By Patrick BAHZAD
It has been several days since the start of the joint Syrian-Russian offensive on Aleppo and here we are again, contemplating an already familiar level of urban devastation and human suffering, wondering which turn events are now going to take in the city that epitomizes what the Syrian civil war stands for. Now obviously, there is no doubt as to the horrendous level of destruction Aleppo has suffered, at the hands of the various actors involved, but such is the fate of cities entangled in prolonged urban combat. The public outrage at the tactics employed by the SAA and its Russian backers can only be attributed to lack of understanding of the mechanics of war in such theatres of operation, combined with a healthy amount of selective memory loss. History is awash with examples of "siege" stories, sectarian strife and civil war destroying the fabric and the people of great cities. However, what is currently unfolding in Aleppo – beyond a level of violence hard to comprehend for most Westerners – is anything but a surprise. SST readers in particular will remember a number of articles published here in the past months that underlined the high probability of what is happening. But unlike six months ago, several geopolitical and military factors have substantially changed the equation and the latest round of fighting looks nothing short of a showdown for Aleppo, possibly for Syria altogether.
A word of advice however before diving into the subject: you better stop counting the stories, editorials and other pieces that our newspapers and TV networks are publishing or airing about Aleppo. Some of this journalism could be regarded as honest reporting not taking into account the contingencies of fighting an enemy embedded with the civilian population in a large urban area. But most it is tainted by a level of hypocrisy that defies the whole purpose of such pieces. What is the empathy for Aleppo worth, when you are not even willing to mention Saudi airstrikes over Yemen in a similar fashion ?
Besides, it may be dangerous to cry "war crimes" and "atrocities" at this point in time, when the US lead Coalition in Iraq is about to launch a major offensive against the so called Islamic State and its capital. The Jihadis in the Middle-East and other places will make sure to remind us of the strong wording used for Aleppo once the onslaught on Mosul will have started. And they will definitely try to point to the bias and double standard of Western media outlets if we do not display the same sense of outrage at the casualties that the offensive on Mosul might cause among the civilians there. Don't throw with stones when you live in a glass house …
Anyway, we shall see how the Coalition handles that siege. Hopefully it will not turn into a slaughterhouse like Aleppo, but in truth, it will be impossible to avoid a "minimal" level of collateral damage, unless you change the ROEs in such a way that a ground offensive will be utterly useless, which brings us back to the current topic. Looking at Aleppo and how things developed into the current situation calls for several factors to be mentioned.
The Moderates … and not so Moderates in Eastern Aleppo
One of the reasons explaining the failure of the latest US-Russian ceasefire agreement is the refusal by what is left of moderate rebels inside Aleppo to break-up with the more radical groups, first and foremost "Jabhat al-Nusra", or whatever other name they like to be called these days. The two major groups that controlled the Eastern neighbourhoods, namely the "Nour al-Din al-Zenki" movement and the "Suqour al-Sham" Brigade, actually joined the Al Qaeda Jihadis and left them in charge of the operational command inside the city.
The fact that this plays right into the hands of the Assad regime and its Russian allies is secondary in the short term, although it provides Putin, Lavrov and Co with enough ammunition to show the world that the so-called "moderates" supported by the US are actually infiltrated or even openly cooperating with Al Qaeda. A number of recent reports about the disastrous relationships between American SFGs and their local trainees bear testimony to this ancient problem.
As for Aleppo, it was definitely not helpful that Nusra moved hundreds of its fighters into the city at a time when the Northern LOC into the city was being cut off by the R+6, and moderates were deserting the city, in anticipation of an onslaught that did not come at that point. Probably, the Turkish handlers of "Zenki" and " Suqour al-Sham" also wanted to call back their local assets through the Western Bab al-Hawa border crossing and send them into their Northern buffer zone, through Bab al-Salameh this time, in order to prevent any attempt by the Kurds to achieve territorial junction between their Afrin enclave and the rest of "Rojava".
What these movements of fighters did to the rebellion inside Aleppo is pretty simple: the moderate leftovers were weakened further, both in numbers and influence, while Nusra took over command and control of the Eastern parts of the city, making good use of the 200 000 civilians living in the area to avoid turning into an easy target for the Syrian or Russian air force.
Breaking the siege, temporarily
To the credit of Nusra, it has to be said that the offensive they organized in order the break the so-called "siege" a few weeks ago would probably never have succeeded were it not for their expertise and determination. Following a string of SVBIED attacks in the South-East of government controlled areas, near the Artillery college, a massive ground offensive took place that finally managed to get a few dozen fighters all the way through to the encircled rebel areas in the East.
While this operation did probably a lot to enhance Nusra's prestige and standing among the rebels, it was nothing short of a scam, probably bordering on the military disaster, such was the loss of resources and manpower incurred by the rebels. Ignorant media outlets all over the world praised the rebels' victory for days and days, not realizing the only thing they managed to get through were a couple of rusty trucks carrying a few vegetables boxes. In truth though, the offensive cost the rebels hundreds of casualties and the ground they conquered was always covered by fire, whether from SAA artillery or Syrian and Russian fighter jets.
Two weeks later, the "hole" Nusra had punched through R+6 lines had been plugged again, only this time, the situation of the rebels was more dire than ever before. They had played their trump card when they staged their surprise offensive, but they had failed to achieve a game changer. They had not even managed to turn their progress into a stalemate. Time had come for the US to step in, once again, in an attempt that Obamanites would describe as "a negotiated settlement to the crisis". That is certainly one way of looking at what took place during the discussions between John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov. Cynics however could argue that the entire process undertaken by the US administration, in particular the State Department, was to stall for time, in the hope the rebels in Northern Syria might either accept the terms they were offered or be given enough time to regroup and start all over.
Negotiating as a way to stall for time … or avoid defeat
Probably all too aware of the seriousness of the situation, Secretary of State John Kerry candidly described what was in store for Aleppo should negotiations fail at that point: "What's the alternative? The alternative is to allow us to go from 450,000 people who've been slaughtered to how many thousands more? That Aleppo gets completely overrun? That the Russians and Assad simply bomb indiscriminately for days to come, and we sit there and do nothing? That's the alternative to trying to get this done, if America is not going to go in with their troops — and America's made the decision we're not going in with our troops. And the president's made that decision".
Kerry said this two weeks ago and for all the belligerent and irresponsible bullshit being uttered lately by the State Department's spokesman, he is right. There is no alternative to the US coming to terms with Russia and Assad over Syria, unless they are willing to go to war with Syria – and Russia – as was very eloquently explained by the current CJCS, General Dunford, to a quite stunned Senate Armed Services Committee on September 22nd.
Today, it is clear to everyone that the ceasefire agreement negotiated by the US and Russia is dead and buried. Contrary to popular belief, which seems to blame exclusively the Russians for that failure, this is good news for any actor in favor of a military solution to the conflict. In Riyadh in particular, they are probably celebrating – behind closed doors – at the news of another US foreign policy fiasco.
Perfidious KSA
Let's not forget that the Saudis were the last regional actor to approve the ceasefire, way after the Turks, which perfectly illustrates how much they opposed Kerry's renewed diplomatic offensive. Lots is being said about the Russians' disregard for the rules of international diplomacy, but if you are looking for one regional power that is genuinely reckless in its policies and has nothing but contempt for any loss of life outside its borders, no need to look further than Saudi-Arabia.
The politicians in Riyadh want Assad removed by any means necessary, make no mistake. In traditional Saudi fashion, they are willing to put in lots of money into such an enterprise, an endeavor that actually translates into pouring oil onto the Syrian fire … To the Saudis, the latest attempt at a ceasefire – brokered by alien powers, i.e. the US and Russia – is totally unacceptable. They were and still are willing to fight to the last Syrian in order to get what they desire so much: a Syrian State that will be an empty shell, something resembling Libya maybe, with anybody basically fighting anybody else, just to make sure their Iranian foes lose a major ally in the region.
Fact is the Kerry–Lavrov ceasefire would have kept Assad in power, at least for a transitional period. In other words, the ceasefire was a big "no, no" for the Saudis. That many Syrian women and children might die as a consequence of the Saudis' "all in" attitude does not bother anybody in Riyadh. After all, the Saudis' open disregard for human life in Yemen is proof enough of the Kingdom's general outlook on international law.
Riyadh's objectives in Syria are clear and unchanged. They want Assad gone and they will do whatver it takes to try and drag the US into doing their military bidding on the ground. People in D.C. better be aware: Riyadh still has a few tricks up its sleeves and just as they don't care about Syrian civilians, they won't care much more about US servicemen being killed in a new Syrian adventure. That is the Saudi way. It has been their trademark for decades and it is not about to change anytime soon.
