USA Asked Indonesia to send ground troops to Syria

[Indos]

Indonesia rejects US request for troops to fight Islamic State | afr.com

• Jun 29 2015 at 6:11 PM

• Updated Jun 29 2015 at 6:11 PM

by John Kerin
Indonesia has rejected a US request for ground forces to support the war against Islamic State, former foreign minster Marty Natalegawa said on Monday.

Speaking at an ANU Crawford School of Public Policy Leadership Forum in Canberra, Mr Natalegawa declined to name the country that had asked for Indonesian military support other than to suggest it would not be too difficult for the audience to guess.

"We can do far more to address our problems at home rather than by making some superficial, almost cosmetic, contribution of sending a small number of troops [to Iraq]," Mr Natalegawa said. "We [Indonesia] are better doing what we can to get our own house in order."

Indonesian authorities are worried about a resurgence in extremism in the country in the wake of the ongoing war involving Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the group's successful exploitation of propaganda.


Estimates on the number of Indonesians who have gone to fight for ISIS vary between 300 and 600.

Mr Natalegawa said he did not see any "quick fix" to the ISIS situation, and were Western countries to apply direct military force it would only "create new problems".

Australia has about 120 fighters who are either citizens or dual nationals fighting with Islamic State.

Earlier in a forum session on ensuring the region's security, former defence minister Robert Hill said Australia's defence white paper would have to update military strategy on tackling Islamic State.

The defence white paper sets out the Abbott government's vision for the military for the next 20 years, including a $275 billion-plus weapons wishlist; it is due for release either late this year or early next year.

"Clearly there has been an implosion in the Middle East; ISIS is different to the types of terrorist organisations we have seen before because it takes and holds territory," Mr Hill said.

But he said despite the tensions of China's territorial disputes with its neighbours in the South China Sea and East China Sea, Australia's immediate region was relatively stable.

"Australia doesn't face a demonstrable conventional threat for the forseeable future; our troops are most likely to be used in Coalition with other forces as has been the pattern for more than a decade," Mr Hill said.

"The paper will reflect China exerting its nationalism which may cause some pain for neighbouring states but I suspect the [2015] defence white paper will be more nuanced in its treatment of China than the Kevin Rudd white paper of a few years back."

But ANU professor of strategic studies Hugh White said the big question for the coming defence white paper was how it handled China's challenges to the primacy of the United States in the Asia Pacific.

Professor White said Australia could simply no longer be sure the US would continue to play the role of security guarantor for the Asia Pacific the way it had over the past 40 years.

He said the risk of an outbreak of conflict between the two big powers was far "less unlikely than it used to be", given ongoing tensions over the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Australia needed to consider whether it needed to be more self-reliant, including having a bigger submarine force than the 12 planned, more smaller warships and land strike missiles to act as a deterrent.


Indonesia rejects US request for troops to fight Islamic State | afr.com


Read more: Indonesia rejects US request for troops to fight Islamic State | afr.com
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

 

[!eon]

What's Indonesian response ? hopefully, NO.

 

[Indos]

What's Indonesian response ? hopefully, NO.

I dont see Joko Widodo has any interest to make such attempt. Maybe Indonesia will do it if there is a broad and serious coalition with huge military present, not a small amount of troops, but still not possible under current administration according to me.

Previous administration under Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has said that Indonesia is ready to send troops if Syria regime and the opposition can make any kind of peace deal among them first.

 

[C130]

we should just step back from the Middle East and let Russia/China handle it. If they can handle the rats in Syria which I think they will flee into Turkey and Iraq, hopefully they follow them and crush them.

we just keep adding gasoline to the fire.

Indonesia isn't obligated to help, but if IS continue to gain momentum they will gain a following in Indonesia.

 

[tranquilium]

we should just step back from the Middle East and let Russia/China handle it. If they can handle the rats in Syria which I think they will flee into Turkey and Iraq, hopefully they follow them and crush them.

we just keep adding gasoline to the fire.

Indonesia isn't obligated to help, but if IS continue to gain momentum they will gain a following in Indonesia.

The main force of influence in Middle East, as well as the main cause of its problems is US. Europe and Russia both have limited influence. Well, the Russians used to have a great deal of it during USSR days. China's influence is mostly economic in nature and frankly only cares whether the other party can uphold the bargain. So nowadays it is pretty much US.

Of course, middle east is not going to become peaceful even if US back away, but it will just be a problem for the middle eastern nations instead of the rest of the world's problem.

 

[Indos]

Well, ISIS advances can be a positive factor as well for any possible piece deal between Bashar and Opposition forces. Both of them will be swallowed soon or later by ISIS. If both Iran and Saudi can push each side to a piece agreement and make a fair election in Syria, many nations will be very willingly to deploy many of their ground troops to crush ISIS.

