"THEY" are going to attack...........

[ASH]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

ash, in another thread you linked to a scenario of cruise missiles degrading syrian airfields, in part to prevent resupply of syria from iran or russia. iirc, these same airfields are used as transit points for supplies from iran which then go overland to hezbollah in lebanon. i think any scenario analysis needs to include a nod to hezbollah's reaction to such an attack.

Yes -- thanks for pointing out that angle. I thought Hezbollah was already "all-in" in terms of supporting Assad in Syria, and in opposing Israel. I don't know if it would make sense for them to open operations against US interests in retaliation for missile strikes. I think their strength is as a guerrilla army, and best applied in resistance to an occupation (that I don't think is coming). No doubt they could conduct strikes against soft targets, distant from Lebanon (what we'd call international terrorism), but I think escalation in that direction leads to the Al-Qaeda treatment. I think that would be more likely to attract a comprehensive effort to exterminate their senior leadership and destroy their movement's fixed and financial assets than it would be to deter US interference in Syria. But I don't think I understand Hezbollah's interests very well, so my speculations aren't built on much.

[vt]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

from Armstrongeconomics

The NSA even bugged the United Nations in addition to the European Parliament. I suppose al qaeda had infiltrated the UN headquarters and they probably must be listing themselves and the careers on Facebook. And now we must go to war. If the China gassed people, would we invade China? We are the bully in the school-yard. This time, they are playing with someone who might shoot back. Take out the government and what will we get? Another Iraq? These people are just lunatics. This is getting to be East Germany and Communist Russia all over again.

I suppose they now must invade Syria to distract the entire world from what they have been doing and we have serious economic problems. This is why even France is joining in for they desperately need an excuse to cover-up their deficits and to inspire the 60% unemployed youth. Britain just asks how high they should jump. They pretend they need to save us from, terrorists and the lies that will be spun to justify it like the Iraq WMD are clearly in line with our war cycle. They have been doing everything to divert attention away from the NSA, first with the worldwide warning of a terrorist attack that has now faded into history, and now, an August War is just too convenient to head off the debt ceiling crisis in September and the "no more money" default that hits October.

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I'm just spitting conjecture. But I figure the hesitance is real, given this scenario. An unpopular president going into a midterm year where the senate map doesn't favor the Dems is not something that wins applause at the DNC. And the President will lose a good chunk of what little political capital he has left. Of course, a President can do what he wants anyways. And my guess is that he wants to move on this, and that were it not for the politics, he may have / have had a freer hand to move more quickly. If America is knee deep in Syria next year, I'd guess a bunch of disillusioned Democrats turn out in much smaller numbers. If the GOP manages to squeak credible candidates through a primary (ones who can leave their personal assessments of witches, rape, and why they dislike the Civil Rights Act far away from the conversation), they would be in a very good spot because of it. Like I was saying, I think a Syrian invasion hurts the President and the Dems politically far more than Snowden.

Interesting. I cannot say I agree.

The basis for your view is that a(nother) foreign intervention would hurt Obama/Democrat's election chances.

From my view, I don't see this at all. Obama's 2nd term win clearly showed that it was irrelevant who the Democrat candidate is - so long as said candidate is not a bankster Republican. Thus however odious Obama has been to his purported base - they still held their noses and voted for him rather than 'them'.

The primary danger any Democrat Presidential hopeful faces is actually the perception of spinelessness. This is what did Carter in - and what Clinton meticulously avoided. From this perspective, a brandishing of US power overseas cannot hurt.

I don't know if it would make sense for them to open operations against US interests in retaliation for missile strikes.

If Hezbollah is facing an existential threat via being cut off from its supply and support, I think some form of action to penalize such attempts seem likely. WTC type bombing? Very unlikely. But then again, there are any number of much closer targets in Turkey, in Israel, in Iraq, in Jordan, etc etc.

I think their strength is as a guerrilla army, and best applied in resistance to an occupation (that I don't think is coming).

Apparently they do pretty good at counter-insurgency - as shown in Syria.

They also did pretty well in the 2006 conflict; the results were far less one-sided than other such brouhahas in the past.

Be that as it may - the number of attacks on Western and Israeli representatives in Lebanon and nearby has been, I believe, a lot lower than in the 1980s. That can change.

[shiny!]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

from Armstrongeconomics

The NSA even bugged the United Nations in addition to the European Parliament. I suppose al qaeda had infiltrated the UN headquarters and they probably must be listing themselves and the careers on Facebook. And now we must go to war. If the China gassed people, would we invade China? We are the bully in the school-yard. This time, they are playing with someone who might shoot back. Take out the government and what will we get? Another Iraq? These people are just lunatics. This is getting to be East Germany and Communist Russia all over again.

This is what I see, as well. When I was a child in elementary school, my teachers told all us kids about the awful Soviet Union and KGB. Now our government has all those evils in place for itself and has been behaving like the old Soviet thugs. It's just been better at hiding behind patriotic rhetoric, Hope and Change, Bread and Circuses. Now the rhetoric is wearing thin, hope is gone, and when the bread stops...

[flintlock]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Surely serious thought has been given to the ramifications of the Syrian Arsenal falling into the wrong hands. Makes the Libyan Army's look like toys. And a hell of a lot closer to Israel.

[dcarrigg]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Interesting. I cannot say I agree.

The basis for your view is that a(nother) foreign intervention would hurt Obama/Democrat's election chances.

