US wants Germany to send troops to Syria

(July 9)As the US plans to withdraw some of their troops from Syria, US officials would like Germany to send troops to replace them. However, yesterday Germany announced it would not send any troops to Syria.

	1 of 2

Germany to continue in anti-ISIS operation

German spokesperson, Steffan Seibert said that while Germany will still contribute to anti-ISIS operations the framework of the coalition has always made it clear that this would not include German troops on the ground.

US pushing Germany to send troops

Trump has constantly complained the NATO allies do not spend enough on their militaries or contribute enough. As long ago as last May, Trump threatened to "deal with" those countries, including Germany, that did not spend enough: "The veiled threat came at a cabinet meeting in Washington on Thursday, which was attended by NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg.

“We have some that don’t [provide a sufficient contribution to NATO] and, well, they’ll be dealt with,” Trump said, as cited by Reuters. Berlin, in particular, “has not contributed what it should be contributing and it’s a very big beneficiary,” he told Stoltenberg."

The US officials claimed that the deployment could be described as non-combat troops to avoid controversy in Germany.

Germany sending troops would be illegal

German officials argue that post-World-War-II laws which limit Germany's military engagement overseas almost certainly would make sending troops to Syria illegal. There is opposition to any such moves among many German MPs. The government is almost certain to consult the German parliament before sending any troops.

Angel Merkel would probably not be able to send troops even if she were so inclined. The US pressure has failed to persuade Germany to send any troops to Syria.

Deutsche Welle report on the issue

Deutsche Welle the well-known German international media broadcaster had a recent account of the US request: "US Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey has called on Germany to send military trainers, logistics specialists and technicians to help the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the fight against the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group. "We want ground troops from Germany to partially replace our soldiers," Jeffrey said in an interview with the German Deutsche Presse-Agentur news agency and the weekly Welt am Sonntag newspaper, before adding that he expected an answer from the German government this month."

Formerly published in the Digital Journal

US-led coalition aircraft destroy 3 oil tankers in Kurdish controlled area of Syria

On Friday US-led coalition warplanes destroyed three oil tankers that were traveling through Syrian Kurdish-controlled territory. The attack killed at least four people.

	1 of 2

Details of the attack still not released

The US has not yet made any formal statement on the attack. The truck tankers were thought to have entered Syria from Iraq and were bound for territory controlled by the Assad government. Syria has lost all of its oil producing regions during the war so the Assad government has to import what oil they can to keep their economy and military functioning. The US has imposed an oil embargo on the Syrian government as part of its attempts to force regime change. The attack on the tankers was no doubt intended to enforce the embargo.

A recent article reports on the attacks: "The strike was carried about by coalition planes, which hit three oil tankers, leaving four dead. The coalition has not yet made a statement about the attack. In the area controlled by Assad, oil consumption stands at around 136,000 bpd. Production, meanwhile, is only 24,000 barrels per day. This means that the regime must import significant volumes of crude oil at an estimated expense of more than $2 billion per year."

Weeks ago there were reports that Iran had resumed oil exports to Syria. A million barrels are alleged to have arrived on May 5. A new border crossing is being constructed between Iraq and Syria allowing for more shipments from Iraq. If the US bombs shipments from Iraq this could cause conflict with groups within Iraq. Any such conflicts will no doubt be blamed by the US on Iran.

Attack could strain relations with the Kurds

The attack will probably be little noticed in the press and will not have any huge consequences. However, it is believed that the Kurdish YPG an ally of the US profits from these oil shipments and the US attack could strain relations with them. Probably the Kurds were given no warning of the attack. There is no information on those killed. Some of those killed could very well be Kurds.

As a recent article reports on the attack: "US-led forces have blown up three oil tankers in Syria as the United States increases its pressure on Syria by thwarting the oil trade between the PKK/YPG and the Assad regime, according to local sources quoted by several media sources."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Protests against Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces in some areas of Syria

(May 10) The US hopes that the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that is supported by the US will continue to control a large area of Syria.

SDF controls huge amounts of territory outside of traditional Kurdish area

Many areas outside of traditional Kurd-controlled territory were seized by the SDF when they defeated ISIS with the support of the US. The US hopes that this territory will remain under control of the SDF rather than revert to control by the Assad regime.

However many local Arab tribesmen in these areas do not like SDF control and want control returned to local tribes.

Kurds kill protesters

The Kurds see the protests as helping Iran and Turkey and possibly undermining their victory against ISIS. So far, the main reaction of the Kurds has been to break up the protests killing some no doubt on the ground they are terrorists. SDF forces showed up in Deir el-Zour during a protest. They opened fire killing seven and sending the rest fleeing. This is likely to create more unrest but for the present as long as the Kurds can claim the protests are generated by Iran or ISIS the US is unlikely to complain very loudly.

