Top French officer raps West's tactics against IS in Syria, faces punishment

[Vergennes]

MUNICH (Reuters) - A senior French officer involved in the fight against Islamic State in Syria faces punishment after launching a scathing attack on the U.S.-led coalition’s methods to defeat the group in its remaining stronghold of Hajin, the army said on Saturday.

Colonel Francois-Regis Legrier, who has been in charge of directing French artillery supporting Kurdish-led groups in Syria since October, said the coalition’s focus had been on limiting its own risks and this had greatly increased the death toll among civilians and the levels of destruction.

“Yes, the Battle of Hajin was won, at least on the ground but by refusing ground engagement, we unnecessarily prolonged the conflict and thus contributed to increasing the number of casualties in the population,” Legrier wrote in an article in the National Defence Review.

“We have massively destroyed the infrastructure and given the population a disgusting image of what may be a Western-style liberation leaving behind the seeds of an imminent resurgence of a new adversary,” he said, in rare public criticism by a serving officer.

The coalition could have got rid of just 2,000 militant fighters - who lacked air support or modern technological equipment - much more quickly and effectively by sending in just 1,000 troops, he argued.

“This refusal raises a question: why have an army that we don’t dare use?” he said.

France is one of the main allies in the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, with its warplanes used to strike militant targets, its heavy-artillery backing Kurdish-led fighters and its special forces on the ground.

Legrier’s article has embarrassed French authorities just hours before the coalition is expected to announce the defeat of the hardline Islamist group.

“A punishment is being considered,” French army spokesman Patrick Steiger said in a text message.

The article was removed from the review’s website on Saturday.

Islamic State still controls a diminishing strip of territory along the eastern bank of the Euphrates River and allies have expressed concern that a U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria will again destabilize the area.

“We have in no way won the war because we lack a realistic and lasting policy and an adequate strategy,” Legrier said. “How many Hajins will it take to understand that we are on the wrong track?”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...st-is-in-syria-faces-punishment-idUSKCN1Q50LZ

Opinion ? @xenon54 @T-123456 @Hamartia Antidote @Nilgiri @Cell_DbZ @HannibalBarca @Indus Pakistan @Dante80 @nahtanbob

 

[Nilgiri]

Voice of dissent always interesting to hear.

But its complicated subject, how much do you commit to ground effort and possibly have more (soldier) lives lost compared to the potential time saved (and argument of total pain + lives lost of civilians prevented etc).

The decision makers job is not easy thing, they hold lot of debate at highest circles just on this kind of thing (before, during and after a conflict....among the especially 2, 3 and 4 star generals + military experts/advisors).

In the end you are putting your own countrymen lives on the line....it should never be an easy decision to do it.

 

[HannibalBarca]

It's simple... He is wrong... an Active Colonel HAS NO RIGHT TO SPEAK about X or Y situation that is happening with the army strategy.
And No...sending 1K or 10K wouldn't have changed that much... The End result is and will be the same every time... Khawarji linked organisation NEVER die completely... they were around since Day 1, like 1400ish years ago and will stay till the End...

As for the Tactic... it depends what you wish or want... a Country nowadays sees Civilians or soldiers as equal to "Collateral"... While your own...you will be held accountable back home...

This guy literally sees soldiers and the Army as simple toys... that you have to show off to boost your ego... on the battlefield.

 

[T-123456]

Voice of dissent always interesting to hear.

But its complicated subject, how much do you commit to ground effort and possibly have more (soldier) lives lost compared to the potential time saved (and argument of total pain + lives lost of civilians prevented etc).

The decision makers job is not easy thing, they hold lot of debate at highest circles just on this kind of thing (before, during and after a conflict....among the especially 2, 3 and 4 star generals + military experts/advisors).

In the end you are putting your own countrymen lives on the line....it should never be an easy decision to do it.

Not so complicated,we lost about 20 soldiers (but saved many civilians lives and infrastructure) doing it the right way.
We could have carpet bombed the sh!t out of el-Bab,Afrin,Azaz etc,but we didnt.
I agree with Colonel Francois-Regis Legrier.

“We have in no way won the war because we lack a realistic and lasting policy and an adequate strategy,” Legrier said. “How many Hajins will it take to understand that we are on the wrong track?”

