Here’s why Obama is giving up the element of surprise in Syria

[cali]

Military thinkers from Sun Tzu to Napoleon Bonaparte have long emphasized the element of surprise. So it might seem strange that the Obama administration is not just clearly telegraphing that it likely plans to launch limited strikes against Syria, but also when it’s going to strike and what with. Even the likely target list is starting to come out. This is the opposite of how military tactics are supposed to work, right?

Actually, publicly revealing when, how and where the United States (and some allies) will likely strike makes sense, given what Obama wants to accomplish. If his goal were to fully enter the Syrian civil war and decisively end it, then, yes, secrecy would be the way to go. But the administration has been very clear that it has a much more modest goal: to punish Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons so that he, and future military leaders, won’t do it again.

What’s about to happen, if the United States and allies do go through with the strikes, is less of a war and more of a ritual. This isn’t about defeating Assad, it’s about punishing him. And that calls for being really precise about how much punishment the United States imposes.

If the U.S. military just fired off a bunch of missiles, it would probably cause more civilian causalities than with its current approach, and the amount of damage it caused would be tougher to predict. Maybe it causes less damage than the United States wants, and then Assad is not sufficiently deterred from future chemical weapons use. Maybe it causes more damage, and then Assad might feel compelled to respond, perhaps by striking Israel, and that’s how things spiral out of control.

No, what the Obama administration appears to want is a limited, finite series of strikes that will be carefully calibrated to send a message and cause the just-right amount of pain. It wants to set Assad back but it doesn’t want to cause death and mayhem. So the most likely option is probably to destroy a bunch of government or military infrastructure — much of which will probably be empty.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/27/heres-why-obama-is-giving-up-the-element-of-surprise-in-syria/

[Junkdrawer]

1. Anyone else think we're practically begging Assad to throw the first punch?

OR make people believe he threw the first punch.

Makes the lack of a Security Council resolution moot. And it would completely change popular resistance to the war.

[cali]

2. possible, but I don't think so

this is largely, as the article suggests, ritualistic political posturing.

It's still dangerous.

[dumbcat]

5. If I was on one of those 4 destroyers right now

I'd be a little antsy. I'll bet all the radars and sensors in CIC are at high alert and the lookouts have wide eyes.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Maybe he should light a bag of shit on fire ...

and ring Assad's doorbell.

[tridim]

4. Maybe you should take this stuff more seriously? nt

[rug]

12. !

[jberryhill]

15. Beats my idea of a wedgie!

[kentuck]

6. "Punishment"?

Is that the same as an "Attack"?

We're going to strike your country and some installations with our cruise missiles, but don't take it too seriously. We just have to "punish" Assad for using chemical weapons. Oops! It was just an accident that one went off course, due to computer tech error, and hit his palace. We do apologize for any innocent collateral.

It's all in the words.

[BlueJazz]

7. One has to gauge the amount of punishment in such a situation....but first.. We have to know..

...the person we are punishing VERY well.
I'm not so sure that we do but hopefully the powers-that-be know their opponent well.

[bhikkhu]

8. Where any military action has to follow existing international laws...

and is preceded by lengthy debate and consensus forming, which is all public because representative governments are prone to transparency and people like to know what their governments are up to, the element of surprise is not even an option.

Surprise of a luxury of tyrants, who have no use for laws or participatory government.

Imagine the headline you would write if Obama launched a strike without consulting the UN or our allies - I don't think it would be a congratulations for using the old "surprise!" tactic to strategic advantage!

[KoKo]

9. So...you think that we are That Precise? That we could be SO SURE...

and GET AWAY WITH IT?

Fascinating....and worth consideration now that the news is that GB is Backing Off and pushing it off to UN...and UN is out saying they need time to report their findings/chem analysis and therefore they've pushed it Back on Obama to say...GO IT ALONE...because we want to Wait!

Watching all this it's hard to know what the hell is going on...but your post link is worthy of consideration...because it's as good a guess as the rest of the "news" out there as to the "Back & Forth" in this...

[winter is coming]

10. So, what happens if Syria loads up the "target sites" with schoolchildren and seniors? n/t

[KoKo]

11. you really think they would do this? n/t

[winter is coming]

13. I don't know. It's possible, and would put the U.S. in an awkward position.

Either we bomb kids and grandmas, or we back down from a specific threat. Either could be a win for Assad.

[Robb]

14. Not really. The author suggests we're in von Clausewitz territory with these strikes.

That means that the success or failure of those strikes, and how that would be measured, has little to do with whether the missiles strike their targets, or are fully called back.

The political capital lost from bringing in kids and grandmas to protect military sites would bury whatever might be lost by halting those strikes in defense of kids and grandmas.

[Arctic Dave]

16. I foresee some empty buildings and meadows being leveled.

Enough to show military capabilities to both sides of the civil war. And enough to show a few building blown up and burning for western TV consumption.