The Arab tribesmen who are protesting demand better services, jobs, and a larger role in decision-making. The protests are limited to about a dozen villages for now, but they are a growing challenge to the SDF and the US. The demonstrations may serve as an excuse not to remove too many US troops from the area.

An anonymous SDF official said that the protesters were just a small percentage of Deir el-Zour residents but the protests were of benefit to the Assad regime, its Iranian backers and Turkey. He also claimed they were undermining the SDF military victory of ISIS.

Kurds hold talks with local officials

Local officials have held several rounds of talks with the SDF but so far have not made any progress. Although the SDF is not all Kurdish the Kurds are predominant in the group. The SDF was founded in 2015, armed by the US and was meant to fight to fight ISIS. Some are worried that the protests could end up in an uprising against SDF control.

Deir el Zour province is mostly Arab and is uneasy with Kurd rule

The province is suffering from a lack of services, rising crime, fuel shortages, and anger at the perceived growing Kurdish influence.

Some protesters believe that Kurdish fighters sell oil to Assad loyalists as there are severe fuel shortages in Assad-controlled areas aggravated by US sanctions on Syria and Iran. The residents also are angry at forced recruitment by the SDF of Arab residents.

Omar Abu Laila, an activist from the area based in Europe said: “People are fed up with the SDF. They are robbing the wealth of the people in the region.”

Bassam Barabandi a former Syrian diplomat also detailed complaints about the SDF: “The pace of rehabilitation, economic development and provision of essential services has not been sufficient to meet the basic needs of the population. As a result, people are feeling very hopeless about their current situation and the future. They do not see the regime as an acceptable alternative, and they are looking for the U.S. to act.”

Previousl published in the Digital Journal

Under new Trump policy US will stay in Syria indefinitely

Just five months ago Trump said that he wanted to get out. He has now completely changed his tune and approved a new strategy that allows for an indefinitely extended military stay in Syria.

+ S

Senior State Department officials claim Trump agrees to new policy

The new policy also includes extended diplomatic and economic efforts in Syria according to the State Department officials. Back in December of 2016 with Obama as president US troops were sent to Syria with the rationale they would be fighting ISIS. However, ISIS is almost defeated although there are still many other radical jihadists among the rebels some with links to Al Qaeda.

Most of remaining rebels are in Idlib province

Although the province is filled with rebels many of whom were able to travel there when they surrendered their territory to the Assad forces there are also a large number of civilians who have fled from battles in other areas of Syria.

Former Al Nusra group wields considerable power in the province

Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly known as the Al Nusra Front that had ties to Al Qaeda detained members of the Ahmad al-Abdo Brigade rebel group associated with the Free Syrian army (FSA). HTS has launched several raids against groups and individuals who promote reconciliation. It has arrested dozens of fighters and others. The raid on the Ahmad al-Abdo Brigade was sparkd by rumours that the group would seek a reconciliation agreement with the Syrian Army before the Idlib offensive began.

The new goals of the US in Syria

The campaign against ISIS in Syria is almost complete so the US is providing new reasons for keeping troops there. New goals include the exit of all Iranian and proxy forces from Syria and the establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community.

The proxy forces surely also include many of the rebel groups who could not exist without financial and arms support from foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia and the US and many other countries. No government that is created will probably be acceptable to all Syrians. While some countries support the Syrian National Council politically the Assad regime is regarded legally as the government of Syria and has a seat in the UN. Some countries such as Iran and Russia and no doubt others already find Syria acceptable under Assad. Does the regime need to be acceptable to the US, the UK, Israel, Saudi Arabia?

No doubt one could say that most of the international community do not find the North Korean regime acceptable nor Myanmar but they are still recognized as legitimate countries and are within the UN.

The new policy

James Jeffrey, Secretary of State's Mike Pompeo's representative for Syria engagement said: “The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year.” There are about 2,200 US troops in Syria most in the eastern third of the country and supposedly mostly devoted to war against ISIS although some critics maintain that the remaining ISIS fighters are mostly in areas controlled by the US.

Jeffrey claims that the US forces are in Syria not just to ensure the defeat of the Islamic State but to ensure that Iranian depart from Syria. It is not at all clear how they will be able to do that. This policy appears to be in support of Israel which has attacked Syria numerous times with the target often Hezbollah but Iranians as well. Jeffreys said that he was sure that Trump was on board with this more active approach.

