Saudi Arabia is prepared to deploy ground troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) if US-led coalition leaders agree to the offer.
What could go wrong?
"Today, the Saudi kingdom announced its readiness to participate with ground troops with the US-led coalition against ISIL, because we now have the experience in Yemen," Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri told Al Jazeera.
Really, General? The lesson you guys learned from the Yemen war is that you should invade Syria?
"The fact that you will have Saudi troops on the ground fighting with the rebels against the government is a very significant escalation, and hopefully will get the Russians to these peace talks, rather than thinking they can create a mini-Alawite state in Syria," [former US assistant Secretary of Defense] Korb told Al Jazeera.
I don't know why they're clinging to this "mini-Alawite state" idea. That seemed to be a potential backup plan before the Russian intervention, but everything that's happened since then implies that the government is trying to reestablish control of Syria; withdrawing to Latakia and Tartus does not appear to be the plan.
Hopefully this is just bluster, because a Saudi invasion of Syria sounds like one of the worst options possible right now.
edit- Syria and Iran react to the KSA's statements:
"Any ground intervention on Syrian territory without government authorisation would amount to an aggression that must be resisted," [Syrian] Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said at a news conference in Damascus.
"Let no one think they can attack Syria or violate its sovereignty because I assure you any aggressor will return to their country in a wooden coffin, whether they be Saudis or Turks," he warned.
"I don't think they would dare do that... If they do, they will inflict a coup de grace on themselves," [IRGC commander Ali Jafari] said.
"They thought that through support and financial aid they could make gains in Syria but the recent victories by the resistance front have disrupted all of their calculations," Jafari said.
...
"In such a situation, the clash of Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria together, and then the entrance of America... eventually a large regional war is possible," the official IRNA news agency quoted [former IRGC chief Mohsen Rezaei] as saying.
If the Saudi government, known for "madly taking action", embarked on such a move the entire region other than Iran but "including Saudi Arabia, will be consumed by fire".
Saudi Arabia is prepared to deploy ground troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) if US-led coalition leaders agree to the offer.
What could go wrong?
"Today, the Saudi kingdom announced its readiness to participate with ground troops with the US-led coalition against ISIL, because we now have the experience in Yemen," Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri told Al Jazeera.
Really, General? The lesson you guys learned from the Yemen war is that you should invade Syria?
"The fact that you will have Saudi troops on the ground fighting with the rebels against the government is a very significant escalation, and hopefully will get the Russians to these peace talks, rather than thinking they can create a mini-Alawite state in Syria," [former US assistant Secretary of Defense] Korb told Al Jazeera.
I don't know why they're clinging to this "mini-Alawite state" idea. That seemed to be a potential backup plan before the Russian intervention, but everything that's happened since then implies that the government is trying to reestablish control of Syria; withdrawing to Latakia and Tartus does not appear to be the plan.
Hopefully this is just bluster, because a Saudi invasion of Syria sounds like one of the worst options possible right now.
I do wonder about the bolded. Are the Russians willing to intervene continuously? Because when they stop, the Rebels are probably going to start rolling those gains up again.
Saudi Arabia is prepared to deploy ground troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) if US-led coalition leaders agree to the offer.
Saudi Arabia is prepared to deploy ground troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) if US-led coalition leaders agree to the offer.
Saudi Arabia is prepared to deploy ground troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) if US-led coalition leaders agree to the offer.
What could go wrong?
"Today, the Saudi kingdom announced its readiness to participate with ground troops with the US-led coalition against ISIL, because we now have the experience in Yemen," Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri told Al Jazeera.
Really, General? The lesson you guys learned from the Yemen war is that you should invade Syria?
"The fact that you will have Saudi troops on the ground fighting with the rebels against the government is a very significant escalation, and hopefully will get the Russians to these peace talks, rather than thinking they can create a mini-Alawite state in Syria," [former US assistant Secretary of Defense] Korb told Al Jazeera.
I don't know why they're clinging to this "mini-Alawite state" idea. That seemed to be a potential backup plan before the Russian intervention, but everything that's happened since then implies that the government is trying to reestablish control of Syria; withdrawing to Latakia and Tartus does not appear to be the plan.
Hopefully this is just bluster, because a Saudi invasion of Syria sounds like one of the worst options possible right now.
I do wonder about the bolded. Are the Russians willing to intervene continuously? Because when they stop, the Rebels are probably going to start rolling those gains up again.
I agree that, if Russia ended its air campaign today, the tide could turn against the SAA again. But it's a reasonably low-cost intervention, so at the very least I think Russia is capable of maintaining this level of support in the long term. This article has been posted before, but this part is the most conclusive answer I've seen to that question:
Three months into his military intervention in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin has achieved his central goal of stabilizing the Assad government and, with the costs relatively low, could sustain military operations at this level for years, U.S. officials and military analysts say.
Whether they're willing to maintain a long term intervention is separate from whether they're militarily/financially capable, of course, but I think Moscow regards a friendly Syria as an important enough interest to do so. Plus, since their support is focused on air strikes, Russian casualties in Syria are very low (there have been at least a couple, probably several, but not many), which always makes a war effort easier to maintain.
It's possible that the foreign ground forces aiding the SAA (especially Hezbollah, but also the IRGC and Iraqi militias) might hit an unacceptable threshold of costs before Russia. A lot of Hezbollah fighters have died in Syria, and Iran's losses include an unknown number of IRGC members and a lot of money/arms. But Hezbollah and Iran regard a friendly Syria as very important to their interests, so that threshold is probably pretty high.
Which is probably why the Saudis are talking about an invasion (they frame it as part of the fight against IS, but I think it's obviously motivated by the SAA's recent gains). If Ankara and Riyadh thought "Alawistan" was gonna happen I'm not sure that they'd be as concerned; I think they're afraid of the Syrian government achieving a military victory. Right now I share the assessment of the IRGC guy who thinks the KSA wouldn't be crazy enough to invade, but then again, most of us didn't expect them to lead an international invasion/bombing campaign of Yemen, so I'm uncertain.
Does Russia have any significant ground forces in Syria? I would expect a bunch of spec ops guys doing spotting and raiding, but what about regulars? Everybody stuck in Ukraine?
Saudi Arabia is prepared to deploy ground troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) if US-led coalition leaders agree to the offer.
What could go wrong?
Sanders will be happy I guess.
Zuh?
He's been calling for SA (and Iran) to be the ones to send troops into Syria.
Top U.S. military commanders, who only a few months ago were planning to pull the last American troops out of Afghanistan by year’s end, are now quietly talking about an American commitment that could keep thousands of troops in the country for decades.
...
Senior U.S. military officials and some former Obama administration officials increasingly compare the U.S. government’s plans for Afghanistan to its approach to South Korea, where it has maintained tens of thousands of troops for decades.
...
“What we’ve learned is that you can’t really leave,” said a senior Pentagon official with extensive experience in Afghanistan and Iraq who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. “The local forces need air support, intelligence and help with logistics. They are not going to be ready in three years or five years. You have to be there for a very long time.”
...
“I think a generational approach has value"
Not what I want to hear, but at least they're being straightforward in their appraisal of the situation; it's a refreshing shift from the public statements of the Obama administration and those of the Democratic presidential candidates, who haven't really proposed any solution to the Afghanistan problem. If the US government is considering a decades long deployment of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, it should be upfront about that, instead of repeatedly announcing (and then postponing) withdrawal dates and declaring the end of the war during its bloodiest year.
Saudi Arabia is prepared to deploy ground troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) if US-led coalition leaders agree to the offer.
What could go wrong?
Sanders will be happy I guess.
Zuh?
He's been calling for SA (and Iran) to be the ones to send troops into Syria.
