The Syrian National Army has the support of Hezbollah, the Quds force and if necessary the armies of Iran and Russia and so has much larger reserves than its opponents except in case of an invasion by Turkey and/or US. In case of such an, unlikely, invasion the role of the terrorists is ended anyway so they are really on a hiding to nothing.
ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Broccoli
Senior Member
Assad's forces are suffering from chronic manpower shortage (especially reliable soldiers) and that's why Iran is sending Afghan mercenaries and Hezbollah fight for him.
Only places where regime is advancing are the ones where Hezbollah terrorists are leading the fight but they also have their limitations.
My point is that when necessary Syria will have the forces necessary to hold and in the end defeat the terrorists.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Never mind the foolish policy itself...the fact that that much money was allocated, and so much was spent to get a handful of people trained is an embarrassing joke, IMHO.
There are people who will fight ISIS...including the US's own if they were allowed...who know how to defeat them.
Air power in conjunction with that is a good thing and would help. But air power alone, while it can take out some leadership, and can hurt any concentration...is NEVER going to win back the territory. And neither will a handful of rebels.
It is clear to me at least, like so many other rat holes in politics, that this money is most probably going to fill the coffers of donors and political allies and not really being used for training at all.
I am rather curious as to the precise nature of any Russian action in Syria.
I certainly do not see a full blown all fronts Russian led offensive, but rather hark back to the notion of Putin being an intelligence man and a master at playing the smallest possible stroke to spike the guns of his opponents.
At the back of this, is the nagging suspicion that many of the recent moves by Western powers are primarily positioning to resume the regime change agenda and that is is this that has prompted Russia to up its activities.
I suspect that the Turkish border is the key here. The Western strip is safe Government territory, while the East is Kurdish or ISIS controlled. This had left the province of Idleb as an area open to Western friendly forces and from where a powerful ground force backed with air cover could attempt to overrun the key Government held areas.
I suspect therefore that Russian forces; including ground and Air Power will be used to retake Idlib to the Turkish border and close this gap for good. Putting Russian troops on the ground and I would suspect, taking control of the border section would ensure no counter strikes by Western forces should the Syrian Army attempt the recapture on its own.
The notion of then assisting with other pocket (cauldron) liquidation operations seem realistic as well.
I certainly do not see a full blown all fronts Russian led offensive, but rather hark back to the notion of Putin being an intelligence man and a master at playing the smallest possible stroke to spike the guns of his opponents.
At the back of this, is the nagging suspicion that many of the recent moves by Western powers are primarily positioning to resume the regime change agenda and that is is this that has prompted Russia to up its activities.
I suspect that the Turkish border is the key here. The Western strip is safe Government territory, while the East is Kurdish or ISIS controlled. This had left the province of Idleb as an area open to Western friendly forces and from where a powerful ground force backed with air cover could attempt to overrun the key Government held areas.
I suspect therefore that Russian forces; including ground and Air Power will be used to retake Idlib to the Turkish border and close this gap for good. Putting Russian troops on the ground and I would suspect, taking control of the border section would ensure no counter strikes by Western forces should the Syrian Army attempt the recapture on its own.
The notion of then assisting with other pocket (cauldron) liquidation operations seem realistic as well.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The west has always seemed more interested in regime change than fighting ISIS.
Your theory would neatly explain why the Russians are making moves now - sending in a Typhoon SSBN seemed an odd choice against ISIS, but as a counter against further western misadvantures in Syria, it would actually make sense to choose that asset to deploy, rather than, say one of their SSGNs.
It also explains also why the fairly modest Russian deployments already on site (a hand full of tanks, some infantry and supporting air assets), which are totally understandable responses by the Russians given the security situation in the country, would stir up such anxiety and consternation in certain western capitals when, on the face of it, another powerful country getting more actively engaged in fighting ISIS should have been a most welcome development.
If this is true, the Great Game is still on, and the Russians are playing it well.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
To be fair, 54 were trained and deployed, its just that only 4 or 5 of them are still alive, so maybe they were not trained well enough...
$40 odd million to train 54 guys isn't that much better than 4 or 5 guys, but we should resist misreporting to sensationalise events, we are better than that. Also remember the bulk of that initial expenditure would probably have gone to establishing bases, getting training equipment and materials etc.
In effect, much of that would have been big capital expenditures to get everything set up and running, and should have been one-off costs (although that may not be the case if they are thinking of "retooling" it), so the average cost of training fighters reducing with each new fighter trained.
Welcome to Cold War 2.0 geopolitics t2contra, and a large addition of western hubris. While the sincerity of the actual offer can be debated, it is entirely possible that this was intended to be a backroom deal which ended up being rejected out of hand. IMO, the Russians would have wanted guarantees that they kept their naval base, and that a jointly agreed government be set up that both the U.S./R.F. can agree on. Both these would be out of the question to say nothing of the idea of any permanent Russian military presence anywhere outside their Motherland.
As it stands, even with the additional equipment-there isn't much more than a small but powerful defensive force from the Russians directly. I heard that S-300s have arrived in Syria however? Anyone know anything for certain on this?