Smart weapons, air superiority, and all the high tech in the world will NEVER win a war, for that you need feet and lots of them on the ground to take, overwhelm and hold that ground.
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.

With apologies to Douglas Adams, as the bowl of petunias said "Oh no not again!"
Come on you bunch of c:mad: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? :ugh:

Nutloose

I don't see this as a war to win or lose. Lobbing a few cruise missiles is a punitive measure.

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.




..

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...

AA

They left one alive, Assistant Surgeon William Brydon,
but only to tell the story !

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.

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.

West Coast

I think we agree with each other, it's just the way we each word things.

:ok:

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

"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.

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

" 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.

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. :ugh:

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!:uhoh:

OAP

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.

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.

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. :p
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 KraftFWIW, 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.

What terrifies me is that all the investigation seems to have been on whether chemical weapons were used and little attention on who might have deployed them. 'It was Assad!' our politicians keep yelling. But I have seen no evidence produced to show this as a fact.
It seems to me that Assad has most to lose by using them, whereas the rebels have most to gain by dragging the West into their war.
There are many pictures of women and children gassed, but not a lot of 'fighters' in the laid out bodies.
It cannot be beyond the realms of fantasy that the opposition actually gassed some of their own side; they would of course be declared martyrs and gain all the appropriate after-life privileges.
We are being manipulated into another Arab war and I can only that our Parliament has the guts to stand up and say so.

14th century people with 21st century weapons are unlikely to see reason.

I note that the wretched Bliar has made an unwelcome reappearance - presumably to give Call-me-Dave and Hague-the-Mekon some top tips on how to get away with illegal wars?

This is an incredibly emotive thread and very informative. Has anyone considered that as the US is allegedly going to run out of money again mid October unless the Senate increase the ex trillion $ overdraft. Isn't this a little bit convenient timing to start a Middle eastern war. All of a sudden extra cash is available?:uhoh:

There's no public support for a Syrian war - YouTube
The only mainstream party leader of a UK party who is 100% against military action in Syria.

Oh! Oh! Brilliant interview.

"UKIP LEADER ENDORSES VAST MAJORITY OF INFORMED OPINIONS ON PRESTIGIOUS MILITARY AVIATION SITE"

Don't say I didn't tell you!

Norman Tebbit: Syria: I hope I can support the Government tomorrow, but I'm not yet persuaded to do so

So, it looks like Cameron has blown it. Committed to military action with the US and France on Sunday morning, he now looks likely to be marginal on domestic support in the house of commons and, his UN manouvre looks likely to stall for time.
What a quandary! Will he go for it anyway? Whatever he does, I think he has blown it, assisted by his little friend William.


OAP

Out of interest what exactly could you target?

If you went for his Chemical stockpiles surely the risk is high of spreading the stuff all over the shop as you would never be guaranteed to take them out 100% in which case what would you hit?

I noticed that slimey Hague was on discussing the meeting where the cabinet agreed for action, that they decided unanimously that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime was unacceptable and that the world could not stand by ..... NOT that they had all agreed on action against them.

Except he (Farage) does not explain - that man and his party are full of trite vacuous statements more at home in the student debating club. He is not helping the situation.

TomJoad, yes he is helping! We have the fools Cameron and Hague talking about war, war and more war! We have Farage as the only mainstream UK party leader who does not want to get involved. This will give people who are sick of all these little wars a party to vote for come the next election and in all future elections. Farage is speaking for a great majority of the British people when he speaks in this way. The British military doing nothing in in Syria is the best possible outcome.

If you want peace in future then vote UKIP, for more wars then any of the others!

What Ronald said, have to agree he is the only one that appears to be following what the people want, and after all a politician is the voice of the people and a servant thereof.

I have little doubt the children in the Commons will support 'call me Dave'


My concern is that there isn't an end game unless boots go back on the ground. Remind me again how many of Hague's, Cameron's, Clegg's and Obama's children are serving in the forces....

It should be de rigour that the first Aircraft, landing craft or tank into what ever country we invade should be carrying a senior politician from the Government of the day..... That would curb the Gunho attitude they have.

Nutloose

Agree. And they can stay at point all the way to the end !

And I said either on this or the other Syrian thread, a visit to
Walter Reed or Headley Court.

Narrowly speaking is an elected official there to give the public what they want on every issue?
We're trying that experiment here and it's not going so well.

Might it be that he is going to the Commons hoping to lose the vote and thereby save face by not going to war?

AFAIK, the only UN documented use of chemical weapons so far has been by... Western-backed rebels trying to make it look like Assad's forces did it.

See Ronald Reagan's link above.