Couple of eggheads think Obama should act now on Syria

[Smilodonfatalis]

Obama needs to act now on Syria: Column

O'Hanlon and Doran work for a "think tank."

I don't believe think tanks do much thinking.

The authors of the column don't give one reason WHY the U.S. should intervene. The whole column is therefore completely unjustified.

Moreover, they think the U.S. should commit a "modest" number of troops.

What do they mean by modest?

If I met them in person, I'd suggest they join the army and volunteer to go to Syria, since they think it's such a good idea.

I think intervening in Syria is pointless and of no strategic benefit to the U.S. It's a waste of American tax money, and the Syrians will still hate us no matter the outcome.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - Osama said he gonna start sumpin' dat gonna spend us inna ground...

Dempsey: Syria intervention is "act of war" that could cost billions
July 22nd, 2013 - United States military involvement in Syria would likely cost billions of dollars and carry a range of risks for the forces involved, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey said in a letter released Monday.

"I know that the decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly," Dempsey wrote in the letter to Sen. Carl Levin,D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It is no less than an act of war." Dempsey's letter was in response to a request by Levin and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, to provide his assessments of possible scenarios for future involvement in the Syrian civil war. But it also came with a warning for a military now in a second decade at war. "We have learned from the past 10 years, however, that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state." Establishing a no-fly zone in Syria would cost $500 million initially, while "averaging as much as a billion dollars per month over the course of a year," Dempsey said of an operation that would limit as much as possible the aerial bombing capabilities of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Dempsey said establishing a no-fly zone could result in the loss of U.S. aircraft, which would require personnel recovery forces in Syria. "It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surface fires - mortars, artillery, and missiles," he wrote. Options to prevent the use and proliferation of chemical weapons would also include lethal force through the destruction of known stockpiles, movement interdiction, or through the physical seizure of known chemical weapons sites. Dempsey said this option would also require a no-fly zone along with "air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines." "Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites," Dempsey wrote. "Costs could also average well over $1 billion per month." It is extremely rare for the costs of such operations to be laid out in such detail, and Dempsey also noted the potential costs of less expansive actions the United State could take.

Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey

Training, advising and supporting opposition forces could require as many as several thousand troops at an estimated cost of $500 million per year initially, Dempsey said. Options for establishing safe zones or buffer areas to allow for the training of opposition forces, as well as areas for the safe distribution of humanitarian aid, would require a limited no-fly zone to keep the areas safe from the Assad regime's aerial bombardments. U.S. ground forces would be needed to defend the safe zones, Dempsey said. This too, could cost a great deal of money and put lives at risk Dempsey wrote. "A limited no-fly zone coupled with U.S. ground forces would push the costs over $1 billion per month," he wrote. "Risks are similar to the no-fly zone with the added problem of regime surface fires into the zones, killing more refugees due to their concentration. The zones could also become operational bases for extremists." Dempsey said the use of periodic and limited strikes against regime military assets would also cost "billions" depending on the duration of such operations.

The letter comes at complex time in the evolution of the Obama administration's policy on Syria. Although the administration has recently signaled its readiness to provide certain arms to vetted factions of the Syrian opposition, there has been no movement of U.S. weapons due to concerns on Capitol Hill about how the program would work. But Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, signaled there may be movement on the issue in the coming days. "The House Intelligence Committee has very strong concerns about the strength of the administration's plans in Syria and its chances for success," Rogers said in a written statement Monday. "After much discussion and review, we got a consensus that we could move forward with what the administration's plans and intentions are in Syria consistent with committee reservations." McCain put a hold on Dempsey's nomination for a second term last week until he received greater detail from Dempsey about the various options available to intervene in Syria. It was unclear whether Dempsey's letter answered McCain's questions.

