Analysis: What is role of US-led coalition in Syria, Iraq?

 

In Summer 2014, the US formed the anti-ISIS international military coalition in a bid to take a leading role in the Syrian and Iraqi developments. The measure was taken at a time when the terrorist organizations, particularly ISIS, had seized control of vast areas of Iraq's and Syria's territories through launching an array of heinously violent operations across the two countries.

As part of plans for role playing, Washington gathered together 60 countries under a counter-terrorist bloc, leading renewed military operations in West Asia. But gradually the process of the US-led coalition's operations made it clear that participation of the 60 nations in the so-called alliance was simply a cover for the US to demonstrate its power, because in practice except for some Arab and European countries others have no hand in the military campaign, and in fact the leadership is at the hands of Pentagon sans any mandate from the UN Security Council.

Up to now, it has been over two years since the US-crafted coalition launched its first airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. In this period, it carried out over 16,000 air raids on the positions of the terrorists in two countries. No reports yet appeared to release accurate figures on the civilian and terrorist losses as a result of the aerial assaults. While the American officials say 173 civilians up to now were killed by the bombing campaign, the Airwar.com, a journalist-based transparency group based in Britain, has put the number at nearly 1,500.

The overarching issue in this highly costly bombing campaign is the scale of its efficiency and influence in the course of counter-terrorist battle in the region. The US Department of Defense has released a report, saying that the international anti-ISIS alliance in Syria and Iraq costs its members a total sum of $8.3 million per day.

Todd Harrison, a researcher at the US Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, notes that this war can cost between $2.4 and $3.8 billion per year. Harrison believes that once the coalition decides to broaden range of strikes against ISIS, the expenses could jump to between $6.8 billion. This comes as the unmanned spying aircraft of the international campaign take between $1,000 for MQ-1 Predator drones and $7,000 for MQ-9 Reaper drones per hour.

Notwithstanding the resounding military expenses as well as civilian deaths and displacements, the alliance has failed to make any considerable gains. Furthermore, it helped no areas be taken back from the terrorists' grasp and dealt no working blows to the terrorism in the two war-torn countries.

But this scenario witnessed changes after Russia stepped militarily in the Syrian crisis in September 2015. Provided by accurate planning and certain targets, the Russian fighter jets launched airstrikes against the terrorists' sites in support of the Syrian army. By offering air cover to Syria’s regular and popular forces, the Russian forces even helped speed up pushing back the terrorists and reclaiming the areas held by them.

Meanwhile, the reaction by the coalition members to Russia's campaign came in form of emphasis on saving civilian lives and holding a ceasefire. Actually, the strong Russian intervention ended the time of sham anti-terror military campaign, an issue apparently raised concerns of the pro-terrorist camp.

However, despite fast-moving advances made by the Syrian armed forces in the battleground, a truce as a political way to put an end to the crisis was reached and agreed upon, though the evidences laid bare the fact that pro-terror sides like Saudi Arabia and Turkey were seizing the opportunity provided by the cessation of hostility to re-equip the anti-Damascus militants. At the end of the road, the militants' assaults breached the fragile ceasefire deal.

This situation in Iraq was also likewise. Two years have passed since the US-led coalition commenced its air assaults but proved unfruitful in pushing the ISIS terrorists back from the captured areas. Finally, Baghdad organized its army and authorized formation of the Public Mobilization Forces (PMF), a voluntary force, and moved to defeat the terrorists. The result was liberation of Fallujah, Al Anbar and pushing ahead toward Mosul, the last stronghold of ISIS in the country.

The remarkable point amid deadly anti-terror wars is the Americans' struggle to prolong the instability in West Asia region. While the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi of Iraq predicted a three-month period for ending the Mosul battle and recapturing the city, Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend, the commander of the international coalition, said that the fighting against the terror organization in the northern Iraqi city could take two years to end.

But liberation of Aleppo proved that beating ISIS does not take multi-billion dollar expenses in a two-year period of time. The requirement for obliteration of the terrorists is a real and serious determination.

By an examination of the coalition forces' performance we can come up with the fact that they hold no plan to destroy ISIS in the region. Instead, within this two-year period, the members of the coalition fitted out the terrorists with equipment.

Sarkis Kassargian, a Turkey affairs analyst, has revealed that Ankara government sent weapons to the anti-Assad militants in western Aleppo through Turkey's shared borders with Syria. Moreover, Cumhuriyet, main opposition Turkish daily newspaper, has published a video displaying trucks crossing the border from Turkey to Syria while loaded with military equipment meant for militant groups.

Recently, as US-Turkey rifts saw a surge, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan unleashed new revelations, saying that the White House is arming the terrorists of the region. A proof for this aiding is terrorists' access in Khan Tuman of northern Syria to armored wares, a help that contributed to the village fall to terrorists several months ago.

On the other side, the international alliance under Washington's leadership mostly destroys the vital and infrastructural facilities in Syria and Iraq instead of targeting the major sites of the terrorists. Last year, for instance, a British aircraft bombed the oil fields and refineries of Syria under the excuse of cutting off the ISIS' oil incomes in the country.

In Iraq, on the other side, during the Ramadi recapture operation beside the city's infrastructures sustained a high degree of demolition, among them was a total of 700 houses that were bombed to rubble by the American and British jets.

On the opposite side stand the regular armed forces as well as popular units of Syria and Iraq that try to in shortest possible time without damages to the vital facilities pave the way for their own progresses. They made triumphs with a modest amount of military training and arms supplies. This came while the US breached terms of its security agreement with Iraq according to which Washington should help Baghdad when the need arises, and so the latter had to head to Moscow for military provision.