Best way to put it,only death and destruction.
Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya.
@Vergennes

 

[Dante80]

This is a tricky one. An active officer that chooses to criticize CONOPS like that is aware that his career will be heavily impacted. To go ahead with it regardless, is historically a sign of something objectively bad happening.

Judging from this, as well as what he says it seems that Colonel Legrier might have been commanded to do some pretty bad stuff. Like indiscriminately shelling a city of 30,000 souls based on haphazard intelligence (if the fact that no ground element was involved is true). In that case, he definitely has a point. And it would not be the first time this has happened either. In this war or others.

The above is original research, speculation and synthesis though. We don't know what happened, and we also don't know whether what he says is correct or not. If we assume it is though, here is something to ponder.

Dead is dead.

It does not really matter if you die from a coalition drone, a terrorist IED or a militant bullet. What Colonel Legrier is talking about is the concept of radicalization. From the Chechen Shahidka to the children of Sabra and Shatila, personal or group grievances are one of the most powerful tools of radicalization.

Two links for anyone interested in the subject at hand :.

Journal for Deradicalization.
This is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal that publishes papers about radicalization, international terrorism, counter-terrorism and how those are interlinked. You will find a lot of scientific papers inside that deal with the question "what really happens when I attack a wedding in Afghanistan, throw white phosphorus munitions on Gaza or destroy a citys' infrastructure to force some terrorists out". Will attach a couple of them.

Arna's Children
Juliano Mer Khamis' chilling documentary on his mother, Arna, an activist against the Israeli occupation who founded an alternative education system for Palestinian children.
And what happened to those children.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

MUNICH (Reuters) - A senior French officer involved in the fight against Islamic State in Syria faces punishment after launching a scathing attack on the U.S.-led coalition’s methods to defeat the group in its remaining stronghold of Hajin, the army said on Saturday.

Colonel Francois-Regis Legrier, who has been in charge of directing French artillery supporting Kurdish-led groups in Syria since October, said the coalition’s focus had been on limiting its own risks and this had greatly increased the death toll among civilians and the levels of destruction.

“Yes, the Battle of Hajin was won, at least on the ground but by refusing ground engagement, we unnecessarily prolonged the conflict and thus contributed to increasing the number of casualties in the population,” Legrier wrote in an article in the National Defence Review.

“We have massively destroyed the infrastructure and given the population a disgusting image of what may be a Western-style liberation leaving behind the seeds of an imminent resurgence of a new adversary,” he said, in rare public criticism by a serving officer.

The coalition could have got rid of just 2,000 militant fighters - who lacked air support or modern technological equipment - much more quickly and effectively by sending in just 1,000 troops, he argued.

“This refusal raises a question: why have an army that we don’t dare use?” he said.

France is one of the main allies in the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, with its warplanes used to strike militant targets, its heavy-artillery backing Kurdish-led fighters and its special forces on the ground.

Legrier’s article has embarrassed French authorities just hours before the coalition is expected to announce the defeat of the hardline Islamist group.

“A punishment is being considered,” French army spokesman Patrick Steiger said in a text message.

The article was removed from the review’s website on Saturday.

Islamic State still controls a diminishing strip of territory along the eastern bank of the Euphrates River and allies have expressed concern that a U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria will again destabilize the area.

“We have in no way won the war because we lack a realistic and lasting policy and an adequate strategy,” Legrier said. “How many Hajins will it take to understand that we are on the wrong track?”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...st-is-in-syria-faces-punishment-idUSKCN1Q50LZ

Opinion ? @xenon54 @T-123456 @Hamartia Antidote @Nilgiri @Cell_DbZ @HannibalBarca @Indus Pakistan @Dante80 @nahtanbob

Hey if wants to send in a few thousand French troops we aren’t going to stop him.

 

[KediKesenFare3]

Hey if wants to send in a few thousand French troops we aren’t going to stop him.

He was talking about SDF soldiers who are Arab in majority.

 

[jetray]

MUNICH (Reuters) - A senior French officer involved in the fight against Islamic State in Syria faces punishment after launching a scathing attack on the U.S.-led coalition’s methods to defeat the group in its remaining stronghold of Hajin, the army said on Saturday.

