ISIL War in Iraq and Syria

[Flavius Julius Nepos Augustus]

Suddenly out of nowhere this comes out of the sand "give me your weapons murcians!"
I thought the Assyrians were allied with the government and YPG

Syriacs defending Al-Hasakah along with SAA and NDF


genocide each other or are they not going to attack the government troops and just try to bargain for political transition.

The MFS was also a part of a YPG-led offensive against Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which began on 26 December 2013 in Tel Hamis area.[11] YPG and MFS were unable to hold Tell Brak and failed to capture Tel Hamis, and the offensive was called off in early January. However, on February 23, a pre-dawn raid by the Kurdish People's Protection Units and the Syriac Military Council captured Tell Brak, which was later re-captured by local Arab tribes.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Military_Council
How can an alliance between minorities and Arabs ever go wrong.

I apluad the effort but this is going to be a joke except if they only focus on defending against daesh.


PRAISE THE LORD! (Putin ) Salma, Kafr Nabudnah, Asthan have fallen. SAA even back in Fawru+ advances in north Aleppo against areas abonded by rebels. I see some more suprises for in some months

Lost some area in Quinetra though

[Heathen Hammer]

Aside from YPG, it seems like a virtual organization. Overwhelming majority of "opposition" against Assad are foreign-backed Islamist groups. Islamists are fighting on the ground while "democratic forces" mostly exist on paper to convince naive Westerners that Assad is fighting some kind of pro-democracy groups and not radical Sunni Islamists who want to wipe out or enslave all non-Sunnis (like they do IRL). Also I doubt Kurds care about "democratic values" while they have other "freedom fighters" from ISIS on their doorstep, especially with a very large possibility of their "democratic allies" turning on them for being "infidels".

[Basil II the B.S]

Transcript of Obama getting grilled on 60 minutes:

