Syria Superthread [merged]

[OldSolduer]

The UN, as the self-licking ice-cream cone that it is, can strongly condemn, reaffirm, urge and request all it wants, it has neither the will nor the means to do anything about this situation. It is, as we speak, holding emergency meetings consisting of endless blah-blah, to be followed by cocktails and photo ops.

I wish a quick and peaceful resolution to the Fiji Soldiers involved.

Don't forget the letter, followed by a STRONGLY WORDED letter.....

 

[tomahawk6]

Canada has contributed peacekepers over the years,would a Canadian platoon have surrendered as the Fijians did ?

 

[OldSolduer]

Canada has contributed peacekepers over the years,would a Canadian platoon have surrendered as the Fijians did ?

That depends on which regiment is in theatre at the time.

IIRC a platoon of a certain infantry regiment gave up their weapons etc in Croatia or Bosnia.

I could be wrong.

 

[tomahawk6]

Obama's strategic alliance with Iran seems to be off to a good start.Syrian forces are poised to launch an offensive against IS held areas.Surveillance from the US is being passed to Iran who then gives it to the Syrians.

 

[Old Sweat]

No, you are right. I think it was April 1994 in Bosnia. A section surrendered and their platoon commander joined them in captivity rather than try to organize their release. It happened, I think, on a Thursday or early on a Friday and they were released Sunday afternoon Ottawa time.

I was in J3 Ops at the time which is why I recall it. However I was not on the ground and am not qualified to judge their actions.

 

[tomahawk6]

Giving up your means of self defense is problematic.As to the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia werent some used as human shields when they were handcuffed to a bridge ?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

One officer was.

 

[Old Sweat]

That was a later incident involving an unarmed UNMO, I believe.

 

[Lightguns]

We lost a fully loaded grizz in that incident too did we not?

 

[OldSolduer]

We lost a fully loaded grizz in that incident too did we not?

I do believe so. Its been 20 years so its a bit fuzzy.

 

[Jungle]

That depends on which regiment is in theatre at the time.

IIRC a platoon of a certain infantry regiment gave up their weapons etc in Croatia or Bosnia.

I could be wrong.

Stop walking on egg shells  :, it was a platoon from 2R22R. They did not want to do this, but they were ordered to surrender by the CofC.

Are you telling me that another Regiment woukd have disobeyed orders ?

 

[CougarKing]

Obama's strategic alliance with Iran seems to be off to a good start.Syrian forces are poised to launch an offensive against IS held areas.Surveillance from the US is being passed to Iran who then gives it to the Syrians.

Speaking of Iran...please take note what was posted at the Iraq crisis thread:

shadowy Iranian general fights "on US side" against ISIS

 

[CougarKing]

For those wondering about the Irish contingent that participated in the action to save the Filipino UN peacekeepers earlier...

Irish troops facing escalating danger in 'peaceful' mission

07/09/2014

A contributor to the Irish Military Online forum last week said what many other ex-soldiers are leaving unsaid about the position of Irish troops on the UN's Golan Heights mission: he would rather die fighting "than surrendering and having the chance of being beheaded on al-Jazeera."

The al-Nusra Front who are attempting to overrun the UN mission on the Syrian-Israeli border are beheaders. They decapitated the Franciscan priest Fr Francois Murad in the northern Syrian city of Gassanieh in June last year. The images of his beheading was captured on a mobile phone camera and posted on the web. ...

The same group is responsible, like its former ally and now rival Islamic State, for ethnic cleansing of Syrian Christians, including the last surviving speakers of Aramaic, the language the Bible was written in. As well as public beheadings, they have been responsible for crucifixions.

They also claimed responsibility for 57 suicide bombings last year; were caught attempting to smuggle two kilos of the nerve gas Sarin from Turkey; and have murdered what are said to be very large numbers of non-Sunni Muslims, particularly from the Alawite community who share an ethnicity with President Bashar al-Assad.

All "kuffars" (all non-Sunni Muslims, not just Syrian or Irish Christians or the mainly animist Fijians who are being held captive by al-Nusra) are potential beheading victims.

