via CNS News.
The CRS report saying that the Pentagon had estimated it would take "over 75,000 troops" to secure Syria's chemical weapons was issued just one day before an August 21 chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs. According to an assessment released by the U.S. government, that attack killed 1,429 people. Ten days after the attack--and eleven days after the CRS released its report--President Obama announced his intention to use military force to penalize the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Asad for perpetrating the attack.Read it all here.
“U.S. officials have expressed confidence that chemical weapons stocks in Syria are secured by the Asad regime, which dispatched elite Special Forces for that purpose,” said the CRS report--“Syria’s Chemical Weapons: Issues for Congress.”
But the report also said the U.S. government has been making contingency plans to make sure the Asad regime’s chemical weapons did not fall into the hands of terrorists “in the event of the regime’s loss of control.” In this context, the CRS said the Pentagon had estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to neutralize the weapons
Hmm.
So that means the entire Ranger Battalion, probably a couple of Special Forces A Teams...MARSOC Regiment...maybe a couple MEU's formed up to make a MEB (-) and perhaps the 101st along with the 1st Armored sitting in the Jordanian desert.
They'll have to fight there way to the weapons, secure them for transport or destruction and then fight their way back out.
Syrian Army remnants, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda fighters and the Iranian Kuds force will all be taking swipes at our guys.
We'll be lucky to keep our casualties under 20%.
This is the real nightmare scenario that we're facing. Everyone and their mother (meaning the UN, European leaders and Neo-Cons here in the US) will be begging us to take on this fight. And the worse thing is that this is probably unavoidable. Unless we swallow pride and negotiate a way for Assad to peacefully transfer power to a caretaker--moderate government, then we'll have to get those chemical weapons. In other words we're fucked.
It's more than just holding onto power for him. His tribe would be slaughtered if he left.
ReplyDeleteCurrent news reports speak of Syria Arab Army forces leaving their bases, which have been threatened with attack by the US, and moving to civilian areas. This is before the attack has even started. It makes these bases, some of which may house chemical weapons, more vulnerable to takeover by the most formidable anti-government force in Syria, the al-Nusrah Iraqi al-Qaeda group (supported by Saudi Arabia).
ReplyDeleteSo it may go beyond securing chemical weapons, to fighting AQ for them. Good luck on that.
Incidentally, the reason that Syria has chemical weapons is to counter Israel which has nukes. But of course that problem can't be addressed, although the Arab League has agitated for it.
Anyone notice how the media outlets have suddenly started acting like it's a done deal confirmation that it was the Assad forces who used chemical weapons? No one is waiting for the UN investigation to conclude. This is getting kind of creepy. Most of those groups that are anti-war have suddenly rallied behind Obama. There is an article on yahoo saying that Obama was entering the lion's den by going into Russia and sounded like straight propaganda. Every now and then there is an exception, such as Jon Stewart, but the mainstream media is unusually helping the President's war agenda. I'm starting to get creeped out by this and I think Congress might actually support Obama by way of some underhanded trickery.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else feeling the same?
Nobody, including the UN, gets in the way of bad US military policy
DeleteWaPo:
The Obama administration has asserted that the [UN] findings — expected in less than two weeks — no longer matter, citing its own evidence that the Syrian government was behind the chemical weapons attack last month in the Damascus suburbs. Few lawmakers have pressed the administration to wait for the inspectors to release their results.(end)
It's OIF II (Operation Iraqi Freedom) similar to when the UN inspectors there, who had found nothing, were dismissed and warned to leave the country. Hey, if it works, stick with it.
One problem with this, besides it being flatly illegal, and highly dangerous, and has no strategy attached, is that without UN backing, who would provide mil support to the US if it should be needed? Probably nobody.
Yeah pretty much, I'd feel a lot better about all this if we could see some more evidence to say who did all this. I know that they have a different sort of mindset over there but I don't see where this attack would help Assad or FSA. I'd suspect a accidental or rogue launch by local commanders or alqueda. That's just conjecture on my part. Going in and getting the weapons is the only way to be sure they stay out of terrorist hands but its hard to see any way it won't be a mess. Even if they only do missile attacks and they somehow cause assad to fall then what? Who is keeping these foreign fighters away from the weapons? We are damned if we do and probably damned if we don't too. This sucks, I bitch about both parties fucking us all over all the time, but couldn't I be wrong for once? Hopefully some these starry eyed young people who worked so hard to put our current president in office will take the lesson that Both sides are fucked up.
Deleteyeah but have you noticed one thing about the Obama administration. he might be no drama Obama but every couple of months we're facing some type of world ending crisis. before all this boiled up the news media was talking about the supposed govt shutdown this fall and how it would wreck everything and how sequestration was killing people. now we have this drama. and once this is settled we flow into the budget mess. right after that or even during we have the issues with implementing obama care.
Deletei mean seriously i can't wait till the guy is out of office just so we can have a bit of calm.
The media jumps on the war wagon...that is, until things go wrong.
ReplyDelete"He said he and Mr. Obama were national leaders, not personal friends. “President Obama was not elected by the American people to be pleasant to Russia,” he said in the interview. “Neither was your humble servant elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone.” But both, he added, would represent global interests. "
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/europe/obama-arrives-in-russia-for-g20-summit.html?pagewanted=2&hp
It's always fun to hear what Putin has to say.
This is the first time in history that I can think of when the leader of Russia is more trusted and admired than the leader of the US.
ReplyDeleteDoubtful 75,000 is enough. Syrians are not going to welcome Americans as friends. Add a restrictive ROE and well... there you go.
ReplyDeleteI thought US was broke so where is DoD coming up with the money and as Eric mentions, no way, no how is 75,000 enough. You have to believe most of this stuff has been moved around, plus you aren't talking about a few shells filled with CW, we are talking 100s of tons if not more, you have to secure this stuff so you can ship out of the country....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408439/Assads-1000-ton-chemical-arsenal-sarin-lethal-nerve-agents-say-French-spies.html
Also if you use Afghan sustainment (land-locked) worst case just to support one expeditionary troop would be $1M per year. Being $17T in debt, any war "plan" will be like Operation:SHOESTRING for chicken-hawk "war" planners.
ReplyDeletePeople need to be careful with the 75,000 number. If you read the report that FAS obtained from CRS, it that the 75,000 number comes from a CNN.com report (Specifically: this CNN"blog" post: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/22/military-thousands-of-troops-needed-to-secure-syrian-chemical-sites/
ReplyDelete"The U.S. military has calculated it could take more than 75,000 ground troops to secure Syria's chemical warfare facilities if they were at risk of being looted or left unguarded, CNN has learned.
The conclusion comes from a military analysis of options for Syria that the Department of Defense is preparing for president should he request it, according to a senior U.S. official.
Securing Syria's chemical sites would be "extraordinarily difficult" given the scope of the problem, a Department of Defense official told CNN.Both officials would only speak on the condition their names not be used because they were talking about military planning."
So the 75K number should be taken with a grain of salt (honestly in either direction). I would venture that that's a heavy-conventional/not-pushbutton warfighter presence.