ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

t2contra said:

Good point, Wolf. The world needs a US President who is a little more wingnutty in dealing with ISIL. How I miss the Bush.

Click to expand...

I think you need to go back to Reagan on that. Bush ain't going to do much either.. ISIS has large supporters.. many closeted especially from the house of Saud. The US interests are too entrenched with oil deals and billions of dollars in defence contracts.

Wars unfortunately are seldom fought for the 'right' reasons. National interests always take precedence until the balance is shifted. Unless or until ISIS does something big on US soil or something major which causes massive US casualties POTUS will pay lip service with the occasional drone strikes. The American public will also not be in favor of boots in ground either so there's that .. again unless something big and terrible happens.

I've said it many times before the ONLY way (short of US troops in country) to beat ISIS is to financially and materially support the Kurds and the regular Syrian Army (Assad)... and them only no one else. If it means having to strain relationship with Turkey, the Saudis and even Israel then that's the burden we have to bear. Doing that I believe will somewhat restore things back to pre 2011. At least in Syria and surrounding areas. but that is a choice that we have decided not to make because those in power don't feel it's worth the repercussions of such actions.

kwaigonegin said:

I think you need to go back to Reagan on that. Bush ain't going to do much either.. ISIS has large supporters.. many closeted especially from the house of Saud. The US interests are too entrenched with oil deals and billions of dollars in defence contracts.

Wars unfortunately are seldom fought for the 'right' reasons. National interests always take precedence until the balance is shifted. Unless or until ISIS does something big on US soil or something major which causes massive US casualties POTUS will pay lip service with the occasional drone strikes. The American public will also not be in favor of boots in ground either so there's that .. again unless something big and terrible happens.

I've said it many times before the ONLY way (short of US troops in country) to beat ISIS is to financially and materially support the Kurds and the regular Syrian Army (Assad)... and them only no one else. If it means having to strain relationship with Turkey, the Saudis and even Israel then that's the burden we have to bear. Doing that I believe will somewhat restore things back to pre 2011. At least in Syria and surrounding areas. but that is a choice that we have decided not to make because those in power don't feel it's worth the repercussions of such actions.

Click to expand...

I think the Saudi connection is indeed one of the primary reasons the world's response to ISIS has been so hamstrung thus far. But there is little point in going down that road as it will just lead to recriminations and moderation.

On your point, I simply do not think the Kurds, Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis or anyone else currently engaged in the fight has the raw military and economic strength to win against ISIS, even with US air support.

What you need is for a powerful external military force to come in and smash ISIS, then hunt down as many of the shattered splinters as could be found and chucking grenades down whatever hole they have gone to hide in.

Then and only then will the likes of the Iraqis, Kurds, Syrians etc come into play, to police the aftermath and keep the hard won peace.

Looking around the world, I think there are, realistically, only two or three countries with the necessary military and economic strength to destroy ISIS. They are the US, China and maybe Turkey.

The UK, France and all the other NATO countries simply lack the numbers to engage and fight ISIS over such a large area without taking up pretty much all of their available combat forces (which is never going to be acceptable).

Russia probably still has the military muscle, but lack the financial heft to be able to finance such a massive operation.

The US is exhausted after its previous Middle East (mis)adventures (what a waste Bush II made, had the US not exhausted itself fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, it may have been up to taking on the fight against ISIS in a meaningful way).

China lacks the foreign bases and most importantly, the desire to get involved in any foreign conflicts, and would also be mindful of how badly America would take such a large scale Chinese military campaign in the heart of the ME.

That leaves only Turkey (short of a mass casualty terrorist attack by ISIS on either the US or China as you have suggested).

As such, I think the key to winning the fight against ISIS is to get the Turks "on side".

If I was in charge in the US, I would put massive pressure on the EU to get the Turkish EU membership application moving, and use that as a bargaining chip to get Turkey interested in the fight against ISIS.

To sweeten the deal further, I would allow Turkey to be the kingmakers in Syria, after ISIS is destroyed (might as well remove Assad as well while you are at it), and sell that as a means for Turkey to potentially fully resolve its Kurdish problem, by effectively allowing them to remove potential KKP safe heavens and support bases in Northern Syria and to police that entire area as they see fit after the fall of ISIS.

Package that with massive financial support from America and the EU, and that may be enough to make it worth Turkey's while.

That kinda throws the Kurds under the bus, but they are never going to get a state, and their suffering under Turkish dominion is going to be several orders of magnitude less that how they would suffer under ISIS, so its by far the lessor of the two evils.

Although I'd have to say I would, as hard as possible, resist your EU membership idea until at least such time as the US would allow the same freedom of movement, voting and financial transfer concepts, all to non-US citizens, to Turkey, a country were ISIL supporters can move about rather freely, that naturally do come with a EU membership.
I think I can say such a proposal would produce a rather substansive backlash in the US.

Your idea would also require essentially defeating Assad loyal forces together with ISIL, as I exspect anything less will be unaccaptable to the current turkish administration. And I currently do not see the incentive to put our resources, including the human part, into that endeavor.
The Syria issue is, IMO, an "arabian" and perhaps "turkish /ottoman" one. They have shown in the past that "western" input is not welcomed there, so, as bitter as it sounds, let them bleed.

