ISIS would not cede territory in Manbij without a costly and protracted battle.

Some of the most recent news to dominate coverage of the Syrian War has been exceptional in that it highlights the victims of coalition airstrikes, and not just those of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR), or its Russian allies. As the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) retake most of Manbij, we are exposed to the sad images of civilians from the city lying in rubble – the latest victims of a brutal war in which every actor has been blood-soaked.

The shocking images that accompany each of the many condemnatory articles reacting to these strikes could just as easily have come from the fallout of a Russian airstrike in Idlib, a Syrian airstrike in Darayaa, or a rebel mortar attack in Aleppo. And yet matching the accompanying text to the perpetrator of the attack could hardly be easier: thought to be among the deadliest air-strikes in the Syrian war, the US-led coalition’s highly publicised strikes in Manbij are still rightly described as ‘accidental’, while Syrian airstrikes resulting in a fraction of these civilian casualties are often described as intentional.

Why, and how, have we reached such differing assessments of the intentionality guiding these aerial bombardment campaigns? How can we compare the actions of military forces that are so differentially involved in this war?

The battle for Manbij itself may act as a good starting point for such a line of inquiry.

The Kurdish-led SDF have had much success fighting ISIS in Northern Syria, and turned their attention to Manbij in early June having recently crossed the Euphrates after taking control of the Tishreen dam. Barring a few exceptional cases of Russian air-support, the US-led coalition has been the primary source of air-support for the SDF, and their combined efforts have liberated dozens of villages and towns from ISIS in the past year; accounting for most of ISIS’ territorial losses in Syria.

Two features of the battle to liberate Manbij make it relevant for a comparison of the methods of the US-led coalition against those of the SAR and its allies:

  1. The early stages of the battle for Manbij proceeded with the unambiguous aim of imposing a siege upon the town, a siege which has been upheld for over 60 days now.
  2. A campaign of aerial bombardment has been critical both for the advance of the SDF towards the ISIS held town and during the assault on it – we can be sure that over 60 days of airstrikes have seen more civilian casualties than those which have received media attention.
ALSO READ  Israeli warplanes bomb Syria's Aleppo from US-held areas

There are therefore already two ways in which this battle resembles many of the SAR-led assaults on a Jihadist-held town, which brings us to a third parallel: the enemy being fought is one and the same.

The ISIS units of Manbij are well equipped and utilise the same range of tactics as they do in any other Syrian, Iraqi, or Libyan urban battle-ground: normal infantry units fight alongside tanks and artillery, but they add to this entire units of suicide bombers, using either personally carried explosives or Vehicle Based IEDs (VBIEDs), whilst also making extensive use of mines and other roadside bombs (all methods that are not exclusive to ISIS, but shared amongst most of the jihadist groups which utilise suicide bombers*). All of which take a heavy toll on the attacking ground forces, even in the presence of air support.

Why then do we hear of the civilian casualties of coalition air-strikes only rarely, and only ever in connection with the overall battle that is being fought, whilst the same tactics employed by the SAR are depicted as having intentionally targeted civilians, and presented as if they were random? A certain level of demonisation must set-in before we are willing to believe that so many air-strikes are being targeted primarily at civilians. Moreover, pundits must struggle to explain how it is that such a strategy would lead to the various victories and the recapture of towns and cities that the SAR’s campaign has overseen.

Similarly, why do we only ever hear of ‘regime’ sieges? Does the siege on Manbij not count, despite lasting for over two months? Though some news outlets did cover the SDF siege, all were quick to point out the presence of a sanctioned and monitored route allowing the entry of food and medical supplies into the beleaguered town. Nevertheless, evidence of a similar strategy employed by the SAR leads only to the condemnation of the use of starvation as a weapon of war, and again, the presence of armed jihadists in the town is only ever secondary, if at all present, in this narrative.

ALSO READ  Syrian Army sends large number of reinforcements to Idlib as offensive approaches

A suite of accusations by Western powers, Gulf states and their media outlets seem to suggest that the SAR is uniquely brutal in its aerial campaign; the situation being further muddied by a reliance upon biased sources that list rebel combatant casualties as civilian (such as the SOHR). But if it is beyond the US-led coalition’s abilities to prevent civilian casualties, despite their superior technology and their limited involvement in the war, are we not to expect something similar from a less well-equipped air-force fighting a five-year war against jihadists that use the civilian population as cover? Are these problems not inherent to fighting an enemy that utilises guerrilla tactics in densely populated urban centres? Is this not a more likely explanation than the vague accusations with regards to ‘barrel-bombs’, though nothing resembling these exists in the SAA’s arsenal?

