• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WaPo: In Syria and Iraq, ISIS is on the retreat

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good, ISIS is a blight to humanity. Hopefully the world will use the down time between the fall of ISIS and the rise of the next major terrorist cell to start making the reforms necessary to start stopping these extremist groups at an early stage as opposed to acting when it becomes a full grown force be it a quasi-state like ISIS or more underground like Al-Qaeda. In the short term I do wonder what the best way to hold potentially tens of thousands of ISIS prisoners. Do we have to build compounds to hold them together? Would that just help the reinforce their ideals or do we spread them out a risk them radicalizing others? I'd have to imagine keeping all of them in isolation we be to costly. In addition do we keep them held in Syria and Iraq? or do we need to send them to other nations around the world?
 

Fularu

Banned
That's simply not true. If you think the "western média" is lying, you can just hit open source information. For instance: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png#filehistory

Russia started bombing for Assad at the end of September, 2015. Since then Assad's gains have been mostly at the expense of rebels held positions rather than ISIS.
Also note that since Putin's intervention ISIS still holds pretty much the same borderland with Turkey as it did before.
QqaLn5O.gif


The real game changer has been the formation of SDF and the open Western (coalition) support for it - and prior to that, the YPG, within Syrian borders. Down to A-10 ground attack BRRRRRRRRs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnwwzkk5lss&t=1m38s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83oGww3crx4&t=1m54s

I was wondering when you would show up.

No, Russia has been bombing the various convoys bringing weapons and militants to ISIS through Turkey. There's a reason why their supplies are drying out and why Tyrkey has been so belligerent against Russia in the region, it's a huge money loss for them.

The SDF is barely a factor, the only reason they are making any kind of progress against ISIS is thanks to the heavy Russian strikes crippling ISIS mobility and reactiveness.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
The Russian airstrikes was heavily criticized by nearly everyone that was involved in the conflict mostly because it was believed to not care about civilians and they seemingly purposefully struck hospitals. All them are allegations with some varying degrees of evidence. The Russian strikes mostly did not target ISIS only the opposition, but once they did target ISIS it was only if the government was under threat which has been said. The strategy was it was targeting anyone that was the threat to the government and it was mostly the opposition.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/politics/us-criticizes-russia-airstrikes-syria-civilians/
http://www.businessinsider.com/23-d...airstrike-on-hospitals-school-in-syria-2016-2
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...orth-as-rebels-withdraw-from-kurdish-villages
http://www.voanews.com/content/amne...es-target-hospitals-deliberately/3217991.html
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-re...ed-hospitals-near-aleppo#.Vtfha0kwkrg.twitter
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-in-syria-killed-2000-civilians-in-six-months

I'm not going to click those links since what you are saying is more than believable. I was just saying that Russia had the best overall plan. Fighting the rebels + ISIS to secure the government is the best plan, imo. If Assad is dethroned right now, then either one of the rebel groups will fill the vacuum or some unknown military general will.

Assad has committed numerous crimes against humanity but he needs to stay as president to keep things together. Russia's plan was to support his regime, end the civil war and remove him (probably grant him asylum in Russia). I'm sure this wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts since every country involved in the conflict has vested interests in the region. However, I think that this was the best plan for Syria and against ISIS.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Good, ISIS is a blight to humanity. Hopefully the world will use the down time between the fall of ISIS and the rise of the next major terrorist cell to start making the reforms necessary to start stopping these extremist groups at an early stage as opposed to acting when it becomes a full grown force be it a quasi-state like ISIS or more underground like Al-Qaeda. In the short term I do wonder what the best way to hold potentially tens of thousands of ISIS prisoners. Do we have to build compounds to hold them together? Would that just help the reinforce their ideals or do we spread them out a risk them radicalizing others? I'd have to imagine keeping all of them in isolation we be to costly. In addition do we keep them held in Syria and Iraq? or do we need to send them to other nations around the world?

Separating them is definitely better than keeping them in one spot. In fact, keeping them together is exactly how ISIS formed in the first place. A bunch of captured militants formed contacts and networks in US prisons during the Iraq war.

