CBS News: Pentagon Preparing for Cruise Missile Attack on Syrian Government Forces

 

The U.S. is making “initial preparations” for a cruise missile attack on Syrian Government Forces amid reports that they have employed the use of chemical weapons, CBS News reported on Friday night.
 
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel confirmed on Friday the president has asked the Pentagon to prepare military options, some of which “requires repositioning our forces,” however, would not go into details about what that might entail.
 
On Saturday, President Obama is meeting with his national security team to determine the next steps the U.S. will take.
According to the AP, the White House is still seeking to confirm whether or not Syria used chemical weapons. Officials say once the facts are made clear, Obama will make a decision on how the U.S. will respond.
 
An attack on the Damascus suburbs killing hundreds is “looking more and more like a poison gas was used,” according to CBS News.
The U.S. also reportedly detected activity at Syrian chemical weapons sites before the attack.  Link

*Sigh*  Guess we're about to get involved in yet another war.  Wasn't Obama the man that was supposed to end our wars?  Maybe he just meant he was gonna get us out of Iraq and continue a bunch of hit and run attacks all over the middle east?
 
I tellya what I think is going on.  The Muslim Brotherhood.  They are now one of the dominant groups in opposition to the Syrian regime over there now.  Obama supports the brotherhood, not sure why.  He approved of Morosi being installed in Egypt (and that fell apart) and now he wants to help the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.  But we've seen how peaceful and democratic the Muslim Brotherhood is as evidenced by the burning of hundreds of Coptic Churches in Egypt.  Yeah, that's a group we want to support. 

Why does Obama support the Brotherhood?  Remember that I posted recently that Obama's brother was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? 
 
Well, its his half-brother.  Malik Obama’s oversight of the Muslim Brotherhood’s international investments is one reason for the Obama administration’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to an Egyptian report citing the vice president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, Tehani al-Gebali
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/obamas-brother-linked-to-muslim-brotherhood/#lgMRQ6gW5RQXkVGX.99

Now this probably wont be found on CBS or NBC.  But rather an Egyptian report. And FOX news and Politico have reported that Muslim
Brotherhood officials have routinely visited the White House.

Barack Obama is compromising American security by allowing “radical Islamists” access to the White House, according to a report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
The organization reported this week that “scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.”
The information was obtained from visitor logs at the White House as well as court documents and “other records” that have identified many of the visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant groups.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/radical-islamists-routinely-visit-white-house/#6M62VdtRBGYgJCiF.99

Also the SF Chronicle:

“Interestingly, the Obama administration’s enthusiastic support for gay rights did not prevent it from inviting Islamists who support laws overseas giving gays the death penalty,” the report said. “In a June 21, 2001, article in The San Francisco Chronicle, Muzammil Siddiqi, the former head of Islamic Society of North America, said he ‘supported laws in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.’ Siddiqi met with Monteiro on June 8, 2010.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/radical-islamists-routinely-visit-white-house/#6M62VdtRBGYgJCiF.99

At any rate, the Muslim Brotherhood figures pretty strongly in all of this.  And they are in bed with our president.  Whod have ever thought we'd see the day when the American President was making deals with a radical islamists?

If we were to attack, why would we make a point to tell the media? I wonder how much of this is truly planning for an attack and how much is posturing.

I forget which newspaper you guys don't like, the Wash Times or the Wash Post, but both have reported on this:

Muslim Brotherhood officials aim to promote moderate image in Washington visit

White House downplays meeting with Muslim Brotherhood

As did Fox News:
Why Was Muslim Scholar With Radical Ties at White House?


There's a cozy picture.    Seriously though...since when did the WH go into negotiations with a group like the Muslim Brotherhood???

Bryant wrote:If we were to attack, why would we make a point to tell the media?  I wonder how much of this is truly planning for an attack and how much is posturing.

Good question.  The media has a way of finding these things out.  Remember the Black Hawk down situation during the Clinton Administration?  We invaded and there was a host of news media on the beach waiting for us.

Dennis324 wrote:

Bryant wrote:If we were to attack, why would we make a point to tell the media?  I wonder how much of this is truly planning for an attack and how much is posturing.

Good question.  The media has a way of finding these things out.  Remember the Black Hawk down situation during the Clinton Administration?  We invaded and there was a host of news media on the beach waiting for us.

I was too young to remember any of that, all I know about that incident came from a movie  

We tell everyone now-a-days that we are coming. We got that much balls.

Iran warns against U.S. crossing Syria 'red line'

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday warned the United States against crossing the "red line" on Syria, saying it would have "severe consequences", according to the Fars news agency.
"America knows the limitation of the red line of the Syrian front and any crossing of Syria's red line will have severe consequences for the White House," said Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, reacting to statements by Western officials regarding the possibility of military intervention in Syria, according to Fars.

