12 more US warplanes were deployed to Turkey today as part of what officials call “routine rotations” for the ongoing bombing of Syria and Iraq. The planes are slow-moving A-10 Thunderbolts, designed as close support planes for ground troops, and are being planned for use backing “Arab and Kurdish militants” on the ground.
This new deployment comes amid reports of a serious debate going on in the administration on a dramatic buildup of the war in Syria, aimed at spiting Russia for its own anti-ISIS war. Secretary of State John Kerry is said to be leading a push for a show of force, including declaring a “no fly zone” in northern Syria and attempting to block Russia from the area militarily.
The State Department sees that as the ultimate move to really stick it to Russia, but the Pentagon is much less upbeat about the idea, issuing a report warning about the massive amount of military resources needed to enforce a no-fly zone and warning that trying to bar Russia from parts of Syria risks “an inadvertent clash.”
The Pentagon’s report was so negative about a military confrontation with Russia, indeed, that some officials present at the meeting accused them of “inflating” the cost of the operation to try to convince the White House not to pursue the scheme.
President Obama has recently been critical of the idea of a no-fly zone, as many Republicans have advocated it, but is facing growing calls to do it anyhow, even if it isn’t practical, for lack of any other real ideas on how to make a show of moving against Russia.
Seems unreal, like cheap hollywood entertainment — perhaps it is in a sense though all too real. Are we really going to be betrayed by our political parasite class into yet another war for Israel, perhaps getting nuked this time for the pleasure of the chosen ones? Again they endeavor to destroy our fortunes, our lives, and our honor! Should we not rather seize for ourselves what remains of these sullied treasures and reclaim our liberty, or failing that at least our dignity?
Among other issues, I'm sure the Pentagon mentioned that a no-fly zone would be illegal under international law, unless it was sanctioned by a UN resolution of the security council, and there's zero chance of getting that. Syria is still officially a state, and it's official government is still Assad. Everything the US has been doing in Syria is squarely against international law. On the other hand, what the Russians have been doing is at the invitation of the Syrian government, and is therefore legal.
Not that anyone much cares, but it makes it that much harder for the US to complain about, say, Crimea, when they so blatantly disregard international law themselves.
Glad to see that you agree that Putin's actions in Ukraine are contrary to international law, but what that means is the he "started it". Putin's actions in Syria are clearly intended to help him escape from the consqeuences of his illegal conduct in Ukraine. Fruit of the poisened tree, as lawyers say.
No matter what kind of slow, fast or hard jets USG is going to sending to turkey such move is about prolonging the war in Syria. USG and its allies losingand they know it, to prevent further embarrassment they do whatever, prolonging the Syrian war is part of the Obama politics.
The US is certainly trying to prolong the war but not because they're losing it. Guerilla wars are unwinnable anyway and the value of prolonging this one is that one of those who will also lose it is Putin. He's made the same mistake as in Ukraine: instead of sitting quietly in his naval base and awaiting developments, he's jumped into the fighting. That will ultimately cost him his naval base and his political career, which is roughly what happened to Krushchev after the twin defeats in Berlin and Cuba.
Don't hold your breath Michael.
Here we go. WWIII begins.
It looks like many Americans, even intelligent, educated ones like John Kerry, think that since the First and Second World Wars didn't hit American cities, there's no reason why a third one should. They also seem to think that tragic blunders don't really matter, since the bad stuff always happens abroad.
It's very unlikely that a war would damage American cities. Cities have no military value and the terror bombing of them by all sides in WWII merely strengthened the resolve of the inhabitants to fight back. Cities might be useful strong points ina land war, but do you really see Canada or Mexico invading the US?
Please post your IQ before ever writing again
I'll challenge your assertion that Skull-and-Boneser John Kerry is either 'intelligent' or 'educated.'
Probably, yes.
DId someone declare an aggressive, unilateral war on Syria? What does the UN say?
A no-fly zone would have no standing under international law, a fact which Putin has already indicated will become a major issue at the UN. The US and allies would face engaging a blatant violation of the UN Charter, in an operation supporting al-Qaeda militias. The legal pretext for US military operations rest with the 2002 AUMF – which is entirely predicated on fighting al-Qaeda. Senior US policy makers are at this juncture rather insane.
what legal right does the u.s. have to do such a thing? humanity is going to pay the ultimate price for american evil.
Syria is becoming more and more like Spain was in 1937. The prelude to something much bigger and more all encompassing.
The only difference is this time, we more irrational people in charge of things (Not that the characters of the 1930's were all that rational to begin with), who believe that one can "Win," a nuclear war (These same people of course have the luxury of tax payer provided, well stocked, under ground bunkers while we the other 5.5 billion humans, and billions of other animal and plant life do not), and have the capability to destroy all of humanity if something much bigger and more all does break out.
Humanity has a death wish by allowing these nut bags to run the asylum.
Nuclear weapons serve no military purpose. They are weapons of terror ro blackmail. Cities are of no military value as targets, so why would anybody want to use useless weapons against militarily unimportant targets? Why would any country turn itself into an international pariah for something so silly? We have left the "nuclear war will blow up the world" argument far behind.
"Nuclear weapons serve no military purpose. They are weapons of terror ro blackmail"
Ever heard of tactical nuclear missiles? You now , the ones that are deployed against
militairy bases ,command centres, missile launch sites, ground troops ,naval vessels etc,
(the radioactivity will not stay limited to those sites and drift to populated areas)
If the situation escalates too much , they will be used..
Michael, how did WWII in the Pacific end?
There is already a no fly zone in Syria and it's imposed by the Russians. Any discussions of imposing a U.S. / NATO no fly zone is just pure folly and is only offered as red meat for U.S. public consumption. U.S. citizens really should read up and understand from a military perspective what's actually going on in Syria. Russia's electronic warfare capabilities far exceeds that of the U.S. / NATO and has basically blinded it (just like in the Ukraine) from any electronic intelligence gathering in Syria. In effect it has created a bubble over Syria which, among other reasons, is why the Pentagon is pushing back so hard against this strategy.
"Russia's electronic warfare capabilities far exceeds that of the U.S. / NATO"
That's an interesting claim. Any evidence for it?
Below are just a few article links:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/21/russia-winnin…
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-b…
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/kremlin-tech-jam…
http://news.rin.ru/eng/news///134876/1/
http://www.realcleardefense.com/2015/10/22/russia…
Thanks! I've actually read some of those articles and, like Mark Thomason below, believe they don't so much reflect the idea that "Russia's electronic warfare capabilities far exceeds that of the U.S. / NATO" as the idea that "Russia's electronic warfare capabilities are effective against the US / NATO," which is a slightly different proposition.
For example, if we look at other types of weapons, I would agree that the US 81mm mortar is effective against Russian infantry in the open, and that the Russian 82mm mortar is effective against US infantry in the open. But I wouldn't class either's capabilities as "far exceeding" those of the other. The US mortar has a greater effective range with HE rounds than the Russian weapon, but I suspect (based on having physically examined some of them once) that the Russian mortars are more durable and forgiving of rough handling (a mortar is worthless if something on it breaks and it can't be accurately fired).
I'll grant you that "far exceeds" may be a bit too strong but the following quotes tell me all I need to know about U.S. EW capabilities as compared to those of Russia (which btw is disturbing):
"The US, Buckhout said, lacks a significant electronic attack capability."
"We have great signals intelligence, and we can listen all day long, but we can't shut them down one-tenth to the degree they can us," she said. "We are very unprotected from their attacks on our network" said Laurie Buckhout, former chief of the US Army's electronic warfare division, now CEO of the Corvus Group.
One thing is for sure and that is if the arrogant monsters in DC believed that they could impose a no-fly zone without any issues they would have done so by now, but they understand that it would be suicidal.
