• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The ISIS offensive in Iraq

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Eye-opening piece.

Worth the watch for those who haven't seen it.

Clearly Bill Steuber is a man whose talents- which are clearly very significant- are being completely wasted over there.

Obviously, you feel worst for the kids these police are overtly molesting and raping to no consequence.

But second-most is Steuber. The guy wants to help and will clearly do whatever is in his power to do so, but he's trying to help people that don't give a fuck about helping themselves.

They're fucking siphoning off their own fuel drums to sell down in the city, shooting wildly at nothing and treating the American troops- who appear to genuinely want to help- like complete garbage.
 
I just don't think there was any way for Obama to win in the public's eye with Syria.

If he put boots on the ground we'd end up with the same problems we had with Iraq and Afghanistan- a long occupation costing us hundreds of billions of dollars.

Also nearly every time we have supported an oppressive regime or given weapons to a group or country in the Middle East it has always come back to bite us in the ass. Iran wit the Shah, our friendship with Saddam, supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, etc.

I can't blame Obama for the stance he has taken, if you examine our involvement in the Middle East. If Russia wants to run into Syria, be my guest. Syria is not Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel. Those are important allies the U.S. should rush to protect. I don't want Obama stepping up to Putin about Syria. It's not worth any kind of brinkmanship. I feel bad for the people there, but seriously. Russia isn't going to outmuscle us in the Middle East just because they're going into Syria.
 
This entire line of reasoning in this thread is so fucking stupid....

There are actually people who are upset that Russia is supporting an ally that it has billions of dollars invested in along with ongoing military commitments?

Get fucking real.

Iran, Syria, and Russia are aligned. The United States is opposed to all three. Russia has strategic interests in Syria. We do not.

Then I read asinine comments about how the Russians shouldn't be bombing rebels in Syria that we support.. Think about that for a moment..

Syria is a fucking mess, and perhaps Russia and Iran can bring some stability to the region. If that means leaving Assad in power, than so be it.

And of course Russia is attacking Syrian rebels along with ISIS. It's a ridiculous claim that you can differentiate between anti-American rebels and pro-American rebels. You have no idea which is which, and it's not in Russia's interests to protect rebels looking to depose their ally.

Who are we to tell Russia not to get involved in an ongoing humanitarian crisis that is destabilizing the region?

Have at it, I say.
 
Last edited:
I just don't think there was any way for Obama to win in the public's eye with Syria.

If he put boots on the ground we'd end up with the same problems we had with Iraq and Afghanistan- a long occupation costing us hundreds of billions of dollars.

Also nearly every time we have supported an oppressive regime or given weapons to a group or country in the Middle East it has always come back to bite us in the ass. Iran wit the Shah, our friendship with Saddam, supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, etc.

I can't blame Obama for the stance he has taken, if you examine our involvement in the Middle East. If Russia wants to run into Syria, be my guest. Syria is not Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel. Those are important allies the U.S. should rush to protect. I don't want Obama stepping up to Putin about Syria. It's not worth any kind of brinkmanship. I feel bad for the people there, but seriously. Russia isn't going to outmuscle us in the Middle East just because they're going into Syria.

That's a perfectly reasonable policy for the Administration to have taken at the outset, assuming it was willing to live with the results, be that a victory by Assad, by ISIL, or whatever.

But if that was the Administration's view, then the President shouldn't have gotten on a soapbox about the "red line", shouldn't have made repeated pronouncements over years about Assad having to go, and shouldn't have made public pronouncements about the rebels we were supporting, efforts to build an opposition force, etc..

Because as a result of that, we now look incredibly impotent. We were outmaneuvered, and look timid. Future efforts at building coalitions and finding local allies are going to be much tougher because of the people we supposedly supported, then abandoned.

As for brinksmanship, it can be really useful if you are stronger than the other guy, and are perceived as willing to act. But we've backed down so many times now that brinkmanship is actually pretty dangerous, because the Rusians probably believe we'd back down, so they won't.

Assad staying in power is not a major loss for us on it is own. But how it happened, with us flailing ineptly and issuing impotent threats for years, and ending with Russia acting decisively to force a solution we said was unacceptable, makes us look terrible. And that is a real problem.
 
That's a perfectly reasonable policy for the Administration to have taken at the outset, assuming it was willing to live with the results, be that a victory by Assad, by ISIL, or whatever.

But if that was the Administration's view, then the President shouldn't have gotten on a soapbox about the "red line", shouldn't have made repeated pronouncements over years about Assad having to go, and shouldn't have made public pronouncements about the rebels we were supporting, efforts to build an opposition force, etc..