Steve Kroft: The last time we talked was this time last year, and the situation in Syria and Iraq had begun to worsen vis-à-vis ISIS. You had just unveiled a plan to provide air support for troops in Iraq, and also some air strikes in Syria, and the training and equipping of a moderate Syrian force. You said that this would degrade and eventually destroy ISIS.
President Barack Obama: Over time.
Steve Kroft: Over time. It's been a year, and--
President Barack Obama: I didn't say it was going to be done in a year.
Steve Kroft: No. But you said...
President Barack Obama: There's a question in here somewhere.
Steve Kroft: There's a question in here. I mean, if you look at the situation and you're looking for progress, it's not easy to find. You could make the argument that the only thing that's changed really is the death toll, which has continued to escalate, and the number of refugees fleeing Syria into Europe.
President Barack Obama: Syria has been a difficult problem for the entire world community and, obviously, most importantly, for the people of Syria themselves that have been devastated by this civil war, caught between a brutal dictator who drops barrel bombs on his own population, and thinks that him clinging to power is more important than the fate of his country. And a barbaric, ruthless organization in ISIL and some of the al Qaeda affiliates that are operating inside of Syria. And what we've been able to do is to stall ISIL's momentum to take away some of the key land that they were holding, to push back, particularly in Iraq against some population centers that they threatened. And, in Syria, we've been able to disrupt a number of their operations. But what we have not been able to do so far, and I'm the first to acknowledge this, is to change the dynamic inside of Syria and the goal here has been to find a way in which we can help moderate opposition on the ground, but we've never been under any illusion that militarily we ourselves can solve the problem inside of Syria.
Steve Kroft: I want us to take some of these things one by one. You mentioned an awful lot of things. One, the situation with ISIS, you've managed to achieve a stalemate. So what's going to happen to ISIS?
President Barack Obama: Well, over time--
Steve Kroft: I mean, they have to be-- somebody has to take them on. I mean, what's going on right now is not working. I mean, they are still occupying big chunks of Iraq. They're still occupying a good chunk of Syria. Who's going to get rid of them?
President Barack Obama: Over time, the community of nations will all get rid of them, and we will be leading getting rid of them. But we are not going to be able to get rid of them unless there is an environment inside of Syria and in portions of Iraq in which local populations, local Sunni populations, are working in a concerted way with us to get rid of them.
Steve Kroft: You have been talking about the moderate opposition in Syria. It seems very hard to identify. And you talked about the frustrations of trying to find some and train them. You got a half a billion dollars from Congress to train and equip 5,000, and at the end, according to the commander CENTCOM, you got 50 people, most of whom are dead or deserted. He said four or five left?
President Barack Obama: Steve, this is why I've been skeptical from the get go about the notion that we were going to effectively create this proxy army inside of Syria. My goal has been to try to test the proposition, can we be able to train and equip a moderate opposition that's willing to fight ISIL? And what we've learned is that as long as Assad remains in power, it is very difficult to get those folks to focus their attention on ISIL.
Steve Kroft: If you were skeptical of the program to find and identify, train and equip moderate Syrians, why did you go through the program?
President Barack Obama: Well, because part of what we have to do here, Steve, is to try different things. Because we also have partners on the ground that are invested and interested in seeing some sort of resolution to this problem. And--
Steve Kroft: And they wanted you to do it.
President Barack Obama: Well, no. That's not what I said. I think it is important for us to make sure that we explore all the various options that are available.
Steve Kroft: I know you don't want to talk about this.
President Barack Obama: No, I'm happy to talk about it.
Steve Kroft: I want to talk about the-- this program, because it would seem to show, I mean, if you expect 5,000 and you get five, it shows that somebody someplace along the line did not-- made-- you know, some sort of a serious miscalculation.
President Barack Obama: You know, the-- the-- Steve, let me just say this.
Steve Kroft: It's an embarrassment.
President Barack Obama: Look, there's no doubt that it did not work. And, one of the challenges that I've had throughout this heartbreaking situation inside of Syria is, is that-- you'll have people insist that, you know, all you have to do is send in a few-- you know, truckloads full of arms and people are ready to fight. And then, when you start a train-and-equip program and it doesn't work, then people say, "Well, why didn't it work?" Or, "If it had just started three months earlier it would've worked."
Steve Kroft: But you said yourself you never believed in this.
President Barack Obama: Well-- but Steve, what I have also said is, is that surprisingly enough it turns out that in a situation that is as volatile and with as many players as there are inside of Syria, there aren't any silver bullets. And this is precisely why I've been very clear that America's priorities has to be number one, keeping the American people safe. Number two, we are prepared to work both diplomatically and where we can to support moderate opposition that can help convince the Russians and Iranians to put pressure on Assad for a transition. But that what we are not going to do is to try to reinsert ourselves in a military campaign inside of Syria. Let's take the situation in Afghanistan, which I suspect you'll ask about. But I wanted to use this as an example.
Steve Kroft: All right. I feel like I'm being filibustered, Mr. President.
President Barack Obama: No, no, no, no, no. Steve, I think if you want to roll back the tape, you've been giving me long questions and statements, and now I'm responding to 'em. So let's-- so-- if you ask me big, open-ended questions, expect big, open-ended answers. Let's take the example of Afghanistan. We've been there 13 years now close to 13 years. And it's still hard in Afghanistan. Today, after all the investments we have there, and we still have thousands of troops there. So the notion that after a year in Syria, a country where the existing government hasn't invited us in, but is actively keeping us out, that somehow we would be able to solve this quickly-- is--
Steve Kroft: We didn't say quickly.
President Barack Obama: --is-- is-- is an illusion. And-- and--
Steve Kroft: Nobody's expecting that, Mr. President.
President Barack Obama: Well, the-- no, I understand, but what I'm-- the simple point I'm making, Steve, is that the solution that we're going to have inside of Syria is ultimately going to depend not on the United States putting in a bunch of troops there, resolving the underlying crisis is going to be something that requires ultimately the key players there to recognize that there has to be a transition to new government. And, in the absence of that, it's not going to work.
