Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Britain, Government, Middle East, Military, Russia, Syria, United States

The military options the West has in smashing Assad’s arsenal…

MILITARY OPTIONS

UK and US military commanders are drawing up a list of targets for precision-guided bombs and missiles to strike at the heart of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. The options are examined:

… What targets would the coalition hit?

THE favoured option among military commanders is for limited Western action using ‘stand-off’ weapons from long distance to disrupt Assad’s ability to carry out chemical attacks and damage his military machinery.

Intelligence on targets would come from pilotless drones patrolling the skies above Syria and Special Forces on the ground.

Military analysts believe an attack could last between 24 and 48 hours and would target key regime installations in punitive strikes.

These would include Syria’s integrated air defence system, command and control bunkers, communications hubs, government buildings, missile sites and Assad’s air force.

The dictator’s use of air power has been a huge advantage for the regime, and eliminating or weakening it would tilt the odds toward the rebels.

Other military options are airstrikes on Syrian units believed to be responsible for chemical attacks. Reports last week claimed the chemical weapons were fired by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armoured Division of the Syrian Army.

The division, which has a military base in a mountain range west of Damascus, is under the command of the president’s brother, Maher Assad.

… What bases would be used?

US-LED strikes would be launched from warships or submarines patrolling in the eastern Mediterranean or Persian Gulf, or from combat fighter aircraft that can fire missiles from hundreds of miles away.

A US Navy battlegroup including four destroyers is already in the eastern Mediterranean and has moved closer to Syria in preparation for action.

They are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles capable of hitting a target from up to 1,200 miles away. Around 124 of the 18ft-long, £300,000 warheads were fired by US and British forces against Colonel Gaddafi’s forces during the Libyan war.

The US Air Force could also send B-2 stealth bombers to pound Assad’s military installations. Based in Missouri, they can cover the entire world with just one refuelling. The most expensive aircraft ever – at a cost of £600million each – they are almost invisible to radar and can carry 40,000lbs of bomb payload.

As well as having F-16 fighter jets and refuelling aircraft based at airfields in the Middle East, the US also has defensive Patriot missile batteries positioned in Jordon, which neighbours Syria.

… What firepower can Britain offer?

DESPITE multi-billion pound cuts to the defence budget that have seen military chiefs axe fast jets, warships, spy planes and 30,000 troops, the armed forces can still contribute to an assault on Syria.

The Royal Navy could fire Tomahawk missiles from its nuclear-powered Trafalgar-class submarines – one of which is constantly on patrol in the Middle East. The submarines are capable of carrying a giant payload of the super-accurate missiles.

Heavily-armed RAF Tornados could fly from RAF Marham in Norfolk to attack targets in Syria, a 4,200 mile round trip – or be deployed to Cyprus to launch bombing raids from there.

Carrying precision-guided Storm Shadow missiles, the air crews could devastate enemy defences including radar stations, anti-aircraft batteries and supply lines.

The Storm Shadows have a range of more than 150 miles, allowing the aircraft to attack targets deep inside enemy territory without getting too close to anti-air defences.

The 1,300kg missile, which technicians programme with the target details before the mission, then use hi-tech GPS systems and terrain-following equipment to fly low under radar to its destination point.

Despite being fired from as far away as 150 miles, the Storm Shadow is accurate to up to 6ft, reducing collateral damage.

… What are the dangers?

THERE are enormous risks associated with any military action in Syria.

Assad has built-up formidable air defences, supplied by Russia, which are capable of downing a US or UK fighter jet.

There are also the dangers of collateral damage from airstrikes, such as accidentally killing or injuring civilians and handing the regime a propaganda victory.

And if missiles targeted Syrian chemical plants, leaving them without protection, there is a risk of deadly nerve agents and other substances falling into the hands of terrorists – allowing them to launch a potentially catastrophic attack on the West.

… What would happen next?

MILITARY leaders are concerned that a series of ‘stand-off’ strikes will be the first step on a path that leads to full involvement in the Syrian conflict.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned this week that airstrikes ‘would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict’.

His words echoed those of General Sir David Richards, who last month stepped down after three years as Chief of the Defence Staff. General Richards said the UK must be prepared to ‘go to war’ if it wanted to stop the bloodshed inflicted by Assad and stop his chemical weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda militants.

But his remarks fuelled concerns about ‘mission creep’, saying: ‘If you wanted to have the material impact in the Syrian regime’s calculations that some people seek… you have to be able, as we did successfully in Libya, to hit ground targets … You have to establish a ground control zone. You have to take out their air defences. You also have to make sure they can’t manoeuvre, which means you have to take out their tanks and armoured personnel carriers.’

… How will Russia and Iran react?

DESPITE the chemical attack violating one of Barack Obama’s ‘red lines’ he is not gung-ho for military action.

He and David Cameron are keenly aware of the danger of inflaming tensions in the Middle East, where Syria has two powerful allies in Russia and Iran.

Russia has urged Assad to co-operate with a probe by UN inspectors but claims there is growing evidence Syrian rebels were behind the attack.

The Kremlin, which has defiantly blocked any action against Syria by the UN Security Council, has also hit out at ‘unacceptable’ calls for the use of force against the regime in Damascus.

The West is also at pains to not become embroiled in a proxy Cold War over Syria: without a nod from Russia, whether in public or in private, it would be problematic to act against Syria.

Iran has already spoken strongly against any intervention in Syria.

Standard
Britain, France, Government, Middle East, Syria, United Nations, United States

President Obama’s ‘red-lines’ and America’s moving goal posts…

IS AMERICA SERIOUS ABOUT ITS RED-LINES?

