[The meteoric rise of the terribly brutal and bigoted ISIS has created a serious dilemma both for the US administration and the Syria-Iran axis about the choice of allies, if not "friends", in their separate fights against the ISIS.]
I/IV. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/islamic-state-captures-key-syrian-air-base-2014825595372569.html Middle East <http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/> Islamic State captures key Syrian air base Hundreds reportedly killed as fighters storm the Tabqa base in northeast Syria, the army's last foothold in the area. Last updated: 25 Aug 2014 15:11 Fighters from the Islamic State group have taken over an air base in northeast Syria, capturing it from government forces after fighting that cost more than 500 lives, a monitoring group and state media have said. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a London-based monitoring group, said at least 346 Islamic State fighters and more than 170 government forces had been killed since Tuesday in the fight over the Tabqa base, which was captured by fighters on Sunday. Syria's official news agency said the military had withdrawn from the base after pitched battles and was still carrying out strikes on Monday. Syrian state media gave no figure for the number of people killed in the clashes. The base was the Syrian army's last foothold in an area otherwise controlled by the self-declared jihadist Islamic State group, which has seized large areas of Syria and Iraq. It is one of the most significant government military facilities in the area, containing several warplane squadrons, helicopters, tanks, artillery and ammunition. In nearby Raqqa city, an Islamic State stronghold, there was celebratory gunfire and the development was announced by several mosques through their loudspeakers, a witness told the Reuters news agency. Fighters displayed the severed heads of Syrian army soldiers in the city square, the witness said. The Islamic State also trapped around 150 retreating Syrian soldiers in an area near the base and was believed to be holding them captive, the Observatory said. Regime forces had repelled three earlier attacks on the base in the previous week. The Islamic State has taken three Syrian military bases in the area in recent weeks, boosted by arms seized in Iraq. Tabqa is the last army stronghold in the Raqqa, after fighters captured Brigade 93 and Division 17 in the northern province, killing dozens of soldiers, many of whom were beheaded. Raqqa province has become the stronghold of the Islamic State, which controls the provincial capital and has declared an Islamic "caliphate" in territory it holds in Syria and Iraq. The group initially fought alongside Syrian opposition groups, but its abuses sparked a backlash from rebels who pushed it out of parts of northern Syria. Source: Al Jazeera and agencies II/IV. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-welcomes-u-s-strikes-against-isis-there-with-conditions/ ByGeorge BaghdadiCBS NewsAugust 25, 2014, 8:05 AM Syria welcomes U.S. strikes against ISIS there, with conditionsUndated image posted by Raqqa Media Center, a Syrian opposition group, on June 30, 2014, which has been verified and is consistent with other AP reporting, shows fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) during parade in Raqqa, Syria AP Photo/Raqqa Media Center Syria's foreign minister said on Monday his country welcomed any potential military strikes by by the U.S. in Syria targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria's terrorist bases, but warned that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad should be warned first. The Assad regime is mired in a three-year-old civil war, and has been losing ground to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants. moallem463184567.jpg Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem on January 17, 2014, in Moscow. VASILY MAXIMOV/AFP/Getty Images "Syria is ready to cooperate and coordinate with regional and international efforts to combat terror in accordance with U.N. resolutions and respect of Syrian sovereignty," Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told a press conference in Damascus. "Everyone is welcome, including Britain and the United States, to take action against ISIS and Nusra with a prior full coordination with the Syrian government," al-Moallem continued. The foreign minister warned that any action taken without direct agreement from Damascus would be an "aggression" against Syrian territory and that Syria would not stay idle. The Obama administration has been hinting about Syrian intervention since ISIS carried out what American officials called its first "terrorist attack" against the U.S., referring to the killing of American journalist James Foley. On Sunday, Joint Chiefs chair Martin Dempsey indicated the Pentagon was ready for a broader intervention against the militant group if they threaten the U.S. homeland. During his press conference, al-Moallem said the alleged failed rescue mission for Foley inside Syria that was revealed after his death. "I can assure you that had there been a coordination between the U.S. administration and the Syrian government, the reported rescue operation by Washington wouldn't have failed," said the 73-year-old veteran diplomat, denouncing in "strongest terms" the killing of the U.S. journalist and welcoming the release of the other. The United States has avoided a military entanglement in the Syrian civil war for more than three years, despite the death toll there rising to almost 200,000. Play Video Could ISIS become the greatest threat facing the U.S.? However ISIS, with its safe haven largely in Syrian territory, now poses a threat the White House cannot ignore. The U.S. has already begun airstrikes on ISIS in Iraq, but intervening in Syria would be a completely different situation as the U.S. has denounced the Assad government. The legality of striking Syria is also debatable. Iraqi and Kurdish forces asked for U.S. intervention to deal with ISIS, but the Syrian government has not done so. The Western-backed opposition, which oversees the Free Syrian Army, has, however, urged the United States and other allies to stop the ISIS advance amid what they say a shortage of rebel fighters and ammunition. ISIS, which controls large parts of Syria's northern territory, sent its fighters into neighboring Iraq in June and quickly seized large swaths of territory straddling the border between the two countries. "As we are the sons of this region, we know better when and where a strike would be useful," al-Moallem said, adding it is also important to dry up the funding and support to the terrorist group. Al-Moallem vowed however his country would keep the fight until defeat of terror, a term the Syrian government has used to refer to Islamic extremists and moderate rebels alike. The remark comes a week after the army, backed by pro-regime paramilitary troops and Lebanon's Shiite Hizbollah movement, reclaimed a strategic district in the countryside of Damascus, after a suffocating siege on rebels that lasted more than a year. III/IV. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/26/american-surveillance-flights-syria/14607355/ Report: U.S. begins surveillance flights over Syria U.S. officials say the U.S. has begun surveillance flights over Syria, after President Barack Obama gave the OK _ in a move that could pave the way for airstrikes against Islamic State militants. (Aug. 26) AP Jim Michaels and Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY 9:11 a.m. EDT August 26, 2014 KABUL, Afghanistan -- U.S. surveillance flights over Syria have started with President Obama's go ahead, a step that will provide potential targets if airstrikes against Islamic State militants are approved. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that an unnamed U.S. official said the flights had begun. USA TODAY reported Monday that the flights will provide information on potential targets for strikes in Syria if Obama approves. White House officials declined Tuesday morning to comment on the status of the flights. "We're not going to comment on intelligence or operational issues, as we've been saying, we'll use all the tools at our disposal," said Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the National Security Council. "While the president has not made a decision to take additional military actions at this time, we don't restrict our options by geographic boundaries when it comes to the central mission of protecting our people." The initiative to plan intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over Syria was contained in the execution order that allowed for the airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq, according to a Defense Department official speaking on condition of anonymity because the details were not authorized to be released publicly. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would not confirm or deny the reports but did say the military wants a clearer picture of the jihadist militants who are operating in Syria. Dempsey said the United States has a better view of the militants in Iraq, where the U.S. military is flying more than 50 surveillance and reconnaissance missions per day in addition to conducting airstrikes. The militants, who call themselves the Islamic State, are operating in both Iraq and Syria and U.S. officials have said it would be difficult to defeat the threat without addressing the militants on both sides of the porous border between the two countries. "Clearly the picture we have of ISIS on the Iraqi side is a more refined picture," Dempsey said, referring to the group by one of its acronyms. "The existence and activities of ISIS on the Syrian side -- we have some insights into that but we certainly want more insights into that as we craft a way forward." Dempsey made the remarks to reporters during a short trip to Afghanistan. Obama has not decided which steps to take in Syria. Col. Ed Thomas, a Dempsey spokesman, said Monday that Dempsey is working with U.S. Central Command, which oversees troops in the region, to select options "both in Iraq and Syria with a variety of military tools, including airstrikes." Surveillance flights over Syria would allow the military to get a better picture of the viability of the airstrikes, should the White House make such a decision, but officials caution that a decision has not been made. In Iraq, the U.S. military is coordinating with Iraqi forces in carrying out airstrikes against the militants. The strikes are limited to protecting U.S. personnel and supporting humanitarian efforts. The United States would have no such partner in Syria, where the militants are fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad, a foe of the United States. Dempsey has said that countering the threat in Syria and Iraq will ultimately require a broad coalition aimed at undermining the support the group has among Sunnis in the region. "ISIS will only truly be defeated when it's rejected by the 20 million disenfranchised Sunni that happen to reside between Damascus and Baghdad," Dempsey told reporters recently at the Pentagon. "It requires the application of all of the tools of national power -- diplomatic, economic, information, military." *Contributing: Gregory Korte and the Associated Press* IV. http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/triangle-game-isis-assad-america Amy Davidson <http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson> August 25, 2014 A Triangle Game: ISIS, Assad, and America By Amy Davidson <http://www.newyorker.com/contributors/amy-davidson> "Do you see yourself on the same page with the--with the Assad regime?" a reporter asked Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a press conference <http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5491> last week. She noted that the forces of the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, had been hitting the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, also known as ISIS, for some time and added, "Do you still believe that Assad is part of the problem, or he might become part of the broader solution in the region?" HAGEL: "Well, Assad is very much a central part of the problem. And I think it's well documented as to why. When you have the brutal dictatorship of Assad and what he has done to his own country, which perpetuated much of what is happening or has been happening in Syria, so he's part of the problem, and as much a part of it as probably the central core of it. "As to your question regarding ISIL and Assad, yes, they are fighting each other, as well as other terrorist groups, very sophisticated terrorist groups in--in Syria." DEMPSEY: "He is absolutely part of the problem." As Hagel and Dempsey suggest, saying that Assad is "part of the problem" more than three years into a war in which he has bombed his own country's cities and attacked its civilians is an understatement. Syria's civil war, which was set off by his regime's suppression of a more political resistance, has killed close to two hundred thousand people, according to the latest United