ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Montmorency]

I have to disagree again with most of your posits, but I want to comment on the last bit.

I think a good succinct way to put your feelings is that while you abhor war, the thought of "doing your bit" in a "good war" gets your blood up.

little Frodo

[Sarmatian]

There is no good war, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Like listening to a child thinking how cool it would be to run away from home because then there wouldn't be a bedtime.

[AE Bravo]

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 assure you it's more thrilling.

Context.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I assure you it's more thrilling.

Congrats, you failed the test.

But you can console yourself with the knowledge that because you said it, everyone else passes by default.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to disagree again with most of your posits, but I want to comment on the last bit.

I think a good succinct way to put your feelings is that while you abhor war, the thought of "doing your bit" in a "good war" gets your blood up.

little Frodo

There's a bit of that, but it's more to do with the prospect of controlling massively destructive engines of war and of being in battle and surviving.

People have called war a game but really it's much more of a sport - with all that entails.

Of course, in an actual war I'd either go full on Rambo PTSD meltdown or just meltdown and be gibbering in the corner - and I would have killed people, which would be terrible.

Like I said, I'm being honest about how the prospect makes me feel, but that has nothing to do with what I think or what I believe we should be doing.

[AE Bravo]

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20...#ixzz3oAPdpgJQ

Abdulamir Abu Tin!

[Kagemusha]

There's a bit of that, but it's more to do with the prospect of controlling massively destructive engines of war and of being in battle and surviving.

People have called war a game but really it's much more of a sport - with all that entails.

Of course, in an actual war I'd either go full on Rambo PTSD meltdown or just meltdown and be gibbering in the corner - and I would have killed people, which would be terrible.

Like I said, I'm being honest about how the prospect makes me feel, but that has nothing to do with what I think or what I believe we should be doing.

Would it not be better to focus on real life, rather then fantasizing about war?

[Crandar]

According to some rumours, the Iraqi airforce has injured/killed Abu Bark. These are very great news, I was really worried about the ability of the Iraqi government to spam imaginary claims. Almost nothing since the time they announced the death of the Baathist Scotsman and despite the fact that Abu Bakr must have been injured 6 or 7 times by now...

Reminds me of how many times the sons of Gaddafi were killed.

[Montmorency]

Would it not be better to focus on real life, rather then fantasizing about war?

Not in this venue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Would it not be better to focus on real life, rather then fantasizing about war?

I suppose I could just fantasise about sex with pornstars instead.

[Kagemusha]

I suppose I could just fantasise about sex with pornstars instead.

Sounds lot more healthy. In such bouts no one hardly ever gets killed or maimed.

[Fragony]

According to some rumours, the Iraqi airforce has injured/killed Abu Bark. These are very great news, I was really worried about the ability of the Iraqi government to spam imaginary claims. Almost nothing since the time they announced the death of the Baathist Scotsman and despite the fact that Abu Bakr must have been injured 6 or 7 times by now...

Reminds me of how many times the sons of Gaddafi were killed.

Already debunked

[Gilrandir]

“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…

You shouldn't listen to what propaganda tells you.

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.

At that time Yeltsin had no power to cut anything since he was the head of Russia and Russia was still a part of the USSR and the head of the USSR was Gorbachev.

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

You know, there was a famous Ukrainian football coach Valery Lobanovsky. When he was critisized that his team won without displaying a good play he said: "Look at the scoreboard and you will see everything."

The same here. Experts may claim whatever they want yet we all know the outcome of the war - the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and never returned and the regime they had installed collapsed very soon. Now whose victory it was?

“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.

I won't post any texts, let's work with visual images.

I don't know if you are good at distinguishing peoples at first sight (their phenotypes), but those in the videos are definitely neither Ukrainians nor Russians. The first two videos feature Buryats in Donbas (and they openly admit it naming the places in Buryatia they come from), in the third it is either a Buryat of a Yakut. Take a map and see where those ethnicities live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRju7Z6Iyts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxmm5oC77lA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrKj...ctr=1444653646

In the next two videos there are Chechens (in the first) again openly admitting it and even saying that they are REGULAR Russian army soldiers (some are from spetznaz) and Ossetians (in the second).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHHlaZ0Uj3M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEFDsxpdam8

And pay attention to chevrons on their sleeves and find out yourself what flags are those.

The first leaders of the separatists to become well known were Russian citizens Girkin (Strelkov) and Borodai.

Perhaps the ears are deaf because you are wrong?

“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.

You did too. A couple of sentences before:

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.

There is no good war, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Like listening to a child thinking how cool it would be to run away from home because then there wouldn't be a bedtime.

Let's lay down our weapons all ye good people and stop resisting those murderous villains. We will only increase suffering and pain if we do.

Sounds lot more healthy. In such bouts no one hardly ever gets killed or maimed.

The latter is disputable.

[Crandar]

An interesting reading about the man who saved Iraq and Baghdad from daesh and managed to liberate Tikrit.
Porbably the only man who can match al-Dourri in strategic and tactical thinking:
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserv...e?CMP=edi_2117

[Brenus]

“At that time Yeltsin had no power to cut anything since he was the head of Russia and Russia was still a part of the USSR and the head of the USSR was Gorbachev.” Chronology is and always has been your enemy. Read the link I provided earlier: "In August 1991, following his arrival in power, Boris Yeltsin announced that all direct assistance to Najibullah's regime would be curtailed. In January 1992, the Afghan Air Force, which had proved vital to the survival of the regime, could no longer fly any aircraft through lack of fuel. The army suffered from crippling food shortages, causing the desertion rate to rise by 60 percent between 1990 and 1991"

“You did too. A couple of sentences before” Another of your recurrent problem: You don’t read the entire sentence. “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.” The victory of the Mujahedeen was not against Russians but against the now abandoned Afghan Government. And it was not an easy victory as they suffered several set-backs.

“I don't know if you are good at distinguishing peoples at first sight” No, I am not: Can’t see the difference between a Croat a Serb or a Muslim, nor between a Kurd or a Arab, sorry.
I watched all your videos: Is it your proof? Because I saw, yes, 2 guys, one wearing a Russian insignia (by the way, after my trip to MSF in Chechenia, I have the same at home, in a box) who are clearly not European type, but, personally, I would be incapable to say from where, 2 in the middle of a lot of others clearly not from the same ethnicity. But I will start here the sterile exchange we had before, so I stop here.

“You know, there was a famous Ukrainian football coach Valery Lobanovsky. When he was critisized that his team won without displaying a good play he said: "Look at the scoreboard and you will see everything." You should apply this wisdom and look at the facts as they are, not you want to see them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...89%E2%80%9392)

[Montmorency]

An interesting reading about the man who saved Iraq and Baghdad from daesh and managed to liberate Tikrit.
Porbably the only man who can match al-Dourri in strategic and tactical thinking:
http://www.theguardian.com/theobserv...e?CMP=edi_2117

“This is ideological for Suleimani and for [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei [to whom he directly reports]. This is not a battle for the future of Iraq. This is a war for Shiism. Of all the conflicts of the past 10 years, this is the one that has Suleimani most rattled. It is testing him.”

+1

You know, there's one interesting thing to consider about these irregular conflicts. I've wondered how these sorts of rebellions, civil wars, and the like can often go on for so many years at a stretch, but really it's for a reason similar to the length of "wars" (broadly-defined) between European powers in the Medieval and Early-modern periods.

For an industrial state built upon popular support of some kind, a major war (with another such state) is an enormous, top-heavy undertaking with heavy costs. For the soldiers themselves in an industrial war, the stress of organization, attrition, and constant battle readiness demands regular rotations of manpower to prevent exhaustion and outright insubordination. In a war like this, a government is putting its state on the line. So whether it's millions of conscripts or thousands of specialists, sustained operations are thus for industrial states.

