The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[maqroll]

Is possible that CSKA Moscow and Galatasaray could meet in the CL 

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

I think (and all views are valid, I guess) that AWOL's words "what if any [assistance]...European nations can individually say "no thanks, guv." are inaccurate. I also don't think that's what Jon actually really meant, either. The NATO members are obliged to assist fellow member nations if they are attacked (article 6 defines what that actually means). They would have to step up, but the extent to which they would do so is hypothetical and would depend on the nature of the attack on [Turkey].

Hold on - this all seems to be very confused because we're on the one hand talking about NATO (and the obligations of the member states) and then European nations individually.

Did AWOL mean those European nations that are part of NATO each taking an individual decision not to do much if Turkey were to try and invoke article 5 as long as another NATO member (here's looking at you across the pond) were to take on the obligations of NATO as a whole?

My point was that if you have a treaty which is based upon collective defence and certain member states (or even the vast majority save one or two) decide not to act upon that (I think the words were to tell Turkey to stick Article 5 up its Al Qaeda loving arse) then you don't really have a treaty based upon collective defence any more.

You can't pick and choose what suits you on any given day of the week - well you can, obviously but with that kind of expedience would come other issues, e.g. potential souring of relations between the other members of the club that remain and a much less attractive proposition for those new potential members whom one is wishing to entice in to the fold

Quote

I don't believe anyone has ever attacked a NATO member and I think the treaty is taken as being genuinely of force and value by nations that might otherwise act in a more hostile fashion.

And the moment someone does and other states say that they can't get involved because they're washing their hair that night and they were never really friends in the first place and so on then it is likely to cease to be taken as being genuinely of force.

The loose military alliance and military consumer bloc was not my description of NATO as it is now (or rather not just the latter ) but what it would surely turn out to be if one of its members tried to invoke the collective defence thing and the others told it to foxtrot oscar (I guess they'd use their own phonetic alphabet in the circumstance).

[blandy]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Hold on - this all seems to be very confused because we're on the one hand talking about NATO (and the obligations of the member states) and then European nations individually.

Did AWOL mean those European nations that are part of NATO each taking an individual decision not to do much if Turkey were to try and invoke article 5 as long as another NATO member (here's looking at you across the pond) were to take on the obligations of NATO as a whole?

My point was that if you have a treaty which is based upon collective defence and certain member states (or even the vast majority save one or two) decide not to act upon that (I think the words were to tell Turkey to stick Article 5 up its Al Qaeda loving arse) then you don't really have a treaty based upon collective defence any more.

 

Um, I think maybe my and AWOLs posts may have caused some confusion for you and so I'm sorry. I don't however think that "this is all very confused" (as a comment on the NATO nations and their choices) I get the sense (perhaps Jon will correct me) that we (AWOL and I) are both talking about NATO nations only (I certainly am). Not European nations individually.

I think AWOL agrees with the content of my posts, above.

I don't think anyone is picking and choosing either -they might wish to, but they can't. I think the sentence you wrote "if you have a treaty which is based upon collective defence and certain member states (or even the vast majority save one or two) decide not to act upon that (I think the words were to tell Turkey to stick Article 5 up its Al Qaeda loving arse) then you don't really have a treaty based upon collective defence any more." is based on a false hypothetical, as the member states can't decide, by the definition in the treaty, not to act upon it. I.e you don't have that kind of treaty. that's not what it says or is founded upon. Quite the opposite.

So IMO any weaselling would be around Turkey not invoking the treaty to call upon the obligations of the other members to assist it, in the event the Russians were to respond to the plane shooting with military actions against Turkey. There is huge pressure on all sides for all sorts of reasons not to escalate this. It's bad enough with the Religionists, they don't want the non (less?) crazies fighting each other too.

[Awol]

43 minutes ago, blandy said:

Um, I think maybe my and AWOLs posts may have caused some confusion for you and so I'm sorry. I don't however think that "this is all very confused" (as a comment on the NATO nations and their choices) I get the sense (perhaps Jon will correct me) that we (AWOL and I) are both talking about NATO nations only (I certainly am). Not European nations individually.

