Syrian Operation

[Kat Kid]

This is all a great illustration of why this is such a terrible idea.  The logic of intervention will always dictate more intervention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sys]

I think the plan was to just bomb them once to show them we are serious and hope they don't use chemical weapons again.

99.9999% sure this is the plan.  ideally, i think the strike should have been larger so as to inflict more meaningful punishment with a single strike.  as it was, i think it makes it very tempting for assad to provoke additional attacks.  but the size and targeting of the strike had to be tempered so as to avoid antagonizing russia.  it's pretty much impossible for anyone like ourselves to judge if they got the balance right.

[sys]

The logic of intervention will always dictate more intervention.

that's ludicrous.

[SdK]

I heard an expert on TV say that if they wanted to destroy runways, they wouldn't have used tomahawks.

Are we planning on using that airport later? I rough ridin' hope not. But that's the only rational reason I can come up with. For goodness sake, mix in some normal bombs then to make the landing strips unusable. The Mediterranean is close enough to launch air strikes from.

(Syrian guy on CNN just ripped Hilary a new one for not voicing her opinion when Obama was inactive. That the Syrian people don't want to immigrate they'd rather stay home)

To do air strikes you have to remove air defense systems which probably means boots on the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we not take them out with Tomahawks or bomb with B-2s? Last I knew a B-2 has never had been shot at and they can stay in the air for 6+ hours, 12 with a refuel. (I read up on them last night).

The advantage of Tomahawks is how low they fly to the ground to avoid radar. B-2s could aid in that as well. Then unleash the full might.

On the other hand, apparently these Russian AA systems are insane. But have never been put into action. I don't want our pilots to be the first to find out about them.

[SdK]

I have no idea how we would get the Syrians and Russians to reveal the locations of the mobile AA trucks though. Lots of drone surveillance? Attack them with more drones to make sure the Intel is credible? Them send out the B2 and Tomahawk welcome party?

[SdK]

It's a mess, I agree KK. I'm just trying to figure out what I think we should so from here.

I'll never support boots on the ground in the ME. Unless it is for Osama type missions.

Air and Naval support is all I can be on board with.

[Kat Kid]

The logic of intervention will always dictate more intervention.

that's ludicrous.

There is a bipartisan consensus for intervention in Syria, just like here was a bipartisan consensus for Libya, Iraq and continues to be for Afghanistan (our longest running war of all time). There is probably a bipartisan consensus for war in Iran and there will no doubt be some democrats that would support a unilateral strike against North Korea. The Washington consensus from think tanks, to pundits, to press to politicians is we don't have nearly enough wars.

There is absolutely a dominant interventionist bent to our politics whether it claims to be humanitarian or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[puniraptor]

I have some intellectual honesty problems with this red line. Hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians have been dying every day for years. Do you think the beautiful children care if they were gassed to death vs shot or starved or shelled or barrel bombed?

This op is precarious because Syria is already a proxy war between us and Russia/Iran. Russia was operating out of this airfield and is a direct ally with the Syrian regime. One misplaced missile could have turned this proxy war into open war.

Also embarrassing to expose our missiles as such losery underperformers. This might have been done ib purpose to funnel billions into missile development?

[SdK]

I don't think they missed their targets puni. As sys corrected me, it was about the jets and 20 were taken out, the tarmac wouldn't have stopped the jets from taking off.

I think the sheer number of Tomahawks was to overwhelm defenses had there been any.

Curious why there was no defenses set up. Either the ruskies let it happen because they wanted it to happen. Or they didn't want to waste exposing their supposed badass air defense systems over 20 jets.

These missiles don't miss (that I'm aware of). Out of 58 and none hitting the tarmac, it's clear that wasn't the goal.

[SdK]

Some pundits feel Russia is just paying lip service to this. That Putin really doesn't like Asad at all.

[puniraptor]

Putin doesn't care about Assad, Putin cares about defending the legitimacy and sovereignty of brutal authoritarian regimes.

[sys]

Some pundits feel Russia is just paying lip service to this. That Putin really doesn't like Asad at all.

assad just made him look like a fool.  russia signed up to guarantee syria's disposal of chemical weapons.

[SdK]

Or Putin knew and dngaf

[sys]

There is a bipartisan consensus for intervention in Syria, just like here was a bipartisan consensus for Libya, Iraq and continues to be for Afghanistan (our longest running war of all time). There is probably a bipartisan consensus for war in Iran and there will no doubt be some democrats that would support a unilateral strike against North Korea. The Washington consensus from think tanks, to pundits, to press to politicians is we don't have nearly enough wars.

if it were true that there was a bipartisan consensus to intervene in syria or iran, we'd have intervened by now.  we have the capacity to do so and have not done so, ergo we do not wish to do so.

irregardless, that is not relevant to what you argued in your previous post.  you posited, without support of either evidence or logic, that limited intervention is impossible.  it was a ludicrous assertion.

[puniraptor]

A Russian frigate is steaming out to shadow our 2 destroyers that launched the attack #brinksmanship

[Rage Against the McKee]

I have some intellectual honesty problems with this red line. Hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians have been dying every day for years. Do you think the beautiful children care if they were gassed to death vs shot or starved or shelled or barrel bombed?

This op is precarious because Syria is already a proxy war between us and Russia/Iran. Russia was operating out of this airfield and is a direct ally with the Syrian regime. One misplaced missile could have turned this proxy war into open war.

Also embarrassing to expose our missiles as such losery underperformers. This might have been done ib purpose to funnel billions into missile development?

If I had to choose between which of those I'd rather die by, gas would be dead last on the list.

[puniraptor]

Worse than starving to death?

[SdK]

Apparently TLAMs don't carry enough explosives to crater a runway. So goal was accomplished.

[Kat Kid]

There is a bipartisan consensus for intervention in Syria, just like here was a bipartisan consensus for Libya, Iraq and continues to be for Afghanistan (our longest running war of all time). There is probably a bipartisan consensus for war in Iran and there will no doubt be some democrats that would support a unilateral strike against North Korea. The Washington consensus from think tanks, to pundits, to press to politicians is we don't have nearly enough wars.

if it were true that there was a bipartisan consensus to intervene in syria or iran, we'd have intervened by now.  we have the capacity to do so and have not done so, ergo we do not wish to do so.

irregardless, that is not relevant to what you argued in your previous post.  you posited, without support of either evidence or logic, that limited intervention is impossible.  it was a ludicrous assertion.

That isn't what I said. 

Let's just use this metaphor-
Interventionists = "just the tip"

Red lines beget red lines because they perpetually shift the negotiations to a new baseline/context.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SdK]

If we couldn't even blow up some concrete, my goodness. That should have been the main goal. If the jets can't take off, they are rendered useless. Good grief.

jfc

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/850425431899680768

Missed this. Wtf. I renounce my support.

Look at this dumbass and his reactionary posts without all of the facts. What a buffoon.

[cDubya]

Apparently TLAMs don't carry enough explosives to crater a runway. So goal was accomplished.

This is incorrect.

[SdK]

Then that General on tv is lying his lying his face off. I see that their are a variety of TLAMs. All could have cratered the airfield?

He also said it'd be stupid to blow something up that could easily be fixed.

[cDubya]

Then that General on tv is lying his lying his face off. I see that their are a variety of TLAMs. All could have cratered the airfield?

He also said it'd be stupid to blow something up that could easily be fixed.

[SdK]

Even if that structure was packed to the brim with rock and dirt it wouldn't compare to a direct impact with the ground. The force of the explosion has 5 sides to expand and reek havoc. And the back side is open air. Whereas the ground is solid and would project much of the force upward.

I have no doubt that they runways could have been destroyed. I am not sold by that image that TLAMs would have cratered the earth enough to waste ~2mil on.

I'm sure someone with a greater grasp on physics can shed more light.

[SdK]

I recognize that you have a far more intimate knowledge than I on this matter. You very well may be right.