Syrian Crisis...2013

delft

Brigadier
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

Comments from a former MI6 officer, from Christian Science Monitor:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US strike on Syria would be illegal 'act of war'

The Obama administration is right to be caution about US intervention in Syria. For the US to launch a military strike without UN Security Council sanction would constitute an illegal 'act of war' against a sovereign state. (The Kosovo precedent cannot make an illegal act legal).



By Alastair Crooke, Op-ed contributor / August 27, 2013

BEIRUT
A scrum has erupted in the press these last few days: heads down, padded shoulders locked, like some football “rush” intent on pushing and jostling a president cradling the ball of military intervention physically across the “red line” on Syria. The speed and thrust of this dash for the line, however, seems to convey the momentum of unchallengeable “truth.” Awkwardly, reality is rather different: There has been absolutely no evidence published to support the allegation that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces were responsible for this latest, or any other gas attack in Syria.

Unwelcome as it may be to certain European and regional governments, who have been cheerleading the case for American intervention, neither the Russians nor the Chinese, both of whom are well represented on the ground in Syria, have believed either the earlier US finding of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian security forces or indeed this latest allegation.

On the contrary, Russia previously has given evidence to the UN Security Council to show it has seen opposition forces that have used sarin gas against civilians (echoing the conclusion of Carla del Ponte, the former international prosecutor and current UN commissioner on Syria). And Russian officials state that the latest use of gas was delivered by a homemade missile, fired from a position known to be under opposition control.

Although the European constituency (Britain and France) are chafing with impatience to begin retaliation even before evidence has been amassed, the US administration has been more cautious. This is wise. Wars are always treacherous in their facts, and for the US to launch a military strike without Security Council sanction (which it will not get) would constitute an illegal “act of war” against a sovereign state – and a crime. (The Kosovo precedent cannot change an illegal act into a legal one).

But more substantially, what might be the outcome of, let us say, a cruise missile fired at a military target in Syria: a rhetorical strike, as it were, rather than a major military intervention?

So far, Syria has always turned a blind eye. The government knows well that Western special forces have supported the insurgents, but it has chosen to overlook this covert aspect. Mr. Assad has always insisted, however, that his “red line” is Syrian sovereignty. An explicit and public US attack on his country plainly crosses this “line.” It is by no means assured that the Syrian government would remain passive: that it would not respond. Neither is it likely that Russia or China easily would tolerate the West again (after Libya) bypassing the UN and the international order to concoct some spurious “Friends of Syria” legitimacy for its illegal military action.

Still less clear would be the consequences inside Syria of such an intervention. Does anyone seriously imagine that a cruise missile attack on their homeland would make ordinary Syrians long for the inchoate, warring and violent opposition factions to take over their country? It will of course do the reverse. It will strengthen Assad. But it will concomitantly reinforce the conviction of extremists and their varied intelligence-service patrons that only by a “massacre” which can be blamed on Assad will the West be driven to overthrow Assad – a result the opposition is unable to achieve by its own efforts alone.

And then, there are the “known unknowns”: The Middle East is both angry and frightened, too; it is bitterly divided and increasingly violent. To toss a few cruise missiles into this volatile, unstable brew simply is to invite the unforeseeable and the unwanted to make its explosive appearance.

Alastair Crooke, the legendary ranking MI6 officer in the Middle East, is now director of the Conflicts Forum, which promotes dialogue between the West and political Islam.

© 2013 Global Viewpoint Network, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Hosted online by The Christian Science Monitor.
 

delft

Brigadier
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

They might provide air defense missiles to Iran.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kalel17

New Member
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

What defense does Syria has against these possible cruise missile attacks? I think they have the Buk system which is point blank cruise missile defense. Also, what means of retaliating do they have? If they recieved training from Iran then they may use small and stealthy speedboats armed with c802s to attack USN and UKN vessels in the Mediterranean Sea, the Yakhont doesnt have the range to strike vessels over 300km away. There is also a possibility that they may strike British bases in Cyprus with missiles, particularly those Khiajil Fars missile copies which are some of the most accurate ballistic missiles in the world and are capable of atleast hitting stationary vessels with ease.

