So if Syria, Iran or some other party retaliates against our "limited strikes"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Do we respond with a greater application of force? Take our lumps and walk away? What happens?

And is anyone in charge explaining this?

[JoePhilly]

1. What if we do nothing and they "retaliate" for some other "offense"?

Do we take our lumps or respond with greater force than what is now proposed?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. The strike on Syria is supposed to be a symbolic vanity bombing with no tangible outcome.

That's the WH's characterization, not mine, in their mad scramble to tell us this won't be a war of significance.

If someone attacks us for some other reason then we are entitled to respond but this is a war of choice for ego. Is it worth being drawn in to a large conflict if/when the inevitable (and promised) retaliation is levied? Are all the war drummers going to sit there and guarantee us their war won't invite a response?

[JoePhilly]

13. Your first statement isn't true.

That is not the only, or even the primary reason for any strike. Anyone who has listened to a word of this knows that. You might not like the other reasons (like trying to reduce or prevent Assad's ability to be able to use chem weapons in the future) but arguing that the only reason is "vanity", is silly.

As for the "war of choice" ... so was Kosovo. So was Iraq. I supported the former, opposed the latter.

And having said that, THIS situation is not really like either of those. And if limited strikes on military targets are WAR ... Clinton started at least 3 other wars that no one seems to recall.

You're suggestion that strikes would led to a future attack on us doesn't really work because, if you read DU, the countries of that reason have DECADES of reasons to attack us already. So playing the "what if" game might generate some speculative outrage around here, but its probably not productive for much else.

Here's a "what if" ... what if, we don't strike ... will all of the speculative outrage around DU, all the predictions and certainty of starting WWIII, will all of that have been for naught?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Multiple wars of choice do not exonerate the current war of choice.

And having said that, THIS situation is not really like either of those. And if limited strikes on military targets are WAR ... Clinton started at least 3 other wars that no one seems to recall.

Again, how does past foolishness exonerate the current foolishness? How many times do we get to be stupid before it bites us in the ass?

You're suggestion that strikes would led to a future attack on us doesn't really work because, if you read DU, the countries of that reason have DECADES of reasons to attack us already.

So any future president gets to tear around the world, bombing whomever for whatever and any consequence for that can be blamed on his predecessor. Not a convincing argument.

[atreides1]

5. Care to explain?

The US has been on Iran's case for decades...and I'm pretty sure the Iranian government has been offended many times over...but guess what no retaliation, yet!

You want to know why, because they want the US to be the aggressor, that way if Iran does retaliate they have grounds for doing so.

Contrary to popular belief the Iranians are not complete idiots.

[JoePhilly]

23. You actually helped make my point.

Expand that thought beyond Iran.

Even a casual reading of DU lately indicates that the countries of that region (including Iran), have DECADES of reasons to "retaliate" against the US.

So whether we strike, or not, any future attack against us can be linked to some prior event, going back decades.

Even if we do nothing regarding Syria, its very likely that the US and other Western countries will be targeted.

After 9/11 which was retaliation for, well, stuff we did years earlier, we invaded Afghanistan to go after those who actually planned the attack. That made sense. Invading Iraq, wrong response.

The way we'll respond to a future attack, regardless of what it was "retaliation" for, will in large part depend on the form such an attack takes.

It will also depend on who is in the oval office.

For instance, if we had President McCain, we'd have stayed in Iraq, we'd probably be in Iran, and we'd probably already be in Syria.

[HardTimes99]

24. If I'm not mistaken, Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact signed, such that any

attack on one is considered an attack on the other, requiriing either nation to come to the other's defense.

So, if I'm correct, any attack on Syria will be considered by the Iranians as an attack upon Iran requiring it to retaliate.

By all rights, the Iranians were entitled to retaliate massively after the U.S. Navy shot that civilian Iranian airliner out of the sky awhile back. That they did not shows admirable restraint on their part.

[newfie11]

2. I think this is the reason for these limited strikes

If there is any retaliation, that opens the door for boots on the ground and escalation in the region.

That is only my guess, what do I know.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Then they need to be explicit about that in their sales pitch.

"Yeah, we want this to just be a drive-by missile-ing but they'll probably be a scooch upset with us and bomb something in response. So then we'd probably have to go back in stronger for a prolonged period of time.

"So I guess what I'm really saying is we could be dragged in to a quagmire war where we either sacrifice more US prestige to crawl out of or we fight to abolish Assad but then fight an even bigger war to keep Al Qaeda from taking over.

