Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jhe90 wrote:

Unless, they want to keep losses off thr book as it goes.

That's been pretty standard since Russian servicemen 'on vacation' started coming back in bags from their 'Ukrainian Holiday'.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Unless, they want to keep losses off thr book as it goes.

That's been pretty standard since Russian servicemen 'on vacation' started coming back in bags from their 'Ukrainian Holiday'.

And now Syrian holiday resorts...

There casualties must be alot higher than the official numbers then, if there this much driven to keep that number down on official counts.

Worried like western wars they may lose backing perhaps.

Well, that ceasefire was short...


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43187888

 godardc wrote:
Do you remember the beggining of all this ? So many years ago... How time flies !
And it is still on going

I remember. I was such a kid back then. Feels like ages ago.

 djones520 wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Do you remember the beggining of all this ? So many years ago... How time flies !
And it is still on going

Yep, because the "non-interventionists" didn't want to do anything when they were still a small and more manageable threat. And when the decision was finally made to do something, it was just half measures.

ISIS was not really anything worth intervening about until they started blitzkrieging their way through Syria and Iraq. At which point they arguably weren't a small and manageable threat anymore. The thing with ISIS is that they really exploded (pun not intended) suddenly. Sure, they were there before, but nobody really predicted what happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Unless, they want to keep losses off thr book as it goes.

That's been pretty standard since Russian servicemen 'on vacation' started coming back in bags from their 'Ukrainian Holiday'.

And now Syrian holiday resorts...

There casualties must be alot higher than the official numbers then, if there this much driven to keep that number down on official counts.

Worried like western wars they may lose backing perhaps.

They aren't on holiday, that was in Ukraine to excuse involvement of Russian army. That is not needed in Syria because the Russian military is there legally and openly. The not-Russian people in Syria aren't army personnel on leave but professional mercenaries.
They are hired not to keep losses of the records (that certainly is an additional benefit, but Russia has a high tolerance for losses so it is not an important reason) but for their deniability. It is part of maskirovka. Russians destroyed that village? Not the fault of Russian government, must have been mercenaries. But certainly they operated on orders from Moscow? No, no orders from Moscow, they did that on their own initiative. Basically, it allows to do the Russian army to do things while simultaneously denying they do those things, and to confuse enemies/NATO about which units are really Russian army, which are mercenary/militia units under control from Moscow and which ones are not under control from Moscow. It is a standard part of Russian warfare, you can see the same thing in the Baltics, Transdnistria and Central Asia (during breakup of USSR), Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Early forms of the strategy were already pioneered in Afghanistan.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, that ceasefire was short...


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43187888

Probably more accurate to call it "pause to reload" than ceasefire, then.

 chromedog wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, that ceasefire was short...


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43187888

Probably more accurate to call it "pause to reload" than ceasefire, then.

If UN ceasefire. The US tried to force it abit. Thr Russians delayed and Syrians just bombed.

Let's not expect much of it.

A ceasefire needs everyone on board. Not just a arbatury choice.

The only way to end a Syrian war is to eliminate all rebels forces and return all regions under Assad's control. Rebels have already shown their complete failure as an alternative to the government of the Assad and nothing other than just terrorists. Thanks to USA, Kurds are now also declared terrorists. That is really sad.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
The only way to end a Syrian war is to eliminate all rebels forces and return all regions under Assad's control. Rebels have already shown their complete failure as an alternative to the government of the Assad and nothing other than just terrorists. Thanks to USA, Kurds are now also declared terrorists. That is really sad.

How is it the US's fault that the Kurds were declared terrorists, and how is the Assad government not a complete failure that required a military campaign from Russia to stay in power?

Propping the Syrian regime up is infinitely preferable to handing the country over to Al Qaeda.

What does that statement have to do with the discussion at hand? I wasn't arguing that we should topple Assad, I was arguing that "the rebels failed, Assad didn't" is a silly (almost circular, from a Russian perspective) justification of supporting Assad when the only reason he has any semblance of power left is the Russian intervention on his side. He's just as big a failure as the rebels. Sure, he's currently probably the least awful alternative, but because of Russian interests in the region, not because he's any better than the rebels.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What does that statement have to do with the discussion at hand? I wasn't arguing that we should topple Assad, I was arguing that "the rebels failed, Assad didn't" is a silly (almost circular, from a Russian perspective) justification of supporting Assad when the only reason he has any semblance of power left is the Russian intervention on his side. He's just as big a failure as the rebels. Sure, he's currently probably the least awful alternative, but because of Russian interests in the region, not because he's any better than the rebels.

