Is is possible to have a strike targeted to Syria's fighter jets?

[pnwmom]

The ones on the ground, I mean -- to prevent them from dropping bombs on their people.

Just wondering . . .

[KittyWampus]

1. that would do far more than prevent bombs… the only way Assad's forces can move supplies is jet >

the rebels control most of the ground.

[last1standing]

2. Wouldn't that cause both jets and bombs to drop on their people?

Seems counter-productive but then war usually does.

[KittyWampus]

4. presumably poster means bombing jets on airfields. Or bombing airfields so jets have nowhere to land

[pnwmom]

8. Yes!

[pnwmom]

9. I meant on parked fighter jets. Sorry. n/t

[last1standing]

10. Nope. I should have asked for clarification.

And yes, striking grounded jets would cause many problems for Assad - if our mission is to aid the rebels. If our stated task is to take out chemical weapons storage facilities then such a move would smell of mission creep.

[pnwmom]

12. I thought we couldn't take out chemical weapons storage facilities without exposing

civilians to poison gas.

[last1standing]

13. We wouldn't. That's why this isn't such a simple operation.

We can't punish Assad by taking out his storage facilities without endangering civilians and we can't bomb his jets without taking sides with some very unsavory rebels.

While I'm rather disgusted with the manipulations being used to drum us into war, I'm not solidly against action. However, that action must be thought out much, much better than it has so far been, must have international approval through the UN or NATO, Congressional approval, and must include plans for possible escalation, withdrawal, and exactly on what terms we can claim success.

As I stated in another thread, all those things would make it difficult to go to war, but going to war should be difficult.

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. then why have we been training the rebels on how to control and secure chemical weapons already?

[last1standing]

16. Why indeed?

Why are we training a group of people who we know are just as ruthless as Assad in how to control and secure chemical weapons? I have no answer to that question.

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. We know that how? Because a minority of them are Al Queda?

have you not seen the list of groups that are all supporters of the rebels? Its a pretty long list and a pretty diverse group...

[last1standing]

19. Ok then. I see you don't want to have a serious conversation.

I'm not here to argue over exactly what percentage are al Qaeda and how many are Muslim Brotherhood. If you want to discuss this honestly by accepting the dangers of training these rebels without knowing their loyalties or their plans, then please let me know. If you merely wish to justify each and every move taken by this government then please look elsewhere.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. OHHHH I get it....

if someone disagrees with you....that's unacceptable. Besides you don't want a discussion...you just want to be able to control the rules of the conversation.....I have to just accept what you determine is acceptable content.

[last1standing]

21. It's unacceptable to claim there's no danger in training these groups.

If you can't agree with that statement then we can't even begin to realistically discuss this issue. You can think I'm an ass, and maybe I am, but I won't bicker back and forth about whether training these guys in the handling of chemical weapons is a good thing. I don't have the time or patience.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. who the hell ever said that?

but do you not understand that having them overtake Assad and NOT know what the dangers of what they will then control are...is THAT not even more dangerous?

[last1standing]

24. Now we agree on something.

Yes, both options are very dangerous with your scenario being the worse of the two. So the next question we need to be asking is can we keep these weapons out of the hands of the rebels while taking them out of the hands of the Syrian government? Personally, I don't think we can without troops on the ground.

[pnwmom]

23. Because the rebels control territory where chemical weapons are stored?

If they do, it would make sense that they need to keep them secured.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. Excellent ^^^ point

[TM99]

27. So the rebels control the territory where the chemical weapons

are stored, and yet, if any one even remotely suggests that perhaps the rebels did this and not Assad, we are laughed at?

It is hard to make the case for Assad's responsibility in this when the chemical weapon stores are not under his control, n'est pas?

[pnwmom]

30. The rebels could be controlling some territory where chemical weapons are stored

but not have the means to deliver them -- at least, in a way that resulted in the August 21 attack.

There is no doubt that Assad controls both stores of chemical weapons and the means to deliver them.

