Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

[b][size=130][color=#0000BF]Below are just a few of the Hundreds of News Articles on the Above Subjects[/color][/size][/b]

*********************************

The New Zealand Herald

Cameron will back any US no-fly zone in Syria

5:30 AM Monday Jun 17, 2013

[b][color=#0000BF]British Prime Minister David Cameron will support American plans to impose a no-fly zone over parts of Syria[/color][/b], as he attempts to convince world leaders to act against the "dictatorial and brutal leader" President Bashar al-Assad during the G8 summit in Northern Ireland this week.
...

*********************************
France 24
16 June 2013 - 13H34
AFP - [b][color=#0000BF]Saudi Arabia plans to supply the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles to counter President Bashar al-Assad's air force, German news weekly Der Spiegel reported Sunday.[/color][/b]
The article, citing a classified report received by the German foreign intelligence service and the German government last week, said Riyadh was looking at sending European-made Mistral-class MANPADS, or man-portable air-defence systems.
Der Spiegel noted the shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles can target low-flying aircraft including helicopters and had given mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan a decisive edge against Soviet troops in the 1980s.
Saudi Arabia is a key supporter of the Syrian rebels and has long advocated providing them with better weaponry.
Washington vowed last week to send military aid to rebel forces trying to unseat Assad after saying it had proof that the regime had crossed a "red line" by using chemical weapons on a small scale.
[b][color=#0000BF]The European Union lifted an embargo on arming the Syrian opposition last month, paving the way for greater Western support for rebels in a civil war that has claimed 93,000 lives.
[/color][/b]
******************************
Stars and Stripes
By Hendrick Simoes
Published: June 16, 2013
[b][color=#0000BF]At the request of Jordan, concerned about possible threats from the the civil war in neighboring Syria, the U.S. will leave behind a detachment of F-16s and U.S. Patriot missiles after an international exercise there ends this week.[/color][/b]
About 5,000 U.S. personnel were among about 8,000 from 19 countries participating in the annual exercise, Eager Lion, which ends Thursday.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel approved Jordan’s request to keep the Patriots and F-16s in country after the exercise, Pentagon spokesman George Little said in a statement issued Saturday.
It was not immediately clear what kind of threats Jordan faces because it is unlikely that Syria’s embattled armed forces would or could mount a cross-border attack.
In an address to military graduates in Amman on Sunday, Jordan’s King Abdullah II said his country was capable of protecting its interests “should the world not act and help us adequately address this issue, and should this issue become a threat to our country.”
He did not elaborate on the type of threat Jordan faces, but the country’s resources are already strained by more than 470,000 Syrian refugees in the country, and Jordan is concerned about the threat of extremists crossing the border.
...
*********************************
Voice of America
Morsi Cuts Egypt's Syria Ties, Backs No-fly Zone
June 15, 2013
CAIRO — [b][color=#0000BF]Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi[/color][/b] said he had cut all diplomatic ties with Damascus on Saturday and[color=#0000BF][b] backed a no-fly zone over Syria, pitching the most populous Arab state more firmly against President Bashar al-Assad.[/b][/color]
...
*********************************
Stars and Stripe - from the Washington Post
Decision to arm Syrian rebels reached weeks ago
By Karen DeYoung, Anne Gearan and Scott Wilson of the Washington Post
Published: June 15, 2013

