"Battlefield realities rather than great power politics will determine the ultimate terms of a settlement to end the Syrian Civil War. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his allies in Russia and Iran have internalized this basic principle even as Washington and other Western capitals pinned their hopes upon UN-sponsored Geneva Talks, which faltered only two days after they began on February 1, 2016. Russian airpower and Iranian manpower have brought President Assad within five miles of completing the encirclement of Aleppo City, the largest urban center in Syria and an opposition stronghold since 2012. The current campaign has already surpassed the high-water mark set by the regime’s previous failed attempt to besiege Aleppo City in early 2015. The full encirclement of Aleppo City would fuel a humanitarian catastrophe, shatter opposition morale, fundamentally challenge Turkish strategic ambitions, and deny the opposition its most valuable bargaining chip before the international community." Institute for the Study of War (ISW)
————
The mark of good military intelligence analysis is that it is ALWAYS reality based, and not ideologically based. I must say that I do not think there will be a "settlement to end the Syrian Civil War," if by that is meant a negotiated diplomatic settlement among the warring parties. IMO there will be a clear victory for R+6. After that there will be an internal political settlement to sort out various issues among Syria's governmental factions.
The most important thing that we should all learn from the Syrian "classroom" is that war is not generational. Its various forms exist and have always existed simultaneously. The R+6 campaign in western Syria is essentially what is "shorthanded" as conventional war.
The hard learned Principles of War still apply and will still apply when humans are fighting off planet some day. pl
Apparently the refugee flow to the EU is largely military age men from Syria! Will any settlement stem the flow?
Colonel,
If 2 of the 3 brigades of the 101st Airborne are embarking for the Middle East as you posted earlier; it can only be in conjunction with Turkey’s and Hillary Clinton’s no fly refuge in the current ISIS and rebel held territory in the gap between YPG Kurd’s homeland in Northern Syria. Secure airports are required for the thousands of troops plus artillery, transport and close air support. This has to be in Turkey. Kuwait or Saudi Arabia are a desert too far. Hezbollah and Iraq Shiite militias are members of R+6. An Invasion from Israel or Lebanon is unthinkable.
Unless there is an agreement with Russia, the first troops invading Syria from Turkey will trigger a World War. Maybe, this is a “Mad Man” negotiating plan to splinter Syria in the peace talks; otherwise, the world is on the brink.
VV
If they want to do that they will have to construct a lot of logistical base infrastructure in Turkey, maybe at Batman or Diyarbakir. Oops, there is a lot of fighting in Diyarbakir today between the YPG Kurds and Turkish forces. pl pl
Pat..
Thanks for adding the links to “principles of War”. One item that piqued my interest was the US Armies FM 3-0 Nine Principles of War or by its mnemonic “MOSS MOUSE”. All well and fine except now they have added 3 more (2011 -Wikipedia). This appears to contradict MOSS MOUSE rule No.9 Simplicity.
Now a small test for you and others; If you were only allowed maximum 6 POW rules; what would you choose?
Rob(hairy-face) Occam
I think that the most likely possibility is that the administration is planning to take Mosul. Turkish forces would lead, supported by a small number of American forces and by American air power. I imagine that they are deeply concerned that Russia and Iran will soon be ready to move on Iraq . I think they will try to prevent the Shia militias from taking Mosul at all costs, and that they need to secure American interests in Kurdistan. And the administration certainly dorsn’t want Russia to become the dominant power in the Middle East. I assume that the President would not send ground troops into Mosul or Fallujah unless they had cut a deal with the tribes (Dexter Filkins told Charlie Rose that they had cut a deal with the tribes to take Ramadi). But I have to say that I’m very apprehensive about this, because their judgement has been so poor in the past. ISW reported earlier that Shia militias had kidnapped some Americans. I hope this won’t be “back to the future”, if Obama does in fact put boots on the ground in Iraq.
For those complaining about the coverage of Syria that you’re getting in the USA. It’s quite as bad on this side of the Atlantic for example:
“The battle for Aleppo has fuelled opposition suspicions that the Syrian regime and its allies are more interested in securing a military victory over the rebels than negotiating a settlement.”
