Possible US/French intervention in Syria?

#1
US, French Troops Prepare For Syria Invasion In Response To "Chemical Weapons" Threat
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/06/2012 00:28 -0500


China France Iran Iraq Israel NBC Obama Administration SWIFT Turkey United Kingdom


The 8 day mini war between Israel and Gaza has come and gone and any attempts at provoking a wider regional conflict, one involving Iran (if indeed this was the intention), have failed. Which means the fallback plan - Syria - is back in play. And sure enough, as both the most recent naval map update, which shows a US aircraft carrier and a big deck amphibious warfare ship, both of which house thousands of troops and numerous offensive aircraft, and an RT news flash, indicating that thousands of troops have amassed near the Syrian shore confirm, the time for a US invasion may be near. The alibi? "Chemical weapons" of mass or non-mass destruction. In other words the Iraq playbook all over again.
From RT:
The USS Eisenhower, an American aircraft carrier that holds eight fighter bomber squadrons and 8,000 men, arrived at the Syrian coast yesterday in the midst of a heavy storm, indicating US preparation for a potential ground intervention.

While the Obama administration has not announced any sort of American-led military intervention in the war-torn country, the US is now ready to launch such action “within days” if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decides to use chemical weapons against the opposition, the Times reports.

Some have suggested that the Assad regime may use chemical weapons against the opposition fighters in the coming days or weeks.

“We have (US) special operations forces at the right posture, they don’t have to be sent,” an unnamed US official told The Australian, which suggested that US military troops are already near Syria and ready to intervene in the conflict, if necessary.
The alibi used by the "democratic" press to justify what may imminently be a land invasion? Chemical weapons:
The Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting final orders from President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.

The military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs that could be dropped onto the Syrian people from dozens of fighter-bombers, the officials said.

As recently as Tuesday, officials had said there was as yet no evidence that the process of mixing the "precursor" chemicals had begun. But Wednesday, they said their worst fears had been confirmed: The nerve agents were locked and loaded inside the bombs.

Sarin is an extraordinarily lethal agent. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's forces killed 5,000 Kurds with a single sarin attack on Halabja in 1988.

U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, one of the officials said, "there's little the outside world can do to stop it."
Tangentially, remember when Iraq was supposed to have warehouses full of "WMDs", which story ended up being a fabricated lie. But at least Turkey is ready: after all NATO hasalready handed over various Patriot missiles to prevent a Syrian retaliation against the ruling Assad regime.
And just to make sure the escalation is complete, the French are coming.
France is preparing its special forces for a mission in war-torn Syria, French weekly magazine Le Point reports.

The mission would only involve a relatively small amount of special forces, and a number of NATO countries — including the UK and the US — would be involved. The mission would be modelled on the Western intervention in Libya, the magazine reports.

The action appears to be in response to fears that the regime is planning on using chemical weapons in the conflict. Earlier this week one US official told reporters that it was believed Bashar al-Assad's forces had moved two key components of a deadly nerve gas in preparation for an attack (a later report refuted this, however).

Le Point says a large ground operation "is out of the question" and that a smaller action aimed largely at securing chemical weapon stockpiles.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today vowed a swift response if Assad's regime used chemical weapons.
So putting it all together, it appears that once again the imminent escalation play is one where an antagonized Syria is forced to strike back, an act which "hopefully" will get Iran involved in the fray, and from there it is smooth sailing for both Israel and the "democratic" forces of the world.
The only wild card: Russia and China, both of which have made it very clear they have quite strategic interests in the Syria region on numerous prior occasions.
Appendix A: full naval map, via Stratfor, where one can see not only aircraft carrier Eisenhower off the Syrian coast but LHD-7 Iwo Jima Big Deck Amphibious warfare ship alongside it:
ImageUploadedByARRSE1354856439.868733.jpg


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#2
It would not bother me if Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people. There is no reason for external involvement. We see all these middle eastern countries on tv, burning the flags of the US and other western countries and stomping on effigies of their leaders.

Now they plead for western intervention and aid. Look at Libya, we helped those and they thanked us by desecrating the graves of the fallen.

As long as any conflict stays inside Syrias borders then for me Syria will remain a topic on par with the weather.
 
#3
Would this not be just another marketing campaign like Libya? A relatively low risk conflict with world media coverage where the US/France etc can show off their latest gucci kit and wait for the orders to come poring in?
 
#4
It would not bother me if Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people. There is no reason for external involvement. We see all these middle eastern countries on tv, burning the flags of the US and other western countries and stomping on effigies of their leaders.

Now they plead for western intervention and aid. Look at Libya, we helped those and they thanked us by desecrating the graves of the fallen.

As long as any conflict stays inside Syrias borders then for me Syria will remain a topic on par with the weather.
Exactly- who are we backing?
 
