian military and economy with the current actions in Ukraine, one can only wonder how much actual support the Russians can supply to Assad?
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11846382/Russia-is-building-military-base-in-Syria.html


What looks like some decently-researched (mostly open-source social media postings) background here on how the Russians have been building up in Syria, from an abandoned base to what's being fleshed out now - one assessment:


> .... Since 1971, Russia has had a naval depot in Tartus, Syria (once again, not a naval base), Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the depot hasn't been particularly important. Russian vessels visited it for service from time to time. The depot was manned by a total of four Russian servicemen. In 2010, Russian government pondered over turning the depot into a full-blown naval base, but in 2011, Arab Spring and Syrian civil war happened. To be on the safe side, in 2013 all the Russian staff, including civilians, was evacuated from the depot. Later, in comments to the press, Russia's deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov said that the depot had no strategic or military importance and all the Russian servicemen and civilian staff had been evacuated to Russia to avoid risks to their lives and escalating the conflict. Among the evacuees there also were military advisors.
> 
> In spring 2015, government troops suffer huge defeats close to Latakia, losing Idlib in March and Jisr al-Shughur in April. Latakia is strategically important for Assad: this is Syria's largest port, and close to it there is an international airport/airbase, where both Russian humanitarian aid and military hardware have been unloaded. To the south of the airbase there's Tartus, housing Russia's naval depot.
> 
> Due to this threat, a quick shift of Kremlin strategy occurs: the Tartus depot suddenly becomes important for Russia once again, talks are renewed of turning it into a bona fide naval base, Tartus sees an influx of military vehicles and Russian soldiers. The Tartus depot used to house but 4 Russian seamen servicing it. Now it has hundreds of soldiers and heavy vehicles.
> 
> In late August, fighting close to Latakia goes on. Combat footage captures a Russian-made BTR-82A with a color scheme and number characteristic of Russian military units. As the APC is shooting, we can hear orders to the gunner in Russian. Several days later, in Western Idlib governorate, Jabhaat al Nusra (Al Qaeda) spot a Russian Pchela-1T UAV. 3 fighter jets are also spotted there, believed by many to be Russian.
> 
> Meanwhile, posts appear on social networks about contract soldiers being sent to Tartus (while in early 2015 draftees went to Tartus as well) for long periods from 3 to 8 months.
> 
> Based on all of the above, *our team believes that currently Russian marines have been moved to Syria to guard and strengthen the Tartus depot as well as the airbase close to Latakia. We believe infantry does not take part in the fighting. However, we believe that Russian vehicles with Russian crews do go into battle. Support is also rendered at least by Russian UAVs* ....


----------



## CougarKing

Part of the US response to the Russian movements into Syria:

Reuters



> *U.S. asks Greece to deny Russian flights to Syria*
> 
> By Renee Maltezou, Tom Perry and Lidia Kelly
> 
> ATHENS/BEIRUT/MOSCOW (Reuters) - The United States has asked Greece to deny Russia the use of its airspace for supply flights to Syria, a Greek official said on Monday, after Washington told Moscow it was deeply concerned by reports of a Russian military build up in Syria.
> 
> The Greek foreign ministry said the request was being examined. Russian newswire RIA Novosti earlier said Greece had refused the U.S. request, adding that Russia was seeking permission to run the flights up to Sept. 24.
> 
> Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow would not give any official reaction until there was a decision from Athens.
> 
> Russia, which has a naval maintenance facility in the Syrian port of Tartous, has sent regular flights to Latakia, which it has also used to bring home Russian nationals who want to leave.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lots of photos of Russian troops in Syria.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.  



> EXCLUSIVE: First picture 'proof' that Russia has troops on the ground all over Syria helping dictator Bashar Al-Assad - and they've been there since APRIL
> Images showing Russians troops in Syria posted on social media accounts
> Some have been taken at Russia's small naval facility in Tartus, Syria
> But forces seen at other locations and pictures have been taken since April
> Pregnant woman complained on social media that her Russian marine husband is being deployed to the country for 'three to eight months'
> Pictures will infuriate Western leaders in the face of official Russian denials
> 
> ByWill Stewart for MailOnline
> 
> Published: 11:08 GMT, 8 September 2015 | Updated: 11:47 GMT, 8 September 2015
> 
> These revealing pictures apparently show how Russian troops are already on the ground in Syria as Vladimir Putin allegedly defies the West.
> 
> The images showing boots on the ground were originally posted on social media accounts of military personnel, but some were then hastily withdrawn once they began being noticed.
> 
> The shocking pictures will be seen as proof that despite official denials from the Russian president Vladimir Putin, he has deployed increasing numbers of troops to help prop up the regime of Syrian premier Bashar Al-Assad.
> 
> The pictures will infuriate western leaders who have called for the removal of Assad during the four-year civil war that has devastated the country, forced four million people to flee their homes and led to the terrifying rise of ISIS.
> 
> Until recently, this facility was guarded by as few as four Russian military personnel it has been claimed, in stark contrast to the numbers now visible.
> 
> One picture posted this week by 19-year-old Ivan Strebkov - who serves in the Alexander Nevsky Marine Brigade, based in Baltiysk on Russia's Baltic coast - shows four heavily armed troops at Russia's small but longstanding Tartus naval facility in Syria.
> 
> However, the Russian forces are also seen at other locations in the war-torn country, and the pictures have been taken since April, suggesting a gradual build up.
> 
> Another image shows nine Russian soldiers around a fire in a blitzed building in Homs, some 60 miles east of the Tartus naval port.
> 
> A picture posted by Alexei Khabarov shows a Russian soldier in Arab headgear at Hama, 90 miles from Tartus.
> 
> An image posted by Sergei Alexandrov taken on July 27 appears to show a Russian soldier in a trench in Halab - or Aleppo - in war-ravaged northern Syria, 150 miles from Tartus.
> 
> Another posted by Sergei Boroda last month shows a bearded fighter in a military encampment in al-Soda - also known as al-Sawda - around ten miles northeast of Tartus.
> 
> An photograph posted by Nikoli Kazakov shows soldiers apparently arriving in Syria in April, long before recent concern that led US Secretary of State John Kerry to challenge his U.S. opposite number Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov over the Russian troops in Syria.
> 
> An undated image highlights two Russian soldiers posing beside a poster of presidents Assad and Putin.
> 
> And a pregnant Russian woman appeared to have let the cat out of the bag when she complained on social media that her husband, a marine in Putin's armed forces, has been deployed to Syria.
> 
> While Russia has long supplied weaponry to Damascus, a Cold War ally, the naval resupply facility of Tartus is not designated a military base and Moscow has not previously had a significant military presence in Syria.
> 
> Despite this, there are claims of a rising number of visits to Tartus from the Nikolai Filchenkov - a large assault landing ship - and other Russian naval vessels.
> 
> The vessel was pictured on September 2 and is believed to be carrying equipment from the 810th non-divisional marine brigade, based in Sevastopol in Crimea. One marine from the 810th posted his social media status as: 'Gone to Syria'.
> 
> The collection of images have been seized on by critics to claim that Putin has taken a major decision to boost his military presence in Syria in support of the country's autocratic president Assad.
> 
> The photographs suggest serving Russian forces have been in Syria since April at least.
> 
> Blogger Nikolay Makhno gathered together a collection of pictures from the social media accounts of alleged serving Russian soldiers.
> 
> 'The Russian president's press-secretary Dmitry Peskov has denied the reports of Western media about the participation of Russian army in fighting in Syria,' he said.
> 
> 'At the same time, photographs of Russian soldiers prove that they keep arriving to fight for Assad.
> 
> 'Not just 'instructors' are going there - but entire groups of special forces and marines.
> 
> 'The majority of them are coming via Tartus, but they can also be seen in Homs, Latakia, Damask, Ail As-Soda, Salamia, Ham.
> 
> 'Some army units are serving in Syria for four-to-six months, and sometimes they mask themselves like Arabs.'
> 
> The blogger from Kiev likened the build-up to the deployment of Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, which was resolutely denied by Moscow
> 
> 'The families of Russian soldiers will try to find out where their husbands are spending their holidays - in Ukraine or in Syria,' he wrote.
> 
> The images do not prove Russians are directly involved in fighting but suggest Putin's troops are on the ground in a number of locations in Syria.
> 
> Separately, a video from Syria supposedly filmed on August 23 during the battle of the port of Latakia shows an ultramodern Russian-made infantry combat vehicle 82A with an 2A72 30mm cannon.
> 
> There are claims Russian speech is heard in the video. The vehicle is painted in colours and there is an identification number in Russian style.
> 
> Claims today made by independent radio station Echo Moscow say the following shouts were heard in Russian: 'Let's do! Throw it! Do it again! Let's do it again!'
> 
> The report concluded that the 'Russian speaking crew' deployed in a new and 'rare' combat vehicle was seeking to prevent Latakia falling to Assad's foes.
> 
> 'In March, Assad has lost Idlib, in April - Jisr Shughur, and Latakia is a strategic fort, the biggest port in Syria,' stated the report.
> 
> 'The international airport is there which is also a military base. If Assad loses Latakia, he will soon lose the control of this aviation base, and Tartus is not far from there.'
> 
> Recently there were reports citing anonymous U.S. intelligence officials stating Russia has set up an air traffic control tower and transported prefabricated housing units for as many as 1,000 personnel to an airfield serving Latakia.
> 
> In the pictures, one soldier called Fedor Shmatko was pictured in April serving in Syria. But later he changed his social media account name to Denis Smoldyrev, deleting pictures linked to Syria.
> 
> Another wielding a Kalashnikov, called Nikita Saveliev, has since deleted his account on Vkontakte, a Russian social media network.
> 
> If Putin is engaged in a covert build up, as happened in Ukraine, according to the West, it could backfire, say Moscow experts.
> 
> 'After the Soviet operation in Afghanistan, our public opinion has certain prejudices against sending troops to fight for ideals that are foreign to us,' Nikolai Kozhanov, of the Moscow Carnegie Centre, told The Moscow Times today.
> 
> Kerry expressed fears about an 'enhanced Russian buildup' in Syria.
> 
> 'The Russian side has never concealed the fact that it is sending military equipment to the Syrian authorities to help them fight terrorism,' retorted Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
> 
> Putin said recently it was premature to talk about Russia taking part in military operations against the Islamic State jihadist group.
> 
> And earlier this month, Putin claimed Assad is ready to hold snap parliamentary elections and could share power with a 'healthy' opposition.
> 
> 'We really want to create some kind of an international coalition to fight terrorism and extremism,' Putin told journalists on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum last week, saying he had spoken to U.S. President Barack Obama on the matter.
> 
> 'We are also working with our partners in Syria. In general, the understanding is that this uniting of efforts in fighting terrorism should go in parallel to some political process in Syria itself,' Putin said.
> 
> 'And the Syrian president agrees with that, all the way down to holding early elections, let's say, parliamentary ones, establishing contacts with the so-called healthy opposition, bringing them into governing,' he said.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3226009/First-picture-proof-Russia-troops-ground-Syria-helping-dictator-Bashar-Al-Assad-ve-APRIL.html#ixzz3lANav7SS
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## tomahawk6

Russian ROE's might be just whats needed to stop IS.Maybe this will divert their energies from the Ukraine.


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Lots of photos of Russian troops in Syria.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.


Syria's Info-machine:  LIES, all lies!  ;D


> Rumors that Russia is stepping up its military presence in Syria are "fabricated by intelligence agencies of the West and some Arab countries," Syria’s Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi told the Lebanese TV channel Al-Manar. Excerpts from this interview have been quoted by the SANA news agency on Tuesday.
> 
> According to the minister, "this hostile campaign is aimed at creating the impression that the Syrian state has become so weak that it has to seek direct military assistance from its friends." ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Lots of photos of Russian troops in Syria.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.


A subtler line from Russia, via its info-machine:


> Moscow is not planning to transform its logistics center in Syria's Tartus into a full-format military base, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and special presidential representative for the Middle East and African countries Mikhail Bogdanov told Interfax.
> 
> "There are no such plans," Bogdanov said when asked whether Russia could transform its logistics center in Tartus into a military base amid Western media reports alleging that Russia was stepping up its military presence in Syria.
> 
> "*This logistics center has been in Tartus for decades*, and nobody has ever had any questions on this account," Bogdanov said.
> 
> "*The parameters of this center's operations and its purposes are well-known*, and I don't see any problems in this case," the diplomat said.


Not quite a denial of ANY troops in country ....


----------



## CougarKing

It was stated on another forum that Russia also moved its sole _Typhoon_ class SSBN to the Eastern Med. Sea, in addition to the other warships headed to Syria, though I'm still searching for an online source that corroborates this:

Reuters



> *Russia sends ships, aircraft and forces to Syria: US officials*
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - *Russia has sent two tank landing ships and additional aircraft to Syria* in the past day or so and* has deployed a small number of naval infantry forces*, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, in the latest signs of a military buildup that has put Washington on edge.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The latest: Russian forces start participating in actual combat. So this is a full intervention by Putin, not just a presence to deter the US coalition from taking out Assad:

Reuters



> *Exclusive: Russian troops join combat in Syria - sources*
> Wed Sep 9, 2015 5:18pm EDT
> By Gabriela Baczynska, Tom Perry, Laila Bassam and Phil Stewart
> 
> MOSCOW/BEIRUT/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russian forces have begun participating in military operations in Syria in support of government troops, three Lebanese sources familiar with the political and military situation there said on Wednesday.
> 
> The sources, speaking to Reuters on condition they not be identified, gave the most forthright account yet from the region of what the United States fears is a deepening Russian military role in Syria's civil war, though one of the Lebanese sources said the number of Russians involved so far was small.
> 
> U.S. officials said Russia sent two tank landing ships and additional cargo aircraft to Syria in the past day or so and deployed a small number of naval infantry forces.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

The Russians are trying to save Assad and deploying ground forces may save Assad but also help defeat IS.The US effort to topple Assad needs to be shelved for the time being.IS is a far bigger threat.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Assad as a threat to the west is long gone, let Russia spill it's own blood there for a change. Eventually they to will get stabbed in the back by their friends. The bet thing to do now is to "Welcome" the Russians in, that would alarm them as they will start thinking it's a trap. The best way to counter Russia is to get it to get involved in many arenas and let that tax it strength and ability to focus.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Assad as a threat to the west is long gone, let Russia spill it's own blood there for a change. Eventually they to will get stabbed in the back by their friends. The bet thing to do now is to "Welcome" the Russians in, that would alarm them as they will start thinking it's a trap. The best way to counter Russia is to get it to get involved in many arenas and let that tax it strength and ability to focus.



Assad is not going to send troops to Ottawa.  Agreed.  

But Assad is a threat to the West.

This is the weapon of choice for both him and Vlad.







Aylan is a disruptive force that costs Vlad and Bashir nothing.


----------



## a_majoor

Zerohedge on unfolding events in Syria. Frankly, it is time to pull out and allow the Russians, Syrians and Iranians spend their own blood and treasure against ISIS and their backers in the Gulf States. It will be interesting to see just who exactly has more resources to keep up the fight:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-10/major-humiliation-obama-iran-has-sent-soldiers-support-russian-troops-syria



> *In Major Humiliation For Obama, Iran Sends Soldiers To Support Russian Troops In Syria
> *
> When Zero Hedge first reported ten days ago that Russian troops, in their bid to support the Assad regime in its ongoing confrontation with various ISIS, Al Nusra, and other US-supported groups in what has become the proxy war of 2015 (one which even comes with thousands of refugees for dramatic media impact) had been quietly massing in Syria and have set up a forward operating base near Damascus, there were those who were openly skeptical.
> Then, just a few hours ago, Bloomberg finally confirmed that "top officials were scheduled to meet at the National Security Council Deputies Committee level to discuss how to respond to the growing buildup of Russian military equipment and personnel in Latakia" and that Russia is "set to start flying combat missions from a new air base inside Syria."
> 
> So yes, for whatever reason (and the reason as we explained is clear: natural gas pipelines) Russia is making not only its increasing support for Assad known, but also that it is in Syria and that any further US-funded and supported incursions by ISIS or whatever is the media scapegoat terrorist organization du jour, will not be tolerated.
> 
> To be sure, none of this is in any way a surprise to the US - just as the US is using ISIS as a pretext to invade or pressure any mid-east nation it desires "in order to hold the jihadist terrorist scourge", so Russia is now using ISIS as a comparable excuse to intervene. After all, if ISIS is the friend of humanity, then surely Russian aid will be welcome. That it is not, had made it abundantly clear that not only is ISIS just a convenient diversion, but the reasons for a Syrian invasion and deposition of Assad, are purely political and entirely in the realm of real-politik. Also, Russia's return to Syria in greater numbers is no surprise to anyone in the Pentagon - this was merely the long-awaited escalation of the foreplay that started when ISIS mysteriously emerged on the scene just over a year ago.
> 
> But in the latest twist in what we have been warning for months has the makings of the biggest proxy shooting war in years, one that will come as a major humiliation to the Obama administration, today we find out that none other than America's most recent diplomatic sweetheart in the Gulf region, Iran, has deployed ground soldiers into Syria in the past few days in cooperation with Russia's President Vladimir Putin.
> This answers our question from earlier this week:
> 
> So as the coalition drives towards Sana'a - which the Saudi-owned al-Hayat newspaper says will be "liberated" after a "decisive battle" in Marib - and as Turkey, the US, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Qatar mull options for the final push to oust Assad in Syria, the only remaining question is whether Iran will remain on the sidelines and allow the Houthis to be routed and Assad deposed, or whether, like Moscow, Tehran finally decides that the time for rheotric has come to an end.
> 
> And on that note, we'll close with the following from AP: "Iran's foreign minister on Monday criticized demands for the resignation of Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying such calls have prolonged the Arab country's civil war. Mohammad Javad Zarif went so far as to say that those who have in the past years demanded Assad's ouster "are responsible for the bloodshed in Syria."
> 
> And so, Iran appears to have picked its side, and knowing that it has Obama wrapped around its finger as part of Obama's huge "diplomatic coup" of restoring relations with Iran as part of the Nuclear Deal (since any backtracking would further embarrass the US president) and can pivot in any direction in the Syrian conflict, it has decided to side with Russia and Syria.
> 
> According to Ynet, a further said that the increased military involvement in Syria was "due to Assad's crisis and under Russian-Iranian cooperation as a result of a meeting between Soleimani with Russian President Vladimir Putin."
> 
> Where things get even more complicated, is that while Israel would do everything it can to turn public opinion against Iran, especially if it is now involved in the Syrian debacle, Israel still has cordial relations with Russia: "We have dialogue with Russia and we aren't in the  middle of the Cold War," said the source. "We have open channels with the Russians."
> 
> So what does Iran joining the conflict really mean?  "It's hard to forecast whether Russia's presence will decide the fate of Syria, but it will lengthen the fighting and bloodletting for at least another year because ISIS won't give up," said the source.
> 
> In other words, unless even more foreign powers intervene, you know "to stop ISIS" by focusing all their firepower on attacking or defending Assad, the Syria conflict will drag on indefinitely with an unknown outcome. Which in turn begs the question: how long will Israel keep out of the war, and if it decides to join whether it be using one of the more traditional, false flag methods to enflame public opinion against Iran. Who will be collateral damage then.
> 
> One thing is certain: with the GOP unable to block the Iran nuclear deal in the Senate, should it emerge and be confirmed, that Iran is indeed present, then Obama will be faced with the biggest diplomatic headache in his administration's history, namely the explanation of why he is scrambling to restore diplomatic connections with a regime that couldn't even wait for the Iran deal to be formally passed before it turned its back on its newest "best friend" in the Oval Cabinet, and promptly side with the KGB agent who over the past two years has emerged as the biggest US enemy in three decades.
> 
> Furthermore, it also means that now Russia suddenly has the media leverage in its hands: a few "leaked" photos of Iran troops to the press and the phones in the US Department of State will explode.
> 
> But the most important news is that, as we warned previously, with every incremental party entering the Syria conflict, the probability of a non-violent outcome becomes increasingly negligible. And now that Iran is involved, it means that both Israel and Saudi Arabia will be dragged in, whether they like it or not.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

This is basically a Game of Empires:  a tussle between the Arabian, Persian and Ottoman Empires for control of the region.  

No need for the Russian, Chinese or American "empires" to get involved, but if one does (such as Russia is clearly doing) I believe that it will ultimately be to their detriment.

I concur that we should back off and let them have at it.


----------



## Jed

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> This is basically a Game of Empires:  a tussle between the Arabian, Persian and Ottoman Empires for control of the region.
> 
> No need for the Russian, Chinese or American "empires" to get involved, but if one does (such as Russia is clearly doing) I believe that it will ultimately be to their detriment.
> 
> I concur that we should back off and let them have at it.



As long as someone deals with the domestic ISIS threat that saps our errant youth and exports the terror threat to Western shores.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Jed said:
			
		

> As long as someone deals with the domestic ISIS threat that saps our errant youth and exports the terror threat to Western shores.



Our very involvement is the attractant....for both youth who run away to the circus (let them go I say) and those that would do us harm here.


----------



## GAP

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Our very involvement is the attractant....for both youth who run away to the circus (let them go I say) and those that would do us harm here.



for  youth who run away to the circus...........40 years ago was for pure adventure of it.....different cause, similar attraction..... :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile, in Latakia

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/14/russia-sends-artillery-and-tanks-to-syria-as-part-of-continued-military-buildup


----------



## CougarKing

Sad and tragic... aside from these rebels, perhaps the Kurds really are the only non-Assad force in Syria who can stand up against ISIS. But it seems the US has allowed the Turks free rein to bomb some of the Kurd groups in return for Ankara allowing the US to stage strikes from Incirlik AFB...

Reuters



> *Only handful of U.S.-trained Syrian rebels still fighting*
> Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:18am EDT
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Only four or five U.S.-trained Syrian rebels are still fighting in Syria, a top U.S. general told Congress on Wednesday, acknowledging the U.S. military is conducting a broad review of the training program.
> 
> General Lloyd Austin, who leads the U.S. military's Central Command, said he expected the numbers of U.S.-trained Syrian rebels to grow over time. But he acknowledged the program was behind schedule and the military's initial training targets would not be met.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Kirkhill

Why is Incirlik necessary?

Kobane to Dhekelia (British Sovereign Base Area) - 550 km
Kobane to Akrotiri (British Sovereign Base Area) - 450 km
Kobane to Erbil (Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq) -  500 km
Kobane to Sulaymaniyah (Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq) - 650 km
Kobane to Duhok (Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq) (Under Construction) - 408 km
Sulaymaniyah to Akrotiri - 1100 km

Dhekelia to Latakia (Syrian Open Port - Russians moving in) - 200 km

The Russians have moved in to Limassol next door to British SBA Akrotiri.  

Push Back.

Push into Latakia under humanitarian auspices (with or without UN - Russian veto likely - Chinese veto debatable)

Push the Iraqis to assist (Reestablish the Kurdish no fly zone).

It is not a lack of options.  It is a lack of will.

(And by the way Kurdistan opens up the Caucasus and the Black Sea).


----------



## CougarKing

Perhaps, new self-propelled artillery for Assad's remaining forces?

Reuters



> *Exclusive: Syrian army starts using new weapons from Russia - military source*
> Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:20am EDT
> By Tom Perry
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - *The Syrian military has recently started using new types of air and ground weapons supplied by Russia,* a Syrian military source told Reuters on Thursday, underlining growing Russian support to Damascus that is alarming the United States.
> 
> "The weapons are highly effective and very accurate, and hit targets precisely," the source said in response to a question about Russian support. "We can say they are all types of weapons - be it air or ground."
> 
> The source said the army had been trained in the use of the weapons in recent months and was now deploying them, declining to give further details other than saying they were "new types".
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

And we're not keen on (not) being to Ukraine, either ....


> A group of Russian soldiers who are serving in the army on military contracts (as opposed to draftees) have reportedly refused to be deployed in Latakia, Syria.
> 
> Officials from Russia's Eastern Command have denied this report, saying its training exercises are limited to Russian soil. Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said earlier today that the Kremlin has no knowledge of the situation.
> 
> A lieutenant who identified himself as Alexei N. told the Russian news website Gazeta.ru that commanders selected 20 of the best-trained soldiers and told them that they would be deployed to a hot region. They were warned that the climate would be very different from what they were used to and that there would be poisonous animals at the new place, but the specific region was not named. The group was first sent to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. At first, the soldiers assumed they were being sent to the east of Ukraine, but later they found out they would be deployed in Syria.
> 
> On September 16, a General Staff representative dressed in civilian clothing told the group that a secret decree stipulates that they would be sent to Latakia and that they may have to participate in fighting ....


----------



## CougarKing

Flanker jets join the Russian presence in Syria:

CNN



> *Russia sends fighter jets to Syria after talks with U.S.*
> 
> By Jamie Crawford and Barbara Starr, CNN
> Updated 6:21 PM ET, Fri September 18, 2015
> 
> Washington (CNN)Defense Secretary Ashton Carter spoke with his Russian counterpart Friday as Russian military moves inside Syria continued to escalate with the arrival of fighter jets.
> 
> In a "constructive conversation," both Carter and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu agreed to "further discuss mechanisms for deconfliction in Syria," Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said in a statement, as the United States and its allies continue military operations against ISIS inside Syria.
> 
> Shoygu told Carter that the recent Russian military buildup in Syria is "defensive in nature" and aimed at supporting Russian obligations to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a senior U.S. Defense official told reporters.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Cloud Cover

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> This is basically a Game of Empires:  a tussle between the Arabian, Persian and Ottoman Empires for control of the region.
> 
> No need for the Russian, Chinese or American "empires" to get involved, but if one does (such as Russia is clearly doing) I believe that it will ultimately be to their detriment.
> 
> I concur that we should back off and let them have at it.



Plus, isn't it time for our once per decade tradition of semi-invading Haiti? Winter is coming ...


----------



## Ostrozac

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Plus, isn't it time for our once per decade tradition of semi-invading Haiti? Winter is coming ...



That's all scheduled for next month. In October the mandate for the UN mission is up for renewal and Haiti also has the the first round of their presidential elections. Plus, it's hurricane season. Should be a fun month.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The RCN doesn't have any ships left. Guess the Chinooks will have to self deploy from Pet, and marry up with DART and the C17s/C130Js In Florida.

Biggest lesson learned from last time? Chain saws are crappy at sawing down coconut trees. The fibre just clogs the chain. Which makes extending runways a slow process....


----------



## jollyjacktar

What worked?  Something like a rescue saw?


----------



## Teager

I know C4 works great.  :nod:


----------



## CougarKing

I wonder how long they can sustain this presence considering Russia's recent economic woes:

Reuters



> *Russian aircraft in Syria consistent with 'force protection': Kerry*
> Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:09pm EDT
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has assessed that the type of Russian aircraft in Syria is consistent with protecting their own forces, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday and called on Russia and Iran to be helpful in ending the four-year conflict.
> 
> "For the moment it is the judgment of our military and experts that the level and type represents basically force protection," Kerry told reporters.
> 
> However, depending on Russia's long-term decisions, the presence of Russian aircraft in Syria could raise some questions about Moscow's intentions, he added.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Rifleman62

Who believes anything Obama and Kerry say?


----------



## Edward Campbell

_The Economist_ newspaper offers two reasons for Russia stepping up its support to Syria:

     1. "... over the summer it genuinely started to look as though Mr Assad was losing. IS, as well as other less extreme opposition groups, have been pushing back the border of the small statelet he still controls (small geographically,
         that is: it still comprises the bulk of Syria’s dwindling population.) Fear of a collapse, or a coup, that might in the worst case deprive Russia of its naval base at Tartus, the only military facility Russia still controls outside the
         former Soviet Union, will have been genuine;" and/or

     2. "Vladimir Putin is provisionally expected in New York next week at the United Nations General Assembly, the first time he has attended for a decade. He is also hoping for a one-to-one meeting with Barack Obama. It is important
         to both his domestic and his foreign audience to be able to show two things. The first is that Russia opposes regime change and will defend its allies. Mr Assad may, eventually, be eased out as part of a deal in which Russia will be a
         key broker, but it wants to be able to make that deal, which could well be discussed in New York, from a position of strength, not weakness. The second is to signal that Russia is a vital partner for America in the fight against IS and
         jihadist terror in general, which Russia has even more reason than America to fear. Such a coalition underlines Russia’s continuing status as a great power, and helps bring it back in from the cold, ending the long stand-off between
         Russia and America over Ukraine."

_I think_ there's a third reason. _I believe_ that Russia/Putin is following the Chinese model and meddling in almost anything that will likely create diplomatic/strategic problems for the USA at a low risk/low cost to China. _I think_ Putin is "upping the ante" a bit more than a Chinese leader would, but _I suspect_ it's the same tactic at work.


----------



## CougarKing

Not sure whether to believe this, considering the source. However, Chinese warships have been to Yemen to evacuate their nationals before, so it wouldn't be surprising if they are increasing their footprint in the region.

Pravda



> *Chinese Navy sets off for Syria*
> 25.09.2015 | Source: Pravda.Ru
> 
> According to the Russian Senator Igor Morozov, Beijing has taken decision to take part in combating IS and sent its vessels to the Syrian coast.
> Igor Morozov, member of the Russian Federation Committee on International Affairs claimed about the beginning of the military operation by China against the IS terrorists. "It is known, that China has joined our military operation in Syria, the Chinese cruiser has already entered the Mediterranean, aircraft carrier follows it," Morozov said.
> 
> According to him, Iran may soon join the operation carried out by Russia against the IS terrorists, via Hezbollah. Thus, the Russian coalition in the region gains ground, and most reasonable step of the US would be to join it.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, let's start with the little fact that the P.L.A.N. does not have any cruisers. That kind of eliminates that part. Secondly, the Liaoning is nowhere near ready to operate out of home waters and in more than experimental/gain experience mode.

Moreover, the Chinese observed method of operation would suggest that, when the Liaoning is ready for operations, it will follow the American practice of deploying as a battle group. I think that the Russian senator would have known that and it is much more impressive to say the a Chinese Carrier battle group will follow shortly.

If a large Chinese ship has entered the Med. and if the idea here is to provide succour to Chinese citizens for evacuation, it is likely a Type 071 amphibious transport dock of the Yuzhao class.


----------



## Edward Campbell

One of the fairly constant aims of Chinese foreign policy is to discomfit others, especially, right now, the Americans.

_I'm pretty sure_ the Chinese announced this move several months ago ... it was discussed here on Army.ca, if I remember correctly.

The Chinese are, _I think_, helping the Russians because the Russians are making life more complicated fore the Americans ... not because the Chinese like the Russians. If anything, _in my opinion_, the Chinese, including _official China_ in the Zhongnanhai, right next to the Forbidden City, dislikes Russia _more_ than it dislikes America. _My sense_ is that the Chinese people hold considerable respect and affection for America but the same is not true for Russia. But, as a matter of policy, if something can be done, relatively cheaply and very safely, to make things more difficult for the USA then the Chinese will give it a try.

The USA is "top dog;" China is number two, but, like _Avis_ of old, it tries harder.


----------



## CougarKing

China and rental cars aside, more western nations are slowly joining the air campaign over Syria: the latest being France.

French forces have just begun air strikes against ISIS in Syria. Only-land-based Rafales were involved in this strike though. No word on whether their lone carrier group is in the region.

Aviationist



> *Five Rafales, one Atlantique 2 and one C-135 involved in France’s air strike in Syria*
> Sep 27 2015
> 
> By David Cenciotti
> The French contingent has struck IS positions in Syria earlier today.
> On Sept. 27, five Rafale jets, an Atlantique 2 and a C-135 tanker aircraft “launched by airbases located in Jordan and the Persian Gulf,” were involved in the first mission against an ISIS training camp in Syria as part of Operation Chammal.
> 
> Launched on Sept. 19, 2014, Chammal has seen a contingent counting now 12 tactical jets (six Rafale, three Mirage 2000D and three Mirage 2000N aircraft) and one Atlantique 2 MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft) take part in the air strikes (bombing targets and flying reconnaissance missions) against Islamic State positions in Iraq.
> 
> The first air strike in Syria was preceded by 12 ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) missions conducted from Sept. 8 to 24, that helped to identify targets of interest located in the regions controlled by the terrorist organization: a “self-assessment” capacity, as the French MoD dubbed it in an official statement released after the mission.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Everyone is using the wrong bombs in these airstrikes.


----------



## CougarKing

Putin's forces officially begin launching strikes against ISIS in Syria:

Defense News



> *U.S. official: Russia launches first Syria airstrike*
> Jim Michaels and Jane Onyanga-Omara 9:49 a.m. EDT September 30, 2015
> 
> Russia launched its first airstrike in Syria following a build up of its forces in the embattled country, a U.S. official said Wednesday.
> 
> The airstrike was conducted around the city of Homs, said the official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
> 
> The United States was given one hour's notice before the strike took place, the official said. The notice was sent in Baghdad, where the Russians have set up a coordination unit with Iraq’s government. A high-ranking Russian officer there notified a U.S. military official at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the U.S. official said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Rifleman62

Further:

Apparently. the Russians gave the US one hours notice! The US government & military caught flat footed.

Does anyone believe anything Pres Obama or Kerry says?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/30/boots-on-ground-russian-lawmakers-back-putin-sending-troops-to-syria/
*
Russia launches airstrikes in northern Syria, senior military official says*

By Jennifer Griffin and Lucas TomlinsonPublished September 30, 2015FoxNews.com

Russian warplanes began bombarding Syrian opposition targets in the war-torn nation's north Wednesday, following a terse meeting at which a Russian general asked Pentagon officials to clear out of Syrian air space and was rebuffed, Fox News has learned.

A U.S. official said Russian airstrikes targeted fighters in the vicinity of Homs, located roughly 60 miles east of a Russian naval facility in Tartus, and were carried out by a "couple" of Russian bombers. The strikes hit targets in Homs and Hama, but there is no presence of ISIS in those areas, a senior U.S. defense official said. These planes are hitting areas where Free Syrian Army and other anti-Assad groups are located, the official said.

Activists and a rebel commander on the ground said the Russian airstrikes have mostly hit moderate rebel positions and civilians. In a video released by the U.S.-backed rebel group Tajamu Alezzah, jets are seen hitting a building claimed to be a location of the group in the town of Latamna in the central Hama province.

The group commander Jameel al-Saleh told a local Syrian news website that the group's location was hit by Russian jets but didn't specify the damage.

A group of local activists in the town of Talbiseh in Homs province recorded at least 16 civilians killed, including two children.

According to a U.S. senior official, Presidents Obama and Putin agreed on a process to "deconflict" military operations. The Russians on Wednesday "bypassed that process," the official said.

"That's not how responsible nations do business," the official said.

The development came after Pentagon officials, in a development first reported by Fox News, brushed aside an official request, or "demarche," from Russia to clear air space over northern Syria, where Moscow said it intended to conduct airstrikes against ISIS on behalf of Assad, according to sources who spoke to Fox News. The request was made in a heated discussion between a Russian three-star general and U.S. officials at the American Embassy in Baghdad, sources said. 

"If you have forces in the area we request they leave," said the general, who used the word "please" in the contentious encounter.

A senior Pentagon official said the U.S., which also has been conducting airstrikes against ISIS, but does not support Assad, said the request was not honored.

"We still conducted our normal strike operations in Syria today," the official said. "We did not and have not changed our operations."

    "We still conducted our normal strike operations in Syria today"

    - Senior Pentagon official

State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters the Russian airstrikes won't change the strategy of the U.S.-led coalition. 

"The U.S.-led coalition will continue to fly missions over Iraq and Syria as planned and in support of our international mission to degrade and destroy ISIL," Kirby told reporters, while acknowledging the meeting at the American embassy in Baghdad.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told foreign ministers of world powers Wednesday that his country is "ready to forge standing channels of communication to ensure a maximally effective fight against terrorist groups."

Lavrov spoke to the U.N. Security Council shortly after Russia's defense ministry announced its jets are carrying out airstrikes on Islamic State group positions in Syria.

Lavrov said Russia would shortly circulate a draft council resolution to promote joint efforts against groups like the Islamic State.

The move by Moscow marks a major escalation in ongoing tensions between the two countries over military action in the war-torn country and comes moments after Russian lawmakers formally approved a request from Putin to authorize the use of troops in Syria. Putin said previously that Russia would strike ISIS targets. 

The Federation Council, the upper house of Russia's parliament, discussed Putin's request for the authorization behind the closed doors. Sergei Ivanov, chief of Putin's administration, said in televised remarks that the parliament voted unanimously to approve the request.

Ivanov said the authorization is necessary "not in order to achieve some foreign policy goals" but "in order to defend Russia's national interests."

Putin is obligated to request parliamentary approval for any use of Russian troops abroad, according to the Russian Constitution. The last time he did so was before Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in March 2014.

Putin's request comes after his bilateral meeting with Obama on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York, where the two were discussing Russia's recent military buildup in Syria.

A U.S. official told Fox News Monday the two leaders agreed to discuss political transition in Syria but were at odds over the role that Assad should play in resolving the civil conflict. The official said Obama reiterated to Putin that he does not believe there is a path to stability in Syria with Assad in power. Putin has said the world needs to support Assad because his military has the best chance to defeat ISIS militants.

Putin said the meeting, which lasted slightly more than 90 minutes, was “very constructive, business-like and frank".

"We are thinking about it, and we don't exclude anything," Putin told reporters at the time

The Kremlin reported that Putin hosted a meeting of the Russian security council at his residence Tuesday night outside of Moscow, saying that they were discussing terrorism and extremism.

On Tuesday, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called on Russia to make a real contribution to the fight against ISIS, telling reporters at the United Nations that Moscow "is against the terrorists, it's not abnormal to launch strikes against them."

"The international community has hit (ISIS). France has hit (ISIS), Assad very little, and the Russians not at all. So one has to look at who does what," Fabius added.

Russia has been a staunch supporter of Assad during Syria's bloody civil war, and multiple reports have previously indicated that Russian troops are aiding Assad's forces. Israel's defense minister also said earlier this month that Russian troops are in Syria to help Assad fight the ISIS terror group.

On Wednesday, Reuters reported that Russia's Foreign Ministry told the news agency Interfax that a recently established operations center in Baghdad would help coordinate airstrikes and ground troops in Syria. Fox News first reported last week that the center had been set up by Russian, Syrian and Iranian military commanders with the goal of working with Iranian-backed Shia militias fighting ISIS.

Over the weekend, the Iraqi government announced that it would begin sharing "security and intelligence" information with Russia, Syria and Iran to help combat ISIS.

Meanwhile, intelligence sources told Fox News Friday that Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani met with Russian military commanders in Baghdad Sept. 22. Fox News reported earlier this month that Soleimani met Putin in Moscow over the summer to discuss a joint military plan in Syria. 

"The Russians are no longer advising, but co-leading the war in Syria," one intelligence official said at the time.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


----------



## Kirkhill

Back him up......


----------



## Altair

What are the chances Russian jets and western jets might come across each other in the skies over syria?


----------



## McG

It seems the first Russian strike was not against IS, but other anti-Assad fighters.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/initial-reports-on-bombing-strongly-suggest-russia-is-in-syria-to-support-assad-not-destroy-isil


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> What are the chances Russian jets and western jets might come across each other in the skies over syria?



Well the Russians are coming across western jets over the Beaufort, the Bering, the Baltic, the Black, the North and the Irish Seas as well as the Seas of Japan and Okhotsk.  And they are not bothered about "pushing back" the western aircraft.   Syria is just one more playground for them.


----------



## Altair

Agreed,  however this is a active combat zone. Would the risk not be higher?


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> It seems the first Russian strike was not against IS, but other anti-Assad fighters.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/initial-reports-on-bombing-strongly-suggest-russia-is-in-syria-to-support-assad-not-destroy-isil


C'mon, now - if these guys were "Crimean Self-defence Forces" ....





.... I'm SURE those guys on the ground in Syria catching hot Russian steel HAD to be ISIS if Russia said so. >

Edited to add attachment of declaration from the Kremlin, in English.


----------



## Altair

There is a plus in all of this. Western nations get squeamish when it comes to hitting targets where there is a larger amount of collateral damage and civilian deaths.

The Russians lie with ease and have a firm grip on their own media so they can do whatever they want in theater. And then deny that any civilians were there. When they do get around to hitting ISIL,  I think they are going to notice that hiding among civilians isn't going to save them anymore.


----------



## Kirkhill

True. IF they get around to tackling ISIL.

In the meantime I suggest you review Basher's Dad's rules on insurgencies.  

Hama Rules.  Basher's Dad was Haf Assad.


----------



## CougarKing

Iran actually had a presence in Syria before: through Hezbollah etc. Tehran aims to defend the Assad regime since the dictator and the Allawite minority group that dominates his regime are seen as "cousins" to Tehran's Shia whose beliefs are similar.

Reuters



> *Iran troops to join Syria war, Russia bombs group trained by CIA*
> Thu Oct 1, 2015 4:15pm EDT
> 
> By Laila Bassam and Andrew Osborn
> 
> BEIRUT/MOSCOW (Reuters) - Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria to join a major ground offensive in support of President Bashar al-Assad's government, Lebanese sources said on Thursday, a sign the civil war is turning still more regional and global in scope.
> 
> Russian warplanes, in a second day of strikes, bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the CIA, the group's commander said, putting Moscow and Washington on opposing sides in a Middle East conflict for the first time since the Cold War.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## McG

And Russia acknowledges it has hit rebels other than ISIS.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-bombs-syria-targets-for-2nd-day-including-u-s-backed-rebels-1.3251718


----------



## a_majoor

Forming an axis seems to be very popular these days:

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2015/10/01/putins-middle-east/?singlepage=true



> *Putin’s Middle East*
> As though anybody in the Middle East cares about Kerry's "concerns" while Moscow and Tehran are actually taking strong action.
> 
> Bashar Assad sitting pretty because Vladimir Putin has his back.
> (AP file photo)
> 
> It’s been more than two years since Longtime Sharp VodkaPundit Readers™ were first warned of the Russo-Iranian Axis that would come to dominate the Middle East — and now here it is in action:
> 
> Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria in the last 10 days and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes, two Lebanese sources told Reuters.
> 
> “The (Russian) air strikes will in the near future be accompanied by ground advances by the Syrian army and its allies,” said one of the sources familiar with political and military developments in the conflict.
> 
> “It is possible that the coming land operations will be focused in the Idlib and Hama countryside,” the source added.
> 
> The two sources said the operation would be aimed at recapturing territory lost by President Bashar al-Assad’s government to rebels. [Emphasis added]
> 
> Please pay particular attention to that last line as we venture back to the UN so that we might see the Obama administration’s reaction:
> 
> 
> [Secretary of State John] Kerry told the United Nations Security Council that the U.S. would not object to Russians hitting Islamic State or al-Qaida targets, but airstrikes just to strengthen the hand of Syrian President Bashar Assad would be worrisome. Later, after meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Kerry said he had spoken about U.S. “concerns about the nature of the targets, the type of targets and the need for clarity with respect for them.
> 
> “It is one thing obviously to be targeting ISIL. We are concerned obviously if that is not what is happening,” Kerry said.
> 
> Anyone who can read a map — this definition would seem to exclude most senior members of Professor Ditherton Wiggleroom’s administration — isn’t at all surprised by Russia’s airstrikes. Senator John McCain “said he could ‘absolutely confirm’ that members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), who had been funded and trained by the CIA, were among those targeted.” The Syrian rebels, our supposed allies, hold the areas closest to Damascus and the coastal regions still held by forces loyal to Assad. The ISIS-held areas mostly lie far to the east, closer to Iraq.
> 
> So of course Russo-Iranian forces are concentrating on defeating the rebels, who pose the most immediate threat to Assad. And yet Obama negotiated in good faith with Putin on Monday, with some sort of expectation that Putin would attack our enemies rather than his own.
> 
> Naiveté. Idiocy. Madness. As though anybody in the Middle East cares about Kerry’s “concerns” while Moscow and Tehran are actually taking strong action.
> 
> Our former friends in Iraq are adjusting their planning accordingly, as Lebanon’s Daily Star reports:
> 
> 
> Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said Thursday he would welcome Russian airstrikes against ISIS in his country and had been receiving information from both Syria and Russia on the militant group.
> 
> “Not yet,” Abadai told France 24 television when asked if he had discussed with Russia airstrikes in his country. “It is a possibility. If we get the offer we will consider it and I would welcome it.”
> 
> He said Baghdad had also been receiving “massive information” from Syria on ISIS and also from Russia.
> 
> Obama has spent two years dicking around with the so-called “jayvee” in eastern Syria and western Iraq, wasting everybody’s time with ineffectual pinprick attacks. He spent half a billion dollars over the course of months to train five ostensibly pro-American rebels, while the Russians and Iranians have deployed hundreds of their own troops to Syria in just the last couple of weeks. Is it any wonder that Iraq, which Obama abandoned in 2011, is turning its lonely eyes to Moscow?
> 
> Meanwhile the Russians are ruthlessly going about the business of protecting their friends and blowing up their enemies — the perceived value of which even our own secretary of Defense doesn’t understand:
> 
> 
> “It does appear they were in in areas where there probably were not ISIL forces,” [Defense Secretary Ash] Carter said of the Russian airstrikes, using an alternative acronym for Islamic State. “The result of this kind of action will inevitably simply be to inflame the civil war in Syria.”
> 
> Carter said he couldn’t confirm reports that the Russian strikes may have hit civilians, but said, “if it occurred, it’s yet another reason why this kind of Russian action can and will backfire very badly on Russia.”
> 
> Backfire with whom? The Assad regime has never cared about civilian casualties, Baghdad can’t afford to care about civilian casualties, and Russia and Iran care only about establishing their new hegemony over the old Fertile Crescent.
> 
> Obama and Kerry and Carter can cluck at Russia all they want, but its their chickens which have come to roost in what is fast becoming Putin’s Middle East.


----------



## Altair

So the western, including Canadian response to this should be what?  

Because it appears we have been outflanked...again.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Credit where due - the Russian MoD's info-machine is far more imaginative than the Pentagon's when it comes to headlines.

Russia (each link with a video)?

_"Russian Aerospace Forces engaged another four ISIS facilities in Syria this night"_
_"Russian aviation performed high-accuracy strikes against international terrorist organization ISIS"_
_"The results of the work of the Russian air group in Syria over the past day"_ (in Russian)
The U.S.?

_"Military airstrikes continue against ISIL terrorists in Syria, Iraq"_, repeat as needed
  ;D

Meanwhile, Russia scolds the media:


> The Russian Defense Ministry calls the foreign media rumors about the operation of the Russia’s Aerospace Forces in Syria "pseudo-sensations."
> 
> "These pseudo-sensations are complete nonsense, not grounded in a factual basis. I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that today’s informational provocations had been concocted in haste before the start of the operation," Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Friday ....


----------



## jollyjacktar

They do have an ally here in Canada.  Jean Chretien is cheering.  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/01/chretien-says-putin-s-help-in-syria-should-be-welcomed-by-canada_n_8230114.html


----------



## Flanker

MCG said:
			
		

> And Russia acknowledges it has hit rebels other than ISIS.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-bombs-syria-targets-for-2nd-day-including-u-s-backed-rebels-1.3251718



Other than ISIS?
How do you manage to distinguish good terrorists and bad terrorists?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ian Bremmer, President of the _Eurasia Group_, expresses his views with a single image titled _"US Syria policy:"_


----------



## The Bread Guy

Flanker said:
			
		

> Other than ISIS?
> How do you manage to distinguish good terrorists and bad terrorists?


When the Syrian government tells you, "_those_ are the guys to bomb - thanks!"


> .... Russia would use its warplanes to hit terrorist targets when requested by the Syrian government ....


----------



## tomahawk6

Both rebel groups oppose Assad,as a result they are fair game from Russia's perspective.Their objective is to prop up Assad.
Russian strike video of IS training and command center.

http://www.rt.com/news/317351-russian-strikes-aleppo-isis/#.Vg6rlGCSPRg.twitter


----------



## Altair

I'm no fan of Putin,  but is it fair to say he's one of the most effective political leaders on the world stage today?

I honestly have more faith in Putin when it comes to taking on isil (and whoever else isn't lined up with assad) than I do Obama.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm no fan of Putin,  but is it fair to say _he's one of the most effective political leaders_ on the world stage today?
> 
> I honestly have more faith in Putin when it comes to taking on isil (and whoever else isn't lined up with assad) than I do Obama.




He is, seemingly, _effective_ in the immediate, maybe even the short term; I think we'll need to await and see the intermediate and long term consequences. I would agree that he is one of the world's most _opportunistic_ leaders ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest from the Russian MoD Info-machine:

_"Russian air grouping continues making precise attacks at the #ISIS terrorists from the Hmeymim airbase"_
_"Su-25 attack aircraft completely destroyed a large workshop aimed for production of bombs and improvised explosive devices and disguised as a plant for gas cylinders"_
_"Results of actions of the Russian air grouping in Syria for the last 24 hours"_


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit more from the Russian Info-machine:

_"Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov told about actions of the Russian air grouping in Syria"_
_"The Russian air group continued air strikes by precision-guided munitions by international terrorist groups IS in Syria"_ (in Russian)


----------



## tomahawk6

I wonder why they arent this public with their Ukraine operations ? ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jeffrey A. Stacey, who is Managing Partner of _Geopolicity USA_, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, and author of _Integrating Europe_ ( Oxford University Press), posits, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_, that Syria, like Crimea, is now "lost" to the West:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-10-02/undeterred-syria


> Undeterred in Syria
> _How the West Lost Crimea—And Syria_
> 
> By Jeffrey A. Stacey
> 
> October 2, 2015
> 
> Russian President Vladimir Putin might have intervened in Syria promising to end the conflict there, but things on the ground are only going to get worse, and Putin’s drive to subvert Western interests will only increase.
> 
> Russia’s ominous military buildup in Syria represents the most significant projection of force beyond the territory of the former Soviet Union since the Cold War. In the past few days, Russia has initiated a series of airstrikes against Syrian regime opponents. It has begun operating advanced offensive hardware, including fixed wing Su-24, 25, and 27 fighter jets, attack helicopters, drone aircraft, main battle tanks, and SA-22 surface-to-air missile batteries from its new base in Latakia, which is in the backyard of Assad’s stronghold.
> 
> Although Russia uses the threat of the Islamic State (also called ISIS) as cover, the Russian campaign is in fact geared toward keeping the Bashar al-Assad regime in power in Syria, effectively closing the path toward negotiated resolution that had been opened by the Iran nuclear deal. Russia also intends to maintain a major forward operating base in the Middle East, which will allow it not only to play a role in determining the regime that follows, but also the ability to influence events in the region beyond the current conflict.
> 
> However, of greater concern in the immediate term, there is little guarantee that Russia won’t use its high-end military weaponry in other destabilizing ways, such as through sustained attacks on opposition fighters backed by the United States and the Gulf States. Indeed, Russia’s initial air attacks weren’t even aimed at ISIS strongholds, but were targeted at more moderate anti-Assad groups. And there are already questions about the Russian air force’s ability to operate in the same theater as British, French, Gulf, Turkish, and U.S. air operations without endangering allied aircraft and pilots, intentionally or unintentionally.
> 
> Indeed, Russia has been playing a dangerous cat-and-mouse game with allied planes and ships across Eurasia for many months now. Among other things, it has been both flying in the flight paths of Western commercial and military aircraft and using ships and submarines to intermittently sail into Western countries’ territorial waters. In addition, Russia has staged a series of large-scale military exercises just across the border of Poland and several Baltic states, and its intelligence service actually seized an Estonian agent during last year’s NATO Summit and held him for several days.
> 
> But this intervention in Syria is doubly ominous. Not only does it go far beyond Russia’s intervention in Ukraine in sheer operational terms, but it will also cause the Gulf States, led by Saudi Arabia, to massively up the ante in terms of their support of anti-Assad Sunni rebel groups in Syria. In short, this regional war—that is now verging on a minor World War, given all the outside powers now engaged in military operations there—will be substantially prolonged just when anticipation had grown over a diplomatic resolution to the conflict in the wake of the Iran nuclear qua peace deal.
> 
> PERCEPTION, MISPERCEPTION, AND DETERRENCE
> 
> The United States and its Western allies should not have been caught so off-guard by Putin’s shrewd but destabilizing move. Since the Russia invasion and occupation of Eastern Ukraine, Putin has been poking and prodding the West, seeking ways in which a militarily and diplomatically resurgent Russia can subvert Western security interests and force Western capitals to deal with Russia again as a major world power with its own unique set of legitimate interests.
> 
> But this was not just a sin of omission. It is also a sin of commission. By not confronting Putin and Russia sufficiently over its illegal invasion and occupation of Ukraine, the United States and its Western allies effectively gave Putin a green light to project force in other geostrategic hot spots.
> 
> When Putin stared down the West and the West blinked, the West lost its credibility and, with it, its ability to deter further Russian bad behavior. Most Western security experts, focused on the conflict over Ukraine itself, ignored the wider strategic ramifications.
> 
> Inside the beltway, pundits argued against arming Ukraine because they believed that Putin would only up the ante. In fact, the United States should have upped the ante itself. More than likely, Putin would have backed down. After all, the use of force is about the only form of statecraft Putin respects. Russia effectively shrugs off anything short of it, or the credible threat of its use. Even the sanctions, which have cost the Russian economy dearly, have not deterred him.
> 
> The West did do a better job after the Ukraine invasion, deterring Russian incursions into other parts of Europe. The United States fairly rapidly provided security assurances to Poland and the rest of East–Central Europe, forcibly drawing a line against Russian incursions into these former Soviet satellites. But after Crimea was lost, the immense damage to the highest tenant of international law—non-violation of sovereign borders—was already done.
> 
> Russia has a stronger set of interests in Syria and in the Assad regime than the United States and its Western allies do. And believing that the West probably wouldn’t fight back, it felt free to intervene and begin launching strikes. And now the West has a significant new Russian forward operating base on its hands in a pivotal part of the world. The seeds of this buildup were sown when Putin deftly inserted himself into the Syria equation over two years ago when the United States, United Kingdom, and France failed to enforce their no-use-of-chemical-weapons red line. But it was the failure to force Putin’s hand over Ukraine that emboldened him to make this newfound far-reaching move.
> 
> Since the West is unlikely to intervene in the conflict directly, deterrence is even more vital for the United States to establish and maintain. It is both strategically effective and cost-effective, but it is difficult to establish and maintain, and quite simple to lose. In fact, deterrence matters more when a superpower is either unwilling or unable to intervene in a crisis where its interests are clearly at stake.
> 
> Building deterrence back up is an arduous process; it cannot occur in the absence of carefully but forthrightly checking an opponent’s moves (or potential moves) by a combination of calibrated repositioning of military forces, engaging in military exercises, or the actual use of military force. However, the most difficult part is doing this in the middle of a crisis or conflict, as what might be effective in peacetime could well be escalatory in wartime. Hence, deterrence is likely to remain lost for the remainder of this conflict. Afterward, or simultaneously in other regions, the United States and its Western allies will need to painstakingly work on rebuilding deterrence against nefarious Russian interventions.
> 
> The timing of Russia’s intervention could hardly be worse. The Iran deal was, contrary to conventional wisdom, already having a salutary effect on the Syrian conflict. Not only has Iran reigned in its leader of the Quds Force (the foreign arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) and backed off from its support of the Houthis in Yemen, but in Syria, Iran has negotiated two ceasefires and spoken publicly about finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict. With Russian and Syrian encouragement, it may now tack in a more disturbing direction by supplying hundreds of Iranian troops.
> 
> The United States had done itself a great favor by successfully negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. But now it is watching an earlier misstep come back to bite it. Assad will not be going anywhere soon. Nor will the war in Syria be winding down. And with Russia’s trademark unpredictability, it will surely be choosing yet another place to subvert Western interests.