"Kinda like Iraq, only with even less forethought."

[newfie11]

19. Hey I totally agree with you

I suspect there is lots more behind this that we don't know and probably never will.
I think the gassing ( horrible as it was) is not the real reason for our aggression.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. I think it was the bio weapon attack that precipitated the current crisis

Foot-in-Mouth Disease.

[Harmony Blue]

3. McCain has been explicit

that U.S. would retaliate.

[BainsBane]

6. The military Stands Its Ground

What's the problem? Is it suddenly only foreign lives that count?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. What?

Of course the military stands it's ground (not that terrorists or their state sponsors have a habit of targeting the military -- because it stands its ground).

I'm not even sure what your "Is it suddenly only foreign lives that count?" comment came from or is supposed to mean. Maybe you need something to eat.

My question is -- why are we fighting a war of choice that is being billed as being deliberately militarily insignificant if it invites a response that may drag us into a conflict if/when the promised response is levied?

[BainsBane]

16. I'm puzzled by war opposition from folks

who have no problem with war on American soil. They clearly have no problem with the fact more Americans have been killed by gun violence since 1968 than in all wars in US history. So the concern clearly isn't about human life. When it comes to guns, killing is always good. Suddenly it's a problem if the US military does it instead of some racist killing a black teenager?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. More people will be killed by alcohol than guns. You were saying?

[BainsBane]

22. That doesn't answer the question

why do you oppose war when you think the deaths from gun violence are insignificant, as your post above makes clear?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. I don't think gun deaths are insignificant. That is you saying things that are patently false.

I do not agree with you or the demonstrably futile policies that do nothing but victimize good people.

But you're the one that made this about straight numbers. So please continue and tell us what you plan to do about all the alcohol related domestic violence, rape, murder, vehicular manslaughter and other mayhem YOU support (if I may borrow your M.O.).

[BainsBane]

29. I'm actually a survivor of domestic violence

and amazingly I don't fight for a batterers right to have guns so he can kill women like me. I also drink very, very rarely. Your insults do nothing to explain the contradiction in your worldview, but they do say a great deal about who you are.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. I think people have a right to self-defense. Women are be free to choose how to defend themselves.

Syria is not self-defense.

[BainsBane]

33. You could have said that from the start

rather than being cruel.

I also have heard nothing about your or the gun lobby's fighting to renew prohibition of alcohol.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. I've always said that. Perhaps not directly to you but that is my consistent stance.

I don't petition for prohibitions because they do not work. It hasn't worked for alcohol or drugs; it won't work for guns. I use the analogy of alcohol because it is a proven failure and any argument about the social cost of guns can be applied to alcohol by orders of magnitude.

But as to the OP -- Syria is not self-defense. Yet, we are inviting disaster. It risks becoming a quagmire.

As to your life -- I had a nettlesome, quasi-stalker ex-BF once. It took people bigger and stronger than him to convince him to leave me alone. It never approached me needing a gun but the lesson it would require force was unmistakable. Ironically, I was very anti-gun in those days. My views changed after meeting my husband, who is as gentle a man as I could ever hope to find. I honestly cannot even imagine him raising his voice to me. He taught me to shoot and safely handle weapons and much of my fear evaporated. He wants me confident and capable because he loves and respects me.

I wish you peace, strength, honor, happiness, security and -- most importantly -- love in your life. Be everything you were meant to be and never allow anyone to diminish or tarnish The Promise that is the real you.

[BainsBane]

37. Thanks

and I appreciate the explanation of your views.

[dipsydoodle]

8. respond with a greater application of force ?

Not immediately. Only maybe when the retaliation takes the from of blow back in an indeterminate number of years to come.

It was originally foreseen that such actions from intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan would take until at least 2030 to go away. You want to restart the clock then feel free.

[Junkdrawer]

9. It'll be War, it will rapidly escalate, but we'll be home by Christmas.

This time for sure!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Ah yes, the promise of the cheap, easy, expedient war.

[Junkdrawer]

14. WW I was cheap and easy....

Well, it was in August 1914....

[HardTimes99]

26. The U.S. Civil War was going to be over in 90 days. Both sides believed it . . . before

the first Battle of Bull Run. (Well, W.T. Sherman knew it was going to be a long, hard slog, but they institutionalized him in a psych ward for what we now would probably call depression or melancholia at the commencement of hostilities. That little saga has always endeared me to Sherman more profoundly than any other figure from the time, save Lincoln.)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Remember the 3-week ground offensive in OIF?

Good times. Good times.

[Dash87]

12. Shoot back with disastrous results, no doubt.

[Savannahmann]

15. You forgot two players who have spoken out to oppose our planned bombing.

China, which has spoken out that they oppose it. Then there is Russia. They are talking about deploying the Russian Missile Shield. Their version of our Patriot systems.

Do you think they are going to be thrilled if Russian soldiers who are deploying/maintaining/advising on the shield are killed? Does anyone think that the Russians are going to just wave and say our mistake we'll be going now? Would we?

I've been trying to remind everyone that Russia has a naval base in Syria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus
It is their only naval base outside Russian Territory. It is their only foreign naval base.

If they see missiles headed in their general direction, do we think that they won't fire their anti-missile systems? If one goes off course, is jammed by radio interference, sunspots, AQ, or the great pumpkin, and hits anything in the Russian Naval Base they will respond, they'll have to. Putin can't let his military be killed by a foreign power any more than we could.

I've been saying for months, there is no way this ends well for us. There is no way we can declare victory. If we are very lucky, and I'm talking winning the lottery twice lucky, we won't see big mushroom clouds over cities around the nation, and the world. Because if we start to fight the Russians, it will escalate.

We fire on Syria, the Russians fire to stop the missiles. They stop some, American Doctrine is to remove the anti-aircraft and anti-missile first. We kill some Russians, they fire on our ships. We sink some of their ships, they sink some of ours. Someone on their side, or ours decides to take out the Submarine launched ballistic missiles to prevent them from being fired. Now you have an attack on strategic weapons, and that principle is easy. It's use them, or lose them.

Perhaps Putin and Obama don't give the order, perhaps the situation is such that a lower commander feels that the circumstances meet the requirements for counter launch. Once one missile flies, they all fly. It could be a mistake as simple as this. The Russians are conducting a missile drill, going through the steps up to but not firing the missiles. The USS Cheyenne is camped out on their tail listening. They hear the sounds of missiles being readied. The Cheyenne knows that we are trading shots with the Russians in the Med, the Cheyenne fears this is a launch situation, and fires torpedoes honestly believing that they are preventing a missile launch on the United States.

The Russians get off a warning and launch their version of the sub lost sub sunk buoy. It sits on the surface and says that K201 is dead right under me. Imagine our reaction if the USS Alabama's sub lost disaster buoy started beeping when we were shooting at Russians in the Med. We would order our subs to sink all Russian missile subs right now, we don't dare wait, because if we do, they'll launch on us.

We aren't talking, we aren't listening to the nations of the world. The Russian Legislature wanted to send some people to talk to our Legislature, both Boehner and Senator Reid said they didn't want to meet with the Russians to have a frank meeting. That jackass Boehner I can understand, but Harry Reid? http://www.localnews8.com/news/politics/Russia-again-rejected-on-Hill-meeting/-/308336/21798550/-/cf6gg0/-/index.html

I've said for the last several days. This is the most precarious situation our world has been in since 1962, that was the Cuban Missile Crisis for those who don't recognize the year. We have amazing communications now, but we aren't using them. We aren't talking, or I should say we're not conversing. We keep repeating that we have to bomb, Russia keeps saying we don't. If we bomb, it could and probably will go very badly, very quickly. We will lose ships if the Russians start to fight for their ally.

[Ghost Dog]

21. Also this:

[center][/center]

/... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-06/soap-opera-plot-thickens-iran-plots-revenge-if-us-hits-syria-according-intercepted-m

... I suspect that President Obama’s mad drive to punish Syria in a limited way over an unproven chemical attack by parties yet unknown is because Israel told him they are going to attack Iran by October whether America likes it or not, so shit or get off the pot.

Decision: we shall shit on Syria ere the autumn leaves fall. It’s AIPAC’s job to get Congress on board, but we’re going to do it even if Congress has a hissy fit. “He are the President, and Presidents haz the natural born right to make war!” ~ Secretary of State John Kerry

The moment the shooting starts, there will be monumental blowback, and no one will be in control of the situation from then on.

The first thing that will happen is missiles fired at Israel from Syria and southern Lebanon, as promised. Maybe chemical weapons this time. And not just those homemade missiles. Some of the late model Russian missiles, that can sink any of our carriers in 30 seconds flat. Russia has indicated that their response to any attack will be to supply their very latest missiles to Syria, their S-300?s, which are even more deadly, along with their latest air defense missiles.

