Al Jazeera: Fall of Idlib: Turning point for rebels in Syria?
Coalition of rebel groups, including al-Qaeda linked Nusra, take key city in biggest blow to Assad forces in two years.
It was not that long ago that forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad were making rapid gains across Syria.
But the capture of Idlib by a rebel coalition, including the al-Qaeda linked Nusra Front, marks a major defeat for the Syrian government.
The fall of the city may be an indication that Assad's forces are struggling to keep the momentum they gained on the battlefield last year.
More News On The Fall Of The Syrian City Of Idlib To Rebel Forces
Syrian Opposition Says It Has Taken Over Northwest Provincial Capital of Idlib -- WSJ
Syrian rebels take strategic town of Idlib -- Washington Post
Syrian Islamist Rebels Deal Blow to Assad, Capturing Idlib -- Bloomberg
Blow for Assad as Islamist militants take strategically important city of Idlib -- The Guardian
Islamists Take Control of Strategic Syria City from Assad -- The Tower
Syria crisis: Idlib 'captured by Islamist groups' -- BBC
Fresh video emerges of Islamist battle to take Syria's Idlib -- IBTimes
'Army of Conquest' rebel coalition establishes operations base in Idlib -- Al Bawaba
Thousands flee Syrian city Idlib after rebel capture -- The Telegraph
Syrians flee Idlib, fearing government reprisals -- AP
Syrian regime prisoners celebrate their newfound freedom -- 9News
Videos Show Wild Celebration by Syrian Rebels After Takeover of City of Idlib -- Vice News
Syria regime executed 15 prisoners before Idlib fall -- Gulf News/AFP
Can Syria remain whole without Idlib? -- National editorial
How Assad army lost Idlib? -- ARA News
Update: Hat tip to reader Lazlo for the following video that shows the fight for the city of Idlib .... Heavy Clashes As Syrian Rebels Launch Offensive Against Syrian Army In Idlib (YouYube).
7 comments:
Good!
It means more Shia will die having to retake it.
SOME TOKD ME IT HASNT FALLEN YET
I think instead of defeat, it would be better to call it a loss. The intensity of the battle was low, very low, as the reports say just about 100-200 fighter died combined on both side, which not really a big deal. After the fights started it was clear that SAA and NDF could not hold against attacks from that many directions. They just decided to retreat toward the next village on the south, with this action they avoided an encirclment, which would be the real catastrophe for SAA.
The loss of Idlib may get attention, but the current events in Yemen fade it away a bit, but Idlib was not a strategical position. It was a very long pocket which taken too much forces away from SAA, not even talking about the "air bridge" they made for so long. It was not worth any more fighting and risk. I think SAA made a good decision by retreating, and avoid a punch of the rebels, and this punch actually had strenght. Islamic Front (which is not IS yet, luckly) showed some use of the armored vehicles before, but this time they clearly made a great use of it, and it was a real Compined Arms operation, which is very rare in this war. They learn at least, after 4 years of fightings.
What could be the next in this front? The current rebel offense probably will stop, or slow down heavily, and the front will be safe for another few weeks, or even two months while rebels regroup and do their next operation in the area. But they have a concentrated power here, so they are able to make some more territorial gains in the remained pocket of Idlib. As what would happen next in Syria after the fall of Idlib, or as a result of it, not much. On the North Aleppo, Zara and Nubl are the key, and it has more value than Idlib, so expect more action there, instead of a battle to liberate Idlib.
Good analysis.
It is a loss not not a large battle defeat. Still when the SA tries to get it back, the enemy might be dug in with IEDs and mines. It might cost more than 100 or 200 soldiers to get it back.
#2 I wondered how the SA hung on in Idlib in the 1st place. It was as you say a pocket.
I understand the SA is running out of people to recruit. So I wonder how they will continue offensive operations with Hezbollah, Iraqi militias and Iranians being pulled to fight in Iraq and Yemen.
So far Al Qaeda has not been able to cause Lebanon to go up in flames and tie Hezbollah up there.
