ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Viking]

In an alternative universe, US-backed rebels are victorious, and the new regime totally does not end up like Egypt or Libya, and for once things end up working out like someone's hallucinatory delusion.

This is fun. We should do this more often.

Your text has a disturbing lack of sarcasm and absurdity. You shouldn't do it again.

And why would Russia bomb territory that is most likely to be taken by the IS instead of Assad? Can you show that they do?

They wouldn't need to do that. If one rebel front collapses, IS can just fill in from their front. Of course, a fight between other rebel groups and Assad will weaken both, leaving an easier battle for IS against whoever wins.

It's relatively simple: if your goal is to destroy IS, start by attacking IS. If your goal is to keep Assad in power, bombing any rebel group will do. If you destroy all other groups than IS, other countries will have no other forces to back against IS than Assad.

[Montmorency]

They wouldn't need to do that. If one rebel front collapses, IS can just fill in from their front. Of course, a fight between other rebel groups and Assad will weaken both, leaving an easier battle for IS against whoever wins.

It's relatively simple: if your goal is to destroy IS, start by attacking IS. If your goal is to keep Assad in power, bombing any rebel group will do. If you destroy all other groups than IS, other countries will have no other forces to back against IS than Assad.

The main problem with your evaluations along these lines is that military power over territories does not operate either like chits in RISK nor like gaseous matter in an enclosed environment.

[Viking]

The analysis is of what might happen, not what will. Some actual (initial) trends should be clear in the next few weeks.

[Husar]

They wouldn't need to do that. If one rebel front collapses, IS can just fill in from their front. Of course, a fight between other rebel groups and Assad will weaken both, leaving an easier battle for IS against whoever wins.

It's relatively simple: if your goal is to destroy IS, start by attacking IS. If your goal is to keep Assad in power, bombing any rebel group will do. If you destroy all other groups than IS, other countries will have no other forces to back against IS than Assad.

Shifting goal posts won't help you. It is entirely obvious that the Russians are helping Assad, he is a Russian ally after all. Your point was that they're aiding the IS in the end but they're actually just aiding Assad. Though whether Assad can stay in power after this may remain to be seen. Even if the IS can take a few meters from other rebel groups due to Russian attacks, guess who will be attacked by the Russians in the next wave of attacks?

And why should Russia help other nations support their favorite rebels? When was the last time some other nation did something like that for Russia?

[AE Bravo]

Russia bombing non-IS opposition makes strategic sense. They are the ones on Assad's doorstep - IS is not.

[Viking]

Shifting goal posts won't help you. It is entirely obvious that the Russians are helping Assad, he is a Russian ally after all. Your point was that they're aiding the IS in the end but they're actually just aiding Assad. Though whether Assad can stay in power after this may remain to be seen. Even if the IS can take a few meters from other rebel groups due to Russian attacks, guess who will be attacked by the Russians in the next wave of attacks?

And why should Russia help other nations support their favorite rebels? When was the last time some other nation did something like that for Russia?

No, my point is and was that by having the aim of strengthening Assad as their first priority, they risk making IS stronger instead of weakening it.

If you want to weaken IS, starting by attacking their enemies is not a good idea.

They are the ones on Assad's doorstep - IS is not.

Regime forces have front lines with IS many places. E.g. at Palmyra, from where there is IS control all the way to Raqqah as well as to the border with Iraq.

[CrossLOPER]

No, my point is and was that by having the aim of strengthening Assad as their first priority, they risk making IS stronger instead of weakening it.

Regime forces have front lines with IS many places. E.g. at Palmyra, from where there is IS control all the way to Raqqah as well as to the border with Iraq.

Russia is bombing everyone who is not Assad.

[Papewaio]

Fight a war on one front if possible.

First step finish off the other fronts.

Hence Russia attacks the rebels

[Husar]

No, my point is and was that by having the aim of strengthening Assad as their first priority, they risk making IS stronger instead of weakening it.

So your point is still BS then.
Now that was simple.