This is not to say that the aerial campaign of the SAR has been wholly justifiable – there is much to criticise here, and there is much for which the government and military must be held to account. In particular, the campaign of airstrikes over Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham (formerly the Jabhat Al-Nusra branch of Al-Qaeda) controlled Idlib seems to have done untold damage to civilian life there with few tangible military gains. But we cannot begin to address the very real problems of the Syrian Army’s campaign when our view is based on broad demonisations with little basis in fact, and lacking any specificity or particular evidence.

The problems inherent to the use of air-strikes and sieges as revealed by the coalition’s campaign highlights the double standard in the media treatment of various military tactics and their outcomes.

ALSO READ  Turkey rejects attempts to allow Kurdish groups to participate in Syrian peace process

Given the devastation that is caused by air-strikes and sieges, some are led to make an even broader challenge: that these tactics should be wholly avoided. Indeed, a number of anti-war activist groups in Europe and the United States campaign against the use of air-strikes altogether – a stance that is superficially noble, but in reality condemns entire cities and populations to Islamist rule. What alternatives do they propose? None have been offered, and so this position seems to be little more than a disavowal of responsibility and an abandonment of the Syrian people and the secular future of their country, as there exists no ‘clean’ method of war.

The various jihadist groups controlling Syrian towns and cities can not be defeated without a concerted military effort making use of the aerial advantage that the various state actors have at their disposal. Nor could any military campaign, with or without aerial support, completely avoid inflicting civilian casualties – such is the cost of a war that has been thrust upon the Syrian people and their country.

This argument may of course come across as cruelly pragmatic, but if one still doubts the necessity of such methods then they are encouraged to produce an example of a war that has been fought by kinder means, and to produce strategic advice for the militaries of the US, Russia,  Syria, or their favoured militant group,  from the blueprint of such fiction.

* In fact, ISIS are far less effective at doing this than the more experienced and professional Al-Qaeda associated terrorist groups, such as Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham, which have typically achieved greater gains against the Syrian Army.

Advertisements
Share this article:
  • 241
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    241
    Shares

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

22 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daeshbags Sux
Daeshbags Sux
2016-08-11 22:51

Exactly the same things happened to liberate Europe from the nazis mofos… Unfortunately, until someone discover some kind of huge LSD bomb that will make anybody in a town hallucinate for hours, thus allowing to re-take the town peacefully… Unfortunatelly, we’re not in a hippie world and except the fanatical mofos, nobody wants to be ruled either by nazis or nazislamists which is exactly the same that if criminals had taken over your town or even worse! For me, time is not to discuss if we like Assad or not : Syria is filled we rogue psychopathic and heavily armed… Read more »

Regular
Commenter
Upvoted
goingbrokes
2016-08-13 06:55
Reply to  Daeshbags Sux

Yes, although I thought TOWs are about US$125,000 each.

mode
mode
2016-08-12 00:48

Best article 2016. Thanks for your bravery exposing the truth which many here in Europe are blind to.

Bleipriester
Bleipriester
2016-08-11 19:52

Airstrikes inside the Idlib province are very important. Terrorist infrastructure must not be unmolested. The “few tangible military gains” you are talking about is something we even cannot measure. But it is clear that without the massive campaigns carried out by the Russian and Syrian airforces, the sheer masses of terrorists would be far better equipped and organized. If the terrorists cannot get out of their holes without receiving airstrikes, the military advantage is perhaps not directly tangible but nevertheless massive and shows up in each battle. You have been criticizing the Syrian government for taking inevitable steps.

Stanley Grimsley
Stanley Grimsley
2016-08-11 19:24

Here is the truth about the ongoing “civil” war in Syria. The so – called “moderate rebels”, are various brands of isis !

Neo Phoenix
Neo Phoenix
2016-08-11 19:44

A Grand Salute!!! Well Written… Unmasking The Double Standards Of The So Called Modernized Nations…

Peter Voshefski
Peter Voshefski
2016-08-11 19:25

“Every actor has been blood soaked “. Accurate description.

