Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

[Federate]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

Armenian inhabited quarters in Aleppo suffer from rebel mortar attacks on an almost daily basis but they have been relatively safe for a long while now as there is little to no ground-to-ground fighting there. But the situation remains volatile for us because the edge of our quarters is basically where the front line is. Syrian Army control in central Aleppo ends with the Armenian/Christian areas, anything east and north is rebels or Kurds. Thankfully no new martyrs to report in the last few weeks. Our boys still keeping a watchful eye over our areas


Midan and Suleymaniye in the middle is where most Armenians live. Red is SAA, green is rebels, olive is unclear/contested, yellow is Kurds.

Eastern Aleppo (where rebels are based) will see a major offensive during the rest of year as the Syrian Army has been successfully winning battles around the airport for much of the last 6 months. The airport is functional once again but only for small-time military purposes.

In general, the army has made major gains all across the country especially given that there is rebel infighting on a grander scale. Don't believe the lies that it is moderate vs jihadist as the mainstream media tries to spin it. It's actually a complex alliance of "moderate" Islamists, Salafists and Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda) VS ISIL (branch of Al Qaeda that split from it). Hopefully they kill each other enough for the Syrian Army to secure most areas in the country. Besides Aleppo, two regions to look out for this spring is Damascus countryside and Daraa province in the south. Hezbollah and Syrian Army are launching an offensive on the jihadists in Damascus countryside area that borders Lebanon to stop suicide bombings from happening in Lebanon. In Daraa, there has been months of speculation that the CIA has been training a few thousand rebels in Jordan for a year now in the hopes of launching a cross border offensive into Daraa province that will lead the way for them to attack Damascus. It's going to be a bloody spring.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

Armenian inhabited quarters in Aleppo suffer from rebel mortar attacks on an almost daily basis but they have been relatively safe for a long while now as there is little to no ground-to-ground fighting there. But the situation remains volatile for us because the edge of our quarters is basically where the front line is. Syrian Army control in central Aleppo ends with the Armenian/Christian areas, anything east and north is rebels or Kurds. Thankfully no new martyrs to report in the last few weeks. Our boys still keeping a watchful eye over our areas


Midan and Suleymaniye in the middle is where most Armenians live. Red is SAA, green is rebels, olive is unclear/contested, yellow is Kurds.

Eastern Aleppo (where rebels are based) will see a major offensive during the rest of year as the Syrian Army has been successfully winning battles around the airport for much of the last 6 months. The airport is functional once again but only for small-time military purposes.

How is an army that, in two years, can't take even a street, and whose only solution to that inability to take a street is to destroy that street entirely, going to be capable of winning a conclusive victory over anything (anything except ruins that is)? And why did it loose the street in the first place? Does the Syrian army have any overall strategy - is it capable of having one and of following through with it?

[Federate]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

How is an army that, in two years, can't take even a street, and whose only solution to that inability to take a street is to destroy that street entirely, going to be capable of winning a conclusive victory over anything (anything except ruins that is)? And why did it loose the street in the first place? Does the Syrian army have any overall strategy - is it capable of having one and of following through with it?

Aleppo is a tough case because of its proximity to the Turkish border and its distance to the capital. Thousands of rebels streamed into the city from the countryside in the summer of 2012 and have settled themselves in residential areas in the east. If what you said is true, it could have just laid waste to the entire area and moved on which would have in the meantime killed thousands of civilians who remain in the city and have nowhere else to go. The nature of the war makes it extremely slow paced given snipers, IEDs, anti-tank weapons, anti-air weapons etc. all being regular weapons and tactics used by the rebels. In many cases, rebels have tanks as well. Recall how long it took for the mighty US Army to "pacify" (read: burn to the ground) a small city like Fallujah or how disastrous the First Battle of Grozny was for the Russian military.

The war won't end in a conclusive military victory if all factors remain as they are. What will happen is what's been happening for the last year: the army slowly chips away at rebel territories whose ultimate strength will always be, for obvious reason, around border areas. The goal of the government seems to be to gain as much advantage possible on the battlefield to eventually force at least some of the rebel groups to negotiate an end to their activities. Of course no such thing is possible with the most radical types (of which there are countless in Syria) so we may be looking at a case of Iraq post-US occupation insurgency 2.0. in Syria for many years to come.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

Aleppo is a tough case because of its proximity to the Turkish border and its distance to the capital. Thousands of rebels streamed into the city from the countryside in the summer of 2012 and have settled themselves in residential areas in the east. If what you said is true, it could have just laid waste to the entire area and moved on which would have in the meantime killed thousands of civilians who remain in the city and have nowhere else to go. The nature of the war makes it extremely slow paced given snipers, IEDs, anti-tank weapons, anti-air weapons etc. all being regular weapons and tactics used by the rebels. In many cases, rebels have tanks as well. Recall how long it took for the mighty US Army to "pacify" (read: burn to the ground) a small city like Fallujah or how disastrous the First Battle of Grozny was for the Russian military.

