Skip to main content

View Diary: What to do if Syria crosses the "red line" and uses biological weapons... (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Syrians have a much better air defense (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, Ray Pensador, kyril

    system and air force that Libya. Deploying enough air and refueling capacity into the region would be a challenge. It is also really expensive to fly all those missions using fuel that is very expensive to deploy forward. Could we do it, sure we could, but it would be a budget buster.

    That's why I think it will be one massive strike. In addition, using cruise missiles puts no aircraft or pilots at risk.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 11:12:41 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  geography also militates against such an action (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      being effective.  Air power is much more effective in flat, desert environments compared to mountainous terrain.  Even given that, during Desert Storm, our air power never took out Saddam's mobile SCUDs

    •  Consider the possibile consequences . . . (0+ / 0-)

      before rushing into a new Middle Eastern war. It is by no means established that providing more support to "select" rebel groups in Syria would produce a better government for Syria. Do you really propose that the U.S. take sides in the brutal sectarian war that this has become, to try to tip the outcome toward a Sunni rebel victory? If the Assad regime falls, it will certainly lead to a "failed state" & years, even decades, of chaos. And that's a best-case scenario. Worse, and highly likely, possibilities would be genocide against the Alawis, the demise of Syria's Christian & Druze communities (similar to what has happened in Iraq post-invasion), & the establishment of a hard-line Islamist regime.

      For once, can't we err on the side of non-intervention?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site