I think AWOL agrees with the content of my posts, above.

I don't think anyone is picking and choosing either -they might wish to, but they can't. I think the sentence you wrote "if you have a treaty which is based upon collective defence and certain member states (or even the vast majority save one or two) decide not to act upon that (I think the words were to tell Turkey to stick Article 5 up its Al Qaeda loving arse) then you don't really have a treaty based upon collective defence any more." is based on a false hypothetical, as the member states can't decide, by the definition in the treaty, not to act upon it. I.e you don't have that kind of treaty. that's not what it says or is founded upon. Quite the opposite.

So IMO any weaselling would be around Turkey not invoking the treaty to call upon the obligations of the other members to assist it, in the event the Russians were to respond to the plane shooting with military actions against Turkey. There is huge pressure on all sides for all sorts of reasons not to escalate this. It's bad enough with the Religionists, they don't want the non (less?) crazies fighting each other too.

Yeah that's pretty much my take on it, I forget sometimes that flippant posts in OT are quickly put to the sword!

I agree with you that no one wants a general escalation between the competing powers at the moment, but sure as eggs is eggs the Russians will neither forgive nor forget this action. Should Turkey offer up an opportunity to even the score, say by rashly violating Syrian sovereign airspace, we may see how the SU-30 matches up in the air to air role against an F-16, or possibly how good the S400 SAM really is - and I understand it's very good.

Still it's interesting to see the big dogs in this fight starting to clear their throats and stake out their positions - the lack of any apparent sympathy for the Russian pilots from the United States was instructive. I still think the world is slowly building for a major war between multiple actors that will not be confined to IS' new playground. We (UK) need to tread very carefully here.  

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

Is possible that CSKA Moscow and Galatasaray could meet in the CL 

Im looking forward to the Euro's draw

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

So IMO any weaselling would be around Turkey not invoking the treaty to call upon the obligations of the other members to assist it, in the event the Russians were to respond to the plane shooting with military actions against Turkey.

I get where you're going/have gone with that and I suppose that's how things are done (look chaps - don't push us on invoking our help as we wouldn't want to give it to you in this circumstance and I'm sure we'll all feel much safer with the whole NATO appearing to back everyone up until actually tested idea) but I still don't accept that, in essence, it's hugely different from where I was pushing my hypothetical.

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

I forget sometimes that flippant posts in OT are quickly put to the sword!

Which one(s) of your several posts on the subject was/were the flippant ones?

21 minutes ago, Awol said:

I still think the world is slowly building for a major war between multiple actors that will not be confined to IS' new playground.

Agreed.

22 minutes ago, Awol said:

We (UK) need to tread very carefully here.

I think we (the world) need to be doing that.

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I still don't accept that, in essence, it's hugely different from where I was pushing my hypothetical.

That's fine snowy. Like I said somewhere up above, all opinions on this are equally valid.

[OutByEaster?]

What is it about Assad that makes the Russian's so keen to defend him and us so keen to remove him?

I get the feeling Assad is the objective and IS are a useful distraction.

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

What is it about Assad that makes the Russian's so keen to defend him and us so keen to remove him?

I get the feeling Assad is the objective and IS are a useful distraction.

For Assad read 'Iran'. If the Sunni majority can take over in Syria Iran loses a major regional ally and the road to resupply Hezbollah in Lebanon which is then isolated. If that happens the Israelis will move heaven and earth to wipe them out.  The basic premise is the Saudi/US/Israeli fear of a rising Iran, which were it not for the revolution in '79 would already be the dominant power in the Middle East. It will be anyway as its demographics, geography, natural resources and human capital make the outcome inevitable, but that won't stop others from trying to block them.  

IS is a real and growing problem independent of this scenario, but if the main actors could get their sh*t in one sock and apply the necessary political will then IS could be rolled up into a manageable problem quite quickly. As above though, many of those local actors are still focusing on Iran instead of the IS wolf preparing to blow their houses down. 