Our of all choices. He is preferable and leave the Kurds to border lands or somthong semi autonomous?

Genie out bottle. No solution cannot involve Kurds. They hold too much land.

Except Assad isn't really a viable solution in the long term. He's already lost control of his country and his people, anybody thinking that the country will be at peace if he and the russians manage to put down the armed forces raised against him is deluding themselves. The violence will continue, but in a less immediately visible form. Unless the Russians are going to semi-permanently occupy Syria and try to deal with IEDs, carbombs etc. then it will all just start again once they leave.

The whole thing started when Assad used the army to suppress dissent against his totalitarian rule. The spark which started that fire has not gone, if anything it will only have grown stronger as he committed more and more acts of brutality in order to remain in power.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except Assad isn't really a viable solution in the long term. He's already lost control of his country and his people, anybody thinking that the country will be at peace if he and the russians manage to put down the armed forces raised against him is deluding themselves. The violence will continue, but in a less immediately visible form. Unless the Russians are going to semi-permanently occupy Syria and try to deal with IEDs, carbombs etc. then it will all just start again once they leave.

The whole thing started when Assad used the army to suppress dissent against his totalitarian rule. The spark which started that fire has not gone, if anything it will only have grown stronger as he committed more and more acts of brutality in order to remain in power.

This is what I tried to get across, except expressed more eloquently than I managed.

Who the feth are we going to replace him with? Al Qaeda? The so called Free Syrian Army, who have links and affiliations with Al Qaeda? People defect from Al Qaeda to ISIS to the FSA on a daily basis.

Our previous attempts at regime change haven't exactly turned out so well, have they? Iraq is still a mess over a decade later. Our governments and mainstream media are too embarrassed to talk about the gak hole that was once Libya.

We have a proven track record of failure in regime change.

Hence why he's the least bad option at the moment. I was taking exception to the idea that Assad had somehow proven capable of leading his country while the rebels had not.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
The only way to end a Syrian war is to eliminate all rebels forces and return all regions under Assad's control. Rebels have already shown their complete failure as an alternative to the government of the Assad and nothing other than just terrorists. Thanks to USA, Kurds are now also declared terrorists. That is really sad.

How is it the US's fault that the Kurds were declared terrorists, and how is the Assad government not a complete failure that required a military campaign from Russia to stay in power?

Well, it may not be the US' fault that got the Kurds declared terrorists, but it was an action by the US government that got Turkey to launch a military expedition against them. Maybe Freakazoitt is referring to that.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except Assad isn't really a viable solution in the long term. He's already lost control of his country and his people, anybody thinking that the country will be at peace if he and the russians manage to put down the armed forces raised against him is deluding themselves. The violence will continue, but in a less immediately visible form. Unless the Russians are going to semi-permanently occupy Syria and try to deal with IEDs, carbombs etc. then it will all just start again once they leave.

The whole thing started when Assad used the army to suppress dissent against his totalitarian rule. The spark which started that fire has not gone, if anything it will only have grown stronger as he committed more and more acts of brutality in order to remain in power.

Well, most people just want an end to the war. The original rebel cause has been dead for years already, and the people who are still fighting Assad are mostly just islamists of different varieties. Certainly, those groups can continue causing trouble for a long time, but it is nothing that is going to be an existential threat to Assad's regime. The revolutionary spark has been pretty much extinguished, the people made numb by the horrors of the war. Really most people don't care anymore who is in power as long as the fighting stops and they can go back home to their old lives.
That is not to say that the Assad regime will last forever. Hafez already faced some big revolts, and now his son gets this civil war, so evidently there is some pretty big discontent that is highly likely to surface again. Just not anytime soon, I think. There is always a period between the suppression of a revolt and the inevitable next revolt, and the more brutal the repression usually the longer that period will be (but the fiercer the revolt).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Hence why he's the least bad option at the moment. I was taking exception to the idea that Assad had somehow proven capable of leading his country while the rebels had not.

I would not call Assad capable, but certainly he is more capable than the rebels. That is what is making him the least bad option, right? A brutal police state is still better than a terrorist caliphate or a bunch of feuding warlords.

 Iron_Captain wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Hence why he's the least bad option at the moment. I was taking exception to the idea that Assad had somehow proven capable of leading his country while the rebels had not.

I would not call Assad capable, but certainly he is more capable than the rebels. That is what is making him the least bad option, right? A brutal police state is still better than a terrorist caliphate or a bunch of feuding warlords.

