Here it comes: Syria
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
The reason we keep losing, is because there is no proper goal (strategy) set at the beginning
You spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on equipment that can be taken out by one man and a £20 RPG or needs a man walking in front sweeping a path for it.
Look at Afghanistan, you have lots of little enclaves while the rest of the Country is a no go, they have operations from what i see on the news, move in take an area then pullback because they never have had the manpower to hold it. You will never win anything and hold it when your Army manning would struggle to fill a football ground, let alone a Country.
How does one know how to roughly achieve an objective in anything above a tactical situation before you start? I agree an objective should be clear, but warfare is an evolving, dynamic unknown. If you attack me, I'm going to do my damnedest to figure out your plan and counter it requiring you to counter as well.
You try and make it sound simple. Something's simply can't be broken down to some basic element.
You try and make it sound simple. Something's simply can't be broken down to some basic element.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southend
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With apologies to Douglas Adams, as the bowl of petunias said "Oh no not again!"
Come on you bunch of c
s (sorry, I meant career politicians) please learn the lessons from history and lets not go there ..... please?
Can we really afford to get involved, either morally or more to the point financially? As so many have said already 'they' wont thank us for it, and see it as just more 'Western aggression'.
But what do I know?
Come on you bunch of c
s (sorry, I meant career politicians) please learn the lessons from history and lets not go there ..... please?Can we really afford to get involved, either morally or more to the point financially? As so many have said already 'they' wont thank us for it, and see it as just more 'Western aggression'.
But what do I know?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,077
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Which gets you absolutely nowhere. What do you gain from that? You may take out some of his infrastructure but what is stop him being re supplied?
You might lob a few Cruise missiles but can you see that ever being the end of it?
Ever since Maggie Thatcher we seem to have inherited a bunch of gun ho politicians who think that butting into other people's wars is the way they can stamp their mark on History.
This is going to end in a turgid mess, so Chemical weapons have been used, that never stopped the world ignoring Saddam when he was using them for years on the Kurds did it. One just hopes Syria haven't got any in this Country.
..
You might lob a few Cruise missiles but can you see that ever being the end of it?
Ever since Maggie Thatcher we seem to have inherited a bunch of gun ho politicians who think that butting into other people's wars is the way they can stamp their mark on History.
This is going to end in a turgid mess, so Chemical weapons have been used, that never stopped the world ignoring Saddam when he was using them for years on the Kurds did it. One just hopes Syria haven't got any in this Country.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 28th Aug 2013 at 00:11.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutloose:
We Brits should know better... We played this game in the 1840's(?) and watched the Russians try again more recently... Shame on us for not learning...
Look at Afghanistan,
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
"How does one know how to roughly achieve an objective in anything above a tactical situation before you start? I agree an objective should be clear, but warfare is an evolving, dynamic unknown."
You have the overall Mission and then you have the missions within this that
collectively go to achieve the overall Mission.
You could call it Strategic versus Tactical with tactical missions used to achieve the strategic mission.
"How does one know how to roughly achieve an objective in anything above a tactical situation before you start? I agree an objective should be clear, but warfare is an evolving, dynamic unknown."
You have the overall Mission and then you have the missions within this that
collectively go to achieve the overall Mission.
You could call it Strategic versus Tactical with tactical missions used to achieve the strategic mission.
Last edited by 500N; 28th Aug 2013 at 00:57.
500
Having a mission has no bearing on how to achieve it. Your plan on day one likely isn't going to resemble what the plan is on the last day, whether the objective is achieved or not. I think it's folly to think you have an idea of how to achieve the goal of winning before the war begins. You have your day one plan and adapt from there as the situation dictates.
Having a mission has no bearing on how to achieve it. Your plan on day one likely isn't going to resemble what the plan is on the last day, whether the objective is achieved or not. I think it's folly to think you have an idea of how to achieve the goal of winning before the war begins. You have your day one plan and adapt from there as the situation dictates.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Reuters poll last week found popular support for entering the Syrian war was only 9 percent. When Obama orders what is now seen as an inevitable attack on government forces there, he will be initiating what will likely be the first-ever military campaign of the modern era launched without popular support.
Given that Syria has weapons of mass destruction, formidable allies in Iran and Russia and is near enough to bomb Jerusalem, the idea of yet another intervention escapade does not sit well with folks here.
Secretary of State John Kerry declared that the evidence of a chemical weapons attack last week in Syria in "undeniable," but offered no proof of who did it.
Putin agrees that chemical weapons were used in Syria, but does not agree with the U.S. assessment that they were deployed by government forces rather than Islamist rebels.
Hossein Sheikholeslam, the director general of the Iranian parliament’s International Affairs bureau, says Israel will be the “first victim” of any U.S.-led military strike on Syria, predicting that President Bashar Assad’s regime would fight back against the Jewish state.