To be fair, I think he was talking about them doing so cooperatively, not antagonistically. Not that I want to put much effort into defending that statement, since it doesn't make much sense either way.
Top U.S. military commanders, who only a few months ago were planning to pull the last American troops out of Afghanistan by year’s end, are now quietly talking about an American commitment that could keep thousands of troops in the country for decades.
...
Senior U.S. military officials and some former Obama administration officials increasingly compare the U.S. government’s plans for Afghanistan to its approach to South Korea, where it has maintained tens of thousands of troops for decades.
...
“What we’ve learned is that you can’t really leave,” said a senior Pentagon official with extensive experience in Afghanistan and Iraq who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. “The local forces need air support, intelligence and help with logistics. They are not going to be ready in three years or five years. You have to be there for a very long time.”
...
“I think a generational approach has value"
Not what I want to hear, but at least they're being straightforward in their appraisal of the situation; it's a refreshing shift from the public statements of the Obama administration and those of the Democratic presidential candidates, who haven't really proposed any solution to the Afghanistan problem. If the US government is considering a decades long deployment of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, it should be upfront about that, instead of repeatedly announcing (and then postponing) withdrawal dates and declaring the end of the war during its bloodiest year.
I suspect they are all quite sincere about wanting to end the whole thing and it's getting postponed because reality gets in the way.
Saudi Arabia can barely handle keeping a lid on war-torn Yemen to their south, and their proxies in Syria are in a stalemate at best with Iran's proxies/the Syrian government. Meanwhile Iran is tepidly coming back in from the cold with the international community and likely doesn't want to squander that anytime soon (despite its netowrk of influence already in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc). Also I doubt the other Arab monarchies are going to cede to the house of Saud anytime soon (esp Qatar which is arguably the black sheep of the Sunni monarchies).
Your flippant hypothesis doesn't really make sense or seem likely in the face of the ME remaining in its broken and easily exploited status quo which seems to be what most power brokers want at any rate.
+3
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Saudi Arabia can barely handle keeping a lid on war-torn Yemen to their south, and their proxies in Syria are in a stalemate at best with Iran's proxies/the Syrian government. Meanwhile Iran is tepidly coming back in from the cold with the international community and likely doesn't want to squander that anytime soon (despite its netowrk of influence already in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc). Also I doubt the other Arab monarchies are going to cede to the house of Saud anytime soon (esp Qatar which is arguably the black sheep of the Sunni monarchies).
Your flippant hypothesis doesn't really make sense or seem likely in the face of the ME remaining in its broken and easily exploited status quo which seems to be what most power brokers want at any rate.
I said Arabia, not Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Royal family is basically done for within the next twenty years. Not one of the younger members has the talent that the older family members do for wrangling extremists and they probably won't even get the chance when the entire economy comes crashing down because oil isn't worth the barrel it's stored in.
The ME has a long and proud tradition of puppet governments being put in place, it wouldn't really be anything new. Except that it wouldn't be a Western Power (or Russia) propping it up, it'll be one of the local powers that can afford to expand their influence in such a way.
You're right though, I doubt Arabia will be the local power to do so. Iran already has an extensive network through basically the entire ME, it has the growing economy despite the oil crash and it has increasingly positive relations with the western world. Israel's failing influence with the western world should also be taken into account with the eventual future outcome of the territories currently in contention.
I could very much see Iran being allowed to step into those areas with basically no government to reassert control in the near to medium term future and then placing a very 'friendly to Iranian interests' government in charge, perhaps even being allowed to expand its own territory back to historically "Persian" areas.
Much of what Iran will be allowed to do going into the future regarding its own expansion of regional power is going to depend on which way the winds inside Iran's own government blow in the next decades.
In retrospect, even if Iran doesn't make out as good as I think they will in the end of all this, I still think they're going to make out better than almost any other state in the ME.
