CSAR
 

Will we be relying on the USA to recover downed aircrew?

Would they go after the air bases or just the Air defence systems ?

Of the 22 air bases, take out any joint civilian / military bases
and any that are close to Chemical weapon storages (just my HO),
what does that leave ?

Then the question is, does the US want to only take out equipment
or also Military people ?

My guess would be take out equipment only as much as possible.

For once the Daily Mail has got it right:-
Immature advisers, moral indignation and the folly of wading into this bloody morass | Mail Online

"He has VX which is a whole lot worse. Maybe he is keeping that for Israel."


In view of the fact that Israel has already conducted a very successful pin point
bombing mission into the far side of Syria with no loss, I really don't think Syria is going to risk incurring the wrath of Israel even if they say they will as they have done.

I don't think Israel would hold back if they did.

They have the aircraft, ability to Jam, skill, weapons, bombs and missiles
and I reckon would turn various parts of Syria and it's military into smoking hulks without skipping a heart beat.

Just my HO.

If he drops anything on Israel, Damascus will be a nice new piece of glass along with the rest of Syria. The Jewish religion and its people have suffered enough in the way of pogroms in the past 100 years, the slaughter of millions in an industrial scale, do you think they would sit back and allow someone to throw Sarin/VX at them.

In the words of the Israeli PM after Operation Yontan in 1982, if we had acceded to the demand s of handing over prisoners, the world would have understood but few respected as it is the world does not understand us but all will respect us. The Israeli state of mind by being surrounded by either enemies or the sea.

Akrotiri movements maybe an APC from the OCU and force dispersal, wouldn't you if the threat from air attack was real.

Washington Post: Syria will require more than cruise missiles

Eliot A. Cohen teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He directed the U.S. Air Force’s Gulf War Air Power Survey from 1991 to 1993.

Eclectic

You keep repeating that statement, but as

it must be true, right? The WH have never lied to the world over their reasons for attacking other countries.

Now I'm really intrigued about your postings. Do you actually believe what you post or are you simply working to an agenda?

I do like the clipping you posted though.

Can I ask, what is the difference between kids getting gassed to death by either party and kids being shelled to death by either party?

Its the same outcome, why the moralistic line in the sand just because chemical weapons have been used?

Seems a little bit timely all of this, the west stepping in just as Assad is taking the upper hand. All we will end up doing is delaying the stalemate. More death, more suffering.

I just want to see some proof that the chemical attacks were ordered by the Syrian government. I haven't seen any proof yet - just lots of assumptions and brash statements by western governments, whipped up by some press outlets.

Also, I would like to see what the objectives of any action are, and what planning for the aftermath is in place.

So, Call-me-Dave is drawing up military options, we hear...

Perhaps some surveillance Nimrods to Souda or Akrotiri and Invincible with Sea Harriers in the Eastern Med.....:mad:

If Cameron, Hague, Hollander and Obama do engage in military action I hope they will all be removed come the next election, I hope the Democrats lose badly in the midterms, that's about the only way he can be punished!
Shame Cameron and Hague will likely retain their seats as MPs, they do not deserve to! They do deserve to lose power though. Labour are no better what with their war record.
I would imagine Hollander will lose anyhow.
If they do engage in military action without full UN backing they should be arrested and charged with war crimes.

Kerry has said more will be revealed in the next day or so.
Suspect the NSA will already know exactly what the inspectors et al have found - and there'll be other intel as well.
Syrian Foreign Minister now live on BBC World saying we didn't do it.
I would have thought they wouldn't want to wait until the end of the week to go in though - Syrian forces and other targets would be too widely dispersed?
R.e outcomes or exit plans - wars aren't like off the shelf products.
"After 90 days, guaranteed to revert to stable two party democracy, or your money back."
Ambiguity/instability is inevitable afterwards.

Yes, but how accurate? We have already seen the readiness of western governments to twist intelligence to suit their needs (our dodgy dossier - Powell's "uranium" claims at UN).

I doubt that Assad ordered this - he would have far more to lose than to gain. It is possible that some element of Syrian army carried out the attack without authorisation, but it seems that their command and control is still more or less functional so this seems unlikely. I can easily believe, however, that some elements of the opposition may have made this attack in the hope of drawing in western air-strikes on Assad...

