back to square1.
ARA News
The Syrian government completely rejected any form of Kurdish autonomy and has reportedly proposed amendments to change the Russian draft proposal for a new Syrian constitution.
The draft proposed by Russia suggested a decentralized Syria in article 40, which mentioned regional assemblies, called ‘people’s societies’. The draft constitution also mentioned equality of the Kurdish and Arabic languages.
“The Kurdish cultural self-ruling systems and its organizations use both the Arabic and Kurdish languages equally,” the draft reads.
Kurdish officials of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), however, suggested that only full federalism would be a solution, and that the Russian draft proposal didn’t go far enough.
On the other hand, the Syrian government rejected any form of local autonomy or recognition of the Kurdish language on an equal level, and requested the Russians to amend this.
Moreover, the Russian draft of a new Syrian constitution also stipulates that the Syrian president would be elected for one term of seven years, without the right to re-election. The Syrian government rejected this, and disagreed with limiting the power of the president.
During the Syrian peace talks in Astana last week, the Syrian regime envoy Bashar Jaafari also rejected Kurdish federalism and said that those Kurds who dream of federalism “need Panadol and Advil” – analgesic drugs.
According to the Syrian state media, Jaafari said that the issue of federalism would be decided “by all Syrians and not decided unilaterally by a single component,” adding that all ideas “even one as crazy as federalism, must be put to a democratic vote.”
Reiterating the regime’s position, Jaafari said that “it’s completely unacceptable for a group of people to decide to create a statelet and call it federalism.”
“The Russians are trying to find an arrangement between Assad and the PYD. Assad, however, will not want to have a parallel governing structure in control of areas of Syria with somewhat important resources,” Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told ARA News. “And with a direct line to outside actors that doesn’t pass through him. It would mean that he and the PYD are effectively equals.”
“Who knows what the outside actors might or might not agree to. But it’s important to remember that in 2012, the Turks were open to a conversation with the PYD, provided the Kurdish areas included a power sharing agreement that allowed for Turkish allies (Kurdish and non-Kurdish) to be strong partners. The PYD rejected all that,” he said.
Dr Kamal Sido, a consultant for ‘the Society for Threatened Peoples’ (STP), told ARA News that federalism is the best solution for Syria.
“I think the regime in Damascus, the Islamists and Turkey have the same position on the question of autonomy or federalism,” Dr Sido reasoned. “They are against autonomy for Kurds, but the Kurds want federalism.”
“However, I believe the biggest enemy of Kurdish autonomy is Turkey and the Syrian Islamist rebels –not the regime in Damascus. They are similar to the Iraqi Sunnis who opposed federalism for the Kurdistan [Region] after 2003,” Sido concluded.
Levant crisis - III
-
asgkhan
- BRFite
- Posts: 1834
- Joined: 16 Apr 2009 17:19
- Location: Helping BRF research how to seduce somali women
Re: Levant crisis - III
There is complete media silence on Syria these dins. Only RT is providing good coverage. I see that BBC and CNN run some feel good programs or some slack tack shows on orange-twerp-in-chief when announcements are made or press holdings are done on Syria.
Wierd and complete lack of empathy on the survivors and sufferors of Obama's legacy !! Just a month back, it was alleppo this, alleppo that, Putin is evil, yada yada yada.
Wierd and complete lack of empathy on the survivors and sufferors of Obama's legacy !! Just a month back, it was alleppo this, alleppo that, Putin is evil, yada yada yada.
Re: Levant crisis - III
kurds are professional secessionists wherever they live. Unravelling of Iraq has landed this unique tool in the hands of anglo-zionist warmongers.
Re: Levant crisis - III
finland amazed by how many refugee children are infact adults
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20170201 ... en-adults/
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20170201 ... en-adults/
-
Bhurishravas
- BRFite
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25
Re: Levant crisis - III
They should have instead supported Saddam and gassed themselves in the name of national unity to oppose anglo-zionist warmongers. In turkey, they must support Erdogan in bombing them.habal wrote:kurds are professional secessionists wherever they live. Unravelling of Iraq has landed this unique tool in the hands of anglo-zionist warmongers.
Re: Levant crisis - III
A Briton fighting in Syria "turned the gun on himself" to avoid being taken prisoner by so-called Islamic State, Kurdish sources have told the BBC.
Ryan Lock, 20, from Chichester in West Sussex, died on 21 December during a battle for the IS group's stronghold of Raqqa.
He was fighting as a volunteer with the Kurdish armed fighting forces, the YPG.
The YPG told the BBC that "trace of a gunshot wound was found under the chin", suggesting suicide.
Sources said five fighters came under siege by IS - also known as ISIS - in the village of Ja'bar, and they showed "considerable resistance" before they were killed.
After the bodies were retrieved examinations showed that "it seems that the British fighter committed suicide in order not to fall captive with Isis".
A report said the gunshot wound indicated "that the gun made contact with the bottom of the chin".
"This suggests that the fighter committed suicide," it concluded.
Ryan Lock, 20, from Chichester in West Sussex, died on 21 December during a battle for the IS group's stronghold of Raqqa.
He was fighting as a volunteer with the Kurdish armed fighting forces, the YPG.
The YPG told the BBC that "trace of a gunshot wound was found under the chin", suggesting suicide.
Sources said five fighters came under siege by IS - also known as ISIS - in the village of Ja'bar, and they showed "considerable resistance" before they were killed.
After the bodies were retrieved examinations showed that "it seems that the British fighter committed suicide in order not to fall captive with Isis".
A report said the gunshot wound indicated "that the gun made contact with the bottom of the chin".
