Tillerson meets Turkey's Erdogan for 'open' talks after weeks of strain

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

An interesting interview.

There are also reports that there are Kurdish militants fighting for Turkey. What's going on there?

http://www.dw.com/en/turkish-attack-on-afrin-the-kurds-put-their-trust-in-the-us-and-the-west/a-42727724

 

Quislings or victims of extortion.

Edited March 8, 2018 by ilostmypassword

[Scott]

I'll close this for clean up.   I see some people just can't stop the baiting, bickering and pedantic nonsense. 

[Scott]

I'll re-open this, but a couple of posters might want to remember this is not your private sandbox to play in and if it were, you still aren't allowed to throw sand at each other.  

 

Continue with the personal snide remarks, off-topic baiting and trolling and you will get a suspension. 

 

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

[JemJem]

On 05.03.2018 at 1:51 PM, simple1 said:

I do trust you are taking appropriate measures to keep your identity / IP address on social media  secret from probing eyes

Thanks. Yeah, man. It is sad, I know. Even in the year 2018, we still have to be careful regarding freedom of expression.

 

And, let me tell you something even worse.....in overall Turkish society, there is, now (well, especially since about 2 years ago) an atmosphere of fear. I don't know if it has made the news internationally, but there have been cases of neighbor spying on neighbor; colleague spying on colleague.....even amongst family members. This kind of thing was officially encouraged too ! Shades of mid and late-1930's Germany, I guess !

 

The Iraqi invasion by the US was a dirty war too; but at least, MANY American NGO's and individuals were able to voice their opposition to it openly and freely. Try doing that here; you are likely to get arrested (or at least detained for some time) and/or get fired from your job.

 

Now, one word about the German government.....I don't know what dirty deals (in addition to the refugee deal of course) have been made recently, but since a few months ago, Germany has been banning some Kurdish demonstrations; and, even worse, there are reports (I think, confirmed) of military deals having been made recently between Germany and Turkey.

 

And, we anti-war people are also very angry at Putin, for virtually giving the go-ahead for this invasion.

 

I am among a very small minority of Turks, who are against this invasion; but one sad thing is, there are quite many Kurds who either support or are indifferent to the invasion (most of them are either Islamists or Barzani folks). I wouldn't be surprised if most Syrian Kurds hate the Barzani clan, almost as much as they hate Erdogan. Who can blame them ?!

[Morch]

18 hours ago, Scott said:

I'll re-open this, but a couple of posters might want to remember this is not your private sandbox to play in and if it were, you still aren't allowed to throw sand at each other.  

 

Continue with the personal snide remarks, off-topic baiting and trolling and you will get a suspension. 

 

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

 

Don't know if the fault is with my early education or memories - but as I recall, it was "don't eat the sand", and "don't throw stones". I do vividly remember the taste of sand, though. Didn't occur to me it could be eaten until forbidden from doing so. Taking the Fifth on the stone throwing thing.

[Morch]

On 3/8/2018 at 7:13 PM, ilostmypassword said:

Quislings or victims of extortion.

 

Quisling is a very strong term and accusation. In this context, more of simplistic judgment call rather than an informed take of Kurdish politics and differing points of view. While there is a tendency to lump Kurds together, they are not really all that united. This applies both on the regional level, and within localized groups. Some reference to this in @JemJem's post above.

[ilostmypassword]

Turkey's war on Kurds unsettles fronts in northern Syria

Turkey's war on a Syrian Kurdish militia that is closely aligned with the United States is forcing the group to give up positions against Islamic State militants in the Syrian desert to defend against the advancing Turkish troops.

Ankara's go-it-alone campaign against the Kurdish People's Protection Units, known as the YPG, in a region called Afrin is reshaping military alignments in northern Syria and forcing the U.S. to pause its mop-up operations against pockets of the Islamic State group.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/turkeys-war-on-kurds-unsettles-fronts-in-northern-syria/2018/03/09/bc522e2c-2361-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.3863bf6c94f1

 

[simple1]

8 hours ago, JemJem said:

Thanks. Yeah, man. It is sad, I know. Even in the year 2018, we still have to be careful regarding freedom of expression.

 

And, let me tell you something even worse.....in overall Turkish society, there is, now (well, especially since about 2 years ago) an atmosphere of fear. I don't know if it has made the news internationally, but there have been cases of neighbor spying on neighbor; colleague spying on colleague.....even amongst family members. This kind of thing was officially encouraged too ! Shades of mid and late-1930's Germany, I guess !

 

The Iraqi invasion by the US was a dirty war too; but at least, MANY American NGO's and individuals were able to voice their opposition to it openly and freely. Try doing that here; you are likely to get arrested (or at least detained for some time) and/or get fired from your job.

