Pentagon Plans: Next, War on Syria?

even though there is a PNAC and a CSP (Center for Security Policy)
which operate beyond and afar from
the Pentagon; which your post says, is busy updating contingency plans for 'operations' in Syria.

i don't quite see it all cut & dried, like your post suggests....

if you'll consider this:

...in a letter obtained by US forces in Iraq that was written by
Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second-ranking leader of Al Qaeda.

According to the (NY) Times, the letter outlined a four staged battle plan, beginning with the American military's expulsion, followed by the creation of a militant Islamic caliphate in Iraq, and then in Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt.
The final step, the Times reported, quoted unnamed US officials, would be a battle against Israel.

www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/article/2005/10/11/romney_warns_of_theocracy_danger www.rawstory.com

Syria,
and then its neighbors Lebanon, Egypt, Israel are considered targets by the militant Islamists & Jihadists, according to that letter.

In the eyes of the Syrian leadership....an American campaign would indeed depose the leadership,
but they might also figure that they'd still be alive
and not beheaded, like the AQ in Iraq are seemingly fond of doing to infidels and/or Islamic heritics. (which the Syrian leaders would be considered,
in the event of a takeover by a militant Islamic caliphate)

i just don't see Syria being invaded......perhaps coalition forces or a UN peacekeeping force will be 'invited' into Syria

but, i'm also far behind in my fantasy leagues, football-golf-baseball...
so who's gonna pay attention?

Originally posted by Syrian Sister


Syria an Iran have alliance. You can't take us both at the same time.



[edit on 10-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Are you indicating a scenario of Conventional warfare? The US would be more than capable of handling this alliance, and that is in the small chance that Syria and Iran actually held together when the going gets tough. In reality i doubt either country would jump in to save the other if attacked.

Blast back in the past: WW2 US in Europe allied vs Germany & US in Pacific vs Japan. Point being- US is capable, if neccessary, to handle multiple wars on a larger scale.

As Iraq prooved in less than 2 weeks a conventional war against the US would be deadly to Syria or Iran (or both). Both countries are highly isolated and under intense international pressure, in which leads me to believe that the US might not even have a need for any major military moves against Syria. And Iran's story is still unfolding by the day.

Carburetor

The US is capable of handling multiple wars on a larger scale if the citizenry is behind it, that's what WW2 proves. In WW2 we were faced with clear enemies waging wars of agression. That's not the case now.

How much public support do you expect to see for expanding the already unpopular Iraq war into two more countries, countries that can actually fight back?

The US is currently in no position to attack either Iran or Syria.
I'm sure Bush and his cronies would like to, but it's simply unrealistic.

Hey, don't get too cocky ya?

Military News : Is the U.S Military Overstretched?

Washington, August 22, 2005 -- With more than 250,000 American troops deployed in nearly 130 countries, many analysts are questioning whether the United States military is stretched in ways that could undermine its future capabilities should new threats arise.

In his annual report to Congress last May, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained the military to a point where it runs a higher risk of not being able to quickly and easily defeat potential enemies.

U.S. military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recruitment shortfalls in some branches of the armed forces, such as the Army and National Guard, have alarmed some observers who warn that the military is overburdened and overstretched.

Army, Marines miss recruiting goals again

WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials say it's not a crisis, but it is a major concern — a battle here at home to win the hearts and minds of potential new recruits.

After more than three years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the all-volunteer military is facing its toughest test yet.

In April, the Army missed its recruiting goal for the third month in a row, short by nearly 2,800 recruits, or 42 percent off its target.

And for the first time in 10 years, the Marine Corps missed its recruiting goal for the last four months.

I wouldn't be too confident on the statement most of you guys made about the capability of the U.S Military since the people of your own country is hesitant to even join the army,marines or what have you. The reason being U.S Military is far too overstretched and I believe the people can sense if this is to prolong, the results can be disastrous for the well-being of U.S.