Although he did not describe any new military mission he said there would be major diplomatic initiatives at the UN and also the use of economic tools presumably more sanctions on Russia and Iran. The US also refuses to fund reconstruction in Assad-controlled areas. This shows the lack of humanitarian concern for the many Syrians who have remained in areas under control of Assad. The US is quite willing to leave them to suffer and not help out with reconstruction.

The Idlib confrontation

Idlib province is the last large area controlled by the rebels. Many rebels from other areas have come to Idlib from other battle zones where they have lost. There are about 70,000 opposition fighters in all and about 2 million Syrian civilians mostly displaced from other areas. There are also some Turkish military forces in Idlib who pushed back Syrian Kurds from the border.

Assad says he is preparing a final offensive in the province and Russia has already been bombing the region. The US and others are warning against a humanitarian disaster with many civilians being killed. Trump himself has threatened US retaliation if there is an all-out offensive.

The US Is now taking a harder line

Jeffrey said: “Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless escalation. You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refugee flows or attack innocent civilians..the consequences of that are that we will shift our positions and use all of our tools to make it clear that we’ll have to find ways to achieve our goals that are less reliant on the goodwill of the Russians.”

The chemical weapons issue

The Russians have long warned that the rebels are planning to stage a chemical attack so that the Assad regime will be punished by western air-strikes. Of course this is mostly written off in the western press as Russian propaganda. We are told that there is no evidence at all that the rebels have such capacity.

The US counters that they now have proof that Assad is preparing to use chemical weapons in Idlib. These reports do not ask why Assad would do such a thing given that he is certain to face more punishment this time. Assad has won back most of his territory. He does not need to use a weapon that will ensure he is attacked and punished for doing so.

Previously published in Digital Journal

Kurds will be allowed to keep US weapons for now

Jim Mattis, US Secretary of Defense, said that the US will continue to provide weapons to Kurdish fighters in Syria even after the Islamic State has been ousted from its last main stronghold in Syria Raqqa.

The US had earlier promised that it would take back weapons that it supplied to the YPG after Turkey expressed alarm over arming Kurds on its border. The YPG, Peoples' Protection Units, are regarded by Turkey as a terrorist group but the US regards them as a key ally in the fight against the Islamic State(IS) in Syria and has supported them with arms and training. The YPG are the main component of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) supported by the US in Syria. The US said the weapons would be returned after the defeat of the Islamic State. The US is also to present Turkey with a monthly inventory of weapons that the US provides to the YPG. The Turkish defense ministry said that the first inventory had already been sent to Turkey.

Mattis now says that the defeat of the Islamic State in Raqqa does not mean that the Kurds will be required to return the weapons provided to them. Mattis claimed that the US had made it clear all along "we're going to equip them for the fight. If they have another fight, and they need, you know, the light trucks they have been using...we'll get them that". Mattis was also non-commital when asked if all the weapons the Kurds received had to be returned Mattis said: "We'll do what we can." However, Mattis did say that as fighting goes on the US will collect weapons, or take certain weapons back and provide the Kurds with others: "When they don't need certain things any more, we'll replace those with something they do need."

The US has not publicly revealed the amount or even specific types of weapons provided for the Kurds. However, anonymous officials have said that 120 mm mortars, machine guns, ammunition and light armoured vehicles are most likely what was sent. The shipments began in May and the Pentagon said only that small arms and ammunition were included. The officials said that artillery and surface-to-air missiles were not provided.

There are already clashes taking place between Turkish-backed troops in northern Syria and Kurdish forces. The Kurdish canton of Afrin has been repeatedly shelled by the pro-Turkish forces. Fire has been returned by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The YPG confirmed that attacks had increased in the area. The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights observed that there had been a build up of Turkish troops in the area and that it appears that they are planning a wide-scale military offensive in the northern Aleppo countryside.

Over 50 US State Dept. diplomats want US to strike Assad forces in Syria

More than 50 U.S. State Department diplomats signed an internal memo that is critical of the Obama administration policy in Syria.

In the memo, the diplomats urge Obama to carry out military strikes against the forces of President Bashar al-Assad to stop what the diplomats claim are persistent violations of the cease-fire in the civil war that has lasted five years already.

A draft of the memo was obtained by the New York Times from a State Department official.

The draft claims that U.S. policy has been "overwhelmed" by unrelenting violence in Syria and calls for "a more judicious use of stand-off and air weapons which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."

Such a move would no doubt result in an increased confrontation with Russia and would represent a radical shift in U.S. policy which is at present emphasizing the battle against the Islamic State rather than the overthrow of the Assad regime. However, diplomatic attempts to end the conflict led by Secretary of State, John Kerry are on the verge of collapse.

