Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I hope you are right, but then again, their nuclear program has been shady for years and then no signing any treaties doesn't make it any safer.

Again, just my opinion...but with 3rd-rate dictators it is almost always "shadiness" in order to hide the fact they don't have nukes. They want the world to believe they do. It's when countries bald-face lie and say they have no nuclear program and then one day announce they have nukes...Pakistan, N. Korea etc. Like Saddam, Assad wants the world to believe Syria is more dangerous than it is. Just my opinion. Chem weapons are cheap to manufacture and unsophisticated, Israel has a very close eye on Syria and like I said, bombed their facility just a few years back when Syria was just hoping to do Nuclear research.

reply to post by Indigo5


Well, we can't agree on everything, eh?

Yes. They were on the "outskirts" and that was for pre-invasion intelligence. "tip of the spear" Syria is different, more dense geography and not an invasion scenario, And there is a civil war already underway...friendlies mixed with unfriendlies, not just mapping out invasion pathways on a city or targeting.

Indeed, they were on the outskirts of the city. They were also in isolated spots around the area to watch and target designate roadways for high priority traffic as well as general intelligence gathering by what they observed. This happened in both 1990 and 2002/2003. It's a pattern. A standard operating procedure for U.S. engagement of foreign forces where lead planning time is available....and this war is being scheduled like an appointment at the hair salon for all the planning time given.

In Syria for just limited targeting, they would need to be in cities to pinpoint, and Spec-Ops can';t move in cities without detection, hell they would end up on twitter or FB. Very different scenario and geography. Just my strong opinion.

US special teams haven't "had" to be in the cities in other nations over the last decade...and Iraq isn't the only place U.S. soldiers have been in small groups, doing precisely this. It's something we've gotten to be downright expert at by experience and practice. 1990 had a U.S. team facing a child who detected them and having to decide whether to outright kill the kid on the spot or not. Much like the SEAL incident which sparked the 'Sole Survivor' account a book has been written on. They didn't kill him, were detected and that is what caused one of those books to be written by a member of that team. The work the long range, isolated teams do is incredible ...and 100% absolutely necessary unless we fancy flying blind into a SAM trap to die in.

Whilst the rebels have AQ factions, there are also SEVERAL moderate/secular ex-Assad Generals and lesser officials that have defected to the rebels,

Yup... They sure do have some moderate factions. They have some of the most bloodthirsty bastards that region of the world has to produce as well. Afghanistan in the 1980's ALSO had more moderates among the Mujaheddin than they had screaming radical killers. How did that "selective assistance" bull crap work out with Bin Laden? We're doing the SAME THING and arrogant enough to think it can be done better this time. The other side must be laughing themselves sick.

Spec-Ops on the ground is too much of a risk.

You be sure and tell that to the first pilot who ejects over Syrian soil and, if you're right, lands in a VERY hostile land with no Americans for a country's distance in any direction.

It's as likely as not these days, it'll be a female pilot who is captured too. Which is better if one or the other is *GOING* to happen? Having a team of big SEAL warriors taken prisoner and beaten as they've been trained with far worse to endure? Or...having a cute, young American female pilot gang raped into mental breakdown and paraded for the world to gawk at, for whatever is left to show off?

If we do NOT have Americans inside Syria as AT LEAST recovery and SAR support before American pilots go over the border, from above? Then we've been criminally negligent and broken Faith on ALL levels to the men and women we ask to go fight and die in our name........thinking we'll have THEIR back if they need it.

No boots on the ground is a fallacy, a myth and a damned lie it pissed me off to NO end to even hear a worm like Kerry say. He, of ALL people, knows better and yet, he lies like it's natural.....and I'm sure it is to him.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Disagree on Spec Ops being on the ground at present for reasons cited already.

Agree arming rebels, which is part of the plan, is a risky venture at best and we don't have a good track record. The CIA annex in Benghazi was part of a larger OP to recover rocket launchers the US gave the rebels which ended up in the hands of extremists. The CIA in Libya was/is running around with bags full of cash trying to buy back those weapons, and where the extremists refuse to sell, god knows what they are doing. A mess, and it has to be on the mind of the CIA in this scenario.