The Siege of Eastern Aleppo
Reality on the ground, on the streets of Aleppo, is obviously light years away from such considerations, yet it is the result of the balance of military and diplomatic power that keeps shifting one way or the other in this five year old conflict. Currently, following the much vaunted yet failed rebel offensive of August and September, we are looking at a potential game changer unfolding. All this could have happened in February or March of 2016 already, but a combination of factors – from Turkey's "cold war" with Russia to the climatic conditions in the Middle-Eastern spring – prevented such an outcome. This has now changed.
For one thing, Sultan Erdogan seems to have come to terms with Tsar Putin. We do not know the exact nature of the agreement Turkey and Russia have reached, but it is pretty safe to assume that the Turks have accepted to stop, or at least significantly reduce their support to the rebel groups in Northern Syria in exchange for a normalization of their relations with Moscow and a Russian "laisser faire" when it comes to the Turkish army's dealings with Kurdish separatism. Add into the mix the upcoming US Presidential elections and you'll get a totally different background. The Assad regime and the Russian military probably consider they now have a 5-6 months long window to achieve their ideal end state situation.
As far as Aleppo is concerned, this means basically obliterating the rebellion, or push them into the arms of Nusra and other Jihadi groups, thus turning them into an unacceptable actor for the US and its allies. From the regime point of view, the main issue is to convince the civilians of Eastern Aleppo to "leave" their neighborhoods. Now the means used to achieve such a goal are not very elegant, but when you are fighting in an urban area, there are not that many options open to you from a military perspective. You can either fight with civilians present, and incur civilian casualties on a level Aleppo has not witnessed yet, or you can do whatever it takes to push civilians into leaving.
For the rebels of course, the equation is the opposite. They need to keep as many woman and children in the areas they control, so as to avoid large scale airstrikes and artillery shellings, or exploit the civilian casualties in nicely organized PR-campaigns. One side will argue about civilians being deliberately targeted by the regime, while the other will accuse the rebels of hiding behind "human shields". Such is the nature of urban combat. It is one of the most deadly and horrendous forms of warfare, but it is not an unwinnable one, that is something a number of commentators in the West seem to have forgotten when they talk about Aleppo.
US options ?
No need to look further than the NYT to have an idea of the abysmal level of ignorance when it comes to such military matters. Max Fisher's piece of September 28th, "Russia's Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May be Calculated", is a perfect example. A blatant disregard for the facts on the ground, a deep rooted misunderstanding of the balance of power in the Middle-East in general, and Syria in particular, and a gross misrepresentation of Russian tactics … So much for unbiased reporting !
True, the R+6 are trying to drive civilians out of key areas of Eastern Aleppo. Who wouldn't ? Rebels control an area that is home to somewhere between 150 000 and 200 000 people. Government controlled Western Aleppo on the other hand has around 1 000 000 inhabitants, a fact that is also often forgotten by those clamoring about Assad's "siege of Aleppo". Nonetheless, trying to take hold of an urban environment with 200 000 noncombatants present is a tricky business for any armed force, as we shall probably see when the time comes to take back Mosul.
In all likelihood, the SAA and its allies will carry on their current offensive until they are satisfied that their local foes won't be able to prevent an exodus of civilians from the key areas that need to be controlled in order to take over all of Aleppo. At that point, they will offer some sort of truce, opening up "humanitarian corridors", so that civilians who may want to do so can leave the city. Anybody not taking up the R+6 on their offer will probably have to accept the consequences …
Cities as the ultimate (winnable) battlefield
You may argue this is unethical and bordering on "war crimes". Maybe so, maybe not. Hard to prove in any case. The truth of the matter is, it makes no difference in the end. Cities are battlefields with rules of their own. They are definitely NOT unwinnable, as recently underlined by a well documented French book on the subject ("L'ultime champ de bataille – Combattre et vaincre en ville").
