IMHO the US are not retreating, but switching to indirect tactics. They co-op with Gulf monarchies (S.Arabia, Qatar) and their allies to reinforce FSA! As it was said above, Syrian issue is more complex than Lybian and NATO cannot intervene. Too many powers are involved, and Syria was caught in an international political crossfire, which is exacerbated by internal conflict.
Why is the US retreating from Syria?
- Thread starter S0S0
- Start date
- Status
CIA operative?
nfloorl:Look at what the CIA did to him. It pursued him, arrested him, & handed him over to Gaddafi, who put him in prison.
Exactly - very *deep* cover CIA operative. They'll be breaking him out, Mission Impossible/Ghost protocol style any minute nowCIA operative?
Look at what the CIA did to him. It pursued him, arrested him, & handed him over to Gaddafi, who put him in prison.
Why has usa retreated ------------
The Securuty councel has not allowed intervetion in Syria. i think this is a defence and not political forum
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
At this point, this probably could not be done with any reasonable accuracy. Prior to the unrest within Syria, the Syrian IADS had a number of different air defence units/pieces of kit, but much of the kit was old/older models. Given the successful Israeli airstrike in 2007 IIRC, there were exploitable weaknesses at the time.
Since then, it is possible that Syria has acquired more kit, some/all of which could be modern (i.e. Buk M1, etc). However, given the conflict which has been occurring, it is quite likely that Syria has lost kit, it certainly lost control of areas where kit would be required to maintain situational awareness and allow a response. In effect, Syria is now most likely less able to manage a coordinated response to outside ingress to Syrian airspace than it had been capable of back in 2007.
-Cheers
Given what the Syrian IADS looks like Israel can probably make holes where there are none, should the need arise, both electronically and physically.
Why does usa retreat from syria
No country has any legal intervention in Syria, the security council has forbidden that. USA is not retreating for it has nothing to do there.
Why does usa retreat from syria
US of A has nothing to do in Syria. It is the security council that authorizes intervention and Countries with VETO powers have forbidden any intervention
Beatmaster
New Member
Question however is what will become of Syria after All-Ashad?
Because with the increasing violence and the increasing amount of Religious related rebel and terrorist/ freedom fighters it has become clear that it will be a insane job for any new leadership (with or without international support) would even be able to create a new government which is strong enough to eliminate internal opposing factors.
Because even with the support of Russia and China who sort of keep the current regime into place, Syria is heading towards another disaster.
Now Israel making strikes on "weapons" convoy which does not help the situation either.
It creates a vacuum around Syria and increases the danger exponentially.
Iran is "supporting" the current regime and claiming revenge here and revenge there.
This all is not helping Syria, its not helping the middle east, its not helping Russia and China and it certainly does not help the international community.
So one could say that the lack of intervention is avoiding a regional war, on the otherhand one could say that a regional war is exactly where this is heading, as the current regime is losing power rapidly while internal elements and external groups gain power.
And my personal fear is that this explosive mix is growing out of hand.
To make a long story short where does the international community draw the line, but at the same time where does Syria (And its allies/ partners) draw the line, before all sides are forced into a position where a regional war is unavoidable.
Because many might disagree with me but fact is that this whole Syria thing is heading into a direction where neither side A or side B can control the situation anymore.
And judging from the news where it has been said that Chemical weapons would be a red line, i personally think that ALOT can be said of the current regime, but they would refrain from using them, i mean they rather shell the *beep* out of their enemies then dropping a chemical agent on them, because this would bring things to whole new level.
On top of that on a humanitarian level i personally believe that the lack of intervention by the west and the constant support by Russia and China is a war crime on its own.
Obviously the blame is with the current regime, but fact is that the international community did let it happen, and one could say that the "external" factors have no intention of even trying to stop this situation.
Morally speaking the whole international community is washing their hands in the same pool of blood and tears while playing the idk and idc card.
And i know that this crisis or conflict cannot be compared to Lybia, Iraq or Afghanistan, but i venture to say that this is Lybia, Iraq and Afghanistan times 2, because it does not matter what we all think but in terms of violence and war crimes etc etc etc this is one nasty conflict.
Call me a pessimist but i believe i got a point here.
just my 2 cents.