For sub-state organizations and irregular troops, however, there are notable differences that fundamentally change the shape of the conflict, for example:

1. Most fighters are light-infantry
2. No or little sustained threat from heavy artillery
3. Proportionately-less time spent in intense fighting, or high alertness in general
4. Reduced and more-variable strategic value of fixed locations like cities, bases, etc.

So part of it is that irregular troops in irregular conflicts are under less strain, not necessarily in the sense of physical labor or exertion, but in the sense of scale - the scale of what they must endure, and of the demands placed on them. This may overlap with the classic John Keegan perspective on the "Face of Battle".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sounds lot more healthy. In such bouts no one hardly ever gets killed or maimed.

No, one just devolves to seeing women as sex objects.

Your irony meter is broken, you should get that checked.

[Montmorency]

No, one just devolves to seeing women as sex objects.

Well, you said from the beginning that you would be fantasizing about porn stars, so it's there from the outset.

As for me, I fantasize about cuddling with a woman I care about while we talk about feelings; I don't usually include anything about profession or the like.

[Gilrandir]

“At that time Yeltsin had no power to cut anything since he was the head of Russia and Russia was still a part of the USSR and the head of the USSR was Gorbachev.” Chronology is and always has been your enemy. Read the link I provided earlier: "In August 1991, following his arrival in power, Boris Yeltsin announced that all direct assistance to Najibullah's regime would be curtailed. In January 1992, the Afghan Air Force, which had proved vital to the survival of the regime, could no longer fly any aircraft through lack of fuel. The army suffered from crippling food shortages, causing the desertion rate to rise by 60 percent between 1990 and 1991"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...om_Afghanistan

The withdrawal of Soviet combatant forces from the Afghanistan began on 15 May 1988 and successfully executed on 15 February 1989 under the leadership of Colonel-General Boris Gromov who also was the last Soviet general officer to walk from Afghanistan back into Soviet territory through the Afghan-Uzbek Bridge.

Oh, my. Just follow what you preach. At least sometimes. At least try.

“You did too. A couple of sentences before” Another of your recurrent problem: You don’t read the entire sentence. “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.” The victory of the Mujahedeen was not against Russians but against the now abandoned Afghan Government. And it was not an easy victory as they suffered several set-backs.

Another problem of yours is that you stubbornly disregard parts of messages you have no answer to. So let me quote myself:
the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and never returned and the regime they had installed collapsed very soon. Now whose victory it was?

“I don't know if you are good at distinguishing peoples at first sight” No, I am not: Can’t see the difference between a Croat a Serb or a Muslim, nor between a Kurd or a Arab, sorry.
I watched all your videos: Is it your proof? Because I saw, yes, 2 guys, one wearing a Russian insignia (by the way, after my trip to MSF in Chechenia, I have the same at home, in a box) who are clearly not European type, but, personally, I would be incapable to say from where, 2 in the middle of a lot of others clearly not from the same ethnicity. But I will start here the sterile exchange we had before, so I stop here.

Like I said: a color-blind person claims that there is no such a thing as red dawn just because he never saw one.
If you can't tell by sight the difference between Caucasians, mongolean-type asians and Europeans (i.e. Russians and Ukrainians living in Donbas), don't claim there IS no difference. Live and learn, you know.

And about insignia: in video 4 they wear Chechen flag on their sleeve.

“You know, there was a famous Ukrainian football coach Valery Lobanovsky. When he was critisized that his team won without displaying a good play he said: "Look at the scoreboard and you will see everything." You should apply this wisdom and look at the facts as they are, not you want to see them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...89%E2%80%9392)

How true this is! I mean the italicized part. We were talking about RUSSIAN (then the Soviet) INVOLVEMENT IN WARS DOWN SOUTH AND THEIR ABILITY TO HANDLE THEM, and not about CIVIL WARS that ensued such involvement.

[CrossLOPER]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...om_Afghanistan


Oh, my. Just follow what you preach. At least sometimes. At least try.

That isn't what he was arguing.

