Skip to comments.Syria Masses Tanks On Border With Turkey
Posted on 06/29/2012 5:52:35 AM PDT by Strategy
The Assad regime has massed approximately 170 tanks near the Turkish border, according to an unconfirmed report on Friday by a general in the Free Syrian Army.
General Mustafa al-Sheikh told Reuters that the tanks are now located 30 kilometers (19 miles) from the border, northeast of Aleppo.
"They either want to move toward the border to confront Turkish troops stationed there, or they are planning to attack rebels in towns near the border," al-Sheikh said.
The move comes after Turkey on Thursday sent anti-aircraft guns, rocket launchers and other fortifications to the border, marking an escalation in hostilities between the two countries.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesofisrael.com ...
Russian doesn’t give weapons away like they used to, and I doubt syria can’t buy much.
FR Reply of the Year Award.
Yeah, who do we want to win? Neither?
***Both countries mistreat the Kurds, who helped us in both gulf wars.
Here’s what I wrote on the subject of Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan a while back.
We SHOULD withdraw from Iraq via Tehran.
Heres how I think we should pull out of Iraq. Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. Its the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we dont want to play that role, Iraqs civil war will end with A or B.
Lets say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a withdrawal from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when were all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldnt really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who dont mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that dont secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they dont engage with Turkey. But that doesnt say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesnt relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isnt our problem, its 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), theyre fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didnt allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
Its time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your friend when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldnt be a wise move for them, theyd get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. Its time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, its a messy situation. If Turkey goes into the war on Irans side then they aint really our allies and thats the end of that.
I agree that its hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the 15 rules for understanding the Middle East
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that dont agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant allies like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that wed need as many folks in police and nurses uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didnt follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just havent won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, theyve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when theyre done with that, we can help negotiate with our other allies, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up whats left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
38 posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:55:19 PM by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
Syria could rightfully blame USA , and more precisely Obhamass , who supported , with the liberal dhimmy media the so-called “arab springs” to please the islamists , Saudi Arabia , Qatar....
Obama is completly responsible for that big mess which is only beginning. With that krypto-muslim in the WH, USA are no more a friend of Israel....
So how long till Assad falls and the MB takes over and then how long after that till Israel nukes Damascus into oblivion??
Drag things out in Syrria. Try to draw Iran in. Send in the drones.
Turkey can’t expect NATO help. It’s not as if Syria were the aggressor here.
Of course who knows what Bambi will do just to get a boost in the polls.
I stand by my observation: Israel and America will be blamed, regardless. Further, almost any “idiot on the internet” could do a better job of directing American defense policy than the incumbents in the current White House.
That whole NATO thing didn’t seem to bother Erdogan when he was taking cheap shots at the Iraqi Kurds-—inside Iraq. He’s been shooting his mouth off a lot lately about how big a problem the Israelis are. Let’s see how good he is at handling an actual problem. And he had damm well better protect those refugees from Syria who are on his side of the border. If he doesn’t I can see the Kurds lighting it up also. Just once I expect Putin would like to get paid for some of that Russian scrap iron that papers the ME——but it looks like there’s gonna be another pile of it.
That is the Iranian plan...USA is weak and led by a traitor POTUS...Turkey will also fall if the scenario is played out...I would wonder if that occurs if Israel will attack Iran then..come Lord..as slim pickins would say YEEEEEEHAWWWW for Dr stangelove
170 tanks? Against Turkey (NATO Turkey?)
Best of luck with that. Though I suspect it is either for the rebels or as a screening force.
I suspect that most of those Syrian tanks are barely operable export monkey-models, and that the crews have little firsthand experience operating their vehicles.
Someone I know is being sent back to Afghanistan (Special Forces). They also served in Gulf War I. I have been trying to figure out what their role might be at this point in time. Any thoughts? On the wild off chance that your Kurdistan/Iran/Iraq withdrawal might actually be contemplated, might the location this person is sent to indicate possible future plans?
Why? Turkey is actually historically a decent ally to the United States and Israel for that matter. Why would you want them in a long war?
Russia may threaten and try to get involved, but the Turks are perfectly capable of keeping them out of the Med if they want...and the few who might get in will be inconsequential. Russia would have to escalate with large scale conventional ballistic missile attacks, and I do not believe theat would make the difference either.
And Turkey is a member of NATO so that kind of escalation would make it a much bigger thing in any case which I do not believe Putin is willing to lay on the table for Assad.
Keep in mind that Erdogan and his Party of Islamist Muppets have UTTERLY DESTROYED THE TURKISH ECONOMY and the VALUE OF THE TURKISH LIRA, and have been losing favor in political polls because of it.
Erdogan basically created a huge consumption bubble in Turkey and it burst in early 2011.
So not only does Assad need an external threat to galvanize internal support, Erdogan is in the same boat looking for an external threat to maintain his political fortunes.
TO understand the collapse of Turkey’s economy, start here:
Yes, it does look like it could snowball out of control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.