Beages, no need for that. The UK can just stage out of Akrotiri with a few VC10 tankers allowing more time on task. :eek:

I'm not sure what anyone can do. War is a dirty business, and whoever takes action, people are going to die, that's the nature of the beast. The Arab League won't take any action, Russia is supporting Assad, and arming him, Russia, and China will veto any UN resolution, which leaves the world unable to act. Should the UN manage to pass a resolution, which I think highly improbable, the UK should definitely stay out of it, there are other countries closer to the problem that should be tackling it. I would also say the US and UK do not want to get involved in another war, especially in the Middle East. The cost in human terms, financially, and politically, (both domestically, and internationally),are too much to bear.

As for what kind of military intervention, should this actually go ahead, a difficult question. Syria is not Iraq, and they have a capable air defence network, (though Israel managed to get through it), modern weapons, (supplied by Russia), and motivated troops. Troops on the ground with an invasion would be a very bloody affair, and almost certainly won't happen. A no fly zone enforced by manned aircraft would also be very costly. The only viable solution is using stand off weapons, like the TLAM. You may have noticed in the news recently HMS Tireless surfacing off Gibraltar. Some have commented on it being related to the dispute we're involved with Spain over Gibraltar, I suspect it's more to do with Syria, and showing Assad one of our assets.

Whatever happens, one thing that's guaranteed to happen is innocent Syrians getting killed, by one side or the other, but mainly by Assad.

Can parliament block Camerloon and co from going to war if they wish?

I can't help but feel we are deliberately being drawn into this. The Syrian opposition have been pleading for some form of substantive help for months now, but their confused C2 and hopelessly tangled relationships with various extremist elements have put many western governments off becoming involved. Afterall, nobody wants to spend time hunting down extremists in Afghanistan and other locations around the Middle East only to find you have actually been backing them in Syria.

With that in mind, I do hope the politicians have / will pause for a moment and take a deep breath before committing more military resources we can scarcely afford. If Obama et al have publically put down a very clear red line about the use of CW etc, Assad would have to be daft to do something he knows will attract a response option. He may be a psychopathic dictator, but stupid he isn't. So just who would benefit from a massive CW attack and associated publicity? I'm sure the more extremist elements, along with the exasperated moderate elements wouldn't dream of carrying out such an attack for the good of the cause. Right???

All the press reporting suggests that our Intel agencies have been keeing an eye on Assad's CW stores. But if the opposition includes foreign fighters and AQ linked extremists (Al Nusrah Front / Bde) what is to stop them sourcing a number of CW devices externally and bringing them in country? Who's to say that any CW attack wasn't launced by a renegade commander or possibly one that has defected fomr the Regime?

Trying to apportion blame by finding evidence that can be substantiated to the level of proof likely required to get any form of UN backing will be damn nigh impossible to find. Even if you could find it, there are far too many questions that cast a degree of doubt that need answering.

And assuming, as looks likely from the press reporting today, that a strike goes ahead, to what end? IF a CW attack was carried out by Assad's forces, what will a few TLAMs achieve? On their own, nothing. It won't stop the Air Force flying and even if it did, it won't stop the Army using CW should they decide to do so. To achieve the degree of "protection of the innocents" being demanded by our liberal politicians will require more than a TLAM salvo; it will require a long term commitment to becoming involved in Syria and the losses that will entail. And I don't think the politicians will have the stomach for that once the body count starts mounting. And I don't think they will have the stomach to deal with whatever regime replaces Assad's mob if they topple him.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure that the various single Service Chiefs, who have seen their Forces slashed in recent years, will be quite happy to argue the case for going in. It shows they are relevant and timely and therefore shouldn't be slashed any further, whilst a few losses, which will probably be deemed acceptable and manageable behind closed doors can be used to justify why they need additional spending.

I had to study a Philosophy module as part of General Studies all those years ago, and in it was described a school of Philosophy (I forget which) that suggested human beings only act out of their own self interest. If you help a little old lady with her bags of shopping across the road, you aren't doing it because it's the right thing to do, you do it because it will make you feel good knowing you have helped, whilst walking on by will make you feel guilty for not assisting. Either way, you help her across the road ultimately for your own emotional benefit. I'm sorry to say that the Syrian opposition is that little old lady. The calls for active involvement in Syria are coming loud and clear from the liberal elements of the political world, those who like to feel good - or should I say don't want to feel guilty. Syria is a mess. Until they want to get round the table and talk the fighting will continue with or without our involvement. We would do well not to be drawn into another military conflict in the Middle East; I can't be alone in sensing that this is all a bit too convenient and elements are trying to draw us in for their own neffarious reasons.

Very well stated Melchett. You have put into some eloquent words exactly what I was thinking!

It seems that the vast majority of the people on this forum totally disagree with any military action by the US or UK.

A letter in the FT from a Mr KN Al-Sabah neatly sums up the problem:

"Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro-Hamas. But Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

Gulf states are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day."

Point 5: false. Use of Scuds is not illegal, unless you arm them with chem. No evidence that Scuds with chem have been used. Also, use of WP is not inherently illegal, though its deliberate use as an AP round is often considered so.

Point 1. Rats, sinking ship, leaving.
Point 2. He's not stupid.
Point 3. This is not news. There's an organization called NATO.
Point 4. Aren't they always? :p

Your credibility isn't all that strong. Deliberate use of WP on a civilian concentration ... is that the red line President Obama was talking about? I doubt it, as that hasn't entered the public noise machine ... yet.

VINROUGE:
Good question, but Chem Weapons have been a touchy thing internationally since WW I. They are a special case.
If you go back a few pages to the piece by Edward Luttwak that I linked, and go qutie a few pages back to some commentary on how "Machivellian" some critics deem President Obama to be, maybe his strategy is to keep this civil war running as it will expose various parties to risk and embarassment ... but not him. Hezbollah have popped their heads out of their prairie dog holes. Setting them up for a face shot? Iran is getting involved more deeply in aiding Assad. Setting them up for a riposte? There are a hell of a lot of moving parts in this thing.
Trim Stab:
The bolded part is, I think, the most rational explanation.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that Assad had one of his local guys do this to send a message to the opposition, the message being: "we have top cover from Russia, we can do what we like, the West won't help you ... so suck on this one." Or words to that effect.

I don't know how realistic that assessment is.

I do think he's getting some under the table support from Putin and his friends, who do like sticking a finger in the eye of Obama. For all of the Americans who dislike Obama, it seems to me that the Russians in general dislike him even more ... and not just because he's the US president. For one, he's seen as soft on Islamist radicals. For two, they don't like his complexion. For three, they've seen him back down when pushed.

Let's hope it's better than Curveball's was back in 2002/03 then.

No it doesn't.

It suggests the effects are illegal i.e run counter to the Law of Armed Conflict and various Humanitarian Laws (which the Syrians may or may not be signatories to).

SCUDs per se are not illegal, what you do with them might be. Those same effects could be produced by an other heavy artillery, armour or air assets not just SCUDs. If you want to declare SCUDs illegal, then there's a whole lot of other military assets and capabilities in the line before them to be declared illegal at the same time.

Eclectic:
Having had to become conversant in the rules of war, aka LOAC, I don't give two figs what the cnuts at Amnesty International think or pontificate about. The use of a conventional weapon is not inherently illegal.

Should a government bomb and rocket its population? I'd say, generally, no. Is it illegal? That's a philosophical question. The "crimes against humanity" card is selectively played, so I find it a dishonest platform from where to preach. If Assad is gassing his own population, however, that charge may stick if it can be shown that it was his faction that did such things.

Once a civil war is underway, particularly a civil war where foreign powers are funding, feeding and arming those fighting a given government, your simple black and white interpretation is out the window.

I am not on side with Assad, I think he's a despot.

Problem is, he's the official and recognized government of Syria still. At the moment, he is dealing with an armed insurrection (from his point of view) that is funded and supported by foreign powers. It isn't as simple as you are trying to paint it. Also ...

Opinion does not equal fact, Eclectic.

Let that concept soak in for a moment, OK? ;)

EDIT2: Melchett01, thanks, I was editing as you were posting, I agree with your point.

Yugoslavia, part three.

Consider what it cost the people in Yugoslavia to become the six smaller nation states they are now.

Hint: it's red.

1. No free pass for Syria.
2. Who is going to put together a Dayton agreement that will get all parties in Syria to agree to the lines on the ground that you suggest? Like in Yugoslavia, there is a lot of mixing "on the ground" between groups. Well, there was before this civil war started.
3. Who besides you cares if the Sunni and Salafist sector is not adjacent to Israel? What Israel cares about probably doesn't matter to whatever parties would need to form to craft an agreement like the one in Dayton.

How many need to die before various parties are desperate enough to get involved in such a partition?

The Arab League have the money, men and equipment to take any action they see fit.

I don't see why the f#ck we are getting involved at all.

Eclectic, see here. Syria, shattered

As to the question of why Assad and the military would use chemicals. They had too. I've done a lot of research, I haven't kept the links, but it goes something like this.

The Syrian army has a top echelon of staff and units who are Alawite and control the major weapons such as chemical, aircraft etc; the bulk of the foot soldiers were Sunni.