[Brenus]

"Oh, my. Just follow what you preach. At least sometimes. At least try." So in 1989, the Soviets went, then in 1993, the Afghan government fall, so this is a Russian defeat... Sure... I would say that it is a political defeat, but certainly not a military defeat, and had nothing to do with how the Soviets managed or not the military operations.

"the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and never returned and the regime they had installed collapsed very soon. Now whose victory it was?" You link 2 proposals as they are real. The Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan. They never returned (they vanish in history, but I see your point). The victory of the Mujaheddin was against the Afghan Government.
With the same kind of "logic" I can say then Mullah Omar won, then the USA were attacked and lost the war in Iraq to ISIL. Whose victory it is? The Soviet Union?

"Like I said: a color-blind person claims that there is no such a thing as red dawn just because he never saw one.
If you can't tell by sight the difference between Caucasians, mongolean-type asians and Europeans (i.e. Russians and Ukrainians living in Donbas), don't claim there IS no difference. Live and learn, you know." Err, your point is? Apart a special gift in racism, I mean? The fact is your genes don't determines where you live or your nationality.

"We were talking about RUSSIAN (then the Soviet) INVOLVEMENT IN WARS DOWN SOUTH AND THEIR ABILITY TO HANDLE THEM" And in all specialist books I read, including from high ranking personnels in USA army and Intelligence, they all agree they were quite successful.
Just in case you forgot: I have no sympathy for the Red Army. At the time I was in the Army, we were trained to face the Red Storm, with a life expectancy of 15 minutes after first encounter, and as member of an Armoured Divison, probably burned in my APC.
However, to underestimated an enemy is not the way to fight him/her, so from an ex-professional point of view, I think the Soviets/Russians showed a lot of skills and did control the situation, not entirely, but nothing compare what happened to the USA in Vietnam.

[Crandar]

With that pace, we'll run out of good guys before the first collision between russo-american jets takes place.

[Gilrandir]

"Oh, my. Just follow what you preach. At least sometimes. At least try." So in 1989, the Soviets went, then in 1993, the Afghan government fall, so this is a Russian defeat... Sure... I would say that it is a political defeat, but certainly not a military defeat, and had nothing to do with how the Soviets managed or not the military operations.

"the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and never returned and the regime they had installed collapsed very soon. Now whose victory it was?" You link 2 proposals as they are real. The Soviets withdraw from Afghanistan. They never returned (they vanish in history, but I see your point). The victory of the Mujaheddin was against the Afghan Government.
With the same kind of "logic" I can say then Mullah Omar won, then the USA were attacked and lost the war in Iraq to ISIL. Whose victory it is? The Soviet Union?

Perhaps this will come as a surprise for you, but all this while we were talking of RUSSIA'S DOUBTFUL LIKELIHOOD TO HAVE A COMLETE MILITARY VICTORY IN HOT MOUNTAINEOUS COUNTRY POPULATED BY HOSTILE MUSLIMS, not about civil wars between the locals. While the latter may have quite a different outcome, Russia's latest campaign of this kind ended in unconditional withdrawal. I don't call this a victory which lets me presume that the current Russian involvement in Syria in case of land operations is likely to bring a similar outcome, i.e. withdrawing after incurring numerous casualties or a stalemate (holding some locations surrounded by territories infested by guerillas) and subsequent withdrawal without attaining tangible results, i.e. without defeating the enemy once and for all.

"Like I said: a color-blind person claims that there is no such a thing as red dawn just because he never saw one.
If you can't tell by sight the difference between Caucasians, mongolean-type asians and Europeans (i.e. Russians and Ukrainians living in Donbas), don't claim there IS no difference. Live and learn, you know." Err, your point is? Apart a special gift in racism, I mean? The fact is your genes don't determines where you live or your nationality.

So when you see a difference in appearence between a Chinese and a black it is racism? I applaud your value scale.