 

[ahojunk]

Indonesia is very smart to say NO.

"We can do far more to address our problems at home rather than by making some superficial, almost cosmetic, contribution of sending a small number of troops [to Iraq]," Mr Natalegawa said. "We [Indonesia] are better doing what we can to get our own house in order."

I agree 100%.

 

[TaiShang]

Well, ISIS advances can be a positive factor as well for any possible piece deal between Bashar and Opposition forces. Both of them will be swallowed soon or later by ISIS. If both Iran and Saudi can push each side to a piece agreement and make a fair election in Syria, many nations will be very willingly to deploy many of their ground troops to crush ISIS.

The problem is there is very little moderate opposition left.

The radicals of Syria are not just the ISIS. The second largest group, al Nusra is an extension of Iraqi al-Qaeda.

And then there is Turkey-formed Jaish al-Fath, which is an amalgamation of the worst terrorists because they are entirely mercenary/imported.

How can foreign elements/interests can have a say in Syria's future?

To ensure a meaningful ground for negotiation, the first job to do is to clean the country from some 30.000-50.000 foreign fighters. Then all parties, including Kurds, can sit on the table and maybe form a broad-based, representative government like in Lebanon.

But, as Russia knows, for any meaningful progress, first, the illegitimate fighting forces must be destroyed. In Syria, the only legitimate party to hold weapons is the Syrian Arab Army.

So, it is very wise of Indonesia not to recognize the US request. At the moment, any outside involvement will further complicate the issue. Basically, it is US vs Russia now and we have to wait and see which side will prevail on the Syrian ground: SAA and Russian supporting units or US and the terrorist groups that it backs.

 

[Aepsilons]

To ensure a meaningful ground for negotiation, the first job to do is to clean the country from some 30.000-50.000 foreign fighters. Then all parties, including Kurds, can sit on the table and maybe form a broad-based, representative government like in Lebanon.

Correct.

 

[Indos]

The problem is there is very little moderate opposition left.

The radicals of Syria are not just the ISIS. The second largest group, al Nusra is an extension of Iraqi al-Qaeda.

And then there is Turkey-formed Jaish al-Fath, which is an amalgamation of the worst terrorists because they are entirely mercenary/imported.

How can foreign elements/interests can have a say in Syria's future?

To ensure a meaningful ground for negotiation, the first job to do is to clean the country from some 30.000-50.000 foreign fighters. Then all parties, including Kurds, can sit on the table and maybe form a broad-based, representative government like in Lebanon.

But, as Russia knows, for any meaningful progress, first, the illegitimate fighting forces must be destroyed. In Syria, the only legitimate party to hold weapons is the Syrian Arab Army.

So, it is very wise of Indonesia not to recognize the US request. At the moment, any outside involvement will further complicate the issue. Basically, it is US vs Russia now and we have to wait and see which side will prevail on the Syrian ground: SAA and Russian supporting units or US and the terrorist groups that it backs.

Nope, it is impossible to make 30.000-50.000 foreign fighters out first, you just suggest to extend the bloody war further into the Sunni camp. As I said earlier that each party (Bashar regime) and the opposition need to understand that sooner or later ISIS will overcome them. So better to have peace deal among them first. Bashar should leave the country as soon as possible since he is the main obstacle of why peace deal cannot be achieved between two parties.

Iran and Hisbullah are two powers that is responsible as well. If not because of Hisbullah fighters present, the war has been over several years before, and ISIS + Al Nusra wil not emerge at all.

 

[Aepsilons]

The problem is there is very little moderate opposition left.

The radicals of Syria are not just the ISIS. The second largest group, al Nusra is an extension of Iraqi al-Qaeda.

And then there is Turkey-formed Jaish al-Fath, which is an amalgamation of the worst terrorists because they are entirely mercenary/imported.

How can foreign elements/interests can have a say in Syria's future?

To ensure a meaningful ground for negotiation, the first job to do is to clean the country from some 30.000-50.000 foreign fighters. Then all parties, including Kurds, can sit on the table and maybe form a broad-based, representative government like in Lebanon.

But, as Russia knows, for any meaningful progress, first, the illegitimate fighting forces must be destroyed. In Syria, the only legitimate party to hold weapons is the Syrian Arab Army.

So, it is very wise of Indonesia not to recognize the US request. At the moment, any outside involvement will further complicate the issue. Basically, it is US vs Russia now and we have to wait and see which side will prevail on the Syrian ground: SAA and Russian supporting units or US and the terrorist groups that it backs.

The issue, my friend, is that the root of the conflict is ideological and religious in nature. Syria is a battle ground for both Iran and Saudi Arabia, whether we like it or not, it is. The same goes for Yemen.