A fourth of the damn mess we are dealing with in Syria is Turkey's fucking fault. The other fourth is the fucking Saudi's. Assad bears a shit ton of blame for a brutal crackdown that of course spiraled into a rebellion. And the last is us for fucking up Iraq.
Does Russia have any significant ground forces in Syria? I would expect a bunch of spec ops guys doing spotting and raiding, but what about regulars? Everybody stuck in Ukraine?
The simple answer is, "Compared to Iran, no." Which tells us both a little and a lot. If we took Wikipedia at it's word, total Russian personnel count up to 4,000 men and women--which might sound like a lot, but when you consider we're also seeing a half-dozen vessels, including one patrol submarine, and separate squadrons of both fighters and bombers, it's really not a lot. Even when you consider clandestine forces, that's still a fraction of Iran's representation in both normal and paramilitary forces. Generally, Washington has hammered Moscow for its air operations accordingly--there have been reports of deployment of both the Tu-22M and Tu-160M supersonic aircraft into that theater too, so that makes sense, as well as variety of smaller attack aircraft who focus more on close-range support for the Syrian military.
EDIT: I would also add, I believe this offsets the compliment of Russian Naval Infantry at Tartus, who were evacuated with their families more than two years ago (apparently, the current ground troops represent the Russian Airborne Troops, or so I heard during the scandal of the first death of a Russian serviceman in Syria (by suicide) that blew up several months ago.
Tycho (can't seem to tag you because of the ? in your handle), you seem to have been right about the YPG/SDF vs rebel fighting near Afrin/Azaz being more than just the usual border skirmishes. In the past couple of days the YPG has taken control of several rebel-heldvillages/towns, and today they reportedly took Menagh Airbase, an important rebel position directly south of Azaz. This is a significant enough advance to imply larger goals than deterrence on the YPG's part. Meanwhile, government/allied forces have moved slightly north as well. Here's an up to date map of the situation.
It's noteworthy how quiet the IS/rebel line has been in recent weeks. I would have guessed that IS would view a government assault on the northern rebels as an opportunity to attack from the east - this would put the rebels in the completely untenable position of having to defend against all three fronts simultaneously. But I haven't seen a single report of such clashes since the government assault began. Maybe the SAA/IS fighting nearby has them too occupied, or maybe they are hoping to absorb the collapsing rebel factions instead of destroying them at cost to themselves.
I'm also interested to see what happens between the government and the Kurds here, since their plans for the area seem to conflict.
I'm still waiting for the hammer to come down on the YPG. I doubt Assad will do it, at least not right now. But with thousands more refugees massing on the northern border, Turkey has more excuses than normal to act here. They've been livid in the press lately, lambasting the US for refusing to list the PYD (political parent organization of the YPG militia) as a terrorist organization. I heard Turkey is already "assisting refugees on the Syiran side of the border" - perhaps as a prelude to a military "safe zone"?
I've heard a lot of rumours, but an extra amount suggesting some sort of Kurdish offensive was going to be starting soon. Manbij would be a likely target. It makes sense for Rojava to extend west since they've already crossed the Euphrates and Turkey's "red line". They've got US weapons and airstrikes now and are in a great position. But how much territory can they hold!?
Rojava opened an office is Moscow, in the Kurd's ongoing attempt to get both Russian and American support. Here's a photo- take a look at that map on the wall.
Also, here's a link to an animated gif showing the recent territory gains by SAA and the YPG. Makes pretty clear why this is a big defeat for the rebels and an opportunity for the others.
Also I didn't know SAA had also made gains against IS, but there you go.
Rojava opened an office is Moscow, in the Kurd's ongoing attempt to get both Russian and American support. Here's a photo- take a look at that map on the wall.
Good find! For whoever's interested, the Rojava's consular (?) office in Moscow looks basically like a less furnished version of the roughly ten-thousand other small government offices in the city. Rojava's foreign relations article on Wikipedia is pretty out of date, there's no mention of the United States or Russian Fed., but I would imagine the office in Washington is nicer.