 

Now, one word about the German government.....I don't know what dirty deals (in addition to the refugee deal of course) have been made recently, but since a few months ago, Germany has been banning some Kurdish demonstrations; and, even worse, there are reports (I think, confirmed) of military deals having been made recently between Germany and Turkey.

 

And, we anti-war people are also very angry at Putin, for virtually giving the go-ahead for this invasion.

 

I am among a very small minority of Turks, who are against this invasion; but one sad thing is, there are quite many Kurds who either support or are indifferent to the invasion (most of them are either Islamists or Barzani folks). I wouldn't be surprised if most Syrian Kurds hate the Barzani clan, almost as much as they hate Erdogan. Who can blame them ?!

Thanks for the heads up. Stay safe.

[ilostmypassword]

This looks ominous:

"Erdogan said Turkey’s armed forces will push on after operations in Afrin and Manbij, further east, to sweep Syrian Kurdish fighters from the length of Turkey’ border with Syria.

“We are in Afrin today, we will be in Manbij tomorrow. The next day we will ensure that the east of Euphrates will be cleared of terrorist up to the Iraqi border.”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey/turkeys-erdogan-says-syrias-afrin-town-under-siege-entry-imminent-idUKKCN1GL1RU

[ilostmypassword]

Here's a link to what I think is a fascinating article about Manbij by Patrick Coburn;

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-us-turkey-troops-fighting-manbij-kurdish-assad-civil-war-a8236201.html

[Morch]

On 3/10/2018 at 12:17 AM, ilostmypassword said:

Turkey's war on Kurds unsettles fronts in northern Syria

Turkey's war on a Syrian Kurdish militia that is closely aligned with the United States is forcing the group to give up positions against Islamic State militants in the Syrian desert to defend against the advancing Turkish troops.

Ankara's go-it-alone campaign against the Kurdish People's Protection Units, known as the YPG, in a region called Afrin is reshaping military alignments in northern Syria and forcing the U.S. to pause its mop-up operations against pockets of the Islamic State group.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/turkeys-war-on-kurds-unsettles-fronts-in-northern-syria/2018/03/09/bc522e2c-2361-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.3863bf6c94f1

 

 

That's pretty much yet another version of  the previous articles linked. It does not contain much by way of new information or new insights. Getting a generic statement from an official or two, and a routine comment from the representative of this or that think-tank, is what many of these articles amount to.

 

Figures on the SDF's total strength vary, ranging between 50,000-80,000. The planned "border force" which was to be based on SDF personnel was projected as 30,000 strong. The various reports about Kurdish fighters diverted to Afrin range between hundreds and a couple of thousands or so. Doesn't seem all that reasonable that this should bring operations against ISIS to a halt. Unless, that is, if the operational scale was limited for some time now.

 

Another ambiguous issue is the question of which specific fronts them fighters are diverted from. US/SDF Operations against ISIS  are/were conducted on two main fronts (or more properly, "pockets"). One along the Iraqi border and the other in the Deir a-Zour area. Other than one of the initial reports, most refer to the Deir a-Zour area or are unspecific. While the former front is nearer to areas forming Rojava, Deir a-Zour is more obviously Syrian (as in Assad regime's Syria). And while the Kurds had some notion of using the territory as some sort of leverage for advancing their political aspirations, there were no attempts or moves to incorporate it as part of Rojava, nor direct claims made. The

US's interest in this area is not just about defeating ISIS, but delaying or denying Assad (and/or Russian outfits) access to Syria's oil fields.

 

Some of the articles linked refer to ISIS as defeated, others as almost defeated, o badly hurt. None of them makes a coherent case for full scale ISIS resurgence, or anything amounting to such. One would have thought that the scope of operations required to deal with ISIS would reflect the obvious changes in the magnitude and nature of the threat, yet reading some of them official or semi-official statements and warnings, it would seem the bogeyman could come out from under the bed at any moment.

 

Doubt there's a compelling reason to accept associated touted narratives without doubts.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's pretty much yet another version of  the previous articles linked. It does not contain much by way of new information or new insights. Getting a generic statement from an official or two, and a routine comment from the representative of this or that think-tank, is what many of these articles amount to.

 

Figures on the SDF's total strength vary, ranging between 50,000-80,000. The planned "border force" which was to be based on SDF personnel was projected as 30,000 strong. The various reports about Kurdish fighters diverted to Afrin range between hundreds and a couple of thousands or so. Doesn't seem all that reasonable that this should bring operations against ISIS to a halt. Unless, that is, if the operational scale was limited for some time now.

 

Another ambiguous issue is the question of which specific fronts them fighters are diverted from. US/SDF Operations against ISIS  are/were conducted on two main fronts (or more properly, "pockets"). One along the Iraqi border and the other in the Deir a-Zour area. Other than one of the initial reports, most refer to the Deir a-Zour area or are unspecific. While the former front is nearer to areas forming Rojava, Deir a-Zour is more obviously Syrian (as in Assad regime's Syria). And while the Kurds had some notion of using the territory as some sort of leverage for advancing their political aspirations, there were no attempts or moves to incorporate it as part of Rojava, nor direct claims made. The

US's interest in this area is not just about defeating ISIS, but delaying or denying Assad (and/or Russian outfits) access to Syria's oil fields.

