Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have all seen war footage from WW2 and Vietnam. WW2 footage really conveys the intensity of the warfare and the desperate struggle for life and death in a way nothing since has done. Syria is the first GoPro war. I have seen footage that would have never been possible before. Despite massive casualties, I just don’t see the kind of intensity we have seen in past conflicts. You often see 5 people gather around a piece of artillery or mortar and fire a few rounds or three people firing TOW missiles at some tank and move on. A pick up truck here or there, a half dozen people firing over some berms. Yet, you read about cities and towns overrun and massive destruction. Compare that with what urban warfare looked like in WW2 and there is no comparison. Has there been a war in the past that comes closets to what we see in Syria today from the military tactic and approach?
We have all seen war footage from WW2 and Vietnam. WW2 footage really conveys the intensity of the warfare and the desperate struggle for life and death in a way nothing since has done. Syria is the first GoPro war. I have seen footage that would have never been possible before. Despite massive casualties, I just don’t see the kind of intensity we have seen in past conflicts. You often see 5 people gather around a piece of artillery or mortar and fire a few rounds or three people firing TOW missiles at some tank and move on. A pick up truck here or there, a half dozen people firing over some berms. Yet, you read about cities and towns overrun and massive destruction. Compare that with what urban warfare looked like in WW2 and there is no comparison. Has there been a war in the past that comes closets to what we see in Syria today from the military tactic and approach?
It's a religious war shia vs. sunni. The best comparison would be the war of 30 years in and around Germany. It was the last major religious war in Europe and it was both extremely brutal and also dispersed, every area devastated at its own time and then quiet again. Overall I think 30-40% of the population was killed, so worse than ww2. Me thinks we will see this war continue and intensify across all shia sunni areas for another 5-10 years and then also transform the islamic faith and area towards a modern and western approach on religion and state.
We have all seen war footage from WW2 and Vietnam. WW2 footage really conveys the intensity of the warfare and the desperate struggle for life and death in a way nothing since has done. Syria is the first GoPro war. I have seen footage that would have never been possible before. Despite massive casualties, I just don’t see the kind of intensity we have seen in past conflicts. You often see 5 people gather around a piece of artillery or mortar and fire a few rounds or three people firing TOW missiles at some tank and move on. A pick up truck here or there, a half dozen people firing over some berms. Yet, you read about cities and towns overrun and massive destruction. Compare that with what urban warfare looked like in WW2 and there is no comparison. Has there been a war in the past that comes closets to what we see in Syria today from the military tactic and approach?
WW2 had photographers and camera men focused on just that craft. The GoPro guys in Syria are amateurs probably.
Just looks like the current chapter in the 10,000 years of continual mindless middle east slaughter. Seems to be that region's most defining characteristic. Call it a conflict over religious minutiae or whatever other excuse you can think of. It doesn't matter. They always find some thin justification for acting like cavemen.
It's a shame what has happened but what interests me is the multifaceted playing field. U.S. and Syrian Rebels vs Assad, Russia and Iran vs The Arab league Vs Isis Vs Israel. Two proxie wars (U.S. vs Russia and Iran Shi'as vs Saudi Sunnis). It's really interesting trying to wrap your mind around it all, especially who's on who's side. I read an article recently where the author compared the middle East to the Balkans pre 1914. Makes you wonder.
It's a shame what has happened but what interests me is the multifaceted playing field. U.S. and Syrian Rebels vs Assad, Russia and Iran vs The Arab league Vs Isis Vs Israel. Two proxie wars (U.S. vs Russia and Iran Shi'as vs Saudi Sunnis). It's really interesting trying to wrap your mind around it all, especially who's on who's side. I read an article recently where the author compared the middle East to the Balkans pre 1914. Makes you wonder.
Actually, Israel has so far stayed out of this, they seem to have - at the present time anyway - a rather unusually good relations with Putin (who'd want them to sit still) and not too good relations with Obama (who'd want them to join with the anti-Assad forces), plus all of the local sides of the Syrian conflict had so far been very careful to not drag the Israelis into this war.
It seems that Russia's entry into the war had created a stalemate when it comes to ousting Assad. They are fighting ISIS openly and all other rebels without admitting it, thus providing protection for the regime. They are now importing advance anti-aircraft systems into Syria under an excuse of preventing the Syrian Air Force pilots from defecting to ISIS, but I think everyone understand that's basically added insurance against possible western airstrikes directed at the government forces. So Obama will likely just make an about face, concentrate on fighting ISIS, and in the end leave the other rebel forces that we armed and supported to deal with Assad on their own, likely to be slaughtered. Oops.
In my personal opinion, overthrowing the dictators and making these countries a breeding ground for the terrorists of all kinds is a major strategy mistake that all US presidents are guilty of. I think I understand why they do this (dictators like Saddam have far more resources at their disposal and can buy advanced weapons, build nukes, have centralized more efficient operations than terrorists) but these dictators are not suicidal. So while they are a bigger threat in theory, the cluster muck that comes after they are overthrown is far more danger in practice.
We have all seen war footage from WW2 and Vietnam. WW2 footage really conveys the intensity of the warfare and the desperate struggle for life and death in a way nothing since has done. Syria is the first GoPro war. I have seen footage that would have never been possible before. Despite massive casualties, I just don’t see the kind of intensity we have seen in past conflicts. You often see 5 people gather around a piece of artillery or mortar and fire a few rounds or three people firing TOW missiles at some tank and move on. A pick up truck here or there, a half dozen people firing over some berms. Yet, you read about cities and towns overrun and massive destruction. Compare that with what urban warfare looked like in WW2 and there is no comparison. Has there been a war in the past that comes closets to what we see in Syria today from the military tactic and approach?
I see only one response has addressed your question. Unfortunetly I see this thread devolving into a topic about the political aspects of the conflict itself rather then the tactics. That means it will probably be locked down soon.
Anyways - what you are seeing is pretty much the face of modern war since the 50's. WW2 showed massive campaigns with national armies with somewhat eavenly matched forces. Since then the face of war has somewhat changed (with Korea perhaps as an exception) - one technologically advanced army fighting irregular forces (which likewise be well funded with advanced weaponry) using "hit and run" tactics. Basically what you see in Syria is what one saw in Afhiganistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Gaza, etc. Not much difference. Strategy being about the same with these modern conflicts - not necessarily land conquest, but attrition. Sometimes the terrain varies - Vietnam and Afhiganistan being more rural. The difference is now the availability of cellphones, GOPRO, etc. So you see the undedited bits - not only the horrors of war (the "greatest hits" that reporters and pro's edit news broadcasts down to), but the relatively mundane activities, setting up an RPG ambush and waiting for hours, then running like heck to a new ambush sight.
In Syria maybe the difference however is you have so many different players, sometimes both sides are irregulars - ISIS fighting hezzbollah. Kurd iregulars fighting Al Queda fighters one minute, then Assad's militia the next.
Syria? Not a real war. A bunch or religious nuts fighting with each other, based on what tribe they're from. And why does the West care? Oil ands the transport of natural gas.
In my personal opinion, overthrowing the dictators and making these countries a breeding ground for the terrorists of all kinds is a major strategy mistake that all US presidents are guilty of. I think I understand why they do this (dictators like Saddam have far more resources at their disposal and can buy advanced weapons, build nukes, have centralized more efficient operations than terrorists) but these dictators are not suicidal. So while they are a bigger threat in theory, the cluster muck that comes after they are overthrown is far more danger in practice.
I agree with you on this. Listen, muslims need dictators to rule them. These are religiously opressed people. They are governed by their sharia law . They result to violence to solve their dis-opinion , especially if it is an attack against their religion. Saddam kept the area balanced. He kept iran in check and others in the area tranquil. Removing him crated a vacuum seal of power.
The middle east CHAOS is a direct response to the invasion of IRAQ. It should have never happened. Afghanistan? Okay, I can see why, but Afghans are a bunch of tribesmen..If they get invaded it really doesn't make a difference in the area.
I am actually glad that Russia Stepped in. Russia has interests in Syria. Syria is their only Mediterranean port. They need to protect it. It is in their interest. Obama and kerry really need to stop running their mouths and arming the rebels, as it would be in the best interest to back up assad to defeat all the rebels and regain some stability in the region(momentarily)?
Back in the 90's I barely heard about the middle east and islam... yeah here and there you would read about something.. but nothing like today.. Islam has developed into a very serious threat against western countries. It really needs to be contained , oppressed , and dealt with like the NAZI's.
Politicians are so blind with multicultrism..Theres muslims right now in UK that walk the streets at night with "sharia law" patrols that actually harass people and are already trying to oppress their sharia law in A FREE COUNTRY.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How does the war in Syria look to you?
