It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. military beginning review of Syria options

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
I think it's a very very bad idea to push Russia we should be doing what we can to make friends with them not alienate them. We share much more in common with them than we do with many of the other groups we seem to be entangling with.




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Still Russia is in tough situation here. It wants friendly regime in Iran but also does not want Iran to become very powerful. It would be a disaster for Russia and China, if Iran become west friendly and powerful at the same time.

West is encircling Russia very fast here. It is very dangerous situation for planners in Moscow. That is why both Syria and Iran can inflate into something of a big proxy for at least. If Russia retreats from here that would be a huge blow to its strategic calculations.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Still Russia is in tough situation here. It wants friendly regime in Iran but also does not want Iran to become very powerful. It would be a disaster for Russia and China, if Iran become west friendly and powerful at the same time.

West is encircling Russia very fast here. It is very dangerous situation for planners in Moscow. That is why both Syria and Iran can inflate into something of a big proxy for at least. If Russia retreats from here that would be a huge blow to its strategic calculations.


The question is: How far would Russians go in order to protect their interests? Yugoslavia, one of their big-time supporters was lost, Iraq was on the friend list too but now it's under US supervision and Russkies didn't do much about it. Not military-wise anyway.

About Moscow planners. I happened to be stationed in Syria back in 80s watching over US fleets both in Mediterranean and Indian oceans. We had joined war games with Syrians on paper of course playing out a few scenarios. Without WMD the outcome was always in US favor.

Please check also: New Russian Military doctrine especially the part on using of WMD. By memory " if other means are not sufficient to reach the goals, nuclear weapon can be used "



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Personally, I was under the assumption that we don't negotiate with terrorists. That includes the state kind. When there's a genocide going on (a term I've heard mention a couple of times about the Syrian situation, although perhaps a bit rashly so), that's when we need to use force. Not diplomacy. We tried that in Rwanda, and we all know how that ended.


Still, this is just my immediate reaction. I'm not enough informed of the situation in Syria right now to say whether or not what is being done there constitutes as anything remotely close to genocide.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by David_Reale
Personally, I was under the assumption that we don't negotiate with terrorists. That includes the state kind. When there's a genocide going on (a term I've heard mention a couple of times about the Syrian situation, although perhaps a bit rashly so), that's when we need to use force. Not diplomacy. We tried that in Rwanda, and we all know how that ended.


Still, this is just my immediate reaction. I'm not enough informed of the situation in Syria right now to say whether or not what is being done there constitutes as anything remotely close to genocide.


Please clarify the term terrorists. In the case of Syria, the government responds in kind to the partisan/insurgency/mob violence. In the US the government reacts exactly the same - Seattle disorders, etc. Are they terrorists too?

By the way, the ones steering the Syrian unrest all sitting abroad, financing certain militants. This is a very standard procedure when you want a little war to break somewhere.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


I'm referring to an article I read this morning about the city of Homs, in Syria, where the inhabitants call the government attacks a genocide. In my book this constitutes terrorism.

www.guardian.co.uk...

As I said, though, I'm not too well informed on the situation over there right now. In my experience, insurgencies and civil wars, just as with wars between countries, are usually not about opression (although that may very well be a contributing factor) as much as about something much simpler, namely politics.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by David_Reale
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


I'm referring to an article I read this morning about the city of Homs, in Syria, where the inhabitants call the government attacks a genocide. In my book this constitutes terrorism.

www.guardian.co.uk...

As I said, though, I'm not too well informed on the situation over there right now. In my experience, insurgencies and civil wars, just as with wars between countries, are usually not about opression (although that may very well be a contributing factor) as much as about something much simpler, namely politics.


Inhabitants call it a genocide. I'm not sure they are familiar with the word. On the other hand reporters love it. They prepare pubic opinion in the West. Let's first create an image of a tyrant oppressing his poor people, then we will claim to know someone better to replace the tyrant. Then we will help that someone to get rid of the later.

Rwanda is not Syria. Syria is not Rwanda. Nobody cared about Rwanda. There was nothing to fight for except some millions of black people. Syria is a different story. For centuries it's been the key to the Middle East.

