War Machine marches on, Syria is next.

U.S. mulls strikes on Syria

Bush administration hard-liners have been considering launching selected military strikes at insurgent training camps in Syria and border-crossing points used by Islamist guerrillas to enter Iraq in an effort to bolster security for the upcoming elections, according to former and current administration officials.

Former CIA Syria expert, Martha Kessler doesn't think so. "I don't think the administration can afford to destabilize another country in the region," she said.

Stating the obvious but attacking Syria even limitedly would cause Muslims to have more reasons to hate us and think we are only attacking Muslim countries and it will just cause more backlash against the United States. Besides our military is streached thin as it is, we can't handle retalitation by the Syrian government in the form of another war.

Attacking Syria may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

simple, you aid terrorists, you are a target too, i mean syria has a history of helping terrorists, only reason noone has punished them is because fear of alienating muslims...thats just stupid, they deserve to be taken out for the simple fact they are responsible for many deaths of our and our allies people, not just recently in iraq but for decades running.

stop promoting cowardice, is noone willing to defend themselves anymore?

Besides our military is streached thin as it is, we can't handle retalitation by the Syrian government in the form of another war.
Attacking Syria may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I have posted threads before about Iran's capability to fight a war with the United States, so do not take me for a dogmatic proponent of American supremecy when I say that Syria can not threaten the United States in Iraq.

Syria may share a border with Iraq, but their not really right next door. Syria has to cross a large open desert with a very limited number of highways before they can actually engage American forces.

The American force will be heavily outnumbered, but will be more manueverable, have greater awareness of the battlefield, and can mount small operations which break the tempo of the Syrian advance and give America the initiative in this war.

It works like this:
2 weeks prior: America notices Syrian military activity near the border. Syria claims to be locking the border down against terrorists.
1 week prior: Increased American surviellance reveals supply convoys and artillery which can only be intended to support an invasion. America begins planning it's defense. American units outside of Iraq go on alert. 2 more carriers head for the region.

For the first month or two America will be slowly falling back. Constant airstrikes and nightime raids by small armored forces would play hell with Syria's supply situation.
2-3 months of airwar alone can attrit between 15 to 25% of Syrian armor and artillery. A single night of action by a small American tank unit can destroy an entire batallion or more of enemy vehicles, which means deep operations could all but cripple Syrian logistics. Unless Syria has the weaponry and tactics to prevent America from reinforcing Iraq and overrun large units in the first month of the war, it is likely that America could win the war with its current forces in Iraq and just a few light infantry and aircraft reinforcements.

Dont worry about that though, because in 2 months America can deploy all the armor it needs to not only crush the Syrian invasion in 100 hours but also to begin an invasion of Syria.
America isn't spread quite so thin as you might think. The truth is that we could take our forces out of Korea without too much worry. Those forces are only a deterrent; South Korean and Japan can defeat the North if they need to, and the Chinese aren't about to risk nuclear war by directly participating in such a war.

The greatest danger to American forces in Iraq is Iran, and Iran can only bleed us, not defeat us, unless they acquire nuclear weapons or have the full cooperation of China and Russia.

Last but not least- there is this neat little thing called NATO. If Syria undertook a major offensive against American forces, it is very likely that Turkey would attack them. Afterall, with an easy opening on the Syrian rear, and a chance to gain favor with America as well as a chance to put troops in Northern Iraq where they could put the Kurds in line, do you really think Turkey would pass it up- especially with America probably offering them tons of cash?

A ground war against Syria would be highly unlikely. Even if I thought America's goal was to take over the Middle East one nation at a time, we'd go after Iran way before Syria.

Syria most likely could not support an attack on American forces in Iraq. They don't have the technology, or budget to support that kind of war. It would be suicide. If America did go into Syria, it would make Iran desperate. If we entered Syria, there's little doubt in Iran's mind that they'd be next. There best option would be to attack Iraq while we're fighting Syria in hopes of causing enough damage quickly to make America rethink its actions, or maybe to start trying to build up an intimidating defense.