Ronald Smith
Ronald Smith
2016-08-11 20:28

Given the devastation that is caused by air-strikes and sieges, some are led to make an even broader challenge: that these tactics should be wholly avoided. Indeed, a number of anti-war activist groups in Europe and the United States campaign against the use of air-strikes altogether – a stance that is superficially noble, but in reality condemns entire cities and populations to Islamist rule. What alternatives do they propose? None have been offered, and so this position seems to be little more than a disavowal of responsibility and an abandonment of the Syrian people and the secular future of their… Read more »

Dresden bombing
Dresden bombing
2016-08-11 21:07

“the campaign of airstrikes over Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham (formerly the Jabhat Al-Nusra branch of Al-Qaeda) controlled Idlib seems to have done untold damage to civilian life there with few tangible military gains.”

Hmmm … also remember the British/American bombing of Dresden. That alone justifies ANY indiscriminate bombing of enemy civilians. At least as far as western criticism goes.

teto
teto
2016-08-11 22:51

The main reason for SAA airstrikes to deliberately target the civilians in the towns, that oppose Assad, is clear understanding, that at the current point of the war large part of Syrian population will never accept his victory. Even if armed rebels are defeated, armed rebels present only a tip of the iceberg of population, which opposes Assad. On the bottom are women, children, whose fathers and husbands went to war. In many respects this is also shiites vs sunni war. Other side will never be loyal after the war, maybe subdued after military defeat, but will keep seeds for… Read more »

SJW Fail
SJW Fail
2016-08-11 23:59

This article lies from the very beginning. Assad & Russia have killed over 200,000 civilians, compared w < 1000 for coalition

Ben
Newbie
Ben
2016-08-12 04:14
Reply to  SJW Fail

You’ve got to be kidding if you look at the overall amount of casualty’s that the coalition has been responsible for since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the casualty list would be in the 10’s of thousands

seeg
seeg
2016-08-12 04:43
Reply to  SJW Fail

you’re spouting nonsense parroted by the mainstream media, not an argument.

teto
teto
2016-08-12 11:07
Reply to  SJW Fail

There (at the bottom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War actually are some figures on coalition vs russian airstrike casualties. Problem with all those figures are that:
1. They can be dismissed as bullshit, or propaganda if somebody doesn’t like them.
2. Those figures are either lower than the actual, because only confirmed casualties are included.
3. Or they are rounded if unconfirmed casualties are included.

Regular
Commenter
Upvoted
Jens Holm
2016-08-12 02:15

A very complicated affair. Have followed Manbij. There are so far only found 3 accidential bombing killing 100. Think the difference to others seems to be much better observations before bombing and more accurate and bombs/rockets are used in “Big, smal,middle”. The targets are better describetd before that. In the News they have also mentioned many times, that thy have stopped trying to find smarter solution, when civilians was there or might be as shields. Its true they mention almost nothing about civilian casualties, but we can see , they at least care. Manbij is also differnt, because a group… Read more »

Regular
Commenter
Upvoted
allahusnackbar
2016-08-12 10:57

Is this not a more likely explanation than the vague accusations with regards to ‘barrel-bombs’, though nothing resembling these exists in the SAA’s arsenal?

Come on now, they have barrel bombs. We have seen them in videos, even seen SAA pilots throw them off helicopters.

Regular
Commenter
Upvoted
goingbrokes
2016-08-13 06:59
Reply to  allahusnackbar

The whole ‘barrel-bomb’ scare is pure hokum. Heard a military expert saying that because they are dropped from a helicopter, they are exceptionally accurate! Try to get Western media to spread that! Not likely!

Patrick Woolley
Newbie
Upvoted
Patrick Woolley
2016-08-14 11:52

Really good (and refreshing) article – thank you. What’s also true about the double standards is that certain ‘human rights’ groups seem to be fully behind – and perhaps are even working with – the Americans creating humanitarian corridors for civilians under siege, yet when the Russians do this – and also attempt to work with the UN – it’s described as ‘ethnic cleansing’; whilst these groups also argue that they cannot participate in Eastern Aleppo because they have to remain ‘impartial’ – and yet there is no concern with respect to partiality when it comes to indirectly helping the… Read more »

bob marely
bob marely
2016-08-11 19:49

One was accidental and unintentional i.e. with Manbij the SDF were the ones giving the order for them and I doubt USAF double checked and just followed through the SDF order of whom the casulaties lie in both of their hands. USAF use percission airstrikes while Assad and putin do not they do intentional airstrikes on residential areas with unguided missiles and lots of casualties occour almost daily frm assad russian strikes then wtih usaf.