Turkey sends tanks in syria

[Deleted]

I wonder what caused Russia and USA to drop support for Kurds this hard. This gives Turkey free reign to clear house all along the border.

Russia does not give a fuck.
For them they were always a lever to get back at erdogan.
The US has had an abusive relationship with the Kurds since screwing them over in 91'

[Kuntantee]

I'm sorry, but if aircraft based out of your country gives air support to the YPG, you - Nominally - allied.

Air support is given by USA, not Turkey. Also, being nominally allied means alliance on paper, not in action. Using your example, Turkey and YPG should be "de-facto"allies, that is in action, not nominally. Turkey is ally of YPG neither on paper (aka nominally) nor in action. In fact, at the moment, the FSA fighting with YPG and directed by Turkish military advisors (special forces).

Turkey letting USA to use their airbase not to gain soil on Syria, but to defeat ISIS. Whenever you (or any other European) is about to whine about how Turkey is not fighting with ISIS, just remember Turkey is tolerating help to YPG just to defeat ISIS from its own soil.

For the reference:
nominally
[nom-uh-nl-ee]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adverb
1.
by or as regards name; in name; ostensibly:

You are misusing the word. Read: ostensibly.

[Deleted]

Unless Trump becomes president I really don;t see nay of that happening.

No, no, Clinton has already said she is in favour of the stupid nonsense.
And it is stupid, not because of international law, or what it might do to the anti-ISIS campaign, or possible blowback to US assets, No because, :
There is no upside whatsoever.
And that is just it.
With no ground troops (and allied 'militia' wont cut it) it wont actually make any area safe, it would also weaken Assad (not a good outcome).
Oh by the way, the reason for this idea? - Its originally Turkish, with the not so hidden intent of either annexing parts of Syria, or (the more likely outcome) create a de facto Turkish run enclave so they can have an ethnic cleansing of kurds silly me, i meant in the name of Allah the merciful's name.

[Kuntantee]

Its originally Turkish, with the not so hidden intent of either annexing parts of Syria, or (the more likely outcome) create a de facto Turkish run enclave so they can have an ethnic cleansing of kurds silly me, i meant in the name of Allah the merciful's name.

This is what I call "the Turks coming" syndrome regularly seen in Europeans. It has the same delusional effect of drugs. They should stop teaching you about Ottoman Empire. It's not helping your mental health.

Rather funny that you are accusing Turkey of a hypothetical ethnic cleansing against "Kurds", where YPG's destruction of people's homes and ethnic cleansing is documented. However, I have never seen you complaining about their ethnic cleansing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ing-opponents/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-rel...to-war-crimes/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34511134

[Deleted]

What a shit article. Turkey have sent what? all of 10 tanks into Syria?

Isis have been chillin in Jerablus for months and Turkey finally act to crush them...with 10 tanks...at the same time the YPG advance towards Jerablus along the Turkish border.
What a coincidence. Wow.

The Kurds seem tired of being straw dogs (which they must realise they have been throughout thier history) and have decided to seize as much as Syria as they can during the chaos. Turkey doesn't want a kurdish mini state on its frontier as it considers the YPG to have links to the PKK / Kurdistan Workers Party and it considers them worse terrorists than IS. Now some armour and the FSA (who are not considered a serious military force in the region) are going to knock about in Jerablus to cut off the Kurd ambition. Which is bad news for ISIS, but they are an after thought.

[Skroe]

There are a couple of big problems with that idea:

1: The first is legality, the only reason the US are conducting airstrikes in Syria against the wishes of Syria in the first place is because they claim that under international law because ISIS is attacking Iraq and Syria appears unable to stop them they are allowed to attack ISIS in order to defend Iraq (note, the US's legal claim hasn't actually been tested in court and doesn't look to be).

While that loophole may be good enough to hold up in the eyes of the international community, the idea that "we need a no fly zone, because ISIS have at least TWO broken MiG-21!" would simply not. There is no way to even approach trying to claim any legality for a no fly zone when A: the enemy has no air force, B: your own air presence in the country is of dubious legality and C: the countries own air force and that of it's allies* are operating in that airspace.

*Does anyone know if Iran are still bombing ISIS along with Syria or is it Russia now?


2: The second, if the US does try that, firstly there is no way they come out looking like anything but warmongering bad guys, and add to that, what happens when Russia/Syria call their bluff and fly anyway? Either the US does nothing, or they shoot down a Syrian plane in direct violation of international law, or even worse they shoot down a Russian plane. That not only creates a legal nightmare but it means the Russians may use their AA equipment in Syria to down a US plane in response, and how does that factor with the US targeting the AA equipment (again, highly illegal).