The dissent was filed  in the State Department "dissent channel". The channel was set up during the Vietnam War so that employees could register disagreements with policies without any fear of reprisal. Filings are relatively common but this dissent has an unusually high number of signatures. The signatures on the filing are almost all of mid-level working officials. There are no well-known higher officials on the list but it is known that many share the concerns expressed in the dissent.

Kerry himself has suggested there be a stronger U.S. response in Syria to force Assad into a diplomatic solution. Obama has resisted such pressure and been backed up by military commanders who fear the result should Assad lose power. John Kirby, the State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the memo, but said Kerry respected the process.

Robert Ford former US ambassador to Syria said: “Many people working on Syria for the State Department have long urged a tougher policy with the Assad government as a means of facilitating arrival at a negotiated political deal to set up a new Syrian government.” Ford resigned from the Foreign Service over the administration's policy on the conflict. The officials who signed the memo denied that they  were advocating a "slippery slope that would end in a military confrontation with Russia". They insist there must be credible threat of military action to keep Assad in line. The threat should be followed by negotiation.

Obama's policy in Syria has been designed to avoid further military entanglement in the civil war. It has been described as risk-averse.

However, the U.S. is aiding Kurdish-led forces against the Islamic State. Attempts to aid moderate rebels previously have not been successful.

The U.S. administration  shows no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces as the memo suggests.

Syrian Army Forces

Global conflict estimated to have cost an estimated $13.6 trillion last year alone

The Global Peace Index claims that political instability, terrorism, and conflict cost the global economy a humongous $13.6 trillion last year alone. The report for this year can be found here.

The 2016 index analyzed 163 countries and territories. Syria was rated the least peaceful country. South Sudan was next and then Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. On the opposite end of the scale are Iceland first, then Denmark, Austria, New Zealand and Portugal. While 81 countries improved their scores this was offset by greater deterioration in 79 other countries.

The report says:"The historic 10-year deterioration in peace has largely been driven by the intensifying conflicts in the Mena region. Terrorism is also at an all-time high, battle deaths from conflict are at a 25-year high, and the number of refugees and displaced people are at a level not seen in 60 years. Notably, the sources for these three dynamics are intertwined and driven by a small number of countries, demonstrating the global repercussions of breakdowns in peacefulness.”

​"Mena" refers to Middle East North Africa. Steve Killelea, founder of the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) the think tank that produces the index claimed that the conflicts within Mena countries are being felt beyond their borders. He says that external bodies are becoming increasingly involved and have the potential for producing "proxy wars". Libya is a good example.

Increasing conflicts produce huge increases in refugee. The report claims that in 2015 a record 59.5 million people were either refugees, internally displaced or seeking asylum. Nine countries now have more than ten percent of their population displaced. In South Sudan and Somalia 20 percent have fled their homes. In Syria more than 60 percent have abandoned their residences.

The sums lost to conflict represent 13.3 percent of global GDP. Per person the cost is $ 1,876. The amount is eleven times that spent on foreign and direct investment.

The UN expects to spend $8 billion on peacekeeping this year, actually an increase of 17 percent from last year. However, this is about one percent of the US defense budget. Killelea argues that the sums spent on peacekeeping are quite small compared to the savings that peace brings. He notes: “Addressing the global disparity in peace and achieving an overall 10% decrease in the economic impact of violence would produce a peace dividend of $1.36tn. This is approximately equivalent to the size of world food exports.” The Peace Index was first published in 2008 and ranks nations on a peace scale according to safety, security in society, levels of domestic and international conflict, and militarization.

US sending 250 more troops to Syria but no mission creep

Although the Pentagon admits it is sending 250 more troops to Syria, it denies that this represents any mission creep in the war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The deployment is said to be needed simply to meet current requirements.

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said:

“These are specific capabilities ... specific needs right now as we talk to our partners. And including our assessment, talking to local leaders on the ground in Syria, these are decisions that we think makes sense to accelerate this campaign and to further enable those local forces.This is not a question of putting in thousands of American forces to wage this fight. We are looking to others to carry this fight out but to do what we can to support them.”Before sending these troops there were only 50 special operations troops said to be in Syria.

Last week the Pentagon announced it was sending 200 troops to Iraq as well. Some members in both parties criticized the incremental increases in troops numbers being sent to the region. Some Republican hawks say that the number of troops being sent are too few. On the other hand, some Democrats describe the increases as mission creep that will draw the U.S. deeper into conflicts.

