Skip to comments.Experts Fear U.S. Plan to Strike Syria Overlooks Risks
Posted on 08/30/2013 8:52:51 PM PDT by kristinn
In outlining its tentative plans, the Obama administration has left many questions unanswered. Diplomats familiar with Mr. Assad say there is no way to know how he would respond, and they question what the United States would do if he chose to order a chemical strike or other major retaliation against civilians.
That would leave the United States to choose between a loss of credibility and a more expansive and unpopular conflict, they said. So he continues on in defiance maybe he even launches another chemical attack to put a stick in our eye and then what? Mr. Crocker said. Because once you start down this road, its pretty hard to get off it and maintain political credibility.
For the United States, the challenge is to deliver the intended message to Mr. Assad without opening the door to a takeover by rebels linked to Al Qaeda, the collapse of state institutions, or a major escalation by Syrias allies. Skeptics doubt that the United States or anyone else has the information to calibrate the attack that precisely.
That is partly because the United States is preparing to inject itself into a conflict that is no longer just about Syria, but has become a volatile regional morass that pits Iran and Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group in Lebanon, against Qaeda affiliates backed by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf benefactors.
Irans and Syrias defense ministers threatened on Friday to unleash attacks on Israel if Mr. Assad was in danger. While Hezbollah has said it would wait to see the scale and nature of the attacks before responding, in practice, analysts close to the organization said, it is probably prepared for any contingency.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Say NO to Obama’s war on Syria....Let the Muslims kill each other. They don’t need our help to do that.
If the New York Times openly admits that Obama lacks the competence to conduct a simple risk assessment when it comes to matters of war, then why do they continue to support him?
And the sooner we disentangle from Saudi Arabia the better.
Forget Damascus, bomb Mecca.
Bombing Syria’s chemical weapons could unleash nerve gas clouds.
Because Syria is in a civil war, Assad has to store his chemical weapons in areas that he controls...cities.
Assad controls the major cities while the rebels control lots of the rural countryside.
...which means that 0bama’s bombing of those WMDs could release hyper-toxic clouds of nerve gas...inside those cities.
Does 0bama’s war planning include stationing nearby U.S. assets to evacuate civilians from any nerve gas clouds released in a U.S. attack on Assad’s WMDs?
For certain, the sycophantic news media will blame Assad for having and storing WMDs in cities (the only areas that he controls) instead of blaming 0bama for “not seeing” the release of large clouds of nerve gas inside cities as being an entirely preventable disaster.
The news media will pump up 0bama’s new UN treaty to ban chemical weapons...completely ignoring 0bama’s culpability in the deaths of thousands of civilians and instead cheering him for advancing his UN treaty against those munitions.
So where’s the plan for evacuating civilians from the nerve gas released out of bombed Syrian chemical weapons?
Is anyone willing to save civilians?
Overlooks risks, unintended consequences, or even goals.
I’m trying to figure out where your coming from and intending to go considering what is in play in the Syrian matter. I served overseas in WWII and was glad the bombs avoided a very costly war in Japan. My only brother was killed on Okinawa just a few months earlier. We both as children of immigrants believed the USA was worth fighting for. I do not like wars, big and small even strikes. I detest Islam and It’s duel forces of social and political bondage by any useful means. If necessary I am for taking Sharia out/off of the USA scene as it is certainly a political cancer. War is dirty and needs a good cause. The situation in Syria doesn’t come up to my need for war, strike or total, though stupid acts by stupid politicians could easily change the dynamics.
“Experts Fear U.S. Plan to Strike Syria Overlooks Risks”
It was NOT overlooked. The pos in the wh has been planning this for a couple of years. And if anyone thinks assad is a bad guy, wait till they see what future plans presbo has.
Exactly; the US has been arming and training the Islamist rebels for the past two years. The US is much to blame for the deaths in the so-called Syrian civil war. Obama expected that Assad would go quickly as another step to setting up the Greater Caliphate and now Obama is doubling down because his plans have not worked out.
On a related subject, has anyone seen Waldo boehner? Where’s Waldo?
Diplomats familiar with Mr. Assad say there is no way to know how he would respond, and they question what the United States would do if he chose to order a chemical strike or other major retaliation against civilians... choose between a loss of credibility and a more expansive... conflict... "So he continues on in defiance -- maybe he even launches another chemical attack to put a stick in our eye -- and then what?" ...the challenge is to deliver the intended message... without opening the door to a takeover by rebels linked to Al Qaeda, the collapse of state institutions, or a major escalation by Syrias allies... Iran and Hezbollah...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.