It's a small risk in the end, but a foolish one to take. None of these Middle Eastern countries can fight an offensive military war of any real kind. Gulf War 1 Iraq had a million men in its armed forces, but could only deploy a fraction of that to Kuwait. Current day Iran is economically and militarily weaker then Iraq was. They'd find it very difficult to launch an offensive war, especially on short notice.

I tell you what after the show of "how to take a country" US has show in Iraq and the results of it, I think all the middle east countries knows exactly where US is more vulnerable and taking in consideration that US is having problems with troops support or lack off.

I think the present administration is under estimating the wiliness of our military to keep on fighting wars in the way the administration has wants and they know that is they will be alone with not help from allies.

Troop morale is at the same place it has always been, in spite of the picture the left tries to paint.

And America made certain mistakes in post-war Iraq, just like we have in every other occupation we've had. It's forigivable. After all, America doesn't get to launch full scale invasions and occupations very often. It means lessons have to be re-learned sometimes.

Syria being so soon after Iraq is a plus for us. We would not make the same mistakes twice.

The American military isn't stretched thin, either. We have 70,000 troops in Germany, 35,000 in Japan, 30,000 in South Korea, and so on...We have troops all over, and they really have no need.

The president you liberals hate so much is actually the first to take steps to redeploy these troops more effectively, unlike Clinton who decided to just leave them where they were, while taking away their equipment.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Syria most likely could not support an attack on American forces in Iraq. They don't have the technology, or budget to support that kind of war. It would be suicide.

My point exactly. I could see America carrying out limited airstrikes, which Ironically would be praised as restraint if only we hadn't first carried out our heavy-handed invasion of Iraq.
I dont think Syria can afford to, or would be crazy enough to, start a ground war with America in the face of mere airstrikes on terrorists.

If America did go into Syria, it would make Iran desperate. If we entered Syria, there's little doubt in Iran's mind that they'd be next. There best option would be to attack Iraq while we're fighting Syria in hopes of causing enough damage quickly to make America rethink its actions, or maybe to start trying to build up an intimidating defense.

Partially agreed. You have to keep in mind that that gives Iran a nice little window of 1-2 years to continue working on its nuclear program before their number comes up. They might figure that there best bet was to try and get the bomb before we came for them instead of jumping into a conventional war.

It's a small risk in the end, but a foolish one to take. None of these Middle Eastern countries can fight an offensive military war of any real kind. Gulf War 1 Iraq had a million men in its armed forces, but could only deploy a fraction of that to Kuwait. Current day Iran is economically and militarily weaker then Iraq was. They'd find it very difficult to launch an offensive war, especially on short notice.

Well, you and I have already been up one side of the Iran debate and back down the other so I wont get into it to heavily, except to say that question isn't what they can deploy- it's the matchup of forces in localized areas which is important. We can't write off Iran completely, even though we equally can not afford to fear them to the point of allowing distraction from greater threats.

Partially agreed. You have to keep in mind that that gives Iran a nice little window of 1-2 years to continue working on its nuclear program before their number comes up. They might figure that there best bet was to try and get the bomb before we came for them instead of jumping into a conventional war.

I honestly don't think the nuke would prevent an invasion. Iran couldn't fire any.

I'd hope we wouldn't wait a year, let alone 2 to invade Iran after Syria. I believe it would be best to launch as quick an attack as possible on Iran in order to prevent them from building up more effective defenses.

Have you seen this Time magazine article about shortage of new recruits?

You have to keep in mind just because we keep sending troops over in Iraq doesn't mean anything. The insergents are still going strong and improving their bombs and warfare technique.

Under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan opium production was way down and mostly done in the Northern Alliance controlled area, now that we came in and slaughter people and let warlords take over, Afghanistan makes 87% of the world opium now. It is interesting how Afghanistan was swept under in the media, hardly any reports about it now. If America really did care about the "War on Drugs" they would have destroyed the opium fields but then again the CIA traffics crack cocain.

If North Korea were to launch it's nuclear weapons at us it would be justified because the United States wasn't tried for war crimes for nuking innocent Japanese civilians in WWII.