Spec-Ops on the ground is too much of a risk.

You be sure and tell that to the first pilot who ejects over Syrian soil and, if you're right, lands in a VERY hostile land with no Americans for a country's distance in any direction.

No pilots involved...drones and missiles via aircraft carriers. It's not 1992.

reply to post by Indigo5


No piloted Aircraft involved? None, eh?

You really just suggested that...and managed to keep a straight face while doing it? I'm really trying to restrain myself because it's in no one's best interests to be all hostile here. So, please, remember that as I ask this...but have you read any of the force packages on offer to Obama for result vs. forces required vs. likely downside?

I don't have it all set to share quite yet but if you look around a bit, there are a couple out there which are detailed enough to show each specific and individual bunker, building and feature ...at EACH Airfield and facility that needs targeted for any given scenario and goal set.

*ALL* of them...without exception...ALL I have seen so far that have projected force packages REQUIRE both F-15 and F-18 fighter support. None....absolutely NONE...suggest a drone campaign.

It's not 1992. You're right. It's also not 2020 or 2100 quite yet. We aren't ANYWHERE near the point of fighting a whole action, start to finish and through end-game without men on the soil of the target nation and men in the planes screaming across the skies above. We're a LONG way from that level of totality, IMO.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5

 

No piloted Aircraft involved? None, eh?

....

*ALL* of them...without exception...ALL I have seen so far that have projected force packages REQUIRE both F-15 and F-18 fighter support. None....absolutely NONE...suggest a drone campaign.

Are you saying that plans on the table for a "penalty" strike involve targets requiring manned aircraft? As opposed to Aircraft Carrier launched missiles and drones? If so, I am open to being wrong, please direct me to links?

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
It's not 1992. You're right. It's also not 2020 or 2100 quite yet. We aren't ANYWHERE near the point of fighting a whole action, start to finish and through end-game without men on the soil of the target nation and men in the planes screaming across the skies above. We're a LONG way from that level of totality, IMO.

Haven't the plans been pretty specific that we aren't aiming for an end-game? Start to finish? And Libya? That was actually a more ambitious strike than the one discussed and we did it entirely without US manned aircraft....If I am wrong, please send me to some links.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Following on my post above...good article here:

Here's a look at the mix of military forces facing Assad -- and each other -- in and around the Levant.

The United States already has Syria ringed with Patriot missile batteries in Jordan and Turkey and has four Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers parked in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. This little fleet is likely armed with a mix of Tomahawk cruise missiles to attack ground targets in Syria and surface-to-air missiles capable of defending the ships from attempts to attack them by air.

If U.S. President Barack Obama does decide to fire a warning shot -- as he has described any U.S. military action there -- at Assad, these ships and their Tomahawks will likely play a major role.

In addition to the four destroyers, the United States may well have one of its four guided missile submarines prowling the waters near Syria. These subs used to carry massive Trident nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Over the last decade they saw their nuclear payloads removed and refitted to carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles in 22 of their 24 giant missile tubes. This class of ships saw its combat debut during the 2011 campaign to oust former Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi when the USS Florida fired more than 90 Tomahawks at targets in Libya.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force's fleet of spy planes that will likely track targets and intercept communications by Assad's forces can operate out of NATO's giant base at Incirlik, Turkey, and the U.S. bases along the Persian Gulf. Both Al Udeid air base in Qatar and Al Dhafra air base in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) already see a steady deployment of E-8 Joint STARS radar planes, along with U-2 Dragon Lady and RQ-4 Global Hawk spy planes that are all used to find ground targets. These Persian Gulf bases also regularly host RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic spy planes that snoop on enemy radio communications and radar transmissions, as well as B-1 Lancer heavy bombers and KC-135 and KC-10 tankers that would refuel the airborne armada.

killerapps.foreignpolicy.com...

If the goal is regime change, they need boots on the ground.

If the goal is chemical weapons removal, they need boots on the ground.

If the goal is a pipeline, they need boots on the ground.