As for what to do in a possible downtime, I think Boko Haram in Nigeria and those other West African militants should be next on the list. Al-Shabaab in Somalia is also a problem but they've been around for years and I feel that they aren't as infectious as the others.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
The question was what do you do with them? What would you do with terrorist who willing kill innocent lives and want to bring about the apocalypse? This isn't a war between two countries and are forced by their government to fight for their country. It's literally terrorist vs the world, including their fellow countrymen.

Something being a tough question doesn't mean we shrug and pick and answer we know to be bad.
 
I'm not going to click those links since what you are saying is more than believable. I was just saying that Russia had the best overall plan. Fighting the rebels + ISIS to secure the government is the best plan, imo. If Assad is dethroned right now, then either one of the rebel groups will fill the vacuum or some unknown military general will.

Assad has committed numerous crimes against humanity but he needs to stay as president to keep things together. Russia's plan was to support his regime, end the civil war and remove him (probably grant him asylum in Russia). I'm sure this wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts since every country involved in the conflict has vested interests in the region. However, I think that this was the best plan for Syria and against ISIS.

My point was directed at the last point were you said that it was a PR success in the world stage which it clearly wasn't. Either most were negative or neutral at best in terms of the governments. I'm not really concerned to whom has the best strategy at the moment( I disagree that Russians have a better one), but another point was the goal was to protect the government from anybody opposing them, but that was the mainly the opposition nine times out of ten. Clearly by looking at the map and some other articles the rebels lost more territory to the Kurds in Azaz( the place in left corner) and the government, and ISIS lost more to the SDF and the only notable gains the government had over ISIS was the airbase and some areas around it .
 

Walpurgis

Banned
My point was directed at the last point were you said that it was a PR success in the world stage which it clearly wasn't. Either most were negative or neutral at best in terms of the governments. I'm not really concerned to whom has the best strategy at the moment( I disagree that Russians have a better one), but another point was the goal was to protect the government from anybody opposing them, but that was the mainly the opposition nine times out of ten. Clearly by looking at the map and some other articles the rebels lost more territory to the Kurds in Azaz( the place in left corner) and the government, and ISIS lost more to the SDF and the only notable gains the government had over ISIS was the airbase and some areas around it .

Here is the article that I got that idea from.
Russia's Syrian campaign showcases weaponry, maybe 'even profitable,' Kremlin backer says
But for a five-and-a-half-month war that didn't touch Russian territory, and is far from over, the Russian president is certainly reaping political capital at home. Since Tuesday morning, Russian television have been breathlessly reporting, minute-by-minute coverage of Russian bombers leaving their Syrian base of operations in Khmeimim.

"I want to go home," said one pilot in his cockpit ready for takeoff, "it's time."

As each Russian Su-35 or Su-24 bomber sped off the runway, a narrator recited its technical capabilities, a virtual air show.

Landing on Russian soil, fighter pilots were rewarded with heroes' welcomes.

A crowd waited at the Voronezh airbase, where bouquets of red roses were thrust into the pilots' arms and they were presented with medals on velvet cushions as choirs in full Russian traditional dress looked on.

"My brother is home", said a woman "our family is so proud".

Pride in Russia's military campaign in Syria will no doubt fortify Putin's approval ratings, which also shot up after Russia annexed Crimea two years ago.

Russians support the Syrian campaign, "not because people so much care about Syria," says Sergei Markov, a political adviser close to the Kremlin, "but because people are proud that Russia behaved very well in Syria and showed how strong the Russian army is."

More than that, the Syrian campaign, he said, was a valuable showcase for Russian military weaponry.

"Everybody could see how well the Russian weaponry is, and as a result …Russia's military industrial complex" has — he motions with his fist as if knocking on a door — billions worth of interest from other countries.

"Some big advertising of Russian weaponry, of course, is not the main goal," says Markov, "but it means it's not costly, even profitable" to have taken on this campaign.