But no one is disputing that the rebels have the capability to make some chemical weapons on their own or that they might have used them in smaller attacks.

[TM99]

34. I am not attacking you personally

and when I see words used in this situation constantly like 'could', 'there is no doubt', and the like, I do not see rational analysis of this situation. It is not measured, being dutifully explored and a reasoned response by those who should be doing so, the UN, are not being suggested.

Instead, it is a rush to arms and America must protect the world from Hitler, blah blah blah.

Another simple question for you as you do seem to be in support of 'punishing' Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons. If the rebels have also allegedly used chemical weapons, whether in a large or small attack, why is that OK? Why are we not up in arms about their usage of it? Why are we going to assist them and 'attack' Assad?

Again, there are way to many incongruencies and inconsistencies in most people's positions here and in the administration as a whole with regards to this delicate and tragic civil war.

[pnwmom]

35. I am completely on the fence, hoping that the UN report might help me off of it.

But I do think that a large scale attack of more than a thousand people, including several hundred children, is worse than use on a much smaller scale.

[TM99]

37. I can agree with the UN report.

I can't with regards to the numbers game. Our hands are as dirty as theirs for decades now. What is the magical number? 100? 1000? 100,000? How is gassing really any different than Willie Pete not being used for its intended purposes, land mines that remain deadly decades after their use, napalm, Agent Orange, depleted uranium, and those killed by regular ordinances?

If you have seen war, then you know that dead is simply just dead. In war, it is ALL horrific and tragic. None is worse or better than the other.

[pnwmom]

38. Chemical warfare has been outlawed by an international treaty signed

by the governments of 98% of the world's population.

If this treaty fails, why should governments engage in further treaties to limit arms?

[TM99]

39. Yes, and so have

land mines, cluster bombs been outlawed by an international convention & treaty. The United States has opted out of all of those.

The International Criminal Court was set up for dealing with genocide, war crimes, and the very things we are discussing here, and yet....The United States is not a member.

Treaties fail all the time. We do not abide by treaties when we continue to use land mines and cluster munitions. So what is our punishment? What is to stop us and others from further use of these internationally agreed upon 'bad weapons'?

[pnwmom]

40. The cluster bomb treaty only covers 83 countries at this point, and the US, China, and Russia

aren't among them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions

[TM99]

41. I am sorry but this is yet another

example of an arbitrary numbers game and American Exceptionalism.

Because the Chemical Weapons Ban has us as signer and has almost 200 member states, it gives us the right, no the duty, to enforce its alleged violation on a sovereign state that is not a signer. However, we were not punished for our use of Agent Orange, definitely a chemical weapon, in Vietnam.

Furthermore, because the Convention on Cluster Munitions only has nearly 100 member states that have signed and the US is not one of them, then it is A-OK for us to continue to use cluster munitions around the globe.

This is the double-message that causes those willing to see it to seriously question the motives, the intentions, and the outcome of this 'war' that is not a 'war' that is coming between the US and Syria over an alleged chemical weapons attack.

[pnwmom]

42. How could the Chemical Weapons Convention have applied to our use of Agent Orange

in Vietnam? The convention wasn't even drafted till 1992.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

[TM99]

43. How can the Chemical Weapons Convention

apply to Syria when they are not a signature state?

[pnwmom]

44. It is true that that didn't bind them. That doesn't mean that they can use them

without consequence.

[TM99]

45. Nor should it, but

everything right now is focused on the US mete out those 'consequences' as 'punishment'.

Where is the UN? Where is an international coalition? Where is a logical & objective goal with regards to securing and removing all chemical weapons from Syria?

And if the answer is that Syria alone must pay the consequences for a single alleged act, the questions still stand as to why the US has committed greater atrocities and has never suffered consequences.

[pnwmom]

46. I am waiting for the UN report. I'd also prefer a UN action or, better yet,

some negotiated way out of this.

[TM99]

47. Let us all hope

that the UN report is unequivocal, and that this Administration does not cowboy it alone with a missile strike any time soon.

I won't hold my breath.

[BainsBane]

3. What I heard on the PBS Newshour

is that the plan is to attack stationary air force targets, like airfields and refueling stations. Evidently cruise missiles aren't useful against moving targets, so they won't be able to hit airplanes in motion. The argument was that by reducing Assad's air capacity, they limit his ability to drop chemical weapons. It was on yesterday's Newshour. You can get the podcast online.

They didn't talk about this, but common sense says there is no way to shoot missiles without killing people.

[KittyWampus]

5. it'd also isolate his troops & severely limit their ability to get supplies as rebels control ground

[pnwmom]

7. Thanks. n/t

[TM99]

28. But again, we see the holes in this story from day one.

We will attack his air force which limits his ability to drop chemical weapons. But the Youtube video proof is not of air strikes, it is of mobile missile launchers from the ground. Secondarily, if the rebels control the areas where the chemical weapons are stored, then how did Assad manage to outfit his launchers with the Sarin? How will he be a future threat with the use of chemical weapons if they are in territories under rebel control?

In other words, we are seeing a lot of misinformation and disinformation that logically doesn't add up.

[KoKo]

31. Good Points...!

[Tx4obama]

6. That is what will happen after the Congress passes the 'use of force' resolution

Obama wants to bomb the aircraft, ammunition/missile stock piles, etc.

[Tx4obama]

14. I think you meant for your comment to go to the person that wrote the OP.

Btw, as far as 'collateral damage' the Obama administration has never said that there would not be any.

Today at the Senate hearing the issue of collateral damage came up - Kerry and the General said they would talk numbers in the classified meeting.

And, welcome to DU

[longship]

26. Well, that's always the issue in these affairs.

I don't like it anymore than anybody else here. But it appears that some kind of action is going to happen against Assad's forces.

Given that. I would prefer that there would be no civilian targets. I am sure that this is high on the priority. Targeting aircraft on the ground with cruise missiles certainly could accomplish such a task. They are very accurate and have been getting better since they were first deployed.

But you are correct. People will probably die. The idea is to limit those casualties to military personnel. I am sure that's an important requirement of any mission they would undertake.

I hope they don't do this. But if they do, I hope it goes off cleanly with no mishaps.

Hope for the best. No attack. Or, at worst a surgical attack and little blowback. I have little hope for the latter. But what will be is what will be.

My congress critter is a tea partier. My Senator is Carl Levin. No hope that they'll vote No. I'll call Stabenow tomorrow.

[Savannahmann]

29. Sure, but...

The weapons that were pictured were launched by a rocket, not dropped by a plane. If anything, that would force Assad to use more chemical warheads, not less.

[Tx4obama]

48. BUT the attack with the napalm-type chemical that BURNT folks was dropped from a FIGHTER JET

... was dropped from a 'fighter jet' into the playground area.

So I am sure that the Obama administration is aware of that newest attack too and has seen the video and photos of the burnt children.

[brooklynite]

32. Why do you think that's not part of the plan?

[pnwmom]

33. I realize now that it probably is. But the way people around here were talking

I was getting a different impression.

[sarisataka]

36. Quite possible...

the US has excellent capabilities to destroy an air force on the ground or in the air. Air superiority is a cornerstone of US battle plans.

By using cruise missiles alone I would estimate we could cut Syria's air power by 30-50% in attacking aircraft directly, key parts of logistic support e.g. fuel and command centers. Adding drones to the weapons list would possibly add another 15-20% interdiction by attacking the facilities in a real time basis. If we use manned aircraft we would achieve up 100% interdiction. Manned planes can carry the heavy ordinance needed to destroy reinforced hangers and runway destroying munitions. Manned aircraft could also engage and Syrian planes that get off the ground.

Unfortunately it would not guarantee anything as there are several ways to use chemical weapons, aircraft only being one. It would be a big boost to the insurgents to have Assad's aircraft removed from the picture.