The question isn't whether there will be boots on the ground, the question is whose boots it will be.

reply to post by Indigo5


Where would those drones be launching from? The successful launch and recovery of a full size drone, fit for real combat, has only really happened once off an aircraft carrier now that I know of. That would have been the trials off the Atlantic coast earlier this year, I believe. One test series hardly makes a capability. It'll get there, but it's nowhere near there yet.

The min. target packages I was seeing and many others here may have as well were calling for TLAM (cruise missiles) in the hundreds. Which covers why the 5 Destroyers are sitting out there. They have those and can restock without having to return to the U.S. However, it was also calling for extensive support and no-fly zone/corridor establishment and enforcement as a minimum level of effective response. Minimum. There are sites all over the Syrian countryside that need hit if it's to be anything more than just pissing Assad off and NOT actually degrading his ability to make war in some way.

...and if it's NOT about doing that, then why are people on those bases and in those facilities going to die for this? From the pilots who may well have something on their balance sheet to settle for...down to the janitors cleaning the crapper. Why him? It's a personal thing and HAS to be when we're making war by a blackberry scheduler with the arrogance of a minor God tending to a misbehaving flock.

Not even a sense of urgency....but an inevitable 'Well, we're going to get ya, no matter what....when we get around to it'

Sometimes I honestly wonder if the old days weren't better? Certainly more Honorable. The Japanese are recorded as cowards and scoundrels for a sneak attack which it turned out to be.....but lost in the shuffle was a single cable which had been sent and meant to meet some obligation of notice for war. I think the sneak attack with 100% and full total commitment behind it still beats what we've become today.

Today, we don't even sneak up and clobber someone senseless. We toy with them...like a cat with a mouse. I could be sick by that aspect of what the U.S. Government has evolved into. Even the Romans didn't do this, and that's not a good example to say is better.

reply to post by Indigo5


By the way, there are 5 Destroyers. Not 4. Your source is dated. On the 28th of last month the Navy announced the USS Stout was joining the Mahan, Ramage, Barry and Graveley which are already on station. They're all DDG/ Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyers. They have a combined total of over 1700 enlisted and officers. They also all carry the Aegis Combat Control System. That is supposed to be our kryptonite to their Yakhont. Although, the Yakhont was designed to defeat our system. So, it'll be a good test without risking a main line Carrier in the line of fire. After all.....



There are a few sailors from the USS Stark who would love to remind everyone, I'm sure, anti-ship missiles DO occasionally hit ships. As amazing as that may be to consider. The Exocet missile which did that is in a whole different class of primitive compared to the Yakhont cruise missile.

Time and battle will tell, I suppose.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
However, it was also calling for extensive support and no-fly zone/corridor establishment and enforcement as a minimum level of effective response. Minimum. There are sites all over the Syrian countryside that need hit if it's to be anything more than just pissing Assad off and NOT actually degrading his ability to make war in some way.

I had thought I had heard more than once that a no-fly zone was off the table? Even the UN as a multi-national force backed off of the notion.

Why would we need a no-fly zone for missile strikes?

And for better or worse, we are not looking to tip the scales significantly via strikes alone, that BTW is why McCain is saying he might not back the resolution...not aggressive enough!

So I am still not seeing US Pilots overhead in Syria apart from high altitude spy planes....But like I said, I am open to being wrong if reality ends up showing me otherwise or you can direct me to credible sources explaining I am wrong?

As for the rest...meh..It was the conservative party that shouted Congress needed to debate and approve, once again gleefully accused him of being a tyrant and uncaring of the constitution, the POTUS abided and he is slammed for not plowing forward without consent via the War Powers Act?

Yes...this is absurd...YES it is a crap sandwich any which way you try to spin it. But it is where we are at and the options are to do nothing or something.

No one wants boots on the ground...no one...cept maybe the military industrial complex...but the Obama Docterine ahs been anything but boots on the ground and apart from McCain and crew, both left and right don't appear eager for it either.

Don't know what to tell you there.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Thanks for that update.

