US Military has Doubts about Syria Strike (will they refuse strike orders?)

Originally posted by openminded2011
Here is my prediction.

1. US hits Syria
2. Syria, Hezbollah, possibly Iran hits Israel
3. Israel is hit hard, responds by promptly nuking every Arab country within range of their missiles. Because of the
"arab spring" all the govts of those countries are in a state of complete disarray so a response is not likely.
4. As we closed most of our embassies in the region, we have few casualties.
5. Possibly erupts into a global war.

If Isreal 'nukes every Arab country'.. skip 4 and 5. You're already at WW3.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by openminded2011
Here is my prediction.

1. US hits Syria
2. Syria, Hezbollah, possibly Iran hits Israel
3. Israel is hit hard, responds by promptly nuking every Arab country within range of their missiles. Because of the
"arab spring" all the govts of those countries are in a state of complete disarray so a response is not likely.
4. As we closed most of our embassies in the region, we have few casualties.
5. Possibly erupts into a global war.

If Isreal 'nukes every Arab country'.. skip 4 and 5. You're already at WW3.

That would be correct sir. Well at least the economy and global warming wont be a problem any more.

Bazinga!

Sure would plain a lot!

"Obama’s Brother: Muslim Brotherhood Leader?"

"Speaking recently on Bitna al-Kibir, a live TV show, Tahani al-Gebali, Vice President of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Egypt, said the time was nearing when all the conspiracies against Egypt would be exposed—conspiracies explaining why the Obama administration is so vehemently supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose terrorism has, among other atrocities, caused the destruction of some 80 Christian churches in less than one week.

She did not mention which of the U.S president’s brother’s she was referring to, but earlier it was revealed that Obama’s brother, Malik Obama, was running an African nonprofit closely linked to the Brotherhood as well as the genocidal terrorist of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir."

frontpagemag.com...

"Obama's brother linked to Muslim Brotherhood"

"President Obama’s half-brother in Kenya could cause the White House more headaches over new evidence linking him to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and establishing that controversial IRS supervisor Lois Lerner signed his tax-exempt approval letter.

Malik Obama’s oversight of the Muslim Brotherhood’s international investments is one reason for the Obama administration’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to an Egyptian report citing the vice president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, Tehani al-Gebali.

n a news report on Egyptian television of a Gebali speech, translated by researcher Walid Shoebat, a former Palestinian Liberation Organization operative, Gebali said she would like “to inform the American people that their president’s brother Obama is one of the architects of the major investments of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

www.wnd.com...

To refuse orders from the president, in a very public and open manner, would cause the entire system in the US to enter into a state of chaos. I really don`t think that is going to happen at all. The president of the United States would have to totally insane to try to order the military to do something which he knows they are going to refuse outright. The current president is not crazy at all. He has painted himself into a corner concerning Syria. He just does not have international support for this and unlike the wars under Bush, the international community has tired of American wars. They had enough during the Bush years. These days Russia, China and Iran have a lot more influence in military affairs in the middle east region(It helps to make friends US).

This picture says quite a lot.:

ATS Thread - Syria - it all comes down to Religion and Oil
Our military shouldn't have to go fight for other peoples oil pipelines ..
Our military shouldn't have to go fight to keep muslims from killing other muslims over 'god issues'.

That isn't our national security.
And getting into this war has NOTHING to do with chemical weapons.

Here's my perspective to elaborate on my comments on Page One.

1. Syria has an advanced air defense system. They may not have anti-missile systems but there is no way to prove that since Russia has been supplying them with modern armament.

2. Syria has a modern airforce. Not as advanced as ours or that of the EU, but can certainly cause damage.

3. Syria has a well trained ground force with modern armor assets, attack helicopters, and infantry.

These people are NOT Iraq and Afghanistan. They will not fold at the first sign of US military presence. This WILL be bloody as hell.

People think that sending cruise missiles would be the end of it.

These people are naive and lack military knowledge.

We send cruise missiles, they attack NATO and US assets in the Region either with conventional or chemical weapons. We retaliate by stomping on them harder, they send chemical and conventional weapons over the border in to Israel. NATO, Israel, and the US send troops into Syria it may provoke Russia and Iran to do the same. Now we really have a problem don't we? Iran's best bet would be to facilitate Russia, and their own military incursions into Afghanistan. While we are busy drawing down for an exit from Afghanistan after being equipped for counter insurgency operations we would quickly find ourselves fighting a conventional ground and air war in one of the most hostile regions on Earth. Not to mention the Taliban's involvement.

We've also been incurring into Pakistan for 12 years. Would it not stand to reason that this conflict would open the door to Pakistani military aggression in Afghanistan against both ISAF/NATO and the Karzai government?

We can't simply assume this would be a limited engagement. We have to think about what happens ten to twenty steps after the initial pull of the trigger.

Folks, this is why I hate the modern politician.

Originally posted by projectvxn
We can't simply assume this would be a limited engagement. We have to think about what happens ten to twenty steps after the initial pull of the trigger.

And what would happen after the initial hit isn't pretty ... and it isn't short ... and it isn't limited.
All this for oil pipelines and to stop Muslims from killing each other over their version of 'god'.

I VOTE NO!! I hope Congress does as well.

reply to post by FlyersFan


That's precisely the point I'm making in my post.

This won't be limited no matter how much the president or other politicians want it to be. It's simply going to escalate and everyone aboard the ship knows it.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by silo13

 

I’d like to think no one would follow the orders to ‘hit’ Syria. The problem is I’ve seen too many YouTube videos and negative reports on ‘today’s military’ lust for blood regardless who’s blood is shed.

It has nothing to do with bloodlust! The military isn’t full of rabid dogs.

It has to do with discipline. In the Marine Corps we define discipline as the instant, willing obedience to orders, respect for authority, self reliance and teamwork. It’s not our job to second guess lawful orders or question the legality or constitutionality of a presidential directive.

The last paragraph of the OP’s NewsMax article sums it up.

"When a president draws a red line, for better or worse, it’s policy," an Army lieutenant colonel told the Post, referring to Obama’s declaration last year about Syria’s potential use of chemical weapons.

www.newsmax.com...

In case you missed it, President Obama referred to the United States armed forces as “my military” during a statement to the media regarding the Syrian crisis Friday.
“But as I’ve already said,” Obama noted, “I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options.”

Soldiers should always think about what they are about to do.

reply to post by superman2012


I told you it would be impossible to believe. Quds have been involved on both sides of the conflict in Syria from the beginning of the uprising. It may make no sense to you, but they are seeking to both fulfill Islamic prophecies and to gain religious justification for attack plans against Israel and the "Great Satan". They also believe that if they can provoke the west to attack Syria that when Assad fears his regime will fall he will attack Israel, which his military leaders and others in the regime have promised to do.... When Israel retaliates it will unite the Sunnis and Shiites with the Alawite Assad regime against Israel... It gets even crazyer from there. They have the terrorist cells and networks in place to launch attacks, they don't have the religious justification and fulfilled prophecies to execute their plans...

That will change IF we get involved militarily...

It is what it is...

IMO, of course.

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by seabag


It has to do with discipline. In the Marine Corps we define discipline as the instant, willing obedience to orders, respect for authority, self reliance and teamwork. It’s not our job to second guess lawful orders or question the legality or constitutionality of a presidential directive.

So if you unit had been orderd to massarce a village with the women and children you would have done it without queation like a good little marine?

Obviously not!

You missed the part above (that you quoted) where I said "lawful orders". There is nothing unlawful about Obama ordering a strike....at least not as far as the military is concerned. It would be unlawful to order the murder of women and children.