IMHO Let's not get involved, let any nation decide and fix its problems on its own accord.
edit on 8-2-2012 by MRHIDDENHAND because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


If west attacks Syria then R+C will start arming the regime and make the intervention very hard to achieve victory. I think that's as far as R+C will go and try to trap US into 5-10 year long military engagement.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


If west attacks Syria then R+C will start arming the regime and make the intervention very hard to achieve victory. I think that's as far as R+C will go and try to trap US into 5-10 year long military engagement.


A plausible development. Yet, Russia is not the Soviet Union with its next to unlimited resources. China is too far away. Supply lines both for R+C are too long and hence extremely vulnerable.

There is a definite West fire power and smart-tech superiority. Besides West bases are all around - Cyprus, Turkey, Kuwait, etc.

Some extra thoughts:
Trying to estimate the length of an armed conflict, we should consider the general population political moods. It won't take long to defeat AAD, air force, comm centers, armor. The real battles are on the ground. And here the equation becomes dependent on terrain profile, preparedness and willingness of the rival forces, partisan activities. For Syrian, knowing the country and mind set, my wild guess would be a year or a bit more.


Again, how far Russians are willing to go.
edit on 8-2-2012 by MRHIDDENHAND because: some extra thoughts

edit on 8-2-2012 by MRHIDDENHAND because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


That's what I was thinking too. If West tries to intercept ships from R+C then it can be a Cuban crisis all over again. If Syrian government requests for arms then foreign powers have all legal rights to provide them.

Regarding smart tech, here is an example: NATO planes were painting the Libyan tanks with lasers and then sending the laser guided bombs. If Libyans had the laser warning and jamming tools then those bombs would have gone a waste. It would have taken good 5 tries to get rid of the tank etc. That prolongs the conflict. Also, Syrian population is not that much polarized. If it was, we would be seeing riots and battles in every town big or small. The fight is only in areas like Homs currently. Also, Syrian army is not defecting like Libya. Any western intervention can be prolonged by alot. Also, even after regime falls, there will be endless insurgency from Iran and Iraq just the way it was in Iraq 2003 and beyond.

Do I want this 2012 Prophecy year to go by fast. It is only Feb and so much is happening alot already.

To answer the question, I do not think R+C will go to war with West on Syria or Iran. They cannot afford to.

edit on 8-2-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


And I would add that Assasd should cut the hands that are feeding the serpent i.e. Gulf nations that are providing arms, men, finances etc. to the rebels in Homs. A terrorist attack that kills 200-300 people in each of these countries Quatar, UAE, Saudi, Turkey will either quiet them up or have them up the pressure on Syria. In a way these nations are doing terrorism in Syria so they have every right to respond.

Either way, Assad and also Iran should make sure to convey message to these nations that playing the prostitute of US does have some really heavy costs to be incurred. Afghanistan, Pakistan are good examples of 'use, abuse and forget' modus operandi of the US. Even Libya was sucking upto West in early 2000s and it all ended for Gadahhfi in the sewer hole finally.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


That's what I was thinking too. If West tries to intercept ships from R+C then it can be a Cuban crisis all over again. If Syrian government requests for arms then foreign powers have all legal rights to provide them.

Regarding smart tech, here is an example: NATO planes were painting the Libyan tanks with lasers and then sending the laser guided bombs. If Libyans had the laser warning and jamming tools then those bombs would have gone a waste. It would have taken good 5 tries to get rid of the tank etc. That prolongs the conflict. Also, Syrian population is not that much polarized. If it was, we would be seeing riots and battles in every town big or small. The fight is only in areas like Homs currently. Also, Syrian army is not defecting like Libya. Any western intervention can be prolonged by alot. Also, even after regime falls, there will be endless insurgency from Iran and Iraq just the way it was in Iraq 2003 and beyond.

Do I want this 2012 Prophecy year to go by fast. It is only Feb and so much is happening alot already.

To answer the question, I do not think R+C will go to war with West on Syria or Iran. They cannot afford to.

edit on 8-2-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)


I have very little doubts about Iran's and Syria's fate. It is sealed because it is the way it is supposed to be. It's a mere historical development. The root of the issue - sorry to repeat - lies within a particular group of enterprises that have been meticulously pursuing a certain goal, which is smoothing up the geopolitical differences world-wide bringing every significant country under their control - direct or remote. Since the world is crazed with petroleum, this group focused on oil-rich countries, then it's going to be water, then productive lands. That let Africans enjoy real freedom for another 30 years and Latin Americans maybe a decade.


