It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Seven months ago, President Barack Obama warned the use of chemical weapons in Syria could bring direct U.S. involvement in that country's raging civil war. While the administration's interest in U.S. military involvement in Syria remains low, planners still have been preparing for the possibility U.S. forces would have to step in and neutralize Syria's military or safeguard chemical weapons stockpiles.
Depending on what the administration might decide to do - and no decisions have yet been made to do anything - military intervention also could meet with resistance from a public weary of war after the long conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Originally posted by charles1952
I have to confess to some confusion. If Obama declared this a "red line" seven months ago, and it's pretty clear that somebody used chemicals in Syria, shouldn't we already be taking the first steps? There must be something in all of the plans that has to be done early on. Something that would show that we're serious and moving. If we don't, why should anyone ever believe in our "red lines" again?
Yes, I think it is. As paranoid as it sounds, I do think that the major news outlets are trying to figure out how to present this safely. Safely in the sense of not harming the Administration. For a really far out speculation, they may even be checking with the White House first.
Do you notice how much more information we are getting from foreign media 12-24 hours before they break on US News. Is our information being filtered and manipulated that much?.
Yes, I believe they do think that. Unless it's discussed at length in the press, most of the country doesn't notice anything. My guess is that this will be buried by the votes on the Continuuing Resolution, and how well Obama did on his trip.
Do they think that we do not notice?
(From OP link)
According to the analysis, it would take up to 75,000 troops to secure Syria's chemical weapons facilities if they were in danger of being looted. An actual deployment would likely involve far fewer ground troops, and from various nations, but it underscores the scope of the challenge.
Before ground troops would go in, weeks of airstrikes would be needed to destroy Syria's air defenses.
The military believes Syria has about 50 weapon production sites around the country, as well as some storage areas and research centers.
Originally posted by stirling
Hell our boys are capable of fighting at least three mebee four simule taneus campaigns!
Sheeit boy thisll be a cake walk, and theyll be home by christbus!
With promotions for all! whoooooeee!
Its Syria's own Civil War I don't understand why we have to get involved. let them paint there own piece of history.