Syrian Crisis...2013

asif iqbal said:

Believe me what comes after Assad is going to be much worse than Assad, Assad was not perfect but he wasn't causing any issues to anyone just minding his own business

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Well, they will need the two frigates and the SSN to adequaitely defend the Illustrious and the Bulwark...which would only be of use should there be a need for sending in choppers and troops, which I highly doubt will occur. Though the SSN can perform both roles and also launch cruise missiles.

My understanding is that the RN is sending in at least one more SSN to help with Tomahawk launches.

To that you have 4 AEGIS destroyers carrying probably at least 100 Tomahawks, and at least one or two SSNs with another 24. If the US Navy is serious about a large Tomahawk attack, one the the East Coast Ohio SSGNs will be there with another 150 Tomahwaks, meaning about 275 available Tomahawks from the US Navy, and up to 24 or so from the RN for a 300 strike availability.

Then you have the US Air Force which can send in B-1s, B-2s, or B-52s, probably from the States for this mission with all sorts of standoff ordinances including cruise missiles.

Then you have the French who are sending an entire CVN Battle Group in to support (meaning add extra defense for the other vessels) and provide additional airstrike capability.

I do not know what the Italians will add or the Turks, but I believe they will add some frigates for additional defense of the major vessels as well.

Too much Sea Power there for the Russians to counter or defeat, and too much for the Syrians to defeat with shore launched missiles should any of those allied vessels get into range.

However, as I said, Russia and others will only allow this to go so far.

They have too many interests in the area that are true national interests to allow Syria to be taken down out of hand. So they will warn the US and its allies, through back channels, about what those limits are. Personally, I expect all of that has already happened and Obama is going to launch some sort of attack that allows him to say he was "strong against chemical use" (even though I do not believe at all that it was Assad who launched them...so more of a "wag the dog"), but that will not really change any military dynamics or balance on the ground.

At this point, I fear that is the best we can hope for.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Never happen.

That would invite them to become military targets and they would be very, very restricted and at a huge disadvantage there in port.

I believe the Russians will let the allies know what their "line" is, and then should they have to respond, it will be from some position at sea where they can be most advantagously used.

Now...paking them there on port to avoid the allies from hitting the port is another matter. Sort of as "naval shields" and that would work. But the moment they start shooting, they become targets themselves and Russia will not want to be a part of the shooting unless things get a lot worse.

Click to expand...

Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military's rationale for launching the strike -- if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official added. "We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."

American intelligence analysts are certain that chemical weapons were used on Aug. 21 -- the captured phone calls, combined with local doctors' accounts and video documentation of the tragedy -- are considered proof positive. That is why the U.S. government, from the president on down, has been unequivocal in its declarations that the Syrian military gassed thousands of civilians in the East Ghouta region.

However, U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent. That's the kind of proof that America and its allies processed from earlier, small-scale attacks that the White House described in equivocal tones, and declined to muster a military response to in retaliation.

There is an ongoing debate within the Obama administration about whether to strike Assad immediately -- or whether to allow United Nations inspectors to try and collect that proof before the bombing begins. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called the work of that team "redundant ... because it is clearly established already that chemical weapons have been used on a significant scale."

But within the intelligence community, at least, "there's an interest in letting the U.N. piece run its course," the official said. "It puts the period on the end of the sentence."

When news about the Ghouta incident first trickled out, there were questions about whether or not a chemical agent was to blame for the massacre. But when weapons experts and U.S. intelligence analysts began reviewing the dozens of videos and pictures allegedly taken from the scene of the attacks, they quickly concluded that a nerve gas, such as sarin, had been used there. The videos showed young victims who were barely able to breathe and, in some cases, twitching. Close-up photos revealed that their pupils were severely constricted. Doctors and nurses who say they treated the victims reported that they later became short of breath as well. Eyewitnesses talk of young children so confused, they couldn't even indentify their own parents. All of these are classic signs of exposure to a nerve agent like sarin, the Assad regime's chemical weapon of choice.

Making the case even more conclusive were the images of the missiles that supposedly delivered the deadly attacks. If they were carrying conventional warheads, they would have likely been all but destroyed as they detonated. But several missiles in East Ghouta were found largely intact. "Why is there so much rocket left? There shouldn't be so much rocket left," the intelligence official told The Cable. The answer, the official and his colleagues concluded, was that the weapon was filled with nerve agent, not a conventional explosive.

