Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War


    still won't see reason?

    By Pepe Escobar

    The ''responsibility to protect'' (R2P) doctrine invoked to legitimize the 2011 war on Libya has just transmogrified into ''responsibility to attack'' (R2A) Syria. Just because the Obama administration says so.

    On Sunday, the White House said it had ''very little doubt'' that the Bashar al-Assad government used chemical weapons against its own citizens. On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry ramped it up to ''undeniable'' - and accused Assad of ''moral obscenity''.

    So when the US bombed Fallujah with white phosphorus in late 2004 it was just taking the moral high ground. And when the US helped Saddam Hussein to gas Iranians in 1988 it was also taking the moral high ground.

    The Obama administration has ruled that Assad allowed UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and to celebrate their arrival unleashed a chemical weapons attack mostly against women and children only 15 kilometers away from the inspectors' hotel. If you don't believe it, you subscribe to a conspiracy theory.

    Evidence? Who cares about evidence? Assad's offer of access for the inspectors came ''too late''. Anyway, the UN team is only mandated to determine whether chemical weapons were deployed - but not by who, according to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon's spokesman.

    As far as the Obama administration and UK Prime Minister David ''of Arabia'' Cameron are concerned - supported by a barrage of corporate media missiles - that's irrelevant; Obama's ''red line'' has been crossed by Assad, period. Washington and London are in no-holds-barred mode to dismiss any facts contradicting the decision. Newspeak - of the R2A kind - rules. If this all looks like Iraq 2.0 that's because it is. Time to fix the facts around the policy - all over again. Time for weapons of mass deception - all over again.

    The Saudi-Israeli axis of fun
    The window of opportunity for war is now. Assad's forces were winning from Qusayr to Homs; pounding ''rebel'' remnants out of the periphery of Damascus; deploying around Der'ah to counterpunch CIA-trained ''rebels'' with advanced weapons crossing the Syrian-Jordanian border; and organizing a push to expel ''rebels'' and jihadis from suburbs of Aleppo.

    Now, Israel and Saudi Arabia are oh so excited because they are getting exactly what they dream just by good ol' Wag the Dog methods. Tel Aviv has even telegraphed how it wants it: this Monday, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper headlined with ''On the Way to Attack'' and even printed the ideal Order of Battle. (see photo)



    Months ago, even AMAN, the Intelligence Directorate of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) concluded that Assad was not a fool to cross Obama's chemical weapon ''red line''. So they came up with the concept of ''two entwined red lines'', the second line being the Syrian government ''losing control of its chemical weapons depots and production sites''. AMAN then proposed different strategies to Washington, from a no-fly zone to actually seizing the weapons (implying a ground attack).

    It's now back to the number one option - air strikes on the chemical weapons depots. As if the US - and Israel - had up-to-the-minute intelligence on exactly where they are.

    The House of Saud had also telegraphed its wishes - after Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, was appointed by King Abdullah as head of Saudi General Intelligence. Abdullah's hard on is explained by his mother and two of his wives coming from an influential, ultra-conservative Sunni tribe in Syria. As for Bandar Bush, he has more longevity than Rambo or the Terminator; he's back in the same role he played in the 1980s Afghan jihad, when he was the go-to guy helping the CIA to weaponize president president Ronald Reagan's ''freedom fighters''.

    Jordan - a fiction of a country totally dependent on the Saudis - was easily manipulated into becoming a ''secret'' war operation center. And who's in charge? No less than Bandar's younger half-brother, and deputy national security adviser, Salman bin Sultan, also known as ''mini-Bandar''. Talk about an Arab version of Dr Evil and Mini Me.

    Still, there are more CIA assets than Saudis in the Jordanian front.

    The importance of this report cannot be overstated enough. It was initially leaked to Lebanon's Al-Safir newspaper. Here's Bandar's whole strategy, unveiled in his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, already reported by Asia Times Online. After trying - for four hours - to convince Putin to drop Syria, Bandar is adamant: ''There is no escape from the military option.''

    Mix Kosovo with Libya and voila!
    Former president Bill Clinton resurfaced with perfect timing to compare Obama's options in Syria to Reagan's jihad in Afghanistan. Bubba was right in terms of positioning Bandar's role. But he must have inhaled something if he was thinking in terms of consequences - which include everything from the Taliban to that mythical entity, ''al-Qaeda''. Well, at least al-Qaeda is already active in Syria; they don't need to invent it.

    As for that bunch of amateurs surrounding Obama - including R2P groupies such as Susan Rice and new Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, all of them liberal hawks - they are all suckers for Kosovo. Kosovo - with a Libya add-on - is being spun as the ideal model for Syria; R2P via (illegal) air strikes. Right on cue, the New York Times is already frantically parroting the idea.

