Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 30, 2015
Syria: Thoughts On The Russian Air Support

Some things that happened today:

  • The Syrian government asked the Russian Federation for air support in its fight against the foreign supported insurgency.
  • The Russian parliament agreed to a Russian government request for a legal mandate to do so.
  • Russian officers in Iraq informed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad of upcoming strikes and recommended that U.S. planes stay out of the area and that U.S. forces on the ground be removed.
  • Russian planes started to bomb insurgency held fixed positions in Homs and Hama governate in west Syria. Both governates are next to Latakia where the Russian forces are deployed.

Immediately after news of the first Russian strike the U.S. payed "Syrian Civil Defense" organization "White Helmets" posted propaganda claims of killed children. The picture it used to prove its claims had also been used on September 25, before the Russians started to bomb.

Next came claims that the Russian had hit "moderate rebels" which the U.S. says are its good guys.

To which Mark Adomanis snarked:

The US couldn't find "moderate" rebels in 3 years. Apparently the Russians did in 24 hours

Indeed. Even back in 2012 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency found:

THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.

"Moderates"- my ass.

The neocon Institute for the Study of War correctly identifies the target the Russian planes hit:

An alleged Russian airstrike hit the rebel-held town of Talbisah north of Homs City. Talbisah is home to Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, hardline Islamist Ahrar al-Sham, and a number of other local rebel groups, all of which are active in local governance efforts in the area. Both Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) have claimed a number of vehicle-borne IEDs (VBIEDs) in Homs City, located only 12 kilometers south of Talbisah.

The Russians themselves claim 8 ISIS targets hit as they do not differentiate much between the various groups of violent jihadi organizations.

The U.S. and its European lap dogs are now outraged, OUTRAGED that the Russians did not hit the Islamic State but al-Qaeda. "They claimed to fight the Islamic State. How could they hit our moderate rebels and their friendly al-Qaeda cooperation partners?"

One of the eight Russian targets was in Rastan in Homs governate. No Islamic State there claims the "western" propaganda. Except that just nine days ago the Islamic State shot dead seven men in Rastan for being allegedly gay.

Human Rights Watch and its ever lying ISIS promoting boss Kenneth Roth have not yet complained that Russia is NOT using their beloved "barrel bombs". But we can be sure that they will soon come up with some other dull bullshit.

The Russian will first clear, as much as possible, the area between their base in Latakia and the Turkish border. That is pretty much a self defense measure as some insurgent groups have already tried to hit the Russian base with improvised rockets. It also has the advantage that the targets are only a few flight minutes away.

The bottleneck here is intelligence. The Russians have UAV drones as well as manned signal intelligence aircraft in Syria and will use those to find targets. The Syrian government will help with its on-the-ground intelligence.

The Russians now have at least 24 ground attack fighters on their base. Each could fly at least six sorties per day (and night), with double crewing even more. When the Russians have settled in we can expect a regular 100-150 air attacks per day on the "moderate rebels" with surges of up to 250 per day. This is about the same amount as the Syrian air force is currently delivering. But the Russian planes are better equipped and have better accuracy. For those CIA paid "moderate rebel" TOW shooters and their al-Qaeda allies life will soon become very uncomfortable. Only after the immediate danger to the base and to important Syrian government positions in west Syria is pushed away will Russia start to hit Islamic State targets further east. This may require moving some of its planes to another airfield further east. 

I also expect that the Russians will do much more than just bombing rebel headquarters and the like. A main task will be direct ground support for the Syrian army when it starts to reclaim insurgent held areas. The Russians will have forward air controllers on the ground embedded with the Syrian forces. Effectively directed, all weather air support will make upcoming ground campaigns much easier.

The "western" anti-Syrian governments will continue to play outraged over the Russian help for the Syrian government. But I do not expect them to take any serious countermeasures. What can they do? Give anti-air missiles to their "moderate rebels" so that these can be handed over to al-Qaeda?

