US rules out unilateral military action in Syria

[kpete]

Source: AFP

US rules out unilateral military action in Syria
(AFP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON, District of Columbia — The United States has ruled out unilateral military action against Syria and is conferring with allies on potential punitive strikes that could last for more than a day, a senior US official said Wednesday.

"Any military action would not be unilateral. It would include international partners," the senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters.

The strikes against Syria, if ordered, could extend beyond a single day, the official said.

"The options are not limited just to one day."

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hoeKc90VvJCEkSEZAw5n2N9DNp4Q?docId=CNG.c7f3d5d86e44e790c679886c2e48d055.ca1

[wild bird]

1. How about this option,

don't strike at all?
Seems like the wiser course of action.

[Red Knight]

2. Gotta feed the war machine

$$$$$$ Ka-ching, Ka-ching.

[yoloisalie]

3. Sorry but 1 day strike

is not about feeding the MIC. It got to be more than that. Its all about helping the hapless rebels and also remember that the ultimate goal is to circle Iran and cut them off any regional allies in preparation for the Iran war. 1 day bombing will go wonders for the radical Wahhabi terrorists in Syria.

Its not about oil or feeding MIC, its ultimately about Iran.

[Arctic Dave]

4. I think you are mostly right.

But I think it is "all of the above" in your last sentence.

[Red Knight]

15. Who says it will be limited?

Do you know what will happen after they strike?

I don't.

And EVERYTHING feeds the MIC.

Do you know what it costs to shoot one of those missiles? Believe me--someone made big money.

Whatever the geopolitical ambitions may be---guys get rich in war. It's good for business. A so-called "limited strike" is just part of the larger picture.

[Nihil]

5. What's this? Another "coalition of the non-entities" being formed to "justify" illegal warfare?

Searching round for "allies", for "international partners", for any possible fig-leaf
to cover the dangling dick of exceptionalist empire-building?

Say it ain't so!

Why, that would make Obama's actions far too familiar for anyone who isn't suffering
from Alzheimer's (or a terminal case of cheer-leading) to ignore!

[ConcernedCanuk]

6. Think "coalition of the coerced".

.
.
.

USA/MIC wants war?

It's gonna happen.

(sigh)

CC

[JackRiddler]

7. So there's still a chance.

There may be sufficient opposition to stop this in Britain.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Love the continuous anonymous 'trial balloons' going up lately.

The public isn't biting. This shit is as popular with the American People as chickenpox. Don't do it.

[ctsnowman]

9. Maybe

we can get Palau to commit again or so other power house.

[geek tragedy]

11. You forgot Poland! nt

[Cal Carpenter]

12. You forgot Poland

eta: gmta, I suppose, at least I got a smile out of it for half a second before I remembered what we were talking about

[David__77]

10. If the British parliament rejects it, that will be interesting.

So what then, just US, former colonial ruler France, and Islamist-ruled Turkey?

[Nihil]

13. The worrying thing is that Cameron is every bit as much of a brown-nosing git as Blair ...

... prepared to do *anything* in order to win approval from his masters.

It doesn't help that his tumorous growth of a "coalition partner" will offer
no restraint and that the remaining dregs of opposition are still largely
tainted with Blair's "legacy".

If parliament reject it then I will be delighted - surprised yet delighted - but
I wouldn't be willing to bet a single politician's life on this happening.

[PaulKersey]

14. We've seen this movie before

[happyslug]

16. No US Carriers in the Med, nearest secure US Air Base is 2400 KM away, whats the problem?

The F-15 has a combat range of about 2400 KM, thus could fly to Syria from Sicily and back, but unless refueled in flight, it would be to Syria, drop weapons and then right back home. Thus in flight refueling is a must.

Now Britain does have air bases in Cyprus, which is 1/3 of the way to Syria. i.e a lot closer, but Cyprus gets its oil (refined) from Greece, and Greece and Turkey gets their oil from Iran. Technically Legally Cyprus can NOT veto what Britain does from those Bases, but it has 54 105 mm howitzers, which is enough to veto anything being done on those bases (Britain can reject that veto, but that requires air operations over Cyprus, something that would reduce Air Operations over Syria.

Turkish Forces on Cyprus also has the ability to hit those bases, but requires more the 105 mm Howitzers.

Remember Greece and Turkey gets their oil from IRAN, Cyprus from Greece. Even if the Howitzers are taken out, just having them pointing at the Air Bases would be enough to keep Iran sending Greece and Turkey oil.

Yes, Greece and Turkey do not like each other (and Turkey hates Assad), but both need Iranian oil and will work together to keep that oil flowing to BOTH (and if that means supporting Assad, they will).

[cstanleytech]

17. They dont have to use jets though they could use drones

launched via submarine cant they?

[happyslug]

18. The issue is VOLUME.

Sooner or later you come up to the issue of VOLUME. Subs, Destroyers even row boats can launch cruise missiles, but only so many (and most have less then 20).

One of the reasons the Carriers are so large is they ability to carry A LOT OF MUNITIONS. The Navy is also geared to re-supply them with munitions.

The USS Iowa, when put back into service could only carry, 32 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and 16 Harpoon missiles. Total 50 missiles, 32 and 16 seems to be the average load, but it could vary, but the Battleships did NOT have the Aegis defense system, so limited to how many Anti-Aircraft and Anti-Submarine missiles it could carry. US Navy policy as to the Battleship was to assign a Aegis curiser or destroyer with them. The Battleship carried the Cruise missiles, the Aegis Ship all the anti-Sub and Anti-Aircraft Missiles,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_(BB-61)

The Ticonderoga class can carry 130 different missiles, including Tomahawks and Harpoons (It is Aegis Combat System Equipped).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser

US Destroyers can carry up to 96 Missiles.

One of the problem is these missiles are pre-loaded and pre-loaded with not only Tomahawks, but Harpoon anti-Ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles OR even anti-submarine missiles/Torpedoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launch_System

The Virginia Class Attack Subs can fire only 40 Tomahawk Cruse missiles,, the Older Seawolf can carry 50 (Like surface ships this number includes Anti-Ship, Anti-submarine and maybe even Anti-Air Missiles).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine

Thus how many Cruise missiles each ship carries is an open question. Most ships will contain more anti-aircraft, anti-Submarine and Anti-ships missiles then missiles to hit land targets. Syria can take the hit of a couple of hundred cruise missiles, thus we will need a lot more then one or two Cruisers (or subs) to fire the number of missiles needed to do real damage to Syria,

The real test will be can the US delver a lot more firepower, which is best done by Jets with today's technology (Or if within 20 miles of shore, the Battleship's big gun).

[Angleae]

19. Drones would get shot down.

Syria has a major air defense capability (both SAMs and fighters) unlike Afghanistan and Iraq and could easily shoot down any drone in their airspace (even tomahawk missiles are iffy unless launched in a mass barrage).