Persian Gulf & Middle East Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Also .

Apparently Putin may not let Obama get away with this. Things could get interesting. I do not think, if it continues to escalate, that on the naval side, Putin can bring together enough to intimidate the US and force the US to not act if Obama orders the resources into the area to be able to act. But does Obama have the cojones to stand up to it? Putin is betting he will not go that far.

And in a game of chicken...I have to say that my bet would be on Putin over Obama.

IMHO , Putin is looking for a way to outsmart Obama and further weaken US position in ME . Obama will most likely first use Tomahawk strikes , but I don't think that would be enough . Eventually US planes will have to enter Syrian airspace and Putin will make sure some of them get shoot down . SAR teams will be sent to retrieve pilots and that means US forces will have to deploy near or even inside Syria , so they would become targets themselves . Eventually , US would have to either withdraw (Obama loses face ) or enter into another bloody and costly war (boots on the ground ) . Ironically , Assad's army would not be primary threat - instead Islamists around ME would be quickly united against American "crusaders" . In this way Russia will sacrifice pawn (Syria ) in order to weaken king ( US ) .

Obama will not used manned aircraft. After tomahawks will come predators and reapers. Obama knows he cannot allow boots on the ground. And he lacks the backbone to actually shake a tree so he will drone strike and drone strike and missile strike and arm more groups and make speeches and drone strike and drone strike oh and did I mention drone strike?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Obama will not used manned aircraft. After tomahawks will come predators and reapers. Obama knows he cannot allow boots on the ground. And he lacks the backbone to actually shake a tree so he will drone strike and drone strike and missile strike and arm more groups and make speeches and drone strike and drone strike oh and did I mention drone strike?

Click to expand...

Current UCAVs are subsonic unmaneuverable targets . They would be relatively easy meat for Syrian air defense (bolstered by Russians ) , especially without help of SEAD aircraft . My guess is that even Syrian air force could score against them . So , eventually , Obama would have to send manned airplanes in Syrian airspace and that is the moment things get ugly .

You're assuming that Obama will have no other choice. If the Obama administration doesn't want to then they don't have to. Those targets as you rightly called them will do just that wait for a threat lock on get shot down well other ucav move in and take pot shots at the radar that just shot at them. One of the reasons they exist is politics its easier to watch a drone downed on CNN then watch a American pilot get the tar beat out of him on some video released after the fact.
the Obama administration has been fighting pure drone wars since five minutes after he took the oath of office. Like Clinton with the cruise missile Obama will hang back and keep sending drones even if all he gets are piles of wreckage scattered across the desert. He will not send fighters or bombers.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

You're assuming that Obama will have no other choice. If the Obama administration doesn't want to then they don't have to. Those targets as you rightly called them will do just that wait for a threat lock on get shot down well other ucav move in and take pot shots at the radar that just shot at them. One of the reasons they exist is politics its easier to watch a drone downed on CNN then watch a American pilot get the tar beat out of him on some video released after the fact.
the Obama administration has been fighting pure drone wars since five minutes after he took the oath of office. Like Clinton with the cruise missile Obama will hang back and keep sending drones even if all he gets are piles of wreckage scattered across the desert. He will not send fighters or bombers.

Click to expand...

Drones are cheaper then warplanes and they do carry less political risk . But , they are not that cheap and there is a limited number of them . On the other hand Syrian air defense may not be among best in the world , but they still have a lot of systems and lot of high flying missiles (unlike Taliban ) . And yes , they could still pose great threat to unsophisticated aircraft like that Turkish RF-4 they shoot down year ago . So , after a dozen or so drones downed , Obama would be compelled to send in manned warplanes .

And yes , staying out would be the best thing Obama could do , but there is a great pressure on him from his handlers , so right now I think there is a 50% chance he will go to war .

The Obama administration has shown its interest in the middle east, hell in foreign policy in general as a non player with fleeting interests. Sorry but their is not enough iron in him to call for a war. Benghazi was proof of that. His policy would be to try and apply local pressure to one of the neighbors at best push for a blockade of Syria. Of course Russia would veto and Obama would counter with some long lecture about not risking our standing in the world... He really is long winded. About three hours into a security speech that includes green jobs universal suffrage, healthcare for earthworms and blaming rush Limbaugh for the murder of Kane. He will present some new red line or offer terms. And when that red line is crossed he will hope the Israelis do something.

one question is this, what if assad suddently collapse,syria are going to plunge into another somalia and afghanistan.(or libya and iraq)with power vaccum,al queda simple has walk in and seize power,not to mention syria huge stock of chemical weapon),it will total catastrophy,al queda armed with WMD.equally it will catastrophy for the syrian christian and alawite minority,one option was to send US troop,but that will take 200,000~300,000 troop,18$ billion~25 billion% A MONTH!!who going to pay for it,raise taxes?no way, given the current deficit. and where is US interest? free syria army was weak from the begining,and gradually being eclipse by radical islamist.
one option for US (or britain and france) was to stick with assad.no matter if they regard him as a thug.

hardware said:

one question is this, what if assad suddently collapse, syria are going to plunge into another somalia and afghanistan. (or libya and iraq) with power vaccum,al queda simple has walk in and seize power,not to mention syria huge stock of chemical weapon),it will total catastrophy,al queda armed with WMD.equally it will catastrophy for the syrian christian and alawite minority where is US interest? free syria army was weak from the begining, and gradually being eclipse by radical islamist. one option for US (or britain and france) was to stick with assad. no matter if they regard him as a thug.

Click to expand...

Clinton and both Bush presidents found a way to work with and tolerate Assad...even if they had to allow Israel to be a reminder every now and then.

And that status quo worked far, far better than what we are seeing now.

Obama does not want to work with Assad. He is on some kind of "Arab Spring," crusade that has been an unmitigated disaster. The problem is, his efforts are completely upsetting a very delicate balance of powers there. Russia has significant interests in Syria and is not going to let it devolve into either chaos or an extreme, fundamental Islamic state with its hands on Assad's weapons. There is a balance that very tenuously exists between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria with the various minority groups and religious and cultural interests. A strong Assad, with the proper slack from all sides, as well as reminders if he goes too far, has kept that far more in balance than what we are headed for if they depose him and all of that falls apart.

IMHO, what Obama is doing, based on some kind of purely idealistic, sophomoric search for a paradise or "LaLa" land over there (that is never going to exist), is upsetting all of these things and making conditions much worse, and much more dangerous.

There is news: Assad has agreed to allow the UN inspectors to investigate the recent so-called chemical weapons attack. We are now waiting for the other side to agree.

Also: someone on Dutch radio just said that 9% of Americans are in favor of military action against Syria as is, which is raised to 25% if a chemical attack were to be proved against president Assad. But there is so much foreign pressure on the US to attack anyway - pressure from parties not defined - France, Saudi Arabia, Israel, ah ... Paraguay?

My Dutch newspaper published an article recently in which a woman in a refugee camp in Jordan was quoted who as saying she let her sixteen year old son go to fight with the Free Syrian Army because she so got a caravan for her family to live in and her husband, who has had three heart operations, and her other children wouldn't survive in the previous shelter they had. FSA is said to recruit underage youths because its battalions loose fifty men a week - so what is the size of a battalion? Does this mean they loose 10% of men a week, or more, or less?