Trump's deadline for a Syria response has passed. Now what?

humbolt said:

From what I understand, the Syrians didn't light up their radars. I don't blame them. I claim no inside knowledge of this event. If all 105 missile successfully hit their targets, it would be extraordinarily successful, and I have doubts about that. We generally will claim everything went peachy, and the opposition will claim that maybe a few got through, i.e., the normal spin.

Click to expand...

Apparently the actual number of missiles that got through is someplace between 34 (32.38%) and 105 (100%).

The actual damage that was done appears to have been confined to three "significant" targets. That would make the cost of hitting one "significant" target in the neighbourhood of $16,666,666.67.

That would mean that, with around 4,700 cruise missiles in inventory, the US would be able to hit approximately 135 "significant" targets in Syria before it runs completely out of cruise missiles.

However, to do that would mean that the US wouldn't have any cruise missiles with which to attack the DPRK or any other nation that "got frisky", so, to be on the safe side, let's assume that the US can hit approximately 65 "significant" targets in Syria.

The problem, of course, is that the US doesn't actually know where all of the Syrian "significant" targets are.

notquiteright said:

Third time is the charm... eace

Click to expand...

I'm still wondering when the US is going to produce the proof of WHO actually deployed the chemical weapon.

I am, however, not going to swear off cigarettes and beer until it does that.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Apparently the actual number of missiles that got through is someplace between 34 (32.38%) and 105 (100%).

The actual damage that was done appears to have been confined to three "significant" targets. That would make the cost of hitting one "significant" target in the neighbourhood of $16,666,666.67.

That would mean that, with around 4,700 cruise missiles in inventory, the US would be able to hit approximately 135 "significant" targets in Syria before it runs completely out of cruise missiles.

However, to do that would mean that the US wouldn't have any cruise missiles with which to attack the DPRK or any other nation that "got frisky", so, to be on the safe side, let's assume that the US can hit approximately 65 "significant" targets in Syria.

The problem, of course, is that the US doesn't actually know where all of the Syrian "significant" targets are.

Click to expand...

As a straight line calculation of US cruise missiles and their possible effectiveness, that could be true. Not all of the missiles launched were US missiles, however, and we do have other things that go boom in our inventory that could be used.

I'm sure we have a fairly robust targeting information for Syria, but no, we certainly don't know where everything is. Hopefully, we won't need to know.

humbolt said:

I'm sure we have a fairly robust targeting information for Syria, but no, we certainly don't know where everything is. Hopefully, we won't need to know.

Click to expand...

You might be interested in seeing an "outside" viewpoint of the attack "Limited U.S. military action leaves al-Assad looking like the winner".

When you get down to the "Retaking East Ghouta is a key win for the regime. " bit your perception of how the Syrians regard the situation might possibly change.

The “The popularity of President Assad will be much larger after this. This will work in his favour because the Syrian people will never agree to any foreign troops or missiles,” bit just might possibly be true.

TU Curmudgeon said:

You might be interested in seeing an "outside" viewpoint of the attack "Limited U.S. military action leaves al-Assad looking like the winner".

When you get down to the "Retaking East Ghouta is a key win for the regime. " bit your perception of how the Syrians regard the situation might possibly change.

The “The popularity of President Assad will be much larger after this. This will work in his favour because the Syrian people will never agree to any foreign troops or missiles,” bit just might possibly be true.

Click to expand...

I have read several accounts that claim the Syrian attack was a win for Assad. I will read the one you offer as well, but I have to say that being bombed is usually not construed in such a manner. The attack surely could have been more aggressive, but in a region in which our stated effort is to get more involvement from "allies" there it's possibly better to not smack the bee's nest and just walk away.

If the Syrians will never agree to any foreign troops or missiles, they might want to take a closer look at their compatriots. They're Russian and Iranian - decidedly not Syrian.

humbolt said:

I have read several accounts that claim the Syrian attack was a win for Assad. I will read the one you offer as well, but I have to say that being bombed is usually not construed in such a manner.

Click to expand...

As far as the situation IN SYRIA is concerned, the "public perception" that matters is the one in Damascus not the one in Detroit.

humbolt said:

The attack surely could have been more aggressive, but in a region in which our stated effort is to get more involvement from "allies" there it's possibly better to not smack the bee's nest and just walk away.