Dempsey: Syria intervention is "act of war" that could cost billions ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

See also:

Source: Obama to move forward with plan to arm Syrian rebels
Wed July 24, 2013 > Congressman worries about U.S. arms going to future enemies; White House spokesman says military aid is to keep the Syrian opposition going; Despite concerns, a House committee chairman offers support for the plan
Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Martin Dempsey: U.S. military involvement could cost billions

Reluctant approval from Congress for providing military support to Syrian rebels allows the Obama administration to move forward with plans first announced almost six weeks ago. White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Tuesday that the goal of the military aid expected to include small arms, ammunition and perhaps anti-tank weapons is to keep the Syrian opposition going against forces aligned with President Bashar al-Assad's regime. Noting al-Assad's forces have been helped by Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as Iran, Carney said Syrian rebels need the help of the United States and allied nations to withstand an increased assault. "The aid is intended to help the opposition resist Assad and eventually prevail," Carney said, adding that any resolution of Syria's civil war will require a political transition.

His comment appeared intended to soften any expectations that the rebels could topple the regime by military means alone. A source, speaking on condition of being identified only as an official, said Monday that President Barack Obama can begin acting on plans for increased Syrian aid first made public last month now that concerns of Congress had been resolved. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers said Monday that his panel agreed to the administration's plan for military aid despite reservations about its chances for success. "After much discussion and review, we got a consensus that we could move forward with what the administration's plans and intentions are in Syria consistent with committee reservations," the Michigan Republican said.

At a congressional hearing on Tuesday on next year's defense budget, GOP Rep. Rich Nugent of Florida said he worried that arming Syria rebels today could mean his sons in the military might face those weapons in the future, if they fall into the wrong hands. "We want to make sure that we don't put our sons or daughters in any jeopardy particularly as it relates to arming those that we have no idea who they are," Nugent said. The Obama administration has been reluctant to enter another military engagement, but announced on June 13 that it would provide military support to rebel fighters because al-Assad's forces had used chemical weapons.

Its plans so far stop short of calls by some in Congress, such as veteran Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, to establish a "no-fly" zone over Syria. In a letter released Monday, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey warned U.S. military involvement would likely cost billions of dollars and include a range of risks for the forces involved. "It is no less than an act of war," Dempsey wrote to Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. The United States has learned from the past 10 years "that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state," Dempsey's letter said in apparent reference to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/us-syrian-rebels

 

[OriginalShroom]

It's a civil war.

Nothing to do with us.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Obama needs to act now on Syria: Column

O'Hanlon and Doran work for a "think tank."

I don't believe think tanks do much thinking.

The authors of the column don't give one reason WHY the U.S. should intervene. The whole column is therefore completely unjustified.

Moreover, they think the U.S. should commit a "modest" number of troops.

What do they mean by modest?

If I met them in person, I'd suggest they join the army and volunteer to go to Syria, since they think it's such a good idea.

I think intervening in Syria is pointless and of no strategic benefit to the U.S. It's a waste of American tax money, and the Syrians will still hate us no matter the outcome.

They'd never think about joining the Army or the Marines (who do most of the grunt work), because they think that saying what is good is better than actually going there and seeing what works.

Sorry, but the Marines and the Army who have actual boots on the ground know more than the politicians who sit in their Ivory Tower in DC.

If the politicians who sit in Congress (and that means both the House and the Senate) had relatives serving in a war zone, I'm pretty sure they'd think twice about sending troops overseas to fight and die.

Me? I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy over 4 different war zones, starting off with Beruit back in 1983.

 

[NightFox]

from the OP article:

"This clamor for U.S. intervention is an entirely new factor in Middle Eastern affairs."

Wasn't there a "clamor" for U.S. intervention to oust the Iraqi's from Kuwait? how did that one work out for us with respect to our relations in the Middle East? It seems to me that we'll have a "clamor" to spend blood & treasure followed by a "clamor" for us to go straight to Hell once the fighting is done.

These interventionist warhawks never cease with their constant drum pounding, I give President Obama credit for not listening to them (so far).