In the days after the attacks, there was a great deal of public discussion about which side in Syria's horrific civil war actually launched the strike. Allies of the Assad regime, like Iran and Russia, pointed the finger at the opposition. The intercepted communications told a different story -- one in which the Syrian government was clearly to blame.

The official White House line is that the president is still considering his options for Syria. But all of Washington is talking about a punitive strike on the Assad government in terms of when, not if. Even some congressional doves have said they're now at least open to the possibility of U.S. airstrikes in Syria. Images of dead children, neatly stacked in rows, have a way of changing minds.

"It's horrible, it's stupid," the intelligence official said about the East Ghouta attack by the Syrian military. "Whatever happens in the next few days -- they get what they deserve."

Click to expand...

Iran can help Obama finesse his legacy

By M K Bhadrakumar

President Barack Obama is setting a new precedent in America's history as an imperialist power. He is all but apologizing before he orders a military attack against a sovereign country with which the United States is not at war and which has not offended America's vital interests and concerns as a sovereign country even remotely.

The Obama administration is publicizing in advance that it is going to be a "limited" military attack by the US on Syria. It is even willing to give advance notice of when the attack can be expected. Who would say Obama is not a humane and considerate statesman?

By "limited" attack, the Obama administration is indicating it will not directly attack Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles but only their "delivery systems'', which means the Syrian air force and the army units that are capable of staging a chemical weapon attack. Indeed, someone is in command of any country's armed forces and, therefore, the "command-and-control" systems of the Syrian armed forces will also be targeted.

In sum, the plan behind the "limited" attack is to degrade the Syrian armed forces. The political objective is clear. The Obama administration insists that it is not "regime change''. What it means is that the US and its allies would hope that coming under immense pressure of death and destruction, the Syrian armed forces might begin, finally, to begin to question President Bashar al-Assad's leadership quality, which, in turn, could lead to a coup against him that will not be a "regime change" and yet a sufficient-enough "regime change''.

The Iraq experience has taught the US the crucial importance of keeping intact as far as possible the state structures and institutions - read, the armed forces, security establishment and the bureaucracy - in a country even when its regime changes hands according to American desire.

The risk involved is great because implicit in this situation are both the "known knowns" and the "unknown unknowns" that former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once warned against. To quote from Rumsfeld's press statement in February 2002,
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we do not know we don't know.
Rumsfeld was speaking in the context of Iraq, where his prognostication was that the main dangers of the confrontation were the "unknown unknowns, " that is the threats from Saddam, which were completely unpredictable.

Suffice to say, whether the Obama administration is going to succeed in reaching its objective is far from clear because the "known knowns" alone in Syria are very substantial. But what is clear in a much broader and profound sense are the following.

First, this move to attack Syria comes out of a master plan that the US (and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) pretended all along didn't exist. The art of dissimulation has been perfected to the ultimate point. The US has taken an abrupt turn from the path leading to the proposed Geneva 2 summit without bothering to even explain why, while unilaterally concluding without any concrete evidence that the Syrian government should be held responsible for the latest chemical weapon attacks near Damascus.

Second, when the chips are down, the US rallies its allies and forms a "coalition of the willing''. The disarray that was supposed to have been there between the US on the one hand and its Persian Gulf allies (and Israel) on the other hand over the regime change in Egypt was a petty squabble among vendors in a fish market, after all. When the need arises and the time comes, they unfailingly move together like a pack of wolves.

Third, the US unilaterally interprets international law and has no qualms about launching military attacks without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. While a practicing democracy, which espouses the values of "inclusive" democracy, the US administrations act without taking into consideration domestic public opinion. According to US opinion polls, not even 10% of the American people want their country to get involved in any way in the civil war in Syria.

Four, Obama has been throwing dust in the eyes of world opinion by creating the impression that there shall be no more "Afghanistans" and "Iraqs" and that he is still reeling under pain when yet another body bag arrives from the Afghan war and he is called upon to sign the condolence letter to the bereaved family. The US invasion of Iraq resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. But it doesn't leave a scar on Obama's sensibility.