And Russia has just parked one of their modern missile cruisers right off the Syrian coast. We can sink it, of course, but it has radar and sonar and won’t go down before it launches all its missiles, which will put our entire Mediterranean fleet on the bottom less than a minute later. It’s a powerful deterrent.

The first missile that lands in Israel will release Israel to hit Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants, the real reason for this splendid little war. But remember, those plants were designed after careful consideration of how much damage Israel’s largest atomic weapon could do to an underground bunker. Then they built them even deeper than that, so Israel can’t touch them.

But Israel has to try. If they don’t, there may never be a Greater Israel, and that is Yahweh’s will and Israel’s destiny. They will use small tactical nukes, probably a series of them, to dig a deeper hole and do some damage. Maybe. Israel will also respond — beyond our control — against Hamas and Syria as they see fit.

The Really Big Problem in all this is that as soon as nukes are used in Iran, Iran will close the Persian Gulf to shipping by sinking an oil tanker in those narrow waterways. Lloyd’s of London (and other maritime insurers) will instantly cease insuring oil shipments from the Gulf, and no more oil will flow. Fully 20% of the world’s oil flows out of there, so there will be full blown Depression in Europe and America overnight.

That loss of energy input will present an existential threat to our nation’s survival, so we will nuke Iran and occupy its southernmost province (where all Iran’s oil is) and the Zagreb Mountains along the Persian Gulf (where all the missile launching Iranians are hiding in caves) to try to get oil shipping again, pronto. We cannot send troop ships into the Persian Gulf, so we will have to come in through Jordan/Iraq or Afghanistan. Or through Syria? It will take months. Russia will not stand idly by. They will equip Iran so it can stand between America and the Caspian Basin.

Welcome to 1914 in 2013. It can all be avoided, but no one in charge wants to.

/... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-06/soap-opera-plot-thickens-iran-plots-revenge-if-us-hits-syria-according-intercepted-m#comment-3928661

[Junkdrawer]

27. You and me both, brother....

I'm reminded of this:

Argument Without End
By ROBERT S. McNAMARA, JAMES G. BLIGHT and ROBERT K. BRIGHAM with THOMAS J. BIERSTEKER and HERBERT Y. SCHANDLER

The Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 began when the Soviets moved nuclear missiles and bombers to Cuba --secretly and with clear intent to deceive --in the summer and early fall of 1962. The missiles were to be targeted against cities along America's East Coast, putting 90 million Americans at risk.

....

What lesson should we draw from these stunning data --data suggesting that our brush with nuclear catastrophe in October 1962 was extraordinarily close? The lesson was clear to me from that moment in Havana when we first began to learn, from General Gribkov, about Soviet preparations for nuclear war in the event of a U.S. invasion. Near the conclusion of that session, I asked Fidel Castro two questions:

(a) Were you aware of it --the Soviet deployment of tactical nuclear warheads, and plans for their use; and

(b) What was your interpretation or expectation of the possible effect on Cuba? How did you think the U.S. would respond, and what might the implications have been for your nation and the world?

Castro's answer sent a chill down my spine. He replied:

Now, we started from the assumption that if there was an invasion of Cuba, nuclear war would erupt. We were certain of that ... we would be forced to pay the price, that we would disappear.... Would I have been ready to use nuclear weapons? Yes, I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons. ... I would have agreed, in the event of the invasion you are talking about, with the use of tactical nuclear weapons.... If Mr. McNamara or Mr. Kennedy had been in our place, and had their country been invaded, or their country was going to be occupied ... I believe they would have used tactical nuclear weapons.

.....

http://choo.ischool.utoronto.ca/FIS/courses/lis2149/cuban/McNamara.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. Do we get any of our oil from Iran?

[Lurks Often]

30. It would almost certainly lead to an increasing use of force that could very well

spiral out of control depending how far Syria and Iran are willing to go. Even worse would the Russians and/or the Chinese deciding to take an active part in the hostilities and at what point would they or us decide things had gotten out of control. I don't think the Chinese would actively get involved, since they lack the ability to project power effectively over such a large distance. My biggest concern would be the Russians. I don't believe that their military can match ours conventionally, so what happens if we sink a large number of their ships, do they back down or do they escalate to the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons?

Keep in mind this would be a worst case scenario and an unlikely one, but the possibility does exist.

WWI would be the closest parallel where more and more countries got sucked into the fighting due treaties and alliances and a regional conflict became a world war.

[treestar]

32. They do not have the capability

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. You'd be amazed what some box cutters and a dozen-and-a-half jackasses can get you these days.