Syria and UN Security Council Decision

[HoverBoarder]

That map is pretty useless, not only because it treats desert the same as metropols. Here is a much better one. Gets updated every two weeks, scroll down for older versions (maintained by a "rebel" supporter).

Yes, a much better map. Much more detailed. I like that it has mixture portions of large cities as well.

 

[HoverBoarder]

And just in, the latest Kobane map. ISIS is out of town but the Kurds still have to take back most of the canton (of the same name). I guess if ISIS changes their mind and attacks again, there wouldn't be the man/womanpower to keep them far away from the center.

ISIS would likely at least wait until attention shifts from Kobane before going at it again.

Their convoys of reinforcements were just too easy picking for the coalition air strikes.

 

[CapelDodger]

And just in, the latest Kobane map. ISIS is out of town but the Kurds still have to take back most of the canton (of the same name). I guess if ISIS changes their mind and attacks again, there wouldn't be the man/womanpower to keep them far away from the center.

The Kurds have formed two divisions, one to hold the city and one as a strike force. They're tactically and strategically astute; they have generations of experience to call on, from fighting Turks, Iraqis and Iranians. My money's on them. After all, they've survived worse in the last few thousand years.

The reason they were pushed back initially was ISIS artillery, which was picked up after the Iraqi army skedaddle, but air-strikes have been targetting it and they'll have trouble replacing ammunition. The Kobane attack has been a complete fiasco, and ISIS troops must know it.

In the big picture, it's surely clear to everybody now that Sykes-Picot is a dead duck and some new dispensation of the Ottoman territories will have to be worked out - this time with the participation of the locals. There'll be a lot more blood and destruction between here and there.

Something has to be done about the Turks; taking away a chunk of their territory for Kurdistan and making them put up with it is favourite with me.

 

[CapelDodger]

ISIS would likely at least wait until attention shifts from Kobane before going at it again.

Their convoys of reinforcements were just too easy picking for the coalition air strikes.

Crass behaviour on the face of it but the terrain and situation forced it on them - which should have been the signal to give it up and pull out. There aren't many routes to travel by and the hills held Kurdish fighters who would pick off individual vehicles. ISIS advanced much too quickly, as if they were operating in open country as they're used to.

I'd given ISIS a lot of credit for military smarts before Kobane, but there they gave up their advantages - mobility, internal lines, and the initiative. Then they staked their reputation on winning the battle and started issuing Stalingrad-style statements, "the battle is nearly over", "a few pockets of resistance remain", "the city is essentially ours".

This is bad for them. Really bad. It'll spark up the internal opposition no end, and they're already making inroads. You can ban girls' education and get away with it. You can ban music and get away with it. You can ban drinking and get away with it. But ban smoking and you are entering a world of hurt ...

 

[dudalb]

ANybody who thinks the Turks are a bigger problem then ISIS is living in another reality......

 

[CapelDodger]

ANybody who thinks the Turks are a bigger problem then ISIS is living in another reality......

ISIS will soon pass, Turkey will remain, and under the current regime is a destabilising influence in the region. Make of that what you will. Mostly, though, I'd just really like to see them getting a slap.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Capel, glad to see you back in the mix.

I too would like to see the Turks get a corrective input, but at the moment they are the "power in being" locally, and have political access to NATO support, if not materially then tacitly from some of the allies ... if not all. (Greeks of course are among the less supportive).

But mostly I want to see a Kurdish homeland established, because I have more use for Kurds than I ever did for Bosniacs or the Kosovars.

If those folks deserve one and the UN support for it, the Kurds deserve it three times more.

 

[trustbutverify]

ISIS will soon pass, Turkey will remain, and under the current regime is a destabilising influence in the region. Make of that what you will. Mostly, though, I'd just really like to see them getting a slap.

Yes.

But mostly I want to see a Kurdish homeland established, because I have more use for Kurds than I ever did for Bosniacs or the Kosovars.

If those folks deserve one and the UN support for it, the Kurds deserve it three times more.

Not only do they deserve it, they need it. And will probably make something great out of it, if given the chance.

 

[CapelDodger]

I too would like to see the Turks get a corrective input, but at the moment they are the "power in being" locally ...

A regional power; Iran is another.

... and have political access to NATO support, if not materially then tacitly from some of the allies ... if not all. (Greeks of course are among the less supportive).

Pay the Greeks to slap the Turks and all sorts of problems will be solved .

But mostly I want to see a Kurdish homeland established, because I have more use for Kurds than I ever did for Bosniacs or the Kosovars.

If those folks deserve one and the UN support for it, the Kurds deserve it three times more.

I have no use at all for Serbs so I was cheering on the Bosnians and Kosovans. When it comes down to it, even my enemy's tape-worm is my friend.

The UN won't support any change of borders anywhere anytime, but will grudgingly accept if left no option. That will require facts on the ground and the agreement of at least Syria (nothing to lose for them) and Iraq (weak and easily pressured). Iran's position would be crucial, given their influence in Iraq, and they could go either way.

There are years of bloodshed and destruction to come before it all plays out, sadly.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The UN is dead or dying. As are most-if-not-all post-WWII international institutions. They die under vicious shelling by "the West" who thinks it can resurrect the pipedream of ruling the planet, but it creates just the opposite. It's almost faustian and funny to watch, if it weren't for the countless victims on the ground in Aleppo and Donetsk and many other places on Earth.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not only do they deserve it, they need it. And will probably make something great out of it, if given the chance.