So the outcomes of over-two-year military spending and destroying the Iraqi and Syrian cities by the coalition’s planes compared to the Syrian and Iraqi armies' operations for liberation of Aleppo, Palmyra, Hama, Fallujah, Ramadi, and Jarf Al Sakhar and breaking siege of Amerli showed that the White House under the cover of anti-terror alliance was only seeking to return to the region rather than eradicating terrorism. That is why it accompanied its every military step with a storm of media propaganda while practically making no gains in battling ISIS either in Iraq or in Syria.

Moreover, many analysts assert that the US and its coalition seek interests behind its intervention in Syria, and under the counter beef up military aids for the anti-Syrian terrorist groups labeled by Washington as moderate opposition groups. This was a point of consensus in the Jeddah “Friends of Syria” conference.

The conclusion is that only the domestic forces in the terror-hit countries can determine the situation on the ground. Otherwise– and with setting heart on the Western coalition’s backing– a prediction of Charles Lister, a top figure at the US-based Middle East Institute think tank, can come true. Lister in one of his latest comments on Syria and Iraq said that the US should prefigure a multi-decade war in the region. If Washington expects full ISIS obliteration, then, in fact, the US is fighting a war it has already lost, he notes.

 

 

If not in Syria, we should have fought Takfiris in Iran: Leader

 

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said Iran could have fought a war inside its borders if the enemy threats had not been thwarted in Syria.

“If the ill-wishers and seditionists, who are the puppets of the US and Zionism, had not been confronted [in Syria], we should have stood against them in Tehran, Fars, Khorasan and Esfahan,” Ayatollah Khamenei said in remarks published Thursday.

The Leader made the remarks this week during a meeting with the families of Iranian commandos killed in Syria, in which he paid tribute to the memory of those who lost their lives in the battle against Takfiri terrorists.

“Not only the army, but also the entire nation is proud of these martyrs,” said Ayatollah Khamenei, whose remarks were reported by several Iranian news agencies.

Earlier Thursday, a senior military commander said Iran’s armed forces are capable of thwarting any US threats due to the Islamic Republic’s achievements in enhancing the country’s military might.

Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the second-in-command of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), touched on US strategies against Iran during the imposed Iran-Iraq war in 1980s.

“They (the US) sought to undermine us in the war, but we managed to build an immense missile and marine power and an endless ground force,” he said in the Iranian city of Yazd, adding Iran has built up so much power that has made it "capable of overcoming the US."

“Today, no one talks about overthrowing the [Islamic] establishment and military invasion of Iran, because the more the enemy fought with this nation, the stronger the Iranian nation became,” he added.

Salami pointed to Iran’s awareness of the extent of Washington’s real power. “We know that the capacity of the US, Europe and their regional allies for the dominance over the Muslim world is diminishing.”

The commander said US efforts to undermine Iran’s influence in the region have prompted the Islamic Republic to promote its weight in different parts of the Muslim world, including in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

“In Iraq, we witness what kind of power has been created. The Americans are not capable of taking action in Iraq, but the Iraqi popular mobilization forces, inspired by Iran’s Islamic Revolution, have now taken the initiative in Iraq’s field developments,” Salami added.

Another IRGC commander praised Iran’s military prowess. Speaking at a conference in Fars Province in southern Iran, commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Division Brigadier General Amirali Hajizadeh elaborated on Iran’s success in achieving self-sufficiency in its defense industry.

“Today, we are capable of designing and manufacturing any missile and aircraft that we need,” Hajizadeh said.

In recent years, Iran has made great achievements in its defense sector and attained self-sufficiency in producing essential military equipment and systems.

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly assured other states that its military might poses no threat to other countries since the Islamic Republic’s defense doctrine is based entirely on deterrence.

 

 

Reporter becomes Canada’s first hijab-clad news anchor

 

Ginella Massa was asked to fill in on the anchor desk for City News’ 11pm broadcast last week and created a buzz after the broadcast ended and she Tweeted, "That’s a wrap! Tonight wasn’t just important for me. I don’t think a woman in hijab has ever anchored a newscast in Canada.”

Massa, 29, said on Friday that she became Canada’s first hijab-wearing television news reporter in 2015 while reporting for CTV News in Kitchener, Ontario, a city west of Toronto. She moved back to Toronto, where she grew up, earlier this year to take a reporting job at CityNews.

Massa recognized the personal career strides she had made after stepping out of the anchor desk, but she said it took her editor to point out the larger significance.

"It wasn’t until my editor said, ‘Hey, great job! Was that a first for Canada? A woman in a hijab?’ And I said yes. And so I tweeted about it. As much as I knew it was important, I didn’t expect the reaction that I received. My phone hasn’t stopped buzzing for the last week,” Massa said.

Her achievement comes amid heightened concerns about anti-Muslim sentiment in the US and Europe. During the US presidential election campaign, Donald Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out” what is going on.

"I’ve talked to many women who are journalists in the US who work behind the scenes and they’ve told me that they face multiple challenges trying to get on air,” said Massa. "They’ve been told because of their hijab, that’s not going to happen. That makes me really sad because they’re being held back by someone else’s idea of what the public can or cannot handle.”

Although the reaction to Massa’s anchor stint and reporting role has been mostly positive in Canada, she said she has received a handful of negative comments and Tweets.

"But this is all the more reason in today’s climate to see positive images of Muslim women,” she said. "They are a symbol of Islam when they wear the hijab and that carries a powerful image. It’s so important to see positive images of us in the media.”

Text Size
  • instagram turk takipci satin al