world

U.S. begins sending arms to Kurdish fighters in Syria

14 Comments
By DELIL SOULEIMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2017 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

Russia's policy in Syria remains a failure. Russian generals, the leaders of the Syrian military, continue to make a bloody mess even bloodier on Putin's path to becoming a key power broker in the region.

All foreign powers involved in any way with military action in Syria or supporting military action in Syria should leave.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

fulfilling a pledge that has infuriated Turkey.

america yet again proves that its in its waning days. When all else fails arm some individuals you know almost nothing about,cross your fingers and hope they don't bite you in the future. I loath turkey however its a case of the devil you know. Arming groups considered terrorists in an 'ally' state is tantamount to an act of aggression!! Its not rocket science!!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Now take out the American special operations personnel.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tomomi Inada will likely be the next PM.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those Kurds will take Raqa before Assad

Those Kurds are more successful against ISIS than even Assad

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Those Kurds will take Raqa before Assad

Yeah, then they'll be routed by the Turks and then everyone will be back to square 1

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Those Kurds will take Raqa before Assad

May be. There are reports that the Kurds offering ISIS free pass out of Raqa, they are ready to open a corridor from the city towards Palmyra in exchahge for surrendering Raqa.

Those Kurds are more successful against ISIS than even Assad

In negotiating - yes, they seem to be more successful.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Those Kurds will take Raqa before Assad

May be. There are reports that the Kurds offering ISIS free pass out of Raqa, they are ready to open a corridor from the city towards Palmyra in exchahge for surrendering Raqa.

Not really Kurd's fault that the south of Raqa beyond the Euphrates river remains open - that's where Assad's forces should had been if they hadn't been mired at Palmyra

Those Kurds are more successful against ISIS than even Assad

In negotiating - yes, they seem to be more successful.

Ah, but they're more successful in retaking lands too, and soon the capital of ISIS - the only thing that can top that is the capture of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi

Those Kurds will take Raqa before Assad

Yeah, then they'll be routed by the Turks and then everyone will be back to square 1

If Turks try, but to do that to the conquerors of Raqa, they'll be the villains in people's eyes around the world. (Plus, Turks would have to go much much further into Syria to do that, and even Assad wouldn't like that.)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Not really Kurd's fault that the south of Raqa beyond the Euphrates river remains open

I do not blame or defend anyone, I just observe.

that's where Assad's forces should had been

And if US forces were where they should had been in 2014 and did what they should have done, there would be no battle for Raqa and Mosul in the first place.

Assad's forces should had been if they hadn't been mired at Palmyra

They are not "mired" at Palmyra, they are busy fighting at other fronts. When the Syrian army finishes off more close pockets of resistance then will be the turn of more distant targets. "Do not overstretch your limited forces" - reasonable strategy.

Ah, but they're more successful in retaking lands too

Take lands in the desert is much more simple then fight in heavily urbanized areas. I've heard that Kurds preferred not to be actively engaged in the battle for Mosul, the Iraqi army bears the brunt of the fighting.

and soon the capital of ISIS - the only thing that can top that is the capture of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi

From the propaganda point of view - yes. But in real world the only thing that is of utmost importance is destruction of ISIS, not driving it from one city to another.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Not really Kurd's fault that the south of Raqa beyond the Euphrates river remains open

I do not blame or defend anyone, I just observe.

That's fine, but Assad still should had been there though, particularly if they hadn't lost Palmyra again. They had the momentum after getting Palmyra back the first time, but they've been stalled since.

that's where Assad's forces should had been

And if US forces were where they should had been in 2014 and did what they should have done, there would be no battle for Raqa and Mosul in the first place.

C'mon, that's years ago (like if Russia hadn't lost the Battle of Tsushima, there would be no battle for Manchuria years later). This is for the current battle for Raqa. (Besides, Assad already lost Raqa to ISIS more than a year before the US entered Syria in 2014.)

Assad's forces should had been if they hadn't been mired at Palmyra

They are not "mired" at Palmyra, they are busy fighting at other fronts. When the Syrian army finishes off more close pockets of resistance then will be the turn of more distant targets. "Do not overstretch your limited forces" - reasonable strategy.

They would had continued their momentum if they hadn't lost Palmyra again. Ever since then, these pockets of resistance have slowed them down considerably.

Ah, but they're more successful in retaking lands too

Take lands in the desert is much more simple then fight in heavily urbanized areas. I've heard that Kurds preferred not to be actively engaged in the battle for Mosul, the Iraqi army bears the brunt of the fighting.

Those heavily urbanized areas, like Aleppo city, are mainly rebel areas though, not ISIS.

