"Just another Libya"

[WilliamPitt]

When (not if) you come across someone saying an attack on Syria will be "just another Libya," feel free to copy and paste this below.

===

It will be far far far from another Libya. Syria has very robust air defenses and a competent military establishment. They can strike American interests all over the region. Israel will get the shit beat out of it immediately, as Syria sits on their northern border, and Syria has promised to do exactly that if attacked. Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact, Iran's coast of the Persian Gulf is a wall of mountains honeycombed with missile sites, and the missiles they have are capable of spoofing Aegis radar...which means 50,000 souls aboard all the American warships in the Gulf are in immediate mortal peril.

If an attack on Syria does somehow succeed in overthrowing the Assad regime without plunging the region into a massive conflagration, well, congratulations, you've won a Syrian government run by al Qaeda.

There's a very very good reason (see above for short list) why we have not gotten involved to date. This is not just a run up the beach, friend. This is incredibly bad news.

[PDJane]

1. Thanks Will. I agree, and am really unhappy with this.

Of course, our PM will get in there somewhere, too.

[reformist2]

2. If we're so sure about what Syria did, how about trade sanctions on countries that support Syria?

Namely, Russia - and China. That's the only thing that would tell me this is about human rights, and not geopolitics.

[newfie11]

3. Thanks for posting this

If only all those pushing for war would read it!

[KG]

4. the air defenses may be formidable, but their ground forces have taken a beating and are tied down

with the uprising. I don't think isreal is in much danger, and i don't think al-q is a major presence in the FSA.

[WilliamPitt]

5. Hm.

But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquility on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria.

The war is now being waged by petty warlords and dangerous extremists of every sort: Taliban-style Salafist fanatics who beat and kill even devout Sunnis because they fail to ape their alien ways; Sunni extremists who have been murdering innocent Alawites and Christians merely because of their religion; and jihadis from Iraq and all over the world who have advertised their intention to turn Syria into a base for global jihad aimed at Europe and the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?_r=2&

[KG]

8. oh, the NYT?

well then, please proceed, Mr Pitt

[KittyWampus]

11. Rebels take strategic town in North/Coastal Syria- Al Jazeera.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013826124946176888.html

Also, read Al Jazeera's Marwan Bishara. He is a political analyst who is incredibly even-handed. He also hosts a show for them called "Empire". I just found him and am going to read his book soon.

[pampango]

14. True. Syria's army is obviously tied up. Even if their Air Force is not grounded by runway attacks,

it is doubtful Assad will risk having his jets shot down over Israel when he needs them to fight the rebels.

Assad could fire missiles into Israel, but that risks Israel joining the anti-Assad forces. So far Israel has been more afraid of the prospect of a post-Assad terrorist-influenced (or -run) government in Syria than is of the Assad dictatorship which has caused it little trouble over the years. An attack on Israel might be a last-gasp tactic if Assad gets desperate but does not seems to be a logical immediate reaction to a NATO strike.

[n2doc]

6. It is just like Libya in that the end result will be bad

I have no doubt that our very well funded military machine could make short work of major air defenses and tanks,etc. What we leave behind after that, though, is a disaster of epic proportions.

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. The Israelis may be attacked, but they will not get the "shit beat out of it"

They have a a very formidable defense capability.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. I got this little voice in the back of my head

that says this is not about Syria. It's about Iran.

God knows the Neocons in both parties, not to mention dominant political forces in Israel, have wanted to get us into a good one with Iran for a long time now. That Mutual Defense pact will most likely suffice to cause Iran to give us some sort of casus belli before long.

The ultimate goal is to leave Israel the dominant force in the region.


But then again that little voice might go away if I were on the right meds.

[KittyWampus]

10. haven't heard ANYONE say "just". So that's a deceitful characterization. But then so is comparing

John Kerry's speech to Colin Powell in the UN.

Oh, and not only has PNAC been invoked but now Obama is Wagging the Dog. The NSA is such a huge problem for Obama he's trying to divert attention by starting a war with Syria.

[WilliamPitt]

12. It's hard being you, isn't it.

So very much to cope with.

[KittyWampus]

13. Not hard because I'm not concerned with fitting into a lunatic fringe. I read a wide variety of info

And here's a sample of the stupid being spewed in DU just this morning:

"Obama is doing a bush and is telling his agencies to stovepipe some evidence for him so he can make up a bullshit legal argument.

Just so he can murder more people. He must jealous bush has a bigger body count then he does."

[WilliamPitt]

16. I was on the jury for that one.

Voted to leave it, not because I agree (it was, in fact, so dumb that I am now 4.37% stupider for having read it), but because shit like that needs to be refuted and obliterated, not just deleted.

P.S. I threw a into my comment above, because it was meant to be a joke but came off too snarky.

[Arctic Dave]

18. Hey, thanks for that.

Is that not what was said?

Did they not say that Obama is waiting for his legal team to get him cover so he can bomb Syria even without Congress or a UN mandate.

Let me know.

[kelliekat44]

19. Well some in Congress are just waiting for a good reason to impeach Obama

To engage in anything in Syria without involving the Congress will give them the reason they are looking for...justified or not.

[Arctic Dave]

23. I doubt impeachment is their goal or if that is even on their radar.

I doubt they care one way or another. If they did they would have reined him in years ago for military adventures.

They are only looking at it in terms of how it will affect their portfolios. Killing is money.

[KittyWampus]

20. It occurs to me that you are sort of like Diogenes of Sinope, taking a dump in the theater etc

Someone has to do it to portray the artifice of human societal constructs.

And I"m not saying that as an attack. It's an honest philosophical observation.

[Arctic Dave]

22. Or maybe someone has a opinion different then yours.

But if don't wish to have a discussion of what I posted, that's fine. I didn't think you would.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. knr for a bit of sanity

[Lurks Often]

17. I think you over estimate the capabilities of the Syrian & Iranian militaries

A lot of people said similar things about the Iraqi military prior to Desert Storm and they were made to look like rank amateurs and the US military capabilities are far better now.

However I do agree with you that there is no good reason for the US to get involved in the Syrian civil war. While I find the use of chemical weapons obscene, the brutal truth is that more people are killed in other parts of the world every year by their governments and the US does not intervene.

[sabrina 1]

21. We lost over six thousand soldiers in Iraq. That was not the impression given of

what would happen when they rushed in before waiting for the Security Council's findings.

Airc, we were told by Rummy when someone asked 'how long will this take', that it would be 'months, weeks' at most and it would cost no more than $40 billion, and no dead troops. We were so certain that we could just walk in, take care of things in a few weeks, and leave.

That turned out to be a fatal lie for thousands of our troops and for over one million Iraqis, who are STILL dying in that 'democracy' we created.