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/battle-for-aleppo-who-is-fighting-why-is-it-significant-what-are-the-long-term-consequences-a6857606.html
Yah don’t say! Who’d a thought it. Well I never. Etc.
Glad to see that the ISW has finally left its geostationary orbite and has landed on planet earth ! been a long way from “marginal Russian gains” to realization of their total failure to analyze events realistically.
pl
I didn’t see: color revolution (agitating for Western-style democracy and rights), covert support for extremists, false flag terr0r, or propaganda in the Principles of War that you linked to.
It wasn’t a war until Russia intervened?
I ask because our traditional view of war is armed conflict with a certain start (declaration of war!) and end (signed peace treaty). The Borg seems to be running a different kind of war. One that is continuous and mostly covert. The ‘enemy’ is everyone that has not yet been ‘assimilated’.
jackrabbit
Most of the things you mention are not real war although they can be thought to exist somewhere on the spectrum of conflict. None of the things you have mentioned in that list have led to a decisive result in the last two administrations. You are going to see a decisive result in Syria. “Decisive” in this sense does not mean eternal but it will mean a non-jihadi Syria for an extended period. BTW, the three “principles” added in 2011 to the US list are IMO just self-soothing for generals unable to cope with their own failures in the post 9/11 world. “Persistance?” “Restraint?” “Legitimacy?” Oh, come on! These all have to do with national purpose. A field commander, even a very highly placed field commander waging a war, should receive guidance from the national command authority (in our case the White House and Congress) within which he designs his campaign plan. he should not be looking at what he does every day in terms of these essentially political things. If he has to do that he will be endlessly distracted from fighting and winning the war. Was this a war in Syria before Russia intervened? Yes, but it was a war in which the Syrian government and its allies lacked the resources needed to plan a campaign based on the classic principles of war and designed to be decisive in the face of the madcap R2P and neocon obsession with forcing the Syrian government into dissolution. pl
Here’s someone who agrees that Counter Insurgency warfare has been unsucessful.
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/crackpot-theory-no-7-hearts-and-minds/
‘For Clausewitz, the primary aim of war was the destruction of the enemy’s armed forces, and there was only one sure method of achieving this objective: combat. In recent years, however, Western military forces have attempted to do what Clausewitz warned against – defeat the enemy ‘without too much bloodshed’. Following the failure of initial counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq, counterinsurgency theorists convinced NATO leaders that the key to victory in Afghanistan was a ‘whole of government’ approach. Military force would be combined with humanitarian aid and economic development projects, which would win the ‘hearts and minds’ of Aghans and persuade them to support the Afghan government and NATO rather than the Taliban. NATO would win not by killing people but by being nice to them.
How has this theory worked out in practice?
Not very well, is the answer.
Since 2003, USAID has spent at least $2.3 billion on stability programs in Afghanistan. The findings of a USAID-contracted, third-party evaluation program on the impacts of its stabilization projects raise worrying questions. The MISTI [Measuring Impacts of Stabilization Initiatives] program reported, for example, that villages receiving USAID stability projects scored lower on stability—an aggregate measure of whether the projects strengthened perceptions of good governance and effective service delivery—than similar villages that received no such assistance. And some villages reportedly under Taliban control that received USAID stability projects subsequently showed greater pro-Taliban support.’
Ah, yes. MOSS MOUSE. We studied that in military science 101 in ROTC and kept studying it for the next four years. We studied many battles and campaigns in the context of those principals of war. It was a good beginning to my military education. I am in total agreement with Colonel Lang on the worthlessness of those three principles added in 2011. Total political bullshit brought about by wishful thinking and aimless wandering in pursuit of some focus group tested objective. Reminds me of the poem “The Antiseptic Baby and the Prophylactic Pup.”
Sir
It seems that the jihadists are now sending kids to the north Aleppo battle zone due to manpower constraints.
As you have noted sometime ago, the grind will lead to ultimate collapse. We should expect the R2P harpies out in force to try to win what is being lost on the battlefield.
