Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 372

On September 10 2016 21:08 Acrofales wrote:


This war is ridiculous. Officially, neither Russia not the US are fighting in it. But the parties that are actually involved are not even present at the talks about the ceasefire. They just hop when Putin/Obama tells them to.

On September 11 2016 00:20 Redox wrote:

Would be great if they actually did that. I fear that is not the case though.

On September 11 2016 21:27 zeo wrote:
It's Assad's 51st birthday today. You would think his birthday being on September the 11th is just trolling but it really is his birth date.

The Israeli military struck artillery positions in Syria today after a projectile hit the Israeli-controlled part of the Golan Heights, but denied a Syrian claim that Syrian forces shot down two Israeli aircraft in the assault.
The incident was the fifth case since last week in which fighting in Syria has spilled over into Israel, and the first since a U.S.-Russian brokered truce went into effect at sunset on Monday to try and end Syria's war, now in its sixth year.
Shortly after the air raid, Syria's armed forces claimed to have shot down an Israeli warplane and an unmanned drone along the frontier between the countries.
The Israeli military quickly denied the report, saying that a pair of surface-to-air missiles were fired at its aircraft but missed. "At no point was the safety of IDF (Israel Defense Forces) aircraft compromised,'' it said.-AP

On September 13 2016 15:20 xM(Z wrote:
the various rebel groups opinion is inconsequential since they're pretty much controlled by the countries mentioned(they get fed, clothed and armed by said countries so they'll do as asked).
the negotiations themselves are carried only by Russia and US. those two and those two alone get to pick and choose assets or dictate terms. they represent the parties under their sphere of influence(are aware of their demands/wants/hopes) to which they'll throw a bone every now and then, depending on the situation on the ground.
if Russia and US reach an agreement(a real one) any non compliant faction will be labeled a terrorist faction and gunned down.

Germany, France and UK have no saying in anything; they're just target practicing in Syria. if will see a military escalation UN/NATO going to war over another red line then they'll get dibs.
- Turkey does not want a kurdish belt at their southern border(Russia made it happen, or is in the process of); that's pretty much done.
- Iran wants to abuse its new found sanction relief period so it'll be happy with a friendly Syria(won't mater who rules it) and peace; easy to achieve(Assad already agreed on ruling over a transition period(to democracy, allegedly) only).
- Saudis, UAE, Qatar (and Turkey initially, until it flipped) had some really specific oil and gas deals with EU and Israel. those kind of turned to shit so i've no idea what they want now but Russia and Saudis had attempts/negotiations/talks on stabilizing/normalizing oil prices, so money talks.
- US won't get everything it wanted - an US controlled kurdish belt around Iraq and Syria, so it'll probably try and use other conflict zones(for trade, literally) in negotiations: Ukraine/Trans-Dniester/Nagorno-Karabakh, make more sanctions threats or fuck knows what else because when Turkey stopped the kurds in N-Syria, its cards in Syria went to shit.
(note: i sure am missing some coveted commercial assets that'll be on the negotiating table so perhaps those could appease the rest of them).

but, while saying that, i am aware that by middle of autumn Russia will be sending its flagship(Admiral Kuznetsov, fully stocked with the new MIG model)to Syria, France will send its Charles-de-Gaulle flagship accompanied by some german frigates(or some other type of warships i forgot the class of) while Iran and US have some funny(harassment some say) encounters in the Persian Gulf.

also, as far as i've noted, they have new rounds of negotiations only after fresh territories get conquered(from IS or other rebel factions) and since there's still a lot of land to take over from ISIS, that's many negotiations, yes?.

On September 13 2016 20:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You write a lot, but like a pyramid of cards, but you ignore the reality that both Russia and US don't have as much influence and so far are unwilling to use full military power to affect anything. there's an awful lot of presumptiousness in infering what each and every party would want and how it would be achieved.

WASHINGTON — The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry announced with Russia to reduce the killing in Syria has widened an increasingly public divide between Kerry and Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who has deep reservations about the plan for U.S. and Russian forces to jointly target terror groups.

Carter was among the administration officials who pushed against the agreement on a conference call with the White House last week as Kerry, joining the argument from a secure facility in Geneva, grew increasingly frustrated. Although President Barack Obama ultimately approved the effort after hours of debate, Pentagon officials remain unconvinced.

On Tuesday at the Pentagon, officials would not even agree that if a cessation of violence in Syria held for seven days — the initial part of the deal — the Defense Department would put in place its part of the agreement on the eighth day: An extraordinary collaboration between the United States and Russia that calls for the U.S. military to share information with Moscow on Islamic State targets in Syria.

"I'm not saying yes or no," Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, commander of the U.S. Air Forces Central Command, told reporters on a video conference call. "It would be premature to say that we're going to jump right into it."

White House officials were also dubious. "I think we'd have some reasons to be skeptical that the Russians are able or are willing to implement the arrangement consistent with the way it's been described," Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Monday at a briefing. He added, darkly, "But we'll see."

The committee's key conclusions include:
* Through his decision making in the National Security Council, David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy

* The possibility that militant extremist groups would attempt to benefit from the rebellion should not have been the preserve of hindsight

* It saw no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence

* The limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya

* Political engagement might have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at lesser cost to the UK and to Libya

* British troops should not be deployed to Libya in a training role until the Government of National Accord has established political control, stabilised internal security and made a formal request to the UK Government for such assistance, which should then be considered by the UK Parliament

By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change, the committee said.
"That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya.
"The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of Isil in North Africa.

On September 14 2016 17:29 xM(Z wrote:
one needs a legal footing in order to use its full military power(especially when the side on which you're supposed to use said military power, is backed by a major nuclear power) - parliamentary/congressional approval, UN mandate, deals with the legal rulers of Syria and so on. when you have nothing and are stuck with using proxies(US), shit getting out of hand is to be expected especially after promises get broken.
if you're not willing to theorize about things, why even ask?.

anyway, http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/details-of-syria-pact-widen-rift-between-kerry-pentagon/2293456?

On September 14 2016 18:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What suprises me is how quickly the report was made. What specifically is it that you are expressing faux suprise at?

Mr Cameron has defended his handling of the situation, telling MPs in January action was needed because Gaddafi "was bearing down on people in Benghazi and threatening to shoot his own people like rats".

But the foreign affairs committee said the government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated", adding that it "selectively took elements of Gaddafi's rhetoric at face value".

The government also failed to identify the "militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion", the MPs said.

The limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya