Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sofia Roseburn]

I seriously doubt that Obama wants boots on the ground if he can help it. We're more likely to see something similar to Libya in terms of military intervention, although it's not clear at this stage who will bring the majority of the weight. The inherent assumption is the US will bring the main weight, and I haven't seen anything to dissuade that as yet, but one hopes that Obama can find a situation that is favorable for America considering current deployment.

[Anslol]

Word in DC I've heard through the vine confirms what you say. However, naval units are already deployed there with cruise missiles, and you can bet a few drone wings are ready.

However, my big concerns are:
(1) Syria decides to lob chemical rockets at our boys and girls
(2) While pretty unlikely, Russia and China moving their own units to reinforce their votes against action should America, England, etc move in regardless of the security council's stance.

Again, the second concern is mostly unfounded. I don't think Russia and China would risk assets over Assad. BUT. If they do, and the attack commences, that's a very very big problem.

[Sofia Roseburn]

Russia's stance is more due to them being diametrically opposed to the majority of decisions the US makes. Sabre rattling has been par for the course since the end of the Cold War and definitely isn't going to change in the short term.

Countries like Syria are good for arms deals etc.

As for China, hmm, first I've heard of it. I really can't imagine them getting involved on their own though, and if it was the case that they did then war is...(and I'm immediately getting flashbacks to Malcolm Tucker here) foreseeable? Certainly a drastic shift to the political climate.

[Louella Dougans]

meanwhile, in Scotland, fatty Salmond is setting up to use the Syria situation as political capital in the independence argument.

Arguing that any action must wait until after the UN inspectors make a report, and that there has not been any evidence provided (to a provincial politician), that would justify action.

US and UK military intelligence would not be provided to someone like Salmond, as he has no relevance. Defence is a UK reserved matter, so the UK Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, and a handful of others would have the evidence to make a decision, not a provincial politician.

And, to wait until the UN inspectors make a report, sends a signal that "It's OK to use chemical weapons, if you can game the inspectors into finding nothing".

Salmond is hoping that the UK and the US does something that has a poor outcome, so he can paint himself as being the voice of reason, and that's why Scotland should be independent. So an independent Scotland can sit by and do nothing, while UN inspectors struggle to find evidence, as tyrants destroy it before the inspectors can find anything. Arguing that "the international community must find consensus" and such, is to pass responsibility to someone else. Lacking the courage needed to make the hard decisions.

He wants UK and US servicemen, and even more Syrian civilians to die, so that he can win a trivial referendum.

Has a track record of it, arguing against things such as Kosovo and Libya, wanting the UN to agree to something, rather than NATO, so as to pass responsibility to someone else.



Also, the radio had a former adviser to one of the US secretaries of state, saying that he wished US Presidents didn't talk about "red lines" that cannot be crossed, because it always puts the US into a situation where it appears either uncaring, or unwilling to take action. When chemical weapon use is a "red line", then if nothing is done, the US looks unwilling to take action, that their words are meaningless.

Maybe the least worst option would be, not to target solely Assad's forces, but to target all sides. Anyone uses chemical weapons, they get shot. No taking sides.

[orange]

I seriously doubt that Obama wants boots on the ground if he can help it. We're more likely to see something similar to Libya in terms of military intervention, although it's not clear at this stage who will bring the majority of the weight. The inherent assumption is the US will bring the main weight, and I haven't seen anything to dissuade that as yet, but one hopes that Obama can find a situation that is favorable for America considering current deployment.

So, Libya is an interesting reference because I think the majority of the world sees this as being similar and may not recognize the tough lessons learned from Libya that a Syrian Air Campaign would only amplify.

In the case of Libya, there was a large number of European strike aircraft/mission, but the bulk of the Command & Control, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, Intelligence-Reconnaissance-Surveillance (ISR), and eventually even the munitions the European aircraft carried was all supplied  by the United States (as in bought using DoD funds).  Then Sec Gates even called attention to this in his last visit to Europe.

As I have said, Syria is not Libya from an Air Campaign perspective.  Syria has been building/operating a modern Integrated Air Defense System for years because of its conflicts with Israel and from watching the US dismantle the Iraqi IADS in 1990.

Oddly enough, this exact kind of Area Denial system is something the F-35 (F-22, and B-2) should be able to operate against in order to strike critical targets.  The problem is that 1) we don't have enough F-35s yet, 2) the F-22 buy was cut from the original order of 350 to around 150, and 3) only  around 20 B-2s were built and I think we have 19 still in service.

So, to effectively execute the Air Campaign, it means using increasingly aging aircraft (some from the 1970s) to dismantle an IADS that was designed to deal with them.

The pain of fighting two wars and then winning the peace for 10+ years is that the modernization efforts were largely ignored (and still are being ignored).  Add to this Congressmen making sure pork-defense projects that the military wants to get rid of are kept funded and made law and the DoD can't even fix itself (despite its best efforts).  On top of it all, we shutdown flying squadrons for 3-6 months due to Sequestration and are just now getting pilots up to flying status.

In other words, an Air Campaign can't be setup overnight by the US even if we wanted to.

I didn't vote in the poll.  I really want to do something and if I could force increased diplomacy 18 months ago I would.  Assad and the FSA could have brokered a peace, but we, the west, refused to step up and take action when it was needed.

[Sofia Roseburn]

[spoiler]

So, Libya is an interesting reference because I think the majority of the world sees this as being similar and may not recognize the tough lessons learned from Libya that a Syrian Air Campaign would only amplify.

In the case of Libya, there was a large number of European strike aircraft/mission, but the bulk of the Command & Control, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, Intelligence-Reconnaissance-Surveillance (ISR), and eventually even the munitions the European aircraft carried was all supplied  by the United States (as in bought using DoD funds).  Then Sec Gates even called attention to this in his last visit to Europe.

As I have said, Syria is not Libya from an Air Campaign perspective.  Syria has been building/operating a modern Integrated Air Defense System for years because of its conflicts with Israel and from watching the US dismantle the Iraqi IADS in 1990.

Oddly enough, this exact kind of Area Denial system is something the F-35 (F-22, and B-2) should be able to operate against in order to strike critical targets.  The problem is that 1) we don't have enough F-35s yet, 2) the F-22 buy was cut from the original order of 350 to around 150, and 3) only  around 20 B-2s were built and I think we have 19 still in service.

So, to effectively execute the Air Campaign, it means using increasingly aging aircraft (some from the 1970s) to dismantle an IADS that was designed to deal with them.

The pain of fighting two wars and then winning the peace for 10+ years is that the modernization efforts were largely ignored (and still are being ignored).  Add to this Congressmen making sure pork-defense projects that the military wants to get rid of are kept funded and made law and the DoD can't even fix itself (despite its best efforts).  On top of it all, we shutdown flying squadrons for 3-6 months due to Sequestration and are just now getting pilots up to flying status.

In other words, an Air Campaign can't be setup overnight by the US even if we wanted to.

[/spoiler]

Definitely a valid point. I merely used Libya because it's the closest thing operationally to what could potentially happen with Syria.

The air defense is something that isn't particularly clear at the moment, at least to the general public. If Syria was a united country I think that you'd be absolutely right, slinging planes at it would be ill advised, especially considering the possible outcome. As it stands though there is confusion about how much of that network is currently operational, what with parts of the FSA holding the areas around some sites. All things considered, there might be potential avenues of attack available.

What concerns me more at this stage is Israel's call up of reservists. Considering Hezbollah's assistance to Assad's regime, and their...looser(?) morals in regards to international law, there's a chance that Israel could get involved. Considering their military partners, that may potentially drag the US in deeper than they would like to.

[Logan Fyreite]

IADS in Syria is still extremely dated and does not match up well to US Naval Aircraft. Keep in mind that even the "dated" aircraft we fly are still 15 or so years old at the oldest, in the Navy. Most of the front lines targets will be hit with long range cruise missiles who fly too low for all but the most modern IADS, or Super Hornets, who aren't all that stealthy but will be more than able to remove threats. F-35 and F-22's might be the new and shiny, but F-117 are still in service, plus B-2's and others.

A flight of E/A-6B's would be able to remove much of the IADS with their electronics alone. HARM missiles/target prioritization on minimizing US casualties will make short work of any Anti-Air system. Losses will be had, but hardly to a high level because of the IADS systems in that country.

[Esna Pitoojee]

In equipment terms, the only systems which Syria has that raise my concerns are the S-300 (SA-10 Grumble) and Pantsir S1 (SA-22 Greyhound) systems; they're more or less designed to operate in concert with each other (the former is a long-range semi-mobile system while the latter is a highly-mobile short-range system explicitly designed to track low-observability aircraft and munitions). In more realistic terms, which will make or break it in my opinion is the quality and morale of operators on the Syrian side of things; supposedly Russia was supposed to train a bunch of Syrians air-defense teams, but they never really got around to it.


Another thing to consider is that if we want a truly "clean" campaign, simply bombing chemical weapons stashes and then walking away may not be a viable option.

Long, science explanation below; feel free to skip for tl;dr.

[spoiler]
Sarin, the said to be the regime's primary agent, can be a "binary" chemical agent in which two relatively safe precursor agents are mixed into the lethal agent by the spinning motion of a shot from a rifled artillery weapon or by angled blades on a rocket. However, it is also heavily used in a non-binary form, in which the final lethal agent is stored ready-for-use in the munition.

Of the pictures I have seen claimed to be Syrian chemical-carrying rockets, all seem to have fins projecting directly away from the sides - meaning, they couldn't be shot from an artillery tube or spun using those fins in flight. Now, while I am no military expert and fully admit I could me misjudging what I am looking at (or am only seeing part of the delivery system). Nonetheless, there is a fair chance that these shells contain the final agent, meaning that simply bombing them (and only destroying the casing) could simply spread that agent. Best-case scenario, the intense heat and pressure of the bombing ruins the compound. Average-case, the compounds are only thrown a short distance and you get a toxic 'pool' that can more easily be contained and remediated. Worst-case scenario, the explosions loft the compound high up where it can be dispersed by the wind.
[/spoiler]

tl;dr - There is reason to think that bombing a stockpile of Syria's chemical weapons could produce a lethal spreading cloud. Alternatives would be to try to secure and remove the stashes using actual troops, to try to secure and destroy the stashes using specialized munitions carried by troops, or to use high-temperature weapons such as incendiaries or fuel-air explosives.

[orange]

IADS in Syria is still extremely dated and does not match up well to US Naval Aircraft. Keep in mind that even the "dated" aircraft we fly are still 15 or so years old at the oldest, in the Navy. Most of the front lines targets will be hit with long range cruise missiles who fly too low for all but the most modern IADS, or Super Hornets, who aren't all that stealthy but will be more than able to remove threats. F-35 and F-22's might be the new and shiny, but F-117 are still in service, plus B-2's and others.

A flight of E/A-6B's would be able to remove much of the IADS with their electronics alone. HARM missiles/target prioritization on minimizing US casualties will make short work of any Anti-Air system. Losses will be had, but hardly to a high level because of the IADS systems in that country.

The Syrians have been buying more Russia built IADS equipment.  And shot down a Turkish RF-4 last June.  They aren't fielding just SA-2s, they are fielding SA-22s.

The E/A-6B airframe was last built in 1991 (22 years ago), granted the EW package has been continuously upgraded.   Even with F/A-18E Growlers there is capability, doesn't mean it will be easy.  The IADS targeting is complicated by the packages on Prowler and Growler, but that doesn't mean we will easily achieve Air Superiority.  The point is that Syria is not Libya and they have a more modern IADS.

This also doesn't include any discussion of required stand-off distance for the carrier, tankers, etc in order to make the necessary strikes and the required local air dominance to have tankers, AWACs, etc on station to enable those strike missions.  It takes more than strike fighters to conduct an offensive Air Campaign.

In Desert Storm, the USAF learned the hard-way about attacking heavily defended targets.  The USN and USAF have made upgrades, but we also haven't gone up against a country with an IADS since Kosovo.  (Iraqi Freedom had over a decade of air campaign prep work in the form of Northern and Southern Watch.)

F-117s was retired in 2008 and Hollaman AFB got F-22's to "replace" them.

If the only objective is a "statement" and not actually achieving Air Superiority, then cruise missiles are fine.  It will however be unlikely to help the FSA long term, if that is the goal.

[Seriphyn]

Interesting breakdown with pictures on imgur

Maybe the least worst option would be, not to target solely Assad's forces, but to target all sides. Anyone uses chemical weapons, they get shot. No taking sides.

Seems fair to me. I find it interesting though, that the West is not referencing 'supporting the rebels' with regards to potential air strikes. I think they're aware the public has caught onto the fact that the rebels are not exactly white knights.