Steve Kroft: One of the key players now is Russia.
President Barack Obama: Yeah.
Steve Kroft: A year ago when we did this interview, there was some saber-rattling between the United States and Russia on the Ukrainian border. Now it's also going on in Syria. You said a year ago that the United States-- America leads. We're the indispensible nation. Mr. Putin seems to be challenging that leadership.
President Barack Obama: In what way? Let-- let's think about this-- let-- let--
Steve Kroft: Well, he's moved troops into Syria, for one. He's got people on the ground. Two, the Russians are conducting military operations in the Middle East for the first time since World War II--
President Barack Obama: So that's--
Steve Kroft: --bombing the people-- that we are supporting.
President Barack Obama: So that's leading, Steve? Let me ask you this question. When I came into office, Ukraine was governed by a corrupt ruler who was a stooge of Mr. Putin. Syria was Russia's only ally in the region. And today, rather than being able to count on their support and maintain the base they had in Syria, which they've had for a long time, Mr. Putin now is devoting his own troops, his own military, just to barely hold together by a thread his sole ally. And in Ukraine--
Steve Kroft: He's challenging your leadership, Mr. President. He's challenging your leadership--
President Barack Obama: Well Steve, I got to tell you, if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we've got a different definition of leadership. My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we'll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we've got a 60-country coalition that isn't suddenly lining up around Russia's strategy. To the contrary, they are arguing that, in fact, that strategy will not work.
Steve Kroft: My point is-- was not that he was leading, my point is that he was challenging your leadership. And he has very much involved himself in the situation. Can you imagine anything happening in Syria of any significance at all without the Russians now being involved in it and having a part of it?
President Barack Obama: But that was true before. Keep in mind that for the last five years, the Russians have provided arms, provided financing, as have the Iranians, as has Hezbollah.
Steve Kroft: But they haven't been bombing and they haven't had troops on the ground--
President Barack Obama: And the fact that they had to do this is not an indication of strength, it's an indication that their strategy did not work.
Steve Kroft: You don't think--
President Barack Obama: You don't think that Mr. Putin would've preferred having Mr. Assad be able to solve this problem without him having to send a bunch of pilots and money that they don't have?
Steve Kroft: Did you know he was going to do all this when you met with him in New York?
President Barack Obama: Well, we had seen-- we had pretty good intelligence. We watch--
Steve Kroft: So you knew he was planning to do it.
President Barack Obama: We knew that he was planning to provide the military assistance that Assad was needing because they were nervous about a potential imminent collapse of the regime.
Steve Kroft: You say he's doing this out of weakness. There is a perception in the Middle East among our adversaries, certainly and even among some of our allies that the United States is in retreat, that we pulled our troops out of Iraq and ISIS has moved in and taken over much of that territory. The situation in Afghanistan is very precarious and the Taliban is on the march again. And ISIS controls a large part of Syria.
President Barack Obama: I think it's fair to say, Steve, that if--
Steve Kroft: It's-- they-- let me just finish the thought. They say your--
President Barack Obama: You're--
Steve Kroft: --they say you're projecting a weakness, not a strength--
President Barack Obama: --you're saying "they," but you're not citing too many folks. But here--
Steve Kroft: No, I'll cite-- I'll cite if you want me, too.
President Barack Obama: --here-- yes. Here--
Steve Kroft: I'd say the Saudis. I'd say the Israelis. I'd say a lot of our friends in the Middle East. I'd say everybody in the Republican party. Well, you want me to keep going?
President Barack Obama: Yeah. The-- the-- if you are-- if you're citing the Republican party, I think it's fair to say that there is nothing I've done right over the last seven and a half years. And I think that's right. It-- and-- I also think what is true is that these are the same folks who were making an argument for us to go into Iraq and who, in some cases, still have difficulty acknowledging that it was a mistake. And Steve, I guarantee you that there are factions inside of the Middle East, and I guess factions inside the Republican party who think that we should send endless numbers of troops into the Middle East, that the only measure of strength is us sending back several hundred thousand troops, that we are going to impose a peace, police the region, and-- that the fact that we might have more deaths of U.S. troops, thousands of troops killed, thousands of troops injured, spend another trillion dollars, they would have no problem with that. There are people who would like to see us do that. And unless we do that, they'll suggest we're in retreat.
Steve Kroft: They'll say you're throwing in the towel--
President Barack Obama: No. Steve, we have an enormous presence in the Middle East. We have bases and we have aircraft carriers. And our pilots are flying through those skies. And we are currently supporting Iraq as it tries to continue to build up its forces. But the problem that I think a lot of these critics never answered is what's in the interest of the United States of America and at what point do we say that, "Here are the things we can do well to protect America. But here are the things that we also have to do in order to make sure that America leads and America is strong and stays number one." And if in fact the only measure is for us to send another 100,000 or 200,000 troops into Syria or back into Iraq, or perhaps into Libya, or perhaps into Yemen, and our goal somehow is that we are now going to be, not just the police, but the governors of this region. That would be a bad strategy Steve. And I think that if we make that mistake again, then shame on us.
* * *
And just like that the US foray in Syria is unofficially over.
The sad thing is that for all the fake posturing by both Kroft and Obama, the US may still very well make this mistake and send 100,000 or 200,000 troops under the leadership of the Nobel Peace Prize winner, especially if our assessment of what the US withdrawal from the middle-east means for the upcoming dramatic shift in the regional balance of power.
* * *
The rest of the interview is primarily focused on domestic affairs, i.e., Trump, Hillary's emails and Biden's latest presidential run, which for the purpose of this post or the opinions coming from a lame duck president, are irrelevant.
At the end of the interview, Kroft asks Obama if he's glad he can't run for president again. Obama says he feels a mixture of satisfaction at what he's accomplished and a desire to still do more.
Kroft then asks him: "Do you think if you ran again, could run again, and did run again, you would be elected?"
"Yes," says Obama, without missing a beat.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...ent-60-minutes