For the R+6, the outlook is pretty good. The US are hamstrung by their Presidential election. The Saudis and other Gulfies are willing yet unable to provide the rebels with the necessary hardware to resist much longer, if Turkey sticks to its deal with Russia. In the South, Damascus has had the upper hand for quite a while, courtesy of a Russian brokered deal with Jordan. In the East, the Iraqi government has also reached a "modus vivendi" with Assad and Putin some time ago. What is left to gain access to the Syrian meat grinder does not amount to much: a few areas in lawless Northern Lebanon, no more. In this context, and however brutal the R+6 offensive on Eastern Aleppo may look like, it certainly provides Assad and its allies with the best opportunity in months, maybe years, to strike a devastating and possibly decisive blow in this war.
It is good to here from you Patrick BAHZAD. I am going to confine my comments to the media hypocrisy.
1. In similar situations we used to routinely hear them refer to the use of human shields when the Israelis conducted military operations but this term has vanished in today's coverage. They have simply ignored all reports regarding R+6's efforts to establish corridors to allow civilians to leave eastern Aleppo and Al Nusra 2.0's prevention of this by shooting of those who have attempted to do so. This was reported on www.almasdarnews.com. Apparently, U.S. media exclusively gets its news sourced basically from the U.S. State Dept and its proxies.
2. There already was a very long month long sieges of Manbij, Ramadi, and Fallujah. I am certain that the dynamics of all of these sieges involved similar suffering of the civilian population but the news coverage was extremely favorable to the first two and mixed on the last one. In other words, the coverage reflected our political alignment with who was doing the attacking rather than the facts on the ground. Since Fallujah involved the use of Shiite militias there was a little apprehension there even though much of Ramadi was destroyed.
3. The media failed to ask the most obvious question, since the ceasefire involved an agreement for joint strikes against Al Qaeda groups why were we not bombing them before? Had they explored this question the whole composition of the rebels and our goals in Syria could have been explored but they instead chose to focus on the emotive stories. The lack of curiosity by U.S. media encourages the worst elements of our govt to be even more brazen and unaccountable for their actions.
Posted by: Chris Chuba | 01 October 2016 at 06:10 PM
Thank you, Mr. BAHZAD, for this wake-up call to what the US MSM obfuscates and misrepresents. I keep trying to alert my friends and relatives to these issues, but they remain focused on "making ends meet."
Posted by: Haralambos | 01 October 2016 at 06:52 PM
M. Bahzad,
1. I wonder if you could comment briefly on similarities and differences concerning underlying situation and tactics as between Eastern Aleppo (today), and Grozny (1999-2000) and Fallujah (2004)?
2. I wonder if you could comment on the use of earth-penetrating ordnance by the Ru Air Force in Eastern Aleppo. Could you assess the degree to which they might or might not have actionable intelligence as to where legitimate underground targets might be located?
Merci bien.
Posted by: Clausewitz' dumb son | 01 October 2016 at 07:21 PM
PB
What the West is doing in the Middle East is at the bidding of Saudi Arabia and Israel to the detriment of its citizens. The intent is to permanently sever the Shiite Crescent and continue the fighting as long as possible, no matter the suffering or the risk of escalation into a Great War.
Russia must feel it necessary to seize East Aleppo now rather than wait months to starve the rebels and their families out, like at Homs. This has to be an indication that they believe the next administration will be even more aggressive than the current one which has been at war for its entire 8 years.
All that I can do is vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate. But, you and Colonel Lang are indispensable. You let us know the truth.
Posted by: VietnamVet | 01 October 2016 at 07:27 PM
Reports from the few "Western" reporters who have been to East Aleppo, put the population level at 40,000-80,000.
Before the Civil War, the population of East Aleppo was roughly 250,000.
As we saw in the truce and evacuation of Darra, the jihadi claims over the years of both numbers of fighters and numbers of "trapped" civilians was greatly exaggerated. 300 jihadi fighters and 700 family members were evacuated, while roughly 9,000 civilians remained, a far cry from their claims of 5000 fighters and 30,000 trapped civilians.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/worst-place-in-world-aleppo-ruins-four-years-syria-war?0p19G=e
>>Whole neighbourhoods have been levelled by enormous explosions that have systematically targeted main roads around the city and all exits out of it, as well as marketplaces, hospitals, bread lines and fuel queues.
Those who remain in eastern Aleppo, roughly 40,000 from a prewar population estimated at about a million, have been without electricity or running water.<<
Posted by: Brunswick | 01 October 2016 at 08:11 PM
This evening, in Saturday Vigil Mass, all of my prayers went to R+6. God bless and protect them.
Posted by: Boston Bob | 01 October 2016 at 08:15 PM
I just read the Wikipedia account of the Battle of Grozny in the second Chechen war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%932000)) which, in its entirety, lasted 6 years. I would say that Russia views Aleppo as a modern Grozny and will fight until they win whatever the cost in human life or public opinion. The only thing that could change that would be a sustained and massive attack against Russian troops by a superior force. Would American public opinion and members of Congress support that?
Posted by: Bill Herschel | 01 October 2016 at 08:18 PM
Thank you Patrick as you have given some clarity to the deep morass of Syria.
With ex Admiral Kirby sounding off about body bags heading to Russia and other sordid nothing's a Russian General is now claiming the good old USA is the main backer of Terrorists. Hopefully Kirby can calm down next week or the Russians will commence info ads on TV telling the Americans what Obama is really doing in Syria. Now that Aleppo is under siege I assume there are no more Moderate Rebels. In my younger days when I was losing I just picked up my marbles and went home and sat it out. That is my advice to Obama. It is going to get worse in Syria and the Punch-Counter Punch with the Russians could get out of hand.
Posted by: Bobo | 01 October 2016 at 08:26 PM
Patrick
Nice to see you're back with a beautiful rendition of reality in the Syrian meatgrinder thanks to the stratagery of the Borg Queen. The chaos and anarchy in Iraq, Libya and Syria and the destabilization of Ukraine are all an outcome of hubristic US foreign policy. After the Soviet Union disintegrated the US and it's western European allies were bereft of any anchor. They truly believed their hegemonic status was unassailable.
Now of course things never pan out exactly as anticipated. Since you know France, why did Sarkozy and Hollande have the same interventionist attitude? At least during the lead up to the Iraq invasion, the French and even Schroeder warned about the consequences. Dubya and the neocons were so drunk with the belief that they strode the world as emperor that they did not care what others thought. What do you think changed with French elite attitudes?
Here in the US with the election it couldn't be more stark. Those who abhorred Dubya and his war on false pretenses are now supporting the Borg Queen who epitomizes an even more insidious mindset. This is so obvious to me when every ziocon has endorsed her. And IMO, a significant foreign policy shift was laid on the table by Trump - no first strike and the US not being the worlds policeman. The silence to this in the MSM and social media goes to show the Borgist precepts dominate and the utter hypocrisy of the anti-war left who no longer have any credibility,
Posted by: Jack | 01 October 2016 at 09:04 PM
An excellent piece, Patrick. It is especially welcome because of the dearth of any sensible, unbiased reporting (much less analysis) of this battle in the Western media.
You've come back with a bang! Welcome back! Hope we'll hear more often from you. You add greatly to the value and stature of this blog.
Posted by: FB Ali | 01 October 2016 at 11:15 PM
PB -
Good insight, thanks!
Meanwhile while the American media is crying over Aleppo, they are ignoring the devastation of Cizre and other Kurdish cities in Turkey; plus the murder of Kurdish civilians by Turkish proxies in northern Aleppo province.
mike
Posted by: mike allen | 01 October 2016 at 11:28 PM
I have to second the comments already made. Nice to see you back with this well written and timely piece.
Posted by: Abu Sinan | 02 October 2016 at 01:07 AM
Great analysis.
As the loyalist forces crush insurgent Aleppo, the media, NGOs, and govt propaganda departments will go postal. The Borg wants Aleppo so so bad, and it has to watch helpless as Russia takes it away.
The Saker discusses the Coalition's lack of options here:
http://thesaker.is/the-war-against-syria-both-sides-go-to-plan-b/
I don't think Obama will risk a clash with Russian Forces in Syria (that legacy), but we may see an asymmetric attempt to distract Russia by reigniting the Ukraine situation.
I would also not be surprised if Chinese Warships show up in Syrian waters again as tensions increase like in 2013, and as a quid pro quo for the recent Sino-Russian exercises in the South China Sea.
Assuming Aleppo falls, is it reasonable to expect subsequently the complete capture of Idlib as a matter of military inevitability?
Posted by: Lemur | 02 October 2016 at 01:17 AM
good article i recently read here comparing Fallujah with Aleppo:
https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/the-quality-of-mercy/
Posted by: Lemur | 02 October 2016 at 01:18 AM
The second Chechen War involved two phases. The first was defined positional warfare and was fought in the cities and towns. Much like the battle for Aleppo is shaping up. This took less than a year. In the second phase the rebels abandoned defined positions and took up guerilla tactics and that lasted another five years.
During the first phase the Russians took a beating in the PR department with the world's media criticizing them for extreme brutality. This is what the Russians have to look forward to if the R+6 forces conquer East Aleppo. That is a price they seem willing to pay. They are going to lose a lot of international sympathy though and it will make diplomacy more difficult in the future. I suspect there will repercussions concerning any deals over Ukraine. It will certainly embolden a Hillary admin to increase military aid (at least) to the Poroshenko regime.
Let us hope that the East Aleppo battle is over in a few months since, if not, Hillary could easily do something really stupid in Syria.
Posted by: ToivoS | 02 October 2016 at 02:05 AM
Good points, to which you can add the following:
1. most US and Western medias report about Syria from safe places in Turkey, KSA, or Lebanon. Not many people on the ground anymore, they get some of the video reports directly from "militant" reporters embedded with whatever group is controlling the area they report about.
2. There have been a number of sieges or siege like situations in the wars of the ME over the past 15 years, the ones you mention being the most recent ones of course. I'm pretty sure the level of destruction lately seen in Fallujah and Ramadi is much worse than anything currently happening in Aleppo. Many of the civilians in the Eastern part the city are family members of the fighters opposing R+6, that is also a reason why they are not leaving. By their presence alone, they have a deterring effect on any attacker employing more firepower to level those areas to the ground, in the way the ISF did in Ramadi. Double standards have been the rule for very long, I don't expect this to change anytime soon.
3. The Syrian rebel scene is such a madhouse it is very difficult to tell one group from the other. Personal and structural links make it almost impossible to tell who is AQ and who isn't. R+6 strategy also aims at pushing what is left of the "moderates" (i.e. US supported groups) towards Nusra, in order to be in a position to target them all. Makes sense ...
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 02 October 2016 at 03:26 AM
There are conflicting reports about number of civilians in East Aleppo. You also have to factor in the refugees from Aleppo countryside who came in to take up shelter in the Eastern parts. The most consensual estimate is 150 000 inhabitants, but 80 000 is perfectly plausible as well. Your low figure however seems a bit of an underestimation to me. But who knows ?
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 02 October 2016 at 03:29 AM
Im afraid part of the French elites are no better than the R2P, neo-wilsonian crowd in D.C. There is also a strong Neo-con influence among senior staff in the French ministry for foreign affairs. And we have our one kind of "Anne-Marie Slaughter" too. Overall, it's anything but brilliant ...
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 02 October 2016 at 03:32 AM
Thank you FB Ali,
I'll do my best to keep up with events and update SST readers with a decent analysis. Will definitely post more regularly again !
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 02 October 2016 at 03:34 AM
"Aggressive" and/or uneducated, reactionary, incompetent, leaderless (until KSA+TelAviv "power vectors" are counted), chaotic, etc.
Posted by: Trinlae | 02 October 2016 at 03:38 AM
RT Tv in a south Asian Oct 01 broadcast had a short interview with an ex-CIA guy (admin or communications if i recall) who bombastically touted a Trump/GoP scenario of NATO coalition for direct regime change in Syria. However, I cannot find a copy of it anywhere on rt.com or youtube. He sounded like he was trying to push a string but does anyone know of any substantial diversity in party (or borg faction) policy positions (aside from any relevant statements the prez contenders)?
Posted by: Trinlae | 02 October 2016 at 04:48 AM
I very much hope you do. You have been missed,
Posted by: David Habakkuk | 02 October 2016 at 05:30 AM
Thank you David. Unfortunately, I had some personal business to attend to. Now done, so back on SST and not planning on leaving !
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 02 October 2016 at 06:21 AM
Whether it's 40, 80, or 150 thousand, another question is what portion of this hard core are supporters of these takfiris rats. My guess is that most of what is left consists of their support base.
Posted by: Nuff Sed | 02 October 2016 at 07:22 AM
Mr Bahzad: A kudos is in order: this is up on Naked Capitalism: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/links-10216.html
Showdown in Aleppo Sic Semper Tyrannis (Re Silc).
Posted by: Haralambos | 02 October 2016 at 07:24 AM