Since the civil war started the army has had mass defections and, on the ground, massive casualties plus defections. Think our losses in Afghanistan but a hundredfold. They are now in the position where they hold there own sliver of Syria (see my link above), though even there they are under attack. Outside that area they hold the towns and the roads, but little outside.

Now, when it comes to rebel held towns and suburbs in those areas they don't have, or can't afford to lose, the ground troops to go into clear them. So they are increasingly relying on artillery and chemical weapons to try and crush them.

Not sure where this will end, but it will be messy.

Strategically, at the end of WWI the ME was a mess as the remnants of the Ottoman empire disintegrated. The winners deliberately divided the area up so that the new nations had a mix of the different religions, tribes, ethnic types etc and a ruling class from a minority to ensure some sort of consensus was required to govern. They'd been doing the whole "divide and conquer" thing for centuries, and it's lasted a 100 years - which isn't bad.

It's now all falling apart. The options are to try and stick it together again; try and engineer another solution which will last 100 years; or sit back and watch the carnage.

There are, as they say, no easy choices.

Best of luck whoever tries.

Somebody enlighten a simple ex-Met. Man please.

Just why should we bother to intervene, given that we don't/ haven't done so in other countries similarly self-destructing?

What is our strategic interest, other than remaining the poodle at the foot of the USA bed?

Is it just that Obama shot his mouth off over red lines and now has to put his missiles where his mouth is?

By my reckoning my entire Income Tax contributions over a lifetime will perhaps buy one Tomahawk and its share of the launch platform.

My understanding is that life for the Syrian "on the Clapham omnibus/ donkey" was rather better three years ago than it is now.

But what has it got to do with me, fed up as I am with post-colonial adventurism and the world daily hating us more and more?

Perhaps it would be best to ignore the shouting, shooting and looting and let them sort themselves out in due course, at which time one side or the other emerges from the rubble terminally weakened and insignificant.

I don't think so. I don't think the House of Commons can call on or order the PM not to commit UK forces to action. Simply debate. Stand to be corrected. He hasn't got the backing of the British public, I've seen several polls now that seem to indicate that at least (my opinion only again).
Perhaps he will ask Parliament for backing and the house will divide and vote?
I've just watched the PM walk into No10 Downing Street and was actually imagining him going into an immediate series of briefings -FO, Military, Conservative Seniors and Cabinet.
If he turns to his military advisors which I imagine are the Chiefs of Staff, and asks them "what can I do" what will they advise him? What can they offer him?
What actually will the PM be aiming to do with military action? Is that the first question they will ask him>?

My humble guess each service will offer a limited response solution. RN limited TLAM attack. RAF some sort of air attack and the Army some sort of SF ground attack. All aimed at chemical weapons stockpiles. Or a combined approach. Which on read-back actually will achieve very little in the scheme of things.

I'm very much against any form of further military action and intend to write to my own MP tonight and plead for us not to become involved with this any further. Praying that all our people remain safe and far from harms way.

I agree Langley I too only a humble ex ranker and I truly think we are heading towards an utter disaster and a terrible shame and mistake. I am actually ashamed to have a Prime Minister like Cameron. He seems too young, unintelligent, un-travelled, inexperienced...self important.. false.
What is it with this current crop of Parliamentarians? Have they not had enough of it yet? Perhaps if they were to shed their suits and go abroad into these areas and actually see the blood and the tears close up they wouldn't be so keen to order our people to the fight. To witness the craziness of it all.
I actually rarely write or post on Prune - I have little of interest to say, am not particularly intelligent and am more that prepared to simply read other peoples more intelligent thoughts, stories and adventures, but these recent days have driven me mad. I cannot actually believe what I hear coming out of the mouths of the British Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister.
Enough.

Thank you!

My wife has forbidden me to mention Syria, apparently I am becoming terminally boring on the subject.

I am a lifetime patriot/ monarchist/ armed forces supporter and hitherto true blue Conservative voter.

Gay marriage was the last straw for me, so I cannot say that this Syria nonsense will make me abstain or vote UKIP, but the posturing just confirms me in my opinion of Cameron and his abject party.

Abstain or UKIP it is.