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-deploy-child-soldiers-to-fight-in-northern-aleppo/
jack
Yes, the little boys battalion is a sign of imminent collapse. It reminds me of Hitler out patting the Volksturm boys on the cheek. pl
TTG
People don’t seem to understand that the PoW are basic planning principles applicable at all levels of command. pl
Liza,
You may be correct that rather than a Syrian no fly refuge the West’s intent is to liberate Mosul. Iraq and Iran would never agree to a Turkish army incursion and would force Russia to take action to prevent it or break up the R+6. Baghdad perhaps would agree to the 101st Airborne intervention but the troopers would have to enter the devastation of Mosul by themselves, kill the last of the dead enders, fight off any Shiite militias, and avoid tangling with the Russians. This would be final nail in the coffin of Barrack Obama’s legacy.
The third possibility is that the 101st Airborne is headed to Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. There the brigades would serve as comforters for the Gulf Oil Sheiks afraid of having their heads chopped off.
Russia is in the lead. The West is tottering. To survive the European Union has to figure out how to secure its borders, end the conflicts in Syria and Libya, and return the refugees home.
After reading the comments and considerable thought, the question I would like to ask is, “If Turkey sends ground troops into Syria, will Russia bomb them?”
Pro: Russia has been invited into Syria by the Syrian government to assist it in repelling, largely foreign, troops attempting to overthrow the government. Turkish troops would be no different than ISIS under this rubric.
Con: An attack on Turkish troops by Russia would be an attack on NATO by Russia and would trigger a NATO response against Russia.
I believe The Saker (who would be a lot more relevant if he would drop all the Saker/Anglo-Zionist nonsense and stick to what he knows) says that a Turkish incursion would, in the first instance, trigger a call by Russia for a meeting of the Security Council. In other words, they would not immediately bomb Turkish troops.
I completely share Vietnam Vet’s implicit fear that the next seven days could be apocalyptic.
Bill Herschel
I don’t think Turkey will confront Russia. I really don’t want SST to be a bulletin board for Saker posts, or Juan Cole posts or anyone else’s posts. pl
Rather doubtful.
Sir, in your opinion, if the Turks are ill-advised enough to attack into Syria do you think the Russians will counter-attack. Would the Russian theatre commander already have his orders to do so?
Dubhaltach
I think Russia would fight the Turks in Syria while going to the UN just to make noise. pl
Done.
Col Lang,
A long time ago I wrote a paper on the Principles of War that was published in the Royal United Service Institution (UK) journal. In it I argued that the principles, as generally accepted at that time, needed a hard look as to their practical application. I also suggested how they might be made more applicable in real life as opposed to theoretical discussion. One way of achieving this was to rationalise their application to the various spheres of the art of war.
http://tinyurl.com/jtbkwfn
FB Ali
IMO the R+6 campaign in Syria to date is an excellent rationalization of the application of the PoW to reality. pl
I read the passage Col Lang posted with a lot of ‘mental marking up’, to wit:
———
“The full encirclement of Aleppo City would fuel a humanitarian catastrophe, shatter opposition morale, fundamentally challenge Turkish strategic ambitions, and deny the opposition its most valuable bargaining chip before the international community.”
————-
ISW wants us all to be distressed that we might shatter the morale of ISIS liver-eaters and head-chopping ideologues…?!
ISW believes we’re not supposed to question anything that Turkey does…?
Is the ISW honestly making a case that people who put prisoners in cages, eat livers, rape, pillage, and create massive refugee problems merit ‘bargaining chips’ with the international community…?!
This is Coo-Coo for Cocoa Puffs lunacy.
Did I misread…?
You mean PKK, Albayim, though current regime considers the PKK and YPG one and the same. I disagree, PKK is a pure terrorist organization with little support among the majority of Turkey Kurds, a Marksist organization in a land where communist ideology just runs against the national grain, including the Kurds and other minorities. PKK gave little wanted and symbolic help to YPG during the rescue of Kobani. Barzani is no fan of PKK either, though YPG owes him a big one for sending in a couple of battalions of Peshmerge irregulars through Turkey to help during the siege.
