ISIS takes Palmyra

[Thanas]

Al Jazeera

ISIL reportedly in full control of Syria's Palmyra
Syrian army has collapsed after deadly battles to foil group's offensive, according to monitoring group and activists.

Fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have taken full control of Syria's ancient town of Palmyra, according to activists and a monitoring group.

The Syrian army has collapsed and ISIL has taken over the city of Palmyra, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported.

The monitor reported earlier on Wednesday that ISIL had advanced into the ancient city of Palmyra.

Deadly clashes had raged overnight between the Syrian government and ISIL, with troops firing rockets from outside the city in an attempt to block ISIL's offensive.

ISIL launched an attack on Palmyra last week, causing material damage to residential areas while clashes left many dead and injured.

They managed to capture two gas fields, leaving hundreds dead.

Abo Muaz, an activist in Palmyra, confirmed to Al Jazeera that ISIL had taken the entire city.

The Syrian army has retreated, ISIL are infested in almost all of the city. The army began its retreat almost two hours ago," he said.

"We do not hear any clashes taking place either.

"A large number families are currently fleeing from several parts of Palmyra. Clashes have been taking place and regime warplanes have not stopped bombing the city."

Palmyra is an ancient city which dates back to the 1st and 2nd century.

Located in central Homs province, it lies 210km northeast of Damascus in desert that stretches to the Iraqi frontier to the east.

The city contains architecture of one of the most cultural centres and world heritage. The 2,000-year-old world heritage site is also known as the The Pearl of the Desert.

Hundreds of statues and ancient artefacts from Palmyra's museum have already been transferred out of the city, according to Mamoun Abdulkarim, the Syrian antiquities director.

Context: Palmyra is IMO the most important Roman city we got left in Syria. It is the crossroad of cultures and has over 120 acres of Roman buildings. And it is truly one of the most beautiful cities on earth.

Fucking hell. Another of my most important research areas will most likely be gone by the end of the week because the west can't get its act together and stop those barbarians. Excuse me while I go cry in a corner.

[K. A. Pital]

What are you suggesting? Another colonial war? Or backing Syria's government forces?

[Sea Skimmer]

Assad may actually be collapsing if this is true, put on top of the sudden, unexpected and not at all yet reversed (the government counterattacks are being exploded) rebel gains in the north and the collapse earlier this year of his offensive to encircle Aleppo, which had seen nothing but progress for most of a year prior. If the government forces don't turn that whole front around west of Idlib they are soon going to have 5,000 troops under siege. By many standards they already are.

This suggests all the most trollish sounding claims about just how much his continued rule was dependent on volunteers and mercenaries from Iraq and Iran, which have dried up in favor of those guys fighting in Iraq, were actually true. Hezbollah remains as committed as ever, but the scale of its involvement has always been inherently limited by its own size. Not over 3,000 troops at any one time, even including ones operating within a few miles of the Lebanese border. Those guys are still gaining ground too, but against rebel mountaintops which I simply don't understand how they've been held so long in the first place. Not talking guerrilla warfare, but open positional defenses.

As for the ruins, the Syrians claimed they removed a lot of statues and other smaller items, everything else is presumably done for between ISIL bulldozers and likely government air strikes and SCUD attacks. I can't say I much care, westerns lost any right to complaining when they decided that Assad nerve gassing his own capital was acceptable. ISIL utterly surged in power after that event, which was entirely predictable. It would have been far better had the west and Turkey done nothing in 2012, the Turks functionally created ISIL as we know it anyway, but its too late for that option. Now somehow the US is dropping more bombs to support Kurdish offensives then to support Iraqi army troops on the defensive around Ramadi. The level of bankruptcy that is Obama foreign policy is just past any explanation. Its just been plain incompetence since this began. Handing out guns to everyone in sight would have worked out better.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Fucking hell. Another of my most important research areas will most likely be gone by the end of the week because the west can't get its act together and stop those barbarians. Excuse me while I go cry in a corner.

That's because the Saudis are supporting ISIL in Syria and opposing them in Iraq?

[Thanas]

What are you suggesting? Another colonial war? Or backing Syria's government forces?

The US should have reacted more strongly against ISIL. This whole thing is a result of US foreign policy. As for backing the Syrians, both resolutely backing the rebels or Assad would have done much to alleviate the current instability.

As for the ruins, the Syrians claimed they removed a lot of statues and other smaller items, everything else is presumably done for between ISIL bulldozers and likely government air strikes and SCUD attacks. I can't say I much care

Are you trying real hard to rile me up or do you really not care for things like UNESCO cultural heritage sites? I might point out that if you don't care about culture, you should at least care for the perception of the preservation of it as a propaganda weapon. The US reputation plunged even further in the toilet when they let Baghdad be looted and damaged Babylon.

Fucking hell. Another of my most important research areas will most likely be gone by the end of the week because the west can't get its act together and stop those barbarians. Excuse me while I go cry in a corner.

That's because the Saudis are supporting ISIL in Syria and opposing them in Iraq?

I don't understand this statement.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I don't understand this statement.

The point is that US and its Arab allies are supporting and opposing different heads of the hydra and some actually want Assad to go down. So ISIL fills in the role quite nicely. None of them do care about what really happens to historic ruins.

But on the other hand, the United States wants a "stable Iraq" because it would make them look even more stupid after having wasted so much blood (actually it was very little) and money (this was a lot) in Iraq to let Iraq go down.

In short, the policy is to let the mess continue, which is why it continues.

[Sea Skimmer]

The US should have reacted more strongly against ISIL. This whole thing is a result of US foreign policy. As for backing the Syrians, both resolutely backing the rebels or Assad would have done much to alleviate the current instability.

Anyone could have done either, trying to pin it completely on the US is complete bullshit. Certainly been pretty bad; but in the end this war exists because the Syrian Baath party was one of mass oppression. Don't fucking forget that. Its the most documented war ever, and it was sparked by someone deciding to arrest and torture school children! People thought the government could change, thought they could get reform, they didn't start by demanding the dictator leave. Well, a government like that can't change. It's too much of a self risk to change, and the only response it was capable of was clumsy violence. Massive war followed because it had so discredited itself of this false idea of what Syria was, so quickly, that its own tank battalions turned on each other when ordered to mow down protesters.

Are you trying real hard to rile me up or do you really not care for things like UNESCO cultural heritage sites? I might point out that if you don't care about culture, you should at least care for the perception of the preservation of it as a propaganda weapon.

I'm saying I give a shit about human life and social stability far more, and that if you bitch more about ancient culture then that you're an idiot who doesn't understand what motivates normal people. Which makes your opinions useless. Who the hell's propaganda are you talking about anyway? Syrian's? The same people who's modern cities are almost all in ruins? Whom may have as much as 50% of the entire population displaced? Propaganda only works when it motivates people who MATTER. You don't don't right now. Literally you don't unless you physically go to the middle east to fight, or can magically turnaround your entire countries involvement in the world. That at least is not meant to be personal, simply a fact. Your opinion doesn't matter because your whole country is is simply a non factor because it hasn't sent anything that matters, and nobody remotely thinks it ever will and thus nobody fighting has reason to appease you. And yes, I know of the shipments of weapons to the Kurd's, including those flawed G36 rifles. Weapons for a few thousand men, in a war which involves ~500,000 combattants in three countries. Lebanon being the third if that's confusing, much combat has taken place within its borders.

ISIL destroys this stuff because it motivates its troops and its supporters, and that makes them more effective the Assadist government, and the Shi'a led government in Baghdad. I see very little sign of any corresponding possible counter reaction from anyone who would shed a tear for Palmyra. The US might drop some bombs on the place, but it's already bombing, and with very limited effect. I doubt three times as many aircraft would be more then marginally more effective either.

