Talk Of Strike On Syria Moves From 'Will It Happen?' To When

[Stitch]

Talk Of Strike On Syria Moves From 'Will It Happen?' To When

With U.S. officials saying there's little doubt that President Bashar Assad's regime used chemical weapons on the Syrian people last week, and with U.S. Navy ships moving toward that country's coast, it now seems to be a question of "when" not "whether" America will strike military targets inside that nation.

Talk Of Strike On Syria Moves From 'Will It Happen?' To When : The Two-Way : NPR

[Aryajet]

Secretary John Kerry just spoke in the radio about the chemical weapon use by Syrian regime. He said US government has compelling evidence that the last week's CW attack was indeed conducted by the regime. While speaking he was actually mad. So cruise missiles might start flying anytime.

[Mihais]

Kerry is a consummate who... err,politician.So I'll believe his anger a bit later.

Compelling evidence means we can all see it.It also means it's above any doubt.I'll believe it when I'll see it.

[Parihaka]

So what precisely would the US actually target? infrastructure? doubtful and pointless. WMD depots? Very high risk. Syrian Army assets? Why help the Jihadis.

About the only sensible option I can see is to target some abandoned sheds in the desert somewhere, make a big bang and say "there, that'll learn ya!"

[Blademaster]

I would target the CW depots first and any command authority that controls those assets. But I would not help the rebels in any way.

[Firestorm]

I would target the CW depots first and any command authority that controls those assets. But I would not help the rebels in any way.

Couldn't bombing the depots cause the weapons to explode and release the gas? The only safe way to take them out would be to capture the depots with a ground assault and remove the weapons to be disposed off in a safe manner. That will take boots on the ground.

[Blademaster]

Couldn't bombing the depots cause the weapons to explode and release the gas? The only safe way to take them out would be to capture the depots with a ground assault and remove the weapons to be disposed off in a safe manner. That will take boots on the ground.

Yes there will be boots necessary to secure the CW depots. The only thing I am worried about is mission creep. I don't want US to be drawn into the conflict and do a Kosovo thing.

[Minskaya]

I would target the CW depots first and any command authority that controls those assets.

As it happens, one of the three major Syrian CW depots (Mount Kalmun) is in southern Damascus and well within artillery range of the affected areas.

It is under the command of General Maher Assad, the younger brother of president Bashar Assad.

[astralis]

article from slate.

Barack Obama’s logic for bombing Syria: The United States will seek to put an end to Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. - Slate Magazine

[astralis]

Syrian Army assets? Why help the Jihadis.

it's wholly possible to wipe out a good portion of the Syrian Army C4 to make a point. given how the syrian army seems to have a slight upper hand in the long grinding stalemate, shifting that to a slight-moderate disadvantage wouldn't necessarily harm US interests.

i'd actually say destroying the Syrian Air Force would be a pretty good option. reduce one mode of indiscriminate bombing (shift to artillery instead, but that's more localized) and take away one of the main advantages the Syrians have.

[Blademaster]

it's wholly possible to wipe out a good portion of the Syrian Army C4 to make a point. given how the syrian army seems to have a slight upper hand in the long grinding stalemate, shifting that to a slight-moderate disadvantage wouldn't necessarily harm US interests.

i'd actually say destroying the Syrian Air Force would be a pretty good option. reduce one mode of indiscriminate bombing (shift to artillery instead, but that's more localized) and take away one of the main advantages the Syrians have.

All of that is designed to help the rebels. I am not interested in helping the rebels, only to prevent the use of chemical weapons.

[Mihais]

You drop bombs on a side it means: a) you're at war with them and b) you're helping the other side.You just promised to help Al Qaeda(even more).Congrats.Good job.

Was looking at what the Brits and the French were talking these days.What a lousy affair.C'mon,the Kosovo fiasco was a masterpiece of propaganda compared to this crap.

[Parihaka]

All of that is designed to help the rebels. I am not interested in helping the rebels, only to prevent the use of chemical weapons.

Putting the humanitarian issues to one side, a protracted stalemate would be advantageous to nearly everyone in the world except Assad and the jihadis. It would be absolutely fraught with unintended consequences though.
Same with striking the WMD. No way to contain or certify without boots on the ground and plenty of time. How do you achieve that without massive infrastructure? Whoever did it could easily end up owning the whole mess.

[Mihais]

The Jihadis win in a stalemate.It's more than they had at the start.Stalemate also means some sort of border.Meaning you have a de facto jihadi state in Syria.Remember how Lebanon moved in the 80's.

[Doktor]

I am in doubts what will happen.

Obama proved "flexible" over his red lines and his rhetoric is just that. OTOH, he faces pressure from hawks at home and within allies.