As usual, the authorities deny that the new troops represent "boots on the ground." Cook said those sent to Syria will not be on the front lines. Their role will be to train and assist local forces, as well as provide intelligence on the ground. There will also be medical and logistical personnel included in the group. Military commanders had recommended that 250 troops be sent. Cook explained:“Force multipliers is the best way to look at this. A small number of Americans with these kinds of capabilities can bring an enormous weight to bear in this fight and in support of these forces. And those forces who have come into contact and worked with U.S. forces, I think would attest to that.”

The troop deployment came less than 24 hours after Obama said on the BBC that he ruled out sending more ground troops to Syria. He said that military efforts alone could not solve Syria's problem: "It would be a mistake for the United States, or Great Britain... to send in ground troops and overthrow the [Bashar al-] Assad regime. We can slowly shrink the environment in which they operate."Obama is constantly trying to assure Americans that he will not involve the U.S. in extensive combat operations like those earlier in Iraq and Afghanistan. These more extensive actions result in casualties that are politically damaging. Obama prefers actions such as the drone program, proxy wars, and use of special forces, that involve almost no casualties and are not noticeable to many in the general public.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which includes the strong YPG militia of the Kurds, is the main partner of the U.S. fighting the Islamic State in Syria. It welcomed the plans of the U.S. but claimed it needed more support, including guided anti-armor missiles. Spokesperson Talal Sito said: "Any support they offer is positive but we hope there will be greater support. So far we have been supplied only with ammunition, and we were hoping to be supplied with military hardware, and this is something we were promised." The alliance was formed last October and has been successful at wresting territory away from the control of the Islamic State. However, Turkey opposes the YPG and worries that a Kurdish enclave is being formed on its border.

Russia talking with Saudis over Syria

A visit to Russia by Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud is being worked on through diplomatic sources, according to the Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov.

+ Add Image

The Saudis may attempt to work out a solution on Syria agreeable to the Russians. Saudi involvement in both Yemen and Syria are a strain on its resources and budget in a period of declining income due to low oil prices. The Saudis may feel there is no victory in sight for the Islamist groups it supports in Syria and that it makes sense to find a political solution if possible. The Saudi deficit this year alone is set to be 21.6 percent of GDP. While this will be easily covered by savings, those savings are dwindling quickly.The economic situation in Saudi Arabia is now such that the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency was forced to withdraw $70 billion from foreign investment fund assets to pay for items in the Saudi budget.

The Saudis aim to create better relationships with Russia in the hope that Russia in turn can put pressure on Iran, Assad, and indirectly the Houthis in Yemen as well, to come to a political solution to conflicts the Saudis would like to see ended. These conflicts are simply too great a cost to the kingdom, with little benefit in return. The Saudis' attitude to Russia has changed rapidly.

When Russia first launched its air-strikes in Syria, the Saudis were among the first to denounce them, along with the U.S. They were called "counter-productive' and "reactionary." However, the very fact that the Saudi King is to visit Moscow shows a change in attitude. Prince Turki al-Faisal, former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and intelligence chief, said that he was confident that Russia's strategy in Syria was more effective than that of the U.S. and that the Russian point of view demanded both attention and respect. Russia regards Assad as the legitimate ruler of Syria and has maintained that position since the start of the conflict back in 2011. The Saudis have taken the position of the Islamist rebels they support, that Assad and his regime must go. However, the Saudis may be in the process of beginning to abandon those very groups.

An article by Salman Sheikh claims: Recently, Riyadh issued a ‘secret document’ to its embassies in the Middle East instructing them to stop ‘funding’ the so-called Syrian ‘rebels’. This indicates that the House of Saud is ‘no longer’ in a position to achieve its basic objective of overthrowing Assad’s regime.

Cutting off funds to rebels will certainly put pressure on them to come to a political solution or else face the prospect of defeat by Assad forces bolstered by Russian intervention. The U.S. seems to be concentrating on defeating the Islamic State rather than the overthrow of Assad. They are now supporting the Kurds who are more interested in autonomy for areas they control than in ousting Assad, who has not been attempting to take territory back from them.

Earlier, Saudi money was instrumental in funding many rebel groups but since King Salman took power there has been some change. Prince Bandar, the intelligence chief who was in charge of attempts to topple Assad, was fired by the new King Salman. The Saudi Arabia defence minister visited Russia this summer. Sheik believes that Saudis hope to diversify their economic linkages towards Russia and Asia: This ‘constructive engagement’ seems to have strong economic underpinnings as the Saudis seem to be very interested in participating and opening for themselves, as also for their regional allies, doors to the greatest global infrastructure in history — China’s One Belt, One Road port and rail Eurasian infrastructure development where Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union states are being fully integrated in an ‘economic union.’The One Belt, One Road initiative is a grand economic plan outlined by China in 2013. This would no doubt be a better investment than funding Islamic jihadists in Syria.

