ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Myth]

Pissing off a bombmer jet is never smart:

https://www.facebook.com/67514442261...9825858483013/

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that we now have the opportunity to coax forces on the ground. We can enact and enforce a ceasefire/dmz line (black line on map) coupled with a no-fly zone. Jordanian and Saudi ground forces could enforce this in the southern DMZ (yellow arrows), Turkish ground forces could enforce this in the Northern DMZ (blue arrows). This would force both the Alawite/Russian coalition as well as the Rebel coalition to focus in the center and East simultaneously (generally less populated and more prone to ISIS influence)

This will assist the Rebels as it diminishes both Assad and ISIS. Once the rebels secure Homs, the DMZ can be extended to isolate Alawite Syria into a Lebanon like mini-state (removing both them and the Russians from the conflict) and further concentrate rebel forces eastward as Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi ground forces police the Western areas.

Western Air and intelligence services enforce the DMZ/No Fly and continue to hammer ISIS.

Good idea? Terrible Idea?

[Montmorency]

Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.

At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.

As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good idea; all you need is for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran to agree to a joint incursion into Syria.

At that point, why not go whole-hog and "assist" the Iraqi government in retaking the country? While the ground forces are there, might as well have a conventional war over who gets to be hegemon in Mesopotamia.

As for the geographic particulars of your proposed DMZ, I'm confused. Besides being concerned more with current areas of control as opposed to clear topological/cartographic divisions and landmarks, it tacitly assumes that IS will never be pushed back in the context of the overall conflict.

Assad isnt focused on ISIS, he spends his ordinance attacking western rebels. Blocking that would focus him along his borders in the East - which would bring him into more regular and exclusive contact with ISIS controlled towns.
Additionally, the cover which this woulf buy the Rebels would allow them to re-focus East as well; rather than in every direction. They would have more regular and less clandestine access to supplies and more constant influence from establishment/moderate forces. This would allow them to focus on clearing their limited areas of regime/isis forces and also move eastward into renewed conflict with ISIS held towns.

We have no interest in re-establishing the Iraqi governments sectarian control over the West of Iraq - we did that already and their policies failed in in record time. It would be better to keep Western Iraq and Central/Eastern Syria apart, as semi-autonomous regions within distinct nations (Iraq and, what would probably be a former segment of Syria) - this would help to avoid a Sunni "Jihadistan" under the influence of Saudi Arabia - ensuring that the Turks, The Kurds, the Shiaa & Moderate Sunni Iraqi's, the Gulf States, Saudis and Jordanians have a balanced stake in a divided region.

I envision a single nation of Syria controlled like Berlin or Bosnia; Sunni Arabs & Kurds in the North and East (with the Arab areas under the security of Turkish and Emirati Forces), Sunni Arabs in the South, (under the joint security of Saudi and Jordanians, bordering with the Israeli occupied Golan Heights) and an overwhelmingly Alawite Shia Coastal Region under the control of the Baathist party and their Russian Benefactors, just a bit larger than Lebanon.

[Montmorency]

So given the obvious barriers against international partition and occupation (not least when you want Turkey and Saudi Arabia to do the legwork, and cooperate while doing so), why not aspire to that specifically?

What you presented seems to be the problematic occupation and partition, plus encouragement of the rebels and Assad to grab as much land as they can from each other that doesn't constitute a DMZ?

Since if the (unified for our scenario) rebels and Assad are pushed to concentrate on fronts against IS, leading to loss of territories by IS, then why wouldn't Assad and the rebels subsequently contest the ground that IS has abandoned? You would essentially need to continually expand the DMZ, and maintain considerable military and security deployments for the sole purpose of preventing DMZ violations.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So given the obvious barriers against international partition and occupation (not least when you want Turkey and Saudi Arabia to do the legwork, and cooperate while doing so), why not aspire to that specifically?

What you presented seems to be the problematic occupation and partition, plus encouragement of the rebels and Assad to grab as much land as they can from each other that doesn't constitute a DMZ?

Since if the (unified for our scenario) rebels and Assad are pushed to concentrate on fronts against IS, leading to loss of territories by IS, then why wouldn't Assad and the rebels subsequently contest the ground that IS has abandoned? You would essentially need to continually expand the DMZ, and maintain considerable military and security deployments for the sole purpose of preventing DMZ violations.

That's the Idea. Demilitarize the zones of fighting that dont benefit our interest and focus the fighting in areas with low civilian populations that WOULD be in our interests. A "no fly zone" absolutely benefits the more moderate rebels at the expense of Assad, but we would still benefit from Assad and Russian airstrikes in the center and East of the country, so dont cut them off completely. Show them a reason to push East. Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.

When I say OUR, I mean Western and Sunni interests.

[Husar]

That's the Idea. Demilitarize the zones of fighting that dont benefit our interest and focus the fighting in areas with low civilian populations that WOULD be in our interests. A "no fly zone" absolutely benefits the more moderate rebels at the expense of Assad, but we would still benefit from Assad and Russian airstrikes in the center and East of the country, so dont cut them off completely. Show them a reason to push East. Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.

When I say OUR, I mean Western and Sunni interests.

And you seriously think there could be no bad side effects to pushing and shoving Putin and Assad around and telling them who and where they can bomb and not? Who is going to enforce that and how do you justify it? Do you just tell them that you do it because you do not want them to bomb "your" rebel kittens or do you spin an RT-level story that everybody knows is completely made up?
And at what point of this are you actually proud of yourself or improving your image with anyone?

[Crandar]

Additionally, Crandar, there are still rebels in Homs generally, in towns outside of the city. From what I understand there is still rebel presence & pretty fierce fighting in these places.

As I said, they (including ISIL) have a small presence in the suburbs of the town. The opposition in the city of Homs has been completely eradicated, they didn't retreat, no. Thousands of them were either killed or captured, since the Syrian Army made a surprising encirclement.

Currently, I would say that taking Homs is the most difficult task for the opposition, with the exception of Lattakia. They are simply inexistent and keep in mind that they disastrously failed to even capture Daraa, a city very sympathetic towards sunni extremism and sunder siege by a large group of rebels directly equipped from USA.

Would Turkish control over these regions short of annexation be a bad thing?

It would be, because it would signify the ethnic cleansing of Arabs or Kurds. Turkey has already assimilated Alexandretta (having incorporated it in the early 20th century), in spite of the fact that there were no Turks at all.

[Crandar]

Good idea? Terrible Idea?

Pretty terrible, even if it was applicable.

To begin with, I would prefer it if states that actively supported Al-Nusra, the representative of AQ in Syria, whose leader is a former lieutenant of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have no military presence in Syria. Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by rebels securing Homs. Thankfully, there are no rebels in the city itself, since they were wiped out in May 2014, during what is the most decisive victory of the Syrian Army:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Homs

[ICantSpellDawg]

Especially Turkey, whose goal is to incorporate the Turkmeni Syrian regions to Turkey.

Would Turkish control over these regions short of annexation be a bad thing?