Now back to the lower plane of things. About weapons. It used to be my trade fro two decades. I don't have any fresh intel but as far as I know Syria doesn't posses anything that would interfere with laser aiming or higher techs. Their arsenal is some 10 to 20 years behind that of the West.
Now preparedness. Have you seen Arabs in battles? Sorry to say, I'd rather command a company of Russian motorized infantry than a Syrian special forces battalion. I trained Syrians, Yemeni, Egyptians. They haven't impressed me. They are people of crowd. They are only good in a mass. No good individually.

I just called two friends of mine one in Damascus, another in Aleppo. Nothing objective but they say it's not bad.

p.s. I wouldn't worry about 2012 issue from the angle of armed conflicts. Check solar activity. It's sort of funky.

edit on 8-2-2012 by MRHIDDENHAND because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


Correct, war for resources is the new global trend.

Regarding laser and gps jammers and other high tech, it is upto the R+C to provide them. How about directed artillery and long range anti material rifles etc. How about Russia providing with satellite intel regarding this or that. These would substantially add to the efficiency of the defense.

Regarding Arabs, that's true they are less efficient fighters, however, Syrians are the better one's among the Arabs, more so because they had to face off Israel for decades.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


Correct, war for resources is the new global trend.

Regarding laser and gps jammers and other high tech, it is upto the R+C to provide them. How about directed artillery and long range anti material rifles etc. How about Russia providing with satellite intel regarding this or that. These would substantially add to the efficiency of the defense.

Regarding Arabs, that's true they are less efficient fighters, however, Syrians are the better one's among the Arabs, more so because they had to face off Israel for decades.


My dear friend,

You overestimate Russian willingness and capability to get involved. There is a good deal of angry, threatening addresses coming out from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But those are words. A big boggy man is trying to take away one of your favorite toys. But you don't have anything to develop, no task force at hand. You rely on WMD and some petty troops for internal missions. All you do is to bark. Now the SleepY Dragon. US market is a good market. Syria is a good country but there is no market. And we don't but oil from there. We keep dozing.

Jokes aside. There are old good links between Russian JSC and that of Syria. That is a fact but I don't think our dear generals will be authorized to supply them with operative intel. Weapons again. There is unconfirmed info about s300 anti aircraft complexes being shipped to Syria. It's a very powerful, reliable, and efficient defense system. en.wikipedia.org...(missile)
If so(deployed and operational), it increases Syrian chances slightly during the first stages.

I see your hidden desire to think that there is someone in this world that can be a decent rival to US, Israel, or NATO. There are two as you stated yourself R+C and India to the certain extent. As for battle skills of Syrians, again, not as good as Israeli. They've been facing Israeli for decades but it's mostly border thing. No action since the Yom Kipur and Six Day stuff.

p.s.
Here it comes news.mail.ru... (full article in Russian)
Russian Vice PM, the member of Russian government responsible for Military Industrial Complex, Mr.Rogozin says today, Russia needs an Army mobile and dreadful to her enemies... Now often our general elaborate plans for wars we have already lost. That should be changed. A modern war is not a lasting one.


edit on 8-2-2012 by MRHIDDENHAND because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2012 by MRHIDDENHAND because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2012 by MRHIDDENHAND because: new info



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


Thinking strategically, Russia does not have means to openly get involved in Syria. Thus R+C need to get involved covertly. That I have been saying all along.

Now if they cannot even do that, then Assad and other what so called allies should quietly pack their bags and find a peaceful exile nation to go to. No need to end up like Gaddhafi or Mubarak.

If R+C cannot even give covert support then they do not deserve any allies or friends and they should stop acting like major powers, especially Russia. However, it would be a catastrophic loss for Russia to have a regime change in Syria and Iran.

Regarding S300s, Syria already has them. But they can be taken out by a salvo of regular or stealth cruise missiles. That is the plan of NATO in case they have to face off Russia at some point. Take out S300s and any S400s by first taking out point defense Tor-M1s and Panistrs. Once that is done then send B2s/F22s/F35s to face off the Air Force. Beyond that it will be regular bombing the high value infrastructures. According to USAF, it will take them 30 days or little more to have total air superiority over Russia.

