Assisted by the Russians the Syrian military has recaptured the city of Palmyra from DAESH. From the New York Times:
BEIRUT, Lebanon — The Syrian Army said Sunday that it had fully captured Palmyra, routing Islamic State fighters who had occupied the city with its ancient ruins for almost a year, and handing President Bashar al-Assad a strategic prize. It also gave Mr. Assad something more rare: a measure of international praise.
The head of Unesco, the United Nations agency that had designated Palmyra’s ruins a World Heritage site, hailed the “liberation†of the city from the militants in a statement issued last week as Syrian troops were advancing. On Sunday, Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary-general, called the retaking of the ancient city “fortunate†and said the Syrian government could now protect and restore the sites, wire services reported.
[…]
After a three-week push by the Syrian Army and its allies, including Russia, the majority of the Islamic State contingent in Palmyra had withdrawn or been driven out, with hundreds of its fighters killed, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the conflict. The withering defeat underscores the Islamic State’s broader struggle to retain territory it has seized in Syria and Iraq.
The Russians are now assisting the Syrians in removing the IEDs and mines DAESH left behind them.
This is an important accomplishment. For one thing it demonstrates that the Syrian Army can fight. Whether the rebel forces supported by the United States can is an open question not to mention whether they’re fighting the Syrian government, DAESH, or each other. War on the Rocks has an interesting piece questioning whether our aid to rebels in Syria and Iraq is really accomplishing anything:
The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are not a monolithic force. Like nearly every other faction in Syria, they’re spread across an archipelago of enclaves nationwide. The SDF units clashing with Syrian rebels reportedly supported by the CIA are not supported by the Pentagon —they’re from a different enclave. The U.S. military is exclusively supporting the SDF in northeastern Syria on the other side of the Euphrates River. The Pentagon-backed SDF east of the Euphrates is fighting the self-proclaimed Islamic State, not rebels with or without U.S. backing.
[…]
In reality, the Kurdish SDF actually pushed east from Afrin in the northwest, where they had been all along. SDF presence east of the Euphrates largely remains static, although they have established a beachhead west of the Tishrin Dam that spans the river.
All this is relevant because the Pentagon has only supported the SDF east of the Euphrates in its battles with the Islamic State. The Afrin SDF is not Pentagon-backed — this sounds sort of ridiculous, but it’s true.
Read the whole thing.
Russian support has obviously been critical in the Syrian government making the advances it has. As the campaign to re-take the Iraqi city of Mosul progresses, we’ll have a better indication of whether U. S. support is as effective. As the WoTR article suggests, it might be the case that U. S. support is inversely correlated with the willingness to fight. We’re suckers for a good sales pitch but, unfortunately, a good sales pitch doesn’t necessarily mean you’re ready or willing to fight.
I would make the headline, “The Syrian Army is Willing to Fight”. I don’t know if our aid to the Iraq troops will be any more or less effective, but I am pretty sure the Iraq military will not be very effective. I guess if they let the militias fight (they are willing for the most part) they might have effective fighters, but then they have the militias creating havoc among the Sunnis in the area.
Steve
None of these people can really fight worth a damn. The 1942 Wehrmacht – with no upgrades in equipment or communications – would roll over anything in the current middle east (aside from Israel and Iran.) An Arab army stiffened with Russians and Persians will outperform an Arab terrorist army composed of discordant tribes and mentally unhinged “foreign fighters,” because the skills needed to murder civilians in a Paris or Brussels café are not at all the same skill set required of a soldier in combat. And organizationally an army in the field bears almost no relationship to a terror cell.
Arabs fight like Native Americans from the 1840’s – launch a surprise attack, grab some loot and run away. They’re raiders. The western style of relentless, day-in, day-out warfare, the central importance of logistics, the integration of air, naval and land forces – all this is alien to that culture. They’re very good at guerrilla resistance, moderately good at terrorism, and useless at stand-up warfare.
Or, put another way, their governments and rulers are nothing but gangsters and gangsters don’t do logistics. Street corner shoot-out? Sure. Actual war? Not so much. The Iran-Iraq lasted 8 years and aside from a bunch of dead people, nothing came of it. Not a square foot of land changed ownership, neither regime fell, they fought an idiot’s version of WW1 despite the presence of tanks and planes and satellites. And we all remember the performance of Saddam’s highly-touted Republican Guard when it had to fight the US Army.
which is why it’s clear that the Russians’ involvement goes a lot farther than planes and pilots. The Kesselschlacht strategy that the Syrian Army has been using so effectively clearly illustrates the Russians’ influence.
And my understanding is that a single unit of the Syrian Army has actually been producing many of the best results. The unit is commanded by a guy they’ve tried to kick upstairs but he’s refused because he wants to stay with his men.