#5
As long as we are not n the US part of the US/French intervention.
 
#6
Somehow I sense a bucket of worms, no a vat of worms. Looking back at Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan I would say that we (in the wider sense) should steer clear, unless it spills over into Turkey. But that would be a different matter.
 
#8
The mission would only involve a relatively small amount of special forces, and a number of NATO countries — including the UK and the US — would be involved. The mission would be modelled on the Western intervention in Libya, the magazine reports.
And would it all be over by Christmas.....

(Not a pop at you JJH, just the author of the original text)

Re-reading stuff the other day, I noticed this:

At the time of writing, the ‘Arab Spring’ has continued for well over a year. The
situation in Syria remains uncertain with violent protests continuing and an unrelenting
government response. There is concern that Al-Qaeda in Iraq may gain a lasting
foothold in Syria if there is a prolonged power vacuum, and also at the prospect of Syrian
conventional and chemical weapons stockpiles falling into the hands of terrorist groups.
This would pose a considerable threat both in the Middle East and more widely.
Int and Sy Committee 2011-2012 report.

https://b1cba9b3-a-5e6631fd-s-sites...sjgjO9bH78MOfyAcuwS6YL0Ppncos=&attredirects=0

Given the US has just proscribed the Al-Nusrah Front, I wonder if they are arguing the presence of AQ (or some international Jihad ideology group) has formalised. Chuck CW in to the mix and fear of proliferation?

Are we watching the momentum build up, I wonder.

Those with more knowledge can correct me, but wouldn't an attack on the mother country of the Arabs be taken hugely badly? US Forces outside the tomb of Saladin would nicely encapsulate the idea that we are simply the second coming of the same old Crusaders.

And for the history geeks, remember what happened at Hatteen.....
 
#10
According to the World Bank it's made up of 6,422,772 mongs.

Hope that helps.
I missed that tribe when reading about demographics. :)
 
#11
We WILL end up involved in any intervention. If only to show we can still play with the big boys - even if it's only holding their coats for them.
 
#13
Are you really saying the international community should do nothing? How will that look to the rest of the Middle East? No intervention as there's no oil. Additionally there is the issue of the security of chemical weapon stocks in a failed state post Assad?
 
#14
Are you really saying the international community should do nothing? How will that look to the rest of the Middle East? No intervention as there's no oil. Additionally there is the issue of the security of chemical weapon stocks in a failed state post Assad?
Yes.
Why should we risk anymore blood and treasure in the Middle East. Let them carry on wiping each other out, chemical weapons or not.

How about the Saudis step up to the mark as the regions police force?





Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#15
Are you really saying the international community should do nothing? How will that look to the rest of the Middle East? No intervention as there's no oil. Additionally there is the issue of the security of chemical weapon stocks in a failed state post Assad?
Why should we intervene to set up a regime for hardline muslims to hijack.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#16
Yes.
Why should we risk anymore blood and treasure in the Middle East. Let them carry on wiping each other out, chemical weapons or not.

How about the Saudis step up to the mark as the regions police force?
Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
The Saudis? Are you serious? Who do you think is behind the world-wide spread of Salafism, and in general has produced far more than its share of islamist nutcases (See 9/11).

One of the main reasons why there is so much angst and work to keep the Iranians from going nuclear is the certain knowledge that once they did, the Saudis would too - and they are the REAL nutters
 

CanteenCowboy

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Yes.
Why should we risk anymore blood and treasure in the Middle East. Let them carry on wiping each other out, chemical weapons or not.

How about the Saudis step up to the mark as the regions police force?





Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Stop it, you're making me laugh, the Saudis were barely willing to risk anything even when Saddam and his hordes were sitting on their border, never mind now when there's a couple of countries between them.
 
#18
Surely ruling out intervention ever means that we (the West) can have no influence on events there? The hardliners are more likely to take over if the place is left as it is.
 
#19
Are you really saying the international community should do nothing? How will that look to the rest of the Middle East? No intervention as there's no oil. Additionally there is the issue of the security of chemical weapon stocks in a failed state post Assad?
Pretty much. if you're worried about chemical weapons falling into the hands of beardies as Assad falls (by no means a foregone conclusion) then either bomb any sites or go in and secure them. as for getting involved in someone elses civil war, thanks, but no thanks.
 
#20
Surely ruling out intervention ever means that we (the West) can have no influence on events there? The hardliners are more likely to take over if the place is left as it is.
So what? They'll bitch about us not helping out. If we step in they'll bitch about us stepping in. The West can never win in any Arab state, so let them sort themselves out.

The only time to do anything in this dust-up is if a NATO member is threatened.

Each and every time the West has intervened, for good or bad, it's turned out bad. Leave them to it.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top