The ceasefire in Aleppo city worked pretty well -- once the RuAF siege on the east was lifted, the Salafist-Jihadist forces wasted no time indiscriminately shelling western Aleppo city and killing scores of civilians in a matter of days. At that point the RuAF and SAA had every moral right to respond in kind.
It was always expected that there would be violations and it would fail, the idea is that they fail in a manner that benefits The Good Guys(TM). In this case, the al-Qaeda-linked Salafist-Jihadists supported by the CIA and Turkey will now be relegated to the sands of time, fading into obscurity (and rightly so).
It is unfortunate that the SDF and related groups (ie: YPG/J) never receive the same political and military recognition that their radical Islamist counterparts do.
It is unfortunate that the SDF and related groups (ie: YPG/J) never receive the same political and military recognition that their radical Islamist counterparts do.
Oh, I don't know, not counting those on the "Alt Right" (for which I'll define here as "the non-'neocon' Right, we have a lot more respect for the SDF in particular, the Kurds, not so much as soldiers vs. e.g. skirmishers), for tomorrow the rest of the US goes to vote to decide the outcome between one person who had a major hand in creating the contours of this outbreak of this conflict ("Hama Rules" reminds us it's quite a bit older than when any of these people having a role in it), and someone who'd be satisfied if the SDF and related groups terminate the Salafist-Jihadists et. al. with extreme prejudice and (start to?) return a semblance of peace to the region.
Hmmm, as for the latter case, it wouldn't be the first time a US president had a major fight on his hand with "his own" CIA....
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make from that incoherent babbling, but let's make one thing clear -- the YPG/J are regarded as some of the most well-trained and disciplined organizations in Syria.
They're able to make great strides against Isil with minimal backpedaling, engaging in the toughest counter-terrorism and guerrilla operations the world has ever seen, in addition to long-lasting success in large-scale conventional warfare. US SOF have been very tightly embedded with them for a relatively lengthy period of time and the effects are definitely apparent.
Their power structure is clearly defined compared to the FSA and other radical Islamists, whom are bereft with nepotism and weak professional cohesion, and I'm certain the schism within the current administration is between the US State Department+CIA and the US DOD.
As for your jab at Hillary with your "Hama Rules" reference and your subtle allusion to whether Trump supports the SDF -- I am willing to argue that Hillary is just as clueless to the Middle East as Trump. The former will defer to our partners in the Middle East (eg: Gulf monarchies, Turkey) and pursue a policy of leading from behind while the latter will go with the status quo. Frankly I'd prefer the latter as the situation is unstable but there is definitely a positive trend with regards to knocking radical Islamist ideology down a couple notches.
I know nothing about the YPG/J, except what I just looked up to confirm that they've got a number of Kurds, and my point about Kurds is that in general, they aren't good at more than skirmishing.
That a group including a lot them could be formed that's "regarded as some of the most well-trained and disciplined organizations in Syria" is hardly incompatible with that observation, especially with US SOF involvement, the latter something too many forgot or worse after the Vietnam War.
When compared to the typical modern Arab officered army, that they're a lot more effective against ISIL is hardly surprising; I myself an interested in how the SDF became so effective, although it could be a "do or die" existential sort of thing.
"Hama Rules" wasn't intended as a "jab at Hillary", just an observation that we're in the middle of a very long term conflict, which I'll add won't be resolved as long as the jihadists lose this round as they did in the early '80s.
The real jab, that's clearly drawing blood from others, is how they don't like being reminded of the blood that'll be on their hands after they vote for Hillary tomorrow.
Well, let me just say that my statement is most definitely still incompatible with yours: the YPG/J are one of the most well-trained, disciplined, and professional army in the entirety of the Middle East. Yes, they rival that of the IRGC in Iran and the TSK in Turkey, but not quite on the level IDF in Israel.
Their only shortcoming is the lack of heavy weaponry and high-tech training. That kind of specialty requires special connections or domestic heavy industry.
How did they become so effective? I would put it as two parts: 1) do-or-die as you said, and 2) rich history of duty, service, and honor. The former is pure grit and there is no shortage of that on the radical Islamist side of things but the latter requires a personal and social investment that is far more rare.
It was always expected that there would be violations and it would fail, the idea is that they fail in a manner that benefits The Good Guys(TM). In this case, the al-Qaeda-linked Salafist-Jihadists supported by the CIA and Turkey will now be relegated to the sands of time, fading into obscurity (and rightly so).
It is unfortunate that the SDF and related groups (ie: YPG/J) never receive the same political and military recognition that their radical Islamist counterparts do.