Roman Alymov Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) Doublepost Edited December 11, 2016 by Roman Alymov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 If there is any lesson to be gleaned from the Greek civil war is that the creation of a large self-defense organization for the country side (ie some 100 "national guard" battalions in that case, consisting of armed villagers*) released the divisions from static garrison duties and allowed a more aggressive and relentless posture which ultimately brought the destruction of the rebel force.Syria already did that a year or two ago. In places like Palmira local population is too small to create something like this - and in densly-populated areas of coastal Syria war is too far away from home... 5 years of civil war is long time, most of good volunteers already dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) ISIS war booty from the offensive in Palmyra. Assad's forces seem to have been routed in this particular position, abandoning their equipment. BPM-97 Edited December 11, 2016 by Daan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ink Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 ISIS takes advantage of the offensive in Aleppo and the deadlock in Mosul to attack Palmyra. NY Times blames Russians and Iranians and paints sad pictures of Syrian troops it deamonises in every other article it ever published on Syria. You just can't make this sh!t up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Tan Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 I always believe NYT and BBC on Syria. They are such bastions of integrity. Palmyra was weakly held with little more than a battalion group equivalent. There was equipment left in place when other forces were redeployed but being at thexend of a finger salient along a road is poor position. Unlike previous efforts, tge Russians and Syrians are willing to give up ground for time and maintaining the pressure in Aleppo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Total lost by the SAA to Daesh in the location pictured in the photos Daan put up: "4 T-55s, 2 T-62s, 2 T-72/AV, 2 ZIL-131/'PARM', 3 BMP-1/AMB-S, 1 BPM-97, 2 Ural 4320s, 4 un-IDed trucks inc tanker." EPIC SAA FAIL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 The SAA is weak in manpower and particularly in well trained manpower. The ISIS main advantage is their ability to rapidly shift their forces. I will say most of the failure is on Russian intelligence surveillance and the RusAF for allowing ISIS to build up in the area unmolested. But it could be a case of not enough personal and aircraft to cover each area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Updated Syria maps from @PetoLucem: Aleppo: Palmyra: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 ISIS in Tiyas now this is a debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinaruco Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 It seems, even if this ISIS offensive is successful, that nothing would change the outcome of Aleppo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Total lost by the SAA to Daesh in the location pictured in the photos Daan put up: "4 T-55s, 2 T-62s, 2 T-72/AV, 2 ZIL-131/'PARM', 3 BMP-1/AMB-S, 1 BPM-97, 2 Ural 4320s, 4 un-IDed trucks inc tanker." EPIC SAA FAILTrading control of the city in the middle of the desert with pre-war population of 20K (Palmyra) for control of key city with pre-war population of ~2 000K (Aleppo) plus elimination of pockets around capital Damask is hardly “EPIC SAA FAIL”. Yes it is looks very bad in news (especially following liberation of Palmyra was transformed in big event with concert etc – but this PR is already used and gone anyway), but on the ground it is not big deal.Lack of trained and dedicated infantry after 5 years of civil war is not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 (edited) Is all working as advertised. The whole plan was to kill all over opposition groups, and then the last one standing would be ISIS, which they could then go cap in hand to the Americans demanding they do something about. And now Trump actually seems to be speculating about ramping up attacks, maybe even more special forces on the ground. Though one might suggest congress might have something to say about it. Welcome to 'Counterinsurgency' the fun game for all the family. Play wack the mole across the middle east as you plant 'your' flag in half a dozen locations only to have it hauled down again by moderates, immoderates, Jihadists, Iranians and the just plumb crazy. When does the game end? Ah, the game never ends. Edited December 12, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinaruco Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Still loosing while supported by what should be a first world super power, is an Epic Fail for the SAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ink Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Still loosing while supported by what should be a first world super power, is an Epic Fail for the SAA.But not comparable to the Epic Fails suffered by the Iraqis while they were supported by a host of first world powers. I'm with Roman and Simon here. The SAA has devoted its attention elsewhere and ISIS took advantage to score a PR victory of sorts. If Aleppo falls by the new year, this will expose ISIS in the long run... Especially if Mosul also falls eventually. Then it will be open season on the desert kingdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Progress in