The Minister for Defence Simon Coveney said last week that what our troops were facing in the past week was a "dramatic change in circumstances" in the light of the most recent al-Nusra onslaught on the UN Golan mission. He was not exaggerating.

Irish Independent

 

[tomahawk6]

Like I said previosly is to withdraw after the Fijians are released.

 

[OldSolduer]

Stop walking on egg shells  :, it was a platoon from 2R22R. They did not want to do this, but they were ordered to surrender by the CofC.

Are you telling me that another Regiment woukd have disobeyed orders ?

Probably. Mind you we would never have received those orders.

 

[Jungle]

Probably. Mind you we would never have received those orders.

Yeah... sure.  :

Now, reread this thread:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/36228/post-292333.html#msg292333

Where you will find this:

Before this gets out of hand....

Lets all just suck back and acknowledge that the capture of this particular Canadian AFV occurred during the latter UNPROFOR days - when ALL military forces in the FRY had been effectively "de-toothed" by the UN and forced to resort to good-will in order to enact (NOT enforce) the UN mandate.  The unit that gave up the Grizzly in question to the Bosnian Serb forces had little choice in the matter.  The extant direction was to surrender equipment (and yes, weapons) if it came to a life-threatening stand-off, as lethal force was not authorized at the time for the protection of mission-essential equipment.

Without getting into a discussion which would violate OPSEC regarding then-extant ROE, suffice it to say that the soldiers in question had little choice in the matter at the time based on their very clear orders.  They simply did as they were told, as much as it undoubtedly burned their arses as the time.  No different than the Canadian elements that were ordered to withdraw from their well-defended observations posts along the Krijena border when the U.S.-sponsored Croatian "Op Storm" offensive was launched.  Those were utterly stupid and largely "toothless" days, which do not speak well for the UN's gumption on the international stage.  One could argue that it was merely a precursor of things to come.  Which is why those who persist in castigating the Dutch for the Srebenica massacre have their well-intentioned heads up their arses.  Did the vastly out-numbered and out-gunned Dutch contingent safe-guarding that UN-declared "Safe Haven" have a moral obligation to defend the Bosniacs hunkered down within the perimeter?  Arguably yes.  But the Dutch were horribly over-matched and had they elected to do "the honourable thing" (in direct violation of UN orders, I might add), they would have stood no better chance than the Spartans at the Gates of Thermoplaie. 

You (at the time) are a UN soldier.  You do what you are told by the international governing body at the time.  You don't have the luxury of second-guessing your orders, even if you happen to believe that what you are ordered to do will result in a disaster.  Oh, you could make a heroic stand based on what you believe to be the bigger picture and die a glorious death.  But what if in hindsight it turns out that you screwed the international pooch and your actions directly resulted in the needless deaths of untold thousands more?  Well, then you'd (belatedly) feel like a bit of an arsehole, wouldn't you?  Or not, because you are dead for no good reason and your family are left wailing and moaning back in Canada with you dead for nothing.  In fact, you died as the result of a manifest error of personal judgement that directly contributed to thousands more needless deaths.  All because your "heroic stand" derailed a volatile peace negotiation.  Way to go  hero....  Are we starting to grasp just how complicated things were back then when we Canadians (at large) stuck our soldiers in the middle of a "feel good" international cause with zero mandate for success?   

All of the above to say that it is piss-simple to sit back here with the luxury of hindsight and "arm-chair quarterback" some of the decisions made during the insane days of UNPROFOR.  There is no doubt that the UN was way out of its league and screwed the pooch to the detriment of all concerned parties - the locals and all international military contingents included.  That is precisely why NATO moved in and "enforced" the Dayton Accords in 1997 with IFOR and then SFOR.  Using the threat of overwhelming military force to impose compliance upon the three warring factions.  It was only then, after 5 years of UN dithering (with our troops and those of many other nations caught in the middle) that things got sorted out.

