August 27, 2013 at 22:20
In the last 48 hours, a bevy U.S. officials have plans to strike limited takes no more than two days and include firing rockets from destroyers at sea or from fighter jets battleship, the specific military objectives, so as to “punish” the regime of President Bashar al-Assad to use chemical weapons in Gota.
Washington appears along with the Alliance of Western and Arabic scale, closer than ever to a military strike against Syria, in response to the massacre of Gota, which claimed the lives of hundreds, including women and children insulation. Taking became the option of resorting enjoys the support of a political and media widely in the West, contrary to what was the case before a short time, varying views of military experts and political analysts of the feasibility of strikes “surgical” limited Syrian military targets, and its ability to achieve deterrence is envisaged, or registration of a breakthrough in the crisis taking place in Syria two years ago and almost five months.
And include a list of objectives traded according to the newspaper “Daily Mail” British “the Syrian air defense system integrated, and command and control centers and communications hubs bunkers and government buildings, missile sites and Air Force’s
The regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Also, the paper said other options to carry out air attacks on the Syrian units that are believed to be responsible for the implementation of the chemical attacks, including the 155 Brigade of the Fourth Armored Division, which has a military base in the mountain range west of Damascus under the command of Maher al-Assad, the Syrian president’s brother.
For its part, published the magazine “Foreign Policy” Map of 35 sites suspected chemical weapons sites identified by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in addition to sites Table Force bases, and suggested that تطاولها the U.S. missile strikes.
In any case, U.S. officials say the options that are taught are not new and do not open, so that strikes Ltd. was one of the proposals made by the Ministry of Defense, “Pentagon” to President Barack Obama. In a letter addressed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey to Congress last June , said that “potential targets include air defense systems and sophisticated missiles – Joe and naval forces, as well as facilities support military and command centers.” Although Dempsey, who questioned the feasibility of military involvement directly in Syria, he said that such a process requires “hundreds” ships ” The fighters, has cost “billions”, the process is “drawing” looks much smaller and designed to send a message rather than Shell’s military capability of the Syrian regime and change the balance of power on the ground.
For his part, shows a military analyst Christopher Harmer, a scheme previously in the U.S. Navy, in an interview with the magazine “Foreign Policy” serious doubts on the feasibility of U.S. plans in circulation. Said that “there is great confidence in the impact of strikes surgical forces Assad, while there is only Talk limited regarding the broader goals that are supposed be achieved by such attacks. “And what’s more concerned at the absence of a strategic objective of the operation possible, warning that” the movements of tactical in the absence of strategic goals are usually useless. “and explains:” I was clear in it (strikes surgical) option costs Mkhvod, but the most important issue is that these options do not achieve any benefit only if they are linked to the objectives and priorities of the strategy …. can any officer in the Navy firing 30 or 40 Tomahawk cruise missile. it’s not difficult. difficulty lies in the explanation of how strategic planners This process service American interests. “, it questioned the possibility to achieve surgical strikes the desired results, especially if the aim was to punish the Assad regime to use supposed chemical weapons. went on to say that” the process of disciplinary are the most crap “, especially after the” Show System Assad tremendous ability to withstand pain, and I do not think that we have a decision to take disciplinary measures sufficient deterrent to him. ”
Moreover, Harmer questioned the effectiveness of the destruction of chemical weapons to Assad, saying: “If we hit targets of chemical weapons in Syria, the logical response would be to start Assad distribution of any remaining weapons in warehouses, on his troops, if it has not already done so … In doing so, they have a lot on the late battle. ”
The estimate Harmer, who put last July detailed study of surgical strikes entitled: “sorties and weapons required to undermine the Air Force Syrian, excluding air defense system integrated”, carrying destroyers American four published by the Washington, on average, finally, some 180 rockets “Tomahawk.” In his view, must augmented by a missile submarines sailing in the Eastern Mediterranean and that “in order to inflict damage timer” in the operational methods of the system, but “not destroy its military capabilities or chemical weapons.”
“Do not destroy Syrian weapons”
Shared by questioning the feasibility of strikes surgical putative military analyst veteran “Center Strategic and International Studies,” Anthony Cordesman, saying that “more missile strikes success of the sea will not destroy weapons Syria.” He wrote in a study published recently that “not a real chance that the U.S. could to determine the location of each property (weapons) and destruction of the Syrian campaign without massive air and some ground forces. Even if Assad had not resorted to disperse a large part of their weapons in recent months, do not enjoy those cruise missiles destructive capability. ”
With regards to Robert Satloff, “the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,” will be strikes surgical supposed “mistake.” He said in a newspaper “Politico”: “In the best case, will these blows to identify ways acceptable to carry out mass killings, and perhaps also the quantities accepted weapons chemicals that can be used. ”
“The problem in the system, not weapons,”
Generally, says George Friedman of the Institute, “Stratfor” The problem is not chemical weapons, adding: “Under the definition of this war, the problem lies in a system used chemical weapons. It is difficult to imagine how an attack on chemical weapons to avoid an attack on the system, and the regulations do not destroy from the air. achieve this requires ground forces. “and go over it to say that” regimes that take off likes to be replaced by another, and no one can say for sure that the system succeeds Assad would be grateful to those who Khalauh “.
Historically, did not prove strikes disciplinary effective in deterrence. The year 1986, bombing of the Americans Bab al-Aziziya, the headquarters of Colonel late Muammar Gaddafi, in response to the bombing, which accused him of Tripoli to the nightclub “La Belle” nightclub in West Berlin. However, did not deter the strike Gaddafi regime for the bombing of plane Albonig “of the company” Pan Am “American over Lockerbie two years later.
Campaign to topple Assad
In any case, there is of the opinion that the real challenge in Syria is not an end to the use of chemical weapons, but the death toll of 120 thousand and wounded whose number exceeded 200 thousand, in addition to millions of refugees. All of that in his view, requires a commitment to American’s largest against the Syrian regime.
In this context, see Micah Zenko, a researcher at the Center for Preventive Action of the Council on Foreign Relations U.S. It is unlikely that such an intervention narrowly to this extent, and not lead to the commitment of U.S. military broader civil war in Syria. Said that the attack Western help opposition Syrian, and will not lead to prevent the use of chemical weapons only “so it’s likely to turn a campaign to topple Assad!”.