Great news from Syria today: eleven Islamist rebel groups in Syria have announced they do not recognise the authority of the main opposition alliance, the National Coalition, that is the formula chosen by the BBC. The BBC does not explain why the National Coalition is the “main” opposition alliance, but it does add that the “Istanbul-based Western-backed National Coalition was formed in November 2012 and is recognised by more than 100 countries as a legitimate representative of the Syrian opposition“. Now let’s translate all this into plain English:
The liver-eating Wahabi crazies which represent at least 50% of the insurgency in Syria are refusing to take orders from the US-controlled Syrian National Coalition. Depending on the source, 11 or 13 Wahabi groups have signed an official statement to that effect, including all the following:
- Al-Nusra Front
- Ahrar al-Sham
- Liwa al-Tawhid
- Liwa al-Islam
- Suqur al-Sham
- Harakat Fajr al-Sham al-Islamiya
- Harakat al-Nour al-Islamiya
- Kataib Nour al-Din al-Zinki
- Liwa al-Ansar
- Tajammu Fastaqim Kama Ummirat – Aleppo
- 19th Division
As I said, other sources mention 13 groups.
Recently, the hostility between these al-Qaeda franchises and the US-backed SNC has even resulted in numerous cases of armed clashes and assassinations between these two movements and now the rift between these two is official.
In practical terms, this means that there are 3 basic forces now fighting in Syria:
1) The Wahabi crazies (local branches of the international al-Qaeda)
2) The US controlled SNC and its FSA
3) The Syrian government forces (with Iranian and Hezbollah support)
Most sources seem to credit the first group with roughly 50% of all the manpower of the insurgency, but something like 80-90% of its combat capability. Now keep in mind that the US official policy is to only arm the second group. I would submit that the conclusion is rather obvious:
First, if the insurgency was winning, or even if it could secure an acceptable stalemate, it would not be busy overly splitting into two hostile groups but it would agree to negotiate under the Geneva II context and hope for the maximal amount of support from the US/EU/NATO/KSA/etc.
Second, it is pretty darn obvious that the American plan to arm and train the weakest part of the insurgency while at the same time preventing these arms from flowing into the hands of the Wahabi liver-eaters is absolute nonsense. Lack of weapons is not what makes the 2nd group so weak. What makes it so weak is that is has no real indigenous, local, home-grown legitimacy or ideology. You can’t just grab a mix of local dissidents and foreign grown CIA assets and turn them into a powerful fighting force. That did not work in Iraq, that did not work in Afghanistan, and that will not work in Syria. In contrast, for all their liver-eating insanity the Wahabi crazies do have a coherent ideology and a simple but understandable ethos, and that is what makes them strong, not their weapons.
The West has always had a fixation on technology and weapons, and this belief is still prevalent today. Look at all the so-called Western “experts” who always compare weapon systems (“our tank is better than their tank”) or hardware numbers (“we have 400 guns, they have only 250”). Of course, inside the Western armies experts know that this is nonsense, but Western politicians simply cannot operate outside this completely mistaken assumption about the nature of warfare. Hence this stupid idea of “fixing” the Syrian situation by “arming” the “moderates”.
This is all very good news for the Syrian people because it goes to show that the only force with knows for what it fights, which has the willpower and expertise to skillfully use weapons and which is not dependent on foreign sponsors (be it al-Qaeda or the US CIA) is the Syrian military. My guess is that the recent threat of a US attack on Syria followed by a complete US stand down made the Syrian military only morally and psychologically stronger: they have faced a very frightening “unknown” and their enemy backed down. This is bound to be a huge moral booster.
Next time when the Americans resume their saber-rattling and threats, I am quite sure that there will be a next time, the Syrians will know that the US is not nearly as powerful as it likes to pretend to be and that in any contest of willpower the Syrians will quite easily prevail over the clueless and spineless US politicians.
At this point in time I really cannot come up with a scenario which would have the insurgency win this war.
Can you?
The Saker
According to the BBC, 11 islamists groups:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24239779
Funny thing,according to Matthew Lee at the UN, Ahmad Al Jarba, president of the SNC has been trying to get acceptance at the UN through UNCA, the correspondent Associated led by a CBS reporter with another one from Al-Arabiya and AP/Reuters.
http://www.innercitypress.com/syria6jarbunca092513.html
in-fighting is always a sign of weakness, though i’m not sure if the SAA is getting closer to victory or not. i haven’t heard any news of major offenses in a while. alleppo will still be a major undertaking.
regardless, the US strategy of arming select groups is in serious crisis.
this should hasten the move to the negotiating table or clear the way for SAA advances.
I really admire the SAA, it’s fought hard, not always well. It’s done it’s job but I can’t see it winning. Like Cesar said of Pompey, “this man simply does not know how to win a war”.
I don’t think Assad can get the job done. The old man, Hafez. He would have finished these guys off already. I also think he would’ve attacked Jordan just to show he means business and launched attacks by way of missiles to Israel and Turkey.
Bashar is too timid.
The economy is crap, Iran is exhausted.
Putin doesn’t really give a hoot.
Hezbollah is getting gun shy.