Our concern should be preventing those chemical weapons from falling into hands of Hezbollah, that should be guiding our action, not expressing moral outrage and widening the conflict.
Bob C
Given that Syria has weapons of mass destruction, formidable allies in Iran and Russia and is near enough to bomb Jerusalem, the idea of yet another intervention escapade does not sit well with folks here.
Secretary of State John Kerry declared that the evidence of a chemical weapons attack last week in Syria in "undeniable," but offered no proof of who did it.
Putin agrees that chemical weapons were used in Syria, but does not agree with the U.S. assessment that they were deployed by government forces rather than Islamist rebels.
Hossein Sheikholeslam, the director general of the Iranian parliament’s International Affairs bureau, says Israel will be the “first victim” of any U.S.-led military strike on Syria, predicting that President Bashar Assad’s regime would fight back against the Jewish state.
Our concern should be preventing those chemical weapons from falling into hands of Hezbollah, that should be guiding our action, not expressing moral outrage and widening the conflict.
Bob C
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Our concern should be preventing those chemical weapons from falling into hands of Hezbollah, that should be guiding our action, not expressing moral outrage and widening the conflict."
IMHO, if Hezbollah wanted CW, they would get them and not necessarily
from Syrian Stockpiles. Although I think that they know that the wrath of Israel
would come down on them like a ton of bricks without any gloves if they deployed them.
IMHO, if Hezbollah wanted CW, they would get them and not necessarily
from Syrian Stockpiles. Although I think that they know that the wrath of Israel
would come down on them like a ton of bricks without any gloves if they deployed them.
Last edited by 500N; 28th Aug 2013 at 04:15.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today (Tuesday) the White House began to lay out a public justification for a possible bombing of Syria, saying the nation’s use of chemical weapons is a threat to U.S. interests — a scenario that would allow Obama to order military strikes against Syria without requiring authorization from Congress or the United Nations.
I don’t quite see what the threat to our interests is, but I guess he does.
In the meantime, Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent. She said “Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas.”
So who knows where the truth lies. Maybe everyone should all calm down until the UN inspectors have finished their job.
Bob C
I don’t quite see what the threat to our interests is, but I guess he does.
In the meantime, Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent. She said “Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas.”
So who knows where the truth lies. Maybe everyone should all calm down until the UN inspectors have finished their job.
Bob C
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" So who knows where the truth lies. Maybe everyone should all calm down until the UN inspectors have finished their job."
Not going to happen.
They, the US, UK et al have made up their minds they are going to do
something and want to do it before any further concrete evidence is
found to the contrary.
Just my HO.
Not going to happen.
They, the US, UK et al have made up their minds they are going to do
something and want to do it before any further concrete evidence is
found to the contrary.
Just my HO.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just love how we are backing the side that used power drills for executions in Iraq, and who can forget the Chlorine tanker bomb outside the little girls school too?
We should be slaughtering these suufiists in droves.
I personally find the suggestion we need to support these sort of people abhorrent.
We should be slaughtering these suufiists in droves.
I personally find the suggestion we need to support these sort of people abhorrent.
Last edited by VinRouge; 28th Aug 2013 at 07:13.
Thread Starter
Political media tempo is now almost a morph of the hype seen during the "WMD" excuse before GW2. The US and UK politicians seem absolutely desparate to go with the escalation plan. Every concievable reason to "do the right thing" is being touted, without the slightest hint of a strategy or appreciation of the outcome that might result.
Just like a desparate gambler, the politicians are going to put their all their capital on a spin of the roulette wheel!
OAP
Just like a desparate gambler, the politicians are going to put their all their capital on a spin of the roulette wheel!
OAP
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here it comes: Syria
The possible ramifications have not been worked out here, yes CW are abhorrent but so are conventional weapons when used on a civilian population. Before acting here the US and UK leadership need to work out which brand of Islam they want to support. This sectarian conflict will not be solved with western intervention. Islamic peoples want to live under a dictatorship- it suits their mindframe and motivation. I think Iraq would have been better off with Saddam still in power. Controversial i admit.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UN is as effective as a chocolate fireguard and until the UN speaks as one voice to pressurise Assad and that means Russia and China swapping sides [no chance!] then we should stay well away from any involvement. Let Tony B Liar spout his inanities [justifying his previous actions!] and frankly if Cameron pursues his 'derring do' line on Syria he has lost the next election for sure.
The newspaper that can't spell reveals a new development - allegedly.
Meanwhile - wonder how many TLAMs they'll unleash?
Let's see - x4 Arleigh Burkes with 90 tubes each = 360?
Say x2 Ohio class = 300 TLAMs.
Any French subs headed that way?
Plus x1(?) Trafalgar class boat - total load 30 TLAMs? = 690ish in total at approx US$1.1m each?