Because as a result of that, we now look incredibly impotent. We were outmaneuvered, and look timid. Future efforts at building coalitions and finding local allies are going to be much tougher because of the people we supposedly supported, then abandoned.

As for brinksmanship, it can be really useful if you are stronger than the other guy, and are perceived as willing to act. But we've backed down so many times now that brinkmanship is actually pretty dangerous, because the Rusians probably believe we'd back down, so they won't.

Assad staying in power is not a major loss for us on it is own. But how it happened, with us flailing ineptly and issuing impotent threats for years, and ending with Russia acting decisively to force a solution we said was unacceptable, makes us look terrible. And that is a real problem.

None of this is a problem.. it's just hypothetical slippery slope Cold War nonsense.

If Russia, Syria and Iran can solve the issue in the region without involving the United States military, that is a better outcome.

It is foolish to assume the U.S. military could have achieved a desirable result in Syria.
 
People.. think about it..

Why should the U.S. get involved in Syria if Syria, Iran, and Russia can handle it?

We are not welcome there.

How is this not a better solution than American intervention?
 
People.. think about it..

Why should the U.S. get involved in Syria if Syria, Iran, and Russia can handle it?

We are not welcome there.

How is this not a better solution than American intervention?
The issue is they are all bad solutions. U.S. military intervention and Russian military intervention will both lead to bad shit.

Russian intervention will result in Assad or one of his cronies staying in power and these people can't rule Syria as was every again.

Option B is you have one of the rebel groups take over and we have another Libya, except in a much more crucial region.

I think Russia's intervention here is bad for Syrians, just like an American intervention would be.

We had the opportunity early on to work with Russia and Iran on creating a sustainable peace that would've resulted in a coalition government. This was circa 2012 when the rebels had established a functioning government in Aleppo. But we punted on that because half the country did not want to work with Russia/Iran and wanted no role in the Mid. East whatsoever. So, the sad thing, is it became a question of military intervention or doing nothing (how fucking sad is that?).

I've really adopted the view that I think Assad is awful, I think ISIS is awful, and the "rebels" have become a joke. As someone who deals a lot with Syria and Syrians it is just a beyond sad situation. It's beyond sad that Syrians need to deal with racist countries and their refugee policies; it's beyond sad that they need to deal with Russian bombs; it's beyond sad that barrel bombs are still being used; and it's beyond sad that ISIS actually is active in Syria/Iraq.

These are the times where I just wish we could get past the partisan bullshit. Rather than pretending we can do something now with American military (we could have used diplomacy or a combination of diplomacy and limited military force earlier but nobody wanted to work with Iran before it went against their interest to see Assad removed from power) I think it would be just as powerful to admit it is a really bad situation, admit that American could have done things a bit differently, and most importantly, get involved with helping actual Syrians on the street.
 
The issue is they are all bad solutions. U.S. military intervention and Russian military intervention will both lead to bad shit.

Russian intervention will result in Assad or one of his cronies staying in power and these people can't rule Syria as was every again.

Option B is you have one of the rebel groups take over and we have another Libya, except in a much more crucial region.

I think Russia's intervention here is bad for Syrians, just like an American intervention would be.

We had the opportunity early on to work with Russia and Iran on creating a sustainable peace that would've resulted in a coalition government. This was circa 2012 when the rebels had established a functioning government in Aleppo. But we punted on that because half the country did not want to work with Russia/Iran and wanted no role in the Mid. East whatsoever. So, the sad thing, is it became a question of military intervention or doing nothing (how fucking sad is that?).

I've really adopted the view that I think Assad is awful, I think ISIS is awful, and the "rebels" have become a joke. As someone who deals a lot with Syria and Syrians it is just a beyond sad situation. It's beyond sad that Syrians need to deal with racist countries and their refugee policies; it's beyond sad that they need to deal with Russian bombs; it's beyond sad that barrel bombs are still being used; and it's beyond sad that ISIS actually is active in Syria/Iraq.

These are the times where I just wish we could get past the partisan bullshit. Rather than pretending we can do something now with American military (we could have used diplomacy or a combination of diplomacy and limited military force earlier but nobody wanted to work with Iran before it went against their interest to see Assad removed from power) I think it would be just as powerful to admit it is a really bad situation, admit that American could have done things a bit differently, and most importantly, get involved with helping actual Syrians on the street.

I agree with this 100%. Especially the bolded.

We are in no position to change or define the situation on the ground in Syria. We did have an opportunity, and I completely agree we should have worked with other actors in the region..

