Syria: How could Assad potentially respond militarily to Cruise Missile strikes?

If there's always a proxy interest in one party or another in global situations and if it's always impossible to find and present conclusive evidence during a civil war about who did this attack or that attack then how can the U.N. be useful in this scenario apart form to show up who is acting the a$$holes - in this case Russia and maybe China.

All that ends up happening just as in this case is that International law is decided on by one single party - in this case Russia - and who thinks Russia should be deciding that?

The convention is very simple, it says you can't use chemical weapons ever under any circumstances - it's overwhelmingly likely that Assad's forces did, whether he ordered it or not doesn't matter - so they need to take action against him - separate to tilting the balance in favor of the rebel side. This is about protecting a vitally important global norm to keep others from using chemical weapons and it's not negotiable.

I think they need to go as far as hitting his air force and command and control sites.... and then later be also committed to doing something/anything about the chemical sites.

IF Assad begins an all-out massacre on his own people killing tens of thousands of civilians, essentially genocide, then the world needs to come together and do something about it for sure. But for now this is about the chemical attack.

What Obama is committing himself to IMO:

1 Obama is committed to this cruise missile attack now. Has to happen no going back.
2 He is also committing himself to securing or destroying those chemical stocks IF it seems Assad will use them i.e. if there is major movement of them to load them into scuds etc etc as unlikely as anything else Assad has done!
3 I think he is also committing himself to stepping in on behalf of Syrian civilians IF Assad begins genocidal massacre of Syrian civilians and by 'stepping in' I mean raising a coalition of the willing, doing the U.N. thing properly and then taking down Assad with a full invasion.

There is no 100% control now from Obama's point of view. That train has left the station.

Depending on what Assad does this could go all the way. I hope it doesn't but if Assad is slipping into desperation mode and if he is going to fight to the death then his military actions are likely to reflect that psychology of 'do anything to survive' and as the rebels receive more and more arms, better arms, possibly even shoulder fired rockets and make any gains then it is easy to see this thing eventually going all the way which begs the question - What can the US do after the Cruise Strike to avoid being pulled into a full invasion further down the road as Assad acts more and more desperate in the civil war?

Do you let them kill each other for years and reduce each others forces as has been bandied about in the media? Pretty harsh stuff but that's the Realist approach being talked about.

Do you keep arms supply to soft non-lethal options as they 'say' they've been doing... even though there are many reports of arms coming into Syria from Gulf partners with the aid of US 'Advisers' in Jordan etc so this is not entirely true. It's all semantic BS at this stage. Not a tenable position anymore. If the US aren't giving lethal aid then the Gulf Partners are anyway.

Do you give them shoulder fired rockets which could really turn things up in the civil war allowing them to take out tanks and armoured vehicles and road blocks..... in enough number could really change things. It would result in massive bloodshed and genuinely could result in an AQ affiliated group getting their hands on shoulder fired weapons which could take out an airliner somewhere in the middle east... or turn up beside an airport in the US by way of Mexico. At least this is the argument anyway.

There is major risk involved in this Cruise Missile attack but I think it is necessary and justified. There's always risk in every military operation. Calm heads in the countries surrounding Syria is what is required - Russia and Israel especially.

Moon is saying the inspectors need 4 more days. But they won't point to who did it anyway so.. what will they eventually say?

There was a chemical attack
Hundreds died
It was a nerve gas of some sort
It involved many rockets
It happened in a place where the state forces were pushing rebels out of

the US has already said it is sure Assad's forces are responsible already and that it won't allow Russia to dictate international law by vetoing the U.N. resolution necessary to take legal military action.

Whoever conducted the attack broke international law,
whoever is going to punish them for it will have to it seems.

I agree with not waiting IF there is a time sensitive military reason

yeah true but this attack is not about killing soldiers it's primarily about destroying assets and allowing residents to move away from these structures, if they are indeed in the target set, is a good thing too. I assume the main target is air power infrastructure and anti aircraft/anti missile assets. Those are not likely embedded in civilian areas and it wouldn't matter if soldiers evacuated or not they can't move the air bases.

But deffo the more time Assad has, the more he can do.

Like I said I would support the US hitting Assad right now, if there was a time sensitive military reason, as opposed to waiting around for Britain's internal political games or even for the U.N. report which the American's say will only back up what they already are sure about - that Assad's forces are ultimately responsible for the chemical attack.

But IF there are no real tactically important time sensitive aspects to this punitive Cruise missile strike then by all means wait for the report form the inspectors and for Ed Milliband to stop playing games, go through the U.N. theater, get blocked by Russia and do it anyway on grounds for protecting the convention against Chemical weapons.

There's always some Iranian foolish General to run his mouth off and make things worse with silly overboard comments and make them all look like mental Jihadists, which they aren't. What an eejit.

Reuters: "Iran's Revolutionary Guards chief said a U.S. military attack on Syria would lead to the 'imminent destruction' of Israel and would prove a 'second Vietnam' for America, according to an Iranian news agency. ... Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said in an interview late on Wednesday with the Tasnim news agency that a U.S. strike on Syria would not help Israel. 'An attack on Syria will mean the imminent destruction of Israel,' Jafari said, according to Tasnim."