Talk:Syrian Army

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Syrian Army, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Military history: Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Syria High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image copyright problem with File:152 H 55.jpg

The image File:152 H 55.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Syrian" tanks

These aren't Syrian tanks; the only Syrian thing here are the crews (even the uniforms are not Syrians). The tanks are from the Kuwaiti Army, loaned to the Syrian Army for the parade. --84.221.176.51 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for this claim? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff flickr page says they are Syrian tanks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, the Syrian Army is not equipped with M-84 MBTs, second the picture on the right; the tank is virtually identical to the one on the left, only the crews are Syrian. --84.221.176.51 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bring source that the tanks are loaned from Kuwait. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained you the reasons. The Syrian Army is not equipped with the M-84 (source: The Military Balance 2010), the most modern MBT in service in Syria is the T-72M (about a hundred of them are modernized with Italian TURMS-T fire control systems. Source: Jane's Defence Weekly).

The second picture is a Kuwaiti M-84AB of the 35th Shahid Armoured Brigade during the 1991 Gulf War. The first picture is almost the same tank, although it is used by Syrian crews with Kuwaiti Army digital camouflages patterns (KAPAT). The Mass Communication Specialist is wrong, he couldn't know that those tanks weren't Syrians. --84.221.176.51 (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this link can help: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-132055.html Quote: "The M-84 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/serbia/m-84.htm)tank is a Yugoslav-built version of the Soviet T-72. Though lacking many of the modern features used by Western tanks, such as sophisticated fire control and communications equipment, it has computerized fire control system and vehicle optics. The tank features two banks of smoke dischargers mounted on the turret front, seven on the left and five on the right, and a distinctive meteorology mast containing sensors fitted on the forward part of the turret. A powerful 1000 hp diesel engine gives greater acceleration, higher road speed and improved power-to-weight ratio. Ballistic protection is achieved by a low profile of optimum shaping and a multi-layer "sandwich" armour with equivalent penetration resistance exceeding 600 mm. M-84 tank is capable of fording water obstacles 1.8m deep and, in underwater drive, up to 5 m deep. This vehicle is not normally suited for operation on terrain of the type around Kosovo." I am no expert but I would say they are indeed m-84's, and as such not Syrian mtb's. --77.170.192.91 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an M-84. Note the meteorological sensor in the center of the turret roof. --84.221.176.51 (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extract from Debka.com

Anti-government rebels capture parts of NW Syria, kill 120 security officers

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 6, 2011, 10:02 PM (GMT+02:00) http://www.debka.com/article/21002/

debkafile's military sources disclose that Syrian President Bashar Assad has dispatched Brigade 555, the strategic reserve guarding the regime in Damascus, and the army's 85th brigade, in a desperate bid to snuff out the armed revolt in the Homs-Hama-Restan-Jisr al-Shughour region. Our sources say rebel control of this area is complete. They have torched all the buildings housing government and ruling institutions and no government forces are to be seen there. Monday night, the rebels seized the army's explosive stores near the big dams on the Orontes River. They used a part of the five tons of explosives they gained control of to blow up the river bridges linking central and southern Syria to the northwest so as to block the passage of tanks and commando reinforcements.

Our intelligence sources disclose that potential mutiny in the Syrian armed forces was first signaled Sunday, June 5, when Brigadier Manaf Tlas, commander of the 105th Brigade of the elite Republican Guard and deputy of the president's brother Gen. Maher Assad, announced that he and his staff officers were going on strike until Bashar Assad met their demands. Those demands relate to the honor of the prominent Tlas clan of the city of Restan. But more importantly, that one of Assad's key commanders was willing to lay down arms in the middle of the government's life-or-death struggle against a rapidly advancing revolt attested to the black mood sweeping the military elite in the regime's direst time of need.

SYRIAN ARMY OOB, YOM KIPPUR WAR, OCTOBER 1973

(Forum) Following the 1967 war the Syrians began a large re-equipment program with modern Soviet equipment. This was increased, and supplemented by additional Soviet training, following the poor performance of Syrian forces during the 1970 fighting between Syria and Jordan. Just prior to the 1973 war Syria adopted a divisional command structure. Up to this point the highest level of command was the Brigade.

5th Infantry Division: Brig. General Ali Aslan 112th Infantry Brigade 61st Infantry Brigade 132nd Mechanised Brigade 47th Independent Tank Brigade 50th Artillery Brigade 7th Infantry Division: Brig. General Omar Abrash 68th Infantry Brigade 85th Infantry Brigade 121st Mechanised Brigade 78th Independent Tank Brigade 70th Artillery Brigade Moroccan Brigade (30 T-55) (attached)

9th Infantry Division: Col. Hassan Tourkmani 52nd Infantry Brigade 33rd Infantry Brigade 43rd Mechanised Brigade 51st Tank Brigade (T-55) 89th Artillery Brigade 1st Armoured Division: Col. Tewfig Jehani 91st Tank Brigade (T-62) 4th Tank Brigade (T-55) 2nd Mechanised Brigade (40 T-55) 64th Artillery Brigade (54 guns including 18 T34/122mm SP Guns) 3rd Armoured Division: Brig. General Mustapha Sharba 20th Tank Brigade (T-55) 65th Tank Brigade (T-55) 15th Mechanised Brigade 13th Artillery Brigade 81st Tank Brigade (T-62) (attached) Independent Brigades: Assad Republican Guard (T-62 & BMP) Army Level Assets: Artillery Brigade (36 180mm guns) 69th Rocket Artillery Brigade (FROG-7) General Headquarters Forces: Maj General Yousef Chakour 70th Tank Brigade 141st Tank Brigade 81st Tank Brigade (T-62) (attached to 3rd Armoured Division) 62nd Mechanised Brigade 30th Infantry Brigade 90th Infantry Brigade 1st Commando Group 82nd Parachute Regiment Additional Artillery Brigades Syria lost some 1150 tanks in the fighting. In addition, Iraq and Jordan, who both committed forces to the fighting after the initial attacks, lost a further 100 and 50 tanks respectively.

Source note

(Forum) "At the request of the late President Hafiz Al-Asad in 1986, the first of three volumes on the history of the Syrian Army was published in 2000 titled History of the Syrian Arab Army/Al-Tareekh Al-Jaish Al-Arabi Al-Soori and edited by General Mustafa Tlas. Volume 1, 1901-1948 was produced by the Center for Military Studies in Damasctis, Syria. The first volume is 568 pages and covers the Arab Revolt, short-lived monarchy under King Feisal bin Hussein, the French Mandate, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and finally Syrian independence in 1949. Volume 2 will detail the army's history from 1949 to 1970, and include chapters on the 1958 union with Egypt and the 1970 coup that brought Hafez al-Asad to power. The contents of the second volume are expected to be politically charged as Baathist, Nasserist, and Socialist officers vied for control of Syria in 1960s. The third volume covers the period from 1973 to 2000, and will include the Syrian army's role in the 1973 Yom-Kippur War and its intervention in Lebanon. No mention is made of Syria's role in Operation Desert Storm. Thus far only the first volume had been available in the United States, and it is not clear whether the two other volumes have been published". Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing POV in lead

The Reuters article says: ""The commission has concluded, based on its findings, that members of the Syrian army and security forces have committed crimes again humanity in their repression of a largely civilian population in the context of a peaceful protest movement," Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the three-member panel, told a news conference."

This article is about Syrian Army. There are number of armies in the world, where members have committed crimes, such as US army or Russian army. This does not mean that we should put such members deeds into the lead of articles about aforementioned armies. --Magabund (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You are entirely free to add such information to the articles about the U.S. and Russian armies (indeed, take a look at Russian_Ground_Forces#Crime_and_corruption_in_the_ground_forces), and I would invite you to examine the lead for the SS article. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the information but where and how it is presented. It is obviously meant to discredit the Syrian army and that's not what wikipedia should be about. The facts should speak for themselves.

