ungifted said:
JohnRoberts said:
PS the downing of a Russian jet for violating Turkish air space seems like it could end Putin's charm offensive with the west. This was not the first violation of Turkish air space in recent weeks. If the pilot ends up in anti-Assad rebel's hands that won't be very good for him.
Just for note. We have had all the same in Moscow. Not only Europa knows.
I recall the Moscow theater siege with all those hostages. For those of us who get their news from more than late night talk shows such events get reported, but they don't get much attention from the low information crowd. It is worth note that China also has their own domestic terrorists.
Indeed "A suicide bombing in Lebanon got very little attention from the western media. "
So 'Who are we bombing?'
I'm guessing you meant that as a rhetorical question but it is kind of interesting to inspect who is bombing who/what in Syria. Russia while claiming to attack ISIL appears focussed on bombing anti-Assad forces (often bombing american provided assets), to keep him in power to preserve Russian access to their only naval base in the region. Turkey while claiming to attack ISIL, is all too happy to hit Kurdish fighters in Northern Syria that they consider PKK who is designated a terrorist group by US govt.
The US and coalition (?) claim credit for how many bombing sorties they fly, while US pilots report being micromanaged often returning with unused ordinance because approval was not given in enough time to use it. The city of Sinjar that was retaken from ISIL by Kurdish fighters revealed a massive underground tunnel system connecting buildings with underground rooms. It's easy to see how an air campaign only, especially if sorties are delayed waiting for approval, could be ineffective as ISIL waits in underground shelters. There is no reason to expect that Sinjar was an isolated example. It is worth note it was taken back with very effective ground fighters (Peshmerga).
The French seem single minded and aggressive about attacking ISIL, but again from the air.
===============
I have some sympathy for the US administration position that terrorist events should be handled as a policing matter and not on a warfare footing, but when the other side declares war and attacks you it seems an in-kind response would be prudent. ISIL has in fact set up an operating state, so they are no longer state-less actors but a state that can be defeated. Probably pretty easily once (if?) all the significant powers fighting in the region get on the same page.
It is good that they are thinking about the end game (at least for that region). Iran and Russia support Assad, while the US and allies in the region want him gone. In my judgement the Kurds would be ideal to run the Kurdish part of ISIL territory after it is stabilized, but they don't play well with the Sunnis or Shia in Bagdad for that matter, so that would have to be managed by the majority Shia Bagdad government (not trivial). Turkey would never accept a Kurdish state on their southern border. So almost more statism (state building?) than war strategy remains to be worked out.
So for now there are too many competing goals with all involved. Not checkers but more like three dimensional chess.
JR