Aleppo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Still loosing while supported by what should be a first world super power, is an Epic Fail for the SAA.But not comparable to the Epic Fails suffered by the Iraqis while they were supported by a host of first world powers. I'm with Roman and Simon here. The SAA has devoted its attention elsewhere and ISIS took advantage to score a PR victory of sorts. If Aleppo falls by the new year, this will expose ISIS in the long run... Especially if Mosul also falls eventually. Then it will be open season on the desert kingdom. And yet Iraq still exists, and is able, with Western assistance, to expel invaders from its borders. Whereas even the greatest optimist is not speculating on Syria standing up again by itself, ever again actually. If you look back on this thread, I pointed out that Russia and Iran, and Hez, altogether only have enough manpower to put 2.5 men in every inhabited square mile in Syria (if you go beyond into the inhospitable bits, clearly its half that). In short, the more territory they take and hold, actually the weaker their capability to hold the territory they gained becomes. its exactly the same problem the Yanks had in Vietnam, and exactly the same problem we had in Iraq before the surge. And everyone ignores it because somehow hanging a Russian flag over it ensures defies all the rules of warfare. I take no pleasure in observing this. I just wonder at the fact that something that is so self evident eludes everyone. You cant control a country by airpower alone, it does not work. This was interesting, Israels seem to have launched a deep strike on Damascus using long range ballistic missiles.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38239779Syrian state media say an Israeli missile strike has targeted a military airport on the outskirts of Damascus.The attack in Mezzeh is reported to have caused fires, but no casualties.The Israeli military has made no comment, but it is the second time in a week that it is alleged to have carried out a strike on Syrian territory.It is thought to have bombed weapons shipments intended for Lebanon's Hezbollah movement several times since Syria's civil war began in 2011.Hezbollah, which fought a month-long war with Israel in 2006, has sent thousands of fighters to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad's forces There is some speculation here on why the Israelis dont use aircraft to do it.http://whatsupic.com/news-politics-world/1481534017.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 If Aleppo falls by the new year, this will expose ISIS in the long run... Especially if Mosul also falls eventually. Then it will be open season on the desert kingdom. Problem of Aleppo is that all Gov forces there depend on single long and narrow road stretching between ISIS-controlled desert hills and “green” rebels-controlled desert hills. This road is vulnerable for attacks, and it is logical for both “blacks” and “greens” to attack this road again and again. There is hardly any way for SAA to correct the situation until Idlib in rebel hands. But currently it seems like Aleppo is going to be cleared in coming days (pro-Gov forces, especially local militias, are staying there, and non-radical rebels surrender in hundreds if not thousands, according to Rus representatives reports) – after it Palmyra going to be addresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 If you look back on this thread, I pointed out that Russia and Iran, and Hez, altogether only have enough manpower to put 2.5 men in every inhabited square mile in Syria (if you go beyond into the inhospitable bits, clearly its half that). In short, the more territory they take and hold, actually the weaker their capability to hold the territory they gained becomes. Again, not exactly so: Pro-Gov forces are not “taking territory” but eliminating pockets where considerable rebel forces, sometimes armed with tanks and artillery, were in control for years, blocking roads and requiring constant forces deployment to contain. Every pocket cleared is significant relief for pro-Gov forces both in terms of military forces untangled, and economic situation improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 And yet Iraq still exists, and is able, with Western assistance, to expel invaders from its borders...At one particular point w/o Iranian help, including Su-25s (that you laughed about and claimed will never be operations), infantry and tanks ISIS would have been in Baghdad.How was that different than Syria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 And yet Iraq still exists, and is able, with Western assistance, to expel invaders from its borders...At one particular point w/o Iranian help, including Su-25s (that you laughed about and claimed will never be operations), infantry and tanks ISIS would have been in Baghdad.How was that different than Syria? How exactly were they going to take Baghdad Bojan? I heard a lot of hysteria about it at the time, but it was no more realistic than Hannibal taking Rome. You could have given every other person in Baghdad an AK (and they probably have one anyway) and they would have outgunned ISIS. The reason why ISIS got that far is 2 reasons, the Iraqi army was no good, and the Americans were doing everything they can to not get involved. And yet if you look at the evidence, the Iraqi army now seems to be in considerably better shape and with a clearer sense of mission than the Syrian Army has. Even completely diverse elements that regularly fought against each other, now