Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

RobitTV

Western forces are today preparing to launch Military strikes in Syria

The intervention is likely to involve missile strikes rather than an airborne bombing campaign, in order to avoid the dangers posed by the sophisticated air defences supplied to Syria by Russia.

An intense round of diplomacy on the crisis has also been continuing, with Mr Cameron and French president Francois Hollande warning that the 'crime must not be swept under the carpet'.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/26/syria-crisis-military-action-un-inspectors-vist-chemical-attack

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57599971/syria-options-weighed-as-u.s-forces-move-closer/

Amirani

I think missile strikes at this point would be very premature and are probably quite unlikely.

Obviously things change if the chemical weapons attack is confirmed.

TheChizler

Though if they can pull it off like Libya, which wasn't too huge a disaster in terms of western intervention, it mightn't end too badly. Exactly how cosy is Russia with Assad?

Amirani

TheChizler wrote: »

Exactly how cosy is Russia with Assad?

Uncomfortably so. I think we probably would've already seen some limited intervention otherwise.

skimpydoo

Just saw in Sky News that the Weapons inspectors who are in Syria to confirm if chemical weapons were used have been shot at by snipers. Military Strikes look more likely now.

bmaxi

I don't know, this is a hard one to call. I think the West is well advised to stay out of Syria at least for the moment, where will it all end? While I wouldn't put it past Assad to use chemical weapons I think it is well within the realm of Al Quaeda or like thinkers to engineer the events of last week to draw the US in, WMD springs to mind. You'll notice that the Saudis and their allies, while openly supplying arms to the opposition forces have stopped short of involving themselves in the conflict. Another mare's nest I think, stay away.

madel

How likely is it that Assad didn't use chemical weapons? I've been following and just seems like a foolish move on his behalf to use them when a U.N. team were in the country and at a time when he seems to be gaining the upper hand!

Some form of chemicals must have been used if the pictures are to be believed but could this be a false flag kind of thing?

I'm not suggesting that we break out the tinfoil hats because the anglo American media are 'brainwashing us man', that's not my style but it just doesn't seem to fit. Any thoughts?

Jonny7

RobitTV wrote: »

Western forces are today preparing to launch Military strikes in Syria

The intervention is likely to involve missile strikes rather than an airborne bombing campaign, in order to avoid the dangers posed by the sophisticated air defences supplied to Syria by Russia.

An intense round of diplomacy on the crisis has also been continuing, with Mr Cameron and French president Francois Hollande warning that the 'crime must not be swept under the carpet'.




http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/26/syria-crisis-military-action-un-inspectors-vist-chemical-attack

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57599971/syria-options-weighed-as-u.s-forces-move-closer/

That pic is war porn likely from the Daily Mail

the guardian story is about UN inspectors being hit by sniper fire, nothing new in Syria

The CBS news indicates nothing today

RichardAnd

madel wrote: »

How likely is it that Assad didn't use chemical weapons? I've been following and just seems like a foolish move on his behalf to use them when a U.N. team were in the country and at a time when he seems to be gaining the upper hand!

Some form of chemicals must have been used if the pictures are to be believed but could this be a false flag kind of thing?

I'm not suggesting that we break out the tinfoil hats because the anglo American media are 'brainwashing us man', that's not my style but it just doesn't seem to fit. Any thoughts?

If Assad has or had chemical weapons then his using of them would be a remarkably foolish act. By using them, he would only open the doors to self-righteous westerns, itching to launch a "war for peace".

If he had chemical weapons and he really wants to put them to good use, he should use them on his own men (a minor target). That way, it would seem that the rebels had launched them and the international eye would look away. I don't approve of such Machiavellian tactics but war is about winning and false flags get flown in every conflict.

Of course, the above assumes that the said eye is totally impartial to what goes on in that part of the world and as we saw with Libya, it most certainly isn't. I watch with interest.

Sierra Oscar

The war mongering being displayed by William Hague in particular is disturbing.

A further escalation of the conflict will do nothing but dramatically destabilize the entirety of the Middle East. There should be a conclusive investigation into the chemical weapons incident, and a measured response should follow. What is not needed is a hastily arranged operation ,that will do little but inflame tensions, just so certain figures can be seen to be doing something for political purposes.

Sonderval

I agree with the sentiment of the above posters - this whole prelude to an attack strikes me as particularly machiavellian. There is little logic in Assad gassing his own people - the downside potential for his regime is massive, while the rebels and their supporters have everything to gain.

The timing strikes me as well, considering the gains being made by Assad's forces.

Don't get me wrong, the man is a tyrant and should be deposed, but false flag operations involving WMDs is hugely disturbing.

Sierra Oscar

It should be also pointed that any military action against Syria could also strengthen Assad's position amongst the middle ground populace in currently engaged in the conflict.

Especially when allied forces inevitably strike civilian targets inadvertently, or even chemical weapon stockpiles. The consequences of a poorly planned operation could be disastrous.

Sonderval

So basically, this is a bad idea all round

Likely targets would be command & control resources, bunkers and logistic/army staging facilities. Strikes on those types would be of direct benefit to the rebels.

If it actually is Assad and his regime orchestrating all this, its a big risk to take.

Sierra Oscar

Jonny7 wrote: »

That pic is war porn likely from the Daily Mail

the guardian story is about UN inspectors being hit by sniper fire, nothing new in Syria

The CBS news indicates nothing today

It is quite a stupid graphic - highlighting chemical weapons bases (some of which don't exist I may add) that could be targeted.

It would be an absolute disaster if these chemical weapon storage facilities were bombed. The civilian death toll would shadow the attack that occurred last week.

It would also force the Syrian government to have to relocate chemical weapon stockpiles, and inevitably some would be lost to rebel groups as they were being moved. We already know that there are certain elements of the rebel forces that would not hesitate to use chemical weapons, mainly because they have used them already.

knucklehead6

Sonderval wrote: »

So basically, this is a bad idea all round

Likely targets would be command & control resources, bunkers and logistic/army staging facilities. Strikes on those types would be of direct benefit to the rebels.

If it actually is Assad and his regime orchestrating all this, its a big risk to take.

I was listening to Newstalk on the way into work this morning and according to Richard Fisk (who, in fairness, know his stuff) there is a LOT of confusion over there as to who is responsible. AND that the rebels are also supported by Al-Qaeda. So if the western powers do intervene, they could be intervening on the side of a force backed by the very organisation that they are attempting to eradicate

Jonny7

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It is quite a stupid graphic - highlighting chemical weapons bases (some of which don't exist I may add) that could be targeted.

It would be an absolute disaster if these chemical weapon storage facilities were bombed. The civilian death toll would shadow the attack that occurred last week.

It would also force the Syrian government to have to relocate chemical weapon stockpiles, and inevitably some would be lost to rebel groups as they were being moved. We already know that there are certain elements of the rebel forces that would not hesitate to use chemical weapons, mainly because they have used them already.

Direct military intervention in the near future is unlikey for a variety of reasons

The Turks, US, UK, French (and members of the Arab league) are keen to get rid of Assad and end the conflict, however, due to the length of time that has passed - and the factions that have joined - well it's very fluid, intervention would be militarily very tricky

A big stumbling block is Russia (allied with Assad and determined to fulfil contracts/not allow jihadists any chance in Syria) and China (neutral but blocking resolutions) - so UN action is difficult

Putin looked poised for positive talks on the issue, a possible power transition plan, however frosty relations between US and Russia recently have slowed that down

At the moment the major powers are talking tough and posturing, keeping pressure on Assad and I reckon hoping something cracks

If the situation gets any worse I think the UN (inc Russia and China) are going to have to set up a safe haven to accomodate the number of refugees, that might become a necessity.

Amerika

I tend to blame GW Bush for Assad’s chemical weapons. Bush failed to close the border with Syria while US soldiers searched for the WMDs in Iraq. I guess we now know what those trucks were carrying into Syria at the outbreak of the war in Iraq.