The Saudis are also interesting in discussing oil policy with Russia. Russian Energy Minister, Alexander Novak, announced after Sochi that talks were planned with his Saudi and Iranian counterparts this month. The Saudis are hit not just by the decline in oil prices but subsidized oil prices to its own consumers. The cost of these subsidies runs at about $86 billion a year.

Apparently, Putin and Salman have already exchanged views by phone according to Russian authorities. The call was said to be a Saudi initiative. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the two exchanged views about "all questions associated with resolving the Syria crisis..". Oman has been playing a useful mediating role in developments as it has been in relation to the Yemen conflict as well. The Omani foreign minister even met with Bashar al-Assad last month. The head of Syria's National Security Bureau met with Egyptian president el-Sisi.

Free Syrian Army delegates have apparently visited Moscow several times. With the onrush of refugees from Syria into Europe and now the Paris attacks by the Islamic State, many parties are anxious to end the war in Syria. However, it is not at all certain that the political actors representing the rebels will have much influence on those fighting on the ground. Cutting off funding to the rebels could force them to the bargaining table. Russia would need to agree to limit support for Assad in order that he not come to believe that he could gain a military victory. As shown in the appended video the Saudis have already signed a military agreement with Russia a move that can hardly please the U.S.

UPDATE: This recent article appears to conflict with the material in my article. The Saudi FM says that the Saudis will continue to support rebels unless Assad goes. Perhaps it is a bargaining position.

Free Syrian Army facing hard times and desertions

Those groups loosely linked together as part of the Free Syrian Army(FSA) are experiencing high levels of desertion and low morale due to low pay and poor conditions.

 

+ Add Image

An article in Al Jazeera describes the situation of five members of a single family who had all joined the FSA. The family member interviewed, Mohammad Matoh, deserted, two brothers went to Turkey after being injured, while two remained in the FSA. Mohammad deserted because of low pay that started at $36 a month. Another friend also left because of the salary, which at best reached $95 a month. Mohammad now works in a fast food restaurant in Aleppo. Another field commander said not only were salaries low but that sometimes they were unpaid because financial support was lacking. In contrast, foreign fighters reportedly receive salaries up to $1,000 a month for serving the Islamic State.

The original FSA began in August of 2011 at the beginning of the Syrian war and was comprised mostly of defectors from the Syrian army. Al Jazeera claims the group is moderate compared with Islamist rebel groups that emerged later and refused to serve under the FSA. The description of "moderate" is relative. Overall in comparison to Islamist Groups such as the Islamic Front that rejects the FSA and its political associate the National Coalition of Syrian and Revolutionary and Opposition Forces perhaps the description makes some sense. However, in 2013 U.S. senior military officials anonymously reported that the Pentagon estimated that the number of extremist Islamist groups in the FSA was over 50 percent and growing. One article estimates the present strength of the FSA is about 35,000 fighters, split up into almost 2,000 smaller factions. Some may be quite secular but others are extremist themselves both in ideology and often in action as shown in the appended video. Around Aleppo, the FSA units work closely with the Al-Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front. The FSA members, whether moderate or not, were all appalled when the U.S. not only bombed IS positions in Syria but the Nusra Front locations around Aleppo, with fighters crucial in the battle against the Assad regime positions there.

After the Islamic State captured large sections of Syria, U.S. policy concentrated on fighting IS rather than relying on the FSA, which was primarily interested in defeating Assad. A new program funded to the tune of $500 million was to train vetted moderate rebels outside of Syria and then send them back, but to exclusively fight the Islamic State. The program was a disaster with the two small groups that did enter Syria as part of the half-billion-dollar program resulting only in radical rebels gaining more U.S. equipment. The first batch were quickly run out of their base leaving their equipment behind. The second group simply surrendered their equipment on entering Syria. The Pentagon decided to ditch the program altogether and provide support and some training to already existing rebel groups committed to fighting the Islamic State theSyrian Democratic Forces.The group includes Kurds, Arabs and others fighting the Islamic State. The group was formally established only on October 11, 2015 and does not include the FSA.

The recent Russia bombing in Syria has been against some of the FSA groups and other rebels as well as the Islamic State and no doubt has helped to weaken the FSA further. Some commentators, such as Robert Fisk who writes for the Guardian and Independent go so far as to say that there is no Free Syrian Army. Rami Jarrah also claimed:'There is no such thing as the Free Syrian Army, people still use the term in Syria to make it seem like the rebels have some sort of structure. But there really isn’t." Irish journalist, Patrick Cockburn, stated in October of this year that "The Free Syrian Army was always a mosaic of fractions and is now largely ineffectual." Whatever its status, the Free Syrian Army seems to be declining in importance in the Syrian conflict and struggling to retain fighters within the loose alliance.