He's more capable than the rebels as long as Russia lends him their big stick. If Russia lent the rebels that stick instead they'd be more capable than Assad. What they do with the capability is separate from whether or not that is desirable. Both sides would be pretty impotent without the Russian intervention, but I'd argue Assad would be even more so than the rebels.

Assad being preferable to other options from a geo-political perspective does not make him more capable than those other options.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


He's more capable than the rebels as long as Russia lends him their big stick. If Russia lent the rebels that stick instead they'd be more capable than Assad. What they do with the capability is separate from whether or not that is desirable. Both sides would be pretty impotent without the Russian intervention, but I'd argue Assad would be even more so than the rebels.

And the rebel weren't capable enough even with US aid, so wouldn't that still put Assad on top?

Maybe we should actually try to find that preferable alternative to Assad first, rather than just removing him and hoping for the best like we did with Libya?

Does anyone here seriously think that the Rebels are capable of forming a stable government?

The best outcome that can happen is Russia props up the Syrian regime and helps to crush the motley alliance of rebels, Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist extremists and ISIS.
Russia takes on the economic and military burden of supporting the rebuilding of Syria and it's economy, and suppressing any insurgency.

Russia is therefore weakened and tied down for the next couple of decades, much like the USA was with Iraq, and they'll be less inclined to press its luck elsewhere like Europe because they'll lack the resources. At a later date, Russia can "persuade" Assad to retire and put a new successor in place. Sure, he'll be Russia's puppet, but at least there'll be an opportunity to make moderate reforms over time.

Sucks for ordinary Syrians, as Syria will continue to be a suppressive authoritarian state, and it'll never become a Democracy. But then again, that was never going to happen, and its infinitely preferable to any other currently foreseeable alternatives.

The only alternative I can see to an Assad government at the moment with the information currently available to me...is a Libyan style power vacuum. The only way to prevent that...is to get entangled in another Iraq style, decades long rebuilding project. Its going to require a direct and hands-on long term, outside intervention and occupation to fix the problems of Syria.

And I'm sure that nobody here wants Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The best outcome that can happen is Russia props up the Syrian regime and helps to crush the motley alliance of rebels, Al Qaeda affiliated Islamist extremists and ISIS.
Russia takes on the economic and military burden of supporting the rebuilding of Syria and it's economy, and suppressing any insurgency.

Yeah, like Russia is going to do that. Russia is just going to have fun bombing the gak out of Syria until Assad it is certain that Assad will be able to manage on his own. Then they will be "good luck with the rebuilding and such." and then mostly just leave.

The US likes to rebuild countries because it gives them a lot of soft power. It also helps to make the war more justifiable for the people at home. Russia doesn't really have those concerns, and it lacks the money for such things anyway. All Russia has to offer is a very powerful military and arms industry. Without that Russia would be some third-rate power.
So you will see Russia continuing to back up the Assad regime with military guarantees (though probably not with a lot of direct assistance), sell and donate lots of weapons to Assad's military and send some more trainers and advisors. Maybe they will build a nuclear power plant or two. Quite possibly it will also offer to educate Syrian personnel at Russian universities. You will probably see Russian advisors assisting or supervising some projects, but that is as far as Russia will be able to help. To put it quite simply, those are the only things Russia can do. Even if it wanted to do more, it can't, because Russia is poor as dirt. It can't afford to do things the way the Americans have done in Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone in places like Germany or Japan. The Syrians will have to do almost everything themselves with the Russians only in an advisory role. If Syria is lucky, Russia may cancel part of Syria's huge debts, but you won't see Russia pumping big sums of money to Syria like the US did to Iraq.
Russia will do what it can do cheaply to get some extra credit with the people of Syria, but it won't take up any burdens.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Maybe we should actually try to find that preferable alternative to Assad first, rather than just removing him and hoping for the best like we did with Libya?

Shadow, I'm not sure whether to claim you're more cynical than I, or more optimistic: Hell will freeze over before the Kurds accept Assad as their rightful Dictator, anointed by God and Stalin.

Second, please point me to the occasion that backing a man like Assad has not eventually ended in dead US and English soldiers and, at the very least, thousands of dead civilians. After all, Assad was ISIS ally until they predictably turned on each other. So tell me again how handing the reigns of power to him will reduce terrorism? I keep forgetting with all this poison gas being used on civilians.

But, hey, I suppose you're keeping up with the grand English tradition of Peace in Our Time!

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Assad was ISIS ally

This is a very reckless statement. ISIS was against everyone, except for Turkey for some period of time. Also, the ISIS and US acted like allies in an attempts to defeat the besieged Deir ez-Zor.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Propping the Syrian regime up is infinitely preferable to handing the country over to Al Qaeda.