Just like Iran, Syria has better chances carrying an assymetric warfare. They are not as good as Israelis, not even near, so they stand atmost two weeks before losing their main assets against the west.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


Thinking strategically, Russia does not have means to openly get involved in Syria. Thus R+C need to get involved covertly. That I have been saying all along.

Now if they cannot even do that, then Assad and other what so called allies should quietly pack their bags and find a peaceful exile nation to go to. No need to end up like Gaddhafi or Mubarak.

If R+C cannot even give covert support then they do not deserve any allies or friends and they should stop acting like major powers, especially Russia. However, it would be a catastrophic loss for Russia to have a regime change in Syria and Iran.

Regarding S300s, Syria already has them. But they can be taken out by a salvo of regular or stealth cruise missiles. That is the plan of NATO in case they have to face off Russia at some point. Take out S300s and any S400s by first taking out point defense Tor-M1s and Panistrs. Once that is done then send B2s/F22s/F35s to face off the Air Force. Beyond that it will be regular bombing the high value infrastructures. According to USAF, it will take them 30 days or little more to have total air superiority over Russia.

Just like Iran, Syria has better chances carrying an assymetric warfare. They are not as good as Israelis, not even near, so they stand atmost two weeks before losing their main assets against the west.


Dear Victor7,
You are a very interesting counter-party to have a correspondence with. I agree with you on most of your statement save the vulnerability of s300/s400 systems. As far as I know no one tried to take them down yet except us Russkies ourselves at the test range. In my military days I was a FAC/jammer/ finaly army intel officer then move on to more interesting projects, so I'm familiar a tiny bit (if a bit rusty) with US/ Allies AF capabilities.

Russia unfortunately is not a super power. They are and always have been the master of deceive though. The covert aid you are talking about may be provided but it will be something minor. Russia has lost most of its military credibility as an ally a while ago. So they don't have to get used to the feeling. I keep sensing some resentment about the whole situation. I wish the world were a better place myself.

Once we are done with these topic, I'd gladly carry on about US vs R+C in a new thread.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


Good stuff US-NATO vrs R+C should be real informative topic for a civilian like me.

infact it should be PRIICKS: Pakistan, Russia, India, Iran, China, North Korea and Syria.

edit on 8-2-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by MRHIDDENHAND
 


Good stuff US-NATO vrs R+C should be real informative topic for a civilian like me.

infact it should be PRIICKS: Pakistan, Russia, India, Iran, China, North Korea and Syria.

edit on 8-2-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)


Sounds great to me. I guess we've explored and exhausted the present topic. Start the thread, I'll join.
Thanks again,
Mr. Hidden Hand aka Asher Negev, Alsher Zade, etc...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
You two are having a very interesting discussion about the merits of a Russian intervention, so what I'd like to ask is what you see as lines in the sand for Russia. Is there a point/action where their hand would be forced beyond something quiet like covert support into open confrontation?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassandranova
You two are having a very interesting discussion about the merits of a Russian intervention, so what I'd like to ask is what you see as lines in the sand for Russia. Is there a point/action where their hand would be forced beyond something quiet like covert support into open confrontation?

My absolutely private and humble opinion. Russia is and will be very loud about the whole ordeal. As usual, they'll try to do everything diplomatically possible to prevent any third-party invasion/force action against Syria. It's highly likely that they will not succeed and West will make their move (Iraq, Libya, Grenada - style depending on Pentagon boys calls and wishes of the allies). That'll be the moment of truth. To reason let's first look back and remember Russian reaction under similar circumstances. We have at least 3 recent precedents at hand, namely Iraq (valuable Russian asset despite some frictions during the last years of Saddam reign), Libya (more EU inclined yet highly and tightly linked to Russia), Yugoslavia (can't be used as a worthy reference due to time - Russia is stronger now yet.... ). In all three cases Russian interests were severely affected but as we all know WW3 didn't follow.
If your question is about the probability of a nuclear exchange between US-NATO and R or C, I'd say it's moved from 0 to maybe 2 (10 is the END). Consider (research) the internal political climate in Russia (China). Russia is approaching Presidential elections. Could be a good thing, could be otherwise. People I know at JSC are eagles and hawks but they don't want to die.
Again everything said above is MHO.

p.s. (bad habit) Keep your eyes and ears open for Iran developments. Both things are connected in a certain way. Iran's hassle smells worse than Syrian issue.
edit on 8-2-2012 by MRHIDDENHAND because: afterthought




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join