    Facts are, of course, absent from the narrative - including the blowing up of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (a remix in Syria with the Russian embassy?) and getting to the brink of a war with Russia.

    Syria has nothing to do with the Balkans. This is a civil war. Arguably the bulk of the Syrian urban population, not the country bumpkins, support Damascus - based on despicable ''rebel'' behavior in places they control; and the absolute majority wants a political solution, as in the now near-totally torpedoed Geneva II conference.

    The Jordanian scheme - inundating southern Syria with heavily weaponized mercenaries - is a remix of what the CIA and the Saudis did to AfPak; and the only winner will be Jabhat al-Nusra jihadis. As for the Israeli solution for Obama - indiscriminate bombing of chemical weapons depots - it will certainly result in horrendous collateral damage, as in R2A killing even more civilians.

    The prospects remain grim. Damn another coalition of the willing; Washington already has the British and French poodles in the bag, and full support - in air-con safety - from the democratic Gulf Cooperation Council petro-monarchies, minion Jordan and nuclear power Israel. This is what passes for ''international community'' in the newspeak age.

    The Brits are already heavily spinning that no UN Security Council resolution is needed; who cares if we do Iraq 2.0? For the War Party, the fact that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said Syrian ''rebels'' could not promote US interests seems to be irrelevant.

    Washington already has what it takes for the Holy Tomahawks to start flying; 384 of them are already positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean. B-1 bombers can be deployed from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. And bunker-busting bombs will certainly be part of the picture.

    What happens next requires concentric crystal balls - from Tomahawks to a barrage of air strikes to Special Ops commandos on the ground to a sustained air campaign lasting months. In his long interview to Izvestia, Assad gives the impression he thinks Obama is bluffing.

    What's certain is that Syria won't be a ''piece of cake'' like Libya; even depleted on all fronts, Gaddafi resisted for eight long months after NATO started its humanitarian bombing. Syria has a weary but still strong army of 200,000; loads of Soviet and Russian weapons; very good antiaircraft systems; and full support from asymmetrical warfare experts Iran and Hezbollah. Not to mention Russia, which just needs to forward a few S-300 air defense batteries and relay solid intelligence.

    So get used to how international relations work in the age of newspeak. General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's army in Egypt can kill hundreds of his own people who were protesting against a military coup. Washington couldn't care less - as in the coup that is not a coup and the bloodbath that is not a bloodbath.

    No one knows for sure what exactly happened in the chemical weapons saga near Damascus. But that's the pretext for yet another American war - just a few days before a Group of 20 summit hosted by Putin in St Petersburg. Holy Tomahawk! R2A, here we go.

  • #2
    Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

    Well I have to hand it to you Don, you've made me do something that I had never been able to do prior to today: Read a Pepe Escobar article from start to finish.

    I usually avoid him like the plague because he is as unbalanced as those he castigates. The pro-war at any costs and anti-war at any cost folks tend to send my blood pressure through the roof. In this particular case I am appalled at those who believe that American interests (not just militarily but also morally) can be served by any of the participants to be found in Syria. I can't find the good guys to save my soul. But the anti-war at any costs seem to be entirely willing to ignore the most savage of behavior from any and all quarters as well. "Who cares about gassing civilians if we can dredge up some unsubstantiated dreck that supposedly happened 20 years ago?" seems to be their attitude.

    Personally they all make me want to vomit. I honestly don't know if any of them, right or left, pro or anti war give a damn about the kids who were murdered. At the same time I am sick of US heavy lifting in these situations. It is high time that some of these folks sitting out the hard decisions (and criticizing anyone who turns a hand) to get off their sorry asses and start acting like responsible adults.

    Will

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

      Originally posted by Penguin View Post
      Well I have to hand it to you Don, you've made me do something that I had never been able to do prior to today: Read a Pepe Escobar article from start to finish.
      Which is the chief reason I occasionally post him - a proven fire starter here on the 'tulip.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

        Hahaha, a good day's work buddy. :p

        Will

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

          speaking of blazes... here in this tinder dry summer of Trillion Dollar Wildfires - i'd like to see some 'speculation' on just where all them chemicals might've come from...

          esp since we've seen any attempt to connect em to saddam gets shot down in flames (a year ago) and now?

          well... seems like that hotspot has just flared up again?

          but i'm with you, mr P - the whole thing - esp the comparison tween libya and syria is of the same sort of 'juxtapostion of justification' as we were getting a few/couple years back tween iraq and libya - and i wont even get into the one tween iraq and liberia

          yep - please pass the barfbags...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

            Here is a link to a PDF presentation describing what a minimum cost / minimum American exposure strike relying primarily on Tomahawks might look like.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

              Originally posted by ASH View Post
              Here is a link to a PDF presentation describing what a minimum cost / minimum American exposure strike relying primarily on Tomahawks might look like.
              Thanks, ASH, interesting reading. These interventions are always an opportunity to test and refine doctrine. This looks to be no exception. Many will be watching.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

                Originally posted by ASH
                Here is a link to a PDF presentation describing what a minimum cost / minimum American exposure strike relying primarily on Tomahawks might look like.
                How credible is this presentation?