Unless Trump becomes president I really don;t see nay of that happening.

I mean the answer to all of this is pointing to US history the last 70 years.

"International law" is something to be weaponized against the other guy. For us, we can find creative excuses. I mean even Obama was going to do that. Strictly speaking any strike on Syria back in 2013 would have required UNSC approval. When it became clear that wasn't going to happen, Obama was going to instead use a unified NATO resolution has his political cover. And he had that - until David Cameron, being the horrible politician that he is, held an ENTIRELY POINTLESS vote he wasn't absolutely sure he was going to win (rule number of of politics: count your votes before you HOLD the vote) - fucked that idea up. And then he retreated to Congress, which wasn't going to give Obama the satisfaction just to fuck with him, and because nobody wanted another "Iraq" on their record.

To put it another way... this is the United States we're talking about. When has international law ever really stopped us? If it stopped us, it's because we let it. It's because we decided not to, not because of something which we could creatively get around. Hell the strikes in Syria are justified right now under two different UN Resolutions passed right after 9/11. That's how creative we can be.

As for "looking like the warmongering bad guys"... so what? I'm FAR more sympathetic to the importance of Moral Authority arguments, and the importance of being liked internationally than I was back in 2003. But I have my limits. In the end, the US objective should be to thread a needle - do what's in it's interests, multilaterally if possible, unilaterally if we must, which is by the way, almost a direct quote from both Bush and Obama. We should be careful not to be incendiary as to create huge numbers of enemies among our allies populace that would make it difficult for our allies to cooperate for us. However at the same time, we shouldn't hold back over that more than the barest amount. I reference here, "the Doctrine of Proportionality", which is a European-created bullshit idea that the superior military force shouldn't actually act all that superior. US Commanders as a matter of record think that doctrine is a load of garbage and that military advantages should be pressed to the fullest extent to act as a deterrent against further hostilities. This is how you got, during the Libya campaign, European figures calling for "proportional strikes", while the US was doing things like droning the ever living hell out of Gadaffi's unarmed limo convoy.

The US approach, in other words, shouldn't be to adhere to the lowest common denominator, that takes a minimalist approach to military action, just to satisfy the European/Arab street or something like that. They don't matter and neither do their opinions, so long as their governments cooperate. In Syria, that's been our timid President and his weird team's approach up to this point - hence dropping "get out of your trucks" leaflets on ISIS convoys BEFORE bombing them. And look where it's got us.

If you want contrast... look to the First Gulf War in 1991. Most people don't know this but the battles the US and British Army fought against the Republican Guard were larger than most land battles in Western Europe and Southern Europe during World War II (Eastern Europe is a different story). They involved more tanks, more armored fighting vehicles, more vehicles of all types, and more divisions. The US didn't hold back: it unleashed the full power of it's late Cold War military might on the Iraqi Army, and demolished them. And it worked.

The US must go back to that. Aim for decisive plays. Barack Obama, by his own words, is more interested in small ball, to use a baseball term... singles and doubles. That works to a point, but not in absence of getting that power hitter to the plate to drive two men home (continuing the baseball analogy), which has been his ENTIRE failure up to this point on foreign policy. In 2013 we had the Russians, for example, exactly where we wanted them in Syria. And instead of pressing his advantage and robbing Russia of it's Syria ally, he let Putin bail him out of his red line!

If this makes the US "look like the warmongering bad guys", I say to that... let's mambo. Because ANYTHING the US does would make that happen in certain quarters, and the practical gains made by decisive action would outweigh... what... another round of protests in Trafalgar Square? How did that work out for ANSWER and others last time?

I want to be very clear about something. I'm in no way advocating for the US to send 25,000 troops to go take Raqqa, Second Battle of Fallujah style. I ABHOR the fact that some Americans, particularly on the right, see the US military as a blunt instrument, drum up the ISIS threat, and want to send our troops around the world to find dragons to slay. We should never do that. However, the lesson of the past TWO US administrations is that half-assing military matters, once the decision to use military force is made, is always a disaster. The Joint Chiefs advised in 2002 that the Invasion of Iraq would need 400,000 troops, minimum. Donald Rumsfeld massaged that number to 250,000 troops, and we got 7 years of instability for our trouble. Everything about Obama's military usage has been arbitrary - from the number of troops during the Afghan surge (30,000. Why 30,000? It polled well) to slow dripping troops into the ISIS fight (500+500+500+500 still equals 2000 troops Barack), to "leading from behind" in Libya, to even future force decisions - cutting the Army from 500,000 to 420,000 troops because arbitrary reasons.