But I wouldn’t expect too much from the US, as there is no democratic alternative in the conflict and both sides would be considered enemies. I don't see much more than lots of rhetoric on the part of Obama and perhaps lobbing off a couple of well placed cruise missiles as a token gesture of moral outrage and a method of saving a little face for Assad calling Obama’s bluff on the "red line."

Nodin

Amerika wrote: »

I tend to blame GW Bush for Assad’s chemical weapons. Bush failed to close the border with Syria while US soldiers searched for the WMDs in Iraq. I guess we now know what those trucks were carrying into Syria at the outbreak of the war in Iraq.

....theres no evidence whatsoever of that. Syria has its own chemical weapons programme.

Amerika

Nodin wrote: »

....theres no evidence whatsoever of that. Syria has its own chemical weapons programme.

There are arguments for and against. I tend to favor the arguments "for." Only time will tell… just as time will tell if Assad actually used chemical weapons I guess.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/did-syria-receive-its-chemical-weapons-saddam/55142/

Jonny7

Looks like I spoke too soon

breaking news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23844643

pablomakaveli

I can't see any Western forces becoming involved too quickly. Behind all the posturing i think there's a strong reluctance to get involved in the conflict and to back the rebel groups who's motives are questionable.

junder

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I can't see any Western forces becoming involved too quickly. Behind all the posturing i think there's a strong reluctance to get involved in the conflict and to back the rebel groups who's motives are questionable.

I disagree, I think we are rapidly approaching a critical mass. The Western governments and the media are rattling sabres to the point where it will be a choice to '**** or get of the pot' which will mean the west has to intervene or face a humiliating climb Down

Jonny7

Quite dramatic stuff, the yanks seem very convinced this was a regime attack, they were making a case for war

Not much of a Russian response for now, will be interesting to see how they react.


There might be unilateral action. The UN claiming they haven't been able to reach the site in 5 days and that it has been bombed in the meanwhile.

Sierra Oscar

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not much of a Russian response for now, will be interesting to see how they react.

The Russian Foreign Minister held a specially convened press conference today on the issue and strongly stated the position that any strike against Syria without the backing of the UN Security Council would be deemed a violation of international law. It was made quite clear that Russia would have to respond should such a situation arise, so there is a bit of a political standoff growing.

It should be interesting to see how Russia responds now after the US have made it clear that military action will be undertaken.

AlekSmart

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It is quite a stupid graphic - highlighting chemical weapons bases (some of which don't exist I may add) that could be targeted.

It would be an absolute disaster if these chemical weapon storage facilities were bombed. The civilian death toll would shadow the attack that occurred last week.

It would also force the Syrian government to have to relocate chemical weapon stockpiles, and inevitably some would be lost to rebel groups as they were being moved. We already know that there are certain elements of the rebel forces that would not hesitate to use chemical weapons, mainly because they have used them already.

I'm looking at and listening to John Kerry in the same way as I did with Colin Powell many years ago....except I still have far greater regard for Mr Powell than I'll ever have for Mr Kerry.

American "certainty" in relation to the nature and extent of this chemical attack still does not appear to be based any real proof of responsibility.

I have to say I found myself nodding in agreement at Al Assad's quoted response...

"Would any State use Chemical Wespons or any other weapon of mass destruction in a place where it's own forces are concentrated ? That would go against elementary logic"

From what can be gleaned currently,Syrian Government forces have been maintaining their firm grip on the military situation,so why would they embark upon this action right now ?

halkar

Lawrance of Arabia. There are many $hit stirrers in ME. I do not think Esad is stupid enough to use anything chemical. Iraq V2 is in the makings.

jank

So turns out Obama is telling as many lies as Bush, can we expect the same level of hatred? The west should stay out but I expect a token response to appease the moarlists rather than look weak and climb down from a position.

esteve

Amerika wrote: »

There are arguments for and against. I tend to favor the arguments "for." Only time will tell… just as time will tell if Assad actually used chemical weapons I guess.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/did-syria-receive-its-chemical-weapons-saddam/55142/

This is not evidence, it is a theory based on some hear say. But lets say this theory is true, as it vey well could be, it still does not for one minute justify the Iraq invasion, as Saddam was not threatening anybody at the time with these so called WMDs. He also would not have been the only nation on earth to possess chemical weapons. Im sure a lot of certain people hope this theory is true, as it can justify the Iraq invasion, but the fundamental principle is that the invasion, and the premise it was based on was completely and simply wrong.

renegademaster

the poor poor syrians!!