Because with the increasing violence and the increasing amount of Religious related rebel and terrorist/ freedom fighters it has become clear that it will be a insane job for any new leadership (with or without international support) would even be able to create a new government which is strong enough to eliminate internal opposing factors.
Because even with the support of Russia and China who sort of keep the current regime into place, Syria is heading towards another disaster.
Now Israel making strikes on "weapons" convoy which does not help the situation either.
It creates a vacuum around Syria and increases the danger exponentially.
Iran is "supporting" the current regime and claiming revenge here and revenge there.
This all is not helping Syria, its not helping the middle east, its not helping Russia and China and it certainly does not help the international community.
So one could say that the lack of intervention is avoiding a regional war, on the otherhand one could say that a regional war is exactly where this is heading, as the current regime is losing power rapidly while internal elements and external groups gain power.
And my personal fear is that this explosive mix is growing out of hand.
To make a long story short where does the international community draw the line, but at the same time where does Syria (And its allies/ partners) draw the line, before all sides are forced into a position where a regional war is unavoidable.
Because many might disagree with me but fact is that this whole Syria thing is heading into a direction where neither side A or side B can control the situation anymore.
And judging from the news where it has been said that Chemical weapons would be a red line, i personally think that ALOT can be said of the current regime, but they would refrain from using them, i mean they rather shell the *beep* out of their enemies then dropping a chemical agent on them, because this would bring things to whole new level.
On top of that on a humanitarian level i personally believe that the lack of intervention by the west and the constant support by Russia and China is a war crime on its own.
Obviously the blame is with the current regime, but fact is that the international community did let it happen, and one could say that the "external" factors have no intention of even trying to stop this situation.
Morally speaking the whole international community is washing their hands in the same pool of blood and tears while playing the idk and idc card.
And i know that this crisis or conflict cannot be compared to Lybia, Iraq or Afghanistan, but i venture to say that this is Lybia, Iraq and Afghanistan times 2, because it does not matter what we all think but in terms of violence and war crimes etc etc etc this is one nasty conflict.
Call me a pessimist but i believe i got a point here.
just my 2 cents.
Syria is country from where Russia used to project its muscles in the Middle East and still projecting albeit it has posed considerable geopolitical losses to Russia visa vise Arabs and Turkey.
If we see the case of Mali where Russia did not oppose the French adventure even offered airlift support as claimed by French foreign minister. That simply illustrates that the high Russian stakes are involved in Syria.
What seems from the ongoing Syrian crisis is the course correction where ruling regime ought to leave from the power after reaching to pinnacle of its authority.
Sooner or later Syrian power structure would come in the hands of Sunnite majority of the country and in my view in any free and fair fare elections the Islamist, most probably, the Muslim brotherhood will emerge as victor.
As far is the conflict’s bloodied turn is concerned, I would blame Al-Assad and his staunch allies more than any other player for the much of bloodshed.
Finally it is an Arab - Muslim affair, they should have solved it under the framework of Arab league or OIC .
If we see the case of Mali where Russia did not oppose the French adventure even offered airlift support as claimed by French foreign minister. That simply illustrates that the high Russian stakes are involved in Syria.
What seems from the ongoing Syrian crisis is the course correction where ruling regime ought to leave from the power after reaching to pinnacle of its authority.
Sooner or later Syrian power structure would come in the hands of Sunnite majority of the country and in my view in any free and fair fare elections the Islamist, most probably, the Muslim brotherhood will emerge as victor.
As far is the conflict’s bloodied turn is concerned, I would blame Al-Assad and his staunch allies more than any other player for the much of bloodshed.
Finally it is an Arab - Muslim affair, they should have solved it under the framework of Arab league or OIC .
Beatmaster
New Member
Question is however if the OIC does have the authority, power and mandate to actually do anything about this situation, specially with Russia, China and Iran backing Syria.
Right or wrong does not matter here because if the UN and Nato fail to do anything useful in regards to saving whats left of Syria, then i cannot see the OIC (Which is a FAR lesser organization) doing anything better, or even remotely in the directions NATO or UN already has tried to get done.
As i mentioned in my previous post is that Syria is a dead end, either by civil war, or either by a intervention or a combo of both.
Keep in mind that after nearly 2 years of civil unrest, war and heavy fighting there is virtually nothing left of Syria's infrastructure, industry and public services.
