A Syrian Legion?

Boreas

I have a feeling this will be shot down fairly rapidly but here is an idea.

During WWII Polish, Czech, French, etc. men*, some with military experience and some without, who escaped to the UK were organised into military units to help fight the Nazis. Many of those units had distinguished service records.

It has become apparent that air strikes are not going to end the conflict in Syria and there seems to be a consensus amongst commentators and experts that reliable local ground forces, with the exception of the Kurds, are the missing part of the picture.

Should the EU or NATO now take the initiative to ask the young men escaping Syria to join up and be formed into ground units (perhaps initially under European officers) to go back and fight for their country's future? There is no shortage of surplus military equipment in storage both in Europe and in the US.

Men could be recruited from both those already in Europe and also those in camps in the region. The family of any man joining up would be given asylum in Europe for the duration of the conflict.

*Women played an important role in WWII and could also play a role now. I'm not diminishing the role of women but the bulk of combat forces are likely to be men.

BoJack Horseman

Its an idea that is already in action with meager results.
The US is attempting to train troops..... but the result has been all but a failure & a costly one.

it takes a lot of money to train someone in another language on another continent & when you scale that up to company & batallion level, it becomes a daunting task.

The US expended some effort filtering/vetting candidates... trained them.
But they were arrested or melted away before they could even deploy

So a waste of time.

TBH, the guys in the military forum may know more, but I think training & equipping troops to the level required (20k+) is too expensive & takes too long.... and when deployed nothing stopping them switching sides because ISIS pay a higher wage!

Plus, after 4 years of being hammered, the FSA & The Syrian National Coalition are nearly a spent force.... reqruiting for the side that's almost defeated wouldn't be easy

seamus

The vast majority of people do not want to be soldiers. Even making it a volunteer force means that many young Syrians may see this as a fast track to food and shelter and will then go awol after they've received training and new skills, language skills especially.

WWII was something exceptional where the entire continent was under threat from foreign invaders. It wasn't just reclamation of one's homeland that was at stake, but your own personal freedom.
The Syrian conflict is not the same. The number of people who will genuinely want to go back and fight their own countrymen for control of their country will be very small.

Analogously - if the IRA went to war with the Irish Army and were winning, I would leave, go to the UK and live there. I would have no interest in risking my life fighting extremists. 99% of people would feel the same.

riffmongous

I wonder how most Syrians/Iraqi actually feel about 'their country' though? Europe has had a strong sense of nationalism linked to ethnicity the last 2 hundred years but most middle eastern countries were just lines drawn on a colonial map and then later allegiance was given to the dictator as much as the country. Affiliations are much likely to be tribal/religious and you can see the effects of this in the areas where ISIS has been given stiffer resistance, by the Kurds and when they start to approach Shi'ite areas in Iraq.

seamus wrote: »

Analogously - if the IRA went to war with the Irish Army and were winning, I would leave, go to the UK and live there. I would have no interest in risking my life fighting extremists. 99% of people would feel the same.

Not the best example since ISIS and the IRA aren't very similar, but if you look at the history of the IRA it was 'extreme' actions by the British that gave the IRA it's largest recruitment phases, Bloody Sunday, Internment, etc as well as the people who supported them after being roughed up by army searches

seamus

riffmongous wrote: »

Not the best example since ISIS and the IRA aren't very similar, but if you look at the history of the IRA it was 'extreme' actions by the British that gave the IRA it's largest recruitment phases, Bloody Sunday, Internment, etc as well as the people who supported them after being roughed up by army searches

My point is not any similarities between IRA & ISIS. My point is that it's a civil war taking place in Syria at present, not an invasion.

I use the IRA as an example because they are a potential "faction" who could oppose the government in the republic and attempt to take control.

Yes, ISIS are well funded and supported by external sources, but so too are/were the IRA and all such non-governmental militias.

donaghs

Boreas wrote: »

...
Should the EU or NATO now take the initiative to ask the young men escaping Syria to join up and be formed into ground units (perhaps initially under European officers) to go back and fight for their country's future? There is no shortage of surplus military equipment in storage both in Europe and in the US.

Men could be recruited from both those already in Europe and also those in camps in the region. The family of any man joining up would be given asylum in Europe for the duration of the conflict.
...

At first it seems like a good idea. I'm sure a minority of eligible men could be tempted to go back and fight.
Even if you can do this, the first problem that occurs to me is what sort of a future can be agreed upon for everyone to fight for?

Even so the so-called "moderate" FSA are 90% Sunni, and have had a reputation for extremism at times towards minorities like Shia and Druze:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22870776

And a similar attempt at creating a rebel force by the US hasn;t great results so far, as they've refused to fight Al Nusra:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/06/syrian-rebels-nusra-front-al-qaida-kidnapping

Sand

It would depend on your overall long term aims in Syria.

If you're not sure what your overall long term aim is, its probably best to stay uninvolved.

If it is to see a prosperous, democratic and relatively liberal Syria emerge it would take vastly more investment than arming 20,000 guys and dropping them in Syria to get on with things. There is nothing to say that the 20,000 who volunteer share your vision of a prosperous, democratic and relatively liberal Syria. You're handing a very strong veto to a force that if successful you will not control and which has no real loyalty to you and wont need you after they are successful.

If its simply to defeat or hinder ISIS, it has some value. But as noted, its a very costly way to get a questionable force onto the field. And who exactly is being liberated? It has to be remembered, ISIS rapid advance was on the back of practically no resistance - they were welcomed and broadly supported by Sunni communities in the region.

Conventional militaries can exert blunt force against ISIS faster, more effectively and cheaper in the long run. Both the Iraqis and the Kurds offer better options to develop. If you cant get support to deploy your ground forces directly, its a good sign you should stay uninvolved. Both in a political and strategic sense.

As it is Putin seems to be deploying into Syria now to fight Assads war for him, which should achieve the same goal without any western expenditure.

Also, seeing as the OP references it, there is also a real overestimation of the effectiveness of the WW2 resistance movements. There were effective cells, but by definition they were small and more valuable for providing intelligence and acts of sabotage. Not fighting conventional warfare. Like the men in the GPO in 1916, the tales grew in the telling. There was a lot of propaganda value in stressing the effectiveness of the resistance, particularly for the French who needed some sort of national narrative for WW2 that went beyond being overrun in 1940 and being rescued by the Anglo Saxons.

A Primal Nut

seamus wrote: »

WWII was something exceptional where the entire continent was under threat from foreign invaders. It wasn't just reclamation of one's homeland that was at stake, but your own personal freedom.

Wouldn't that be the case in ISIS-controlled territories? Certainly I would say the Kurds fighting back in Kobani fall under this category. If you're talking about Assad-controlled territory then you might be right.

Analogously - if the IRA went to war with the Irish Army and were winning, I would leave, go to the UK and live there. I would have no interest in risking my life fighting extremists. 99% of people would feel the same.

I still don't understand the distinction. Are you saying if Ireland was invaded by a foreign force volunteers would be more likely to fight compared with extremists in your own country?

What about ordinary Irish people who fought for the IRA? I'm not a fan of the IRA or anything, but I think most people accept that many members were genuine in their willingness to fight against what they saw as unfair treatment at the hands of Unionist rule and the British army.

Custardpi

Probably a non starter of an idea, at least at present. Firstly there's likely to be a good number of Sunni Muslims among the refugees, who if not actual supporters of ISIS, would be closer to them in ideology than say the Shia forces or Assad or the relatively liberal Kurdish forces. The automatic assumption that they'd be prepared to put their lives on the line for a Western style idea of freedom is likely to be naive. Sectarian tensions in both Syria & Iraq over the last few years would appear to have hardened people's attitudes towards their fellow countrymen. Many would no doubt feel that there's not really a country to fight for any more given the de facto erasure of the Sykes-Picot line.

Secondly the fact remains that there is no firm plan on the table to say what victory over ISIS would actually look like. It's quite possible that with the right combination of Hellfire missiles, mortar rounds & good old fashioned kicking ass & taking names Daesh could be routed militarily. But what then? You need a long term plan for what Syria & Iraq will look like years from now. Will they even exist as states in their current form or break into some sort of federal arrangement or even separate states along ethnic/religious lines? The various power dynamics in the region - Saudis vs Iran, Turks vs Kurds etc which link into bigger power blocs beyond the region mean that it will be very difficult to get any sort of deal without someone having to sacrifice territorial & influence ambitions/fears, which at the moment few seem to be prepared to do.

In short there's currently no sort of an idea there which would inspire anyone to fight unless they were trapped into fighting for their very lives or they were the most fanatical of ideologues.

josephryan1989

Look at the latest map of the conflict on wikipedia.

Custardpi

Not a pretty sight. How long before Damascus falls to IS?

josephryan1989

Custardpi wrote: »

Not a pretty sight. How long before Damascus falls to IS?

The frontlines haven't changed much in the last few years so what you are looking at on the map are roughly where the new borders are going to be.

An Assad led Allawite-Shia-Christian state running from the Turkish border down the Mediterranean coast and bordering Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.

The east of the country is Sunni and will basically be given up to ISIS along with western Iraq.

BoJack Horseman

I wonder will that neck of ISIS controlled land long the Turkish border fall at some point?

Doing so would hurt them as they get a lot of cash via fuel laundering into turkey.
Its also how their people pass back & forth into Europe.

Damascus is relatively safe.
There is some clashes from rebels or ISIS subordinates, but neither have the strength to take Damascus (I would assume)

Custardpi

Personally I wouldn't underestimate IS, doing so has proved the undoing of plenty of people so far. That said they do seem to be more about consolidation & building the structure of their "state" at present than territorial expansion. As regards the "neck" along the Turkish border my understanding is that it's a major target for Kurdish forces in order to have a joined up territory that they can turn into a properly sovereign Kurdistan. The Erdogan government in Turkey would probably prefer continued IS control of the area to that, though they probably won't say so publically.

josephryan1989

Custardpi wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't underestimate IS, doing so has proved the undoing of plenty of people so far. That said they do seem to be more about consolidation & building the structure of their "state" at present than territorial expansion. As regards the "neck" along the Turkish border my understanding is that it's a major target for Kurdish forces in order to have a joined up territory that they can turn into a properly sovereign Kurdistan. The Erdogan government in Turkey would probably prefer continued IS control of the area to that, though they probably won't say so publically.

You are overestimating IS.
They control regions which were never properly controlled by either Saddam or Assad in the past hence the ease which with they were taken.
IS has no ability to expand further.
They are bottled up where they are.

IrishTrajan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its an idea that is already in action with meager results.
The US is attempting to train troops..... but the result has been all but a failure & a costly one.

I believe that of the 5000 they expected to have trained and deployed by now, only 4-5 are actually deployed. Not 4 or 5 thousand, not 4 or 5 hundred... But actually four men.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

TBH, the guys in the military forum may know more, but I think training & equipping troops to the level required (20k+) is too expensive & takes too long.... and when deployed nothing stopping them switching sides because ISIS pay a higher wage!

It would be expensive, yes, but I'm not quite sure that negates the need to actually invest in them. For NATO, the funds spent on training these forces would be a drop in the pond, and it solves a great many problems. It allows Western countries to effectively put troops on the ground without a political backlash when casualties/injuries start coming in, and it also negates the "Jihad, us versus the West" mantra that many Islamist organizations tout. Hell, we could just walk around the Balkans, buy some surplus Yugoslav AK47s or the ones captured in Afghanistan and ship them out.

And, yeah, the main problem would be them immediately switching sides, or other factions immediately pouncing on them. We saw what happened to the SRF when Al-Nusra jumped them and just shredded them.

Sand

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It would be expensive, yes, but I'm not quite sure that negates the need to actually invest in them. For NATO, the funds spent on training these forces would be a drop in the pond, and it solves a great many problems. It allows Western countries to effectively put troops on the ground without a political backlash when casualties/injuries start coming in, and it also negates the "Jihad, us versus the West" mantra that many Islamist organizations tout. Hell, we could just walk around the Balkans, buy some surplus Yugoslav AK47s or the ones captured in Afghanistan and ship them out.

And, yeah, the main problem would be them immediately switching sides, or other factions immediately pouncing on them. We saw what happened to the SRF when Al-Nusra jumped them and just shredded them.

The incentive is gone though. You're recruiting from Syrians who have already reached the EU. They already have rights. They don't have to fight for them.

Any Syrian who has travelled all the way from Syria to Munich, so he can volunteer to be sent back to to Syria to fight and die for....what exactly? The lad would need his head examined.

It would be a different thing if the guys service secured asylum for his family and loved ones, but the rules are such that if he reaches Munich, those rights are already secured. Any idea of a "Syrian Legion" is a Bay of Pigs style pipedream.