Note how he candidly admits that :
-there's no real moderate opposition to Assad, they trained 5000 men most of which are dead by now. Despite that he insists on the rethoric of supporting the ''moderates''.
-admits he can't back down too much because ''partners have invested a lot of money'' Saudi Arabia, etc.
-admits so far his strategy was a complete failure

[snuggans]

Steve Kroft isn't that deep in his analysis of Iraq, for example he believes bringing back the occupation is going to resolve something? no, it isnt. what daesh is going to do is go back to what they were doing while Iraq was still occupied, which is suicide-bombing/carbombing vulnerable stationary targets, and swarming the area with IEDs for the moving ones, all the while blending into the general population. at least now in this status quo they are out and about, and each time they move out of the civilian-dense areas and attack something or go somewhere, they suffer so much for it. contrary to the poor collateral damage ratios (better than Russians anyway) that existed during invasion and occupation years, this air and SF campaign + Kurdish/Arab/mercs ground forces is achieving far better ratios.

please! let Russia deploy more and throw more money at Syria! it'll be their soldiers caught in a quagmire, their jets being targeted, their tanks/APCs being lazed. i think it would be really great for Putin to stretch himself out as much as possible, waste several billion and troops in Ukraine, waste some more billions and troops in Syria, all while his economy is shrinking and undergoing a recession. please Putin, spend more, do it!! it's already having disastrous and hilarious results.

you could have at least provided the transcript from the angle of a less-crappier site than zerohedge? while i'm reading the script i don't want to read the interjections written by some zerohedge schmuck that gets paid to look anticapitalist and counter-culture. "lame duck president", lol is that guy even in tune with american politics? does he know republicans can't even find a speaker of the house? more like lame duck congress. Obama's done a few executive authority here and there and made things happen with Cuba, lame duck president my arse.

[Basil II the B.S]

It's 2 lines of commentary for a transcript of an hour interview, bear with it. It's not like Obama looked any differently anyway.