So regardless if the current regime leaves (either freely or by force) Syria itself draws the short end of the stick as it will take years to rebuild, and bring back Syria to anywhere near it ones was.
I mean its not just the system that collapsed but the entire structure (Gov, Mil, Indus, Public and Infra) that has been demolished.
And forgive me saying this but one must look in the mirror before blaming the current regime and their actions.
Keep in mind 35 years of US foreign policy and meddling in affairs has left its marks upon the middle east.
Entire nations and factions have been changed and shaped by it, and mostly to gain a strategic momentum and to strengthen interests in the region.
Not to mention the many proxy wars and conflicts which to a very large degree can be traced back to US Foreign policy and Israeli Foreign policy.
Now i am not going to argue if this is good or bad as it did have its uses.
But fact is that the west and the international community stood there watched it and did nothing, and now this comes around and bites us in the ass.
The reason i say this is because the OIC has never been guide and support the region, some even say its just a fancy forum, but does it have actual power to change things? NO, as if yes they would have stopped most of the western interference a long time ago..
I know how this sounds, but i think that everyone can agree to the fact that we are beyond the point of fitting the shoe without taking a good look in the mirror.
And in regards to Syria this has to stop one way or another, because i might not be a defense analyst like most here on the forum, but you do not have to be a genius to figure out that a regional war is just around the corner.
That's putting it politely
If Israel can roam apparently at will in Syrian airspace now, I'm assuming a concerted effort from a western coalition could do rather more damage.Beatmaster
New Member
Agreed, on the other hand, if a pilot goes below radar towards its target then it becomes pretty hard for virtually everyone to Detect, Track and Possible intercept/destroy the pilot, specially if you are not aware that this might be happening.That's putting it politely
Not to mention if you are facing a way more advanced adversary in this case Israel.
I mean you can say what you want but they have a pretty darn good and very well trained air force.
But i am pretty sure that Syria could destroy a couple of IDF planes if they would wanted it to, either when they go in or when they go out.
Question needs to be asked does Syria want to defend itself against Israel knowing that it would give Israel another reason to intervene.
Keep in mind Israel owns Syria on a military level, but that does not mean that Syria is totally defenseless, fact is that Israel does have to count its steps carefully or they are going to need lots of body bags.
So perhaps i am wrong but could it be that Syria just accepted the strike to avoid bigger trouble and just plays the diplomatic card to raise support?
Israel's interests are best served by having a unified and strong Syrian government - because such a government isn't going to take on Israel.
Their latest strike appears to have been intended to take out some stray manpads systems intended for use in the Lebanon or along the Israeli border - and there'd be a lot more of that if Syria fragments. This is part of the reason Syria has remained untouched by international action - Turkey and Israel aren't fond of Assad but at least he's a predictable neighbour.
Cynically, dictators are easier to get along with than fragmented warring factions with ready access to weapons of all sorts.
With respect to Syria perhaps choosing to let Israel attack it, I don't think that's valid - -they're legally entitled to the right of self defence and they've certainly shot down Turkish aircraft in international airspace before now. More pertinently, Israel has penetrated Syrian airspace several times over the previous years, when Syria's air defence was in much better shape.
If the Syrians had a clear shot at an Israeli attacker, I'm sure they'd take the opportunity.
Their latest strike appears to have been intended to take out some stray manpads systems intended for use in the Lebanon or along the Israeli border - and there'd be a lot more of that if Syria fragments. This is part of the reason Syria has remained untouched by international action - Turkey and Israel aren't fond of Assad but at least he's a predictable neighbour.
Cynically, dictators are easier to get along with than fragmented warring factions with ready access to weapons of all sorts.
With respect to Syria perhaps choosing to let Israel attack it, I don't think that's valid - -they're legally entitled to the right of self defence and they've certainly shot down Turkish aircraft in international airspace before now. More pertinently, Israel has penetrated Syrian airspace several times over the previous years, when Syria's air defence was in much better shape.
If the Syrians had a clear shot at an Israeli attacker, I'm sure they'd take the opportunity.
Beatmaster
New Member
Well thats a very valid reason you brought up as i did not think about it, and yeah you are right a dictator like Assad is pretty much predictable (at least in his case), but i was drawing a link between Iran and Syria as tensions mount up between Israel, Syria and Iran i wonder if this was such a smart move of Israel to hit those weapons.