Surely they'll need more than that... excuse my ignorance if I have any figures wrong.
Meanwhile - wonder how many TLAMs they'll unleash?
Let's see - x4 Arleigh Burkes with 90 tubes each = 360?
Say x2 Ohio class = 300 TLAMs.
Any French subs headed that way?
Plus x1(?) Trafalgar class boat - total load 30 TLAMs? = 690ish in total at approx US$1.1m each?
Surely they'll need more than that... excuse my ignorance if I have any figures wrong.
Last edited by tartare; 28th Aug 2013 at 10:30.
Atom Kraft:
Point well made. That said, we do give a hoot about the other killings, otherwise the support to rebels would not happen.
Some points later made, various participants.
I asked the same question in the early 90's about the European nations, and Bosnia. 
That they do OK at defending their own homelands, but they really suck these days at fighting outside of their own borders. The days of the spread of Islam by the sword are long gone. Why? Their soldiers / conscripts are more cynical than you or I.
Atom Kraft
FWIW, while I concur with your points, point 3 doesn't fit lobbing missiles to make a statement. Your missiles go in, blow stuff up, and there is no group of folks who need to leave.
Robert Cooper
Aye.
I suppose that once again, the War Powers Act comes in handy for a sitting president. Not the first, won't be the last.
I don't see it either.
aviate 1138
Well said.
Eclectic:
Your suggestion is that America want Iran to become involved as a pretext for destroying their nuclear ambitions. In this case, hitting Syria is bait to get Iran to do something they wouldn't normally do.
I don't think the Ayatollahs and RG leadership got to where they are today by being idiots. I don't care for them, but that doesn't make them stupid.
1. What's the difference between killing a thousand civvies with guns and shells, and killing a thousand civvies with chemicals? As far as I can tell, there's no difference. We don't give a flying f*ck when he kills 10,000 with guns- but if he kills a few hundred by gassing them- we get
all outraged and something must be done.
all outraged and something must be done.
Some points later made, various participants.
1. No amount of good tactics can compensate for second-rate strategy.
2. This is Syrians, killing other Syrians, in Syria. What exactly has
it got to do with the UK?
3. How on earth can you have a near air-tight circumstantial case? It's like being a little bit pregnant!
4. The only people getting worked up about this are the US, UK and Fr - all
countries with centre / centre left administrations and a generally Liberal outlook on life, who are keen to send other people to war when their dinner table conversations get a bit too close for comfort and they need to feel as though they are doing something.
2. This is Syrians, killing other Syrians, in Syria. What exactly has
it got to do with the UK?
3. How on earth can you have a near air-tight circumstantial case? It's like being a little bit pregnant!
4. The only people getting worked up about this are the US, UK and Fr - all
countries with centre / centre left administrations and a generally Liberal outlook on life, who are keen to send other people to war when their dinner table conversations get a bit too close for comfort and they need to feel as though they are doing something.
If Syria is such a problem, why are the Arab states not squaring up to Assad? Why are they not front and centre, after all, this is in their own back yard, not ours. They are the ones with the most to lose when this all goes horribly wrong.
Or alternatively, just what do the Arab states know or understand that we seemingly don't?
Atom Kraft
1. What do we hope to achieve by our action?
2. When we've done it, will we and the Syrians be better or worse
off?
3. What are the chances that our intervention will make things worse or
better, in the long term?
4. If we go in, how will we leave?
All, as I'm sure you appreciate, the 'nuts and bolts' of any military operation.
2. When we've done it, will we and the Syrians be better or worse
off?
3. What are the chances that our intervention will make things worse or
better, in the long term?
4. If we go in, how will we leave?
All, as I'm sure you appreciate, the 'nuts and bolts' of any military operation.
Robert Cooper
Our concern should be preventing those chemical weapons from falling into hands of Hezbollah, that should be guiding our action, not expressing moral outrage and widening the conflict.
Today (Tuesday) the White House began to lay out a public justification for a possible bombing of Syria, saying the nation’s use of chemical weapons is a threat to U.S. interests — a scenario that would allow Obama to order military strikes against Syria without requiring authorization from Congress or the United Nations.
I don’t quite see what the threat to our interests is, but I guess he does.
aviate 1138
The UN is as effective as a chocolate fireguard
Eclectic:
Iran and Syria have a mutual defence pact: https://www.google.com/hostednews/af...Uw1bYoR4fBdrew
"The two countries pledge their mutual support regarding territorial independence and integrity in terms of international and regional authorities,"
"The two countries pledge their mutual support regarding territorial independence and integrity in terms of international and regional authorities,"
I don't think the Ayatollahs and RG leadership got to where they are today by being idiots. I don't care for them, but that doesn't make them stupid.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 28th Aug 2013 at 13:13.