So, let's not sit here and try to pass judgement on what happened back in the early 1990s.  To do so without having served at the time and place would be indicative of utter arse-clownery.  Even to do so having served (no offence to Tess and others) would be mistaken.  Those on the ground at the time had a very limited and frustrating perspective.  No soldier likes the notion of being ordered to surrender their position, or their kit, even when faced with untenable odds.  No soldier likes the idea of having to leave an area knowing that bad things (eg. genocide) will ensue once they are gone.  No soldier likes to back down when faced with an unauthorized road-block.  But it happens, and no doubt the requirement to do all of the above still provides grist for the mental mill amonst those who endured it wearing various national flags.  Such is the life of a soldier under orders.

All of the above to say that the "captured/surrendered" Grizzly is the function of a very particular time and place.  Its loss is NOT indicative of a particular unit's failings or lack of will.  Rather, it is entirely representative of an untenable military situation created by a dithering world body manifested in the UN.  Full-stop. 

So, no names, no pack-drill.   

I wasn't there at the time.  However, my former unit was there in 1992 and were slated for another UNPROFOR deployment in 1995/96 during which I was fully in the loop.  Thankfully our deployment was re-jigged to the first NATO SFOR deployment in 97, where we actually had some "teeth" to put an end to the stupidity that was the Balkan War. 

FWIW,

Mark C 

Coming from one of yours, no less... there's more in the thread.

Now put aside the ridiculous inter-regt hatred and chest-puffing, it is not serving anyone well. At least now, I know where you stand...

Now let's get back on topic.

 

[OldSolduer]

Yeah... sure.  :

Now, reread this thread:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/36228/post-292333.html#msg292333

Where you will find this:

Coming from one of yours, no less... there's more in the thread.

Now put aside the ridiculous inter-regt hatred and chest-puffing, it is not serving anyone well. At least now, I know where you stand...

Now let's get back on topic.

To be clear I was not trying to disrespect the Van Doos. That is why I'd did not name them in my initial response. Just to be clear, I don't hate them either.

May apologies if this has caused any consternation.

 

[CougarKing]

A question that needs to be asked is how Obama wants the US to confront ISIS in Syria? Merely through air strikes or something more?

Business Insider

Here's Why Obama's Middle East Allies Don't Trust Him Against ISIS
Business Insider
By Michael B Kelley and Brett LoGiurato – 11 hours ago

U.S. President Barack Obama is constructing a strategy for an increasingly complex war he never wanted to enter. And allies in the region are skeptical.
Now that ISIS controls a third of the combined territory comprising Syria and Iraq, the U.S. is attempting to establish an international coalition to "degrade and destroy" the well-armed and well-funded Islamic State.

The administration has begun to outline a three-pronged strategy that could last more than three years — and into the next administration. It consists of continuing to bomb ISIS targets from the air in Iraq, intensely moving to equip and train the Iraqi military and Kurdish forces, and then moving to confront the group in Syria.

A successful U.S.-led campaign to eradicate ISIS requires direct military action on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border, several years, billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of troops, according to counterterrorism expert Brian Fishman. "And even then," Fishman said, "success hinges on dramatic political shifts in both Iraq and Syria that under the best of circumstances will require years."

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

Obama to make big speech tonight on how he will fight ISIS at 9 pm EST, 6 PM Pacific on North American networks.

CBC

Obama ISIS speech: 5 things he must address
U.S. president to make 9 p.m. ET televised address laying out plan to destroy militant group

In a prime-time speech Wednesday at 9 p.m. ET, U.S. President Barack Obama intends to outline for Americans the threat posed by ISIS and his strategy for "degrading and ultimately destroying" the group, according to the White House.

Obama has been under mounting pressure to lay out a plan, particularly after he said late last month that he didn't have a strategy "yet" and that he was still figuring out exactly how to "get the job done.

Here are five things Obama is expected to cover off in his address to the U.S. public.