Colonel Francois-Regis Legrier, who has been in charge of directing French artillery supporting Kurdish-led groups in Syria since October, said the coalition’s focus had been on limiting its own risks and this had greatly increased the death toll among civilians and the levels of destruction.

“Yes, the Battle of Hajin was won, at least on the ground but by refusing ground engagement, we unnecessarily prolonged the conflict and thus contributed to increasing the number of casualties in the population,” Legrier wrote in an article in the National Defence Review.

“We have massively destroyed the infrastructure and given the population a disgusting image of what may be a Western-style liberation leaving behind the seeds of an imminent resurgence of a new adversary,” he said, in rare public criticism by a serving officer.

The coalition could have got rid of just 2,000 militant fighters - who lacked air support or modern technological equipment - much more quickly and effectively by sending in just 1,000 troops, he argued.

“This refusal raises a question: why have an army that we don’t dare use?” he said.

France is one of the main allies in the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, with its warplanes used to strike militant targets, its heavy-artillery backing Kurdish-led fighters and its special forces on the ground.

Legrier’s article has embarrassed French authorities just hours before the coalition is expected to announce the defeat of the hardline Islamist group.

“A punishment is being considered,” French army spokesman Patrick Steiger said in a text message.

The article was removed from the review’s website on Saturday.

Islamic State still controls a diminishing strip of territory along the eastern bank of the Euphrates River and allies have expressed concern that a U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria will again destabilize the area.

“We have in no way won the war because we lack a realistic and lasting policy and an adequate strategy,” Legrier said. “How many Hajins will it take to understand that we are on the wrong track?”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...st-is-in-syria-faces-punishment-idUSKCN1Q50LZ

Opinion ? @xenon54 @T-123456 @Hamartia Antidote @Nilgiri @Cell_DbZ @HannibalBarca @Indus Pakistan @Dante80 @nahtanbob

Officer is a Military professional and he thinks about that in a military style, nothing wrong. He is technically correct but decision to put troops on ground is a political one.

Technically: Put more troops on ground and win the war. More boots are required to hold & advance as they are fighting a guerilla warfare.

Politically: Why should french soldiers die in a war thats not theirs? They decided not to take risk and go for air support & few soldiers on ground.
Putting more troops on ground is going to be financially expensive and also a logistic nightmare in a hostile area. End result is that they went for the easy option of air support which resulted in more collateral damage.

Again ME is known for tribalism tradition & culture and these ppl might end up turning against foreign forces calling them as outsiders.

As such putting troops on the ground is more of a political decision than a military one. Dont see any thing wrong on what is being done.

 

[Vergennes]

He was talking about SDF soldiers who are Arab in majority.

Actually he wasn't. Legrier (Current commander of the 68th Africa artillery regiment) was very critical of the SDF forces. There were many remarks in French that weren't published in this article. He argued that the enemy wasn't as much "destroyed" as we've been led to believe in battle damage assessments made by the coalition.

He also criticized the use of SDF forces,"proxies" to lead the battle of the ground. "The West has certainly gained a political advantage in the short term: that of avoiding losses and critics of their public opinions of their policies. On the other hand, in the medium-long term, this choice proved disastrous, " he says.

"The most immediate consequence of such an approach is the loss of control of time: the operation goes forward according to the will of the proxies and according to their own agenda and it lags in length whatever the size of the means granted. . This is called a stalemate". @CAN_TR @xenon54

And President Trump's decision about the withdrawal of his troops from Syria has has led to an intensification of air strikes and therefore more destruction. "Hajine suffered the same fate as Mosul and Raqqa: an almost complete destruction".

"This tactical victory, by the way it was won, compromised the future of this province without opening up any interesting strategic perspectives for the Coalition. The future of the North-East Syrian is more than ever uncertain and Daesh, if it lost its territory, does not seem to give up its will to continue the fight ".

Not so complicated,we lost about 20 soldiers (but saved many civilians lives and infrastructure) doing it the right way.
We could have carpet bombed the sh!t out of el-Bab,Afrin,Azaz etc,but we didnt.
I agree with Colonel Francois-Regis Legrier.

“We have in no way won the war because we lack a realistic and lasting policy and an adequate strategy,” Legrier said. “How many Hajins will it take to understand that we are on the wrong track?”

Best way to put it,only death and destruction.
Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya.
@Vergennes

There was no political will from the west to directly engage Daesh on a foreign soil,the public opinion would be also against it anyway,especially in case of casualties suffered. Sad to say this,but people would prefer entire cities carpet bombed and civilians killed than to see one of their soldier coming back home in a coffin. The best compromise was to use proxies,but this choice proved tricky in the short term,not even talking on the long term.

The risk is also turning the local populations against the forces that were supposed to liberate them. By such policies you are only creating even more Daesh sympathizers. Your entire city has been destroyed,your family was killed,hard to believe they'll welcome you with open arms.

I respect Turkey's choice to directly engage in its troops (not an easy decision though) despite the casualties suffered against the YPG and Daesh. At the same time it saved countless lives and the infrastructures of the region giving a much brighter picture of what a "liberation" is and winning local support. Of course it could have chosen to not put its troops at risk and carpet bomb every villages and cities it had on its way,but it chose a different approach.

 

[xenon54 out]

Actually he wasn't. Legrier (Current commander of the 68th Africa artillery regiment) was very critical of the SDF forces. There were many remarks in French that weren't published in this article. He argued that the enemy wasn't as much "destroyed" as we've been led to believe in battle damage assessments made by the coalition.

He also criticized the use of SDF forces,"proxies" to lead the battle of the ground. "The West has certainly gained a political advantage in the short term: that of avoiding losses and critics of their public opinions of their policies. On the other hand, in the medium-long term, this choice proved disastrous, " he says.

"The most immediate consequence of such an approach is the loss of control of time: the operation goes forward according to the will of the proxies and according to their own agenda and it lags in length whatever the size of the means granted. . This is called a stalemate". @CAN_TR @xenon54

And President Trump's decision about the withdrawal of his troops from Syria has has led to an intensification of air strikes and therefore more destruction. "Hajine suffered the same fate as Mosul and Raqqa: an almost complete destruction".

"This tactical victory, by the way it was won, compromised the future of this province without opening up any interesting strategic perspectives for the Coalition. The future of the North-East Syrian is more than ever uncertain and Daesh, if it lost its territory, does not seem to give up its will to continue the fight ".



There was no political will from the west to directly engage Daesh on a foreign soil,the public opinion would be also against it anyway,especially in case of casualties suffered. Sad to say this,but people would prefer entire cities carpet bombed and civilians killed than to see one of their soldier coming back home in a coffin. The best compromise was to use proxies,but this choice proved tricky in the short term,not even talking on the long term.

The risk is also turning the local populations against the forces that were supposed to liberate them. By such policies you are only creating even more Daesh sympathizers. Your entire city has been destroyed,your family was killed,hard to believe they'll welcome you with open arms.

I respect Turkey's choice to directly engage in its troops (not an easy decision though) despite the casualties suffered against the YPG and Daesh. At the same time it saved countless lives and the infrastructures of the region giving a much brighter picture of what a "liberation" is and winning local support. Of course it could have chosen to not put its troops at risk and carpet bomb every villages and cities it had on its way,but it chose a different approach.

I completely agree with him, no matter from which perspective i look at the western involvement in Syria i see nothing righteous in it since i dont believe its about combatting isis at all.

Even if it was the case it brought more destruction than anything contructive.
Its like Operation Iraqi freedom all over again.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

I find this a difficult situation.

What with the man said, I cannot help but agree somewhat, certainly with the point he made about the victimized citizens. The way the coalition does things can certainly be critizised.

However I am not sure that a colonel that is still active on the front should be the one to do that.
Speak about bad timing. I would understand that he would give commentary after the war or after retirement, bur he effectively undermined the very soon decleration of victory, which he just shouldn't have.

 

[GiannKall]

US bombs have completely destroyed huge cities in Iraq and Syria just like they did during ww2 against Germans. But at least Germans rebuilded their cities. Mosul, Fallujah, Raqqah will remain ruins with tens of thousands of civilians buried there