Skip to main content

View Diary: The war supporter's weak case for war (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If they had a successful Suter hack of the IADS.. (0+ / 0-)

    ...like the Israelis were able to pull off on Syria in Operation Orchard in 2007, the risk to bombers from the air defenses would be very low. If not, they'd probably use the B-2's which would also have an extremely low chance of being shot down at all.

    Even with the extremely low chances of being shot down, I still don't think the risk of a limited attack is worth it as it is unlikely to achieve the goal of deterring Assad. At the very minimum, what would be required is striking the forces that carried out the chemical attacks. You'd want to degrade them so severely such that Assad simply could not afford to take another strike. In the process, you'd be taking him from most likely winning the civil war to much less likely. That would require a major air campaign like Desert Storm. Given that the targets that we'd be striking would probably be hiding in the cities, the probability for collateral damage would be much higher than Desert Storm. That damage would inflame anti-American sentiment and turn Assad into a hero across the Middle East which I don't think we can afford. Then, there is always the possibility of degrading him too far, and he loses. That outcome is just not acceptable either.

    Bottom line, I think is a lose-lose for us regardless what military option we choose which we would be better off not doing at all. We'd be better off using our immense resources giving humanitarian aid to the refugees and those countries that host them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site