I do, however, indeed see a point in direct military support to kurdish forces. With ISIL having no backing there what so ever, I see it very likely to remove them with special and small scale conventional military force. (Foreign internal defence)
The Kurds, to a large extent, could establish a fairish stable blocking semi-state, favourable to the international community, to keep ISIL enclosed.
Even though that is likely to drasticly upset Turkey.

Short of a large conventional campaign in Syria and Iraq, I don't see ISIL and any potential offsrpings being routed anytime soon. For now the aim should be to keep them contained and occupied focusing inward, every once in a while a hammer dropping on them.

ISIS also has a very effective marketing arm. Just as important as it is to destroy them in the real world, there must also be a massive coordinated cyberattack on ISIS related portals, sites and domains online.

I still think PKK are battle hardened and motivated enough to at least put a giant blow in ISIS. What they need are resources and aerial help. They need intel, modern weaponry, equipment, training and CAS. Assign few squadrons of apaches or cobras and a10s solely to help PKK fight ISIS.
PKK are not necessarily bound by the Geneva conventions and they will put serious fear into ISIS combatants. They can 'out-monster' ISIS.
All the billions of dollars worth of equipment and training the pentagon has sent to the Iraqi army would be 100x more effective had the same resources been given to the PKK.

Over 100 Yazidis Flee Iraq Daily Fleeing From Islamic State
Yazidis, a Kurdish religious community, are leaving Iraq in an attempt to save themselves from the advancing troops of the Islamic State, according to an official within an organization which aids the Yazidi community.

MOSCOW, August 4 (Sputnik) — At least 100 members of the Iraqi Yazidi minority flee the country every day to protect themselves and their families from Islamic State () militants, an official in an organization that helps abducted Yazidis has estimated, as quoted by the local IraqiNews portal on Tuesday.

"More than 100 Yazidis are heading outside the country every day," Hussein Qaiada said.

He added that at the moment there were at least 300 Yazidis, mostly women and children, still being held by ISIL militants, who "expose them to various types of abuse and torture."

The Yazidis are a Kurdish religious community living primary in northern Iraq's Nineveh Governorate.

In late April, lawmakers in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe called the ISIL actions against the Yazidi population, as well as against Shiite and Christian minorities, genocide.

Islamic State controls large parts of Iraq and Syria, and is notorious for committing numerous human rights atrocities and killings.

Link:



Back to bottling my Grenache

Many US-Trained Rebels Fighting ISIS in Syria Unaccounted For

Aug 7, 2015

Many of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

rebels trained by the United States to fight

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

are unaccounted for in the northern part of the country and some have been found in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, a U.S. official said Thursday.

News about the uncertainty of their whereabouts came a week after the rebels were attacked by 50 fighters from the rival al-Nusra Front, a rebel group affiliated with

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. At least one of the U.S.-trained rebels was killed and others were wounded before the attack was repelled by U.S. airstrikes.

The Pentagon said earlier this week that President Obama had authorized airstrikes to defend the rebels, even from forces loyal to Syrian

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

The U.S. must rely on the 54 rebels, known as the New Syrian Forces, to report their movements since they fall under the U.S. chain of command, Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said earlier Thursday. He said they have the means to communicate with the U.S. military, but that it didn't mean they provided regular updates about their positions.

Davis added that tracking them was made difficult by current combat conditions in northern Syria.

The small group of rebels recently began operating after becoming the first graduates of a U.S. program that plans to train and equip as many as 5,400 moderate Syrian opposition forces to fight ISIS.

But the $500 million training program for the rebels has been slow to begin because of a vigorous vetting program intended to ensure that potential recruits will not join other extremist groups or fight the Assad regime. So far,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

has spent $42 million to start up the program.

Davis said a second group of fighters is currently undergoing training and indicated that they would become trainers themselves. A third group of Syrian rebels will begin training shortly afterwards, he said.

At least 1,500 Syrian rebels have been vetted for the program and several thousand more volunteers remain to be vetted.

Davis said the Pentagon remains committed to the program’s success, but when asked to characterize the initial deployment of rebels in Syria, he called it challenging but added that it was inaccurate to say the U.S. was caught “totally flat-footed by the idea of sending people into a very dynamic and rapidly changing war zone.”

Click to expand...

I wonder whether they awoled or were captured, but to lose a ragtag army of 54 men is not a good sign that early in the campaign.

The problem with fighting ISIS now is that their sympathizers are in every western democracy. Fight them in Syria, and they come knocking on your local cafe with a shotgun.

Summary from

All of which, indeed, makes his interview with Al Jazeera last week regarding the US’ fight against the Islamic State very riveting. Let me put down the key points Gen. Flynn made:

• The war in Iraq was a mistake; it led to the rise of the Islamic State.
• The US should be held accountable for what happened. History is not going to be kind.
• The “entire system” is guilty of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• The drone attacks have been a ghastly mistake, as they created more terrorists.
• Something is wrong with the US’ policies and strategies insofar as the US invested more in conflicts and not in finding solutions to conflicts. That is why terrorism is proliferating.
• President Barack Obama should have a different approach — although there are people in the US who believe in “perpetuating conflicts fo

US military official: 'We were outraged' when Turkey pulled a fast one right after the anti-ISIS deal

By Natasha Bertrand 19 hours ago

US President Barack Obama with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the NATO Summit at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, Wales, on September 5. An American military source that US military leaders were "outraged" when Turkey began launching airstrikes against the Kurdish PKK in northern Iraq just hours after striking a deal with the US opposing the Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh.

