Does Syria Really Need More Heating Up?
Michael Matthew Bloomer, August 26, 2013
What do you think?
Anybody got a match???
A partial list of extreme caution signs warning ‘stay away’:
* a more deadly armed force that has many decades of Soviet/Russian military assistance under its belt (as well as Chinese and Iranian). This includes more than ten thousand tanks and armored vehicles, thousands of artillery pieces, and a modern and effective anti-aircraft system. [Global Power.com] While the quality of a significant portion of Syrian military hardware is questioned by many – much is outdated Soviet equipment – its quantity dwarfs Libya’s, for example. And
“Syria has more than 4,000 units of air defense artillery, mainly Soviet-made. These may be outmoded, but the quantity is huge and the population density is 110 people per square kilometer, so Syria can’t easily be occupied like the almost-empty Libya and its four people per square kilometer. . . If we examine the possibilities of military intervention, we should not forget the missile park of Syria. According to different sources, the army loyal to the regime has about 80-170 tactical ballistic missiles, Soviet and North Korean Scuds and Tochkas. The range of these missiles is about 75-500 km, meaning that Iraq, Turkey and Israel can be attacked with them.” [See more]
• Concerns like these, of course, were voiced prior to the invasion of Kuwait to oust Iraq’s armed forces in 1991. Certainly,, in the Syrian case as well, a concerted attack by a smoothly operating coalition would overcome even Syria’s formidable forces. Yet, recall that “stand off weapons” did not dislodge Iraq from Kuwait, it was boots on the ground that did so. Consider: what response is likely should western forces lose even one or two aircraft and their crews fall into Syrian government hands? Do we want to risk boots on the ground in Syria should a bombing and missile campaign fail to assist the rebels?
* direct Iranian assistance. Iran (and China) have recently provided Syria with modern anti-ship missiles to upgrade its mostly outdated Russian systems, “In 2006, the Syrian army bought the Iranian-made Noors anti-ship cruise missiles, which are identical copies of the Chinese C-802. In 2007 Russia agreed to sell a supersonic cruise missile system named Yakhont to Syria at a price of 300 million US dollars.” [See more] Iran continues to provide its full support for the Assad regime;
* a historically voluble border with Israel that has occasionally erupted in violence during the Syrian Revolution. The big question: Will Israel agree to remain on the sidelines during a U.S. and/or NATO incursion into Syria, especially should Syria launch missiles at Israel?
* Geographically, in addition to Israel, Syria shares borders with Jordan (chock full of Syrian refugees), Turkey (threatened with its own unrest and a member of NATO), Iraq, and Lebanon (sharing with Syria Israel’s northern border, and alive with Assad’s active fifth column, Hezbollah, already all-in in Assad’s support).
* Turkey, a longtime Assad regime critic, counsels caution, suggesting sanctions. Since the alleged Assad regime chemical weapons usage, Turkey has expressed concerns about its own safety from Syrian chemical weapons attacks. Der Spiegel reported: “Such a course of action is seen to be ‘unlikely but definitely possible’, according to an official at the Turkish Defense Ministry in Ankara. In recent days, the government has strengthened precautions against a nerve gas attack in the country’s southern regions along the border with Syria. ‘Our armed forces are aware,’ he says. Turkish media have reported that troops have been conducting exercises in preparation for the worst.” [See more]
* Russia looms less pliable than during the Libyan intervention due to a general chill in U.S.-Russian relations and its own long-term interests in Syria. With tens of thousands of Russian citizens in Syria, and innumerable commercial, military, and cultural interests formed over its more than 40 years of association, Syria is not Libya, or for that matter, Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia provides Syria with most of its military aid, and therefore has billions to lose should Syria come under the military influence of NATO or the United States; Russia already lost billions in military contracts in Libya.
* Russia’s Vladimir Putin seems at times to be itching for a fight with the west. For example, Russian officials continued to call the alleged chemical attack a provocation carried out by the opposition. The Russian ambassador to Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin, was quoted by the official Syrian news agency, SANA, as saying, “I’d like to remind that the issue of chemical weapons should not be exploited for serving other goals as was the case in Iraq.” [See more]
• AP reported yesterday that Russian “Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said all countries should wait for the results of the investigation “Our American and European partners must understand what catastrophic consequences this kind of politics would have for the region, for the Arab and Islamic world as a whole,” Lukashevich said, advising the U.S. and its allies against taking a “gamble” and using unilateral force in Syria.” Russia does not want to lose much of its influence in the Middle East by standing silently aside as the west considers military involvement there. Might a western incursion into Syria, no matter how “surgical,” cause Russia to avoid the appearance of weakness by itself, for example, stepping up military aid to Assad, their closest ally in the Middle East?