The US reputation plunged even further in the toilet when they let Baghdad be looted and damaged Babylon.

Oh right the Babylon where Saddam already bulldozed a giant mound to put a palace on, and built on top of the ruins with bricks marked in his own name. I recall posting photos of that too years ago and getting no serious reply at the time. Glad you brought that bullshit up. Or thought it was remotely relevant. Meanwhile funny how Germany is arming the Kurds, the same people who person for person suffered the worst under Saddam. Interesting hun.

[K. A. Pital]

Anyone could have done either, but nobody has done neither. The US, of course, cannot change anything and considering the track record of awfulness, it is best it just stays out forever.

[Thanas]

Anyone could have done either, trying to pin it completely on the US is complete bullshit. Certainly been pretty bad; but in the end this war exists because the Syrian Baath party was one of mass oppression. Don't fucking forget that. Its the most documented war ever, and it was sparked by someone deciding to arrest and torture school children! People thought the government could change, thought they could get reform, they didn't start by demanding the dictator leave. Well, a government like that can't change. It's too much of a self risk to change, and the only response it was capable of was clumsy violence. Massive war followed because it had so discredited itself of this false idea of what Syria was, so quickly, that its own tank battalions turned on each other when ordered to mow down protesters.

Ok, so who has the weapons to take out Assad without suffering disproportionate casualties? There is only one nation, and that is the US. Want to be the hegemon? Don't get pissy because you are asked to act like a responsible hegemon. Besides, a lot of this is the fault of the US anyway by destabilizing Iraq so they get full blame for the aftermath of the shit job they did there.

I'm saying I give a shit about human life and social stability far more, and that if you bitch more about ancient culture then that you're an idiot who doesn't understand what motivates normal people. Which makes your opinions useless.

As if the destruction of cities wouldn't motivate normal people. You know why? Because otherwise the Iraqi museum wouldn't have gotten that large of a portion back from when they lost it. Meanwhile, my opinion will not help the people on the ground, but it sure as hell will influence my vote, which will then again help change how my Government act. Or not, which is the wonder of democracy.

Point is, the US is losing a lot of soft power over this and if this continues, they'll get blamed for starting the mess in the first place by destabilizing Iraq and helping destabilize Syria.

ISIL destroys this stuff because it motivates its troops and its supporters, and that makes them more effective the Assadist government, and the Shi'a led government in Baghdad. I see very little sign of any corresponding possible counter reaction from anyone who would shed a tear for Palmyra. The US might drop some bombs on the place, but it's already bombing, and with very limited effect. I doubt three times as many aircraft would be more then marginally more effective either.

Yeah, I don't think the US response is great or particularly strong either.

Oh right the Babylon where Saddam already bulldozed a giant mound to put a palace on, and built on top of the ruins with bricks marked in his own name. I recall posting photos of that too years ago and getting no serious reply at the time.

Not my fault.

Glad you brought that bullshit up. Or thought it was remotely relevant. Meanwhile funny how Germany is arming the Kurds, the same people who person for person suffered the worst under Saddam.

You claim how culture does not matter. I bring up how the US letting baghdad getting looted and needlessly crushing artifacts at Babylon (and yes, they destroyed artifacts there, it is official Unesco finding) did nothing to help them generate good will among the people they claimed to be bringing democracy too. So yes, culture matters.

Interesting hun.

I'll interpret this as you wanting to type out huh and missing the key.

[The Romulan Republic]

So what do you suggest, Thanas, if you find airstrikes an insufficient US response? Place thousands of troops on the ground (effectively an invasion of Syria) to defend Palmyra? Is their any less direct and potentially costly solution that would be likely to achieve results?

[Thanas]

So what do you suggest, Thanas, if you find airstrikes an insufficient US response? Place thousands of troops on the ground (effectively an invasion of Syria) to defend Palmyra? Is their any less direct and potentially costly solution that would be likely to achieve results?

Start bombing ISIS in Syria to stop further offensives. It is not as if the massive convoy of ISIS against Palmyra was unknown, it was reported several days ago. US refused to bomb it as they refuse to work with Assad or come to the aid of the Syrians.

Get on the case of the Saudis and get them to cut off financing to ISIS.

Help the Syrian rebels even more and help to train local forces even more. Right now, who is sending arms to the Kurds? The USA, Germany and...who else?

If necessary, help the Iraqis out by sending in troops. It is not as if the US army has not proven that they can meet and defeat an enemy like this on the ground. Don't invade Syria unless asked by Assad or the rebel forces, whoever was in control of an area before Isis took over.

[The Romulan Republic]

I was under the impression that America was conducing bombing in Syria, though I don't blame them for not wanting to help Assad.

If Saudi Arabia is a problem, though, I completely agree that the US should put pressure on them. The US alliance with Saudi Arabia is one of my biggest complaints against American foreign policy.

As for helping the rebels, which rebels? Some of them might be alright, but a lot of them are really not people we should be allying with.

Ground troops in Iraq though... that's going to be costly (and America has a huge debt), risk heavy casualties, and likely be politically unpopular given the inevitable similarities to the last war in Iraq. Maybe it would be a good thing in theory, but I'm not convinced its practical or realistic.

[Thanas]

As for helping the rebels, which rebels? Some of them might be alright, but a lot of them are really not people we should be allying with.

The ones the US has been helping for over a year now might be a good place to start.

Ground troops in Iraq though... that's going to be costly (and America has a huge debt), risk heavy casualties, and likely be politically unpopular given the inevitable similarities to the last war in Iraq. Maybe it would be a good thing in theory, but I'm not convinced its practical or realistic.

Well, you asked me what I think would work. This is about the only thing that I am sure of would work in killing off the power of ISIS. As to it being unpopular, yeah, sure. But then again, the US broke it, they can bloody well fix it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough in theory. In practice though, its problematic to say the least.

This is probably going to be a long war of limited support for local fighters until either the local authorities finally get their act together or ISIS takes over Iraq and Syria and then attacks Israel or a NATO country or pulls off a 911-level attack in the west, at which point they get utterly crushed or America screws up again and starts the whole cycle over again only with much less good will, much more Islamophobia, a much higher debt, and a much more demoralized public.

Unless a Republican wins, in which case I expect we'll go charging recklessly in, consequences and sanity be damned.

[Simon_Jester]

What are you suggesting? Another colonial war? Or backing Syria's government forces?

The US should have reacted more strongly against ISIL. This whole thing is a result of US foreign policy. As for backing the Syrians, both resolutely backing the rebels or Assad would have done much to alleviate the current instability.

I may be mischaracterizing your position here and I apologize in advance if so, but...

Why is this only the US's fault or only the US's problem?

The US did not create the Syrian Civil War- Assad did. The US did not create ISIL, either.

And if we're looking at proximate causes of the fall of Palmyra to the barbarians... The US is far from the only country to piously denounce both Assad and the more fanatic of his opponents while doing nothing but a few pathetic trifles to exert any control over the situation.

If this situation is fit to make you go cry in a corner, you should ask yourself: in hindsight, should you have been lobbying the German government to intervene back in 2011 or 2012 when this could have been averted? If not the German government, who should have done something? If doing something was not possible, why was it not possible?

Change your opinions and worldview and actions, to minimize the risk of something like this ever happening again... or don't complain when it does happen again.

Ok, so who has the weapons to take out Assad without suffering disproportionate casualties? There is only one nation, and that is the US.

Why don't Germany and its benevolent, reliable allies have the weapons to do so? Between them, a coalition of, oh, Germany, France, and Italy could easily afford a respectable fraction of the US's defense budget. There is no obvious physical or economic reason the European Union couldn't have put a corps' worth of international troops into Syria, backed by enough air support and armor that no conceivable number of ISIL militants could defeat them in battle.

