Islamist fighters advance in Syria despite U.S. strikes

[cali]

U.S. planes pounded Islamic State positions in Syria for a second day on Wednesday, but the strikes did not halt the fighters' advance in a Kurdish area where fleeing refugees told of villages burnt and captives beheaded.

U.S. President Barack Obama, speaking at the United Nations, asked the world to join together to fight the militants and vowed to keep up military pressure against them.

<snip>

Syrian Kurds said Islamic State had responded to U.S. attacks by intensifying its assault near the Turkish border in northern Syria, where 140,000 civilians have fled in recent days in the fastest exodus of the three-year civil war.

<snip>

However, the intensifying advance on the northern town of Kobani showed the difficulty Washington faces in defeating Islamist fighters in Syria, where it lacks strong military allies on the ground.

"Those air strikes are not important. We need soldiers on the ground," said Hamed, a refugee who fled into Turkey from the Islamic State advance.

<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/24/us-syria-crisis-idUSKCN0HJ1H120140924

OK, now for the chorus of "it's only been 2 days" (let me point out that it's been hundreds of strikes), from those of you who actually believe this will be successful.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Are you saying after these recent air strikes, the ISIS fighters should have been unable to advance?

What sort of military qualifications do you have to make that kind of determination?

[cali]

3. no, I'm not saying that. And I don't need any fucking military qualifications to have an opinion.

that's just so fucking ridiculous.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Sure you can have your opinion...

...but you're essentially playing armchair general on an anonymous message board when you say these airstrikes should have achieved a specific military objective in a given timeframe.

I'm opposed to the strikes, but I'm not going to become a member of the 101st Chairborne Division.

[cali]

6. take it up with the author of the article.

and why are you opposed to the strikes? by your own, er, standards, YOU are playing "arm chair general" in opposing them.

try some consistent logic. Oh, never mind.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. No...armchair generals aren't people who oppose airstrikes or wars

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Armchair generals are people, like yourself, who think they know military strategy without knowing the details of what's actually going on in the field.

They're sitting behind a keyboard thousands of miles away and saying a military tactic such as airstrikes should achieve a certain objective in a certain amount of time.

I politely refer to them as members of the 101st Chairborne.

[Savannahmann]

5. Name the fastest way to defeat ISIS.

I know the answer. Most people do, and most of them are waiting to hear that's what we're going to do. It's so obvious, that I wonder why we haven't announced it yet?

[AngryAmish]

7. Absolutely the fastest? Tactical nukes.

In essence genocide the sunnis of Iraq and Syria.

Is that what you mean? Or do you mean landing the Big Red 1 in Kuwait and running north on a punitive mission?

[Savannahmann]

9. Perhaps I phrased it wrong.

We can do it this way instead. The fastest way to defeat ISIS is to arm and support the strongest force in the region. In Syria, that's Assad. Yes, the dictatorial thug we were going to bomb last year. The thing is this. We don't even have to do much of anything. The Russians already support him because he granted them a Naval Base in Syria. They need him to win.

So instead of a three or four way civil war in which Assad will eventually win anyway, we get out of the way, and offer our support to Assad. Finding some weaker group, a group that is more politically palatable, if less effective, and arming and training them won't work for shit. That smaller group will decide that Assad is the real enemy, and much like the last group to join or at least come to terms with ISIS, they would be marginalized or wiped out.

So if you are serious about destroying the group ISIS in Syria, you work with the strongest faction that will not join them, or come to terms with them. That's Assad. Anything else is half assed hopeful nonsense that is not fighting to win, it's fighting not to lose, which is completely different.

Yes, Assad is a bad man. Yes, Assad is a dictator. Yes, Assad is an asshole who used chemical weapons on people. Assad will win the Civil war, the Russians won't allow any other outcome. So feeding weapons to the other groups that aren't ISIS or Assad does nothing except exacerbate the situation in which ISIS flourishes. More people see ISIS as a real legitimate power, with a real chance of winning. The war drags on for another decade, and eventually Assad wins. The moderate group we were helping blames us for not helping them enough for them to win, so allies become enemies for the next round of bomb a terrorist group bingo.

Assad is a madman, a brutal dictatorial thug. But he has the best chance of winning, and he will probably win anyway. We might as well help the guy with the best chances, and perhaps get one nation there that doesn't detest us and instead, only dislikes us a bit.

But we'll never do that, because we can't forget we wanted to bomb him last year. So instead we'll pretend that the tiny group of semi-moderate rebels has a real chance. Eventually we'll either have to let them be defeated, or we'll commit more troops to make sure they aren't. Either way, we lose.

A few bombs isn't going to do the job. A handful of rebels aren't going to stop fighting Assad and focus on ISIS. They will join ISIS, or at least come to some sort of agreement to work out their differences later, after Assad is destroyed. We look incompetent, and that's always a good way for our party to win elections.

[Historic NY]

2. Looks like Turkey will be calling for help soon....

but they can wait. A little story about Turkey has compulsory military service and they will place all of them at the border with order to shoot. They don't care, so Hamed may get his wish soon.

[Baclava]

10. Didn't you hear? "USA bombing oil fields in Syria"

Warplanes from the United States, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates bombed the oil installations in the latest round of air raids in Syria, the Pentagon said.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-led-air-strikes-resume-syria-oil-fields-210146984.html