The Gulf dictatorships though may make such a grave mistake:

Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, said Tuesday that there were no circumstances in which his country would accept the Russian effort to keep Mr. Assad in power.

He hinted that if a political solution that led to his departure could not be found, the shipment of weapons and other support to Syrian rebel groups would be increased.

Comments

And how, pray tell, Mister Saudi Arabia foreign minister, do you expect to get those weapons to your folks? Something tells me that Erdogan may not be reliable too much longer.

Posted by: kafkananda | Sep 30 2015 18:46 utc | 1

The brusque handshake before their talks was widely remarked on, as in this tweet by CBS White House reporter Mark Knoller.

Popular Russian tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolets (MK) told its readers that such silent photo ops were “a customary format for the Americans” – glossing over the icy atmosphere.

Posted by: Oui | Sep 30 2015 18:59 utc | 4

– But the russian strikes have exposed the duplicity of US policy.
On the one hand he made a deal with the GCC (US is allowed to make a deal with Iran and the GCC is allowed to support ISIS).
On the other hand the US seems to have decided to combat ISIS (see a previous MoA post).
Well, Mr Obama, what is going to be ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 30 2015 19:00 utc | 5

Plus video of hand shake – here.

Posted by: Oui | Sep 30 2015 19:02 utc | 6

John McCain has a sad. Some of his pet jihadis just got bombed.
I look forward to watching the R2P crowd froth at the mouth over this.
Game on! Where’s my popcorn?

Posted by: thepanzer | Sep 30 2015 19:03 utc | 7

THe BBC, as ever its Masters voice used this head to describe the Russian move:
“Syria crisis: Russian air strikes against Assad enemies”. No mention of terrorists, al-queda, isis, isil, islamic state. THey’re all ‘anti-assad activists’ as far as the BBC is concerned.
The BBC even has the nerve head the piece with a fucking video supplied by anti-assad people allegedly of the aftermath of the strikes.
The piece reeks of USUK government handouts!
“Russian defence officials say aircraft carried out about 20 missions targeting Islamic State, but US officials said that so far they did not appear to be targeting IS-held territory.”
We read yet again, the same thing,
“There are serious questions about who exactly the Russian aircraft are targeting. US officials believe that the initial Russian strikes are not in IS-held territory, raising the possibility that Russian air power is being utilised more in the form of close air support for Syrian government forces against the multiple enemies of the Assad regime.
Of course, many of these enemies are supported by the West’s Arab allies or Turkey. The warning time given by the Russians to the Americans announcing the start of their operations may also raise some eyebrows, suggesting that much more detailed co-ordination may be needed in future to avoid incidents in Syrian airspace.
But still not enough apparently,
“None of the areas targeted were controlled by IS, activists said.”
So, you get the message?
But it’s interesting that the US is now in a real bind, witness what Kerry has to say at the UN,
“US Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States was prepared to welcome Russian military action in Syria – but only as long as it was directed against IS and al-Qaeda-linked groups.
“Speaking at the United Nations Security Council, Mr Kerry said the US would have “grave concerns” if Russia conducted strikes against other groups.
“He said the US-led coalition against IS would “dramatically accelerate our efforts” and that the US was prepared to hold talks with Russia about avoiding accidental conflicts between the two air strike campaigns “as early as possible”.”
Of course Kerry’s claim about who the Russians target is pure bullshit and Kerry knows it, that’s why he goes on to try and get the Russians to back up the US-led assault on the Middle East.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34399164

Posted by: William Bowles | Sep 30 2015 19:13 utc | 8

I am not surprised that Russia felt the need to intervene in the Syrian battles. But I’m not sure why I’m not surprised.
I wonder what Moscow’s main motivations are. Destabilization of Iran? Pipeline routes? It feels like there may be factors that Moscow perceives that I do not know about.