So what do you think about Russian operations in Syria so far?
Pretty much the same thing I think about US operations in Syria so far, except that since it's the Russians I don't get the bill for it.
In the same vein, I couldn't help but be reminded of a report from a year ago April about Russian electronics and the Donald C. Cook. http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.ca/2014/04/th…
Hadn't seen too much comment about it anywhere since. Could it be an Onion tale or just too scary to report?
Russia's electronic warfare capabilities followed a different path from ours. In fact, our Navy followed a different path from our Air Force, and our Army did nothing.
Our Navy is heavily dependent on a small number of EF-18-G Growlers. Our Air Force opted instead for stealth, and for limited pods on board individual aircraft. Our Army leans on those two, in particular Navy planes patrolling over it much like an Combat Air Patrol.
The Russians followed a different course. They have put electronic warfare on trucks, supporting their missiles. They have a lot of them, and they are far forward, and they are all the time instead of just when the planes are overhead.
We know the US is very good at this. We've seen that the Russians are very good too. Neither "far exceeds." They are too different for that to apply. Electronic warfare in its essence goes around the other guy, so it should be no surprise that even the basic approaches go around each other.
Remember the USS Donald Cook ?
"Any discussions of imposing a U.S. / NATO no fly zone is just pure folly and is only offered as red meat"
It is folly.
I'm not sure if it is mere red meat, or real folly in policy too.
You are correct. It is real folly in "policy".
If the Russians have imposed a no-fly zone, then they can't object to anyone else doing likewise! As for Ukraine, doesn't Putin claim that the Russian military have nothing to do with it? Little Vlad must be in big trouble if his own supporters are shooting themselves in the foot trying to defend him!
I'm not supporting little Vlad just stating my objective opinion. You on the other hand don't review topics critically or objectively and like to kiss the a_s of all things U.S. You troll other websites (e.g., Asia Times) doing the same thing and quite frankly you have no credibility.
I wonder, is that because Russia will not pay top-dollar for dreck like the Americans do to their military-industrial complex? My understanding is that the new F-34's are pretty much a bust.
Such a nonsensical impossibility, why burn up our emotional capital debating the stupidity of it. A better way I see, surely we must replace incompetent Jason Ditz with me, for work for free, that is the best for we.
Who's this "we" you're talking about? I find Mr. Ditz's articles informative. More informative, at any rate, than the "rich and educated upper half of society blah blah blah" comment you've been copying and pasting into every story, day in and day out for years on end.
I am surprised. I find Jason Ditz informative. I did early on — not being familiar with the site — found his writing sometimes wanting. But in reality, given the format of the forum, and the limited scope of the reporting format — he does a very good job at synthesis. Not an easy task.
As for the ideas of extending the conflict via challenge to Russia, it will all depend on the mood of Syria's neighborhood. I am sure that Turkey cannot wait for the Syrian crisis to be gone from its plate. It has — thanks to Syrian crisis, created social instability, economic decline and political turmoil in Turkey. Not to mention the perennial Kurdish secessionism. Jordan cannot wait for the training basis to be gone from its soil — with over 50% of Palestinian population energized by Russia's foray into Middle East, it wants much lower profile. In fact, Jordan is mending fences with Russia — at least for the sake of public appearance. Iraq? The pressure grows on the president to ask for Russia's involvement. Iran? We have an answer there. Egypt? Putin is there a reincarnated pharaoh. Saudi Arabia? With the problems — both internal and external accumulating, it is asking even the "untouchables" for help, like Sudan. Sudan's 10,000 troops may help Saudi Arabia stabilize at least the South Yemen region, but Sudan will ask for great many concessions that are diametrically opposite from US interests in that African region.
So, where will US find the reliable ally willing to go along into protracted war against Russia?
We will find out I suppose. Should there be a coup in Turkey, all is possible. But then, WWIII will not be far off.