Readers may disagree with his appraisal of the Iran deal but I think his logic, here, is sound.


----------



## The Bread Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I wonder why they arent this public with their Ukraine operations ? ;D


'Cause they're all on leave - doesn't count


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 'Cause they're all on leave - doesn't count



I always knew the Swiss and the Danes, amongst others, allowed their troops to take their rifles home with them.

Apparently the Russians let them take tanks, howitzers and helicopters home as well..... a truly progressive army.


----------



## Altair

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Jeffrey A. Stacey, who is Managing Partner of _Geopolicity USA_, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, and author of _Integrating Europe_ ( Oxford University Press), posits, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_, that Syria, like Crimea, is now "lost" to the West:
> 
> https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2015-10-02/undeterred-syria
> 
> Readers may disagree with his appraisal of the Iran deal but I think his logic, here, is sound.


I realized the west lost syria the moment that all I heard from the POTUS, European leaders and even the PM of canada was whining about Russian actions with not one single person talking about a western response.

And while Russia was blitzing the syria countryside with 10-20 bombing runs the coalition had 1 airstrike in Syria during that time.

Step aside west, not to fear, Putin is here.


----------



## a_majoor

Sinc the Saudis havn't been successful in toppling Assad on their own or really sticking it to the Iranians (although the oil war tactic is working wonders with both Iran and Russia in the mid to long term), they will have to up their game. I suspect that we will see ISIS becoming much more "energized" in their attacks on Syrian territory and particularly targeting Iranian troops, Hezbollah fighters and the supply lines which join Iran to syria and Lebanon.

As for the Russians, I suspect they may be a bit of a hard nut for ISIS fighters to crack, but the lure of paradise and the thrill of destroying the "Godless Russians" may be incentive enough.


----------



## Altair

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sinc the Saudis havn't been successful in toppling Assad on their own or really sticking it to the Iranians (although the oil war tactic is working wonders with both Iran and Russia in the mid to long term), they will have to up their game. I suspect that we will see ISIS becoming much more "energized" in their attacks on Syrian territory and particularly targeting Iranian troops, Hezbollah fighters and the supply lines which join Iran to syria and Lebanon.
> 
> As for the Russians, I suspect they may be a bit of a hard nut for ISIS fighters to crack, but the lure of paradise and the thrill of destroying the "Godless Russians" may be incentive enough.


Russians don't play by the same rules that the west plays with.

They might be surprised that hiding their arsenal beside a school doesn't work with Russian jets. 

Collateral damage doesn't exist in the Russian military, at least that's the impression I'm getting from their spin experts.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Altair said:
			
		

> Russians don't play by the same rules that the west plays with.
> 
> They might be surprised that hiding their arsenal beside a school doesn't work with Russian jets.


If they're dead and they're Syrian, they're ISIS, right?  



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Apparently the Russians let them take tanks, howitzers and helicopters home as well..... a truly progressive army.


Maybe not, but it sounds like we'll be seeing Russian "volunteers" in Syria, soon ....


> .... Russia has openly acknowledged sending warplanes and other military equipment to bolster Mr. Assad. Although President Vladimir V. Putin has ruled out sending ground forces to Syria, a senior Kremlin defense official told Russian news agencies on Monday that military veterans who had fought in eastern Ukraine were likely to start showing up as “volunteer” ground forces in Syria.
> 
> The statement by the official, Adm. Vladimir Komoyedov, head of the armed forces committee in Russia’s Parliament, asserted that such volunteers “cannot be stopped.”
> 
> Admiral Komoyedov’s statement was the strongest signal yet of Russia’s intentions. It echoed Russia’s use of shadowy ground forces in other conflicts over the past year — most notably its seizure of Crimea from Ukraine in March 2014 and its assistance to insurgents in eastern Ukraine ....


From Russian media (Google translated from the Russian):


> The head of the Duma Committee on Defense, Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov did not rule out that in the Syrian government troops are fighting international terrorists, including militant IG (organization "Islamic state", banned in Russia - IP), you may receive a Russian volunteer brigade or a battalion, which will include, including people who have received combat experience in the Donbass.
> 
> "Komsomol volunteers, as sung in the famous song - they do not stop. And certainly in the ranks of the Syrian army will be the formation of the Russian volunteers - combatants" - said Komoedov "Interfax" on Monday, commenting on media reports that as part of the Syrian Government troops are seen volunteers who fought earlier in the eastern Ukraine ....


----------



## tomahawk6

Interesting piece in the Federalist concerning Obama's belief that the US should lead from the rear.As the US steps back from the Middle East the Russians step in.The Great Game is afoot once again. ???

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/05/what-happens-when-america-retreats-middle-east/


----------



## Retired AF Guy

> "Komsomol volunteers, as sung in the famous song - they do not stop. And certainly in the ranks of the Syrian army will be the formation of the Russian volunteers - combatants" - said Komoedov "Interfax" on Monday, commenting on media reports that as part of the Syrian Government troops are seen volunteers who fought earlier in the eastern Ukraine ....



I wonder how all those "volunteers" think about being sent to Syria?


----------



## Altair

Apparently Russian jets entered turkey today. 

Potential of things going sideways seems high in this current environment


----------



## CougarKing

Altair, that news of Russian jets entering Turkey was already posted in another thread. And apparently it's happened more than once, in spite of NATO's refusal to accept Russia's explanation of what happened.

Anyways, here is more bad news for the moderate Syrian rebels, if they do survive at all:

Reuters



> *Russian warplanes in Syria destroy U.S.-trained rebels' weapons depots: commander*
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - Russian air strikes have destroyed the main weapons depots of a U.S.-trained rebel group in Syria, their commander said on Wednesday, in an expansion of Russian attacks on insurgents backed by foreign enemies of President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> The Liwa Suqour al-Jabal, whose fighters have attended military training organized by the Central Intelligence Agency in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, was also hit last week by Russian raids as Moscow began its air campaign in support of Damascus.
> 
> New strikes targeted the group's main weapons depots in western Aleppo province and completely destroyed them late on Tuesday, its commander Hassan Haj Ali told Reuters on Wednesday via Internet messaging service.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)




Reuters



> *Syrian army and Russian jets target rebels in western Syria*
> Wed Oct 7, 2015 7:32am EDT
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - The Syrian army and allied militia carried out ground attacks on insurgent positions in Syria on Wednesday backed by Russian air strikes, in what appeared to be their first major coordinated assault since Moscow intervened last week, a monitor said.
> 
> Russia's air strikes hit northern parts of Hama province and nearby areas in Idlib province, targeting towns close to the main north-south highway that runs through major cities in western Syria, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
> 
> Ground attacks using heavy surface-to-surface missile bombardments targeted at least four insurgent positions in the area and there were heavy clashes on the ground, the head of the Observatory Rami Abdulrahman said.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Russian Help: It's not JUST fast air anymore!


> Russia launched a naval bombardment of ISIS targets in Syria on Wednesday, a senior official said, ramping up a newly muscular presence in the Middle East.
> 
> Four Russian ships fired 26 missiles into Syria, hitting 11 targets, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin during a televised meeting.
> 
> Shoigu said the strikes were launched from the Caspian Sea using precise long-range missiles that flew 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) to their targets ....


Meanwhile, elsewhere in the immediate neighbourhood, one of the neighbours may be asking for Russian help, too:


> Iraq may request Russian air strikes against Islamic State on its soil soon and wants Moscow to have a bigger role than the United States in the war against the militant group, the head of parliament's defense and security committee said on Wednesday.
> 
> “In the upcoming few days or weeks, I think Iraq will be forced to ask Russia to launch air strikes, and that depends on their success in Syria," Hakim al-Zamili, a leading Shi'ite politician, told Reuters in an interview ....


----------



## jollyjacktar

At least you know the Ivans will curb stomp the arseholes out of their flip flops and manjammies.


----------



## 57Chevy

Would it be safe to say that the friend of my enemy can also be my friend for perhaps a short time ?


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'd rather be friends with the Ivans than some of the so-called allies we presently hang with.


----------



## CougarKing

Putin's navy raining hell on ISIS and other anti-Assad rebels. 

Aviationist



> *Watch Russian warships launch cruise missiles against targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea*
> Oct 07 2015
> By David Cenciotti
> 
> Impressive footage shows Russian ships launch cruise missiles against ISIS targets from the Caspian Sea.
> Early in the morning on Oct. 7, Russia warships belonging to the Russian Navy’s Caspian Sea Strike Group launched 26 cruise missiles against Islamic State targets located in Syria.
> 
> *The missile used to conduct the attack is the 3M14TE Kalibr-NK with a maximum range of 2,600 km, fired by a strike group consisting of the Dagestan missile ship, the small-sized missile ships Grad Sviyazhsk, Uglich, Veliky Ustyug.*
> 
> According to the Russia’s MoD, the cruise missiles “engaged all the assigned targets successfully and with high accuracy.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Altair

Wait, the Caspian sea?

Did these missiles fly over turkey or what?


----------



## larry Strong

Altair said:
			
		

> Wait, the Caspian sea?
> 
> Did these missiles fly over turkey or what?



First thing that crossed my mind as well. 

Larry


----------



## GR66

Altair said:
			
		

> Wait, the Caspian sea?
> 
> Did these missiles fly over turkey or what?



I'm guessing Iran and Iraq based on recent comments about increased cooperation between Russia and those governments?  Seems more likely than sending missiles across a NATO member country.  

Raises interesting questions though...were the Western airforces operating in Iraq/Syria advised in advance?  Who is responsible for airspace control over that area?


----------



## MAJONES

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Putin's navy raining hell on *ISIS* and other anti-Assad rebels.
> 
> Aviationist



The impression that I got from reading a few other articles online was that the Russians were mostly hitting the US backed rebels and leaving ISIS alone.


----------



## Altair

MAJONES said:
			
		

> The impression that I got from reading a few other articles online was that the Russians were mostly hitting the US backed rebels and leaving ISIS alone.


What's the situation on the ground? Is ISIS the closer to the assad front lines or are the other rebel groups. 

I'm sure if Russia wants all of syria back under assad control they would need to hit ISIS areas sooner or later.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm sure if Russia wants all of syria back under assad control they would need to hit ISIS areas sooner or later.


I'm sure that's what _Assad_ wants  ;D



			
				MAJONES said:
			
		

> The impression that I got from reading a few other articles online was that the Russians were mostly hitting the US backed rebels and leaving ISIS alone.


From Twitter:  #iftheyresyriananddeadtheyreisis  >

Besides, <sarcasm> I'm SUUUUUUUURE Syria wouldn't be pointing out anything other than ISIS as targets to the Russians - they wouldn't think of targeting opponents of the regime, would they? </sarcasm>

Not to worry, though - the accuracy of the strikes range from five down to three metres, depending on the Russian Info-machine account you choose to believe more, and “Not a single civilian facility has been hit by our aviation in Syria" says RUS's Commander-in-Chief of the Aerospace Forces (links all to RUS MoD media releases in English).


----------



## CougarKing

Yikes!

Aviationist



> *Russian fighter jets shadowed U.S. Predator drones over Syria three times last week*
> Oct 07 2015 -
> 
> By David Cenciotti
> U.S. Predator drones “intercepted” by Russia’s jets, U.S. fighters rerouted for deconfliction: the airspace over Syria is becoming increasingly dangerous.
> As already explained in our article about the close encounter between a flight of U.S. F-16s and one of Russian Air Force Su-34s, which came within 20 miles each other over northwestern Syria, according to Lt. Gen. Charles Brown, commander of the American air campaign in Iraq and Syria, the Russians have come even closer than that to American drones flying in the same areas.
> 
> Indeed, if you look at the screenshot published here you’ll easily find the track of some unmanned aerial vehicles (in green color) operating along the border between Turkey and Syria: until a real coordination is put into place between U.S. and Russia, there is some risk of jets and UAVs from both parties interfering with one another.
> 
> So, it’s not really surprising what Fox News unveiled today: Russian jets deployed to Latakia, Syria, shadowed U.S. Predator drones on at least three separate occasions since the start of Russia’s air campaign last week.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Altair

I finally get it. 

Putin is a Dick 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DZGcjrN7X7Rc&ved=0CCEQtwIwAmoVChMI0uXShpiyyAIVRT8-Ch34uA_p&usg=AFQjCNFszhdQb-8RSqGkgmQU5wjiXkMK3Q


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile ....


> The Prime Minister’s Office directed Canadian immigration officials to stop processing one of the most vulnerable classes of Syrian refugees this spring and declared that all UN-referred refugees would require approval from the Prime Minister, a decision that halted a critical aspect of Canada’s response to a global crisis.
> 
> The Globe and Mail has learned that the Prime Minister intervened in a file normally handled by the Citizenship and Immigration department in the months before dramatic images of a dead toddler brought the refugee crisis to the fore. The processing stop, which was not disclosed to the public, was in place for at least several weeks. It is unclear when it was lifted. At the same time, an audit was ordered of all Syrian refugees referred by the United Nations in 2014 and 2015.
> 
> The Prime Minister’s Office asked Citizenship and Immigration for the files of some Syrian refugees so they could be vetted by the PMO – potentially placing political staff with little training in refugee matters in the middle of an already complex process.
> 
> PMO staff could have also had access to files that are considered protected, because they contain personal information, including a refugee’s health history and narrative of escape, raising questions about the privacy and security of that information and the basis on which it was being reviewed.
> 
> As a result of the halt, and the additional layers of scrutiny, families that had fled Syria and were judged by the United Nations refugee agency to be in need of resettlement had to wait longer to find refuge in Canada ....


----------



## CougarKing

Turkey afraid that some of the Russian Navy's cruise missiles headed for Syria might miss and hit Turkey?

Reuters



> *Turkey urges NATO to keep up its Patriot defenses*
> Thu Oct 8, 2015 8:29am EDT
> 
> By Robin Emmott, Sabine Siebold and Phil Stewart
> 
> BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Turkey appealed to its NATO allies on Thursday to shore up missile defenses in the country aimed at shooting down Syrian rockets, as Germany said again that it will withdraw its Patriot batteries and the United States was set to do the same.
> 
> NATO is now waiting for other nations to plug those gaps.
> 
> Days after Russian jets violated Turkey's airspace near Syria, Ankara's NATO envoy urged the U.S.-led alliance to continue to deploy air defense systems, according to two people briefed on talks at a defense ministers meeting in Brussels.
> 
> While NATO's secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, said he was prepared to send ground forces to defend Turkey, the situation raised questions about NATO's strategy in the country, which shares a border with both Syria and Iraq.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile ....
> 
> 
> 
> *The Prime Minister’s Office directed Canadian immigration officials to stop processing one of the most vulnerable classes of Syrian refugees this spring and declared that all UN-referred refugees would require approval from the Prime Minister, a decision that halted a critical aspect of Canada’s response to a global crisis.*
> 
> The Globe and Mail has learned that the Prime Minister intervened in a file normally handled by the Citizenship and Immigration department in the months before dramatic images of a dead toddler brought the refugee crisis to the fore. The processing stop, which was not disclosed to the public, was in place for at least several weeks. It is unclear when it was lifted. At the same time, an audit was ordered of all Syrian refugees referred by the United Nations in 2014 and 2015 ....
Click to expand...

Not to worry - there's a good reason political staff vetted refugee claimants' files:


> ....  In an email to CTV News, a spokesperson from (Immigration Minister Chris) Alexander's office said the halt was ordered to ensure the "integrity" of the processing system was maintained.
> 
> The emailed statement said the Conservative government has "consistently" been concerned that the most vulnerable refugees get protection, and that Canadian security is not compromised.
> 
> "In order to ensure that the appropriate referral and screening procedures were in place, an audit of the first tranche of Syrian Government Assisted Refugees was undertaken," the statement said. "This was a prudent step to ensure the integrity of our refugee referral system."
> 
> The statement said the processing of government-assisted refugees from Syria resumed after there was "confidence that our procedures were adequate” to identify vulnerable people in need of protection, while also screening out any threats.
> 
> The processing of privately sponsored refugees from Syria continued throughout the same time period, the statement said.
> 
> The halt was ordered months before the refugee crisis made international headlines this summer, after a photo of a dead Syrian toddler, later identified as three-year-old Alan Kurdi, surfaced.
> 
> The halt was never disclosed to the public, while an audit was ordered of all UN referrals from 2014 and 2015. It is unclear when the halt was lifted, according to the Globe report ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not to worry - there's a good reason political staff vetted refugee claimants' files:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  In an email to CTV News, a spokesperson from (Immigration Minister Chris) Alexander's office said the halt was ordered to ensure the "integrity" of the processing system was maintained.
> 
> The emailed statement said the Conservative government has "consistently" been concerned that the most vulnerable refugees get protection, and that Canadian security is not compromised.
> 
> "In order to ensure that the appropriate referral and screening procedures were in place, an audit of the first tranche of Syrian Government Assisted Refugees was undertaken," the statement said. "This was a prudent step to ensure the integrity of our refugee referral system." ....
Click to expand...

The latest:  vetting = "audit", but audit =/= deciding ....


> Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says his staff vetted the cases of Syrian refugees as reported in The Globe and Mail, but made no decisions on whether those individuals would get into Canada.
> 
> Mr. Harper addressed the issue Thursday as he began a speech in Vancouver to the Canada-China Chamber of Industry and Commerce.
> 
> “Our government has adopted a generous approach to the admission of refugees while ensuring the selection of the most vulnerable people and keeping our country safe and secure,” Mr. Harper told about 500 people gathered at a downtown hotel.
> 
> “The audit we asked for earlier this year was to ensure the policy directives are being met,” he said.
> 
> “Political staff are never involved in approving refugee applications. Such decisions are made by officials in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.” ....


----------



## tomahawk6

Iranian general has been killed in Aleppo while advising Syrian forces by IS.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/09/iran-state-tv-revolutionary-guard-brigadier-general-killed-in-syria-aleppo-amid/


----------



## CougarKing

2 casualties of the Russian escalation of this conflict:

Defense News



> *US To End Syrian Train and Equip Program*
> By Aaron Mehta 10:08 a.m. EDT October 9, 2015
> 
> WASHINGTON — President Obama is expected to announce the end of the Pentagon's train and equip program for Syrian rebel forces, amid widespread criticism about the ineffectiveness and cost of the mission.
> 
> The administration plans to issue new guidance for how it will attempt to build up a force of so-called moderate fighters in Syria, abandoning the current strategy that has cost millions of dollars for almost no output.
> 
> The news of the new direction was first reported by the New York Times.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Reuters



> *Rare Syria deal falls victim to Russian escalation*
> Fri Oct 9, 2015 12:43pm EDT
> By Laila Bassam and Tom Miles
> 
> BEIRUT/GENEVA (Reuters) - Russia's military intervention in the Syrian war has all but destroyed a deal agreed last month to halt fighting between warring sides in two areas of the west, unpicking a rare success for foreign-backed diplomacy in the four-year-long conflict.
> 
> Implementation of the deal agreed with U.N. help to extricate rebels from the town of Zabadani and trapped villagers from al-Foua and Kefraya has effectively been shelved following Russian air strikes in support of President Bashar al-Assad, three sources familiar with the talks told Reuters.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



And ISIS gains ground again, against the moderate Syrian rebels in Aleppo:

Reuters



> *Islamic State closes in on city of Aleppo in Syrian fighting*
> Fri Oct 9, 2015 10:12am EDT
> 
> By Dominic Evans and Parisa Hafezi
> 
> BEIRUT/ANKARA (Reuters) - Islamic State fighters have seized villages close to the city of Aleppo from rival insurgents, a monitoring group said on Friday, despite a Russian air-and-sea campaign that Moscow says has targeted the militant group.
> 
> The Russian defense ministry said air strikes on rebel positions in northern Syria had killed 300 anti-Assad insurgents in nearly 70 sorties over the last day. There was no independent confirmation of the death toll.
> 
> The RIA news agency said 200 insurgents were killed in an attack on the Liwa al-Haqq rebel group while 100 were killed in Aleppo. Two Islamic State field commanders were amongst the dead, the defense ministry was quoted as saying.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Turkey may have shot down Russian fighter that strayed into their airspace again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267595/Russian-jet-shot-Turkish-forces-flew-country-s-airspace.html


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Turkey may have shot down Russian fighter that strayed into their airspace again.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267595/Russian-jet-shot-Turkish-forces-flew-country-s-airspace.html



This, if true, will definitely require monitoring.


----------



## McG

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Turkey may have shot down Russian fighter that strayed into their airspace again.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3267595/Russian-jet-shot-Turkish-forces-flew-country-s-airspace.html


The Daily Mail has had that up for a while and still no corroboration or even suggestion of rumors on BBC, CNN, or any mainstream Canadian media.  For now, I am skeptical.


----------



## jollyjacktar

They say in the story that it is "unconfirmed", it may indeed turn out to be BS.  Nevertheless, with all the brinkmanship that is going on the chances of this occurring are pretty compelling.


----------



## CougarKing

Russia courting the Saudis over Syria:

Reuters



> *Putin wins no friends in overture to Assad enemies*
> Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:50pm EDT
> 
> By John Davison
> 
> BEIRUT (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin's overture to opponents of Russia's bombing campaign in Syria was snubbed on Monday, with Saudi sources saying they had warned the Kremlin leader of dangerous consequences and Europe issuing its strongest criticism yet.
> 
> Nearly two weeks since joining the 4-year-old war in Syria, Putin took his biggest step to win over regional opponents, meeting Saudi Defence Minister Mohammed bin Salman on the sidelines of a Formula One race in a Russian resort on Sunday.
> 
> Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday that those talks, along with discussions with the United States, had yielded progress on the conflict, although Moscow, Washington and Riyadh did not agree in full "as yet".
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The moderate US-backed rebels reportedly received a boost. How likely is it that these TOWs might end up in ISIS hands given how weak this rebel group is now?

Reuters



> *Syrian rebels say they receive more weapons for Aleppo battle*
> Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:45pm EDT
> 
> By Tom Perry and Suleiman Al-Khalidi
> 
> BEIRUT/AMMAN (Reuters) - Rebels battling the Syrian army and its allies near Aleppo said on Monday they had received new supplies of U.S.-made anti-tank missiles from states opposed to President Bashar al-Assad since the start of a major government offensive last week.
> 
> The rebels from three groups contacted by Reuters said new supplies had arrived in response to the attack by the army, which is backed up by Russian air strikes and on the ground by Iranian fighters and Lebanon's Hezbollah.
> 
> *The delivery of the U.S.-made TOW missiles to rebels in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria appears to be an initial response to the new Russian-Iranian intervention.* Foreign states supporting the rebels include Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Russia's current sealift capabilities in action?

Reuters



> *Exclusive: Shipping traffic to Syria surges as Russia steps up offensive*
> Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:57pm EDT
> 
> 
> By Jonathan Saul and Maria Tsvetkova
> 
> LONDON/MOSCOW (Reuters) - *More than 100 cargo vessels have reached Syria in the past few weeks, in the biggest buildup in shipping for over a year as Russia steps up its support for ally President Bashar al-Assad.*
> 
> The ships have arrived directly from Russia, Black Sea ports such as Constantza in Romania as well as from Lebanon and Egypt, according to shipping data, maritime intelligence and international trade sources.
> 
> They say the cargo includes supplies to bolster the offensive as well as grain and sugar to feed those involved in the deepening conflict. Reuters was not able to independently confirm what was in the ships.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This guy has been tracking Russian shipping through the straits http://warshipsonthebosphorus.blogspot.ca/2015/08/152-nikolay-filchenkov-large-landing.html


Also
 https://twitter.com/Saturn5_


----------



## CBH99

Is that a deck gun, on the top left of the image?  In-front of the main "bridge/conning tower/structure"?   (Sorry you Navy types, not up on my lingo)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Is that a deck gun, on the top left of the image?  In-front of the main "bridge/conning tower/structure"?   (Sorry you Navy types, not up on my lingo)



It is a Russian twin 25 mm Anti air gun.


----------



## CBH99

Oh wow.  So even their cargo ships are better armed than the AOPS??          >

^ Rhetorical ^


----------



## larry Strong

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Oh wow.  So even their cargo ships are better armed than the AOPS??          >
> 
> ^ Rhetorical ^



It's a naval LST. Not a civvy cargo ship. 


Cheer
Larry


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Oh wow.  So even their cargo ships are better armed than the AOPS??          >
> 
> ^ Rhetorical ^



Only if you assume that the Russian gunners are not drunk on vodka and can shoot straight.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Spew, spray and pray baby.   :blotto:


----------



## tomahawk6

When the carrier Moskva arrives in the AO,Russia will have created a defacto no fly zone over Syria,which is going to create issues with the US/allied air campaign.I forgot to mention the ship has 64 S300 SAM's.With the addition of OMON SF to the mix,I would say that Assad can sleep easy in his bed.


----------



## vonGarvin

MOSKVA is a cruiser, not a carrier.  

And RT says it's there "for exercises"


Edited: fixed grammatical error


----------



## tomahawk6

Technoviking said:
			
		

> MOSKVA is a cruiser, not a carrier.
> 
> And RT says its there "for exercises"



Thanks for the correction.


----------



## vonGarvin

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the correction.


No worries.  It's interesting to note that it apparently has quite a number of Anti Aircraft missiles....

:/


----------



## GAP

> And RT says its there "for exercises"



Guns need exercise


----------



## jollyjacktar

Technoviking said:
			
		

> MOSKVA is a cruiser, not a carrier.
> 
> And RT says its there "for exercises"



No, no.  They're on leave...


----------



## cavalryman

GAP said:
			
		

> Guns need exercise


I know gunners who need exercise as well  >


----------



## Yrys

US to send special forces unit to Syria BBC NEWS

President Obama to send up to 50 special operations forces to Syria to co-ordinate fight against IS - US officials

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page 
for the fullest version.


----------



## a_majoor

Short memories:


----------



## CougarKing

The US expanding its ground role in Syria and Iraq beyond training the Kurds and other rebels:

Military Times



> *U.S. deploying special operations forces to Syria*
> By Jeff Schogol and Aaron Mehta, Staff writers 4:55 p.m. EDT October 30, 2015
> 
> As part of a major overhaul of the U.S. government’s strategy against the Islamic State group, President Obama on Friday authorized the deployment of “fewer than 50” U.S. special operations troops to northern Syria, where they will work with local forces in the fight against the militants.
> 
> The deployment is one part of a five-part plan aimed at changing the direction of operations in Iraq and Syria, as the war against the Islamic State, often known as ISIL or ISIS, enters its second year. It will be accompanied by an increase in the number of airstrikes from both the U.S. and coalition allies.
> 
> “We are willing to adjust the program when things are succeeding and we’re willing to change things when they are not succeeding,” a senior defense official told reporters Friday after the announcement. “We’re willing to adjust the program.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Tuan

Some observers have described the ongoing escalation in Syria as a "proxy war" between the United States and Russia since the end of Cold War, however , the so called "cold war" had never ended, rather it was diminished to some extent...apparently it still seems very "hot war"  because the present day ISIS in Levant is an offshoot of Al Qaeda; and Al Qaeda is an offshoot of Afghan Mujahedeen (and we all know whose brainchild the Afghan Mujahedeen was). Therefore what happened in 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror that began again (back to square one) in Afghanistan, Iraq invasion and such are interconnected and byproduct of cold war era protracted proxy wars, in my opinion.

Syria conflict: Russia's scars from Afghanistan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34619068


----------



## YZT580

You are  thinking too hard and making it too complicated.


----------



## PuckChaser

He's an Int analyst, that's what he's paid to do.


----------



## Tuan

This is the kind of strategies is the need of the day, it's easier said than done, but it would be a real challenge not only for ISIS but also for Russia backed Assad regime:

New U.S.-Backed Alliance to Counter ISIS in Syria Falters


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the Institute for the Study of War:


> The U.S. can and should act decisively in Syria in order to protect its national security interests and those of its allies.  The current exodus of refugees from Syria presents significant economic and security challenges to America’s allies in Europe and the Middle East, and directly benefits the Syrian Assad regime, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, the Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), and the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS).  Continued U.S. inaction in the face of these strategic challenges will only exacerbate the security situation and empower America’s enemies and strategic competitors. The White House announced on October 30 small adjustments to U.S. implementation, such as adding less than fifty special operations forces to train and assist the Kurdish-Arab Force in northern Syria. These changes are insufficient to meet the strategic challenges. Continued U.S. inaction and half-measures will only exacerbate the security situation and empower America’s enemies and strategic competitors.
> 
> One course of action for the U.S. in the near term is to establish a No-Fly Zone over select areas of Syria. U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford testified on U.S. strategy in the Middle East before the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on October 27, 2015. Carter stated that he does not have a concept of operations for a no-fly zone in Syria to recommend. Dunford stated that it is possible to implement a no-fly zone in Syria but highlighted political and legal challenges, adding that a no-fly zone would divert resources from fighting ISIS. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is said to have asked his staff to explore this option and its implementation ....


More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell

"The U.S. can and should act decisively ..." or it, and its allies, can p!ss about with more talk and more incremental, half measures while Russia backstops the Assad regime.

The alternative is: get out, abandon the region, which is blighted beyond help by old religious and ethnic hatreds, and let the Russian be dragged into a quagmire in which no-one, not even Israel and Jordan, are playing a sensible (comprehensible) 'game.'

What about the refugees, the innocent civilians, the women and children? Leave them, sadly, to the tender mercies of Putin, Assad, Iran and others, I'm afraid.

But, what if they attack Israel?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## PuckChaser

With the western world dependent on middle east oil because the oil sands are the climate target du jour, the US abandoning the region would cause massive global economic instability for oil prices and hurt us more than help.


----------



## AmmoTech90

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With the western world dependent on middle east oil because the oil sands are the climate target du jour, the US abandoning the region would cause massive global economic instability for oil prices and hurt us more than help.



Drive up oil prices, make the oil sands viable again.  Alberta would be behind that.


----------



## CougarKing

The US-allied coalition to intensify soon...without the help of Canada's F18s which are to be withdrawn by our newly-elected Prime Minister Trudeau?

Defense News



> *USAF General: Syrian Strikes to Increase in Coming Weeks*
> Aaron Mehta 9:19 a.m. EST November 7, 2015
> 
> DUBAI — The US-led coalition against the Islamic State group plans to increase the number of airstrikes in Syria in the near future, a top US general said Saturday.
> 
> Lt. Gen Charles Brown Jr., commander of AFCENT, said strikes should increase in a matter of "weeks" as conditions on the ground evolve.
> 
> "Oh yeah," Brown said in response to a question of if the strike numbers will begin going up, before pushing back somewhat at the narrative that strikes had dropped in the last two months.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Russia appears to have brought the SA21 Growler to the table.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3316195/Vladimir-Putin-deploys-advanced-Growler-anti-aircraft-missile-Syria-able-hit-jets-altitude-90-000-feet-far-away-Tel-Aviv.html


----------



## YZT580

very useful.  Should keep ISIL aircraft at bay.  Makes one wonder what Putin's long term strategy really is.


----------



## tomahawk6

Jihadi John was killed in a drone strike overnight.It was the culmination of efforts by MI6/GCHQ to locate and kill Emwazi.Great teamwork and a truely ruthless killer has been eliminated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11993569/How-the-US-and-UK-tracked-down-and-killed-Jihadi-John.html


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

BIG BRAVO ZULU to all involved.


----------



## McG

His death is still pending confirmation.  

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/jihadi-john-dead-u-s-drone-blows-up-vehicle-believed-to-be-transporting-infamous-isil-terrorist


----------



## Kilo_302

No one is going to mourn his death, but it might have been better if he had been taken alive. Putting him on trial and showing the world how truly pathetic he is would do far more in terms of hearts and minds than blowing him up. Now, capturing him is likely not possible given the situation on the ground, but we should keep in mind that we've killed hundreds of leadership figures and propaganda symbols with little effect. It might also have been preferable to simply kill him and not announce it.

There's also the questionable legality of extra-judicial targeted killings. Jihadi John is guilty of murder, and perhaps terrorism (how different countries define this is also problematic). Conducting strikes that are solely meant to kill an individual (versus a strike intended to disrupt a military operation) is illegal, and by definition, vengeance isn't justice.

 His martyrdom will only serve to draw more recruits, and someone will no doubt replace him in his role of "radicalized Westerner mouthpiece." Whack-a-mole isn't a viable long term strategy, and the "he got the justice he deserved" argument doesn't hold up when one considers what his victims' families are saying. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-was-right-about-jihadi-john-if-you-listened-to-his-victims-families-youd-know-that-a6733611.html


----------



## opcougar

Here we go again...don't expect to see the body



> U.S. 'reasonably certain' that British Islamic State militant Jihadi John killed in strike
> Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/14/us-mideast-crisis-syria-islamic-state-idUSKCN0T20RT20151114#DQshwLqKCIklsyMm.99



http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/14/us-mideast-crisis-syria-islamic-state-idUSKCN0T20RT20151114


----------



## a_majoor

Rot in Hell.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3316195/Vladimir-Putin-deploys-advanced-Growler-anti-aircraft-missile-Syria-able-hit-jets-altitude-90-000-feet-far-away-Tel-Aviv.html#i-d6e52edfd65a00d8

The picture shows radar claiming to be part of the S400 system.It is known that latakia air base is guarded by the Panstir-S point defense system.The radar shown are the Kasta 2E1 radar and a hight finder radar called Thin Skin.No S300 nor S400.The air threat to Russian forces doesnt justify either of those systems.


----------



## Jarnhamar

opcougar said:
			
		

> Here we go again...don't expect to see the body
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/14/us-mideast-crisis-syria-islamic-state-idUSKCN0T20RT20151114



Chemtrails.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Chemtrails.



I think I can come up with some spare tin foil for him.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## dimsum

opcougar said:
			
		

> Here we go again...don't expect to see the body
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/14/us-mideast-crisis-syria-islamic-state-idUSKCN0T20RT20151114



Of course not.  It is OPSEC because of the procedures used to strike the vehicle. [not sarcastic]

If he wasn't killed, ISIS would have immediately put up tons of media to the effect of "look, you missed!"  The Info Ops war goes both ways.


----------



## CougarKing

Info on the Russian S-400 batteries deployed to Syria:

Aviationist



> *This Infographic Provides Lots of Details about Russia’s S-400 Advanced Air Defense Systems allegedly deployed to Syria*
> Nov 13 2015 -
> 
> By David Cenciotti
> S-400 Triumph explained.
> 
> Some photographs published by Russia’s Ministry of Defense seem to suggest Moscow has just deployed at least one S-400 missile battery to Latakia, to protect the Russian air contingent deployed there.
> 
> Although the reports that the next-generation anti-aircraft weapon system was deployed to Syria were denied by the Russian MoD, whether the Russians have really deployed the system to protect their assets at Latakia or not is still subject to debate.
> 
> The Russian MoD image shows what looks like a 96L6 radar. However, according to Air Power Australia’s Dr Carlo Kopp “The 96L6 is the standard battery acquisition radar in the S-400 / SA-21 system, and is available as a retrofit for the S-300PM/PMU/PMU1 and S-300PMU2 Favorit / SA-20 Gargoyle as a substitute for the legacy acquisition radars.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## PuckChaser

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3316195/Vladimir-Putin-deploys-advanced-Growler-anti-aircraft-missile-Syria-able-hit-jets-altitude-90-000-feet-far-away-Tel-Aviv.html#i-d6e52edfd65a00d8
> 
> The picture shows radar claiming to be part of the S400 system.It is known that latakia air base is guarded by the Panstir-S point defense system.The radar shown are the Kasta 2E1 radar and a hight finder radar called Thin Skin.No S300 nor S400.The air threat to Russian forces doesnt justify either of those systems.


You're right, it doesn't justify it. What Russia is doing is making a no-fly zone more and more difficult to establish for NATO. We had our chance, and pooched it due to weak world leaders.


----------



## tomahawk6

Kasta radar.

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AjxSUhRqXQtg5Neyj4Dkf4.bvZx4?p=Kasta+2E1+&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-901&fp=1


PRV-9 Thin Skin

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEV1JnbUdWKk4AIuNXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA2JlZmhwLXMEZ3ByaWQDbWZfb25hUjlRcDZ4aEJZRV9XYU5RQQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z2cDMTAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDMTYEcXVlcnkDUFJWLTkgVGhpbiBTa2luIAR0X3N0bXADMTQ0NzUyMTY5NQ--?p=PRV-9+Thin+Skin+&fr2=sb-top-search&fr=befhp-s&type=iehp-3.19-1506&fp=1


----------



## a_majoor

Tuan said:
			
		

> Some observers have described the ongoing escalation in Syria as a "proxy war" between the United States and Russia since the end of Cold War, however , the so called "cold war" had never ended, rather it was diminished to some extent...apparently it still seems very "hot war"  because the present day ISIS in Levant is an offshoot of Al Qaeda; and Al Qaeda is an offshoot of Afghan Mujahedeen (and we all know whose brainchild the Afghan Mujahedeen was). Therefore what happened in 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror that began again (back to square one) in Afghanistan, Iraq invasion and such are interconnected and byproduct of cold war era protracted proxy wars, in my opinion.
> 
> Syria conflict: Russia's scars from Afghanistan
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34619068



The Mujahedeen were a home grown response to the Communist regime in Kabul after the coup and civil war that overthrew the Royalist government, and then grew in size and power after the Soviet Union invaded. The United States provided support to the Mujahedeen since this was a convenient way to get at the USSR, but so did a lot of other nations (including Saudi Arabia). The biggest mistake the Americans made was allowing the Pakistani ISI to pick and choose which Mujahedeen groups were getting the aid, followed closely by declaring victory and leaving once the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda is an entirely separate and different organization, formed as a response to Saudi foreign policy and in particular catalyzed by Saudi Arabia inviting the United States in to defend the Sauds and Saudi territory when Iraq invaded Kuwait. And before you go on, the Taliban are an equally separate group, fostered by the ISI and getting into power in Afghanistan by offering to end the conflict between the squabbling Mujahedeen warlords who were fighting to control Afghanistan after the Soviets left. The people enthusiastically supported the Taliban (much like the French supported the "Man on the White Horse" who also offered to end the turmoil of the French Revolution and restore stability), not perhaps realizing just what sort of bargain they had made.

It would be nice if people studied real history rather than repeating whatever tropes have been concocted to support the "narrative".


----------



## GR66

The Russian AA system has nothing to do with defending against IS** or any other anti-Syrian government groups.  It's totally about preserving the Assad regime.

While Assad may have lost the moral right to govern Syria due to his attacks against his own people, his legal right is much less clear.  The coalition is choosing to ignore Syrian sovereignty in attacking IS** targets in Syria.  There is (in my understanding) legal basis for this as this territory has been used to launch military attacks against another state (Iraq).  The coalition is also supporting (through training and equipment) anti-government groups fighting in Syria (both against IS** and the Assad regime).  

This is where I think that the legal ground is much murkier.  The US led coalition says the Assad regime is illegitimate and is supporting opposition groups.  The Russians say that Assad is still the legitimate leader of Syria and is supporting him.  

All is relatively fine while the Russians support Assad against IS** in their areas of control and the coalition supports the Kurds, Iraqis and Syrian opposition groups in the areas that they control.  But what happens when those areas start to overlap?  As Kurdish/anti-Assad groups defeat IS** forces on their side of the line inside Syrian territory, and Russian backed Syrian forces defeat them on their side of the line, what happens when those lines meet?

What is the legal authority for (Iraqi) Kurds to hold on to Syrian territory in the absence of a threat from IS** to launch attacks into the Kurdish areas of Iraq?  If a Russian-backed Syrian government orders foreign troops out of occupied Syrian territory, will the US led coalition support military resistance to Syrian attempts to re-take that territory by force?  Will it challenge a Russian backed no fly zone in those areas?  Will it risk bombing Russian military forces advancing in support of Syrian government forces?

The whole situation there is very messy in terms of the end game.  What risks are we willing to take in terms of military conflict with Russia in defence of an expanded Kurdish non-State?  What risks are we willing to take in terms of a potential split of NATO due to Turkey's unwillingness to accept such an expansion?  

This is why I tend to agree with ER Campbell's recommendation that we should simply pull out of the area and not get sucked in ourselves.  The Prime Minister is right (but not for the right reasons) to pull out the CF-18's in my opinion.  He's also very wrong in his plan to relocate 25,000 refugees to Canada.  Provide support to refugees in place.  Give enough to make sure their presence does not destabilize the states (Jordan, Turkey, etc.) where they are located.  Accept qualified and properly vetted immigrants from the region that meet Canada's economic needs.  Even provide support to those groups that represent the type of governments we'd LIKE to see in the region, but don't have our boots on the ground doing the fighting, or our aircraft dropping the bombs on enemy targets.  Have the locals decide their fate.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of infographic fuel to keep the debate going (source) ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

A Russian poke in Obama's/the West's eye, courtesy of the RUS Info-machine ....


> *Russian FM: US deliberately sparing Islamic State seeking to weaken Assad
> 
> Sergey Lavrov compared the US strikes against IS to "a cat that wants to eat a fish but doesn’t want to wet its feet"*
> 
> The United States and its coalition seem to be sparing the Islamic State organisation so that while it weakens Syrian President Bashar Assad, it can never take power in Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with the Vesti.doc programme on Rossiya-1 television on Tuesday.
> 
> "The problem around the U.S.-led coalition is that despite the fact that they declared its goal in fighting exclusively the Islamic State and other terrorists and pledged not to take any action against the Syrian army (life has proved they never went back from their words), analysis of the strikes delivered by the United States and its coalition at terrorist positions over the past year drives us to a conclusion that these were selective, I would say sparing, strikes and in the majority of cases spared those Islamic State groups that were capable of pressing the Syrian army," he said.
> 
> "It looks like a cat that wants to eat a fish but doesn’t want to wet its feet. They want the Islamic State to weaken Assad as soon as possible to force him to step down this or that way but they don’t want to see Islamic State strong enough to take power." ....


----------



## 57Chevy

Article is shared with provisions of the Copyright Act

Putin tells Western leaders: Let's bury our differences and jointly strike at 'barbarian' ISIS
Hazel Torres   Published 15 November 2015
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/putin.tells.western.leaders.lets.bury.our.differences.and.jointly.strike.at.barbarian.isis/70586.htm

Russian President Vladimir Putin appealed to Western leaders to bury their differences with Russia and jointly strike at the "barbarian" Islamic State (ISIS) militants in Syria, saying Friday's Paris terrorist attack underscored the need for such concerted action.

In a condolences telegram sent to French President Francois Hollande, Putin said, "This tragedy is another proof of the barbarian nature of terrorism, which challenges the human civilisation. Clearly, for effective fighting this evil, the entire international community should unite efforts," Tass news agency reported.

"I would like to confirm the Russian side is ready for most close cooperation with the French counterparts in investigating into the crime in Paris. I hope the initiators and executors will receive deserved punishments," Putin added.

Sergei Sobyanin, a close Putin ally and the mayor of Moscow, said the killings in Paris were "another reason to consolidate in the battle against Islamic State."

Alexey Pushkov, a senior lawmaker and the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of parliament, said he hoped the incident would bring the West to its senses. "Russia is fighting in Syria against those who blew up Paris and declared war on Europe," he wrote on his official Twitter account. "It is time for the West to stop criticising Moscow and to form a joint coalition."

In an interview on Friday ahead of the G20 summit and before news of the Paris carnage broke, Putin vented his frustration at the United States for repeatedly rebuffing Russia's overtures to coordinate more closely in carrying out airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria, Reuters reported.

Sources said that for weeks, Moscow had been asking Washington to share intelligence about ISIS targets while at the same time seeking the creation of a broader coalition to confront the ISIS menace in Syria. Washington has rejected all of Russia's proposals, the sources claim.

"We need to urgently end the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine," said Sergey Markov, a Putin loyalist.

Russia began launching airstrikes in Syria on Sept. 30, saying the move was meant to protect itself from possible future terror attacks by some 7,000 citizens from Russia and the former Soviet Union who are fighting with ISIS.

However, Washington has accused Russia of not primarily targeting ISIS targets, but rather bombing rebels backed by the West or Gulf states instead.

Meanwhile, Russian authorities announced that they are bolstering security measures following the attacks in Paris. The move includes putting security services on high alert, urging vigilance among citizens and tightening transport safety measures, Reuters reported.

Russia's deputy prime minister in charge of the defence industry, Dmitry Rogozin, said Russian defence bodies had introduced additional anti-terror security measures, according to Interfax news agency.

Moscow is particularly wary of an imminent ISIS terrorist attack after the jihadist group released a video threatening attacks in Russia "very soon."


----------



## 57Chevy

IMO France can easily coordinate efforts against ISIS no matter from whom they were coming.
A concentrated effort is all that is needed.

I think Mr. Kerry has a lot to weigh in on this one.
 :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Detailed update, in English, from the Russian MoD's Info-machine on their latest work:


> Chief of Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov summed up the results of the II and III massive airstrikes on ‪#‎ISIS‬ objects in Syria
> 
> In accordance with the orders of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Russian Air Force continue conducting massive airstrikes on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.
> 
> Yesterday on November 18, in accordance with the Air operation plan, the second massive airstrike was made against 206 terrorist objects.
> 
> In the course of the last 24 hours, Russian aviation has carried out 126 combat sorties of Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 aircraft from the territory of the Russian Federation and of tactical aviation from the Hmeymim airbase.
> 
> Seven key terrorist objects have been destroyed by 16 air-based long-range cruise missiles in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib.
> Long-range bomber aviation destroyed 12 objects belonging to the ISIS illegal armed groups in the provinces of Raqqah and Deir ez-Zor.
> 
> Attack aviation from the Hmeymim airbase carried out 100 combat sorties, destroying 190 terrorist facilities, including:
> 58 command centres;
> 41 ammunition depots;
> 17 strong points and defensive positions;
> 74 militants’ concentration areas.
> 
> The objective monitoring data on the Russian airstrikes against terrorist strong points, positions and concentration areas can be seen on the screen.
> 
> As a result of massive airstrikes, terrorists have suffered significant manpower losses.
> 
> The available data shows that due to significant losses and inability to bury all killed members of illegal armed groups according to the religious rites of Islam, field commanders have decided to throw terrorists’ bodies into sewage pits.
> 
> In order to conceal the real numbers of losses, evacuation of dead and wounded terrorists is conducted at night. According to available data, a terrorist with the callsign “Abu Obeida” was tasked to discreetly deliver the corpses from the southern outskirts of Aleppo to the Khan al-Assal inhabited area.
> 
> Terrorists have acknowledged the deaths of field commanders Abu Nurlbagasi, Muhammad ibn Hayrat and Al-Okaba (who had been active near Aleppo), which resulted from the bomb and missile strikes of the Russian aviation.
> 
> Information has been obtained that on the night of November 18, terrorists of the Sham Taliban illegal armed group organized evacuation of the corpse of their commander “Ahmad Ziyya”, who had been killed in the vicinity of the Jubb al-Ahmar mountain.
> 
> Other terrorist groups active in this area urgently requested reinforcements due to significant losses in manpower.
> 
> The leaders of the terrorists active in the Idlib province stated that militants had suffered great losses after the strike of a Russian cruise missile on the facility near the Juzef settlement.
> 
> On Novemebr 18, in Askhim settlement, “Abu Bakra” field commander was buried after he had been killed by missile and bomb attacks of the Russian aviation.
> 
> As a result of the losses, the control over the illegal armed groups, which conducted activities in the Homs province, was completely disrupted. The cases of refusal to perform assigned tasks were registered. Thus, militants of the field commander Abu Massab as-Suri from the Jabhat al-Nusra grouping did not fulfill the order on elimination of units of the Syrian Armed Forces near Deir Hanna inhabited area.
> 
> Field commander with a callsign “Abu Husan” broke the order of the leadership and refused to move with his group to the area of the Talbiseh settlement (Homs province).
> 
> The effectiveness of strikes performed by the Russian aviation is assessed on the basis of the objective monitoring data received from aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles. Engagement of the most important facilities is additionally checked against the results of space reconnaissance. The data on the losses in manpower among terrorists are received from the Syrian party.
> 
> Examples of such videos and photos are regularly shown to the public.
> 
> Today at 9 o’clock in the morning (MSK), the Russian Air Force made the third massive airstrike against illegal armed groups on the territory of Syria.
> 
> From 9:00 till 9:20, Tu-95MS strategic missile-carrying aircraft having arrived from the territory of the Russian Federation launched 12 air-based cruise missiles on the ISIS objects in the Aleppo and Idlib provinces. Among the targets there were: POL depots, a plant producing explosives, a command centre, and an HQ of the ISIS terrorist organization in the Idlib city.
> 
> From 16:40 till 17:30, a squadron of Tu-22M3 long-range bombers made a concentrated strike on 6 facilities in the Raqqah and Deir ez-Zor provinces. Their targets were terrorists’ oil production sites controlled by the ISIS, an ammunition depot and a workshop used for manufacturing and repairing of mortars.
> 
> The strikes resulted in destruction of the following facilities:
> headquarters;
> 3 POL and ammunition depots; a plant producing explosives; a command centre; a workshop used for manufacturing and repairing of mortars.
> 3 large oil production sites; an oil transfer facility.
> 
> In the course of the day, the attack aviation from the Hemymim airbase has planned to carry out 98 combat sorties to engage 190 objects of terrorist groupings.
> 
> By 17:00, 60 combat sorties have been performed, 138 objects have been destroyed.
> 
> Russian ‪#‎AirForce‬ continue massive airstrikes against terrorists in accordance with the Air operation plan.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Things just got really interesting..... Maybe


http://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Russian-ground-troops-arrive-in-Syria-in-unprecedented-military-action-435024#article=6017OENFMjBGNTMxQkNERDJFM0FGRDczM0JFMDU0QkE4RDc=



> Report: Russian ground troops arrive in Syria in unprecedented military action
> By YOSSI MELMAN
> Mon, 23 Nov 2015, 03:49 AM
> 
> The Kuwaiti report adds that Russian forces have already taken over multiple strategic positions and have forced numerous rebel battalions to retreat.
> 
> In an unprecedented move, Russia has sent ground-troops into the Syrian battlefield in support of Bashar Assad as the dictator struggles to maintain his power in the continuous four-year-long civil war, according to a report by Kuwaiti daily al-Rai.
> 
> The report, which has not been substantiated by other sources, claims Russian military forces have been providing cover for T-90 tanks along with military air support which have attacked multiple strategic targets held by rebel forces in Idlib and Latakia.
> 
> In September, multiple US officials claimed that Russia had positioned about a half dozen tanks at a Syrian airfield at the center of a military buildup.
> 
> 
> One US official said seven Russian T-90 tanks were observed at the airfield near Latakia, a stronghold of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
> 
> The Kuwaiti report adds that Russian forces have already taken over multiple strategic positions and have forced numerous rebel battalions to retreat. The report did not disclose whether there were Russian army casualties.
> 
> Over the last three months, Russia has steadily increased its participation in the Syrian domestic conflict, launching airstrikes from its bases in western Syria as it drops thousands of sorties on enemy targets.
> 
> Along with airstrikes, Russia has also increased its naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea along the Syrian coast while it coordinates with Iranian military forces and Hezbollah.
> 
> Russian President Vladimir Putin stated on several past occasions that his country had no intention of sending boots on the ground to participate in the Syrian civil war.
> 
> If the report is correct, it could signify a dramatic shift in Russian policy, or merely be a one-time specific action.


----------



## vonGarvin

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/24/turkish-f-16-shoots-down-russian-fighter-jet-near-syria-border/

Sorry for the poor formatting: I'm on my mobile device.

In short: a Russian SU-24 has been shot down in Syria (that it crashed in Syria is not in dispute)
Whether it was in Turkish or Syrian airspace is being disputed, and whether a Turk F-16 brought it down, or ground fire.

Either way, not good...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Technoviking said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/24/turkish-f-16-shoots-down-russian-fighter-jet-near-syria-border/
> 
> Sorry for the poor formatting: I'm on my mobile device.
> 
> In short: a Russian SU-24 has been shot down in Syria (that it crashed in Syria is not in dispute)
> Whether it was in Turkish or Syrian airspace is being disputed, and whether a Turk F-16 brought it down, or ground fire.
> 
> Either way, not good...



Will Russia retaliate now.... Some more Caspian cruise missile strikes  :warstory:


----------



## Edward Campbell

OK, OK, perhaps this should have gone in the "On the lighter side," thread, but according to our putative future head of state “We’re seeing a classic case of not dealing with the problem, because, I mean, it sounds awful to say, but some of us were saying 20 something years ago
     that if we didn’t tackle these issues you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change, which means that people have to move.

     And, in fact, there’s very good evidence indeed that one of the major reasons for this horror in Syria, funnily enough, was a drought that lasted for about five or six years, which meant that huge numbers of people in the end had to leave the land.”

     Asked if there was a direct link between climate change, conflict and terrorism, he said it had a “huge impact on what is happening.”

I agree with Tom Sykes, the _Daily Beast_ journalist who wrote the piece that:

    "The argument that the civil war in Syria may at root be a resource war—and one to which global warming has contributed—is in itself not without merit.

     The concept that wars are increasingly an outcome of climate change is a fascinating thesis, and one that university professors the world over should be discussing for years to come.

     However, it’s hard to think of something less appropriate for the Prince of Wales, the heir to the British throne, to say in a television interview."

I have said, elsewhere on Army.ca that we need a different, Canadian "head of state," while retaining our status as both a Westminster style parliamentary democracy with a "figurehead" head of state (like e.g. Germany and India, for example) and a member of the British Commonwealth.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The twitterverse is reporting that both Russian pilots are dead.  Video of one of the pilots lying dead on the ground surrounded by rebels is circulating the web.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/621677/Reports-Russian-helicopter-shot-down-while-searching-downed-jets

One of the helicopters searching for the pilots has been possibly shot down.


----------



## Altair

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The twitterverse is reporting that both Russian pilots are dead.  Video of one of the pilots lying dead on the ground surrounded by rebels is circulating the web.


Being dead is probably preferable to being captured.


----------



## Marchog

> I have said, elsewhere on Army.ca that we need a different, Canadian "head of state," while retaining our status as both a Westminster style parliamentary democracy with a "figurehead" head of state (like e.g. Germany and India, for example) and a member of the British Commonwealth.


Because of a statement made to the media which you personally dislike? Ridiculous. I'd rather hear him say more than less, even if I might disagree, but he can't win. Either the monarch is invisible and accused of being irrelevant, or outspoken and accused of not being irrelevant enough. 

And now the thread gets derailed.