Posted by: blues | Sep 30 2015 19:14 utc | 9

In Defence of Marxism has quite an interesting piece on the subject:
http://www.marxist.com/why-is-russia-stepping-up-involvement-in-syria.htm

Posted by: William Bowles | Sep 30 2015 19:32 utc | 10

From this same article:
The previously adamant demand that the Assad regime has to go is also being watered down as top Western officials gradually admit that “there might be room for Assad” in a transitional regime.
It is clear that Assad, his family and his cronies are so tied to the Syrian state that it would collapse if they were removed. Even Obama, in spite of spending a long while denouncing the barbarism of the Syrian regime at the UN, had to admit that “realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL”.
Putin is offering Obama an olive branch, a way out of the mess that the US has caused in Syria, but he wants it on his terms and along with the recognition of Russia as a legitimate world power on equal terms. For Obama this presents an opportunity that he will not pass up, even though it will cause him trouble with the Republicans at home.
The European powers are also positive. The flow of refugees streaming out of Syria is already having a destabilising effect on the political system of the EU and causing divisions between the European ruling classes on the question of who is to bear the cost. At the same time the already-fragile EU economy, and in particular the German one, has been hit hard by the sanctions against Russia. Thus many top officials from EU countries have been signalling a change in their attitude and in particular in their demand for the overthrow of Assad.
It’s all real politik.

Posted by: William Bowles | Sep 30 2015 19:35 utc | 11

@9
your comment is simply so much word salad it is difficult to address…

Posted by: cronetoo | Sep 30 2015 19:35 utc | 12

The Russians hitting the evil US empires boots on the ground troops in Al-Nusra, might be attributed to them being the closest to the Russian base ( which is the most likely), but I like to prefer that the Russians poked the US in the eye with this one first.
Next target should be the area controlled in the south west or the Golan Heights by Al-Nusra, to piss off the Israeli state terrorists whose boots on the ground are Al-Nusra.
Is the Syrian Air-force or the Russian air force gonna take that one on ? Has to be the Russians. If they dare too.
If Russia is saying to Israel, ‘go sit back in the corner’ like to b mentioned, then that has to be expressed through attacking the Golan Heights or the area next to it.
The cowardly lying whores of the Empire over at the Guardian, declared that the Free Syrian Army was the first targert by the Russians !!!!
And I warned weeks ago when this shit with ramping up with Russia in Syria , that the Wests terrorist proxies would be getting an increase in sophisticated weapons. I can almost guarantee it.

Posted by: tom | Sep 30 2015 19:42 utc | 13

There has been more media attention on alleged civilian casualties during Russia’s first 6 hours of Syrian intervention than there has been during Saudi’s 6 months of bombing Yemen. But let the media squeal in outrage as their darling freedom fighters, whom they have supported so long, are now ground to dust. We’ve heard it all before.
4 years. 4 long years I’ve hoped this day would come. Today doesn’t mark victory, but it has permanently denied victory for the opposition; that the sacrifice made by thousands of men and women for Syria, their President and the resistance has not been in vain. Not only has Russia decided to target IS, but so too any group that stands in the way of the advance of Syrian Government forces. You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists..
It will be interesting to see now how Iran intends to support the new Russian initiative. Boots on the ground, perhaps? Time to step out of the shadows.
Today is a good day.

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Sep 30 2015 19:42 utc | 14

Besides the military aspect.
Overall, it appears, on the surface, that ISIS (the various factions that make it up..) are a revolutionary force. They are, ostensibly, fighting for a new society, a new demos, an overthrow of the previous status quo, etc. They have an aim, a model, an ideology, a religious template, etc.. a ‘renewal’, viewed by others as retrograde and vicious. It passes through coercitive take-over and control of *territory and ressources* plus the humans on it (which is not the only way.)
The main points in the discourse afaik (from readin’ some interviews), are, a) confusedly anti-capitalist. Zakak and fair sharing etc. figure large. b) anti-West (degenerate morals, vulture capitalism, domination thru globalisation, Wall Street, working ppl screwed over, attacks on Muslims, etc.), as the domination affects the social fabric of ‘harmony’ a ‘just, pious society’ and so on. c) Anti-Israel. The few young women: I want to marry, have children, have a husband who respects me, live a proper, devout, decent, safe, life.
Naturally the picture from the ‘volunteers’ or ‘spokespersons’ is idealised (though many may believe sincerely..and note that some EU pols and bloggers make similar points) Most of the fighters are mercenaries, in one way or another, paid for and living off their agression, or are no-hopers going where the violent wind blows and affords some sadism and dollaris. Not motivated by Nation-building, even tribe solidarity, or ‘religion’ in a committed way, imho. The aim is rather to be in a fighting, and then control, position.
This means that ISIS will be (was …) very easy to defeat, after a few serious setbacks and the scare of the Russians are coming it will evaporate, or re-trench into very small pockets, though many martyrs will give their lives, resistance to the death is a badge of honor.
One interpretation, one facet, amongst many others concerning other topics, angles.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 30 2015 19:47 utc | 15

blues@9–Start by reading Putin’s UN speech. I think he’s pretty clear. Since all global terrorism occurs at the behest of the Outlaw Empire, Putin and Xi know that they will be used to destabilize their development initiatives, which is already happening in China. And the CSTO was attacked in Tajikistan. The drive to obtain Full Spectrum Dominance has NOT been repudiated by the Outlaw Empire–The Deep State is a stubborn bunch.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 30 2015 19:51 utc | 16

I’m laughing so hard I can’t stop.. UK FM says Russia ‘must confirm Syria air strike target’… Translation, tell us what you’re going to hit so we can pass it on to our favorite terrorists to take cover.
Just across the Atlantic, US defense boss has suddenly become aware of civilian casualties during air strikes and is now lecturing Russian on how this could turn the people against them. He even went on to say today’s strikes by Russia didn’t hit ISIS..Who knew??? Suddenly they know where ISIS is present and not present? As things stand, all the NATO coalition team operating illegally in Syria’s airspace were told to get lost by Russian airforce. This includes the USAF.
I’ve now come to the conclusion that these guys truly live in a parallel universe. Black is white, war is peace etc etc…

Posted by: Zico | Sep 30 2015 19:51 utc | 17

@13 The U.S. response would be hysterics regardless. The idea of other countries running their own affairs terrifies neoconservatives. Defense contractors dont want Russian weapons performing under real conditions. If ISIS collapses, Obama’s ISIS Fightin’ section of his library will largely be a thank you card to Putin. It’s unlikely the neocons would appreciate the symbolism anyway.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Sep 30 2015 20:07 utc | 18

@ Zico #17
You’ve missed another one : The French
They are so miffed that they were not notified that they come with such silliness:
United Nations: France demanded Wednesday that Russia confirm the targets of its air strikes in Syria, amid concerns they may not have been aimed at the Islamic State group, before accepting the enlarged coalition Moscow wants
Yeah right ! as if Putin owes something to Hollande

Posted by: Yul | Sep 30 2015 20:18 utc | 19

thanks b.. excellent commentary..

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2015 20:20 utc | 20

Pretty obvious as I have stated repeatedly that this turning into a mess, do you guys really think Russia will remove the ISIL threat just like that?

Posted by: ZIP | Sep 30 2015 20:22 utc | 21

@21 Russia might end the threat to the Assad controlled enclaves fairly swiftly. Plenty of western backed mercenaries aren’t interested in fighting first class air power. Mercenaries are there for money and rank thuggery. They aren’t there to be in a real fight. Once the mercs slink away and supply routes are bombed, much of the rank and file will slip away such as is occurring now in Europe. If they were legitimate freedom fighters or it was their home, they might stay, but imported fighters aren’t laying down their lives to stroke Obama’s ego.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Sep 30 2015 20:30 utc | 22

@22
Aslong as they do that, bomb from the air, there is no way Russia could win this fight, this bombing will look like US bombing, that is – a mess and a war that you cannot win.
I sense russians soon will look upon this as Afghanistan war in the 80s, I hope I am wrong but it doesnt look good at all imo.