Click to expand...

The NON-American consensus appears to be that the attack was just strong enough to prevent people snickering but not strong enough to actually "annoy" either the Russians or the Syrians.

humbolt said:

If the Syrians will never agree to any foreign troops or missiles, they might want to take a closer look at their compatriots.

Click to expand...

It isn't so much "ANY foreign troops" as it is "foreign troops attacking Syria".

humbolt said:

They're Russian and Iranian - decidedly not Syrian.

Click to expand...

True, but they are "faithful allies who are fighting on Syria's side".

Now that may not be your perspective and it might not be my perspective, but those aren't the perspectives that matter IN SYRIA.

TU Curmudgeon said:

As far as the situation IN SYRIA is concerned, the "public perception" that matters is the one in Damascus not the one in Detroit.



The NON-American consensus appears to be that the attack was just strong enough to prevent people snickering but not strong enough to actually "annoy" either the Russians or the Syrians.



It isn't so much "ANY foreign troops" as it is "foreign troops attacking Syria".



True, but they are "faithful allies who are fighting on Syria's side".

Now that may not be your perspective and it might not be my perspective, but those aren't the perspectives that matter IN SYRIA.

Click to expand...

No argument from me on any of those scores. In that they have been involved in a civil war for some time now, I expect the Syrian view depends largely on which Syrians one might talk to. From my perspective, when the ISIS-like elements became involved, any sense that there were "good" elements present in the conflict dissolved. After about 2012, any hope for a better outcome than what we're witnessing now was lost. The non-extremist elements fighting Assad had been compromised.

My focus is on our national interest in the region. I think that Syria was lost to Russian and Iranian interests a good many years ago now, and Assad will be bent to their will.

humbolt said:

No argument from me on any of those scores. In that they have been involved in a civil war for some time now, I expect the Syrian view depends largely on which Syrians one might talk to.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and, at this remove, it's rather pointless to be discussing who "encouraged" the civil war originally.

humbolt said:

From my perspective, when the ISIS-like elements became involved, any sense that there were "good" elements present in the conflict dissolved.

Click to expand...

There are still "good elements" involved. The only problem is that they are small, scattered, mutually antagonistic, relatively powerless, and take inconsistent positions regarding who is, and is not, another "good element".

humbolt said:

After about 2012, any hope for a better outcome than what we're witnessing now was lost. The non-extremist elements fighting Assad had been compromised.

Click to expand...

Although I'd prefer "co-opted" I agree.

humbolt said:

My focus is on our national interest in the region. I think that Syria was lost to Russian and Iranian interests a good many years ago now, and Assad will be bent to their will.

Click to expand...

As he could have been "bent to America's will" had the issues been handled differently?

Possibly "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?" and "The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!" and similar comments were right. Of course, since the person making those comments has absolutely no credibility with Mr. Trump, it's obvious that Mr. Trump won't be paying any attention to them.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Indeed, and, at this remove, it's rather pointless to be discussing who "encouraged" the civil war originally.



There are still "good elements" involved. The only problem is that they are small, scattered, mutually antagonistic, relatively powerless, and take inconsistent positions regarding who is, and is not, another "good element".



Although I'd prefer "co-opted" I agree.



As he could have been "bent to America's will" had the issues been handled differently?

Possibly "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?" and "The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!" and similar comments were right. Of course, since the person making those comments has absolutely no credibility with Mr. Trump, it's obvious that Mr. Trump won't be paying any attention to them.

Click to expand...

I believe that is generally referred to as situational ethics. I'm not a subscriber, but I understand I'm part of a very tiny minority.

humbolt said:

I believe that is generally referred to as situational ethics. I'm not a subscriber, but I understand I'm part of a very tiny minority.

Click to expand...

You do realize that the two quotes (What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?" and "The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!") were statements made by a rather obscure American political figure named D.J. Trump, don't you?

TU Curmudgeon said:

You do realize that the two quotes (What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?" and "The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!") were statements made by a rather obscure American political figure named D.J. Trump, don't you?

Click to expand...

Yes. If one chooses to, one can go back and find all manner of quotes made by people currently in the higher echelons of government that they would prefer be ignored today. I do agree Trump may be one of the more outstanding among them. All such people extend a wetted finger in the wind.