You may not be aware that the population of Ukraine is pretty much racially homogeneous (is is racism yet?). Of course there are people of other phenotypes (Caucasians are the most numerous of those) but even they don't form communities large enough to live in separate neighborhoods to say nothing of in separate locations (cities, towns or even villages). The same goes for Donbas - Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Greeks, Bulgarians and other nationalities who live there are physically white European type (is it racism yet?). So when a large quantity of people of a different appearence (forming a separate military unit) is spotted it definitely points to the fact that they are aliens there. To deduct where they came from you are to answer the question: where do people of this nationality/race live? It is obvious that Caucasians (Chechens, Ossetians and others) live in the Northern Caucasus (Russia), the mongolean-type Asians live either in Buryatia or Yakutia (both Russia).

Moreover, as a linguist I can see the difference between a Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian speaking Russian, a Russian-speaking Ukrainian speaking Russian, a Russian-speaking Russian from Ukraine (and Southern Russia) speaking Russian and a Russian-speaking Russian (from other parts of Russia) speaking Russian. So I can tell you that many (not all of them, but many, mind you) of those in the videos speak the Russian as they do in Northern Russia.

"We were talking about RUSSIAN (then the Soviet) INVOLVEMENT IN WARS DOWN SOUTH AND THEIR ABILITY TO HANDLE THEM" And in all specialist books I read, including from high ranking personnels in USA army and Intelligence, they all agree they were quite successful.

However good they might have been considered, one can't deny the facts that I drew your attention to:
1. The success of the Soviet army boiled down to holding strategic locations (mainly cities and some mountains controlling the roads). Elsewhere was the domain of the guerillas.
2. Being successful (as you and others claim) they eventually legged it.

This is what I argue is likely to happen to Russians in Syria.

[Brenus]

“So when you see a difference in appearence between a Chinese and a black it is racism? I applaud your value scale.” And I applaud your total ignorance: To be Chinese is to be a citizen of China (nationality), when to be black is part of skin coloration due to biology. They are blond and blue eyes Chinese, someone told me.

“RUSSIA'S DOUBTFUL LIKELIHOOD TO HAVE A COMLETE MILITARY VICTORY IN HOT MOUNTAINEOUS COUNTRY POPULATED BY HOSTILE MUSLIMS, not about civil wars between the locals.” Ooh, I didn’t know that ISIL was in complete agreement with the Kurds, the Alawits and others Arab populations or Christians minority (Syro-Chaldean).

“You may not be aware that the population of Ukraine is pretty much racially homogeneous (is is racism yet?)”: There is only one human race, so per definition, all humans are racially homogenous… So, to answer your question, to artificially create differences within the human race is racism.

“ The success of the Soviet army boiled down to holding strategic locations (mainly cities and some mountains controlling the roads). Elsewhere was the domain of the guerillas.” So, the Russians and their allies had (controlled) the rich towns and valleys and the Guerrillas controlled the barren rocks. All right…

“Being successful (as you and others claim) they eventually legged it.” As you pointed out, that was not the debate, but your claim that Russia couldn’t win against ISIL as show by their military defeat in Afghanistan. So case closed as you agree they were not, in fact, defeated.

“This is what I argue is likely to happen to Russians in Syria.” That is not impossible indeed, but even Yahoo had to agree that the Syrian Army had retaken some village, and Hezbollah is preparing for major offensive against ISIL, thanks to Russian bombing campaign. So, it is possible that Russia did play well.

[Gilrandir]

“So when you see a difference in appearence between a Chinese and a black it is racism? I applaud your value scale.” And I applaud your total ignorance: To be Chinese is to be a citizen of China (nationality), when to be black is part of skin coloration due to biology. They are blond and blue eyes Chinese, someone told me.

So the Chinese and the blacks aren't any different to look at? If they are one can tell the one from the other. And that is what I claimed.

“RUSSIA'S DOUBTFUL LIKELIHOOD TO HAVE A COMLETE MILITARY VICTORY IN HOT MOUNTAINEOUS COUNTRY POPULATED BY HOSTILE MUSLIMS, not about civil wars between the locals.” Ooh, I didn’t know that ISIL was in complete agreement with the Kurds, the Alawits and others Arab populations or Christians minority (Syro-Chaldean).