The sauds and the gulf monarchies are fighting each other.
Weapons are still flowing in.
The Iraqi Sunnis are itching for more war.
Assad’s break is that USGOV is also economically broke, exhausted, gun shy, at war with itself and doesn’t really give a hoot!!!!!!!!
This does not bode well for Syria.
Fernando
@ Anon #1
what 2 did the bbc not list?? There were 13, no question there as I read the doc, so who does the bbc not want their readers to see as associated with the extremists?? More perception management.
@ Anon #2
I agree the infighting is a weakness signal. Report from those with contacts say the fight was over spoils. It is widely known part of the deal is the hired guns are free to plunder. So what we are seeing is they are pushed out of areas back to smaller areas already looted and little access to spoils which leads to fighting over the few scraps left.
The SAA has been making strong gains. Homs area is now just in mop up mode and has been turned over to local security and militia. Latakia area we see the terrorist pushed all the way back to the Turkish border area. Allepo area is the main focus now with the force that was around Homs is heading that way. Northern area of Allepo is all in SAA control now. Damascus is going well too. Daily gains. Though south of the capital is still a challenge as they have to deal with ‘professional others’ not just terrorists. Hezbollah has done a great job is securing the Lebanon border to cut off the flow of weapons and manpower.
100-200 terrorists are taken out daily. SAA casualties are not released, though they are much lower.
@ Anon #3
do you have a point or just like to toss unsubstantiated babbel at the wall?? The only things I can agree with in your post is the SAA has fought hard and weapons are still flowing, the rest just reads like AP/BBC propaganda.
@ Saker
Thanks for the effort.
“At this point in time I really cannot come up with a scenario which would have the insurgency win this war.”
No, I can not either. I think they are spent. Even if the west does the stupid thing and pulls a Libya on Syria, what is left will never submit to whoever is put in charge. It would look like the green party of Libya on steroids with better arms and bigger friends. (best of luck to the greens, hope they can take their country back)
Funny, back in the 80s in the USAF I never though I would be rooting for Russia and be so disgusted with my own so call representatives. I live in Arizona so that includes Mr. ‘fat cheeks traitor’ McCain.
btw, the US destroyers are still anchored around Sicily but expect them to move tomorrow due to the exercise with NATO. I am very much interested in what will stay in the med. after the exercise!!!
I am not an Anon, I put my name, my REAL name at the bottom of my post. I comment on what I see. Assad is having a hard time. His economy is in the crappee. I don’t consider my comment babble and neither should you sir. I do not repeat anything from the MSM, why? I don’t listen or watch it. I’m glad you served in the AirFarce, I’m sure you felt real tough being issued a gun and then storing it in your locker.
If the SAA wins I’ll be really happy the powers that be need a huge defeat to make them humble.
Now if you want to mention a blabber mouth, uncle Ronald was great at it.
Fernando
@Anonymous0627:Funny, back in the 80s in the USAF I never though I would be rooting for Russia
In all fairness, the Soviet Union of the 80s was a dangerous and ugly society. I did my basic training (electronic warfare) in Europe in 1986 and I know for a fact how acutely we felt the danger of a Soviet attack. Also, as somebody of Russian descent I spend a lot of time engaged in what the Soviets called “anti-Soviet activities” (like using the Soviet merchant navy to smuggle banned books into the USSR or sending help to people held in the Gulag or their families) and I still feel that it was the right thing to do. The USSR was not “THE” (only) evil empire, but it definitely was ONE OF the evil Empire(s) out there. When Khomeini called it “the other Satan” he was right.
Things have really changed now. No, Russia is hardly some kind of “saintly Empire”, but it is a ‘normal’ *country* which stands for international law, a multi-polar world, and anti-imperialism and that is what I think you are really rooting for, rather than Russia per se, no?
I think that a lot of us of the 1980s generation REALLY believed in democracy and freedom. Maybe we were naive – I sure was – but so what? Our intentions and ideals were pure. We where just lied to.
Believe it or not, I used to be a rabid right-winger, and I really believed all of Regan propaganda about the Contras, about NATO standing for the defense of Europe, about containing Communism, etc. It is embarrassing for me to admit that now – I sometimes refer to myself as a “recovering military analyst” – but I don’t see the point of hiding it.
All of us were born in a society of lies and it took us years to realize that. As for the Western capitalist system, it only PRETENDED to care about freedom, human rights, economic prosperity for all and all the rest of this crap as long as it had a USSR to compete with. As soon as the USSR collapsed, the West showed its true face: tubocapitalism, violence, lawlessness, exploitation and poverty for the masses and, basically, corporate Fascism, a plutocracy of the 1% and serfdom for the remaining 99%.
So I think that while at this moment in time we are all rooting for Russia, it is only because at this moment in time Russia stands for what is right. If tomorrow it changes its stance, I am most definitely willing to oppose it with everything I have. And I bet you that you feel likewise. Why? Because we are simply beyond patriotism – we stand for values, ideas, ethics and principles, regardless who speaks for them, is that not so?