 

Some of the articles linked refer to ISIS as defeated, others as almost defeated, o badly hurt. None of them makes a coherent case for full scale ISIS resurgence, or anything amounting to such. One would have thought that the scope of operations required to deal with ISIS would reflect the obvious changes in the magnitude and nature of the threat, yet reading some of them official or semi-official statements and warnings, it would seem the bogeyman could come out from under the bed at any moment.

 

Doubt there's a compelling reason to accept associated touted narratives without doubts.

Virtually every experienced journalist in the area says that significant numbers of Kurds are moving out of the northeast into Afrin. And by "significant" I mean enough to effect the war effort in the northeast.

Virtually every journalist I've read who has commented on the subject uses words like enraged, incensed and anathema to describe the Turkish reaction to continued US support for YPG.

Maybe these people are all ignoramuses.

Find me an article from a reputable source that says otherwise. That says the move of Kurdish forces has not significantly affected the fight. That says the Turks aren't incensed by US support for the YPG.

I await your data with interest.

 

[Morch]

On 3/10/2018 at 12:25 PM, ilostmypassword said:

This looks ominous:

"Erdogan said Turkey’s armed forces will push on after operations in Afrin and Manbij, further east, to sweep Syrian Kurdish fighters from the length of Turkey’ border with Syria.

“We are in Afrin today, we will be in Manbij tomorrow. The next day we will ensure that the east of Euphrates will be cleared of terrorist up to the Iraqi border.”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey/turkeys-erdogan-says-syrias-afrin-town-under-siege-entry-imminent-idUKKCN1GL1RU

 

It "looks ominous" if one ignores the many times Erdogan runs his mouth. For reference, may want to check previous crises - vs. Russia, vs. Iraq, vs. Saudi Arabia, vs. Israel, vs. Germany and so on and so forth. Most times there isn't much of a follow-through with regard to bombastic statements and vows. Usually a combination of not thinking things through and having a nationalistic-populist agenda. His grip on domestic media assures that he can spin things later on without too much loss of face or support.

 

I don't think he'll actually risk a head-on clash with the US. Talking tough, posturing, threats - yeah, been there heard that. An actual showdown? Erdogan rarely gets into an actual fight with foes who aren't weaker than him. If this was the previous US administration, he could maybe have depended on the US going through  proper diplomatic moves to counter such a confrontation, but with Trump - harder to gauge how the US will react. There was a notion raised previously in the topic, that he'll let loose Jihadis and the FSA. Well - other than putting his treachery on the table for all to see, they won't be that hard to counter, lacking air support and all other parties ready to have a field day.

 

When Erdogan talks about the Turkish border beyond Manbij, there are two issues involved. First, with regard to Syria (or Rojava),  there were reports that a three-way understanding was reached (I think 2016) between Turkey, the US and the YPG, that the Kurds would stay on the Eastern side of the Euphrates, and Turkey will (at least temporarily and probably not very officially) accept that. That's one of the reasons US troops aren't involved in Afrin. While Manbij is on the "wrong" bank as well, US presence there is structured differently than in Rojava proper. While Erdogan may have a partial case (what with Afrin declared part of Rojava), the chances of Turkey sweeping the whole of Rojava are unlikely, to put it politely. The second issue pertains to Iraq - and there were reports and rumors about it for over a year now. I don't know that the Iraqi government would be thrilled (they weren't that happy with the last Turkish incursion) or that Iran wouldn't do its bit to derail it. Either way, Erdogan will need both a catchy pretext and to consolidate gains(?) in Afrin, before engaging another front.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Virtually every experienced journalist in the area says that significant numbers of Kurds are moving out of the northeast into Afrin. And by "significant" I mean enough to effect the war effort in the northeast.

Virtually every journalist I've read who has commented on the subject uses words like enraged, incensed and anathema to describe the Turkish reaction to continued US support for YPG.

Maybe these people are all ignoramuses.

Find me an article from a reputable source that says otherwise. That says the move of Kurdish forces has not significantly affected the fight. That says the Turks aren't incensed by US support for the YPG.

I await your data with interest.

 

 

I'm not particularly interested in what counts as an "experienced journalist", or their supposed head count in the region. What I do comment about is the reports themselves, which are somewhat repetitive, lack concrete information or much in-depth analysis, and overly rely on semi-official/official sources. There is no compelling explanations as to how the numbers are "significant" or significantly effect operations against ISIS. There are claims and statements that they are. Not quite the same thing.

