What's new

Syrian Civil War (Graphic Photos/Vid Not Allowed)

Obviously you have bad reading comprehension, by 'larger POV' I am indicating on focusing on total military assets of both sides and not who individuals are. Majority in rebel side are Syrian, majority is also Syrian on regime side but not as large as rebel majority. As for IS, IS far east from the current 'Western' regime held state in Syria and doesn't pose a threat to it in short term. Nusra is one party in small portions of Idlib, what US thinks of them is irrelevant and doesn't scare anybody any. I don't support US war against Syrian rebels. Meanwhile, Syrian rebels all on their own going up against Iran, Russia, Western led coalition, Arab nations, etc....are managing quite well and still making advances. Men will not go down without fight, they aren't the type where you carpet bomb civilians in hopes of defeating men because you're a whuss. Russian, US, Irani, Shia soldiers are whusses cowards who simply have no gut to fight on ground and expect foreign air forces to do fighting for them. IS also recently shelled Baghad military airport which is shipping Iranian arms/Iraqi fighters to Assad. So bottomline, even with increased international assistance, Assad can't defeat motivated people.

FSA were the driving force taking over IDLIB? Who were driving the Suicide vehicles smashing the frontlines to sound a haphazard retreat for the Syrian Army? Alqaeda would be mad for you stealing their glory. Also would be upset are all the western and Arab countries writing those checks. Everyone should accept the minimum of ground realities. TOWs and satellite images do not come free.
 
FSA were the driving force taking over IDLIB? Who were driving the Suicide vehicles smashing the frontlines to sound a haphazard retreat for the Syrian Army? Alqaeda would be mad for you stealing their glory. Also would be upset are all the western and Arab countries writing those checks. Everyone should accept the minimum of ground realities. TOWs and satellite images do not come free.

I don't care about FSA, the 'Fateh' coalition is combination of Islamist movements including Nusra. I'm not Shia so I don't have problem with Sunni movements. So when you tell me they aren't FSA, I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Suicide bombings are military tactic which even secular resort to, it's not exclusive to Nusra Front and I'm not sure what you are expecting from me, suicide bombing is targeted airstrike as far as I am concerned with only difference being a man is killed in process. Anti-tank missiles are overrated, and mostly in hands of certain few factions. Which came from Qatar through Turkey, no West involved in this. And various parties have their own limited sources of finding, against West is only is your head. Stop being delusional. Meanwhile I never seen rebels have intelligence assistance or satellite imagery, heck they resort to google maps posters to shell regime positions....
 
Obviously you have bad reading comprehension, by 'larger POV' I am indicating on focusing on total military assets of both sides and not who individuals are. Majority in rebel side are Syrian, majority is also Syrian on regime side but not as large as rebel majority. As for IS, IS far east from the current 'Western' regime held state in Syria and doesn't pose a threat to it in short term. Nusra is one party in small portions of Idlib, what US thinks of them is irrelevant and doesn't scare anybody any. I don't support US war against Syrian rebels. Meanwhile, Syrian rebels all on their own going up against Iran, Russia, Western led coalition, Arab nations, etc....are managing quite well and still making advances. Men will not go down without fight, they aren't the type where you carpet bomb civilians in hopes of defeating men because you're a whuss. Russian, US, Irani, Shia soldiers are whusses cowards who simply have no gut to fight on ground and expect foreign air forces to do fighting for them. IS also recently shelled Baghad military airport which is shipping Iranian arms/Iraqi fighters to Assad. So bottomline, even with increased international assistance, Assad can't defeat motivated people.

I don't understand why you are surprised when the world is against the spread of groups that behead people, rape girls, buy and sell women on the market, engage in illegal trade, massacre citizens from different ethnicities, blow up ancient ruins, and talk about establishing a world wide caliphate?

There is no world wide conspiracy to put down the poor Arab Sunnis. But no intelligent person wants groups like ISIS to succeed. But thankfully for the Islamists, there are enough non-intelligent people that do help them by funding them.

Is that the best thing you guys have to replace dictators like Ghadafi and Assad and Kings and gulf Shiekhdoms? Why isn't there a decent political movement in the Arab world that is intelligent, homegrown, Islamic, and modern?