However, the most profound lesson coming out of all this as the US begins the countdown of an attack on Syria lies somewhere else: Why Syria, why not North Korea?

The answer is clear. As CNN's military analysts are at pains to explain, this is going to be a military operation that incurs no risk of US casualties. The attack on Syria will be staged from the blue sea with cruise missiles - not even aircraft flown by US pilots lest they get shot down.

The American analysts explain that the Syrian armed forces are already overstretched after two years of fighting the rebels all over the country. They flag how Syria couldn't even retaliate against repeated Israeli air attacks - something unthinkable just a couple of years ago.

In sum, Syria has no deterrent power. This is where Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il proved visionary leaders. They have bequeathed to the current leadership of Kim Jong-eun in Pyongyang a deterrent power that will make the Obama administration think not twice but several times over before launching a military strike against North Korea. This is exactly where Bashar's father, Hafez al-Assad seems to have faltered.

Now, this becomes a morality play for Iran. Of course, the Iranian regime takes very seriously the "fatwas" handed down by their Spiritual Leader and Supreme Leader not to embark upon a nuclear weapon program. But, is that the wise thing to do?

After all, we have to be alive first before we can think of observing "fatwas" - even Persians. The point is, the impending US attack on Syria should be a wake-up call for the Iranian regime - alerting it to the existential struggle that lies ahead.

How can Tehran take Obama's word seriously anymore? Only this past week, it emerged authoritatively from the US official archival materials that the 1953 coup against Mohamed Mossadeq was a CIA operation; and, that the horrendous chemical weapons attacks by Saddam Hussein's forces were staged with crucial intelligence inputs from the CIA.

Has anything really changed under Obama? The Iranian leadership needs to ponder calmly and collectively.

No matter the outcome of the imminent US attack on Syria, which is bound to have tragic consequences, Tehran should take a momentous decision to safeguard against such aggression. The only way it can do that will be by having the deterrent power that North Korea possesses, which keeps predators away.

World opinion will understand. The meek also have a moral right to defend themselves - even if they are far from inheriting the earth as God prophesied. Let this be Obama's finest presidential legacy - a nuclear Iran.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

(Copyright 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Click to expand...

By Timothy Heritage

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia is sending two warships to the east Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, but Moscow denied this meant it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers prepare for military action against Syria.

Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, was deploying a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the "coming days".

Any strengthening of the navy's presence could fuel tension, especially as the United States has said it is repositioning naval forces in the Mediterranean following an alleged chemical weapons attack which is blames on Syrian government forces.

"The well-known situation now in the eastern Mediterranean required us to make some adjustments to the naval force," the source said in a reference to the events in Syria.

It was not clear when the vessels would arrive but Interfax said the Moskva missile cruiser was currently in the North Atlantic and would set sail in the next few days.

President Vladimir Putin has said the naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation. Russia cooperates with NATO navies against piracy and its ships call at Western ports.

The navy later indicated a deployment was imminent in the Mediterranean but gave no details except to say it would be part of a long-planned rotation and suggested it would not increase the size of Russian forces there.

"This is not a new group ... but a planned rotation," an highly-placed navy official who was not identified told state-run RIA news agency.

The reason for the discrepancy in the reports by Interfax and RIA was not clear but confusion has at times surrounded previous Russian deployments in the Mediterranean because of the secrecy involved. The Defence Ministry declined comment.

Washington accuses Syrian government forces of carrying out last week's chemical weapons attack and has made clear it could soon launch a military strike.

Russia is one of Assad's biggest arms suppliers. It opposes any military intervention in Syria and has shielded Damascus against further sanctions at the U.N. Security Council.

Defense experts said the deployment of the two warships identified by Interfax could give Assad early warning of cruise missile launches, particularly by submarine, or jam radars or navigation systems although they might never be used for this.

"What we may be seeing here is an example of gunboat diplomacy rather than a deliberate attempt to interfere directly in any coalition strike militarily," said Lee Willett, editor of IHS Jane's Navy International.

"The simple presence of any ships will have an impact politically, and that is the primary intent."

Russia's chief of staff said in June the navy had stationed 16 warships and three ship-based helicopters in the Mediterranean, its first permanent naval deployment there since Soviet times.

(Additional reporting by Peter Apps in London, editing by Elizabeth Piper)

Click to expand...