Vice released a dispatch from Helmand Province, Afghanistan (the Taliban's stronghold and a scene of recent heavy fighting), it's worth a watch. Starts out with some child soldiers manning a front line against the Taliban as part of the Afghan Local Police. The Afghan security forces are shown burning poppy fields in Taliban areas, while growing their own poppy fields within the walls of police bases. The two bases filmed in the report have since fallen to the Taliban, according to Vice.
"Mosul will be a complex operation. ... I'm not as optimistic that we'll be able to turn that in the near term, in my view, certainly not this year," Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
A more pessimistic assessment than I usually hear from US/Iraqi officials. I'm looking at the current map of control and trying to figure out what the ISF will be doing all year - most likely they'll be tied up in Anbar province for a while, and then there's a fairly long grind north before they reach Mosul. And it doesn't look like anyone's likely to take Raqqa, Syria this year either. The government and rebels are too busy fighting each other, and the YPG is probably both unwilling and unable. Barring any unexpected developments (like an internal collapse or foreign ground invasion), IS seems likely to remain in control of its most important cities until at least 2017. Hopefully by the end of the year they will at least be confined to those strongholds.
I thought the Taliban was pretty heavily anti-Poppy, are they just looking the other way for now?
They banned poppy production when they were in control of Afghanistan, with a surprising degree of success (an interesting NYT article from May 2001). But they've been more... flexible in Helmand in recent years, from what I can tell. Part of it is that they are hard pressed to fund their insurgency against an Afghan government receiving billions in external aid, and part of it is that they want popular support and pissing off all the farmers in Helmand would turn much of the province against them.
edit- it is also possible that some of the fields the Afghan forces referred to as "Taliban"-controlled were really just controlled by the political rivals of some provincial/district official. That sort of thing happens a lot in Afghanistan.
Saudi’s decision to send troops to Syria in an attempt to bolster and toughen efforts against militants is “final” and “irreversible,” the Saudi military spokesman announced on Thursday.
The US defence secretary has refused to rule out Saudi Arabia sending ground troops into Syria, but added that it was just one option and there were other ways the Saudis could contribute to the fight against Islamic State.
Ankara (AFP) - Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday threatened to send the millions of refugees in Turkey to European Union (EU) member states, as NATO agreed to deploy ships to the Aegean Sea to ease the migrant crisis.
Marching through the Shia part of Iraq? The Iraq that's close to Iraq?
Jorden, who seems to want no direct part in this?
Since Syria has been pretty clear about considering uninvited Royal Saudi Armed Forces as an invading enemy force...I assume by air transport into friendly anti-government territory? Kaputa or Tycho could correct me, but I thought Damascus controlled the ports in the Mediterranean in conjunction with the Russian military.
Saudi’s decision to send troops to Syria in an attempt to bolster and toughen efforts against militants is “final” and “irreversible,” the Saudi military spokesman announced on Thursday.
Posts
I don't know why they're clinging to this "mini-Alawite state" idea. That seemed to be a potential backup plan before the Russian intervention, but everything that's happened since then implies that the government is trying to reestablish control of Syria; withdrawing to Latakia and Tartus does not appear to be the plan.
Hopefully this is just bluster, because a Saudi invasion of Syria sounds like one of the worst options possible right now.
edit- Syria and Iran react to the KSA's statements:
I do wonder about the bolded. Are the Russians willing to intervene continuously? Because when they stop, the Rebels are probably going to start rolling those gains up again.
Sanders will be happy I guess.
Zuh?
Whether they're willing to maintain a long term intervention is separate from whether they're militarily/financially capable, of course, but I think Moscow regards a friendly Syria as an important enough interest to do so. Plus, since their support is focused on air strikes, Russian casualties in Syria are very low (there have been at least a couple, probably several, but not many), which always makes a war effort easier to maintain.
