What happens if Assad shoots back?

[1-Old-Man]

It occurred to me this morning that not once has anyone said what we will do if Syria shoots back. A C-Span caller asked the question this morning about what we will do if one of our planes gets shot down and of course there is no answer but it was a real revelation to recall that the question has simply been ignored.

Have we ever entered into a conflict that did not excelate? A second question comes to mind as well, and this one comes from looking at the pattern of movement of refugees out of Syria. They are mostly going north and south with fewer to the east, but it appears none are moving to the west. Has Israel opened its border with Syria to allow refugees to escape Assad?

[jberryhill]

1. Why do you assume planes will be involved?

...or piloted ones anyway.

The only thing I have heard suggested using are Tomahawk missiles. If these are supplemented by drones, just who is it that is going to get shot at?

[Xithras]

11. Incirlik Air Base, a USAF base in Turkey, is within range of more than a thousand Syrian missiles.

More than 500 of them are low tech Scud's, but they also have around 600 of the more accurate Fateh's, and at least a hundred of the modern Iranian Shabab missiles (which are very accurate and carry multiple warheads). The Air Force base is home to several thousand Americans (both AF personnel and their families), and would be a tempting target. If Assad ordered and all out bombardment, we probably could not protect it, and would take significant losses there.

The only question is Turkey. Incirlik is also used by the Turkish Air Force, and any attack on the base would be seen as an attack against Turkey itself. Pile on top of that the notoriously bad guidance systems in the Scuds and the probability that at least some of them will come down on Turkish soil outside of the airbase, and it rapidly becomes clear that any attack on Incirlik will openly pull Turkey into the war against Assad. He may not be willing to risk that.

[Lurker Deluxe]

22. He would die

This is a spanking.

I disagree with this completely, and do not approve of any action in Syria.

However, this is just a spanking.

Get caught sneaking Mom's car out, you get a spanking. If, in retaliation for that spanking you take a sledge hammer to that car ... you are going to get more than a spanking.

Attacking an Air Force Base with an "all out bombardment" would get you the smack down of this new century, and you would most likely die in that smack down. Sometimes it seems that our dumb ass government is simply testing fate and asking for someone to retaliate so they can actually kick the snot out of someone.

[Xithras]

25. I know, and Assad will probably make that call depending on the severity of our attack.

If it really is just a small number of limited strikes to "punish" the regime for using chemical weapons, I'd guess that Assad will keep his missiles stabled to prevent a much wider war that he would unquestionably lose.

But if it becomes clear that the U.S. is actively trying to destroy his military infrastructure to help the rebels and unseat him, it's entirely possible that he may order something like this anyway. If the U.S. comes in on the side of the rebels, he'll have nothing to lose because he's a dead man either way. Assad isn't dumb, and he knows that winning this war is his only chance to avoid ending up like Gaddafi or Milosevic. If this is a "take your lumps and carry on" action, he still has a chance to win it. If this turns into an open attempt to unseat him, then all bets are off, and I'd expect everything from an open bombardment of Incirlik and Israel, to wide scale WMD launches against rebel strongholds. Cornered dogs are the most dangerous.

[jberryhill]

30. How many generals and staff are going to go down the road with him

There comes a point at which the writing on the wall is clear to anyone in a position to carry out, or not carry out, Assad's orders, and his personal sense of self-preservation is not a priority for them.

I expect a more or less symbolic "okay, we responded to the use of chemical weapons" sort of action.

Although it could very well be that the ongoing political theater here is enough of a deterrent to further use of them that our "response" is already what it is.

[Xithras]

38. Well, there's long been a question about how much control he actually has over the military

Of course, the generals future isn't particularly bright either at this point, and if the rebels win it's improbable that any of them will escape a firing squad after two years of brutal war. And that's assuming that they don't get the Gaddafi treatment.

I'd expect that the ground troops will follow whatever orders they're given, so long as those weapons aren't pointed at Syria. If U.S. bombs are raining down on Syria, I doubt many would flinch at an order to shoot back.



I also expect a symbolic action, but some of the moves out of Congress have me wondering whether we'll pursue more. If they do, I really expect this thing to blow up.

[Erose999]

42. But that would be "boots on the ground" which Obama has promised us will not happen. Obama wants you

to know that we can totally bomb the shit out of Syria and not even our scratch the fresh wax on our jet bombers.

[HardTimes99]

40. Given the mutual-defense pact between Syria and Iran, any attack by us on Syria would be viewed as

an attack on Iran as well, thereby bringing Iranian assets into play against our Persian Gulf interests.

So I don't think the "only question" is Turkey.

I'm deliberately ignoring Russian (and, to a lesser extent, Chinese) strategic interests.

[spanone]

2. missiles not planes.

[Javaman]

3. While they are missiles and not planes, you postulate something that worries my slightly...

if Assad feels the need to retaliate thus widening the war, then what? What if, Assad (even though the likelihood of this is pretty slim) chooses to go for broke and lobs something at someone just for the sake of striking back?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. If Assad really wanted to be an asshole

he'd leave his CW stockpiles for the AQ rebels to capture.

Sure, they might use them against the loyalist forces but then the US would be obligated to attack the rebels on his behalf. The irony alone would be worth the price of admission.

Or AQ might grab the weapons and keep them to use against the West -- since they hate us too. Then the West has to scramble to deal with the rebels in possession of CWs and leave him alone.

[Dash87]

29. Might as well. They're bound to get them anyways.

[jberryhill]

31. That's reason enough right there to try to take them out, no?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. How does that work if you're just staging a drive-by missile shooting to impress the press?

[jberryhill]

35. We've been dealing with loose nukes in Central Asia for a while

...and that's gone pretty well.

But as an entirely separate question, let's assume "Assad opposition = Al Qaeda" and that Assad has stockpiles of chemical weapons. Should the situation tilt strongly against Assad, and he's not going to last forever, what happens to those stockpiles (assuming Assad falls sometime within the useful shelf life thereof)?

[HardTimes99]

41. Your post could be condensed down to one word: 'clusterfuck' (or maybe

two: 'Circle jerk').

Just imagine if Princip and the Black Hand had possessed CBW in August, 1913.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. Well then Obama would have been right to attack because he's an unstable maniac?

[Marrah_G]

4. I believe the missles would be fired from ships, not planes

Not that that makes it any better.

[Xolodno]

5. Not likely...

Even if US planes were used (which I highly doubt and if they do, will be stealth bombers), shooting back will reveal the position of anti-aircraft batteries...which makes a nice target. Assad's main priority is to move and hide his military assets and lay low on using the Chem weapons for now.

One thing I learned from the "dog and pony show" yesterday, Chem weapons have been used quite a few times already. So why the hoopla now? Going to guess that this is the first time they were used on civilians and not "military". Which then begs the question, were the rebels using civilians as human shields? Hence why the reluctance? Assad had the upper hand, their was no reason to be this stupid and launch a Chemical attack in a civilian area, particularly when it would seem the powers that be were willing to turn a blind eye to some extent while they were being used on rebels.

[NuclearDem]

6. Even if there aren't air strikes, Assad still has some very shiny anti-ship missiles.

[Union Scribe]

7. Then watch how fast the "it's not war"

crowd loses their collective shit.

[sabrina 1]

15. They won't, they will just move the goal posts, again. They demand to know what we expect the

US to do when they are attacked while they just innocent bystanders, trying to do something nice.

Ten years from now, depending on which party is in power, one or the other side, depending on which team is playing, will simply recycle all the old Iraq excuses. The pay a lot for the war propaganda and it gets recycled over and over again. I suppose we should be glad they are frugal at least with that expense.

[HardTimes99]

43. Were it not for the seriousness of the issues at hand, that indeed would be well worth

the price of membership at DU.

Try wrapping your mind around Russia naval forces squaring off against American in the Mediterranean and Red Seas. That prospect should cause a serious butt pucker for anyone who remembers the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Iggo]

8. Wet dream for the war-boner crowd.

[sibelian]

9. GASP. That would be a WAR CRIME.

Further legitimising.... something...

[KharmaTrain]

10. It'll Be A Push-Button War...

...that's how the military wants to use the "big stick" now. The Pentagon has all sorts of automated toys now...missiles and drones that will be used and I don't think we'll see American fighters unless things get real bad. Yep...another "shock & awe" teevee show that supposedly is gonna make Assad tremble and up and quit. Yeah, I don't think it'll work either.

As far as Assad shooting back...he supposedly has a Soviet era missile defense system that the Israeli Air Force beats with regularity. It's one thing to have the missiles and system...it's another to use it and we've seen that it's really no match for a skilled Air Force such as the U.S. I won't contemplate the "boots on the ground" scenario as I really don't believe that U.S. involvement will go that far...and then, just like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, everyone around you is the enemy...

[bluestate10]

18. I agree with you on the battle. The military has tested robotic drone attack aircraft and bombers

and are likely wetting it's collective shorts to test the hardware in a hot combat situation against a second tier opponent. Fundamentally, striking Syria is a wet dream for military planners. Such is where modern warfare from an advanced nation is headed. Ground based Drones aren't ready yet, so don't expect troops to try to occupy anything.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Oh he won't. According to the plan

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Assad will take his lumps like a man, not retaliate, and having learned his lesson he and the rest of the world will never use weapons like that again.