PKK has played an immature hand by starting an all out insurgency through out the southwest, which galvanized resistence on the nationalistic front, and most certainly made Erdogan even more ruthless and determined to wipe out the PKK in the southeast and force them on the battlefield to disarm. Army and the security forces have taken a lot of casualties in the last 8 months, it now turned into a revenge match, attritional urban warfare by all means, and a fight till death. PKK will lose, and perhaps also lose its stronghold over HDP, conciliatory political Kurdish party, which is led by charismatic and pragmatic Mehmet Demirtas, who can actually negotiate civilly for the Kurds of Turkey and their legitimate demands.
Also, regardless of fighting between the PKK and the Army within the cities, infrastructure to facilitate large numbers of troops and equipment will be little effected, but I am hoping it will not come to that. There is pure war over there, and if there is anyone who makes his decisions based upon ideology, rather than basic principals of war and conflict, its RTE. I will be open to any other nominee in this regard to consider. Even Netanyahu and Hizbullah are more practical, Putin and Lavrov leading the pragmatic pack of course.
In reply to turcopolier 06 February 2016 at 11:10 PM
Thank you Colonel.
“Russian airpower and Iranian manpower have brought President Assad within five miles of completing the encirclement of Aleppo City, the largest urban center in Syria and an opposition stronghold since 2012.”
ISW still have some way to go in understanding what is happening in Syria. For a start it was most probably Syrian manpower (SAA and NDF) rather than Iranian. The Syrian government has always controlled about half of Aleppo, so it could not have been “an opposition stronghold”.
“The full encirclement of Aleppo City would fuel a humanitarian catastrophe,”
I doubt it. Recently I read elsewhere that although the government and opposition each held about an equal part of Aleppo, the populations of those two parts are very different with about 2,000,000 people in the government-controlled area and only 40,000 in the rebel-held area, and the population of the rebel=held area was largely made up of fighters and their families. By the look of it, most of the fighters’ families have now headed for the Turkish border so life will become harder for them but for the 2,000,000 in western Aleppo, life will become easier with more secure supply lines and the end of hell mortars and a marked decline in car bombs.
IMO Article Five of NATO treaty not applicable to NATO member states armed forces being attacked while deployed outside of NATO!
thanks, Jackrabbit, you triggered a long response by Pat, and I appreciate that.
More associatively, kind of from the top of my head:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Origins
http://tinyurl.com/FirstThings-JustWar
******
What do you think, if I tried to look at both variants, would a knowledge of “the ethical war” tradition help me to understand the usage of the term in support of the Bush jun (Bush43) admin’s decisions?
How useful are formulations of the Principles of War? Have armies which have been trained in such forms of words been more successful than would otherwise have been expected?
cynic
As Clausewitz said, war itself is the best teacher. IMO armies who learn one way or another to function in accordance with the nine American principles (for example)are much more successful. pl
“The celebrated maxim of the Romans, not to undertake two great wars at the same time, is so well known and so well appreciated as to spare the necessity of demonstrating its wisdom.
A government maybe compelled to maintain a war against two neighboring states; but it will be extremely unfortunate if it does not find an ally to come to its aid, with a view to its own safety and the maintenance of the political equilibrium.
It will seldom be the case that the nations allied against it will have the same interest in the war and will enter into it with all their resources; and if one is only an auxiliary, it will be an ordinary war.”
Antoine-Henri de Jomini
Précis de l’Art de la Guerre: Des Principales Combinaisons de la Stratégie, de la Grande Tactique et de la Politique Militaire
Col. sir, ain’t this s’pposed to be compulsory reading for your generals?
YT
No. It should be. Most general officers of the line are woefully ignorant of anything that smacks of history. pl
That is what Shah Abbas I of the Safavids did; made a peace treaty with Ottomans, fought with Uzbeks and defeated them, and then fought with the Ottomans.
Col. sir,
RE: “war itself is the best teacher.”
Aye, but at the expense of blood & treasure.
I have heard of sad stories where even during ‘peacetime’ exercises, young boys lose limbs or worse…
YT
Of course people are injured in training. They are training to fight, kill and destroy. War is an expensive teacher? Yes!! If people don’t like that let them stop having wars. Do not believe for a minute in the foolish idea that war can be fought without killing and destruction on both sides. pl
Thank you for that Footnote from the ancients, sir.
