Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Why is the US retreating from Syria?

This is a discussion on Why is the US retreating from Syria? within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I dont think we need to go in yet as long as the rebels keep working on diminishing the syrian ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 13th, 2013   #16
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 216
Threads:
I dont think we need to go in yet as long as the rebels keep working on diminishing the syrian airforce they will win.The only intervention i can see happening is maybe to secure Assads chemical weapons and thats not to benefit either side even if the rebels do win Israel will not allow them to gain control of these weapons theres too many extremist groups operating in the country to allow that to happen.It would be good if we could convince Russia that its in their best interests to do just this mission.
the concerned is offline  
Old January 13th, 2013   #17
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,805
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the concerned View Post
I dont think we need to go in yet as long as the rebels keep working on diminishing the syrian airforce they will win.
Whos ''we''? Uncle Sam, the West or NATO? As long as the Alawite dominated army and elite stay on Assad's side, Assad can probably hold on - I could be wrong but only time will tell. At the moment, unless things spill over into neighbouring countries to the extent that open war breaks out, nobody - not Uncle Sam, not NATO, not the EU and certainly not the Sunni Arabs - have the political will to get involved on the ground. The rebel's are aleady claiming that supplies from their foreign backers are drying up and that this is because the Arab League is contemplating on some deal with Assad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the concerned View Post
either side even if the rebels do win Israel will not allow them to gain control of these weapons theres too many extremist groups operating in the country
The problem is there's not much that Israel can do about it is there? If the rebels win, the chemicals will become theirs and no doubt the UN and the West will try their best to persuade the new rulers of the country to destroy their chemicals with foreign supervision but I don't see the rebels agreeing to this. What if the rebels openly say that the chemicals are the property of the ''free'' Syrian people and that the chemicals are needed to defend themselves against a nuclear armed Israel and that they will only destroy them if Israel agrees to abide by a UN Resoultion which calls for it to return the Golan?? Things are already extremely complicated, and will most likely get worse before they get better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the concerned View Post
It would be good if we could convince Russia that its in their best interests to do just this mission.
''We'' don't have to convince the Russians to do anything as they already realise the consequences of the chemicals falling into the ''wrong hands [whoever those hands may be]. There always remains the possibility that following Assad's departure or death, the Russians may convince elements of Assad's army to handover whatever stocks they have to the Russians at Tartus and that some rebel lmight receive inducements to handover the chemicals. There is also the possibility that even if Assad's goverment falls, that the fighting will not end because surviving Alawite army units will retreat to their mountains for a last stand and will take some chemical shells or even a Scud or two with them. As I previously mentioned, ironically the chemicals are presently in the ''right hands' and those ''hands'' are Assad's forces....

Last edited by STURM; January 14th, 2013 at 06:34 PM.
STURM is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #18
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 12
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
A major lesson from Libya and Afghanistan is that the ''rebels'', ''freedom fighters'', ''resistance'', ''insurgents'' [call them what you want] usually don't turn out to be what those who ''supported'' them hoped they would be. Even if Assad falls there is no guarantee that the new government will be led by ''democratic'' freedom loving'', ''Western friendly'' individuals [look at what happened in Egypt and why do you think the Gulf Arabs and the West were largely silent when Assad the elder razed Hama to the ground in response to a campaign waged by the Muslim Brotherhood]. I have always maintained that what is happening in Syria - with regards to calls for Assad's overthrow - is largely directed at Iran and has to do with the ''silent cold war'' being fought between the Sunni Arabs and Shiite Iran for power and influence in the region.

What I find most ironic and hypocritical is that none of the Gulf Arabs states who are calling for Assad's ouster and who are so concerned about the welfare of ordinary Syrians are actual democracies themselves. Given the history of back stabbing, double dealing and hypocrisy practiced by all the players in the Middle East, I will not be surprised at all if at some point in the future [assuming of course that Assad's government manages to survive that long ] if the Sunni Gulf Arabs agree to drop their demands for Assad's ouster if he agrees to ditch Hezbollah and to end Syria's strategic relationship with Iran.
I can’t agree with you more, you have hit the nail in the head!
Saudi and Qatar are leading the war against Al Assad at the forefront, yet they are not democracies themselves.
Bahrain is backing off from supporting rebels in Syria because the Shaikdom is under pressure from internal strife caused by the Shiite in the Sunni ruled Sheikdom.
Apparently there has been a back door dealing between Iran who are instigating the Shiites in Bahrain to overthrow the Sunni Sheikdom, that the Sheikdom stops funding rebels in Syria and Iran will concomitantly stop funding the uprise of Shiites in Bahrain.
S0S0 is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #19
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 12
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Debka sometimes gets scoops, but I think its hit rate is pretty low. Very sloppy, e.g. calling Iskander a 'cruise' missile.