Langley and Hanngarshuffle

I find that I agree with most of your thoughts re any engagement in Syria. Having said that, as to why should we do something, I always feel compelled by the humanitarian call. Pictures and revelations over the recent weeks have been shocking and one cannot help but feel for the ordinary folk in Syria caught up in all of this. I'm not naive though and I know that military action is the bluntest of tools. What to do - in all honesty I do know what is correct course of action. What I would say though, and I am walking on eggshell saying it, your vote after all is your concern, but please please think very careful about UK IP - they are not an honourable party. Please do not take offence, I respect your right to vote and your right to choose, I am just very very wary of UKIP.

TomJoad, whats the alternative to UKIP besides not voting?
Tory = warmongers
Labour = warmongers
Lib Dems = not as bad as the above two but lovers of the EU. Plus they were part of the government that conducted military action in Libya. Impossible to vote for any of those three.
So besides BNP and Green, it does not leave much choice besides UKIP!
Besides Nigel Farage seems against any military action in Syria, for that reason alone his party is worth voting for. If Camerloon and Hague do go to war I look forward to seeing the look on their faces when they lose the next election, being voted out due to being the losers that they are.

Gentlemen,

It's a bit disturbing to see the subject matter drifting from Syria to UKIP. There's some really good comment on this thread which is a world away from the bellicose posturing and fantasy espoused by our erstwhile, beer swilling (allegedly), Foriegn Secretary. It's also the only place I can now find where a discussion can be had (on Syria), with no preconceived "guilty party". I don't know where this crisis is going, hopefully we will not be involved, but I really (as a UKIP member) don't believe UKIP have a dog in this fight. I just hope the fat git who represents us at the trough will take note of the many E mails he will have received today and vote against any military action, before proof. I know at least 20 of my ex service mates have fired them off to him today.

Smudge

Ronald - like I said I don't profess to have the answer, and I am not aligned to any party; no lover of either tory or labour. Yes abstain or accept that you are not voting on a single issue and petition the hell out of your MP. I don't think Cameron will push us down that path, and I don't think Labour would go for it either - the public mood in the country certainly wont. I may be proved wrong - hope not. I don't know maybe I have UKIP wrong but I think we have seen the face of that type of party before and they are not what I want to represent Britain.

cameron-recalls-1-1-522x293_zpsf4d6c578.jpg Photo by egnsean | Photobucket




Just the look on this morons face in the above link is enough to make anyone vote UKIP, i know i will!

Eye Bleach, please.

Can you wear those clothes and be taken seriously? Apparently so!
Can you vote for anyone with a beard? If you are a LibDem or Green!

By their clothes shall ye know them.

Eclectic, not much difference between Liebour and Tory:-

Liebour = Afghanistan and Iraq
Tory = Libya and possibly Syria.

The last two are far smaller in terms of UK military forces deployed but it does not make them any less wrong. Sadly the Lib Dems were part of the government that carried out the attack upon Libya.

I just saw on the news Cameron foaming at the mouth over war, baby brother Milliband seems keen so far, Clegg also seems keen.

So for anyone who is opposed to these pointless little interventions there is not choice other than UKIP.

This is an important issue, most of us seem against UK intervention in Syria, a strong message has to be sent to the political elite of the three old parties that we the people are sick and tired of what they are doing. Supporting a new party is likely the best way to go, probably the only way to go.

I say no more ...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

Lets get back to the original point and away from 'party' politics and ask the questions:

1. What are the rules and legality of action/s
2. What are the briefings given to all party leaders under Privy council rules.
3. How solid is the intel, remember the so called intel prior to GW II, lies and more lies given as the truth, remember the late Dr David Kelly.
4. What is the end game and exit strategy.
5. What is the cost likely to be both human and financial.
6. Tell the Arab states that this is their problem and not ours, they have the money and resources.
7. Who secures any remaining CW.
8. Assad would be a fool not to disperse his weapons and delivery systems.

I am of the opinion that the UK needs to stay far away from this and only support Jordan and Turkey dealing with the refugees. If Assad and his regime are severely hit by western forces, how will that play in the Arab and wider world. If as a 'wounded animal' he attacks Tel Aviv with Scud mounted CW, will we support the inevitable strike back with nuclear weapons by the Israeli's.

This is, as I have said, that we need to stay away and not pander to politicians sense of importance and inflated moral outrage. They have done nothing about the North Koreans, the rampant kleptocracy's and murderous failed states in Sub Saharan Africa, so why start with Syria.

CW is an abomination, but so is the hacking off of arms legs and mass rape of men women and children in Africa, but we do nothing about that and many more have been killed and injured there than in Syria. I suspect even speaking out on this would be declared as 'racist' by the so called liberal elite and soft and indeed poor politicians we have today. None are statesmen/women that measure up to some we have seen in the past.