Skip to comments.So, How Long Would Limited Strikes In Syria Stay Limited?
Posted on 08/30/2013 10:37:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What, exactly, would the White House hope to accomplish with an attack on Syria? So far, the answers from the administration have been pretty vague.
In an interview with PBS yesterday, Obama said that if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict those actions might serve as a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this. Obama further suggested that the limited actions under consideration may have a positive impact on our national security over the long term and may have a positive impact in the sense that chemical weapons are not used again on innocent civilians.
That Obama will only say they may implies he knows that they may not. One reason to be suspicious is that its unlikely that the U.S. would be able to take out Assads chemical weapon stockpiles using the limited strikes that Obama has hinted at so far. Those stockpiles are often buried in protected facilities, making them difficult to destroy from the air.
And that assumes we can even find them. As the Associated Press reported yesterday, Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. Which creates an additional risk. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.
One thing its clear that limited strikes wouldnt do is stop Syrias dictator Bassar al-Assads regime from continuing to kill Syrian civilians. If the United States chose to respond, he told PBS, that doesnt solve all the problems inside of Syria, and, you know, it doesnt, obviously end the death of innocent civilians inside of Syria.
What so-called limited strikes would do, however, is put the United States on the road to further, not-so-limited military action. Obama says he does not want to get drawn into a long conflict, but what happens if there are further chemical weapon attacksin Syria, or, eventually, somewhere else in the world? Presuming that chemical weapons were used in the most recent attack, and that they were used with Assads approval, then we know he has already risked international military reprisal once. Theres little reason to think that a round of limited strikes would convince him not to do it again. Assad would essentially be in the same position he was in before. We, meanwhile, would have taken military actionand picked a side in an ugly, bloody civil conflict.
And if Assad deploys chemical weapons again, then what? Another round of "limited" strikes? And after that, another? How long before those limited strikes evolved into something more expansive? As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told NPR last month, "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid." The best way to do so is to stay out of the conflict entirely.
Until Russia and China get involved.
This situation is ideal for Iran to assert itself as a power in the MIddle East by giving the U.S. a bloody nose. Obama is an idiot.
The strike will last only from tee-off until the turn. Then it stops.
Three hours after we hit the first Russian ship, or kill Russian personnel.
Methinks no one in our current regime knows what they are doing.
Yesterday I learn that we now have FIVE warships in the area. Hard to believe the ‘shot across the bow’ is anything more than a tactic to keep opposition to a minimum. Looks like 0 is planning to get ‘drawn in’ to a major confrontation.
Total insanity methinks.
No way he is going to do anything to tarnish his image.
Best guess ... one to two weeks ... then rapid acceleration on several fronts. Also (best guess) we are hit hard also.
Well that would make it more interesting for sure. Usually not smart to go shooting at nuclear armed countries. But let's try to find some bright spot...DC would be their first target!
And no air cover, as near as I can tell. That sounds like a very high risk bet that there will be no air attack response.
And God knows... anything little Col. Hussein al-Baraqi al-Obamadaffi directs is going to be FUBAR in minutes.
Hopefully Chicago their 2nd. As for Detroit... don't bother.. no one would notice.
More importantly, just how “symbolic” can strikes be?
In this case, an attack would symbolize: corruption, dog wagging, desperation, narcissistic leadership, and buffoonery.
There are nearly 60 Russian warships in the Med. This is not good.
Hitler, who learned a bit about war, said: “Starting a war is like walking into a dark room, one never knows what one will stumble into.” or words to that effect ion German. This could go badly for our president and our guys.
"We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi -- a city nearly the size of Charlotte -- could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world," Obama said. "It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing."
Mon, Mar 28, 2011
Ominous, isn't it?