----------



## CougarKing

The condemnations begin:

Sky News



> *Putin: Downing Of Jet A 'Stab In The Back'*
> Sky News – 41 minutes ago
> 
> The shooting down of a Russian jet by Turkey is a "stab in the back" committed by "accomplices of terrorists", Vladimir Putin has said.
> 
> The Sukhoi Su-24 was warned 10 times before being downed near the Syrian border by two Turkish F16 jets for violating the country's airspace, according to the Turkish military.
> 
> 
> A Turkish official said two Russian planes approached the Turkish border and were warned before one of them was shot down, adding their information shows Turkish airspace was repeatedly violated.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

Putin has halted military to military communication with Turkish forces.The Turks will be forced to lay out their case in a press conference.If they are right then it shouldnt take long to produce evidence.What is odd is that the Russian aircraft when confronted by 2 F-16's not only didnt communicate their intentions but possibly ignored the Turkish pilots.It was a very lopsided engagement.The entire Turkish F-16 fleet had recently been upgraded so out dated Russian aircraft will have little chance against the F-16.


----------



## Jarnhamar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> .It was a very lopsided engagement.The entire Turkish F-16 fleet had recently been upgraded so out dated Russian aircraft will have little chance against the F-16.


Would that include communicating with them possibly?


----------



## cavalryman

I seem to recall Turko-Russian wars were not an uncommon occurrence in the 19th century.  Perhaps everything old is truly new again  (one of them involved the Crimea, if I'm to believe Harry Flashman's memoirs) [


----------



## jollyjacktar

After seeing the footage of the barbarians shooting at the aircrew as they were helpless makes me hope and pray the Russians bomb these savages into the stone age and oblivion.


----------



## Journeyman

Marchog said:
			
		

> And now the thread gets derailed.


Wow. Quite high opinion of your post's significance.


----------



## suffolkowner

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> After seeing the footage of the barbarians shooting at the aircrew as they were helpless makes me hope and pray the Russians bomb these savages into the stone age and oblivion.



They already were. Turkey probably wasn't impressed with the Russians coming down to bomb ethnic Turkmen instead of ISIS. I'd be hard pressed to not shoot at a pilot that had just been dropping bombs on me


----------



## jollyjacktar

You'd still not do it nevertheless.  That's what separates us from the savages.


----------



## suffolkowner

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You'd still not do it nevertheless.  That's what separates us from the savages.



I don't know about that. I've never been in that position and am unlikely to be, but I'm having a hard time understanding the "wrong" in the rebels actions. Is it because the pilots are defenseless? I mean that didn't stop the pilots from dropping bombs minutes before?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I believe it's illegal to shoot a pilot that's bailed.


----------



## vonGarvin

The Turk story doesn't add up. They said they warned the Russians from 5 minutes before shooting them down. 5 minutes at jet speed is many, many km. And the F 16s had to get into firing position. The SU 24 crashed in Syria,  so was it exiting Turkey when shot at? How far in Turkey was it?


----------



## mariomike

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I believe it's illegal to shoot a pilot that's bailed.



They may still issue  Chits for the safe return of aircrew?

"Blood chit usage is now classified."
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/a-short-history-of-blood-chits-greetings-from-the-lost-seeking-help/?_r=0


----------



## PuckChaser

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I believe it's illegal to shoot a pilot that's bailed.



I have a feeling the rule of law has long left that place.


----------



## suffolkowner

I get that it's illegal to shoot a pilot that's bailed. I just don't get why, or why anyone would expect the various rebel groups (not just in Syria) to know or follow that rule.

My understanding is that the Russian fighters were warned 10 separate times over 5 min. Following that 2 fighters penetrated Turkish airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles respectively for approximately 17 seconds. I'm not sure which one was shot down. The Russian ambassador in Turkey was called in yesterday and was made aware of Turkish concerns and ROE. Turkish pilots are to fire on any incursion into their airspace that is their ROE. 

I will look for some links but some of this is on F-16.net


----------



## winnipegoo7

http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/24/ruaf-su-24-shot-down-by-turkey/

This is the Turkish version. In the Russian version the SU-24s flew around Syria. Red is Russian SU-24s and blue is turkish F-16s.

The story is that the two SU-24s flew across a couple miles of Syria (17 seconds) and one of them was hit with a missile over Syria. 

I agree that it seems unlikely that there were 5 minutes of warnings issued, but who knows.


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't know about that. I've never been in that position and am unlikely to be, but I'm having a hard time understanding the "wrong" in the rebels actions. Is it because the pilots are defenseless? I mean that didn't stop the pilots from dropping bombs minutes before?



Or going back up and doing it again once rescued....


----------



## jollyjacktar

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I get that it's illegal to shoot a pilot that's bailed. I just don't get why, or why anyone would expect the various rebel groups (not just in Syria) to know or follow that rule.



Of course I don't, they're little better than barbarians.  Civility from any of them would be surprising.

Russian is now confirming that one of the pilots was rescued by Syrian commandos and is back in their hands.  

Russian Pilot Rescued


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Associated Press_ is reporting that the "Turkish Foreign Ministry [says that]: Russian, Turkish ministers agree to hold talks on plane downing."


----------



## suffolkowner

nato confirms Turkish story?

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_125052.htm?selectedLocale=en

Turkish letter describing events to UNSC

http://www.scribd.com/doc/291002800/Turkey-Letter-to-UNSC-on-Shooting-Down-SU-24-Plane-Nov-24-2015

Russian description of events including video showing russian jets not entering Turkish events?

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151124/1030695406/mod-su-24-flight-path.html#ixzz3sRnUbpzM

This can't be the first time a Russian or Allied plane has been shot down over the last 70 years. I think in Erdogan, Putin just ran into his twin.
It's a messed up situation you have the Turks bombing our allies (the Kurds) and the Russians bombing our allies (so called moderate rebels-the barbarians if you will)


----------



## tomahawk6

Syrian and Russian SF rescued the second pilot.

http://news.yahoo.com/second-pilot-downed-russian-plane-rescued-defence-minister-091827535.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> .... Russian description of events including video showing russian jets not entering Turkish events?
> 
> http://sputniknews.com/military/20151124/1030695406/mod-su-24-flight-path.html#ixzz3sRnUbpzM ....


And this from the RUS MoD Info-machine ....


> Today, at 10:24 (MSK) an F-16 fighter of the Turkish Air Force shot down Su-24M tactical bomber of the Russian Aerospace Forces, which was performing a combat sortie over the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic. The fighter supposedly performed the strike with IR homing headed short-range missile.
> 
> The objective monitoring data confirmed that the Turkish warplane did not make any attempt to establish a communication or visual contact with the Russian bomber.
> 
> The missile hit the Su-24M aircraft over the territory of Syria. The bomber crash place is on the territory of Syria four kilometres far from the borderline. The Su-24M crew managed to eject. According to the preliminary data, fire from the ground killed one of the pilots.
> 
> The objective monitoring data shows that the Russian aircraft did not cross the Turkish borderline.
> 
> Data received from the Syrian Air Defence Forces confirmed this fact as well.
> 
> Moreover, radar reconnaissance data, which was received from the Hmeymim airbase, registered Syrian airspace violation by the attacking aircraft of the Turkish Air Force.
> 
> This fact is assessed as a flagrant violation of international law with extremely grave consequences and the direct breach of Memorandum on air incident prevention and flight safety over the Syrian Arab Republic, which had been signed by the USA and relevant for all countries of the coalition, including Turkey.
> 
> That is why the Turkish party started urgent consultations with the NATO instead of immediate contacting with the Russian Defence Ministry.
> 
> Defence Attaché of Turkey in the Russian Federation was presented a decisive protest against the actions of the Turkish Air Force, which had led to the loss of the Russian aircraft.
> 
> It is to be mentioned that from the beginning of the operation, the Russian Defence Ministry had established a direct telephone line between the National Centre for State Defence Control of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of National Defence of Turkey. But it has no practical use due to the fault of the Turkish party.
> 
> In order to evacuate the Russian pilots from the landing point, a search-and-rescue operation was conducted by two Mi-8 helicopters. In the course of the operation, one of helicopters was damaged by small arms fire and performed an emergency landing in the neutral area. One contract serviceman – member of Marine Troops – was killed.
> 
> The personnel of the search-and-rescue team and the helicopter crew were evacuated and are now at the Hmeymim airbase. The helicopter was destroyed by mortar fire conducted from the territory controlled by illegal armed groups.
> 
> The operation on searching and rescuing the crew of the Russian bomber is continued.
> 
> It is to be emphasized that in the action area of the Russia aviation the Syrian governmental troops are conducting operation on elimination of illegal armed groups, which include over 1000 militants from the North Caucasus according to the Russian data sources.
> 
> It is to be stressed that none of the Russian partners and none of the states, which are fighting against ISIS, has mentioned that there are units of so-called “moderate opposition” in that they do not recommend to make strikes in this area. On the contrary, these territories are known as the ones controlled by the most radical illegal armed groups.
> 
> Now the General Staff is elaborating additional security measures for the Russian airbase.
> 
> First: All the activities of the attack aviation will be carried out only under cover of fighter aircraft.
> 
> Second: Air defence will be reinforced. For that purpose, the Moskva cruiser equipped with air defence system Fort analogous to the S-300 one will go to the shore zone of Latakia. Russian Defence Ministry warns that all the potentially dangerous targets will be destroyed.
> 
> Third: Contacts with Turkey will be terminated at the military level.


----------



## Altair

What does the west do when Russia eventually shoots down a Turkish plane?


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> What does the west do when Russia eventually shoots down a Turkish plane?


Going to greatly depend on the circumstances, and how much political will there is based on whether the Turkish intercept was justified. If Obama draws another line, nothing will be done. We've already dug a hole by not doing a no-fly zone when we had the chance. We'll need significant assets to defeat the new Russian AD that will likely defend Syrian aircraft.


----------



## Jarnhamar

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm having a hard time understanding the "wrong" in the rebels actions. Is it because the pilots are defenseless? I mean that didn't stop the pilots from dropping bombs minutes before?



It violates protocol I, article 42 of the Geneva Conventions. Pilots ejecting from aircraft in distress must be given an opportunity to surrender.

Just like you can't shoot someone in the head even though they were holding a gun minutes before.


----------



## vonGarvin

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We'll need significant assets _nuclear weapons_ to defeat the new Russian AD that will likely defend Syrian aircraft.


Syria has an extensive AD network, which is probably the main reason we aren't attacking them.  So long as we attack Daesh, then they're happy for us to do their dirty work.

If we think we want to attack Syria proper, well, now that the Russians have augmented their AD with their own, it would take a full court press for us to do so, and I'm not confident we could destroy it without resorting to nuclear weapons.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Syria has an extensive AD network, which is probably the main reason we aren't attacking them.  So long as we attack Daesh, then they're happy for us to do their dirty work.
> 
> If we think we want to attack Syria proper, well, now that the Russians have augmented their AD with their own, it would take a full court press for us to do so, and I'm not confident we could destroy it without resorting to nuclear weapons.



On the other hand it _might_ be just the right time for a war against Russia; it might be a tad painful but we wouldn't lose. The outcome _might_ be something like:

     1. A new European Russia, running from about the current borders with Finland, Latvia, etc down to Georgia and Eastwards to the Urals, aligned with Germany;

     2. A new "independent" Asian country in Eastern Siberia aligned with China; and

     3. A new country, between the Urals and Eastern Siberia of questionable alignment.

My guess is that war has to come, sooner or later; sooner seems preferable to me.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Well, THIS took a bit longer than I thought it might (source).

Meanwhile, _"Russian airstrikes reportedly target Turkish aid convoy in Syria"_.  

_If_ this is, indeed, how it unfolded, and it was a Turkish _government_ aid convoy, does this open up the door to hitting other _government_ aid convoys elsewhere?


----------



## suffolkowner

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It violates protocol I, article 42 of the Geneva Conventions. Pilots ejecting from aircraft in distress must be given an opportunity to surrender.
> 
> Just like you can't shoot someone in the head even though they were holding a gun minutes before.



I get that its a rule. I just don't understand the why. I also don't understand why we would expect all these other factions/cultures to be cognizant of the rule and to actually follow them. I mean if you're in a APC that's disabled are you given the opportunity to surrender? Can you shoot paratroopers in the air?


----------



## suffolkowner

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> On the other hand it _might_ be just the right time for a war against Russia; it might be a tad painful but we wouldn't lose. The outcome _might_ be something like:
> 
> 1. A new European Russia, running from about the current borders with Finland, Latvia, etc down to Georgia and Eastwards to the Urals, aligned with Germany;
> 
> 2. A new "independent" Asian country in Eastern Siberia aligned with China; and
> 
> 3. A new country, between the Urals and Eastern Siberia of questionable alignment.
> 
> My guess is that war has to come, sooner or later; sooner seems preferable to me.



Seems like the perfect time for a non-Turkish army to move in and protect the ethnic Turks in Syria. 
I mean Turkey's a s**t ally but at least their anti Russian roots go deep.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Elsewhere, another forum, someone's friend said that "Syria no longer exists," and I quipped something about it never having "existed," being an artefact of Sykes-Picot, etc. That was unfair: Syria, a real country, it did exist for 90_ish_ years ... it was, indeed, a bit of an artificial construct but so is Canada, or America, come to that. The A big difference between successful Canada and failed (failing, anyway) Syria is that our dominant culture worshiped, for 500+ years, at the alter of _institutions_ and, it turned out, _institutions_ matter a whole helluva lot more than spirits and gods and assorted _sky fairies_ and their shamans.

My perception ~ likely deeply flawed ~ is that the _status quo ante_ in the Middle East is either:

     1. Hundreds of petty kingdoms ~ sheikdoms, or tribes or whatevers; or

     2. A caliphate.

I can see four candidates for _caliph_:

     1. A Sunni from Saudi Arabia ~ the guys funding IS**/_Da'esh_;

     2. A Shia from Iran;

     3. A Turk; or

     4. An Egyptian.

I have no idea which one _might_ be either the winner or a good choice.

I'm really pleased to see the Russians _engaged_ in Syria and Iraq. It is my belief that Russia is the only great power less likely to act in its rational self interest than is the USA.


----------



## Jarnhamar

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I get that its a rule. I just don't understand the why. I also don't understand why we would expect all these other factions/cultures to be cognizant of the rule and to actually follow them. I mean if you're in a APC that's disabled are you given the opportunity to surrender? Can you shoot paratroopers in the air?



You can shoot paratroopers in the air until your heart is content, even if the plane is on fire and they're bailing out. If you shoot the pilots you're violating the Geneva conventions.

Why? Because years ago someone decided that it should be a rule.
Do we expect everyone to abide by the rules? No, but we do (or are supposed to) whether other countries do or don't.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My perception ~ likely deeply flawed ~ is that the _status quo ante_ in the Middle East is either:
> 
> 1. Hundreds of petty kingdoms ~ sheikdoms, or tribes or whatevers; or
> 
> 2. A caliphate.



The last Caliphate was the Ottoman Empire, and funny enough, it worked because the Porte (seat of the Emperor's administration of the Caliphate) basically loosely held the empire together through bribing, family ties, arranged marriages, or outright bullying of all the hundreds of "petty kingdoms, sheikhdoms and tribes", as the case may be, on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> On the other hand it _might_ be just the right time for a war against Russia; it might be a tad painful but we wouldn't lose. The outcome _might_ be something like:
> 
> 1. A new European Russia, running from about the current borders with Finland, Latvia, etc down to Georgia and Eastwards to the Urals, aligned with Germany;
> 
> 2. A new "independent" Asian country in Eastern Siberia aligned with China; and
> 
> 3. A new country, between the Urals and Eastern Siberia of questionable alignment.
> 
> My guess is that war has to come, sooner or later; sooner seems preferable to me.



This is exactly what Halford Mackinder said you shouldn't do.  If Germany and Russia ever got permanently in bed with each other, watch out!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is exactly what Halford Mackinder said you shouldn't do.  If Germany and Russia ever got permanently in bed with each other, watch out!




Yes, but he meant Russia from Europe to the Pacific ~ that HUGE hinterland. My guess is that the desired end state is a rump European Russia and two or three (or more) Asian states in what is now Russia East of the Urals.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You can shoot paratroopers in the air until your heart is content, even if the plane is on fire and they're bailing out. If you shoot the pilots you're violating the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Why? Because years ago someone decided that it should be a rule.
> Do we expect everyone to abide by the rules? No, but we do (or are supposed to) whether other countries do or don't.



My WAG (wild-ass guess) is that a paratrooper is enroute to his/her fighting position and will advance to the enemy once down, whereas aircrew are in survival mode once they bail out of their aircraft and are essentially out of the fight (except with whatever small arms they have with their survival gear).


----------



## tomahawk6

At the link is audio of the Turkish intercept and a press conference of the surviving pilot.The Turks contend they didnt know the aircraft was Russian.The Russian pilot says there was no warning.The audio shows that the pilot wasnt exactly truthful.I suspect the Turks werent either.Everyone is trying to play the CYA game.


----------



## Journeyman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> .... a paratrooper is enroute to his/her fighting position and will advance to the enemy once down, whereas aircrew are *searching for a 4-star hotel or better*


Your autocorrect must have missed that.


----------



## tomahawk6

Short article that suggests the Russian incursion was on purpose and the only way the aircraft could strike their Turkmen target.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-lilly/russia-premeditated-incur_b_8660792.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


----------



## dimsum

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Your autocorrect must have missed that.



4-star?  Pshaw - only because 5-star ones were full.


----------



## CougarKing

Major update: Turkey halts its air campaign against ISIS. Perhaps this means the Kurds targeted by Turkey will now get some breathing room?

Aviationist



> *The Turkish Air Force suspends flights over Syria amid crisis with Russia over Su-24 downing*
> Nov 27 2015 -
> By David Cenciotti
> The Turkish Air Force is no longer supporting the air war on ISIS.
> 
> According to  Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper, the Turkish Air Force has suspended the missions over Syria of its aircraft supporting the international air campaign against ISIS.
> 
> This is the effect of the unprecedented diplomatic crisis between Ankara and Moscow sparked by the downing of the Russian Su-24 Fencer bomber by a TuAF F-16 after the alleged and controversial violation of the Turkish airspace on Nov. 24.
> 
> According to the Turkish authorities, the Su-24 violated Ankara’s airspace (for 17 seconds) and did not respond to 10 warnings in 5 minutes, radioed by a TuAF GCI (Ground Controlled Intercept) station while the aircraft, along with another one of the same type approached the border. Russian authorities deny this report and claim no warning was issued by the Turkish and no violation occurred at all.
> 
> (...SNIPPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Bruce MacKinnin cartoon Turkey playing Chicken with Russia

 ;D


----------



## YZT580

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Major update: Turkey halts its air campaign against ISIS. Perhaps this means the Kurds targeted by Turkey will now get some breathing room?
> 
> Aviationist



Instead they will have to watch for incoming from the other direction.  Russia considers all combatants other than the Syrian army to be terrorists.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A somewhat more detailed RUS Info-machine account of the shoot-down (also downloadable here if the previous link doesn't work), including a couple of maps (attached) ....


> *Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces presents facts of the attack on the Russian Su-24M aircraft carried out by the Turkish F-16 fighter in the sky over Syria on November 24*
> 
> In the course of appearance of different versions concerning circumstances of the attack on the Russian Su-24M aircraft carried out by the Turkish F-16 fighter in the sky over Syria on November 24, the Russian Defence Ministry presents facts of this situation unprecedented in its disloyalty.
> 
> The accident happened on November 24. Combat loss of the Su-24M, tail number 83, was caused by fire engagement.
> 
> At 9.15 (MSK) it was assigned to carry out strike near Kepir-Motlu-Zahiya located in the north of Syria.
> 
> This task was assigned to two Su-24M aircraft crews, including one of pilot Lieutenant Colonel Oleg Peshkov and Captain Konstantin Murakhtin (aircraft number 83, with combat payload four OFAB-250-270 air bombs).
> 
> The crews were assigned to conduct combat air patrol near Maarrat al-Numan at flight levels of 5800 m and 5650 m correspondetly.
> 
> The aircraft took off from the Hmeymim airbase at 9:42.
> 
> At 9:52, the Su-24M entered detection zone of the Turkish Air Force radar means and was under their coverage in the course of 34 minutes.
> 
> After 20 minutes passed since the crew had entered its area of responsibility, the Command centre of the Hmeymim airbase ordered it to eliminate militants in the area.
> 
> The crews bombed two assigned targets and turned to the left to make another approach for destruction of two remaining targets.
> 
> As it was carrying out an airstrike at the target located 5.5 km to the south of the Turkish border, at 10:24 the crew led by Lieutenant Colonel Peshkov O.A. launched bombs at the target and was then downed by an "air-to-air" missile from an F-16 fighter of the Turkish Air Force, which had performed take-off from the Diyarbakir airfield of the 8th airbase located in the territory Turkey.
> 
> During the analysis of video air situation display provided by the Command Centre of the Syrian Air Force and Air Defence, an aerial target was spotted, moving from Turkey in the direction of the state border at the speed of 810 kmph  and with the heading of 190 degrees.
> 
> After the Turkish fighter approached the Su-24M at a range equal to the range of a missile launch (equal to 5-7 km, which proves that the F-16 was in the Syrian air space), it quickly maneuvered to the right, lowered, and disappeared from the display of the air situation display.
> 
> According to the objective monitoring data received from the air defence means, while the Russian bomber did not cross the Turkish border.
> 
> The crew of the leading aircraft confirms the missile launch. After the launch and a left turn for heading 130 degrees, they observed a flash and a tail of white smoke, which he reported to the flight control officer.
> 
> At 10:25, the flight control officer registered that the mark from the Su-24M aircraft disappeared from the radars. The further requests and the requests of the leader crew of the Lieutenant Colonel Peshkov remained without answer.
> 
> The estimated time of arrival of an F-16 aircraft from the military airfield Dyabakyr from the stand-by position on the ground to the possible place of missile launch constitutes 46 minutes (15 minutes for preparation and take-off, 31 minutes - flight time needed to arrive at the firing point).
> 
> Thus, interception of a Su-24M aircraft from the stand-by position on the ground from the military airfield Dyabakyr is impossible as the necessary time for approaching the target exceeds the minimum time needed for attack by 12 minutes.
> 
> Objective monitoring data received from the Syrian radar stations confirmed the presence of two F-16’s in the duty zone from 9:11 till 10:26 min (for 1 h 15 min) at the altitude of 2400 metres, that shows that the operation was planned beforehand and the fighters were ready to attack from the air ambush over the territory of Turkey.
> 
> It is to be mentioned that the fighter aircraft stopped maneuvering in the duty zone an headed rapidly to the offset point 1 minute and 40 seconds before the maximum approach of the Su-24M aircraft to the Syrian-Turkish border. The method the F-16 aircraft entered the engagement zone (not by the curve of pursuit) shows that it was vectored from the ground.
> 
> Actions of the Turkish aircraft after launching of missiles over the territory of Syria ­- the wind-down turn with loss of altitude and going under the lower range line of the air defence means - also speaks for the fact that the perfidious crew's actions were planned beforehand.
> 
> Objective monitoring data from the Hmeymim airbase and the leader aircraft did not register any request made by the crew of the Turkish aircraft to the Russian pilots on the pre-arranged frequency.
> 
> The readiness of the Turkish media to cover this incident is also surprising.
> 
> The strike with the "air-to-air" missile was made by a pilot of the F-16 aircraft of the Turkish Air Force at 10:24 and just in an hour and a half the video showing the falling warplane was published on the YouTube video hosting site by the Turkish private television company. The angle of the footage allows to define the possible place of recording. It is situated in the area controlled by the radical terrorist groupings consisting of people from the North Caucasus and the former republics of the USSR. The operator had known in advance the time and place, which would be the best for recording the exclusive footage.
> 
> Rapid appearance of militants' groups in the landing area and publication of the video in the Internet just 1.5 hours after the accident show that the terrorists had been informed in advance about the prepared provocation for its videoing and publication of the materials in social media on the Internet.
> 
> All these facts clearly show the earlier preparation for downing of the aircraft and the coverage of those events using the Turkish Air Force, illegal armed groups and Turkish information agencies along with active support of the media.
> 
> Since the signing of the mutual understanding memorandum between the Russian Ministry of Defence and the Department of Defence of the USA on October 23, 2015, the Command of the Russian air group has undeviatingly taken all measures to prevent incidents between Russian military aircraft and warplanes belonging to the Coalition countries.
> 
> In accordance with these agreements, the Russian Air Force Command Centre at the Hmeymim airbase had informed representatives of the US Air Force concerning the engagement areas and echelons of a pair of Russian Su-24M bombers in advance.
> 
> That is why statements made by different officials from Turkey concerning that they had not identified the Russian aircraft are, at least, confusing.
> 
> Moreover, the Turkish military command has violated all articles and dispositions of the international law that regulates defence of the state border in the air space.
> 
> It is to be stressed that there were neither apologies, nor offers of help in positioning and evacuation of the downed crew received from the Turkish party after the tragedy happened.
> 
> In conclusion, it is necessary to touch upon the subject of the search-and-rescue operation conducted to evacuate the navigator, Captain Konstantin Murakhtin from the landing location .
> 
> First of all, the Command expresses its gratitude to all the members of the operation for their accurate, coordinated work, their tenacity and composure shown in the most difficult situation at night, surrounded by terrorists. Their work helped to bring the ejected navigator to the base.
> 
> As soon as Captain Murakhtin was safe, massive airstrikes were made by Russian aircraft and the Syrian rocket artillery on the area occupied by terrorists who had been actively searching for him.
> 
> In conclusion, it must be said that the Aerospace Forces Command is proud of its pilots, technicians, commanders, and maintenance personnel, which carry out combat missions to fight international terrorism in Syria.
> 
> The Command wishes to express its deepest condolences to the families of Lieutenant Colonel Oleg Peshkov and Private Alexander Pozynich, who lost his life rescuing the crew.
> 
> The families of the servicemen will not be left on their own and they will receive all required assistance.


----------



## a_majoor

Some more analysis of the incident and possible fallout:

http://observer.com/2015/12/whats-next-in-the-terrifying-unraveling-russo-turkish-crisis/



> *What’s Next in the Terrifying, Unraveling Russo-Turkish Crisis*
> Sometimes political leaders do insanely stupid things, with horrific consequences for millions
> By John R. Schindler • 12/01/15 1:14pm
> 
> The downing of a Russian Su-24 bomber jet on November 24 by a Turkish F-16 fighter on the Turkish-Syrian border, where the two air forces have been playing high-speed cat-and-mouse games for months, opened a new and dangerous phase in an international crisis that’s long been brewing on low-boil.
> 
> Although President Recep Erdoğan’s Turkey and President Vladimir Putin’s Russia are ancestral foes, in recent years the countries had enjoyed a cordial relationship with substantial trade between them and significant alignments on many security issues, notwithstanding the former’s NATO membership going back to the early Cold War. As the Middle East has gone up in flames since the Arab Spring, a Russo-Turkish partnership might have gone a long way in preventing wider conflagration.
> 
> Alas, any regional cooperation between Ankara and Moscow has broken up on Syrian rocks, with the two countries pursuing contrary goals in that sad country, which has experienced the torments of hell since its civil war began in spring 2011. While Mr. Putin has backed its proxy—the Assad dictatorship in Damascus—to the hilt, Mr. Erdoğan has quietly supported anti-Assad guerrilla groups with equal determination.
> 
> Overt Russian military intervention in the Syrian conflict in late September placed Moscow and Ankara on a collision course, as was obvious to clear-eyed observers. For Turkey, exerting some control over neighboring Syria, particularly its war-torn north, is a vital national security interest, and Ankara made clear it did not appreciate Russian games there. Here, Mr. Putin’s customary bull-in-china-shop methods in international relations were destined to result in a clash.
> 
> All that can be said for certain is that a Turkish Air Force F-16 shot down the Russian Air Force Su-24 a little over a week ago, killing the pilot and wounding the second crewman; another Russian serviceman was killed by Syrian rebels during search and rescue efforts. Ankara claims that the Russians briefly entered their airspace, something that Moscow vehemently denies. Similarly, Turkish assertions that they gave the wayward bomber multiple warnings have been dismissed as lies—after-the-fact excuses—by the Russian defense ministry.
> 
> The Pentagon has affirmed the Turkish narrative, broadly speaking, yet it’s evident that the Obama administration is displeased with Ankara over the shoot-down. It’s not normal for NATO fighters to open fire out of the blue at intruding Russian military aircraft, something which has been happening with mounting frequency of late. Instead, NATO fighters are supposed to intercept the intruder, making mutual visual sightings, at which point the Russians usually head the other way. None of that seems to have happened on November 24.
> 
> It’s not every day you get to see leaders of major countries with large militaries acting like petulant teenagers on the world stage.
> 
> In fairness to the Turks, the Russian Air Force had been playing dangerous games in that border region for weeks leading up to the incident, bombing the locals, who are backed by Ankara, and goading the Turks into action. In addition, the Su-24 is frequently used for electronic warfare missions, so it cannot be ruled out that the Russians were jamming or spoofing frequencies in the area, causing confusion on the Turkish side—a deadly confusion, as it turned out.
> 
> This is where a dispassionate international investigation would help to defuse tensions, but it’s unlikely either side will support that. As with the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines 17 over eastern Ukraine in July 2014, almost certainly by Russian-controlled forces, the Kremlin has responded to this incident with barrages of propaganda, some plausible, some downright absurd.
> 
> Some of this has come directly from Mr. Putin himself, who publicly accused Mr. Erdoğan of supporting the Islamic State, the notorious ISIS, including personal profiteering off the illegal sale of ISIS oil through Turkey. Adding fuel to the fire, Moscow sources have asserted that the shoot-down, which was “really” done to protect the “secret” of illicit ISIS oil shipments through Turkey, was done with the personal approval of President Obama. This is more of the noxious Kremlin agitprop that this White House bizarrely has chosen to do nothing to counter, as I recently explained.
> 
> Inconveniently for Ankara, at least some of Putin’s accusations are true. Although only Kremlin Trolls believe Mr. Obama had anything to do with the shoot-down, clandestine Turkish support for ISIS in the Syrian war isn’t a figment of Moscow’s imagination. Reports of oil profiteering in Ankara, including from ISIS, have circulated widely among Western intelligence agencies in recent years, while Mr. Erdoğan’s personal corruption is well known.
> 
> However, Russian accusations against Turkey ultimately fall flat, not least because Western intelligence has also reported about Russian profiteering from illegal ISIS oil sales, while questionable Kremlin spy games with various jihadists over the years, including Al-Qa’ida, are a matter of record. While Mr. Putin’s inflammatory accusations are not wholly fabricated, his own regime has done much the same.
> 
> Ankara has reacted to all this in an equally juvenile fashion. Mr. Putin’s allegations of profiteering have resulted in Mr. Erdoğan stating he will resign if the ISIS oil story proves true, while demanding that Mr. Putin resign if not. It’s not every day you get to see the leaders of major countries with large militaries acting like petulant teenagers on the world stage.
> 
> Neither country shows any desire to step back from confrontation, which ought to alarm everyone.
> 
> Russia and Ankara have shifted more military forces to the Syrian tinderbox—the former has moved in cutting-edge S-400 air defense missiles while the latter has deployed brigade’s worth of tanks to the border—which does nothing to stifle the crisis. Moscow’s aggressive trade sanctions against Turkey over the shoot-down will cause pain to both countries, while demonstrating that this incident will not be allowed to go away by the Kremlin.
> 
> Mr. Erdoğan’s suggestion of a meeting between the leaders to resolve the crisis was rudely dismissed by Moscow, leading to the Turkish prime minister stating his country will never apologize for defending their sovereignty. At the moment, neither country shows any desire to step back from confrontation, which ought to alarm everyone.
> 
> No small part of this mess has been caused by the essential similarities of both leaders. Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdoğan are charismatic strongmen with deep nationalist credentials. They have successfully employed faith mixed with chauvinism to handsome political effect, including nostalgia for lost imperial glory that rankles and scares their neighbors. They are popular with many citizens, who credit them with big economic advances among average people. Their political foes have fled the country in fear, while dissenting journalists and activists get arrested or killed in “mysterious,” never-solved crimes. Above all, they have used quasi-democratic ends to establish very un-democratic regimes, personally profiting in the process. Neither man has any history of backing down in the hour of crisis.
> 
> If all this sounds alarming, it should. It ought to be noted that neither Mr. Putin nor Mr. Erdoğan has crossed the point of no return yet: for the former, that would be cutting off Turkey’s natural gas shipments as winter sets in, while for the latter the shutting of the Bophorus to Russian ships, as it is permitted under the Montreux Convention of 1936, would have a similar effect, i.e. tantamount to a declaration of war. However, the lack of any signs of crisis de-escalation yet ought to raise concerns.
> 
> Moscow must understand it cannot bully a NATO member without consequences.
> 
> In Mr. Erdoğan, Mr. Putin has encountered a foe whose congenital response to the Kremlin strongman’s usual foreign policy playbook of tantrums and threats will be pushback rather than backing down. This matters because Turkey is a key member of NATO and it possesses a large and competent military—though it lacks the several thousand nuclear weapons Mr. Putin controls. Alarming signs are not difficult to detect. Demands in Moscow that Turkey return Hagia Sophia to the Orthodox Church, which fell to the Ottomans in 1453 when Constantinople—now Istanbul—at last was taken by the Turks after centuries of effort, are sure to inflame passions among history-minded Turks of an Islamist bent like Mr. Erdoğan.
> 
> Falling back on militant faith and historical grievance in a crisis is seldom an encouraging sign, and NATO needs to make it abundantly clear to Ankara that Article 5, the Alliance’s collective defense clause, does not apply if Turkey goads Russia into an avoidable war. That said, Moscow must understand that it cannot bully a NATO member without consequences either.
> 
> If all this—nationalist passions, dangerous border games, entangling alliances—sounds worryingly similar to 1914, it’s not altogether wide of the mark. As a historian I try to avoid bad analogies, which can be hazardous, but there are parallels with the disaster that befell Europe after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Then, as now, an aggressive Russia backed a troublesome proxy—then Serbia, now Syria—into an avoidable confrontation with a bigger neighbor, which led to a wider and unimaginably terrible war.
> 
> For decades it was fashionable to view the coming of World War I as some sort of unfortunate misunderstanding, which historically speaking is utter nonsense. In truth, both Vienna and Russia consciously opted for war, knowing full well that the outcome would be a major conflict: one that neither regime would survive, as it turned out. As I explain in my just-released book Fall of the Double Eagle, which details that fateful July and its awful outcome, sometimes political and military leaders, smart and educated people, do insanely stupid things, with horrific consequences for millions.
> 
> We can hope that Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdoğan, understanding what war—especially possible nuclear war—would mean, are more cautious than the leaders of 1914 were. At this hour, Mr. Obama is attempting to mediate this crisis before it gets out of hand, urging Turkey to step back a bit, and we should all wish him well, although there is reason to doubt Ankara takes Mr. Obama very seriously, given his dismal track record in the region. Whether reason prevails over passion in this hazardous misunderstanding between Russia and Turkey, who have waged numerous wars against each other over the centuries, remains to be seen.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Some more analysis of the incident and possible fallout:
> 
> http://observer.com/2015/12/whats-next-in-the-terrifying-unraveling-russo-turkish-crisis/




That's a good summary. In my opinion this part matters most:

     "No small part of this mess has been caused by the essential similarities of both leaders. Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdoğan are charismatic strongmen with deep nationalist credentials. They have successfully employed faith mixed with
      chauvinism to handsome political effect, including nostalgia for lost imperial glory that rankles and scares their neighbors. They are popular with many citizens, who credit them with big economic advances among average
      people. Their political foes have fled the country in fear, while dissenting journalists and activists get arrested or killed in “mysterious,” never-solved crimes. Above all, they have used quasi-democratic ends to establish very
      un-democratic regimes, personally profiting in the process. Neither man has any history of backing down in the hour of crisis.

      If all this sounds alarming, it should. It ought to be noted that neither Mr. Putin nor Mr. Erdoğan has crossed the point of no return yet: for the former, that would be cutting off Turkey’s natural gas shipments as winter sets in,
      while for the latter the shutting of the Bophorus to Russian ships, as it is permitted under the Montreux Convention of 1936, would have a similar effect, i.e. tantamount to a declaration of war. However, the lack of any signs
      of crisis de-escalation yet ought to raise concerns.

      Moscow must understand it cannot bully a NATO member without consequences.

      In Mr. Erdoğan, Mr. Putin has encountered a foe whose congenital response to the Kremlin strongman’s usual foreign policy playbook of tantrums and threats will be pushback rather than backing down. This matters because Turkey
      is a key member of NATO and it possesses a large and competent military—though it lacks the several thousand nuclear weapons Mr. Putin controls. Alarming signs are not difficult to detect. Demands in Moscow that Turkey
      return Hagia Sophia to the Orthodox Church, which fell to the Ottomans in 1453 when Constantinople—now Istanbul—at last was taken by the Turks after centuries of effort, are sure to inflame passions among history-minded
      Turks of an Islamist bent like Mr. Erdoğan."

As to Turkey "provoking" Russia into a war ~ I doubt that is Turkey's aim, but setting "boundaries' for Russia (and the USA, come to that) is. Turkey is, along with Iran, The Saudi-Gulf alliance (sort of) and Egypt, one of the four contenders for leadership of a new _caliphate_ or a replacement of the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile the RAF begins air strikes against ISIS in Syria. Sigh. To think it'll be at least 2 more years before the HMS Queen Elizabeth and her air wing are complete and fully worked up to allow the RN to participate:

Reuters via Business Insider



> *British bombers launch first airstrikes in Syria against Islamic State oil fields*
> 
> Michele Kambas and William James, Reuters
> 
> UK Parliament to vote on expanded attacks on Islamic State
> 'Sometimes the greatest oratory can lead to the greatest mistakes'
> 
> British bombers made their first strikes on Islamic State in Syria on Thursday, hitting oil fields that Prime Minister David Cameron says are being used to fund attacks on the West.
> 
> Tornado bombers took off from the Royal Air Force Akrotiri air base in Cyprus just hours after British lawmakers voted 397-223 to support Cameron's plan for air strikes, a Reuters witness said. They returned to base safely several hours later.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

To think back in 2013 there was a furor in the Obama administration to directly target the Assad regime, which was seen as the main problem in the Syria Civil War before the rise of ISIS.

Defense News



> *Syria Accuses US-Led Coalition of Killing Regime Troops*
> Agence France-Presse 6:57 p.m. EST December 7, 2015
> 
> DAMASCUS, Syria — Syria expressed outrage Monday after a suspected US-led coalition strike for the first time killed regime troops, but the coalition denied its warplanes hit an army base.
> 
> In a letter to the United Nations Security Council and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Syria's foreign ministry condemned what it called a "flagrant aggression" that killed at least three soldiers late Sunday.
> 
> But a spokesman for the US-led coalition said its only strikes in the area on Sunday were about 55 kilometers (35 miles) southeast of the Syrian army base.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## McG

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> To think back in 2013 there was a furor in the Obama administration to directly target the Assad regime, which was seen as the main problem in the Syria Civil War before the rise of ISIS.
> 
> Defense News


But the US says it was Russia that bombed Assad's guys:  http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/u-s-certain-that-russian-airstrike-killed-syrian-soldiers-official-says-1.2689467


----------



## CougarKing

Russia's submarine arm flexing their muscles with another Syria demonstration:

Defense News



> *Russian submarine hits targets in Syria*
> By Christopher P. Cavas 3:58 p.m. EST December 8, 2015
> 
> WASHINGTON — Russian media reports that a Russian diesel-electric submarine operating in the Mediterranean Sea on Tuesday launched Kalibr cruise missiles at targets in Syria.
> 
> Agence France-Presse, citing Russian news agencies, reported that Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday the military had launched strikes in Syria for the first time from a submarine stationed in the Mediterranean.
> 
> "We used Kalibr cruise missiles from the Rostov-on-Don submarine from the Mediterranean Sea," Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin, Russian news agencies reported.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Let's see how long even _this_ level of unity lasts ....


> Peace talks will be held next month between the Syrian government and a joint team of political and armed rebel groups.
> 
> The move was decided after two days of talks at a Saudi hosted opposition conference.
> 
> The final hours of the meeting, which excluded Islamic State and Nusra Front fighters, were overshadowed by a protest by another powerful insurgent group, Ahrar al-Sham.
> 
> But the talks chairman played down their demonstration and stressed the importance of the first such meeting in two years aimed at ending the bloody civil war. The gathering will discuss moving into a transitional period.
> 
> A statement released at the end of the conference also emphasised that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must leave power ....


Iranian media plays up the exception ....


> Rifts have overshadowed a meeting of opposition groups, including militants linked to Daesh terrorists, in the Saudi capital.
> 
> The chairman of the conference said on Friday the groups had agreed to meet the Syria government next month for talks on ending nearly five years of conflict.
> 
> The announcement came after a major terrorist group, Ahrar al-Sham, withdrew from the meeting, exposing enduring divisions among foreign-backed militants and casting doubt on the significance of any pledges made at the conference.
> 
> The group said in a statement that its withdrawal was an objection to a major role given to the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change, a Damascus-based opposition group. The group said the militants operating inside Syria were under-represented at the meeting ...


----------



## CougarKing

Russian-piloted Hinds joint the fight:


Aviationist



> *Russian Mi-35M gunship helicopter appears in Syria for the first time*
> Dec 14 2015 - 0 Comments
> By David Cenciotti
> The most advanced variant of the Hind helicopter has arrived at Latakia airbase.
> 
> New footage filmed by RT at Russian aircraft operating at Hmeymim air base in Latakia, on Friday, proves Moscow has eventually deployed to Syria the most modern variant of the Hind: the Mi-35M.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Fingers crossed ...

_"UN Security Council unanimously backs peace plan"_ (BBC)
_"UN Security Council agrees on Syria peace plan"_ (Al Jazeera)
_"United Nations Security Council Adopts Syria Resolution "_ (_Wall Street Journal_)
_"UN Security Council backs Syria peace plan"_ (Agence France-Presse)
_"U.N. endorses Syria peace plan in rare show of unity among big powers"_ (Reuters)
_"Security Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution 2254 (2015), Endorsing Road Map for Peace Process in Syria, Setting Timetable for Talks"_ (UN news release)
UNSC Resolution 2254 (28 pg PDF) downloadable here.


----------



## McG

Syrian government is accused of using chemical weapons again.  

Damascus 'chemical attack': Syria activists accuse government
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35167849


----------



## PuckChaser

How many lines has Assad crossed now? 3? 4? Obama is going to go down in history as the most impotent president ever.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Is the devil playing ice hockey as we speak?

_"Saudi Arabia willing to send ground troops to Syria"_
_"UAE says it is ready to send ground troops to Syria"_


----------



## a_majoor

If the Sauds or their friends go into Syria, they will find the Russians and Iranians waiting for them. From a strategic point of view it would be far better to continue arming and fostering ISIS and allowing waves of foreign born radicals to engage while keeping the pressure on the economic front by continuing to pump oil and supressing the global market price. The key weakness in this plan is that ISIS is not easily controllable, and tends to dissipate their strength against peripheral targets (to the Saudi cause) like ethnic cleansing of minority groups, or attacking the Kurds rather than taking on the Quds force or overrunning Russian air bases. Perhaps the Saudis have some ideas to change this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/world/middleeast/russian-intervention-in-syrian-war-has-sharply-reduced-us-options.html?_r=1



> *Russian Intervention in Syrian War Has Sharply Reduced U.S. Option*
> By DAVID E. SANGERFEB. 10, 2016
> 
> MUNICH — For months now the United States has insisted there can be no military solution to the Syrian civil war, only a political accord between President Bashar al-Assad and the fractured, divided opposition groups that have been trying to topple him.
> 
> But after days of intense bombing that could soon put the critical city of Aleppo back into the hands of Mr. Assad’s forces, the Russians may be proving the United States wrong. There may be a military solution, one senior American official conceded Wednesday, “just not our solution,” but that of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
> 
> That is what Secretary of State John Kerry faces as he enters a critical negotiation over a cease-fire and the creation of a “humanitarian corridor” to relieve starving Syrians besieged in more than a dozen cities, most by Mr. Assad’s forces. The Russian military action has changed the shape of a conflict that had effectively been stalemated for years. Suddenly, Mr. Assad and his allies have momentum, and the United States-backed rebels are on the run. If a cease-fire is negotiated here, it will probably come at a moment when Mr. Assad holds more territory, and more sway, than since the outbreak of the uprisings in 2011.
> 
> Mr. Kerry enters the negotiations with very little leverage: The Russians have cut off many of the pathways the C.I.A. has been using for a not-very-secret effort to arm rebel groups, according to several current and former officials. Mr. Kerry’s supporters inside the administration say he has been increasingly frustrated by the low level of American military activity, which he views as essential to bolstering his negotiation effort.
> 
> Publicly, Mr. Kerry is circumspect about his dilemma. “We are all very, very aware of how critical this moment is,” he said on Tuesday.
> 
> His colleagues in the administration, however, fear that a three-month-long effort to begin the political process is near collapse. If it fails, it will force Mr. Kerry and President Obama, once again, to consider their Plan B: a far larger military effort, directed at Mr. Assad. But that is exactly the kind of conflict that Mr. Obama has spent five years trying to avoid, especially when any ground campaign would rely on forces led by a fractious group of opposition leaders that he distrusts.
> 
> Without a political solution or a stepped-up military effort, the United States is not only left with little influence over the course of the Syrian civil war, but without a viable strategy to bring all of the warring parties together to fight the Islamic State.
> 
> As Mr. Kerry arrived here for another meeting of the 17 nations that agreed last fall on principles for a political solution, several of Washington’s own allies complained bitterly about American policy, saying the United States is absent while the Russians change the nature of the situation on the ground.
> 
> Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, used the announcement of his imminent retirement to poke holes, once again, in the American plan for Syria, which he called “ambiguous” and absent a “very strong commitment.” Throughout his tenure he has been critical of the United States for not being more aggressive, often to the exasperation of State Department and White House officials, who charged that the French grandstand in public but have been cautious to get into a fight that has no clear outcome.
> 
> An open breach erupted with the Turks, who charge that the United States is empowering the Kurds, with whom Turkey believes it is in an existential struggle. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country’s president, denounced Washington for failing to declare a Syrian Kurdish rebel group a terrorist organization.
> 
> “Are you on our side or the side of the terrorist P.Y.D. and P.K.K. organizations?” Mr. Erdogan said in an address to provincial officials in the Turkish capital, Ankara, referring to American support for members of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party, or P.Y.D., in their fight against the Islamic State in Syria, and to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K. The United States considers the Kurds the only truly effective fighters against the Islamic State.
> 
> Then Mr. Erdogan — president of a NATO member nation — turned to taunts. “Hey, America,” he said. “Because you never recognized them as a terrorist group, the region has turned into a sea of blood.”
> 
> At the core of the American strategic dilemma is that the Russian military adventure, which Mr. Obama dismissed last year as ill-thought-out muscle flexing, has been surprising effective in helping Mr. Assad reclaim the central cities he needs to hold power, at least in a rump-state version of Syria.
> 
> Testifying on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper, offered a sobering picture of Russia’s success, even if it proves a temporary one.
> 
> “Putin is the first leader since Stalin to expand Russia’s territory,” he told a Senate committee. In Russia’s first major overseas military effort since its humiliation in Afghanistan 35 years ago, he said, “Its interventions demonstrate the improvements in Russian military capabilities and the Kremlin’s confidence in using them.”
> 
> While he predicted Mr. Putin would be challenged to afford the commitment over the long term, especially at a moment of falling oil prices, he offered a bleak assessment for Washington. “In Syria,” he said, “pro-regime forces have the initiative, having made some strategic gains near Aleppo and Latakia in the north, as well as in southern Syria.” While Mr. Assad has “manpower shortages,” he said, at least his forces were unified.
> 
> “The opposition has less equipment and firepower and its groups lack unity,” he told the senators. “They sometimes have competing battlefield interests and fight among themselves.”
> 
> Mr. Obama has been cautious, rejecting a plan, for example, from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the C.I.A. director at the time, David H. Petraeus, to start a large-scale arming of the rebel groups. Instead, the effort has been far more modest, and because even that has been ostensibly secret — though among the worst-kept secrets in Washington — it creates an impression that all the military momentum is on Mr. Putin’s side.
> 
> Battle maps from the Institute for the Study of War show, in fact, that it is: The Russians, with Iranian help on the ground, appear to be handing Mr. Assad enough key cities that his government can hang on.
> 
> Current and former administration officials say they see a parallel to Mr. Putin’s strategy in Ukraine: He keeps his foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, negotiating cease-fires and slow-progressing political accords, while making inroads on the battlefield.
> 
> Those inroads have limited Mr. Obama’s options. For example the much discussed “no-fly zone” would now be far harder to enforce, since Russian jets are flying in that airspace.
> 
> While the official position of the United States remains that Mr. Assad must leave office, Mr. Kerry and his aides will not say when he must leave, or whether he could participate in the process of selecting a new government. Their talk about finding a quiet exile for the Syrian leader has largely ceased.
> 
> As a result, it is hard to discern now what kind of end for Syria is now envisioned by the administration. The political document adopted in Vienna three months ago calls for a single, unified state. That seems increasingly unlikely. A fractured nation — part Alawite, part Sunni, part Kurd — is often discussed, but never officially.
> 
> Mr. Kerry is turning to the more immediate questions of cease-fire and humanitarian access. That did not impress Abu Youssef, whose farm in Aleppo Province has been hosting dozens of Syrians displaced by the recent fighting nearby. He asked to be identified only by a nickname for his safety.
> 
> “Yes, they will have a cease-fire, but after Aleppo it is finished,” he said in an online chat. “They will close off all of Aleppo, destroy the whole area, and then the Russians will negotiate a cease-fire,” he added. “After winning victory they will negotiate.”
> 
> Anne Barnard contributed reporting from Gaziantep, Turkey, Hwaida Saad from Beirut, Lebanon,  and Somini Sengupta from the United Nations.


----------



## tomahawk6

Putin is intent on heading off a land operation inside Syria,so he has dispatched a new missile cruiser to support Assad and his allies.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sends-brand-cruise-missile-ship-syria-report-103637167.html


----------



## Retired AF Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Putin is intent on heading off a land operation inside Syria,so he has dispatched a new missile cruiser to support Assad and his allies.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sends-brand-cruise-missile-ship-syria-report-103637167.html



Yahoo has the wrong photo in its article which shows a  Slava class missile cruiser, not the Zeleny Dol which is a Buyan-M class missile corvette.  

Wiki article on the  3M-54 Klub Kalibr  multi-role cruise missile. 

The Zeleny Dol will also be accompanied by a minesweeper.


----------



## tomahawk6

Thamks for the clarification. [


----------



## The Bread Guy

And in the spirit of Valentine's Day, from mock Putin ...


> Roses are red
> Violets are blue
> Me and Assad bombed cities
> To create refugees for the EU.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Thamks for the clarification. [



No problem.


----------



## CougarKing

As if Putin will just stop just because Obama and Kerry asked:

Defense News



> *White House: Obama Urges Putin To End Airstrikes Against Syrian Opposition*
> Agence France-Presse 4:36 p.m. EST February 14, 2016
> 
> RANCHO MIRAGE, United States — US President Barack Obama has urged his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to end airstrikes against Syrian opposition forces, the White House said Sunday.
> 
> In a phone call with Putin on Saturday, Obama stressed the need to quickly get humanitarian aid to besieged areas and initiating the cessation of hostilities across the war-wracked country, it said.
> 
> “In particular, President Obama emphasized the importance now of Russia playing a constructive role by ceasing its air campaign against moderate opposition forces in Syria.”
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

The Saudis, Turks and other Sunni/Gulf states mulling a land invasion of Syria?

Defense News



> *Saudi, Turkish Forces Prep for Potential Air, Land Invasion of Syria*
> By Awad Mustafa and Burak Ege Bekdil, Defense News 11:04 a.m. EST February 15, 2016
> 
> Originally published Feb. 13 at 3:40 p.m. ET; updated with more details from Turkish officials Feb. 15 at 11:05 a.m. ET.
> 
> DUBAI and ANKARA — Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Feb. 13 that Turkey and Saudi Arabia may join forces for ground operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group (ISIL) in Syria.
> 
> Although a senior Saudi military official said the Royal Saudi Air Force deployed fighter jets to the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, Turkish officials say the deployment will take place in the coming weeks.
> 
> Brigadier Gen. Ahmed Al-Assiri, consultant to Saudi Minister of Defense Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, confirmed to Saudi-owned news station Al-Arabiya the arrival of Saudi Air Force jets at the Turkish base.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## GR66

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The Saudis, Turks and other Sunni/Gulf states mulling a land invasion of Syria?
> 
> Defense News



I wonder if an invasion from Turkish territory has as much to do with keeping Syrian territory out of Kurdish hands as it does taking territory out of ISIL's hands.


----------



## tomahawk6

NATO member attacks Russian forces in Syria to save the anti-Assad forces.How is that going to pan out ?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Part of me wouldn't be sad to see them get their lights punched out if they did invade.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> NATO member attacks Russian forces in Syria to save the anti-Assad forces.How is that going to pan out ?



Even more to the point, does Article 5 get invoked when the NATO member is, de facto, invading another country?


----------



## Good2Golf

One might think that if the NAC hasn't approved such an invasion, the member nation might risk waiving it's right to Article 5 protection:support? ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## tomahawk6

I think the Turks would invade using the cover of self defense. [


----------



## The Bread Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I think the Turks would invade using the cover of self defense. [


These sorts of things can always be "arranged", right?


----------



## tomahawk6

The Turkish position is a bit surreal since they fostered/supported ISIS in the first place.I think the board is correct in suspecting that they would hit the Kurds,rather than Assad's forces.


----------



## McG

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The Saudis, Turks and other Sunni/Gulf states mulling a land invasion of Syria.


As noted in another thread, Turkey does not seem to be a logical stepping-off point for any gulf states army.  The lines of communication to support a gulf states army would be much simpler and safer if they were to launch from Jordan ... unless Jordan does not want to play.


----------



## Kilo_302

Very important piece in the Boston Globe. In fact, I'm surprised it was published in a mainstream paper. Good on the Boston Globe.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html#comments



> The media are misleading the public on Syria
> 
> 
> 
> Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.
> 
> For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.
> 
> This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.
> 
> Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”
> 
> This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.
> 
> The US would be more secure if it had followed Russia’s foreign policy lead in the past.
> 
> Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.
> 
> This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.
> 
> Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.
> 
> Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.
> 
> Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.
> 
> Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.
> 
> Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.
> 
> Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.


----------



## Good2Golf

> ...to find the truth about the Syrian war...



"The" truth? ???

There are a thousand truths about war, Syria is no exception.

Glad I put fresh batteries in my Russian-to-English translator, otherwise I'd have to do without the real truth...

G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy

Hey, noooooooo problem, it'll _ALL_ be sorted out as of Saturday ... </sarcasm>

_"New U.S.-Russia plan sets Syria ceasefire for Saturday"_ (Associated Press)
_"Ceasefire in Syria to commence at midnight on Feb. 27 – Russia & US"_ (RT News - Russian state media)
_"US, Russia announce Syria ceasefire as UN report decries war crimes"_ (Deutsche Welle)
_"US, Russia agree on plan for ceasefire to halt Syria fighting"_ (Al Jazeera English)
Edited to add some context ...

_"The US and Russia Just Brokered a Ceasefire in Syria — But No Syrians Have Signed on Yet"_ (VICE News)


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Edited to add some context ...
> 
> _"The US and Russia Just Brokered a Ceasefire in Syria — But No Syrians Have Signed on Yet"_ (VICE News)


The good news?  _"Syria's president has assured Russia of his readiness to respect a ceasefire deal brokered by Moscow and Washington, the Kremlin said.  "A phone call took place between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad," the Kremlin said in a statement on Wednesday.  "In particular, [Assad] confirmed the readiness of the Syrian government to facilitate the establishment of a ceasefire." ..."_
The bad news?  Doubts remain ... _"Kerry defends Syria ceasefire as Pentagon admits skepticism over deal"_


----------



## a_majoor

Long article in Spiegel on how Syria is morphing into a "world war" as the various parties exert their influence (or not) there. One chilling note in Instapundit is that the variuous powers that did the same things prior to both the Great War and WWII and 





> Any serious analysis of the start of the First and Second World Wars reveals that a lack of clarity of intention is extremely dangerous.


(Part 1)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-siege-of-aleppo-is-an-emblem-of-western-failure-in-syria-a-1077140.html



> *The War of Western Failures: Hopes for Syria Fall with Aleppo*
> The siege of Aleppo is a humanitarian catastrophe on a dramatic scale -- and a victory for Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has seized on the Syrian civil war to expose an impotent West and show his own geopolitical muscle. By SPIEGEL Staff
> 
> Aleppo has been a horrific place for some time now and few thought that it could get much worse. But things can always get worse -- that's the lesson currently being learned by those who have stayed behind in an effort to outlast this brutal conflict. People who have become used to dead bodies in the streets, hunger and living a life that can end at any moment.
> 
> "For the last two weeks, we've been living a nightmare that is worse than everything that has come before," says Hamza, a young doctor in an Aleppo hospital. At the beginning, in 2011, he was treating light wounds, stemming from tear gas or beatings from police batons. When the regime began dropping barrel bombs in 2012, the injuries got worse. But now, with the beginning of the Russian airstrikes, the doctors are facing an emergency. Every two or three hours, warplanes attack the city, aiming at everything that hasn't yet been destroyed, including apartment buildings, schools and clinics. Often, they use cluster bombs, which have been banned internationally.
> 
> They used to get around 10 serious injuries per day, but that number has now risen to 50, says Hamza, adding that most of their time is spent sorting body parts so they can turn them over to family members for burial. Russian missiles, he says, tear everyone apart who is within 35 meters of the impact.
> 
> "On one day, we had 22 dead civilians. The day before that, it was 20 injured children. A seven-year-old died and an eight-year-old lost his left leg." The Russians attacked in the morning, he says, as the children were on their way to school. "We are going to need years of therapy in order to be able to cope with all this."
> 
> There are seven doctors still working in the hospital. "Since the Russians began bombing the city, even more doctors have fled," Hamza says. There are only about 30 medical professionals left in all of Aleppo, he adds. His hospital too is under fire and Hamza's voice can be heard trembling over the phone. The regime, he says, has targeted the hospital five times in the past several years, but always missed. "The Russian bombardment, though, is very accurate." One recent bomb, he says, just barely missed them.
> 
> A Nightmare Worse than Sarajevo
> 
> "But here in the center of Aleppo," the doctor says, "there aren't any Free Syrian Army positions. Only civilians. They are bombing us to soften us up for the regime." Assad's troops, he explains, have already taken many surrounding towns and villages and he is afraid that Aleppo will soon be completely surrounded. One thing he is no longer hoping for is external assistance, saying the international community abandoned Syria long ago. "After all, the US supports the attacks," he says.
> 
> Hamza is unsure how he will survive. He does not know. But leaving the city would mean one fewer doctor, which in turn would translate into more deaths. He says that more and more people are leaving Aleppo and that entire city quarters are emptying out. Those who are able are fleeing while they still can.
> 
> Once upon a time Aleppo was the largest city in Syria, an economic powerhouse with a city center listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site. But over the last three years, it has been divided between the regime and the rebels -- the same rebels who joined together to drive Islamic State (IS) out of the city two years ago. Aleppo is the most important symbol of the resistance in the country, but now it is all but surrounded and cut off from the most important supply routes. There is no more diesel, hardly anything to eat and there are severe shortages of electricity and water. According to the United Nations, there are still some 300,000 people living in Aleppo -- a population that may now have been abandoned to a rapid death from the sky or the slow death of starvation. It is a nightmare that could ultimately become worse even than Sarajevo was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DER SPIEGEL
> 
> Map: The Battle of Aleppo
> Back then, during the siege of Sarajevo in the 1990s, NATO intervened, the Dayton Accords soon followed and the peace has held until today. In Aleppo, there are no signs of peace coming any time soon. The Syrian civil war has been raging for five years now and 250,000 people, or even a half million, have died -- the UN has stopped counting. It is a war in which more than 10 percent of the Syrian population has been killed or injured and 11 million have been displaced, either inside Syria or as refugees abroad. Yet there is still no Dayton in sight.
> 
> In Aleppo, the West is faced with the ruins of its policy of inaction, which it has sold as diplomacy. Western politicians, including the German foreign minister, have continually insisted that only a diplomatic solution can stop the violence in Syria. Even at the Munich Security Conference last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry was seeking to continue the Geneva talks, which had been suspended until Feb. 25 largely because Russia refused to reduce the number of airstrikes it is carrying out. Ultimately, a "cessation of hostilities" was agreed to in Munich, but it seems unlikely it will be worth much, particularly after the bombings of two hospitals on Monday, allegedly by the Russians, though Moscow has rejected the accusations.
> 
> Ground Zero of Global Geopolitics
> 
> Moscow's approach to diplomatic efforts has clearly shown just how cynical this game has become. Russia has said that a real cease-fire can't be reached before the end of February, making it clear that Russian President Vladimir Putin only intends to negotiate once he has reached his military goals. And German diplomats have said that Russia has refused to offer any guarantees that the Assad regime would adhere to a cease-fire.
> 
> Aleppo has made it clear that there could very well be a military solution for Syria: the victory of Assad achieved with the help of Russian bombs and Syrian and Iranian ground troops. It would be the victory of a regime that tortures and murders, a regime that drops barrel bombs on its own people and kills them with chemical weapons. It is a regime which stands accused by the UN of the "extermination" of its own population.
> 
> It would likely, though, be a victory without peace. Syrian President Bashar Assad's calculation seems to be that once the rebels are destroyed, only the regime and Islamic State would be left -- and no other alternatives. But the Sunnis, which have long been in the majority in Syria, aren't likely to throw their support behind an Alawite-Shiite Assad regime. Syria would face years of Somalia-like failed state status.
> 
> The war has long since ceased being solely about Syria. The country has become Ground Zero of global geopolitics, an unholy mixture of Russia's desired return to superpower status, an increasingly authoritarian Turkey, tentative US foreign policy, the Kurdish conflict, the arch-rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Islamist terror and the inability of a divided, crisis-ridden EU to do much of anything.
> 
> The war in Syria has transformed from a civil war into a world war.
> 
> It has long since reached Europe in the form of millions of refugees, terror attacks in Paris and attacks on tourists in Tunisia and Istanbul. And America, which has long been the leader of the West and guarantor of security in Europe, has refused to get involved. Aleppo is therefore a test of Russia's relationship with the West, a measuring stick for the value of democracy and a litmus test of the effectiveness of a morals-based foreign policy.
> 
> Vladimir Putin: 1; World: 0
> 
> Already, Vladimir Putin looks to be one of the conflict's winners. When it comes to the war in Syria, he is now in control. Without his bombers, military advisors and special forces, the weakened Syrian army wouldn't be able to make any advances at all. Indeed, it was the looming defeat of Assad that pushed Putin to intervene at the end of September in the first place. At the time, Putin was still claiming that his goal was that of defeating IS -- and many Western governments hoped naively that perhaps Russia could finally impose order in Syria.
> 
> Since then, though, it has become clear that the opposite is true: In four-and-a-half months, Putin has reversed the momentum in the Syrian civil war in favor of dictator Assad and has increased the chaos -- all while largely ignoring Islamic State. What's more, Moscow has targeted exactly those rebels that the West had hoped would fight IS. Putin has embarrassed the US superpower, discredited the UN and transformed Russia into an influential power in the Middle East.
> 
> In addition, his brutal operation has driven tens of thousands of people to take flight, thus intensifying the conflict between the EU and Turkey, dividing Europe even further and propelling the Continent's right-wing populist parties to unprecedented heights. Those are all desired side-effects that conform to Moscow's calculus: Everything that hurts Europe makes Russia stronger.
> 
> Berlin, too, has become convinced that Putin's involvement in Syria is about more than merely providing support for his ally Assad -- and about more than just the Middle East. For Putin, it's about Europe, about ending the sanctions and about recognition of Russia's zone of influence. "Putin is intentionally aggravating the refugee crisis in order to destabilize the EU. That is part of Russia's hybrid war," says German parliamentarian Niels Annen, foreign policy spokesman for the Social Democrats (SPD).
> 
> It has become increasingly clear that Russia is not a partner in the fight against Islamic State, as some in Europe had hoped. Rather, Russia is an adversary that is willing to achieve its goals by way of violence if necessary.
> 
> How, then, should Europe deal with the unpredictable ruler in the Kremlin? Should it talk to Putin or fight him? What are the consequences of American reticence for Europe? And how can this five-year tragedy be brought to an end? Is there still a solution at all beyond Bashar Assad?
> 
> The Foreign Ministry in Moscow is a combination of Russia's historical pride and its new-found self-confidence. The tip of the Stalin-era structure still juts darkly into the winter sky, just as it always has, but the facade of the right-hand wing shines with a fresh gloss. Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov, whose portfolio includes Syria, receives visitors on the fifth floor.
> 
> The Middle East, Gatilov says, will continue to be a focus of Russian foreign policy for years to come. He believes that Moscow has a particular responsibility for the region and that Russia is "geographically and historically closer" to Middle Eastern countries and that "we understand their mentality better than the West may do. At least we have never tried to force our will on the people there." The comment was aimed at Washington. But in the Syrian drama, Moscow has another significant adversary: Turkey. The ambitions of Recep Tayyip Erdogan are dangerous and the West must finally recognize that fact, Gatilov says.
> 
> Would Moscow suspend its bombing campaign during cease-fire negotiations as a gesture of goodwill? Gatilov shakes his head: No, the airstrikes must continue, "even in the event of a cease-fire. The logic of a cease-fire includes all those who have a real interest in negotiations, but it does not include terrorists."
> 
> The Russian Offensive
> 
> There are currently around 3,000 Russian troops stationed in the province of Latakia on Syria's coast and Russian jets have flown roughly 7,300 sorties since the end of September. During daylight hours, a Sukhoi warplane takes off from the Hmeymim air base about every 20 minutes and the Kremlin-controlled media releases claims of success daily: "The terrorists have sustained heavy losses in Aleppo!" and "More and more volunteers are joining Assad!" Footage of advancing Assad units is accompanied by hymnal choir music.
> 
> But because the troops loyal to Assad -- which have long been made up primarily of Iranians and Lebanese -- are in reality only advancing slowly, they are now being supported by Russian troops. That looks to be the case from video footage from northwestern Syria that has been analyzed by Russian activists belonging to the Conflict Intelligence Team. One video shows a Russian-speaking officer who is observing the battlefield. Another shows Msta-B artillery pieces, a weapon that Assad's army has never possessed. Russian commands can be heard: "Number two, ready. Fire!"
> 
> The Russian offensive managed to achieve more in just a few days than the Assad regime had in the years that preceded it -- and has also reduced Tehran's influence in Syria. Putin is now the most powerful man in Damascus and he appears to be following a strategy similar to the one he once employed in Chechnya: destroy everything until there are no more people left, there is no more resistance and no political alternative. Then he is free to install a leader of his choosing.
> 
> The West has been observing the consequential brutality of Putin's new foreign policy strategy with a mixture of awe, indignation and horror. Yet it is a strategy that has long since been outlined in Putin's speeches or in the papers of Kremlin-allied think tanks. Retired General Leonid Ivashov, once a high-ranking Defense Ministry official and now the president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems in Moscow, weeks ago declared 2016 to be a decisive year "in which Russia takes a leading role in the Middle East, thereby challenging the West and reestablishing its civilizing determination. Russia is becoming an independent geo-political actor." He says that Russia has redefined its goals and will distance itself from the West, thereby breaking America's dominant role. The Middle East, he believes, will be the focus of conflict.
> 
> Putin would never say such a thing openly, but it seems likely that he is thinking in a similar vein. He has never been particularly shy about pursuing his foreign policy vision. He showed as much in Georgia in 2008 and then again in the Ukraine crisis. Now, its Syria's turn.
> 
> Merkel 'Horrified by Human Suffering'
> 
> That's why it is naïve for senior German politicians, like Social Democrat head and Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel or Horst Seehofer, head of Bavaria's Christian Social Union -- the sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats -- to dabble in foreign policy by meeting with Putin in the hope that he might help solve Germany's and Europe's problems. The East-West dialogue that they allegedly wanted to restart has been continuing the entire time. But Putin has never rewarded attempts at mediation, preferring instead to use Moscow visits by Western politicians for his own domestic political propaganda. If anything, Putin is more affected by unambiguous criticism from Merkel, who recently said she is "horrified by the human suffering caused by the air raids, particularly from the Russian side." The Kremlin immediately and brusquely rejected the critique, an indication that such words are not without effect.
> 
> NATO too has recently changed its strategy when it comes to dealing with Putin. The Western alliance is currently preparing an operation in the fight against migrant smugglers in the Aegean and intends to station additional troops in its eastern member states. The plans are to be completed prior to the NATO summit scheduled for the beginning of July, with up to 1,000 troops to be sent to each of the eastern alliance members. Both objectives are primarily to be understood as messages to Putin: NATO is taking action on both the refugee crisis and in response to eastern provocations. An old Cold War term has taken on new life in the debate: deterrence.
> 
> But with the intensified air war against Islamic State in Syria, the danger of a direct confrontation with Russia has also increased. There have been repeated airspace violations in recent months, with the Turkish shooting down of a Russian military jet in November marking the most severe incident.
> 
> Ankara refrained at the time from asking for help from the alliance. But should Russian provocations continue, the Turkish government could invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which holds that an attack on one or more members of the alliance is an attack on the alliance as a whole. Should that come to pass, the Western alliance would find itself on the brink of a military confrontation with Russia.
> 
> And the situation in Aleppo could trigger the kind of escalation between the West and Russia that hasn't been seen in decades.


----------



## a_majoor

Part 2



> Currently, refugees from Aleppo and its surroundings are now camping out at exactly the place where this danger is at its greatest: on the border between Syria and Turkey. Tens of thousands of people have fled the Russian airstrikes in recent days, including many women and children, poor people, the elderly and the sick. Most of them possess little more than the clothes on their backs and for many, it is not the first time they have fled the violence of the civil war.
> 
> The tents set up on the Syrian side of the border by Turkish and international aid agencies have long since filled up. Instead, people are sleeping on cardboard out in the open, despite the rain and cold. Most of them want to get out of Syria as quickly as they can. But the Turkish military has closed the border, only allowing the sick and injured to pass. Soldiers are patrolling between the checkpoints and tanks roll down the streets while in the distance, explosions can be heard and columns of smoke can be seen.
> 
> "Here alone, we need at least an additional 1,500 tents. We have no sanitary facilities and not enough food," says the manager of the refugee camp at the Bab Al-Salameh ("Gate of Peace") border crossing. "Some 60,000 people who previously fled live in our camp and in seven additional camps. All schools and mosques are full of people. It is cold, it's raining. We need help!"
> 
> Dozens of refugees are camped out on a bit of unused land on the Turkish side of the border, not far from the city of Kilis. Waled Kabso, a 66-year-old mathematics teacher from Tall Rifaat, a town just north of Aleppo, is squatting on a blanket. He came with his daughter, whose son was injured and who is now receiving treatment in Kilis. His wife and 11 other children remain stuck in Syria. Kabso takes a mobile phone out of his jacket pocket and tries to reach his family, but is unable to. "Erdogan says we Syrians are his brothers, but why isn't he helping us?"
> 
> 'Erdogan Fears Kurds More than Assad or IS'
> 
> Turkey has already absorbed over 2.5 million refugees, but Erdogan no longer wants to take any more Syrians into the country. His reasoning has more to do with forcing political concessions from Europe than with fears that his country will be overwhelmed. Although Brussels has approved €3 billion in aid to Ankara for dealing with the refugee crisis in the country, Turkish politicians have been saying for some time now that they consider this sum to be too low.
> 
> The escalation of the conflict also provides Erdogan with the opportunity to push ahead with a plan he has long embraced: the establishment of a buffer zone in northern Syria as a place he can send refugees back to. More important than providing a safe zone for refugees, however, doing so would help Erdogan stop the advance of the Kurds. Erdogan himself has been one of the biggest losers in the Syrian drama. For years, he supported some of the rebels in their campaign against Assad, but with prospects of the Syrian dictator's ouster slipping, Erdogan's ultimate nightmare could actually come true -- the formation of a Kurdish proto-state located directly on the border, governed by allies of the banned Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK). "Erdogan fears the Kurds more than Assad or the IS," says Evren Cevik, the foreign policy spokesman for the pro-Kurdish HDP party in Turkey.
> 
> The Kurds have been most adept at positioning themselves in the complex Syrian conflict. They are aligned with the West against Islamic State and, more recently, increasingly with the Russians as well. Last Wednesday, the Kurdish-Syrian PYD opened its second international representation office on the outskirts of Moscow. So far, the liaison office is comprised only of a telephone, a conference table and two dozen chairs, but one need look no further than at one of the most high-profile guests at the opening reception to gauge the magnitude of the outpost's symbolic impact: none other than Alexander Borodai, who rose to international prominence as the "prime minister" of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People's Republic," a veteran of Moscow's hybrid warfare.
> 
> On the same night of the opening, Syrian Kurds captured the Minnigh air base, located between Aleppo and the Turkish border, following Russian airstrikes and advances by Assad-aligned troops. The Kurds deny they are fighting alongside the regime, but all indications suggest there is some form of cooperation.
> 
> The greatest risk right now, though, is that of a direct confrontation between Turkey and Russia. After Turkey shot down the Russian warplane in November, Moscow moved to increase air defenses so heavily in Syria that it would now be extremely difficult for Ankara to intervene in the hostilities taking place next door. There are nevertheless rumors that Turkey could be preparing for an invasion with ground forces. This week, Turkey sought to dispel such speculation that it was considering a solo ground effort, instead asking the US and other allies to form a coalition for a joint ground operation to bring hostilities in Syria to an end.
> 
> But what would happen if a Turkish aid convoy were to be attacked by Russian fighter jets? Or if the Russians armed the Kurds with anti-aircraft missiles -- and these were then used to shoot down a Turkish jet? Or if Turkey were to provide the rebels with these weapons which they could then use to target Russian jets? Would NATO have to intervene at that point?
> 
> Obama's Silence
> 
> The man who could answer many of these questions is saying very little these days about Syria, despite the recent drama. In the past, Barack Obama has said that Assad must step down and he still refers to him as "a brutal, ruthless dictator." At the same time, though, Obama is doing nothing to counter him and there are no signs that he has anything up his sleeve either.
> 
> The New York Times recently wrote that it is difficult to distinguish between Putin's and Obama's Syria strategies. Meanwhile, historian and journalist Michael Ignatieff and Brookings Institution fellow Leon Wieseltier lamented in the Washington Post, "It's time for those who care about the moral standing of the United States to say that this policy is shameful."
> 
> It is very clear at this point that the US has no strategy beyond its half-hearted efforts to provide training and arms to rebels -- and to otherwise rely on negotiations. But none of this has born any fruit, as events in early February demonstrated.
> 
> Secretary of State Kerry worked for three months to get the warring parties to a negotiating table under the auspices of the United Nations -- moderate rebels, representatives of the regime, Iranians, Saudi Arabians and Russians. But Moscow then turned around and launched its offensive right as the talks began. Within 48 hours, the Russian air force carried out 320 airstrikes in northern Syria alone. It was no coincidence that the storm on Aleppo began at that exact moment. The aim was that of destroying any possibility that the opposition would have a say in Syria's future.
> 
> "All sides were aware that a continuation of the talks would become increasingly difficult for the opposition as the regime intensified its military offensive," diplomats in Geneva said. After two days, the UN mediator Staffan de Mistura suspended talks. Right now, it doesn't look as though the opposition will be prepared to return to Geneva on Feb. 25 as planned. And why should they?
> 
> Assad's 'Core Syria' Strategy
> 
> Assad's aim right now is to capture militarily a kind of "core Syria," in which the majority of the population lives. If successful, he will be able to negotiate from a position of strength and dictate the conditions, which are certain not to include his resignation.
> 
> At a reception held during the Syria donors conference in London at the beginning of February, three human rights activists from Syria asked Kerry why the US hasn't done anything to ensure the protection of the civilians. The secretary of state countered: "Don't blame me, blame your opposition."
> 
> "Kerry was really angry," one of the women, who wishes to remain anonymous, recalls. "He said the opposition should have accepted what they were capable of getting. We replied that the Russians had dropped 230 bombs on Aleppo on a single day. He corrected us by saying it had only been 180. Then he said, 'These airstrikes will continue for three more months. The opposition will be decimated.' And he said it would be their fault and not that of the Russians."
> 
> Has Obama Given Up Hope?
> 
> When Putin intervened in Syria, Obama seemed to give up any hope of being able to solve the crisis in the Middle East, if he hadn't already. He is afraid of a confrontation with the Russians, but he is also concerned because he needs Moscow to ensure that the nuclear deal with Iran is a success.
> 
> "This administration is not going to change their engagement," argues Hardin Lang of the Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the current administration. Lang says Assad's removal is but a "distant prospect" now and it would be "difficult to imagine how a transfer of power between Assad and a new government could work anytime in the near future. The world looks different today than it did only three or four months ago," he says.
> 
> Currently, Obama's Syria strategy consists almost entirely of fighting Islamic State. In contrast to Assad, whom he views simply as being an annoying dictator, the president sees Islamic State as a threat to US national security.
> 
> In addition to airstrikes, this strategy also includes an emphasis on supporting Kurdish operations. More than 50 special forces are operating in northern Syria and Iraq right now in support of the Kurds. The strategy is proving effective, even if only slowly, with the area under IS control having been reduced by one-third. But this has also entailed a bizarre division of labor: The US is bombing IS in the east of Syria while Assad and Putin recapture the rest of the country. To many Syrians, that looks a lot like cooperation.
> 
> At the same time, in order to force the rebels to the table at the failed talks in Geneva, the US ceased providing military aid to rebel groups and also pressured its allies to do the same. The rebels, who are fighting against Assad, but also against IS, are embittered, angry and desperate. "How could Obama have been so naïve to believe that all he had to do was cordially invite Putin or Assad?" asks a perplexed Ismail Naddaf, of Aleppo's Fatah Brigade. "America never wanted to topple Assad. They wanted negotiations, but that was illusory. Assad doesn't negotiate."
> 
> 'Looking on as We Get Massacred'
> 
> Abd Alsalm Hmedi, a former fighter pilot from Aleppo who defected to the Free Syrian Army in 2012, also feels abandoned. "You cheered on the revolution, but now you are just looking on as we get massacred by Assad and the Russians," he says. Like many moderate rebels, he has the feeling that the predictions made long ago by radicals are now coming true: that America is betraying them. Some fighters will now join forces with IS and many will turn to the Nusra Front, part of al-Qaida.
> 
> Diplomacy too has its price, particularly when it fails. The price of Western passivity is the endless suffering of people in Syria, the strengthening of Putin, divisions in Europe and the rise of the radicals.
> 
> And yet, there were opportunities in the past five years for steering events in Syria down a different path. The West, especially the United States, could have been more resolute in its support of the rebels and provided them with the necessary equipment. It could have implemented and enforced a no-fly zone in parts of the country, giving countless people the possibility of staying in the country rather than fleeing. And Washington should have followed up on its threat that there would be consequences if the "red line" of a chemical weapons attack were crossed, as happened on August 21, 2013. Such a response could have come in the form of targeted military strikes against regime positions and military bases.
> 
> Back then, it still wasn't too late.
> 
> Playing Chicken with Moscow
> 
> If the West were to conduct a military intervention today in order to prevent further tragedy in Aleppo, the risk of a direct confrontation with Russia would be considerable. Despite that threat, an increasing number of observers are calling for action. If the US and NATO allow the siege of Aleppo to proceed, they will be "complicit in crimes of war," Ignatieff and Wieseltier wrote in the Washington Post. "Aleppo is an emergency, requiring emergency measures." It is also an opportunity, they wrote, "perhaps the last one, to save Syria."
> 
> Their plan calls for the US, with the use of its naval and air assets and under the NATO umbrella, to establish a no-fly zone from Aleppo to the Turkish border -- and make clear it will be defended. There is, of course, a threat of a confrontation with Russia, but that is in no way a foregone conclusion, especially given that the US Air Force is already in constant contact with the Russian military about its operations in Syria. If the price of intervention gets even higher for Putin, he would likely be more prepared to make concessions, they write. That "may set the stage for a tough and serious negotiation to bring an end to the slaughter."
> 
> Saudi Arabia has already announced that it wants to send in ground troops, prompting Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to warn on Thursday that boots on the ground could spark a "world war." However, there is nothing to indicate that the United States has any plans to lead an invasion army -- at least not for the remainder of Obama's final term. In all likelihood, though, starting in 2017, a more strongly interventionist president will reside in the White House. But by then, Assad may have won. It's a victory that would result in many, many losers.
> 
> Almost all of the rebels and most of the refugees are part of the Sunni majority. Middle East expert Nicholas Heras, from the Center for a New American Security, believes that changing the country's demographics is a cornerstone of Assad's strategy. "The Assad regime has a clear devastation and depopulation strategy," he recently told BuzzFeed. "Both the Assad regime and Russia understand full well that in order to win the war, they have to destroy the local communities that give the rebel movement support." If some rebels then join al-Qaida or Islamic State, that could even benefit Assad because it will increase the willingness to see the Syrian president as the lesser of two evils. Yet that would not mark a return to the pre-2011 Syria, nor would it establish the security and stability necessary for a return of the refugees. The hate is too strong, the destruction too vast and the fear of revenge and persecution by Assad's secret services too great. The remaining rebels may just continue fighting in a bitter war of attrition.
> 
> As the situation currently stands, people will continue to die. People like canary-breeder Juma al-Najar, 45, his wife and 18-year-old daughter. When the Russian airstrikes began, they fled their hometown of Maraa, located between Aleppo and the Turkish border. A week ago Monday, they returned in the hopes of soon being able to escape to Turkey, but on Tuesday, a bomb dropped by a Russian jet hit their house. Only their legs, arms and heads remained, quickly buried in six plastic bags.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People will continue to be wounded. People like the grandchildren of the farmer's wife Fatima al-Dik in the village of Ratyan. They were hit by a missile and are now fighting for their lives in a hospital in Kilis. Or people like the 82-year-old great-grandmother Fattum Kaddour, who has now, for the second time, been pulled out of the rubble of her bombed out home in Aleppo. She has now managed to flee to the Turkish border. "I wish I were dead," she says.
> 
> The horror simply continues, like in Aleppo, where two children were just recently torn apart by Russian bombs in front of their school. The school is in a basement, because it is at least halfway safe underground. The story is told by a former law student named Zuhair, who organizes classes in seven Aleppo schools. "Entire city quarters have emptied out; teachers have fled as have many families. And that even though the border is closed and nobody knows where they might be safe. Everywhere I look, I see fear in people's faces."
> 
> On Monday, Feb. 7, several bombs fell on a street in the residential Aleppo district of Sakhour, he recalls. "It was terrible. There were body parts lying all over, here a hand, there a head, a foot, a torso. And people just kept walking, hardly any of them looked shocked and nobody stopped," Zuhair says. "Have we become monsters? Or is that our way of staying normal amid the lunacy that surrounds us?"
> 
> By Benjamin Bidder, Katrin Kuntz, Juliane von Mittelstaedt, Christian Neef, Maximilian Popp, Christoph Reuter, Mathieu von Rohr, Christoph Schult, Holger Stark, Wladimir van Wilgenburg and Bernhard Zand


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It should all be over soon. The UN should be studying this by now and have a 50 year plan about supplying aid to the region with Canadian Boyscouts wearing blue berets in the lead role.

Because it's 2016 and humanitarian aid and peacekeeping is what Canada does.

Right?

  :crickets:


----------



## tomahawk6

TOW vs T-90 video.The T-90 survived with little to no damage.According to experts the Shtora system had been turned off.The missile glanced off the turret.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYOJSz1WOEg


----------



## CougarKing

It's too late for this, if reports from moderate Syrian rebels about Russian attacks on civilian targets are to be believed:

Defense News



> *Russia Halts All Syria Bombing Sorties to Avoid 'Mistakes'*
> Agence France-Presse 12:31 p.m. EST February 27, 2016
> 
> 
> MOSCOW — The Russian military said its warplanes suspended all sorties over Syria on Saturday in line with a ceasefire deal brokered by Russia and the United States, to avoid any "bombing mistakes".
> 
> The Russian and American militaries also exchanged maps of Syria, while fighting stopped in 34 Syrian settlements, the military said.
> 
> "Russia's air force fully halted bombing in the green zone," a senior representative of the General Staff, Sergei Rudskoi, told reporters, referring to the areas and armed groups that expressed interest in observing the ceasefire deal.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## PuckChaser

Interesting video on the T90... Is the TOW designed to penetrate the front turret face? Seems like that's the strongest armour point. It wasn't a complete miss, I'd say that tank is combat ineffective, someone bailed out grabbing their head immediately after. The concussion blast must have been unreal.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Fingers crossed ...


> The Honourable Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, today issued the following statement welcoming the cessation of hostilities in Syria:
> 
> “We welcome and support the cessation of hostilities in Syria, brokered by the United States and Russia, accepted by the regime and its backers, signed on to by opposition groups under the High Negotiations Committee, and endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council.
> 
> “While tenuous, the cessation of hostilities is an important step toward achieving the lasting political solution required to bring an end to the bloodshed in Syria.
> 
> “There were reports of some violations in the first hours of the ceasefire. Nonetheless, this agreement is an opportunity for the Syrian regime and its backers to demonstrate their willingness to work toward peace.‎
> 
> “Canada calls upon all sides to fully comply with the cessation of hostilities and to relieve the suffering of the Syrian people. The humanitarian needs inside the country are immense. Aid agencies—such as the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, UN agencies and local partners—must be able to operate freely in order to bring much-needed assistance to desperate populations. ‎
> 
> “If successful, this cessation of hostilities will save lives and create the space necessary for meaningful dialogue to resume in Geneva under the auspices of the UN.”


----------



## tomahawk6

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Interesting video on the T90... Is the TOW designed to penetrate the front turret face? Seems like that's the strongest armour point. It wasn't a complete miss, I'd say that tank is combat ineffective, someone bailed out grabbing their head immediately after. The concussion blast must have been unreal.



I guess we can conclude that the reactive armor averted a penetration of the warhead.The result could have been operator error or an older version of the missile.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Decent Q&A about the Syrian ceasefire here.  Bottom line:  it's a ceasefire not everyone's agreed to, and one that Russia can over-ride by saying, "hey, we're bombing 'terrorists' here" - but it might increase access to areas for humanitarian aid.  Excerpt below shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_


> ... _*What does the ceasefire in Syria mean on the ground? Which areas will observe it and which areas will not?*_
> 
> In theory, the ceasefire should apply to all of Syria. However, Russia has insisted that, along with its allied forces, it reserve the right to attack the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group and al-Nusra Front forces as these two groups are outside the framework of the ceasefire, as are other groups labelled as 'terrorist' by the UN.
> 
> This means that the ceasefire is not geographically demarcated. This exception to the ceasefire is very problematic, however, because Russian forces have attacked many rebel groups and civilian areas under the justification of attacking ISIL and Nusra.
> 
> The commitment to a political transition envisaged through the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 is unlikely to generate resources and energy at this point when so much focus is on the ceasefire.
> 
> These two groups have become convenient scapegoats for Russian attacks throughout Syria. Russia has essentially reserved the right to militarily engage any armed groups in Syria under the pretext of fighting ISIL and Nusra.
> 
> The United States has been working with Russia in an attempt to designate whether certain areas are ceasefire-abiding areas or not, but they have yet to agree on the specific geographic contours of the agreement. The absence of such contours will give Russia greater military latitude.
> 
> Practically speaking, this means that large swaths of Syrian territory in which these groups are present, particularly in the eastern and northwestern parts of the country, will remain active conflict zones.
> 
> Groups outside of the ceasefire, such as Ahrar al-Sham and others labelled as terrorist groups, remain present in parts of Homs and Hama provinces, as well as near Damascus, meaning these areas also potentially lie outside of the ceasefire zones.
> 
> _*What are the chances of the ceasefire holding and for how long? What could it hold and why might it not?*_
> 
> The ceasefire is unlikely to hold for three main reasons: First, Russia and its allies have reserved the right to attack forces outside of the ceasefire. This means that any violence on the ground that is committed by Russia or regime-led forces can be justified within the framework of the Munich agreement and the ceasefire under the pretence of fighting ISIL.
> 
> As such, Russia can have its cake and eat it, too; it has reserved the right to militarily engage armed groups while demanding that they cease all hostilities. Second, there are simply thousands of small, organised brigades in Syria that have little interest in a cessation of hostilities.
> 
> There is a network of armed groups who have benefitted handsomely from the conflict and for whom a ceasefire may threaten them and their activities.
> 
> It is counterintuitive; however, it is important to note that not all of the violence in Syria is driven by metapolitical issues, such as trying to overthrow the regime, and that there are micropolitical issues, such as security and smuggling, that also motivate armed groups.
> 
> With little incentive aside from the possible reprieve from Russian bombing, it is unlikely that many of these groups will be motivated to observe the ceasefire.
> 
> Third, most of the rebel groups inside of Syria cooperate with other groups on the battlefield. This cooperation has as much to do with their political or ideological affinities as it does their relative strengths and weaknesses and need to build alliances to make military gains.
> 
> Thus, very few armed groups inside Syria operate independently of other groups, blurring the distinctions between them. Isolating a few groups as outside of the ceasefire betrays the organisational structure of violence on the ground and the reality that most groups cooperate on the battlefield.
> 
> _*How many of the rebel groups have committed to the ceasefire?*_
> 
> According to the Syrian opposition's High Negotiations Committee (HNC), more than 100 rebel factions agreed to abide by the terms of the ceasefire. Many of the stronger rebel groups, such as Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam, are outside of the terms of the ceasefire as they are labelled as terrorist groups and remain subject to attacks.
> 
> This will complicate and weaken the ceasefire as both of these groups are known to cooperate with opposition-backed armed groups committed to the ceasefire. The greatest chance for success of the ceasefire is if there is significant compliance over the initial two-week period and that this brings different groups - whether officially or not - under the umbrella of the ceasefire.
> 
> _*What are the chances that humanitarian aid will reach the besieged areas?*_
> 
> While chances that the ceasefire will hold are slim, the agreement will likely lead to enhanced humanitarian access throughout the country.
> 
> Humanitarian airlifts are about to begin the delivery of relief to besieged areas, and there are agreements between regime and opposition forces to lift sieges imposed on specific towns and villages. This includes Madaya, where a devastating siege by regime forces has been in place for months.
> 
> Creating and maintaining access to areas in need should be reinforced by a large commitment of ISSG members to provide medicines, food, and other necessities. Unfortunately, the agreement does not carry stipulations for levels of humanitarian aid as it focuses solely on creating access.
> 
> _*Will the ceasefire lead to a political transition?*_
> 
> Unlikely. Advancing a political transition is the third goal of the agreement but is the least likely to generate any interest among the main parties at this point. At this point, international efforts have been focused on efforts where there is relative agreement specifically on the need for a ceasefire and creating humanitarian access.
> 
> The contours of a political transition remain very contentious, and while the Western world is gravitating towards the Russian position on the architecture of a political transition, there is enough resistance from the political opposition and regional states to prevent a consensus on the issue.
> 
> The commitment to a political transition envisaged through the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 is unlikely to generate resources and energy at this point when so much focus is on the ceasefire.


----------



## CougarKing

So is Putin essentially abandoning Assad with this withdrawal? No more Russian Hinds and Frogfoots engaged in CAS in support of the Syrian Army against ISIS?

Defense News



> *Putin Says Russian Troops Will Begin Withdraw From Syria*
> Jane Onyanga-Omara and Jim Michaels, USA Today 2:46 p.m. EDT March 14, 2016
> 
> 
> Russia will begin withdrawing troops from Syria beginning Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin said Monday.
> 
> The Russian news agency Tass quoted Putin as saying the move should aid talks aimed at ending the brutal civil war that has torn Syria apart for five years. Peace talks resumed Monday amid encouraging signs that a partial ceasefire agreement has led to the first significant drop in violence.
> 
> "I think that the tasks set to the defense ministry are generally fulfilled. That is why I order to begin withdrawal of most of our military group from Syria starting from tomorrow," Putin said Monday at a meeting with Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

This, from Russia's MoD (also attached if link doesn't work):


> *Russian Defence Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu ordered to redeploy main part of the Russian Armed Forces grouping which had been performing tasks on eliminating terrorists in Syria, starting from March 15, 2016*
> 
> In accordance to the order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the Defence Minister of the Russian Federation General of the Army Sergei Shoigu commanded to redeploying main part of the Russian Armed Forces grouping, which had been performing tasks on eliminating terrorists in the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic, to the territory of the Russian Federation starting March 15, 2016.
> 
> Technical staff of the airbase started preparing aircraft for the long-range flight to the Russian Federation airfields.
> 
> The personnel are loading equipment, logistics items and inventory into transport aviation aircraft.
> 
> Aircraft are to carry out flight from the Hmeymim airbase to permanent location airfields on the territory of Russia accompanied by military transport aviation. In the course of the long-range flight (more than 5,000 km), the aircraft will conduct intermediate flight stops at the Russian Federation airfields for being refueling and technical condition monitoring.


----------



## The Bread Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> So is Putin essentially abandoning Assad with this withdrawal? No more Russian Hinds and Frogfoots engaged in CAS in support of the Syrian Army against ISIS?


Not.  Quite.  Yet.


> Russia’s aviation group in Syria will continue delivering strikes on facilities of terrorists, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Nikolay Pankov said on Tuesday.
> 
> "Certain positive results have been reached. A real chance has emerged to bring an end to the long-time conflict and violence. However, it is early to speak about the victory over terrorism now," Pankov said.
> 
> "Russia’s aviation group has the task to continue delivering strikes on the facilities of terrorists," he told an event marking the accomplishment of tasks in Syria by Russian forces ...


----------



## Altair

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> So is Putin essentially abandoning Assad with this withdrawal? No more Russian Hinds and Frogfoots engaged in CAS in support of the Syrian Army against ISIS?
> 
> Defense News


I have notices that Ukraine has been pretty quiet with a chuck of Russian forces in Syria. 

I wonder if that changes now.


----------



## a_majoor

And more on the withdrawl from the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/14/vladimir-putin-orders-withdrawal-russian-troops-syria



> *Vladimir Putin orders Russian forces to begin withdrawal from Syria*
> Russian president says soldiers should begin pulling out of country as military intervention has largely achieved its aims
> 
> Vladimir Putin announces withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria
> Patrick Wintour in Geneva and Shaun Walker in Moscow
> Tuesday 15 March 2016 07.11 GMT Last modified on Tuesday 15 March 2016 10.37 GMT
> 
> The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has abruptly declared that he is withdrawing the majority of Russian troops from Syria, saying the six-month military intervention had largely achieved its objective.
> 
> The news on Monday, relayed personally to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, in a telephone call from Putin, followed a meeting in the Kremlin with the Russian defence and foreign ministers. He said the pullout, scaling back an intervention that began at the end of September, is due to start on Tuesday.
> 
> His move was clearly designed to coincide with the start of Syrian peace talks in Geneva and will be seen as a sign that Russia believes it has done enough to protect Assad’s regime from collapse.
> 
> More on this topicSyria's civil war: five years of Guardian reporting
> 
> Putin said he had ordered his diplomatic staff to step up their efforts to achieve a settlement to end the civil war which has cost at least 250,000 lives and is due to enter its sixth year on Tuesday.
> 
> Western diplomatic sources were both sceptical and startled by Putin’s unexpected and mercurial move. “We will have to wait and see what this represents. It is Putin. He has announced similar concessions in the past and nothing materialised,” a diplomat at the talks in Geneva told the Guardian.
> 
> Putin and US President Barack Obama spoke on the phone on Monday, with the Kremlin saying the two leaders “called for an intensification of the process for a political settlement” to the conflict. The White House said Obama welcomed the reduction in violence since the beginning of the cessation of hostilities but “underscored that a political transition is required to end the violence in Syria.”
> 
> Syrian activists and rights groups have accused the Russian campaign of indiscriminate attacks and causing enormous civilian casualties, something Russian officials have repeatedly denied. Moscow has also come under fire for targeting moderate opposition groups, while claiming to be fighting Islamic State.
> 
> The Syrian opposition delegation had been given no notice of Putin’s announcement but said it hoped it was a potential signal that the Russian president was demonstrating that he, and not Assad, would decide any endgame in Syria.
> 
> “If there is seriousness in implementing the withdrawal, it will give the talks a positive push,” said Salim al-Muslat, spokesman for the rebel high negotiations committee. “If this is a serious step, it will form a major element of pressure on the regime, because the Russian support prolonged the regime. Matters will change significantly as a result of that.”
> 
> The talks are likely to be deadlocked on the extent to which Assad will be allowed to remain in power during any political transition and after any fresh UN-supervised presidential elections due in 18 months.
> 
> More on this topicThe Guardian view on the refugee crisis: dial down the rhetoric, and have the difficult debate | Editorial
> 
> In a statement announcing the withdrawal, the Kremlin said Putin and Assad agreed that the actions of Russia’s air force in Syria had allowed them to “profoundly reverse the situation” in connection to fighting terrorists in the region, having “disorganised militants’ infrastructure and inflicted fundamental damage upon them”.
> 
> “The effective work of our military created the conditions for the start of the peace process,” Putin added. “I believe that the task put before the defence ministry and Russian armed forces has, on the whole, been fulfilled. With the participation of the Russian military … the Syrian armed forces and patriotic Syrian forces have been able to achieve a fundamental turnaround in the fight against international terrorism and have taken the initiative in almost all respects.”
> 
> Moscow will, however, maintain a military presence in Syria, and a deadline for complete withdrawal has not yet been announced. Putin said that the existing Russian airbase in Hmeymim in Syria’s coastal province of Latakia and a naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartous would continue to operate. The Russian air force has been capable of running 100 sorties a day from the base and would be able quickly to re-equip it if it felt the military balance required it to do so.
> 
> The Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, said on Monday the intervention had led to the death of 2,000 rebels fighting against the Syrian government and the killing of 17 field commanders. He added that more than 200 oil installations had been attacked, 400 settlements taken and the chief route to supply rebel fighters from Turkey had been cut off.
> 
> Russian airstrikes killed 4,408 people including 1,733 civilians between September 2015 and early March 2016, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
> 
> Given that Russia-backed separatists launched one of their biggest offensives in Ukraine in February 2015, just as Putin joined other world leaders in negotiating a ceasefire, there will undoubtedly be scepticism over whether the announcement of the end of the Syrian mission can be taken at face value. However, Russia’s overarching goal of securing a lead seat at the table over the fate of Syria has clearly been achieved. A withdrawal will prevent the inevitable “mission creep” that appeared to be on the cards.
> 
> “Essentially, they’ve achieved their goals,” said Mark Galeotti, professor of global affairs at New York University and currently based in Moscow. “They’ve stabilised the regime, turned momentum round on the battlefield so the regime has the upper hand, and now we’ve got a ceasefire and political talks.”
> 
> More on this topicThe deadly efficiency of Isis and how it grew on the global stage | David Kilcullen
> 
> As the talks opened in Geneva, Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy for Syria, reminded negotiators that a whole generation of Syrian children – more than 3.5 million under the age of five – had never experienced anything but war. De Mistura will brief the UN security council meeting in New York in a closed session from Geneva and his aides were making no initial response to the Russian move.
> 
> Western governments, along with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have repeatedly accused Putin of deploying his air force not to bomb Isis targets but rebel forces including the moderate Free Syrian army, often hitting schools and hospitals. Earlier this month, Nato’s military commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, accused Putin of “deliberately weaponising” the refugee crisis from Syria in an attempt to overwhelm Europe.
> 
> Muslat, meanwhile, has denied the Russian intervention has seriously weakened the opposition’s negotiating hand. Speaking to the Guardian, he said: “We are closer to a solution now more than ever. We have been patient and we hope to see something in the coming few days, at least some light at the end of the tunnel that says at this, or that, time there will be something for the Syrians.
> 
> “Before, we saw all doors closed; now we see some doors open. We want to see an end to the nightmare. We want to see it today and before tomorrow. The future of Syria should be decided here and decided very soon.”
> 
> He claimed the shaky two-week ceasefire and the start of humanitarian convoys was changing the atmosphere inside Syria. But in a sign of how perilous the talks are likely to become, the Syrian foreign minister, Walid Muallem, set out the government’s determination to keep Assad’s future out of the talks. “We will not talk with anyone who wants to discuss the presidency ... Bashar al-Assad is a red line.”
> 
> Muslat countered: “The political transition process has to be without Assad. You do not want to keep a murderer who has killed half a million people and destroyed a country. There is no place for Assad in Syria. He is not acceptable to the Syrian people.”
> 
> Significantly, he added that it might be possible for Assad to remain for a period if there was a clear guarantee that he would stand down. “At the least, we have to see something that Assad will go and we do not want to hear from Russia that nobody should discuss the future of Assad.”
> 
> He stressed Assad “could not be a member of any transitional governing body”.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Altair said:
			
		

> I have notices that Ukraine has been pretty quiet with a chuck of Russian forces in Syria.
> 
> I wonder if that changes now.


op:


----------



## Altair

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> op:


Russian soldiers should be owed some leave after this deployment.  We all know what Russians soldiers do on leave.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> I have notices that Ukraine has been pretty quiet with a chuck of Russian forces in Syria.
> 
> I wonder if that changes now.



Could be that Russia was unable to support 2 warfighting deployments at the same time, which is very telling considering how close Ukraine is.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Could be that Russia was unable to support 2 warfighting deployments at the same time, which is very telling considering how close Ukraine is.



Reading a lot of news about Ukraine lately, many in NATO and Ukraine are monitoring build ups, intelligence is showing training for an amphibious assault on Mariupol, so a spring offensive by the separatists is being well anticipated and likely. Never was a ceasefire in reality on the ground, just a calm period.


----------



## George Wallace

I suppose "Winter" has a calming affect.  (Now the climatologists are going to declare Global Warming as a factor in the outbreak of hostilities.)


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Never was a ceasefire in reality on the ground, just a calm period.



It's called winter. 

Nobody likes to go on the offensive in the winter. It happens sometimes (the Chinese offensive in North Korea during the winter of 1950-51 immediately comes to mind) but both sides digging in for the winter is pretty common in extended warfare.


----------



## tomahawk6

Or Putin is confident of the outcome of peace talks.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Back to Syria, a couple of updates:

"Splinter!" (1):  _"*The Syrian Kurdistan (commonly known as Rojava) are expected today to declare a ‘federalism system’ in the north of Syria, said a Syrian Kurdish official*.  The Syrian Kurdish authorities are allegedly to bring the three cantons under one federal system that would mean "widening the framework of self-administration which the Kurds and others have formed," Reuters reported, citing Idris Nassan, an official in the foreign affairs directorate of Kobani ..."_ (map attached)
"Splinter!" (2)  _"*Syrian government representatives have ruled out starting direct negotiations with the opposition, as UN-backed peace talks entered a third day in Geneva*.  On Tuesday, opposition leaders said they were ready to meet face-to-face.  But chief government negotiator Bashar al-Jaafari rejected the idea, calling his opposition counterpart a terrorist ..."_


----------



## CougarKing

The full article doesn't state what kind of artillery...2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns?  ???

Reuters



> *Russia pulls most strike aircraft from Syria, now using artillery: U.S.*
> Reuters
> March 18, 2016 12:59 PM
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russia has withdrawn most of its strike aircraft from Syria, the U.S. military said on Friday, adding that it was now entirely carrying out strikes in support of Syrian government forces using artillery instead of aircraft.
> 
> "They still have helicopters and some transport aircraft. But what we've seen is that the majority of Russian strike aircraft have left Syria," Colonel Patrick Ryder, a spokesman at the U.S. military's Central Command, told Pentagon reporters.
> 
> Ryder said the United States had not seen Russia carrying out any air strikes in recent days, including around the Syrian city of Palmyra and was instead using artillery.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The full article doesn't state what kind of artillery...2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns?  ???
> 
> Reuters


Here's a tidbit from a Reuters story about a map from November of last year:


> ... The map was shown on Russian state television footage of a briefing at defense ministry headquarters on Tuesday evening, when Putin was being shown how the Kremlin was intensifying its operations against Islamic State.
> 
> Spotted by an eagle-eyed Russian military blogger, the map featured a dot near to the settlement of Sadad, between the cities of Homs and Damascus, accompanied by the words: "5 Gabatr 120th ABR 2A65 Msta B, six pieces from 14:00 06.11."
> 
> "Gabatr" is an acronym commonly used in the Russian military for "Howitzer Battery." The acronym "ABR" stands for "Artillery Brigade". The designation "2A65 Msta B" describes a type of howitzer in use by the Russian military.
> 
> The Russian military has a 120th artillery brigade, based in Siberia armed with 2A65 guns. A duty serviceman contacted by Reuters on Wednesday confirmed the brigade was based in Siberia, but said he did not know whether it was active in Syria ...


The map in question (attached) appears to have been shared by Jane's:


> The Russian Ministry of Defence has confirmed US claims that it has deployed helicopters and artillery deep into Syria.
> 
> The apparently unintentional confirmation came during a televised briefing on 17 November that included a close-up of a map showing the military situation around the towns of Sadad and Mahin in Homs province, where Russia is helping Syrian government forces repel an offensive by the Islamic State.
> 
> The deployments marked on the map included four Mi-24 attack helicopters and one Mi-8 utility helicopter at Al-Shayrat Air Base and a unit of the 120th Artillery Brigade deployed at a Syrian Arab Army (SAA) base just to the south with six 152 mm 2A65 Msta-B towed howitzers.
> 
> From that position, the guns could cover both the airbase and provide fire support to Syrian forces operating around Mahin, 25 km to the southeast ...


This ORBAT (RUSI) shows the following:


> ... -- Six 2A65 Msta-B towed howitzers from the howitzer battery of the 8th Artillery Regiment (Simferopol, Crimea) – seventy men
> -- Eighteen 2A65 Msta-B howitzers from the howitzer battalion of the 120th Artillery Brigade (Kemerovo, Siberia) – 270 men
> -- Four 9A52 Smerch vehicles forming two MLRS batteries which might originate from the 439th Guards Rocket Artillery Brigade (Znamensk, Astrakhan Province) – 50–60 men ...


----------



## tomahawk6

The presence of 2 North Korean Army units has been revealed.A bit surprising but its the middle east for you. :camo:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/03/22/North-Korea-troops-fighting-in-Syrian-civil-war-delegate-says/1021458696828/


----------



## ueo

I think worrisome is a better term.


----------



## tomahawk6

US Special Operations personnel surrounded IS Finance Minister and #2 in his car in Syria.He was given a chance to surrender,instead he opened fire and he died in a hail of bullets.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/25/backstory-behind-terror-takedown.html?intcmp=hpbt1


----------



## CBH99

Anybody else call total BS on the North Korean troop thing?


----------



## winnipegoo7

North Korea has had a long military relationship with Syria. It seems likely that some North Korean soldiers are there. The real question is how many and in what capacity.


----------



## Altair

Wonder what would happen if some north Korean troops got captured by a group like isil.

Now I don't wish that fate on anybody but it would be interesting to see how the dear leader reacts to his men in a isil propoganda video.


----------



## tomahawk6

Supported by Russian forces the Syrian Army has retaken Palmyra.IS forces only line of retreat is towards Iraq,so out in the open they should be destroyed in detail.

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-troops-drive-historic-palmyra-063630529.html?nf=1


----------



## Retired AF Guy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Anybody else call total BS on the North Korean troop thing?



Back in 2012 the UN was investigating reports that, among things, accused the N. Koreans of   illegally supplying weapons to Syria. Other reports, including one in  2013 have also mentioned a small number of N. Korean soldiers in Syria acting as advisors but so far nothing confirmed.

So, it is possible, but I, like you, remain a little doubtful.


----------



## CougarKing

A Forward Air Controller officer?

Agence-France-Presse



> *Russian military says special forces officer killed near Palmyra: agencies*
> AFP
> March 24, 2016
> 
> 
> Moscow (AFP) - A Russian special forces officer has been killed near Syria's Palmyra, a military representative at the Russian base in Syria was quoted as saying by Russian agencies Thursday.
> 
> "An officer of Russian special operations forces was killed near Palmyra while carrying out a special task to direct Russian airstrikes at Islamic State group targets," the unnamed representative said, without giving the date of the incident.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

This was reported elsewhere several days ago.  Gutsy move.


----------



## McG

Israel observes a substantial Russian presence remains in Syria, though some capabilities have changed (such as some fixed wing assets having been replaced by an increase of attack helicopters).

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/mideast-africa/2016/03/28/syria-air-power-russia-pullout-israel-putim/82338892/


----------



## a_majoor

More from Instapundit on Russia's moves:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230328



> MASKIROVKA: Russia, despite draw down, shipping more to Syria than removing.
> 
> It is not known what the ships were carrying or how much equipment has been flown out in giant cargo planes accompanying returning war planes.
> 
> But the movements – while only a partial snapshot – suggest Russia is working intensively to maintain its military infrastructure in Syria and to supply the Syrian army so that it can scale up again swiftly if need be.
> 
> Putin has not detailed what would prompt such a move, but any perceived threat to Russia’s bases in Syria or any sign that President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s closest Middle East ally, was in peril would be likely to trigger a powerful return.
> 
> Vladimir Putin seems to be handling his withdrawal from Syria with much more wisdom and foresight than President Obama showed when he scuttled our Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in 2001.



Putin is certainly not leaving an opening for a power vacuum to occur under his watch.


----------



## tomahawk6

IS is said to have used mustard gas on Syrian troops.They probably captured Syrian chemical weapons stores.Not good if true.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/isis-mustard-gas-attack/2016/04/04/id/722245/


----------



## The Bread Guy

One (among many) reason the place is a bit of a soup sandwich ...


> Syrian militias armed by different parts of the U.S. war machine have begun to fight each other on the plains between the besieged city of Aleppo and the Turkish border, highlighting how little control U.S. intelligence officers and military planners have over the groups they have financed and trained in the bitter five-year-old civil war.
> 
> The fighting has intensified over the last two months, as CIA-armed units and Pentagon-armed ones have repeatedly shot at each other while maneuvering through contested territory on the northern outskirts of Aleppo, U.S. officials and rebel leaders have confirmed ...