It's possible that the foreign ground forces aiding the SAA (especially Hezbollah, but also the IRGC and Iraqi militias) might hit an unacceptable threshold of costs before Russia. A lot of Hezbollah fighters have died in Syria, and Iran's losses include an unknown number of IRGC members and a lot of money/arms. But Hezbollah and Iran regard a friendly Syria as very important to their interests, so that threshold is probably pretty high.
Which is probably why the Saudis are talking about an invasion (they frame it as part of the fight against IS, but I think it's obviously motivated by the SAA's recent gains). If Ankara and Riyadh thought "Alawistan" was gonna happen I'm not sure that they'd be as concerned; I think they're afraid of the Syrian government achieving a military victory. Right now I share the assessment of the IRGC guy who thinks the KSA wouldn't be crazy enough to invade, but then again, most of us didn't expect them to lead an international invasion/bombing campaign of Yemen, so I'm uncertain.
edited for clarity
He's been calling for SA (and Iran) to be the ones to send troops into Syria.
Not what I want to hear, but at least they're being straightforward in their appraisal of the situation; it's a refreshing shift from the public statements of the Obama administration and those of the Democratic presidential candidates, who haven't really proposed any solution to the Afghanistan problem. If the US government is considering a decades long deployment of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, it should be upfront about that, instead of repeatedly announcing (and then postponing) withdrawal dates and declaring the end of the war during its bloodiest year.
To be fair, I think he was talking about them doing so cooperatively, not antagonistically. Not that I want to put much effort into defending that statement, since it doesn't make much sense either way.
I suspect they are all quite sincere about wanting to end the whole thing and it's getting postponed because reality gets in the way.
Either through puppet governments or outright land grabs.
Your flippant hypothesis doesn't really make sense or seem likely in the face of the ME remaining in its broken and easily exploited status quo which seems to be what most power brokers want at any rate.
I said Arabia, not Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Royal family is basically done for within the next twenty years. Not one of the younger members has the talent that the older family members do for wrangling extremists and they probably won't even get the chance when the entire economy comes crashing down because oil isn't worth the barrel it's stored in.
The ME has a long and proud tradition of puppet governments being put in place, it wouldn't really be anything new. Except that it wouldn't be a Western Power (or Russia) propping it up, it'll be one of the local powers that can afford to expand their influence in such a way.
You're right though, I doubt Arabia will be the local power to do so. Iran already has an extensive network through basically the entire ME, it has the growing economy despite the oil crash and it has increasingly positive relations with the western world. Israel's failing influence with the western world should also be taken into account with the eventual future outcome of the territories currently in contention.
I could very much see Iran being allowed to step into those areas with basically no government to reassert control in the near to medium term future and then placing a very 'friendly to Iranian interests' government in charge, perhaps even being allowed to expand its own territory back to historically "Persian" areas.
Much of what Iran will be allowed to do going into the future regarding its own expansion of regional power is going to depend on which way the winds inside Iran's own government blow in the next decades.
In retrospect, even if Iran doesn't make out as good as I think they will in the end of all this, I still think they're going to make out better than almost any other state in the ME.
I have to ask, what the fuck is the Afghani government thinking?
Please choose the Kurds.
A fourth of the damn mess we are dealing with in Syria is Turkey's fucking fault. The other fourth is the fucking Saudi's. Assad bears a shit ton of blame for a brutal crackdown that of course spiraled into a rebellion. And the last is us for fucking up Iraq.
The simple answer is, "Compared to Iran, no." Which tells us both a little and a lot. If we took Wikipedia at it's word, total Russian personnel count up to 4,000 men and women--which might sound like a lot, but when you consider we're also seeing a half-dozen vessels, including one patrol submarine, and separate squadrons of both fighters and bombers, it's really not a lot. Even when you consider clandestine forces, that's still a fraction of Iran's representation in both normal and paramilitary forces. Generally, Washington has hammered Moscow for its air operations accordingly--there have been reports of deployment of both the Tu-22M and Tu-160M supersonic aircraft into that theater too, so that makes sense, as well as variety of smaller attack aircraft who focus more on close-range support for the Syrian military.