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's decision to begin arming the Syrian rebels followed more than a year of internal debate over whether it was worth the dual risks of involving the United States in another war and seeing U.S. weapons fall into the hands of extremist groups among the rebels.
....
[b][color=#0000BF]But U.S. officials said that the determination to send weapons had been made weeks ago [/color][/b]and that the chemical weapons finding provided fresh justification to act.
As Syrian government forces, with the help of Hezbollah and Iranian militias, began to turn the war in Assad's favor after rebel gains during the winter, [color=#0000BF][b]Obama ordered officials in late April to begin planning what weaponry to send and how to deliver it.[/b][/color]
That decision effectively ended the lengthy disagreement among those in the White House — primarily Obama's political advisers — who argued that providing arms would be a slippery slope to greater involvement, military leaders who said it would be too risky and expensive, and State Department officials who insisted that Syria and the region would collapse in chaos if action were not taken, officials said.
*********************************
Reuters
U.S. studying Syria no-fly zone near Jordan border: diplomats
(Reporting by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Dominic Evans)
ANKARA | Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:37am EDT
(Reuters) - [b][color=#0000BF]The United States is studying setting up a limited no-fly zone in Syria close to the southern border with Jordan, two senior Western diplomats in Turkey said on Friday.[/color][/b]
Their [color=#0000BF][b]comments, confirmed by a third regional diplomat[/b][/color], came after Washington said it would step up military assistance to rebels battling President Bashar al-Assad in response to what it said was proof of chemical weapons use by Assad's forces.
"Washington is considering a no-fly zone to help Assad's opponents," one diplomat said. He said it would be limited "time-wise and area-wise, possibly near the Jordanian border", without giving details.
Syrian rebel commanders were due to meet Western and Turkish officials in Turkey on Friday to discuss military assistance to the rebels. Until now Washington has been deeply reluctant to send weapons, citing a risk that they would end up in the hands of radical Sunni Muslim brigades.
One of the diplomats said that setting up a no-fly zone might help Western efforts to monitor the recipients of any arms supplies, as well as helping train the anti-Assad fighters.
*********************************
TPM LiveWire
Dem Sen. Klobuchar: Set Up Limited No-Fly Zone In Syria
Igor Bobic 4:20 PM EDT, Friday June 14, 2013
[color=#0000BF][b]Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on Friday came out in support for a limited no-fly zone in Syria[/b][/color] near the Jordanian border to protect opposition forces who train there.
“Once you’re there on the ground, you see what is happening in Jordan — one of our best allies in the Mideast — where you have literally thousands of Syrian refugees flowing through that border every single day,” Klobuchar told Politico in an interview.
Klobuchar added that 500,000 refugees are currently located on the border, “and only a third of them are in the camps, and then you’re projected to see up to maybe a million refugees by the end of the year.”
*********************************
Al Monitor
Israel Says It Can 'Manage' Chaos in Syria
By: Barbara Slavin for Al-Monitor
Posted on June 14.
Israel is relatively blasé about the expanding civil war in Syria and sees some benefit in the fact that some of its fiercest adversaries are killing each other and not focusing on Israel, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe "Bogie" Ya'alon said Friday.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon predicts fighting in Syria will go on for a long time, but suggests that may not be a problem for Israel.
The long-time Israeli strategist and former military intelligence chief, speaking a day after the Barack Obama administration revealed that it would be sending weapons directly to the Syrian opposition, said the worst outcome in Syria would be a “chaotic situation, but we can manage it.”
The government of President Bashar al-Assad, backed by Iran and Hezbollah, is battling an opposition that includes Sunni jihadists who also reject Israel’s right to exist. Asked by Al-Monitor if Israel saw the situation in the same way former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger regarded the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war — commenting famously that “It was a pity that they both couldn’t lose” — Ya'alon gave a Kissingerian shrug. “Might be,” he said, smiling.
...
[b][color=#0000BF]Ya'alon said Syria had become an arena for conflict between old Cold War superpowers — the United States and Russia — as well as Sunnis and Shiites and between Sunni factions including the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists and al-Qaeda elements. Ya'alon said the Assad government currently controls only about 40% of Syrian territory despite its recent success in wresting the town of Qusair from opposition hands.
“We can’t see any conclusion in the current situation with Assad or without Assad,” he said.[/color][/b]
Nearly 100,000 people have died in the Syrian fighting and violence has spread to Lebanon and Turkey, which, along with Jordan, house more than a million Syrian refugees.
Israel’s attitude toward Syria appears to have been a factor in the Obama administration’s reluctance to get more deeply involved in the conflict. Only after the fall of Qusair did the United States confirm that the Assad regime had resorted on numerous occasions to the use of chemical weapons against the opposition — something Obama declared was a US red line. The White House then announced that the US would provide as-yet unspecified weaponry to the Free Syrian Army.
*********************************
Wall Street Journal
By JULIAN E. BARNES And ADAM ENTOUS
Thursday, June 13, 2013 As of 5:02 PM EDT
WASHINGTON—A U.S. military proposal for arming Syrian rebels also calls for a limited no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced from Jordanian territory to protect Syrian refugees and rebels who would train there, according to U.S. officials.
Asked by the White House to develop options for Syria, military planners have said that creating an area to train and equip rebel forces would require keeping Syrian aircraft well away from the Jordanian border.
[color=#0000BF][b]To do that, the military envisages creating a no-fly zone stretching up to 25 miles into Syria which would be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom, according to U.S. officials.[/b][/color]
...
U.S. planes have air-to-air missiles that could destroy Syrian planes from long ranges. But officials said that aircraft may be required to enter Syrian air space if threatened by advancing Syrian planes. Such an incursion by the U.S., if it were to happen, could be justified as self-defense, officials say.
Military planners believe it would be dangerous to set up a major operation inside Jordan to arm the rebels without creating a no-fly zone to hold Syrian aircraft back.
[b][color=#0000BF]"Unless you have a good buffer zone inside Syria, you risk too much,[/color][/b]" said a U.S. official briefed on the military proposal.
...
*********************************
The Times of Israel
No S-300 for Syria this year, Israel’s defense minister assesses
Moshe Ya’alon says Bashar Assad in control of only 40% of his country
By Asher Zeiger
June 3, 2013, 12:21 pm 2
[color=#0000BF][b]Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon on Monday said that if Russia ultimately decides to transfer its state-of-the-art S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria, “it will happen only in 2014.”
Speaking during a meeting of the influential Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Ya’alon said that “we are closely following the possibility that Russia may send the missiles to Syria.”[/b][/color]
While he repeated the oft-reiterated Israeli policy that “we are not involving ourselves in the Syrian civil war,” Ya’alon emphasized that Jerusalem would nevertheless protect its own interests, and ensure that “advanced arms, missiles and chemical weapons” do not reach the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah.
[color=#0000BF][b]Ya’alon also said that President Bashar Assad only controls some 40 percent of Syria’s territory, and even in the capital of Damascus, rebels now hold at least four neighborhoods.[/b][/color]
...
*********************************

