Submit your comments on this article |
Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
RAND Study Evaluates Airpower Options for Syria Intervention |
2013-09-04 |
A new RAND report examines five options for U.S. and allied military intervention in the Syrian civil war using airpower, and warns that destroying or grounding the Syrian air force is operationally feasible but would have only marginal benefits for protecting civilians. The report also concludes that any airpower option would involve substantial risks of escalation by third parties, or could lead to greater U.S. military involvement in Syria. The study by RAND, a nonprofit research organization, comes at a time when the Syrian government has been accused of using chemical weapons against opposition forces, accusations that drew threats of military action from the United States and other western nations. "There are five basic missions the United States and its partners could take on to pursue the goals of protecting civilians, limiting or containing the conflict, or changing the course of the civil war," said Karl Mueller, a senior political scientist and lead author of the report. "Choosing between them, or not doing any of them, should be based on a clear sense of the military realities and their potential rewards and risks." The five missions are: "The U.S. and its allies can certainly conduct an operationally successful air campaign in Syria," Mueller said. "But each of these aerial intervention options has the potential to escalate or expand the conflict, and could lead to unwelcome responses from Assad's allies or to wider or deeper U.S. military involvement. The next steps following an initial intervention should be central to any strategic planning for using airpower in Syria." The report, "Airpower Options for Syria: Assessing Objectives and Missions for Aerial Intervention," can be found at www.rand.org. Its co-authors are Jeffrey Martini and Thomas Hamilton. The report was supported through philanthropic contributions and conducted within the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy, which brings together analytic excellence and regional expertise from across RAND to address the most critical political, social, and economic challenges facing the Middle East today. |
Posted by:Crineck Sholump8581 |
#8 As per #1, the USAF just said it not ready or prepared to support any strike on Syria. Which indirectly means or infers IMO that ground troops will be needed, espec iff the Bammer intends to do more than just attack baby Assad's CHemWar assets. Lest we fergit, AFAIK THE SO-CALLED "OBAMA DOCTRINE" MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN KINDS OR TYPES OF WMDS USED BY A DICTATOR + GOVT. IN THE COMMISSION OF HEINIOUS/MALICIOUS CRIMES AGZ HIS OWN PEOPLE. AFAIK again, no one is talking about taking out Assad's BIOLOGICAL, ETC, NON-CHEMICAL WEAPONS [NBC-CBRNE], OR DID I MISS SOMETHING??? |
Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-09-04 20:32 |
#7 Why didn't he just eat the damn waffle? |
Posted by: Shipman 2013-09-04 19:25 |
#6 Note the questions NOT being asked: Do you fok'ing ALREADY have |
Posted by: Besoeker 2013-09-04 18:10 |
#5 Other problem. Russia and China decide to step up meddling in other countries. |
Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-09-04 17:53 |
#4 I really don't see any of the five options even remotely feasible without US personnel on the ground. |
Posted by: Besoeker 2013-09-04 16:19 |
#3 Enable opposition forces to defeat President Bashar al-Assad's regime, Remind me again just who the opposition forces are. And why we would want them in power. |
Posted by: SteveS 2013-09-04 14:05 |
#2 McNamara's favorite buds! Where is a good wood stake when needed? |
Posted by: 3dc 2013-09-04 13:08 |
#1 Multiple problems -- 1) Champ isn't advocating a no-fly zone 2) We'd need Turkey to let us use their air bases. I haven't heard anyone ask, or anyone in Turkey say okay 3) All options assume that Pencilneck and his military simply cowers in their bunkers |
Posted by: Steve White 2013-09-04 13:06 |