Face it fighting Communism failed (Korean War, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs (In Cuba), etc and so will the War on Terrorism. The Middle East doesn't want democracy, you can't force that political system on people.

There is still 7,000+ people still detained in Abu Ghraib prison, they need to be let go and the prison shut down or at least give them and the people in Gitmo a fair trial instead of holding them without charges and an aid to an attorney.

Just as the Vietnamese were excellent in guerrilla warfare so are the Iraqis. I hope America is still around in 2008 because Bush is on his way to causing a world revolt against America.

You have to keep in mind just because we keep sending troops over in Iraq doesn't mean anything. The insergents are still going strong and improving their bombs and warfare technique.

The insurgents can't fight Americans head on. They aren't a military threat to us.

Under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan opium production was way down and mostly done in the Northern Alliance controlled area, now that we came in and slaughter people and let warlords take over, Afghanistan makes 87% of the world opium now. It is interesting how Afghanistan was swept under in the media, hardly any reports about it now. If America really did care about the "War on Drugs" they would have destroyed the opium fields but then again the CIA traffics crack cocain.

America slaughtered people in Afghanistan, huh? 3,000 civillian deaths in a war is hardly a slaughter. That's incredibly low.

As for Opium, we can't just destroy the fields because then you're just putting farmers out of work. That would destroy the economy, and no one wins. Right now we're teaching them to farm other things.

If North Korea were to launch it's nuclear weapons at us it would be justified because the United States wasn't tried for war crimes for nuking innocent Japanese civilians in WWII.

That's because it wasn't a war crime.

Face it fighting Communism failed (Korean War, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs (In Cuba), etc and so will the War on Terrorism. The Middle East doesn't want democracy, you can't force that political system on people.

America could have directly invaded Cuba if it wanted to. The Korean War was a success for us. Vietnam was a failure, but only because of mistakes, not that we couldn't win.

I believe America won the Cold War. The Soviet Union collapsed. Cuba and Korea are really the only communist hold-outs.

There is still 7,000+ people still detained in Abu Ghraib prison, they need to be let go and the prison shut down or at least give them and the people in Gitmo a fair trial instead of holding them without charges and an aid to an attorney.

POW's don't have to be tried till the end of a war, and these guys certainly aren't warranted to a normal trial. They should face a military tribunal.

Just as the Vietnamese were excellent in guerrilla warfare so are the Iraqis. I hope America is still around in 2008 because Bush is on his way to causing a world revolt against America.

The Iraqis are pretty awful at fighting. They should really be able to do a whole lot more damage to American soldiers who are stationed in relatively small numbers throughout Iraq. They have easy access, unlike the Vietcong.

Well, as far as the "Muslims will just hate us more" argument, I think they're at a maximum level of hate us-ness already, so invading Syria won't make a difference there.

Also, Syria is a much smaller country than Iraq. Wouldn't it be much easier to invade? The fact that Syria shares a border with Israel doesn't help them either.

I agree that the only reason our troops seem to be spread thin is because of how the U.S. Military is organized. I can understand the need for redundancy, and "not keeping all your eggs in one basket" and all that, but the U.S. Military really does need to consolidate its forces to fewer bases in the most important locations. If you think the U.S. Military is powerful now, wait until its forces are all consolidated!

i would like to see uncle sam take on bigger lads - those who do have the real WMD. try russia or china.

it's very funny how everyone who wants the us military to attack syria says it with such ease.... i wonder how many of you have siblings currently fighting in iraq or afghanistan???? its easy to sit behind a computer and say "we should attacl them"... Listen i think syria definetly deserve's punishment but I would not want to go anywhere in the middle east to fight a war.... you cannot trust anyone there not even the people u are trying to protect.......

Originally posted by namehere
simple, you aid terrorists, you are a target too, i mean syria has a history of helping terrorists, only reason noone has punished them is because fear of alienating muslims...thats just stupid, they deserve to be taken out for the simple fact they are responsible for many deaths of our and our allies people, not just recently in iraq but for decades running.

stop promoting cowardice, is noone willing to defend themselves anymore?