The Kurds have been retaking ISIS towns along the Turkey-Syria border; thus closing off the ISIS bridges to Turkey. Why do ya think Turkey finally went into Syria and began attacking the Kurds - because Kurds were winning so many border towns. Rojava, Tel Abyad, Jarabulus, Kobani, Manbij, Tabqa and the dam. Then pretty soon Raqa, which is heavily urbanized. Those are no small feat and shouldn't be minimized, especially since the Syrian Kurds are not as well-equipped as professional state troops from Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, etc.

As for the Battle for Mosul, that's an Iraqi government request - Mosul is a Sunni metropolis, not Kurd, thus the Iraqi Sunni forces have to be the ones to enter it and liberate the Mosul residents, while the Kurds stay on the outskirts.

and soon the capital of ISIS - the only thing that can top that is the capture of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi

From the propaganda point of view - yes. But in real world the only thing that is of utmost importance is destruction of ISIS, not driving it from one city to another.

Yes, though propaganda was what helped ISIS expand so drastically, by attracting international recruits and convincing towns and cities to more easily acquiesce under its rule, so it is still important in breaking the aura of ISIS' infallibility. As that aura fades away, ISIS will eventually run out of towns that'd be a safe haven for them.

The capture or death of al-Baghdadi would be a very big blow, just above the fall of their capital Raqa. No one can argue in propaganda anymore that they're a reich on the rise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but Assad still should had been there though

Why he should? He was too busy fighting in areas much moreclose

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Oooops, slip of a finger.

but Assad still should had been there though

Why he should? He was too busy fighting in areas much more close to Damascus, and his resources are limited. He concentrated his forces in more vital areas. Very prudent. First secure base A before going to bases D and E.

C'mon, that's years ago (like if Russia hadn't lost the Battle of Tsushima, there would be no battle for Manchuria years later)

Not correct, the events of 2014 were not light years ago and there is a direct connection between them. Had the US military moved its a...s and did what it should have, there would be no battles for Mosul and Raqa.

They would had continued their momentum if they hadn't lost Palmyra again

Again: not enough resources to cover all directions. Palmyra is far and away, Assad has to concentrate on more close and direct challenges, close to the more heavily populated and economically vital coast. First clean your backyard, then go to more distant places, right?

Those heavily urbanized areas, like Aleppo city, are mainly rebel areas though, not ISIS

One of many mistakes the West makes in Syria is that it recognizes only ISIS as terrorists. It even forgot about its former bogeyman, al Qaieda. And in Syria operate dozens of groups that are no better then ISIS, and some of them (Front an Nusra, for example), are very close to al Qaieda. Assad has also to fught them, simply because they are more close.

The Kurds have been retaking ISIS towns along the Turkey-Syria border

Yes, they do. But the aim of the Kurds is not fighting with ISIS, but securing the land for the state they want to establish. Can't blame them for that, but don't paint the Kurds as selfless freedomfighters, they just do what they deem expedient at that time.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

but Assad still should had been there though

Why he should? He was too busy fighting in areas much more close to Damascus, and his resources are limited. He concentrated his forces in more vital areas. Very prudent. First secure base A before going to bases D and E.

Too bad about the resources. After they retook Palmyra the first time, people including some here were gungho about them getting to Raqa first. Raqa could have been squeezed from the south and the Kurds' north. Guess didn't consider about the resource limits.

C'mon, that's years ago (like if Russia hadn't lost the Battle of Tsushima, there would be no battle for Manchuria years later)

Not correct, the events of 2014 were not light years ago and there is a direct connection between them. Had the US military moved its a...s and did what it should have, there would be no battles for Mosul and Raqa.

Even years apart, there's a direct connection between Tsushima and Manchuria (Japan won and took Manchuria, so Manchuria had to be retaken).

And again, there would still be a battle for Raqa regardless - when the US entered Syria in 2014, Assad already lost Raqa a year earlier.

Those heavily urbanized areas, like Aleppo city, are mainly rebel areas though, not ISIS

One of many mistakes the West makes in Syria is that it recognizes only ISIS as terrorists.

Regardless, the Kurds wouldn't have fought the rebels in rebel cities since it was ISIS who took over Kurdish lands. As you even mentioned, that's the Kurds' main concern. Kurds are not out to take rebel lands.

The Kurds have been retaking ISIS towns along the Turkey-Syria border

Yes, they do. But the aim of the Kurds is not fighting with ISIS, but securing the land for the state they want to establish. Can't blame them for that, but don't paint the Kurds as selfless freedomfighters, they just do what they deem expedient at that time.

Of course. That's always been their main concern, their lands.

But they also freed non-Kurd lands along the way, both in Iraq and in Syria, because they grew to hate ISIS and don't want to leave ISIS alive to attack Kurd lands again. Remember, Raqa is deep into Sunni land; yet the Kurds are still risking their lives to take on the ISIS capital.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites