Is Syria the Target

In my reading of military history one strategy you see over and over is that an army will fake an attack at one spot and actually hit its opponent in another place. The last example of this that I know of was Desert Storm. Lots of US Marines were put on boats directly in front of Kuwait City and they just stayed there while Schwartzkoff (with some help from his boss Colin Powell) sent the troops in a "Hail Mary" movement around the back. (He would have made Lee and Jackson proud.)


Now we have made it very obvious that Afganistan is on the hot seat. They will have plenty of time to prepare their defense and perhaps be a tough foe for any type of invasion. This makes me think that it won't come and that we might strike somewhere else.

If any nation is deserving of a military strike it is Syria. Remember way back to when Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya in retaliation for the terrorist bombing of a German nightclub that killed many US servicemen. The great preponderance of US intelligence indicated that the terrorists responsible likely were stationed in, and supported by, Syria. But for political and military reasons, Syria has a relatively strong military, it was decided that Lybia would be a much easier target. Despite the lack of any credible evidence we went ahead with the bombing of Libya in lieu of an attack on Syria. Some might argue that this lead to the bombing of that airplane over Lockerbie but I won't comment on that.

Sen.McCain mentioned Syria a fair bit last night on Leno. I remember thinking it was a bit odd how much he mentioned it, actually.

Why not bomb SYRIA and LIBYA and IRAN and then, when they least expect it, hit AFGHANISTAN as well? I mean, under the circumstances the U.S. will be doing everybody a favor.


(Can this be done with a single bomb run?..)

My top 2 suspects are Hussein and Khadafi. Bin Laden probably works for both of them. If the old man Assad was still alive then I might buy Syria but I don't, now that his son's the boss.


Vince

Interesting supposition. What would happen next would be Syrian (and maybe Iraqi) missiles raining down on Tel Aviv, Haifa and other major cities (Israel has started distributing gas masks, or should I say the few people who still haven't got any are lining up for them). Should they be biologically or chemically equipped warheads, Israel would respond with tactical nuclear strikes. World War III. For this reason, I can't see this happening, unless they can get a promise of restraint from Israel beforehand, which seems highly unlikely this time. IMHO.

Actually, if these nations play host to terrorists and their respective terrorist enclaves/strongholds could be bombed simultaneously and thoroughly, we probably would be doing the world a favor. Just need to make sure of the targets.

I was thinking along the same lines. If we don't start with Syria, I was wondering if Libya would make a suitable "demonstration" country.


I've also noticed that many members of the press are assuming we will be able to accomplish our goals with strategic bombing, and no one in the government is contradicting them. I wonder if this is to draw attention away from ground troops.

This link was just posted to rgp:


http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0919_1_n.shtml


JG

Who has a greater motive?