Posted on 12/21/2015 9:23:53 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
When Russia launched an air campaign to support Bashar al-Assad, it was banking on a ground force of Syrian troops to finish what its warplanes started.
However, more than 12 weeks later, Syria’s army and the large numbers of Shia militias that back it have made few meaningful gains on the ground. Meanwhile, Moscow’s jets have added a new layer of carnage, reportedly killing at least 600 Syrian citizens, including 70 in Idlib on Sunday.
In Syria’s north and in opposition-held parts of the cities of Hama and Damascus, the destruction wrought on civilian infrastructure and population centres over the past fortnight is more intense than at any point in almost five years of war, residents of the communities and observers outside Syria say.
Meanwhile, the US has claimed that a once-broad gap with Russia over how to end the war has been narrowing, with both sides last week championing a peace process that aims to defuse a conflict that has killed at least 250,000 people and left Syria in ruins.
Peace in Syria is vital. And it’s within our grasp Mohammad Javad Zarif Read more On the ground in rebel areas, there is little faith in the process. “Where are these reasonable Russians that Kerry claims are starting to see the light?†said a doctor in an Idlib hospital who was treating casualties, referring to the US secretary of state, John Kerry. “Bashar’s jets never bombed us like the Russians do. Isis never hunted us down like this.â€
Damage from airstrikes is intensifying, but the Syrian ground forces are showing few signs of being able to use this to their advantage. .
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
The Guardian - Enough said.
Oh baloney. Nobody, anywhere thought the Russian air strikes were going to unleash a Syrian ground assault.
The Syrian army was in bad shape and this bombing was designed to stop the rebel assaults.
The rebels (jihadis) were being fueled with supplies, medical aid, and weapons from us, the Saudis, the Turks, the Gulf states.
The bombings were the cavalry arriving as the wagons were burning. The offensive will probably be months away. But first, the badguys needs to hit a brick wall.
Syria has a large army. Maybe they’re just not very motivated.
They say the Russian bombing is futile, and then give a few hundred words on how effectively it is kicking the rebels ass - including driving close to a peace agreement with the US supporters.
They have broken the two year siege of Kweris Airbase, retaken the major city of Homs, opening the major road from Damascus to the coast (after achieving agreement with a few of the rebel groups there), and are starving out the rebels North of Aleppo, while cutting the financial lifeline of ISIS.
The US-provided TOW missiles have been a game changer on the ground - Main Battle Tanks are unable to fulfill their role of blasting through and tearing up the rear areas, so it has become an Infantry battle on the ground - which favors the defenders, especially in cities.
Even though the ground war has not been a blitzkrieg, strategically, the effects of the Russian involvement have been game changing. Momentum has been reversed, and it looks like most of the proxy sponsors have given up on replacing Assad.
One real interesting report at the end of the article, claimed that all but one of the high ranking Iranian officers who were killed, were killed by their own troops (fragged). They claimed that the Iranians were unable to control and discipline their Afghan Shi’ite militias.
In my experience, I have been impressed by Afghans, in that they tend not to be fearful people. In most of the world, when you are training local militaries, one of the biggest problems is that when the shooting starts, they will run away (e.g. Iraq), or hunker down and not fire their weapons. With the Afghans, it was more of a problem to get them to take cover and move in short tactical rushes, rather than walk right up the middle, spraying with their AKs.
Maybe the Iranian officers (among the top elite in a dictatorial society) were used to bullying submissive subordinates, whereas an Afghan guy who was raised in an anarchic Mad Max environment, just didn’t give a crap about his fancy title, if he had a clear shot at him.
They just broke through the M5 highway today. A big deal.
Officers are from the ruling Alawite sect, but the grunts are not and they are not too keen on fighting for Assad.
ISIS or whatever you want to label them lately will not be destroyed by bombs alone; no matter who drops on them. Certainly not when one side giveth and other taketh. You must destroy the ideology which neither side is... waste of bombs.
BTW, Guardian newspaper is and has always been a major propaganda machine and still very left wing.
The Army is a mixed bunch. Sunnis, Alawites, Druze and Christians. Alawite Militias are probably more motivated (especially if they’re fighting near home). Then of course you have Hezbollah helping out. There’s also other foreigners such as Afghan Shiites but they’re worthless.
We can’t solve islamist extremism without countering their ideology (which is the state religion of Saudi Arabia), but we can kill ISIS, by shooting, burning and exploding them.
They can and should be driven from holding territory. Otherwise they can raise taxes, conscript recruits and have a safe haven to plan and train for attacks on us.
I would certainly agree to destroying both their ideology and their selves.
Yes, ideology in combination with their selves is the way to go if we don’t want to be constantly reactive in countering Islamists.
I acknowledge we need to remain reactive to some degree, but to eliminate the menace itself it’s has to be the ideology because, as you say, so long as the ideology remains and is fed or fuelled, they will regroup, rebuild somewhere else, rename themselves, spread it, recruit and attack us.
I’m not sure Saudi Arabia is the only place. Some of the Gulf States come to mind such as Qatar. There are certain ideological nerve centres currently for both shi’ites and sunnis (although ISIS is one group that says it doesn’t believe in the Kaa’ba as legit place of worship). Key ideological nerve centres across the board are the obvious ones: Mecca, Medina, Najaf, Karbala, Qom and Mash’ad.
The Mullahs in Iran, whose core ideology is the same as the Saudis minus some superficial differences, have been building up Mash’ad with the intention of making it the worship place for the Shi’ites to rival Mecca. That’s their intention anyway. Though obviously there are less Shi’ites than Sunnis and their offshoots around the world.
I also agree with your comment about the Afghans. They’ve always been not just tough but ruthless fighters - historically as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.