Syria Disintegrating: Part 2

[Jacob]

This is a pretty good breakdown of what happened and the likely effect: https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/04/07/the-strikes-against-al-shayrat-air-base-highly-detailed-security-theater-with-no-deterrent-effect/

As night gave way to day we began to get greater clarity about exactly what happened with last night's missile strikes against al Shayrat Air Base in Syria. It was security theater with no deterrent effect.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Eh, to defend the Pentagon here (this was almost certainly their plan, not Trump's), the goal was never to significantly impede Assad's operational capacities. This strike was literally intended as a fine, in that it destroyed things that cost Assad money, and it showed a willingness on our part to use military force in response to chemical weapons use. Do I think it had a deterrent effect? I'm not sure, and no one else is either. But I have reason to think it could. Firstly, in the grand scheme of things Assad doesn't need to use chemical weapons to achieve his goals, his reasons for going back to them don't seem verh good in the first place. Russia is really interested in seeing Assad win, and they and Iran are often footing the bill to replace equipment, since both of those countries realize Assad doesn't need chemical weapons to win, and that future use of them could lead to more equipment being destroyed this could absolutely be enough for them to basically tell Assad to knock it off. Secondly by basically ignoring the Russian/Syrian playbook on denying culpability and requesting investigations Trump has basically established that the sort of stuff that was perceived to work under Obama may not work under Trump.

I say perceived because I don't think Obama or his Admin ever believed Russian propaganda but I think Putin is deluded enough to think people outside of the RT crowd take his various fake news claims seriously.

The reality is as a first step to curtail chemical weapons use this makes a lot of sense. We won't say it publicly, but we really don't want to weaken Assad militarily. The simple reality is after defeating the FSA and much of al-Nusra, Assad has actually been turning a lot of attention lately to ISIS and we aren't super interested in stopping that. If we wanted to disable this base we'd have likely used stealth bombers, the bombs they drop are large enough to cause impact cratering in runways which would have rendered the base unusable for a time. This is a speeding ticket, not a Rodney King beat down.

If chemical attacks happen again we may very well have to engage in airstrikes, but that opens lots of cans of worms. Right now we have free use of Syrian airspace, but if we're bombing Assad he will likely start trying to shoot our planes down. That means we would likely need to start targeting his AA capacity with cruise missile strikes to soften up the skies for aeria bombardment. That action risks bringing us into outright conflict with Russia, and again IF successful we end up with a Syria where the regime is too weak to finish off the jihadists but there is no moderate opposition to move in and fill the void.

FWIW, given the lack of need for them, I think Assad will probably just stop using chemical weapons. My suspicion is the point when we could see a major clash in Syria is when Assad finishes mopping up the rebels/ISIS and the only enemy left is our Kurdish allies to the north. Assad won't tolerate the indefinitely and it's questionable what our position will be when he starte going after them.

[Alcibiades]

I agree with most of your assessments in this thread OVB, very well reasoned.   

[Tonitrus]

Apparently the UK's UN representative accused Russia of misusing their SC veto, and Russia's rep went on a little tirade that included lines like "look at me when I am talking to you!", and "don't you dare further insult Russia!". 

[Tamas]

Apparently the UK's UN representative accused Russia of misusing their SC veto, and Russia's rep went on a little tirade that included lines like "look at me when I am talking to you!", and "don't you dare further insult Russia!". 

I am increasingly having the worry that the UK will be way too happy to rile up international tensions to keep their Brexit negotiations out of the news. Especially with a gambling buffoon like Boris at the helm.

[Tonitrus]

Meh.  We should have ordered the 21 Zebra on Assad.

[jimmy olsen]

So, war with North Korea, Syria and maybe Russia too?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/report-white-house-considers-ground-troops-in-syria.html?mid=facebook_nymag

Report: White House Mulls Sending Thousands of U.S. Ground Troops Into Syria

By  Eric Levitz 

Ever since the United States put the fate of the world in the hands of an ill-tempered reality star, people have sought comfort in the thought that Donald Trump might outsource his administration's most important decisions to the "adults" in the room.

This was a reasonable hope. But it was also one that elided a troubling fact: Nearly all the "adults" in the Trump administration are men who make war for a living.

On Thursday, one week after Trump ordered a missile strike against the Assad regime, the United States hit Afghanistan with the largest non-nuclear bomb ever deployed. When the commander-in-chief was asked to explain the rationale for this unprecedented use of force, he replied, "What I do is I authorize my military."

"So, we have given them total authorization," Trump continued.