[maqroll]

I think if asked off the record, most Obama admin people who say that they probably should have never made the move against Assad, but it was coming on the heels of the Arab Spring, so they probably thought a little push would be all that it would take to tip the scales against him.

For Russia, Assad was a loyal partner, and part of the non-Sunni circle of friends of Putin, as well as foe of the West, so in effect, a satellite Russian regime.

[snowychap]

On 16/10/2015, 22:40:36, Xann said:

In other news.

Medecins Sans Frontieres are pursuing war crimes charges against the Yanks for bombing their hospital.

Clicky

 

 

U.S. report on Afghan hospital attack 'shocking,' medical group says

Quote

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday that multiple service members were suspended from duty following an investigation into the deadly airstrike last month on a hospital in Kunduz.

Gen. John F. Campbell said the Oct. 3 strike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital, which killed 30 civilians and left 37 others wounded, was "tragic, but avoidable." Human errors compounded by technical malfunctions onboard the AC-130 attack aircraft caused the strike, he said, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon in a video broadcast from Kabul, Afghanistan's capital.

The investigation found that the "cause of this tragedy was … avoidable human error, compounded by process and equipment failures,” Campbell said.

The medical facility was misidentified as a target by U.S. military personnel who believed they were striking a different building several hundred meters away where there were reports of Taliban fighters, he said. The hospital was on the military’s so-called “no-strike list.”

Campbell did not identify the names or number of individuals suspended and did not say whether they would face disciplinary or criminal charges. Decisions on whether to prosecute will be made by the U.S. Special Operations Command, officials said.

"The cornerstone of our military justice system is the independence of decision-makers following a thorough investigation such as this one," Campbell said. "We will study what went wrong and take the right steps to prevent it in the future."

According to the military's investigation, the special operations gunship had sought to attack a building suspected of being used as a base by Taliban insurgents, but the plane's onboard targeting system identified the coordinates as an open field. The crew decided to open fire on a nearby large building, not knowing that it was the Doctors Without Borders hospital.

Because the gunship had been diverted from another mission, the crew had not been briefed on the location of the hospital.

No U.S. military personnel were in visual range of the hospital when Afghan forces, claiming they were under fire, requested the airstrike, the report said.

The summary did not answer all the questions about what went wrong, including whether the errors identified in the report constitute war crimes or why the crew opened fire when it appears they had reason to be uncertain about the target. Campbell did not take questions from reporters after his statement.

Doctors Without Borders, which had previously said the attack likely was a war crime, released a statement saying the report left "more questions than answers."

"It is shocking that an attack can be carried out when U.S. forces have neither eyes on a target nor access to a no-strike list and have malfunctioning communications systems," said the statement from the group, also known as MSF, its French acronym.

"It appears that 30 people were killed and hundreds of thousands of people are denied life-saving care in Kunduz simply because the MSF hospital was the closest large building to an open field and 'roughly matched' a description of an intended target," the statement said.

"The frightening catalogue of errors outlined today illustrates gross negligence on the part of U.S. forces and violations of the rules of war," the group said, repeating its call for an "independent and impartial investigation."

The attack came as American warplanes and ground forces, including an undisclosed number of special operations troops, were assisting an Afghan operation to retake Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, which had fallen to the Taliban in late September.

After five days of fighting, U.S. special operations and their Afghan counterparts had moved into the compound of the provincial chief of police. On Oct. 2, the Afghan military asked an unnamed U.S. special operations commander for air support that night as they cleared a building once used by the Afghan intelligence service that they believed was controlled by Taliban. The American commander promised to have aircraft on standby, Campbell said.

When Afghan troops called for help later that night, the U.S. commander called in an AC-130 aircraft and provided the proper coordinates of the intelligence service building, Campbell said.

But when the air crew put that location into its onboard targeting system, it showed a open field more than 300 yards from the building.

The aircraft was more than eight miles from the target area, a precaution the crew had taken because they thought a missile had been fired at them from the ground, Campbell said. But the distance "degraded the accuracy" of the targeting equipment.

The crew "visually located" the largest building near the open field, which was the hospital, he said.