The war won't end in a conclusive military victory if all factors remain as they are. What will happen is what's been happening for the last year: the army slowly chips away at rebel territories whose ultimate strength will always be, for obvious reason, around border areas. The goal of the government seems to be to gain as much advantage possible on the battlefield to eventually force at least some of the rebel groups to negotiate an end to their activities. Of course no such thing is possible with the most radical types (of which there are countless in Syria) so we may be looking at a case of Iraq post-US occupation insurgency 2.0. in Syria for many years to come.

I take all those points. But it doesn't entirely account for the amateurishness and failure of the Syrian army. Somewhere I remember reading that a reason for the early losses were that all the higher ranks in the army were a lacklustre lot who panicked and shot off abroad and are now sunning themselves in Lebanese beaches and such like. Those that remained behind were those who had some commitment to continue fighting and that is what eventually stopped the rebel advances. But it is true that the only solution the Syrian army has on the battlefield is to mostly destroy what it seeks to capture, and to very easily give up what it controls when attacked and then have to put a hell of a lot of time and effort into recapturing it again (when a proper strategy might have prevented it from ever being lost in the first place). And regaining control of the borders is essential - and probably far more important that regaining control of rebel territory that is supplied through rebel control of those borders.

[Federate]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

I take all those points. But it doesn't entirely account for the amateurishness and failure of the Syrian army. Somewhere I remember reading that a reason for the early losses were that all the higher ranks in the army were a lacklustre lot who panicked and shot off abroad and are now sunning themselves in Lebanese beaches and such like. Those that remained behind were those who had some commitment to continue fighting and that is what eventually stopped the rebel advances. But it is true that the only solution the Syrian army has on the battlefield is to mostly destroy what it seeks to capture, and to very easily give up what it controls when attacked and then have to put a hell of a lot of time and effort into recapturing it again (when a proper strategy might have prevented it from ever being lost in the first place). And regaining control of the borders is essential - and probably far more important that regaining control of rebel territory that is supplied through rebel control of those borders.

Indeed, much of the gains made by the rebels were originally made in the first year of the war when there was massive disarray in the Syrian Army. This is due to a variety of factors which include lack of preparedness for asymmetric warfare due to the fact that the Syrian Army was trained for decades to fight a conventional war against Israel. This might help explain why its 2011-12 tactics in Homs were destructive. Add this to the relative surprise of the uprising occurring in the first place (not many predicted Syria would happen) and to corruption of officers in the largely conscript army and you had massive problems to deal with. But the single worst thing that happened to the Syrian Army in the first year that led to the government losing so much ground is army defections. How can an army function when there were holes being poked on a weekly basis from those who were defecting? So much of the first year and a half went by in these conditions until the defections eventually stopped. All those that wanted to defect already did and all those who proved to be cowards already fled the country. It's interesting to note that as much as the mainstream media likes to portray this as a sectarian war (which is accurate to some extent), it is a fact that the majority of the Syrian Army is made up of Sunnis as well.

The tactics which you describe about destruction and quick withdrawal were true early on but not anymore. The current prevalent tactic in many areas is for the government to simply lay a siege district by district after which it either negotiates a surrender for rebels in exchange for their amnesty or it settles it the hard way as it is doing in Aleppo and advances slowly building by building. I agree about your comment about borders. Currently, there's an offensive on the Lebanese one.

[Eddo211]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

Many outside forces were also at hand (and still are) which made things harder for Syria to control its borders....and as always the strive between Shiite and Sunnis so easily pushed over the edge.
Iran will never allow Syria to fall.....its strategic value is too great both in defense of Iran from future attacks and its influence to Hezbollah thus Hamas.

[Federate]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

Many outside forces were also at hand (and still are) which made things harder for Syria to control its borders....and as always the strive between Shiite and Sunnis so easily pushed over the edge.
Iran will never allow Syria to fall.....its strategic value is too great both in defense of Iran from future attacks and its influence to Hezbollah thus Hamas.

I agree with your points. Russia views Syria more or less similarly as well due to Tartous port and due to Syria being a lucrative client of its weaponry.

[Haykakan]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

Intervene? Or End Syrian War?

CNSNews.com
February 28, 2014

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Whether saber rattling or not, word is out that the White House is
"rethinking its options" on intervening in the Syrian war.

The collapse of John Kerry's Geneva 2 talks between the rebels and
regime, the lengthening casualty lists from barrel-bomb attacks, and a
death toll approaching 150,000, are apparently causing second
thoughts.

All the usual suspects are prodding Obama to plunge in, if not with
troops, at least with a no-fly zone to prevent Bashar Assad from using
his air power.

Our frustration is understandable. Yet it does not change the
reality. This is not America's war. Never was. As Obama said, it is
"somebody else's civil war."

Still, the case against intervention needs to be restated.

First and foremost, Obama has no authority to go to war in Syria, for
Congress has never voted to authorize such a war.

An unprovoked attack on Syria would be an impeachable act.

Last August, the American people were almost unanimously opposed to
intervention. The firestorm they created was why Congress ran away
from the Obama-Kerry plan for missile strikes.