Amirani

How are these chemical weapons being delivered? I presume it's from airborne missiles?

Would a UN system be able to put in place that would track the source of any future missile launches?

knucklehead6

NiallSparky wrote: »

How are these chemical weapons being delivered? I presume it's from airborne missiles?

Would a UN system be able to put in place that would track the source of any future missile launches?

more than likely artillery shells instead of missiles.

According to Sky News Downing Street has released a statement saying the UK forces are drawing up contingency plans for military action.

Amirani

Syria has accused U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry of lying by claiming there is "undeniable" evidence of a large-scale chemical weapons attack in Syria likely carried out by the regime.

A statement on the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency says Kerry's insistence on "jumping over" the work of U.N. experts in Syria shows that the U.S. has deliberate intentions to exploit events.

SANA in the statement Tuesday said Kerry has "fabricated" evidence.


Reported in the Guardian. Nothing other than would be expected really.

bmaxi

You have to wonder just in whose interest an attack on Syria would be. It has been proven, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, that flinging missiles and bombs at the problem won't solve it. How much better off are the populations of those countries today? Both are subject to daily atrocities carried out by one side or the other, tens of thousands of men, women and children are dead or maimed. Could you say that today Iraq or Afghanistan are stable, flourishing democracies?
Of course every cloud has a silver lining and it will be a boost for the US and European arms industries, the only real winners in the last twenty years of turmoil and not forgetting our own friends, the money barons, who benefit from every crisis. To the cynic in me, these same people are also the prime movers in politics in the Western world.

Seaneh

bmaxi wrote: »

You have to wonder just in whose interest an attack on Syria would be.

These lads would do pretty well out of it. Two from the get go and one afterwards when they "help rebuild" Syria.

renegademaster

bmaxi wrote: »

You have to wonder just in whose interest an attack on Syria would be.

the 0.1%!!

karma_

Feels to me that the Obama administration has turned into another version of the Bush administration, it literally beggars belief that they are even considering giving what amounts to military assistance to Al Qaida. From what I can tell there are no 'good guys' fighting in Syria, but even if the FSA comes out on top it leaves hardline jihadists in a very strong position and there is no chance the FSA will ever be able to control them. That would leave the Kurds in a dire situation too.

COYW

karma_ wrote: »

Feels to me that the Obama administration has turned into another version of the Bush administration, it literally beggars belief that they are even considering giving what amounts to military assistance to Al Qaida. From what I can tell there are no 'good guys' fighting in Syria, but even if the FSA comes out on top it leaves hardline jihadists in a very strong position and there is no chance the FSA will ever be able to control them. That would leave the Kurds in a dire situation too.

I am not convinced that they will go ahead with these attacks. As you say, there is no good and bad in the Syrian conflict. By attacking the Assad regime they are helping the rebels, which is nothing more than a front for the extremists they fought (and are still fighting against) elsewhere.

Would Bush have done the same? I am not so sure.

Amirani

I haven't really followed the situation particularly closely over the past couple of years. Has there been much diplomatic discourse either at bilateral or UN level with the Assad Government? I don't recall any meetings between himself and other world leaders (outside of Russia, China and Iran).

Jonny7

NiallSparky wrote: »

I haven't really followed the situation particularly closely over the past couple of years. Has there been much diplomatic discourse either at bilateral or UN level with the Assad Government? I don't recall any meetings between himself and other world leaders (outside of Russia, China and Iran).

UN resolutions have been difficult to pass because Russia is a close ally of Assad.

There was an attempt by the Arab league to broker a peace plan, they claimed the Syrian government agreed to end the crackdown, however that never materialised and they literally pulled out of the country because it was too dangerous.

Diplomatic solutions are difficult because Assad wants to retain power - however he is not recognised as legitimate by most countries.

Ardent

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I was listening to Newstalk on the way into work this morning and according to Richard Fisk (who, in fairness, know his stuff) there is a LOT of confusion over there as to who is responsible. AND that the rebels are also supported by Al-Qaeda. So if the western powers do intervene, they could be intervening on the side of a force backed by the very organisation that they are attempting to eradicate

The US doesn't care about that. They are more interested in establishing a presence in the middle east, whatever the cost.

Ardent

halkar wrote: »

Lawrance of Arabia. There are many $hit stirrers in ME. I do not think Esad is stupid enough to use anything chemical. Iraq V2 is in the makings.

100% agree. Another sham in the making.

nacho libre

I think Obama has backed himself into a corner so it is likely the Americans will conduct low scale military action. It's interesting that Ban Moon contradicted Kerry about Syria leaving it too late to give access to the inspectors for a credible investigation to take place. If America do launch cruise missiles against syrian military targets, i don't see Russia doing anything other than issuing strongly worded condemnation. Russia will abandon Assad if it comes to the crunch. Bashar must know this after what happened to Slobadan Milosevic.
The real danger is what might Iran do.

quinnp

My two cents worth..Funny how the big 3 ( U.S., France, & U.K) are lining up against Syria 'round about the same time as they're preparing to pull their forces out of Iraq & Afganistan...
Looks to me like they're moving the chess pieces toward the goal of isolating Iran..
Now if only those bothersome Russians would just 'get with the programme'..:rolleyes:

Tony EH

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The war mongering being displayed by William Hague in particular is disturbing.

A further escalation of the conflict will do nothing but dramatically destabilize the entirety of the Middle East. There should be a conclusive investigation into the chemical weapons incident, and a measured response should follow. What is not needed is a hastily arranged operation ,that will do little but inflame tensions, just so certain figures can be seen to be doing something for political purposes.

What's even more disturbing is that there is nobody countering him, at least there's nobody appearing in public pulling him up on his most obvious nonsense.

His line the other day stating that "all the evidence points in one direction" was so flimsy, a stupid child could pick a hole in it.

There's been absolutely no evidence put forward that can be called even remotely convincing and the fact that warmongers like Hague are simply expecting people to believe that Assad would be foolish enough to launch a chemical attack a couple of miles away from UN inspectors, at a time when his forces are in the ascendant, beggars belief.

All he and his fellow journeymen have is the repetition of a claim.

Unfortunately, he and his ilk know that that's all you need a lot of the time. They'll keep going with it, because in the end, it doesn't really matter what people think, say, or do and in ten years time it won't be an issue, because there will be another headline and another claim to promote about somebody else (probably in the ME) and the vast majority of people will default back to their original position of not knowing who Assad is/was, or where Syria is on the map.

Larbre34

I'm in two minds on this one. I can understand how frustrating it must be to be a 'coalition' citizen these days, watching your people and your tax money being sent to the desert to fight 'somebody elses' war. On the other hand, several years of diplomatic statemate have done nothing but lead to a massive loss of innocent life, and the most awful human suffering.

An allied intervention will certainly focus people's minds, so long as its objectives are successful. However those objectives should be to remove the heavy equipment from both sides to reduce the intensity of the fighting and give the participants a more stark choice. At the same time, should the allies use manned aircraft to attack, they will be met with probably the most fierce anti-aircraft defence of any modern conflict, and could be looking at unprecedented losses. Likewise cruise missiles may not reach anywhere near the number of targets they did in Iraq.

There are a lot of reputations at stake here, none of which are Syrian - UN, NATO, new President Rouhani of Iran, Putin, as well as the interest of Turkey and Israel. There are also a number of potentially catastrophic outcomes if the wrong people are sufficiently motivated. Either way, if these inevitable air strikes are either prolonged or have undesirable outcomes, expect to be paying €3.00 a litre for your fuel come the winter time......

Suff

I find myself leaning more and more towards supporting Assad over the lunatic jihadists, FSA and the numerous armed groups.

wes

I don't see any kind of strike ending well. I think a better option would be more money for the refugees fleeing Syria. Money would be better spent in that direction imho.

A military strike will benefit no one.

riffmongous

Why is there not more western focus on training and equipping the democratic elements of the FSA? Western strikes against military targets at this point will only benefit the more effective fighting forces of the Islamic militant groups, who will also have to be dealt with if Assad is removed. For once I would love to see the 'Western Powers' actually come up with a strategy to secure the future of a country rather than just acting like some cowboy sheriff.

Jonny7

riffmongous wrote: »

Why is there not more western focus on training and equipping the democratic elements of the FSA? Western strikes against military targets at this point will only benefit the more effective fighting forces of the Islamic militant groups, who will also have to be dealt with if Assad is removed. For once I would love to see the 'Western Powers' actually come up with a strategy to secure the future of a country rather than just acting like some cowboy sheriff.

They'd be pretty aware of the situation.

Those fighting under the FSA constitute the bulk of the rebel forces, but only just - after that there are the Islamists, and the smaller group belongs to more extreme Islamic groups like Al Nusra

After 2 years of back-channels with surrounding nations - they have a fair idea who are the rebels to support (mainly secularist FSA)

Apparently fighters tend to go toward groups with the best weaponry and ammunition supplies

We'll see what happens this week.

Son Of A Vidic

In the early days of this conflict, the UN should have created a safe haven like the Kurds had in Northern Iraq. It should have also created a UN monitored no fly zone. The FSA should have also been fully supported. After all many of these guys deserted out of disgust and outrage, due to the brutality the regime was inflicting on its own people. But oh no, the UN like Emperor Nero, fiddled while Rome burned and momentum was lost.

Now we have a jigsaw of various groups and the ever growing sinister presence of extreme Salafist militias. So did Assad forces gas their own people? Or did an extreme Salafist group, like the new Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham carry it out? After all, they regard all Shia Muslims and many fellow Sunni as infidels. They recently split from Jabhat al-Nusra, who refused to submit to al-Qaeda in Iraq control. So Jabhat al-Nusra has now been superseded in the extremist stake by Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham.

The war in Iraq is long over, the war in Afghanistan soon will be. Is Syria next on the menu? Right now it might seem very unlikely, but in six/twelve month’s time will we have boots on the ground? With Ahmadinejad in power, I think the US and its allies were very wary of having a deeper involvement in Syria. So has the more moderate sounding Iranian regime and their new president. Given the US and its allies a sense that Iran will now keep its head down?

Then the biggest worry of all is the Russian Bear, their role will be pivotal in how all of this plays out. The thought of a serious deterioration in relations between the main protagonists really does not bear thinking about. Hopefully we will see nothing more than a few Tomahawks fired and hopefully Obama's ego will be assuaged.

Yes maybe it really was Assad's forces or even a wayward unit attached to them, who carried out the horrific attack. And with Russian protection and vetoing assured, they really have carte blanche to do as they will. But to determine beyond all reasonable doubt who was responsible for the attack. Must surely be bordering on the realms of the impossible. Yet the US is confidently blaming Assad. Citing claims of their 100% accurate and undeniable intelligence sources. Which makes it all very reminiscent of 2003 and those wondrously fictitious claims they made against Saddam Hussein. Now maybe they are right this time around. But forgive me for being just a little bit sceptical, of the boy who cried wolf once too often.

Jawgap

If you want to know if a strike on Syria is imminent keep an eye on Flight24 or any of the other flight tracking sites.

If a plane call sign GOTO FMS appears in UK or French airspace and just hangs around that's the cue something is in the offing.

GOTO FMS is the call sign for the US Navy's E6B 'TACAMO' aircraft which are used to provide airborne command and control.

The last time one appeared in this part of the world one Mr O B Laden got a knock on his front door from some nice men from the US Navy SEALs.