An effective Middle East policy in the region is prevented, and frankly gutted, because of our uneven and frankly underhanded policies towards particular nations there. No one trusts us, or wants to be aligned with us because of our enabling of certain nations and their policies.

We can't have any real standing in the Middle East until we at least can appear to have a rational and ethically consistent position with respect to the treatment of Arabs, Muslims and other indigenous people in the region - rather than so transparently looking to protect our own socioeconomic and geopolitical standing in the world (as if the people there are too stupid to realize what motivates American politics).

We can't espouse virtue while attempting to impose hegemony.
We can't espouse democracy while supporting oppression.
We can't call ourselves liberators while we enable an occupation.

Again, American politics is viewed and analyzed the world over. The people in Syria, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and all over the Middle East know what drives American government to act. It typically isn't democracy, freedom, humanitarian rights or virtue.
 
Can someone explain to me (ideally concisely), what the fuck is happening in Syria right now and why?
 
Can someone explain to me (ideally concisely), what the fuck is happening in Syria right now and why?

There is an ongoing civil war that has essentially devolved into a stalemate. Multiple factions are fighting against Assad who is holds specific regions of the country, and those factions are also fighting among themselves. One of those factions is the Islamic State.

The argument of the Republicans is that we should:

1) Arm friendly anti-Assad forces in the region.
2) Those forces would then fight and defeat ISIS. And if they can't then we should launch a ground invasion.
3) Depose Assad.

But the problem is that #1 is essentially counter to #2.

Arming the rebels is arming ISIS, as the two can and often are one in the same thing. The lines between many of the rebel groups and the Islamic State is not well-defined and can change rapidly. Captured equipment is used by the Islamic State, rebels who choose to join forces rather than fight IS, or rebels who are aligned with IS without advertising it.

The entire concept of arming Syrian rebels is absurd.

The problem with #2 is that the rebels are "a joke," as @jking948 put it. There is no unified, organized, and well regulated Syrian rebellion. Again, there are multiple, numerous factions, all with different financial support chains from various actors in the region. It is a very diffuse group of individuals that simply share the trait of being against Assad's rule. That doesn't mean they support one another or would fight alongside one another.

And the problem with #3 is that Assad is the best chance for stability in Syria at this point. Deposing him makes no strategic sense; and maybe it never did. We would almost assuredly have ended up in a civil war anyway as the varying factions would have all been vying for power.
 
another one for help on: is this accurate is it a "good" article. Obviously ZH never hides their opinion, but I love their opinion... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...rgets-iran-readies-ground-invasions-while-sau

Back in June, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimaini, visited a town north of Latakia on the frontlines of Syria’s protracted civil war. Following that visit, he promised that Tehran and Damascus were set to unveil a new strategy that would “surprise the world.”

Just a little over a month later, Soleimani - in violation of a UN travel ban - visited Russia and held meetings with The Kremlin. The Pentagon now says those meetings were “very important” in accelerating the timetable for Russia’s involvement in Syria. The General allegedly made another visit to Moscow in September.

The timeline here is no coincidence. Iran has long provided covert and overt support to the Assad regime via financial transfers, logistical support from the Quds, and via the involvement of Hezbollah in the Assad government’s fight to regain control of the country.

As we’ve documented extensively over the past several weeks, what appears to have happened here is that Iran, unable to simply invade Syria in support of Assad (because doing so would obviously be a disaster in terms of preserving the optics around the P5+1 nuclear deal), turned to Moscow which has in the past used Russia’s Security Council veto to block the referral of the war in Syria to the Hague and which is a known ally of both Tehran and Damascus.

While it’s unclear exactly what the pitch was to Putin, Russia clearly saw an opportunity to advance The Kremlin’s geopolitical agenda at a key time in history. Moscow is keen to put on a brave face amid the most contentious standoff with the West since the Cold War (as a result of the conflict in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea) and amid the related effort to preserve Gazprom’s market share in Europe.

In short, Putin looks to have viewed this as the ultimate geopolitical win-win. That is, Russia gets to i) expand its influence in the Middle East in defiance of Washington and its allies, a move that also helps to protect Russian energy interests and preserves the Mediterranean port at Tartus, and ii) support its allies in Tehran and Damascus thus preserving the counterbalance to the US-Saudi-Qatar alliance.

Meanwhile, Iran gets to enjoy the support of the Russian military juggernaut on the way to protecting the delicate regional nexus that is the source of Tehran’s Mid-East influence. It is absolutely critical for Iran to keep Assad in power, as the loss of Syria to the West would effectively cut the supply line between Iran and Hezbollah.