The idea that AQ will be stopped from expanding in a country ruled by tyrant is the worst kind of broken logic. Tyranny is precisely what breeds extremists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The whole thing started when Assad used the army to suppress dissent against his totalitarian rule. The spark which started that fire has not gone, if anything it will only have grown stronger as he committed more and more acts of brutality in order to remain in power.

Exactly. The pro-Assad logic at this point is that Assad faced protests calling for an end to his rule, he responded with torture and killings, this provoked a brutal civil war, and now the civil war is ended people should be happy with Assad ruling the country. Its a perfectly acceptable conclusion from a particularly short sighted Russian view, but outside of that its absolutely bonkers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
This is a very reckless statement. ISIS was against everyone, except for Turkey for some period of time. Also, the ISIS and US acted like allies in an attempts to defeat the besieged Deir ez-Zor.

ISIS is against everyone, but Assad has been happy to work with ISIS. He's bought oil from captured ISIS facilities, bypassing international blockades, and there's a lot of instances of Syrian offensives bypassing ISIS positions to target FSA. Assad air strikes have been made in support of ISIL attacks on Aleppo. Assad and ISIS have at times through the fighting had very limited attacks on each other.

Of course, at other times ISIS have focused their attacks on Assad, so the times they've allied have been temporary, and based on immediate circumstances.

Now, we can accept this is as brutal realism on the behalf of Assad, even an astute assessment of what was needed to secure his power - he rightly picked ISIS as an organization with a fast expiring use by date, while other rebel groups were real and lasting threats to his regime. It's a complex war and opportunistic alliances are the nature of the beast. But it is false to call the statement reckless. It is what it is.

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Propping the Syrian regime up is infinitely preferable to handing the country over to Al Qaeda.

The idea that AQ will be stopped from expanding in a country ruled by tyrant is the worst kind of broken logic. Tyranny is precisely what breeds extremists.

Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.

 sebster wrote:
It's a complex war and opportunistic alliances are the nature of the beast. But it is false to call the statement reckless. It is what it is.

Is there any group involved that hasn't at the very least ignored and not shot at another group because right now they're fighting someone we hate more, or have less use for? Turkey is attacking the Kurds right now, calling them terrorists (aka too succesful) but previously they allowed Iraqi Kurds to send reinforcements to the Syrian Kurds through Turkish territory when ISIS seemed close to breaking Kurdish lines! Assad himself has fought the Kurds earlier, then realized they aren't the worst threat and now even offers to reinforce them against Turkey. ISIS and Al-Quaeda fought each other over who is the true rightful Islamic overlord faction. If there ever was a war to perfectly illustrate the US armed forces slang short "SNAFU" this would be it.

Spetulhu wrote:

 sebster wrote:
It's a complex war and opportunistic alliances are the nature of the beast. But it is false to call the statement reckless. It is what it is.

Is there any group involved that hasn't at the very least ignored and not shot at another group because right now they're fighting someone we hate more, or have less use for? Turkey is attacking the Kurds right now, calling them terrorists (aka too succesful) but previously they allowed Iraqi Kurds to send reinforcements to the Syrian Kurds through Turkish territory when ISIS seemed close to breaking Kurdish lines! Assad himself has fought the Kurds earlier, then realized they aren't the worst threat and now even offers to reinforce them against Turkey. ISIS and Al-Quaeda fought each other over who is the true rightful Islamic overlord faction. If there ever was a war to perfectly illustrate the US armed forces slang short "SNAFU" this would be it.

I find your summary rather cheesy.

Two more minutes in hell for that one...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.

Actually the only real difference is that backing Assad is handing it over to AQ AND a war criminal. Since Assad has in the past supported Al Qaeda, and a wide variety of other terrorist organizations, such as the PLO, HAMAS, and according to Turkey's ranting madman, PKK.

Assad is only anti-terrorist when they're anti-him. Otherwise he's happy to supply them and allow them to train in Syria.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.

Actually the only real difference is that backing Assad is handing it over to AQ AND a war criminal. Since Assad has in the past supported Al Qaeda, and a wide variety of other terrorist organizations, such as the PLO, HAMAS, and according to Turkey's ranting madman, PKK.

Assad is only anti-terrorist when they're anti-him. Otherwise he's happy to supply them and allow them to train in Syria.

He's learned from America's example.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

He's learned from America's example.

US Politics Detected, Modquisution Inbound.

No its not. That remark was about American Foreign Policy, not domestic politics.

Stop being facetious.