US strikes could kill Assad opponents: army defectors

[David__77]

Military sites in Syria are packed with soldiers who have been effectively imprisoned by their superiors due to doubts about their loyalty, ex-soldiers say, making them possible casualties in any US-led air strikes.

Thousands of loyal security forces and militia, meanwhile, have moved into schools and residential buildings in Damascus, mixing with the civilian population in the hope of escaping a Western strike, according to residents and opposition activists.

...

Activist Moaz al-Shami, who is compiling a list of schools where security and pro-Assad militia have moved in, said they concentrated in Baramkeh, Tishreen Park, Sha’lan, Abu Rummaneh, Mezze and Malki, among the most heavily fortified districts of the capital and home to many top army and intelligence officers.

...

“The Assad regime is starting to move large numbers of prisoners into army barracks. Over the last three days, they are moving soldiers into schools and hospitals,” he said in Istanbul.

http://www.gulf-times.com/region/216/details/364308/us-strikes-could-kill-assad-opponents%3A-army-defectors

Even if I supported this proposed war against Syria, which I do not, this would be reason enough to give pause. The Obama administration's transmission of its war plan to the Syrian government has given plenty of time to prepare and play the possible events to its advantage. Who will really suffer from the US missiles and bombs sent, if Obama does indeed send them?

[indepat]

1. When on a moral quest for absolute justice in the world, collateral damage is but a small price

willingly paid.

[dkf]

2. Now wouldn't that be just perfect.

Omg this is ridiculous.

[David__77]

3. Well the administration transmitted its plans in great detail.

Of course there is feverish preparation going on. Of course you'd try to make sure the attacks kill as many of your opponents as possible, and use the cover of the attacks to kill as many other opponents too. If they hit security establishments, those prisoners there are dead - period. If not by missiles, through summary execution. I don't doubt that. Kerry hasn't even scratched the surface of the rationale for what the US proposes to do and why. And if Americans die as a result - a HIGH probability - then there will be a political shitstorm.

[LittleBlue]

4. You can just tell this is going to be a massive cluserf***

Has all the ingredients

1. Fog of war (your article). Check
2. "Allies" of uncertain loyalty. Check
3. No clear path to a resolution. Check
4. Ethnic/religious conflict. Check

[David__77]

5. Plus, let's say that Syria DID willfully use such weapons.

What if they used them again? Then what will the US do? The only way to really prevent them from being used again and again would be to put "boots on the ground" (god I hate that term). And yet no one dares suggest such a thing - or do they?

I mean, if I were in the Syrian government (leaving aside my own world view that disallows use of such weapons), and saw this as an existential battle that must not be lost at all costs, a US intervention would make use of all tools more and not less likely. After this "shot across the bow," why not use such weapons again, and really try to wipe out as many insurgents as possible, civilian deaths be damned? Is this not at all obvious?

[LittleBlue]

6. Precisely

I couldn't have put it better.