[Brenus]

Funny, but Putin said it in his UN speech: He supports Assad.
USA and EU (EU not really important now) disagree as they support "moderate" rebels that few week ago were an army of 5 but still holding vast amount of territory for the Russian to be be able, first to find them, then to bomb them.
USA is losing control of the situation...
For USA & EU, the first target was Assad because in reality, they can get rid of ISIL.
The problem now is, what if Russia succeed (reason why propaganda & media campaign about Russian missiles hitting the wrong country, which is a little bit too much when the US Air Force just destroyed an hospital, but there)?
What is the Syrian army really succeeded to retake some part of territory, or even worst, routs out ISIL and others?
We all investigate and question the situation if Russia become bog-down, which some of us wish, but what if Russia win?
The images of a group of men firing AK 47 on the Hind made me laugh, but what if the US decide like they did in Afghanistan than to defeat Russia is more important that to defeat Muslim fanatic extremists and murderers, and as in Afghanistan, provide them with anti-aircraft missiles?

[Gilrandir]

We all investigate and question the situation if Russia become bog-down, which some of us wish, but what if Russia win?

For 5 years NO COUNTRY has been able to effectively stem ISIL's expansion. And Russia by sending a score of SU's and MIG's and launching a score of rockets will? It will take a more serious involvement and an international scale land operation to defeat them military-wise. However, even this type if victory will not eradicate the phenomenon completely as new shoots will sprout elsewhere.

[Gilrandir]

How effective Russian propaganda is:
September 29: 69% of Russians oppose Russia's military involvement in Syria
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-.../27277333.html
October 8: more than 70% of Russians support air strikes against terrorists in Syria
https://www.rt.com/politics/317988-o...t-of-russians/

[Brenus]

"For 5 years NO COUNTRY has been able to effectively stem ISIL's expansion. And Russia by sending a score of SU's and MIG's and launching a score of rockets will? It will take a more serious involvement and an international scale land operation to defeat them military-wise. However, even this type if victory will not eradicate the phenomenon completely as new shoots will sprout elsewhere." That is not the question. What if Russia win? Will USA sell the Stringer as they did to the Talibans? Will USA and EU accept to be out-maneuvered?
Even under the drunk Boris Yeltsin and a very damage Russian Army, the Chechen were defeated, if not completely, they were not able to gain independence. Ukraine is the result of a complete disaster in Western Intelligence Agencies in assessing Russian capacity and reaction.

So, what if?

[Kagemusha]

Apparently after the latest shipments to Syria there is now about 1000 Spetnaz and paratroopers already in Syria. Though these fellows are most likely there to support the air operations, lazing targets etc from the ground.

[Fragony]

Goodbye IS then

[Brenus]

Not yet, they are attacking others rebels, if I believed the very reliable Yahoo information things.

What is ironic is, if Russia does succeed, it will a hint that USA never really want IS gone...

[Viking]

And look at that:

ISIS Makes Gains in Syria Territory Bombed by Russia

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The Islamic State registered significant gains on Friday in the area of northwestern Syria that Russian warplanes have been bombing, taking six villages near Aleppo and threatening to cut off an important route north to the Turkish border. Late in the day, there were reports that rebels had reasserted control in one village.

[...]

“Daesh has exploited the Russian airstrikes and the preoccupation of the Free Syrian Army in its battles in Hama, and advanced in Aleppo,” one rebel commander told Reuters.

Just needs some independent verification.

Fight a war on one front if possible.

First step finish off the other fronts.

Hence Russia attacks the rebels

Question is if the regime forces have enough strength left to beat an enemy at one front; let alone more fronts after that.

[Crandar]

And look at that:

ISIS Makes Gains in Syria Territory Bombed by Russia



Just needs some independent verification.



Question is if the regime forces have enough strength left to beat an enemy at one front; let alone more fronts after that.

The advance had already begun before the airstrikes. The moderate salafists of FSA and Al-Nusra are paying the price for concentrating their forces against the real enemy, the Shia, the Christians and the secular Syrians. After all, no airstrikes have been made against the moderate Salafists of the region.

[Viking]

Sources, please.

[Gilrandir]

What if Russia win?