Once this country - any country - decides to use military force, it must be decisive, period. If the US decides on a no flyzone, that means Russia gets out of it too. If the US decides to send a five brigades into Syria, it should do it in force. But this middling low-intensity nonsense gets us where we are now - 24 months into a 36 month plan, and not a lot to show for it.

[Deleted]

This is what I call "the Turks coming" syndrome regularly seen in Europeans.

Yes, Sultan erdogan is European fantasy.
Regardless of what you may think, the primary reason for the 'no-fly' is to create a portion that can be relied upon not to become a Kurdish enclave.

As for the YPG thing, yeah - Its part of their strategy to create No-man's land so as to hinder ISIS attacking.

- - - Updated - - -
Gah, i hate when i have to do this, it always feels so nitpicky (which i sometimes is, but no now)

Because he wants to get out of office with a certain rep and a certain legacy. You may have heard he had considered unilaterally declaring that the US would forswear the right to launch a Nuclear First Strike at his big UN speech next month? Apparently that's off the table (in favor of pushing Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ratification), but he's trying to exit office with a foreign policy legacy... something of a legacy anyway... that papers over how Syria has been an utter clusterfuck for him since 2013.

That would actually be a good thing.
It's a sign of strength (because it means you always have more conventional escalation options)

The US should absolutely throw one up and make clear to Russia, that includes them. Obama won't. Hillary though? Here's hoping. Because the Russians won't do shit, but Obama refuses to even play the whole high stakes poker game.

There is a why inherent here though, what do you hope to gain by the no fly?

I mean the answer to all of this is pointing to US history the last 70 years.
"International law" is something to be weaponized against the other guy. For us, we can find creative excuses.

The current world order is the US one, to break it down would seem silly.

To put it another way... this is the United States we're talking about. When has international law ever really stopped us? If it stopped us, it's because we let it. It's because we decided not to, not because of something which we could creatively get around. Hell the strikes in Syria are justified right now under two different UN Resolutions passed right after 9/11. That's how creative we can be.

because ISIS in some way grew out of AQ - its weak, but its there.

But I have my limits. In the end, the US objective should be to thread a needle - do what's in it's interests, multilaterally if possible, unilaterally if we must, which is by the way, almost a direct quote from both Bush and Obama. We should be careful not to be incendiary as to create huge numbers of enemies among our allies populace that would make it difficult for our allies to cooperate for us.

starting a war with Syria would do that - and Russia - Also again, what is the upside?

If you want contrast... look to the First Gulf War in 1991. Most people don't know this but the battles the US and British Army fought against the Republican Guard were larger than most land battles in Western Europe and Southern Europe during World War II (Eastern Europe is a different story). They involved more tanks, more armored fighting vehicles, more vehicles of all types, and more divisions. The US didn't hold back: it unleashed the full power of it's late Cold War military might on the Iraqi Army, and demolished them. And it worked.

because Iraq had an army - The whole unrestricted usage of power declines in utility when you incur massive civilian casualties.

The US must go back to that. Aim for decisive plays. Barack Obama, by his own words, is more interested in small ball, to use a baseball term... singles and doubles. That works to a point, but not in absence of getting that power hitter to the plate to drive two men home (continuing the baseball analogy), which has been his ENTIRE failure up to this point on foreign policy.

Decisive plays against whom?

In 2013 we had the Russians, for example, exactly where we wanted them in Syria. And instead of pressing his advantage and robbing Russia of it's Syria ally, he let Putin bail him out of his red line!

I'm not sure i understand you here - i don't think they were in Syria then?
Or do you mean, they should have pressed the advantage and collapsed Syria? But even that wouldn't have ended those bases - Putin can cede all terrain except the alevite heartland and keep his basses - short of an actual invasion, he could keep his bases.

I want to be very clear about something. I'm in no way advocating for the US to send 25,000 troops to go take Raqqa, Second Battle of Fallujah style. I ABHOR the fact that some Americans, particularly on the right, see the US military as a blunt instrument, drum up the ISIS threat, and want to send our troops around the world to find dragons to slay. We should never do that.

Assad is a dragon.
You should drop this.

to "leading from behind" in Libya,

What was wrong with that? -Libya was a stupid idea start to finish as is so.

Once this country - any country - decides to use military force, it must be decisive, period. If the US decides on a no flyzone, that means Russia gets out of it too. If the US decides to send a five brigades into Syria, it should do it in force. But this middling low-intensity nonsense gets us where we are now - 24 months into a 36 month plan, and not a lot to show for it.

yeah well this is definitively one you want to pass on - After all, what is the positive outcome you are hoping for?

[Kuntantee]

Yes, Sultan erdogan is European fantasy.