Honestly?...Objectively?...Non-partisan? ...Non-idealogical?...What is your view on the Obama Military Docterine so far? Cuz, to me...he appears more conservative in putting soldiers in harms way than any President in recent history. He leans on drones and heavily on Special Forces...You can hate on Obama for a lot of reasons, but Obama as itching to send troops abroad? I can't see it in any light.

reply to post by Indigo5


Well, honestly and objectively, An entire world view will ultimately be proven right or wrong by what happens here. (if there isn't some 'smokey back room' deal made to diffuse the whole thing.)

It's worth noting that for the last 3 consecutive September/October seasons in a row and specific for dates and periods of media driven tension, there have been overlapping crisis made to seem like the potential to be the end of everything if not handled just right. It's getting to be a pattern that's hard to ignore, if understanding it may still be a little tough.


Having said that, he's almost certainly acting in what he believes, by his worldview, to be the right way. I think, by my worldview, he's an idiot and a bumbling buffoon, much like Carter and for much the same reasons. (all we're missing is the Embargo....but see Syria screwed up badly enough and how will Saudi show it's displeasure? Embargo!)


Partisanship and B.S. totally aside, I don't think Obama removes contact lenses every night to reveal the glowing eyes of a demon or Jem'Hadar. lol... I think he sees what he's doing as right and honestly believes nothing will happen this time because nothing has happened any time since he's been old enough to have any meaningful living memory. EVERYONE... without ONE single exception since 1980, who has stood against the US, has lost. Every last one. I think he believes nothing has changed so much, as to see THAT change, either. (We haven't outright "won" every scuffle, but all "losses" were following a point of tactical dominance so total, that "losing" came by political choice or lack of proper political choices. Snatching defeat, literally, from the jaws of victory)

On the other hand, and ONLY because of the personalities involved here, when it really comes down to it, I think Obama is reading this very badly. I believe that, far from inherently carrying some power to assure a positive or at least acceptable outcome, we've overspent that account till it bounced like a super-ball. (The last 4 Presidents have all helped waste away our "capital")

I really don't think we have much credibility left. Putin means everything he's saying and he has his own nation's strategic future as the ultimate stake to safeguard or lose in the end here. It's beyond the sight line the media and politicians have everyone looking, but there are major issues just beyond the obvious which make Russia, by strategic necessity, forced into what is about to happen.


Either Obama and his general segment of America is right or I'm right with the general segment of the population I identify with. We'll see which reality of how this world works, turns out to be true....because the outcome will be profoundly different, depending on that. All things considered? I'd be just as happy to see this worldview issue remain one of life's little mysteries. Anything but this.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


I agree with much of that, including the bit about the USA having spent it's capital as "the world's police"...we are likely deep in the red in that regard.

Saudi Arabia isn't going to Embargo..hell if they had a Military they would be occupying Syria as we speak, they have even offered up to pay for any military action...they want Assad gone.

But Putin/Russia as a resolute Assad backer? another proxy war? Another Viet Nam? We strike...Putin retaliates by further arming Syria and we dig deeper? Nah...Putin likes Assad, but will deal with the new Government as well if one comes. And frankly the USA isn't ever going to commit going to the Mat on Syria...hell we are waffling over a "Penalty" strike. This is Libya air strikes, not Iraq, Not Viet Nam...not even Libya really cuz Obama went on the WPA without congress. There is just no will there for anything more.

It would have been simpler if Pres. Obama had just done it, fast and simple under the WPA. Limited strike...and a call to Putin 2 minutes before "We are going to slap down your boy Assad and we will hit harder next time he opts to thumb his nose at us, let him know"...and that's that.