I'm no fan of the nation-state model (in fact I think it's the curse of the modern world) but in this case and these times I agree that they need that status. The fact that the current de-facto Kurdistan in Iraq seems far more socially cohesive than anywhere else in the region means they deserve it. And it's pretty clear they can and will defend it.



Mosul will be focus in the coming year, I think. I can easily visualise an Iragi army and Shia militia assault bogging down while the Kurds watch and step in at the crucial moment to save the day. And then stay.

 

[CapelDodger]

The UN is dead or dying. As are most-if-not-all post-WWII international institutions. They die under vicious shelling by "the West" who thinks it can resurrect the pipedream of ruling the planet, but it creates just the opposite. It's almost faustian and funny to watch, if it weren't for the countless victims on the ground in Aleppo and Donetsk and many other places on Earth.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The locals actually have a lot of say in what goes on, they're not simply puppets.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The locals actually have a lot of say in what goes on, they're not simply puppets.

That's why Assad and Zacharchenko are still president.

 

[Childlike Empress]

btw, today our wiki article on Kobane (of which I am the main author) was called a "brilliant piece of reportage" by a "New York Times best-selling author" and retired Navy SEALs commander. Not bad for a leftist loony conspiracy theorist, eh? He even called me a "Sir" several times. Boosted my follower base by more than 10 percent!

 

[Belgian thought]

That's why Assad and Zacharchenko are still president.

And Putin

 

[angrysoba]

I'm no fan of the nation-state model (in fact I think it's the curse of the modern world) but in this case and these times I agree that they need that status.

I don't think the nation state model is the problem so much as how it was implemented, in many cases. In particular the application of "self-determination" led to groups of people scrambling for particular pieces of land and evicting others.

In other cases, the thrusting together of different groups behind crudely drawn borders in places with a tolerance for nepotism led to resource battles. But that is not the "nation state" per se which caused these problems.

I think that the Kurds have more going for them in terms of institutions and working towards a common goal, however, than some of the corrupt nation states around them. I hope they succeed.

 

[trustbutverify]

I don't think the nation state model is the problem so much as how it was implemented, in many cases. In particular the application of "self-determination" led to groups of people scrambling for particular pieces of land and evicting others.

The establishment of a Kurdish state might involve some of that as well. Hopefully at a minimum.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's why Assad and Zacharchenko are still president.

Those bloody Eastern European names; I thought that nightmare was behind me when the Balkans quietened down.

Assad is still president because the coalition of minorities that was always the Baathist regime's foundation held together. Along with Russian support, of course. Although why Assad didn't leave for London at the start of it all to spend more time with his bank-accounts I cannot fathom. I certainly would have. Maybe he wasn't allowed to leave by the old guard.

The wiki piece on the Siege of Kobani is fine work. Even I wasn't following it in quite such detail.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't think the nation state model is the problem so much as how it was implemented, in many cases. In particular the application of "self-determination" led to groups of people scrambling for particular pieces of land and evicting others.

In other cases, the thrusting together of different groups behind crudely drawn borders in places with a tolerance for nepotism led to resource battles. But that is not the "nation state" per se which caused these problems.

It's the imposition of it as the only model, appropriate or not to the circumstances, that's the problem.

The nation-state emerged in Western Europe where populations are pretty homogenous over large areas in terms of culture, perceived ethnicity, language and religion - the basics of a nation-state. Most of the world is not at all like that, one reason being that most of the world isn't stuck out on the edge of things as Western Europe is. Particularly not the Middle East and Balkans, where scattered pockets remain from thousands of years of migrations. Empires are actually more appropriate than nation-states in such circumstances. Empires are big enough to even out local differences, can wield a big stick, and have an interest in order within their domains.

Hopefully there's something better than either that can be worked out in what was the Eastern Ottoman Empire less than a century ago. Some sort of federal system perhaps, where everybody comes together harmoniously to kick the proverbial out of Turkey.

I think that the Kurds have more going for them in terms of institutions and working towards a common goal, however, than some of the corrupt nation states around them. I hope they succeed.

They certainly do have a national identity which in many ways has been imposed on them by persecution as minorities within nation states. The nation state model does not handle minorities well.

What, really, is a Syrian national identity? Or an Iraqi or Lebanese one? Or a Ukrainian one, for that matter? They have the nation-states without a national identity, which is entirely arse-about-face. The result is balkanisation, as in Lebanon from the get-go, or dictatorship followed by balkanisation, as in Syria and Iraq. And Libya. And Nigeria pretty damn soon.

The term "balkanisation" was, of course, coined by exasperated 19thCE Western Europeans whose own nation-states had developed organically. Some of them recognised that it would not work in the Balkans. Some in the Balkans recognised that it would work very nicely for them.

 

[CapelDodger]

The establishment of a Kurdish state might involve some of that as well. Hopefully at a minimum.

As the Kurds regain ground from ISIS there are people they will not be allowing to stay or come back, those Sunni Arabs who sided with ISIS when they looked like winners. Some innocents will suffer with the guilty as usual. There are no saints in this story, but when were there ever?