I'm going to now mention Iran as an example, but please don't react emotionally and throw out conspiracy theories about how we are actually BFF with Iran. Iran's revolution was homegrown with a new political mindset. It combined democratic aspirations with Islamic influences. It matched perfectly with Iran's own society. This did not pop up suddenly with Khomeini because a new political system was being discussed internally for many years by various groups. Khomeini was able to put all these together, mix it up, and bring out a system that was unique to Iran's needs.

The Arab Islamists need to do such a thing, and young people like you and Thrax need to think in such terms. What political structure works for future Islamist societies? How do you combine modern need for democracy with Islam? How best does Sharia and Islamic Thought meet the needs of today's world?

Unfortunately, the only thing that is happening is "Let's get rid of the government first and then we will figure it out" which has not yet worked in any of the countries, whether in Libya or Egypt or Syria.
 
I don't understand why you are surprised when the world is against the spread of groups that behead people, rape girls, buy and sell women on the market, engage in illegal trade, massacre citizens from different ethnicities, blow up ancient ruins, and talk about establishing a world wide caliphate?

I'm not sure what brought ISIS into this, but regarding beheading, all armies resort to it. Difference is a missile is aimed at someones head and blows it off that way from the air. Raping girls is a lie, there was no rape. Yazidi's(Kurds) invaded Syria under US direction to target ISIS and that's when ISIS began entering and later took Mosul. And ISIS took captives, I've seen no proof of any concubines, if there were I don't approve it as it is ancient practice. I am modern person that is secular, ISIS is relevant because they are big party in the field, and hence important to understand current status of conflict. I don't need to dwelve into brutality with captive soldiers every time they are mentioned. Because I certainly don't see this done with any other party in the field or in the whole world.

Is that the best thing you guys have to replace dictators like Ghadafi and Assad and Kings and gulf Shiekhdoms? Why isn't there a decent political movement in the Arab world that is intelligent, homegrown, Islamic, and modern?

I'm going to now mention Iran as an example, but please don't react emotionally and throw out conspiracy theories about how we are actually BFF with Iran. Iran's revolution was homegrown with a new political mindset. It combined democratic aspirations with Islamic influences. It matched perfectly with Iran's own society. This did not pop up suddenly with Khomeini because a new political system was being discussed internally for many years by various groups. Khomeini was able to put all these together, mix it up, and bring out a system that was unique to Iran's needs.

The Arab Islamists need to do such a thing, and young people like you and Thrax need to think in such terms. What political structure works for future Islamist societies? How do you combine modern need for democracy with Islam? How best does Sharia and Islamic Thought meet the needs of today's world?

Unfortunately, the only thing that is happening is "Let's get rid of the government first and then we will figure it out" which has not yet worked in any of the countries, whether in Libya or Egypt or Syria.

Good discussion, you are being more open minded. Well let me begin, for your first question, that movement is the Muslim Brotherhood but it is rivaled in Arab world by obvious parties and has difficulty entering politics. So as of now, there is lots of variation within Arab world. And any such political movement would have to account in Arab culture so it will look different than movements in Iran or elsewhere. My observation is that Arab Islamists offer alternative to Arab regimes and also limit Iranian influence in Arab world, plus Western influence. Hence they will have very tough time succeeding, in the Arab world alone we saw what happened in Egypt or in Gulf nations, let alone if they try establishing presence in Lebanon or Syria. And West will also not be happy with it but solves the problem through intermediaries(such as ties with Egyptian military).