So if Obama has no authority to attack Syria, and America does not
want a war, why, after Iraq and Afghanistan, would Obama divide his
nation and plunge his country into that civil war?

What are the arguments for intervention? Same old, same old.

America has a moral obligation to end the barbarism. At the time of
Rwanda we said, "Never again!" Yet it is happening again. And we have
a "Responsibility to Protect" Syrians from a dictator slaughtering his
own people.

But while what is happening in Syria is horrible, all Middle East
ethnic-civil-sectarian wars tend to unfold this way.

And if there is a "moral" obligation to intervene, why does it not
apply to Israel and Turkey, Syria's nearest neighbors? Why does that
moral duty not apply to the European Union, upon whose doorstep Syria
sits? Why is it America's moral obligation, 5,000 miles away? It is
not. The Turks, Israelis, EU and Gulf Arabs who hate Assad would
simply like for us to come and fight their war for them.

The Washington Post says we must address not only the moral
"nightmare," but also the "growing threat ... to vital
U.S. interests."

Exactly what "vital interests" is the Post talking about? Syria has
been ruled by the Assads for 40 years.


And how have our vital interests been imperiled?

And if our vital interests are imperiled, how much more so are those
of Israel and Turkey?

Yet neither has chosen to invest the blood of their sons in bringing
Assad down.

If we have an enemy in this fight, it is al-Qaida, the al-Nusra Front,
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, all of which are terrorist and
implacably anti-American.

And who is keeping these enemies of ours out of Damascus?

Assad, Hezbollah, Iran and our old friend Vladimir Putin.

And who has been supplying the terrorists? Our friends in the Gulf,
with weapons funneled through Turkey, our NATO ally.

Have the interventionists who are beside themselves watching all these
insurrections and wars breaking out thought through what is likely to
happen if we intervene?

The Syrian war would become a more savage affair, as Assad would know
he was now in a fight to the finish. As U.S. air power was committed
to the defeat of Assad, his allies would likely provide more weapons
for his defense. Casualties could soar and the probability of a wider
war would increase geometrically.

Should Assad fall, his routed soldiers and Alawaites and Christians
would face reprisals for which we would be morally responsible, as it
was our intervention that brought this about.

We might have to intervene with troops to stop a massacre by
jihadists.

And if Assad fell, pro-Western rebels would likely have to fight the
al-Qaida rebels for power. Syria could come apart, and we would own
it.

Obama's frustration is understandable. He said two years ago Assad
must go. Assad flipped him off. Obama said use of chemical weapons
would be a "red line" which, if crossed, would bring serious
consequences. Assad's troops apparently crossed that line.

What did we do? Worked with Russia to remove the weapons.

Washington is enraged that Putin continues to support Assad.

But Assad's regime is the recognized and legal government of
Syria. Russia has a naval base in Latakia, is owed billions by
Damascus, and has been Syria's ally for decades. Why should Putin
abandon Assad at our request?

What have we done for him lately? Besides send Billy Jean King to his
Olympics? Why, Putin might ask, should he abandon his Syrian allies
rather than us, the Turks, and Gulf Arabs abandoning ours?

There is a grave moral issue here - for us.

How, under just war theory, can we continue to sustain a conflict that
is killing thousands every month with no end in sight? Are we not
morally obliged to try to stop such a war?

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/intervene-or-end-syrian-war

[Haykakan]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

The good ole days are back thanks to USA and Isreal

17:29 27/02/2014 » IN THE WORLD
Islamists demand levy from Christians in Syrian city

An al Qaeda splinter group has demanded that Christians in a Syrian
city it controls pay a levy in gold and curb displays of their faith
in return for protection, according to a statement posted online on
Wednesday, Reuters reported.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-syria-crisis-raqqa-idUSBREA1P1TY20140226>


The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), mainly composed of foreign
fighters, is widely considered the most radical of the groups fighting
President Bashar al-Assad, and is also engaged in a violent struggle with
rival Islamist rebels.

Its directive to Christians in the eastern city of Raqqa is the latest
evidence of the group's ambition to establish a state in Syria founded on
radical Islamist principles, a prospect that concerns Western and Arab
backers of other rebel groups fighting Assad.

ISIL said it would ensure Christians' safety in exchange for the levy and
their adherence to restrictions on their faith, citing the Islamic legal
precept of 'dhimma.'

It said Christians must not make renovations to churches or other religious
buildings, display religious insignia outside of churches, ring church
bells or pray in public.

It demanded every Christian man pay a tax of up to 17 grams of gold, a levy
that was common in Muslim states centuries ago.

The directive also bans Christians from owning weapons and from selling
pork or wine to Muslims or drinking wine in public.

http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2014/02/27/islam-reuters/

[Haykakan]

Re: Bashar al-Assad, Syria and the Armenian people

There is this story all over the western news networks today that there is a lack of health care in Syria. It really is disgusting how the west funds, arms, encourages a revolutionary war there and than says not enough people are getting health care. Yeh you know the USA has great healthcare right? Like i said disgusting! USA has twice as many people uninsured as the entire population of Syria yet we are criticising it for lack of health care.