"This suggests that the fighter committed suicide," it concluded.
Re: Levant crisis - III
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38812053
(video)
The Saudi-led coalition battling Yemen's Houthi rebels says two crew members have been killed in an attack on one of its warships in the Red Sea.
A coalition statement said three Houthi "suicide boats" had approached a Saudi frigate west of Hudaydah on Monday.
One of the boats collided with the rear of the frigate and exploded, causing a fire, the statement added.
However, a rebel-controlled news agency cited a source as saying the warship had been hit by a guided missile.
(video)
The Saudi-led coalition battling Yemen's Houthi rebels says two crew members have been killed in an attack on one of its warships in the Red Sea.
A coalition statement said three Houthi "suicide boats" had approached a Saudi frigate west of Hudaydah on Monday.
One of the boats collided with the rear of the frigate and exploded, causing a fire, the statement added.
However, a rebel-controlled news agency cited a source as saying the warship had been hit by a guided missile.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Flush with 200 new trucks and fresh atgm from nato the sdf starts ph3..this time to cut raqqa off from all sides
-
UlanBatori
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Levant crisis - III
What is the truth about NATO Invading the ISIS? Has there been a single victory so far? Mosul doesn't count, that's the Iraqi Army. I think the NATO is just doing logistics / resupply to the ISIS in the guise of "attacking" Raqqa etc.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Nato is supporting sdf and ypg in wrath of euphrates.
As i mentioned the kurds other than pkk dont have tiger force or repub guard level units and pkk fights in turkey and border tracts of iraq mostly...so any sdf advance needs nato socom and air support
And sdf had almost no arty or tanks just technicals
As i mentioned the kurds other than pkk dont have tiger force or repub guard level units and pkk fights in turkey and border tracts of iraq mostly...so any sdf advance needs nato socom and air support
And sdf had almost no arty or tanks just technicals
-
UlanBatori
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Levant crisis - III
Has "Wraith of U-Fritis" actually done anything positive? Cleared large areas? Isn't that the grand Erdogan Offensive that had its mijjile hit a wall at Al Bab, with the Rooskies having to send RUAF to cover the TAF as they gathered courage to go drop a few bums? Have they actually cleared Al Bab, or just extricated their mijjiles from there?
Re: Levant crisis - III
WoE is much from successful than ES so far. while the turks slink around al-bab without success, the SDF has advanced and cleared a wide area west of Raqqa from lightly defended ISIS hamlets. they have also captured the strategic locations on the river like jobar and the eastern shore of tabqa dam.
this map is a bit old . the pocket is eliminated and raqqa is in the south east corner, the intervening area is one of a river and marshes though, so SDF will likely look to loop around behind Raqqa and cut if off from all sides. they will need to cross river at Tabqah and advance along western shore too
this map is a bit old . the pocket is eliminated and raqqa is in the south east corner, the intervening area is one of a river and marshes though, so SDF will likely look to loop around behind Raqqa and cut if off from all sides. they will need to cross river at Tabqah and advance along western shore too
Re: Levant crisis - III
^^ all the yellow area in this map was captured in the past 6 weeks
Re: Levant crisis - III
in deir azzor SAA is holding firm and giving a bloody nose to ISIS attacks. they are advancing slowly in some areas , held back by lack of manpower to create fresh lines of defence. UN is sending food airdrops to the town. they cannot afford to lose any soldiers so rash attacks are out. they want to sit back behind compact prepared defences and mow down as many ISIS as possible. these are elite mowsuli ISIS sent to take deir azzor and palmyra.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Al masdar deir azzor
Saa has broken through some factory zone and linked up with airport in a thin strip. But the supply road unusable yet due to daesh fire control on it. Its a race againnst time as daesh gathers for another major attack.
Saa has broken through some factory zone and linked up with airport in a thin strip. But the supply road unusable yet due to daesh fire control on it. Its a race againnst time as daesh gathers for another major attack.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Al masdar
ISIS has executed six of its own fighters for escaping a battle with the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor, activists reported on Wednesday.
They were arrested near the town of Margada in Hasakah Governorate by ISIS guards, under orders of the towns governor, Abdu Abdullah al-Jizrawi, a source close to ISIS told ARA News.
They were then executed by a firing squad.
ISIS has executed six of its own fighters for escaping a battle with the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor, activists reported on Wednesday.
They were arrested near the town of Margada in Hasakah Governorate by ISIS guards, under orders of the towns governor, Abdu Abdullah al-Jizrawi, a source close to ISIS told ARA News.
They were then executed by a firing squad.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Were probably trying to escape to sdf lines and on to turkey
Re: Levant crisis - III
I have been repeatedly coming across of stories of rape and molestation by refugees in some of these European countries. Sweden in particular. Are the authorities and government so stupid, and left of center+bleeding heart liberals, that they're jeopardizing the safety and security of their own populations to accommodate these migrants? Migrants who're using the Syrian civil war as a smoke screen to get into these countries for benefits or social security linked payment. I mean, what are guys from Afghanistan for God's sake doing amongst refugees in Sweden? And them, many of the libtards are wondering about rise of far-right in European countries.Singha wrote:finland amazed by how many refugee children are infact adults
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20170201 ... en-adults/
-
Bhurishravas
- BRFite
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25
Re: Levant crisis - III
The Syrian Army has reached al Bab as well. It is only 6 kms from it. Turkish army is already there sweating and panting for last two months.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-midea ... SKBN15G5DA
In other news, Erdogan is escalating against Greece. Clash with Greece, a non-islamic entity is a positive possibility for islamist Erdogan. He cant really bring himself up to fighting ISIS, which he nurtured as a baby, with the same zeal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-midea ... SKBN15G5DA
In other news, Erdogan is escalating against Greece. Clash with Greece, a non-islamic entity is a positive possibility for islamist Erdogan. He cant really bring himself up to fighting ISIS, which he nurtured as a baby, with the same zeal.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Afghans are prominent refugees in australia route too.
I am sure the tiger is smart enough to let turkey have the dubious honour of taking al bab lol. Tiger wants the real meat which is control of al maskanah plains behind deir hafr down to tabqa. Tiger not fall into monkey trap i hope
I am sure the tiger is smart enough to let turkey have the dubious honour of taking al bab lol. Tiger wants the real meat which is control of al maskanah plains behind deir hafr down to tabqa. Tiger not fall into monkey trap i hope
Re: Levant crisis - III
Refugee crisis
West countries take very few refugees, in fact over 6 million refugees have settled in poorer countries around ME & Africa
The world’s six richest countries – responsible for more than half of global GDP – host less than one-tenth of the world’s refugees, according to a new Oxfam report.
The number of people forced to flee their homes is at an all-time high. Over 65 million are estimated to have been displaced, including more than 20 million refugees. But the responsibility for these refugees has fallen disproportionately on poorer nations.
“Poorer countries are shouldering the duty of protecting refugees when it should be a shared responsibility, but many richer countries are doing next to nothing,” Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of Oxfam International, said in a press release.
Using the latest UN refugee and World Bank GDP figures, the Oxfam report lays bare the global divide in hosting refugees. The world’s six richest countries account for 56.5% of cumulative global GDP, yet host just 8.88% of the world’s refugees.
World's wealthiest 6 countries host just 9% of refugees
The United States, China, Japan, Germany, the UK and France host some 2.1 million refugees between them.
Germany hosts the most, with nearly three-quarters of a million refugees. The US and France follow. Conversely, the UK hosts a little over a quarter of a million, while Japan hosts less than 20,000.
Oxfam notes that these countries did give nearly US $2 billion in aid to the UNHCR last year. This financial help plays an important role in providing shelter, food and water to refugees across the globe. But they say “providing aid cannot absolve rich countries from their moral and legal responsibilities to welcome more refugees.”
West countries take very few refugees, in fact over 6 million refugees have settled in poorer countries around ME & Africa
The world’s six richest countries – responsible for more than half of global GDP – host less than one-tenth of the world’s refugees, according to a new Oxfam report.
The number of people forced to flee their homes is at an all-time high. Over 65 million are estimated to have been displaced, including more than 20 million refugees. But the responsibility for these refugees has fallen disproportionately on poorer nations.
“Poorer countries are shouldering the duty of protecting refugees when it should be a shared responsibility, but many richer countries are doing next to nothing,” Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of Oxfam International, said in a press release.
Using the latest UN refugee and World Bank GDP figures, the Oxfam report lays bare the global divide in hosting refugees. The world’s six richest countries account for 56.5% of cumulative global GDP, yet host just 8.88% of the world’s refugees.
World's wealthiest 6 countries host just 9% of refugees
The United States, China, Japan, Germany, the UK and France host some 2.1 million refugees between them.
Germany hosts the most, with nearly three-quarters of a million refugees. The US and France follow. Conversely, the UK hosts a little over a quarter of a million, while Japan hosts less than 20,000.
Oxfam notes that these countries did give nearly US $2 billion in aid to the UNHCR last year. This financial help plays an important role in providing shelter, food and water to refugees across the globe. But they say “providing aid cannot absolve rich countries from their moral and legal responsibilities to welcome more refugees.”
Re: Levant crisis - III
BAGHDAD — The Trump administration amended its visa ban on Thursday to allow emigration by the families of Iraqi interpreters who served the United States government and military forces deployed in their country.
The change, recommended by the Pentagon, eased some of the anger generated in Iraq by President Trump’s executive order imposing the ban, which has stoked anxiety and confusion around much of the world since it was issued last week.
The change, recommended by the Pentagon, eased some of the anger generated in Iraq by President Trump’s executive order imposing the ban, which has stoked anxiety and confusion around much of the world since it was issued last week.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Saa is 3km from al bab now. Make it 1k and no more
Re: Levant crisis - III
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
7
Haiaat Tahreer AlSham (#AlQaeda) will now use the same weapons (MANPADs & TOW) that were sent by the #US to the US-backed moderate rebels!
6
10
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
7
Haiaat Tahreer AlSham (#AlQaeda) will now use the same weapons (MANPADs & TOW) that were sent by the #US to the US-backed moderate rebels!
18
19
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
6
This means that #AlZinki “moderate rebels” and #AlNusra “terrorists” have become one entity under the umbrella of Haiaat Tahreer AlSham
17
16
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
5
#AlZinki have recently declared that they have merged with Haiaat Tahreer AlSham which is headed by AlJaoulani the Amir of #AlNusra
13
11
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
4
In addition to having TOW missiles #AlZinki are the 1st group in #Syria to receive the #US-made MANPADs that #Obama sent to the "rebels"
18
11
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
3
The ammo depots of #AlZinki in Kafar Naha and Darat Ezza in rural #Idlib are full of weapons and ammo that were provided by the #US
18
10
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
2
#AlZinki terrorist group used to receive support and weapons from the #US as they were labeled to be “moderate” opposition
20
16
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
1
#AlZinki terrorist group which used to be labeled as “moderate” rebels by the #US has finally declared its merging with #AlQaeda
maytham @maytham956
7
Haiaat Tahreer AlSham (#AlQaeda) will now use the same weapons (MANPADs & TOW) that were sent by the #US to the US-backed moderate rebels!
6
10
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
7
Haiaat Tahreer AlSham (#AlQaeda) will now use the same weapons (MANPADs & TOW) that were sent by the #US to the US-backed moderate rebels!
18
19
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
6
This means that #AlZinki “moderate rebels” and #AlNusra “terrorists” have become one entity under the umbrella of Haiaat Tahreer AlSham
17
16
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
5
#AlZinki have recently declared that they have merged with Haiaat Tahreer AlSham which is headed by AlJaoulani the Amir of #AlNusra
13
11
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
4
In addition to having TOW missiles #AlZinki are the 1st group in #Syria to receive the #US-made MANPADs that #Obama sent to the "rebels"
18
11
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
3
The ammo depots of #AlZinki in Kafar Naha and Darat Ezza in rural #Idlib are full of weapons and ammo that were provided by the #US
18
10
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
2
#AlZinki terrorist group used to receive support and weapons from the #US as they were labeled to be “moderate” opposition
20
16
maytham
11h11 hours ago
maytham @maytham956
1
#AlZinki terrorist group which used to be labeled as “moderate” rebels by the #US has finally declared its merging with #AlQaeda
Re: Levant crisis - III
so who does trump totally love and respect......absolutely forever.....? kurds
http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... upporting/
http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... upporting/
Re: Levant crisis - III
Doloroso @Pyrmha108 24m24 minutes ago
More
#Idlib #Aleppo: Now that the US-backed "Rebels" have joined either the Ahrar or the AQ grouping, which side now has the US weapons? - Both.
More
#Idlib #Aleppo: Now that the US-backed "Rebels" have joined either the Ahrar or the AQ grouping, which side now has the US weapons? - Both.
Re: Levant crisis - III
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 55badb92c8
Obama’s White House worked for months on a plan to seize Raqqa. Trump’s team took a brief look and decided not to pull the trigger.
By Adam Entous, Greg Jaffe and Missy Ryan February 2 at 7:03 PM
Syrian Democratic Forces Commander Rojda Felat drives to Tal Samin outside of Raqqa on Nov. 24, 2016, shortly after the village was captured from Islamic State militants. (Alice Martins/For The Washington Post)
Planning for the final assault on Raqqa, the capital of the Islamic State’s caliphate, had been grinding on for more than seven months. There had been dozens of meetings of President Barack Obama’s top national security team, scores of draft battle plans and hundreds of hours of anguished, late-night debates.
There were no good options, but Obama’s top foreign policy advisers were convinced that they had finally settled on an approach that could work — arming Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, current and former U.S. officials said. There was just one problem: The Obama team had deliberated for so long that there was little time left to pull the trigger. Trump’s advisers had also sent word that they wanted to make the decision.
So on Jan. 17, just three days before the transfer of power, Obama directed his national security adviser to hand over to the Trump team a paper detailing the plan to arm the Kurds, including talking points that President Trump could use to explain the move to Turkey’s president, who officials knew would be furious. The Turks viewed the Kurdish fighters as terrorists and their No. 1 enemy.
Obama hoped that his last-minute preparations would clear the way for Trump to authorize a swift assault on the Islamic State’s most important stronghold, where U.S. intelligence officials say militants are plotting attacks outside Syria.
Instead of running with the plan, Trump’s national security team deemed it wholly insufficient and swiftly tossed it.
To the incoming Trump administration, Obama’s approach was so incremental and risk-averse that it was almost certain to fail. “They provided the information, but we found huge gaps in it,” said a senior Trump administration official who reviewed the document. “It was poor staff work.”
The Obama White House viewed its Syria plans as the product of years of experience in a region where every move carries unintended and potentially catastrophic consequences. Those who steered the Obama administration’s Syria policy insisted that the new White House did not understand the complexity of the issue, but soon would.
The troubled handoff of one of the United States’ most vexing national security problems shows how far the pendulum has swung between two presidents who in many ways are opposites. Obama sweated the smallest details of U.S. military and intelligence operations, often to the point of inaction.
Trump has made it clear that he prefers to go with his gut and has promised a swift and brutal campaign that will “utterly destroy” the Islamic State. In meetings with his national security team, he has signaled his desire to give Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, whom he regularly refers to by the nickname “Mad Dog,” a free hand in doing whatever it takes to fight terrorism.
It is up to Mattis and the rest of Trump’s national security team to translate the president’s campaign-trail pronouncements into policy. Trump’s more aggressive approach could speed the destruction of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but it also could lead to an increase in civilian deaths, fueling anger toward the United States.
Trump and his top advisers also could decide to increase coordination with Russia and even Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to seize Raqqa. Or he could ultimately conclude, as Obama did, that arming the Kurds represents the best of several bad options.
The policy dilemmas that Obama and his team spent more than seven months deliberating will be decided over the course of the next 30 days in a review led by Mattis and the Pentagon. Trump has directed his defense secretary to bring him multiple options and to ignore the restrictions on troop numbers and civilian casualties that were put in place by Obama.
“The message to the Pentagon was to widen the aperture,” said the senior administration official, who, like other current and former officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive planning. “Give us all of your options.”
The policy dilemma facing Trump began with a decision made by the Obama administration in a moment of desperation in 2014.
Islamic State fighters had just seized huge swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. Obama decided to intervene militarily but ruled out the use of American ground forces on the front lines.
The Pentagon needed to find local partners in a hurry, and the Syrian Kurds stepped forward. The budding U.S. battlefield alliance with the Kurds carried big strategic risks. The Kurdish fighters who volunteered to help the Americans had ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which the Turkish and U.S. governments considered a terrorist group.
In contrast to Obama, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not see the Islamic State as his country’s No. 1 threat. In private meetings with senior U.S. officials in 2014, Erdogan said the Kurds were his top concern and that removing Assad ranked second, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.
By the fall of 2016, after two years of tension between Obama and Erdogan because of different priorities, a U.S.-backed offensive using Kurdish forces to recapture Raqqa was finally within sight, and Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, asked for authorization to arm them for a push into the city.
The proposal divided the Obama White House. Then-Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter backed the plan, but others worried that it would deepen the rift with Ankara.
Among the biggest skeptics was Susan E. Rice, Obama’s national security adviser. When she asked Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whether an immediate decision was needed, the general said he was still evaluating whether Turkey was serious about an offer to provide its own forces to take Raqqa instead of the Kurds.
For two years inside the Pentagon, Turkey’s promises of sending rebels and later its own troops were viewed with deep skepticism and derisively dubbed “Erdogan’s ghosts” or the “unicorn” army, according to current and former defense officials. Carter and other defense officials worried that Dunford’s response gave the White House another reason to delay a decision.
By late 2016, Dunford had concluded that the Turks would not produce the forces to retake Raqqa. With less than three weeks left in the Obama administration, Dunford and Carter submitted a formal request to arm the Kurds for the assault with armored vehicles, antitank weapons, Russian-made machine guns and mine-clearing equipment. (Singha - this has been done last week but perhaps a placeholder)
The Pentagon pushed for an immediate decision, warning that if the Kurds did not receive the equipment by mid-February, their offensive on Raqqa would stall. A decision not to arm the Kurds could delay the Raqqa operation by up to a year, U.S. officials warned.
The Pentagon also was alarmed by increasingly dire warnings from senior counterterrorism officials about terrorist attacks being planned inside the city.
On Jan. 10, just 10 days before Trump’s inauguration, Obama’s top advisers huddled in the White House Situation Room to weigh the Kurdish proposal, which would be the last major national security decision of the outgoing administration.
Carter argued that the Kurds understood that they would have to turn Raqqa over to local Arab forces as soon as the Islamic State was defeated.
Samantha Power, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and the U.S. ambassador in Ankara, along with others, warned that moving forward with the plan would further damage relations with Turkey. It also would put the United States in the unacceptable position of supporting allies of a terrorist group that was carrying out mass-casualty attacks on a NATO member, they said.
Everyone in the Situation Room that day agreed on the need to consult with the Trump team. There was no point taking such a consequential step if the new president might reverse it.
At the end of the meeting, Rice thanked everyone for their hard work and led a champagne toast.
Shortly afterward, Rice spoke to retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, her counterpart in the incoming administration, about the proposal.
“Don’t approve it,” Flynn responded, according to two former officials briefed on the exchange. “We’ll make the decision.”
On Jan. 17, Obama chaired his final National Security Council meeting and directed his team to leave the decision on arming the Kurds to the Trump administration. In one of his last acts as commander in chief, he approved the deployment of two or three Apache attack helicopters to Syria and authorized the Pentagon to provide more support to Turkish forces fighting for the Syrian town of al-Bab.
Rice prepared briefing papers for Flynn, emphasizing the importance of moving quickly to arm the Kurds.
Obama told a small group of aides that he would personally discuss the importance of the matter with Trump on the morning of the inauguration, possibly in the limousine on the way to the Capitol for the swearing-in ceremony.
“Welcome to the NBA,” Obama said he planned to tell his successor, according to officials present.
The recommendation was dead on arrival at the Trump White House.
The Obama plan required U.S. forces to train the Kurds in using the new equipment and fighting in a densely packed city, but it lacked details about how many U.S. troops would be required and where the training would take place, the Trump administration official said. Trump officials said they were dismayed that there was no provision for coordinating operations with Russia and no clear political strategy for mollifying the Turks.
Nor were there contingency plans if the Kurdish attack stalled, the senior Trump administration official said.
“What bothered us most of all was that there was no Plan B,” the Trump official said.
To the Trump team, it seemed that Obama administration officials had delayed authorizing the plan because they knew it was inadequate and did not want to be held responsible, the official said.
A senior Obama administration official said the criticism was unfounded and a sign of the new White House’s “intelligence insecurity.” In addition to the short memo that Rice gave Flynn, the outgoing administration left a thick package of supplemental material, the Obama official said.
Most of the shortcomings outlined by the Trump team were obvious to Obama’s advisers, he added. In fact, the senior Obama administration official said, arming the Kurds was Obama’s Plan B, after it became clear that Plan A — using Turkish forces to take Raqqa — would not be feasible.
It is up Mattis and Dunford to sort through Syria’s many complexities and come up with a new plan. At the end of Obama’s term, Dunford emerged as one of the most passionate supporters of arming the Kurds, the senior Obama administration official said. Aides declined to describe Mattis’s thinking on the option. Trump has promised to give Dunford and Mattis a free hand, which could lead them right back to some variation of the Obama plan.
“He’s a businessman,” the senior Trump official said of the new president. “His attitude is that I am hiring really good people to make these decisions.”
Obama’s White House worked for months on a plan to seize Raqqa. Trump’s team took a brief look and decided not to pull the trigger.
By Adam Entous, Greg Jaffe and Missy Ryan February 2 at 7:03 PM
Syrian Democratic Forces Commander Rojda Felat drives to Tal Samin outside of Raqqa on Nov. 24, 2016, shortly after the village was captured from Islamic State militants. (Alice Martins/For The Washington Post)
Planning for the final assault on Raqqa, the capital of the Islamic State’s caliphate, had been grinding on for more than seven months. There had been dozens of meetings of President Barack Obama’s top national security team, scores of draft battle plans and hundreds of hours of anguished, late-night debates.
There were no good options, but Obama’s top foreign policy advisers were convinced that they had finally settled on an approach that could work — arming Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, current and former U.S. officials said. There was just one problem: The Obama team had deliberated for so long that there was little time left to pull the trigger. Trump’s advisers had also sent word that they wanted to make the decision.
So on Jan. 17, just three days before the transfer of power, Obama directed his national security adviser to hand over to the Trump team a paper detailing the plan to arm the Kurds, including talking points that President Trump could use to explain the move to Turkey’s president, who officials knew would be furious. The Turks viewed the Kurdish fighters as terrorists and their No. 1 enemy.
Obama hoped that his last-minute preparations would clear the way for Trump to authorize a swift assault on the Islamic State’s most important stronghold, where U.S. intelligence officials say militants are plotting attacks outside Syria.
Instead of running with the plan, Trump’s national security team deemed it wholly insufficient and swiftly tossed it.
To the incoming Trump administration, Obama’s approach was so incremental and risk-averse that it was almost certain to fail. “They provided the information, but we found huge gaps in it,” said a senior Trump administration official who reviewed the document. “It was poor staff work.”
The Obama White House viewed its Syria plans as the product of years of experience in a region where every move carries unintended and potentially catastrophic consequences. Those who steered the Obama administration’s Syria policy insisted that the new White House did not understand the complexity of the issue, but soon would.
The troubled handoff of one of the United States’ most vexing national security problems shows how far the pendulum has swung between two presidents who in many ways are opposites. Obama sweated the smallest details of U.S. military and intelligence operations, often to the point of inaction.
Trump has made it clear that he prefers to go with his gut and has promised a swift and brutal campaign that will “utterly destroy” the Islamic State. In meetings with his national security team, he has signaled his desire to give Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, whom he regularly refers to by the nickname “Mad Dog,” a free hand in doing whatever it takes to fight terrorism.
It is up to Mattis and the rest of Trump’s national security team to translate the president’s campaign-trail pronouncements into policy. Trump’s more aggressive approach could speed the destruction of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but it also could lead to an increase in civilian deaths, fueling anger toward the United States.
Trump and his top advisers also could decide to increase coordination with Russia and even Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to seize Raqqa. Or he could ultimately conclude, as Obama did, that arming the Kurds represents the best of several bad options.
The policy dilemmas that Obama and his team spent more than seven months deliberating will be decided over the course of the next 30 days in a review led by Mattis and the Pentagon. Trump has directed his defense secretary to bring him multiple options and to ignore the restrictions on troop numbers and civilian casualties that were put in place by Obama.
“The message to the Pentagon was to widen the aperture,” said the senior administration official, who, like other current and former officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive planning. “Give us all of your options.”
The policy dilemma facing Trump began with a decision made by the Obama administration in a moment of desperation in 2014.
Islamic State fighters had just seized huge swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. Obama decided to intervene militarily but ruled out the use of American ground forces on the front lines.
The Pentagon needed to find local partners in a hurry, and the Syrian Kurds stepped forward. The budding U.S. battlefield alliance with the Kurds carried big strategic risks. The Kurdish fighters who volunteered to help the Americans had ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which the Turkish and U.S. governments considered a terrorist group.
In contrast to Obama, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not see the Islamic State as his country’s No. 1 threat. In private meetings with senior U.S. officials in 2014, Erdogan said the Kurds were his top concern and that removing Assad ranked second, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.
By the fall of 2016, after two years of tension between Obama and Erdogan because of different priorities, a U.S.-backed offensive using Kurdish forces to recapture Raqqa was finally within sight, and Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, asked for authorization to arm them for a push into the city.
The proposal divided the Obama White House. Then-Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter backed the plan, but others worried that it would deepen the rift with Ankara.
Among the biggest skeptics was Susan E. Rice, Obama’s national security adviser. When she asked Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whether an immediate decision was needed, the general said he was still evaluating whether Turkey was serious about an offer to provide its own forces to take Raqqa instead of the Kurds.
For two years inside the Pentagon, Turkey’s promises of sending rebels and later its own troops were viewed with deep skepticism and derisively dubbed “Erdogan’s ghosts” or the “unicorn” army, according to current and former defense officials. Carter and other defense officials worried that Dunford’s response gave the White House another reason to delay a decision.
By late 2016, Dunford had concluded that the Turks would not produce the forces to retake Raqqa. With less than three weeks left in the Obama administration, Dunford and Carter submitted a formal request to arm the Kurds for the assault with armored vehicles, antitank weapons, Russian-made machine guns and mine-clearing equipment. (Singha - this has been done last week but perhaps a placeholder)
The Pentagon pushed for an immediate decision, warning that if the Kurds did not receive the equipment by mid-February, their offensive on Raqqa would stall. A decision not to arm the Kurds could delay the Raqqa operation by up to a year, U.S. officials warned.
The Pentagon also was alarmed by increasingly dire warnings from senior counterterrorism officials about terrorist attacks being planned inside the city.
On Jan. 10, just 10 days before Trump’s inauguration, Obama’s top advisers huddled in the White House Situation Room to weigh the Kurdish proposal, which would be the last major national security decision of the outgoing administration.
Carter argued that the Kurds understood that they would have to turn Raqqa over to local Arab forces as soon as the Islamic State was defeated.
Samantha Power, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and the U.S. ambassador in Ankara, along with others, warned that moving forward with the plan would further damage relations with Turkey. It also would put the United States in the unacceptable position of supporting allies of a terrorist group that was carrying out mass-casualty attacks on a NATO member, they said.
Everyone in the Situation Room that day agreed on the need to consult with the Trump team. There was no point taking such a consequential step if the new president might reverse it.
At the end of the meeting, Rice thanked everyone for their hard work and led a champagne toast.
Shortly afterward, Rice spoke to retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, her counterpart in the incoming administration, about the proposal.
“Don’t approve it,” Flynn responded, according to two former officials briefed on the exchange. “We’ll make the decision.”
On Jan. 17, Obama chaired his final National Security Council meeting and directed his team to leave the decision on arming the Kurds to the Trump administration. In one of his last acts as commander in chief, he approved the deployment of two or three Apache attack helicopters to Syria and authorized the Pentagon to provide more support to Turkish forces fighting for the Syrian town of al-Bab.
Rice prepared briefing papers for Flynn, emphasizing the importance of moving quickly to arm the Kurds.
Obama told a small group of aides that he would personally discuss the importance of the matter with Trump on the morning of the inauguration, possibly in the limousine on the way to the Capitol for the swearing-in ceremony.
“Welcome to the NBA,” Obama said he planned to tell his successor, according to officials present.
The recommendation was dead on arrival at the Trump White House.
The Obama plan required U.S. forces to train the Kurds in using the new equipment and fighting in a densely packed city, but it lacked details about how many U.S. troops would be required and where the training would take place, the Trump administration official said. Trump officials said they were dismayed that there was no provision for coordinating operations with Russia and no clear political strategy for mollifying the Turks.
Nor were there contingency plans if the Kurdish attack stalled, the senior Trump administration official said.
“What bothered us most of all was that there was no Plan B,” the Trump official said.
To the Trump team, it seemed that Obama administration officials had delayed authorizing the plan because they knew it was inadequate and did not want to be held responsible, the official said.
A senior Obama administration official said the criticism was unfounded and a sign of the new White House’s “intelligence insecurity.” In addition to the short memo that Rice gave Flynn, the outgoing administration left a thick package of supplemental material, the Obama official said.
Most of the shortcomings outlined by the Trump team were obvious to Obama’s advisers, he added. In fact, the senior Obama administration official said, arming the Kurds was Obama’s Plan B, after it became clear that Plan A — using Turkish forces to take Raqqa — would not be feasible.
It is up Mattis and Dunford to sort through Syria’s many complexities and come up with a new plan. At the end of Obama’s term, Dunford emerged as one of the most passionate supporters of arming the Kurds, the senior Obama administration official said. Aides declined to describe Mattis’s thinking on the option. Trump has promised to give Dunford and Mattis a free hand, which could lead them right back to some variation of the Obama plan.
“He’s a businessman,” the senior Trump official said of the new president. “His attitude is that I am hiring really good people to make these decisions.”
Re: Levant crisis - III
I have a feeling a couple of marine MEU brigades could be deployed out of jordan to provide fire support and armour for the Raqqa thing ... as in Qayarrah in mosul. a fitting place to use harriers and JSF from land as well using fwd base.
and widespread use of heavy bombers to hunt down ISIS nodes in the desert....
by end Feb we should know....
and widespread use of heavy bombers to hunt down ISIS nodes in the desert....
by end Feb we should know....
-
UlanBatori
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Levant crisis - III
The key term and difference I see is "co-ordination with the Russians". Will make all the difference.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Al masdar....palmyra will fall soon
BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:10 P.M.) – Minutes ago, a Syrian military source told Al-Masdar News that the Islamic State terrorist organization set ablaze the last wells at the Hayyan Gas Fields in order to make the site no longer useful for the government.
This news comes just hours after the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah liberated the strategic Jihar Crossroad, putting them at the outskirts of the Hayyan Gas Fields.
Hayyan Gas Fields were once the largest source of gas to millions of Syrians; its loss in December proved incredibly costly for the Syrian government, as they were already dealing with a water crisis in Damascus.
Advertisement
ISIS has been rapidly withdrawing from several sites in the western countryside of Palmyra, as the Syrian Arab Army and their allies from Hezbollah push further east in order to liberate the gas fields under the terrorist group’s control.
BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:10 P.M.) – Minutes ago, a Syrian military source told Al-Masdar News that the Islamic State terrorist organization set ablaze the last wells at the Hayyan Gas Fields in order to make the site no longer useful for the government.
This news comes just hours after the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah liberated the strategic Jihar Crossroad, putting them at the outskirts of the Hayyan Gas Fields.
Hayyan Gas Fields were once the largest source of gas to millions of Syrians; its loss in December proved incredibly costly for the Syrian government, as they were already dealing with a water crisis in Damascus.
Advertisement
ISIS has been rapidly withdrawing from several sites in the western countryside of Palmyra, as the Syrian Arab Army and their allies from Hezbollah push further east in order to liberate the gas fields under the terrorist group’s control.
Re: Levant crisis - III
Palmyra and t4 while a tactical victory was a huge strategic blunder by isis. Saa was not about to attack there. They lost a ton of technicals and a couple thousand trained fighters who might have been useful later.
They are into the funnel where trained people are lost with no replacement or green zealots only.