From my view, I don't see this at all. Obama's 2nd term win clearly showed that it was irrelevant who the Democrat candidate is - so long as said candidate is not a bankster Republican. Thus however odious Obama has been to his purported base - they still held their noses and voted for him rather than 'them'.

The primary danger any Democrat Presidential hopeful faces is actually the perception of spinelessness. This is what did Carter in - and what Clinton meticulously avoided. From this perspective, a brandishing of US power overseas cannot hurt.

That may be. But I'm not considering Presidential runs or 2016. Only 2014. And low voter turnout for Senate races in a mid-term because Dem voters are tired of holding their noses is probably not something the DNC wants.

[jk]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

i think an attack on syrian airfields is also an attack on hezbollah's supply lines, and hezbollah will respond by initiating or provoking hostilities with israel.

[GRG55]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I know it's far more complex than this, but it seems like the royal family of Saud with all their billions if not trillions of $$$, is drawing a line using our military at our expense, while defense expenditures from endless wars bankrupt our country. Right? If I'm wrong, I'm sure you will correct me ;-)

Your military (mostly Navy) spends a great deal of money in the Persian Gulf and greater Middle East. Numerous supply bases and multiple aircraft carrier groups in the region all the time. The Gulf Arabs offset a large chunk of that. If it was not for the US Navy (with participation from the UK, France, Canada and a few other nations) Iran would already have taken Bahrain, parts of the United Arab Emirates, the Qatar peninsula and much of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

For the US military Syria is a sideshow at this point...not even as engaging as a live training exercise. The Gulf Arabs will not deliberately damage the relationship with the USA, but for quite a long time they have much less confidence in the USA as a trustworthy partner...especially after the 2003 Iraq invasion, which the US undertook against unanimous advice to the contrary from all of its Arab allies. From a regional geopolitics standpoint the Bush neocons could hardly have done anything better to advance the interests of Iran.

Selling arms (USA, UK, France) is a wonderful reflationary tactic...and might afford a nice offset to "The Taper"
If that's not enough then dropping bombs and launching cruise missiles makes it even better...

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

That may be. But I'm not considering Presidential runs or 2016. Only 2014. And low voter turnout for Senate races in a mid-term because Dem voters are tired of holding their noses is probably not something the DNC wants.

Interesting - if the DNC and Democrats in the Senate are so concerned - why then are so many of them screaming for war along with McCain? I refer to Menendez and Levin:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ategy_on_syria

While Casey declined to discuss specifics of the briefing due to its classified nature, he said there was not "nearly enough clarity" about how the U.S. planned to arm the rebels. And as far as heavy weaponry, "I have no information that either anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons are going to be provided ... I would hope that in the future those would be offered," he said.

Casey joins a growing cohort of Democrats clamoring for a more assertive policy. Last week, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, joined Arizona Republican John McCain in signing a letter urging the president to "take more decisive military actions in Syria to change the balance of power on the ground against [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad."

If it was not for the US Navy (with participation from the UK, France, Canada and a few other nations) Iran would already have taken Bahrain, parts of the United Arab Emirates, the Qatar peninsula and much of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

I'm not so sure about that. Persia has historically wanted to control that area, but historically has not been able to. For one thing, Russia's (and others) stance vs. Iran would be far different if Iran were truly in a position to monopolize the oil fields in/around the Arabian peninsula. After all, this was why Iraq was so built up such that it was able to fight Iran more or less to a standstill in the 1980s - despite being far, far smaller (less than half the population).

[vt]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

What really scares me is that a good portion of the rebels are lead by Al Qaeda adherents. If they get possession of the chemical weapons that close to Israel.......................

[Forrest]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

With Obama's mouthpiece Carney now saying that America is only going in for a few day to save face, I don't think Obama is interested at all in war with Syria...I think he's more interested in setting up Israel as a much better target than America...Assad and friends won't come against us...despise us, certainly, but do anything about the US? Why not attack Israel instead as a stand in for America. After all, Obama is unlikely to do anything about that either.

[GRG55]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Interesting - if the DNC and Democrats in the Senate are so concerned - why then are so many of them screaming for war along with McCain? I refer to Menendez and Levin:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ategy_on_syria





I'm not so sure about that. Persia has historically wanted to control that area, but historically has not been able to. For one thing, Russia's (and others) stance vs. Iran would be far different if Iran were truly in a position to monopolize the oil fields in/around the Arabian peninsula. After all, this was why Iraq was so built up such that it was able to fight Iran more or less to a standstill in the 1980s - despite being far, far smaller (less than half the population).

I am certain of it. Pull the US Navy 5th Fleet Headquarters out of Mina Salman and the Iranians will have gunboats in Manama harbour before sundown.

[vinoveri]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Selling arms (USA, UK, France) is a wonderful reflationary tactic...and might afford a nice offset to "The Taper"
If that's not enough then dropping bombs and launching cruise missiles makes it even better...

... especially when we get to the rebuild stage (the broken window fallacy hard at work)

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I am certain of it. Pull the US Navy 5th Fleet Headquarters out of Mina Salman and the Iranians will have gunboats in Manama harbour before sundown.

What Iran wants and what it can accomplish are entirely separate affairs.

The one thing that does get Arabs to unite is attack by Persians.

[jk]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

What Iran wants and what it can accomplish are entirely separate affairs.

The one thing that does get Arabs to unite is attack by Persians.

the great shia-sunni conflict is being played out. look at where there are large shiite populations.