Aizio Smith:
Urban warfare is dangerious, not only in large city areas like Damascus, Idlib, Tikrit, but also in smaller places, small towns with population of 10.000. Rebels could dig in Idlib, and when they need to defend there they will do, probably, thats why I see no chance of any "retake" operation from SAA any soon. But to capture a town, in wars you can use other strategies too, so the liberation of Idlib even if will take 2 years from now, but it's not must to cost thousands of lifes on the attacker's side.
SAA has no capacity to make operations on all the frontlines, but rebels are in the same boat in this. SAA just repositioned some units(not recently, but since the 1st Battle of Idlib), which weakened this front, and rebels know where to strike now. But the force ratios in many other front, like Aleppo or in the South are just not in balance. SAA seems like not in hurry, and if that saves their own soldiers lifes than it's the right thing to do. The time is on their side.
It's a bit off, but I feel lucky to be able to follow/monitor this war, it's just feels like a real war, from the military view (this is the only part of it that interest me). The sides, even if rebels not always, but using almost every tactical and strategical possibilities that about we learn in the past, plus it combine the new technologies with the post WW. SAA just play it as if it's fits for a goal, and has a value they will fight f assets. The sides takes the fight when they see it wortg, not just keep fighting and defending mindlessly everywhere. I very like this, because the frontlines move all the times. From military view this war is way more interesting than any other from the past 20+ years.
I concur mlacix ... from a military tactical/strategic point of view, the ongoing conflict in Syria is a conflict that is using everything in the book on conducting warfare .... even chemical weapons. Even the long tern conflicts in places like Congo, Sudan, etc. .... from a military point of view none of them come even close to what is happening in Syria.
Congo is a sore point.
A real fracking sore point.
I have read the local news papers in Nigeria in Ethiopia. There is a lot of upbeat stuff there. They have a growing middle class. Kenya is not 1/2 bad. Angola has some wealth and development. One of the world's top billionaires is Angolan. Si the money somewhat dirty due to government connections? Surely it is. Still Angola has potential.
How do you tie it all together. Well you need some great highways and railroads. China is running a lot of railroads across Africa.
There is a high way that runs through the rift valley from Uganda on south. It is 2 lane for all i know. It made the news because the highway, the truckers and the prostitutes are a main cause for the widespread spread of HIV.
AIDS aside this highway and region is interesting. It could tie Kenya, Ethiopia and south Africa together so much more than it does. If it were 4 lane and safer Eastern Congo could be the hear, the engine of Africa.
They talked about if america caught a flu, China would sick. they talk about america a being the engine for the world economy or sometimes China. They also talk about the EU and the BRICS.
Well why not Africa also?
Kony is not in the Rift valley anymore. He moved north in C.A.R. Still he affect lack of development. He could be gotten rid of in short order. I am not sure Russia could do it. Spetznatz probably could. Point is someone ought to do it. Obama and others in Washington do not want to do it, because of lawyers worry about international law. That's bogus.
The Hutus who are still in Eastern Congo are ma much large problem than Kony and seemingly intractable. That will be a hard row to hoe. So far the UN peacekeepers have not really done anything. Well except for raping women in Congo. They are good for that. The Hutus could be dealt with militarily. It would be best to offer them a carrot while also holding the stick. You last problems would be the general lawlessness in Congo and the shaky government and its' corruption. Further south would be the tyrant of Zimbabwe. His days are numbered due to age. It would take a while to build up commerce and the roads anyway. The Chinese and South African would have say in Zimbabwe anyway. Maybe the tyrant's daughter will be better or maybe she gets replaced by other players of the dominant tribe. Zimbabwe does not have to be tackled in the 1st 3 to 10 years. The Hutu rebels and the Congo government are what need to be dealt with before hand.
Point is is that people see Africa as full of dictators and nothing will ever change.they see it in Orwellian terms as a basket case. Meanwhile they grouse about lousy world economic growth. Africa can provide that growth in part.
Take a road going from Lagos to Addis Ababa then down south to Pretoria and then back to Lagos. Watch the place boom. Then start filling in with a few other major arteries.
African can pull the whole world but it would provide a big shot in the arm. Maybe 2 shots. Part of the problem is there are to many takers and not enough makers in Western nations. You cannot grow an economy that way. does not matter what Nancy Pelosi and others says about money velocity, when you hand out welfare.
There are more BRICS are potential BRICs in Africa than just south Africa.
Post a Comment