 

Describing Turkish reactions (especially by politicians and political leaders) as "enraged", "incensed" and whatnot is all very well. But that's pretty much how many of Erdogan and his cronies' speeches sound like anyway. The point made, and ignored, in this regard, was that there's a gap between hyperbole statements and actual politics/diplomacy. Not quite what you spin it as.

 

Not really following your last bit - is something relevant or "real" only if it was reported by an "experienced journalist"?  There is no obligation to accept the analysis offered without criticism or doubts. There is no obligation to adulate "experienced journalists". Having crossed paths, worked with or for some, I'm not inclined to treat most as oracles.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

I'm not particularly interested in what counts as an "experienced journalist", or their supposed head count in the region. What I do comment about is the reports themselves, which are somewhat repetitive, lack concrete information or much in-depth analysis, and overly rely on semi-official/official sources. There is no compelling explanations as to how the numbers are "significant" or significantly effect operations against ISIS. There are claims and statements that they are. Not quite the same thing.

 

Describing Turkish reactions (especially by politicians and political leaders) as "enraged", "incensed" and whatnot is all very well. But that's pretty much how many of Erdogan and his cronies' speeches sound like anyway. The point made, and ignored, in this regard, was that there's a gap between hyperbole statements and actual politics/diplomacy. Not quite what you spin it as.

 

Not really following your last bit - is something relevant or "real" only if it was reported by an "experienced journalist"?  There is no obligation to accept the analysis offered without criticism or doubts. There is no obligation to adulate "experienced journalists". Having crossed paths, worked with or for some, I'm not inclined to treat most as oracles.

I'll go with the wisdom of crowds especially when the consensus is questioned by a lone outlier.

[ilostmypassword]

39 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It "looks ominous" if one ignores the many times Erdogan runs his mouth. For reference, may want to check previous crises - vs. Russia, vs. Iraq, vs. Saudi Arabia, vs. Israel, vs. Germany and so on and so forth. Most times there isn't much of a follow-through with regard to bombastic statements and vows. Usually a combination of not thinking things through and having a nationalistic-populist agenda. His grip on domestic media assures that he can spin things later on without too much loss of face or support.

 

I don't think he'll actually risk a head-on clash with the US. Talking tough, posturing, threats - yeah, been there heard that. An actual showdown? Erdogan rarely gets into an actual fight with foes who aren't weaker than him. If this was the previous US administration, he could maybe have depended on the US going through  proper diplomatic moves to counter such a confrontation, but with Trump - harder to gauge how the US will react. There was a notion raised previously in the topic, that he'll let loose Jihadis and the FSA. Well - other than putting his treachery on the table for all to see, they won't be that hard to counter, lacking air support and all other parties ready to have a field day.

 

When Erdogan talks about the Turkish border beyond Manbij, there are two issues involved. First, with regard to Syria (or Rojava),  there were reports that a three-way understanding was reached (I think 2016) between Turkey, the US and the YPG, that the Kurds would stay on the Eastern side of the Euphrates, and Turkey will (at least temporarily and probably not very officially) accept that. That's one of the reasons US troops aren't involved in Afrin. While Manbij is on the "wrong" bank as well, US presence there is structured differently than in Rojava proper. While Erdogan may have a partial case (what with Afrin declared part of Rojava), the chances of Turkey sweeping the whole of Rojava are unlikely, to put it politely. The second issue pertains to Iraq - and there were reports and rumors about it for over a year now. I don't know that the Iraqi government would be thrilled (they weren't that happy with the last Turkish incursion) or that Iran wouldn't do its bit to derail it. Either way, Erdogan will need both a catchy pretext and to consolidate gains(?) in Afrin, before engaging another front.

Most likely, Erdogan won't do anything directly. But given his penchant for using Islamists as is the case apparently in Afrin, I don't think he's going to just put up with the situation either.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'll go with the wisdom of crowds especially when the consensus is questioned by a lone outlier.

 

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion. But "wisdom of crowds"? Many of these reports seem to quote similar sources, many of which are official or semi-official, which cannot be said to be free of agendas. Other than repeating generalized statements (mainly from US military sources) on operations against ISIS being put on halt or scaled back, there's little be way of actual detail on what it amounts to or implies. 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion. But "wisdom of crowds"? Many of these reports seem to quote similar sources, many of which are official or semi-official, which cannot be said to be free of agendas. Other than repeating generalized statements (mainly from US military sources) on operations against ISIS being put on halt or scaled back, there's little be way of actual detail on what it amounts to or implies. 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Most likely, Erdogan won't do anything directly. But given his penchant for using Islamists as is the case apparently in Afrin, I don't think he's going to just put up with the situation either.

 

"Penchant for using Islamists"? Was Turkey particularly successful conducting massive military operations relying on such? Even the current incursion isn't going all that well.

 

Using "Islamists" (whomever that might refer to) means less control, and a limited ability to provide direct support. The main advantage of the Turkish side is air supremacy - which they can not offer or provide for the supposed "Islamist" proxy army. I don't think that Turkey can command the numbers of "Islamists" required to sweep the entire Rojava area, or even Manbij.

 

There's a gap between Erdogan's statements and Kurdish aspirations. In all likelihood, the current crisis will be temporarily resolved in some uneasy truce or understanding of one sort or the other - whether official or not. And yes, many people will die before that comes about.

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Morch

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

"Penchant for using Islamists"? Was Turkey particularly successful conducting massive military operations relying on such? Even the current incursion isn't going all that well.

 

Using "Islamists" (whomever that might refer to) means less control, and a limited ability to provide direct support. The main advantage of the Turkish side is air supremacy - which they can not offer or provide for the supposed "Islamist" proxy army. I don't think that Turkey can command the numbers of "Islamists" required to sweep the entire Rojava area, or even Manbij.

 

There's a gap between Erdogan's statements and Kurdish aspirations. In all likelihood, the current crisis will be temporarily resolved in some uneasy truce or understanding of one sort or the other - whether official or not. And yes, many people will die before that comes about.

 

And unfortunately the current incursion is not going all that badly, either. Apparently, the Turks and associated forces have taken Jinderes and are on the outskirts of Afrin.

Turkish forces reach outskirts of Afrin town: monitor

Turkish forces have reached the outskirts of the town of Afrin after a weeks-long campaign against a Kurdish militia in northwest Syria, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitoring group said on Saturday.

Turkey and allied Syrian rebel groups it supports are advancing on the town from the east under intense bombardment, the Britain-based Observatory said...

During the campaign it has managed to gain control over all the Afrin region’s border areas with Turkey, including several small towns and a large number of villages.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-afrin/turkish-forces-reach-outskirts-of-afrin-town-monitor-idUSKCN1GM0JR

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Deflection.

 

The Turkish operation is far from going smoothly, and it's been on for over a month. That the Turkish forces are making headway doesn't turn it into a success. If one projects from Turkish military performance in Afrin, Erdogan's statements regarding future campaigns seem rather ridiculous.

 

But regardless, the post you were responding to dealt with the feasibility of Erdogan using "Islamist" proxy forces to take Manbij or clear the entire span of the border.

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Deflection.

 

The Turkish operation is far from going smoothly, and it's been on for over a month. That the Turkish forces are making headway doesn't turn it into a success. If one projects from Turkish military performance in Afrin, Erdogan's statements regarding future campaigns seem rather ridiculous.

 

But regardless, the post you were responding to dealt with the feasibility of Erdogan using "Islamist" proxy forces to take Manbij or clear the entire span of the border.

I never said he would use them to take Manbij. I just said he wouldn't put up with the situation. There's a lot of distance betwween not putting up with  and evicting.

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Erdogan did call on the US to pull out of Manbij, did state the Turkish operation would swing that way, did say he won't put up with YPG control of/presence in Manbij, and in a later statement you dubbed "ominous" seemed to be including clearing all of the border area under the operation's goals.

 

In this context, not really clear what your point is. Previously, you seemed to be claiming that Erdogan could replace Turkish troops with "Islamists" (or whatnot). This is unlikely (for reasons stated above) to result in any great success, and carries the risk of undermining Turkey's position.

 

For reference:

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1025305-tillerson-meets-turkeys-erdogan-for-open-talks-after-weeks-of-strain/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-12771695

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1025305-tillerson-meets-turkeys-erdogan-for-open-talks-after-weeks-of-strain/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-12771787

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1025305-tillerson-meets-turkeys-erdogan-for-open-talks-after-weeks-of-strain/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-12785426

 

Covertly sponsoring Islamist insurrection along the border, without lending direct support (and specifically air support) is unlikely to be effective when it comes to achieving Turkey's declared goals. Openly sponsoring and supporting such forces on such a scale is tantamount to declaring one self a baddie. Either option would make US disengagement from the Kurds and the region even less likely. While Assad's regime, Russia and Iran will probably not shed a tear about Rojava/US troops being harassed this way, doubt they'll be keen on a large scale reenactment of Sunni Islamist insurrection. 

 

[ilostmypassword]

22 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Erdogan did call on the US to pull out of Manbij, did state the Turkish operation would swing that way, did say he won't put up with YPG control of/presence in Manbij, and in a later statement you dubbed "ominous" seemed to be including clearing all of the border area under the operation's goals.

 

In this context, not really clear what your point is. Previously, you seemed to be claiming that Erdogan could replace Turkish troops with "Islamists" (or whatnot). This is unlikely (for reasons stated above) to result in any great success, and carries the risk of undermining Turkey's position.

 

For reference:

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1025305-tillerson-meets-turkeys-erdogan-for-open-talks-after-weeks-of-strain/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-12771695

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1025305-tillerson-meets-turkeys-erdogan-for-open-talks-after-weeks-of-strain/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-12771787

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1025305-tillerson-meets-turkeys-erdogan-for-open-talks-after-weeks-of-strain/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-12785426

 

Covertly sponsoring Islamist insurrection along the border, without lending direct support (and specifically air support) is unlikely to be effective when it comes to achieving Turkey's declared goals. Openly sponsoring and supporting such forces on such a scale is tantamount to declaring one self a baddie. Either option would make US disengagement from the Kurds and the region even less likely. While Assad's regime, Russia and Iran will probably not shed a tear about Rojava/US troops being harassed this way, doubt they'll be keen on a large scale reenactment of Sunni Islamist insurrection. 

 

What puzzled me when I first heard that Turkey was using SFA troops in its Afrin campaign was how did the Turks accomplish what the Americans failed to do: turn the SFA into a credible armed force Apparently, he's using Islamists in the Afrin campaign.

"Among reasons for Kurds in Afrin to stay where they are is the nature of the Turkish forces that invaded the city on 20 January. There are regular Turkish troops and special forces, but also as many as 25,000 fighters operating under the umbrella name of the Free Syrian Army. But evidence from the front line and from former FSA and Isis members suggests that many of these are battle-hardened Islamists who had previously fought with or alongside Isis and al-Qaeda"

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-afrin-crisis-turkish-forces-civilians-deaths-eastern-ghouta-assad-a8247206.html

So far, no governmental protests about openly using Isis and such in this campaign. So I don't think Erdogan would worry much if his support is surreptitious. It's far more unrealistic to assume that Erdogan will do nothing. As is the overwhelmng consensus, the Turks are enraged by US support for YPG.  Dubious that an enraged regime will do nothing concrete.  It's good to remember that Turkey doesn't have the option of leaving the scene. The US does.  Turkey can make life pretty miserable for the US without openly engaging US forces. And I doubt that when it comes to choosing between attacking the YPG or not displeasing the Russians, Iranians, and Syrians, the Turks will plump for the latter.

.

 

 

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Turkey did not turn the FSA into a "credible armed force". That's an inaccurate, unsupported claim, which does not conform even with available reports on the fighting in Afrin.

 

For starters, as often happens in the Syrian Civil War, groups evolve, mutate, coalesce and fragment. The non-Turkish forces participating in the Turkish operation are more correctly dubbed Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army. As the link details, the similar fluctuations apply within its ranks and units.

 

Overall, the Turkish operation cannot be labeled a success. It is now in its 7th (I think) week, with relatively little to show for it so far. Contrasted with earlier statements and ambitious goals, coupled with Turkish casualties and slow rate of advance, not very impressive at all. Doubt that the TFSA would have managed that without Turkish air support and Turkish units on the ground.

 

I don't know how many, exactly, of 25,000 strong TFSA  are "Islamists", or that being an "Islamist" automatically makes one into good fighter. To take this a step further, even fighting for AQ/IS is no indication of such. It only means these people are veterans - counts for something, but no need to get carried away. I don't think that they are significantly better fighters than the Kurds, for example. More a matter of support - with US support, the Kurds had the upper hand.

 

It's not as if all of the TFSA is ex-AQ/IS. And it's not uncommon for various outfits to change sides and allegiances.- happened pretty much all over in this war. Getting into the who's who of this is not something most reports covering related issues excel at.

 

I think that there's less media coverage for several reasons - access, complexity and the US trying to avoid a head-on clash with Turkey. But the assumption that Erdogan could go on doing the same indefinitely is not realistic. Without outright Turkish involvement and support, these outfits are no stronger than the Kurds (and weaker, when US support comes to bear), no stronger than Assad's forces (and weaker, when Russia's support will be applied). The worst they can do without Turkish support is insurrection, not something dramatic in these parts and times.

 

As far as I recall, there wasn't exactly a contention that Erdogan "will do nothing". Straw-man? And, of course, Turkey does have a option when it comes to fighting the Kurds outside of its own borders - that's a choice made, not an inevitable course of action. As for Turkey capable of "making life pretty for the US without openly engaging US forces" - yet another nothing assertion. How Turkey can accomplish that and what it would imply are not explained. It is good to remember that Erdogan talk a lot, and folds often.

 

The last lines of the article linked are too funny, in light of previous posts and views - "In many respects, the role of the international media in the Syrian war has been as partial and misleading as the warring parties inside the country or their foreign sponsors without.". But by all means, lets go with blind faith in "experienced journalists".

[ilostmypassword]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Turkey did not turn the FSA into a "credible armed force". That's an inaccurate, unsupported claim, which does not conform even with available reports on the fighting in Afrin.

 

For starters, as often happens in the Syrian Civil War, groups evolve, mutate, coalesce and fragment. The non-Turkish forces participating in the Turkish operation are more correctly dubbed Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army. As the link details, the similar fluctuations apply within its ranks and units.

 

Overall, the Turkish operation cannot be labeled a success. It is now in its 7th (I think) week, with relatively little to show for it so far. Contrasted with earlier statements and ambitious goals, coupled with Turkish casualties and slow rate of advance, not very impressive at all. Doubt that the TFSA would have managed that without Turkish air support and Turkish units on the ground.

 

I don't know how many, exactly, of 25,000 strong TFSA  are "Islamists", or that being an "Islamist" automatically makes one into good fighter. To take this a step further, even fighting for AQ/IS is no indication of such. It only means these people are veterans - counts for something, but no need to get carried away. I don't think that they are significantly better fighters than the Kurds, for example. More a matter of support - with US support, the Kurds had the upper hand.

 

It's not as if all of the TFSA is ex-AQ/IS. And it's not uncommon for various outfits to change sides and allegiances.- happened pretty much all over in this war. Getting into the who's who of this is not something most reports covering related issues excel at.

 

I think that there's less media coverage for several reasons - access, complexity and the US trying to avoid a head-on clash with Turkey. But the assumption that Erdogan could go on doing the same indefinitely is not realistic. Without outright Turkish involvement and support, these outfits are no stronger than the Kurds (and weaker, when US support comes to bear), no stronger than Assad's forces (and weaker, when Russia's support will be applied). The worst they can do without Turkish support is insurrection, not something dramatic in these parts and times.

 

As far as I recall, there wasn't exactly a contention that Erdogan "will do nothing". Straw-man? And, of course, Turkey does have a option when it comes to fighting the Kurds outside of its own borders - that's a choice made, not an inevitable course of action. As for Turkey capable of "making life pretty for the US without openly engaging US forces" - yet another nothing assertion. How Turkey can accomplish that and what it would imply are not explained. It is good to remember that Erdogan talk a lot, and folds often.

 

The last lines of the article linked are too funny, in light of previous posts and views - "In many respects, the role of the international media in the Syrian war has been as partial and misleading as the warring parties inside the country or their foreign sponsors without.". But by all means, lets go with blind faith in "experienced journalists".

First off, I don't know what news you've been following lately, but I do know what you haven't. By all accounts the Turkish advance has accelerated mightily in the past few days. Jinderes taken, about 60 percent of Afrin under Turkish control, possible YPG handing off to the Syrian governemt forces villages near Aleppo. Afrin city surrounded and cut off....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/13/700000-trapped-syrian-city-afrin-turkey-allied-fighters-surround/

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Turkey did not turn the FSA into a "credible armed force". That's an inaccurate, unsupported claim, which does not conform even with available reports on the fighting in Afrin.

 

For starters, as often happens in the Syrian Civil War, groups evolve, mutate, coalesce and fragment. The non-Turkish forces participating in the Turkish operation are more correctly dubbed Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army. As the link details, the similar fluctuations apply within its ranks and units.

 

Overall, the Turkish operation cannot be labeled a success. It is now in its 7th (I think) week, with relatively little to show for it so far. Contrasted with earlier statements and ambitious goals, coupled with Turkish casualties and slow rate of advance, not very impressive at all. Doubt that the TFSA would have managed that without Turkish air support and Turkish units on the ground.

 

I don't know how many, exactly, of 25,000 strong TFSA  are "Islamists", or that being an "Islamist" automatically makes one into good fighter. To take this a step further, even fighting for AQ/IS is no indication of such. It only means these people are veterans - counts for something, but no need to get carried away. I don't think that they are significantly better fighters than the Kurds, for example. More a matter of support - with US support, the Kurds had the upper hand.

 

It's not as if all of the TFSA is ex-AQ/IS. And it's not uncommon for various outfits to change sides and allegiances.- happened pretty much all over in this war. Getting into the who's who of this is not something most reports covering related issues excel at.

 

I think that there's less media coverage for several reasons - access, complexity and the US trying to avoid a head-on clash with Turkey. But the assumption that Erdogan could go on doing the same indefinitely is not realistic. Without outright Turkish involvement and support, these outfits are no stronger than the Kurds (and weaker, when US support comes to bear), no stronger than Assad's forces (and weaker, when Russia's support will be applied). The worst they can do without Turkish support is insurrection, not something dramatic in these parts and times.

 

As far as I recall, there wasn't exactly a contention that Erdogan "will do nothing". Straw-man? And, of course, Turkey does have a option when it comes to fighting the Kurds outside of its own borders - that's a choice made, not an inevitable course of action. As for Turkey capable of "making life pretty for the US without openly engaging US forces" - yet another nothing assertion. How Turkey can accomplish that and what it would imply are not explained. It is good to remember that Erdogan talk a lot, and folds often.

 

The last lines of the article linked are too funny, in light of previous posts and views - "In many respects, the role of the international media in the Syrian war has been as partial and misleading as the warring parties inside the country or their foreign sponsors without.". But by all means, lets go with blind faith in "experienced journalists".

"I don't know how many, exactly, of 25,000 strong TFSA  are "Islamists", or that being an "Islamist" automatically makes one into good fighter. To take this a step further, even fighting for AQ/IS is no indication of such. It only means these people are veterans - counts for something, but no need to get carried away. I don't think that they are significantly better fighters than the Kurds, for example. More a matter of support - with US support, the Kurds had the upper hand."

 

For that matter being a YPG fighter or even a US soldier is no guarantee that a particular fighter is any good. But en masse, yes, it’s a very strong indication.  How anybody could say otherwise, given the tenacity of the Islamists’ rebels defense demonstrated over and over against overwhelmingly force is beyond me

 

And air support doesn't turn bad troops into good ones. How well did the non kurdish forces under the American aegis perform in Rakka despite overwhelmingly strong US air support? Dismally. The very fact that these shock troops for the Turks aren't running away from the fight already makes them quite distinct from the old SFA. And since pretty much the only non Kurdish rebels who didn't run from a fight were from Isis and the like,, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that's who these people primarily are.

 

And then there's this.

"Syrian Arab militiamen leading the Turkish attack on Afrin in northern Syria are threatening to massacre its Kurdish population unless they convert to the variant of Islam espoused by Isis and al-Qaeda...In one video a militia fighter flanked by others describes the Kurds as “infidels” and issues a stark warning, saying "by Allah, if you repent and come back to Allah, then know that you are our brothers. But if you refuse, then we see that your heads are ripe, and that it's time for us to pluck them."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-civil-war-assad-regime-turkey-afrin-kurds-eastern-ghouta-us-allies-militia-a8252456.html

 

So yes, I’d say my appraisal of them does conform with reports coming out of Afrin. I don’t even know how you can say it doesn’t conform with reports coming out of Afrin since clearly you haven’t been following them lately. Unfortunately the Turks are winning. And at a greatly accelerated pace.

 

 

 

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, I don't know what news you've been following lately, but I do know what you haven't. By all accounts the Turkish advance has accelerated mightily in the past few days. Jinderes taken, about 60 percent of Afrin under Turkish control, possible YPG handing off to the Syrian governemt forces villages near Aleppo. Afrin city surrounded and cut off....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/13/700000-trapped-syrian-city-afrin-turkey-allied-fighters-surround/

 

 

 

More deflections. The assessment offered was not limited to recent days, but to the operation as a whole. So again, pitted vs. Erdogan's earlier statements, and the goals detailed later, the Turkish incursion is by no means an operational success. It took took too long, cost too many casualties, and I think that there will be international pressure brought to bear if the siege of Afrin would develop to anything resembling similar instances in this war. And please, spare me the "I do know"'s, Jon Snow.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

More deflections. The assessment offered was not limited to recent days, but to the operation as a whole. So again, pitted vs. Erdogan's earlier statements, and the goals detailed later, the Turkish incursion is by no means an operational success. It took took too long, cost too many casualties, and I think that there will be international pressure brought to bear if the siege of Afrin would develop to anything resembling similar instances in this war. And please, spare me the "I do know"'s, Jon Snow.

It took too long for what? If he evicts the Kurds after x amount of time it won't count? 

 How many casualties is too many? Why is that number too many?  Given the Turks' tactics, it looks like most of the casualties will be non Turkish shock troops.

As for international pressure...right, Erdogan has shown himself to be pretty much indifferent to international pressure in the past. What's different now? 

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

US soldiers, especially those deployed in Syria go through extensive training, and enjoy superior equipment. Many are Special Forces, with all that this implies. The SDF had the benefit of being trained by US instructors, that does go a ways. Consider that I did not make the faux counter argument presented, just posited that a label doesn't make the soldier. That you apparently assume anyone dubbed "Islamist" or former-AQ/IS is some super soldier, is not very convincing. Some are, some aren't. Their current performance in the Turkish operation does not suggest otherwise - some are, some aren't. Being a fanatic or a zealot is a different thing. Again, I'm not the one making wholesale assumptions.

 

There was nothing said about air support turning bad troops into good ones. Getting a bit repetitive to ask you not to inject faux claims to the discussion. Similarly, I'll have to question the wholesale  assertions that "pretty much the only non Kurdish rebels who didn't run from a fight were from ISIS and the like". There's some information on "who these people primarily are" - and I don't think it fully matches your notions.

 

You are trying very hard to paint a uniform picture with regard to the composition of these units. If anything, a recent and detailed history of such things (in the context of the Syrian Civil War) would indicate the futility of such wholesale assertions.  Once more spare me your "clearly"'s with regard to what I'm following or not following - even the story linked does not offer full support is not a full support for the wholesale view pushed in your posts.

 

I'm offering a more complex, nuanced take, you seem to favor a simplistic, sensationalist one.