All this boils down to the fact that strikes have the possibility of causing casualties and even deaths on the side of USN and UKN, what if they do lose men, what will happen? I think the public will then begin to more than ask answers... We may see demonstrations(thats the name we give to protests in Jamaica :D). This may play in the hand of Assad more than we think, retaliating and causing the death of several servicemen may set off further objections and even protests against any US help to the rebels, since the vast majority of the American public is silently against this already.

I think Assad will need Iran more than ever in the coming days, they are the only one with the experiencing in Asymmetric warfare who can help them inflict losses that will hurt.
 

cn_habs

Junior Member
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

Hundreds of Tomahawks later, there won't be any major military or communication installations left. Assad won't be able to hold any more once its air force is destroyed and armor runs out of gas or ammo. The Russians can only send some ships over in protest but will be entirely helpless.

In a couple of years, those Al Quaida nutjobs will be taking runs at American bases or interests all across the Middle East. Maybe there will be a couple of more London bombings to boot.

Mission accomplished. Stupidity at its finest.
 
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

What will be the possible response by Russian military if US and UK decide to launch a Tomahawk cruise missile attack on Syrian soil? I heard that the Russian official warned of disastrous consequences if they attack Syria.

Disastrous for them sure! This is the US, UK, and France calling Russia's and Iran's bluffs. Syria's government is in such a poor position that its warnings can't even be considered bluffs, more like desperate bravado.

It doesn't mean it will be a free lunch for the US coalition that attacks the Syrian government, just that it is highly unlikely for them to lose the battle or the war.

Russia's not going to go nuclear, probably not even going to fire a single shot, and Iran's not going to directly attack Saudi Arabia, those are the only scenarios where they can impose a loss on the opposing side but in the end they will suffer a worse loss.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

Disastrous for them sure! This is the US, UK, and France calling Russia's and Iran's bluffs. Syria's government is in such a poor position that its warnings can't even be considered bluffs, more like desperate bravado.

It doesn't mean it will be a free lunch for the US coalition that attacks the Syrian government, just that it is highly unlikely for them to lose the battle or the war.

Russia's not going to go nuclear, probably not even going to fire a single shot, and Iran's not going to directly attack Saudi Arabia, those are the only scenarios where they can impose a loss on the opposing side but in the end they will suffer a worse loss.

Would you want to play Poker with Putin?

Never forget that any attack will be Illegal in International Law and that anything that Russia, China, Iran and others do in reaction will be in legal support of the sovereign government.

There are plenty of options open to them. If it is true that Russia still has Major Naval Assets in position and others on the way, plus its facilities at Tarsus, it could certainly cue Syrian Air Defence into its own Network and use its assets to actively engage incoming missiles.

The right to invoke R2P is not a uniquely western privilege and somewhere like Bahrain would be tempting location for the Asian Powers to form their own "coalition of the willing".
 

solarz

Brigadier
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

Would you want to play Poker with Putin?

Never forget that any attack will be Illegal in International Law and that anything that Russia, China, Iran and others do in reaction will be in legal support of the sovereign government.

There are plenty of options open to them. If it is true that Russia still has Major Naval Assets in position and others on the way, plus its facilities at Tarsus, it could certainly cue Syrian Air Defence into its own Network and use its assets to actively engage incoming missiles.

The right to invoke R2P is not a uniquely western privilege and somewhere like Bahrain would be tempting location for the Asian Powers to form their own "coalition of the willing".

I can't help but wonder at the timing of this new Syria crisis. Only a few weeks after Russia granted asylum to Snowden, and scant days after the Egyptian massacre of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

If Putin backs down on Syria, he would lose any credit gained from his stance on Snowden. I'm not sure Putin can afford that kind of blow to his "tough guy" image.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

What would be the Ameircan and British response if the Russians parked their fleet 12miles off the Syrian coast and intercepted all the cruise missiles fired at Syria?