The only mainstream media outlet I can find to have reported this mentions it as a rumour, or 'uncomfirmed' (i.e. a rumour). Mostly, they've ignored it, perhaps because of its dubious origins.

As far as I can see, all these reports link back to a story by an Iranian called Reza Khalili, who may be relying on the Mashregh story - or vice-versa.
military-today.com/missiles/iskander.htm

The above site states that Russia sold 26 units of Iskander to Syria, but I cannot confirm the date on which the sale took place nor whether the actual delivery has taken place. Has Russia delivered the S-300 to Syria yet, or they still armed with some other low spec Russian SAM?
S0S0 is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #20
Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,258
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by S0S0 View Post
military-today.com/missiles/iskander.htm

The above site states that Russia sold 26 units of Iskander to Syria, but I cannot confirm the date on which the sale took place nor whether the actual delivery has taken place. Has Russia delivered the S-300 to Syria yet, or they still armed with some other low spec Russian SAM?
Apparently the sale was cancelled in 2011.

Russian media reports: S-300 sale to Syria can... JPost - Defense


And also

EURASIA - Russia suspends selling missile systems to Syria: Report
StobieWan is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #21
New Member
Private
Lcf's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 35
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
which NATO country has the poltical will to commit troops on the ground [and to keep them there to ensure the Alawites and other minorities don't suffer at the hands of the Sunni marjority], especially if Assad didn't use his chemicals and didn't attack Turkey?
Well I'd say UK at least, because even the British media openly talk about British Special Forces on the ground during the conflict in Libya assisting the rebels (or freedom fighters, whatever you call them) so why not now? Why not in Syria? And strictly speaking, Syria did attacked Turkey on several occasions (downing of Turkish jet, border provocation). Hell, Libya found itself under NATO attacks for much less reasons, not to mention that Russia held back its support for Gaddafi.

Also, someone here mentioned the reason why US is backing out is due to practical reasons and not because of Russian (indirect) involvement, and I ask, in situation where country like Syria borders two major American allies and Iraq which happens to be sort of a host to American troops, or at least some kind of logistical support, how come practical reasons represent a difficulty for an intervention?

Let's face it - with its quite capable military and Russia at its back, Syria is too strong for NATO to simply bomb it back to stone age and I say this because I really really hate this type of propaganda in which there is no place to simply admit that the enemy right now has the upper hand. It reminds me a lot of the Stalin era during WW2 where words like cowardice, retreat, defeat etc. in Soviet media were to only be related with the Nazis and NEVER with the Red Army.
Lcf is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #22
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,805
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by S0S0 View Post
or they still armed with some other low spec Russian SAM?
To be fair, when they where delivered to Syria in the 1980's, the Russian made SAMs were not ''low spec'', they may have been downgraded export variants but were certainly not ''low spec''. The main problem for the Syrian government since the 1990's, has been to come up with cash to pay for new weapons. The only new SAMs [there could be other I'm not aware of] that Syria is known to have received from Russia were Igla 1 MANPADs and there was quite a few years ago - this was reported in a number of magazines.
STURM is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #23
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,471
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by S0S0 View Post
military-today.com/missiles/iskander.htm

The above site states that Russia sold 26 units of Iskander to Syria, but I cannot confirm the date on which the sale took place nor whether the actual delivery has taken place.
Undated, unsourced report of a sale, & as you say, no mention of delivery.