Realpolitik pretty much showed Erdogan himself that it is not possible, not even Eastwards.

Regardless of what you may think, the primary reason for the 'no-fly' is to create a portion that can be relied upon not to become a Kurdish enclave.

That's exactly what I think and that's a valid reason. Kurds ain't forming that terrorist-state to threaten Turkey.

As for the YPG thing, yeah - Its part of their strategy to create No-man's land so as to hinder ISIS attacking.

Lol, that gave me a good laugh . The worst part is, you honestly believe it. Anyway, I am going to stop here. This is, as expected, turning out to be a waste of time.

[Deleted]

Realpolitik pretty much showed Erdogan himself that it is not possible, not even Eastwards.

Took him a while, but hopefully yes.

That's exactly what I think and that's a valid reason. Kurds ain't forming that terrorist-state to threaten Turkey.

Bringing us to why the US should set one up.

Lol, that gave me a good laugh

Not entirely sure i follow?

[Kuntantee]

Bringing us to why the US should set one up.

Kurdish state should be formed to threaten Turkey? If you piss Turkey off, then you should take full responsibility that what follows. Like like two million more refugees and losing Turkey's partnership in Middle East. Fortunately, USA is not run by emotional Europeans.

Not entirely sure i follow?

You actually believing that war crimes and ethnic cleansing conducted by YPG is some grand strategy is hilarious.

[judgementofantonidas]

^ this.

Sucks to be a Turkish tank crew knowing they pretty much field M60's over there, some without even ERA kits, when Syria is littered with ATGM's.

unstabilized a good 60 crew can compete with an abrams.

[Deleted]

Kurdish state should be formed to threaten Turkey?

Could have been clearer, i meant why would the US should set a no fly.

You actually believing that war crimes and ethnic cleansing conducted by YPG is some grand strategy is hilarious.

It actually is - but by no means do i suggest its not ethnic cleansing, or not wrong.

[Kuntantee]

unstabilized a good 60 crew can compete with an abrams.

Turkey has better tank, it's called Altai, just isn't necessary for some ISIS/YPG goat fuckers.

[Gref]

Wrong. Both are muslim countries.

Please state that from Turkish constitution. Read all or just read the first 10 articles in the constitution.
I am Turk and non believer. As many others. Your argument is invalid. Just because a population when you ask them, they say they are muslim, doesnt make the country muslim. Also, you should really observe daily life of Turkish people if you think we are hardcore muslims. Really, if I think about it, we are anything but muslim.

[Kuntantee]

Could have been clearer, i meant why would the US should set a no fly.

Not-fly zone is asked for putting refugees inside Syria it has nothing to do with Kurds.

[Deleted]

Not-fly zone is asked for putting refugees inside Syria it has nothing to do with Kurds.

A, it will require a security force - Maybe some Turks?
B, changing what used to be Kurdish areas into multi-ethnic ones...

[Kuntantee]

A, it will require a security force - Maybe some Turks?
B, changing what used to be Kurdish areas into multi-ethnic ones...

Considering no-fly zone is not approved, there won't be a refugee camp inside Syria guarded by Turkish forces. Instead, the regions cleansed from ISIS will probably given to FSA. I think it's a mistake, it should be given to Assad, but hey, it's a good start.

As for "Kurdish Areas", Kurds are minority in all regions of Syria, save for the ones close to Northern Iraq. If there is one group changing the demographics of Syria, it's ambitious Kurdish terrorists. Not even Assad is doing that.

a map:
http://www.geopoliticalatlas.org/wp-...ous_groups.png

[madokbro]

Turkey did this, Turkey did that. Oh look at what it is doing right now, never gets old.

I feel like I am the citizen of the pet country the World got for his daughter, the only significance of which are the amazingly weird tricks it constantly performs, always giving people something to talk about.

And then it started to defecate all over the bedroom and suddenly, shit stopped being funny.

[hellhamster]

Please state that from Turkish constitution. Read all or just read the first 10 articles in the constitution.
I am Turk and non believer. As many others. Your argument is invalid. Just because a population when you ask them, they say they are muslim, doesnt make the country muslim. Also, you should really observe daily life of Turkish people if you think we are hardcore muslims. Really, if I think about it, we are anything but muslim.

Just stop, being embarrassed of being Muslim and saying you're all secular doesn't fly anymore.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Turkey

Also: see overwhelming Erdogan support by Turks worldwide after the coup.

[Deleted]

Just stop, being embarrassed of being Muslim and saying you're all secular doesn't fly anymore.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Turkey

Also: see overwhelming Erdogan support by Turks worldwide after the coup.

Lol.
God bless ignorance. I wish I lived in such a simple place.