I'm not worried too much about Iran's capabilities at the moment, but what if they had nukes?  Ron Paul has indicated that (a) they weren't trying to get nukes, and (b) so what if they do?  (Not quotes).

This right here is why we don't want Iran or Syria or Egypt, or Saudi or whoever to get nukes.  It would change the whole ballgame.  If one of those regimes wanted to harass or invade an ally, and they had nukes...I have little doubt those fools would use them!  Just to see what would happen.

Only if they also want to bring about their own destruction.

Dennis324 wrote:
We invaded and there was a host of news media on the beach waiting for us.

*sigh* the one time you'd ever wish for a "friendly fire" incident, and they didn't take advantage. Only way that could have been a more perfect target is if the newsies brought all their lawyers with them.

We could pretty much tell them the time and place of a missile strike, and its not as if they could do anything about it

Sir Pun wrote:We could pretty much tell them the time and place of a missile strike, and its not as if they could do anything about it

They could leave the target site. If your goal is to take out infrastructure to hamstring Assad then it may not matter, but if you want to take out Assad's leadership the last thing you want to do is forecast your moves. Thats one of Sun Wu's most basic lessons.

Bryant wrote:

Sir Pun wrote:We could pretty much tell them the time and place of a missile strike, and its not as if they could do anything about it

They could leave the target site.  If your goal is to take out infrastructure to hamstring Assad then it may not matter, but if you want to take out Assad's leadership the last thing you want to do is forecast your moves.  Thats one of Sun Wu's most basic lessons.

I think you mean Sun Tzu... :-P

And is likely what they'd do is to move all the useful military assets out of the area and bus in a load of schoolchildren instead. That way after the strike they have loads of pictures of "innocent victims of the great satan" to splash all over the media (who will lap it up) and for their buddies Russia to use to block any action in the UN with.

Miles1 wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Sir Pun wrote:We could pretty much tell them the time and place of a missile strike, and its not as if they could do anything about it

They could leave the target site.  If your goal is to take out infrastructure to hamstring Assad then it may not matter, but if you want to take out Assad's leadership the last thing you want to do is forecast your moves.  Thats one of Sun Wu's most basic lessons.

I think you mean Sun Tzu... :-P

And is likely what they'd do is to move all the useful military assets out of the area and bus in a load of schoolchildren instead. That way after the strike they have loads of pictures of "innocent victims of the great satan" to splash all over the media (who will lap it up) and for their buddies Russia to use to block any action in the UN with.

Wu is his personal name, Tzu was a title bestowed upon him.

I think we're posturing to gain additional leverage. If Assad thinks that we're unwilling to directly engage him he'll ignore our threats and red lines. If he thinks we might actually act on our threats he might back down. Sun Wu argued that if your army is larger than your enemy's, use it to surround your opponent. By showing how vast and superior you are, and how pointless fighting against you will be, you can force your opponent to give up without a fight.

If we do plan to attack, I hope this is all misdirection. Draw his attention this way and then hit from another. We have the most powerful military in the world, I'd like to think he have some folks with an appreciation for military strategy.

As for Iran. If we do directly attack Assad's forces we need to diplomatically engage Iran. If we take Assad out we should ease some non-essential economic sanctions on Iran. They'll still call us nasty names, but it may prevent Irans new government from walking away from the table.

Syria Will Allow U.N. To Inspect Chemical Weapons Claims
by Eyder Peralta
NPR News

The United Nations says it is sending inspectors to the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack in Damascus, Syria.

In a statement, a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said the Bashar Assad regime "affirmed that it will provide the necessary cooperation" for the investigation, so inspectors, who are already in Damascus, will head to the Ghouta area on Monday.

A senior Obama administration official dismissed the Syrian concessions.

"At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN team is too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime's persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days," the official said, adding that there is "little doubt" that a "chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident."

The president, however, is still assessing the situation to "make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons."

Earlier today the United States and Britain said that Syria will face a "serious response" from the international community, if they find it used chemical weapons last week.

That's according to a statement released by Prime Minister David Cameron, after a 40 minute phone conversation with President Obama on Saturday.

"'The UN Security Council has called for immediate access for UN investigators on the ground in Damascus,' Downing Street said in a statement.

'The fact that President Assad has failed to co-operate with the UN suggests that the regime has something to hide.'

"It said Mr Cameron and Mr Obama had 'reiterated that significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response from the international community and both have tasked officials to examine all the options.'"

The BBC's political correspondent Iain Watson reports that it is understood that a "serious response" would not include "boots on the ground."

All of this new rhetoric is, of course, the result of the alleged use of chemical weapons in Damascus. , Doctors Without Borders said that according to field reports, "355 people had died from symptoms consistent with being exposed to a neurotoxic agent."

Bryant wrote:
Wu is his personal name, Tzu was a title bestowed upon him.

Ah, so "Sun Wu" to his friends then :-P

I don't understand what we plan to do with those warships though.  Lob a few rockets into Syria and call it a day?  What good does that do?  Kill a bunch of folks so Obama can say he tried to do something?  Most likely Miles is right about them bussing in school kids too.

Imo, if you are gonna attack someone, you need to be resolved to the idea of going in and totally conquering the enemy, making them submit totally.  Install martial law like we did in Japan.

Otherwise, don't waste your time.  We'll only get more bad PR out of this.

Yeah thats all this is gonna be, is like a shock and awe light. And the reason obama feels he has to do something now is because he gave the big red line speech, and didnt do anything last time chem weapons were used, and was highly criticized for it. I dont even see this as being a strategic campaign. If we really wanted to cripple the infrastructure and behead the leadership, we'd have to have at least a conventional air campaign. Cant just lob half a dozen missiles into damascus and call it a day

Here's the problem with all this.  I know full well we can maneuver our fleet around without everyone in the world knowing where our ships are.  We did it allthe time when I was in.  Lots of misdirection was given back when we engaged Khadafi back then.  The media thought we were in Greece, while I could look out the hangerbay and see Triploli.
 
Anyway, rather than move our ships quietly to to within range of Syria, we have this big announcement that we are moving our fleet over there in a big show of force.
 
Now...whats he gonna do?  Obama pretty much HAS to fire off those missiles just to save face.  Otherwise the world will think we backed down and are merely a paper tiger, which will be yet another blow to American prestige.
 
This is like saying you are gonna kick somebody's butt after school and then showing up with the crowd around watching...and backing down!  You gotta fight to protect your rep.
 
Whole thing should never have happened imo.  But we're there now and the crowd is watching.

Heard obamas red line remark months back, was an off the cuff statement (probably borrowed from netanyahus un speech). So he kind of backed us into this corner because of a non scripted line. Stick to the prompter obama.

I can think of one way out of this but it involves a number of steps.
 
1. Move a carrier into the region.  A carrier carries around 80 planes.  We also have air bases in Turkey and in Naples Italy.  Plenty close enough to provide strategic bombing and air support for ground forces.
 
2. Move about 4 MORE destroyers into the area.
 
3. The CIA should already be in Syria coordinating with the rebel leaders about a ground invasion.
 
4. Call for Assad's resignation immediately.
 
5.  When he refuses (and he will), launch strategic attacks.  Bomb all airbases, runways, aircraft, anti-aircraft gun emplacements and barracks.  Also knock out poison gas depots.  Theres a good chance we already know where they are.  Hit Assad's palace(s) and strategic ops facilities.  Take out bases and while you're at it, blow up the 50,000 strong joint Hezbollah / Iranian militia that is firmly encamped there.  Knock it all out.
 
6.  After about a week of raining hellfire down on them, let the Syrian rebels roll in and assume control.
 
7.  Immediately have the State Dept go in and work with Rebel leaders to set up a new govt.
 
Problems:
 
A) There are no good guys in this. 
B)  Toppling the regime will most likely mean that Syria becomes a radical jihadist State which will threaten Israel from now on.
 
Its not what I would like to do.  But this would let Obama save face now that he's already stuck his foot in his mouth.  As I see it, its his only way out.
 
(One other thing.  When he does this, Syria is most likely going to turn its guns on Israel.  Hezbollah will most likely begin shelling them as well as sending suicide bombers into Jerusalem).  Very likely the whole region will destabilize and become a war zone.  Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan will most likely be drawn in and the Palestinians will also probably attack.  Again, this is a mess and not something I'm calling for.

Sounds like an even worse idea than lobbing some rocks over the fence

It is a bad idea, but its the only way I can see Obama saving face here.  To totally conquer Syria.  The best option would have been to never send the ships over there, never had mentioned a red line, never have sent arms and money over there to begin with.

If Obama doesn't do this he's gonna come away looking like a total fool.

I think we sent those ships there for leverage. If he backs down we look good. If he doesn't back down we'll have to attack him (either way). We're not the only nation considering this, the French (make all the jokes you want, the French can kick around third world dictators with the best of them) and Brits want to attack.

And what if UN inspectors find out that the AQ rebels, that we have been supporting, are the ones who used the weapons???

A lot of folks in a lot of countries are going to be eating a lot of crow.