So, How Long Would Limited Strikes In Syria Stay Limited?

Reason ^ | 08/30/2013 | Peter Suderman

[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 it’s unlikely that the U.S. would be able to take out Assad’s 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 it’s clear that limited strikes wouldn’t do is stop Syria’s dictator Bassar al-Assad’s regime from continuing to kill Syrian civilians. If the United States chose to respond, he told PBS, “that doesn’t solve all the problems inside of Syria, and, you know, it doesn’t, 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 attacks—in 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 Assad’s approval, then we know he has already risked international military reprisal once. There’s 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 action—and 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.

[tennmountainman]

Until Russia and China get involved.

[Yosemitest]

Until the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF allows the Muslim Brotherhood to KILL ALL THE CHRISTIANS in Syria, and take over another country.

It really is a "more progressive, blood lust".
Little do they know that they are fulfilling what our Heavenly Father said would happen.
Yet they are seeing the Greater Exodus happening before our eyes,
and most either are too involved in their "day-to-day lives", or they just don't want to see, that what God SAID would happen ... IS happening now.
Hussein of America is INTENTIONALLY DESTROYING AMERICA, from the inside out.

STATE DEPT. SPOKESWOMAN ADMIT U.S. DOESN'T KNOW IF ASSAD ORDERED CHEMICAL ATTACK




Toxic Catch: SYRIA REBELS' CHEMICAL LAB Uncovered Near Damascus, ( 4:51 )

Published on Jul 14, 2013

Syrian state TV says the military has found a chemical laboratory
which produces poisonous materials in the town of Jobar on the outskirts of Damascus.
Sources claim the REBELS were planning to stuff shells with the chemicals and use them to attack the capital.
RT's Middle East correspondent Paula Slier reports.

---

The Muslims are guilty of the chemical attack, not the Christians, and the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF knows it.
But the ARAB-KENYANand MUSLIM defiling the Oval Office doesn't care.
Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) just want to turn Syria into another Muslim Brotherhood run country, and kill Christians.
It's just that simple!

[txrefugee]

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.

[Sgt_Schultze]

The strike will last only from tee-off until the turn. Then it stops.

[Eagle of Liberty]

About as "limited" as our actions in Libya were.

Obama: Action in Libya was justified, but mission will be limited

In relatively brief remarks Monday night, President Barack Obama sought to strike a delicate balance, justifying his decision to use force in Libya while assuring a doubtful nation that the U.S. military actions would be limited and low-risk. Obama built his case for intervention by arguing that swift intervention in Libya was necessary to avert a humanitarian catastrophe on the scale of the 1990s Bosnia genocide. But while Obama repeatedly attacked Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi for creating that impending catastrophe, he insisted that international military action would stop well short of toppling the Libyan dictator, and declared that U.S. allies would soon take over leadership of the operation.

"I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge," Obama said, saying the 28-member NATO alliance would take over command of all military functions in Libya starting on Wednesday.

[M Kehoe]

So, How Long Would Limited Strikes In Syria Stay Limited?

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.

5.56mm

[MichaelCorleone]

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.

[mware]

Obama wants to be loved.

No way he is going to do anything to tarnish his image.

[no-to-illegals]

To answer the headline question ...

Best guess ... one to two weeks ... then rapid acceleration on several fronts. Also (best guess) we are hit hard also.

[Orangedog]

Until Russia and China get involved

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!

[Truth29]

"Yesterday I learn that we now have FIVE warships in the area."

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.

[ScottinVA]

Food for thought... Murphy's Laws of Combat

And God knows... anything little Col. Hussein al-Baraqi al-Obamadaffi directs is going to be FUBAR in minutes.

[ScottinVA]

Col. Hussein al-Baraqi al-Obamadaffi

[ScottinVA]

But let's try to find some bright spot...DC would be their first target!

Hopefully Chicago their 2nd. As for Detroit... don't bother.. no one would notice.

[RedMDer]

Only Two Days Until
September.

Less than $3.1k to go!!
We can do this!!

[bgill]

More importantly, just how “symbolic” can strikes be?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

In this case, an attack would symbolize: corruption, dog wagging, desperation, narcissistic leadership, and buffoonery.

[DarthVader]

There are nearly 60 Russian warships in the Med. This is not good.

[wally_bert]

Good list.