                I ask because there are several big assumptions being made here:

                1) That Syria, despite being attacked by American forces in international waters, will just idly sit and take it. With the Iraq and Libya example before them, it would seem the Syrians (and their suppliers) must have put some thought into this by now.
                2) That the mission is primarily to degrade the capabilities of the Syrian air force in ground suppression and troop movement/resupply, as opposed to the much more involved operations that occurred in Libya (i.e. active rebel ground force assistance)
                3) There is also little mention of the potential vulnerabilities involved. Unlike Iraq, Syria has interested foreign forces right on site (Tartus) and near by (Iran). From an intelligence standpoint, for example, this would seem to be a significant difference than Libya or Iraq.

                Syria also just received anti-ship missiles from Russia:

                http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...94G0JY20130517

                One of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the latest Yakhont surface-to-air missiles were delivered recently. The transfer of the missiles was first reported by the New York Times.
                The Yakhont specs:

                https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/...ow/ss-n-26.htm

                The supersonic P-800 Yakhont (Gem) is a ramjet version of P-80 Zubr [SS-N-7 Starbright]. The ship, submarine and coastal-launched Yakhont is launched from the unified ampoule-shaped transport-launching container (TLC). The container is 9 m long, is 0.71 m in diameter. The firing range reaches 300 km (162 nmi.) when flying along a combined trajectory and 120 kg (265 lb.) when following only a low-altitude trajectory. Flight speed varying over the range from M=2.0 to M=2.5 is provided by the kerosene-fueled multi-mode liquid-fuel ramjet.
                I'd also note the assumptions that launching from "international, Turkish, Saudi" etc airspace seem to imply that Syria is therefore constrained in responding.

                Is this reasonable given an unprovoked attack?

                EDIT: I'd also note that Mach 2 means the Yakhont can go from launch point to maximum range in less than 8 minutes.
                Last edited by c1ue; August 27, 2013, 02:41 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

                  Think of it as am invitation to a large gathering for dinner - tidy and neat.

                  Over the entree, when the drinks hit, is when the brawling begins.

                  Or put another way, everyone has a plan until the first punch is landed.

                  Here's a what-if.

                  What if Russia put a squadron of SU-30s on the ground in Syria?

                  What if Russians manned the Syrian anti-air defenses?

                  The anti-ship defenses?

                  Would the Grand Plan hit a roadblock or a speed bump?


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    How credible is this presentation?
                    As I understand it, this presentation is not an official planning document -- it is a think tank analysis written by a retired naval officer who was Deputy Director of Future Operations at the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet from February 2008 to May 2009. So I would guess that it is technically credible within its assumptions, but that it shouldn't be taken as evidence that the underlying assumptions are sound.

                    As I've posted elsewhere on this topic, I think the US government is looking for the smallest, least costly, least risky, least committed military response they can devise that would punish Assad without causing his regime to collapse. I think they are trying to uphold the credibility of American threats and the international norms against using chemical weapons, but beyond this, they want as little to do with Syria as humanly possible. And so the relevance of this presentation is that it was circulated in Washington a few months ago and received some favorable mention by Senators and others who were looking for intervention options that were much smaller, much less risky, and much less costly than the options officially presented by the Pentagon. That doesn't mean this is the actual war plan, but rather, I think this is the type of thinking that's going to inform very limited strikes. (Heck -- already it's being reported that the strikes will last about 3 days and mostly be cruise missiles.)

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post

                    I ask because there are several big assumptions being made here:

                    1) That Syria, despite being attacked by American forces in international waters, will just idly sit and take it. With the Iraq and Libya example before them, it would seem the Syrians (and their suppliers) must have put some thought into this by now.

                    2) That the mission is primarily to degrade the capabilities of the Syrian air force in ground suppression and troop movement/resupply, as opposed to the much more involved operations that occurred in Libya (i.e. active rebel ground force assistance)

                    3) There is also little mention of the potential vulnerabilities involved. Unlike Iraq, Syria has interested foreign forces right on site (Tartus) and near by (Iran). From an intelligence standpoint, for example, this would seem to be a significant difference than Libya or Iraq.
                    Those are all good points.

                    Regarding #1, I think we're mainly going to use the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) with a range of 1600 km (1000 miles). The Yakhont anti-ship missile has a range of 300 km. So most probably, the ships launching the TLAMs will do so far beyond the detection range of the Syrian defenders.

                    Myself, I buy into assumption #2, because of my conclusions regarding likely American objectives and minimal level of commitment. We don't really want the rebels to win because there is no dominant rebel group that is US-friendly and could serve as our proxy; we want American threats to carry some deterrent power and we want Assad to stop using his chemical weapons. Hence no close air support of rebels or take-down of Syrian integrated air defenses or armor.

                    For #3, I think these are good arguments against a larger, more comprehensive intervention. But I don't think Tartus or Iran will have any impact on a handful of ships launching TLAMs from 1000 km away.

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    I'd also note the assumptions that launching from "international, Turkish, Saudi" etc airspace seem to imply that Syria is therefore constrained in responding.

                    Is this reasonable given an unprovoked attack?

                    EDIT: I'd also note that Mach 2 means the Yakhont can go from launch point to maximum range in less than 8 minutes.
                    I'm guessing Syria would choose to sustain a one-time punitive strike versus starting a conventional war with its neighbors, just because the regime's hands are pretty full right now with the rebellion. I think Syria is constrained from responding only by its own self-interest. But I could be wrong. This consideration might prevent the Saudis or Turks from permitting overflight; they could be deterred by Syrian threats of retaliation. However, I don't think the air component of the presentation is key to its execution; so far, all anyone is talking about in the news is TLAMs from far at sea.
                    Last edited by ASH; August 27, 2013, 05:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

                      As I understand it, this presentation is not an official planning document -- it is a think tank analysis written by a retired naval officer who was Deputy Director of Future Operations at the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet from February 2008 to May 2009. So I would guess that it is technically credible within its assumptions, but that it shouldn't be taken as evidence that the underlying assumptions are sound.
                      Fair enough, and I can fully agree with this.

                      Originally posted by ASH
                      As I've posted elsewhere on this topic, I think the US government is looking for the smallest, least costly, least risky, least committed military response they can devise that would punish Assad without causing his regime to collapse.
                      I can't say I am so sure on this front. If you recall Libya, the public talk at the beginning was similar - 'lead from behind' etc etc.

                      Yet at push come to shove, the US flew the vast majority of the strike missions.

                      Thus a similar windup this time around - let's just say I am highly dubious.

                      Originally posted by ASH
                      That doesn't mean this is the actual war plan, but rather, I think this is the type of thinking that's going to inform very limited strikes. (Heck -- already it's being reported that the strikes will last about 3 days and mostly be cruise missiles.)
                      From a dispassionate point of view, I would say this is logical.

                      However, I do not believe the situation has any element of dispassion. As I note elsewhere, there are clear political benefits for Obama to have a 'short victorious war' - albeit one which does not involve US boots on the ground. This is even disregarding the vociferous ongoing warmongering by McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kerry.

                      Originally posted by ASH
                      Regarding #1, I think we're mainly going to use the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) with a range of 1600 km (1000 miles). The Yakhont anti-ship missile has a range of 300 km. So most probably, the ships launching the TLAMs will do so far beyond the detection range of the Syrian defenders.
                      The report you quoted does speak of using TLAMs, but also speaks of a followup using aircraft deployed munitions.

                      I can see the TLAMs being used to attack air fields and other large, fixed installations, but let's not forget that Syria has a large number of mobile missile launch systems. The Yakhont systems above, for example, apparently are 2 batteries consisting of 18 mobile launchers apiece. Given the relative lawless situation in Iraq, I can't say that launching from the Persian Gulf is necessarily a guarantee of safety either.

                      FYI - some more info on the Yakhont system:

                      http://defense-update.com/20111203_s...-missiles.html

                      Originally posted by ASH
                      Myself, I buy into assumption #2, because of my conclusions regarding likely American objectives and minimal level of commitment. We don't really want the rebels to win because there is no dominant rebel group that is US-friendly and could serve as our proxy; we want American threats to carry some deterrent power and we want Assad to stop using his chemical weapons. Hence no close air support of rebels or take-down of Syrian integrated air defenses or armor.
                      I agree with what you describe as the dispassionate American point of view; however, I do not think that is the driver in this situation. My personal view is we're seeing the long arm of the Saudi leadership calling in favors.