1. Airstrikes in Syria

(...SNIPPED)

2. Boots on the ground

(...SNIPPED)

3. Permission from Congress

(...SNIPPED)

4. U.S. won't act alone

(...SNIPPED)

5. ISIS threat to U.S.

(...END OF EXCERPTS)

 

[a_majoor]

And these are the sorts of "allies" that are being recruited on the ground. Far better to simply let the Iranians, Syrians and Hezbollah expend their blood and treasure to fight them (numbers wise, I think radicals like ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhoods have an edge), while we stand off and push the fighting back into the cage when it spills over:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/09/fighter-with-vetted-moderate-syrian-rebel-group-tells-la-times-his-group-fights-alongside-al-qaeda/?print=1&repeat=w3tc

Fighter With ‘Vetted Moderate’ Syrian Rebels Tells L.A. Times They Fight Alongside Al-Qaeda
Posted By Patrick Poole On September 9, 2014 @ 11:08 am In Politics | 6 Comments

Last week here at PJ Media, I reported on the ongoing relations between the U.S.-backed “vetted moderate” Free Syrian Army and ISIS. I also noted that, at this time last year, the received wisdom of the Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment was that the Syrian rebels were largely moderate.

Now, a report in this past Sunday’s L.A. Times from the frontlines in Syria finds that another “vetted moderate” rebel group, Harakat Hazm – which has received anti-tank missiles from the U.S. — has been working with al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra: a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. (HT: Tim Furnish and Tom Joscelyn.)

As Al-Akhbar reported back in May, in addition to having U.S. backing, Harakat Hazm is also backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, and Qatar.

As the L.A. Times reporter rides with two U.S.-backed and armed Harakat Hazm fighters, the topic of conversation turns to Jabhat al-Nusra:

Harakat Hazm, for example, has struggled with being regarded as a U.S. pawn and labeled as secular in the midst of an opposition movement that has grown increasingly Islamist.

“Inside Syria we became labeled as secularists and feared Nusra Front was going to battle us,” Zeidan said, referring to an Al Qaeda-linked rebel group that has been designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Then he smiled and added, “But Nusra doesn’t fight us, we actually fight alongside them. We like Nusra.”

But the L.A. Times reporter then immediately adds:

In July, eight West-backed rebel brigades — all recipients of military aid — released a statement of “rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination” with Al Nusra Front.

But at the same time Harakat Hazm was supposedly releasing a statement of “rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination” with Nusra, it signed a statement of alliance with Nusra to prevent the Assad regime from advancing into Aleppo. The alliance statement was published on Twitter:


What the statement and the Aleppo alliance demonstrate is something that I and others have been contending all along: the so-called Syrian rebels given the State Department’s “vetted moderate” imprimatur have been playing a double-game. And the Obama administration, the foreign policy establishment and the establishment media have all gladly played along with our “vetted moderate” Syrian rebel allies.

When Liz Sly of the Washington Post interviewed the commander of Harakat Hazm as the first group to receive anti-tank missiles from the U.S., he gave a lukewarm, two-faced statement when asked about Nusra:

LS: You have already participated in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. What are your relations with Jabhat al-Nusra?

AA: Jabhat al-Nusra is a military formation, a fighting battalion that exists on the ground like any other. We have no strong or meaningful relationship with them. They fight on their fronts, and we fight on ours.

LS: What do you think of them?

AA: They hold responsibility for bringing ISIS fighters to Syria from across the world. This was a mistake committed against the Syrian people. I think of them as a group of people fighting to topple the regime, but if they change their ideology to resemble that of ISIS or bring death and destruction upon the Syrian people, then we won’t allow it.

So they are responsible for bringing ISIS to Syria, but they are fighting to topple the regime.

On the same day that interview appeared, a policy analysis published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy hailed Harakat Hazm as “Rebels Worth Supporting,” going so far as to say that Hazm was “a model candidate for greater U.S. and allied support, including lethal military assistance.”

A fair question at this point: how is it that the Obama administration and the D.C. foreign policy establishment continue to allow themselves to be deluded by the “vetted moderate” Syrian rebel narrative, when all of the facts show that U.S. policy is Syria is built on lies and self-deception?

It’s not that they’re half-wrong, or that that the facts are subject to counter-interpretation. They’re flat-out wrong. And the result is serious weaponry being given directly by the U.S. to these groups.

And where is Congress in all this?

Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pjmedia.com/tatler

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/09/fighter-with-vetted-moderate-syrian-rebel-group-tells-la-times-his-group-fights-alongside-al-qaeda/