----------



## tomahawk6

Today the Russians lost one of their most advanced helicopter gunships,the Mi-28 with the loss of both aircrew.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/04/12/this-is-the-advanced-russian-helicopter-that-just-crashed-in-syria/


----------



## CougarKing

Israel might have given Putin another excuse to reverse his aerial withdrawal:

Aviationist



> *There are conflicting reports on alleged clash between Russian and Israeli aircraft near Syria*
> Apr 22 2016 -
> By David Cenciotti
> Did Russian forces in Syria fire on Israeli warplanes?
> 
> Several Israeli media outlets said that Russian forces in Syria have fired at least twice on Israeli military aircraft in the last weeks.
> 
> Although no specific dates or locations for the incidents were given, it looks like these close encounters occurred as Israeli Air Force jets hit Syria to prevent suspected arms handovers to Hezbollah.
> 
> According to Reuters, Israel’s Channel 10 TV said a Russian jet approached an Israeli warplane off the Mediterranean coast of Syria last week even though there was no contact between them.
> 
> *Probably referring to the same episode, Debkafile reported of a “near clash” between four IAF F-15s and two Russian Su-30SMs on Apr. 20:* flying over the Med, the Israeli jets approached Hmeymim airbase, near Latakia, in northwestern Syria, where the Russian Air Force contingent is headquartered, forcing the Russians to scramble two of their Sukhoi jets.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

So, which is it, Russia?

_"Russian Air Strikes Hit U.S.-backed Syrian Rebels"_
_"Moscow Hopes US Not to Resort to Military Solution in Syria"_


----------



## CougarKing

Milnews, I'm guessing Pravda is saying "lies, lies, lies!" again, eh?

Defense News



> *Moscow Denies Strikes on US-Backed Rebels in Syria*
> Agence France-Presse 12:48 p.m. EDT June 19, 2016
> 
> MOSCOW — Russia’s defence ministry on Sunday denied bombing US-backed rebels in southern Syria earlier this week.
> 
> In a video conference with Russian military officials, the Pentagon said Saturday that it had expressed “strong concerns about the attack on the coalition-supported counter-ISIL forces at the Al-Tanaf garrison.”
> 
> Hours later Russian defence ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov denied that Russia had bombed areas where US-backed rebels are operating.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Assad's forces on the march:

CTV



> *Syrian forces advance on IS-held air base*
> Raqqa
> Philip Issa, The Associated Press
> Published Sunday, June 19, 2016 1:45PM EDT
> Last Updated Sunday, June 19, 2016 3:04PM EDT
> 
> BEIRUT -- Syrian government forces advanced to within 10 kilometres of the Islamic State-occupied Tabqa air base in the northern part of the country on Sunday, part of a push to try to unseat the extremist group from its de facto capital, Raqqa.
> 
> Government forces recaptured the nearby Thawra oil field from IS militants, according to a Syrian journalist Eyad al-Hosain, who is embedded with the army. Activists said Sunday's government assault was accompanied by an aerial campaign on the town of Tabqa, five miles north of the air base. The activist group, Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, which smuggles news out of IS-held territory, reported that fighter jets struck the town with cluster munitions, killing at least 10 civilians.
> 
> The Tabqa base, 45 kilometres from Raqqa, holds strategic and symbolic value in the government campaign on the IS capital. It was the last position held by government forces in Raqqa province before IS militants overran it in August 2014, killing scores of detained soldiers in a massacre they documented on video. Raqqa itself became the militants' first captive city.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Why wasn't this intercepted by Iron Dome?

Defense News



> *Syrian-Launched UAV Evades Israeli Air Defenses*
> Barbara Opall-Rome, Defense News 4:24 p.m. EDT July 17, 2016
> 
> TEL AVIV, Israel — An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) from Syria managed Sunday *to penetrate Israeli airspace and evade two Patriot anti-air interceptors and possibly an F-16-launched air-to-air missile, sources here said.*
> 
> An Israeli military spokesman insisted Israel Air Force air defenders detected the UAV prior to its violation of Israeli airspace on Sunday afternoon in the area of the Golan Heights. According to a July 17 statement, the Air Force continued to track the target in Israeli skies, yet failed to down the intruder, despite three intercept attempts.
> 
> “The aircraft was detected prior to entering the nation’s territory and was fully tracked by the Israel Air Force,” noted a July 17 statement. “From the initial investigation, it was found that three intercept attempts took place as per procedure. No hit of the target was identified.”
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Too slow of a target, maybe?


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Too slow of a target, maybe?


Or too small???


----------



## CougarKing

More to reinforce the idea that Putin is in bed with the Iranians:

Al Jazeera



> *Syria's civil war: Russian jets bomb rebels from Iran*
> The fighter jets took off from western Iran and conducted air strikes in Aleppo, Idlib and Deir el-Zor provinces.
> 
> The Russian defence ministry said on Tuesday that its fighter jets had taken off from the Hamadan airbase in western Iran [Reuters]
> 
> Russian jets based in Iran on Tuesday struck targets inside Syria, the Russian defence ministry said, after Moscow deployed aircraft to an Iranian air force base to widen its campaign in Syria.
> *
> The ministry said the strikes, by Tupolev-22M3 long-range bombers and Sukhoi-34 fighter bombers, were launched from the Hamadan airbase in western Iran.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## tomahawk6

The Iranians have Quds Force units fighting in Syria to support Assad,so this development is just an extension of their working relationship.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Russians and Syrians seem to be using thermobaric weapons in Syria.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/08/16/Vaccum-bombs-in-Syria-the-latest-in-a-long-history-of-aerial-atrocities/2031471376703







Imagine taking a deep breath then submerging yourself in water. Then imagine having all of the oxygen forced instantaneously from your body. Try to inhale again. But instead of cold water filling your lungs, toxic, flammable particles start killing you from the inside out.


----------



## tomahawk6

To encourage the Syrians/Russians from bombing US allies/forces the USAF is flying combat air patrols.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/us-fighter-jets-protect-hasakah-air-space-after-syrian-government-airstrikes

Nearly half a dozen U.S. fighter jets have contributed to protecting the air space over Hasakah, Syria, after Syrian government warplanes conducted airstrikes there on Thursday, allegedly against Kurdish forces. The location is also near American special operations forces and allies on the ground. 

“We will always seek to protect our forces and we have an inherent right to ensure self defense if a situation dictates,” Air Forces Central Command spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Karns told Air Force Times Saturday. 

Karns said the jets providing combat air patrols include F-15Es, F-16s and F-18s.

In a follow on incident Friday, two U.S. F-22s intercepted Syrian aircraft “which attempted to transit the area and were met by coalition aircraft,” Karns said. “The presence of the aircraft effectively encouraged the Syrian aircraft to depart the airspace, without further incident.”


----------



## tomahawk6

Another day another intercept of Syrian aircraft that were too close to US Special Forces.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/850e04c3-a5c8-3fae-bef7-e8ec6fb802d9/ss_syrian-jets-flying-close-to.html

wice in the last few days, Syrian jets performing air strikes close to where US SOF are operating in northeastern Syria caused coalition aircraft to scramble. On Aug. 18, US jets were dispatched to intercept the Syrian attack planes that were attacking targets near Hasakah supporting regime forces fighting the Syrian Kurdish forces. About 300 US military operate in the same area, training Kurdish forces who are fighting Daesh. Syrian pilots did not respond to the radio calls of the Kurdish on the general emergency frequency nor did they acknowledge calls attempted by the coalition on the air safety channel used for communication with the Russian aircraft operating over Syria. Anyway, by the ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Russians and Syrians seem to be using thermobaric weapons in Syria.
> 
> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/08/16/Vaccum-bombs-in-Syria-the-latest-in-a-long-history-of-aerial-atrocities/2031471376703
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine taking a deep breath then submerging yourself in water. Then imagine having all of the oxygen forced instantaneously from your body. Try to inhale again. But instead of cold water filling your lungs, toxic, flammable particles start killing you from the inside out.



Meh!  It's only against vermin.  They deserve every one.


----------



## Jarnhamar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Meh!  It's only against vermin.  They deserve every one.


Have to agree with you.  They're a threat to humanity and should be treated as such.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Turkey has gone across the border.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755835/Turkey-cross-border-operation-free-IS-held-Syrian-town.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/turkey-cross-border-operation-syria-1.3733464


----------



## Journeyman

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Meh!  It's only against vermin.  They deserve every one.


Actually, the Russian and Syrian airstrikes and arty are targeting overwhelmingly the anti-Assad rebels -- the ones the West is training and arming -- not ISIS;  they're the "good guys" (this week, anyway).


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Actually, the Russian and Syrian airstrikes and arty are targeting overwhelmingly the anti-Assad rebels -- the ones the West is training and arming -- not ISIS;  they're the "good guys" (this week, anyway).


There you go being all nuanced again ...  ;D


----------



## Lightguns

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Actually, the Russian and Syrian airstrikes and arty are targeting overwhelmingly the anti-Assad rebels -- the ones the West is training and arming -- not ISIS;  they're the "good guys" (this week, anyway).



Lol, agree, there are no good guys in a civil war.  I am enjoying watching Russia expend it's political capital for such tiny return.  Like America in Vietnam, when this is all over and regardless of who wins, they are going to lose some strategic bases in the Med, they just don't realize it yet.


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Have to agree with you.  They're a threat to humanity and should be treated as such.



I read a news story about a Syrian immigrants to Canada (came here long before the civil war). They pointed out how the vast majority of civilian casualties are being caused by the Assad Regime, not ISIS....


----------



## Altair

Lumber said:
			
		

> I read a news story about a Syrian immigrants to Canada (came here long before the civil war). They pointed out how the vast majority of civilian casualties are being caused by the Assad Regime, not ISIS....


True, but nations are not intervening in Syria out of R2P. They are there because ISIL was slaughtering westerners and making a production out of it.

Assad has powerful backers and as such can do whatever he wants because it's not worth the cost to take him out. Also, you harm Assad you help terror groups like AQ and ISIL. 

There is no good I  any action you take in Syria only different levels of shitty


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of explanation of the lead-up to Turkey's push into Syria, via Reuters:


> ... A Turkish official said the ground incursion had been in the works for more than two years but had been delayed by U.S. reservations, resistance from some Turkish commanders, and a stand-off with Russia which had made air cover impossible.
> 
> Turkey had made the case more strongly to Washington over the past few months, had patched up relations with Russia, and had removed some of the Turkish commanders from their posts after finding they were involved in the coup attempt, paving the way for the operation to go ahead, the official said ...


----------



## CougarKing

Turkish armor pushing deeper into Syria:

Reuters



> Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:50am EDT
> *Turkish forces deepen push into Syria, draw U.S. rebuke over targets*
> Turkey's militant pursuit will be unrelenting: Erdogan
> 01:37
> 
> By Lisa Barrington and Umit Bektas | BEIRUT/KARKAMIS, Turkey
> 
> Turkish-backed forces pushed deeper into northern Syria on Monday and drew a rebuke from NATO ally the United States, which said it was concerned the battle for territory had shifted away from targeting Islamic State.
> 
> At the start of Turkey's now almost week-long cross-border offensive,* Turkish tanks, artillery and warplanes provided Syrian rebel allies the firepower to capture swiftly the Syrian frontier town of Jarablus from Islamic State militants.*
> 
> Since then, Turkish forces have mainly pushed into areas controlled by forces aligned to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a coalition that encompasses the Kurdish YPG militia and which has been backed by Washington to fight the jihadists.
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Lightguns

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Turkish armor pushing deeper into Syria:
> 
> Reuters



I would submit that the next ME domino to fall will be Turkey.  Whatever would caused them to believe they can win this unwinnable war is beyond me, if they are just building a buffer zone then they can expect a lot more snapping at them than they had before, if they are trying to deal a death blow to the Kurds.......  Stuck in Syria, snapped at by Kurds and ISIL, they will become part of the ME Forever War and effectively a Russian Vassal with a seat at NATO.  I think this is going to spill into open war in the Caucasus and later middle Asia.  Going to be an interesting 3 next decades.


----------



## Journeyman

I just wish someone..._anyone_...  would decisively liberate Aleppo and get trade back on track;  my stash of Aleppo spice (a pepper) ran out over six months ago, and I haven't been able to find a replacement!   

War IS hell!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I just wish someone..._anyone_...  would decisively liberate Aleppo and get trade back on track;  my stash of Aleppo spice (a pepper) ran out over six months ago, and I haven't been able to find a replacement!
> 
> War IS hell!


Nobody EVER considers these knock-on effects - the horror, the horror


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Spice must flow ... he who controls the Spice ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlV7Gh1sbVs

That one is just for you, Journeyman.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Altair said:
			
		

> True, but nations are not intervening in Syria out of R2P. They are there because ISIL was slaughtering westerners and making a production out of it.
> 
> Assad has powerful backers and as such can do whatever he wants because it's not worth the cost to take him out. Also, you harm Assad you help terror groups like AQ and ISIL.
> 
> There is no good I  any action you take in Syria only different levels of shitty



If the regime fell you could easily expect a huge massacre of Alwaites and other non-Sunni minorities that sided with them. I don't expect that the regime can regain and hold all of the former Syria. They barely have the manpower to hold onto their current gains.


----------



## Lumber

Syrian Regime "allied" with Russians against Syrian Rebels and Daesh
Syrian Rebels "allied" with Western Nations against Syrian Regime and Daesh
Syrian Rebels "allied" with Syrian/Turkish Kurds against Syrian Regime and Daesh
Turkey "allied" with Western Nations against Daesh, but not against Syrian/Turkish Kurds
Turkey violating Syrian Sovereignty, but not outwardly against he Syrian Regime
Western Nations allied with Iraqi Kurds against Daesh 
Western Nations allied with Iraqi Govt against Daesh
Iraqi Govt not wholly happy about Western Support of Iraqi Kurds

F***! Someone needs to make a graph.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Lumber said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> F***! Someone needs to make a graph.




Here are a couple I have used before:






and


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And here is a historical (and hysterical) summary from Uderzo, the writer of the Asterix collection of books, in "Asterix and the black Gold":


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Islamic State spokesman and head of external operations Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, one of the jihadist group's longest-serving and most prominent leaders, has been killed in Aleppo province in Syria, it said on Tuesday.
> 
> Adnani had been one of the last remaining members alive of the group that founded Islamic State, also known as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and by its Arabic acronym Daesh, along with the group's self-appointed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
> 
> As Islamic State's spokesman, he was its most visible member. As head of external operations, he was in charge of attacks overseas, an increasingly important tactic for the group as its core Iraqi and Syrian territory has been eroded by military losses ...


(source)


----------



## The Bread Guy

So, who nailed ISIL's #2?

_*"Key Islamic State leader killed in apparent U.S. strike in Syria"*_
_*"IS leader Adnani: Russia says its air strike killed him"*_
Let's see who's more eager to get the credit ...


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> and


And even these charts don't capture _every_ nuance.  Even though the second chart says the Kurds are Iraq's enemies, Iraq also seems to be talking to & getting along just fine with at least _some_ Kurds.


----------



## tomahawk6

US commanders are not happy about what they term mission creep in Syria.Beyond ISIL the added target would be the al Nusra Front.This is a sop to the Russians.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/us-military-commanders-are-pissed-off-about-the-mission-creep-in-syria?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Defense%20EBB%2009-19-16&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief


----------



## CougarKing

More from Syria from last week/last weekend:

Reuters



> *US-led forces strike Syrian troops, prompting emergency UN meeting*
> By: Reuters
> September 19, 2016 12:19 AM
> 
> BEIRUT/MOSCOW - US-led coalition air strikes reportedly killed dozens of Syrian soldiers on Saturday, endangering a US-Russian brokered ceasefire and prompting an emergency UN Security Council meeting as tensions between Moscow and Washington escalated.
> 
> The United States military said the coalition stopped the attacks against what it had believed to be Islamic State positions in northeast Syria after Russia informed it that Syrian military personnel and vehicles may have been hit.
> 
> The United States relayed its "regret" through the Russian government for what it described as the unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces in the strike, a senior Obama administration official said in an emailed statement.
> 
> Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said in an emailed statement that Russian officials did not voice concerns earlier on Saturday when informed that coalition aircraft would be operating in the strike area.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



AFP via Daily Mail



> *US troops deployed to back Turkey in Syria met with insults by ‘allies’*
> By: Laurent Barthelemy, Agence France-Presse
> September 17, 2016 6:13 AM
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- Dozens of US Special Operations commandos have been deployed to northern Syria to help Turkey and "vetted" Syrian rebels fight the Islamic State group, the Pentagon confirmed Friday.
> 
> *But as footage emerged of the rebels hurling insults and threats at the American special operators, US officials were forced to play down reports that the troops did not receive a warm welcome to the frontline.*
> 
> Last month, Ankara launched an offensive into northern Syria dubbed "Euphrates Shield," ostensibly designed to cut a major IS group supply line but also to counter the advance of US-backed a Kurdish militia.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Ostrozac

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And even these charts don't capture _every_ nuance.  Even though the second chart says the Kurds are Iraq's enemies, Iraq also seems to be talking to & getting along just fine with at least _some_ Kurds.



Yep. And there are some Kurdish groups that don't get along with other Kurdish groups. Plus the fact that part of the Turkish government just tried to overthrow the other part of the Turkish government. It's a super complex situation.


----------



## Lightguns

All the more reason to just go home.  They can slaughter one another just fine.


----------



## Ostrozac

Lightguns said:
			
		

> All the more reason to just go home.  They can slaughter one another just fine.



It wouldn't be the first time that western intervention has contributed to making a total mess of a situation, with the western power(s) then just wandering away and leaving the region in anarchy (see India-Pakistan, Laos/Cambodia/Vietnam, Angola, the Congo, Libya, etc...) And once the Russians and the Iranians are done overthrowing the House of Saud, Saudi oil will stop flooding the market and everyone in Alberta can go back to overpaying for their houses. Win-win for everyone, right?


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And here is a historical (and hysterical) summary from Uderzo, the writer of the Asterix collection of books, in "Asterix and the black Gold":



 :goodpost:   :cheers:


----------



## Lightguns

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> It wouldn't be the first time that western intervention has contributed to making a total mess of a situation, with the western power(s) then just wandering away and leaving the region in anarchy (see India-Pakistan, Laos/Cambodia/Vietnam, Angola, the Congo, Libya, etc...) And once the Russians and the Iranians are done overthrowing the House of Saud, Saudi oil will stop flooding the market and everyone in Alberta can go back to overpaying for their houses. Win-win for everyone, right?



Why does everyone always want to protect the House of Saud?  North America can do just fine without Arab oil.  The US is approaching energy independence in the coming year.  Canada can be energy independent any time it gets a government with the balls to develop a national energy policy that leverages our resources while tariffing Arab oil beyond the price for Canadian consumption.  I am tired of ME, Africa, Asia and every other hole in the ground sucking us down.  I have no interest in solving their problems or making them democracies.  A little continental isolation is in order.  Move the effin UN to Europe lock, stock and barrel.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Why does everyone always want to protect the House of Saud?  North America can do just fine without Arab oil.  The US is approaching energy independence in the coming year.  Canada can be energy independent any time it gets a government with the balls to develop a national energy policy that leverages our resources while tariffing Arab oil beyond the price for Canadian consumption.


I don't like to sound like some from the globalresearch.ca/rabble.ca crowd, but part of it maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay be that as long as people want _cheap_ gasoline (and in Europe, they're paying between $1.50 and $2.40/litre), they'll ignore the worst or, if they are aware, hold their nose.


----------



## Ostrozac

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Why does everyone always want to protect the House of Saud?



For several decades the House of Saud has argued, quite convincingly, that if they fall, Iran runs the Middle East. Quite a few people are not cool with Iran gaining that much power. Israel, especially.

My own opinion? The House is Saud is probably destined to fall anyway -- it is starting to look desperate and scared, and dictatorships can't afford to look desperate and scared. They needed a quick victory in Yemen to cement their credibility, instead they've found themselves another quagmire. What that means for the Middle East is anyone's guess, but rest assured there will be plenty of war to go around for decades to come.


----------



## Journeyman

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Beyond ISIL the added target would be the al Nusra Front. This is a sop to the Russians.


A sop?  What do you believe the (perhaps mythical) end-state is?  

If it's to curtail the jihadist efforts in the region -- because you're not going to eliminate it through airstrikes -- then a comprehensive targeting list is actually a 'no shit Sherlock' requirement.  As it is, targeting only ISIS is supporting and _strengthening_  the region's other key jihadist player, Jabhat al-Nusra.*  At the risk of being repetitious, have a look at the link to the report on this by "The Institute for the Study of War" that I'd posted in May.

If the end-state is supposedly appeasing Russia rather than adopting a more logical, and therefore defensible, bombing campaign, then simply join them in attacking anyone and everyone fighting against the Assad regime..... including the forces trained and supplied by the US.


Mind you, repetitively saying "we're bombing ISIS" is simple enough that Fox news viewers can understand.  The Pentagon relying on Fox for their campaign-planning parameters would be any combination of stupid / lazy / criminal.  I would _hope_  that a little more thought is involved here, despite your article's evidence to the contrary.   :not-again:




*Jabhat al-Nusra cut its ties to Al Qaeda in July, adopting the name Jabhat Fatah al-Sham;  I guess "the Pentagon," speaking to _The Military Times_,  missed that.  Of course, it even took CNN until August to repeat the earlier Al Jazeera and UK media reports;  maybe the Pentagon will catch up by October....or November.   :dunno:


----------



## Lightguns

Aid Convoys are spontaneously catching fire according the Russians.  Why do we never think of the comedic excuses?

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/volunteer-shows-carnage-of-airstrike-on-u-n-aid-convoy-769185859558


----------



## George Wallace

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Aid Convoys are spontaneously catching fire according the Russians.  Why do we never think of the comedic excuses?
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/video/volunteer-shows-carnage-of-airstrike-on-u-n-aid-convoy-769185859558



DU rounds do have that effect.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Aid Convoys are spontaneously catching fire according the Russians.  Why do we never think of the comedic excuses?
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/video/volunteer-shows-carnage-of-airstrike-on-u-n-aid-convoy-769185859558


 :rofl:
<BorisBadinovVoice>"War is being dangerous place to be -- anythink can happen, you know.  Nice convoy you haff -- it vould be _shame_ if anything happint to it ..."</BorisBadinovVoice>


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Aid Convoys are spontaneously catching fire according the Russians.  Why do we never think of the comedic excuses?
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/video/volunteer-shows-carnage-of-airstrike-on-u-n-aid-convoy-769185859558


Latest excuse from a pro-RUS page:  _*"Footage: Destroyed ‘Humanitarian Convoy’ in Aleppo Was Embeded with Terrorist Forces"*_


----------



## CougarKing

Assad's forces turning the tide against IS?

AFP via Yahoo News



> *Aleppo hospital hit as Syria army presses assault*
> By: Agence France-Presse
> October 2, 2016 1:17 AM
> 
> ALEPPO, Syria - The largest hospital in rebel-held east Aleppo was bombed on Saturday for the second time in days as Syrian government forces pressed a Russian-backed offensive to retake the entire city.
> 
> Aleppo, once Syria's vibrant commercial powerhouse, is now at the heart of a major military campaign by President Bashar al-Assad's fighters and his steadfast ally Moscow.
> 
> The offensive, announced on September 22, has seen dozens of civilians killed and residential buildings flattened in the east, where an estimated 250,000 people live under government siege.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Reuters



> *Warplanes knock out Aleppo hospitals as Russian-backed assault intensifies*
> By: Ellen Francis and Tom Perry, Reuters
> September 29, 2016 10:18 AM
> 
> BEIRUT - Russian or Syrian warplanes knocked two hospitals out of service in the besieged rebel sector of Aleppo on Wednesday and ground forces intensified an assault in a battle which the United Nations said had made the city worse than a slaughterhouse.
> 
> Two patients died in one of the hospitals and other shelling killed six residents queuing for bread under a siege that has trapped 250,000 people with food running out.
> 
> The week-old assault, which could herald a turning point in the war, has already killed hundreds of people, with bunker-busting bombs bringing down buildings on residents huddled inside. Only about 30 doctors are believed to be left inside the besieged zone, coping with hundreds of wounded a day.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile, RUS draws a bit of its own line in the sand ...

Associated Press via ABC News


> *Russia Warns Against US Attack on Syrian Forces*
> 
> Russia warned the United States Saturday against carrying out any attacks on Syrian government forces, saying it would have repercussions across the Middle East as government forces captured a hill on the edge of the northern city of Aleppo under the cover of airstrikes.
> 
> Meanwhile, airstrikes on Aleppo struck a hospital in the eastern rebel-held neighborhood of Sakhour on Saturday, putting it out of service, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Local Coordination Committees. They said at least one person was killed in the airstrike.
> 
> Russian news agencies quoted Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying that a U.S. intervention against the Syrian army "will lead to terrible, tectonic consequences not only on the territory of this country but also in the region on the whole."
> 
> She said regime change in Syria would create a vacuum that would be "quickly filled" by "terrorists of all stripes." ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, RUS draws a bit of its own line in the sand ...


... while playing the " _'they'_ say the U.S. might hit us in Syria" card ...


> *Russian S-300 systems deployed in Syria after leaks on possible strike at aerodromes*
> 
> Russian S-300 systems were deployed in Syria following leaks about possible strikes on Syrian aerodromes, Russian Foreign Ministry's official spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday.
> 
> "First, S-400 systems have been there for a long time and this fact was taken calmly, no one said it was for a show," she said in an interview with the Dozhd TV channel. "S-300 systems were deployed following leaks from experts close to the United States’ officials that cruise missiles could be used to bomb Syrian aerodromes, and these leaks probably were not groundless." ...


... that's what they've _heard_, anyway.

BTW, it appears Russian jets'll be in Syria for ... a while ...


----------



## tomahawk6

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-russia-builds-forces-syria-reuters-data-analysis-165928186.html

By Jack Stubbs and Maria Tsvetkova

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has built up its forces in Syria since a ceasefire collapsed in late September, sending in troops, planes and advanced missile systems, a Reuters analysis of publicly available tracking data shows.

The data points to a doubling of supply runs by air and sea compared to the nearly two-week period preceding the truce. It appears to be Russia's biggest military deployment to Syria since President Vladimir Putin said in March he would pull out some of his country's forces.

The increased manpower probably includes specialists to put into operation a newly delivered S-300 surface-to-air missile system, military analysts said.

The S-300 system will improve Russia's ability to control air space in Syria, where Moscow's forces support the government of President Bashar al-Assad, and could be aimed at deterring tougher U.S. action, they said.

"The S-300 basically gives Russia the ability to declare a no-fly zone over Syria," said Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London.


----------



## The Bread Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... Russia has built up its forces in Syria since a ceasefire collapsed in late September, sending in troops, planes and advanced missile systems, a Reuters analysis of publicly available tracking data shows ...



RUS air force/aerospace forces in SYR indefinitely?  Check.
RUS turning SYR naval base into permanent presence?  Check.
Heavy anti-air in SYR to protect against attacks anonymous sources say the U.S. is planning against airfields?  Check.
op:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Reason for prudence?



> Russia’s top spin doctor in nuclear warning
> …
> Critics call him the “Kremlin’s chief propagandist”. And like many other top Russian officials, he is on the Western sanctions blacklist.
> 
> But the warning he delivered to Washington in last night’s edition of his show News of the Week was, even for him, particularly dramatic. “Impudent behaviour” towards Russia may have “nuclear” consequences, he said.
> 
> “A Russian takes a long time to harness a horse, but then rides fast,” said the news anchor, quoting a famous Russian saying.
> 
> By “riding fast”, Kiselyov was referring to a string of recent Russian military deployments:
> 
> Last week, Moscow sent three warships from the Black Sea Fleet to the Mediterranean: on board, cruise missiles that can carry nuclear warheads
> 
> Russia deployed nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles into the Kaliningrad region bordering Poland…’
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37606114



Nuclear de-escalation anyone?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation/
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

And "Smart Diplomacy" just keeps delivering:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/10/14/what-erdogans-pivot-to-putin-means/



> *What Erdogan’s Pivot to Putin Means*
> WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
> 
> The Financial Times outlines just how Turkey’s rapprochement with Russia may play out in Syria—an important read:
> 
> Rebel-held eastern Aleppo looks as though it will either fall or be razed to the ground in the face of relentless Russian bombardment from the air and under siege from Iran-backed militia on the ground.
> 
> President Vladimir Putin will then have got his way: saving the regime of Bashar al-Assad inside a rump Syria, with the ruins of Aleppo marking its northern perimeter, as part of his reassertion of Russia’s credentials as a regional and global rival to the US.
> But it is not just Mr Putin’s ruthlessness that will bring this about. It is Turkey’s tilt towards Russia and, to a degree, Iran, which is the main change in the strategic equation on the crowded battlefield of north-west Syria.
> 
> Obama handling of Syria continues to become more incoherent and more damaging to American interests. Putin has not only, thanks to White House dithering and irresolution, managed to reinsert Russia into Middle East politics in a spoiler role and his gains have not just included a deepening and commercially beneficial relationship with Iran and the weakening of the European Union and Merkel’s leadership in it over the refugee issue; he has also, thanks to the incoherence of American policy, managed to drive a thick wedge into NATO by further alienating Turkey from the West and, especially Washington.
> 
> As for what a naive and vainglorious President Obama once (back in those days when he collected Nobel Peace Prizes and was hailed as the second coming of Abraham Licoln by a clueless and infatuated press corps) identified as a central goal of his foreign policy—the reconciliation of America with the Muslim world—his callous abandonment of the Syrian Sunnis to their increasingly genocidal foes has done as much, if not more, to tarnish America’s reputation among Sunni Arabs than anything any of his predecessors managed to do going back to Harry Truman.
> 
> The issues in Syria are difficult and the alternatives are few, but President Obama’s Syria policy is one of the shabbiest and sorriest displays of serial ineptitude that has unfolded in world politics in all these many years. That his emissaries and representatives attempt to cover the nakedness of their policy with grandiose rhetorical denunciation of the crimes that Obama’s incompetence has enabled merely underscores the horrifying moral and political emptiness of the President’s approach to world politics.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Early reports @ this point, but Daesh may have to find a new propaganda magazine name 

_*"Syria war: Turkish-backed rebels seize Dabiq from ISIL"*_ (Al Jazeera)
*"Rebels In Syria Claim Capture Of IS Stronghold Of Dabiq"* (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)
*"Syria conflict: Rebels 'capture' IS stronghold of Dabiq"* (BBC)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Aaaaaaaaaaand ... break (via RUS MoD Info-machine) ...


> *Russian Defence Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu announced the stop of airstrikes in the area of Aleppo*
> 
> Today, the Russian Defence Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu held teleconference with the leadership of the Russian Armed Forces.
> 
> Issues of implementation of the State Defence Order and realization of 2020 Activity Plan of the Defence Ministry in military districts and the Northern Fleet were discussed in course of the teleconference.
> 
> Before listening to reports of the leadership, the Head of the defence department informed the participants about decisions aimed at situation stabilization in the area of the Aleppo city (Syrian Arab Republic).
> 
> “Today (18 Oct), strikes by the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Syrian Air Force are finished at 10:00 (MSK)*** in the area of Aleppo. Early termination of the airstrikes is essential for holding a “humanitarian pause” on October 20, 2016”, said General of the Army Sergei Shoigu.
> 
> According to him, it will allow to guarantee security of civilians leaving the city through 6 humanitarian corridors and to prepare casualty and medical evacuation from the eastern part of Aleppo.
> 
> “We apply to the leadership of countries influencing on armed formations active in the eastern part of Aleppo with a proposal to convince their leaders to stop warfare and leave the city,” stated the Minister of Defence.
> 
> According to General of the Army Sergei Shoigu, by the start of the “humanitarian pause” the Syrian troops will have been withdrawn to the distance safe for insurgents to leave the city with weapons through two special corridors: one – along the Kastello road, second – in the area of Suk al-Hai market.
> 
> “We believe that the Russian initiative is to promote success of work held by military experts from different countries, which starts tomorrow in Geneva,” said General of the Army Sergei Shoigu.
> 
> In accordance to the Defence Minister, the work is mainly aimed at dividing terrorists from the “moderate opposition” and their withdrawal from the eastern part of Aleppo. A group of Russian military specialists have already arrived in Geneva.
> 
> “Everyone who is really interested in the early situation stabilization in the Aleppo city is to launch real practical activities instead of political red taping,” said the Minister of Defence.


*** -- 0300 Eastern Daylight Time, 0700 UTC


----------



## a_majoor

The Obama Administration's handling (or lack thereof) of the Syrian Civil war is poised to spin out of control, according to Turkey. What is really ironic is the situation the Obama Administration has put itself into; on one hand they side with the Shiite Iranian regime, including allowing them to continue with their nuclear program and paint over a billion dollars in cash to ransom Americans, yet on the other they support forces which seek to overthrow Iran's ally Assad. While the region's fractured religious, political and ethnic nature is bound to be confusing (Turkey is willing to use ISIS as a club to beat the Kurds, while still being in the fight against ISIS, to name one example), stumbling into war due to lack of foresight or having no strategic plan is quite another thing:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/us-russia-third-world-war-syria-conflict-aleppo-turkey-deputy-prime-minister-numan-kurtulmus-a7366571.html



> *US and Russia could 'start Third World War over Syria conflict', says Turkey*
> 'If this proxy war continues, let me be clear, America and Russia will come to a point of war'
> 
> The US and Russia could drive the world into a global war if the conflict in Syria is not resolved, Turkey has warned.
> 
> Tensions have become increasingly heightened between Washington and Moscow in recent weeks. Last week, the US and UK warned Russia and its ally the Syrian government that new economic sanctions could be imposed if the bombing of Syria's besieged Aleppo continues.
> 
> On Sunday, Russia condemned Washington for making “unprecedented” threats of cyber attacks following accusations by the Obama administration that Moscow had hacked computers belonging to American political organisations.
> 
> Turkish deputy prime minister Numan Kurtulmus said: "If this proxy war continues, after this, let me be clear, America and Russia will come to a point of war," the Daily Mail reports.
> 
> He suggested the Syrian conflict could be the beginning of World War Three, saying it had put the world "on the brink of the beginning of a large regional or global war".
> 
> Earlier this month a Russian newspaper warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing an "astonishingly risky game" in the Syrian conflict that could lead to a Third World War.
> 
> Popular tabloid, Moskovsky Komsomolets, ran an article that suggested hostilities in Syria could spark a “direct military confrontation" between the nations of a similar scale to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
> 
> Russia's military announced on Monday that Russian and Syrian forces would halt hostilities for eight hours in the eastern districts of Aleppo.
> 
> It did not include any promises of an extended cease-fire and followed a bloody day of air strikes on rebel-held districts in and around the city.
> 
> The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 50 civilians, including 18 children, were killed in air strikes on the eastern part of the city in the 24 hours before the Russian announcement.
> 
> READ MORE
> Boris Johnson raises prospect of further UK military involvement in Syria
> US and Russia 'will go to war' unless proxy Syria conflict resolved, Turkey warns
> The number of civilians killed by Russian and Coalition air strikes in Syria
> Boris Johnson’s speech on Syria is a bad case of the pot calling the kettle black
> Monday's air strikes coincided with the launch in neighbouring Iraq of a major operation by Iraqi and Kurdish forces, backed by the US-led coalition, to retake the northern city of Mosul from the so-called Islamic State group.
> 
> Mr Kurtulmus announced on Monday that Turkey is ready for hundreds of thousands of refugees from Mosul if the operations fuels sectarian violence.
> 
> "If the Mosul operation is handled correctly, there won't be a refugee wave into Turkey," Mr Kurtulmus told a news conference in Ankara.
> 
> "[But] if something goes wrong in Mosul, hundreds of thousands will put their migrant bags on their backs, they will be miserable and worn out, and come with their belongings to the only place they can go to, which is Turkey," he said.
> 
> The United Nations refugee agency said up to 100,000 Iraqis may flee to Syria and Turkey to escape the assault on Mosul, a city of 1.5 million people where Isis have declared a "caliphate".
> 
> Turkey is home to more than three million Syrian refugees, however its refugee camps can only house around 200,000 people.
> 
> Additional reporting by agencies


----------



## Journeyman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Obama Administration's handling (or lack thereof) of the Syrian Civil war is poised to spin out of control, according to Turkey.



The article actually states "US and Russia could 'start Third World War over Syria conflict', says Turkey.  It goes on to state, citing a Russian newspaper, that "Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing an "astonishingly risky game" in the Syrian conflict that could lead to a Third World War.


Facts don't fit with some repetitive narratives and lame IA attempts here, but if you're going to bullshit in the hopes people will only read a 'headline' you provided, at the _very_  least don't include the article that shows what is actually stated.    :not-again:


----------



## a_majoor

With the stationing of the Russian naval battlegroup off the coast of Syria, the Russians may have effectively created a "No Fly" zone of their own. Putin may have taken a gamble (as suggested upthread), but he evidently read the lack of American any clear strategic aims and will correctly, so now any American attempts to intervene in Syria will require overcoming the Russian AD shield, and more ominously, direct confrontation between US and Russian forces.

So the US now is in essentially a reactive posture, lacking clear goals and having few regional allies to rely on to project force in Syria for whatever aims they may have left. Like I noted, the entire policy seems insane, the right hand provides the Iranians billions of dollars and freedom to continue their nuclear program, while the left half heartedly attempts to remove a close Iranian ally.

Hillary talking about establishing an American "No Fly" zone under these conditions seems the "astonishingly risky game" now.


----------



## CBH99

Any attempt to create a "No Fly" zone over Syria is a non-starter, with all of the diplomatic and legal baggage a move like that would bring with it.

I'm still at a loss here...honestly, if someone can explain this to me, I would very much appreciate it.

Why does the US give a s**t about what is happening in Syria?  

-  No WMD threat.  

-  A-hole President that needs to go, sure.  But we've seen many times now, forcible regime change without a follow-on strategy doesn't lead to anything better.

-  Conflict has created a huge refugee crisis which, quite frankly (in my own, cold hearted opinion) has created a HUGE problem that won't go away anytime soon unless we forcibly send them packing.  (I'm referring to the migrant crisis in Europe, to be clear.)

^^Seems to causing a lot more trouble than its worth^^


I'm just not understanding why Syria is of such significant strategic value here.


----------



## a_majoor

More on the Russian created "No Fly Zone" over Syria. There is one air force which it is particularly intended to keep out....

http://observer.com/2016/10/there-is-a-no-fly-zone-in-syria-one-russia-created/



> *There Is a No-Fly Zone in Syria—One Russia Created*
> By Micah Halpern • 10/31/16 7:42am
> Russia now bases advances missiles in Syria.
> 
> The world has given Vladimir Putin carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the Middle East. It’s been that way ever since September of 2015 when Russia began its intervention on the ground in Syria. It was all part of a larger Russian plan that few—if anyone bothered to pay attention to.
> 
> The objective of the United States was to try to stop Syrian and Russian planes from causing civilian damage, especially in Aleppo. But the tables are now turned. Now the supposed protectors of innocent Syrians—the US and her coalition partners—will need to ask permission to fly their planes over Syria because they would be flying in the new, Russian, multi-layered, missile shield known as the “Integrated Air Defense System.”
> 
> This was the Russian plan from the beginning. Putin was (and still is) intent on keeping Bashar Assad in power until ISIS and al Qaeda are removed and calm is restored to Syria. Russia has established its Mideast base of operations in Tartus.
> 
> Here is how the Russian no fly zone works.
> 
> The first thing the Russians did was to bring in and install a massive deployment of the sophisticated and integrated anti-aircraft weapons system called the S-300 at their $3 billion naval base in Tartus The S-300 is, by the way, the same system they are selling and delivering to the Iranians. That move took place on October 3rd. The new S-300 deployment augmented the S-200s that were already in place throughout Syria.
> 
> Next, the Russians added a series of very effective short range surface-to-air missiles. The PantsirS1 and the Buk missiles are part of the naval weapons on Russia’s guided missile cruisers which sit anchored off the Syrian coast.
> 
> Now, add to that the Integrated Defense System which links all these systems plus others like the most advanced and newest of all missiles, the S-400 missile system which has a range of 350 miles and, voila, a Russian-operated no-fly zone is born.
> 
> Why is there a threat that would require having such an advanced, layered, anti-aircraft defense system in Syria? After all, ISIS doesn’t even have an air-force.
> 
> The zone has an overlay of air defense levels at 110 miles, then 220 miles and finally, at 300 miles. That is, by all standards, very, very extensive.
> 
> The question begs asking: Why is there a threat that would require having such an advanced, layered, anti-aircraft defense system in Syria? After all, ISIS doesn’t even have an air-force. And there is no other threat to Syria other than the 14 nations that are flying (or were flying until the no-fly zone went up) through Russian-controlled airspace. Two of those air forces fly there with impunity—Russia and Syria.
> 
> Israel and Russia have gone to great lengths to make certain that, at least when it comes to their air-forces flying over Syria, they are on the same page and there will be no problems. There have been face-to-face meeting between Putin and Netanyahu to iron out any issues and to secure lines of communication. Putin has said that Israel can and should defend herself. Israel has said that they are not taking a side, but they will certainly prevent weapons from being transferred into the hands of Hezbollah. If need be, they will also retaliate when necessary. Russia will be informed by Israel in advance but may not pass a warning on to Israel’s target. These are the terms of Israeli and Russia’s agreement.
> 
> That leaves 11 other countries, including the United States. The US and Russia are on opposite sides of almost everything when it comes to Syria. And given the current status of the Russian defense system, the other air forces are, effectively, now grounded.


----------



## Flavus101

It appears the Russian's have lost a jet. Pilot made it out safely.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/14/russian-fighter-jet-crashes-near-its-aircraft-carrier-in-mediterranean-us-officials-say.html



> *Russian fighter jet crashes near its aircraft carrier in Mediterranean, US officials say*
> By Lucas Tomlinson  Published November 14, 2016  FoxNews.com
> 
> A Russian fighter jet crashed in the Mediterranean Sea shortly after launching from its aircraft carrier near the coast of Syria Sunday, two U.S. officials told Fox News.
> 
> Three Russian MiG-29 fighter jets took off from their Soviet-era aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, and flew in the direction of Syria. Once airborne, one of the Russian jets appeared to have mechanical difficulties and turned around in the direction of the aircraft carrier.
> 
> The Russian jet splashed down in the water while attempting to land. A Russian rescue helicopter picked up a parachute and the pilot, who'd bailed out safely, Russian defense officials said.
> 
> 
> The MiG-29 was designed in the late-1970s to counter the U.S. Air Force’s F-15 and F-16. It entered service in the early 1980s.
> 
> The news of the crash came a day after state media claimed Russia was preparing its Tu-95 and Tu-160 long-range bombers for imminent strike missions in Syria.
> 
> The Russian Tu-95 “Bear” and Tu-160 “Blackjack,” according to their NATO call signs, have been operating in Syria since 2015 and are based at Engels Air Force base in southern Russia near Kazakhstan.  The Blackjack is a supersonic variable-sweep wing long range bomber and more advanced than its 1950s-era Bear counterpart, which is propeller driven.
> 
> Last week, Fox News was first to report Russia was close to launching a new round of airstrikes in Syria from the aircraft carrier in the Eastern Mediterranean and southern Russia using long range bombers.
> 
> The Associated Press contributed to this report.
> 
> 
> Lucas Tomlinson is the Pentagon and State Department producer for Fox News Channel. You can follow him on Twitter: @LucasFoxNews


----------



## jollyjacktar

Some good footage of French SF taking out a VBIED after a TOW misses.  I love happy endings.   ;D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3935596/We-ve-got-Stunning-moment-French-special-forces-blow-suicide-truck-heading-allied-forces-Raqqa-seconds-wire-guided-missile-misses-target.html#comments


----------



## tomahawk6

The presence of Russian KOS SOF has been revealed.The Russians do love their special forces. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/12/13/new-battlefield-video-shows-how-russias-elite-kso-military-unit-is-fighting-in-syria/?utm_term=.bc87fde147cb

On Sunday, Russian state-run television ran a segment showing what appears to be one of Russia’s most elite military units fighting in Syria, putting an often secretive Special Operations detachment in the limelight, albeit briefly.

Footage of Russian troops in Syria is extremely uncommon. The nine-minute segment is composed of various clips, some of it focused on training, likely in Russia, while other parts take place in Syria. The unit is probably Russia’s Special Operations Command, or KSO, a group akin to the U.S. military’s elite Delta Force that has existed for only a few years.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Nice to see the falling insurgents.


----------



## suffolkowner

Propaganda or not? I'm not a big fan of either


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chickenscratch, chickenscratch some numbers and graphics of whatever..... meh!


----------



## CougarKing

From last month: Assad's Hezbollah allies have new armored vehicles!   

IHS Jane's 360 

17 November 2016


> Held to mark the group's annual Martyrs' Day, the parade involved dozens of armoured vehicles, including T-72 and T-54/55 tanks, BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles, M113 and MT-LBu armoured personnel carriers (APCs), 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzers, and ZSU-57-2 self-propelled anti-aircraft guns.
> 
> Kuwait's Al-Rai newspaper reported in September 2015 that *the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) had delivered 75 T-72 and T-55 tanks to Hizbollah.*
> 
> Photographs of the parade showed M113s armed with 14.5 mm ZPU-2 light anti-aircraft guns.








An 85 mm KS-1 anti-aircraft gun is seen mounted on a GM during the Hizbullah parade in Al-Qusayr on 11 November. Columns of M113 APCs and T-72 and T-55 tanks can be seen in the background. (Fars News Agency)

=====

*Hezbollah has U.S. armored personnel carriers. But how did they get them?* | washingtonpost



> Over the weekend images surfaced online of a Hezbollah parade in Qusair, Syria, featuring U.S. armored personnel carriers affixed with antiaircraft guns. The images prompted a flurry of speculation about the vehicles’ origin and whether the group had pilfered the stocks of the U.S.-supplied Lebanese military.
> 
> The armored personnel carrier, known as the M113, is one of the United States’ most ubiquitous armored vehicles and has been in service since the 1960s. The tracked semi-rhombus-shaped vehicle comes in numerous variants and can be outfitted to carry troops and artillery; its chassis was even used as the basis for a nuclear-missile carrier. It has appeared in every major U.S. conflict since the Vietnam War and is used by U.S. police departments and dozens of others countries’ militaries around the world.







-




Hezbollah parade in Qusayr features multiple US-made M113 APCs with mounted ZPU-2 (left), most likely source: Lebanese Armed Forces (right).

=====

Photos taken from ynetnews





Hezbollah tracked vehicles
-




Hezbollah tanks and APCs on display
-




Hezbollah heavy weapons on display
-




Hezbollah ATVs with Kornet missiles mounted on them


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good piece by Robert Sibley in the _Ottawa Citizen_ on R2P and neo-colonialism:



> Why the West can't be bothered to save Aleppo
> 
> More from Robert Sibley
> http://ottawacitizen.com/author/robert-sibley
> 
> In 2001, Ignatieff was one of three members of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty set up by the Canadian government and charged with finding a way that would justify nations violating the sovereignty of another nation to prevent, in the words of then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “gross and systematic violations of human rights.” Ignatieff is widely associated with the concept that emerged from this commission: “responsibility to protect,” or R2P.
> 
> “The idea of a responsibility to protect,” Ignatieff explained in a 2002 article, “attempts to invent, for a post-imperial, post-colonial era, a form of temporary rule that reproduces the best effects of empire (inward investment, pacification, and impartial administration), without reproducing the worst features (corruption, repression, confiscation of local capacity).”
> 
> The idea appealed to those who faulted Western governments for not preventing genocide in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in Srebrenica in the mid-1990s. They saw “responsibility to protect” as a way to prod political leaders to respond to humanitarian crises even if they required military intervention.
> 
> Is it time to revisit this idea given the horrors of Aleppo? Last week, after a long siege that saw thousands of civilians killed, the Syrian army, backed by Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, retook the city from Islamist rebels. There have been numerous reports of atrocities, including the shooting of women and children.
> 
> Once again Western leaders – and Westerners – are being denounced for failing to prevent this...
> 
> This reality [what happened in Iraq] points up the difficulty of R2P. If it is to work it requires the West to have armies and administrators assume, in Ignatieff’s words, “temporary rule” of the failing state, but also the willingness of locals to be ruled by foreigners.
> 
> This is not an indefensible idea. In an increasingly chaotic world, Western countries might in their own defence need to invoke what theorist Robert Cooper refers to as “the imperialism of neighbours,” whereby they take charge of the failed state and provide good government, administrative competence and institutional order until the locals can do it themselves.
> 
> While plausible, the restore to empire lite, even to Cooper’s version, is unlikely given the anti-imperialist attitudes that prevail among Left-Lib progressives. They will wring their hands in self-righteous outrage at atrocities like those of Aleppo, but few would sully their ideological purity by assuming the responsibilities – and realities – of what used to be called the white man’s burden [ http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/ ]...
> http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/sibley-why-the-west-cant-be-bothered-to-save-aleppo



Earlier on neo-colonialism:



> The West and the Middle East: No Guts
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/mark-collins-the-west-and-the-middle-east-no-guts/



Plus more Kipling:



> Syria, “Or lesser breeds without the Law”
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/mark-collins-syria-or-lesser-breeds-without-the-law/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

Look this way, look this way - shiny thing!!!!!!!! ...


> Among other things, Al-Ja'afari explained the reason why certain UNSC members were pushing so hard to pass this resolution which provides for the access of UN monitoring group to the largest Syrian city.
> 
> According to him, Syrian government possess information about foreign military intelligence officers who are still inside the remaining terror-held pocket in the eastern part of Aleppo. And the main purpose of the resolution, as Syrian authorities believe, is to allow those foreign agents and advisers a safe passage out of the besieged area, along with the terrorists they were training ...


----------



## Lightguns

An American in Russian hands in Syria.  That is an interesting possibility........


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lookit who's NOT at this table ...

_*"Russia, Iran and Turkey push for Syria peace plan without US or UN"*_ (euronews.com)
_*"Russia, Turkey, Iran drawing up 'roadmap' to end Syrian crisis"*_ (_The Independent_, UK)
_*"Russia, Turkey and Iran agree on joint Syria action"*_ (Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey)
_*"US Downplays Absence From Talks on Syria"*_ (Voice of America)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Aleppo appears to be done/fallen/liberated/whatever, and Russia seems to be digging in long-term:

_*"Putin signs order on expanding Russia's naval base in Syria's Tartus"*_
_*"Putin Approves Decree on Deployment of Russian Air Group in Syria"*_


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Syria and Russia are not the real concern in the region. The real questions are what does Iran and Hezbollah expect in return for their help and what will that do to the region? Also what becomes of the remaining Sunni's in Iraq and Syria? What will be the next stage in the Global Sunni-Shite Civil War?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> Syria and Russia are not the real concern in the region. The real questions are what does Iran and Hezbollah expect in return for their help and what will that do to the region? Also what becomes of the remaining Sunni's in Iraq and Syria? What will be the next stage in the Global Sunni-Shite Civil War?




Hopefully it will get bigger and bloodier, and yes, I understand that it will spill over into Europe, North America and Australia, etc, too, but a few outrages here and there is a small price to pay for an all out, tooth and claw, Islamic version of the 30 Years War ... but maybe a little more ugly.  :nod:


----------



## Lightguns

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Hopefully it will get bigger and bloodier, and yes, I understand that it will spill over into Europe, North America and Australia, etc, too, but a few outrages here and there is a small price to pay for an all out, tooth and claw, Islamic version of the 30 Years War ... but maybe a little more ugly.  :nod:



I got in trouble every time I said it (especially when I still had a commission) but the best thing we can do for human kind is to fence off the middle east, nothing in (ammo, food, NGOs) and nothing out (oil, refugees) until they run out of ammo and the will to kill.  May take 30 years, then feed the survivors.


----------



## a_majoor

Russia demonstrates to Turkey who really has the whip hand. Somehow I doubt the Russians will be getting long term satisfaction from supporting the Persians over the Turks, though.

http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/putin-sends-a-clear-message-to-turkey-on-syria-1.1989345



> *Putin sends a clear message to Turkey on Syria*
> 
> Russia is openly working with the Kurds to obstruct Erdogan’s buffer-zone, reminding him that the Kremlin, rather than Ankarra, is calling the shots in war-torn country
> By Sami Moubayed, Special to Gulf News
> Published: 17:51 March 6, 2017
> Gulf News
> 
> Six months ago, an endgame for the Syria war was on the table, tentatively agreed upon by the presidents of Russia and Turkey during their summer meeting in St Petersburg. Had it lasted, the deal would have been truly groundbreaking but it collapsed earlier this year, transforming the Syrian battlefield into a giant chessboard — and mailbox — used and abused by Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin.
> 
> The Russian president wanted his Syrian allies to march on the strategic city of Aleppo in the Syrian north, ending rebel presence in the country’s last opposition stronghold. Erdogan promised to help him achieve that, saying that he would look the other way only if the Russians helped him crush Kurdish statehood ambitions on the Syrian-Turkish border, preventing linkage of the Kurdish cantons of Afrin and Kobani, in addition to helping create a buffer zone to relocate 2.3 million Syrian refugees who have been living in Turkish towns and cities since 2011. The zone would also clean the border area from militants of the Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).
> 
> Putin nodded affirmatively, silently approving the Turkish invasion of the border city of Jarablus last August, part one of Erdogan’s Operation Desert Shield. Additionally, the Russia-approved buffer zone was supposed to include the city of Azaz, 88km away from Jarablus, also on the Syrian-Turkish border. Erdogan upheld his part of the agreement, doing absolutely nothing when Syrian troops overran Aleppo last December. He clearly needed Putin, and that need was mutual.
> 
> Something went wrong, however, shortly after Donald Trump entered the Oval Office. Erdogan seemingly saw promise in the new US president, distancing himself from his earlier commitments to Putin while marching on territory not agreed upon by the two men last summer, supposedly earmarked for Russia’s sphere of influence, not Turkey’s.
> 
> In November 2016, his proxies advanced on the city of Al Bab deeper into the Syrian heartland, 30km south of the Turkish border, much to the displeasure of Moscow. Three months later, a spokesman for the Turkish government said that the army would halt once seizing Al Bab, claiming that it had no further ambitions in Syria. Erdogan stunned the Russians by immediately dismissing the statement, snapping: “There might be a miscommunication. There is no such thing as stopping when Al Bab is secured. After that, there is Manbij and Al Raqqa.”
> 
> The first, Manbij, is located west of the Euphrates and was liberated from Daesh by a US-backed militia known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) last August, while Al Raqqa, located on the north-eastern bank of the Euphrates River, has been the de facto “capital” of Daesh since 2014. Continued Kurdish presence in Manbij was a direct threat to Turkey’s national security, given that a major pillar of the SDF are the Kurdish Protection Units (YPG), a Syrian branch of the loathed PKK.
> 
> Last month, speaking from Bahrain, Erdogan said that the final goal of Turkish incursion into northern Syria was a 5,000-square-km safe zone, vowing that it would include Al Raqqa, which is deep inside Syria, more than 100km east of Aleppo. Last month his army took Al Bab and began preparing to march on Manbij and Al Raqqa.
> 
> The bear makes its move
> 
> Russia’s response came first came through the advancement of Syrian troops towards Al Bab from the south, taking Tadeh, about a mile from the city, awaiting orders to push forward. Then, Russian warplanes bombed a Turkish position in Al Bab, killing four soldiers, refusing to apologise or write it off as an “accident”. Instead, they blamed it on the Turkish Army, saying that they had provided Moscow with faulty coordinates of their positions in Syria, arguing that they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
> 
> The Turks struck back by proxy, attacking a Russian position in the deserts of the ancient city of Palmyra, killing four Russian soldiers, and letting their allies in the countryside of Aleppo fire rockets at the city, debunking all claims by Russian and Syrian media that the city had been “freed completely” from rebel presence.
> 
> They were sending a message to Putin that they remain strongly entrenched in the city’s suburbs and can attack at will, if Moscow continues to hamper the expansion of the Turkish buffer zone.
> 
> Taking the confrontation to new heights, the Russians hammered out an agreement with the Manbij Military Council, a branch of the SDF, whereby the Kurdish militia would hand over control of several villages west of Manbij to the Syrian Army. They called it the “transferred defence of the frontline,” to halt “Turkey’s invasion plan”, referring to the Turks as “gangs” in their official communiqué, and to the Syrian troops as “state forces,” driving Erdogan extremely mad.
> 
> Erdogan had spoken on the telephone with President Donald Trump, asking for US cover to prevent Kurdish advances on Al Raqqa or continued US presence in Manbij. Not only did Trump refuse to commit, but provided the SDF, at their request, with anti-tank weapons, mine detectors and other military equipment.
> 
> Making things worse for the Turkish leader was a meeting held at the CIA-led Military Operation Room in southern Turkey in late February, where US military officers told Turkish-backed Syrian rebel groups that they had two weeks to unite or lose any form of American support. Among the groups included in the US freeze were the Sham Legion, composed of former members of the Muslim Brotherhood, active in the Aleppo countryside with 4,000 fighters, and Jaysh Al Nasr, a Turkish-backed militia of 5,000 fighters active in Hama.
> 
> The fact that the US was withdrawing support from these groups while continuing to bankroll and arm the SDF was bad news for the Turks. So was the fact that the SDF was now cooperating fully with Moscow and Damascus. Last August, their spokesman Talal Selo had said: “It is forbidden to negotiate with the Russians. Our alliance is with the United States and it is impossible to communicate with any other party.”
> 
> Putin was making a point — loud and clear — that this was now history, and that the Russians are now working openly with the Kurds to obstruct Erdogan’s buffer-zone, reminding him that it was the Kremlin, rather than Ankara, that was calling the shots in Syria, and that no scheme would ever pass in this war-torn country if not approved by Moscow.
> 
> Sami Moubayed is a Syrian historian and former Carnegie scholar. He is a Research Fellow at the Syrian Studies Centre at St Andrews University.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Finally....