It seems these days [surprisingly] we have not their Acme or Acumen.
After the event, historians may discern examples of principles, but I wonder whether the men involved thought in those terms. I would be surprised if Caesar or Genghis for example had checked off items on such a list before moving. Things like intelligence (in the sense of native wit), skill and experience, organising ability, clarity of thought, courage, setting an example, learning from the mistakes of others and oneself, even humility before the gods, seem more likely to result in success than does memorizing a list and trying to apply it in a mechanical fashion. The principles might be implicit rather than explicit.
I can see that it could be useful to teach people rough rules of thumb of what to do and what to avoid, but if war is an art rather than a science, as used to be thought, those who can only paint by numbers will never match real artists.
We live in an age of bureaucracy, standardization and mediocrity, so it may be that such lists are versions of the management-speak nonsense about corporate values and mission statements which cover office walls without improving corporate results.
No doubt reality will continue to operate, and favour those who, knowingly or not, accord with its inherent principles, even if they have no lists. People who think they should add their PC wishes to these lists, are probably not operating in accordance with reality.
Hmm, F.B. Ali, I know I have to visit the university library anyway to unblock my account anyway.
Without jumping to conclusion, on the surfaced it’s interesting who holds the publication over here. Rather superficial search admittedly. But what historical and institutional implication this regional distribution could signify?
All the way back to 1963??? Why not?
https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-journal
In any case, I like the passage I can access.
Pat Lang,
I hadn’t heard of these three faux principles being added to the P.of W. They seem to be a version of political correctness, as seen in society in general, applied to military science/art. Persistence has a certain historical validity, as in the notion of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result or, on the other hand, Churchill’s exhortation to “never, never, never, give up”. It can’t be universally applicable, which is a fundamental characteristic of a principle. The other two have nothing to offer in operational planning.
WPFIII
Colonel- Then what the devil are they learning at the Staff and War Colleges?
I recall back in the day as a midshipman at USNA reading Mahan, Samuel Eliot Morrison, and the works of other naval historians. We were taught the lessons of Lepanto and Salamis as well as Midway and Trafalgar.
And regarding the dangers and rigors of military/naval training exercises, recall the famous quote of Russian Marshall Aleksandr Suvorov, “Train hard, fight easy.” It worked, as Suvorov is one of the few generals of history who never lost a battle, being undefeated in over 60 large battles while frequently having numerical disadvantage.
oofda
A lot of rubbish about program budgeting and basic International Relations trash. pl
cynic
These principles were derived the study of the campaigns of famous men, not the other way around. They are a kind of crutch for the “not so brilliant,” among whom most are numbered. pl
This ISW paper,IMO, reflects the Borgistas recognizing the reality of the battlefield and their vision of regime change in Syria going up in smoke. Their only choice now is to do their R2P hysteria routine. But….R+6 have the jihadists on the ropes. They’re not gonna let up. They are also learning what’s working as can be seen in recent videos from the battle zone with retrofits to weapon systems.
Col. Lang and Mr. Bahzad had correctly estimated the shaping of the battlefield. The tempo is increasing.
It has been indicated elsewhere, that the Russian Commanders already have authorization (since the jet shoot down) and have no need to go to Moscow for permission. I wonder if they will also follow the US precedent of hot pursuit. I suspect they will.
Some people here need to stop being so damn maudlin and realize that life is tough.
“You mean PKK, Albayim, though current regime considers the PKK and YPG one and the same. I disagree, PKK is a pure terrorist organization with little support among the majority of Turkey Kurds, a Marksist organization …”
The YPG is also Marxist, and historically they have had good relations with PKK.
“PKK gave little wanted and symbolic help to YPG during the rescue of Kobani.”
Turkish Kurds were prevented from fighting for the YPG during the Battle of Kobani by the Turkish Army, which sealed the border near Kobani: http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-turkey-syria-military-20141002-story.html
“Army and the security forces have taken a lot of casualties in the last 8 months, it now turned into a revenge match, attritional urban warfare by all means, and a fight till death. PKK will lose …”
You are probably indulging in wishful thinking here. The last time the PKK and the Turkish state went to war, it lasted for 29 years (1984-2013), and concluding with negotiations rather than a convincing military victory for the government.
“… HDP, conciliatory political Kurdish party, which is led by charismatic and pragmatic Mehmet Demirtas, who can actually negotiate civilly for the Kurds of Turkey and their legitimate demands.”
You are probably referring to Selahattin Demirtas, who is the current leader of HDP. Unfortunately for the Kurds in Turkey, even if they do well in an election, Erdogan will just find a way to void the results and force the voters to go back to the polls until he gets the results he wants. After the HDP won a surprising 13% share of the vote last June, exceeding expectations and surpassing the 10% minimum threshold for parliamentary representation, Erdogan ginned up a war against the PKK and forced the Turks to vote again, until AKP came out on top. Erdogan almost never keeps his promises, so negotiating with him is usually pointless.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “both variants” and “usage of the term”.
In this reply I will assume that by “both variants” you mean traditional war vs. Borg covert war, and by “usage of the term” you mean describing the arguments made for going to war against Iraq as meeting the conditions for a “just war”.
With respect to Iraq, the “just war” answer is generally reduced to the question of whether the war was a “war of necessity” or a “war of choice”.
But I think you may be alluding to a more fundamental question: isn’t it more moral/ethical to effect regime change peacefully (covertly) rather than via war?
In theory, it is. Chiefly because it is hoped/expected that a covert campaign will result in much less death, destruction, and deprivation. However, covert and indirect methods (like economic sanctions) have not generally lived up to their kinder, gentler billing. Regimes fight back and this leads to Borg support for extremists and finally military action.
We were taught the lessons of Lepanto and Salamis as well as Midway and Trafalgar.
——————————————
Same here, different academy and different country, though, but the issue which drove all that into the left field was technological revolution, which, of course, changed tactics and, with it, operational art. While many general warfare principles didn’t change, the approach changed dramatically, especially so, but not exclusively, in the naval warfare.
“Persistance?” “Restraint?” “Legitimacy?”
Yes, these are not battlefield considerations.
The addition of these obviously reflects lessons learned from Iraq. The American public lost confidence in public officials and military leaders after: 1) being lied into the war, 2) being lied to about the costs and length of occupation; 3) viewing war crimes like attacks on civilians and Abu Graib, 4) the growing extremism and anti-Americanism that resulted from the war.
These “national purpose” additions are similar to Sun Tzu’s “moral law”, which he considered one of the five fundamental factors of war:
“The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.”
Reminds me of Obama’s 50 metrics for gauging progress in Afghanistan. I presume that the score is classified as “top secret.”
What would prevent Turkey from fielding its own little green men
An interesting article speculating on a June (at earliest) time frame for Mosul operation. My guess is that is a nice way of saying not this year. http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/23012016
I always thought that we should have pulled out of Afghanistan after about 3yrs even if it meant not getting Osama Bin Laden. Once I started hearing about schools and the advancement of woman (which I personally favor of course) it became obvious that we had turned into nation building mode.
When I heard the argument, ‘if we pull out now we will just have to go back in 10yrs later’, I was thinking, so what? We are good at quick, decisive incursions, we totally suck at nation building. The Taliban and the native Afghanistani Islamists always struck me as the ‘leave us the F* alone’ type, not the terror exporting type. Our only beef with them was that they sheltered Al Qaeda. Pulling out and just communicating in some smart way, we don’t care who runs Afghanistan as long as they don’t assist Al Qaeda and now ISIS, was and still would be the best policy IMO. Of course the longer we attempt nation building the more awkward it is to try to an approach like this. Yikes, and we accuse the Russians of quagmire in Syria? I hope when the dust settles we have the humility to study how they did it successfully. I don’t think it was luck.
Great observations regarding ISW’s claim about a ‘pending humanitarian catastrophe’. Feelings aside, the ISW did not make an attempt to analyze it in terms that you mentioned regarding the actual civilian population of Aleppo.