So now there are Arab Islamists who lost faith in MB, the not so bright ones have empathy with ISIS, the brighter ones don't oppose MB but starting to advocate armed solution and going to Syria. Muslim Brotherhood regarding religion, has modern religious system which doesn't include judicial parts of Sharia because they believe those can't be implemented if there is no Caliphate. Muslim Brotherhood is more moderate than you think, and sometimes locals call them seculars in disguise. And ISIS uses this to attack their character and claim that they aren't sincere and it works in some cases. Also opponents of MB use these attacks to claim they are it in for the power/money. So the opportunity for such political movement is gone now, MB in Arab world is now limited to small parties in countries that don't have impact on ME such as Morocco, Tunisia. So the alternative is accept the regimes, join Iran led camp or struggle for what you believe in. Most accept the regimes as they are, few seculars sympathize with Iran led camp, and sizable minority goes for option three. With the Arab world in state it is today, nobody knows how alternative will come about and if it will be ugly or not. So I can't predict the future for you. But I also don't see Iran as democracy, but it is platform that works with Shia's. No offense to Shia's but that platform doesn't work with Sunni's for various reasons which we don't need to get into.

Now regarding me and Dr.thrax, I can't speak for him but he's a smart apple. However , like me, nothing is in our hands and we can only spectate the situation. And regarding myself, I've said before that I'm not an Islamist in sense people think of it. I am not Salafi holier than thou person, I am actually very reserved with religion but consider myself sincere and it is private matter. When it comes to political camps in ME, I would take Sunni islamists over anyone else anytime of the week. Not due to any bias, but simply because how pathetic the rest of camps are. Regarding religious ideology of the Islamist camp there, most are moderate, some are more religious, I have not influence on that and at same time just because I'm Arab doesn't mean I can pretend to be absolutely familiar with the culture there. Some there are still traditional and Islam fits in well, and is system for their society until they can further edit and revise it. Right now my opinion is that simply there is no option to focus on building society when you are powerless and have little clout. Until they can overcome the dominant camps in the region, I won't expect from them to present me formula for the society. How they will overcome the dominant camps is complicated mixture of things, some violent and others non violent, and in some cases things will fall into the puzzle. I can't predict exactly how this will work or if it will even work. But I know I simply prefer values of this camp(for the region, wouldn't work anywhere else) at the moment being.

PS: Remeber many Islamists are philosphical type peoples who are very deep thinking, that doesn't mean they can avoid general platform for the wider population. So the constitution of society will remain pretty traditional until education improves.
 
Last edited:
I don't care about FSA, the 'Fateh' coalition is combination of Islamist movements including Nusra. I'm not Shia so I don't have problem with Sunni movements. So when you tell me they aren't FSA, I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Suicide bombings are military tactic which even secular resort to, it's not exclusive to Nusra Front and I'm not sure what you are expecting from me, suicide bombing is targeted airstrike as far as I am concerned with only difference being a man is killed in process. Anti-tank missiles are overrated, and mostly in hands of certain few factions. Which came from Qatar through Turkey, no West involved in this. And various parties have their own limited sources of finding, against West is only is your head. Stop being delusional. Meanwhile I never seen rebels have intelligence assistance or satellite imagery, heck they resort to google maps posters to shell regime positions....

My delusions started when I thought I would try to explain someone who thinks suicide bombing is poor peoples ways of countering the rich peoples planes. Google maps do not give troop movements. TOW's are not supplied to people who can resupply them to others without permission. FSA arnt being given that fat a check to throw away their lives. I am just glad you do not have a problem with any of whats going on as long as all the sunnis are together. Its also fine to consider Daesh as sunni sometimes but sometimes when they attack you they become shias fighting for Assad.
 
My delusions started when I thought I would try to explain someone who thinks suicide bombing is poor peoples ways of countering the rich peoples planes. Google maps do not give troop movements. TOW's are not supplied to people who can resupply them to others without permission. FSA arnt being given that fat a check to throw away their lives. I am just glad you do not have a problem with any of whats going on as long as all the sunnis are together. Its also fine to consider Daesh as sunni sometimes but sometimes when they attack you they become shias fighting for Assad.

I'm not sure you're familiar with your views, it seems like you're addressing average Arab audience, which I'm not. Daesh is Sunni, I am not pro Daesh, but use childish terms such as 'evil', etc...they are just another militant group in my books with some minor differences. So no fake outrage will be coming from me. I am not childish person or who will hold a bias like most people here. I simply go with my instincts and observations. And prefer being rational, I don't thin of regime as raping, Sunni murdering Shia monsters because I'm not childish. They defintely do commit abuses but in end of day this isn't a horror movie with demons, they are human beings fighting for their interests.
 
