Assad is now ISIS’s airforce and the US is Assad’s airforce: The moment the counterrevolution joins hands

What a piece.

Syrian Revolution Commentary and Analysis

Assad is now ISIS’s airforce and the US is Assad’s airforce: The moment the counterrevolution joins hands

Key parts from the attached article below:

1. Even those handful of Syrian fighters (“rebels” is the wrong word
since they are individuals, not actual Free Syrian Army groups) that the
US has been trying to recruit to fight ISIS (nearly all actual rebels
told the US to shove the very idea from the outset) are now rebelling
and quitting. I guess, like a lot of pro-Assad “leftists” from the
opposite angle, they also never bothered to read every announcement that
has ever been made about the program from the outset: that it was very
explicitly ONLY to fight ISIS and NOT the fascist regime (eg, see, for
the 100th time, the actual CENTCOM announcement of the program: try to
even find a mention of Assad:
http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/articles/initial-class-of-syrian-opposition-forces-begin-training).
As the article below states:…

View original post 2,551 more words

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Assad is now ISIS’s airforce and the US is Assad’s airforce: The moment the counterrevolution joins hands

  1. “Assad is now ISIS’s airforce and the US is Assad’s airforce” — completely ridiculous.

    So why didn’t the U.S. (“Assad’s air force”) launch a single airstrike for SAA in Palmyra to prevent its fall?

    Why isn’t the U.S. (“Assad’s air force”) hitting Jabhat al-Nusra in Daraa and Quenitra if it’s so afraid of or opposed to rebel victories?

    This isn’t analysis, it’s hyperbole.

    • Well firstly I think its clear that the SAA had given Palmyra up for all intents and purposes and was never going to put up a valiant resistance there, as the regime was (is) at an extremely strained position and before ISIS’s betrayal in Aleppo the talk was revolved around focussing on the defence of the coast. I don’t think saying that the US has acted as Assad’s air force by targeting his enemies (non-ISIS) and sparing him, which it has done, necessitates meaning that it will always act as such, I don’t think that the writer is literally suggesting that the US bombs the rebels/civilians for example in a comparable fashion to the regime, its just an observation that the coalition has nonetheless carried out that role at more than one juncture. Yet even if we were to take this statement to the extreme the fact is that the SAA has also at various points failed to hit ISIS from the air as you very well know, so this wouldn’t be a contradiction in policy. Indeed to that end I also find it highly conspicuous that the US coalition is not targeting ISIS’s advance on Aleppo, which is in line with the regime’s policy (well the regime’s actively facilitating the advance, but I don’t think the coalition could quite do that).

      • “Well firstly I think its clear that the SAA had given Palmyra up for all intents and purposes and was never going to put up a valiant resistance there, as the regime was (is) at an extremely strained position and before ISIS’s betrayal in Aleppo the talk was revolved around focussing on the defence of the coast.”

        Regime outlets act like what happened in Palmyra was an orderly withdrawal but retreating SAA were slaughtered as they scattered and ran. See 6 minutes in here:
        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5e_1433173459

        U.S. airstrikes would’ve helped them a lot, or at least bought SAA time to execute an orderly withdrawal. But the U.S. is not “Assad’s air force.”

        “I don’t think saying that the US has acted as Assad’s air force by targeting his enemies (non-ISIS) and sparing him, which it has done, necessitates meaning that it will always act as such, I don’t think that the writer is literally suggesting that the US bombs the rebels/civilians for example in a comparable fashion to the regime, its just an observation that the coalition has nonetheless carried out that role at more than one juncture.”

        It’s not merely an “observation,” it’s an editorial statement and a value judgement and one that is decidedly wrong.

        The U.S. isn’t targeting all or even most of Assad’s non-ISIS enemies, it is targeting Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate. America is pursuing its own unilateral interests in its air war with Jabhat al Nusra in Idlib, not Assad’s interests or anyone else’s interests. The U.S. has not targeted the (Turkish and Saudi backed) Army of Conquest under the pre-text of hitting Jabhat al-Nusra, for example but Assad’s air force and any force acting as Assad’s air force surely would.

        The writer of this article opposes all U.S. airstrikes and no-fly zones and resorts to labeling the U.S. air force as “Assad’s air force” to bolster his position. If any force could claim the U.S. is acting as its air force, it’s the YPG, not Assad.

        “Yet even if we were to take this statement to the extreme the fact is that the SAA has also at various points failed to hit ISIS from the air as you very well know, so this wouldn’t be a contradiction in policy. Indeed to that end I also find it highly conspicuous that the US coalition is not targeting ISIS’s advance on Aleppo, which is in line with the regime’s policy (well the regime’s actively facilitating the advance, but I don’t think the coalition could quite do that).”

        Assad’s strategic priority is to crush the rebels; ISIS’s strategic priority is to crush the rebels. Because they share the same #1 enemy, they tend not to fight each other.

        As for Aleppo, it’s easy to complain that the U.S. isn’t hitting ISIS around Aleppo but the reality is the U.S. doesn’t have reliable, trained experts on the ground to call in the kind of tactical air support you’re talking about. The last time the U.S. conducted airstrikes in the Aleppo area, they blew up a grain silo and killed a bunch of civilians because they got some bad intel from sources on the ground:
        http://www.ibtimes.com/us-airstrikes-hit-grain-silos-syria-killed-civilians-human-rights-group-says-1696435

        So if the U.S. attacks ISIS around Aleppo, rebels and leftists will criticize the strikes and shout “you’re killing civilians!!” If the U.S. doesn’t attack ISIS around Aleppo, rebels and leftists will criticize the lack of airstrikes and shout “you’re letting ISIS win!!” Can’t have it both ways.

  2. Update:
    Although the number of airstrikes near Azzaz and Marea is modest compared to what the U.S. undertook in defense of Kobani – well over 1,000 since October – the top moderate rebel commander in Aleppo said they were appreciated. “These strikes were successful,” Brigadier General Zahir Al Sakit told McClatchy. He said the U.S. had hit Islamic State units in Soran, al Bel and Dabiq and also had struck an Islamic State convoy.

    Another rebel, Yusuf Abu Abdullah, a spokesman for the al Safwa Islamic Brigades, which despite its name is considered a moderate group, said the recent strikes were “more effective” than previous ones, though “still less than needed.” He noted that the anti-government rebels in Aleppo do not enjoy the same close relationship as the YPG has with U.S. forces. “We have no direct coordination with the Americans, though we tried,” he said.

    Source: http://www.sunherald.com/2015/06/30/6301614_us-moves-its-syrian-air-campaign.html

    I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but now we’re in a situation where moderate rebels are praising the handiwork of “Assad’s air force.”

    I rest my case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s