Ever since the United States put the fate of the world in the hands of an ill-tempered reality star, people have sought comfort in the thought that Donald Trump might outsource his administration's most important decisions to the "adults" in the room.

This was a reasonable hope. But it was also one that elided a troubling fact: Nearly all the "adults" in the Trump administration are men who make war for a living.

On Thursday, one week after Trump ordered a missile strike against the Assad regime, the United States hit Afghanistan with the largest non-nuclear bomb ever deployed. When the commander-in-chief was asked to explain the rationale for this unprecedented use of force, he replied, "What I do is I authorize my military."

"So, we have given them total authorization," Trump continued.

Our future is up to the generals. Here, according to Bloomberg's Eli Lake, is what the generals are up to:

Senior White House and administration officials tell me Trump's national security adviser, General H.R. McMaster, has been quietly pressing his colleagues to question the underlying assumptions of a draft war plan against the Islamic State that would maintain only a light U.S. ground troop presence in Syria. McMaster's critics inside the administration say he wants to send tens of thousands of ground troops to the Euphrates River Valley. His supporters insist he is only trying to facilitate a better interagency process to develop Trump's new strategy to defeat the self-described caliphate that controls territory in Iraq and Syria.

...The White House and administration officials say Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford and General Joseph Votel, who is in charge of U.S. Central Command, oppose sending more conventional forces into Syria. Meanwhile, White House senior strategist Stephen Bannon has derided McMaster to his colleagues as trying to start a new Iraq War, according to these sources ... White House and administration officials familiar with the current debate tell me there is no consensus on how many troops to send to Syria and Iraq. Two sources told me one plan would envision sending up to 50,000 troops.

"We're not going into Syria," Trump assured Fox Business earlier this week. But, according to Lake, the president has yet to hear from his advisors, who want to reach consensus around a plan to defeat ISIS before presenting it to the president. So, the adults may yet change his mind.

After all, what Trump does, is he authorizes his military.

[CountDeMoney]

When the commander-in-chief was asked to explain the rationale for this unprecedented use of force, he replied, "What I do is I authorize my military."

Oh, he's got the taste for it now.

[Admiral Yi]

He's trying to one-up Arnie's Mobile Strike commercials.

[FunkMonk]

Question: Did they really ask Donald if they could use the GBU-43? I was under the impression the commander in Afghanistan was the guy who gave the go.

Did George W. have to give permission for all those Daisy Cutters we dropped in Afghanistan too?

I'm just unsure of the protocol regarding large conventional weapons.

[Tonitrus]

We have a new ally against ISIS. 

Wild boars overrun Islamic State position, kill 3 militants

Email  Print  Reddit  Tweet  Share  Google  More
By JOHN BACON | USA Today (Tribune News Service) | Published: April 25, 2017

Three Islamic State militants setting up an ambush in a bitterly contested area of northern Iraq were killed by a herd of stampeding boars, local leaders say.


Sheikh Anwar al-Assi, a chief of the local Ubaid tribe and supervisor of anti-ISIS forces, told The Times of London the militants were hiding on the edge of a field about 50 miles southwest of Kirkuk when the boars overwhelmed them Sunday. Five other militants were injured, al-Assi said. He said the group was poised to attack a band of local tribesmen who had fled to nearby mountains since militants seized the town of Hawija three years ago.

But I am also skeptical now, based on the source (and the author's name, makes it feel the story is 25 days late).

[Valmy]

Oh come now. That is Onion material.

[CountDeMoney]

Don't fuck with the SEC.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

We have a new ally against ISIS. 

Wild boars overrun Islamic State position, kill 3 militants

Email  Print  Reddit  Tweet  Share  Google  More
By JOHN BACON | USA Today (Tribune News Service) | Published: April 25, 2017

Three Islamic State militants setting up an ambush in a bitterly contested area of northern Iraq were killed by a herd of stampeding boars, local leaders say.


Sheikh Anwar al-Assi, a chief of the local Ubaid tribe and supervisor of anti-ISIS forces, told The Times of London the militants were hiding on the edge of a field about 50 miles southwest of Kirkuk when the boars overwhelmed them Sunday. Five other militants were injured, al-Assi said. He said the group was poised to attack a band of local tribesmen who had fled to nearby mountains since militants seized the town of Hawija three years ago.

But I am also skeptical now, based on the source (and the author's name, makes it feel the story is 25 days late).

now that would be divine retribution... lol

[HVC]

Oh come now. That is Onion material.

You'd think the pigs would side against the western nations, what with our love of their delicious flesh.