I'm amazed that my Democratic President is out beating the bushes for support to do something the majority of United States citizens do not want.

First, if a cruise missle is hit and goes off course into civilian population, Obama will be blamed since he is the aggressor.
Second, the air defense system is problematic for US fighters and bombers. We might lose some planes and pilots.
Third, Russia is reportedly considering sending their most modern S400 air defense system in lieu of the S300. This gives the Russians the opportunity to test their latest technology under battle conditions, to discover and correct any flaws it may have. That could have repercussions down the road, if the US conducts operations against another Russian client-state.

This would make airspace more dangerous for the US favorite tactics everywhere.

You can bet that it will be in high demand by Iran, Pakistan, N Korea, etc....which will greatly complicate US position.

Most countries do not have Air Forces that would be obsoleted. So they all stand to benefit.

they are complicated systems that require a lot of training before their operators reach the bare minimum of proficiency to be considered combat ready. The US military takes at least a year before they declare new weapon systems operational.

Right now they would be easy targets.

they will arm the Syrians but nothing more.

There is a good chance that a US attack on Syria will kill Russians

Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

to hang around likely targets. I suspect all Russian advisors have been withdrawn to Tartus for their safety. It is hard to imagine the Russians are actively involved in the civil war - Putin will not want to be associated with war crimes.

Is the President stupid enough to order strikes on targets the Russians might be stupid enough to be hanging around?

The S400 is even more capable.

30 kilometer is 30,000 meters, or 100,000 feet.

Somebody dropped a decimal point.

with our Patriot system. It would make things more difficult but as we have seen, no system can stop every attack.

I believe the Russians would love to field test it in Syria against drones and Tomahawks.

Assad never once retaliated toward Israel over this. Assad needs to go.

There will be a transition government put in place with mutual agreement of opposing parties.

Kerry explains this at minute mark 4:54.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52932909#52932909

Where Russia is on board as well.

The Russians have even less influence over the rebels than we do (Assad being Russia's tool, after all). How can you even pretend all these disparate and occasionally mutually hostile groups are going to play according to your script?

That has all worked out so well!

for keeping a tyrant.

Russia has a vested interest in keeping him there and thus ensuring he does nothing overly stupid to antagonize the US.

In contrast, his replacement is a highly organized insurgency that is tied to the US enemies Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and cannot be leveraged by us or the Russians. They would inherit Assad's weapons, conventional and WMD as well as his national apparatus.

Bush ignored the warnings and went into Iraq to fight Saddam but we stayed nearly a decade longer when AQI set in. How could we have spent 8 years criticizing Bush for his foolishness and then turn around and commit the same mistake ourselves -- by the very president elected to undo his mistakes?

..and he has antagonized the US. Despots just cannot help themselves I guess.

Keeping him would not be better. As long as he is in Syria there will be endless war.

That's Bush era propaganda thinking. "The Quadas are comin'!!"

The pro-war faction may try to down play the significance of their influence but nobody denies their presence.

(in "W" Bushes voice) "The Quadas are coming" "Be fraid, it's the Quadas!"

"Get your plastic sheeting, get your duct tape!!" "It's Quada time again!"

That line of thinking cost us over 2 trillion dollars last time. Sorry, not falling for the PNAC thing.

You are helping Ted Cruz make his case.

the Al Qaeda argument was used to get us INTO a war in Iraq. We're using it to keep us OUT of Syria.

I'll take Ted Cruz and no war over your Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Boehner coalition in favor of war. You remember those PNAC guys, right?

I don't buy any "Al Quada" arguments.

I will not sell my soul for political expediency.

Huh?

I think the model for this is the Argentinian's use of the Exocet missile with Etendard planes in the Falkland Island war. Had it been allowed to continue, it would have been a game changer. The Brits took it out with special operations missions against the planes while they were on the ground.

This is why you need several integrated systems. An S300 or S400 SAM system combined with good AAA batteries and with a good army and armored units and a good Air Force is a serious threat.

If you have multiple pieces missing, a top tiered military like the US, China or Russia can eliminate a single dangerous system easily.

Right off the top of my head I can think of two options. First, like the Brits did in the Falklands, insert spec ops teams to destroy them. Or second, send stealth aircraft who can destroy them without ever being detected.