Originally posted by namehere
simple, you aid terrorists, you are a target too, i mean syria has a history of helping terrorists, only reason noone has punished them is because fear of alienating muslims...thats just stupid, they deserve to be taken out for the simple fact they are responsible for many deaths of our and our allies people, not just recently in iraq but for decades running.

stop promoting cowardice, is noone willing to defend themselves anymore?

tsk tsk, A lot of name calling. Do you feel good now? I personally think you should be put in jail. How about going back to school? lol

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Partially agreed. You have to keep in mind that that gives Iran a nice little window of 1-2 years to continue working on its nuclear program before their number comes up. They might figure that there best bet was to try and get the bomb before we came for them instead of jumping into a conventional war.

Just because your name says your a vagabond, don't act like one. Stop making stuff up. The young atsers here may start believing in a quack like you.

Originally posted by websurfer

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Partially agreed. You have to keep in mind that that gives Iran a nice little window of 1-2 years to continue working on its nuclear program before their number comes up. They might figure that there best bet was to try and get the bomb before we came for them instead of jumping into a conventional war.

Just because your name says your a vagabond, don't act like one. Stop making stuff up. The young atsers here may start believing in a quack like you.

I am eagerly awaiting some form of logical arguement explaining what is wrong with the statements I have made. Until then my point stands and the little ones should heed my example and learn to quack as I do. I like the Donald Duck quack myself.

And my name doesn't say I'm -a- vagabond. It says I'm -THE- Vagabond. And I am.

I think we have some satellite pics of Terrorist training camps in Syria and also evidence of people crossing the border to help distablize Iraq. Soon they might be getting some cruise missile sent there way. No American troops no planes just Cruise missiles and maybe a few UCAVS. Very select targets and the Syrian goverment wont be doing anything about it.

I'd like to start off by saying that this idea is not something I would necessarily be in favour of, it was just a random thought that popped into my head about the Syria problem and I thought I'd throw it out there.

I was looking at a map thinking how can the US ever hope to secure it without a huge increase in forces? How can you stop the border crossings and smuggling? And then the answer came to me. Landmines! 1,000's and 1000's of landmines. I'm pretty sure you already got the roads covered, you can prevent any crossings at all, except at the checkpoints.

Originally posted by Duzey
Landmines! 1,000's and 1000's of landmines. I'm pretty sure you already got the roads covered, you can prevent any crossings at all, except at the checkpoints.

It would take alot of mines but it could work.

This is our new policy on landmines as of February 27, 2004

-eliminate all persistent landmines from its arsenal;

-continue to develop non-persistent (self-destructing/self-deactivating) landmines that will not pose a humanitarian threat after use in battle;

-continue to research and develop enhancements to the current self-destructing/self-deactivating landmine technology in order to develop and preserve military capabilities that address the United States transformational goals;

-seek a worldwide ban on the sale or export of all persistent landmines;

-get rid of its non-detectable mines within one year;

-only employ persistent anti-vehicle mines outside of Korea between now and 2010, if needed, when authorized by the President;

-not use any persistent landmines -- neither anti-personnel nor anti-vehicle -- anywhere after 2010;

-begin the destruction within two years of those persistent landmines not needed for the protection of Korea;

-seek a 50 percent increase in the U.S. Department of State's portion of the U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program over Fiscal Year 2003 baseline levels to $70 million a year.

We are trying to shift to all landmines that disarm or self destruct after a set amount of time. This is so many years after a conflict they are not killing people like they do now. We are doing some work on robotic landmines that work on a hive mentality. Mines that can move and change there location as need be to stop a threat.

www.state.gov...

The US has been very adamant in their refusal to sign any agreement that would ban the use of landmines. So that means that they can use them any time they want, and I'm sure they have a good supply on hand and could get more pretty fast. If there were ever a good reason for the use of them, I think this could be one. You can catch those that try the checkpoint, and the ones that try to cross, well..... boom. The only problem would be keeping civilians from blowing up.

edit spelling

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Duzey]