[quote="John"]

This is a very good analysis, but I haven't seen this information
elsewhere. You must have some very good sources.[/quote]

This was public information, but I am unable to find the exact interview again.

I believe this was a video report where one reporter was interviewing a national defense reporter who had come from an off the record briefing by military sources.

Unlike the third hand reports that are flooding the media, where an administration source explained to a reporter what had been said in a military briefing, this national security reporter was quoting a military planer directly, and provided much more specificity as to exact bases and details of improvements over many months.

The problem with finding it again is searches are clogged with third hand reports all over the media based on these administration interviews.

Unlike the problem with the Iranian troop report, too many news media outlets, have too many shallow reports based on administration sources, on the exact same subject matter.

The Wall Street Journal report below is the closest to what I saw, but it still lacks the details.

The original report rang true to me because it talked about details airlift planers obsess on: ramp space, aprons and fuel logistics. Wish I could find it again.

[quote="Reality Check"]
> One newspaper has reported that 4,000 Revolutionary Guard regular
> troops ( not militia trainers ) from Iran were already on the way
> to Syria before the elections in Iran.
> [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html[/url]
[/quote]

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. This is the kind of thing
that Debka reports, and I always have trouble with that as well,
because they sometimes get things wrong, and because they have a
strong pro-Israel bias. Robert Fisk, who wrote the Independent
article, is not a bullshitter, and knows a great deal of what's going
on, but he is vitriolically anti-American, so it's not clear
this report is accurate. I quoted him in 2006 during the
Israeli/Hezbollah war because I wanted to contrast his views
with Generational Dynamics predictions, and the latter turned
out to be right.

At any rate, this story is too good to ignore, but the problem
is that it's been out for 12 hours now, and no one else
has confirmed it.

[quote="Reality Check"]
> The Pentagon is doing background interviews on what was presented
> to Obama and what is on the table, off the table, and still under
> discussions.

> Off the table: Syria wide no-fly zone.

> Off the table: U.S. Military boots on the ground in Syria.

> On the table: CIA run training camps, Major CIA logistic supply
> bases in Jordan and Turkey ( multiple in each country ). Supply
> bases have been being built up for months in anticipation they
> might be needed.

> On the table: U.S. military protection assets, including air power
> and ground troops, on the ground in Jordan to protect Jordan in
> general and to specifically protect training bases and supply
> bases from retaliation from Syria or other parties. Briefings were
> silent on a protection force within Turkey, but Turkey is a NATO
> member with U.S. airbases already there, U.S. air assets in Turkey
> could be beefed up with out any public announcement and Turkey has
> it's own very credible ground forces.

> On the table: An area along the border between Jordan and Syria,
> but within Syria, where Syrian military assets such as air craft,
> anti-aircraft missiles, and long range artillery would be
> considered aggression against Jordan and would be destroyed by the
> U.S. and it's allies. It must be assumed that the Syrian military
> would also be prevented from massing ground forces along the
> border that would prevent rebels from freely moving between
> sanctuaries in Jordan and battlefields in Syria, or the rest would
> have no point.

> Still under discussion: If a limited no fly zone within Syria some
> distance inside Syria from the border with Jordan will be formerly
> declared, or just enforced without formal announcement except
> reserving the right of "joint self defense by the United States
> and Jordan".

