Attempts to start "limited" wars frequently don't work out well. The Austro-Hungarian Empire planned a war limited to spanking Serbia for the assination of Archduke Ferdinand. Four years and sixteen million dead later the Empire didn't exist anymore. Japan planned on a fast war with the United States. Both sides figured they could end the Civil War with one good battle.
Syria limited strike and consquences
by d 28 Replies latest social current
-
-
Resistance is Futile
Expect something similar to how the US and Allies helped overthrough Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
I think the one big difference is that there was broad support from other nations for action in Libya. Syrian intervention is looking a lot like US unilateralism. In Libya there was a UN resolution as well as NATO support.
We also have Iran threatening to strike US and Israeli targets if the US hits Syria.
"The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region
Israel has so far been the focus of concerns about retaliation from Iran and its Lebanese militant ally Hezbollah. The commander-in-chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps said last week that an attack on Syria would lead to the "destruction of Israel."
The State Department issued a new alert on Thursday warning against nonessential travel to Iraq and citing terrorist activity "at levels unseen since 2008." Earlier this year, an alert said that violence against Americans had decreased. That reassurance was dropped from the most recent alert.
The Iranian message, intercepted in recent days, came from Qasem Soleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force, and went to Iranian-supported Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to U.S. officials".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579057271019210230.html
-
DJS
Response to comments.: 1. We are already sending arms to the insurgent groups and providing some training. 2. Russia has a naval base in Syria and is always sending ships there. This is normal; Vlad may have sent an additional ship or simply advertised what is a common occurrence for posturing. The ship could be carrying soap and toilet paper for all we know. Russian may bluster but has no intention of getting involved beyond. 3. Read my earlier responses to an attack solely via cruise missiles. By now their command and control - and most of their really neat war toys- are dispersed and bunkered and such an attack, if it lasted weeks, would be a deterrent. 4. We already have carrier groups in the Mediterranean. Moving carriers closer to the front and/or advertising this could either be 1. a message/deterrent to Syrian and a counter to Russia's "announcement" of war ships in the area (again, normal) or 2. signal the potential use of stealth fighters launched from the carriers which would be used after the air defense capabilities had been eliminated by cruise missiles if possible The fighters would likely provide support/cover for the larger stealth bombers which would likely come from Kuwait or another Mid East base, and these would only be used if bunker busters were to be dropped on deeply embedded Command and Control, weapons caches, etc. The fighters could also be used to finish the AD capabilities and attack visible military and C&C targets. Can't imagine the bombers would be used for any other purpose. The fighter plans would be enormously useful with the right intelligence and available targets, absent the AD and any air to air threat. 5, Kerry hasn't removed ground troops from the table because that is a war strategy. You never say what you will or won't do even if ground troops would never ever be used. 6. The U.S. will try to minimize collateral damage as much as possible, but as I noted earlier the C&C and military posts are likely now day care centers. (this was confirmed a couple of days ago by Syrian citizens). Managing the PR campaign will be as, if not more, important than anything. 7. The U.S. will try to eliminate the loss of one of the stealth bombers/fighters from any of Syria's AD. They don't want to give Assad a token of success (and pump up the Arab/Islamist world) and these planes are enormously expensive. Taking care to eliminate AD will be critical. I wouldn't expect any air to air fights; Syria's planes wouldn't last a few seconds. 8. Obama is, based on Myers Briggs, likely a rational, which means he typically needs more and more data and analysis before making a decision. His decision to send this before Congress was predictable; regardless of his bluster about it (and I think it primarily due to not wanting to appear weak now or with his legacy) is trumped by his desire to gain a consensus internationally, get the Brits onboard (neither of which have occurred). So now he sends it before the Congress. Probably not a bad idea really but I think it a stalling tactic by him to see if this will work itself out and he won't really have to do anything. Analysis paralysis. But appearing presidential and forceful for his legacy. Even Congress is today saying he is waffling and non-committal.
-
JWB
WAR IN SYRIA & MANUFACTURED CONFLICTS: William Engdahl is an award-winning geopolitical analyst, strategic risk consultant, author, professor and lecturer. He has been researching and writing about the world political scene for more than thirty years. His various books on geopolitics - the interaction between international power politics, economics and geography - have been translated into 14 foreign languages. Born in Minnesota, William Engdahl grew up in Texas. After earning a degree in politics from Princeton University, and graduate study in comparative economics at Stockholm University, he worked as an economist and investigative freelance journalist in New York and Europe. William will discuss the serious situation in Syria and the underlying reasons behind the expansion of the empire into yet another Middle Eastern country. He explains how a radicalized version of Islam has been created and used to manage the war on terror. Engdahl describes the dire situation in Europe, with mass immigration and radicalized Islam, causing much conflict and internal struggle. Finally, he outlines the bigger geopolitical chessboard and where he sees the pieces moving if a greater strike on Syria is initiated." - http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/09/RIR-130902.php
WHO IS REALLY BEHIND THE SYRIAN WAR?: "Given that the pretext for attacking Syria is falling apart before the public’s eyes, why is the US preparing to wage war on that country? Who benefits from the ongoing destabilization of Assad’s government? What will the Middle East look like if the Sunnis take over Syria? What is Israel’s role in this? What do Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have to gain from a war in Syria? And what does Bandar Bush have to do with all of this? Join us today on The Corbett Report as we discuss these and other pressing issues as the world stands on the brink of yet another US-led Middle Eastern military adventure." - http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-279-who-is-really-behind-the-syrian-war/ -
designs
Will Russian leader Vladimir Putin simply gain time for the sarin gas to be shuffled off to another secret location.
In the 1980s Iran/Iraq war the US supplied Iraq with sarin poison gas, anthrax, bubolic plague, and cluster bombs to be used against Iran. Donald Rumsfeld and William Casey put the secret plan together for shipping these illegal substances to Saddam Hussein's army according to recently released docs under the Freedom of Information Act.
-
DJS
Simon is spot on regarding the economic 'benefits' of war. That seems to be a reactionary generational statement that sounds good on the surface but isn't true at all (specious). Spending money on bombs rather than butter (or things that will bring lasting benefit to an economy and a social structure) is an opportunity cost. And that money must come from our taxes to continue to support the war machine and all that it consumes. Wars aren't just fought and then everyone throws away their weapons when its over.
-
mP
Finklestein
Syria will never turn into another Vietnam because Obama knows of the cost in human lives and money.
mP:
DO you honestly think Obama or Bush care how many people they mame ? -
yadda yadda 2
Who gives a f*ck about your silly rationalisations. Bomb that tyrant Basher and his relative cronies he's put in power. His maverick generals used chemical weapons on little children for f*cks sake. The world is sick and tired of this shit and has had a gutsful of self-serving dictators. They've had their day. Bashar's claims of ignorance and innocence are sheer lies. He's a despicable monster who must be punished and removed. He's ripped the whole country apart and caused untold suffering and death to his own people just to hold on to his own selfish power. Root the f*cker out and give democracy and freedom a chance at last.
-
Frazzled UBM
metatron - I don't think the US or Syria will want a war with Iran - it woudl be wya too messy and create further instability on top of Iraq and Syria. theg Israelis are proabably desperate to launch an airstrike on the Iran nuclear facilities but I htink since the Israelis did that in in the 1980s the Iranians ahve gotten cleverer about hiding the facility. The economic sanctions on Iran are starting to bite. In any case, why should Israel be the only country in the region with a nuclear capability and why don't the US impose sanctions on Israel to get them to destroy their nuclear capability? Also whetehr or not war is beneficial to the US economcy depends on teh circumstances - WWII ended teh depression by creating employment and stimulating the economcy but Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan have hurt the US economy becuase of how much it has cost the government.