                      Originally posted by ASH
                      For #3, I think these are good arguments against a larger, more comprehensive intervention. But I don't think Tartus or Iran will have any impact on a handful of ships launching TLAMs from 1000 km away.
                      Well, a mobile launcher disguised as a cargo truck - shooting at an American destroyer from inside Iraq - would need intelligence. Do you think Iran has decent intelligence about US naval movements in the Persian Gulf?

                      Equally, US aircraft attacking Syrian installations - do you think the Russians don't have radar systems and what not protecting Tartus? I wouldn't be shocked if Syrian hackers 'managed' to access direct Russian radar data feeds...

                      The only proven way to get the US to back off such situations has historically involved unacceptable levels of losses for situations which the US has no obvious direct interest. I'd say the latter part of this statement is transparently obvious - the missing part of the former.

                      Originally posted by ASH
                      I'm guessing Syria would choose to sustain a one-time punitive strike versus starting a conventional war with its neighbors, just because the regime's hands are pretty full right now with the rebellion. I think Syria is constrained from responding only by its own self-interest. But I could be wrong. This consideration might prevent the Saudis or Turks from permitting overflight; they could be deterred by Syrian threats of retaliation. However, I don't think the air component of the presentation is key to its execution; so far, all anyone is talking about in the news is TLAMs from far at sea.
                      I don't see Syria attacking other sovereign Arab nations, but then again, I think many of these nations will have considerable difficulty justifying this level of unprovoked aggression from their own territory by a foreign power. Unlike Saddam, Syria has not tried to take over any of its neighbors.
                      Last edited by c1ue; August 27, 2013, 06:22 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

                        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                        My personal view is we're seeing the long arm of the Saudi leadership calling in favors.
                        I must say that my ears pricked up when you mentioned the possibility, in the other thread of Saudi involvement. Viewed in isolation, American intervention in Syria serves what I understand to be Saudi interests more than American interests, and a gas attack to this end serves Saudi interests more than it does the Syrian government's campaign against the rebels. It's also true that there is plenty of precedent for the US being manipulated. Because of the risks involved, I don't think this possibility is as likely as the "Assad miscalculated" scenario I favor, but my impression of the relative likelihood is purely subjective.

                        In any event, I'm just posting my take on the situation; I'm not insisting that my analysis is correct. The good thing is that many of my guesses about motivations and methods are testable, to some extent. I'm pretty sure American intervention is coming. When intervention comes, any of the following would rapidly prove my analysis false if observed from the beginning of the intervention:
                        • More than a few days of bombardment
                        • An attempt to establish air superiority over Syria (i.e. systematic dismantling of Syria's air defenses vice evasion of those defenses and standoff bombardment of a small number of targets)
                        • An attempt to aid the rebels in battle (i.e. tactical air support vice punitive strikes against a few fixed facilities)
                        • Participation by Russian forces in the defense of Syria or Russian threats of military force in defense of Syria


                        I should stress "from the beginning", because how Syria and its allies respond to the intervention could change the American calculation. But a punitive strike will look different from a campaign of "regime change". The latter would require sustained air operations over Syria plus troops for recovery of downed airmen, and dismantling Syria's air defense would happen as the first step; a punitive strike might hit a few targets related to air defense (like headquarters) but would largely bypass them to hit targets of symbolic value to the regime. What I'm really arguing here is that the American intervention that's coming is likely to be a slap on the wrist and warning, with relatively small American footprint; if it looks more like a comprehensive attempt to disarm Assad's regime, then I'm obviously wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

                          One other thing: the author of the presentation I linked is on record saying he does not advocate for execution of his plan; it was supposed to address "how would you?" rather than "should you?". On the topic of "should you?" he says that a strike is pointless without some larger strategic framework in which the strike advances American interests.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

                            Originally posted by ASH
                            In any event, I'm just posting my take on the situation; I'm not insisting that my analysis is correct. The good thing is that many of my guesses about motivations and methods are testable, to some extent.
                            Fair enough. Your opinions have consistently been level headed - I think the difference is that you seem to be far more trusting of the motivations and intentions of US leadership than I am.

                            Pre-W Iraq, I gave the benefit of the doubt. I don't any longer.

                            I'm pretty sure American intervention is coming.
                            On that, we are in complete agreement.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Escobar's Holy Tomahawk War

                              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                              Fair enough. Your opinions have consistently been level headed - I think the difference is that you seem to be far more trusting of the motivations and intentions of US leadership than I am.

                              Pre-W Iraq, I gave the benefit of the doubt. I don't any longer.



                              On that, we are in complete agreement.



                              General Wesley Clark, on the primrose path . . .

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X