Anti-Syrian bias

The sentence "Historically the Syrian Army has acted consistently in defence of the regime. In doing so, it has placed regime security above citizens' human rights on numerous occasions" is a bit BS, seeing as the definition of a military is to put the regime's interests above that of human rights. it sounds a bit unnecessary for this article, and makes it look like State Department propaganda, so I'm removing it. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign support

Theyre clearly working in tandem with Iraq's forces. This needs mention in the infobox.Lihaas (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Army not armed forces

Why say "In 2009 and 2010, the Syrian army – which seems an ambiguous and confusing term – consisted in total of 325,000 regular troops, of which 220,000 were army troops and the rest were in navy, air force and air defenses". The figure of 325,000 is the entire armed forces. I suggest changing the sentence to read: "In 2009 and 2010, the Syrian armed forces (army, navy, air force and air defences) consisted of 325,000 regular personnel, of which 220,000 were in the army." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean the wording up in accordance with that thought. Only the IISS source needs to be included; the other reportings of IISS 2010 two or three years later via various newspapers are not necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Syrian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Like other sections of Wikipedia that deal with countries or groups on the West's list of enemies, some of the stuff in this entry is hopelessly biased. A big part if the problem is that sources, such as the various Beltway "think tanks" that produce propaganda to support or influence US government policy, are considered reliable, whereas a Moscow based organization doing the same for the Russian government is not. Hell, even RT and Press TV are considered "biased" (which, of course, they are) but equally biased CNN and BBC are "reliable". This policy makes a mockery of Wikipedia's stated goal of neutrality but there you go. Anyway, I will try to even out some sections of this entry when I have a bit of time. User2346 (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

125,000 Active troops? NYT source?

Can't believe there are only 125,000 active troops. Also the NYT Source from 2015 with a theme of saying Assad's army is deteriorating is not a good source for this information.Reaper7 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested page move: Syrian Army -> Syrian Arab Army

Requesting a page move to Syrian Arab Army since this is the official name and the name most in common use. Streamline8988 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms and personnel equipment

The section of the article with this title includes details of air force and naval uniforms. Considering that the article is about the Syrian Arab Army in particular, those details could be removed, leaving only information about army uniforms. Another point is that exactly the same details of air force and naval uniforms are available at the Uniforms (1987) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Armed_Forces#Uniforms_(1987) section of the Syrian Armed Forces article. --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Syrian Army, officially the Syrian Arab Army" - why is Wikipedia using an "unofficial" name?

"Syrian Army" should be just a disambiguation link for all the rival Syrian Armies (Syrian Arab Army, Free Syrian Army, New Syrian Army, Syrian National Army, among others - here I listed only these from just either current time or recent years). 94.254.152.108 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian Arab Army is the official and legitimate army of Syria. Others are just rebel militias supported by foreign powers, therefore it should remainas it is. Martimix (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SAA is also supported by the foreign powers (and created by a rebellion, by the Baathists), but in any case the problem still is that the article name is just "Syrian Army" instead of the Syrian Arab Army. That is using some kind of an unofficial name instead of this group's official name as the article itself notes in the very first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.185.85 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose militants and rebel militias/groups can't be describe as a army of state. If we starts applying this then all countries armies articles will have "disambiguation link". 103.141.159.224 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you will agree to split now, when the Arab Army is finally no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

94.246.147.217: No, I just reverted your edits to disagree splitting. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The previously stated argument "The Syrian Arab Army is the official and legitimate army of Syria. Others are just rebel militias supported by foreign powers, therefore it should remain as it is." is obviously 100% moot now. The free Syria is to create a new army while the Assad regime's SAA supported by foreign powers has been completely disbanded and abolished. Same for the Syrian Arab Armed Forces, Syrian Arab Air Force, Syrian Arab Navy, and so on. These are now only historical organisations that no longer exist, and so they should treated just like the Soviet Army or Imperial Russian Army that ceased to exist along with their regimes. And especially since the likes of the Syrian National Army do still exist today, as does theirs Syrian government Syrian Salvation Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]