Skip to main content

The American Main Stream Media (MSM) discussion concerning the tactical options available to be used against Syria unfortunately continues to be mired in down in gross ignorance and misinformation. The current state of the discussion however is welcomed by the American MSM because this particular “estate” thrives on controversy, so they understandably promote confusion big time. This problem is compounded by the obvious fact that it is completely asinine to expect the American military to publicize all of their plans concerning the strike strategy formulated for Syria just to satisfy those anti-war obsessed (former pro-Obama) liberals as they cry out for proof as to exactly how the proposed strikes will do any good as far as forcing Assad to change his mind about using nerve gas on rebel held neighborhoods. Follow me below for an interesting proposal.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is over at the G20 Conference opposing Obama's push for support for an air strike on Syria. Moon is calling for more conferences to search for a diplomatic solution to Assad's use of Nerve gas. He is singing the same song that the previous UN Secretary General Kofi Annan sang just before Bill Clinton started bombing Kosovo. Unfortunately the UN has proven to be just only slightly more effective than its predecessor, "The League of Nations"; which incidentally was the first post-World War convention of the world’s body of nations to outlaw the future use of chemical weapons on the battlefield.

I have only heard one person offer a credible argument for a limited air strike against Assad's regime, and that was provided by Ambassador Marc Ginsberg, formerly ambassador to Morocco. He suggested that the air strikes in addition to taking out airfields be concentrated on the mission of demolishing all of Syria's oil producing capability. He further suggested that the strikes ignore so-called command, control, and communication (3C) buildings and stick specifically to the two targets listed above. His argument acknowledges that whereas Assad has had plenty of time to move equipment and facilities around, attacking these facilities will most assuredly result in high loss of civilian life without substantially disrupting Syria's 3C capability. The projected high losses of civilian life is anticipated simply because Assad is expected to move his political prisoners inside the original 3C buildings, locking them in to serve his purposes as "cannon fodder" for any U.S. cruise missile strike; the deaths of whom he could then exploit for a post-strike propaganda campaign against the United States.  

Here is where Ginsburg's argument really makes sense. He stated that the Assad regime receives $18 million dollars a day from its oil revenue. Wiping that resource out will make it hard for the Assad government to pay its people during the period of time that the oil facilities are nonfunctional and are being rebuilt. Furthermore there is only one country in the world that could put out the oil field fires and rebuild these facilities quickly, and that country is the United States. (Remember how quickly the U.S. recovered those oil fields in Kuwait after Saddam Hussein blew them up as his forces retreated back into Iraq during Gulf War I?)  Regardless of all of Putin's bluster, Russia does not have this technology, so their assistance would not be an immediate solution. After Assad's oil producing capability has been restored his regime will certainly think long and hard about releasing another nerve gas attack. However if they decide to foolishly to launch another nerve gas attack, we could follow it up will a repeat destruction of Assad's oil producing facilities and likewise reduce his revenue income to zero again. It is doubtful that the Assad government could survive too many cycles of this nature.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  this is why (0+ / 0-)

    Putin is mad at Obama.   We went way further in Libya than he'd signaled to get Russian support.

    This is complex, and the point isn't we know they'll do more than they're saying, it's that we don't know how much more and so we must assume the most and be against the least, unless the rest of the world gets behind it.

    Otherwise non-violence is always a better option.  

  •  First, Lets go after (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, corvo, Deward Hastings, Zutroy, emal

    Power plants, water supplies, sewage plants, transportation infrastructure .  

    Then let's appoint a new imperial viceroy,  and then dismiss anyone who worked for the former government, from cops and schoolteachers to sanitation engineers

    Then send in a bunch of Regis U undergrads to write a new constitution.

    Purple finger referendum, and we're good.

    Slam dunk

  •  Sounds Like A Great Option To Me (0+ / 0-)

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:40:55 PM PDT

  •  Seems like ordinary Syrians would also suffer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, WheninRome

    under that scenario. I'm sure those that accrue their wealth from oil likely have something set aside for a rainy day.

    •  ordinary syrians are suffering anyway, regardless. (0+ / 0-)

      the whole point in hitting assad is to make him not use cw's again. if he does, he'll get hit. again.

    •  My god, man... they're suffering like hell as it (0+ / 0-)

      is. This is basically about being rational enough to trust Obama to chart the way forward. A resolution doesn't guarantee a strike.
      Survey the landscape: you have McCain, Cruz, some winkledink tea party House members, and various panderers and posturers.
      Then you have Obama, making sense, appealing to people's conscious rational minds.
      I choose Obama. There are no good options and he's trying to reduce the damage. That's the way I see it.
      He may well go with Ginsberg's suggestion if all the other targets involve collateral damage. Or he may not strike at all but will be able to leverage his capacity to launch a strike for a political settlement. That's what I trust Obama the most for.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:30:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ty for this diary. when -- not if -- assad gasses (0+ / 0-)

    civilians again, a lot of people who are currently against cruise missle strikes, will change their minds.

    the prez is right on this one & we should trust him.

  •  After Obama loses the vote, Assad (0+ / 0-)

    will gas the rebels with impunity.

    Then, many will look foolish.

    Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

    by Walt starr on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:54:04 PM PDT

  •  Syria's oil production doesn't even cover domestic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WheninRome

    consumption. This idea isn't going to do anything except cause Syrian civilians to go without gasoline and other refinery products. That's on top of the fact that the whole intervention idea is predicated on bullshit to begin with.

    Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism.

    by Zutroy on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:20:16 PM PDT

  •  Aircraft, armored vehicles and artillery will also (0+ / 0-)

    go without gasoline and diesel.

    Take away the army's mobility and offensive operations against the rebels grind to a halt. Faced with an endless stalemate, the Alawites and Shias might decide that a cease-fire doesn't look so bad after all. Let them decide if they want to bring the Assad brothers along, or not.

    Attacks on fuel supplies fit within the mission of "degrading Assad's capability to deploy chemical weapons"...and it just might provide the strategic effect needed to push the combatants to the negotiating table.

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
    he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

    by jjohnjj on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:07:04 PM PDT

  •  phony premise (0+ / 0-)

    This diary is built on a phony premise.  Assad has not used any chemical weapons.  Stop listening to Fox News.

  •  Price of Oil - Tit for Tat (0+ / 0-)

    I realize that Syria isn't one of the world's larger oil producers but what effect would this have on the price of oil? There would also be little to stop Assad from retaliation by attacking the physical petrobusiness assets of neighboring countries, several who are now his enemies, including Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. That's where the real oil is and that's where true havoc on world markets could be had for the price of a few ballistic missiles which very likely will remain intact in one of the world's most heavily armed countries. I am still for cutting Assad off at the knees if possible and practical, and I like creative ways of doing it other than by just ineffectually blowing stuff up, but this may be one of the more riskier ways of going about it.

  •  The oil fields aren't really under the regime's (0+ / 0-)

    control anymore.

    They are mostly under the control of the Kurds and the rebels now.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 02:12:39 AM PDT

  •  Oh, sure: Cripple Assad's ability to resist the (0+ / 0-)

    "rebels" and destroy the Syrian economy as well.
       In the first wave, people starve and children die because Syrians have no fuel to move food around. Plus the ill effects on the people who are suddenly enshrouded by toxi fumes from the oil wells.
       Then mass slaughter when the rebels overrun the government's remaining positions.
       The rebels haven't been shy about advertising their barbarism.
       Frankly, if I were i Assad's position and I had a choice between being overrun by these savages and using chemical weapons, I would use the chemical weapons.
       You don't agree?
       I don't hear you complaining about the US nuclear arsenal. What do you think those things are for?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site