This is my First Aritcle
This article is testing to Ankeshx.com
testing
Testing article
Hahana
Nsnsnanana
Shadows in the Desert: A Decade of US Airpower in Syria
The sky over Syria is perhaps the most crowded and complex airspace in the history of modern warfare. For over a decade, the roar of jet engines and the low hum of unmanned drones have been a constant backdrop to the Syrian Civil War. While the conflict is a multifaceted tragedy involving the Syrian regime, Russian forces, Turkish incursions, and various rebel factions, the United States’ involvement has been defined primarily by one instrument of power: Airstrikes. To understand the US air war in Syria, one must look back to the summer of 2014. The Islamic State (ISIS) had swept across the border from Iraq, erasing national boundaries and declaring a Caliphate. The Syrian government, led by Bashar al-Assad, was too engaged in fighting rebels in the west to stop the jihadist tide in the east. In September 2014, the United States, leading a global coalition, launched Operation Inherent Resolve. The initial objective was clear: to degrade and destroy ISIS. However, the strategy was notably different from the invasion of Iraq a decade prior. There would be no massive deployment of American ground troops. Instead, the US would rely on "partners on the ground"—primarily the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—supported by overwhelming American airpower. Following Kobani, the US air campaign settled into a rhythm that would define the war for the next five years. The strategy relied on advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). Drones loitered over targets for hours, building "patterns of life" before strikes were authorized. This model allowed the US to project immense power with relatively low risk to American personnel. It turned the tide in major battles like the liberation of Raqqa (the de facto ISIS capital) and the final stand at Baghuz. However, this reliance on airpower created a unique battlespace dynamic. The US was operating in the same airspace as the Syrian Air Force and the Russian Air Force (which intervened in 2015 to save Assad). To prevent World War III, a "de-confliction" line was established—a hotline between US and Russian commanders to ensure their jets did not accidentally engage one another. It was a tense, high-stakes dance where American F-22 Raptors often flew within visual range of Russian Su-35s While the primary mission was counter-terrorism, US airstrikes in Syria occasionally shifted focus, revealing the broader geopolitical tensions of the region. The US air campaign expanded its scope under both the Trump and Biden administrations to enforce "red lines" regarding chemical weapons and to deter Iranian influence. These strikes highlight a shift in mission creep. What began as a war against a terrorist caliphate has evolved into a low-level, simmering conflict between the US and Iranian proxies, fought almost exclusively through airframes and drones. The Pentagon frequently described the war against ISIS as the "most precise air campaign in history." They pointed to the use of GPS-guided JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and strict rules of engagement designed to minimize collateral damage. However, independent monitoring groups like Airwars and investigations by major media outlets painted a starkly different picture. The battle for Raqqa, for instance, resulted in the destruction of nearly 80% of the city. While the US military officially acknowledged a relatively low number of civilian casualties, independent estimates suggested that thousands of civilians died in the rubble. The discrepancy often lay in the definition of a "combatant" and the reliance on video feeds from the air, which cannot always distinguish a fighter from a civilian hiding in a building. The tragedy of the air war was highlighted in later investigations into the 2019 Baghuz strike, where a US special operations cell called in airstrikes on a crowd that included women and children. This incident sparked internal investigations and a renewed debate about transparency and accountability in modern warfare. When a superpower wages war from 30,000 feet, the disconnect between the pilot pressing the button and the reality on the ground remains a profound ethical chasm.
Trading: Before Making Money, You Learn About Yourself
From the outside, trading looks simple. A laptop, a mobile app, a few charts, and people making money every day. Social media shows profits, green screenshots, and confident faces. It creates the feeling that trading is an easy way to earn fast money. But once someone actually steps into the market, reality slowly shows its true face. Trading is not just a market game. It is a mental game. When a beginner starts trading, the first thought is almost always the same: “I just need one good trade.” The first profit feels magical. Confidence rises quickly, sometimes too quickly. The trader starts believing they understand the market. Then comes the first real loss. Suddenly, emotions take control. Anger, fear, frustration — all at once. This is the moment where trading truly begins. The market itself is neutral. It does not care who you are, how much effort you put in, or how badly you want to win. The market never promises profit. It only offers opportunity. How you handle that opportunity depends entirely on your behavior. Two traders can use the same strategy, the same indicators, and trade the same stock. One exits calmly with a small loss or steady profit. The other panics, removes the stop loss, overtrades, and turns a small loss into a big one. The difference is not intelligence — it is emotional control. In the beginning, most traders hate losses. They see losses as failure. They try to avoid them, fight them, or recover them quickly. This mindset destroys accounts. Over time, experienced traders understand a simple truth: losses are not enemies; they are part of the business. Just like expenses in any other profession, losses are the cost of staying in the game. Another hard lesson trading teaches is patience. Not every candle is an opportunity. Not every day needs a trade. Waiting feels boring, but unnecessary trades are dangerous. Many traders lose money not because of bad analysis, but because they cannot sit quietly. Overtrading is one of the fastest ways to lose capital. Slowly, perspective changes. The trader stops trying to predict the market and starts managing probabilities. Each trade becomes just one event in a long series. Winning feels good, losing feels normal. This emotional balance is where consistency is born. Many people keep changing strategies, indicators, and systems, hoping to find a “perfect setup.” But the truth is uncomfortable: most strategies work reasonably well. What fails is discipline. A simple strategy followed consistently is far more powerful than a complex strategy followed emotionally. Trading also teaches humility. The market reminds you again and again that you are not always right. Ego is punished quickly. The moment you believe you cannot be wrong is usually the moment before a big loss. With time, trading starts influencing life outside the market. You become more patient, more disciplined, and more aware of your decisions. You learn when to act and when to wait. You learn that protecting capital is more important than chasing profit. These lessons apply far beyond charts and numbers. Trading is not for everyone, and accepting that is also wisdom. It requires emotional strength, continuous learning, and self-control. There are no shortcuts and no guarantees. But for those who stay honest with themselves, trading offers something more valuable than money — clarity of thought and control over emotions.
Shadows in the Desert: A Decade of US Airpower in Syria
Thus js jsn
Shadows in the Desert: A Decade of US Airpower in Syria
+jjjjjjjj