That is about as proactive as I can see the Russians getting. Putin might have a good poker face, but that doesn't mean much when he hasn't got the cards to win and everyone knows it.

If push came to shove, there is simply no way the Russians can win any military confrontation unless it goes nuclear, in which case the Russians don't so much as win as make everyone else also loose. But Syria isn't remotely importantly enough to end humanity over, and no one would think Putin mad enough to actually pull the trigger even if he did threaten full nuclear war over Syria.

The American reticence isn't so much because they are worried about what Russia or China might do, but rather because they are not at all convinced toppling Assad and letting the loony toons take over is a desirable outcome, yet after all the spilt blood and wasted treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is unwilling, and maybe even unable to put boots on the ground to ensure some sort of ordered state emerges from the ruins if they topple Assad.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

Regarding Syria and Assad. When General Dempsey (Joint chiefs of Staff) said hundreds of missiles, aircraft, ships, etc. would be necesssary for an effective standoff attack on Syria, he certainly never meant hundreds of US Navy ships, The US Navy has about 285+ combat ships, far less if we consider just those capable of being involved in such a mission. The largest number of assets would be the missiles themselves. Each of those cruise missiles costs over a million dollars each, and it would mean hundreds of millions of dollars in missiles, if not billions, to sufficienty degrade Syria.

But why would Assad conduct such an attack? I think it much more likely that the rebels themselves did whatever was done in Damascus. Assad is already holding them at bay and reversing their fortunes over the last couple of months. Why would he invite retailiation by the US in such a situationn? He wouldn't. The only plausible time he would use those weapons was if he was absolutely on the verge of falling from power completely and hole up in his HQ with everything coming down around him. He is no where near that situation.

On the other hand, the rebels fortunes have been waining. They have every reason to fake an attack by Assad to get the US and the West to come charging in on their side. Where would they Rebels get such weapons? Two possibilities. Some captured during the war from Assad...or, think Libya. Think Benghazi.

BTW, there is now video evidence of the FSA (Free Syrian Army) launching chemical attacks against Syrian positions and villages.


[video=youtube;G5Tnh4C78Eo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Tnh4C78Eo[/video]

Finally, what is in the true US best interest in all of this.

By all accounts the rebels are absolutely filled with extreme, Islamic Jihadists either part of, or closely affiliated with Al Quida. Is there any sane or rational reason we the US people would want them to win in Syria? Of course not. Assad is far better for US interests than they would be. Clinton and both Bush presidencies found ways to work with Assad and keep him on a tight leash with the help of Israel. He does not slaughter his Christian or other minorities. He helps maintain a fragile balance of powers between ethnic and cultural forces (Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis) and he has Russias backing which also helps maintian some form of watch and influence over Iran. Al Quida would fill none of those bills, and in fact would seriuosly exasberate all of them.

Anyhow, it is clear that the Obama administration is once more showing its antipathy towards true US interests in the region and their inclination to be well disposed towards extremist Islam players (like the Muslim Brotherhood). It also provides the Obama administration with significant distraction away form his worsening domestic issues and scandals.

Any attack by the US and its allies on Syria would be a collosal boondoggle that would have significant, far reaching negative impact to US interests in the region, and to the region itself as a whole.
 
Last edited:

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Re: Persian Gulf & Middle East News & Views

I hope the likes of Obama, Kerry, McCain etc realizes that a good portion of the Syrian 'rebels' consist of Al Queda fighters themselves or if not directly definitely Al Qeida symphatizers.

If Assad falls, it is almost a guarantee whomever that takes over will be a pro Sunni rag tag band of Islamists but it will not be sustainable.. there will be sectarian violence and a lot of revenge killings on the Alawites, Shiites, Kurds, Orthodox Christians and other minority groups. They will have at least 2 things in common with Assad though no matter what. They will be anti American and anti Israel.

Ironically Russia may actually be on the right side of wisdom on this one because they know Syria and the delicate balance among the tribes heck of a lot better than Americans.
 
Last edited:
Top