A Turkish officer entered the allied headquarters in the air war against ISIS and "announced that the strike would begin in 10 minutes and he needed all allied jets flying above Iraq to move south of Mosul immediately," the source said.

"We were outraged."

The US special forces stationed in northern Iraq advising and training Kurdish peshmerga fighters had virtually no warning before Turkish jets started striking the mountains, where the PKK is headquartered.

"We had no idea who the Turkish fighters were, their call signs, what frequencies they were using, their altitude or what they were squawking [to identify the jets on radar]," the source said.

Turkish military leaders asked coalition officers to reveal the trainers' specific whereabouts to avoid bombing them, but the officers flatly refused.

"No way we were giving that up," the military source said.

"If one of our guys got hit, the Turks would blame us. We gave the Turks large grids to avoid bombing. We could not risk having US forces hit by Turkish bombs."

The confrontation highlights the tension growing between the US and Turkey, which became a reluctant ally in the fight against ISIS after years of to the militants' illicit activity on its southern border.

On July 24, Ankara announced it would begin to strike ISIS strongholds in northern Syria and would allow the US to do the same from its Incirlik airbase in southeastern Turkey.

The bombing campaign against PKK strongholds in northern Iraq came as a surprise, but it probably shouldn't have: Turkey has long seen the PKK — a designated terrorist organization that waged a three-decade insurgency inside Turkey — as more of an existential threat than ISIS, which refrained from launching attacks inside Turkey even as its militants along the border.

"There is no difference between PKK and Daesh," Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said.

But Ankara's recent anti-terror sweep — which has resulted in the arrest of more than 800 suspected PKK members, compared with just over 100 suspected ISIS sympathizers — and the intensity of its bombing campaign in northern Iraq has made it clear that Turkey's main goal is not to prevent the consolidation of ISIS, but to halt the creation of an autonomous Kurdish state along its southern border.

And blowback — most recently in the form of attacks of security forces and in Istanbul — is becoming increasingly likely.

The US, meanwhile, is moving away from its $500 million Syrian train-and-equip program and embracing a partnership with the YPG — Syrian Kurds who are closely allied with the PKK.

"To fully embrace a Kurdish force would complicate an already fragile strategy, two of the defense officials concluded," Nancy Youseff of .

"The Turks ... would not welcome an emboldened Kurdish force on its southern border. Neither would many of America's Arab allies, who are also threatened by Kurdish sovereignty movements."

And if Turkey keeps going after PKK while not trying to provoke ISIS, "it will leave the US without a Syria strategy," geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer recently.

"Access to Incirlik airbase matters, but the additional bombing it enables will only help contain ISIS, not roll it back," Bremmer added. "And it will leave Washington without the improved relations with Ankara that the Obama administration is hoping for."

Iranian-Brokered Truces Start in Three Syrian Towns

Two-day cease-fires begin as Iranian foreign minister arrives in Damascus for talks with President Assad



Syria's deputy foreign minister Faisal Muqdad (L) welcomes Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif upon his arrival at Damascus international airport on Wednesday. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES


An Iranian-brokered cease-fire between Syrian rebels and pro-regime forces went into effect in three towns Wednesday, as Tehran flexed its diplomatic muscles in a bid to establish itself as an international mediator in efforts to end the country’s civil war.

If the 48-hour truces hold, they could herald negotiations for longer cease-fires in Zabadani, a suburb of the capital Damascus, and two towns in northwestern Idlib province.

Iran’s diplomacy in Syria follows its with the U.S. and five other Western powers to limit its nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of economic sanctions by the U.S., the United Nations and the European Union.

In arranging the truces, Iran negotiated directly with the influential Syrian rebel faction Ahrar al-Sham, sources close to the militant group said. If confirmed, it would indicate how marginalized officials in Mr. Assad’s regime have become in efforts to wind down the war, now in its fifth year.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif arrived in Damascus Wednesday and headed straight for talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Zarif was in Beirut earlier in the day for a meeting with Lebanon’s defense minister.

Iranian state media has said Tehran plans to present a plan to the United Nations to end. The U.N. has led numerous attempts to orchestrating truces in the war, which has so far killed 250,000 people.

Wednesday’s truce focuses on Zabadani, which sits along the highway that links Damascus and the Lebanese border.

It has been under the control of antigovernment rebels from Ahrar al-Sham since 2012, but last month regime forces launched an offensive to retake it. To divert pressure on the town, Ahrar Al Sham and other rebel factions attacked two regime-held towns in Idlib province.

Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite military and political movement that has supplied fighters to the Assad regime, said Wednesday the cease-fire deal was reached after its fighters and the Syrian army advanced to the center of Zabadani.