[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

It doesn't matter of they are able to introduce some unpredictability - it only takes one such event to make a huge splash. Remember the Chinese embassy bombing fiasco in the Kosovo war? That was one strike and people still remember it...

You cannot conduct an air campaign and not have collateral damage. As good as we are we are not perfect. If the missiles fly and bombs drop then it will happen. Prepare for it, and accept the likely repercussions.

 

Nope. Still against launching a ton of missiles to overthrow a government and then allow a terrorists who have actually murdered American citizens on purpose to have access to all sorts of sophisticated weaponry and potential chemical weapons.

Yes, Assad is horrible. Yes, it is awful that innocent Syrians are dying.

But some of the rebel factions are our TRUE enemies and horrible people as well.

My assumption is that a lot of you are just trying to support your political party and would be disgusted if President Romney was doing this exact same thing.

And regarding "intelligence", we had "intelligence" on Iraq as well. That turned out great!

 

Several of them have come out of those briefings saying that what they heard in the briefings was exactly what everyone else has heard on the news, and that no new information was presented. That doesn't inspire confidence.

Would you please tell this to your your fellow liberals who whine about Bush "lying" about WMD in Iraq? They seem almost invariably incapable of understanding that a CINC has to trust the intel that his agencies give him, and that operating based upon flawed intelligence is a far cry from lying. Just an aside... But the irony here is almost as rich as the hypocrisy.

 

So did the people who were in that meeting with Powell.

There is a big difference between "not having intelligence agencies at all" and having been burned and embarrassed in the eyes of the world badly just a few years ago by bad/fraudulent intel and therefore being extra extra extra careful and giving more weight to opposing intel.

 

I think almost all world leaders, Iran and NK included, are more rational than people give them credit for. They are driven by the same things as everyone else - gaining and holding power. They push boundaries that they know they can push and get away with, but they have no interest in getting their country blown up by the US or losing the power that they hold. I think this is true with most of history, with both the best and most brutal/evil dictators in the world. Very few leaders start wars they think or know they'll lose.

I have no doubt Iran will be involved in Syria - but I think that's very different than them engaging directly with the US. I don't think they are that stupid.

 

You underestimate Arab dictators' penchant for underestimating their enemies and making poor decisions that result in their demise. History is littered with examples, recent history as well. Saddam, Khadaffi, virtually every deposed Arab Spring leader... All of them could have either avoided conflict (the rational course of action) or fled their situations and spared themselves. These guys are poor decision-makers. Assad is, too. As are the mullahs in Iran.

And I think that they are. They've done it before. Several times.

You cannot walk into this thinking that they will stay out of it. It's possible that they will but likely that they won't. And you have to be prepared for it if they do.

Again, if they do hit an embassy or otherwise kill Americans in response, what then? If you don't respond then you are again branded weak. Are you prepared to escalate and go to war with Iran over this? Because that is exactly what you are risking.

 

Also, Major - read the article I posted on page 9. We have apparently already intercepted orders to Quds to attack US targets in Iraq if we attack Syria. That is not a hypothetical, and it indicates that such plans are already in motion.

Would you agree that intercepted communications between IRGC HQ in Tehran and Quds force operatives in Iraq instructing them to prepare to strike American targets in the event of an attack on Syria constitutes evidence of a high likelihood that Iran *will* attack us if we attack Syria?

Short of an exploding VBIED at our embassy there I can't think of more direct evidence of their planned involvement. Sorta hard to argue that.

 

Special cargo eh .. wth does that mean ?

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-ships-syria/25097867.html

 

A few more relevant news tidbits to ponder:

No Syria Attack Without Congressional Approval, Obama Aide Says

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/no-syria-attack-without-congressional-approval-obama-aide-says/

Like I said, I'd be shocked if he attacked after Congress refused authorization. I don't see that in the cards at all.

Pentagon Is Ordered to Expand Potential Targets in Syria With a Focus on Forces

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/pentagon-is-ordered-to-expand-potential-targets-in-syria-with-a-focus-on-forces.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

This is where it moves from "limited" to "expansive". Once you start going after units in the field, it doesn't end until... They have no more units in the field. That's not all that "limited", I think.