Turkish president Erdogan threatens military action against Syrian Kurds if they take more land from the Islamic State

After Kurdish YPG forces in Syria came under fire recently in the northern border town of Tel Abyad, Turkish President Recep Erdogan warned that more attacks would be coming if the Kurds attempted to make further gains against the Islamic State.

+ Add Image

Unlike the U.S. who considers the Kurds prime allies against the Islamic State in northern Syria and in Iraq as well, Turkey is concerned about the de facto growth of a Kurdish enclave in northern Syria on its border. Turkey's policies are anti-Kurdish and of late have become even more so, as Erdogan attempts to whip up anti-Kurd nationalist sentiments in Turkey in the hope of winning a majority in the elections on Sunday.

While Turkey recently joined the US-led coalition in air strikes against the islamic State, it also at the same time launched strikes against the Kurdish PKK in northern Iraq. The PKK has long fought against the ruling Turkish government. Although Erdogan had earlier agreed to a ceasefire with the PKK, that agreement has been terminated by Turkey's recent bombing activity against Kurds in northern Iraq.

Erdogan's threats against the Kurds for seizing more territory from the Islamic State, threatens relations with both the U.S. and Russia. Erdogan sees airstrikes by both the Russians and the US-led coalition as benefiting the Kurds. As mentioned earlier, Erdogan fears an autonomous Syrian Kurdistan on its borders. He feels this development would feed into secessionist sentiment among Kurds in Turkey. No doubt that sentiment is already growing in any case due to Erdogan's attacks on the Kurdish minority within Turkey.

When units of the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) advanced west of the Euphrates recently into Islamic State held territory, they were twice attacked by Turkish jets. The Kurds had been warned by Turkey that they should not advance west of the Euphrates. Erdogan said: "This was a warning. 'Pull yourself together. If you try to do this elsewhere - Turkey doesn't need permission from anyone - we will do what is necessary.'" The local leadership council recently declared that the town was part of a system of self-governing cantons set up and run by the Kurds. Erdogan accused the US of supporting terrorism through its aid to the Kurds: "The PYD is committing ethnic cleansing here (of) Arabs and Turkmen. If the Kurds withdraw and don't form a canton, there's no problem. But if the mindset continues, then what is necessary will be done or we face serious problems. We are determined to (combat) anything that threatens us along the Syrian border, inside or out."

The Kurdish enclave in Syria is called Rojava or Western Kurdistan and is divided into several cantons. The PYD or Democratic Union Party has links to the Kurdistan Worker's Party(PKK) that many countries, including the U.S., consider a terrorist organization but many other countries do not classify it as such including Egypt, China, and Russia. The U.S. and many other countries do not consider the PYD a terrorist group. Erdogan lashed out at the US saying: "They don't even accept the PYD as a terrorist organization. What kind of nonsense is this?The West still has the mentality of 'My terrorist is good, yours is bad.'"That mentality seems common to almost every country. Turkey is after all complaining that the Kurds are seizing territory from the Islamic State. If any group deserve to be called terrorists it is surely them. Erdogan claims that 1,400 PKK militants are fighting in Syria alongside the YPG.

Erdogan seems bound and determined to exacerbate relations with the Kurds in the hope that this will gain him a majority in the upcoming elections on Sunday. He is also clamping down on other opposition forces in Turkey including media outlets critical of him and his regime. If Erdogan gains a majority, he is sure to increase his powers and clamp down even more on opponents a move certain to create even more conflict with the Kurds both within and outside of Turkey.

US-trained Syrian rebels hand over weapons to Al Qaeda group

Around 70 new graduates of the U.S. training program that produces trained rebels to fight the Islamic State in Syria handed over their weapons and equipment to the Al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front in exchange for safe passage.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

The report comes from the Telegraph. The paper claims a number of sources reported that the fighters associated with Divison 30, the division of "moderate rebels," had surrendered and handed over weapons and equipment to Al-Nusra Front. A Twitter boast of the surrender came from Abu Fahd al-Tunisi, who claimed to be from the Nusra Front:"A strong slap for America... the new group from Division 30 that entered yesterday hands over all of its weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra after being granted safe passage. They handed over a very large amount of ammunition and medium weaponry and a number of pick-ups."