Marines have arrived in Syria to fire artillery in the fight for Raqqa

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/03/08/marines-have-arrived-in-syria-to-fire-artillery-in-the-fight-for-raqqa/?utm_term=.6113f57cd458


----------



## The Bread Guy

Speaking of the U.S. military in Syria, both Breitbart & CNN say #POTUS45 is considering military action in SYR.  Some options, according to CNN, anyway ...
-- Strategic airstrikes
-- Cruise missiles
-- No-fly zone
-- Safe zones
-- Ground Forces
Let's see how this unfolds ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

US conducts a Tomahawk airstrike at Syrian airbase.   
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/syria-autopsy-results-hague-1.4058014


----------



## YZT580

That should wake up the North Koreans, the Iranians, and a whole bunch of others that are used to Obama's dithering.


----------



## sandyson

The coincidence of the message to China 'take care of Korea or we will', the no notice strike on Syria, and the dinner with China himself is remarkable.


----------



## Lumber

YZT580 said:
			
		

> That should wake up the North Koreans, the Iranians, and a whole bunch of others that are used to Obama's dithering.



Hell, this woke ME up.

Your move, Russia.


----------



## dimsum

Lumber said:
			
		

> Hell, this woke ME up.
> 
> Your move, Russia.



Um, this will change OP IMPACT plans...


----------



## MilEME09

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Um, this will change OP IMPACT plans...


Its being reported Russian troops wetr at the airbase hit in the strikes, well we either get WW3 or something else now

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## jollyjacktar

60 missiles is hard to ignore.   That's not going to buff out easily.


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Its being reported Russian troops wetr at the airbase hit in the strikes, well we either get WW3 or something else now
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



BBC, among others, has reported that the Russians were told beforehand.


----------



## MilEME09

Dimsum said:
			
		

> BBC, among others, has reported that the Russians were told beforehand.



indeed however a Tomahawk is a 1,000 lbs of explosive power, early reports indicate 59 launched, that's 59,000 lbs of ordnance coming down on an airbase. Tomahawks are accurate yes, but unless Russian personal stayed completely in shelter we don't know if any were hurt. Not to mention how much warning did the Russians maybe give Syrian forces? did those missiles really hit anything? or just empty buildings.


----------



## tomahawk6

Initial reports indicate Shayart air base was destroyed by the 59 or so Tomahawks that were launched. We shall see if Syria ups the ante.
No Russian aircraft or personnel were targeted. Interestingly there were no reports of Russian AD missiles being launched to shoot down US tomahawks.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Um, this will change OP IMPACT plans...


... or maybe even OP UNIFIER, depending on what Russia does ...
op:


			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> BBC, among others, has reported that the Russians were told beforehand.


Which may be why Russian-state media is (at least initially) reporting this:  *"Syrian Personnel, Equipment Evacuated From Airfield Ahead of US Strike"*


----------



## tomahawk6

The base infrastructure is destroyed along with Syrian jets that may or may not have been in working order. The idea I think was to issue a warning of sorts to Assad and Russia that Trump doesnt abide the use of WMD on civilians. North Korea might also be taking notes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes it is a very calculated move, enough to show he means business, but not so much to force the others to feel they must retaliate. I would also mention that Somalian Pirates should be paying attention, a large Marine assault to recover hostage and punish them is quite likely if they go after a US crewed ship.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And from the various info-machines ....


> _*Statement from Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis on U.S. strike in Syria*_
> 
> At the direction of the president, U.S. forces conducted a cruise missile strike against a Syrian Air Force airfield today at about 8:40 p.m. EDT (4:40 a.m., April 7, in Syria).  The strike targeted Shayrat Airfield in Homs governorate, and was in response to the Syrian government's chemical weapons attack April 4 in Khan Sheikhoun, which killed or injured hundreds of innocent Syrian people, including women and children.
> 
> The strike was conducted using Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) launched from the destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.  A total of 59 TLAMs targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars.   As always, the U.S. took extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties and to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict.  Every precaution was taken to execute this strike with minimal risk to personnel at the airfield.
> 
> The strike was a proportional response to Assad's heinous act. Shayrat Airfield was used to store chemical weapons and Syrian air forces.  The U.S. intelligence community assesses that aircraft from Shayrat conducted the chemical weapons attack on April 4.  The strike was intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again.
> 
> Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line.  U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield.
> 
> We are assessing the results of the strike.  Initial indications are that this strike has severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment at Shayrat Airfield, reducing the Syrian Government's ability to deliver chemical weapons.  The use of chemical weapons against innocent people will not be tolerated.





> _*Comment from the Press Service of the President of Russia*_
> 
> The President of Russia regards the US airstrikes on Syria as an act of aggression against a sovereign state delivered in violation of international law under a far-fetched pretext.  The Syrian Army has no chemical weapons. The fact of the destruction of all Syrian chemical weapons’ stockpiles has been recorded and verified by the OPCW, a specialised UN body. Vladimir Putin believes that complete disregard for factual information about the use by terrorists of chemical weapons drastically aggravates the situation.
> 
> This move by Washington [the US airstrike on an air base in Syria] has dealt a serious blow to Russian-US relations, which are already in a poor state. Most importantly, this move will not bring us closer to the ultimate goal of combatting international terrorism but will instead create a major obstacle to the establishment of an international counterterrorist coalition and to effective struggle against this global evil, something that US President Donald Trump declared as one of his main goals during his election campaign.
> 
> Vladimir Putin regards the US strikes on Syria as an attempt to draw public attention away from the numerous civilian casualties in Iraq.
> 
> On Friday, the United States launched Tomahawk cruise missiles at an air base in Homs Province in western Syria.


----------



## The Bread Guy

... with a bit more detail from last night's US Q&A:


> _*Press Briefing by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Advisor General H.R. McMaster, 4/6/2017*_
> 
> 10:18 P.M. EDT
> 
> MR. SPICER:  Tonight, Secretary Tillerson and NSA Director, Lieutenant General McMaster, will both give comments regarding the President's order tonight, and then afterwards we'll take a few questions and then let you get to some sleep.
> 
> With that, Secretary Tillerson.
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Good evening, all.  I think what we want to try to do is give you a little bit of background on how we got to the statements by the President and the actions that were taken tonight.
> 
> As you're well aware, Bashar al-Assad has carried out chemical attacks this past week on civilians, including women and children, and carried out attacks earlier -- last month, March 25th and 30th in Homs Province, as well.  We have a very high level of confidence that the attacks were carried out by aircraft under the direction of Bashar al-Assad's regime.  And we also have very high confidence that the attacks involved the use of sarin nerve gas.  At least the past three attacks were fairly high -- we have high confidence on that.
> 
> I think it's also clear that previous agreements that had been entered into pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, as well as Annex A agreements that the Syrian government themselves accepted back in 2013, whereby they would surrender their chemical weapons under the supervision of the Russian government.  Now, the U.S. and the Russian government entered into agreements whereby Russia would locate these weapons, they would secure the weapons, they would destroy the weapons, and that they would act as the guarantor that these weapons would no longer be present in Syria.
> 
> Clearly, Russia has failed in its responsibility to deliver on that commitment from 2013.  So either Russia has been complicit, or Russia has been simply incompetent in its ability to deliver on its end of that agreement.
> 
> I think the other thing that's important to recognize -- that as Assad has continued to use chemical weapons in these attacks with no response -- no response from the international community -- that he, in effect, is normalizing the use of chemical weapons, which then may be adopted by others.  So it's important that some action be taken on behalf of the international community to make clear that these chemical weapons continue to be a violation of international norms.
> 
> I think it's also important to recognize, as I think everyone does, the chaotic circumstances that exist on the ground in Syria, with the presence of a battle underway to defeat ISIS, the presence of al Qaeda elements inside of Syria, and a civil war that is underway.  So, clearly, one of the existential threats we see on the ground in Syria is if there are weapons of this nature available in Syria, the ability to secure those weapons and not have them fall into the hands of those who would bring those weapons to our shores to harm American citizens.
> 
> So there are a number of elements that, in our view, called for this action and which we feel was appropriate.  We feel the strike itself was proportional because it was targeted at the facility that delivered this most recent chemical weapons attack.  And in carrying this out, we coordinated very carefully with our international partners in terms of communicating with them around the world.  And I will tell you that the response from our allies in Europe, as well as the region in the Middle East, has been overwhelmingly supportive of the action we've taken.
> 
> So I'll leave it there.  And let me turn it to NSA Director McMaster.
> 
> GENERAL McMASTER:  I really have very little to add except to say that it was important during the President's deliberations and its deliberations with his leadership that we weighed, of course, the risk associated with any military action, and we weighed that against the risk of inaction, which Secretary Tillerson has already really summarized, which is the risk of this continued egregious, inhumane attacks on innocent civilians with chemical weapons.
> 
> And so, really, nothing else to add to the Secretary's summary.  And we're happy to take any questions that you have.
> 
> Q    Could you go through just the timeline of how the President's thinking changed?  And when did you present him with options and so forth?
> 
> GENERAL McMASTER:  Okay.  So the President was immediately notified upon news of the chemical attack, and he was very interested in understanding better the circumstances of the attack and who was responsible.  Our intelligence community, in cooperation with our friends and partners and allies around the world, collaborated to determine with a very high degree of confidence precisely where the location originated, and then, of course, the sort of chemicals that were used in the attack.
> 
> That confidence level has just continued to grow in the hours and days since the attack, associated with additional evidence that's available, especially -- so sad -- sadly, from the victims that are being treated and the confirmation of the type of agent that was used, which was a nerve agent.
> 
> So that was -- the initial interactions with the President were about the attack and responding to his questions about the nature of the attack, the scope of the attack, and who was responsible in particular.
> 
> And then we convened a meeting of the National Security Council principals -- a small group; it wasn’t the full -- it was almost the full National Security Council -- to deliberate on options.  There were three options; you can imagine which those were.  There were three options that we discussed with the President, and the President asked us to focus on two options in particular, to mature those options.  And then he had a series of questions for us that we endeavored to answer.
> 
> We were able to answer those questions and come back to him in a decision -- briefing today, again, with virtually all of the principals on the National Security Council here in Florida and then by video-telephone conference back in Washington.  And after a meeting of considerable length and a far-reaching discussion, the President decided to act.  And that's the general sequence of events.  So rather two large and formal meetings, but really a whole series of discussions since the time of the attack.
> 
> Secretary, do you have anything to add to that?
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  No, I think just as I said, as I think H.R. has said, this was a very deliberative process.  There was a thorough examination of a wide range of options.  And I think the President made the correct choice and made the correct decision, first to be decisive in acting -- acting against this heinous act on the part of Bashar al-Assad -- but acting in a way that was clearly directed at the source of this particular attack, to send that strong message.
> 
> Other things were considered.  Those were rejected for any number of reasons.  And in my view, the President made the exact, correct decision.
> 
> Q    Mr. Secretary --
> 
> Q    Mr. Secretary, can you talk a little bit about your discussions in the last hour?  Secretary, did you speak to the President --
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  I'll let Sean referee here.
> 
> MR. SPICER:  (Laughter.)  I'm good at it.  Hallie.
> 
> Q    Did you or did the President speak with President Putin prior to the attack?  Can you talk about the discussions that you had with Moscow and what the expectation is from them?
> 
> And then, General McMaster, I have a question for you as well, please.
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  There were no discussions or prior contacts, nor have there been any since the attack, with Moscow.
> 
> Q    And can you tell us about your expectations for what you think you will hear from President Putin or Foreign Minister Lavrov?
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  I'll let them speak for themselves.
> 
> Q    General, McMaster, I'd like to ask you -- the President -- you talked a little bit in response to Steve’s question about the President’s evolution of his thinking.  Just a couple of years ago his encouragement was to stay out of Syria.  You talked about the images that sort of moved him into this direction -- as he put it tonight, "beautiful babies cruelly murdered."  Has his thinking then changed on allowing Syrian refugees into the United States, to your knowledge?
> 
> GENERAL McMASTER:  No, that wasn’t discussed as any part of the deliberations.
> 
> Q    And on the target, anything else on specifically what you believe was destroyed in the strike?
> 
> GENERAL McMASTER:  I'll defer to the Pentagon on that.  But there were a number of targets that were associated with the ability of that airfield to operate and to continue mass-murder attacks against the Syrian civilians.  And the one thing that I will tell you, though, there was an effort to minimize risk to third-country nationals at that airport -- I think you read Russians from that -- and we took great pains to try to avoid that.  Of course, in any kind of military operation, there are no guarantees.  And then there were also measures put in place to avoid hitting what we believe is a storage of sarin gas there so that that would not be ignited and cause a hazard to civilians or anyone else.
> 
> MR. SPICER:  Margaret.
> 
> Q    Can I ask H.R. -- sorry -- both the Secretary and H.R. McMaster -- what is the overriding message here?  Is it that -- this is not clearly a declaration of war, but is it that for President Trump and this administration the credible threat of military force is back on the table?  Was this articulated or explained in any way to President Xi prior to the President’s remarks?  And do you see this as in any way sending a message more broadly on your policy towards North Korea that the President is willing to take decisive action?  If both of you would weigh in.
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Well, I think as you just stated, this clearly indicates the President is willing to take decisive action when called for.  And I think in this particular case, the use of prohibited chemical weapons, which violates a number of international norms and violates existing agreements, called for this type of a response, which is a kinetic military response.
> 
> I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or our posture relative to our military activities in Syria today.  There’s been no change in that status.  But I think it does demonstrate that President Trump is willing to act when governments and actors cross the line, and cross the line on violating commitments they have made and cross the line in the most heinous of ways.  I think it is clear that President Trump has made that statement to the world tonight.
> 
> Q    Mr. Secretary, can I --
> 
> MR. SPICER:  Hold on, hold on --
> 
> GENERAL McMASTER:  I really have no further comment on that question.  I think the Secretary covered it comprehensively.
> 
> Sean.
> 
> Q    Did you tell China in advance?
> 
> MR. SPICER:  Hold on one second.
> 
> Q    Mr. Secretary, if I could ask you to clarify Russia again -- you said no contacts were made with Russia before the strikes today.
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  No contacts were made with Moscow, with President Putin.  There are military de-confliction agreements in place with the Russian military, and our military did operate under and in accordance with those de-confliction agreements in coordinating this particular attack.
> 
> Q    On the ground in Syria?
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  In Syria.
> 
> Q    Can you explain, Mr. Secretary, that process?  How was Russia notified?
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Let me let H.R. --
> 
> GENERAL McMASTER:  There are normal channels open for de-confliction.  And I'll just defer that to the Pentagon just for accuracy.  But the Pentagon, I know, is going to be talking to the press here soon, and I think it would be better if they give you a more precise answer if you're looking for details.
> 
> Q    And, Mr. Secretary, if I could, obviously the diplomatic considerations here are of a magnitude that didn’t exist a number of years ago.  When you went into this, unlike President Obama, who was dealing simply with Bashar al-Assad, you're dealing with Russia, you're dealing with the Kurds, you're dealing with Turkey.  Can you give us a little bit of the diplomatic calculation in undertaking this attack?
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Well, my expectation is that all of those parties, with the exception of Bashar al-Assad and perhaps Russia, I think are going to applaud this particular action or effort.
> 
> Overall, the situation in Syria is one where our approach today and our policy today is, first, to defeat ISIS.  By defeating ISIS we remove one of the disruptive elements in Syria that exists today.  That begins to clarify for us opposition forces and regime forces.  In working with the coalition -- as you know, there is a large coalition of international players and allies who are involved in the future resolution in Syria.
> 
> So it's to defeat ISIS; it's to begin to stabilize areas of Syria, stabilize areas in the south of Syria, stabilize areas around Raqqa through ceasefire agreements between the Syrian regime forces and opposition forces.  Stabilize those areas; begin to restore some normalcy to them.  Restore them to local governance -- and there are local leaders who are ready to return, some who have left as refugees -- they’re ready to return to govern these areas.  Use local forces that will be part of the liberation effort to develop the local security forces -- law enforcement, police force.  And then use other forces to create outer perimeters of security so that areas like Raqqa, areas in the south can begin to provide a secure environment so refugees can begin to go home and begin the rebuilding process.
> 
> In the midst of that, through the Geneva Process, we will start a political process to resolve Syria’s future in terms of its governance structure, and that ultimately, in our view, will lead to a resolution of Bashar al-Assad’s departure.
> 
> MR. SPICER:  Jonathan.
> 
> Q    Mr. Secretary and General McMaster, does this strike significantly change Assad’s military capability to carry out an attack like this?  Or was it really about sending a message that this kind of attack is not acceptable?
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Well, I’ll answer the last part of that.  This was clearly a very decisive action taken on the part of President Trump, who I think you heard yesterday said this particular heinous attack changed his view of how horrible these types of use of these weapons are.  That clearly changed President Trump’s view that something has to be done in response.
> 
> I’ll let H.R. McMaster respond to the second question of the military -- whether it’s changed our military posture.
> 
> GENERAL McMASTER:  Obviously, the regime will maintain the certain capacity to commit mass murder with chemical weapons we think beyond this particular airfield.  But it was aimed at this particular airfield for a reason, because we could trace this murderous attack back to that facility.  And this was not a small strike.  It was not a small strike.  And I think what it does communicate is a big shift, right, a big shift in Assad’s calculus -- it should be, anyway -- because this is the first time that the United States has taken direct military action against that regime or the regime of his father.
> 
> So I think what is critical is the President’s decision in response to this mass murder attack, but also in the context of all the previous attacks that have occurred -- I think over 50 -- I think it’s over 50 chemical attacks previously, post-2013, when the U.N. resolution went into effect.  And so I think that it’s both.  It was aimed at the capacity to commit mass murder with chemical weapons, but it was not of a scope or a scale that it would go after all such related facilities.
> 
> Q    Were military personnel with any other nations, any of our allies, take part in this?  Or was this 100 percent a U.S. operation?
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  This was entirely a U.S. operation.
> 
> MR. SPICER:  Jen.
> 
> Q    Can you talk a little bit about whether there might have been just an emotional reaction to this from President Trump?  Assad cannot gas Americans, so do you think some emotional response to the sight and images of what happened in Syria played into this?  And secondly, can you talk about the reaction from President Xi?
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  No, I don’t think it was -- I do not view it as an emotional reaction at all.  I think as President Trump evaluated this first attack, these attacks that occurred on his watch, and reflected upon the prior responses, or lack of responses, he came to the conclusion that we could not, yet again, turn away and turn an eye -- turn a blind eye to what’s happened.
> 
> The use of these weapons, as I indicated earlier, one of the concerns we have is the more we fail to respond to use of these weapons, the more we begin to normalize their use.  And when we begin to normalize their use, we are opening up wider-spread use by others who would use such weapons.
> 
> And I don’t think we should in any way diminish the risk of the situation in Syria where there is a lot of chaos on the ground.  There are elements on the ground in Syria, elements that are plotting to reach our shore, and these type of weapons falling into their hands and being brought to our shore is a direct threat on the American people.
> 
> Q    Sorry, I wanted to ask you to clarify something, Secretary Tillerson, first, and then I also have a military question.  You were saying that there was no coordination with Moscow for this, but then you said that you followed the rules of de-confliction.  So that kind of suggests that you did talk to Russia in some capacity.  Can you just clarify that?
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Well, I think Director McMaster answered it.  And again, I would direct you to the Pentagon to give you the precise procedures that are followed.  But these are battlefield agreements, because we’re operating in Syria, the Russians are operating in Syria.  As we have begun the march to defeat ISIS, many of our forces are becoming more approximate to one another, and so we have a de-confliction agreement in place with the Russian military.
> 
> And so there are command contacts that exist 24/7 for any type of operation that could bring us into conflict.  That’s the level of contact that we’re talking about.
> 
> Q    So is it more accurate to say that you didn’t seek approval from Moscow or anything like that for them to kind of give you the green light, but you followed protocol in terms of the military --
> 
> SECRETARY TILLERSON:  We sought no approval from Moscow or at any other level within the Russian infrastructure.  This was strictly following the rules that we have put in place, an agreement with the Russian military to de-conflict.  Because our target in this attack was not Russia, it was not the Russians, it was not their forces, nor any Russian individuals.  Our target was this airfield and the Syrian regime.
> 
> GENERAL McMASTER:  I would just add one thing.  The purpose was not to receive permission, the purpose was to reduce the chances of Russian casualties and to follow the procedures, as you mentioned.  But we wanted to take every possible measure we could to reduce the chance of Russian casualties.
> 
> MR. SPICER:  Thank you guys very much.  Appreciate it.  We’re going to have a great night.
> 
> END
> 10:39 P.M. EDT


----------



## The Bread Guy

And now, Canada's reaction ...


> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued the following statement today on U.S. strikes in Syria:
> 
> “Canada fully supports the United States’ limited and focused action to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to launch chemical weapons attacks against innocent civilians, including many children. President Assad’s use of chemical weapons and the crimes the Syrian regime has committed against its own people cannot be ignored. These gruesome attacks cannot be permitted to continue with impunity.
> 
> “This week’s attack in southern Idlib and the suffering of Syrians is a war crime and is unacceptable. Canada condemns all uses of chemical weapons.
> 
> “Canada will continue to support diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria.”


----------



## tomahawk6

Russian warships are moving toward the area USN destroyers had launched their missiles from. One of the US destroyers went to port to rearm. What does Putin do next ?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Because chemical weapons are so much worse than regular bombs.


----------



## armyvern

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Because chemical weapons are so much worse than regular bombs.



Yes indeed they are.  Especially so when those chemical weapons are directed at non-legitimate targets.

Chemical weapons are quite unlike the 55+ tomahawks that rained down upon a legimately targeted air base.


----------



## dimsum

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes indeed they are.  Especially so when those chemical weapons are directed at non-legitimate targets.
> 
> Chemical weapons are quite unlike the 55+ tomahawks that rained down upon a legimately targeted air base.



There is a specific convention (the Chemical Weapons Convention) that specifically prohibits production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.  

Tomahawks are GPS-guided to an amazingly accurate degree.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Because chemical weapons are so much worse than regular bombs.



They are far more dangerous. My grandfather was gassed in WWI and the effects lasted his entire life. 

Assad ....whoever uses chemical weapons deserves a trial followed by an execution.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I just find it somewhat hypocritical to get righteous over the use of chemical weapons when civilians been smashed over there with all kinds of other weapons.   I'm all for shooting  bad guys for being assholes but suggesting the US attacked in moral retaliation for chemical attacks against civilians is like crapping in my hand and telling me it's ice cream.


----------



## MilEME09

Dimsum said:
			
		

> There is a specific convention (the Chemical Weapons Convention) that specifically prohibits production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.
> 
> Tomahawks are GPS-guided to an amazingly accurate degree.



The drone footage released by the russians is a testament to the accuracy of the Tomahawks, looks like the missiles blew right through the hanger doors and destroyed everything inside.


----------



## armyvern

Dimsum said:
			
		

> There is a specific convention (the Chemical Weapons Convention) that specifically prohibits production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.
> ...



Uhmmm, yes I am aware of that.


----------



## Rifleman62

Extract from link: 





> However, the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that Syrian warplanes were able to take off from the base and carry out airstrikes in the countryside near Homs.



Good video also at link.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/07/syria-missile-attack-satellite-photos-show-major-damage-to-airfields.html
*
Syria missile attack: Satellite photos show major damage to airfields*


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The drone footage released by the russians is a testament to the accuracy of the Tomahawks, looks like the missiles blew right through the hanger doors and destroyed everything inside.



Apparently, all missiles hit the airfield within a 10 minute window. 

Mind you, the Russians are saying only "23" missiles hit the airfield. No word on what happened to the other 36.


----------



## blacktriangle

Well I woke up today, and the world was still here. No calls on my phone, clearly we aren't at war with Russia. 

So...well done President Trump. I can't say I always agree with him, but at least he _did_ something.


----------



## Kirkhill

Time for more maps I think.

What is, politically






http://www.worldatlas.com/img/areamap/continent/middle_east_map.gif

What is, ethnically





http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/mapMEethnic.jpg

What is, by religion





http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-12-09-1449688798-9640350-Mid_East_Religion.png

What is, linguistically





http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Mid_East_Linguistic_lg.png

What is, culturally (historically)





https://thesinosaudiblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cultural-zones.

List of local empires - Sumer, Akkad, Ur, Babylon, Assyria 1, Mitanni, Hittite, Elam, Assyria 2, Phillistines, Israel, Assyria 3, Media, Babylon 2, Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Parthia, Sassanid, Byzantium, Umayyad, Abbasids, Ghazna, Seljuks, Christians, Ayyubids, Mongols, Mamelukes, Ottomans.  Which covers the last 5500 years and brings us to 1922.

I give you three other maps

That with which the EU struggles - the Holy Roman Empire





http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/p500ME_Eng_g1.jpg

And France





http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/image/france/france-l-to-z/mapsfrance/sf081fra.jpg

That with which Canada struggle - BC land claims





http://www.trax.bc.ca/images/boundaryclaims.gif

Me, my personal preference, embrace the chaos and enjoy the wild.  You will wear yourselves out trying to impose order.  But a bit of pruning here and there, maintaining a lawn now and then, setting the occasional backfire and you can keep the forest from overwhelming you.


----------



## The Bread Guy

It didn't take long for the false flag claims to pop up - and be squashed pretty quickly ...


----------



## Kirkhill

Could a variant of this be the basis for developing US thinking?

A protracted, below the radar effort relying heavily on local players and minimal US boots.  



> Lessons from Yesterday's Operations Short of War: Nicaragua and the Small Wars Manual
> Marine Corps Gazette Nov 1996 Volume 80, Issue 11
> Author:
> Richard J Macak Jr
> Category:
> Operations
> 
> Those who forget the past. . . . As the Defense Department struggles to keep pace with a changing world, this author suggests it may be time to look back at one of our previous experiences with low-intensity conflicts.
> 
> As the U.S. Armed Forces develop and refine their doctrine for the use of military resources in low-intensity conflicts and military operations other than war, they should carefully assess the "small wars"1 experiences of Marine forces through the first three decades of this century. These earlier campaigns are important, not only for their doctrinal contributions, but also because of their resemblance to conflict today:
> 
> Wherein military force is combined with diplomatic pressure in the internal or external affairs of another state whose government is unstable, inadequate, or unsatisfactory for the preservation of life and of such interests as are determined by the foreign policy of our Nation.2
> 
> Probably the most significant small war experience in Marine Corps history was the lengthy conflict in Nicaragua. Fortunately, we still have extensive published and unpublished firsthand accounts of that campaign. More fortunately, we have a complete manual of doctrinal statement and application-the Small Wars Manual-derived from that experience. Although the manual has remained unchanged since its second publication in 1940, it will nonetheless prove invaluable to U.S. planners. Let's look at the situation of the time, the Marine involvement, and the resulting publications.
> 
> During its 20-year military involvement in Nicaragua, which ended on 1 January 1933, the Marine Corps achieved State Department foreign policy objectives by stabilizing a country with a long history of political unrest and civil war. To do so, the Marines engaged in diverse and important missions promoting the internal stability of the Nicaraguan Government. For instance, they established neutral zones to protect American lives and property; they physically separated and disarmed warring political parties, thus ending the 1926-27 civil war; they successfully protected the election process ensuring free and impartial presidential elections in 1928 and 1932; and they organized and trained a nonpartisan national guard, known as the Guardia Nacional de Nicaragua, into an effective fighting force.3 Just before withdrawal, the Marines completed a 6-year counterinsurgency campaign against Augusto C. Sandino that was important for its intellectual contribution to counterinsurgency doctrine.
> 
> The involvement's contributions to counterinsurgency doctrine are the result of the cumulative efforts of many Marine officers who served in the lengthy campaign. Through their thoughtful articles in the Marine Corps Gazette and Naval Institute Proceedings, they provided a sizable reservoir of personal experience in counterinsurgency operations. As an institution, the Marine Corps focused these experiences at its Schools Command in Quantico, VA. Other Marine authors expanded the knowledge on counterinsurgency warfare by publishing the Small Wars Manual detailing the lessons learned from conflicts such as the Nicaraguan campaign.4
> 
> Before examining the military involvement in detail, let's review the historical highlights of U.S. regional interests and Nicaraguan political alignments. By the 1920s, U.S. economic, political, and military interests had grown considerably in Central America, particularly in Nicaragua. For example, the American business community, searching for overseas markets, expanded into the region. Companies, such as the highly successful United Fruit Company, established branches throughout Central America, and these became lucrative investments for U.S. businessmen.
> 
> Also, the U.S. Government naturally considered the area vital to its national security, particularly because of the Panama Canal and its retention of construction rights to a future canal through Nicaragua. Likewise, the United States was concerned that Mexico, as a result of its recent revolution, would begin spreading its form of bolshevism or communism southward into the Central American countries.5...



https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/1996/11/lessons-yesterdays-operations-short-war-nicaragua-and-small-wars-manual

Basically sending a bullet instead of a body in support of anybody willing to support US interests.


----------



## tomahawk6

ISIS seems to have launched an offensive in the AO of the air base. With Russian and Iranian help this effort will be futile I expect.


----------



## a_majoor

There is an amazing PSYOPS aspect with the press seems to have overlooked.

President Trump had the strike done as soon as practical after the chemical weapons strike, and while having talks with the President of China. He has essentially told China, Russia and their proxies DPRK and Syria (and indirectly Iran) that there are behaviours which will not be tolerated. It will be interesting to see how these nations react or change their behaviours as a result.

Juxtaposing this with the images of the woman and children killed and injured in the attack also presents the image of the United States as the protectors of the weak and avengers of the innocent, which is a pretty powerful card to have in your hand (especially when compared to the behaviours of other nations...)

A lot of people will be looking at this and seeing America differently now.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... Juxtaposing this with the images of the woman and children killed and injured in the attack also presents the image of the United States as the protectors of the weak and avengers of the innocent, which is a pretty powerful card to have in your hand (especially when compared to the behaviours of other nations...)


The big problem with that narrative, though, is it becomes stronger when you don't have an executive order in place keeping said weak and innocent from a _specific_ country from coming to your country to get away from the bad guys. 



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> A lot of people will be looking at this and seeing America differently now.


In some ways, yes, but we'll see ...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Isn't the Syrian government  opposed to (and fighting) ISIS? 

Why would the US oppose a government that's fighting against ISIS?


----------



## GR66

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Isn't the Syrian government  opposed to (and fighting) ISIS?
> 
> Why would the US oppose a government that's fighting against ISIS?



Didn't the USSR fight the Nazis?  Does that make Stalin a "good guy"?


----------



## Jarnhamar

So we should have concentrated on Russia instead of Germany?


----------



## GR66

No...it just means that just because someone is the enemy of your enemy it doesn't make them your friend.  They can both be "bad guys".


----------



## Jarnhamar

Yup, never suggested they're our friends. All things considered wouldn't you say the Syrian government is less of a threat than ISIS?  If Syria is fighting Isis then attacking Syria is also aiding Isis in a round about way, no?   

The former us secretary of state admitted the US is aware Saudi Arabia is secretly assisting ISIS,  how come the US didn't give them the tomahawk treatment?


----------



## GR66

It's exactly this kind of muddled complexity and the confusing web of interconnected and opposing interests that has many on here suggesting that we should just step back and let them fight it out among themselves and just focus on containing the "leakage" to the surrounding areas.  

Despite what many university professors might suggest, the world is a very complex place and there are no black and white solutions.  ANY action you take will have consequences that are counter to your original intentions, no matter how "moral" your motivations.  Even doing nothing will have negative impacts.  

There is no "correct" solution that has only good results and no negative consequences.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Like a lot of people way smarter than I am, I viewed this strike having less to do with altruism (ie , protecting Syrian civilians from their own government) than straight out realpolitik.

IMHO, this Tomahawk strike was a lesson to Iran, North Korea and to a lesser extent Russia and China that this particular US administration is not to be trifiled with.

You can love Trump or hate him, but there is now no mistaking his willingness to act- for good or ill.


----------



## tomahawk6

There is a disturbing story going around that McMaster is cooking up a scenario where up to 150,000 troops would go into Syria. I find the story hard to believe but Cernovich did expose the Susan Rice unmasking story. The US doesnt have 150,000 troops to send into Syria. Maybe if we could get the Turks to lead a coalition it could happen.

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-mcmaster-manipulating-intelligence-reports-to-trump-wants-150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99


----------



## jollyjacktar

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You can love Trump or hate him, but there is now no mistaking his willingness to act- for good or ill.



He's not a ditherer, as I strongly suspect our current PM is.  Cut from Paul Martin's cloth, he is.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

If I were Trump, I wouldn't do that.

I'd provide logistics support, but if the Gulf Arabs want to protect the Sunni minority (who are not western-friendly from all reports), they should be providing the bulk of the troops for stabilization forces.

The threat to Russia is if they oppose the Sunni safe zones, the Gulf Arabs will again flood the world market with oil and bankrupt Russia in the process.

The hard part is Russia and Iran desperately want to maintain the Shia crescent to the Med, so having an independent Sunni state on the main transport routes is going to go over like a lead balloon.  Not to mention trying to keep the Sultan in-check.  I can see him flip-flopping "sides" if it gave him a free hand to occupy all the Kurdish zones in the North.


M.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There is a disturbing story going around that McMaster is cooking up a scenario where up to 150,000 troops would go into Syria. I find the story hard to believe but Cernovich did expose the Susan Rice unmasking story. The US doesnt have 150,000 troops to send into Syria. Maybe if we could get the Turks to lead a coalition it could happen.
> 
> https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-mcmaster-manipulating-intelligence-reports-to-trump-wants-150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99



I'm with you T6.  Sending in gunners, Apaches and Tomahawks (not the retired kind) to support the locals is one thing.  Sending in Divisions is something else again.

Having said that I strongly suspect that the story is one of continuing press wars with various players spinning like crazy.

McMaster could be cooking the books.  Just like Clapper and Rice could have cooked the books.  And Flynn.

On the other hand he and Mattis could have both been tasked with, or offered, two options - small wars or D-Day - which the Donald will then get to pick.

I believe that the only thing we can be sure of is what happens after it happens.  And maybe that is the whole game.


----------



## Kirkhill

On the other hand, there is this from the Telegraph:



> Syria crisis: Russia raises prospect of war if it is given G7 ultimatum as it mocks Boris Johnson's no-show
> 
> Boris Johnson will lead talks with the G7 nations over Syria CREDIT: REUTERS
> 
> Gordon Rayner, political editor  Kate McCann, senior political correspondent
> 9 APRIL 2017 • 8:59AM
> 
> Russia has raised the prospect of war with the West as it mocked Boris Johnson for cancelling a trip to Moscow in the wake of the Syrian nerve gas attack.
> 
> The Russian Embassy in London posted a series of provocative tweets on its official account in which it suggested that "a conventional war" could be one outcome if the G7 group of nations presents it with an ultimatum later this week.
> 
> The Embassy also said it was "deplorable" that Mr Johnson was "unable to stand Western ground" by attending talks with his Russian counterpart.
> 
> (Russian Tweet)
> Russian Embassy, UK ✔ @RussianEmbassy
> If yesterday's statement by @BorisJohnson to be trusted,RTillerson will deliver G7 ultimatum to Moscow next week.What are probable outcomes?
> 5:08 AM - 9 Apr 2017
> war of clowns
> war of muses
> a conventional war
> a mix of the above
> Vote
> 1,921 votes • 17 hours left
> 109 109 Retweets   50 50 likes
> 
> 
> It came as Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, warned Russia it is responsible for the deaths caused by the Syrian chemical weapons attack "by proxy".



Is there a need to have an "all-in" gambit on the table?   Retaliatory missile strikes only work against Assad and if the Russians are willing to let the situation be limited to Assad.  If the Russians up the ante and take Assad under active protection against the US - shooting down missiles?  targeting aircraft?  targeting ships? - is there a need for a credible response to be on the table?


----------



## a_majoor

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Isn't the Syrian government  opposed to (and fighting) ISIS?
> 
> Why would the US oppose a government that's fighting against ISIS?



They Syrians and Russians _say_ they are fighting ISIS, but the bulk of their actions are against domestic Syrian rebels who have been fighting the Assad Regime since 2014 or so. ISIS is more like a rabid pit bull. The Gulf States and the Turks were content to let ISIS run free so long as they fought the Shiites (Iranians) and the Kurds respectively, but now ISIS has long since slipped the leash and is a threat to everyone.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And I really hope Daesh turn around like the rabid turd it is and tears into the hands that have fed them.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And I really hope Daesh turn around like the rabid turd it is and tears into the hands that have fed them.



Sadly, I think the KSA is safe.....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Sadly, I think the KSA is safe.....



And Qatar.....


----------



## jollyjacktar

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Sadly, I think the KSA is safe.....



One can always hope that Karma will come to visit the KSA, et al.


----------



## Gunner98

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So we should have concentrated on Russia instead of Germany?



No, we should have finished the fight - in WWII and Gulf War - treaties are made between tired warriors and lead to peace which unfortunately is a temporary situation.


----------



## Altair

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There is a disturbing story going around that McMaster is cooking up a scenario where up to 150,000 troops would go into Syria. I find the story hard to believe but Cernovich did expose the Susan Rice unmasking story. The US doesnt have 150,000 troops to send into Syria. Maybe if we could get the Turks to lead a coalition it could happen.
> 
> https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-mcmaster-manipulating-intelligence-reports-to-trump-wants-150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99


Considering Cernovich is the source I doubt we have anything to worry about.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Sadly, I think the KSA is safe.....



Unlike An Tanf Garrison, apparently. Looks like the boogey man was seen off handily though; well done chaps....

American Troops Helped Repel Brazen ISIS Assault On Joint Base In Syria 

http://taskandpurpose.com/american-troops-helped-repel-brazen-isis-assault-joint-base-syria/


----------



## The Bread Guy

A few tidbits from the U.S. info-machine ...


> *Statement by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis on the U.S. Military Response to the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons*
> 
> Press Operations
> Release No: NR-129-17
> April 10, 2017
> 
> The U.S. military strike against Shayrat airfield on April 6 was a measured response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons.
> 
> The president directed this action to deter future use of chemical weapons and to show the United States will not passively stand by while Assad murders innocent people with chemical weapons, which are prohibited by international law and which were declared destroyed.
> 
> The assessment of the Department of Defense is that the strike resulted in the damage or destruction of fuel and ammunition sites, air defense capabilities, and 20 percent of Syria’s operational aircraft. The Syrian government has lost the ability to refuel or rearm aircraft at Shayrat airfield and at this point, use of the runway is of idle military interest.
> 
> The Syrian government would be ill-advised ever again to use chemical weapons.





> *Trump Calls Commanders of Ships That Executed Syrian Strike
> *
> By Cheryl Pellerin DoD News, Defense Media Activity
> 
> WASHINGTON, April 10, 2017 — President Donald J. Trump yesterday made congratulatory calls to the commanding officers of the two Navy destroyers whose personnel executed the April 6 missile strike against the Shayrat Air Base in Syria, according to a White House statement.
> 
> Trump thanked Cmdr. Andria Slough of the USS Porter and Cmdr. Russell Caldwell of the USS Ross and their crews for their speed, precision and effectiveness in carrying out the operation against the airfield from which U.S. Central Command said was directly tied to the April 4 chemical weapons attack launched against civilians by the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
> 
> The strike was conducted using Tomahawk missiles launched from the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *Commanders’ Comments*
> 
> "The success of this mission hinged upon our sailors' excellent training, technical knowledge, and dedication to their work," Caldwell, the commander of the USS Ross, said in a U.S. European Command news release. "It was a distinct honor to hear firsthand from our commander in chief that these operations had a direct impact in support of his national objectives."
> 
> The USS Porter, forward-deployed to Rota, Spain, departed on its third forward-deployed patrol Nov. 30, 2016, and is conducting routine patrols in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations in support of U.S. national security interests in Europe, according to the Eucom release. Slough took command of the USS Porter on Jan. 28, 2016. In February, the USS Porter went to the Black Sea and participated in the Romanian led exercise Sea Shield.
> 
> In March, the USS Porter participated in the multilateral Allied Maritime Command anti-submarine, anti-surface warfare Exercise Dynamic Manta 2017. Also in March, the Porter was awarded the 2016 Atlantic Fleet "Bloodhound" award, signifying the best ship in the fleet at anti-submarine warfare.
> 
> "In general, the president said he was impressed with Porter's precision and lethality,” Slough said. “It was obvious he was extremely pleased with our performance, and is glad we're out here patrolling in U.S. 6th Fleet.”
> 
> U.S. 6th Fleet, headquartered in Naples, Italy, conducts the full spectrum of joint and naval operations, often in concert with allied, joint, and interagency partners, in order to advance U.S. national interests and security and stability in Europe and Africa.
> 
> *Syria Strike*
> 
> During a briefing today at the Pentagon, Centcom spokesman Army Col. John Thomas said that 59 missiles targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems and radars.
> 
> “We didn't crater the runway; we were not trying to make the airfield long-term inoperable. What we did was degrade the Syrians' ability to carry out chemical weapons attacks from that base in the short term,” Thomas told reporters.
> 
> He said the strike blew up “tens of thousands of gallons of fuel” and “destroyed or rendered inoperable” more than 20 aircraft.
> 
> “What we didn't strike were any areas that we believed Russian soldiers were operating out of,” Thomas added, “and we didn't strike what we believe was the munitions area where there may have been chemical weapons so we wouldn't create a plume [of toxic gases] or any further damage or harm to personnel.”
> 
> After the strike, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve commander Army Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend positioned and called-in resources needed for force protection “in case anybody wanted to take retaliatory actions,” Thomas said.
> 
> *Tanf Garrison*
> 
> Also in Syria, coalition forces and partnered vetted Syrian opposition forces repelled an attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria of a partnered military base in southern Syria on April 8, according to a CJTF-OIR news release.
> 
> ISIS initiated the attack on the Tanf garrison near the Syria-Jordan border with a vehicle bomb, and that 20 to 30 ISIS fighters, some wearing suicide vests, followed with a ground assault, the release said.
> 
> Coalition and partnered forces defended against the attack with direct fire before multiple coalition airstrikes destroyed enemy assault vehicles and killed fighters with multiple coalition airstrikes.
> 
> Along with close air support, the coalition provided ground and medevac support, Thomas said.
> 
> “The vetted Syrian opposition repulsed a coordinated, complex attack,” he added. “Three partner-force soldiers were killed in that engagement, but it was successful in defeating dozens of attackers in that area.”
> 
> _(Follow Cheryl Pellerin on Twitter: @PellerinDoDNews)_





> *Readout of President Donald J. Trump’s Call with the Commanding Officers of the USS Ross and USS Porter*
> 
> Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump called Commander Andria Slough, Commanding Officer of USS Porter, and Commander Russell Caldwell, Commanding Officer of USS Ross, to thank them and their personnel for successfully executing the strike against the Shayrat Air Base in Syria, the location the regime of Bashar al-Assad used to launch a heinous chemical weapons attack against innocent civilians.  The President commended the two commanders and their crews for the speed, precision, and effectiveness with which they carried out the operation.  The President communicated that, as the Commander in Chief, he could not be more proud of the crews of USS Porter and USS Ross and their flawless execution of the operation.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I still have a hard time believing the Syrian government would choose now to attack their own citizens with chemical weapons. It doesn't smell right (heh).  

Bit of a long quite but it makes me think of the (fake)  testimony of a 15year old girl that the US drew upon considerably for their argument leading to Gulf war 1. 



> The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a 15-year-old girl who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and President George H.W. Bush in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by American Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.[1][2]
> 
> In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die.
> 
> Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International[3] and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country. An ABC report found that "patients, including premature babies, did die, when many of Kuwait's nurses and doctors... fled" but Iraqi troops "almost certainly had not stolen hospital incubators and left hundreds of Kuwaiti babies to die."[4][5] Amnesty International reacted by issuing a correction, with executive director John Healey subsequently accusing the Bush administration of "opportunistic manipulation of the international human rights movement".[6]



Strange that the Syrian government picked now to launch an illegal and internationally condemned chemical weapons attack which they had to have known would be responded to.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I still have a hard time believing the Syrian government would choose now to attack their own citizens with chemical weapons. It doesn't smell right (heh).
> 
> (...)
> 
> Strange that the Syrian government picked now to launch an illegal and internationally condemned chemical weapons attack which they had to have known would be responded to.


Hey, according to pro-Syrian media, the original gas attack may not have involved a nerve agent at all - if one cares to believe that sort of thing ...

And I'm still waiting for someone from "the rebels did it" faction to tell me how many airplanes the rebel air forces have to have dropped the stuff.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I guess barrel-bombs are okay for killing your own citizens.  Or *insert way to kill people here, minus chemical weapons*.


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I still have a hard time believing the Syrian government would choose now to attack their own citizens with chemical weapons. It doesn't smell right (heh).
> 
> Bit of a long quite but it makes me think of the (fake)  testimony of a 15year old girl that the US drew upon considerably for their argument leading to Gulf war 1.
> 
> 
> Strange that the Syrian government picked now to launch an illegal and internationally condemned chemical weapons attack which they had to have known would be responded to.


Responded to? Like Obama did after he gas attacked a suburb in 2013? Trump has been onside with Russia for a while, he said he didn't believe in taking out Assad, he said in the past he wouldn't get involved in Syria.

Assad probably thought there would be zero price to pay for doing it now. He simply miscalculated.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I guess barrel-bombs are okay for killing your own citizens.  Or *insert way to kill people here, minus chemical weapons*.


C'mon, now - the Syrian government _says_ they're dealing with terrorists ...


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Altair] 

Assad probably thought there would be zero price to pay for doing it now. He simply miscalculated.
[/quote]

Because the US doesn't have a history of making stuff up in order to justify military action and their further involvement? 

Assad needed chemical weapons (giving him a super villan status) to kill 89 civilians?   That's quite the miscalculation. Doesn't make sense IMO. 

That's


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Because the US doesn't have a history of making stuff up in order to justify military action and their further involvement?
> 
> Assad needed chemical weapons (giving him a super villan status) to kill 89 civilians?   That's quite the miscalculation. Doesn't make sense IMO.
> 
> That's


First of all, I doubt they were all civilian.

Unless the definition of civilian means they dropped their gun before they dropped to the ground.

Funny how we never see the bodies of dead fighters, always only civilians bodies make the news. Women and children, I'll by that for the most part, but I doubt all the men killed were just minding their own business.

That said, Assad has used chemical weapons in the past, for whatever reasons, so I wouldn't be surprised if he used them again now, especially if he thought that Trump was turning a blind eye to his country and his conduct, figuring that if the Russians were providing him cover he could get away with it like he did with Obama.

A very bad miscalculation, because unlike Obama, it appears trump is willing to blow stuff up when his red lines are crossed.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Altair said:
			
		

> A very bad miscalculation, because unlike Obama, it appears trump is willing to blow stuff up when his red lines are crossed.



I think he will only do that as long as it is safe to strike with the illusion of impunity. If a US ship gets blown to pieces (which is not an implausible scenario), he will have to really lay down his cards, at which point Congress will almost certainly bail on him.     He might do better with a kill or capture order for Assad sooner rather than later (or the lesser option of forcing him to flee by sending another 60 missiles to obliterate several of the houses he (Assad) possesses, his offices, the places of his mistress(es) etc.).


----------



## Altair

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I think he will only do that as long as it is safe to strike with the illusion of impunity. If a US ship gets blown to pieces (which is not an implausible scenario), he will have to really lay down his cards, at which point Congress will almost certainly bail on him.     He might do better with a kill or capture order for Assad sooner rather than later (or the lesser option of forcing him to flee by sending another 60 missiles to obliterate several of the houses he (Assad) possesses, his offices, the places of his mistress(es) etc.).


Do you honestly think that congress is hyper partisan enough to bail on the president after an act of war is committed against the United States?


----------



## GR66

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I think he will only do that as long as it is safe to strike with the illusion of impunity. If a US ship gets blown to pieces (which is not an implausible scenario), he will have to really lay down his cards, at which point Congress will almost certainly bail on him.     He might do better with a kill or capture order for Assad sooner rather than later (or the lesser option of forcing him to flee by sending another 60 missiles to obliterate several of the houses he (Assad) possesses, his offices, the places of his mistress(es) etc.).



With regard to the part in yellow, I want to be clear as to what you are suggesting.  Are you saying that in your mind it's quite possible that Russia could respond to an American attack on Syrian forces/facilities by attempting to sink a USN ship?

I personally have my doubts that Russia would initiate a war with the US over their Syrian proxy state.  That would be a VERY big escallation and Russia would have much more to lose than it might possibly gain.  Is it IMPOSSIBLE that a rash decision or miscalculation might result in direct conflict between US and Russian forces?  Of course not, but I think that there would be a lot of pressure to maintain restraint.

For example, the US notified the Russians of their missile strike in advance in order to avoid possible Russian casualties.  When Turkey shot down the Russian SU-24 in 2015 Russia didn't launch military strikes against Turkey.  Russia even had their fighter pilots flying against the Americans in Korea and Vietnam and that didn't result in a direct nation to nation military confrontation.


----------



## Cloud Cover

You are right, I should have been more clear. 

One of any of Syria, Iran or Iran through Hezbollah, certainly not Russia although Medvedev is now saying the US and Russia are the closest to war since the Cuban missile crisis. 

I think Assad has become a liability to Putin  after the past 10 days. 
Congress will not support a macho rootin' tootin' shootin' Trump at the cost of a successful direct engagement on a large USN vessel.  They would distance themselves from the humiliation of such a loss even though the military response would be overwhelming (but not decisive of the matter). 

The 'strategic confusion' of the past few days from the Trump administration signals there is still too much top level volatility.


----------



## Cloud Cover

And BTW, the US committed an act of war against Syria, did it not?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> ... Congress will not support a macho rootin' tootin' shootin' Trump at the cost of a successful direct engagement on a large USN vessel.  They would distance themselves from the humiliation of such a loss even though the military response would be overwhelming (but not decisive of the matter) ...


In spite of partisan infighting among the Republicans, if I had to bet, I'd put a loonie on a firm hit on a U.S. vessel bringing a lot of House GOP folks together pretty damned quickly, whether they like POTUS45 or not.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Because the US doesn't have a history of making stuff up in order to justify military action and their further involvement?
> 
> Assad needed chemical weapons (giving him a super villan status) to kill 89 civilians?   That's quite the miscalculation. Doesn't make sense IMO.


I know this'll make some people's heads explode, but now, we have intelligence information shared by the POTUS45 administration with MSM saying it was Syria ...


> The Trump administration took the unusual step Tuesday of unveiling intelligence discrediting Russia’s attempts to shield its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, from blame in last week’s deadly chemical attack.
> 
> The newly released details of a U.S. intelligence assessment, which officials said demonstrated Syrian culpability in the April 4 assault that killed at least 70 people, added to rapidly escalating tensions with the Kremlin and signaled a move away from hopes for U.S. rapprochement with Russia.
> 
> Officials said their case against the Syrian government included signals and aerial intelligence — combined with local reporting and samples taken from victims of the attack — that showed a Russian-made, Syrian-piloted SU-22 aircraft dropped at least one munition carrying the nerve agent sarin ...


And if you don't trust MSM or U.S. intelligence, here's what the Whitehouse shared Tuesday (also attached in case the link doesn't work for you).


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I still have a hard time believing the Syrian government would choose now to attack their own citizens with chemical weapons ...


You're not the only one wondering about that - here's the Whitehouse's explanation ...


> ... in the middle of March, opposition forces launched an offensive from Southern Idlib province toward the major city of Hama, which is a strategic city in Syria.  It’s Syria’s third city, and it’s also the location of a key Syrian regime airbase that has been crucial for the regime and the forces that support it for projecting power from central Syria, both along the western spine, from Aleppo down to the south, and also further to the east to support operations in Palmyra.  So that is an airbase that the regime had to calculate that it could not lose.
> 
> The opposition offensive approach was able to penetrate to within just a couple of miles of that strategic airbase and also threatened the Hama population center within just a few miles.
> 
> At that point, the regime we think calculated that with its manpower spread quite thin, trying to support both defensive operations and consolidation operations in Aleppo and along that north-south spine of western Syria, and also trying to support operations which required it to send manpower and resources east toward Palmyra, we believe that the regime probably calculated at that point that chemical weapons were necessary in order to try to make up for the manpower deficiency.
> 
> That's why we saw, we believe, multiple attacks of this nature against locations that the regime probably determined were support areas for the opposition forces that were near Hama -- for example, in the town of Al-Tamanah and then in the town of Khan Sheikhun, both of which are in what would be, in military terms, the rear area for the opposition forces that were on the front line.
> 
> So we believe certainly that there was an operational calculus that the regime and perhaps its Russian advisors went through in terms of the decision-making ...


----------



## Edward Campbell

There's an interesting article in _*Foreign Affairs*_ suggesting that the plan for retaking Mosul was deeply flawed. It's an opinion piece, so caution is advised.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Altair said:
			
		

> First of all, I doubt they were all civilian.
> 
> Unless the definition of civilian means they dropped their gun before they dropped to the ground.
> 
> Funny how we never see the bodies of dead fighters, always only civilians bodies make the news. Women and children, I'll by that for the most part, but I doubt all the men killed were just minding their own business.



If you think that men aren't also in the *_innocent victims_* category in Iraq and Syria, you have no idea what is going on there then.  Its just that simple.


----------



## Altair

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If you think that men aren't also in the *_innocent victims_* category in Iraq and Syria, you have no idea what is going on there then.  Its just that simple.





> but I doubt all the men killed were just minding their own business.



I'm sure some of them were civilians, I doubt all of them were civilians.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> And BTW, the US committed an act of war against Syria, did it not?



and? Syria has been doing the same to Lebanon for 20+ years, plus it's still technically at war with one of the US allies.


----------



## Altair

I'm curious as to what Trump would do if the Syrians launched another chemical attack.

They relocated all their air assets to bases with Russian planes and personnel.


----------



## Kirkhill

Russians as human shields?


----------



## Altair

Far more effective than schools or hospitals.

Schools and hospitals aren't nuclear powers with the military ability to strike back.


----------



## Journeyman

Altair said:
			
		

> They relocated all their air assets to bases with Russian planes and personnel.


Al-Shayrat Air Base was already hosting joint Syrian-Russian operations. Having moved their assets to another base with Russian presence is no change.


----------



## Altair

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Al-Shayrat Air Base was already hosting joint Syrian-Russian operations. Having moved their assets to another base with Russian presence is no change.


it sort of is if trump is in another tomahawk launching mood


----------



## CBH99

Pretty ballsy move by President Trump, launching those 59 Tomahawks @ the base.  If a single Russian aircraft were destroyed by mistake, or Russian serviceman was injured or killed, the political repercussions would be absolutely enormous.

By moving their air assets to a base that has a larger Russian presence, they effectively protect themselves from further American attacks.  And we all know the geopolitical situation in regards to the Russian's long term goals -- they aren't going anywhere.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Hmmm, interesting ...

_*"Masrour Barzani: Turkish Bombing Raids on Mount Sinjar "a Surprise" "*_
_*"Erdogan says Turkish strikes on PKK in Sinjar coordinated with Massoud Barzani"*_
More on Turkey's bombing of IRQ & SYR Kurds here (via Google News)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Pretty ballsy move by President Trump, launching those 59 Tomahawks @ the base.  If a single Russian aircraft were destroyed by mistake, or Russian serviceman was injured or killed, the political repercussions would be absolutely enormous.
> 
> By moving their air assets to a base that has a larger Russian presence, they effectively protect themselves from further American attacks.  And we all know the geopolitical situation in regards to the Russian's long term goals -- they aren't going anywhere.



Russia did not go to war over one of it's fighters being shot down by Turkey.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think if the US wants to reach out and touch a specific 10 figure grid square in the region, they have the ability.  With rather good precision.  Tomahawks aren't the only thing in the toolbelt.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> Russia did not go to war over one of it's fighters being shot down by Turkey.



Russia would have a hard time winning a conventional war against Turkey, let alone the US.  They don't have the economic power for any kind of sustained conflict.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Russia would have a hard time winning a conventional war against Turkey, let alone the US.  They don't have the economic power for any kind of sustained conflict.



From Sweden's FOI assessment the Russian Airforce is as follows: (Effectives rated as 63% of fleet by Russians per FOI)

~277  Effective Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (Fighters) MiG-25/29/31/35; Su-27/30/35 (Mixed Bag spread across 5 Joint Service Commands)
~180  Effective Fighter Bombers Su-24/34
~100  Effective Attack Aircraft Su-25 (Frogfoots predominantly assigned to the Ukrainian and North Korean Fronts)
~557 Effective All Fighter/Attack

~176  Effective Attack Helicopters Mi-24/28/35; Ka-52 

https://www.foi.se/en/pressroom/news/news-archive/2016-12-08-russian-military-capability-is-strengthened-and-increasing.html

USAF Strength  (Effectives rated as 50% of fleet per USAF)
~  84 Effective F22
~431 Effective F16
~112 Effective F15
~105 Effective F15E
~133 Effective A10
~  12 Effective F35
~877 Effective All Fighter/Attack

USN Strength (Assumes same effective ratio as USAF)
~515 Effective All Fighter/Attack

USMC Strength (Assumes same effective ratio as USAF)
~101 Effective F18
~ 52 Effective AV-8B
~ 24 Effective F35
~177 Effective All Fighter/Attack

US Strength
~1569 Effective All Fighter/Attack



US Marine Helos
~136 Effective UH/AH 

US Army Helos
~312 Effective AH-64

US Attack Helo Strength
~448 Effectives all types


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-your-go-to-graphic-to-understand-the-u-s-armys-m-1752205463
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-your-go-to-graphic-to-understand-the-usmcs-aircra-1707011460
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-your-go-to-graphic-to-understand-the-navys-aircra-1705434161
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16727/air-force-in-one-chart/?zoomable
http://index.heritage.org/military/2017/assessments/us-military-power/u-s-air-force/

Even with a very low effectives rate (50% vs 63%) the tactical air advantage is 3:1 US:Russia.

This is emblematic of all fields.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of an update ...

_*"Russia, Iran and Turkey reach consensus on de-escalation zones in Syria — source"*_ (TASS)
_*"Syria’s armed opposition is rejecting a Russian plan to create safe zones in the country, saying it is a threat to territorial integrity ..."*_ (Euronews)
_*"Syrian Kurdish PYD denounces Syria deal for 'de-escalation zones' "*_ (Reuters)
_*"‘Astana’ Approves Syria’s ‘De-escalation Zones’ Despite Opposition Reservations"*_ (_Asharq Al-Awsat_, "pan-Arab daily newspaper" published in London UK)
_*"UN envoy commends plan to setup de-escalation zones in Syria as ‘promising positive step’ "*_ (UN info-machine)
_*"Syria’s Skies Will Be Mostly Off Limits to U.S. and Allied Planes, Russia Says"*_ (_NY Times_)
And, just in case you missed this from Iranian media:  _*"NATO funds terrorism by harvesting organs in Syria"*_


----------



## Kirkhill

The greater, grander, scheme of things:

US. Saudi Arabia. Jordan. Gulf Arabs. Israel. Syria.  Hezbollah.  Iran.  Russia.  ISIS. Kurds.



> Is Trump holding a Russian card in the Middle East?
> 
> The choreography of the first day of US President Donald Trump’s visit probably exceeded even Saudi Arabia's expectations. The United States and the kingdom on May 20 concluded a $110 billion arms deal ($350 billion over the coming decade), the announcement of $40 billion of Saudi investments in US infrastructure projects and pronouncements of a new US-Saudi partnership in the region. Trump will give a speech May 21 that he said will address the “growing concern about terrorism, the spread of radicalization and Iran's role in funding both.” In addition, Trump is calling for US regional partners “to take more responsibility and a much bigger role in fighting terrorism in their region.”
> 
> Summary⎙ Print Trump visit launches new US-Saudi partnership, but the endgame in the Middle East still depends on Moscow and Tehran.
> Author Week in ReviewPosted May 20, 2017
> In a news conference, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir seemed in lockstep in their approach to Iran. Tillerson described the arms package as a means to deal with “malign Iranian influence.” Although the US secretary of state gave priority to a political solution in Yemen, he supported additional Saudi military pressure on Houthi armed groups, which are backed by Iran. According to the World Health Organization, Yemen is suffering from an unprecedentedly rapid spread of cholera and “massive damage to the country’s sewage and electricity infrastructure, which have left the water supply contaminated.”
> 
> In Jerusalem, Trump will build on the shared concerns among the Gulf States and Israel about Iran. Ben Caspit wrote here in March that “Israel is determined to maintain its red lines on Hezbollah with the utmost meticulousness. It will do whatever it takes to prevent the transfer of any weapons to Hezbollah that could upset the balance of power.”
> 
> There may be a question as to whether Trump is quietly holding, or should be holding, a Russian card in his plans for the region. The Trump visit could, or should, be the sign of a trend in which the US strengthens its commitments and relationships with Israel and America’s traditional Sunni allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as a means of putting pressure on Iran and providing support for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, while letting Russia take the lead with the Shiite “resistance axis” — including Iran, Syria and Hezbollah — in seeking a diplomatic process to address the region’s conflicts.
> 
> Iran is unlikely to be cowed by the spectacle in Riyadh, and there will of course be no deal with Iran or Syria without the good offices of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has a direct line to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The decisive re-election of Hassan Rouhani as president of Iran on May 19 is a win for the so-called moderate trend, which will now have Khamenei’s support. In the absence of a diplomatic process, the people of Yemen and Syria can expect even more misery in the coming years.
> 
> And this brings us back to the White House meeting May 10 between Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Most of the media attention focused on what Trump may have said to the Russian envoy about former FBI director James Comey and on the appropriateness of Trump’s sharing of sensitive Israeli intelligence information about Islamic State’s terrorist plotting. US national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who attended the meeting, characterized the exchange between Trump and Lavrov as “wholly appropriate.” Ben Caspit writes this week about how the United States and Israel acted quickly to mitigate any disruption in intelligence cooperation.
> 
> But Syria and Iran were also on the Trump-Lavrov agenda. The White House said, “Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria, in particular, underscoring the need for Russia to rein in the Assad regime, Iran and Iranian proxies. … He also raised the possibility of broader cooperation on resolving conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. The president further emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.”
> 
> On May 19, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, hinted at a possible division of labor with the Russians in Syria, while noting the expansion of reducing the possibility of conflict between the US and Russian militaries. “We are looking for the Russians to — to work with the regime, to deconflict our operations. I think what you're highlighting is absolutely a fair point, which is the ground is becoming increasingly complex and constrained. But to date, we have — we have been able to deconflict operations. … We had a proposal that we're working on with the Russians right now. I won't share the details. But — but my sense is that the Russians are as enthusiastic as we are to deconflict operations and ensure that we can continue to take the campaign to ISIS [Islamic State] and ensure the safety of our personnel,” Dunford said.
> 
> Laura Rozen reports that just five days after the Trump-Lavrov meeting, in a little-noticed shift, “The Trump White House suggested it was willing to work not only with Russia but also with Iran to try to end the killing in Syria and advance a political transition if they helped bring an end to Assad’s atrocities. Trump has previously lambasted the nuclear deal with Iran and supported calls for additional sanctions over the country's ballistic missile program. ‘The United States remains open to working together with both Russia and Iran to find a solution that leads to a stable and united Syria,' Spicer said [on May 15]. But in order for us to work together to bring an end to the violence in Syria, Russia and Iran need to acknowledge the atrocities of the Assad regime and use their influence to stop them.”
> 
> Although Tillerson’s remarks in Saudi Arabia could hardly be characterized as a gesture for dialogue, the US secretary of state added, “In terms of whether I'd ever pick the phone up, I've never shut off the phone to anyone that wants to talk or have a productive conversation. … In all likelihood, we [Iran and the US] will talk, at the right time.”
> 
> As we wrote in this column in November 2013, a shift in Israel-Iran ties “is not so far-fetched when one considers the role that Russia can play as a broker in this exchange. … The United States alone does not yet have all the keys to close a deal between Israel and Hezbollah, but the pieces are coming together. Any negotiation on Hezbollah will run through Damascus as well as Tehran, and here again we get to Moscow’s role, with its newfound credibility in Damascus, Tehran, Jerusalem and Washington.” Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman told Caspit in February that he was unsure of Russia’s support for Israel’s objectives of a withdrawal of Iranian and Hezbollah forces from Syria, while acknowledging the need for US-Russian coordination. Israel, Liberman said, is in “a complex and complicated dialogue” with Russia.
> 
> These trends toward a fresh start are often fragile and ultimately depend on the courage and convictions of leaders willing to take risks and chart a new course. US-Russian collaboration is essential to the endgame in Syria, as we wrote in our second column in December 2012. As Akiva Eldar wrote last month, “If there’s a common denominator that transcends all the disputes between the United States and Russia, it is the belief in the need to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict that was fanned by their Cold War. For a change, Israel can show these two powers the road to peace.”
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/05/trump-russia-middle-east-saudi-arabia-visit-israel-iran.html#ixzz4hjJOK4ih


----------



## The Bread Guy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/24/turkish-f-16-shoots-down-russian-fighter-jet-near-syria-border/
> 
> Sorry for the poor formatting: I'm on my mobile device.
> 
> In short: a Russian SU-24 has been shot down in Syria (that it crashed in Syria is not in dispute)
> Whether it was in Turkish or Syrian airspace is being disputed, and whether a Turk F-16 brought it down, or ground fire.
> 
> Either way, not good...


Bringing this one all the way back around to an ending of sorts ...


> Alparslan Celik, who confessed to killing Russian pilot Oleg Peshkov, has been sentenced today to five years in prison for illegal firearms possession, Celik’s lawyer Taskin Kangal told TASS.
> 
> "I confirm that Alparslan Celik has been sentenced to five years of imprisonment for carrying a weapon. We haven’t received the written court judgement, but I confirm the sentence," he said.
> 
> Celik, being a Grey Wolves leader, took the blame for the pilot’s death upon himself, as his fighters did not follow his order and continued firing, although he personally did not kill the pilot. The incident occurred in Syria on November 24, 2015, when the Turkish air force shot down a Russian Su-24, killing its pilot Oleg Peshkov.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And a segue from one shoot-down to another ...


> The U.S. military on Sunday shot down a Syrian Air Force fighter jet that bombed local forces aligned with the Americans in the fight against Islamic State militants, an action that appeared to mark a new escalation of the conflict.
> 
> The U.S.-led coalition headquarters in Iraq said in a written statement that a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet shot down a Syrian government SU-22 after it dropped bombs near the U.S. partner forces, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. The shootdown was near the Syrian town of Tabqa.
> 
> The U.S. military statement said it acted in "collective self defense" of its partner forces and that the U.S. did not seek a fight with the Syrian government or its Russian supporters ...


More via Google News here.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This, from the CENTCOM info-machine ...


> At approximately 4:30 p.m. Syria time, June 18, Pro-Syrian regime forces attacked the Syrian Democratic Forces-held town of Ja'Din, South of Tabqah, wounding a number of SDF fighters and driving the SDF from the town.
> 
> Coalition aircraft conducted a show of force and stopped the initial pro-regime advance toward the SDF-controlled town.
> 
> Following the Pro-Syrian forces attack, the Coalition contacted its Russian counterparts by telephone via an established 'de-confliction line' to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing.
> 
> At 6:43 p.m., a Syrian regime SU-22 dropped bombs near SDF fighters south of Tabqah and, in accordance with rules of engagement and in collective self-defense of Coalition partnered forces, was immediately shot down by a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet.
> 
> Ja'Din sits approximately two kilometers north of an established East-West SDF-Syrian Regime de-confliction area.
> 
> The Coalition's mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend Coalition or partner forces from any threat.
> 
> The Coalition presence in Syria addresses the imminent threat ISIS in Syria poses globally. The demonstrated hostile intent and actions of pro-regime forces toward Coalition and partner forces in Syria conducting legitimate counter-ISIS operations will not be tolerated.
> 
> The Coalition calls on all parties to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.
> 
> -30-​


----------



## The Bread Guy

And this from Russia's DefMin info-machine (via FB)...


> *Statement of the Russian Defence Ministry concerning downing of the Syrian Su-22 near the town of Resafa*
> 
> On June 18, 2017 the American fighter F-18A belonging to the international coalition shot down the Su-22 aircraft of the Syrian Air Force, which was performing a combat mission supporting the government troops, which were conducting the offensive against the ISIS terrorists near the town of Resafa (40 km to the south-west of the city of Raqqa).
> 
> As a result of the attack, the Syrian aircraft was destroyed. The pilot baled out over an ISIS-controlled area, his status is unknown.
> 
> The destruction of the aircraft of the Syrian Air Force by the American aviation in the air space of Syria – is a cynical violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic.
> 
> Numerous combat activities of the US aviation carried out under the cover of “fight against terrorism” aimed against the legitimate Armed Forces of a UN-member is a blatant breach of the international law and is in fact an act of military aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic.
> 
> Moreover, at that time the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces were also performing combat missions in the air space of Syria. However, the Command of the coalition forces did not use the existing channels of communication between the Command of the Al Udeid Air Base (Qatar) and the Hmeymim Air Base Command to prevent air incidents in the air space of Syria.
> 
> The Russian party considers those actions of the US Command as an intentional failure to fulfill its obligations within the Memorandum on prevention of incidents and providing of flight security during the operations in Syria dated October 20, 2015.
> 
> Since June 19, 2017, the Russian Defence Ministry has stopped the cooperation with the American party within the Memorandum on prevention of incidents and providing of flight security during the operations in Syria and demands a thorough investigation of the incident by the US Command with further providing of information on its results and the taken measures.
> 
> In the combat mission zones of the Russian aviation in the air space of Syria, all kinds of airborne vehicles, including aircraft and UAVs of the international coalition detected to the west of the Euphrates River will be tracked by the Russian SAM systems as air targets.


... and this from MSM:

_*"Russia cuts deconfliction channel with Washington after US downs Syrian jet* -- Russia will regard any flights within the area of its air force group's operation in Syria as legitimate targets ..."_ (TASS)
_*"Russia Threatens to Target U.S. Warplanes Over Syria"*_ (_NY Times_)
_*"Russia threatens to treat U.S. coalition aircraft as targets over Syria"*_ (_Washington Post_)
_*"Russia says it will treat US planes in Syria as targets"*_ (Associated Press)
_*"Syria conflict: Russia issues warning after US coalition downs jet"*_ (BBC)


----------



## GAP

Russia is calling the U.S.'s bluff......


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Slightly different version of events than what the US released.

Based on historical precedents, I'm at the point where I assume the Russians are lying about everything, until proven otherwise....


----------



## GAP

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Slightly different version of events than what the US released.
> 
> Based on historical precedents, I'm at the point where I assume the Russians are lying about everything, until proven otherwise....



I remember Obama making his line in the sand, and then .......nothing....this time, with a new President, they are immediately pushing back. What happens now determines how he is received by the adversarial part of the world.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> ... I'm at the point where I assume the Russians are lying about everything, until proven otherwise....


Or, as this guy says ...


> Do not believe anything until the Kremlin denies it™





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> ... What happens now determines how he is received by the adversarial part of the world.


 :nod:


----------



## McG

GAP said:
			
		

> What happens now determines how he is received by the adversarial part of the world.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

>


Or ... ?


----------



## McG

Maybe.  I think the world today is less like autumn of 79 years ago and more like autumn of 109 years ago.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And with the Aussies ...

_*"Australia halts Syria air strikes after Russia warning"*_ (Al Jazeera)
_*"Australia suspends air strikes in Syria after U.S. downing of Syrian jet"*_ (Reuters)
_*"Syria war: RAAF temporarily halts missions after US jet shoots down Syrian bomber"*_ (AUS Broadcasting Corporation)


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/20/breaking-us-shoots-down-iranian-drone-in-syria.html

*US shoots down Iranian drone in Syria* - By Lucas Tomlinson Published June 20, 2017 Fox News

A U.S. jet shot down an Iranian drone flying in southern Syria near U.S.-backed forces on Tuesday, a U.S. defense official confirmed to Fox News.

A U.S Air Force F-15 shot down the Iranian-made drone, according to the official.

This is the second time the U.S. has shot down an Iranian drone in less than a month. It also marks the fifth time since late May the U.S. military has bombed pro-Syrian forces in southern Syria.

US special operations forces have been training Syrian rebels at an outpost near al-Tanf Syria, close to Syria’s border with Iraq and Jordan for the past few years.


----------



## McG

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/white-house-warns-syria-s-assad-against-chemical-attack-1.4179207

White House claims that it sees the same indicators that preceded the last Syrian chemical weapon attack, and a warning is sent to Syria: "don't do that"


----------



## The Bread Guy

Interesting question -- shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> *Analysis: Can IS be ousted from Syria without Assad's help?*
> By ZEINA KARAM and JOSH LEDERMAN
> Associated Press
> 
> As the U.S.-led coalition tightens the noose around the Islamic State group in Syria, President Bashar Assad's Iranian-backed troops are also seizing back territory from the militants with little protest from Washington, a sign of how American options are limited without a powerful ally on the ground.
> 
> Washington is loath to cooperate with Assad's internationally ostracized government. But it will be difficult to uproot IS militants and keep them out with only the Kurdish and Arab militias backed by the U.S. - and a coalition spokesman pointed out that Assad's gains ease the burden on those forces.
> 
> Letting Assad grab IS territory, however, risks being seen as the U.S. legitimizing his continued rule and would likely strengthen his hand in his war against the already struggling rebellion. It also threatens to further empower Assad's allies, Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah, which both have forces alongside his troops in the assault into IS-held territory.
> 
> Within the Trump administration, there is a split over whether to aggressively try to stem Assad's advances, said a senior U.S. official, who wasn't authorized to speak to reporters and requested anonymity.
> 
> Army Col. Ryan Dillon, the spokesman for the anti-IS coalition, said Syrian government forces are welcome to reclaim IS-held territory and fill the vacuum once the extremist group is gone.
> 
> The statement was startling - even more so because soon after President Donald Trump this week warned Assad he would pay "a heavy price," claiming "potential" evidence that Syria was preparing for another chemical weapons attack.
> 
> The mixed messages reveal a discomfiting fact that most policy makers would rather not spell out: Assad is a pariah but he is also a convenient tool to secure and govern territory in majority-Arab cities in a complex terrain.
> 
> The situation in Syria is a contrast to Iraq, where the coalition and the Iraqi government, working hand in glove, appear to be on the verge of retaking the main IS redoubt in city of Mosul.
> 
> The Syrian government has repeatedly suggested that everyone is welcome to work with it to defeat IS.
> 
> Mohammad Kheir Akkam, a Syrian lawmaker, questioned U.S. support for the Kurdish-led forces "despite the fact that the Syrian-Russian cooperation has achieved more results in combating terrorism," while U.S. efforts have "had the opposite result."
> 
> The U.S. so far has shunned any cooperation with the Syrian leader, whom Trump described as an "animal." Instead, it has partnered with local Kurdish and Arab forces known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF.
> 
> Those fighters are currently spearheading the assault on the Islamic State group's self-declared capital, Raqqa in northern Syria, and then face the prospect of assaulting the group's final major stronghold to the southeast, in Deir el-Zour.
> 
> But U.S. support for the Kurdish-led group has angered Turkey, which views it as an extension of a Kurdish insurgency within its own territory. The SDF is also viewed with suspicion by the predominantly Arab residents of Raqqa and Deir el-Zour.
> 
> Furthermore, the SDF, numbering around 50,000 fighters, is already risking overstretch and is in no way ready for the more challenging battle in Deir el-Zour.
> 
> Assad and his Iranian allies, on the other hand, have steadily positioned themselves in key areas on the flanks of the U.S.-led war against IS, grabbing territory on several fronts, including on the outskirts of Raqqa and Deir el-Zour. With Russian and Iranian support, Assad has made steady gains and now controls almost all of Syria's major cities except those held by IS.
> 
> The symbolism was striking this week as a smiling Assad paid a visit to central Hama, driving his own car, and to a Russian air base in western Syria, where he posed alongside Russian generals and inside the cockpit of a Russian SU-35 fighter jet.
> 
> Syrian troops have positioned themselves on Raqqa's southwestern flanks, and officials have vowed to retake the city eventually.
> 
> The U.S. has insisted that the city should be handed over to a local council that would handle its administration post-liberation - and it has made clear it will not tolerate the Syrian government and its allies cashing in on the fight. U.S. forces recently shot down a Syrian aircraft as well as drones believed connected to Iranian-supported forces as tensions escalated near a base where the coalition trains Syrian rebels.
> 
> But the senior American official said there was significant disagreement about how aggressively the U.S. should try to prevent Assad from reclaiming the territory IS vacates, with some in the White House pushing a more forceful approach while the State Department and the Pentagon warn of the risks.
> 
> Keeping Assad's territory to a minimum would ensure his hand isn't strengthened in an eventual political deal to end the conflict, making it more likely the U.S. could deliver on its longstanding desire to see him leave power. Limiting his control in eastern Syria would also prevent Iranian-backed forces from securing a wide corridor through Iraq to Syria and all the way into Lebanon.
> 
> The more risk-averse voices in Trump's administration are wary about letting the U.S. slip into a more direct fight with Assad, the official said.
> 
> Dillon, the coalition spokesman, told reporters at the Pentagon that the U.S. goal is to defeat IS wherever it exists. If others, including the Syrian government and its Iranian and Russian allies, want to fight the extremists, "we absolutely have no problem with that."
> 
> Frederic C. Hof, director of the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, said the comments reflect the narrow U.S. view of the Syria war, focused very specifically on the neutralization of IS.
> 
> In the coalition view, "it is all about killing ISIS in Raqqa." Hof wrote in an article this week. "Creating conditions that would keep it dead? That, presumably, would be someone else's job."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

However Assad is facing an issue that the more territory he seizes, the more territory he must protect and the more people he must control. His forces are not growing or if there is an increase, it is not as much as terrain acquired. ISIS will move into non-convential warfare, aiming to create unrest and outrage between the various communities. The kurds will be to strong to openly attack and it’s possible the Syrian Kurds may accept themselves as a independently run Syrian Federal State, which removes a potential conflict with the regime and acts as a block to keep Turkey out. ISIS will also try to upset any relationship building between Sunni and Shia. If the Shia led/Iranian backed government repeats it’s full retard on the Sunni’s again, the Sunni tribes may turn to KSA to protect them, which would lead to a direct conflict between KSA and Iran, which would force the US to pull KSA ass out of the fire as the Iranians pummel them.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I apologize because I do not remember where I read it to cite, but I did read an op-ed that claimed upwards of 80% of Assad's effective ground combat units were now non-Syrian (the majority being Iranian).

I think in any future Assad territory, it's guaranteed there will be IRGC bases ensuring Iran's foothold in the area.  

That being said, as fearful as I am of Iran, it's actually Erdogan that scares me the most. I think that guy could be the catalyst for a major war.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The question will be what does Iran expect for the price in blood and treasure it spent in Syria? You can bet that some in Assads circle will be pissed that he lost half the country and sold the other half to Iran and Hezbollah. The Russians don't really want that much and are likely good for the local economy. Iran is going to meddle fearsomely in Syrian politics for many years to come, it's going to be quite the Faustian pact.


----------



## Altair

Colin P said:
			
		

> The question will be what does Iran expect for the price in blood and treasure it spent in Syria? You can bet that some in Assads circle will be pissed that he lost half the country and sold the other half to Iran and Hezbollah. The Russians don't really want that much and are likely good for the local economy. Iran is going to meddle fearsomely in Syrian politics for many years to come, it's going to be quite the Faustian pact.


A Shia bloc of influence, starting in Iran, going through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Probably to act as a counter to Sunni Islamic bloc lead by Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Rocky Mountains

I think we are being fed a line concerning Syria.  The Syrian government controls 71% of the population and the Kurds control 14%.  These natural allies control 85% of the population.  Why are they natural allies?  The Turks despise the Kurds as terrorists and the US is going to leave.  The only potential friend left for the Kurds is Assad.  Turkey will not allow an independent Kurdish state.

Assad is supported by the Shia and Christian population and by secular Sunnis.  He is opposed by the Sunni jihadists and the U.S.  Assad is secure in his position and is slowly mopping up rebel held areas after cleaning the rebels out of Homs and Aleppo.  The rebels hold no cities.  The U.S. has nothing to offer the Syrians other than minimizing damage.


----------



## Rocky Mountains

Altair said:
			
		

> A Shia bloc of influence, starting in Iran, going through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Probably to act as a counter to Sunni Islamic bloc lead by Saudi Arabia.



The Shia population of Syria is Alawite which does not have much in common with Iranian and Iraqi Shias.  They are likely considered heretics.  They are little more than 10% of the Syrian population so they will not be part of a grand Shia Alliance.  Assad rules by popular consent, to a large degree, and alienating close to 90% of the population who are non-Shia isn't going to happen.


----------



## Altair

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The Shia population of Syria is Alawite which does not have much in common with Iranian and Iraqi Shias.  They are likely considered heretics.  They are little more than 10% of the Syrian population so they will not be part of a grand Shia Alliance.  Assad rules by popular consent, to a large degree, and alienating close to 90% of the population who are non-Shia isn't going to happen.


As much as different sects of shia islam may be opposed to other sects of shia islam, I think if shia muslims have a choice between other shias or sunnis, they reluctantly pick those heretical shias.

The enemy of my enemy and all that.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Another wrinkle - from the U.S. Sec o' State (*highlights* mine) ...


> ... The United States believes Russia, as a guarantor of the Assad regime and an early entrant into the Syrian conflict, has a responsibility to ensure that the needs of the Syrian people are met and that no faction in Syria illegitimately re-takes or occupies areas liberated from ISIS' or other terrorist groups' control. Russia also has an obligation to prevent any further use of chemical weapons of any kind by the Assad regime.
> 
> The United States and Russia have already achieved progress in establishing de-confliction zones in Syria that have prevented mutual collateral damage. Our military leaders have communicated clearly with one another to make sure no accidents occur between our two countries in the Syrian theater. Where there have been minor incidents, they have been resolved quickly and peacefully. This cooperation over de-confliction zones process is evidence that our two nations are capable of further progress. *The United States is prepared to explore the possibility of establishing with Russia joint mechanisms for ensuring stability, including no-fly zones, on the ground ceasefire observers, and coordinated delivery of humanitarian assistance. If our two countries work together to establish stability on the ground, it will lay a foundation for progress on the settlement of Syria's political future* ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Altair said:
			
		

> A Shia bloc of influence, starting in Iran, going through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Probably to act as a counter to Sunni Islamic bloc lead by Saudi Arabia.



That's part of it, but going by Hezbollah actions in Lebanon, they will want an increasingly larger say in what goes on day to day in Syria. That will start to grate on Syrians. Another thing I would do if I was Assad is give any loyalist Palestinians that took up arms for the regime full citizenship and cede them land previously owned by anyone who was deemed a Jihadist. Particularly in strategic areas, I fully expect some ethic cleansing to secure areas of importance after the main civil war ends.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Don't underestimate the Iranian's hate for the Jew's either.

Not sure if anyone else saw it, but there was a satellite photo published in last couple of days that shows they were using a Star of David as the target for their latest surface-to-surface missile test.

Can you imagine if the opposite occurred and the Israeli's used an Islamic Crescent as a target?  

Love the double-standards....   :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

i think most of the "hate" exists in the minds of the religious clerics and hardliners in the IRG. Most Iranians likely don't have a hate on for Israel and even made jokes how "Israeli smart bombs are so smart they can pick an Iranian pocket" A reference to the Iranian government funding Hamas and Hamas getting decimated. Iran is only 51% Persian, they must always watch their own backyard otherwise the Kurds and Balchs might have "ideas".


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Colin P said:
			
		

> i think most of the "hate" exists in the minds of the religious clerics and hardliners in the IRG. Most Iranians likely don't have a hate on for Israel and even made jokes how "Israeli smart bombs are so smart they can pick an Iranian pocket" A reference to the Iranian government funding Hamas and Hamas getting decimated. Iran is only 51% Persian, they must always watch their own backyard otherwise the Kurds and Balchs might have "ideas".



Well, the fact it exists in the guys running their missile program, is definitely a bad thing...


----------



## The Bread Guy

A couple of tidbits:

From one NATO "ally" to another ... _*"Turkish state news exposes US military positions in Syria"*_ (_Washington Examiner_)
Happy Russians?  _"CIA-coordinated military aid for rebels in northwest Syria has been frozen since they came under major Islamist attack last month, rebel sources said, raising doubts about foreign support key to their war against President Bashar al-Assad ..."_ (Reuters)


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A couple of tidbits:
> 
> From one NATO "ally" to another ... _*"Turkish state news exposes US military positions in Syria"*_ (_Washington Examiner_)
> ...[/list]


Following up from this ...


> The head of Special Forces said Friday that Russia had established a more credible foothold than the U.S. in Syria, and that Moscow could use this influence to essentially expel his forces.
> 
> Addressing a security conference at the Aspen Institute, Special Operations Command chief Army General Raymond Thomas said that, while counterterrorism remained a priority for his forces, international law could prevent the U.S. from maintaining a long-term presence in Syria, where its intervention has been declared illegal by the  government. Russia is also involved in the fight against the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) and other jihadists in Syria, but entered at the request of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, something that Thomas said could allow Moscow to make a solid case for the U.S.'s departure.
> 
> "Here's the conundrum: We are operating in the sovereign country of Syria. The Russians, their stalwarts, their backstoppers have already uninvited the Turks from Syria. We're a bad day away from the Russians saying, 'Why are you still in Syria, U.S.?,'" Thomas said.
> 
> "If the Russians play that card, we could want to stay and have no ability to do it," he added ...


----------



## tomahawk6

The US seems to be achieving its strategic goal of destroying IS.The flow of foreign fighters has been cut off,and those that are still alive in Syria are increasingly cut off with no escape.

http://www.defenseone.com/news/2017/07/flow-foreign-fighters-isis-stopped-trump-tactics-working-mcgurk-says/139801/



> On the strategic front, McGurk credited Defense Secretary James Mattis’s strategy of “surround, constrict, annihilate.” Mattis, in May, announced the U.S.-coalition’s plan to surround ISIS in pockets and not permit fighters, particularly foreign fighters, to escape. “Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to North Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa. We’re not going to allow them to do so. We’re going to stop them there and take apart the caliphate,” said Mattis.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I like it.  Too bad it wasn't done far sooner to prevent the trash from escaping back to the west.


----------



## a_majoor

A reminder that no situation is static, stabilizing Syria under Russian and Iranian protection raises the possibilities of renewed conflict between Iranian proxies and Israel:

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/middle-east/israel-hezbollah-eye-next-war



> *Israel and Hezbollah Eye Their Next War*
> AUGUST 29, 2017 | FRITZ LODGE
> 
> On August 15, Israel’s Channel 2 news revealed satellite photos of an Iranian missile production facility near the town of Baniyas in northwestern Syria, capable of producing long-range rockets. Iran’s formidable military presence in Syria is nothing new, but the revelation of this production facility underlines how deeply the war in Syria has changed the balance of military power in the eastern Mediterranean.
> 
> Faced with the possible collapse of Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s regime, Iran and its regional proxies have poured millions of dollars and thousands of soldiers into its Syrian ally. Now, with Russian help, that investment has paid off, and the regime has reestablished control over much of central Syria, and is stabilizing the front along “de-confliction zones” guaranteed by Russia, Turkey, and Iran.
> 
> This is a problem for Israel. As the battle lines in Syria begin to stabilize, Iran and its allies will be able to focus more energy and attention on the Jewish state. Nowhere is this threat clearer than in Lebanon, where the Iran-allied and financed group of Hezbollah boasts thousands of soldiers, deep political influence in the Lebanese government, and an arsenal of up to 150,000 rockets. At the moment, Hezbollah deploys roughly 5,000 fighters in Syria – roughly one quarter of its standing forces. If and when those fighters return to Lebanon, Hezbollah leaders may feel emboldened to step up attacks on Israeli soil. The question for Israeli leaders is not only how to face this threat when it appears, but whether to strike now while its enemies are still distracted in Syria.
> 
> Tensions along the border between Lebanon and Israel have already provoked violence. Following an Israeli airstrike on a Hezbollah arms convoy in 2015, the group responded with rocket and artillery fire against Israeli military positions, which killed two soldiers. However, the incident did not escalate further. This restraint is partially the result of memories from the last major conflict between Israel and Lebanon in 2006, which exacted a high toll on both sides and effectively resulted in stalemate.
> 
> Looking back on the lessons of 2006, the problem for Israel is that Hezbollah is even stronger and better prepared today than it was then. The group’s involvement in Syria has cost roughly 1,300 dead over the past five years but, says Tony Badran, Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, “in exchange for that tradeoff, Hezbollah was gaining military experience on the battlefield and via cooperation with Russia.” Now the group’s roughly 20,000-strong standing army is battle hardened by rotation through Syria, its 25,000 reservists receive more advanced training, and the land bridge to Iran through Iranian proxy forces in Iraq and the Assad regime in Syria is swiftly becoming a reliable supply pipeline for advanced military hardware.
> 
> At the same time, the explosion in Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal since 2006 – now larger than the supply of most NATO countries – means that the group can launch salvoes of roughly 1,000 missiles per day, anywhere within Israel, during a future conflict. The group’s anti-ship missile capabilities – as demonstrated in the crippling 2006 strike on the Israeli corvette INS Hanit – might also allow Hezbollah to establish an effective naval blockade of Israel. Finally, most experts assume that Hezbollah maintains a vast network of tunnels under the border, allowing it to disgorge fighters into Israeli territory for raids behind the lines. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, boasted of these new capabilities in May, saying that “Israel is afraid of any confrontation… [and that] there will be no place that is out of reach of the rockets of the resistance or the boots of the resistance fighters.”
> 
> Nevertheless, says Badran, “Hezbollah is probably not in a position where they’d want to initiate a conflict.” The Syrian war is still hot, and “Iran and its proxies especially need time to connect its Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese assets. Hezbollah will then use that territory for, among other things, striking Israel, transforming its presence in Syria from a constraint to an enormous advantage.”
> 
> This is the strategic dilemma that Israel faces. Despite Hezbollah’s increased strength, Israel still holds decisive military advantage over the sub-state actor. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has roughly 175,000 active personnel with 445,000 reserves, some of the most advanced military hardware in the world, and air supremacy over Lebanon. Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system can also be relied upon to blunt at least some of the threat posed by Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal. As of 2014, the system has successfully intercepted over 1,400 rockets.
> 
> At a time when a quarter of Hezbollah forces are still wrapped up in Syria and the overland supply pipeline to Iran is still incomplete, Israeli policymakers might be tempted to use this military superiority to strike now while their enemies are distracted. As Badran points out, “the clock is ticking for Israel.”
> 
> However, at the end of the day, a true war with Hezbollah will cost Israel dearly. Even if the Iron Dome works as expected, many missiles will likely break through to both military and civilian targets, while an assault on southern Lebanon could potentially claim the lives of hundreds of IDF soldiers and thousands of Lebanese civilians. In order to effectively subdue Hezbollah, Israel would need to launch a sustained ground invasion against an enemy that is well-trained and well-prepared to defend its territory in depth. In addition, such a war would almost certainly include far more strikes against Hezbollah targets in Syria, potentially dragging the Syrian government, Iran, and possibly even Russia, into direct conflict with Israel.
> 
> David Schenker, Director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute, notes that “while many people [in Israel] might support whacking Hezbollah, there is the basic fact that the last time this happened [in 2006], it took 34 days… this could drag on for some time and, like last time, it could not only cripple the economy throughout the north of Israel, it could cripple the economy of the whole state.” In addition to the human toll of war, Israeli leaders may not be willing to risk the political consequences of a major conflict. Meanwhile, says Schenker, “Hezbollah doesn’t want another full-scale war with Israel in Lebanon,” which means that the general status quo of mutual military deterrence between Hezbollah and Israel could endure in the near future.
> 
> Still, as U.S. policy in Syria continues to focus almost solely on combatting ISIS, the basic calculus between Hezbollah and Israel along the Lebanese border and the Syrian border near the Golan Heights is unlikely to change. War is not inevitable, but the threat is growing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

However it's likely that Trump will have Israel back if they do strike and might even use US military assets to defend Israel.


----------



## The Bread Guy

We'll see soon, I guess, what Russia/Syria'll do about the convoy, right?  ???


> The U.S. military on Friday pulled back surveillance aircraft that had been watching an 11-bus ISIS convoy filled with hundreds of militants and their family members -- at the request of the Russian government.
> 
> The ISIS convoy was given safe passage over 10 days ago to travel from the Lebanon-Syria border across the Syrian desert to the Iraqi border in a deal struck between Syria and Hezbollah, which angered the U.S. military.
> 
> Since the convoy departed, U.S. drones have picked off ISIS fighters when they left the convoy to relieve themselves, according to U.S. officials.
> 
> "We were able to exploit it and take advantage," said Army Col. Ryan Dillon, a U.S. coalition spokesman Thursday during a press conference from Baghdad.
> 
> The Russian military requested U.S. drones depart the area through the "de-confliction" line, as Russian-backed Syrian forces battle to recapture the ISIS-held city of Deir ez-Zor, located in eastern Syria.
> 
> The U.S. official was confident the U.S. military would pick up surveillance of the ISIS fighters in the future and said they would not threaten U.S. military forces located in other parts of Syria.
> 
> A U.S. Army general said he would hold the Assad regime in Syria responsible for dealing with the convoy.
> 
> "The regime's advance past the convoy underlines continued Syrian responsibility for the buses and terrorists. As always, we will do our utmost to ensure that the ISIS terrorists do not move toward the border of our Iraqi partners," said Brig. Gen. Jon Braga, director of operations for the coalition ...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Old news, but didn't see it in this thread. Looks like Turkey lost a few 2A4 (as many as 10) in Syria, courtesy ATGM's fired by ISIL. 

https://misterxanlisis.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/achtung-leopards-in-syria-full-analysis-of-the-leopard-2a4tr-in-syria/


----------



## MilEME09

Briefly reading it, looks like improper tactics and support is what lead to the loss of these tanks. Turkey may be the second largest armed forces in NATO, doesn't mean they are the most competent, especially after the "coup" aftermath cleared out a large number of officers. I'd say Turkey is in a similar situation to the Red Army after the purges in the 1930s


----------



## jollyjacktar

RT is reporting Turkey has crossed over into Syria to go after the Kurds.

https://youtu.be/tsLVRmPBLFg


----------



## angus555

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> RT is reporting Turkey has crossed over into Syria to go after the Kurds.
> 
> https://youtu.be/tsLVRmPBLFg



https://army.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1516274.html#msg1516274

 :waiting:


----------



## angus555

> Syria war: Germany suspends upgrade to Turkey tanks
> 
> The German government has put plans on hold to upgrade German-made tanks used by Turkey amid a public outcry over a Turkish offensive in northern Syria.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42820151


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Is anyone else baffled by the lack of NATO support for the Kurds given their contribution in destroying ISIS?

First abandoning them to the Iranian PMF's in Iraq, and now to Erdogan whose ethnic-cleansing comments (as well as previous documented support for ISIS) are frankly quite terrifying.


 ???


----------



## Blackadder1916

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Is anyone else baffled by the lack of NATO support for the Kurds given their contribution in destroying ISIS?
> 
> First abandoning them to the Iranian PMF's in Iraq, and now to Erdogan whose ethnic-cleansing comments (as well as previous documented support for ISIS) are frankly quite terrifying.
> 
> 
> ???



Why would NATO support the Kurds?  Has Turkey left the alliance?  While there are a number of NATO members (including Canada) conducting military operations in conjunction with or in support of Kurdish forces, it is not under the auspices of NATO.  And Turkey's attitude to its Kurdish population (and its Kurdish population's attitude to Turkey) is nothing new.

And this from the NATO Secretary General today in Spain is probably the most reaction you will see from NATO.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_151089.htm?selectedLocale=en


> QUESTION:  I have a question for the Secretary General.  Are you worried about the offensive by the Turkish army in Syria?  Do you think Turkey is entitled to deploying this offensive?  Don’t they realise that there are Americans supporting the Kurdish militia? Isn’t that a problem?  Aren’t you worried that there could be clashes there between two Allies?  And finally, is NATO going to take over the command in Iraq, the operation, and when would that be?
> 
> JENS STOLTENBERG:  NATO will not take over the role of the Global Coalition to defeat ISIS in Iraq but we will work together with the coalition, meaning that we will work together with the coalition partly because NATO is only part of the coalition but also because NATO is now in the process of scaling up, or at least considering to scale up our training and capacity-building activities in Iraq.
> 
> So NATO is partly in Iraq as part of the coalition but we are also in the process of doing more when it comes to training and capacity-building of Iraqi officers in Iraq but there is no question about NATO taking over.
> 
> What we will do is we will be in close coordination with the Global Coalition and also with all their international actors as, for instance, the European Union.
> 
> When it comes to Northern Syria, as I said, NATO is a member of the Global Coalition to defeat ISIS but we are not present on the ground in Northern Syria.
> 
> We provide support to the coalition with our AWACS surveillance planes and training in Iraq, but we are not present on the ground in Northern Syria.
> 
> *Turkey is the NATO Ally which has suffered most from terrorist attacks over many years and Turkey, as all of the countries, have the right to self defence, but it is important that this is done in a proportionate and measured way, and that is the message I convey every time I discuss this issue with different NATO leaders, including of courser with political leadership in Turkey.
> 
> I spoke with President Erdoğan last week and we are in regular contact with other Allies who are involved, including United States and I urge also direct contacts between United States and Turkey to try to find the best way to address the challenges we all see in Northern Syria.
> *


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

If you haven't seen anything fundamentally wrong (to the point of being despicable) in Erdogan's behaviour, nothing I type is going to change your mind.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> If you haven't seen anything fundamentally wrong (to the point of being despicable) in Erdogan's behaviour, nothing I type is going to change your mind.



And what in my previous post gives any hint of my personal opinion about Turkey's and Erdogan's policies concerning Kurds.  When I refer to "nothing new", I think back to 1991 when 4 Field Ambulance deployed to Turkey as part of the response to the Kurdish refugees who crossed from Iraq following the Gulf War.  To be overly generous, the best that could be said about the Turkish Army (and the Turkish administration) in the border area was that they allowed them in (or couldn't stop the flow) but were far from pleasant hosts.  I don't think the intervening more than a quarter century has improved their attitudes.

You asked a question about a lack of response from NATO.  Generally, NATO doesn't respond about the internal affairs of its member nations and, for Turkey (in their opinion), the Kurdish problem is primarily an internal security issue.  And again usually, they don't generally take a  position about member's external affairs, unless those external affairs somehow conflict with the security or border integrity of another member.  Not having paid much attention about the individual responses of the members to Turkey, I wouldn't be able to provide a comprehensive comment about whether there has been (or likely to be) significant discussion within the NATO council about Turkey's policies regarding Kurds.  Until such time as a consensus is reached among the members, there wouldn't be a position taken by NATO.  The Secretary General, nor the military command structure, doesn't get to express personal opinions as the organization's policy.  My opinion - some of the NATO members don't give a rat's *** about Turks and Kurds and the majority don't want the bother of raising the issue in the council.

The post I provided included an opinion from the Secretary General that will likely be as strong a rebuke that Turkey will receive from NATO.  So no, I wasn't baffled by a lack of response from NATO; it was exactly as I would have expected.


----------



## angus555

NATO had just formally joined the US led coalition against ISIS in 2017. Aside from NATO members participating in the coalition, the issue of the conflict in Syria and Iraq has been quite peripheral to its main concerns. 
NATO leaders would naturally tread carefully here and follow the lead from the US. Turkey is obviously a militarily significant member. 

Turkey is currently producing the center fuselage for every F-35, among other components.
It will also be heavily involved in F-35 maintenance.

It's also home to one of the few missile defense radar systems in the area aimed at Iran.

On verra...


----------



## Rifleman62

Video report with some "gun camera" footage.
*
US-led forces kill 100 pro-Assad fighters*

http://www.foxnews.com/world.html


https://news.sky.com/story/us-airstrikes-kill-100-pro-assad-fighters-after-unprovoked-attack-on-coalition-base-11240879

*US airstrikes kill 100 pro-Assad fighters after 'unprovoked' attack on coalition base*
_Russia slams the move as an "act of aggression", but the US says it thwarted an unprovoked attack on coalition forces fighting I_

Extract: More than 100 fighters allied with Syrian President Bashar al Assad have been killed in US-led coalition air and artillery strikes on pro-regime forces.

The air assault was launched after up to 500 pro-regime fighters backed by artillery, tanks, multiple-launch rocket systems and mortars targeted the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) headquarters in Deir al-Zor province in an "unprovoked attack".

Between 20 to 30 artillery and tank rounds landed within 500m of the HQ, where coalition advisers are working with SDF fighters battling Islamic State militants east of the Euphrates River in Syria.

The Syrian army, which is supported by Iranian-backed militias and Russian forces, are active on the other side of the river by the city of Deir al-Zor.

The US-led coalition had previously alerted Russian officials about the presence of SDF forces in nearby Khusham after seeing a slow build-up of pro-government forces during the last week.

Details of the thwarted attack were released by US officials who wished to remain anonymous.

Coalition officials were in regular contact with their Russian counterparts before, during and after the attack, who had assured them that they would not target US and SDF forces in the area.

No American troops were wounded or killed in the attack, however one SDF member was hurt.

Officials believe the attack was an attempt by pro-regime forces to take back land the SDF had liberated from IS fighters in September, including oil fields in Khusham.

Interfax news agency quoted Franz Klintsevich, a Russian parliamentarian, condemning the airstrikes: "The actions of the US coalition do not comply with legal norms, beyond all doubt it is aggression."


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/u-s-strikes-said-to-kill-scores-of-russian-fighters-in-syria

*U.S. Strikes Killed Scores of Russia Fighters in Syria, Sources Say* - 13 Feb 18
_
American, rebel forces repel attack by mercenaries in the east.The 200-plus deaths dwarf official Russian toll in the war._

U.S. forces killed scores of Russian mercenaries in Syria last week in what may be the deadliest clash between citizens of the former foes since the Cold War, according to one U.S. official and three Russians familiar with the matter.

More than 200 contract soldiers, mostly Russians fighting on behalf of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, died in a failed attack on a base held by U.S. and mainly Kurdish forces in the oil-rich Deir Ezzor region, two of the Russians said. The U.S. official put the death toll at about 100, with 200 to 300 injured.

The Russian assault may have been a rogue operation, underscoring the complexity of a conflict that started as a domestic crackdown only to morph into a proxy war involving Islamic extremists, stateless Kurds and regional powers Iran, Turkey and now Israel. Russia’s military said it had nothing to do with the attack and the U.S. accepted the claim. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called the whole thing “perplexing,” but provided no further details.

President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, declined to comment on reports of Russian casualties, saying the Kremlin only tracks data on the country’s armed forces. Putin talked with U.S. President Donald Trump by phone Monday, but the military action in Syria wasn’t discussed, he said.

“This is a big scandal and a reason for an acute international crisis,” said Vladimir Frolov, a former Russian diplomat and lawmaker who’s now an independent political analyst. “But Russia will pretend nothing happened.”

Putin, with Iran’s help, turned the tide of the seven-year war by committing air- and manpower to buoy Assad’s beleaguered forces in 2015, quieting U.S. calls for the Syrian leader’s immediate removal. With Islamic State, which once controlled large swaths of Syria, now largely defeated, rival powers and militias are fighting in various combinations to fill the vacuum. Russia, Iran, Israel and Turkey have all had aircraft shot down in or near Syria this month.
_
Artillery, Tanks_

Last week’s offensive began about 8 kilometers (5 miles) east of the Euphrates River de-confliction line late Feb. 7, when pro-Assad forces fired rounds and advanced in a “battalion-sized formation supported by artillery, tanks, multiple-launch rocket systems and mortars,” Colonel Thomas F. Veale, a spokesman for the U.S. military, said in a statement.

The U.S., which has advisers stationed at the base alongside Syrian Democratic Forces troops, responded with aircraft and artillery fire.

“Coalition officials were in regular communication with Russian counterparts before, during and after the thwarted, unprovoked attack,” Veale said. No fatalities were reported on the coalition side and “enemy vehicles and personnel who turned around and headed back west were not targeted.”

It’s not clear who was paying the Russian contingent, whether it was Russia directly, Syria, Iran or a third party. Reports in Russian media have said Wagner -- a shadowy organization known as Russia’s answer to Blackwater, now called Academi -- was hired by Assad or his allies to guard Syrian energy assets in exchange for oil concessions.

“No one wants to start a world war over a volunteer or a mercenary who wasn’t sent by the state and was hit by Americans,” Vitaly Naumkin, a senior adviser to Russia’s government on Syria, said in an interview.

Yury Barmin, a Middle East analyst at the Russian International Affairs Council, a think tank set up by the Kremlin, said Russia supports Assad’s efforts to reclaim the “crucial” eastern region of Deir Ezzor to help fund his national reconstruction and reconciliation plan, which the U.S. opposes.

Russia signed a “road map” agreement with Assad’s government last month to assist in rebuilding the nation’s electricity network. On Tuesday, Energy Minister Alexander Novak told reporters in Moscow that Russian companies are interested in contracts to help refurbish damaged oil pipelines and wells.

_‘Illegal Presence’_

While Russia’s Defense Ministry didn’t mention mercenaries in its statement, it did say 25 “Syrian” fighters were injured, without elaborating. It accused the U.S. of using its “illegal presence” in Syria as an excuse to “seize economic assets,” even as it kept lines of communication with the U.S. open.

Assad’s government in Damascus called the U.S. military action “barbaric” and a “war crime.”

The death toll from the skirmish, already about five times more than Russia’s official losses in Syria, is still rising, according to one mercenary commander who said by phone that dozens of his wounded men are still being treated at military hospitals in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

Most of those killed and injured were Russian and Ukrainian, many of them veterans of the separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine, according to Alexander Ionov, who runs a Kremlin-funded group that fosters ties to separatists and who’s personally fought alongside pro-government forces in Syria.

Grigory Yavlinsky, a longtime Russian opposition politician who helped steer democratic reforms after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, called on the authorities to come clean about what happened.

“If there has been mass deaths of Russian citizens in Syria, then the relevant authorities, including the general staff of the Russian armed forces, have a duty to inform the country about this and decide who bears responsibility,” Yavlinsky said on Twitter.


----------



## Rifleman62

The Turkish President has issued lots of threats lately.

*Erdogan Warns Greece, Cyprus Over Gas Search, Aegean Islets*
*
US funding of Kurdish militants in Syria to impact Turkey’s decisions: Erdogan*

*TURKEY WILL CRUSH U.S. 'TERROR ARMY' IN NORTHERN SYRIA, PRESIDENT ERDOGAN VOWS*



*Erdogan Warns U.S. Troops in Syria to Keep Away From Kurd Forces* - 13 Feb 18
_
Turk leader bashes U.S. general’s threat to retaliate if hit. Questions alliance and ‘strategic partnership’ with the U.S._

Turkey’s leader lashed out against U.S. support of Kurdish militants in Syria, brandishing the prospect of an “Ottoman slap” after an American general threatened retaliation if his forces were hit by Turkey.

“It’s obvious that those who say, ‘If you hit us, we’ll hit back hard,’ have never in their lives gotten an Ottoman slap,” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a speech at parliament on Tuesday, responding to remarks by the top U.S. commander in Syria to the New York Times. “If those who come and go as they like through Turkey think they’re going to go stirring things up in places without paying for it, they’ll soon see that’s not the case."

The comments mark an escalation in rhetoric against the U.S., whose backing of the Syrian Kurdish YPG has enraged Turkey, which labels the group as a terrorist organization and has invaded Syria to combat it. That incursion has created an unprecedented military faceoff between the two largest armies in NATO, with U.S. forces fighting alongside the YPG while Turkey attacks it.

“You hit us, we will respond aggressively. We will defend ourselves,” the U.S. commander, Lieutenant General Paul Funk, said in a direct warning to Turkey in the interview published on Feb. 7.

_Tillerson Visit_

Erdogan spoke two days before U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to visit Ankara for what he said would be “tough talks” about Syria and other issues. The U.S. has been trying to urge Turkey to rein back its offensive against the Kurds, who’ve been instrumental allies for the U.S. in helping to defeat Islamic State. On Sunday, U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster met in Istanbul with Erdogan’s aide Ibrahim Kalin, without word of a breakthrough.

“They can say whatever they want. Their security representatives came and their secretary of state is going to come, we’ll talk to them too,” Erdogan said. “But if things don’t go according to law and rights, this can’t be called a partnership or an alliance.”

While Erdogan said that Turkey wouldn’t deliberately target U.S. forces, he warned U.S. soldiers to keep their distance from the YPG on the battlefield.

“We’re going to destroy every terrorist we see,” Erdogan said. “Then they’ll understand that it’d be better for them not to stand beside them.”


----------



## jollyjacktar

It seems as if Russia is using their "green men" similar to Ukraine, in Syria.  They, and pro-Assad troops tried to overrun some American advisors and Kurds.  The green men reportedly lost 200 men in the assault.

https://youtu.be/XaeDMOWkCwU


----------



## Colin Parkinson

"Tourists"


----------



## jollyjacktar

Video of a Turkish Leo being taken out by Kurdish Female YPGs.  The secondaries... ouch!

 https://youtu.be/YafzmkvVRiI


----------



## a_majoor

Israel finally declassifies the 2007 raid which destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor. The long article at link describes some of the planning considerations, especially the need to destroy the reactor while limiting the ability of the Assad regime to escalate into a full scale war:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2018/03/20/just-declassified-how-an-israeli-operation-derailed-syrias-nuclear-weapons-drive/



> *Declassified: How an Israeli operation derailed Syria’s nuclear weapons drive*
> By: Barbara Opall-Rome
> 
> TEL AVIV, Israel — Israel’s pre-emptive attack a decade ago on a plutonium reactor in the Syrian desert not only derailed Damascus’ drive for nuclear weapons, but spared the world the specter of mass destruction capabilities falling into the hands of the Islamic State group.
> 
> That’s the message behind Israel’s first-ever official account of its operation Outside the Box, the four-hour mission that began before midnight on Sep. 5, 2007, to destroy Syria’s top-secret and nearly operational al-Kibar nuclear facility just weeks before it went hot.
> 
> “Imagine if today there was a nuclear reactor in Syria, what kind of situation we would be facing,” said Israeli Air Force Commander Amikam Norkin, the man who led the planning and execution of the “precision, low-signature” strike mission when he was chief of operations.
> 
> “From an historical perspective, I think the Israeli government decision to act and destroy the reactor is one of the most important decisions that were taken here over the last 70 years,” he added.
> 
> ***
> 
> “In 2007, I was very worried that the operation could trigger war with Syria,” recalled retired Israeli Air Force Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, who was the head of military intelligence at the time. “Our mission was to eliminate an existential threat to the state of Israel, while minimizing the risk of a broader war.”


----------



## MarkOttawa

Near end of piece:



> Here Is How Russia and America Could Go to War in Syria
> ...
> The Washington national security community has largely forgotten the Cold War concepts of nuclear deterrence and managing confrontations with a nuclear-armed rival. Over the past twenty-five years or so, Washington has become accustomed to a world where there are no great-power challengers and the only real threat comes from terrorism.'
> 
> “People have sophomoric views on great power confrontation here,” Kofman said. “In fact a lot of people don’t even understand nuclear strategy and deterrence all that well anymore and the escalatory dynamics. And you can tell by the conversations—we have been in the terrorism/counterinsurgency game for way too long and people don’t understand what they are playing with at senior levels. I hear it all the time. That’s all a recipe for a 1950-1960s  type interaction with another great power.”
> 
> Indeed, it might take a new version of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis for the American foreign policy establishment to grasp how dangerous a confrontation with a rival nuclear-armed great power can be...
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/here-how-russia-america-could-go-war-syria-25292?page=show



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

Neither Russia nor the USA will go to full scale war over a shithole like Syria.

Proxy wars?  Yes.  It's already happening.  American SOF, Russian mercenaries, American conventional units now, aircraft from both sides operating in Syrian airspace (albeit in their own zones for the most part), each side supporting various factions for their own political goals.

Full scale war?  Highly highly doubtful.  Not worth it, from either side.  


We also tend to forget that as much as the western media likes to demonize the Russians, they aren't anywhere near the evil, diabolical, up to no good villains we make them out to be.  Even Russian nuclear doctrine clearly defines the use of nuclear weapons is authorized only when the very existence of the Russian state is at grave risk...

Articles like this I find sensationalize situations.  And while the situation in Syria is complicated, and not without risk to the territories surrounding it - nobody cares enough about Syria to escalate it much further than it already has been.


----------



## GR66

Who would go to war over Serbia?  Poland?  Cuba?

Unplanned and unforeseen things can happen when bullets start flying. 

I agree that Russia almost certainly wouldn’t plan to go to war over Syria, but when tensions rise things can happen. 

Let’s say in retaliation for American strikes the Russians decide to buzz a USN ship in the Baltic and in a horrible low altitude accident the Russian fighter plows into the ship sinking it. Could that be misinterpreted as a missile attack?  Then a Russian fighter strays into Latvian airspace due to navigational error and a jittery Latvian pilot shoots it down. Does that put us closer to the line?

Made up scenarios I know, but strange and unforeseen things do happen and events can change quickly when people are under pressure.


----------



## Altair

GR66 said:
			
		

> Who would go to war over Serbia?  Poland?  Cuba?
> 
> Unplanned and unforeseen things can happen when bullets start flying.
> 
> I agree that Russia almost certainly wouldn’t plan to go to war over Syria, but when tensions rise things can happen.
> 
> Let’s say in retaliation for American strikes the Russians decide to buzz a USN ship in the Baltic and in a horrible low altitude accident the Russian fighter plows into the ship sinking it. Could that be misinterpreted as a missile attack?  Then a Russian fighter strays into Latvian airspace due to navigational error and a jittery Latvian pilot shoots it down. Does that put us closer to the line?
> 
> Made up scenarios I know, but strange and unforeseen things do happen and events can change quickly when people are under pressure.


latvia has no combat aircraft.


----------



## YZT580

Altair said:
			
		

> latvia has no combat aircraft.



That is louse milking.  GR66 makes a valid point.  Wars have started over seemingly small incidentals.  How about Jenkins Ear?  Even  WW1 started over what in retrospect was an insignificant assassination.  However I don't believe that the use of chemical weapons in any part of the world should be ignored by the world community.  Since it is unlikely that the U.N. would ever stand up and be counted it is up to each country that is a signatory to the treaties on chemical weapons , working in concert, to condemn all such attacks.  And they should do so in such a way that there can be no obfuscation but by calling the shot:  for instance, telling the Syrians that the global community will destroy one of their squadrons used to carry out the attack and then doing it with multiple nations participating.  We shouldn't expect the Americans to go it alone nor should we sanctimoniously hide behind the U.N. security council vetoes.


----------



## GR66

Altair said:
			
		

> latvia has no combat aircraft.



Well I DID say it was a made up scenario!   ;D


----------



## Altair

YZT580 said:
			
		

> That is louse milking.  GR66 makes a valid point.  Wars have started over seemingly small incidentals.  How about Jenkins Ear?  Even  WW1 started over what in retrospect was an insignificant assassination.  However I don't believe that the use of chemical weapons in any part of the world should be ignored by the world community.  Since it is unlikely that the U.N. would ever stand up and be counted it is up to each country that is a signatory to the treaties on chemical weapons , working in concert, to condemn all such attacks.  And they should do so in such a way that there can be no obfuscation but by calling the shot:  for instance, telling the Syrians that the global community will destroy one of their squadrons used to carry out the attack and then doing it with multiple nations participating.  We shouldn't expect the Americans to go it alone nor should we sanctimoniously hide behind the U.N. security council vetoes.


did I argue his point?  No. I simply stated a fact,  latvia has no combat aircraft.  That's it,  that's all,  take it or leave it. 

Chill.


----------



## Altair

GR66 said:
			
		

> Well I DID say it was a made up scenario!   ;D


I'm aware. Just thought you should know.


----------



## Loachman

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Since it is unlikely that the U.N. would ever stand up and be counted it is up to each country that is a signatory to the treaties on chemical weapons , working in concert, to condemn all such attacks.  And they should do so in such a way that there can be no obfuscation but by calling the shot:  for instance, telling the Syrians that the global community will destroy one of their squadrons used to carry out the attack and then doing it with multiple nations participating.  We shouldn't expect the Americans to go it alone nor should we sanctimoniously hide behind the U.N. security council vetoes.



Not to worry - the UN and Syria have it all in hand: https://www.unwatch.org/syria-chair-un-disarmament-forum-chemical-watchdog-calls-us-eu-walk/

Peace in Our Time, Kumbaya y'all.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Looks like the Harry S Truman Carrier BG group is heading towards Syria.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5611419/Trumps-armada-Huge-task-force-12-warships-sets-sail-Syria.html


----------



## Jarnhamar

But at least Assad killed a few dozen civilians. Strategic win for Syria, especially after Commander of US Central Command admitted that Syrian government forces are prevailing in the war in Syria.


----------



## Rifleman62

Just on TV here in the US, that POTUS will speak to the country.

Also reported the US will strike and the UK will be using Submarines.

Updated: US, UK and France have hit Syria.


----------



## Cloud Cover

RAF Tornado have conducted at least one attack in Syrian airspace using standoff weapons according to CNN and BBC reports 4 aircraft were used.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Not that this will shut Assad down or deter him in any way.


----------



## brihard

B1s out of Qatar apparently also participated, presumably in a standoff role.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Until they take out all the ground-based AD stuff (and there's lots...) I doubt anyone went up close and personal.  And I don't think you'll see them take out all the ground based AD stuff either.


----------



## Journeyman

Forgive me if I don't get _too_  excited at this latest episode in the theatre of the absurd.  After all:

- *2013*: "hundreds of civilians" killed in a probable sarin attack against rebel-held areas of Damascus.  International condemnation caused Syria to sign onto the Chemical Weapons Convention in October.  :
Result:  no change

- *2015*: chlorine gas attacks from Syrian army helicopters against Idlib (60km from Aleppo).  Russia and China veto any UN sanctions against Syria.
Result:  no change

- *2017*: almost exactly a year ago, 59 killed in suspected nerve gas attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun, again in rebel-held Idlib province by either Russian or Syrian, probable Su-24, jets. This time, the US fires about 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Shayrat SAF Base.
Result:  no change

- *Yesterday*... well, you're reading the news (if interested); US, UK, and France launch cruise missile strikes against three sites in Syria in retaliation for alleged chemical weapons attack in the Damascus enclave of Douma.
Result:  too soon to say, but some have noted that repeating actions while expecting differing results is crazy.


Mind you, not even a week ago (and after the latest chemical weapon attack), the UN stepped up to appoint Syria as head of the Conference on Chemical and Nuclear Weapons Disarmament.  As noted by the Director of the NGO 'UN Watch,' "having the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad preside over global chemical and nuclear weapons disarmament will be like putting a serial rapist in charge of a women’s shelter.” 
        :not-again:



Cynical aside: initial statements of over 100 missiles launched, with counter-claims that "most were shot down" by Russian GBAD systems. The estimated cost of a Tomahawk is $1.4 million; the UK Storm Shadow/French SCALP EG has a unit cost of €2.48m (~US$3.3m).


----------



## Rifleman62

https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/everything-we-know-and-no-one-has-said-so-far-about-the-first-waves-of-air-strikes-on-syria/

Everything We Know (And No One Has Said So Far) About The First Waves Of Air Strikes On Syria.
Read more at https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/everything-we-know-and-no-one-has-said-so-far-about-the-first-waves-of-air-strikes-on-syria/#BojxDqrvtm54WWIE.99

Interesting to note:





> Another interesting aircraft tracked online in the aftermath of the raid, is a Bombardier E-11A 11-9358 from 430th EECS stationed at Kandahar Afghanistan. The aircraft is a BACN (battlefield airborne communications) asset: BACN is technological “gateway” system that allows aircraft with incompatible radio systems and datalinks to exchange tactical information and communicate. By orbiting at high-altitude, BACN equipped air assets provide a communications link between allies, regardless of the type of the supporting aircraft and in a non-line-of-sight (LOS) environment. The BACN system is also deployed onboard EQ-4B Global Hawk UAVs. Although we can’t be completely sure, it is quite likely that the aircraft was involved in the air strikes as well, providing data-bridging among the involved parties


----------



## Kirkhill

Yup.  Russia is a heck of an ally. State of the art Air Defence System at your disposal.  Guaranteed to keep those western missiles away from your local dictator of choice.

So what happens?

168 missiles in two attacks.

The Russians decide to keep their missiles on the ground.  The Russians decide to evacuate the "defended" targets. The Russians maintain open lines of communication with the attacking force to make shure that their forces don't get damaged.

A reasonable person might be inclined to wonder if:

A) Russian GBAD systems are all they are cracked up to be
B) Russian support is all it is cracked up to be.

And if you were China or North Korea or Iran..... perhaps that might give you pause.



> principles of war – Selection and maintenance of the aim; maintenance of morale; offensive action; *surprise*; security; concentration of force; economy of effort; flexibility; co-operation; and administration.



Surprise = tactical advantage.  Often it has to be manufactured.  Treading the same route time after time, doing the expected, is the antithesis of surprise.

In a world where war is conducted economically, politically and by subterfuge long before it is conducted on the battlefield perhaps it is not surprising that surprising things, unpredictable things, are seen to becoming more and more usual.

A huckster playing three card monte: game of chance, game of skill or con?  Depends on how much money you lost, I guess.


----------



## dimsum

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/everything-we-know-and-no-one-has-said-so-far-about-the-first-waves-of-air-strikes-on-syria/
> 
> Everything We Know (And No One Has Said So Far) About The First Waves Of Air Strikes On Syria.
> Read more at https://theaviationist.com/2018/04/14/everything-we-know-and-no-one-has-said-so-far-about-the-first-waves-of-air-strikes-on-syria/#BojxDqrvtm54WWIE.99
> 
> Interesting to note:



That's a ton of info about tanker tracks, etc on ATC.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

For your AD system to work, you're going to turn on all your various RADARs, etc in their various modes and give people a really good look at your systems.  Ya, sooner or later that happens but why do it if you don't have to?  Is it worth it for defending something you don't _really_ care about that much?

How cracked up are the S300/400s?  I hope I never find out.  If they're only half as good as I think they are now, that's still pretty damn good.

Russian and coalition forces in the area have had open lines of comms for some time now in the region.  We'd hear them on the 'common' freq talking to Fndly assets - when I got a RADAR off a Russian fighter come up, it usually followed in fairly quick time that we'd get passed info that a "insert aircraft type" took off from "insert location name" at "x time" heading "insert bearing/heading".   The Russian were also (usually)  pretty good at letting coalition forces know when they were going to send a few flying telephone poles thru the OA.  I don't see a big deal, the open comms line in that area has been there for a while.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> For your AD system to work, you're going to turn on all your various RADARs, etc in their various modes and give people a really good look at your systems.  Ya, sooner or later that happens but why do it if you don't have to?  *Is it worth it for defending something you don't really care about that much*?
> 
> How cracked up are the S300/400s?  I hope I never find out.  If they're only half as good as I think they are now, that's still pretty damn good.
> 
> Russian and coalition forces in the area have had open lines of comms for some time now in the region.  We'd hear them on the 'common' freq talking to Fndly assets - when I got a RADAR off a Russian fighter come up, it usually followed in fairly quick time that we'd get passed info that a "insert aircraft type" took off from "insert location name" at "x time" heading "insert bearing/heading".   The Russian were also (usually)  pretty good at letting coalition forces know when they were going to send a few flying telephone poles thru the OA.  I don't see a big deal, the open comms line in that area has been there for a while.



I think it all comes down to the highlighted line. How good an ally is Russia if it doesn't care enough to chance its technology on the battlefield on your behalf?  When it is a debate between protecting your life or its reputation, apparently its "reputation" is more important.

Especially when it sees that reputation as all that it has available to protect Kaliningrad, Moscow and Vladivostock.  

The fact that you say "How cracked up are the S300/400s?  I hope I never find out." is the key point.  Potemkin may have built a village.  Or maybe he didn't.  

There is more than one huckster here.


----------



## winnipegoo7

Maybe there was no real benefit to shooting down the cruise missiles? If Russia attempted to shoot down US missiles there would be a financial cost and it could escalate the conflict.  

Russian SAMs aren't free and there are only so many of them in Syria. Why use them to defend against a limited attack that does not threaten the Russians or the Syrian regime? Yes the Russians and the Syrian regime might suffer some embarrassment and a few Syrian buildings might get destroy, but there will be no change to the status quo.

If Russian SAMs shot down a large number of US cruise missiles this could justify a US attack on the air defence system, which would escalate the war and be very expensive for the Russian/Syrians to replace the destroyed air defence components.


----------



## PuckChaser

The US isn't going to kinetically attack the Russian GBAD system because of the risk of Russian casualties which would surely escalate the conflict. Russia either A. Doesn't have the missiles to intercept that many munitions at once, B. Doesn't have the capability to reliably target the US missiles so they stayed completely dark, or C. Combination of A and B.


----------



## GR66

It was mentioned that the Russians may not have wanted to give up their electronic data to defend unimportant targets, but how could they know what the targets were without using their radars?  

How would they have known this wasn’t a major attack to say take out the Syrian Air Force or a decapitation attack against Assad and the Syrian military?  

During the briefing this morning it was stated that Russian air defences didn’t respond, but he also made it clear that didn’t mean it wasn’t turned on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GR66 said:
			
		

> It was mentioned that the Russians may not have wanted to give up their electronic data to defend unimportant targets, but how could they know what the targets were without using their radars?
> 
> How would they have known this wasn’t a major attack to say take out the Syrian Air Force or a decapitation attack against Assad and the Syrian military?
> 
> During the briefing this morning it was stated that Russian air defences didn’t respond, but he also made it clear that didn’t mean it wasn’t turned on.



Maybe *unofficially* they knew (because of some open lines of comms happening) where they were told "none of your stuff is getting whacked".

The  :blah: stuff happening for the media and Twitter isn't the only talking going on.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:  IMO


----------



## MarkOttawa

Start of Reuters' piece with full text:



> French declassified intelligence report on Syria gas attacks
> 
> France concluded after technical analysis of open sources and “reliable intelligence” that a chemical attack on Douma on April 7 was carried out by Syrian government forces, a declassified intelligence report showed on Saturday.
> 
> Here is the full declassified national assessment provided by the French foreign ministry in English:
> 
> I. SEVERAL LETHAL CHEMICAL ATTACKS TOOK PLACE IN THE TOWN OF DOUMA IN THE LATE AFTERNOON OF SATURDAY,7 APRIL 2018, AND WE ASSESS WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THEY WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE SYRIAN REGIME.
> 
> Following the Syrian regime’s resumption of its military offensive, as well as high levels of air force activity over the town of Douma in Eastern Ghouta, two new cases of toxic agents employment were spontaneously reported by civil society and local and international media from the late afternoon of 7 April.
> 
> Non-governmental medical organizations active in Ghouta (the Syrian American Medical Society and the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations), whose information is generally reliable, publicly stated that strikes had targeted in particular local medical infrastructure on 6 and 7 April.
> 
> A massive influx of patients in health centers in Eastern Ghouta (at the very least 100 people) presenting symptoms consistent with exposure to a chemical agent was observed and documented during the early evening. In total, several dozen people, more than forty according to several sources, are thought to have died from exposure to a chemical substance.
> 
> The information collected by France forms a body of evidence that is sufficient to attribute responsibility for the chemical attacks of 7 April to the Syrian regime.
> 
> 1. – Several chemical attacks took place at Douma on 7 April 2018...
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-france-intellige/french-declassified-intelligence-report-on-syria-gas-attacks-idUSKBN1HL0N1



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## winnipegoo7

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe *unofficially* they knew (because of some open lines of comms happening) where they were told "none of your stuff is getting whacked".
> 
> The  :blah: stuff happening for the media and Twitter isn't the only talking going on.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:  IMO



This is my line of thinking. If the US wants to destroy a few minor targets in Syria that won't change the status quo, why would Russia try to stop it?

edited to add: but, as others have mentioned it may have been impossible for the Russians to detect and engage the cruise missiles, as it is possible that the cruise missiles flew too low to be detected - and you can't engage what you don't detect. for example in the naval environment a sea-skimming missile is only detected at 20 or 30 miles due to the radar horizon 

so the cruise missiles might only be detected if it came within 20-30 miles of the Russia radar, so depending where Russian radars are located, it is possible that the cruise missiles just flew around them. That's why you want to use Awacs aircraft for cruise missile defence.




			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> It was mentioned that the Russians may not have wanted to give up their electronic data to defend unimportant targets, but how could they know what the targets were without using their radars?



I'm no expert, but I suspect the US knows a lot (maybe everything) about the Russian air defence systems. AD systems undergo through testing before being put into service - which obviously includes turning the radars on and launching missiles at targets. The US military, NSA and CIA have ELINT aircraft (RC-135 and EP-3); ELINT ships and submarines; spy satellites; human spys; and hundreds (thousands?) of analysts. Many of whom work to learn about enemy air defence systems.

And who says the Russian systems were turned off? Maybe the Russians used this raid as a chance to gather valuable intelligence on Western capabilities? Maybe Russian radar and SIGINT systems monitored the raid and are sending that info back to Russia to analyze Western weapons and tactics?


----------



## larry Strong

Wonder how many people know about Canada's contribution   



> Another interesting aircraft tracked online in the aftermath of the raid, is a _*Bombardier*_ E-11A 11-9358 from 430th EECS stationed at Kandahar Afghanistan. The aircraft is a BACN (battlefield airborne communications) asset: BACN is technological “gateway” system that allows aircraft with incompatible radio systems and datalinks to exchange tactical information and communicate. By orbiting at high-altitude, BACN equipped air assets provide a communications link between allies, regardless of the type of the supporting aircraft and in a non-line-of-sight (LOS) environment. The BACN system is also deployed onboard EQ-4B Global Hawk UAVs. Although we can’t be completely sure, it is quite likely that the aircraft was involved in the air strikes as well, providing data-bridging among the involved parties


----------



## tomahawk6

Gotta communicate between the Brits and French and of course the Americans. ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

Killing Syrians to punish Syrians for killing Syrians in Syria  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering the US likely told the Russians exactly where they would attack, who would tell the Syrians, who would move anyone of value out, means anyone left their to die would be quite expendable or very disliked. "Carl guard this place, we will be back......"


----------



## Altair

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Gotta communicate between the Brits and French and of course the Americans. ;D


Isn't that what twitter is for?


----------



## GR66

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the US likely told the Russians exactly where they would attack, who would tell the Syrians, who would move anyone of value out, means anyone left their to die would be quite expendable or very disliked. "Carl guard this place, we will be back......"



It was specifically stated in the US briefing that the Russians were not told that an attack was taking place.


----------



## winnipegoo7

GR66 said:
			
		

> It was specifically stated in the US briefing that the Russians were not told that an attack was taking place.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/syrian-missile-strikes-macron-s-most-significant-military-action-1.3462587

According to the Irish times, the President of France telephoned Putin at noon on Friday and the French DM says that the Russians were warned before the raid.

The article also states that the French DM said: 


> No cruise missiles fired by the US and its allies entered the zone of Russian air defences protecting their installations at Tartous [naval base] and Hmeimim [air base near Latakia].


  So perhaps the Russians never had a chance to engage any missiles.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> So perhaps the Russians never had a chance to engage any missiles.



Win-win-win then for everyone.  It's almost like they put some thought into it!

- the US doesn't have to be embarrassed that S400s knocked some of their fastballs out of the park;
- Russia doesn't get embarrassed at how many punched thru and hit their targets, and;
- the rest of us don't have to read comments from the Keyboard Experts/Warriors  on how and why missiles did or didn't get thru on the CBC article comments!   :nod:


----------



## tomahawk6

Many of the missiles used were stealth capable.Found this article about the performance of the Leopard 2 in Syria.

https://warisboring.com/germanys-leopard-2-tank-was-considered-one-of-the-best-until-it-went-to-syria/


----------



## CBH99

Extremely poor tank tactics used in these cases.  The tanks weren't employed the way they were meant to be, nor positioned well, not defended adequately.  Mickey Mouse operations in regards to any decent doctrine on the use of armoured forces.

Slight change of topic, but still Syria related...



Can somebody tell me what our (the West's) ultimate objectives are in Syria?  

Why are we there?  What do we have to achieve in terms of long term goals?

After overthrowing Libya, supporting the overthrowing of the government in Egypt, Iraq, and now Syria...forced regime change without a solid follow-up plan has been proven time & again to be a very poor strategy.  Brutal dictators as they may have been, they did keep order & relative predictability in the region.


But specifically in regards to Syria - what are we trying to accomplish/achieve?  (I ask this in all seriousness, not facetiously)


----------



## Ostrozac

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Can somebody tell me what our (the West's) ultimate objectives are in Syria?
> 
> Why are we there?  What do we have to achieve in terms of long term goals?



In broad strokes, we seem to want the same things that the Russians and Iranians do, for Assad to stay in power and the war to be over, with ISIS and other Sunni extremist groups disrupted or destroyed. We would just prefer that Assad tone down the atrocities a little bit.

We seem to have more problems with Assad's methods than his objectives. After all, no one is currently proposing to replace Assad as the power in charge of running Syria. (the last three groups that did express serious interest were ISIS, AQ, and the Muslim Brotherhood)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In a way I am thankfully the Assad regime survived, because the genocide the Islamist's would commit onto the regime supporters would shock the world. Sadly Assad and Syria had many chances to become the darlings of the West, but Syria has a long history of snatching problems from the jaws of peace and stability. Russia's goals are fairly small and concise and mostly achieved. The west dilemma is that they entered into the fight when the majority of the moderates were dead, fled or assimilated into the radicals. Now the West has to extract itself without to much loss of face, the other issue is the future of the Kurds.


----------



## Altair

Colin P said:
			
		

> In a way I am thankfully the Assad regime survived, because the genocide the Islamist's would commit onto the regime supporters would shock the world. Sadly Assad and Syria had many chances to become the darlings of the West, but Syria has a long history of snatching problems from the jaws of peace and stability. Russia's goals are fairly small and concise and mostly achieved. The west dilemma is that they entered into the fight when the majority of the moderates were dead, fled or assimilated into the radicals. Now the West has to extract itself without to much loss of face, the other issue is the future of the Kurds.


The Kurds are screwed. Too many enemies. 

Turkey,  NATO country. 

Syria,  Russian supported. 

Iraq,  Western supported. 

That's too many.


----------



## CBH99

On the surface I would agree with you Altair, BUT...

1.  Turkey - Yes, a NATO country.  But not exactly the popular kid in the room.  Historically, it made sense to have Turkey as an ally.  Geographically close to multiple flashpoints, historically at odds with Russia.  

Turkey's President seems quite happy to shun NATO as a partner.  Mass detentions of anybody he wants, including judges, lawyers, teachers, students, soldiers, prosecutors, news reports, etc etc.  Now purchasing AA gear from Russia, and openly attacking groups that other Western countries support.  Not to mention, fairly extreme in his political views...don't think this is lost on NATO leadership.


2.  Russia - I don't think Russia cares that much.  If the Kurds can offer relative stability to the region, decent professionalism, no mass genocides, etc etc - it's preferable to the other groups.  Plus they know that on SOME LEVEL, they do enjoy the support of the West, albeit how much support seems to change frequently.


3.  Syria - Lots of it's own problems to deal with.  Attacking the Kurds, backed by the West, isn't going to do them any favours.  Assad's forces are stretched thin, and hunker down in the safety of Russian bases when not conducting operations.  For the near term, I think Assad is wise to pick his battles.


4.  Iraq - Very much a real problem, as there are a mountain of legal processes that would be required for a new country to be designated, along with borders, currency, government, etc etc.  And the Iraqi government, which legally controls the territory the Kurds want, absolutely will not be open to it.

Tricky situation.  We support Iraq.  We also support the Kurds.  Tricky situation for politicians, diplomats, UN bureaucrats, etc.


I would agree, the Kurds probably are screwed.  But make no mistake about it, Iraq doesn't want Turkish military forces deployed on it's soil any more than the Kurds do.  So it could ultimately make the Iraqi/Kurdish relationship TRUE frienemies in regards to Turkey.


----------



## TQMS

A few news updates pushed out at work by the Public Affairs Office.

Chemical weapons experts not in Douma, State Department says
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/17/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-fallout-intl/index.html
(CNN, 17 April 18) (CNN)There was confusion Tuesday whether a team of international experts had arrived in the Syrian city of Douma to determine whether chemical weapons were used in an attack there 10 days ago

Coalition Ramps Up Strikes Amid Resurgence of ISIS Fighters in Syria
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/04/17/coalition-ramps-strikes-amid-resurgence-isis-fighters-syria.html
(Military.com, 17 April 18) White House and Pentagon officials have said that Islamic State fighters have been "on the run" for some months now. But military commanders on the ground are seeing new pockets of movement in a handful of areas in Syria, which has led to an uptick in coalition airstrikes, an official said Tuesday.

And a point on Turkey:
Turkey set to join NATO task force: Stoltenberg
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-set-to-join-nato-task-force-stoltenberg-130457
(Hurriyet, 17 April 18) Turkey will be responsible for NATO’s rapid response unit in a couple years, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in the WTF news. 

CNN reporter literally sniffing a backpack for chemical weapons.

"there's definitely something that stings" 

https://youtu.be/CgkI3Ub2lZw


----------



## jollyjacktar

:rofl:  

Who wants to be a Darwin winner!


----------



## winnipegoo7

For those interested, here is an open source look at some of the intelligence assets used during the cruise missile strike.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digital-battlespace/insight-how-intel-assets-laid-groundwork-syria-st/


----------



## Journeyman

A good assessment of the strikes has been provided by the Georgetown Security Studies Review.


----------



## tomahawk6

Evidently France experienced some missile failure,there was a failure to launch. Embarassing. The air launched cruise missiles worked. just not the naval missiles.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/france-had-big-problems-firing-112400499.html


----------



## Journeyman

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Evidently France experienced some missile failure,there was a failure to launch.



Yes, the article ends with:


> But with all this talk of the U.S. plunging into a global conflict in Syria, we can’t help but think of how the French will respond to the end of the world: by taking a nap and then (maybe) firing ze missiles.
> 
> It’s either that or some missile tech aboard a French FREMM hit the mistook the “Surrender” button for “Launch” …



Not surprising that this is considered "journalism," while everything else not 'Fox & Friends' is "fake news"  :


----------



## TQMS

Tossed this in the China thread as well.

A little PAO info from this mornings email.

RUSSIA AND CHINA MILITARIES REACH ‘NEW HEIGHTS’ TOGETHER,  AGREE TO CHALLENGE U.S. IN MIDDLE EAST
http://www.newsweek.com/china-russia-military-reach-new-heights-together-agree-challenge-us-middle-899689
(Newsweek, 24 April 18) Russia and China have pledged to strengthen their bilateral military and political ties as part of a strategic cooperation that challenges U.S. interests, especially to Washington's stance on Middle East allies Syria and Iran.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Debated putting this one in a Russia thread, but as the battlespace is Syria, decided on here.

Article Link

Russia Widens EW War, ‘Disabling’ EC-130s OR AC-130s In Syria 

The Compass Call is supposed to be one of America’s foremost electronic warfare weapons, but the EC-130s flying near Syria are being attacked and disabled “in the most aggressive EW environment on the planet,” the head of Special Operations Command said here today.

“Right now in Syria we are operating in the most aggressive EW environment on the planet from our adversaries. They are testing us everyday, knocking our communications down, disabling our EC-130s, etcetera,” Gen. Raymond Thomas told an audience of some 2,000 intelligence professionals.

While, for obvious reasons, we don’t know many details about the nature of the attacks on the EC-130s, we do know the Russians have done what one EW expert called a “good job” in several recent conflicts using EW. And the Russians are in force in Syria and provide most of the gear used by the Syrian military. 

“The Russians have redone and reengineered their entire EW fleet in the last 20 years,” notes Laurie Moe Buckhout, a retired Army colonel who specializes in EW. After the Russians attacked Georgia, they concluded they needed to upgrade their EW capabilities, she says. “The Russians put in millions on upgrades after Georgia. They’ve ended up with killer capabilities, jamming in a multitude of frequencies for hundreds of kilometers.”

She also notes that the Russians may not have gone head to head against the EC-130s EW attack capabilities. They may have taken the much easier route of interfering with the Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT) or their communications gear, making it more difficult to fly the aircraft since crews would have had to rely on maps, line of sight and other techniques.

“The problem the EC-130s have is that, while they are jamming, the crews aren’t doing much else,” making them more vulnerable to attacks, she says. “They could have gone after the PNT or the comms.” The Russians “know all of our vulnerabilities.”

There are other problems US forces must cope with, says Loren Thompson, a well known defense consultant: “We’ve spent so much time fighting enemies in Southwest Asia who were technically unsophisticated that we are not up to speed on tactical electronic warfare.” Buckhout said Thompson has a point.


----------



## Altair

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Debated putting this one in a Russia thread, but as the battlespace is Syria, decided on here.
> 
> Article Link
> 
> Russia Widens EW War, ‘Disabling’ EC-130s OR AC-130s In Syria
> 
> The Compass Call is supposed to be one of America’s foremost electronic warfare weapons, but the EC-130s flying near Syria are being attacked and disabled “in the most aggressive EW environment on the planet,” the head of Special Operations Command said here today.
> 
> “Right now in Syria we are operating in the most aggressive EW environment on the planet from our adversaries. They are testing us everyday, knocking our communications down, disabling our EC-130s, etcetera,” Gen. Raymond Thomas told an audience of some 2,000 intelligence professionals.
> 
> While, for obvious reasons, we don’t know many details about the nature of the attacks on the EC-130s, we do know the Russians have done what one EW expert called a “good job” in several recent conflicts using EW. And the Russians are in force in Syria and provide most of the gear used by the Syrian military.
> 
> “The Russians have redone and reengineered their entire EW fleet in the last 20 years,” notes Laurie Moe Buckhout, a retired Army colonel who specializes in EW. After the Russians attacked Georgia, they concluded they needed to upgrade their EW capabilities, she says. “The Russians put in millions on upgrades after Georgia. They’ve ended up with killer capabilities, jamming in a multitude of frequencies for hundreds of kilometers.”
> 
> She also notes that the Russians may not have gone head to head against the EC-130s EW attack capabilities. They may have taken the much easier route of interfering with the Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT) or their communications gear, making it more difficult to fly the aircraft since crews would have had to rely on maps, line of sight and other techniques.
> 
> “The problem the EC-130s have is that, while they are jamming, the crews aren’t doing much else,” making them more vulnerable to attacks, she says. “They could have gone after the PNT or the comms.” The Russians “know all of our vulnerabilities.”
> 
> There are other problems US forces must cope with, says Loren Thompson, a well known defense consultant: “We’ve spent so much time fighting enemies in Southwest Asia who were technically unsophisticated that we are not up to speed on tactical electronic warfare.” Buckhout said Thompson has a point.


Confirming what was being reported front the Ukrainian conflict.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The _Soviet Union _may have collapsed, but the Russian military is conducting operations, successfully in many cases.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Russia doesn't spend millions of dollars to build a few prototypes then dick around testing it for 5 years with lots of studies. They identify a need, find something then throw it into combat to test it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ever seen their newer arctic bases?  Massive.  Quite a bit more substantial than the ATC up in Resolute.


----------



## TQMS

Russia, after Netanyahu visit, backs off Syria S-300 missile supplies 

https:/www.yahoo.com/news/russia-netanyahu-visit-backs-off-syria-300-missile-085144587.html
(Reuters, 11 May 18) Russia is not in talks with the Syrian government about supplying advanced S-300 ground-to-air missiles and does not think they are needed, the Izvestia daily cited a top Kremlin aide as saying on Friday, in an apparent U-turn by Moscow.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Syrian regime accidentally shoots down Russian military plane

A Russian maritime patrol aircraft with multiple personnel on board was inadvertently shot down by Syrian regime anti-aircraft artillery on Monday after the Syrians came under attack by Israeli missiles, according to a US official with knowledge of the incident.

The US official said the regime was actually trying to stop a barrage of Israeli missiles. A second official confirmed that Israel was responsible for the missile strikes on the Syrian regime.

The Russian state news agency TASS reported that a Russian IL-20 military aircraft with 14 personnel on board disappeared over the Mediterranean on Monday. According to TASS, the ministry of defense specified that "the mark of IL-20 went off the radars disappeared during the attack of four Israeli F-16 aircraft on Syrian targets in the province of Latakia."

The Israelis had fired multiple missiles against targets in the coastal area of Latakia where Russian has based much of its military presence, including aircraft. In an attempt to strike back against the Israelis, the Syrians launched extensive anti-aircraft fire, the official said and the Russian aircraft was hit.

The US found out about the incident because Syrian forces broadcast an emergency search and rescue radio call on an international frequency. The US then got a direct message from another country about the type of aircraft and circumstances of the incident. The official would not identify that country, but it is likely that Russia is the only nation that would know exactly what type of aircraft was shot down.

A spokesman for the Pentagon told CNN that the missiles were not fired by the US military but would not speak as to who was behind the strikes. An Israel Defense Forces spokesman declined to comment on the reports.

The aircraft was shot down by an anti-aircraft system the Russians sold to the Syrians several years ago, the official said. The Syrian air defense network in western Syria is very densely populated with anti-aircraft missile and radar systems. 

In February, the two-man crew of an Israeli F-16 ejected from their aircraft when a missile exploded near them, damaging their aircraft as they finished conducting a mission against Syrian forces.

An Israeli defense official told CNN earlier this month that Israel has struck Syria 200 times in the past 18 months to prevent the deployment of Iranian weapons in the region.


----------



## CBH99

Israel might have been successful in persuading the Russians not to provide any additional S-300 systems to Syria.  If there was any persuasion still needed, I think the Syrians just finished tying the bow.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect someone in the Syrian Air Defense is about to be retired early and won't be needing any benefits. Darth Putin will need to be appeased.


----------



## Journeyman

According to a regular Russian Twitter poster, "Military Advisor," the Israeli F-16s used the 'Coot' and the French Navy FREMM-class frigate to conceal their approach, before dropping a series of GBU-39 bombs on the targets.


I've found him to be somewhat biased but generally reliable for facts.   :2c:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

According to Russian MoD reports there were 15 crew members on board vice the 14 reported in earlier statements.  

Here are two separate reports that I found that went into more detail about what may have had occurred. 

The first report is from  The Aviationist.   



> According to the IDF spokesperson, the F-16s were already in Israeli airspace when the Il-20 was shot down, anyway, “Israel will share all the relevant information with the Russian Government to review the incident and to confirm the facts in this inquiry.”
> 
> 4. The Syrian anti-air batteries fired indiscriminately and from what we understand, did not bother to ensure that no Russian planes were in the air.
> 
> — Israel Defense Forces (@IDFSpokesperson) September 18, 2018



The second report is from  The Drive. Their is assessment is as follows: 



> The idea that Israel used the IL-20 for cover is questionable at best. Just look at the chart above, the timing of such an operation without coordination with the Il-20's crew would have to of been uncanny. What likely happened is that Israel executed its standoff strike from a launch position over the Mediterranean and the Il-20 happened to stumble into the area.



Also, according to the TheDrive the Russian Mod is also stating that the IAF was GBU-39 SDBs.

Both sites state that the Coot-A was hit by a S-200/SA-5 Gammon missile. The SA is an older Russian system first introduced in the mid-60's and would know be considered obsolete. 

The chart the TheDrive refers to is shown below. Note that with Russian symbology Russian forces are in red and NATO/IAF in blue. 

My only comment is that the COOT-A should have been broadcasting some kind of IFF signal and the Syrians should have been able to track it.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The Syrian forces currently are using the Vega (S200VE) variant of the missile, which can flash from cold to off the rails in 10-12 seconds if in working order. With all of its rather large radar fingerprint, the battery itself would have (or should have) had a good enough radar view in 2D.  
 Assume that the IL20 just popped up suddenly (it was out over the east conducting EOB flight for the previous 3 hours,  its location before that was south/southwest), there would have been sufficient information available to the battery commander that this specific aircraft was not an Israeli formation at the time preceding the shoot down.   As mentioned above, the IAF F16's had already left the scene by the time the S200 missiles were fired and we have to assume that the Syrian battery had sufficient information to make a decision about engaging aircraft that already left the battlespace.  Why they engaged is another story, I guess. 

There was an RAF Rivet Joint in the air crossing over northern Israel at the time this happened, they will have a fairly detailed ELINT synopsis of the event that most people in the world will never see.  Every Coalition ship with a decent EW suite sailing in the eastern Med is grabbing signals as well. The Rivet Joint would have, at a minimum, recorded the Square Pair fire control radar and the S Band radar (Back Trap IIRC), whatever they are using these days for VHF (i forget) and probably  an E band radar ++ all of the un-wired comms between between stations.  Lots of EW intel will be available for analysis, not much of which will see the light of day. 

correction "east"


----------



## daftandbarmy

My takeaway from this was - 'if you think that our Aurora crews aren't in danger during their sojourns in the ME, you would be wrong.'


----------



## Cloud Cover

If an Aurora tried to land at a Russian airbase in Syria ....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My takeaway from this was - 'if you think that our Aurora crews aren't in danger during their sojourns in the ME, you would be wrong.'



There were very well-defined "go/no go" areas, shall we say...and pretty good Int before you went wheels-in-the-wheel, and during your VUL time.  ESM also is a great "situational awareness" tool.

The real danger was the unknown stuff;  MANPADs, 57mm.  They only had to get lucky once...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The Syrian forces currently are using the Vega (S200VE) variant of the missile, which can flash from cold to off the rails in 10-12 seconds if in working order. With all of its rather large radar fingerprint, the battery itself would have (or should have) had a good enough radar view in 2D.
> Assume that the IL20 just popped up suddenly (it was out over the east conducting EOB flight for the previous 3 hours,  its location before that was south/southwest), there would have been sufficient information available to the battery commander that this specific aircraft was not an Israeli formation at the time preceding the shoot down.   As mentioned above, the IAF F16's had already left the scene by the time the S200 missiles were fired and we have to assume that the Syrian battery had sufficient information to make a decision about engaging aircraft that already left the battlespace.  Why they engaged is another story, I guess.
> 
> There was an RAF Rivet Joint in the air crossing over northern Israel at the time this happened, they will have a fairly detailed ELINT synopsis of the event that most people in the world will never see.  Every Coalition ship with a decent EW suite sailing in the eastern Med is grabbing signals as well. The Rivet Joint would have, at a minimum, recorded the Square Pair fire control radar and the S Band radar (Back Trap IIRC), whatever they are using these days for VHF (i forget) and probably  an E band radar ++ all of the un-wired comms between between stations.  Lots of EW intel will be available for analysis, not much of which will see the light of day.
> 
> correction "east"



The amount of time they've been flying/operating in the area, I'd assume deconfliction/etc would have been worked out longgggggggggggggg ago.  I can see a mis-ID if the COOT suffered some kind of major emergency, and they were EMCON silent in all aspects because shit was all on fire or something.  I don't know how they operate, but will assume it is somewhat similar to how we do business.  If they're (Russian crews) used to seeing the same target/kill RADARs, well...they might not react the same way we would.  Might have been "ops normal" for them.  All spec, of course...in the image posted above, they were "inbound" though.  HI/HA looking to the RADAR controllers?


----------



## Cloud Cover

I don't know? The inbound path was from the sea. With the complete Vega configuration (if they have the upgraded kit) at  longer range the grazing angle of that battery site (I'm looking at a contour map) would be smaller so the reflections are stronger and the target echo of airborne objects should be far above free space values. More definition. It could be the Coot was off course or still making tactical maneuvers because the F16's were behind it for a time. That could neuter the deconfliction, but it would not account for many other factors.  I have to say my experience here is with ELINT finger printing of ground based systems, and not much else. The behavior of the components of the  battery as a system I understand, the flying tactics not at all.  We should not discount the possibility that comms channels may  have been subject to jamming etc.


----------



## 211RadOp

*U.S. soldiers among the dead in northern Syria suicide bombing*

Explosion in Manjib comes after Trump announces withdrawal from Syria

Thomson Reuters · Posted: Jan 16, 2019 8:42 AM ET | Last Updated: an hour ago

A blast struck near U.S.-led coalition forces on Wednesday in Syria's northern city of Manbij, and a war monitor said 16 people had been killed.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group first reported the explosion, with the U.S-led coalition confirming that U.S. forces were killed.

"U.S. service members were killed during an explosion while conducting a routine patrol in Syria today. We are still gathering information and will share additional details at a later time," it said.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters four U.S. soldiers were killed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-manjib-explosion-1.4980050


----------



## tomahawk6

The death toll will rise but until all  the next of kin notificatins are concluded,I doubt that a more conclusive number will be released. One thing is certain,ISIS is not defeated and this attack will probably scrap any withdrawal until later in the year is my best guess.


----------



## tomahawk6

DoD has released the names of 3 of the fallen. 

https://dod.defense.gov/News/N...-resolve-casualties/


----------



## tomahawk6

Stars and Stripes has a bit more about these fallen patriots. Some very impressive folks. 

https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/green-beret-navy-linguist-seal-turned-dia-civilian-among-americans-killed-in-isis-claimed-bombing-in-syria-1.565006


----------



## tomahawk6

Captain Turnbull was seriously injured during the bombing and is in very critical condition in Landstuhl. 

https://www.stripes.com/news/american-soldier-wounded-in-manbij-attack-fighting-for-his-life-1.565512 






Capt. Jonathan Turnbull of Gaylord, Mich., is pictured here as a first lieutenant deployed with Apache Troop, 3rd Squadron, 7th United States Cavalry to Combat Outpost Shir Khan, Afghanistan, in a screenshot of a December 2012 holiday greetings video. Turnbull was badly wounded in a bombing in Manbij, Syria, on Wednesday, Jan. 16, and was said to be in serious condition at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany on Monday, Jan. 22, 2019.
COURTESY OF U.S. ARMY


----------



## Good2Golf

Thoughts and prayers to family and friends of those killed, and to a full and timely recovery by CPT Turnbull. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A lot is going on, the SAA offensive west of Aleppo has stalled and counterattack heavily supported by Turkish Armed UAV have cost the Syrians roughly:

- 30 MBTs
- 20 SPGs
- 15 BMPs
- 7 BM-21s

The SAA however have been rolling up the Southern portion of the Rebel territory. Turkey suffered some 33 dead and similar wounded in airstrikes, Turkey have declared that all military targets in the Idlib province are legitimate targets and subject to attack. Some Turkish sources apparently claim Turkey will make a formal declaration of war against Syria. However this article says otherwise.
https://anna-news.info/turtsiya-predlozhila-ustanovit-peremirie-v-sirijskom-idlibe/


The SAA had cleared the M5 Highway to Aleppo, but it's been cut again as the Turkish back rebels recaptured Saraqib. 

Meanwhile up North the Syrian Arab Army and YPG and getting bombarded by Turkish artillery.

Some graphic footage here of strikes against Syrian Armour https://www.pscp.tv/w/1djGXQmQzwzJZ?fbclid=IwAR2hegIX0_Y8PN97HcIov0mzBi3eGeGC6EhM6AxpqOPGZ8x4go89b8PR4RI

It remains to be seen what Russia and Turkey will do. Currently the majority of Russian supplies to syria are shipped through the Straits and that could be cut at any time.


----------



## CBH99

Turkey has military forces deployed in Syria, against the wishes of the Syrian government, and is actively engaging Syrian government troops.

Regardless of our opinion of the Syrian dictator and his government - Turkey is in the wrong here.  They want their casualties to stop?  Get out of Syria.

Should have allowed the deconfliction zone to stand.  From my understanding, the Kurds were moving & there would have been a nice little barrier between the Turkish border and the Kurds.  



Invading Syria & engaging Syrian government forces isn't helping anything...but maybe that's the point?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ottoman 2.0 is a must, old Turkish saying: "Better to kick an Arab than a dog". I am assuming that grabbing a bit of the old Empire is invigorating to some, and perhaps they are looking for future allies to fight the Kurds?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A more up to date and detailed list

Tanks (29, of which destroyed: 16)
 6 T-55A: (1, captured) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed)
 2 T-55M: (1, captured) (2, captured)
 4 T-62 Obr. 1972: (1, captured) (2, damaged) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed)
 2 T-62M: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed)
 5 T-72M1: (1, captured) (2, captured) (3, captured) (4, captured) (5, captured)
 1 T-72M1 'Shafrah': (1, captured)
 1 T-72AV: (1, captured)
 2 Unknown T-72: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed)
 6 Unknown T-55/62 (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed)

Infantry fighting vehicles (14, of which destroyed: 4)
14 BMP-1: (1, captured) (2, captured) (3, captured) (4, captured) (5, captured) (6, captured) (7, captured) (8, captured) (9, captured) (10, captured) (11, destroyed) (12, destroyed) (13, destroyed) (14, destroyed)

Self-propelled artillery (17, of which destroyed: 17)
 11 122mm 2S1 Gvozdika (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed) (7, destroyed) (8, destroyed) (9, destroyed) (10, destroyed) (11, destroyed)
 6 152mm 2S3 Akatsiya: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed)

Multiple rocket launchers (9, of which destroyed: 9)
 8 122mm BM-21: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed) (7, destroyed) (8, destroyed)
 1 122mm MRL on Toyota: (1, destroyed)

Mortars (1, of which destroyed: 1)
 1 240mm M240: (1, destroyed)

(Self-propelled) anti-aircraft guns (3, of which destroyed: 1)
 2 23mm ZSU-23: (1, damaged) (2, destroyed)
 1 23mm ZU-23: (1, captured)

Surface-to-air missile systems (1, of which destroyed: 1)
 1 Pantsir-S1: (1)
 1 Buk-M2 (1, reported to have been destroyed at Kweres or Abu ad-Duhor)

Helicopters (5, of which destroyed: 5)
 5 Helicopters of unknown type: (1, 2, 3, reported to have been destroyed at Kweres and Abu ad-Duhor, 4 and 5 shot down by MANPADS on the 11th and 14th of Feburary respectively)

Trucks and engineering equipment (14, of which destroyed: 7)
 1 GAZ-66: (1, destroyed)
 3 GAZ-3308: (1, captured) (2, captured) (3, captured)
 1 Ammunition truck: (1, destroyed)
 3 Truck carrying equipment: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) 
 2 Excevators: (1 and 2, captured)
 2 Motor bikes: (1 and 2, captured)
 2 Unknown truck: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed)

Anti-tank guided missiles (23, 5 launchers and optics)
 3 9M111 Fagot: (1, 2, and 3)
 9 9M113 Konkurs: (1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 6) (7, 8 and 9)  
 1 9P135 launcher for the 9M113 Konkurs ATGM: (1)
 1 1PN79-2 Thermal optic for the Konkurs-M ATGM launcher: (1)
 10 9M131 Metis: (1, 2, 3 and 4) (5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)  
 2 9P151 launcher for the 9M131 Metis ATGM: (1) (2)
 1 1PN86-VI Thermal optic for Metis-M ATGM launcher: (1)
 1 9M14 Malyutka: (1)

source; https://spioenkop.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-idlib-turkey-shoot-destruction-and.html?fbclid=IwAR1cqyiG_NkuWBrlKF64piNngK_vzBLmPOuX3h0_9nkc-N5rzgiZDbfg9_s

Also if you have a good AD system you might want to learn how to use it....
https://twitter.com/clashreport/status/1233474077374976000?s=20


----------



## FJAG

Interesting article from Der Spiegel about matters within the Syrian hierarchy.



> The Assads Versus the Makhloufs
> 
> *A Bitter Feud over Power and Money Erupts in Syria*
> 
> For the last several months, a heated conflict has been escalating between the most powerful families in Syria. It has been trying Russia's patience and could decide who will ultimately wield control.
> By Christoph Reuter
> 
> The hashish was packed in milk cartons, a total of four tons of the stuff, carefully packed in 19,000 individual Tetra Paks. Customs officials discovered the cargo in mid-April on a ship in the Egyptian port of Said. It had come from Syria, and it was presumably bound for Libya, another country torn apart by civil war.
> 
> It's not the first time that drugs produced in Syria have been discovered in one of the region's ports. Indeed, such cases are no longer out of the ordinary. In Dubai, investigators have confiscated several payloads of amphetamine pills, most recently in January. And in Saudi Arabia, customs officials in late April found 45 million Captagon pills, likely produced by laboratories in Syria. Most of the tablets were hidden in packages intended for mate tea from a company with connections to the family of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
> 
> The ships all put to sea from Latakia, the Syrian city on the Mediterranean whose port Iran leased last fall. The drug discoveries show just how desperate Assad's regime and his allies in Tehran have grown when it comes to finding new revenue streams. The country, after all, is essentially broke. According to the United Nations, 80 percent of Syrians are living in poverty, and it is estimated that gross domestic product has fallen to just a quarter of its prewar level. The currency continues to collapse and prices are rising, while wages have remained largely stagnant. Iran is unable to help and Russia is no longer willing.
> 
> A Family Feud
> 
> The drug trade is one of the few remaining routes to obtaining hard currency. Already in 2013, Hezbollah - Iran's proxy in Lebanon – conquered the Syrian city of Qusayr and its surroundings and declared the region a restricted zone. The militia established dozens of small production sites for amphetamines known as Captagon. At the same time, the group forced farmers to cultivate cannabis. According to several sources, Maher Assad, Bashar's younger brother and commander of the 4th Division of the Syrian army, took on the task of protecting Qusayr and the transportation routes to the port of Latakia on the Mediterranean. Maher Assad's division is one of just two halfway battle-ready units left in the badly deteriorated Syrian army. And it belongs to that faction of the Syrian army that is largely controlled by Iran.
> 
> ...



See rest of article here: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-assads-against-the-makhloufs-a-bitter-feud-over-power-and-money-erupts-in-syria-a-eb2b062a-c0c1-4b88-9966-244a15b49f4b

 :cheers:


----------

