Topic: Syria Superthread [merged]

[Larry Strong]

Wonder how many people know about Canada's contribution  

Another interesting aircraft tracked online in the aftermath of the raid, is a Bombardier E-11A 11-9358 from 430th EECS stationed at Kandahar Afghanistan. The aircraft is a BACN (battlefield airborne communications) asset: BACN is technological “gateway” system that allows aircraft with incompatible radio systems and datalinks to exchange tactical information and communicate. By orbiting at high-altitude, BACN equipped air assets provide a communications link between allies, regardless of the type of the supporting aircraft and in a non-line-of-sight (LOS) environment. The BACN system is also deployed onboard EQ-4B Global Hawk UAVs. Although we can’t be completely sure, it is quite likely that the aircraft was involved in the air strikes as well, providing data-bridging among the involved parties

[tomahawk6]

Gotta communicate between the Brits and French and of course the Americans.

[Jarnhamar]

Killing Syrians to punish Syrians for killing Syrians in Syria 

[Colin P]

Considering the US likely told the Russians exactly where they would attack, who would tell the Syrians, who would move anyone of value out, means anyone left their to die would be quite expendable or very disliked. "Carl guard this place, we will be back......"

[Altair]

Gotta communicate between the Brits and French and of course the Americans.

Isn't that what twitter is for?

[GR66]

Considering the US likely told the Russians exactly where they would attack, who would tell the Syrians, who would move anyone of value out, means anyone left their to die would be quite expendable or very disliked. "Carl guard this place, we will be back......"

It was specifically stated in the US briefing that the Russians were not told that an attack was taking place.

[winnipegoo7]

It was specifically stated in the US briefing that the Russians were not told that an attack was taking place.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/syrian-missile-strikes-macron-s-most-significant-military-action-1.3462587

According to the Irish times, the President of France telephoned Putin at noon on Friday and the French DM says that the Russians were warned before the raid.

The article also states that the French DM said:

No cruise missiles fired by the US and its allies entered the zone of Russian air defences protecting their installations at Tartous [naval base] and Hmeimim [air base near Latakia].

  So perhaps the Russians never had a chance to engage any missiles.

[Eye In The Sky]

So perhaps the Russians never had a chance to engage any missiles.

Win-win-win then for everyone.  It's almost like they put some thought into it!

- the US doesn't have to be embarrassed that S400s knocked some of their fastballs out of the park;
- Russia doesn't get embarrassed at how many punched thru and hit their targets, and;
- the rest of us don't have to read comments from the Keyboard Experts/Warriors  on how and why missiles did or didn't get thru on the CBC article comments!   

[tomahawk6]

Many of the missiles used were stealth capable.Found this article about the performance of the Leopard 2 in Syria.

https://warisboring.com/germanys-leopard-2-tank-was-considered-one-of-the-best-until-it-went-to-syria/

[CBH99]

Extremely poor tank tactics used in these cases.  The tanks weren't employed the way they were meant to be, nor positioned well, not defended adequately.  Mickey Mouse operations in regards to any decent doctrine on the use of armoured forces.

Slight change of topic, but still Syria related...



Can somebody tell me what our (the West's) ultimate objectives are in Syria? 

Why are we there?  What do we have to achieve in terms of long term goals?

After overthrowing Libya, supporting the overthrowing of the government in Egypt, Iraq, and now Syria...forced regime change without a solid follow-up plan has been proven time & again to be a very poor strategy.  Brutal dictators as they may have been, they did keep order & relative predictability in the region.


But specifically in regards to Syria - what are we trying to accomplish/achieve?  (I ask this in all seriousness, not facetiously)

[Ostrozac]

Can somebody tell me what our (the West's) ultimate objectives are in Syria? 

Why are we there?  What do we have to achieve in terms of long term goals?

In broad strokes, we seem to want the same things that the Russians and Iranians do, for Assad to stay in power and the war to be over, with ISIS and other Sunni extremist groups disrupted or destroyed. We would just prefer that Assad tone down the atrocities a little bit.

We seem to have more problems with Assad's methods than his objectives. After all, no one is currently proposing to replace Assad as the power in charge of running Syria. (the last three groups that did express serious interest were ISIS, AQ, and the Muslim Brotherhood)

[Colin P]

In a way I am thankfully the Assad regime survived, because the genocide the Islamist's would commit onto the regime supporters would shock the world. Sadly Assad and Syria had many chances to become the darlings of the West, but Syria has a long history of snatching problems from the jaws of peace and stability. Russia's goals are fairly small and concise and mostly achieved. The west dilemma is that they entered into the fight when the majority of the moderates were dead, fled or assimilated into the radicals. Now the West has to extract itself without to much loss of face, the other issue is the future of the Kurds.   