EDIT: I would also add, I believe this offsets the compliment of Russian Naval Infantry at Tartus, who were evacuated with their families more than two years ago (apparently, the current ground troops represent the Russian Airborne Troops, or so I heard during the scandal of the first death of a Russian serviceman in Syria (by suicide) that blew up several months ago.
It's noteworthy how quiet the IS/rebel line has been in recent weeks. I would have guessed that IS would view a government assault on the northern rebels as an opportunity to attack from the east - this would put the rebels in the completely untenable position of having to defend against all three fronts simultaneously. But I haven't seen a single report of such clashes since the government assault began. Maybe the SAA/IS fighting nearby has them too occupied, or maybe they are hoping to absorb the collapsing rebel factions instead of destroying them at cost to themselves.
I'm also interested to see what happens between the government and the Kurds here, since their plans for the area seem to conflict.
Should work if you use quotations marks. @[Tycho?]
Edit: Or not. HMMM.
Double edit: I can't even access his profile!
I've heard a lot of rumours, but an extra amount suggesting some sort of Kurdish offensive was going to be starting soon. Manbij would be a likely target. It makes sense for Rojava to extend west since they've already crossed the Euphrates and Turkey's "red line". They've got US weapons and airstrikes now and are in a great position. But how much territory can they hold!?
Its stressing me out.
Also I didn't know SAA had also made gains against IS, but there you go.
Good find! For whoever's interested, the Rojava's consular (?) office in Moscow looks basically like a less furnished version of the roughly ten-thousand other small government offices in the city. Rojava's foreign relations article on Wikipedia is pretty out of date, there's no mention of the United States or Russian Fed., but I would imagine the office in Washington is nicer.
And an Iraq headline: "IS unlikely to be ejected from Mosul in 2016: US General"
A more pessimistic assessment than I usually hear from US/Iraqi officials. I'm looking at the current map of control and trying to figure out what the ISF will be doing all year - most likely they'll be tied up in Anbar province for a while, and then there's a fairly long grind north before they reach Mosul. And it doesn't look like anyone's likely to take Raqqa, Syria this year either. The government and rebels are too busy fighting each other, and the YPG is probably both unwilling and unable. Barring any unexpected developments (like an internal collapse or foreign ground invasion), IS seems likely to remain in control of its most important cities until at least 2017. Hopefully by the end of the year they will at least be confined to those strongholds.
edit- it is also possible that some of the fields the Afghan forces referred to as "Taliban"-controlled were really just controlled by the political rivals of some provincial/district official. That sort of thing happens a lot in Afghanistan.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2016/02/11/Spokesman-Saudi-decision-to-send-troops-in-Syria-is-final.html
I still don't believe it, and al Arabiya isn't the best source either.
If this is true though, well, that huge regional war I sometimes predict? Well this is how it really starts.
Marching through the Shia part of Iraq? The Iraq that's close to Iraq?
Jorden, who seems to want no direct part in this?
http://news.yahoo.com/erdogan-threatens-send-refugees-outside-turkey-103343752.html
Come on China, join the party, everyone else is here!
Since Syria has been pretty clear about considering uninvited Royal Saudi Armed Forces as an invading enemy force...I assume by air transport into friendly anti-government territory? Kaputa or Tycho could correct me, but I thought Damascus controlled the ports in the Mediterranean in conjunction with the Russian military.
Is this a five-way now? Are we up to five?
What happens when Saudi and Iranian troops meet (if this is indeed happening) ?
Delightful hugs and sharing of Coca-Cola products.
Oh Lord.
I believe that to be one of the seals of the apocalypse.
Hardliners wailing like babies over Rouhani's tour.
ha ha only serious?
Netanyahu has a simultaneous orgasm and heart attack.