I have little fear of repercussions...looking at all angles, I can't see it. Putin doesn't care enough, he's a pragmatist... Assad is weak...His neighbors in the Middle East want him gone, Israel is itching for an excuse to bomb the hell out of Syria. He will take the hit and go about his business. A terrorist plot or attack on the US...hell, he would never invite that hell-storm while he is trying to quell his own rebellion. What is Assad's move? he will spin it as "no big deal" ..."A largely ineffective and weak strike by the USA" "All is well"

How do you see this unfolding...Honestly...no hyperbole.

reply to post by Indigo5


Fair enough but the Senate took it as nothing as such when they presented a resolution that has the option. And even his (Secretary Kerry's) response absolutely left that option open. Sorry, but I we differ but given the Senate's stance, Kerry's stance and even the President's own stance of willing to engage alone, makes me think that regardless if people are saying "no boots on the ground", the option is open.

All that doesn't at least make you suspect? You know me indigo...I am not emotional about this. If I make a stance, it is because of the words of people who have stated such intentions.

reply to post by Indigo5


I'm really not sure how this one ends, and that bothers me more than anything, I believe. I think part of the problem is in thinking we have enough control over it to even determine that, either way. Putin as well for that matter. We've picked Syria to have the Proxy pee contest over, but this isn't Castro with the exiles and Syria sure isn't Cuba.

Specifically, we could pick up all our toys, training assistance, air support and intelligence capability to come home by the end of next week and it would only insure things settled back into the hum drum routine of daily combat with the give and take between the FSA and Assad. Within all this new material I've run across and am trying to figure the best way to make use of for threads, were maps of Homs, Aleppo and Damascus in neighborhood detail and shading for faction control.

I had no idea Damascus itself was controlled by both sides and split 4 different ways in large swaths of territory at that. The altitude was juuust high enough to miss distinct Middle Eastern marking and so it could have been easily mistaken for a status of forces update board out of any 1980's Central American civil war. Looked very much like them, too. (sigh) History repeats without the humidity.


OUR participation isn't required, just desired.


For that? I'll say this in an educated statement of personal opinion. However this ends, and whomever come out survivors and winning from this stage onward, I believe the United States will be looked at with a "You broke it, so YOU bought it" attitude from the world in responsibility toward Syria's plight into the future.

The counts I just saw are putting the number of refugees at 2 Million and even Iraq, for THAT concern, is actually securing it's own friggin border for the first time in a decade. To keep refugees out, although they say it's to keep fighters from crossing the border.

Once we bomb out their airbases, electrical infrastructure and some other things which won't do much after reports for days now say Assad has been abandoning those places and dispersing troops into the cities anyway...... We'll STILL be expected to give aid and help FIX them. Better than new, probably and brought to everyone by some, as yet unnamed (no-bid for real good reasons, I'm sure) contractor.

History repeats....with more zeros on the end.

However this ends? My attitude on wars where we haven't been put at direct risk as Americans has come to be, find another way. Period. Find another way or like HAD to occasionally happen in the school yard growing up? Let the little bullies have their fight and keep the bigger kids the heck out of it.

However it comes out, civilians die, leaders likely won't and fighters with good intentions now will come to form a worse version of whatever they replace. Wash, rinse, and repeat.......Oh, and yeah, low humidity this time. Less rust on things.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


FYI You are going to love Jon Stewart on this You should be a fan of his these days.

Uncle Jonny Stew's Good Time Syria Jamboree
www.thedailyshow.com...

Groundhog Deja Clusterf@#k
www.thedailyshow.com...

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
However this ends, and whomever come out survivors and winning from this stage onward, I believe the United States will be looked at with a "You broke it, so YOU bought it" attitude from the world in responsibility toward Syria's plight into the future.

Hadn't thought about that. Thanks...The ownership/blame that comes from any intervention however limited.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
Once we bomb out their airbases, electrical infrastructure and some other things which won't do much after reports for days now say Assad has been abandoning those places and dispersing troops into the cities anyway...... We'll STILL be expected to give aid and help FIX them. Better than new, probably and brought to everyone by some, as yet unnamed (no-bid for real good reasons, I'm sure) contractor.

A wise admin...likely the next President from a timing perspective, will tell Saudi Arabia and neighbors it's their problem to pay for...but of course US Biz. wants that foothold and our Gov. will flip the bill for that foothold.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
History repeats....with more zeros on the end.

For both the taxpayers and the Military Contractors and Energy corps...in different ways of course.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
However this ends? My attitude on wars where we haven't been put at direct risk as Americans has come to be, find another way. Period. Find another way or like HAD to occasionally happen in the school yard growing up? Let the little bullies have their fight and keep the bigger kids the heck out of it.

Watch Jon Stewart

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Yah...The option is "on the table"...but I think that is out of technical necessity. We always need that option on the table and never take it all the way off the table...that strategic suicide. I could also win the lottery. Not a perfect example, but from everything I have seen...ANY intervention is going to enrage voters and Democrats and Republicans both want to be able to stay in office. Boots on the ground in this Anti-War climate would be utter fricken fury by the public. It will not happen if for no other reason that our Politicians like their cushy jobs.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


OK...been thinking hard on this.

Though I don't think a strike as being discussed in DC will draw American Troops into the battle..

And I don't think there will be near term consequences of significance for Americans.

I do think there could be significant long term consequences, and the President will be planting the seeds for the next President to do with as he chooses....and we don't know who that is yet, but not optimistic.

We have failed to effect change in the middle east. Not because of the wrong policy...but because no one is able to change the middle-east, but the middle-east. We need to exit.

This doesn't mean isolationism in the world...it means isolationism in military policy toward the middle east.

We can economically reward and recognize those middle-eastern countries that do well, and ignore those regimes like Syria, Iran etc.

Any change we have seen in the middle east has come through internal revolution and it is messy and long...and while horrific to witness children gassed to death in the streets...our intervention will cost more lives in the long run.

I have no issue with the CIA, NSA doing there thing there to try and help the friendly factions of the rebel forces, but we shouldn't run arms. If Saudi-Arabia is so eager to flip the bill for US Military intervention, then Saudi Arabia can arm the rebels.

It needs to be a local affair. There is mechanically no route for the USA to help. We have tried outright invasion...we have tried limited air strikes...nada...zilch for long term good outcome.

Assad is a sociopath...and even if he "wins" he loses. His days are numbered. Leaders don't come back from these scenarios.

It requires patience, but let Syria run it's course...Anyways, that is where I have landed.

reply to post by Indigo5


Well, we won't come away from this agreeing on everything. Particularly the limit of action claimed vs. what I believe is actually expected, and they come as very very different things. However, intelligent folks can disagree, eh? Happens every day.

As it also happens, I agree with a good part of the rest of your note. I do think we need to exit, and even now? It's still not too late. We've lost no Americans I know of yet. No bodies burned from bridges or otherwise made a public spectacle of to cross lines Americans in general won't stop seeing red after. None of that has happened...but it will. Soon. We could still pull back. We won't ...but we could and no one should ever forget that fact about today. I'm sure you and I won't.

As far as I'm concerned, we give FAR FAR too much aid and since the mid 90's we literally have come to give it to almost all 200 nations on Earth. No kidding and I only WISH I were joking. More on that later when I've distilled the pages of every line item of aid, to every nation since 1945 down to something everyone will want to see. lol... It has to end tho.

I say we back ALL troops off the Middle East, save the International Peacekeeping force in the Sinai. We don't need to add even more instability to everything by pulling them now. After that though? As you say.....pursue TRADE. Like MOST nations in the world do. Trade. Not control. Just commerce. Why is that so hard for our leaders?!

I don't agree with support to the rebels though. That atrocity shown across the world last night with the soldiers being executed was cheap and cheesy to run how they did....but it DAMN SURE got the point across. I could not believe what I heard from INSTRUCTORS at the school, let alone from other students. One instructor had, just Monday, been mixed but leaning hard to all possible rebel support. Until that.

Damn.... If I'd only know THAT is ALL it would have taken, I'd have shared the video of the animals using POW's for target practice from a few feet away...on automatic fire...much sooner! That one is FAR FAR worse than what the make-shift firing squad did which has everyone so mad now. We can't support evil.....and evil happens to sit on BOTH sides of this one.

I just consider the rebels to be a markedly DARKER shade of black than Assad for who must go first. They both, in the end, need to go. It's simply not our place to have a thing to do with it happening.