I commented last week about the carriers in the region. Again, no one seemed to notice or care. It's relevant. We have 2 carrier groups in the region. In addition to our land-based air forces that's about what you'd want for a pretty sizeable air campaign.

Russia sends warship with 'special cargo' to Syria

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iOV1CSRt2XxVFyl56Er1Ijtmf-8g?docId=CNG.bc2c58b8448a78034cfe40d7c3fd0fb5.151&hl=en

S-300s, anyone? What else would it be? If it's S-300s then that is bad news.

 

Spoiler

 

Bleeds Al Qaeda, bleeds the Iranian economy has to prop up Assad. From my perspective, this war's a win-win, and the US should focus on prolonging it. And given that Assad seems to be winning, I'm perfectly content with a few missile strikes to tip it back towards the other way. Sending a warning on chemical weapons isn't half bad either.

 

The only reason for congress to approve this is if Obama intends to use it as leverage to force people to the negotiating table - which is not the case.

I hope congress defeats this.

 

LOL, that would do more good than a thousand Tomahawks! :grin:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...biya-reports-another-gas-attack-syrian-regime

 

But indications are that the target list is expanding. We now have 2 carrier groups in the vicinity (we were in the middle of a rotation when this all started), and there are numerous reports out today that because of the delay the target list is being expanded to include artillery and rocket units, antiaircraft/SAM sites (and their associated C4I sites), C4I sites, and airfields (fixed and rotary) - basically everything but ground maneuver units. Word is we will not attack chemical weapons sites themselves for fear of release. That sounds like decapitation to me.

If they decapitate the Assad regime are you cool with that? If they aren't trying to, but they tip the scales too much, and the rebels win are you cool with that?

What is that perfect mix of target packages that will hurt Assad just enough that he wouldn't dare launch another chemical attack, but not enough to give the rebels a solid edge on the ground? If the intention is to take out platforms capably of launching chemical weapons then that means taking out his air force (fixed and rotary) and all of his artillery and rocket forces, as well as a significant portion of his command and intelligence capacity. How does that not tip the balance heavily towards the rebels?

Peruse this, please:

Woman informing Kerry, McCain’s opinions on Syria also an advocate for Syrian rebels

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/woman-informing-kerry-mccains-opinions-on-syria-also-an-advocate-for-syrian-rebels/

It's no secret that McCain thinks the rebels are a swell bunch of guys and wants to see Assad toppled. And Kerry of late has been very outspoken about how moderate the rebels really are. If Kerry is saying this to Congress (he is) and they are trying to tailor their strike package to McCain's desires in order to gain his full support (and by reports out today they are), then what do you think their true intention is here? Do you really think it's just to slap Assad on the wrist and carry on, leaving the two sides in the Syrian war on equal footing?

You know, according to POTUS, regime change was never our intention in Libya either. Just something to think about as we ponder attempting to "balance" the Syrian war.

 

Oh, more good news:

Iraqi officials, militants warn of threat to US

http://news.yahoo.com/iraqi-officials-militants-warn-threat-us-141913365.html

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iranian-backed Shiite militias are threatening to retaliate against American interests inside Iraq if the United States goes ahead with strikes against the Tehran-allied government in neighboring Syria, according to Iraqi security officials and militants themselves...

It just keeps getting better and better. Remind me again why this will totally be worth it?

 

No to Military Strike.

What are our real reasons and goals for striking Syria? Use of chemical weapons reason isn't convincing at all.

I wish Clinton was still SOS. Kerry is just too close to McCain and that hawkish group.

 

Looks like the World - as far as the G-20 goes - has spoken:

Obama Stymied in Bid to Rally World Leaders on Syria Strike
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?pagewanted=all

And judging by readers' comments on that NYT report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/w...-strike.html?pagewanted=all#commentsContainer

the American people have also spoken.

 

Did you really just utter those words?

 

Yes. Why?