Russian ground troops and MIGs in Syria.

[Thor]

The middle east has been very interesting to the West since the 19th century, for obvious reasons.

The middle east has been interesting forever because outside the zone of air conditioning it's filled with sun baked lunatics who think they talk to god.

We have not felt the need to take an interest in them until transportation made first trade possible then the global export of lunatics.

Their continued death grip on tribalism will ensure that does not change.

 

[ghuns]

The middle east has been very interesting to the West since the 19th century, for obvious reasons.

I'd say since the 10th or 11th century, but who's countin?

 

[T.Lex]

What happens? I would assume that nothing would happen, since any aircraft in the area can safely be assumed to be a "friendly", (or at least not an enemy). IS does not have an air force so it is safe to say that the air combat participants won't be firing on each other.

I mean no offense mrjarrell, but it isn't that simple.

As you note, because Daesh has no combat air force, there are 2 primary roles for the combatants who do have that luxury: Close Air Support and Strategic/Tactical Bombing (that actually captures several different "roles," but let's call it that). Bad things can get started in any of those roles.

It is easy to envision a situation where USian aircraft are providing CAS to Kurdish fighters defending a town that both Assad and Daesh are trying to take. The Allied aircraft are bombing the snot out of whoever is outside the fence. If those Assad troops have advanced man-portable anti-air missiles, they could take down one of our aircraft.

Or, in a role designated to take out significant anti-aircraft installations, the attacking aircraft really only sees a radar signature. There's no flag or Identity Friend/Foe mechanism, so it could attack a Russian crew.

If there isn't coordination, there will be combat.

 

[BugI02]

Or we could have just have killed the guy who was pissing us off to today and walked away telling them to fix their own bloody house or we'll come back and kill the guy who pisses us off tomorrow.

And we could have made it very clear to every despot there that if you make us take notice of you in an unkind way WE WILL COME AND KILL YOU. That's the kind of foreign policy they understand.

We have been paying way too much attention to a region that holds very little in the way of national interest for us.

+1. And to deliver the message, Dick Cheney as Secretary of State

 

[Blackhawk2001]

YOu know, if the Russians want to fight ISIS, well that isn't so bad.

THey have a base in Syria they have vested interest in

Russia has been lusting after a warm-water port for their navy for a long time. People probably won't remember, but I predicted the Russians would support Assad when the insurgency started. Of course, such a prediction wasn't rocket science; it just took the Russians a little longer to jump in that I thought it would.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's creating an interesting dynamic. What happens when Russian/American/Turkish/Saudi etcetera fighters end up in the same airspace on different missions? It would take very little in the way of a miscalculation to see things go very bad very quickly.

Well the Americans, Turks and Saudis have a history of combined operations - or at least combined air force training - so the primary problem is going to be airspace deconfliction between them and the Russians/Syrians. The secondary issue will be blue-on-blue-on-blue target mis-identification on ground-strike missions.

As anyone can tell, I didn't read all of the posts on this thread before posting this. T. Lex made the same point very well.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Or we could have just have killed the guy who was pissing us off to today and walked away telling them to fix their own bloody house or we'll come back and kill the guy who pisses us off tomorrow.

And we could have made it very clear to every despot there that if you make us take notice of you in an unkind way WE WILL COME AND KILL YOU. That's the kind of foreign policy they understand.

We have been paying way too much attention to a region that holds very little in the way of national interest for us.

Except for that pesky petroleum stuff, which we seem to need very much - and so does almost everyone else.

 

[kiddchaos]

"It's still We the People, Right?"

Repped!

If there's a new way,
I'll be the first in line.

 

[GIJEW]

That's exactly what the article says. They'll be going after everyone and supporting Assad, (till it becomes time to not support him, then he's done). If they do decide to go hands on, the US will have to tell Israel to knock off their nonsense of bombing Syrian military sites and supplies. Russia would not look kindly on them killing Russian soldiers.

The "nonsense" you speak of was Israel destroying missiles being delivered to hizbullah for the obvious purpose of killing Israeli civilians. I'd count on that policy continuing regardless of what BO says (he can go make himself another 'red line'). Those airstrikes have been few and focused because Israel has no reason to take syria out of the fight against ISIS. I imagine that the Russians like the Syrians will recognize that and will also have their hands full with other problems. If anything, the Russians will tell assad to stop fooling around with sending more and better missiles to hizbullah and get back to the business defending his regime. Israel will be too big a bite-to-chew for a Russian expeditionary force surrounded by jihadis trying to destroy the assad regime they were sent to save. FWIW Israeli pilots decisively defeated the Russian pilots sent to Egypt during the '69-'70 war of attrition.

 

[Thor]

Well the Americans, Turks and Saudis have a history of combined operations - or at least combined air force training - so the primary problem is going to be airspace deconfliction between them and the Russians/Syrians. The secondary issue will be blue-on-blue-on-blue target mis-identification on ground-strike missions.

As anyone can tell, I didn't read all of the posts on this thread before posting this. T. Lex made the same point very well.

Or Blue/Red on Grey where we just don't agree on who the target is supposed to be. They could be bombing 'our' guys while we are bombing 'their' guys and what's a pilot to do? Or an air defense guy on the ground...

 

[T.Lex]

Or Blue/Red on Grey where we just don't agree on who the target is supposed to be. They could be bombing 'our' guys while we are bombing 'their' guys and what's a pilot to do? Or an air defense guy on the ground...

Yep. Proxy wars work best when you use... proxies.

 

[Thor]

Except for that pesky petroleum stuff, which we seem to need very much - and so does almost everyone else.

Thankfully, for us, not so much anymore. If we had some leadership in this country who would take advantage of our resources we could help to move their status and world impact back to a bunch of angry tribal herders shaking their fist at the sky.

 

[mrjarrell]

Russia says Assad is ready to share power. They also want forces in the region to coordinate actions. That would remove most problems with air forces and ground forces.

https://news.vice.com/article/russia-says-syrias-assad-is-ready-to-share-power-with-opposition

 

[T.Lex]

Russia says Assad is ready to share power. They also want forces in the region to coordinate actions. That would remove most problems with air forces and ground forces.

https://news.vice.com/article/russia-says-syrias-assad-is-ready-to-share-power-with-opposition

Wanting and getting are 2 different things. Plus, that's just the way the game is played.

A "power-sharing" Assad is more likely to stay in power. That's not really part of our goal. "Coordinated actions" will likely require a Russian or Assad-supported Syrian in control That's not likely to happen.

 

[mrjarrell]

Wanting and getting are 2 different things. Plus, that's just the way the game is played.

A "power-sharing" Assad is more likely to stay in power. That's not really part of our goal. "Coordinated actions" will likely require a Russian or Assad-supported Syrian in control That's not likely to happen.

Well, so far our "strategy" of replacing these leaders has been an abysmal failure for the people of these countries. Perhaps it's time we took a step back and reevaluated that loser of a program.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, so far our "strategy" of replacing these leaders has been an abysmal failure for the people of these countries. Perhaps it's time we took a step back and reevaluated that loser of a program.

If we wait long enough, Putin will find a successor. Maybe that'll work better for us?

 

[pudly]

Sadly, I feel more confident that Russian involvement will be used to kill ISIS fighters than American involvement.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Sadly, I feel more confident that Russian involvement will be used to kill ISIS fighters than American involvement.

Well, yeah. Russian foreign policy is primarily concerned with serving Russian interests. And, unlike the current Administration, they can see that if ISIS continues to flourish, eventually they'll come after the Russians, too. Better to stamp them out now.

 

[halfmileharry]

Asaad, Khadafy, Hussein, all dealt with these radicals for a long time. All were considered extremists in a different way. They knew they couldn't find them all so they eliminated threats in mass graves.
Russian interests are no different than any other country's interests except for the US it seems. They're all self serving.
OUR problem is we have a prez that doesn't like anyone getting down on the arabs of any sect. His interests are self serving as well it seems and.........

 

[Sling10mm]

A couple of years ago I heard someone on Fox News suggest that the natural state of folks in the middle east is to be ruled by brutal dictators to keep them in line. It sounded pretty horrible at the time, but now which is worse?