|Submited on :||Mon, 25th of Jun 2018 - 17:37:05 PM|
|Post ID :||8tp6px|
|Post Name :||t3_8tp6px|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2x5s1|
Gunmen storm KRG governorate building in Erbil
No plans yet to open Syria border crossing — official
Drivers for Moderation in Iraqi Politics
Raqqa’s future lost with no plans for rebuilding
Iraqi refugees in Egypt denounce lack of protection, services
Take a look at their maps and you only see three colors: red for the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies, green for opposition forces, black for ISIS.
So then, where is the Nusra Front, long considered by Western pundits to be one of the most potent fighting forces against the SAA? Have they simply—and conveniently—been erased from the Syrian battle map?
It’s also not difficult to grasp why U.S. maps patently ignore evidence of Nusra embedded among U.S.-supported militias.
That’s why the Nusra Front doesn’t show up on U.S. maps.
If Nusra is so embedded with other rebel groups, as the article is saying, then there is no reason to mark them separately. It isn't feasible to determine who control mixed areas. It's this simple.
Regardless, one of the most viewed and used maps of the war is the Wikipedia map, which has marked Nusra-held areas since December 2014. Sure, its earlier versions were far from accurate, but it has improved a lot since then.
I think this is more about which maps are displayed in news conferences and generally shown in briefings to the US public and press.
As I said, this article is all about Nusra being so mixed with other rebel groups that their territories are virtually indistinguishable. This is one reason not to mark Nusra-held areas in maps.
The problem with that, and what the article is going for, is that policy makers will see the green as "our guys" while the reality is "our guys, and al Qaeda are so intermingled we literally cant tell them apart on the maps".
The latter might lead to much different policy decisions.
... the argument for this is the colors on a map?
Should have phrased it as "US-backed rebels". It's not as if they were Confederate soldiers.