Good discussion, you are being more open minded. Well let me begin, for your first question, that movement is the Muslim Brotherhood but it is rivaled in Arab world by obvious parties and has difficulty entering politics. So as of now, there is lots of variation within Arab world. And any such political movement would have to account in Arab culture so it will look different than movements in Iran or elsewhere. My observation is that Arab Islamists offer alternative to Arab regimes and also limit Iranian influence in Arab world, plus Western influence. Hence they will have very tough time succeeding, in the Arab world alone we saw what happened in Egypt or in Gulf nations, let alone if they try establishing presence in Lebanon or Syria. And West will also not be happy with it but solves the problem through intermediaries(such as ties with Egyptian military).

First of all, I agree with your sentence that " And any such political movement would have to account in Arab culture so it will look different than movements in Iran or elsewhere". I was saying that exactly. A western-style system would not have worked in Iran, and that is why Islamic Revolution in Iran has worked for 36 years BUT it will certainly not work in Arab cultures.

And I don't think a mature Islamist political system is a threat to Iran. Egypt's MB government was closer to Iran that Egypt's Mubarat.


So now there are Arab Islamists who lost faith in MB, the not so bright ones have empathy with ISIS, the brighter ones don't oppose MB but starting to advocate armed solution and going to Syria. Muslim Brotherhood regarding religion, has modern religious system which doesn't include judicial parts of Sharia because they believe those can't be implemented if there is no Caliphate. Muslim Brotherhood is more moderate than you think, and sometimes locals call them seculars in disguise. And ISIS uses this to attack their character and claim that they aren't sincere and it works in some cases. Also opponents of MB use these attacks to claim they are it in for the power/money. So the opportunity for such political movement is gone now, MB in Arab world is now limited to small parties in countries that don't have impact on ME such as Morocco, Tunisia. So the alternative is accept the regimes, join Iran led camp or struggle for what you believe in. Most accept the regimes as they are, few seculars sympathize with Iran led camp, and sizable minority goes for option three. With the Arab world in state it is today, nobody knows how alternative will come about and if it will be ugly or not. So I can't predict the future for you. But I also don't see Iran as democracy, but it is platform that works with Shia's. No offense to Shia's but that platform doesn't work with Sunni's for various reasons which we don't need to get into.

I'm not against Muslim Brotherhood, but I think it still doesn't establish itself well. Sometimes they tie in with extremist groups that damages their brand name. MB also needs to find allies (in terms of countries) and at least one place to establish themselves.

They got a great opportunity with Egypt and they lost it. But out of all Islamist groups, I do think MB is currently the best option, if still flawed.

Now regarding me and Dr.thrax, I can't speak for him but he's a smart apple. However , like me, nothing is in our hands and we can only spectate the situation. And regarding myself, I've said before that I'm not an Islamist in sense people think of it. I am not Salafi holier than thou person, I am actually very reserved with religion but consider myself sincere and it is private matter. When it comes to political camps in ME, I would take Sunni islamists over anyone else anytime of the week. Not due to any bias, but simply because how pathetic the rest of camps are. Regarding religious ideology of the Islamist camp there, most are moderate, some are more religious, I have not influence on that and at same time just because I'm Arab doesn't mean I can pretend to be absolutely familiar with the culture there. Some there are still traditional and Islam fits in well, and is system for their society until they can further edit and revise it. Right now my opinion is that simply there is no option to focus on building society when you are powerless and have little clout. Until they can overcome the dominant camps in the region, I won't expect from them to present me formula for the society. How they will overcome the dominant camps is complicated mixture of things, some violent and others non violent, and in some cases things will fall into the puzzle. I can't predict exactly how this will work or if it will even work. But I know I simply prefer values of this camp(for the region, wouldn't work anywhere else) at the moment being.

I don't think a person needs to be Islamist to accept a Islamist system. I'm not a religious person myself, but I think the current system in Iran is best for the society, because the people are religious. A secular Swedish system will not work in Iran. And that's why secular governments in Arab countries always eventually fail. It does not take into account that people in the middle east are religious & conservative and it needs a government that takes that into account. But in a modern way, not go from Secular Assad to Jihadist ISIS.
 