The Kremlin said Thursday that the Syrian operation cost the equivalent of about $630 million. Much of that, it claimed, was transferred from Russia's defence training and drills budget for 2015, effectively making this outing a real-war training mission.
[...]
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrives here in Moscow next week, another showcase to underscore that the West needs Putin's influence to try to find a solution in Syria, which is exactly the position Vladimir Putin wants to be seen in.
So from this, it looks like Putin put himself in a very good position on the world stage. Before he was the antagonist protecting Assad in the UN. Now he is the leader and the U.S. is cooperating with him. So when I said PR success on the world stage, I didn't mean that people started liking Russia, I meant that Russia gained more respect and authority through this Syria campaign. Basically, my point was that it worked out for him the best possible way.

I'm not privy to the territory gains/losses and I can't read that gif map. But, I do believe that supporting and protecting the Syrian Army helps the fight against ISIS. Before focusing on ISIS, ensuring that the Syrian Army is stable and able to fight ISIS make sense to me. With a strong Iraqi army and a strong Syrian army, ISIS has no place to form a state.
 
Here is the article that I got that idea from.
Russia's Syrian campaign showcases weaponry, maybe 'even profitable,' Kremlin backer says

So from this, it looks like Putin put himself in a very good position on the world stage. Before he was the antagonist protecting Assad in the UN. Now he is the leader and the U.S. is cooperating with him. So when I said PR success on the world stage, I didn't mean that people started liking Russia, I meant that Russia gained more respect and authority through this Syria campaign. Basically, my point was that it worked out for him the best possible way.

I'm not privy to the territory gains/losses and I can't read that gif map. But, I do believe that supporting and protecting the Syrian Army helps the fight against ISIS. Before focusing on ISIS, ensuring that the Syrian Army is stable and able to fight ISIS make sense to me. With a strong Iraqi army and a strong Syrian army, ISIS has no place to form a state.

None of anything that in article had anything to do with Russia gaining any sport of respect or authority in Syria that seems like an assumption that you made specifically. John Kerry met in Moscow because Russia is now part of the Syrian conflict much more now, obviously he will need to speak to the representatives to form something that they(the US) wants or come to an agreement on something. This would happen if an other country decided to get involved like Russia or similar to, that is why the US also works with SA, Jordon, and Turkey besides to outright abandoning them and not talking to them. To me that is not a sign of respect or a real position of authority( despite Russia getting some of that, but that does not dissolve the authority of everyone else), but acknowledging their is in fact another participant they have to deal with somehow, but obviously also every country has some level of respect to other countries that is how things are in the modern world.

Also that is not how things work, you don't just jump in and start playing kingmaker because EVERYONE involved in the conflict has someway of causing some trouble to someone else regardless of severity which means you have to work with them to. For example Russia can basically bomb all the vehicles entering Syria via Turkey under the excuse that they can hold supplies that deliver to rebels unless Turkey stops supplying the rebels they will continue to do that. Turkey can just supply the rebels with enough advance weapons to start shooting down Russian planes and SA can be convinced to help to since they don't like Russia either. Now you just made you position worse, but Russia escalates too and convinces some Kurdish factions to fight Turkey and Russia supplies the Houthis . Although they can increase escalation too, it'll stop until somebody backs down. Basically, everyone has 'strength' to do something and Russia isn't stronk over everyone else or some bullshit like that. FYI, the 'cessation of hostilities' basically gave the rebels what they wanted when they backed out of a the previous peace deal because they wanted specific conditions. I don't see how Russia was basically the leader in that when the rebels got what they wanted.

http://www.dpa-international.com/ne...ks-startby-dpa-correspondents-a-48142628.html

http://news.yahoo.com/un-envoy-says-temporary-pause-syria-talks-until-175753445.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...ilities-russia-usa-kerry-160223031533600.html

Well I'm telling you, you can look at other maps or look at the map the other poster did careful, ISIS(black) lost most territory to SDF and the Kurds(yellow with some green) and the opposition( green with some white) lost more territory to the Government(red) than to any that anyone else and the areas near gov areas that are ISIS and was lost from them by SAA was minor in comparison to rebel lost areas. Or you can google the areas where the were bombed the most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom