[Discussion] Syrian Conflict General Discussion

A thread to discuss the ongoing Syrian conflict.

I dunno... The eyewitness in the report you cited said both runways were hit, that's something at least.

So let's see. We've pissed off the Syrians and the Russians, with a few thousand US troops in Syria. The Russians will now strengthen Syria's air defenses (bet the Israelis are thrilled at that). We no longer have the ability to ignore Russian air units, or expect that they will not engage our flights at uncomfortable times. And we did no long-lasting damage.

This is a shot across the bow, but in my mind, it commits us to use of force in the future, against Syria buttressed by Russia. That's the real effect here.

Welcome to the big leagues, Donald.

Robear wrote:

Welcome to the bigly, Donald.

ftfy.

Snark aside, astute observation. This absolutely commits us to more action.

Though I disagree that Russia or even Assad are that upset. We warned them, saving them time, money, and material. The question really is, what do they use this provocation to get for themselves? Because the situation has absolutely changed now, I would argue that the situation changed the minute we reassured them we wouldn't remove Assad, which led to the chemical weapons attack in the first place. The minute Tillerson said that, the die was cast and something was going to give.

You may be right. Putin has certainly got his money's worth, dissing Trump after helping him. Trump is probably raging right now.

I should have said that we gave Russia an *excuse* to be pissed off at us, and they will use that public stance mercilessly.

There's a strategist on twitter saying that neither Russia nor Syria even tried to shoot down any of those missiles despite having the capability to do so (though tomahawks are supposed to be difficult to hit).

I can't verify that, of course, but if that's true, that confirms that this entire enterprise was a PR move for all parties involved.

I kind of think that this round of posturing by Russia ends in Trump lifting their sanctions as a way to soothe tensions and gosh who wouldn't support that, given how important our relationship with Russia is in the war on Terror I'll tell you Terrorists that's who.

Can't be bothered to write a less glib prediction in the actual prediction thread, but that's what my gut is on this right now.

Some opinions/observations:

- Some of the US media, much of the GOP, and some Dems have been relatively enthusiastic about this. Specifically, that this makes him "look presidential". Which makes me wonder if their main objection to him was his tastelessness rather than any of the substantial reasons to object to him.

- In my opinion, this seems to be an unstable political precedent. The American president launches an attack with little to no warning, and without telling Congress about it? What does this mean for, say, North Korea? It does up the deterrence factor a bit to have an unpredictable agent, but it also makes other more concerned about a first strike...

- Why take action now, rather than after the earlier uses of chemical weapons? I have an (unproven) suspicion it's because the president saw injured children on the evening news and demanded that action be taken...

- Alternately, with the isolationist Bannon being on outs and the military being in, that may have influenced the decision-making, as several sources have said the the president is prone to following to whoever he listened to last.

- Apparently, no one reads Clausewitz any more. If war is a continuation of politics by other means, what, exactly, was the political end of this strike? Seems to be solely aimed at getting Assad to stop using chemical weapons, but without the State department or anyone else's involvement in managing the aftermath.

oilypenguin wrote:

There's a strategist on twitter saying that neither Russia nor Syria even tried to shoot down any of those missiles despite having the capability to do so (though tomahawks are supposed to be difficult to hit).

I can't verify that, of course, but if that's true, that confirms that this entire enterprise was a PR move for all parties involved.

Pantsir/Tunguska, widely deployed by Russians in the theater, is capable of shooting down cruise missiles and according to this article in Russian has been marketed specifically as an anti-Tomahawk measure.

This is fine.

US investigating possible Russian involvement in Syrian gas attack

The Pentagon is looking into whether Russia participated or assisted in the April 4 chemical attack in Syria, as well as well as an attack on a local hospital, senior U.S. military officials said Friday.

“We have no knowledge of Russian involvement in this attack, but we will investigate any information that might lead us in that direction,” a senior official told reporters during a background briefing at the Pentagon. “We’re not done.”

Officials said a Russian-made drone hovered over the hospital where chemical weapons victims were taken following an attack that left at least 70 civilians dead and hundreds injured. Syrian forces own Russian-made aircraft and drones, making it difficult to determine who controlled the plane.

Five hours later, the drone returned and the hospital was struck by munitions dropped from a separate fixed-wing aircraft.

“We don’t know why somebody or who struck that, we don’t have positive accountability yet, but the fact that somebody would strike the hospital potentially to hide the evidence of a chemical attack, about five hours after is a question that we’re very interested in,” the official said.

Officials said the drone and the aircraft that dropped the munitions on the hospital could have been owned by Russian or Syrian forces and that they are investigating the identity.

oilypenguin wrote:

This is also fine.

Jets attacking from base we bombed last night.

Well that seems pretty incompetent. Did we specifically strike the boonies around the air force base just so it would look like we did something.

Gremlin wrote:

Some opinions/observations:

- In my opinion, this seems to be an unstable political precedent. The American president launches an attack with little to no warning, and without telling Congress about it? What does this mean for, say, North Korea? It does up the deterrence factor a bit to have an unpredictable agent, but it also makes other more concerned about a first strike...

This is basically what Trump has been saying his policy would be. He's not going to give notice, he's not going to ask for permission. He has specifically said that his foreign military strategy is to be "unpredictable" and "keep you [the media, in context] in suspense".

Yonder wrote:

This is basically what Trump has been saying his policy would be. He's not going to give notice, he's not going to ask for permission. He has specifically said that his foreign military strategy is to be "unpredictable" and "keep you [the media, in context] in suspense".

Excepts it's looking like he did give notice... Just not to our media.

You gotta warn the boss. Every lacky knows that.

Yonder wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

This is also fine.

Jets attacking from base we bombed last night.

Well that seems pretty incompetent. Did we specifically strike the boonies around the air force base just so it would look like we did something.

Probably more schools and hospitals.

Still fine.

Russia suspends military communication line with US in Syria

Russia is suspending a communications channel with the United States set up to avoid midair incidents between Russian and U.S. pilots in the skies over the Syria.

The move is in response to a U.S. missile strike on a Syrian airfield carried out on Thursday in retaliation for a chemical attack by the administration of Syrian President Bashar Assad on Tuesday.

“Russia suspends the Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the course of operations in Syria signed with the US,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement Friday.

Russia and the United States set up the so-called deconfliction line in October 2015 after Russian air forces intervened in the ongoing Syrian civil war.

News roundup:

New airstrikes hit Syrian town targeted by chemical weapons

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/syrian-warplanes-take-air-base-bombed-us-tomahawks/
IMAGE(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/04/08/tomahawk1-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqZyr7RvqrFlHdIeGHHfdSfmwWMIa6ROzpVxfgVoPIevI.jpg)

Syrian warplanes took off from the air base hit by US cruise missiles yesterday to carry out bombing raids on rebel-held areas, in a defiant show of strength.

Just hours after the al-Shayrat airfield was bombed with 59 US Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from warships in the Mediterranean, aircraft struck targets in the eastern Homs countryside, according to a monitoring group.

The airstrikes were carried out on Khan Sheikhoun - the same town Bashar al-Assad’s regime is accused of attacking with chemicals - and seven other towns around eastern Homs, some of which controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

Col. Hassan Hamade, a Syrian pilot who defected in June 2012 when he landed his MiG-21 in Jordan, agreed.

"The bombardment of Shayrat will not have a major effect on military operations of the regime," said Mr Hamade, speaking to The Associated Press. He said if only the tarmac was destroyed it can be fixed within hours, but if the communications system and the control tower were heavily damaged it will take weeks if not months.

Syrian government officials said the base has played an instrumental role in the fight against the Islamic State group, which until recently controlled the historic town of Palmyra in Homs province.

"This very airport that was attacked by the United States has been fighting against terrorists for the last six years," Buthaina Shaaban, an adviser to Mr Assad, said.

How accurate was U.S. strike on Syrian airbase?

Defense officials told CBS News on Friday that 58 of the 59 missiles launched from two U.S. warships on Thursday hit the Shayrat airbase as intended. It was unclear to U.S. officials where the 59th missile had landed after it suffered an apparent GPS failure, CBS News correspondent David Martin reported.

Russia and Syria attempted to downplay the efficacy of the U.S. strike on Friday, suggesting little meaningful damage was done and claiming Syria had time to remove some of its military hardware from the site before the missiles -- carrying a combined payload of about 59,000 pounds of explosives -- touched down at about 3:45 a.m. local time.

U.S. defense officials speaking to CBS News’ Martin on Friday were unambiguous; Syria did not have time to get any of its planes away from Shayrat before the strike.

Syrian governor confirms air base operating again

U.S. President Donald Trump suggested on Twitter that the runway itself had not been the target of the missile strikes.

"The reason you don't generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!", he said.

A senior military source in the alliance fighting in support of President Bashar al-Assad said the airbase had been mostly evacuated thanks to a warning from Russia, which has deployed its military to Syria in support of Assad.

The senior military source, a non-Syrian, said only a few out-of-service jets were destroyed.

The United States warned Russia ahead of the attack.

Assad is also backed in the war by Iran and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, and other Iranian-backed groups.

The Pentagon said the missiles targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage areas, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars.

UK defence minister: Russia responsible by proxy for Syria chemical deaths

Britain said on Sunday Russia bore responsibility by proxy for civilian deaths in Syria last week caused by a poison gas attack that Washington says was carried out by the Moscow-backed government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

At least 70 people died in what the United States says was a chemical weapons attack in rebel-held Syria. The attack prompted the United States to fire 59 cruise missiles into a Syrian air base from which it said the attack was launched.

Damascus and Moscow denied Syrian forces were behind the gas attack but Western countries dismissed their explanation that chemicals leaked from a rebel weapons depot after an air strike.

Was Trump’s Syria Strike Illegal? Explaining Presidential War Powers

WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he had legal authority to commit the act of war.

Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment for Syria’s violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale.

The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide — the president or Congress — whether the United States should attack another country.

Um.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States has concluded Russia knew in advance of Syria's chemical weapons attack last week, a senior U.S. official said Monday.

The official said a drone operated by Russians was flying over a hospital as victims of the attack were rushing to get treatment. Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons.

The senior official said the U.S. has no proof of Russian involvement in the actual chemical attack in northern Syria.

But the official said the presence of the surveillance drone over the hospital couldn't have been a coincidence, and that Russia must have known the chemical weapons attack was coming and that victims were seeking treatment.

I'm sure Trump has a volley of Tomahawk missiles headed to Moscow now.

Jayhawker wrote:

I'm sure Trump has a volley of Tomahawk missiles headed to Moscow now.

They'll just rebuild the Kremlin.

Annnd I'm done with Syria news now. Buh bye.

Russia is moving forward with two narratives today:

1.) There are no chemical weapons in Syria and this is the US invading Iraq again.

2.) There are more chemical weapons and they will be deployed to provoke the US.

I highly recommend following Molly McKew on twitter.

IMAGE(https://scontent.fagc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17862841_1974158459471025_4151396515103749485_n.jpg?oh=53fd6fad3c32ce595a3d5164d4c2c789&oe=594DE2B3)

Coalition airstrike in Syria mistakenly kills 18 US-backed fighters

An airstrike on Tuesday by the coalition fighting ISIS south of Tabqah, Syria, killed 18 U.S.-supported fighters, U.S. Central Command announced.

The strike killed members of the Syrian Democratic Forces, a local group of fighters that the U.S. and a coalition of 67 other nations and organizations support in the shared goal of defeating ISIS.

"The strike was requested by the partnered forces, who had identified the target location as an ISIS fighting position," CENTCOM said in a statement.

Instead, the position was occupied by members of the SDF, 18 of whom were killed as a result.