Specify, what you would consider a victory for Russia. Assad taking Homs or any other important city? Well, there are other cities he will have to take. The disappearance of any opposition to Assad? With the West's attitude it is a priori inachievable. The disappearance of ISIS? See above. The withdrawal of ISIS from Syria? They can return any time later. The withdrawal of the West/the USA from Middle East? Impossible.
So specify, please.

[Brenus]

ISIL destroyed, vanishing, imploding, exploding: End of it, all theirs "fighters" and followers becoming bands of whatever: If Russia pushes them enough, the equivalent or even less than the GIA (Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, not Gemological Group of America). dust in the win.
The French more or less succeed to do this in Chad (sorry Mali). Yes, the number are different, but so are the means that Russia can deployed. It is all depending on what Russia will be willing to deploy, and the political will.
But until now, Putin never fail about political will, and he has the backing of his Parliament.

Now, he might be happy enough to push ISIL out of almost all Syria, then let the USA & EU to deal with the left over.

I think in political terms, he already won. No one can now put Russia aside and ignore it.
The big looser in this game is of course France.
USA Obama had to meet Putin, so others leaders, even if they still, for public display, play game of words. Putin put back Assad on the agenda, and if regime change comes, it will come with/according Putin's agenda.

You do realise that ISIL has no chance to stay alive if the real power wish it to disappear, do you?

[Gilrandir]

ISIL destroyed, vanishing, imploding, exploding: End of it, all theirs "fighters" and followers becoming bands of whatever: If Russia pushes them enough, the equivalent or even less than the GIA (Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, not Gemological Group of America). dust in the win.
Now, he might be happy enough to push ISIL out of almost all Syria, then let the USA & EU to deal with the left over.

So far Russia has been more inclined to crush moderate Sunni opposition, not ISIS. I believe this is the real aim of Putin (well, one of his aims). And Assad's army is on the offensive against them, not ISIS.

To turn his ire against ISIS Putin will have:
1) to deploy in Syria a large force (having an experience of war in corresponding climate and terrain) for land operations;
2) to provide and sustain effective logistics thereof;
3) to watch Russian Muslims closely;
4) to prevent any terroristic attacks from Muslims (either local or foreign) within Russia.

With current financial situation of Russia, too many bills to foot, to my mind.

But even if he surmounts suchlike obstacles he will have to win military-wise. As the Soviet experience in Afghanistan showed, one can never have a complete victory in a guerilla war in such countries (both because of climate and terrain and because of the type of adversary they will face), especially if the borders of Syria can't be secured. If he tries to do that he will have to deploy even a larger force and get embroiled with Kurds which means finding another enemy for himself.

But even if he does it (which is almost unreal) ISIS may arise at any time, since it is not a state, but a religious group likely to refill its dwindling ranks by recruiting new local and foreign adherents. And you can't start indisriminate massacres on suspicion that those are prospective ISIS militants. And if you do, the Muslim world will surely not like it.

The bottomline: a complete MILITARY victory by one country over ISIS (like it was over Hitler) is impossible by default, IMHO.

But until now, Putin never fail about political will, and he has the backing of his Parliament.

The latter as an independent branch of power is non-existent in Russia. It is like Putin has the backing of Putin.

I think in political terms, he already won. No one can now put Russia aside and ignore it.

Oh yes, this is a big victory - to have the world pay attention to you.

[Brenus]

“1) to deploy in Syria a large force (having an experience of war in corresponding climate and terrain) for land operations;
2) to provide and sustain effective logistics thereof;
3) to watch Russian Muslims closely;
4) to prevent any terroristic attacks from Muslims (either local or foreign) within Russia.”
Really? ISIL has no army. They were successful just because the West let them be successful in having one of the stupidest policy for the last roughly 10 years . Do you really think that if the West would have put all its might on it, IS would still exist? ISIL is surrounded by enemies just ready to kill it. BTW, the Red Army was winning the war in Afghanistan, reason why the CIA decided to step in and to provide weapons to the Al-Qaida to come to stop the then Soviets to win.
2) Lol. Not really a problem to feed and equip 15,000 people. MSF and other Charities do it all the time (it is the equivalent of a very tiny refugee’s camp).
3) Re-lol. Chechen perhaps?
4) Re re lol.
The problem is, because you hate Putin, you try to convince your-self it is a very complex and difficult operation. Military speaking, it is not. All is in the political will.
Because USA and EU wanted to have first the skin of Assad, they didn’t put enough to defeat IS in order to gain it all later. Now, they started to feel the win of the bullet, as Iraq might call for Russians if they are successful in Syria. With Turkey playing the same game (Kurds are more a problem for Turkey than IS, as Turkish President, being a Islamist himself, thinks he can deal with ISIL. He is selling IS' oil for them. He just forgot, like the US in Afghanistan that if you want to have supper with the Devil, better to have a very long spoon).

