ISIS/ISIL conflict in Syria/Iraq (No OpEd, No Politics)

Obama Drops Syria Training Plan, Shifts to Equipping Fighters
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



As expected, Obama makes some statement criticising Russia's actions and that appears to be the end of the story. What is noticeably absent is any policy response towards Russian actions that is effectively degrading groups supported by the U.S. administration. If you are collaborating with the US, that is not a very reassuring commitment. I don't see the US stepping up in its actions and viewing it as a proxy fight. For example, what about a tit for tat threatening to hit Assad's forces as a way to contain Russia's actions? It is sign of policy weakness in the face of Russian assertiveness.

Obviously the policy change from before is that instead of both vetting potential recipients and supplying weapons to them now the US is only going to supply weapons. The question is who is going to receive them and what kinds of weapons will be provided?
 

Brumby

Major
DoD lowers vetting standards for Syrian rebel training program

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Pentagon's new strategy for training and equipping Syrian rebels will markedly scale back the rigorous screening and vetting process designed to ensure the rebels do not have links to terrorists or extremist groups, top defense officials said Friday.

The new policy will require that the "leaders" of rebel units undergo the vetting process and allow American weapons and money to flow to militant groups with little or no scrutiny of rank-and-file fighters.

"This is a different approach where we are going to be vetting leaders as opposed to each individual fighter," Christine Wormuth, undersecretary of defense for policy, told reporters Friday.

White House Once Again Weighing Intervention Options in Syria

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is now official: the program to arm and train Syrian moderates, the one that leapt from “fantasy” to policy priority between August and September of last year is now officially winding down. Its failure leaves the administration facing options it doesn’t care for in a war it doesn’t want to enter in a world that has made American inaction almost as hard to imagine as American intervention.

Elected to end wars, not begin new ones, President Barack Obama has shied away from heavy intervention in Syria ever since the uprising began more than four years ago. The White House’s numerous Syria-policy discussions have almost always ended with a decision against greater support to Syrian moderate opposition or no decision at all, according to current and former administration officials working on Syria policy.

“It wasn’t a very rich debate about Syria writ large, it was just a very flat, stale predictable set of discussions at the highest levels and that didn’t change from year to year all that much,” said one former senior administration official. “We were a little detached from the conflict because we had the impression we could keep the lid on it, and looking back, I think that was clearly wishful thinking.”

Said this former official, “The goal of U.S. policy from day one was not to get engaged and that has failed. We are there.”

Now, with ISIS showing no signs of collapse, a humanitarian catastrophe spilling into Europe, and Russia launching its own military operations in Syria, the Obama administration is once again deliberating policy options.

Last week, the President met over lunch with Robert Ford, the former ambassador to Syria who publicly broke with the administration over its Syria policy; and Ryan Crocker, a storied diplomat who served in Syria and turned down the Syrian envoy role in 2013.

“I don’t want to comment on last week at all except to say that for a long time my sense of what needs to be done in Syria and the impact of Syria on regional interests has not always been the same as other people in the administration,” Ford said. “That is why I needed to leave. And that hasn’t changed.”

Ford, like other former administration officials, said that the reluctance to intervene began at the very top — with the president.

“There has always been in this administration a deep reluctance to get very involved in Syria. And they view even providing material assistance to elements of the opposition a form of deep involvement,” Ford said. “Of course, in the end what has happened is that they have often waited for the perfect at the expense of the good, so by 2014, instead of having Syria indigenous forces fighting the Islamic State and prevailing, we had to use American air power, which is more expensive and will damage our credibility even more if it is not successful.”

Administration officials now working on Syria policy say they are hashing out what further intervention might look like and what kind of support to offer those who have received American training.

“This is no longer about moderates or not moderates, because the Russians are taking them out,” says one administration official familiar with current conversations. “So people say, ‘Okay, we cede Syria to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia,’ or we feel we need to be involved in this game so we can continue to have a hope of countering ISIL and having enough leverage to influence the search for a political solution.”

Conversations are said to be underway now that will be “resolved by next week” surrounding the CIA-backed program to support rebel fighters and how much support those fighters might hope to receive.

“The final moment of truth is if they fail at adequately protecting the moderates the Russians are seeking to destroy,” the official said

A pathetic state of affairs. Classic instructions on how to loose friends and strengthen your enemies.
 

Brumby

Major
Obviously the policy change from before is that instead of both vetting potential recipients and supplying weapons to them now the US is only going to supply weapons. The question is who is going to receive them and what kinds of weapons will be provided?

Someone in the administration needs to take a basic course in quality control management because if you don't have a quality control process in place or your standard is low, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the end result will come back and bite you in some shape or form. In fact the quality control isn't even the heart of the problem but the policy of this administration. The poor outcome of the training program is because of the insistence that the recruits take the fight only with ISIS and not the Assad regime. There is an immediate contradiction to the policy narrative that the Assad regime must go because the present mess is a result of the regime.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
You are probably right that Russia is potentially over extending itself particularly with falling oil prices. In the interim though it is significantly disrupting Western plans, forcing recalibration, and making the US looking rather ineffectual in its foreign policies.


In the absence of information on damage assessment it is not possible to make a judgement especially viz-a-viz alternative means of delivery. However that is not the point. The significance of this event is demonstration of technology that the Russians have similar capability for long range strike using cruise strikes. This point is probably not lost on existing and potential clients of Russia that may not have access to U.S. technology. It opens up the reality that a second or third rate Navy can park their 1000 ton Corvette 200 nm offshore and pose a threat to other nations.

In terms of probability of arrival (PA), assuming the 4 that landed in Iran is accurate it is still a 85 % hit rate, albeit that the targets probably offered no counter measures to degrade the PA. As a comparison, on opening night of Operation Desert Storm, a B-52 delivered 35 CALCMs against high priority targets in Iraq with 30 hitting their targets. During the same campaign, the hit rate of laser guided bombs were 85 % and 80 % for F-111 and F-117 respectively. In essence, 80% to 85 % PA for PGM's is the norm based on past experience.


The conversation is not about US capability to do the same as there is no dispute that the US has the widest options to do the same through its carriers, SSGN's, Burkes, et al.
The point is that it opens up a whole new ball game for nations with very tight military budget. This is demonstration of asymmetry warfare using low end vessels.

4 hit a different country. They missed so bad that they ended up in another country! How embarrassing is that for Russia manufacturers. Do you honestly believe that the 22 that landed in the correct country all hit the correct targets? The Russian weapons are not very accurate. There is a reason why China haven't bought them since the Su-30s.

By your measure, the Turkish military could also launch a bunch of missiles into Syria and probably actually have higher accuracy, because they would actually be using Western rather than Russian weapons. But they are not doing it. It's not incumbent on America to do everything. All this has shown is that Russia has a second rate military which will continue to decline over time.

Also, you don't really need this particular Russian intervention to know that a third rate military can park a vessel 200 nm away and hit another country. Remember the C-802 strike on INS Hanit? Anyone with limited resource know that you have to go through asymmetrical warfare. But if you want the ability to hit anywhere in foreign contested waters, that certainly won't do it. In the end of the day, each country's navy knows what they need for their strategic goals and nothing Russia demonstrate here is going to tell them anything new. There is a reason why all these countries have been buying Russian and Chinese anti-ship missiles to put on their little ships. They've known this all along.

On another note, anytime that US goes into this kind of conflict, American tax payers are the ones paying for the cost of operation in the end. So while this may not cost you anything, but it will cost me.
 
Last edited:

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
I think people maybe looking too much into these naval strikes

Yes Russia did it but so could many other country's

But the question really is, it's one thing having a capability totally another to carry it out

There is a saying, it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog that counts

Russia did not show any capability, but what they did show is that they have guts and balls to go infront of NATO standing members conduct a strike and then tell the the whole story

Obama and his admin once again totally out smarted by Russian moves once in Crimea and now in Syria
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Daily Mail and UK Express (and others) reporting that Turkey has show down a Russian Jet that crossed into their air space.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Daily Mail said:
according to unconfirmed reports on social media.

It has been claimed by eyewitnesses that there was a large explosion in Huraytan, northern Syria, while three fighter planes were seen overhead.

Rumours of a jet being shot out of the sky come amid heightening tensions between Russian president Vladimir Putin and the West.


According to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, one journalist tweeted that three Turkish planes had been responding to 'mysterious' lock-ons from MIG-29 jets, which are used by Putin's forces.

It comes days after another Russian aircraft violated Turkish airspace.

If true, this is a very serious development. Turkey is a member of NATO, any attack on Turkey could result in a much more serious conflict.
 
Top