I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and I've got it. A few preliminary points: 1. The rebels in northwest Syria are a lost cause. They are infested with Islamists and al-Qaeda and work actively alongside them. They cannot be trusted, and should no longer be supported by the CIA. 2. Likewise, the rebels in southern Syria are becoming infested with Islamists and al-Qaeda as well, and are also likely a lost cause. Therefore, these rebel forces, the main rebel forces, cannot be trusted, and should not be supported by the CIA. The only forces we can work with in Syria are the Kurds and the Free Syrian Army units operating in northeast Syria, which is free of Islamists and al-Qaeda. Obama has already sent them small arms - I think they should have more heavy ordinance, at the very least the TOW missiles the CIA has been giving the other, arguably less-deserving rebels. If they're going to be assaulting al-Raqqa, they're going to need it, you know the IS will fight like hell hounds to keep their capital, so artillery would probably be a good idea. The offensive should be carried out in 4 stages: 1. Cut the supply line between Jarabulus and al-Raqqa 2. Cut the supply line between al-Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor 3. Capture al-Raqqa 4. Mop-up (likely to still take a while): clear the remainder of al-Raqqa province, Aleppo province east of the Euphrates, al-Hasakah province, and Deir ez-Zor province north of the Euphrates of IS forces Why these specific territories? Why not anywhere and everywhere the IS exists? Well, because we need clearly defined spheres of influence. We can't just have rebel forces and al-Assad's troops running headlong into each other as the push back IS and cause them to start fighting again with us now involved, at least if we can avoid it. We need to clearly define what area of Syria we want the rebels to take and hold from IS and keep it that way, free of al-Assad. That's why I've taken the standard map of Syria (current territorial control is already marked) and marked a blue zone around the provinces I've mentioned, if you care to click on it and make it big enough to see it. The dark blue zone is our baseline. It's not a no fly zone, it's more. This is our initial, un-negotiable, IS and al-Assad free zone - (with the exception of the few remaining Government troops in al-Hasakah province who have a truce with the Kurds - those troops will probably be evacuated eventually) - a Coalition 'Combat Zone', if you will. Coalition forces will operate within and only within this zone, but will not allow any IS or Syrian forces to exist within it (except the previously noted troops in al-Hasakah). This zone is far away from the main Government-Rebel front line, it doesn't threaten to take away al-Assad's main areas of control, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue to keep Syrian and Russian aircraft out of this zone. The main reason it exists is to make sure al-Assad and the Russians don't pull on our allies what he's pulled on the other rebel-held areas, namely, bombing them and any civilians in the general vicinity indiscriminately. It may sound like an unnecessary confrontation, but we can't insist on rigorous vetting for our allies and then not protect them if the Syrian airforce decides to use them for target practice. This is not just an "ISIL free zone" as Obama would call it - this is a Kurdish-Rebel Only zone. No IS, and no Syrian troops. That means not just a no-fly zone against marauding Syrian or Russian aircraft it means no Syrian ground forces either. Any that do enter should be bombed just as we would bomb IS. Since al-Assad doesn't really care much about this area of Syria at the moment, I doubt very much he or Putin will challenge this, even if they say they're opposed to it. It's not worth starting WW3 over a patch of mostly uninhabited desert and Putin knows that. That said, we must be willing to enforce it, quickly and lethally, so they know we mean business. However, just to avoid even more the possibility of actually having to bomb Syrian troops or shoot down Syrian/Russian aircraft, I have left the part of Deir ez-Zor province south of the Euphrates out of the dark blue zone. There are still Syrian forces in Deir ez-Zor and they're doing an admirable job holding them off. They also haven't indiscriminately bombed the civilian population there, so there's no imperative to save them from the Syrian airforce. Thus, that territory can be left to the Syrian government, as long as we are able to negotiate a truce between them and the rebels. However, if al-Assad tries to get around that no-go zone by, say, firing artillery from across the Euphrates, or if the forces in Deir ez-Zor actively fight rebel forces when they come into contact when the IS is gone, then the Combat Zone should be extended, as shown by the light blue section in the image, to all of Deir ez-Zor province, and all Syrian forces inside it would be bombed. After that, we can play it entirely defensively, as there's a wide expanse of desert between Deir ez-Zor and the provincial border, meaning there's no going to be any problems with attacks from outside the zone, as Syrian forces would have to travel far into the province to make contact, meaning they could be bombed once they enter. That is all hypothetical of course, if it so happens the Syrian Armed Forces are not interested in holding their fire, which, given the threat of being bombed by the US airforce, I doubt they would risk. As for the particular shape of the western section, I avoided including the previous idea Erdogan proposed of a no-fly zone between the Kurdish enclave in the west of Syria and the Euphrates because I don't want the Kurdish-Rebel and Northern Rebel frontlines to meet, because the northern rebels are full of Islamists and once you're linked up, it's hard to keep them out. So all IS forces in Aleppo province west of the Euphrates will be left alone for al-Assad and the Russians to deal with, as well as the IS forces in the rest of Syria. Also, such an extension of the zone would almost certainly force us into combat with the Russian airforce as they operate extensively in that area, and we're trying to avoid that as much as possible even while drawing a clear line in the sand. Once this zone I've marked is cleared, adopt a defensive posture until Syrian and Iraqi forces mop up the remaining IS forces. Once the war is finally over, the Kurds and Arabs in the zone can discuss amongst themselves whether to form a united country, or split the Kurdish areas off. And at some point the Syrian forces in al-Hasakah need to go - either negotiate a withdrawal or, if worst comes to worst, bomb them out (if the Kurds decide to force them out that is), but don't let al-Assad lay any claim to any territory in that zone. The rest of Syria is infested with Jihadists and is royally (*)(*)(*)(*)ed regardless. Putin can have that all to himself.
One-time bump because I was up way too late last night and nobody was on when I posted this, obviously.
The Free Syrian Army is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, they no longer exist. Over the last year, we have tried to give weapons to the rebels over and over again. All of those weapons have ended up in the hands of ISIS. Giving them artillery is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. You can't launch an offensive unless you actually have boots on the ground. The Kurds cannot fill that role, since their success is due to the fact that they know the terrain like the back of their hand. That's not going to weaken al-Raqqa. Capturing Jarabulus might make it more difficult for ISIS recruits to enter Syria, but they'll still find a way to get in. Deir ez-Zor is obviously not a priority for ISIS. Not going to happen unless we work with the Russians. You are operating under the assumption that capturing al-Raqqa would leave ISIS in disarray. The only problem with that is that ISIS is not a centralized organization.
I might work, if we committed to troops on the ground for the long haul, meaning at least a term of 20 years after initial seizure, like we stayed in Japan and Germany for decades after WWII. The West, and anyone not a Muslim, is at a significant military tactic disadvantage in Syrian situation. We have to use "Boots-On-Ground", for long periods, measured in decades, to make any real advantage out of our ability to use Air-Power, and other fire-power, night vision, satellite surveillance/location, drone patrols, and other remote sensors. There is no question that in a straight out, stand up, shoot out fight, we can KILL any and all opponents in the Syrian Theater of War. But that's not the problem Western Military Planners, Ambassadors, and our top "Commander-in-Chief" leadership is facing! We cannot just "Kill them all, and let God sort it out." aka The Scorched Earth Tactic. The Military tactics were the aggressor Kills all living humans in the area, Salts the Fields, Poisons the Wells, and Destroy all of the Buildings.... Kinda like what ISIS is currently doing. This is an Ancient Military Doctrine, used by both the Mongols, and the Romans, and the Axis in WWII. We would not need to have Boots-on-the-Ground in order to gain military advantage from our Tech-Superiority, if we could simply use a Scorched Earth Doctrine. A military does not need to have Boots-on-the-Ground to gain advantage, if that ground has been made valueless. I am NOT advocating that America and the West Starts using a doctrine of "Scorched Earth"! I think we are correct and wise to not do so, and should be respected and admired for trying to help, but placing civilized restrictions on what sort of actions we will take! We have to try to provide a pathway to a Stable Middle East where the indigenous people's, the Kurds, the Syrian Sunni, the Shia Minority, are protected, the towns and villages are preserved, the farmlands are left fertile, the water is pure, and we have to keep from each other's throats for DECADES. But the Islamic Aggressors, from all quarters, Iran vs Iraqis, Turkey vs Kurds, Assad vs the Rebels,.... None of those other factions need to limit their tactics to exclude a policy of "Scorched Earth". As we have seen, in the ethnic/religious cleansing being pursued by ISIS as they move through, and leave behind Scorched Earth, not needing to "Hold" the territory, but moving on... The Scorched Earth tactic can and is being used by other players in the conflict. The Turks, in their bombing raids against the Iraqi Kurds are certainly employing a "Scorched Earth" tactic. Russia may already be joining the list of players willing to use a Scorched Earth Doctrine. The Ahmadinejad Iranian Hardliner faction, who probably already has 7-9 Nukes, has stated over and over a willingness to go Nuclear to suppress the Iraqi threat on their Iranian border. America cannot hope to achieve any lasting victory under such conditions, and we should just completely pull out and let them fight it out among themselves. Perhaps in 5-10 years, when all involved are war weary, and the fervor among those societies has died down from the current massed public invective which supports these "Scorched Earth" policies, then America can step in to become the "Peace Keepers". -
What do we do when the Kurds we support take their US training, weapons, and protected safe haven and use it to attack out NATO ally Turkey?