Posted by: ZIP | Sep 30 2015 20:41 utc | 23

The pussyfoot French, crying as usual. Do they think Putin will ever forget and forgive their traitorous behavior with the Mistrals? Neozionazistan is in uproars, yelling to high heaven, their cannibals are being blown to bits. Payback is a bitch, eh? We have waited four years, enough, time for reckoning.
WoW is desperately braying against the vile Russians, killing his cannibal partners in crime. He’s about to lose his trolling job.
Go Putin, give’em hell!!!
And thanks b for yet another well done summary of the whole guacamole.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Sep 30 2015 20:43 utc | 24

@ZIP@21
Pretty obvious as I have stated repeatedly that this turning into a mess, do you guys really think Russia will remove the ISIL threat just like that?
What mess? I have seen your comments up and down the thread, and your negative doomsday posting is looking more and more like trolling. You seem to have a particular message to inject, “it’s going to be a mess,” “the Russians can’t win this from the air,” “it’s another Afghanistan,” etc.
What’s your point? We don’t need anyone here telling us what it could be, we all know what is at stake, but you don’t seem to share in the general optimism of most posters here. What’s your trolling task?

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Sep 30 2015 20:51 utc | 25

Excellent learning opportunity for those involved.

Posted by: bridger | Sep 30 2015 20:59 utc | 26

Lone Wolf
How am I trolling by stating the truth? You seems to be person I have in mind when I wrote my comments, to be honest its quite pathetic to see people here being cultish in their optimism for Russia in this war. Seriously, get a grip, this is nothing to cheer and we can go back here in a few weeks and see who is right. Ok?

Posted by: ZIP | Sep 30 2015 21:10 utc | 27

Thanks to b for his take on the events in Syria.
Pat Bateman @ 14. You put into words my exact thoughts. Thank you.
According to the Aviationist 6 SU-34s landed in Syria sometime over the past few days accompanying a Russian Air Force TU-154. While this is not official, the anti-takfiri coalition will need the best aircraft to counter the inevitable up-grading of surface-to-air missiles. I think we can expect the US, through the Saudis, to attempt to attack Russia in this manner.

Posted by: Lochearn | Sep 30 2015 21:11 utc | 28

Does anyone know what the Kurds role in this is? Thank you
Also it’s important to emphasize that the enemy in Syria is not just ISIL.
The western critics are seeking to shape the narrative around ISIL being the only enemy.
The U.S. are upset by Russia’s actions and their media is going into meltdown as they really do take being exceptional seriously it’s not just words to them

Posted by: James lake | Sep 30 2015 21:13 utc | 29

Oh Matthew Lee has a good one on Fabius , the $–t disturber wrt Iran nuclear deal ( Lavrov mustn’t forget as well as Iran- Renault is hoping to make a killing getting 20% of the auto market once sanctions are lifted):
http://www.innercitypress.com/syria1fabiusvkurds093015.html

Posted by: Yul | Sep 30 2015 21:18 utc | 30

Love it, the US/UK NATO terrorists taking fire in every orifice…and love the spin about Russians now killing “civilians” or “moderate rebels” by the people who fronted for the terrorists and armed intervention in Syria in the first place!
The insta-pundits on Twitter and the like have no shame.
Thanks for coming, Mr. Putin. Wish you would have come sooner but better late than never.

Posted by: farflungstar | Sep 30 2015 21:21 utc | 31

One of the articles I skimmed recently was about how the US has troops in 165 countries. Mostly they say training the locals but they admit that taking out “extremists” is another part of their job……keeping the world safe for global plutocrat interests.
As the world sees folks standing up to the fascist empire I would hope to see most of 165 countries rejecting the US military operating in their countries in the next year.
Like others, I want this situation in Syria to represent a turning point in the struggle against the global plutocrats behind the curtain of American empire. I want my country, that I was once proud of, to reject empire war mongering and those that use it for social control.
All of us need to prepare ourselves for the ugly that this struggle could become given that the global plutocrats are in control of the brainwashing media in most of the world……go long popcorn….grin That said, I am saddened by the human death and suffering that this necessary engagement will produce and hope it doesn’t end in our extinction.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 30 2015 21:25 utc | 32

