So America attacked Syria

nice1franko

Overheal wrote: »

According to the Military this was a precision raid against an Al Qaeda supporter/supplier. The Syrians are the ones up in arms to the International Community that Team America swooped in and massacred a farm full of unarmed workers and even 4 children - which just. sounds. dicey.

Ironically, it was America who was "up in arms" here.

If it were the other way round and Syria launched an attack on American soil (killing children amongst others with their 'precision attack') would America be 'up in arms'?

Otacon

GuanYin wrote: »

As I said, Obama already justified tthe scenario for such an attack.

Obama was talking about a country that the US still engages with, Pakistan. He also mentioned actionable intel. We have no idea what kind of intel they were working off of.

As you have stated before, we need to wait for all the details before we can say whether this fits Obama's criteria. The fact that there has not been a WH brief suggests this is not the case.

Manic Moran

The WH is not in the habit of giving a brief over every operation the US military does. I'm sure the question will crop up in the next CENTCOM or MNF press conference.

NTM

Manic Moran

nice1franko wrote: »

If it were the other way round and Syria launched an attack on American soil (killing children amongst others with their 'precision attack') would America be 'up in arms'?

AP is apparently in some disagreement with the official Syrian news agency over this one.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ianwYiLFrnJxFSAgjT1DqydYeinQD9430CD80

The Syrian government statement said eight people were killed, including a man and his four children and a woman. However, local officials said seven men were killed and two other people were wounded, including a woman among the injured.

An Associated Press journalist at the funerals in the village cemetery saw the bodies of seven men — none of them children. The discrepancy could not immediately be explained.

NTM

Trojan

Manic Moran wrote: »

The WH is not in the habit of giving a brief over every operation the US military does.

Not every operation is an invasion of a new country.

Spyral

why dont america keep teffoc away from countries that aren't their own. They aren't being invaided and no one is attacking them. They really need a good ass kicking, they think they can roll on anyone and win. I just hope all these wars turn into vietnam and demolish america.

oscarBravo

Insofar as the thread topic has any bearing on next week's election, can we keep it on-topic? Ta.

GuanYin

Otacon wrote: »

Obama was talking about a country that the US still engages with, Pakistan. He also mentioned actionable intel. We have no idea what kind of intel they were working off of.

So you think that America should only go after terrorists hiding out in countries that America does engage with but can't or won't deal with the terrorists themselves?

Otacon

Not at all, but implying that Obama would have made the same decision based on what we think we know is wrong imo.

GuanYin

Otacon wrote: »

Not at all, but implying that Obama would have made the same decision based on what we think we know is wrong imo.

I'm not, I'm saying that Obama said that if he had intel on terrorists and the local authorities are unwilling or unable to help, he would OK a surgical strike.

This appears to be a surgical strike againt terrorists in an area wher ethe local authorities would not help.

Of course, it may not turn out that way, but assuming it is, it is within Obama's own ethos.

nice1franko

Obama wrote:

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will

So the difference is Obama has manners. He'll ask first but if doesn't get the answer he wants he'll steamroll in anyway.

Manic Moran

nice1franko wrote: »

So the difference is Obama has manners. He'll ask first but if doesn't get the answer he wants he'll steamroll in anyway.

The US used to do that. Leaks in the Pakistani security services tended to result in the notification simply resulting in warning the target, and the missions tended to fail. American success rates seem to have improved of late, now they've stopped letting Pakistan know in advance.

[ETA: Ronen Bergman claiming that the Syrian intel services were in the loop on the raid. It would certainly account for the ability of US helicopters to fly around at medium altitude for a quarter hour and thensome without attracting Syrian military attention.]

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote:

[ETA: Ronen Bergman claiming that the Syrian intel services were in the loop on the raid. It would certainly account for the ability of US helicopters to fly around at medium altitude for a quarter hour and thensome without attracting Syrian military attention.]

15 minutes in a border area ? On that basis some of the 911 planes should have been stopped ;-)

But it's a real faux pas
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/iraq-turns-on-us-and--condemns-cia-raid-into-syria-1511906.html

The Iraqi government has unexpectedly denounced a CIA raid on a compound in a Syrian border village that killed an al-Qa'ida commander who dispatched fighters into Iraq.

"The Iraqi government rejects US aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria," said an Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, in a surprise rebuke to Washington. "The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighbouring countries."

The raid, the first on Syrian territory by the US since the invasion of Iraq five years ago, highlights the way the US carries out military operations without consulting the Iraqi government. This is humiliating for the Iraqi government and reinforces Iraqi doubts about signing a security pact with the US by the end of the year.

Manic Moran

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

15 minutes in a border area ? On that basis some of the 911 planes should have been stopped ;-)

The US was not particularly paranoid about Israeli commando raids coming over the border in helicopters back in 2001. The Syrian border defense network isn't all that bad.

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US was not particularly paranoid about Israeli commando raids coming over the border in helicopters back in 2001.

The Syrian border defense network isn't all that bad.

It's probably worse than the US one which has been continuously improved since the 50's but wasn't any help on 911.
It's probably not in the same league as the USSR one which let Mathias Rust fly into Red Square.
And you can bet your bottom dollar those helicopters had a AWACS looking for anything in nearby airspace. But to twist "we got in and out quickly without getting shot down" into "of course the Syrians allowed us in" is a bit rich. Maybe they did, but 15 minutes is no evidence.

some more countries with half decdent air defense
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

At 15:55 on 07 June 1981, the first F-15 and F-16's roared off the runway from Etzion Air Force Base in the south. Israeli air force planes flew over Jordanian, Saudi, and Iraqi airspace After a tense but uneventful low-level navigation route, the fighters reached their target. They popped up at 17:35 and quickly identified the dome gleaming in the late afternoon sunlight. Iraqi defenses were caught by surprise and opened fire too late. In one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25237 "in the long term, the Israeli attack did not delay the nuclear weapons program – it accelerated it by stimulating a sense of domestic political urgency."