Because as you said it yourself, Syria does have the authority to defend itself.
Now lets assume they do and Israel on their turn respond to that.
Then its only a very small step for Iran to legally come to the aid of one of its core allies, then that bit of immunity that Israel has is virtually gone as the war is not being separated, by a unwilling Saudi Arabia, or a Unhelpful, Jordan / Iraq.
My point here is that this Syria thing is not just Syria but Iran is heaving some sort of hand in it as well, even if its just supporting Assad, meaning this can well be used as a proxy.
So perhaps that Assad's regime did not want to take it that far, and did choose to ignore the attack knowing that if they respond that it would drag their allies into a war they might not recover from.
See my point? So honestly what do you think that Syria (And allies/friends) and Israel + Community is going to do next? Will there be more strikes? Is Syria going to respond forcefully? How do you think that the next few weeks will play out based upon the current events?
If Syria shoots down an Israeli aircraft on a bombing aid over Syria, I expect the Israeli response to be to analyse how the Syrians did it, in order to make sure that next time the Syrians won't succeed. Why would they do anything else? Retaliation? For what?
The only follow-up I'd expect is if the shoot down caused the Israeli raid to fail to destroy its target. In that case, if the Israelis think the target is important enough, they'll have another go - this time taking into account what the Syrians have shown they can do.
If Syria retaliated to an Israeli raid by firing missiles at Israeli cities, or something similar, then there would certainly be Israel retaliation, but that sort of Syrian reaction isn't easy to justify as self-defence.
Beatmaster
New Member
Yeah i can see what you mean and i have to agree, on a flip side Israel does not want to see weapons ending up in Lebanon or in terrorist hands, but on the other hand the amount of pressure on the Syrian regime might force them to do exactly that to avoid that the weapons become available to their opponents, so i understand both sides here, that said i personally believe that Israel is playing a dangerous game here. Look at it this way, Syria is pretty much a dead end right?
So bombing Israel either using air or ground based weapons might be the only thing left for Assad...lets call it going out with a bang.
I mean lets be realistic what options does Assad really have left here? Other then shooting himself, Turning himself over or hide in the shadows?
Its pretty clear that his days are numbered but he also does have to maintain his standings with his current staff and members and so, defending himself against Israel might be the only thing left he has to do, even if its just to please his commanders and to keep the loyalty up amongst his followers.
Bit of propaganda here and a bit of pretext there and he can prolong his reign a little more.
And thats what he needs a little more, because his army is creating havoc amongst his enemies and the population is hardly fighting anymore.
The only people who are really hurting him and his army are the specific radical groups (Taliban like warriors and freedom warriors) who are gaining more and more respect and ground as they fight on the side of the population against Assad.
Not to mention that they are heavy armed, reasonable well trained and well funded.
So if Assad can please his military brass he might even be able to stay on.
Now i am not saying that a war with Israel would be good for him, but if Israel persist in bombing targets then war might be the only way out for Assad which enable him to bring out the big guns and the rest of his arsenal and slam down on his people even harder then he did claiming that Israel did it or he was fighting Israel incursions, see what i mean? Because at this rate it becomes increasingly harder to verify whats really going on in Syria as reports are sketchy at best, and this might enable him to pull another rabbit out of his head..
Assad should leg it as soon as feasible, same as all the other dictators in previous situations. Like the rest, he'll hang on for way too long and end up being strung up by piano wire from a lamp post.
Israel has no vested interest in becoming embroiled - if they intervene on a persistent basis, they may well serve to prop up the regime by crystallising support around Assad, stalling the uprising, and neither are they served by the uprising succeeding. Ditto Turkey - although Turkey's borders are under more pressure from refugees.
It's an appalling situation to be looking at in terms of a humanitarian tragedy but trying to unpick this with a bunch of JDAM's isn't going to happen.
Israel has no vested interest in becoming embroiled - if they intervene on a persistent basis, they may well serve to prop up the regime by crystallising support around Assad, stalling the uprising, and neither are they served by the uprising succeeding. Ditto Turkey - although Turkey's borders are under more pressure from refugees.
It's an appalling situation to be looking at in terms of a humanitarian tragedy but trying to unpick this with a bunch of JDAM's isn't going to happen.
- Status