– I think the US didn’t expect Russia to act so soon.
– Russia has placed the US in an awkward position.
(See: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/09/syria-turns-the-corner.html)
What I read is that Syria, Hezbollah & Russia have been given free reign by the US in Syria to defeat/degrade ISIS and other groups in Syria.
The only thing the US has to deal with are the arab Gulf States.
– “US & European lapdogs are outraged” ?? No, that’s not what I read in that one particular article. The european responses seem to me rather moderate.
– I still think that the days of Erdogan are numbered. Russia’s attacks on Al Qaida/Jabhat Al Nusra & ISIS undermine Erdogan’s position (he wanted Assad gone). Combined with other turkish economic woes, I think Erdogan will be voted out of office or be ousted by a military coup.
– Erdogan has build a very large palace: 1.150 rooms. Ouch.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/02/20/1-150-policemen-for-Erdogan-s-1-150-room-palace-report.html.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 30 2015 21:29 utc | 33

The narrative being pushed in by the msm is that all rebels(read terrorist) groups in Syria are moderates apart from ISIL.. SO by their definition, Al-Ciada, Nusra, FSA, Ilamic front and the assorted opportunistic rebel(read terrorist) groups are all “moderates”. I guess we’re now clear by what they term as “moderate”.
By that same token, the Taliban is also “moderate” because they’re not ISIS. Sheeeesh..How things change. I think this anti-Russia propaganda campaign will be really hard to sell to the masses.
On a more serious note, Russia must focus of Idlib & Al-Raqqah. In Idlib they should bomb any convoy from Turkey heading down to Syria. I have no doubt in my mind that MANPADs will magically be popping up on the battlefield soon – all to help their “moderate” friends, of course!!!

Posted by: Zico | Sep 30 2015 21:35 utc | 34

b, your quote from the ISW website is not correct. Instead it says:
“…These airstrikes continue to target areas held by Syrian rebels, including Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, hardline Islamist Ahrar al-Sham, Western-backed TOW anti-tank missile recipients, and a number of other local rebel groups. Notably, the nearest positions held by ISIS are over 55 km from the areas targeted by the Russian airstrikes. No Russian airstrikes have yet been reported against ISIS’s positions in Syria.”
That sentence, “Both Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) have claimed a number of vehicle-borne IEDs (VBIEDs) in Homs City, located only 12 kilometers south of Talbisah.” is from another part of the website.

Posted by: Inkan1969 | Sep 30 2015 21:46 utc | 35

It seems Zip is incapable of reading what Putin and Lavrov have said umpteen times about their expectations. Neither expect it to be easy; bath have stated that they’re mostly providing support for the boots already on the ground that have been most effective in fighting the terrorists–Syrian Army, Hezbollah, Kurds, and Iranian special ops. There’re so many such articles that Zip has to knowingly avoid them to stay uninformed–the usual troll modis.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 30 2015 21:48 utc | 36

– I could imagine & wouldn’t be surprised to see that “Europe” is actually glad to see the “Rebels” being destroyed. After all a number of “Western” countries are bombing ISIS in Iraq (were they active in Syria as well ??).
– The european countries could have chosen to avoid bombing in Syria because of the geo-political complications: (think: ties between Russia & Syria.) Bombing Syria would have meant upsetting Russia (think: russian gas supplies to Europe).
– Came across this news: Russia plans to sell a nuclear reactor to Egypt ?
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/02/10/Russia-s-Putin-in-Cairo-for-talks-with-Sisi-.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/02/14/-U-S-says-Russia-shouldn-t-weigh-in-on-Egypt-s-vote-.html
There were more Russia related stories on Al Arabiya:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en
(Search with the words: Russia & putin)
(Isn’t Al Arabiya located in & supported by Saudi Arabia ??)