This will, ultimately, not end well with just simply air strikes. It can, technically be silenced with short term based foreign assistance forces, but as US interventionism had shown in Iraq --- a power vaccum will come back and it will go back to square one. Its best we do not engage or put boots on the ground. The Syrian people must write their own destiny.

It becomes very complicated when you're dealing with pseudo religious-political ideological warfare. It does not end well. The Russians know of this in Afghanistan. The Americans know too well in Iraq.

 

[Indos]

The issue, my friend, is that the root of the conflict is ideological and religious in nature. Syria is a battle ground for both Iran and Saudi Arabia, whether we like it or not, it is. The same goes for Yemen.

This will, ultimately, not end well with just simply air strikes. It can, technically be silenced with short term based foreign assistance forces, but as US interventionism had shown in Iraq --- a power vaccum will come back and it will go back to square one. Its best we do not engage or put boots on the ground. The Syrian people must write their own destiny.

It becomes very complicated when you're dealing with pseudo religious-political ideological warfare. It does not end well. The Russians know of this in Afghanistan. The Americans know too well in Iraq.

You need to visit Lebanon to understand the hate between Sunni and Shiah people in the region. Many foreign fighters come from Lebanon as well, fighting for each side.

The main thing that is unique is that ISIS fight both Bashar and Opposition (Sunni camp)

 

[TaiShang]

Iran and Hisbullah are two powers that is responsible as well. If not because of Hisbullah fighters present, the war has been over several years before, and ISIS + Al Nusra wil not emerge at all.

Hezbollah is active only along the Lebanese border. It was Hezbollah which ensured that ISIS could not infiltrate Lebanon and find new recruits. They tried, as you might remember, and even attacked some Shia mosques. But Hezbollah quickly got it under control.

Thanks to Hezbollah, ISIS is less powerful than it would be today had it had access to Lebanon Sunni base.

The issue, my friend, is that the root of the conflict is ideological and religious in nature. Syria is a battle ground for both Iran and Saudi Arabia, whether we like it or not, it is. The same goes for Yemen.

If it is only Saudis and Iranians, the war would end pretty quickly.

It is more global in context although, definitely, it also involves sectarianism. Besides, Saudis have been more involved in Syria in every way possible while Iran has so far offered technical and equipment assistance to the SAA.

This will, ultimately, not end well with just simply air strikes. It can, technically be silenced with short term based foreign assistance forces, but as US interventionism had shown in Iraq --- a power vaccum will come back and it will go back to square one. Its best we do not engage or put boots on the ground. The Syrian people must write their own destiny.

The only way to stop ISIS is to seal them off from land-based logistics, which mainly means Turkish and Jordanian borders.

Once cut off, they won't sustain long. Air strikes are the only meaningful way to ensure that no military convoy with 500 vehicles moves some 500kms from Turkish border into Syria with no coalition air strikes. This won't be the case anymore, especially with effective intelligence.

Also keep in mind, there will be Iraqi and YPG onslaught from north and east.

 

[Aepsilons]

If it is only Saudis and Iranians, the war would end pretty quickly.

In that context, the Saudis have been the largest funder of extremist Wahabism , globally. I don't think we need to argue or debate on some of the things said in largely Saudi-funded madrasas , globally. There is an ideological based infusion there.

Its actually quite unfortunate.

The only way to stop ISIS is to seal them off from land-based logistics, which mainly means Turkish and Jordanian borders.

Once cut off, they won't sustain long. Air strikes are the only meaningful way to ensure that no military convoy with 500 vehicles moves some 500kms from Turkish border into Syria with no coalition air strikes. This won't be the case anymore, especially with effective intelligence.

Also keep in mind, there will be Iraqi and YPG onslaught from north and east.

Let's hope so, my friend. Let's hope so.

 

[Indos]

Hezbollah is active only along the Lebanese border. It was Hezbollah which ensured that ISIS could not infiltrate Lebanon and find new recruits. They tried, as you might remember, and even attacked some Shia mosques. But Hezbollah quickly got it under control.

Thanks to Hezbollah, ISIS is less powerful than it would be today had it had access to Lebanon Sunni base.
.

Before ISIS emergence and even before Al-Nusra become big (ISIS comes from Al-Nusra), FSA was able to make quick advance. It is Hisbullah that prevent that momentum to happen. You need to learn more about this war mate.

Opposition fighters fight without coordination and single command. Al-Nusra/ISIS comes with a single command and discipline since it has huge experience since the emergence of Al-Qaeda in Afghan.

ISIS/Al-Qaeda force attract local people to join because other opposition fighters dont give some kind of optimism after its loss momentum and its division among themselves.