“With current financial situation of Russia, too many bills to foot, to my mind.” Really? It is the same cost to have a Mig or Sukhoi 34 flying, or a T I don’t know the number to roll. Yeap, you might have to pay a little bit more the foot-soldiers, but it is just a margin. But again, we don’t speak of a massive army. And if it is a win, lot of weapons system to sell.
ISIL never face a modern Army willing to fight, and me thinking that they are probably hated in the region they control, and they will not defend their country as it is not their country. The Foreign volunteer who will not desert will soon discovered that they are not part of this part of the world, as much of them probably already know. They join IS because they wanted to be on the winning side, with the 4X4 car, sexual slaves at will and cool uniforms. Under real artillery barrage (and the Russian Army used to know to do really good ones), followed by advancing tanks and infantry, they might reconsider.

“As the Soviet experience in Afghanistan showed, one can never have a complete victory in a guerrilla war in such countries (both because of climate and terrain and because of the type of adversary they will face), especially if the borders of Syria can't be secured.” The Soviet defeat is, most of it, is a legend built by Western propaganda in order to match the USA defeat in Vietnam.
It is also a legend that you cannot win against a guerrilla, as several countries did exactly that.
ISIL is not the Vietcong/Vietminh.
The French did crush the Algerian guerrilla. It is due to the intelligence to the then French President Gal de Gaulle to give the independence for good political reasons.

“The latter as an independent branch of power is non-existent in Russia. It is like Putin has the backing of Putin.” Your opinion, not a fact backed by any real facts. All elections were recognised as fair by all international organisations. I could easily (and I do), say the same thing for the French Assembly that so far from the real population that more than 60 % of voters don’t go to vote. It is the George Carlin’s illusion of choice
https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ


“Oh yes, this is a big victory - to have the world pay attention to you.” They tried hard not to do, and, well failed. Unfortunately for your country, you were the first to pay for this disdain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, Putin is cunning, like a hungry wolfe.

If he wipes out all the less insane forces and it's just ISIS and Assad then he will force the West to back Assad - thye only Western play here is to try to crush ISIS before Putin crushes the other factions.

Of the Four Great Powers within NATAO Obama is disinclined to get involved and be seen as a "war monger" when he's looking to his legacy, Cameron is otherwise occupied with Domestic issues, Hollande is a fool and Merkel likely does not care overmuch, she'd rather take in the resulting refugees and distribute them throughout the EU thereby enhancing German standing that way.

Things were different in 2011 when the British and French governments were looking to assert themselves on the world-stage and Cameron and Sarkozy were of a mind on this sort of thing.

So I predict that by the time the West wakes up Putin will have pretty much achieved his aims and we move closer to war in Central Europe.

Yay.

[Montmorency]

Or, we might possibly consider that - and this is definitely a stretch - Russian involvement will not materially affect the situation on the ground and no grand aims will be met, nor sea changes effected, in any short period of time, for any state, organization, or faction with a stake in the events.

[Husar]

So I predict that by the time the West wakes up Putin will have pretty much achieved his aims and we move closer to war in Central Europe.

¿Qué?

How does one follow from the other?
Wouldn't you be happy if Putin wins and the evil people from Syria who don't belong here are contained by Assad once again?
And how does an Assad in control over Syria lead to war in central Europe? Sometimes I get the impression you just can't wait to see a glorious war in central Europe.

[Montmorency]

Sometimes I get the impression you just can't wait to see a glorious war in central Europe.

Well, that's not quite it.

PVC has said many times that would love to participate in a new European war, despite not being a "war-lover".

His his conviction in the inevitability of such a war doesn't come from his desire to participate, or vice-versa, but in the underlying personality and belief-set that bring him the auguries.

[Gilrandir]

ISIL is surrounded by enemies just ready to kill it.

Yet somehow in this desperate position it thrives and flourishes and recruits more supporters.

BTW, the Red Army was winning the war in Afghanistan, reason why the CIA decided to step in and to provide weapons to the Al-Qaida to come to stop the then Soviets to win.

They were not. They were holding the most important cities, yet outside them the guerillas reigned supreme. Just because when the Soviets entered a village they hid their weapons and were meek peasants, when they left, the Afghans dug out their AK's and went on fighting. All Soviet army movements from a camp to a camp were fraught with danger and roads in a mountaineous terrain were very suitable for setting ambushes. Most casualties were inflicted in such ambushes.

So Gorbachev had to own up to the fact that 10 years later the USSR was no closer to any victory and withdrew the troops.

Al-qaeda was founded in 1988-1989 when the USSR was already contemplating this withdrawal, so if the USA started to help that late, it didn't really matter.

2) Lol. Not really a problem to feed and equip 15,000 people. MSF and other Charities do it all the time (it is the equivalent of a very tiny refugee’s camp).

The number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was more than 80 000 in 1979 and 120 000 in 1986. Shall I remind you what was the outcome of the war?

The problem is, because you hate Putin, you try to convince your-self it is a very complex and difficult operation. Military speaking, it is not.

See above.

Yeap, you might have to pay a little bit more the foot-soldiers, but it is just a margin. But again, we don’t speak of a massive army.

On numbers in such wars see above.

ISIL never face a modern Army willing to fight,

Neither did Afghans, nor Donbas rebels. Yet somehow they succeeded in withstanding the regular armies' offensive.

The Foreign volunteer who will not desert will soon discovered that they are not part of this part of the world, as much of them probably already know. They join IS because they wanted to be on the winning side, with the 4X4 car, sexual slaves at will and cool uniforms. Under real artillery barrage (and the Russian Army used to know to do really good ones), followed by advancing tanks and infantry, they might reconsider.

The same was supposed about Russian "volunteers" in Donbas. Yet they are still there, no mass defection happened even when the Ukrainian army almost surrounded them in Donetsk and Luhansk.

The Soviet defeat is, most of it, is a legend built by Western propaganda in order to match the USA defeat in Vietnam.

So you claim that the USSR won the Afghan war? And this is the person who accused ME of revisionism!

It is also a legend that you cannot win against a guerrilla, as several countries did exactly that.
ISIL is not the Vietcong/Vietminh.
The French did crush the Algerian guerrilla. It is due to the intelligence to the then French President Gal de Gaulle to give the independence for good political reasons.

I didn't speak of impossibility to win. I said RUSSIA WON'T WIN. The French have a long and successful experience of colonial warfare under such conditions. Russians' recent experience was, to put it mildly, disappointing.

“The latter as an independent branch of power is non-existent in Russia. It is like Putin has the backing of Putin.” Your opinion, not a fact backed by any real facts. All elections were recognised as fair by all international organisations.

Did I claim the opposite? I just said that the Russian Duma does everything Putin wants because 238 out of 450 deputies represent his party, others vote in its wake. Can you name at least one decision of it that Putin didn't like?

[Brenus]

“Yet somehow in this desperate position it thrives and flourishes and recruits more supporters.” Really? What I read recently was more about people deserting IS…

“Al-qaeda was founded in 1988-1989 when the USSR was already contemplating this withdrawal, so if the USA started to help that late, it didn't really matter.” That is why I said “will become then”. Bin Laden and Co were recruited much earlier, and this for the purpose to provide AA missile to the Mudjahdins/Talibans.
However, I was mistaken about the actual role of the Stingers.
The Mujahedeen victory was due to the Boris Yeltsin’s decision to cut all aid to the Afghan government then triggered desertion and changes in alliances.