Another purported Al-Nusra member, Abu al-Maqdisi, claimed the Division 30 commander, Anas Ibrahim Obaid, said he had tricked the coalition because he needed weapons. Al-Maqdisi tweeted: "He promised to issue a statement... repudiating Division 30, the coalition, and those who trained him. And he also gave a large amount of weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra."

Several sources put the number of U.S.-trained fighters entering Syria as 75, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The Middle East Eye also reported on the incident. CENTCOM issued a statement saying that about 70 graduates of the Syria Train and Equip program had re-entered Syria with their weapons and equipment and were operating as New Syrian Forces(NSF) alongside other rebels fighting the Islamic State.

An earlier group of U.S.-trained fighters had been attacked by Al-Nusra and their base over-run. Their commander was kidnapped. Recently the head of CENTCOM, General Lloyd Austin III, claimed that there were only four or five U.S.-trained fighters left in Syria.

US and Russian Defence ministers in talks on Syria

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu held talks on Syria. The Pentagon said the two discussed areas where U.S. and Russian "perspective overlap and areas of divergence."

+ Add Image

Russia together with Iran have long been allies of the Assad government in Syria and have provided considerable material help. The Lebanese group Hezbollah has also aided the regime by supplying many fighters. The extent of Russian forces on the ground is not clear, although they no doubt have special forces and trainers to teach the Syrians how to use equipment. The Russians have long had a naval base in the port of Tartarus in Syria.

Both the U.S. and Russians are anxious to prevent any possible conflict between U.S. and Russian forces. The U.S. and its allies have carried out an extensive bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Syria without ever seeking permission from the Syrian government to do so. Assad has tolerated these incursions. No doubt he could do little to prevent them and they help to defeat the Islamic State one of his many rebel enemies. At the same time, support for the Kurds by the U.S. helps a group which for tactical reasons has remained more or less neutral in attitude to the Assad government.

The Kurds appear more concerned with solidifying their hold on territory they occupy rather than fighting Assad. Very early on in the civil war the Assad regime decided to leave the Kurds alone, providing they did not seize territory from Assad or attack regime forces. This Kurd policy is just one more conflict the Turks have with the Kurds and the U.S., who supports them. The Kurds are gaining territory as the IS loses ground, creating a larger Kurdish area that will demand more autonomy or even independence in any political settlement. The Turks have agreed to join the fight against the IS and allowed the U.S. to use an airbase in Turkey but most of Turkish bombing missions are against Kurdish PKK positions in Iraq.

While the U.S. supports the Kurds against the IS in spite of their toleration of Assad, it draws the line at any coordination of its actions with Assad or to have the Russians also help out in the campaign. State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said that in the talks, the U.S. was trying to find out the intentions of Russia in Syria as there are reports of a military build-up including the arrival of tactical fighter planes. Toner said:“We’ve been very clear we don’t accept Russia’s premise that somehow Assad can be a credible partner in fighting ISIL. We reject that.” No doubt the U.S. worries about alienating Syrian rebels, even more by not only helping Assad but clearly cooperating with him. As far as the fight against the Islamic State is concerned, the help of the Assad regime and Russia would no doubt aid in defeating the group. In spite of differences the U.S., Syria and Russia have cooperated in the past. The disposal of Assad's chemical weapons was a successful operation by all three.

Carter emphasized that the military talks should go on with parallel diplomatic talks. The tasks of defeating the Islamic State and reaching a political solution should happen at the same time. One huge problem is that there is a disconnect with the transitional political groups set up by the west, many secular, and the mainly jihadist groups on the ground. The latter are not likely to pursue any political solution before the defeat of Assad, and any political solution reached without their agreement will be unenforceable.

Russia appears to be reinforcing its support for the Assad regime as it seemingly loses some ground against the rebels. The refugee crisis appears to be putting pressure on the west to stop the war and find a political solution if possible. Russia wants its ally to be in a relatively strong position when negotiations take place. This would explain the buildup described in the Wall Street Journal:Defense officials said over the past two weeks Russia has stepped up development of an airfield near the port city of Latakia by sending in housing for up to 2,000 people, attack and transport helicopters, artillery, tanks and armored personnel carriers. The jets, believed to be Sukhoi Su-27s, which are designed for air-to-air combat, could be used to challenge U.S. planes flying over Syria or to help Syrian forces defending the Assad regime.The buildup could also be used as a means of deterring the U.S. from any move to attack the Assad regime directl,y as rebels have long been urging. Given the Russian experience in Afghanistan and US experience in Iraq, the Russians may not want "boots on the ground" in Syria but will follow US policy of having special forces, trainers, and advisers. However, the Russians did say if Syria requested troops it would consider sending them. The Russians claim their military build-up is purely defensive.