> Still under discussion: if U.S. aircraft will actually patrol
> within the declared ( or undeclared ) no-fly zone within Syria, or
> just attacked using stand off weapons from air craft flying within
> Jordan and U.S. air craft would only enter Syria as an "act of
> Joint Self Defense" when Syria makes moves within Syria that
> "threaten Jordan's sovereignty" that can not be dealt with using
> stand off weapons.

> These are much different talking points than the spin from
> administration insiders about how the President did not really
> want to do this, and Obama is really against war, and Obama was
> forced to do it, and had no choice than to give "small arms" to
> the rebels because "a horrible red line was crossed". These same
> administration officials refuse to identify what specific "small
> arms" will be delivered. This spin is designed to provide talking
> points to the Democratic Party's left wing, anti-war politicians.
> Small arms can include anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons which,
> when used by troops trained to use them, and also willing to stand
> and fight, can be devastating to the kind of combined arms attacks
> being launched by the Syrian military.[/quote]

This is a very good analysis, but I haven't seen this information
elsewhere. You must have some very good sources.

The U.S. and Russia have much different interests here than either the Shia or the Sunni.

Both the U.S. and Russia have a lot to lose if "their side" loses completely.

At one point it appeared the government of Syria was going to fall and Russia stood firm and promised that would not happen.

Now it appears that the Assad government has total victory in reach after bringing in large numbers of militia fighters from Lebanon.

But if the United States, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan stand firm in support of the Rebels in Northern and Eastern parts of Syria, Assad can never take his country back. Escalation of this fight as a long term civil war struggle between Sunni and Shia in Syria can not end well for Shia as long as the United States is providing logistical support to the many times larger Sunni world wide population.

Even if Assad's forces push Sunni forces out of Syria's major cities and they retreat to safe havens in Turkey, Jordan and Eastern Syria, with logistical support they will be back to continue the civil war with better weapons and better training. If Assad slaughters Sunni Muslim civilians by the tens of thousands after capturing their city neighborhoods and villages, a substantial portion of the nearly one Billion Sunni Muslims world wide will volunteer to fight for revenge in Syria.

Obama could undermine these recent actions, as he did with the surge in Afghanistan, by personally announcing the imminent and unconditional withdraw of American forces form Afghanistan only seconds after announcing a massive surge of American forces in Afghanistan.

But time will tell if Obama learned anything about jerking allies around.

[quote="John"]
This is news to me. As I understand it, the signal that the U.S. has
sent is that it's going to provide pop guns to fight against tanks.
It would have been better to send no signal at all.[/quote]

The Pentagon is doing background interviews on what was presented to Obama and what is on the table, off the table, and still under discussions.

Off the table: Syria wide no-fly zone.

Off the table: U.S. Military boots on the ground in Syria.

On the table: CIA run training camps, Major CIA logistic supply bases in Jordan and Turkey ( multiple in each country ). Supply bases have been being built up for months in anticipation they might be needed.

On the table: U.S. military protection assets, including air power and ground troops, on the ground in Jordan to protect Jordan in general and to specifically protect training bases and supply bases from retaliation from Syria or other parties. Briefings were silent on a protection force within Turkey, but Turkey is a NATO member with U.S. airbases already there, U.S. air assets in Turkey could be beefed up with out any public announcement and Turkey has it's own very credible ground forces.

On the table: An area along the border between Jordan and Syria, but within Syria, where Syrian military assets such as air craft, anti-aircraft missiles, and long range artillery would be considered aggression against Jordan and would be destroyed by the U.S. and it's allies. It must be assumed that the Syrian military would also be prevented from massing ground forces along the border that would prevent rebels from freely moving between sanctuaries in Jordan and battlefields in Syria, or the rest would have no point.

Still under discussion: If a limited no fly zone within Syria some distance inside Syria from the border with Jordan will be formerly declared, or just enforced without formal announcement except reserving the right of "joint self defense by the United States and Jordan".

Still under discussion: if U.S. aircraft will actually patrol within the declared ( or undeclared ) no-fly zone within Syria, or just attacked using stand off weapons from air craft flying within Jordan and U.S. air craft would only enter Syria as an "act of Joint Self Defense" when Syria makes moves within Syria that "threaten Jordan's sovereignty" that can not be dealt with using stand off weapons.

These are much different talking points than the spin from administration insiders about how the President did not really want to do this, and Obama is really against war, and Obama was forced to do it, and had no choice than to give "small arms" to the rebels because "a horrible red line was crossed". These same administration officials refuse to identify what specific "small arms" will be delivered. This spin is designed to provide talking points to the Democratic Party's left wing, anti-war politicians. Small arms can include anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons which, when used by troops trained to use them, and also willing to stand and fight, can be devastating to the kind of combined arms attacks being launched by the Syrian military.