"This misidentification continued throughout the remainder of the operation, even though there were some contradictory indicators," Campbell said.

When the gunship flew closer, its targeting system "correctly aligned" with the intelligence building, not the hospital, but the crew ignored the system, he said.

The AC-130 aircraft had launched more than an hour early "without conducting a normal mission brief" or receiving a list of locations that it was barred from attacking, including the hospital, he said.

Doctors Without Borders had reminded the U.S. military of the precise coordinates of the hospital multiple times in the days before the airstrike, a warning acknowledged in the military investigation.

A minute before the gunship started firing, the crew transmitted the coordinates of their target to their headquarters at Bagram Airfield, north of Kabul, giving the accurate location of the hospital, Campbell said.

The headquarters "did not realize that the grid coordinates for the target matched a location on the no-strike list," he said.

Just after 2 a.m. Oct. 3, the crew opened fire on the hospital, even though they "did not observe" a firefight under way, the original reason for the airstrike, he said.

The aircraft made multiple passes over the hospital, the largest building in a compound containing half a dozen other structures, firing heavy munitions that left the hospital in flames. In several cases, people running from the building were gunned down, according to Doctors Without Borders.

The U.S. commander in Kunduz, who was not identified, remained at the police compound during the strike and was not within "visual range" of the hospital or the intelligence building, Campbell said.

"Under the circumstances, the U.S. [special operations force ] commander lacked the authority to direct the aircrew to engage the facility" and was "unable to adequately distinguish" between the hospital and the intelligence building, Campbell said.

Doctors Without Borders called U.S. military personnel at Bagram at 2:20 a.m. to tell them the hospital was under attack. But it wasn’t until 17 minutes later – when the AC-130 had already stopped firing -- that the U.S. special operations commander realized the fatal mistake, Campbell said.

The attack destroyed the main hospital building, where medical personnel were catching up on a backlog of surgeries, taking advantage of the first quiet night since Taliban forces seized control of Kunduz five days earlier.

 

[VILLAMARV]

4 hours ago, Awol said:

For Assad read 'Iran'. If the Sunni majority can take over in Syria Iran loses a major regional ally and the road to resupply Hezbollah in Lebanon which is then isolated. If that happens the Israelis will move heaven and earth to wipe them out.  The basic premise is the Saudi/US/Israeli fear of a rising Iran, which were it not for the revolution in '79 would already be the dominant power in the Middle East. It will be anyway as its demographics, geography, natural resources and human capital make the outcome inevitable, but that won't stop others from trying to block them.  

IS is a real and growing problem independent of this scenario, but if the main actors could get their sh*t in one sock and apply the necessary political will then IS could be rolled up into a manageable problem quite quickly. As above though, many of those local actors are still focusing on Iran instead of the IS wolf preparing to blow their houses down. 

And yet again we come full circle. Iran, Israel, Palestine. Whatever has got us to this point, there's no denying Syria is kind of the last piece of the jigsaw when it comes to building a military ring around Iran and even Pakistan. And from NATO's perspective, the only Russian thorn in their side. U.A.E, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and obviously Israel all homes to US or UK naval or air bases. India expanding its operations into Oman and Tajikistan. Russia obviously to the north, with Georgia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan home to its military as well as in Syria itself. All very ominous from an Iranian perspective.

The Russian naval base at Tartus is of massive importance to Putin if he has any designs on building up the Black Sea fleet, and the annexing of Crimea certainly suggests he is. As things stand it's their only naval base in the med. Be nice from his perspective if he could get hold of the Turkish Straits while he was at it though......

[chrisp65]

44 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Out of curiosity what's the objective of the air strikes?

I'm undecided, so I'd like to know what the plan is before making up my mind. So far I've only heard that we need to join in and we need to beat ISIS. But I know the strategy must be far more complex and developed than that, given our recent record.

Quote

from Dem C: We know the Iraq war was a complete lie, but I think this is obviously more of a threat to most of Europe. I dont think they are likely to discuss what the strategy of attack will be as I am sure they won't want IS knowing what they have planned. i just think we are living on borrowed time if IS are not taken out

Does anyone know what the plan is?

I don't mean what date and time are we bombing point 'x' on the map.

I mean, is the plan as simple as portrayed, let's bomb them all dead so they go away?

[Glarmorgan]

On 11/26/2015, 3:36:43, VILLAMARV said:

And yet again we come full circle. Iran, Israel, Palestine. Whatever has got us to this point, there's no denying Syria is kind of the last piece of the jigsaw when it comes to building a military ring around Iran and even Pakistan. And from NATO's perspective, the only Russian thorn in their side. U.A.E, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and obviously Israel all homes to US or UK naval or air bases. India expanding its operations into Oman and Tajikistan. Russia obviously to the north, with Georgia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan home to its military as well as in Syria itself. All very ominous from an Iranian perspective.

The Russian naval base at Tartus is of massive importance to Putin if he has any designs on building up the Black Sea fleet, and the annexing of Crimea certainly suggests he is. As things stand it's their only naval base in the med. Be nice from his perspective if he could get hold of the Turkish Straits while he was at it though......

I think that neither Israel not the Palestinians are big issues in this whole ISIS issue, as ISIS poses no real threat to Israel and quite frankly - as long as Jordan is on its feet and the cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinians security forces continue - I don't think ISIS poses a risk to the Palestinians as well.

Syria is a whole different issue, mainly because there is no such thing anymore. This is why the IDF main goal at the moment is to prevent the Golan heights becoming a focal point for terrorists trying to inflict damage to Israel, while at the same time making sure Hizballa will not be able to get advanced weapon supply from the Syrian regime or the Iranian forces. In any case - whenever this whole thing will be over, the entire region formerly known as "Syria" will be in rubble. It'll take them years to get back to where they were before (and that wasn't a great situation to begin with).

At any point - I can't see Israel attacking Hizballa, even if Syria will fall to the Sunni rebels. Israel is wise enough (at this point) to stay out of this intra-muslim havoc. An attack on Hizballa might cause an effect which will shift the focus from ISIS and Syria towards Israel and Lebanon. I see no reason for this to happen.

[Awol]

7 hours ago, Glarmorgan said:

At any point - I can't see Israel attacking Hizballa, even if Syria will fall to the Sunni rebels. Israel is wise enough (at this point) to stay out of this intra-muslim havoc. An attack on Hizballa might cause an effect which will shift the focus from ISIS and Syria towards Israel and Lebanon. I see no reason for this to happen.

Please correct me if I've got this wrong, but from the outside Israel appears to be further to the right politically than at any time I can remember (level of influence by Ultra Orthodox factions, the settler movement and Netanyahu himself), with a US Republican Party frothing to support just about anything you may wish to do.

IF Syria fell and Hezbollah were isolated in Southern Lebanon, I simply can't imagine Israel not taking the opportunity to try and take them off the threat board once and for all - with the US watching your political back. It would certainly be a costly business, but on balance not a surprising move.    

As for the focus of IS, Al Nusra et al, taking Al Quds is a major goal as you well know. They won't need any encouragement to try and push on the Golan (however unsuccessfully) if given freedom of maneuver in Syria, regardless of Israel's action or inaction in Lebanon.     

[Glarmorgan]

8 hours ago, Awol said:

Please correct me if I've got this wrong, but from the outside Israel appears to be further to the right politically than at any time I can remember (level of influence by Ultra Orthodox factions, the settler movement and Netanyahu himself), with a US Republican Party frothing to support just about anything you may wish to do.

IF Syria fell and Hezbollah were isolated in Southern Lebanon, I simply can't imagine Israel not taking the opportunity to try and take them off the threat board once and for all - with the US watching your political back. It would certainly be a costly business, but on balance not a surprising move.    

As for the focus of IS, Al Nusra et al, taking Al Quds is a major goal as you well know. They won't need any encouragement to try and push on the Golan (however unsuccessfully) if given freedom of maneuver in Syria, regardless of Israel's action or inaction in Lebanon.     

 

Israel, as seem from the outside, is a hell lot different than what it seems from the inside (or, for a matter of fact, what it really is). The current government is and should be labeled as a right wing government. Still, as things work here - this government is doing practically nothing. Pushing for "peace" is not even an option at this moment and all in all - Israel and its government (which I do not like...) are well aware that the best strategy is to sit tight and let the Sunni and Shiite loonies cleanse one another (at least we're not blamed at that as well...).

So what if opportunity arises? Well, war, especially since 1973, is a delicate issue in Israel (at this stage I expect many to state how we butcher the Palestinians and apartheid and so on. Save it). As I said - there is a huge difference between how we are perceived and how things really work here. A government, even a right wing government, will not wage war on Hizballa/Lebanon without a clear Casus Beli. This will just not work, as it will drag and internal uprising against it and eventually will bring the downfall of the government. If Hizballa attacks - that's one thing (as it did on the second Lebanon war) but at long as this does not happen - Israel will not make any major move in Lebanon.

o not forget one things - Israel had its chances to obliterate Lebanon and you must be aware to the fact that Israel posses the technology and ability to do so. But Israel did not. Israel didn't even draft all of its reserve army, as Israel do not see a point in trying to obliterate Hizballa. Israel, unlike Russia, does not carpet bomb, therefore the only way to eliminate Hizbulla is through a full scale war with a full draft of its reserve army, which will halt the entire economy here, and bring hundreds of KIAs. This is just not worth it since Hizballa does not pose a real threat on Israel's existance. Israel prefers a weakened Hizballa, considering you have no idea what will take Hizballa's place when its gone.

As for ISIS and Jerusalem - I guess they have their intentions. I seriously doubt their ability to make this a reality. If they will try to make any move in the Golan, they will run into the might of the IDF, which is far superior than anything they ran into up until now (leave the Russians aside). Frankly, it will be a crazy move from their part as it will bring the strongest military force in the middle east into action and this will definitely hamper any plans they have in Syria, Iraq or Jordan. One might like it or not, but the sheer fact that Israel chose to annex the Golan Heights and not to secede them to Syria - is what keeps us relatively safe at the moment. If the Golan was under Syrian control, ready and open for ISIS troops - I have no doubt Israel would have to reconquer it to protect the Galilee from the Islamic loonies running amok over there.

[Kingman]

I stocked up with Turkish Delights yesterday before Russia gets the hump!

[TrentVilla]

 

So today brings claims from a Kurdish Pashmerga fighter that US Special Forces have been operational and fighting ISIS in Syria for months. 

There are claims of a video showing this but the video doesn't appear to be part of the reports.

It is easy to assume it is true, I mean it seems likely doesn't it but I just find it hard to believe it wouldn't have come out sooner.

Its been denied by the U.S. (yes I know... I know)

[chrisp65]

from a few days ago, a story about Homs

BBC

Quote

Syrian rebels have begun evacuating the last district they control in the city of Homs under a ceasefire deal reached with the government.

Those leaving al-Wair, under siege for almost three years, will travel to rebel-held areas of Idlib province.

Homs was once dubbed the "capital of the revolution" and saw some of the first protests of the 2011 uprising.

But the truce means the entire city returns to government control, in a boost for President Bashar al-Assad.

Buses arrived on Wednesday to transport fighters and their families out of the Homs suburb of al-Wair.

About 700 people, including rebel fighters and civilians, are due to depart throughout Wednesday, Homs governor Talal Barazi said.

Fighters linked to al-Qaeda are among those due to leave, but moderate groups who have accepted the ceasefire are expected to remain.

 

Essentially, Assad's forces are now nominally back in control of Homs. A deal has been brokered by the UN for a ceasefire with many rebel groups being put on buses and shipped out of the area. Groups affiliated to AQ have decided to leave and fight elsewhere, 'moderates' have decided to surrender their heavy weapons and remain in their home town with their families.

 

 

[maqroll]

Massive protest in Tehran outside the Saudi embassy. Molotov cocktails and all. Not happy with a Shia cleric's state execution (along with 47 others today).