[orange]

Apparently Russia has sent 12 ships to its base in Syria and also intends to fulfill its sale of S-300 air defense systems.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-sends-at-least-12-warships-to-syria/

[Gottii]

The Onion, as always, sums it up very well.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

[orange]

The Onion, as always, sums it up very well.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

For being a satirical journalistic venture, they hit the nose on the head.

Although, I think we, the United States, may have an out.

you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.

The option to give up the moral high ground and the beacon of freedom and democracy mantle we hold to so dearly.

Given everything we have said in this thread and our on-going weekly revelations of more "police-state" like secret policies it may just be time to yield it and turn the beacon off for a while until we get our own shit in order.

Being the beacon just gets us more enemies and we have demonstrated some decent hypocrisy in the past 10 years.

Germany and the Nordic countries, tag, your it.  Your turn to be the beacon of freedom, democracy, etc.  You seem to have your shit together.

[Vikarion]

I strongly disagree with the idea that we have some moral obligation to either support the UN, or that we have an obligation to maintain peace around the world. Strictly speaking, I don't see that there is any reason to suspect that we do. I don't recall - and I speak somewhat tongue-in-cheek  - when the United States or some other country was handed the Commandments of International Moral Obligation, but I suspect that I wouldn't find them convincing anyway.

But, that said, I don't recall the United States signing anything that requires us to protect anyone not in NATO, and only then if we are attacked. Personally, I think we should also withdraw from NATO. If, for some insane reason, Putin decided that he wanted to own Europe all the way to the Atlantic (a proposition I highly doubt), the Europeans can pay to stop it themselves. And if we get into a scuffle with North Korea, why drag Europe into a war they neither need nor want? But this is a rabbit trail. Suffice it to say that we are not obligated by any treaties I know of to start killing Syrians. And, even if we were, countries withdraw from agreements all the time.

Most of the arguments for intervention in Syria seem to be moral in nature, to wit, that we are obligated to attack and kill people to prevent them from doing harm to others. Why we are so obligated has not been, I think, adequately explained. The argument that we are our brother's keeper, logically extended, results in the premise that one should annihilate one's own welfare to aid another. Countries which adopted such a policy, economically or militarily, could not long exist.

Nor, does it appear, that such intervention is practical. Given Orange's statements, and the fact that Russia appears to be using Syria as a means for possibly testing out their military hardware on ours, we would be foolhardy to think that we could fix everything with a few days of bombing. Moreover, even if we did, it isn't Assad who is the greatest long term threat to us. By aiding the rebels, we would almost certainly be sharpening a knife for the throats of our own civilians, on down the line.

Lastly, interventions have not historically been a good bet. Gulf War 1 ended with Saddam preparing to embark on a gassing of the Kurds. Our defense of the Kuwaitis and the Saudis had pretty much zero effect on our standing in the Middle East, unless you count the fact that our presence on the Arabian Peninsula helped inflame radicals. Our aid to the Afghans during the Soviet invasion pretty much resulted in the radicals there merely marking us down as the second target to hit. We aided in the Libyan revolution, only to have our embassy attacked and the brother party of the Muslim Brotherhood become the second most powerful political body in the country. Nor did our actions in Bosnia and Kosovo result in much for us besides pissing off the Kurds and Russians in a major way. Our best-outcome situation in Afghanistan will be an oppressive Islamic theocratic demi-democracy, and while the Iraqis couldn't wait to be rid of Saddam, they also spared almost no time before attacking us, and, to a much greater degree, each other.

There is something strange about the idea that one can get people to think our way if we just shoot a few of them. We certainly haven't changed the minds of North Koreans, we certainly didn't bring democracy to Vietnam, and the Somalia intervention only succeeded in wasting a vast amount of money and some American lives. Of the few times when intervention has succeeded, such as in World War 2, we have found it necessary to kill millions before we were finally able to change cultures and minds. And a good portion of Japan is still trying to argue that it was our fault.

The United States has no obligation to help others in the world. It lacks the ability to easily address the problem in any case, and, even if it did, the results would probably be bad for the United States, and quite possibly the people in Syria. The United States should effect no action towards Syria.

[Seriphyn]

^^^^^^^^^^

You want more security checks at the airport, then by all means attack Syria.

Incidentally, there is a growing chance that the UK parliament will not vote in favour of intervention. Not possible to ignore the electorate in a democracy I suppose.