US to consider attacking Assad's forces

Reports on current military activity
bevans13
.
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:10 pm
Location: Madison County, Illinois

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:02 pm

U.S. military strikes against the Assad regime will be back on the table Wednesday at the White House, when top national security officials in the Obama administration are set to discuss options for the way forward in Syria. But there’s little prospect President Obama will ultimately approve them.

The options under consideration, which remain classified, include bombing Syrian air force runways using cruise missiles and other long-range weapons fired from coalition planes and ships, an administration official who is part of the discussions told me. One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said.
The CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represented in the Deputies Committee meeting by Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva, expressed support for such “kinetic” options, the official said. That marked an increase of support for striking Assad compared with the last time such options were considered.

I am not sure how you covertly launch missiles, sure Assad and the Russians may not see them coming, but an after action review will pretty much determine where the missiles came from. So are we going to replace the US markings with ISIS markings on our ships and planes that do the attack and hope that will confuse the Russians? Of course ISIS has an aircraft carrier.

Of course regardless of what is decided when Putin reads that a direct attack option was even discussed at the White House, expect some sort of backlash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/jos ... &tid=ss_tw

KelcYeoner
Regular contributor
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:03 pm

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:04 pm

Yeah... this is not going to de-escalate Russian tensions.

User avatar
jayfeather31
Power poster 3
Power poster 3
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: Douglas, WY / Converse County
Contact:

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:07 pm

KelcYeoner wrote:Yeah... this is not going to de-escalate Russian tensions.
You think?!? This might actually spell more than just an escalation of Russian tensions.
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.
~Albert Einstein
Great, let's round up all the useless cats and hope a tree falls on them.
~Jayfeather

rapidfire25
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:32 am

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:22 pm

that sounds like a great way to get plastered by the s400 anti air system the Russians set up in Syria along with the s300 and older s12 and what ever soviet legacy systems they have... I mean with all the air defense systems they have there even a stealth plane will have a hard time evading it.

User avatar
BygmesterFinn
Regular contributor
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:53 am

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:25 pm

jayfeather31 wrote:
KelcYeoner wrote:Yeah... this is not going to de-escalate Russian tensions.
You think?!? This might actually spell more than just an escalation of Russian tensions.
Theres no way airstrikes are going to be approved. Ffs, its O-bummer. Even Kerry at this point is against it (I believe it says that in the WaPo article). What were gonna see is the US waiting out the Aleppo siege b/c we cant do anything about it and try to (unsuccessfully) negotiate with Russia again.
Also:
What did we suspend? https://www.rt.com/news/361588-russia-u ... ettlement/
Last edited by BygmesterFinn on Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fingerfish
.
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:29 pm

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:26 pm

rapidfire25 wrote:I mean with all the air defense systems they have there even a stealth plane will have a hard time evading it.
Can you explain the mechanics of that?
Image

User avatar
Beяnie
Regular contributor
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:16 pm

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:29 pm

This is pretty significant, but I really dunno if Obama'd be up to the task of saying yes to such an option.
"You are remembered for the rules you break, not the ones you follow"
- General Douglas MacArthur

User avatar
TheArtist
Regular contributor
Posts: 710
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:13 pm

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:58 pm

STUPID. I'm tired of us being imperialists and global thugs. We do what this article says, we'll get our comeuppance. Some people thinking we can just wipe the floor with Russia will have a rude awakening. Yeah, sure, we might win conventionally. But I really believe Putin would rather see the entire world burn than to lose. Backed into a corner with military defeat looming, you can bet your ass he'd let em fly.

User avatar
Kilroy
.
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:49 am
Location: Ohio

Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:30 pm

of all of the regrettable affairs and s**tshows we've been a part of and created in the Middle Eastern Theatre, this decision alone could prove to be the most disastrous. As TheArtist stated above, Putin may be mostly posturing but he is definitely not bluffing. Russia WILL respond and things could quickly spiral out of control

User avatar
Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:37 pm

This could be a bluff.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

Locked