[HardTimes99]

45. Good thing you used the sarcasm emoticon. I swear it seems like half the people posting here believe

exactly that (without the sarcasm).

See, Saddam put up a 'Beware of Dogs' sign to scare the shit out of all his neighbors. But Saddam didn't actually have any dogs, just the scary sign. Assad actually has a kennel full of dogs.

[joeybee12]

13. If? How about When?

He'll do something, that's for sure, and America's war-profiters will start touching themselves-yet again-inappropriately.

[reformist2]

16. We'll put on our best performance of acting shocked: How dare he hit back while we're punishing him?

The moral posturing and grandstanding and hypocrisy, it sickens...

[brooklynite]

17. Do you think we should disband our military forces?

Because that's the only way to prevent an enemy from shooting back.

[JVS]

20. You're forgetting another way.

[brooklynite]

21. Hence my comment

Unless you're a total isolationist, the expectation is that our military will have a periodic role in the world.

[Celefin]

24. ?

WTF?

[KittyWampus]

19. I don't think we'll send jets over Syria. Our submarines will launch missiles.

[MisterP]

26. that's not supposed to happen: in fact, in every war we've been in it wasn't supposed to happen

we were "helping the people" in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Angola, Iraq, etc., so any resistance must come from the Muscovite-Mooslim Spiderweb that controls all war, terror, media, churches, and academics (outside the charmed circle of neocon historians and objectivist, Pentagon-funded chemists)
we get into wars we think we can win easily

[Lurks Often]

27. Syria will probably not escalate things, it would certainly be unwise

An attack on the US base in Turkey would involve significant American casualties, but would also draw Nato into the conflict and most importantly, seriously piss the Turks off and they can probably take Syria all by themselves.

An attack on Israel will would be nearly as bad and Israel would likely make taking out Assad personally a priority.

I do not believe that Syria has the ability to successfully attack US ships in the Med, their Air Force certainly isn't up to facing Aegis destroyers. I have doubts that the anti ship missiles that might have the range will be to first find the US ships if fired autonomously and then beat the layers of anti missile defenses. Additionally Syria faces even bigger problems if one of the missiles hits a neutral ship or even worse a Russian ship.

[HardTimes99]

46. Why is it unwise for Syria to escalate, but perfectly rational for us to escalate? - nt

[Lurks Often]

48. Where did you get the idea I was in favor of attacking Syria?

Horrible idea, especially this "limited strike" nonsense. I see no reason to get involved in the Syrian civil war when both sides hate us and always will.

[Dash87]

28. That would be impossible. US military assets and soldiers are invincible.

There's no reason to plan for such a thing. Your "realistic" thinking is pointless due to America's outright invincibility, which in turn gives us a mandate to do whatever the hell we want to the world.

'Merica! USA! USA!

[Coyotl]

32. What happens if those shots are at the Saudi oil fields?

[HardTimes99]

34. Syria will be fully entitled to attack our ships and other assets before we fire any

missiles at it under its legitimate right to self defense in the face of a threat of imminent attack.

You've asked the best question that no one in Congress is asking and the one that makes those of us who have studied World War I very alarmed. This has the potential to become a much wider war very, very quickly.

[Chan790]

37. Actually the question has been asked...

I watched it be asked today by Alan Grayson of SoS Kerry and a general (I was only half paying attention, I was making lunch)...the answer is that our ships are in positions that would allow them to launch unimpeded on Syria but are well outside of Syria's range to respond. We're already preparing for the possibility Syria would respond against US embassies and other fixed assets. Israel is prepared for and anticipating such an attack but the odds of such a response remain below 50% in their estimation.

I think that's an optimistic assessment, but that was the answer given to the question posed.

[HardTimes99]

39. Thanks for the detail and analysis. I don't have cable so rely mostly on what

I read after the fact for my take on matters. I had read a report that the Syrian Air Force was preparing a suadron of suicide pilots, (kind of like the World War 2 kamikazis, I guess) a few weeks ago and then had heard nothing more about Syrian plans to respond to aggression. IIRC, there are US assets positioned in Turkey. Also, Israel's troops and materiel in the Golan would presumably also be targeted.

[Taitertots]

36. If? More like when.... But I think that was the whole point from the start n/t

[backscatter712]

44. We've got them pretty solidly outgunned.

And chances are we may not have American warplanes in Syrian airspace at all - it may be all cruise missiles.

[DirkGently]

47. We'll escalate as has always been intended?

No one seriously believes the proposal here is Punishment Missiles.