I have no doubt that a brigade of Western troops dug in in front of Palmyra could have stopped ISIL cold... if only they had been deployed there. The US's brigades are otherwise occupied, and the US population was war-weary well before the Syrian Civil War even started. Why didn't some other country step in?

The reason isn't physical. It must be political. Examine European politics for the reason that didn't happen. In future, oppose that kind of politics... or don't complain when this happens again.

Want to be the hegemon? Don't get pissy because you are asked to act like a responsible hegemon. Besides, a lot of this is the fault of the US anyway by destabilizing Iraq so they get full blame for the aftermath of the shit job they did there.

Syria would be experiencing a civil war whether the US had invaded Iraq or not. Moreover, speaking for myself I don't want the US to be a hegemon. I think that the European states, for instance, are in every way just as important and significant as the US, and collectively they have as much economic and potential military clout.

If they fail to exercise this, and the barbarians sack Palmyra as a result, I don't believe in ignoring the fact that they could have prevented it... if, years ago, they had made different choices.

Palmyra is in Europe's backyard, not the US's. The US should never have been so heavily involved in the Middle East in the first place, so why is it now only the US that is condemned for not taking effective action to protect it?

Point is, the US is losing a lot of soft power over this and if this continues, they'll get blamed for starting the mess in the first place by destabilizing Iraq and helping destabilize Syria.

Will Europe be blamed for sitting with folded hands while it happens? I think that has already happened- which is precisely why Syrian rebels do not fear to destroy UNESCO world heritage sites. They know that nobody is going to punish them for doing so, and that no one will actually physically stop them. Europe has lost any moral influence over the fate of such sites... because it lacks the military means to continue its politics by other means.

Hell, it even lacks the nonmilitary means, as illustrated by the limited scale of aid to those fighting ISIL.

[Broomstick]

Well, you asked me what I think would work. This is about the only thing that I am sure of would work in killing off the power of ISIS. As to it being unpopular, yeah, sure. But then again, the US broke it, they can bloody well fix it.

You do realize you are asking someone else to shed blood for your concerns? It will be my neighbors coming home in boxes or missing limbs, not yours.

How do you justify that?

How much German blood and flesh are you will to sacrifice to save Palmyra? Because if you aren't willing to do that you're a hypocrite.

Airstrikes aren't going to stop ISIL anymore than they stopped the Nazis or the Japanese in WWII. It will require boots on the ground, or the world will have to accept that ISIL is going to set up their little Islamist paradise and mow down every trace of pre-Islam history they can get to.

I'm sorry, but at this point there is no way to save Palmyra. It's gone. ISIL will have the ruins destroyed before anything can be done to stop them. No nation has the political will to do what needs to be done to actually stop them.

Don't like what the US is or isn't doing? Lobby YOUR country to do it! Europe used to have world-spanning empires and hegemony, get your shit together if that's what you want in the world.

[Beowulf]

Airstrikes don't win wars. Sticking an 18 year old with a rifle on the ground is what wins the war. Everything else just helps that 18 year old do his job. Why should the 18 year old be an American? Why must America play Globocop once again? Did it work really spectacularly the last time we did so? Pretty sure the answer to that was no.

[cosmicalstorm]

Man Syria is going to be an ugly place to be in during the next few years. Wouldn't it have been better if NATO supported Assad? He reminds me of Saddam, a clumsy dictator, but what is the lesson from the place we used to call Iraq? Better the devil you know then the devil you don't?
I figure there are going to be massive expulsions and massacres pretty much everywhere. Then we will have another failed state like Somalia but with a lot more weapons and anger. I guess Israel are content, now they don't have a Syrian army to worry about although they will get some small rockets from Golan eventually.
Saudi-Arabia are also going to be pleased to see another large crazy religious semi-state established.

[Guardsman Bass]

Will ISIL actually destroy the Palmyran architecture? Lots of it doesn't seem to have religious decoration, so maybe what survives the bombing and fighting will avoid iconoclasm. Kraks de Chevalier is still around despite being a crusader castle.