I gagged on every single reference to the use of the word ‘regime’ instead of govt forces. I have become more sensitive to this unprofessional term after learning about how Syria’s population is distributed. Assad governs 62%+ with at least 10M while the non-ISIS rebels, ISIS, and the Kurds each have about 2M each. Also, it should be obvious to those who are not totally asleep that the govt forces and Kurds are cooperating to a fairly large degree in fighting both ISIS and non-ISIS rebels.
The point is that Assad’s govt is recognized by the U.N., directly governs at least 62% of the population, and is aligned with up to 75% (if you factor in the Kurds) so what justifies the use of the word regime over govt other than sheer partisanship? If anyone claims that Assad has been rejected by the majority of the people ask them which election the U.S./Saudi rebels won and how a hodge podge of groups who control perhaps 15% of the population can be considered the legitimate Syria.
So the ISW is keeping with the propaganda speak but yeah, they are still worth reading for other info in keeping with the Col’s ‘consider information separately from the source’.
Those who thought that Afghanistan could be turned into America by sending their army to kill a few bad guys and then distribute sweeties were off the scale for stupidity.
They weren’t even doing that right. They should have considered how the Romans had done it.Tacitus told them how.
http://ahistoryofthepresentananthology.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/tacitus-on-germans-and-britons-98ad.html
From Agricola (98AD):
‘In order to encourage rough men who lived in scattered settlements (and were thus only too ready to fall to fighting) to live in a peaceful and inactive manner, Agricola urged them privately and helped them officially to build temples, public squares with public buildings and private houses. He praised those who responded quickly and severely criticized laggards. In this way, competition for public recognition took the place of compulsion.
Moreover he had the children of the leading Britons educated in the civilized arts, and openly placed the natural ability of the Britons above that of the Gauls, however well trained.
The result was that those who had once shunned the Latin language now sought fluency and eloquence in it. Roman dress, too, became popular and the toga was frequently seen. Little by little there was a slide towards the allurements of degeneracy: assembly rooms, bathing establishments, and smart dinner parties.
In their naivety the Britons called it civilization, when it was really all part of their servitude.’
In fact they do much better in Americanising the world when the army stays at home and the task is undertaken by the merchants and pop singers.
I think people are coming to realise that the Emperor isn’t buying his clothes in Savile Row.
Probably most of the ‘top secret’ stuff is just trivia which would embarrass TPTB.
Possible manpower shortages developing by non-ISIS rebels
http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/rebel-setbacks-in-syria-have-far-reaching-consequences
This was one of the consequences predicted by SST as well. Here are some select excerpts ..
“Internally, a considerable number of rank-and-file rebels have been exiting the battlefield. This includes fighters within hardline groups such as Ahrar Al Asham and Jabhat Al Nusra. This trend originates from familiar issues involving dissatisfaction with their commanders, for various reasons, but has been aggravated by the ruthless air campaign that is deepening individuals’ frustrations and gives them a better reason to leave.”
…
“Al Qahtani specifically mentioned Ahrar Al Sham and Jabhat Al Nusra in his message. His message is particularly interesting because he is a well-known critic of the conduct of the leaders of such groups, and because such a trend takes place even with supposedly ideological hardliners. References to such trends are commonly made on social media platforms.”
So if the Jihadist hardliners are experiencing these problems it cannot bode well for the less ideological.
“The rebels’ setbacks are undoubtedly among the worst in four years. But what make them particularly alarming is how the internal, regional and international attitudes seem to be turning against them.”
I just included this last statement because of the use of the word alarming, why is it alarming? If an opposing force is lost by defection as opposed to casualties induced by combat shouldn’t that be considered a good thing. A swift end to the civil war should be welcomed. The worst case scenario is a slow, prolonged bleed where there is a continuing efflux of refugees and establishment of a Jihadist network. I suppose that there is a disagreement over what I would consider alarming.
“But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
together at the latter day and cry all ‘We died at
such a place;’ some swearing, some crying for a
surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind
them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their
children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die
well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their
argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it
will be a black matter for the king that led them to
it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of
subjection.”
Henry V
Act 4, Scene 1
I had a couple thoughts reading those quotes, to be had:
“”Internally, a considerable number of rank-and-file rebels have been exiting the battlefield. This includes fighters within hardline groups such as Ahrar Al Asham and Jabhat Al Nusra. This trend originates from familiar issues involving dissatisfaction with their commanders, for various reasons, but has been aggravated by the ruthless air campaign that is deepening individuals’ frustrations and gives them a better reason to leave.”
…
“Al Qahtani specifically mentioned Ahrar Al Sham and Jabhat Al Nusra in his message. His message is particularly interesting because he is a well-known critic of the conduct of the leaders of such groups, and because such a trend takes place even with supposedly ideological hardliners. References to such trends are commonly made on social media platforms.””
In other words, when it comes down to it, when push comes to shove, despite all their talking the walk and claiming a grand ideology, these people are cowards. And I doubt said critic – is he a social media warrior or an actual fighter? – would fare any better were he deployed with rifle in hand alongside these groups. The non-“hardliners” apparently don’t make it a secret that they go where the money goes, read: they are mercenary.
Otherwise, I am in full agreement with your conclusion that, if anything, this kind of development should not be termed “alarming”. And the trend of the international public turning against the “rebels”/insurgents has been going on for quite a long while, evident in so far that, increasingly, the term “rebels”, of a more positive note, is being replaced by insurgents in publications such as the NYT, Reuters as well as numerous others.
Babak
“A little touch of Harry in the night…” Yup, those who live by the sword, etc. If they are lucky. pl
The real definition of regime is a government that the Western power wants to see gone. Has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, human rights etc.
“… reflects the Borgistas recognizing the reality of the battlefield and their vision of regime change in Syria going up in smoke.”
Agree completely.
But their over-the-top reaction is amazingly absurd.
TTG
They taught you the Principles of War because that had to be the underlying foundation for all that came after. The rebels in Syria could have used that instruction. pl
http://www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf
Two mainland Chinks wrote on “unrestricted warfare” years ago back in ’99.
P’raps their definition of “war” would better explain the present-day phenomena.
sorry, Jackrabbit, that’s how I am.
I appreciate your comments highly, more generally spoken, seriously. Yes I babbled pretty superfluously. I acknowledged complaints earlier, or at least the one that almost made me consider to shut up altogether. I hope there are much more that simply ignore me. 😉 Maybe you should too?
Fact is, I am trying to wrap my head around my impressions of the last 15 years.
Ok in a nutshell, i was highly suspicious of the US post 9/11 revenge scenario, not only the accompanying “intelligence”. But now, I much more baffled by what it accomplished beyond one of earliest attempts at explications: Was it about forcing the more recluse out into the open? …
The rest was somewhat vaguely: Will this new reality create a new stream of academics beyond Pat’s acknowledged and appreciated expertise of war and thus its basic principles. In the fields of ethics, supporting other R2P’s as they seem to be called here.
Question from the afterworld, after all, maybe I was simply hallucinating in a changing world, but yes by now even high profile ethicians shout it from the rooftops. It was right after all. Ultimately even Blair, the helpful poodle, can be shown to have been right. If Oxford says so, who am I to doubt. ;
I better don’t start to proofread. But maybe academe follows facta on the ground more generally?
Maybe I was cynical, in a bad mood anyway.
Yes, Tyler.
Life is tough [indeed].
(As if I know not of this ugly reality.)
This Wing Wing here [simply] takes Pity on your boys (as well as those in other lands).
Ah, I see that the colonists from Perfidious Albion followed the methods of their Roman conquerors while they were in India.
God…., “Wing Wong.”
In Britannia it worked, the Batavians or the Germans had some objections and killed a lot of Roman soldiers. For such an approach you need some cooperation.
Thank you for the link YT. Very interesting and relevant.
No worries, Jackrabbit.
What with my limited knowledge on military affairs, I’d be glad if you could recommend any literature – both ancient & modern – that you’ve found interesting or illuminating.
Objective, Unity of Command, Mass, Surprise, Maneuver, Economy of Force.
WPFIII
I finally read the 1963 article “The Principles of War” by Gen. (then Maj.) F. B. Ali, that was mentioned above. That topic is not my area of expertise … but I think his is a very clear analysis. Sincere thanks. Much appreciated.