via Think Defence.
Would it be enough to use TLAM’s to take out much of the regimes air force and infrastructure then use Patriots on the boarder to enforce no fly zone’s for rebel controlled areas then start arming the moderate parts of the opposition forces as well as imbedding SF. I am sure such a policy could turn the tide quite quickly even without allied air strikes?That's just a snippet (read it all here) but the thing that bothers me about this is that I always get the feeling that when Europeans talk about military actions, its always with a nod toward US participation in a fight that they deem necessary.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is obviously the regimes supplies of chemical weapons. Could we secure these amid the type of anarchy we saw in Iraq and Libya after the fall of those regimes? The US estimated it would take 50,000 troops to secure these stockpiles. How quickly could we mount such a large operation and would the regime disperse them when it saw us building up for an invasion.
Could securing the boarders and enforcing a no fly zone with patriots help us to stop any way ward chemical weapons from leaving Syria?
For example, in the first paragraph he talks about TLAM strikes into Syria. The Brits have TLAMS but they don't appear to have a large stockpile, via Wikipedia...
On 19 March 2011, 124 Tomahawk missiles[11] were fired by U.S. and British forces (122 US, 2 British)[citation needed] against at least 20 Libyantargets around Tripoli and Misrata.[12So in Libya, that most joint of military missions...a mission that the Europeans almost pushed us into, the Brits fired 2 missiles to our 122 on the opening night. Lets be honest. That's American firepower at play, not British.
Those Patriot Missile Batteries that he's talking about are from the US Army. He talks about assembling a force of 50,000 troops to secure the chemical stockpiles but even if the Brits were to provide half the force it would strain their Army to the breaking point.
The Brits are great allies but this nonsense has to stop. Europeans complain that we act as if we're the world police yet at the same time act as if they're the final arbitrators of a just cause and that our forces exist to serve their needs when they see a fight worth having.
Perhaps I'm cold and heartless but I could actually care less about Syrians dying in a chemical attack. Death is death, whether from a bullet, a knife or a chemical attack. We're dealing with barbaric people on both sides of that conflict and what the American/European people fail to realize is that this is just another example of sectarian violence mixed in with a civil war. Islam might be peaceful but the different sects of that religion are from from it.
Syria is none of our business. The Middle East is toxic and we should declare it a quarantine zone. If the Brits and the rest of the EU want the Syria fight then I say have a good one...but we'll sit this out.
The choir thanks you for this sermon.
ReplyDeleteNone of our business. And you are correct we treat TLAM as a me-too capability. If we were serious about joining the US in these interventions we would have bought TLAM instead of Storm Shadow. And made sure our destroyers had silo capacity to carry them in numbers. Perhaps even made sure our new SSNs had VLS too. We would rather buy a more expensive short range European missile by the thousand needing land based aircraft than do anything sensible. Many here saw Op Ellamy as a validation of our expeditionary airpower strategy. All I saw was a small effort that nearly killed us to launch PGM at an impotent enemy on our doorstep. And even that took US help. Many here don't seem to get it that the next fight will be Africa, the Indian Ocean, and (for us) the seas to the north of Australia.
i'd agree Solomon, leave Syria to themselves, i'm not even convinced it wasn't a false flag exercise by the rebels.
ReplyDeleteComment cross-posted here, since it's awaiting moderation on TD:
ReplyDeleteThe article really needed to be called ‘Syria, Is it time for the US to intervene?’
Because Britain, on its own, can’t. And won’t. The resources to do so just aren’t there. It hasn’t got the necessary stockpile of TLAMs, it hasn’t got Patriots (or any other long range SAM) to set up this limited no-fly zone and it certainly doesn’t have the transport necessary to get 50,000+ troops and their equipment over to Syria in any coherent fashion or in any reasonable timeframe. Or support them while they’re there.
Basically, the only people who can do all of the above are the Americans. And for once, they’re doing the smart thing and staying out of yet another Middle Eastern dustup. Without US support, everything you’ve proposed is pretty much impossible.
So what happens if they don’t give that support? What if, for once, they say “We’ve just spent well over a decade fighting pointless wars in that region. We aren’t going to get involved in another one, because we’re going to be hated either way. You want to do something? Do it yourself.”
Everybody complains about America being the world’s policeman, but as soon as there’s a crisis and “something *must* be done!” it’s straight to the US military forces menu to see what capabilities can be borrowed. And if it turns out that the US doesn’t really feel it has anything to gain by getting involved in this filthy little conflict, then what? Everybody who’s so gung-ho about intervening is suddenly looking at their feet and shuffling nervously. Because they don’t have the resources to do anything, and were counting on America to foot the bill, and take the blame if anything went wrong.
