Syrian Crisis...2013

D

delft

Brigadier
The correspondent of my Dutch newspaper write today in a background article that Israel want the war very much and that the Israeli leaders were not impressed by the delay and are talking again about attacking Iran. But before they decide to do that they want to try to get the US engaged in this war. She said an unnamed American official called the American Israel Political Action Committee ( AIPAC ) the 800 pounds gorilla in the room.
She also suggests that the timing of anti missile system test was not a coincidence.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
D I question that one big time. Why in the hell would any sane nation want to basicly destabilize its own neighbors and provoke a conflict that will inevitably spill across its boarders and place its own citizens in mortal risk? Also other then small strikes the Israelis have been sitting this one out. Sure they have called up reserves but if you had that going on across your boarders you would to.
no thus far Tel Aviv is worried and trying to sit this one out.
the missile test I think may have been related though. Some hard as Israeli general making sure his guys sphincters were tight.
If Tel Aviv wanted a war they would be over the Syrian boarder with tanks and F16s fighting one. The IDF always wants to be on the offence against threats.
This proxy conflict thing is not there style.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
I'd like to say to all the members that are posting in this thread that all of you are doing an excellent job posting.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


However let's keep the political rhetoric to a minimum. I know it can't be helped with this subject.

popeye
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
asif iqbal said:
Senate foreign relations panel has just approved resolution on military action New York Times
Click to expand...

Almost..but not quite yet.. this is what they have done..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Senate Foreign Relations panel begins debating Syria resolution

By Ed O'Keefe and Anne Gearan, Published: September 4 at 3:13 pm

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday rejected an attempt by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to limit presidential authority to wage war and adopted a measure designed to bolster rebel forces fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The committee is debating a resolution that would authorize the use of U.S. military force in Syria in response to recent alleged chemical weapons attacks against Syrian civilians. The proceedings began several hours later than scheduled, due to disagreements among senators about the wording of a new version of the resolution that would authorize U.S. military forces to strike in Syria for up to 90 days and prohibit the deployment of U.S. combat troops in the country.

As the hearing began, Paul sought to approve a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the resolution that stated that the president “does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

But the 18-member committee voted 14 to 4 to table the amendment, agreeing Wednesday’s meeting was not the proper forum to debate the broader merits of a president’s constitutional authority to wage war.

Later, the committee approved an amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that essentially says there is no point in negotiating with the Assad regime to seek a diplomatic solution to the end of violence in Syria. The amendment furthers McCain’s goals of strengthening the U.S.-backed rebel groups fighting Assad, and all-but ensures the senator’s support for the resolution authorizing use of military force.
Click to expand...
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Jeff Head said:
I think the Russians are there to ensure that the US does not get the idea of doing anything like regime change or decapitation. Assad will have taken measures to avoid it himself and will be secreted away somewhere, very hard to hit in any case.

If the US ends up doing what I believe they will...that is launch 100-200 Tomahawks at military targets within Syria related to the ability to attack with chemical weapons, then those Russian ships will sit there and not take any active part whatsoever. They will probably be out to sea (the combatants) where they could maneuver and more ably defend themselves if necessary. There will be some amphibs, support ships, etc. left in port and these will ensure that the port facilities themselves are not targeted.

Such a US attack as this is meant to simply send a strong message...and is being conducted purely to make Obama look credible when he gives a warning. However, it will not amount to very much militarily as far as the civil war goes at all. It will cause damage to Syrian units associated with potential chemical deployment (ie. Air Force units, artillery units, radars for the air force, etc.) so will be costly to the Syrians, but not fatal by any stretch, and not of much impact (as I say) to the civil war.

If that is how it goes, then at the end, Obama will puff out his chest and strut around like he is come kind of Peacock and the US press will back him in that. Putin will complain loudly and seek to adopt some sort of political and foreign relations penalty for Obama, and the civil war will continue as before.

Now, if Obama tries to go after the Syrian C&C in a serious way and goes after Assad, or if the campaign continues for weeks and is a clear effort to seriously degrade Syrian military efforts across the board in preparation for an air campaign, then I expect the Russians would reach a point where they would potentially become actively involved, probably starting off by using their vessels to actively jam, decoy and deter strikes first.

Or, if Iran goes crazy and mounts a serious attack on Israel, then all bets are off and a regional war could easily break out.

Also, if Syria mounts a strong defense and launches Yahkont missiles at US ships, or mounts serious air attacks against US vessels, this too would cause things to escalate.

But my bet is, as long as certain parameters are maintained by the US strike, as mentioned above, Putin will ensure that Assad does not do anything rash and advise him to just weather the storm.

Anyhow, that's how I see it going.
Click to expand...

The problem with that line of reasoning Jeff, is just how are the Russians to know the first US tomahawk wave are not meant as a decapitation strike to take out Syria's leadership and as much of its C&C as possible before the Syrian government goes underground?

If one was planning regime change and a decaptiation strike, one would do that as the opening move of any military campaign to catch as many key players unaware and out in the open as possible. As soon as the first missiles strike, all surviving leaders and high value targets are going to go dark and it would be incredible hard to track them down again. Just think back to Saddam and OBL.

If Russia waits till the missiles have struck and the dust has settled before deciding what course of action to take, it may already be too late. Its not a risk I would take if I was in their shoes given America's track record of lowballing their objectives in foreign interventions when presenting their case to the international community and then mission creeping towards regime change once the shots have been fired and everyone is committed. Fool me once sorta thing.

In addition, I think we should give Obama a little more credit than to suggest he would start a war just to save face. I believe to think that is to underestimate the man and his administration. I may be wrong, but I prefer to overestimate my opponents rather than underestimate them.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
plawolf said:
The problem with that line of reasoning Jeff, is just how are the Russians to know the first US tomahawk wave are not meant as a decapitation strike to take out Syria's leadership and as much of its C&C as possible before the Syrian government goes underground?
Click to expand...
History is the guide here. With all the intel and high tech weaponry at their fingertips, the US, when they went all out to try and decapitaite Libya and Iraq, were unable to get Quadafi or Sadam Hussein with such strikes.

Here, the U S has specifically said it does not intend to do this, and has telegraphed this thing now for weeks. There will be no "surpise" and Assad has all the opportunity to move his own assestts and himself around to places of safety. Heck, when the time came close he should go dockside to the Russian vessels in port there.

But the US is not going to try and kill Assad. There is just far too much down side potential for that.

Therefore, the Russians will not instigate a shooting war between themselves and the US on the off chance that the US is not telling the truth about the intent of the strike.

plawolf said:
In addition, I think we should give Obama a little more credit than to suggest he would start a war just to save face. I believe to think that is to underestimate the man and his administration. I may be wrong, but I prefer to overestimate my opponents rather than underestimate them.
Click to expand...
It is not underestimating him to indicate that he is willing to conduct such a strike because he warned Assad to not cross a particular line, and then declares (twice now) that Assad has done so.

At any rate, this whole thing is more about Obama's international policy in the Mid-East coming completely undone than it would even be about him specifically saving face. I do not believe Assad used the weapons, not for a minute.

There is no proof that he did...just vague intel and hearsay based (IMHO) on what they want to believe happened.

For anyone looking at this rationally, it is obvious who had the most to gain and who had the most to loose by claiming Assad used such weapons. We know the rebels have them too, and they have videoed themselves using them.

Anyhow, at this point, it is a matter of waiting to see:

1) Will the US Congress authorize the use of force. The Senate, IMHO, is a fore gone conclusion and will vote, "Yes." The House however is not such a sure thing. Even though Boehner is saying he supports it, he has also said that it is up to Obama to convince his collegues to vote. IOW, Boehner is not willing to go out on any limb and tell others to support it because he believes it could well fail and doesn;t wnat the failure strapped around his neck.

If they do approve it, then a strike will follow quickly and we can then:

2) See what Russia does once those Tomahawks start flying.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
asif iqbal said:
Another Russian warship on its way

Russia sending spy ship to Mediterranean: Interfax
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
No big surprise here.

The US is giving anyone ample time to get into position and gather intel on the US fleet launching a lot of Tomahawks.

Russia is going to get one of its electronic eavesdroppers down there and soak up as much as they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top