Perhaps they expected a quick victory in deir azzor and building it up as a second raqqa. Lost 100s of elites there as well.
Pmu is going in now to clean up tal afar and mosul west. Prisoners are unlikely.
This leaves only few desert hamlets like al baaj in iraq and al qaim in anbar not under attack by someone. On every other front they are active and mad dawg Mattis is yet to unleash his wrath....
They are into the funnel where trained people are lost with no replacement or green zealots only.
Perhaps they expected a quick victory in deir azzor and building it up as a second raqqa. Lost 100s of elites there as well.
Pmu is going in now to clean up tal afar and mosul west. Prisoners are unlikely.
This leaves only few desert hamlets like al baaj in iraq and al qaim in anbar not under attack by someone. On every other front they are active and mad dawg Mattis is yet to unleash his wrath....
-
UlanBatori
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Levant crisis - III
If DT wants to beat ISIS he should probably focus on Libya and Lebanon, shouldn't he? Given the SNAFU for the past 4 years, I do not see that US has any strategic interest left in Syria.
Re: Levant crisis - III
lebanon to my knowledge is half controlled by a saud friendly Govt (michael aoun) and half by hezbollah . its not a hangout place of ISIS because hezbollah keeps a hawks eye on things.
the syria-israel border and syria-jordan border does have some isis-pasand militias. not a strategic threat as the main ISIS in eastern syria but enough of a PITA to keep certain strong syrian formations always tied down there, which perhaps is the whole idea why they are allowed to operate. see yarmouk camp on google earth. its not that far from center of damascus! east ghouta serves the same purpose but gradually the pus is being cleaned and sent off to idlib pocket by pocket. assad did not panic and fall back to his capital , he contained such threats and sent his army to aleppo , palmyra and latakia to fight.
libya does have isis, but khalifa haftar and his army are onsite to fight them, not yet a existential threat.
for now the main focus has to be eastern syria and iraq. 95% of ISIS is there.
the syria-israel border and syria-jordan border does have some isis-pasand militias. not a strategic threat as the main ISIS in eastern syria but enough of a PITA to keep certain strong syrian formations always tied down there, which perhaps is the whole idea why they are allowed to operate. see yarmouk camp on google earth. its not that far from center of damascus! east ghouta serves the same purpose but gradually the pus is being cleaned and sent off to idlib pocket by pocket. assad did not panic and fall back to his capital , he contained such threats and sent his army to aleppo , palmyra and latakia to fight.
libya does have isis, but khalifa haftar and his army are onsite to fight them, not yet a existential threat.
for now the main focus has to be eastern syria and iraq. 95% of ISIS is there.
Re: Levant crisis - III
usual story @ al bab
daesh hit turks with 4 ATGMs devastating some BMPs
killed some more by luring them into a minefield
killed/wounded some 15 more with a vbied
tiger force should turn 90' and head east to Manbij asap. let these ISIS cadre sworn to death duel with the turks alone.
daesh hit turks with 4 ATGMs devastating some BMPs
killed some more by luring them into a minefield
killed/wounded some 15 more with a vbied
tiger force should turn 90' and head east to Manbij asap. let these ISIS cadre sworn to death duel with the turks alone.
Re: Levant crisis - III
@singha saar , aoun is a christian , saudi and qatar was backing hariri
Re: Levant crisis - III
I read Aoun also is on good terms with riyadh but nasrallah the hezbollah c-in-c is cool about it.
backfires dropped off the usual 6x12x250lb on deir azzor yesterday again. mainly they hit warehouses and suspected bunkers on the periphery of deir azzor is daesh occupied areas . tribal & town militia fighters on Govt side in deir azzor always cover their faces with a scarf in videos to avoid reprisals against their kin in daesh areas
backfires dropped off the usual 6x12x250lb on deir azzor yesterday again. mainly they hit warehouses and suspected bunkers on the periphery of deir azzor is daesh occupied areas . tribal & town militia fighters on Govt side in deir azzor always cover their faces with a scarf in videos to avoid reprisals against their kin in daesh areas
Re: Levant crisis - III
Pathetic - that's not going to do anything. I understand the TU-22's only carry 12 x 250lb bombs because they're running a full load of fuel? What is their theoretical max bomb load?Singha wrote:I read Aoun also is on good terms with riyadh but nasrallah the hezbollah c-in-c is cool about it.
backfires dropped off the usual 6x12x250lb on deir azzor yesterday again. mainly they hit warehouses and suspected bunkers on the periphery of deir azzor is daesh occupied areas . tribal & town militia fighters on Govt side in deir azzor always cover their faces with a scarf in videos to avoid reprisals against their kin in daesh areas
Re: Levant crisis - III
Today its 72 bombs per alternate day as 6 backfires run the play together..
Their real capacity is imo 24 if the bay if filled up and 18 externally on two very long inboard pylons...
Travelling light to extend range and avoid multiple a2a refueling
Their real capacity is imo 24 if the bay if filled up and 18 externally on two very long inboard pylons...
Travelling light to extend range and avoid multiple a2a refueling
Re: Levant crisis - III
They (the RuAF) really need to be operating from Iran. According to Wikipedia's page on the TU-22M (the variant Russia is using over Syria), it can carry up to 69 x 250lb bombs. Picture six TU-22's raining over 400 accurately delivered bombs (thanks to their SVP-24 systems). A single TU-22 could deliver as many bombs as six aircraft currently. They could run a train all day and virtually bomb ISIS 'round the clock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M
But it seems as though the Russians and Iranians have had a serious falling out of late...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M
But it seems as though the Russians and Iranians have had a serious falling out of late...