Will France follow through on its exhortations to ‘do something’ if the US doesn’t go along? I doubt it.
The French may do something.....
DeleteOnce the Du Galle gets out of Drydock next summer. Having 1 carrier sure is fun :0
the lack of a carrier isn't the thing holding the French back. you can blame Mali. they did an intervention and it took almost the entire French military to deal with the insurgents/terrorist there. that's backyard territory and its hard. Syria would be a nutcracker.
DeleteIts too late to do much good in Syria, if we had intervened earlier we could have had a chance to keep the FSA more moderate. Now that is a sectarian mess its hard to see how we could do much good.
ReplyDeleteThe most powerful economy in Europe - Germany - has had on its agenda both massive post 1989 re-unification costs and serious constitutional restrictions against foreign involvement and associated placement of German troops outside of NATO-territory.
ReplyDeleteBut with the unified country's economy amongst the most solid in Europe and with constitutional adjustments, the gradual growing of military muscle via its Afghanistan participation and more robust naval engagements beyond NATO-waters, World-Trading-Power #2 Germany has to overcome domestic preferences to essentially do the parasitic act while not paying for what it costs to keep trade-routes stable, and south&east of the Med politics under some sort of control.
Their tanks are solid, as has proven to be in Afghanistan the PzH-200 155mm self-propelled howitzer, now with up to 30nm of range. They'd need a few lower-end amphibious assault vessels to help out globally as necessary for global economic and thus trade-stability. New mid-size airlifter Airbus 400M would land quite a few troops around or in Syria.
Still too many parasitic reflexes though in domestic policy-discourse, with some senior folks having lost jobs after advocating a more robust hands-on foreign-policy posture. Time to grow robust responsibility, as offering money and indirect support does not cut it.
the Germans are too pacifist to do ANYTHING.
Deletehell, they get antsy when selling arms to nations that may "gasp" hurt people with them.
Plus, Germany's looming population drop/aging will make fielding armies very difficult
If all it took was TLAMs, it would have been done. This would require a lot more than a few dozen cruise missiles.
ReplyDeleteEurope has neutered itself. All of the key player's have reduced their militaries down to a size where it is incapable of intervening. It would require a large coalition of nations to have any sort of impact in Syria, yet because they politically are fractured (in spite of what they might say in public), they cannot act.
Even with the Libya operation's shortcomings staring them in the face, the cuts to their militaries continue. There have been no new sizeable investments in tankers, transports, C3I, strike munitions, etc. And Libya's military was a small fraction of Syria's.
The US can't afford it, NATO/EU can't do it alone and so it won't happen.
Of course, I'm talking about an effective military campaign. It doesn't stop the US or whoever from conducting a PR campaign by launching a few dozen TLAMs, declaring Syria 'punished' and standing on the sidelines. "Shock and Awe" anyone?
It's none of our business. We should help Turkey, Jordan and Israel maintain their borders with whatever hardware they need, but we have no reason to be involved. The suffering caused by the war is regrettable, but perhaps people should see what a war is really like so they stop deluding themselves that it is conducted with surgical precision (Iraq was as violent, but the nations involved tended to discount the chaos left in the wake of our involvement). Syria's civil war is raw, unvarnished, hellish and it is good that we see it for what it is.
All great points! TLAMS will be used to show the world USA did something but without boots on the ground, forget it. Maybe an added SF/SEAL strike but that's about it. There is no appetite for this and who has the money? Europe and USA are broke and modern warfare isn't cheap.
ReplyDeleteI was talking to an Army officer/professor yesterday and maybe you guys want to comment but this guy was so convinced that now with chemical weapons and inspections Putin will have to go along with Obama and western powers.Also he said 50000 troops could intervene and stabilize the country.
He said my solutions to Syria were pure fantasy and I said he was delusional idiot.....It was like this guy hadn't learned anything from Iraq, how the hell 50000 troops are going to do anything in Syria? even if you get past the fact that pretty much no one in Europe or US ARMY/Marines can deploy that many troops or that fast....and pay for it! And anyone out there believes Putin gives a rat's ass about PR image,UN or Obama?!?!??
Just watched Obama's interview. He wants to wait for inspections, UN resolutions plus coalition,etc....doesn't give me the impression he is in a hurry...also after reading this article, good luck getting Putin to agree on a UN resolution.....
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-u-not-repeat-syria-past-mistakes-154304513.html
you're probably right Nico. i forgot that we're dealing with a new kind of President. in the past these type of movements would not have been done just for show...it would have been purposeful. i forgot that now adays its ok to do something wasteful as long as it gives the illusion of being deciseful.
Deletethis guy will do what he always does. vacillate and ponder instead of telling the world what it needs to hear. this ain't the business of the US.