[Altair]

In a way I am thankfully the Assad regime survived, because the genocide the Islamist's would commit onto the regime supporters would shock the world. Sadly Assad and Syria had many chances to become the darlings of the West, but Syria has a long history of snatching problems from the jaws of peace and stability. Russia's goals are fairly small and concise and mostly achieved. The west dilemma is that they entered into the fight when the majority of the moderates were dead, fled or assimilated into the radicals. Now the West has to extract itself without to much loss of face, the other issue is the future of the Kurds.

The Kurds are screwed. Too many enemies.

Turkey,  NATO country.

Syria,  Russian supported.

Iraq,  Western supported.

That's too many.

[CBH99]

On the surface I would agree with you Altair, BUT...

1.  Turkey - Yes, a NATO country.  But not exactly the popular kid in the room.  Historically, it made sense to have Turkey as an ally.  Geographically close to multiple flashpoints, historically at odds with Russia. 

Turkey's President seems quite happy to shun NATO as a partner.  Mass detentions of anybody he wants, including judges, lawyers, teachers, students, soldiers, prosecutors, news reports, etc etc.  Now purchasing AA gear from Russia, and openly attacking groups that other Western countries support.  Not to mention, fairly extreme in his political views...don't think this is lost on NATO leadership.


2.  Russia - I don't think Russia cares that much.  If the Kurds can offer relative stability to the region, decent professionalism, no mass genocides, etc etc - it's preferable to the other groups.  Plus they know that on SOME LEVEL, they do enjoy the support of the West, albeit how much support seems to change frequently.


3.  Syria - Lots of it's own problems to deal with.  Attacking the Kurds, backed by the West, isn't going to do them any favours.  Assad's forces are stretched thin, and hunker down in the safety of Russian bases when not conducting operations.  For the near term, I think Assad is wise to pick his battles.


4.  Iraq - Very much a real problem, as there are a mountain of legal processes that would be required for a new country to be designated, along with borders, currency, government, etc etc.  And the Iraqi government, which legally controls the territory the Kurds want, absolutely will not be open to it.

Tricky situation.  We support Iraq.  We also support the Kurds.  Tricky situation for politicians, diplomats, UN bureaucrats, etc.


I would agree, the Kurds probably are screwed.  But make no mistake about it, Iraq doesn't want Turkish military forces deployed on it's soil any more than the Kurds do.  So it could ultimately make the Iraqi/Kurdish relationship TRUE frienemies in regards to Turkey.

[Once_a_TQ]

A few news updates pushed out at work by the Public Affairs Office.

Chemical weapons experts not in Douma, State Department says
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/17/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-fallout-intl/index.html
(CNN, 17 April 18) (CNN)There was confusion Tuesday whether a team of international experts had arrived in the Syrian city of Douma to determine whether chemical weapons were used in an attack there 10 days ago

Coalition Ramps Up Strikes Amid Resurgence of ISIS Fighters in Syria
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/04/17/coalition-ramps-strikes-amid-resurgence-isis-fighters-syria.html
(Military.com, 17 April 18) White House and Pentagon officials have said that Islamic State fighters have been "on the run" for some months now. But military commanders on the ground are seeing new pockets of movement in a handful of areas in Syria, which has led to an uptick in coalition airstrikes, an official said Tuesday.

And a point on Turkey:
Turkey set to join NATO task force: Stoltenberg
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-set-to-join-nato-task-force-stoltenberg-130457
(Hurriyet, 17 April 18) Turkey will be responsible for NATO’s rapid response unit in a couple years, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said.

[Jarnhamar]

Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in the WTF news.

CNN reporter literally sniffing a backpack for chemical weapons.

"there's definitely something that stings"

https://youtu.be/CgkI3Ub2lZw

[jollyjacktar]

  

Who wants to be a Darwin winner!

[winnipegoo7]

For those interested, here is an open source look at some of the intelligence assets used during the cruise missile strike.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digital-battlespace/insight-how-intel-assets-laid-groundwork-syria-st/

[Journeyman]

A good assessment of the strikes has been provided by the Georgetown Security Studies Review.