There's no real good options here. Backing Assad decisively would be a major turnaround and deeply offensive to allies in the region, but destroying the Assad regime would turn the area into a worse version of Libya with effectively no government at all unless ISIL actually does manage to sweep over the whole thing. Christ, what a clusterfuck.

[The Romulan Republic]

Airstrikes don't win wars. Sticking an 18 year old with a rifle on the ground is what wins the war. Everything else just helps that 18 year old do his job. Why should the 18 year old be an American? Why must America play Globocop once again? Did it work really spectacularly the last time we did so? Pretty sure the answer to that was no.

America has an exceptionally powerful military and is partly responsible for the crisis, so of course people are going to look to them to deal with things like this. But I do feel that it is reasonable to expect other nations to help out since ISIS is a common enemy.

So, Thanas, would you be willing to put German boots on the ground to save Palmyra and other cities like it? How many and for how long?

[Grumman]

Airstrikes don't win wars. Sticking an 18 year old with a rifle on the ground is what wins the war.

An airstrike is a sledgehammer. Whether or not airstrikes can win you the war depends on your objectives, and whether the blunt instrument of an airstrike is capable of achieving those objectives. If all we want is for the Pied Piper of Assholes and his asshole friends to stop acting like assholes, that is something we can accomplish just by hitting them with the sledgehammer until they stop twitching.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not really. Terrorists hide among civilians, their are a lot of them, and they are spread out over a vast area. So unless you're cool with carpet-nuking anywhere ISIS might have people, civilian casualties be damned, I'm skeptical of winning with airstrikes alone.

Edit: That's not to say that we can't shrink their forces, weaken them with airstrikes. Maybe enough for the local governments to win. I don't know. But it hasn't worked yet.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, you asked me what I think would work. This is about the only thing that I am sure of would work in killing off the power of ISIS. As to it being unpopular, yeah, sure. But then again, the US broke it, they can bloody well fix it.

You do realize you are asking someone else to shed blood for your concerns? It will be my neighbors coming home in boxes or missing limbs, not yours.

How do you justify that?

How much German blood and flesh are you will to sacrifice to save Palmyra? Because if you aren't willing to do that you're a hypocrite.

Airstrikes aren't going to stop ISIL anymore than they stopped the Nazis or the Japanese in WWII. It will require boots on the ground, or the world will have to accept that ISIL is going to set up their little Islamist paradise and mow down every trace of pre-Islam history they can get to.

I'm sorry, but at this point there is no way to save Palmyra. It's gone. ISIL will have the ruins destroyed before anything can be done to stop them. No nation has the political will to do what needs to be done to actually stop them.

Don't like what the US is or isn't doing? Lobby YOUR country to do it! Europe used to have world-spanning empires and hegemony, get your shit together if that's what you want in the world.

If you guys hadn't gone to Iraq in the latest bid to soothe your "do good for the world" tic and allowed your president get away with all that, we wouldn't even be having this thread.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, its not like Iraq was some paradise before then.

I'm not a big fan of the invasion, but I don't shed a tear for Saddam being overthrown. I just wish it hadn't been done ineptly and based on false pretences instead of a good cause.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, its not like Iraq was some paradise before then.

I'm not a big fan of the invasion, but I don't shed a tear for Saddam being overthrown. I just wish it hadn't been done ineptly and based on false pretences instead of a good cause.

I'll be blunt. That is a stupid sentiment based on a twisted high handed morality that will only creates trouble. The endless need by certain countries in the world to moralise their justifications can only lead to more blood and suffering because they never ever think well far enough to justify the ends. Anyone who has the hubris to think that can create a better world just by conquering, blowing up stuff, I say fuck that person and he can go burn in hell for all the destruction and death he unleashed because he was too stupid to see that he is no better than his enemy.

I swear, people make statements often without realising the bloody irony of what they say.