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 30 2015 21:50 utc | 37

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW – a Kagan spawn) publishes various neocon chickenhawk drivel for ‘policymakers’ (= like-minded psychopaths). They are predictable – a combination of projection, demonizing and wishful thinking viewed through war-monger blood-goggles. The intent of which – as with all ISW material – is to drum up business for the military-industrial complex. Christopher Kozak, Syrian Research Analyst, is the DJ on the most recent Syrian 90-Day Strategic Forecast dated Sept. 17th available as a 20 pg. .pdf on the like here:
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/forecasting-syrian-civil-war
Lots of interesting material there packaged up nicely by Mr. Kozak, considering the source. The one aspect I found most intriguing was a theme repeated several times in his ‘Most Dangerous Course of Action’ possibilities: chemical weapons attacks by ‘the regime’.
Odd because I figured they pretty much ran that whole charade into the ground and were relegated to the occasional claim of chlorine barrel bombs or some such nonsense. The fact that ISW would even come up with the continuing threat of some kind of chemical attack by Assad’s forces TODAY is rather remarkable.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. If the Kagans and their species are still dangling out the possibility of CW attacks, then we would be wise to expect just such a false flag to be tried again by the web of spook agencies operating there. My first reaction is a long face-palm with the thought, “Jeeze… they couldn’t be so stupid as to try that again, could they?”
The answer is inevitably: of course they can.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Sep 30 2015 21:57 utc | 38

I totally concur with thepanzer at #7 above when said about today’s news, “Game on! Where’s my popcorn?”
I’m now going to argue that “Oui” at #2 above is misled and so is ‘B’. “Oui” at #2 above links to an article that claims that, over the past few years, there’s been a “well-documented” clandestine CIA program for Syria “that trained approximately 10,000 rebel fighters at a cost of $1 billion a year”. This alleged program “has been reported by major news outlets, including the New York Times… and the Washington Post”. ‘B’ on this board has made the same claim. The evidence for this claim is very weak. I believe the claim is a falsehood for the following reasons.
First, I haven’t seen any confirming evidence on the ground in Syria. I can readily see evidence on the ground that somebody has been funding the Syrian rebels from the outside. The Saudis have funded the rebels, as is well known. But I cannot see any evidence that the CIA has been funding the rebels. I cannot see any reliable such evidence from the rebels themselves, and neither can I see any evidence from the Syrian government about it. The Syrian government has not reported any such evidence. Secondly, I haven’t seen adequate attestations from USA sources in USA that the CIA has been funding 10,000 rebels with US$1 billion. The claim and allegation is that the CIA operation is “classified” as a secret, and nobody who knows the secret is allowed to talk about it, and that’s why you can’t find the attestations for it. But the fact is, it’s truly very inadequately attested: It’s only hearsay and rumour. Moreover and relatedly, it flies in the face of policy stances that the Obama government has been putting forth over the past few years about the requirement to “vet” rebels. Thirdly, the alleged CIA program has been carried out in alleged coordination with the government of Jordan, yet the government of Jordan has repeatedly explicitly denied any involvement. Moreover the government of Jordan has said that such a program would be contrary to Jordan’s fundamental policy principles, and if you look at what those fundamental policy principles are you’ll see that the alleged program would indeed be contrary to them. Fourthly, the non-clandestine program for “moderate rebels”, which was funded to the tune of US$500 million, was a huge fail and the main reason why it was a huge fail was they couldn’t recruit Syrian men to join up. The rumoured successful funding of the 10,000 doesn’t come with an expanation of how come it suceeded where the other one failed. Fifthly, and related to the first point, the alleged CIA funded rebels have been fighting in and around Deraa in southern Syria. Compared to rebels in other parts of the country, they’ve been not differently equipped and not differently organized.
I say to you, you shouldn’t believe this claim about the CIA until after you’ve seen good evidence for it. As far as I know, you haven’t seen good evidence. If you think otherwise, ask yourself could you be prejudiced and biased? are you not making an inference on the basis of insufficient info?

Posted by: Ghubar Shabih | Sep 30 2015 22:07 utc | 39