Shall I remind you what was the outcome of the war?:
Reality check:
“ Morton Abramowitz, who directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the time, said in 1997: "In 1985, there was a real concern that the [mujahideen] were losing, that they were sort of being diminished, falling apart. Losses were high and their impact on the Soviets was not great." In:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ut-afghanistan
You can as well read the excellent series Ospreys series men-at-arms

“Neither did Afghans, nor Donbas rebels. Yet somehow they succeeded in withstanding the regular armies' offensive.” The fall of the “communist” government was when one of the bid supporter changed side, not on the value of the Rebels themselves. In fact, the Afghan Army did quite well, considering circumstances, better than the South Vietnamese Army…
I would say that the Ukrainian Army was not ready for the kind of “stab in the back” operations, and, but this is a blind guess, to the Russian’s back-up for the rebels. A probably a problem with how the legal government for Ukraine became legal…

“The same was supposed about Russian "volunteers" in Donbas. Yet they are still there, no mass defection happened even when the Ukrainian army almost surrounded them in Donetsk and Luhansk.” That might be explained because there were not foreigners. I tried (and not only me) few times to say it, but it fall in dead ears. So they were defending their lands.

“So you claim that the USSR won the Afghan war? And this is the person who accused ME of revisionism!” Not me, but Morton Abramowitz, see note above.
And this is confirmed but facts on the grounds, not by Rambo 3, the movie.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Or, we might possibly consider that - and this is definitely a stretch - Russian involvement will not materially affect the situation on the ground and no grand aims will be met, nor sea changes effected, in any short period of time, for any state, organization, or faction with a stake in the events.

Gaddafi well quickly once the rebels had the backing of NATO Air-Power. How much easier will it be for the Syrian army (a trained force) to crush the disparate rebels with Russian Air-Power, especially given that the Russians will be even less discriminating in their targets than the Americans.

IS is the hardest nut to crap and it being somewhat suppressed by NATO, even then they have made gains, whilst Assad's ability to deal with the other rebels has been hampered by NATO.

I believe Russia can tip that balance, and already has.

¿Qué?

How does one follow from the other?
Wouldn't you be happy if Putin wins and the evil people from Syria who don't belong here are contained by Assad once again?
And how does an Assad in control over Syria lead to war in central Europe? Sometimes I get the impression you just can't wait to see a glorious war in central Europe.

Well, that's not quite it.

PVC has said many times that would love to participate in a new European war, despite not being a "war-lover".

His his conviction in the inevitability of such a war doesn't come from his desire to participate, or vice-versa, but in the underlying personality and belief-set that bring him the auguries.

My belief there will be a new war in Central Europe is based on four factors.

1. Putin considers "the West" the enemy of Russia, both ideologically and economically. This affects his perception of the West's actions and motivations. For a microcosm of that consider that Idaho described my views as "repugnant" because I don't support the attacks the Left have levelled at Cameron over Tragedy-gate. He has interpreted that as support for Cameron and then labelled be "Tory Scum" although he hasn't used the word yet.

2. Western inaction over Ukraine and Syria has led Putin to believe that the West is weak willed, conversely the Western belief that Putin was "reasonable" led us to suppose he would not start a new war in Europe, but in fact he confounded our expectations. If our expectations of Putin's actions are wrong and vice versa this greatly increases the likelihood of a military miss-step which will be misinterpreted by the other side and lead to war.

3. Putin has designs on certain countries within the EU in NATO, specifically the Baltics and the Warsaw Pact nations - he sees their joining the EU and NATO as a "betrayal" by the Western Great Powers rather than attributing their alignment to an internal desire to distance themselves from Russia and cleave to the West. In Putin's mind this must be a Western Plot.

4. Putin is already fighting an illegal and undeclared war in Ukraine and he is now engaged in a game of Brinkmanship with the NATO Bloc, if he is not checked he will believe he can escalate, and the more he escalates the more likely "checking" him will actually involve open warfare.

As to my "love" of war - I've just been more honest that most men and admitted that a part of me finds the prospect thrilling - but a part of me finds the prospect of jumping off a cliff without a parachute thrilling too. I don't think either is a good idea, or morally defensible.