The same dynamic is playing out in Iraq. That is, Iran is fighting ISIS via various Shiite militias just as it’s fighting the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen via the Shia Houthis. It is thus extremely significant that Baghdad has agreed to share intelligence with Syria and Russia, as that effectively means the Iran-backed Shiite militias battling for control of Iraq will enjoy the support of the Russian military.

What should be obvious here is that this is a coordinated plan.

The Kremlin has effectively agreed to bring the might of the Russian air force to bear on Assad’s opponents in Syria and on Sunni militants in Iraq in support of Iranian ground troops and because the US and its allies have failed so miserably in terms of fielding anti-Assad rebels who don't turn out to be extremists, Putin gets to pitch the whole thing as a "war on terror." It would be difficult to design a more elegant power play.

If you think that’s far-fetched, consider the following just out from Reuters:



Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria in the last 10 days and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes, two Lebanese sources told Reuters.



"The (Russian) air strikes will in the near future be accompanied by ground advances by the Syrian army and its allies," said one of the sources familiar with political and military developments in the conflict.



"It is possible that the coming land operations will be focused in the Idlib and Hama countryside," the source added.



The two sources said the operation would be aimed at recapturing territory lost by President Bashar al-Assad's government to rebels.



It points to an emerging military alliance between Russia and Assad's other main allies - Iran and Hezbollah - focused on recapturing areas of northwestern Syria that were seized by insurgents in rapid advances earlier this year.



"The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle. They are not advisors ... we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more," the second source said. Iraqis would also take part in the operation, the source said.

And then consider this, also just out (via Reuters):



The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday it would consider any request from the Iraqi government to conduct air strikes against Islamic State inside Iraq, but said it had not yet received such an appeal, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.



It cited the foreign ministry as saying it would evaluate the "political and military" logic of such a move if a request was forthcoming.

Finally, to drive the point home and further confirm the veracity of the thesis outlined above, here’s Saudi Arabia panicking at the prospect that Russia’s presence is set to completely disrupt the Mid-East BOP (via Reuters, yet again):



Saudi Arabia, a leading foe of President Bashar al-Assad, demanded his ally Russia end its raids on Syria, saying the strikes had caused civilian casualties while failing to target the hardline Islamic State militants Moscow says it opposes.



In remarks at the United Nations in New York, a senior Saudi diplomat suggested both Russia and Assad's other main ally Iran could not claim to fight Islamic State "terrorism" at the same time as supporting the "terrorism" of the Syrian authorities.



Saudi ambassador Abdallah Al-Mouallimi expressed "profound concern regarding the military operations which

Russian forces have carried out in Homs and Hama today, places where ISIS forces are not present. These attacks led to a number of innocent victims. We demand it stop immediately and not recur."



"As for those countries that have claimed recently to join in the fight against ISIS terrorism, they can’t do that at the same time as they support the terrorism of the Syrian regime and its terrorist foreign allies like Hezbollah and the Quds Force and other terrorist sectarian groups," he added in comments broadcast by Saudi-owned al-Arabiya television.



ISIS is a common acronym for Islamic State, also known as ISIL. Lebanon's Hezbollah Shi'ite militia openly fights on behalf of Assad's government, and the Quds Force, part of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, is also widely believed to be aiding Damascus.

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of what appears to be going on here. This is nothing short of a Middle Eastern coup, as Iran looks to displace Saudi Arabia as the regional power broker and as Russia looks to supplant the US as the superpower puppet master.

Do not expect Saudi Arabia and Israel to remain on the sidelines here.

If Russia ends up bolstering Iran's position in Syria (by expanding Hezbollah's influence and capabilities) and if the Russian air force effectively takes control of Iraq thus allowing Iran to exert a greater influence over the government in Baghdad, the fragile balanace of power that has existed in the region will be turned on its head and in the event this plays out, one should not expect Washington, Riyadh, Jerusalem, and London to simply go gentle into that good night.

 
I say stay the fuck out.

I'm fine with that. I think that it's probably too late now anyway even if we did decide to do something.

My point is that if that's how we feel, then that should have been our policy from the beginning. Instead, we got half-assed involved, spent a bunch of money, gave away a bunch of weapons, and actually helped prolong the fighting. Had we not provided support to rebels, Assad would have had an easier time. And if the end result is him winning anyway, what was the fucking point?
 
T
and most importantly, get involved with helping actual Syrians on the street.

What exactly does that mean?

Those "streets" are going to end up being controlled by Assad, Russia, and Iran. The way i look at it, that's the Pottery Barn rule. They wanted it, they got it, so it's their problem now.

What are we supposed to do? If Syria is not our problem any more then....it's not our problem.
 
Last edited:

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top