If my country were to be in this state, I'd be humble and say "we love peace, man!woooo!".

Bust!
There will be no war with Syria.
Why?
Because Condi does not support it.
US weighed military strikes in Syria
Rice Favors Diplomatic Isolation Over Attacking Syria

We all know who Condi is right?
The only force on Earth capable of preventing Sen. Hillary Clinton from winning the White House in 2008

You go gurl.





seekerof

We all know who Condi is right?
The only force on Earth capable of preventing Sen. Hillary Clinton from winning the White House 2008

I thought that was the male population? Would you want to be ruled by a gigantic B?

I know it was off topic but I felt like saying it.

Invading Syria because Insurgents are supposedly mostly coming from there makes no sense because you would simply have more of them over a larger area.

Invading because they won't control the border makes no sense because then there would be more border for us to worry about.

Invading would require a draft, or some serious repositioning of forces leaving the real enemies of democracy free to expand.

It would also require more money than you can shake a stick at.

Something America will have difficulty commanding.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by ArchAngel]

I personally believe that if U.S and it's coalition(Israel included) were to invade Iran and on to Syria, it would be one heck of a fight. Moreover, I can confidently say that Iran and Syria will be able to put up such a resistance that the U.S led troops regret what they did.

It's true. Iran and Syria are not Iraq. Iran and Syria's military capability far surpass that of Iraq's military. We're not talking about guerilla tactics like what the Iraqi soldiers used but all out organised attacks.

After what happen to Iraq, Iran and Syria would have gain lots of lessons from there. U.S-led troops weaknesses such as failure to win the support of the people in the countries they invaded and urban insurgency battle proves to be a pain in the you-know-where for the U.S led troops.

Originally posted by Heartagram
If my country were to be in this state, I'd be humble and say "we love peace, man!woooo!".

The funny thing is, the left over US forces comprise about 1 million servicemen, and thousands of tanks, aircraft, and war ships.

Our 'leftovers' could take any nation in the world.

The US military is currently built to handle 2 seperate wars in 2 seperate theaters of war.

The whole middle east would be just ONE theater.

Bottom line, the US could take the whole middle east in under 6 months if it wanted.

That's not what we want. We want Syria to start inforcing their boarder. We want Iran to stop trying to build nukes and support terrorism.

If those things happen, no problems. If they don't, well, those nations will have problems.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The funny thing is, the left over US forces comprise about 1 million servicemen, and thousands of tanks, aircraft, and war ships.

Our 'leftovers' could take any nation in the world.

I don't suppose the 1 million left serviceman and your tanks and stuffs are in good condition if it has undergone lots of battle right? and I don't suppose there is no injured or wounded soldiers in your estimation of 1 million left servicemen right?

Unless of course you guys are a bunch of robocops. No. Make that robosoldiers.

[edit on 12/10/05 by Heartagram]

Originally posted by xmotex
The US is capable of handling multiple wars on a larger scale if the citizenry is behind it, that's what WW2 proves. In WW2 we were faced with clear enemies waging wars of agression. That's not the case now.

Who is to say what citizens will support and for what reasons come the future if a war occurs between the US and these two countries. History over US military action shows that declarations of war start out with a decent amount of pubilc support surrounding the cause. Once, our service men and women are activated, you can bet they are going to do what they have to do to accomplish missions and defend themselves.

In regards to other comments:
The US can & would be able to handle Iran and Syria if it were necessary.
Before the 1991 Gulf war Iraq had the fifth largest army in the world. Nearly a million actives
4000 tanks
Thousands of artillery shells
hundreds of military aircraft
Iraq was a major military power throuout the middle east. They were also estimated larger than Iran in equipment strength. In 2001 CSIS (Center for Strategic & International Studies) believed that Iraq was still a significant power in the middle east comparable with Iran. Yet both of these Iraq wars, in conventional terms, ended in a matter of weeks with somewhat minimal size US military activations.
My point being Iran and Syria would be somewhat simular to Iraq in terms of face to face conventional downfall to the US or the US and its allies. I'm not trying to put on a penis measuring contest between the US, Syria, and Iran,......im just pointing out the logic if a war happend in this case. A man can be as confident and sure as hell in trying to out sprint a cheetah, but the logical facts tell the truth. The US has the capability, if it were really necessary, to handle both Syria and Iran at the same time.

Carburetor

Who is to say what citizens will support and for what reasons come the future if a war occurs between the US and these two countries.

It doesn't take a great leap of perception to realize that public support for the war in Iraq dwindles evey day. I find it hard to believe the public will somehow support two new wars against countries that have not attacked the US.

I have no doubt that the troops, if ordered to do so, will follow their orders.
I do have doubts that there are enough of them available to invade and occupy two more countries with hostile populations, especially with the US going it alone, as it would likely have to in such a case.

There is always the possibility of a draft - in which case whatever public support such a war might get will drop to almost nothing.

As far as the capability of the US to wage such a war, you've got to be kidding me. The occupation of Iraq has already stretched our manpower resources to the brink. Gulf War 1 is a poor example, as we had a) strong support at home b) strong international support (including, ironically enough, thousands of Syrian combat troops) and c) a significantly larger US military than we do today. The situation in 2005 is very different from the situation in 1991. The idea that the US is an omnipotent force able to take on all challengers at once is sheer nationalistic fantasy.

[edit on 10/12/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Syria has been surpressing radical Islamists for decades now, even fighting on the side of the Christians during the Labanese civil war.

Umm no... the Syrians never fought with the Christians Syria was aainst a Christian state as they saw it as a second Israel.

At the beginning of January 1976, in Damour and Jieh, two Christian towns south of Beirut, the Palestinians and Syrians went so far as to cut the fingers of Christian children to ensure that they never would be able to pull a gun's trigger. In Damour, at least 300 inhabitants were killed and their churches profaned.

On March 16, 1977, the date on which the Syrians murdered Kamal Joumblatt, they sent Druze to attack Christian villages. The result: At least 1000 people were massacred. The village of Deir Dourit was erased, with 273 dead.
www.gotc-se.org...

Hmm, the Syrians have a funny way of suporting the Christians

Originally posted by xmotex

Who is to say what citizens will support and for what reasons come the future if a war occurs between the US and these two countries.

The idea that the US is an omnipotent force able to take on all challengers at once is sheer nationalistic fantasy.

[edit on 10/12/05 by xmotex]

It was never stated in my debate that the US would just waltz into Syria and Iran willy-nilly as a bully to conquer and invade. My debat was solely in the event that a conventional war became imminent and the 3 countries declared war.

And you have got to be kidding me if you believe the US is really so stretched to brink of dispair that it is incapable of; and never thought of: counter measures in the event of multiple wars occuring at the same time while going into Iraq. You underestimate the logistics of the US. If the US forsees war with Iran and Syria, you can bet its going to manuever its playing cards into a position it can capitalize on. This is not nationalistic Fantasy. This would be a super power contolling the tempo, positioning its international weapons and tools precisely in fashion, and mobilizing massive military capabilities which Iran and Syria both already know would bring their demise.

Iraq - +/- 130,000-150,000 US troups active

Current US military capabilities:
500,203 active Army personnel
176,202 Marines
375,521 Navy / 12 fleets!
358,612 Air Force
40,000+ Coast Guard who are trained for both military and domestic issues.
860,000+ Reservists
and the largest quantity of weapons holdings in the world.

en.wikipedia.org...

The US government plays the tight squeeze game off real well to the public, however they are much more capable then we all anticipate.

Carburetor





[edit on 13-10-2005 by Mr Carburetor]

i heard seconds after our towers were knocked. bush was tapped on the shoulder by one of his congress men. being told ''i should jump in my f17 and drop a nuke over syria.''

i wouldnt doubt it to be true! were definitely gonna end up in syria. they house terrorists like crazy.

Originally posted by Heartagram
I don't suppose the 1 million left serviceman and your tanks and stuffs are in good condition if it has undergone lots of battle right?

Like I said, OVER 1 million able bodied men available to the US right now NOT INVOLVED IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Super carrier battle ships. Ohio class submarines. Thousands of M-1 abrahams. Hundreds of B-52's. Hundreds of F-15's. Hundreds of F-16's. Not to mention the THOUSANDS OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS.

Sorry, the US is the most powerfull nation on earth BY FAR, even if you don't include it's assets in the ME. This is not nationalism, this is reality. Based on it's nuclear arsenal alone, it is the most powerful nation in the world by far.

Dissagree with the US politically all you want - that is your right... But be informed on her capabilities if you are to make a statement about it's military trying to insult her.

[edit on 13-10-2005 by American Mad Man]

If you ask me its just a Matter of time befor Bush starts to wage war against Syria - maybe only a limited war, but still Syria must be Secured! And by doing that, the Road to Teheran is open. After all, the Project for the New American Century is a Big one - and war in Iraq was just the First Step in "rebuilding America's defences". Why? Because "America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."

Originally posted by Souljah
If you ask me its just a Matter of time befor Bush starts to wage war against Syria - maybe only a limited war, but still Syria must be Secured! And by doing that, the Road to Teheran is open. After all, the Project for the New American Century is a Big one - and war in Iraq was just the First Step in "rebuilding America's defences". Why? Because "America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."

And what if the US never invades Syria, Iran, or NK? What if the US doesn't do a thing and WESTERN EUROPE takes out Iran? What if Syria were to agree to terms with the US because, *GASP*, it WASN'T securing it's boarders as it should?

Will you say "I was an American hating Arse jockey who wanted to blame the worlds problems on the US because of my Yankee hatred"?

Originally posted by American Mad Man
And what if the US never invades Syria, Iran, or NK? What if the US doesn't do a thing and WESTERN EUROPE takes out Iran? What if Syria were to agree to terms with the US because, *GASP*, it WASN'T securing it's boarders as it should?

Yes, I am sure the Western Europe really wants and needs a war with Iran. Who? France? Germany? UK? Your hanging to straws here MadMan. I hope you know that.

Will you say "I was an American hating Arse jockey who wanted to blame the worlds problems on the US because of my Yankee hatred"?

Ah Well.

Do I even need to Comment that?



I think Insults go against the Rules of this Board.

Wanna get Warned?

Then again, what can I expect from a Guy that has a Signature like this:

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

H. L. Mencken?

You mean the guy that said this:

"The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown."

Thats a bit RACIST, ey?


[edit on 13/10/05 by Souljah]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Bust!
There will be no war with Syria.
Why?
Because Condi does not support it.
US weighed military strikes in Syria
Rice Favors Diplomatic Isolation Over Attacking Syria

We all know who Condi is right?
The only force on Earth capable of preventing Sen. Hillary Clinton from winning the White House in 2008

You go gurl.

seekerof

Are you serious, these so called dimplomatic statements by US politicians are to give the world the impression that the US government are really trying to be decent and propagate peace and freedom in this world, while they have there plans ready and actively are putting the situation to their hands.The US geopolitics are becoming more aggresive every day but under a very clever disguise that is called diplomacy.

everyone who is even a bit fmaliar with foreign affairs knows these things happen all over the world.
But why the hypocracie?? Why frantic hanging on to the illusion that the US is some safe harbor of freedom and democracy out on a cruisade against evil and unjust in the world while its just the same sheit just in a gold bowl instead of a silver or wooden one.

FacE up that we live in a fup world full of greedy and powerhungry people that want division in this world, hence poor and rich.
Allways has been this way and allways will be this way untill something really goes wrong and we will have to start over from scratch.

Open politics is nothing else but Mickey Mouse BS.