are all on message attacking ISIS. The Iraqi refugee situation is not a patch on the problem Syria has. The infrastructure damage in Iraq does not see to be a patch on the damage Syria has. I know its fashionable these days to take two entire different situations and conflate them for political effect, but I cannot see two more different situations than Iraq and Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Report about Rus special forces in Syria with (poor) English subtitleshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AUlDFt4m30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 If you look back on this thread, I pointed out that Russia and Iran, and Hez, altogether only have enough manpower to put 2.5 men in every inhabited square mile in Syria (if you go beyond into the inhospitable bits, clearly its half that). In short, the more territory they take and hold, actually the weaker their capability to hold the territory they gained becomes. Again, not exactly so: Pro-Gov forces are not “taking territory” but eliminating pockets where considerable rebel forces, sometimes armed with tanks and artillery, were in control for years, blocking roads and requiring constant forces deployment to contain. Every pocket cleared is significant relief for pro-Gov forces both in terms of military forces untangled, and economic situation improved. Exactly as was done in Afghanistan. And then the locals decided fighting a stand up battle was for the terminally stupid, and faded away into the woodwork. We have seen exactly this same thing happen with ISIS. You can destroy as many strongholds as you like, if it doesnt create security, you are just creating a fertile environment for ISIS to come back, or for the Saudis to stand up AQ2. And they will. Boris Johnson might be a tool, but when he talks of Saudi proxy wars, he is spot on. Im not saying we in the West got Iraq right either, but a refusal to acknowledge the most basic mistakes and make good on them looks to me at best bone headedness, and at worst, arrogance.Everyone is pretending this is Iraq 2008 on the cusp of victory. In actuality its Iraq 2003 and you haven't even got the conventional part of the war squared away yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 The reason why ISIS got that far is 2 reasons, the Iraqi army was no good, and the Americans were doing everything they can to not get involved. And yet if you look at the evidence, the Iraqi army now seems to be in considerably better shape and with a clearer sense of mission than the Syrian Army has. There is no such thing as “Syrian army” or “Iraqi army” in general. As always in long Civil war, it is combinations of very good, experienced and dedicated, but relatively small units and masses of poorly trained militia-style shisha pipe-smokers drinking matte instead of guarding positions. Good units of Syrian army are now in Aleppo (as it is key battlefield of this war), ISIS is using this opportunity to chase off militia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Exactly as was done in Afghanistan.Not exactly: Afghanistan was attempt to bring feudal society directly to socialism (as it was done in Soviet Central Asia – but it turned out USSR of 1980th was not willing to pay the price that was paid for the same process by USSR of 1930th). Not surprisingly it was transforming back into feudalism the very moment Soviets were leaving the village.In Syria process is different: nobody is pretending to transform society there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 (edited) The reason why ISIS got that far is 2 reasons, the Iraqi army was no good, and the Americans were doing everything they can to not get involved. And yet if you look at the evidence, the Iraqi army now seems to be in considerably better shape and with a clearer sense of mission than the Syrian Army has. There is no such thing as “Syrian army” or “Iraqi army” in general. As always in long Civil war, it is combinations of very good, experienced and dedicated, but relatively small units and masses of poorly trained militia-style shisha pipe-smokers drinking matte instead of guarding positions. Good units of Syrian army are now in Aleppo (as it is key battlefield of this war), ISIS is using this opportunity to chase off militia. Im glad we agree on this, and its a central core of my point. How exactly can you ever say 'Mission Accomplished' when every battle you fight creates yet more Syrian casualties, either in the 'Army' or among the people you need to be the next generation of the armed forces? In what version of this plan does the Russian military ever achieve a situation where it can withdraw, that Hamas doesnt end up using Syria as a continual jumping off point against Israel, and Iran, not Russia, ends up the local arbiter of affairs? Exactly how does any of this add up to a Russian 'win' because the best I think you can hope for is a burned out wreck of a nation nobody has money to rebuild, and becomes a first class magnet for every jihadist from Indonesia to Birmingham. If none of this adds up to regional security, then what is the point? Yes, it gave America the finger, yes it can demonstrate Russia can do what it likes. Good one. Now whats the exit strategy? I disagree on the idea there is no Iraqi army. It might be a bit more nebulous than what we are used to, but that it has cohesion and a common mission is self evident. I see nothing in the Syrian Army but a wasted gang of survivors. Edited December 12, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now