The Russians are there to stump the invaders and bolster the SAA
Syrie 9 22 15 su30 sm on termac.jpg
Syrie 9 22 15 su30 sm on termac.jpg1.jpg
 
First of all, I agree with your sentence that " And any such political movement would have to account in Arab culture so it will look different than movements in Iran or elsewhere". I was saying that exactly. A western-style system would not have worked in Iran, and that is why Islamic Revolution in Iran has worked for 36 years BUT it will certainly not work in Arab cultures.

And I don't think a mature Islamist political system is a threat to Iran. Egypt's MB government was closer to Iran that Egypt's Mubarat.




I'm not against Muslim Brotherhood, but I think it still doesn't establish itself well. Sometimes they tie in with extremist groups that damages their brand name. MB also needs to find allies (in terms of countries) and at least one place to establish themselves.

They got a great opportunity with Egypt and they lost it. But out of all Islamist groups, I do think MB is currently the best option, if still flawed.



I don't think a person needs to be Islamist to accept a Islamist system. I'm not a religious person myself, but I think the current system in Iran is best for the society, because the people are religious. A secular Swedish system will not work in Iran. And that's why secular governments in Arab countries always eventually fail. It does not take into account that people in the middle east are religious & conservative and it needs a government that takes that into account. But in a modern way, not go from Secular Assad to Jihadist ISIS.

I agree with a lot of things you said here. And glad you understand Arabs need camp of their own, some Iranians want them to embrace Iranian camp which doesn't work. But as far as Arab world goes, it's confusing and really no opportunity to make change anytime soon. So we can only watch for now.
 
I'm not sure you're familiar with your views, it seems like you're addressing average Arab audience, which I'm not. Daesh is Sunni, I am not pro Daesh, but use childish terms such as 'evil', etc...they are just another militant group in my books with some minor differences. So no fake outrage will be coming from me. I am not childish person or who will hold a bias like most people here. I simply go with my instincts and observations. And prefer being rational, I don't thin of regime as raping, Sunni murdering Shia monsters because I'm not childish. They defintely do commit abuses but in end of day this isn't a horror movie with demons, they are human beings fighting for their interests.

Thats a much better statement. Everyone fighting for their interest with foreign players backing them. You were disagreeing with who is supporting one side of the equation. We could make a list of countries you think are supporting the FSA and the countries favoring the Syrian government.
 
Thats a much better statement. Everyone fighting for their interest with foreign players backing them. You were disagreeing with who is supporting one side of the equation. We could make a list of countries you think are supporting the FSA and the countries favoring the Syrian government.


The support to the two sides can hardly be compared. US support to FSA is minimal. Some TOWs only. Compare this to USSR sent 500,000 rifles, fighter planes, tanks to Republicans in Spanish Civil War. Russian involvement in Syria will be training, advisory, aerial bombing, artillery fire, similar to German and Italian support to Franco in Spanish Civil War, but overt and much more intensive. On top of that, you got overt Iraqi and Lebanese Shia overt and direct fighting in Syria. Assad receives far more foreign support than FSA does.
 
Last edited:
The support to the two sides can hardly be compared. US support to FSA is minimal. Some TOWs only. Compare this to USSR sent 500,000 rifles, fighter planes, tanks to Republicans in Spanish Civil War. Russian involvement in Syria will be training, advisory, aerial bombing, artillery fire, similar to German and Italian support to Franco in Spanish Civil War, but overt and much more intensive. On top of that, you got overt Iraqi and Lebanese Shia overt and direct fighting in Syria. Assad receives far more foreign support than FSA does.