Kind regards my ex-fellow Cold War warrior :-)
The Saker
@Fernando: I am sorry that you clearly feel aggressed by Anonymous0627 but I ask you not to over-react. Sometimes things in writing look worse then they would have in a real conversation. Also, Anonymous0627 did point out something true, which was that you did not substantiate your points which, while certainly not forbidden here, opens you up to a challenge to back up your points. I do agree that he should not have chosen the word “babble” though. So please, I ask both of you, let’s not get personal and stick to issues, ok? If we were all together around a table, I would ask for a shake of hand, but since we are in virtual space, all I can ask for a just take a deep breath, relax, and let’s focus on the issues, ok?
The Saker
@ Saker
Your reply to my post at 06:27 was right on target. I am for individual sovereignty, rule of law, fairness, honesty, compassion, mutual respect for ones person and property, truth, etc. Any person, group, or country that stands for the like is on my team. I do not follow, but more support those that agree with or whose actions show an intent to follow what I believe to be what is right.
It is embarrassing for me to admit that now – I sometimes refer to myself as a “recovering military analyst” – but I don’t see the point of hiding it.
“It is not where we are in life, but how far we have come.” – an old friend of mine use to say that to me often. We should never be ashamed of falling down as a child before we learned to walk as falling down is what motivated us to walk in the first place.
So I think that while at this moment in time we are all rooting for Russia, it is only because at this moment in time Russia stands for what is right. If tomorrow it changes its stance, I am most definitely willing to oppose it with everything I have. And I bet you that you feel likewise. Why? Because we are simply beyond patriotism – we stand for values, ideas, ethics and principles, regardless who speaks for them, is that not so?
Yes, yes, and yes.
anti-Soviet activities – much respect for your efforts there.
Note on the ships in the Med.
The most destroyers are still at anchor and not participating in ‘Brilliant Mariner’ exercise. Though one is heading west right now at 47 knots passing the isle of Pantelleria. Sub chasing maybe? The exercise has more ships than the 25 they claim to be participating. I see around 50 warships in the area mostly off the coast of Algeria between Algiers and Annaba.
Babble definition:
1. To utter rapidly and indistinctly.
2. To blurt out impulsively; disclose without careful consideration.
Fernando, using that word was not meant to be derogatory, but more descriptive of your post.
Please take a look at
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/about-us/
and search their names on the engine of your choice and see what they have to say about the events surrounding Syria, other world events, and thought processes of many in leadership positions.
You may come to see that
1. President Assad is not timid but has great respect from his peers and it takes great strength to be in the position he is currently holding. That political leaders do not make military descisions but policy/goals for the military to achieve. And that he has made some very tough choices.
2. President Putin does give a hoot and is very compasionate about his goals for Russia and the rest of the world.
3. Hezbollah is not gun shy, is one of the most respected military outfits on the planet, and plays the ‘game’ very well.
4. Iran is not exhausted but growing at a good pace. They just recently welded the connection to Pakistan for the gas line, the gas line into Iraq in nearing completion, trade is increasing to central Asia and Africa, new agreements and meatings scheduled with Russia and China, etc.
5. Reagan was not a blabber mouth but one of the greatest speakers for a public leader in our time. I don’t agree with all his moves, but that is another story.
6. Saud and other gulf monarchies are all in it together, except for Yemen obviously as they are awarded the honor of drone target.
etc…
on another note – Here is a good read
http://tarafits.blogspot.com/2013/09/indias-hasty-decision-to-vote-against.html
Oh ok, I appreciate your responses and thank you for being gentlemen. I humbly apologize as well (picks up gauntlet).
Fernando.
@Anonymous2353: thanks your post – we are clearly of one mind on these issues. Quick question: how/where do you get info to track the 50 ships of ‘Brilliant Mariner’ and their speed? (ignore this if you rather not reply, or email me if you prefer to answer me directly!)
@Fernando: awesome! thanks a lot for your understanding and patience, for which I am very grateful :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
Saker, most of the marine data is just from various web sites showing AIS data. All warships will be under the ‘Unspecified Ships’, ‘Tugs, Pilots etc’, or ‘Anchored/Moored’ category and I turn the others off.
I just looked and most now have turned their transponders off. Yesterday it was a big mass of targets…
Not all will be warships but watching the movement of an ID will give them away when they are not going from port to port but either loitering or in a pattern. I sat on a radar scope in the AF so this is second nature to me.
I knew that area they would be operating in from FAA restrictions. They alway put flight restrictions around exercise areas.
AIS sites:
http://www.marinetraffic.com/
http://shipfinder.co/
http://www.sailwx.info/
http://www.marinetraffic.org/
http://www.vesselfinder.com/
http://www.shipspotting.com/
Searches on callsigns and transponder IDs once a certain ship is known.
‘Other’ sources are also available.
The reason I knew that destroyer was moving is what else is going to be traveling at 55 mph on water? Not a tanker.
@Anonymous1939: Nice, *very* nice! I love that kind of methodology, and I never tried with ship movements. I guess I will begin practicing this one :-)
Now show me how you track subs?! (just kidding, of course).
Thanks a lot and thanks for your posts – keep commenting please!
Cheers,
The Saker