Official: U.S. military updates options for possible strikes on Syria
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by maddezmom (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: CNN
Washington -- The U.S. military has updated options for a forceful intervention in Syria to give President Barack Obama a range of choices should he decide to deepen American involvement in a civil war where new claims surfaced this week about possible chemical weapons use by the regime.
A senior Defense Department official told CNN on Friday that target lists for possible air strikes have been updated. The planning also included updates on the potential use of cruise missiles, which would not require fighter pilots to enter Syrian airspace.
But the official cautioned the steps were taken "to give the president a current and comprehensive range of choices" and that no decisions were made at a national security meeting on Thursday at the White House.
The official said there are certain static targets, like government buildings and military installations, but that forces and equipment of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "continue to move" and thus require flexibility in planning.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/world/meast/us-syria-military-options/index.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)took out a few "planning and training" facilities in neighboring countries.
Me thinks they better keep their swords in the sheath.
branford
(4,462 posts)in response to a American attack in Syria, or even to dissuade an American strike?
If so, how exactly would that advance Russian interests? It would guaranty the direct and active Israeli involvement in Syria, and with it, Assad's death or removal and the end Russian influence in the country.
Although I very much doubt an American attack in Syria is imminent, Russia has been trying to de-escalate the situation in order to protect Assad and their economic interests in the country. Open and direct Russian military action, no less a preemptive attack against a well-armed (nuclear armed!) American ally, would be absurd, particularly since an American missile strike would not be designed to remove Assad from power.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)That would be a real game changer for Assad. If Israel wants the rest of the Arab world to turn on the rebels that would do it.
branford
(4,462 posts)First, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents killing Assad loyalists and his Hezbollah and other Shia allies are a win-win for Israel. Their only geopolitical interest is containment.
Second, much of the Arab world, Turkey and other NATO countries are already supplying arms, equipment and training to the opposition, in varying degrees. Israel would not need not get its hand dirty even if they supported the rebels.
Third, the firing or rockets into Israel from Lebanon is for the precise reason of drawing Israel into the conflict so Assad can try to make such an allegation. If anyone had even a shred of evidence that Israel were training the rebels, it would have come out long before now. Additionally, not only has Israel not taken such transparent bait, popular opinion in the Arab world and Turkey concerning Assad and Hezbollah continues to precipitously decline. His only real allies are Russia, Iran and its Hezbollah lackeys.
Lastly, and most obviously, you avoided answering my questions about your own allegations in their entirety. You are neither clever, nor subtle.
Would you like to try again, or is this just tinfoil hat hour at DU?
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)against Russian interests. As such there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do so elsewhere.
pampango
(24,692 posts)The border between Israel and Syria has been one of its most peaceful for 40 years.
Why would Israel support forces which include many who hate it and would pose a much greater threat to it if they were to win control of Syria? I don't see that a Syrian government led by the Sunni majority (particularly with the influence of Al Queda in the anti-Assad forces) would be less of a threat to Israel than the father/son Assad dictators have been.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)The Israeli government itself doesn't supply arms to anyone - their military contractors do that for them given Ministry of Defense approval..
What Israel Lost in the Georgia War : http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1834785,00.html
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)(Reuters) - Syrian state television said government soldiers found chemical agents in rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar on Saturday and some of the troops were suffocating.
"Army heroes are entering the tunnels of the terrorists and saw chemical agents," state television quoted a "news source" as saying. "In some cases, soldiers are suffocating while entering Jobar," it said.
"Ambulances came to rescue the people who were suffocating in Jobar," it said, adding that an army unit was preparing to storm the suburb where rebels fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad are based.
Syrian activists accuse Assad's forces of launching a nerve gas attack in Jobar and other suburbs before dawn on Wednesday, killing between 500 and more than 1,000 people.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-jobar-idUSBRE97N04T20130824
dusty trails
(174 posts)In the recent past some Republicans have accused President Obama of being a coward for not acting.
I expect they will now attack him as careless if he does act.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
