Michael Matthew Bloomer, August 30, 2013

Military analysts and Syrian intervention cheerleaders maintain that limited air strikes will suffice to “degrade” Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities. Senator John McCain, as always, is among those cheerleaders. During March 2012 he was the first senator to call for air strikes on Assad’s armed forces. Now, again, a week ago McCain described the relative ease of reducing Assad’s air force and chemical weapons cache:

“There would be no boots on the ground. We would use stand-off weapons just as the Israelis have four times as they’ve taken out targets inside Syria,” McCain said. “We would not put a single life at risk.” McCain said in a “matter of a couple of days” the U.S. military could take out Syrian runways and the aircraft used by Syrian President Bashar Assad which have been dominating the battlefields.

Given McCain’s proven record of military prognostication, we know his latest thoughts on Syria are the ravings of a man on the cusp of dementia. Nevertheless, others who ought to know better by now mirror McCain’s thinking, including New York Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel:

Engel advocated for the use of surgical airstrikes, not necessarily “boots on the ground” to eliminate Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s military advantage. “We could wipe out the Syrian air force if we wanted to,” Engel said.

That said, look due east at the map. Now, define “surgical.” Suspected chemical weapons production and development facilities exist in or near Aleppo, Idlib, Homs, and Dara, all significant population areas. Moreover, a suspected chemical weapons production site in Latakia, Syria’s major port on the Mediterranean, is home to Russian navy vessels. Most importantly, CIA suspects the home of Syria’s chemical weapons R&D sites lies just north of densely populated Damascus. All of these reside in or near important population centers. So, again, define “surgical” airstrikes in these environments.

Surgical strikes are nearly impossible within tightly populated areas. So-called collateral damage (dead and wounded civilians) is very likely, nearly inevitable. Further complicating this:

Syrian production facilities are notoriously small in comparison to other CBW facilities in other states and are difficult to conclusively identify. Presently there are four suspected [chemical weapons production] sites [see map above right]. One located just north of Damascus, and the second near the industrial city of Homs. The third, in Hama, is believed to be producing VX agents in addition to sarin and tabun, and a fourth near Cerin. Several other sites are monitored by intelligence agencies and are listed only as suspect. [See here for more]

Thus, sturdy evidence of the sites of Syrian chemical weapons production, delivery, and R&D is unlikely. Recall the incredible failures of Iraq WMD intel. Though, unlike Iraq, we know to a certainty that Syria has chemical weapons, now we’re asked to rely upon often faulty, rigged, or politicized CIA intel again. “Get thee behind me Satan. You are a stumbling block to me . . .”

In the end, successful surgical airstrikes are largely mythical. McCain and others are correct that these attacks are “stand-off” affairs. We stand-off while Syrian civilians suffer through major surgery without anesthesia. And then what? Will Assad flee? Without direct “boots on the ground” incursion by foreign forces, NATO, United States? This “surgery,” if performed, will require more and more sawbones follow-ups by Dr. Obama.

Yes, Senator McCain, we see, it’s easy after all.

Please follow and like us:

Related