[quote="Reality Check"]
> The U.S. sent a signal to Turkey; Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan
> that the U.S. is all in for arming, training and protecting with
> air power, the eastern Sunni tribes in Syria as a counterbalance
> to Hezbollah.[/quote]

This is news to me. As I understand it, the signal that the U.S. has
sent is that it's going to provide pop guns to fight against tanks.
It would have been better to send no signal at all.

[quote="John"]The way a war spirals out of control is that each side takes an
unexpected step that crosses a "red line," and then the other side
counters with its own unexpected step.

Hezbollah's invasion of Syria is a major unexpected step of
this type, and it opens the door to various responses:

...

Once one of those steps has been taken, then the other side will have
leave to counter. For example, Russia might intervene by shipping
more sophisticated missiles to Syria. What would be the world
reaction if a Russian missile in Syria brought down some other
nation's plane?[/quote]

This has passed the point of a few missiles changing the game.

The U.S. sent a signal to Turkey; Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan that the U.S. is all in for arming, training and protecting with air power, the eastern Sunni tribes in Syria as a counterbalance to Hezbollah.

Israel will simply destroy advanced equipment sent by Russia.

One newspaper has reported that 4,000 Revolutionary Guard regular troops ( not militia trainers ) from Iran were already on the way to Syria before the elections in Iran.
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html[/url]

Short of Russia sending tens of thousands of ground troops to Syria, I do not see how Iran and Syria win an incremental escalation war in Syria, once U.S. and Western European air power begins protecting the rebels in safe havens along the borders of Jordan and Turkey.

The suggestion of weapons only going to pro-American rebels is purely for domestic U.S. voter consumption. The enemy of my enemy, is my friend is the operative word here. U.S. logistics are going to be delivering weapons from all over the world to bases in Turkey and Jordan making the Russian and Iranian air bridges look like jokes.

Regular Iranian troops may result in the war spreading to western Iraq and Kurdistan to cut off Iranian ground supply lines, but unless Russia get's involved in a big way I do not see this ending well for Shia strategic interests.

The U.S. Navy will prevent Iran from meddling in Persian Gulf Arab states and Jordan, Turkey and the U.S. will prevent Shia in Iraq from subjugating Kurdistan and the Iraqi Sunni Tribal areas by force of arms.

One scenario might be Syria becoming like Spain between World War I and World War II a location for proxy battles for every local great power want-to-be, but only if the U.S., Russia and Israel believe that is in their interest.

Syria being carved up like Lebanon by International Agreement between the U.S. and Russian peace agreement with Russia keeping it's Mediterranean fleet basing rights is another possibility.

I agree an escalation of the Sunni-Shia war is a real possibility, but my point was I do not see that turning out well for the Shia, unless Russia jumps in with a risky and very expensive game changing ground force.

The way a war spirals out of control is that each side takes an
unexpected step that crosses a "red line," and then the other side
counters with its own unexpected step.

Hezbollah's invasion of Syria is a major unexpected step of
this type, and it opens the door to various responses:

* We've already seen one response yesterday - Egypt cutting
diplomatic relations with Syria.

* Some country, like Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Qatar, may send
its own troops into Syria -- not to fight Assad, but to
counter Hezbollah

* Some country might even send troops into Lebanon, to counter
Hezbollah on its home soil.

* The West might finally be forced to mount a no-fly zone
in Syria.

* Sunnis might take revenge against Shias is some other country, such
as Gaza, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, northern Africa.

Once one of those steps has been taken, then the other side will have
leave to counter. For example, Russia might intervene by shipping
more sophisticated missiles to Syria. What would be the world
reaction if a Russian missile in Syria brought down some other
nation's plane?

[quote="John"]

As we've been reporting, the attitudes of Sunnis and Shias towards each other is becoming increasingly vitriolic throughout the region. It would take very little at this point to start a local fight that could spiral out of control and spread throughout the region.

[/quote]

How would you see this war spiraling out of control and spreading throughout the region ?

Do you foresee direct combat between the United States and Russia over Syria ?

Barring such an event it would appear to be a rather one sided victory for countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states ( all supported with U.S. logistics and protected by U.S. Air power) against the Syrian Government and the expeditionary forces from Iran and Lebanon fighting on the Syrian government's side.

If tens of thousands of Russian ground combat troops were fighting on the Syrian government's side that might change the equation.