On August 20, 2012, President Obama delivered a statement of huge significance on the Syrian crisis. But just 12-months on, many are pondering whether the ‘red lines’ which he laid down amount to anything other than political rhetoric. During a White House press briefing a year ago, the President said: ‘We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilised… That would change my equation.’

Syrian rebels and opponents of the Assad regime claim to have substantive evidence that Bashar al-Assad has done more than just ‘move around’ stockpiles of chemical munitions. Accusations are such that Mr Assad has utilised nerve agents, such as sarin or vx nerve gas, to kill between 500 and 1,300 people. Photographs have beamed the world this week depicting scores of dead children with no visible signs of injuries. It is highly likely that chemicals were used.

If this attack is proved, which must come from tests carried out by UN inspectors, then it would amount to the deadliest attack of this kind since Saddam Hussein gassed tens of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq in 1988. Saddam Hussein used chemicals left-over from the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, but much of it still remains unaccounted for.

Mr Obama’s red-line would appear to have been crossed, and with that his ‘equation’ (or calculus) has also been changed. The ante has been upped with both Britain and France expressing the view that some reaction is now necessary. An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was called for by Britain, though no one ever expected permanent council members Russia and China to change their indifferent stance to a raging civil war in Syria that has now claimed more than 100,000 lives and the deaths this week of more than 1,000 civilians in what seems an almost certain chemical attack. France, too, has been angered and has warned Syria of a forceful response.

What President Obama will do remains to be seen, but any decisive action will be tempered by the complex situation on the ground. The American public will be wary of putting weaponry in the hands of some rebel groups affiliated with radical Islamists such as Al-Qaeda, and any attempt to establish a no-fly zone would be tantamount to a declaration of war because its longer-term aim would be to decapitate Assad’s air defences. Russia continues to supply Assad with arms and refuses outright to bring those supply lines to an end. This has become a significant contributory factor in a bloody war that can only exasperate the death toll and worsen the humanitarian crisis as refuges flock in their tens of thousands to neighbouring countries for safer sanctuary.

Mr Obama’s foreign policy is hardly helping the situation, either, which has turned into an almost stagnated Zen. The U.S. refused to act earlier in Syria because it would have meant military action in the middle of the presidential election; he spoke out against the Assad regime yet failed to offer real support to the rebels; and, he has moved his red-lines to such a degree that they are now almost impossible to cross. America’s attitude towards Egypt, too, has a similar pattern to it, where Mr Obama has swung from tolerating one dictatorial regime to another.

The United States needs to be at the forefront in seeking a solution to the Syrian crisis. As impregnable as the situation has become, that is no excuse for America to avail itself of responsibility. Mr Obama is the leader of the free world, and as such should be striving harder to bring this ghastly war to an end.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Middle East, Politics, Syria, United Nations, United States

Syria, chemical weapons and direct intervention…

SYRIA

Television and media images from Syria have been truly horrendous. Pictures have been depicted showing dozens of bodies laid out in rows, many of them children. Others, including very young infants, are seen suffering convulsions and spasms – symptoms that are typical of a major gas attack.

Ghastly as the images are, however, is all as clear cut as it seems? Photographs and video productions have been circulated by Syrian opposition activists; their release, as a UN team arrived to investigate the reported use of chemical weapons, maybe perceived as being opportunistic with powerful propaganda value.

The conundrum here is whether any leader, even one as beleaguered and brutal in defence of his presidency as Bashar al-Assad, be so heedless and perverse of the consequences as to launch such an attack just as the UN inspectors were arriving. Assad has denied he did it, but many say he would have if he had done it.

The alternative is even less plausible – that the Syrian rebels staged, exaggerated or even manipulated an attack on areas they hold with the intention of persuading both the UN inspectors and international opinion towards a Western intervention.

Whichever it is, we should constantly bear in mind the barbaric and brutal lengths to which a desperate regime will go to keep power.

Whilst the response from most international leaders has been one of outrage, comments have been tempered, rightly, with a measure of caution. ‘If proven’ is the crucial phrase that has emanated from Britain, France, and from others who are calling for more direct action. Legally, it is also a pointer as to what the priority should now be: to establish, so far as is possible, the truth of what happened. To fulfil that end, the UN inspectors must be granted immediate and unfettered access to the area of the alleged atrocity.

Establishing the truth is vital because the stakes are so high. The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict was defined by President Obama as a ‘red line’ when he said almost a year ago that if the Assad regime deployed chemical weapons, ‘the whole calculus would change’. This was widely interpreted as a condition for the U.S. to intervene, either directly or by arming the rebels.

Yet, nor can it be excluded that the rebels have attempted to orchestrate something in which they might force America’s hand. So far, an EU investigation has only reported small scale use of sarin nerve gas on both sides. But if such an extensive attack, as seems to have taken place this week, is found to be the work of Syrian government forces, that could not but ‘change the calculus’.

Crucially, though, would it (or should it) prompt Western intervention? Intervention can take various forms, from air strikes targeting Syrian weapons, cruise missile launches from the naval fleet operating in the region, or a full ground incursion with boots on the ground. But as we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, even limited intervention tends to produce perverse and unwieldy results. In Syria it could be even more riskier, given the regional complexity and its ever more volatile neighbourhood.

At the present moment, doing nothing seems less perilous than direct intervention. Being sucked into a bloody civil war that is increasingly sectarian with regional alliances taking hold – Iran and Hezbollah siding with the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia arming the rebels – direct intervention would certainly appear the worse of two evils. But even now the case has still not been made for direct intervention in Syria.

Standard