Only some TOW's? Any idea what a supposed freedom fighter and his family get in currency to fight against his oppressive government? Lets not forget the $500 million just to get those 4 original Syrians in shape to be sent across the border again to get said freedom. I know im exaggerating a bit, that was only said during a confirmation hearing under oath by a US General. Right after that hearing another 75 were thrown in to fight for their freedom against ISIS which somehow got created by their same money pumping to destabilize their country in the first place. Its not just a few TOWs. Northern America, EU, Arabs, Turks and Israelis on one side. The other side has Russia and Iran along with their proxy Hizzbollah. We can put the Daesh infested Iraq on their side too. so 3 countries and a proxy. 1 of those countries is under sanctions by the world due to its aggressive stance towards israel. another one of those countries is also trying to be choked economically because of its aggressive posture towards ukraine. The there is Iraq which is just getting banged from all sides. Any gambling man would have put his money in the US run casino. I am just surprised how could they have dragged it this long to actually ruin the odds.
 
Petraeus advises Congress on Middle East, Islamic State

WASHINGTON — Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus apologized to Congress on Tuesday for sharing classified information with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. It was his first public testimony before lawmakers since resigning as CIA director.

Petraeus appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, offering his recommendations for how the U.S. should address what he called a "revolutionary upheaval that is unparalleled in its modern history."

He said the progress achieved so far in fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq has been "inadequate" and suggested the U.S. increase support to Iraqi security forces and Sunni tribal and Kurdish fighters.

Regarding Syria, he recommended the U.S. take a harder stance against President Bashar Assad. He supported setting up enclaves protected by coalition air power where moderate Sunnis could be supported, civilians could find refuge and additional forces could be trained. Later, he added that while it might not be necessary, he was "not at all opposed to seeing U.S. troops on the ground in an enclave" in an advise and assist role.

"The Middle East is not part of the world that plays by Las Vegas rules: What happens in the Middle East is not going to stay in the Middle East," he warned.

Petraeus began his testimony, however, with an extraordinary apology for events stemming from his personal life. He was director of the CIA from September 2011 to November 2012, when he resigned after acknowledging an affair with Broadwell, a married U.S. Army reserve officer who met Petraeus while researching a book about his wartime leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Four years ago, I made a serious mistake — one that brought discredit on me and pain to those closest to me," Petraeus said. "It was a violation of the trust placed in me and a breach of the values to which I had been committed throughout my life."

"There is nothing I can do to undo what I did. I can only say again how sorry I am to those I let down and then strive to go forward with a greater sense of humility and purpose, and with gratitude to those who stood with me during a very difficult chapter in my life."

Before becoming CIA director, Petraeus commanded U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Iraq, Petraeus told the lawmakers that while there have been significant accomplishments in the fight against IS, "We are not where we should be at this point."

In addition to increasing support for local fighters, he suggested embedding U.S. advisers down to the brigade headquarters level for Iraqi fighting forces; exploring the use of air controllers with select Iraqi units to coordinate coalition airstrikes; and examining whether U.S. rules of military engagement for precision airstrikes are too restrictive.

Petraeus said, however, that the U.S. should not allow its forces to take over Iraqi units. "I would not, for example, embed U.S. personnel at the Iraqi battalion level, nor would I support clearance operations before a viable force is available."

He called Syria a "geopolitical Chernobyl — spewing instability and extremism over the region and the rest of the world."

"Like a nuclear disaster, the fallout from the meltdown of Syria threatens to be with us for decades, and the longer it is permitted to continue, the more severe the damage will be."

He said the U.S. is no closer today to having a moderate Sunni Arab ground force than a year ago.

Last week, Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war effort, told the committee that only a handful of U.S.-trained Syrian rebels are still on the battlefield fighting the militants. The four or five fighters still engaged in the campaign is astonishingly short of the U.S. goal to train and equip 5,400 rebels a year at a cost of $500 million.

"The central problem in Syria is that Sunni Arabs will not be willing partners against the Islamic State unless we commit to protect them and the broader Syrian population against all enemies, not just ISIS," Petraeus said, using an acronym for the Islamic State militant group. "That means protecting them from the unrestricted warfare being waged against them by Bashar Assad, especially by his air force and its use of barrel bombs."

He suggested that the U.S. tell Assad that if he continues to use barrel bombs, the U.S. will stop the Syrian air force from flying.

"We have that capability," he said. "It would demonstrate that the United States is willing to stand against Assad and it would show the Syrian people that we can do what the Islamic State cannot — provide them with a measure of protection."

At the same time, Petraeus warned against rushing to oust Assad without knowing who would fill the resulting political vacuum in the country.
 
Russia Now Has 28 Fighter Aircraft in Syria, US Officials Say - ABC News

In a significant increase to its new military presence in Syria, Russia sent in 24 additional fighter aircraft this past weekend to the airfield in Latakia that U.S. officials say has become a Russian air operations hub in the war-torn country. Meanwhile, the troubled U.S. effort to to train moderate Syrian rebels to fight ISIS continues as a second group of 71 fighters has entered Syria.

U.S. officials said that over the weekend Russia flew in 24 attack aircraft into Latakia, joining four fighter aircraft that arrived last Friday. That initial group of fighter aircraft are now believed to be SU-30 "Flanker" air-to-ground attack aircraft.

Twelve SU-25 “Frogfeet” and 12 SU-24 “Fencer” attack aircraft flew surreptitiously into Syria accompanying the now daily Condor cargo flights arriving in Latakia, according to a U.S. official.

In addition, unarmed Russian drones began flying reconnaissance missions over Syria this weekend.

The flow of additional Russian military equipment continues at the airfield in the Mediterranean city that is located in a stronghold of support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The number of Mi-17 and Mi-24 attack helicopters has grown to 15, nearly double the number of helicopters at the base last week, the U.S. official said.

Russia now has 36 armored personnel carriers, nine tanks and two air-defense missile systems at the airfield in Latakia, according to U.S. officials. The ground vehicles and helicopters are consistent with the type of equipment that would presumably be needed to defend the new operations hub. It is believed that there are now more than 500 Russian military personnel operating at the airfield.



HT_russian_aircraft_syria_02_jef_150921_4x3_992.jpg
AllSource/GeoNorth/Airbus
This satellite image taken on September 20 and released by AllSource Analysis four SU-30 "Flanker" fighters and 12 SU-25 "Frogfoot" fighters can be seen on a runway at the Bassel Al-Assad International Airport in Latakia, Syria.more +


But American officials are still unclear about Russian intentions.

In his first conversation with his Russian counterpart since taking over as defense secretary in February, Ash Carter spoke with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu last week about the Russian build-up. Shoygu told Carter that the build-up was “defensive” and met prior commitments to Syria, according to a senior Defense Department official.

Both Carter and Shoygu agreed to continue military engagements to defuse any potential misunderstandings with the new Russian presence in Syria. The precise details for maintaining those contacts remain to be worked out, U.S. officials said today.

Meanwhile, a U.S. official confirmed to ABC News that 71 U.S.-trained rebels have been returned into Syria and are attached to their main fighting unit.

They are the second class of rebels to graduate from the U.S. military program to train and equip moderate Syrian rebel forces to fight the militant group ISIS. Last week, Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander of U.S. Central Command told a congressional panel that “maybe four or five” of the first class of 54 fighters remained in the fight against ISIS.



HT_russian_aircraft_syria_01_jef_150921_4x3_992.jpg
AllSource/GeoNorth/Airbus
This satellite image taken on September 20 and released by AllSource Analysis four SU-30 "Flanker" fighters and 12 SU-25 "Frogfoot" fighters can be seen on a runway at the Bassel Al-Assad International Airport in Latakia, Syria.more +


Pentagon officials have blamed a stringent vetting process for potential recruits that has significantly slowed a training program that had once been expected to train 5,400 fighters in its first year.

U.S. officials indicate the program will soon be revamped, with the White House considering options that include embedding fighters with established fighting groups to provide intelligence, command and control and assistance with coalition airstrikes. Original plans called for trained rebels to return to Syria as cohesive fighting units that would build support by defending their home areas against ISIS.

Last week, a senior Pentagon official told Congress there were 100 to 120 Syrian rebels currently receiving training. U.S. officials said those numbers represented the number of fighters in the third and fourth class of trainees and did not include the 71 who had graduated from the second class who have just returned to Syria.

On Friday, Centcom said that since Gen. Austin’s comments, an additional four fighters had joined the five that were still fighting ISIS. Including an additional 11 trained fighters stuck in Turkey, Centcom said there were 20 fighters still involved in the program to fight ISIS.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom