The so called entire coalition is obviously less then willing to get involved in this fight, presently. And this reluctance is larger then just Turkey's recalcitrant behaviour? What is going on in the wider scheme?
I am not getting the impression that France and the UK have been overly active in these bombing runs. Never mind the GCC nations. Also all this bombing the US has been doing? What the hell are they actually accomplishing? It really feels as if the US is just dropping bombs in order to enrich the military industrial complex via lucrative taxpayer subsidized contracts as noted in yesterday's post-
KaBoom & ChaChing! Wall St. Cheers as Military Industrial Profits explode
This news item, below, supports my claim implicitly and it's getting very little play:
Let's discuss Turkey a bit?Defense officials have released information revealing the level of involvement of each state in the anti-IS coalition.The United States has carried out 90 percent of the near 2,000 air raids on the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria since early August, with Arab and other allied countries making up just 10 percent of attacks, U.S. officials said on Monday.
US warplanes have conducted 1,768 air strikes with about 195 air raids from other coalition members. The figures are accurate up to October 5.
Since August 8, in these strikes the United States has dropped a landmark 1,000 bombs.
The figures go some way to demonstrating the degree of participation of the the U.S.’ Middle Eastern allies, including Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. The figures reveal that their participation is mainly symbolic.
Belgium, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands and Australia have committed aircraft to the effort in Iraq, though their presence has also been on a small scale so far
Turkey has troops and tanks sitting at the border of Syria. Sept 29/14: 35 (or more) Turkish tanks lineup for their move into Syria Why haven't they advanced, to date, into Syria?
Believe me when I tell you this has been on my mind! Was reading a bit last evening about a disagreement between the US and Turkey- Turkey want's the US to guarantee a no fly zone- Keeping Syria's military out of the area- So far the US has balked at this? Why? The Turkish push was mentioned here: September 8/14- Obama to push no fly zone
Diplomatic sources said President Barack Obama has been promoting a plan for a Western-backed coalition to impose a no-fly zone over northern Syria.
“The proposal stems from Turkey, which sees this as a means to protect its border with Syria,” a source said.
On September 27/14 this info was posted- Air Force Missions over “hostile” Syria require this newest jet At that time I was perplexed.
My speculation, 11 days past, was that Syria had stronger air defences then had been let on by the NATO tyranny. It seems that is most definitely the case. Syria's air defence is vastly more robust then had been realized and the NATO global tyranny has not yet found a way to evade those systems.Since the US started bombing Syria- I have been trying to understand, why it is that Damascus has remained mostly silent on the raids. Bombing the areas that have been under siege for so long can do nothing but assist Syria in their fight against the takfiri- But, what about the very obvious fact that the US& Israel want Assad gone. And will inevitably try to fire on Syrian targets.
NATO needs to circumvents these systems in order to keep their casualty counts down-
Too many casualties will cause discontent. Too many casualties will cause people to think about what NATO is actually doing, over there? And the dupes might question the validity in all the deaths of our so called"heroes"? So, too many western casualties- not good.
It's all part of your perception management.
We also have to face that fact that NATO is at it's core a global tyrannical bully organization.
Bullies by their very nature are cowardly, hence the abuse of smaller and weaker persons or nations. The survival of the bully depends on it (person, group, nation) coming to no harm
Is the inability of the US & co. to circumvent the Syrian defences, to date, the hold up to imposing the no fly zone and the reason Turkish troops sit at the border?
Of course this could change at any time. But it hasn't so far.
Some additional questions-
The ISIS 'attack' on Kobane? Doesn't seem to be anything but a very half hearted attempt to take over a town. First question, Is this just some sort of sideshow for the cameras? Oh we have a flag on a rooftop! So what? Did some media outlet go a put it there then take a pic of it? Did they have one of their ISIS cohorts put the flag in place for the photo shoot? A flag stuck in the middle of somewhere doesn't necessarily mean a thing.And that type of staged photo-op would most certainly not be a first! Then we have all these bombs being dropped all this time with very little accomplished. According to the msm reports ISIS is an ever bigger threat and keeps carrying out alleged beheadings
Yet, the US looks to be letting ISIS off easy? Which isn't a huge surprise when you think of what ISIS is? A NATO left behind army-
And what about the US aerial bombing to push ISIS away from Kobane?
The strategy deployed around Kobane has looked, at the very best, half-hearted on the part of ISIS and the US. Is ISIS really an enemy? Or are we just looking at the opening act being prepped for once Syrian defences have been overpowered?
An interesting Saudi perspective
"There has been a remarkably limited number of US airstrikes on IS forces moving against Kobane. That the terrorists still had a single tank to send into the town is scarcely credible given the deadly power and accuracy of US air-to-ground missiles. That IS artillery batteries and rocket launchers were not targeted even before they were set up to fire is deeply puzzling. Washington did not stint on its use of lethal aerial force in driving the terrorists away from the Mosul Dam.Question 2- Is the Turkish army going to take one for the team?
Example- drawing Syria into battle- The US testing Syrian capabilities while Turkey takes all the personnel losses? This would be very, very unpopular in Turkey.... Would this cause the leadership some concern?
Hence all the hemming and hawing?
3rd question? - If Syria's self defence capabilities are solid should we assume other nations are assisting in this capacity? Of course I'm thinking Russia and Iran, but, perhaps China? Not sure? What do you think?
|Nine weeks of US strikes|
Image from Wall Street Journal article entitled US and Turkey at odds over ISIS advance in Kobane(i)Digression: When I have time I am going to have a look at how these airstrikes line up when compared to pipelines, planned pipelines and Kurdistan?
Washington rejects Ankara’s conditions for joining anti-ISIS operations
Washington and Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat—Washington has rejected Turkey’s conditions over its involvement in the US-led international coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Both President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu have stressed in recent days Turkey’s involvement in the fight against ISIS would be conditional upon ground troops being deployed in Syria, the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Syrian territory near the Turkish border, and the creation of a safe zone inside Syria.Why is the no fly zone a no go at this time? Again we go back to Syria's air defences? Is this the reason?
But US State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters during a press briefing on Tuesday that establishing a safe zone or a no-fly zone was “not an active part of our [the coalition’s] consideration,” also stressing that in terms of ground operations, the US would not be “playing that role.”
How about the premise brought up in this post?
Turkey and Russia: Geostrategy, Trade and the Big Picture
A big part of this reluctance originates not from ISIL, but from the concern over NATO's ability to protect Turkey from the security backlash from Moscow. In other words, NATO's inability to deal with the Ukrainian situation decisively, prevents Turkey from confidently committing to the anti-ISIL coalition.
WSJ validates the Saudi opinion piece
Kobane (i)“It could have been meaningfully acted upon two weeks ago or so, when Islamic State was kilometers away. Now it is almost too late.”
Moreover, Turkish fears that a Kurdish enclave would provide a safe haven for Turkish Kurds from the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) have proved unfounded. The Democratic Union Party has ensured calm on the border, and a grateful Turkish government has reciprocated by meeting with its leaders.
Yet despite this alignment of interests, Washington has shunned the group. It refuses to recognize the Kurdish Democratic Union Party or support it, because of its ties to the Kurdistan Workers Party, a State Department-designated terrorist organization since 1997.
In a country where America has so few allies, a change in policy is warranted. Relying on insignificant Free Syrian Army units will not be enough to topple the ISIS behemoth. Working with the Kurdish Democratic Union Party could help Washington reach its objective of destroying the organization.
So many questions? I haven't moved away from the idea that ISIS is a left behind army which is why the US is putting on this great show while ensuring mass profits for the war machine.
I'm just not sure what Turkey's problem is in this whole situation? Why the so called allies are not really fully participating, including France and UK? What's the Russian factor in all of this?
What's the China factor?
OR! Is this setting up for a scenario of what I call "go big"
Which is something I have contemplated and it scares me. Greatly.
Go big includes Israel making a bombing run on Iran, while the US patrols the skies and from there all hell breaks loose.
Any good ideas out there?
Crosstalk had an interesting show- WWIII
Patrick Henningsen brings up the nightmare scenario that fills me with dread