Russia claims it is at war EXCLUSIVELY with ISIS.

“You may not be aware that the population of Ukraine is pretty much racially homogeneous (is is racism yet?)”: There is only one human race, so per definition, all humans are racially homogenous… So, to answer your question, to artificially create differences within the human race is racism.

Nitpicking at terms used in their broad and narrow sense. In the latter, I'm afarid, those outward differences have been already created. By God/nature/Aliens. So in your terms they were the first racists.

“ The success of the Soviet army boiled down to holding strategic locations (mainly cities and some mountains controlling the roads). Elsewhere was the domain of the guerillas.” So, the Russians and their allies had (controlled) the rich towns and valleys and the Guerrillas controlled the barren rocks…

and afflicted them in any way they could so that the Soviets had to always be on their guard and didn't feel secure outside their strongholds (and sometimes within them).

“Being successful (as you and others claim) they eventually legged it.” As you pointed out, that was not the debate, but your claim that Russia couldn’t win against ISIL as show by their military defeat in Afghanistan. So case closed as you agree they were not, in fact, defeated.

Legged it =/= won. Quite the contrary.

“This is what I argue is likely to happen to Russians in Syria.” That is not impossible indeed, but even Yahoo had to agree that the Syrian Army had retaken some village, and Hezbollah is preparing for major offensive against ISIL, thanks to Russian bombing campaign. So, it is possible that Russia did play well.

So far it did. As well as at the initial stage of their Afghanistan adventure. But there (as well as in Syria) at this stage was also only airstrikes. Like I said: let's wait for Putin to engage his infantry. And my arguments about the deplorable outcome of such a choice referred only to the consequences of THIS VERY CHOICE. Otherwise they can bomb indefinitely. It will not change the situation drastically. Like Hitler was bombing Britain for several years, but it didn't get him any closer to subduing it, rather the contrary - infuriated the locals and confirmed them in their decision to weather it no matter what.

[Sarmatian]

Airforce on its own can't do much. In coordination with ground troops, that changes.

There's Syrian army, there's Iran, there's Hezbollah. Proper coordination of those three with Russian air support means ISIS doesn't stand a chance.

[Gilrandir]

Airforce on its own can't do much. In coordination with ground troops, that changes.

There's Syrian army, there's Iran, there's Hezbollah. Proper coordination of those three with Russian air support means ISIS doesn't stand a chance.

We'll see. But to my mind the problem is not to defeat ISIS in Syria military-wise, but to hold the victory. And that seems more problematic when the neighboring countries offer ISIS a chance to withdraw and come back with a vengeance.

[Husar]

So the Chinese and the blacks aren't any different to look at? If they are one can tell the one from the other. And that is what I claimed.

So you have a blue Ford Focus and a red Ford Focus....
What I'm saying is that your "Chinese" guy is actually Taiwanese, so you failed that one.

[Sarmatian]

We'll see. But to my mind the problem is not to defeat ISIS in Syria military-wise, but to hold the victory. And that seems more problematic when the neighboring countries offer ISIS a chance to withdraw and come back with a vengeance.

The only neighbouring country that could do that is Turkey, and it's a stretch.

Holding the victory wouldn't be a problem as ISIS is the only significant force in the area in opposition to Assad. Kurds are a potential problem but that's a different kind of problem.

[Tuuvi]

The only neighbouring country that could do that is Turkey, and it's a stretch.

Holding the victory wouldn't be a problem as ISIS is the only significant force in the area in opposition to Assad. Kurds are a potential problem but that's a different kind of problem.

I don't think this is true, the rebels are extremely fractured and don't hold as much territory as ISIS does but they are still a major force. According Wikipedia the FSA has between 40-50 thousand fighters, the Islamic Front has between 40-70 thousand, and there are several other smaller rebel factions. ISIS has between 31,500 to 100 thousand fighters. And according this map, the amount of ISIS held territory that is actually populated appears to be roughly equal to the amount of rebel held territory.