Nations estimate, created millions of refugees, and turned the country into a giant supply depot for regional disorder. This leaves the problem of how to navigate both our opposition to Assad and his conflict with ISIS. A season ago, the reporter's question would have sounded absurd, and rightly so; this weekend, it's been asked often. So how does one proceed? The least useful way is to pretend that there is no dilemma, and that, whatever each might say, the interests of Assad and ISIS are aligned. The basis for this argument is that Assad has, in the course of the war, strategically picked his battles with various rebel factions, first going after the ones that he believed to be domestic political threats, which in turn allowed ISIS to grow stronger. (Another theory is that Assad wanted ISIS to be powerful because it made the opposition as a whole look bad.) But at best this is a short-term perspective. Assad and many in his circle are Alawites, whom ISIS regards as apostates; the group is a real threat to Assad and to his base. (Lawrence Wright has written about ISIS's founding <http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/isiss-savage-strategy-in-iraq>, which is rooted in violence toward non-Sunni branches of Islam.) And, as the *Wall Street Journal <http://online.wsj.com/articles/assad-policies-aided-rise-of-islamic-state-militant-group-1408739733>* and *Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman-iraq-and-world-affairs.html?_r=0>* noted this weekend, Assad's forces have recently shifted their focus more toward ISIS, with, for example, air strikes on Raqqa, a stronghold that the United States may soon target. To treat ISIS and Assad as a single, two-faced creature is to go into this fight blindly. The cast of characters is complicated--there are also the "other terrorist groups, very sophisticated terrorist groups" that Hagel mentioned. This weekend, days after ISIS put out a video of the murder of James Foley, an American journalist, Jabhat al-Nusra, another group trying to overthrow Assad, released the American journalist Peter Theo Curtis. The Qatari government said that it had talked al-Nusra into letting Curtis go without ransom, for "humanitarian" reasons. (That seems unlikely.) Al-Nusra is a rival of ISIS; it is also Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, and it should be blindingly obvious that no good can come of strengthening it. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. A simple rule to start with: we need to be careful when handing out guns in Syria. There hasn't been enough care taken so far, particularly on the part of the Gulf States, and that has been a key reason for ISIS's rise. The group took weapons and aid directly from donors in places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia; it also scooped up the arsenals of other factions (and, in some cases, their hostages). ISIS has drawn in many of the regime's Sunni opponents. While some of the more moderate factions that had a presence early on have been defeated, by the government or by ISIS, and some are still fighting, others have been absorbed. President Obama's critics--Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/>; John McCain, pretty much constantly--have argued that the entire ISIS disaster could have been avoided if we'd only done more to arm the rebels, at least those in groups like the Free Syrian Army. Clinton called the President's decision not to do so on a large scale "a failure" that left "a vacuum" for the jihadists. Obama, in an interview with Tom Friedman <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/>, said that has "always been a fantasy," because not only were there never enough moderates but also because many of them were "doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth"--not the sorts of people to whom you can just hand heavy weaponry and hope for the best. Indeed, they were the sorts of people whose weapons were looted by groups like ISIS. How could simply siphoning more weapons into the country have helped? Hillary Clinton has an answer to that, and it's a fairly telling one. The arming of Syrian factions by other countries, she acknowledged, was "indiscriminate"; the best way to control that, she says, would be to have "skin in the game"--to be seen as a weapons supplier, too. In her memoir, "Hard Choices," Clinton wrote more about what she again called "into the game": It wasn't a secret that various Arab states and individuals were sending arms into Syria. But the flow of weapons was poorly coordinated, with different countries sponsoring different and sometimes competing armed groups. And a troubling amount of that material was finding its way to extremists. Because the United States was not part of this effort, we had less leverage to corral and coördinate the arms traffic. In other words, if the U.S. were a major supplier of arms, we would better be able to tell the *other* suppliers of arms whom to deal with. We'd put our guns on the barroom table and hope that they were impressed. But America's only strategy can't be to hope that we look tough enough to persuade extremists to let us take the lead. In their press conference, Hagel and Dempsey said that all options were being considered; the White House has made it clear that this includes air strikes against ISIS positions in Syria. When Dempsey was asked whether he thought that ISIS could ever be defeated without being dealt with in Syria, he said no, though it could be "contained" for a while. But he also said, "ISIS will only truly be defeated when it's rejected by the twenty million disenfranchised Sunni that happen to reside between Damascus and Baghdad." "And that requires air strikes?" a reporter asked. "It requires a variety of instruments, only one small part of which is airstrikes"--which, Dempsey hastened to say, he was not necessarily predicting. "But it requires the application of all of the tools of national power--diplomatic, economic, information, military." The general, more than some politicians, was presenting a political problem, one that could not simply be solved by a loud display. It's a reminder that, before we go to war, it would at least be good to be clear about who is who in Syria, and what everyone's interests are. Amy Davidson is the executive editor of newyorker.com. She is a regular Comment contributor for the magazine and writes a column <http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson> for its Web site, covering war, sports, and everything in between. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