If we tell the Russians to stop flying, and send planes to enforce our order, that is us picking a fight with Russia. It is on us, not Russia.
The conversation is:
US: Stop flying or we'll shoot you down.
Russia: Try it.
Why has the State Department become the leading war voice in our government? They're supposed to be the "diplomacy" wing of our Executive Branch.
Excellent point. Because State is infested by neocons. Hillary, Nuland, that place is a mess. Someone needs to clean house there.
Paul Craig Roberts has published the perfect moniker for the Government: "The Dumbshits in Washington".
The "3 Bravo" foreign policy of our government (bribing, bullying, bombing) is out of control. Obama takes his orders from the shadow government of global bankers, multinational corporations and foreign State lobbyists whose enforcement arm is the U.S. Department of War (not "Defense" as some still believe).
Any attempt to establish control of Syrian airspace by the U.S. is an act of war against the Russian Federation who have a legal right to be in country as granted by President Assad, the legitimate head of State. The U.S. Military has no authority whatsoever to breach the sovereignty of the Syrian nation. Russia will protect its assets with multiple SAM (surface-to-air) platforms such as the S-300 missile system and destroy the U.S NATO proxy if they dare to engage the Russian air force.
Those individuals in the Pentagon of Ineptitude who believe the Russian Defense Ministry doesn't have SAM's in place are stupid indeed because President Putin and his Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu, had prepared for this contingency well in advance of the first Russian sortie against the terrorists in Syria.
The bottom line is for the U.S. to avoid the temptation to behave recklessly for the hubris of fools is a self made perdition.
The first I heard of this 'no fly' zone was from John McCain when he was being interviewed by Charlie Rose on PBS last week. We are fast approaching the point where the rubber meets the road.
This is just an American dog barking with no bite. Russia already has a no-fly zone in Syria and we better not cross it.
There's really no need for a no-fly zone. The more Putin flies, the more damage he does to himself. Having come down openly on Assad's side, he has no choice now but to fight to the bitter end. When the time comes to take Putin out once and for all, and not just from Syria, a no-fly zone would be a useful pretext for getting a fight going. The traditional brutality of the Russian military, combined with Putin's incressing desperation, will probably furnish a good excuse. He's put the rope around his neck. Now stand back and give the man time to hang himself!
Oh yea and that's probably why his approval rating is up to 90%.
" take Putin out once and for all, and not just from Syria." What exactly do you mean?
Brutal? Who killed 600,000 kids and old folks in Iraq? Michael would it help you to guess the country if I told you Ms. Albright said all those dead kids were "worth it"?
Apparently not a single DC Dunce has heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or maybe they are like a dog going after porcupines: the more quills in the muzzle, the more determined they are to "win".
Wow these people that think like Kerry are sick. Kerry really is a evil dude. You can tell he's a bones man.
If Kerry and co really try to enforce a no-fly zone I think probably the following wil happen;
_ Russia will go to the UN ,insisting on the no-fly zone to be removed
_ if that doesn't work , Russia and Syria will state at the UN that every foreign presence on Syrian soil is illegal if not invited by the Syrian authorities, ,Russia will deploy more forces to Syria
_ If that doesn't help they will declare Syria and invited allies will use force against anyone entering Syria
_Russia will activate their Krasuka 4 and S-400 systems
_If that still doesn't help , they will shoot out some drones
_If necessary they will shoot down a jet
_America and the bigmouth in Turkey , in order to safe face, likely will try to start WW3
insisting it's all Russia's fault.
If the Americans or other are stupid enough to give anti-air missiles to some of the terrorist groups
or shoot down a Russian/Syrian plane , the last steps will occur a lot sooner.
Let's hope it won't come to that.
@ Michael Kenny , please spare me your comment , if I want to hear delusional propaganda
I will listen to an old dr.Goebbels speech. (Beautiful language for propaganda ,German)