[DarthShizNit]

Syriacs defending Al-Hasakah along with SAA and NDF

The YPG also defends Al-Hasakah along with the SAA and NDF. They all have their own checkpoints in the city.

[Principe Alessandro]

The NDF in Hasakah is supported mostly by Sunni Arabs that don't want to support ISIS but at the same time they dislike YPG, Kurds and Assyrians support their own militias, the local NDF is highly unreliable and prone to start skirmishes with the YPG, in the latest attack by ISIS against regime held part of Hasakah a part of the NDF defected to ISIS while the rest simply escaped to seek protection from the Kurds, after the ISIS attack the regime held part of Hasakah further shrinked since the Kurds didn't gave back the territory to the regime. In the end I predict that the regime pocket in Hasakah will cease to exist swallowed by ISIS or the YPG.

[mrmouth]

I'd be more worried if Stingers turn up.

Or if the CIA paid someone off to smuggle in the Russian equivalents.

They showed up in Libya and it took a concerted, largely covert effort to hunt them down. Which the Western powers did effectively.


But the battleground is much different than Afghanistan, decades ago, where the insurgency existed mostly in the countryside. If the SAA don't figure out mechanized/armored infantry doctrine, Russian air power wont amount to much in the cities. It will help take villages and open areas, but not cities. Assad has been dropping huge barrel bombs on the rebels for years now. It only creates better ruins to fight from. It always has. They need effective infantry to go in and clean those places out.

AT is still the game changer in Syria. And I expect some shootdowns with basic AA guns at some point. Syria is lousy with truck mounted, large caliber AA.

[DarthShizNit]

AT is still the game changer in Syria. And I expect some shootdowns with basic AA guns at some point. Syria is lousy with truck mounted, large caliber AA.

How does the regime supply it's cut off airbases in hostile rebel territory? I assume they'd have to paradrop supplies in, because I can't see them safely landing cargo planes with often time Rebels just outside the perimeter. We saw the results of a truck mounted AA finding a low flying Cargo plane in Ukraine, and it wasn't pretty.

[Flavius Julius Nepos Augustus]

please! let Russia deploy more and throw more money at Syria! it'll be their soldiers caught in a quagmire, their jets being targeted, their tanks/APCs being lazed. i think it would be really great for Putin to stretch himself out as much as possible, waste several billion and troops in Ukraine, waste some more billions and troops in Syria, all while his economy is shrinking and undergoing a recession. please Putin, spend more, do it!! it's already having disastrous and hilarious results.

you could have at least provided the transcript from the angle of a less-crappier site than zerohedge? while i'm reading the script i don't want to read the interjections written by some zerohedge schmuck that gets paid to look anticapitalist and counter-culture. "lame duck president", lol is that guy even in tune with american politics? does he know republicans can't even find a speaker of the house? more like lame duck congress. Obama's done a few executive authority here and there and made things happen with Cuba, lame duck president my arse.

I think Russia and USA are just looking in a mirror laughing at each other.

[Roma_Victrix]

I think Russia and USA are just looking in a mirror laughing at each other.

The USA and Russia using Syrian proxies to fight each other is not going to end well for the Syrian people or Europe for that matter, which will face even more refugees fleeing this madness. Since the US and allies are determined to undermine Assad and Russia is determined to keep him in power and his regime afloat, the only solution I see to this problem is a bilateral and cooperative transitional government that will phase Assad out of power (which may or may not ensure he stays out of the reach of the Hague) but retain the secular Syrian state that he currently commands. If the Free Syrian Army were to be victorious (not likely going to happen, more likely there will be a state of perpetual civil war), who knows what kind of government Syria would have? Would it be an excuse for Sunnis to crack down on Shia once the former are in control? A sort of reverse situation going on in Baghdad, Iraq? It probably wouldn't be a purge that is so obvious and grotesque as ISIS genociding Shia, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis, etc. but I'd rather not find out and see this outcome play out in real time. I'd rather that cooler heads prevail in Moscow and Washington in regards to a thorough political solution that both find acceptable, because the direction this is going is not good for Russia, Europe, or the United States.

[Basil II the B.S]

Iran isn't going to give up their only ally in the region.
Experience also shows that Americans understand democracy only as they are allowed to fund their own faction and dissidents to eventually overwhelm opponents. Noone buys that anymore.
The only quality troops in the whole region are Israeli and Iranian. Israel won't openly join the massacre and is actually seeking an understanding with Putin.
Americans are backing off anyway.
It's in the hands of Saudi Arabia, whose stability decreases by the day.

[Flavius Julius Nepos Augustus]

I'd rather that cooler heads prevail in Moscow and Washington in regards to a thorough political solution that both find acceptable, because the direction this is going is not good for Russia, Europe, or the United States.

I think and believe that USA, Europe and Russia could work things out But we have some hunderds of groups with their own agenda, Iranians, Saudis. If you are going to solve this in a political matter you need to split Syria. Why do you think these offensives are trying to recapure the former border areas of Hama and Latakia? But hey this isn't going to be solved in the comming years.

[Roma_Victrix]

I think and believe that USA, Europe and Russia could work things out But we have some hunderds of groups with their own agenda, Iranians, Saudis. If you are going to solve this in a political matter you need to split Syria. Why do you think these offensives are trying to recapure the former border areas of Hama and Latakia? But hey this isn't going to be solved in the comming years.

A formal split up of Syria would most likely never be accepted by Damascus; every country strives to protect its sovereignty and sovereign borders. The most that Assad's regime would accept would be something like the agreement to let Kurds have their autonomous zone, which is still considered part of Syria and within its national borders. The same goes with Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, apparently they are starting to rely on Russian intel to fight ISIS, in a sign that the US is losing influence in Baghdad to both Russia and Iran (Syrians are also participants at this new intelligence center):

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0S71JC20151013

[Basil II the B.S]

Considering Turkey's support of Isis, I wouldn't exclude Assad giving Kurds sovereignity just to make the Eastern border of Turkey unstable for the rest of the century. And it's not like Erdogan's awful choices don't deserve this.

[Condottiere 40K]

For Assad, he needs to hold on to Damascus, Latakia, and the lines of communication between them.

Aleppo has been explained previously as having a surviving industrial base that can manufacture munitions, as well as keeping the insurrectionists occupied elsewhere.

Essentially, he could turn the rest of Syria into desert and he'd win. Or at least, not lose.

[Mary The Quene]

According to several sources there might be an offensive happening in Aleppo very soon. They will most likely try to link up to Nubl and Al-Zahraa to relieve them from a three years old siege. Perfect time, the rebels are disorganized and are complaining about many things. Hopefully these towns will soon get relieved of the disgusting terrorists.

[Vanoi]

So, "U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish militia joins new military alliance": Democratic Forces of Syria. "Includes the YPG, various Arab groups including Jaysh al-Thuwwar (Army of Rebels), and an Assyrian Christian group."



Is there and difference between this aliance and this one: Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians

Different one.


I don't think an Aleppo offensive is going to do much good. Urban warfare is much harder than advancing against villages and open plains. TOW missiles are already reaking enough havoc against the Syrians. The Saudis are giving the rebels an amount endless supply of them now.

[Mary The Quene]

Different one.


I don't think an Aleppo offensive is going to do much good. Urban warfare is much harder than advancing against villages and open plains. TOW missiles are already reaking enough havoc against the Syrians. The Saudis are giving the rebels an amount endless supply of them now.

The attack won't be in Aleppo City districts but most likely towards Nubl/Zahraa that are only separated by two towns. Maybe they'll try to encircle the city again but idk. And i wouldn't compare the situation of rebels in Northern Aleppo and those in Idleb/Hama at all.

[Flavius Julius Nepos Augustus]

Atleast Vanoi used "the Syrians" Keep it up!

Closing the siege is probably the most reasonable thing.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/revea...rones-in-iraq/