Sites such as Military Today can't be better than their sources. Other sources say that Syria asked for, & was refused, Iskander missiles. You choose to believe those who say that they've been delivered, & disregard those who say the sale was refused. I ask for evidence.
swerve is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #24
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,805
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by S0S0 View Post
or they still armed with some other low spec Russian SAM?
To be fair, when they where delivered to Syria in the 1980's, the Russian made SAMs were not ''low spec'', they may have been downgraded export variants but were certainly not ''low spec''. The main problem for the Syrian government since the 1990's, has been to come up with the cash to pay for new weapons. The only new SAMs [there could be others I'm not aware of] that Syria is known to have received from Russia were Igla 1 MANPADs and there was quite a few years ago - this was reported in a number of magazines.
STURM is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #25
Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,258
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
Well I'd say UK at least, because even the British media openly talk about British Special Forces on the ground during the conflict in Libya assisting the rebels (or freedom fighters, whatever you call them) so why not now? Why not in Syria? And strictly speaking, Syria did attacked Turkey on several occasions (downing of Turkish jet, border provocation). Hell, Libya found itself under NATO attacks for much less reasons, not to mention that Russia held back its support for Gaddafi.

Also, someone here mentioned the reason why US is backing out is due to practical reasons and not because of Russian (indirect) involvement, and I ask, in situation where country like Syria borders two major American allies and Iraq which happens to be sort of a host to American troops, or at least some kind of logistical support, how come practical reasons represent a difficulty for an intervention?

Let's face it - with its quite capable military and Russia at its back, Syria is too strong for NATO to simply bomb it back to stone age and I say this because I really really hate this type of propaganda in which there is no place to simply admit that the enemy right now has the upper hand. It reminds me a lot of the Stalin era during WW2 where words like cowardice, retreat, defeat etc. in Soviet media were to only be related with the Nazis and NEVER with the Red Army.
1 - lack of a united resistance - in Libya, a common coalition was very rapidly identified and recognised. That's taken longer with Syria. Additionally, in Libya, senior government members defected quite early to form the nucleus of a government in exile. That all lends a legitimacy to the uprising, as well as a suggestion that things might be stable afterwards.

2 - it doesn't matter if Syria is surrounded by allies of the US - not if those allies are unwilling to provide assistance in permitting foreign troops to work from their soil.

3 - Syria's air defence is about the same level and quality as Iraq or Libya was when those defences were dismantled from the air. The Israelis quite recently staged a raid into Syria without any loss for instance. Russia has nothing to do with it.
StobieWan is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #26
New Member
Private
Lcf's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 35
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
1 - lack of a united resistance - in Libya, a common coalition was very rapidly identified and recognised. That's taken longer with Syria. Additionally, in Libya, senior government members defected quite early to form the nucleus of a government in exile. That all lends a legitimacy to the uprising, as well as a suggestion that things might be stable afterwards.

2 - it doesn't matter if Syria is surrounded by allies of the US - not if those allies are unwilling to provide assistance in permitting foreign troops to work from their soil.

3 - Syria's air defence is about the same level and quality as Iraq or Libya was when those defences were dismantled from the air. The Israelis quite recently staged a raid into Syria without any loss for instance. Russia has nothing to do with it.
Lack of united resistance? In this moment, that may be so, but I seem to remember time when the rebels practically had the entire city of Aleppo at their disposal and that would be very hard to achieve with fragmented forces. What came after that was lack of aid from the outside and by that I mean intervention that never took place. Don't forget that something similar happened in Libya when the rebels took over Benghazi which would've probably be overrun by gov. forces if hadn't been for the intervention.
As for the government in exile, Yugoslavia had one in UK during WW2 but it meant nothing since the situation on the field was entirely different than the one they had imagined. Same thing applies here.

Germans installing Patriot missile systems in Turkey hardly classifies as unwillingness to provide assistance. Same goes for military and financial aid to rebels which goes over Turkish territory. So let's not fool ourselves, both Turks and Israelis know very well who's the Boss so if the Boss wanted to operate from their soil I don't see a way for them to avoid that. Wouldn't be the first time...

As for the Syrian air defenses which consist of SA-1, SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-6, SA-7 SА-8, SА-9, SА-11, SА-13, SА-14... and approximately 60000 men operating it, now I'm no expert, but I'd say that's a quite serious air defense system.

Now people can talk all they want how this isn't about Russia but let's keep in mind that Syria is Russian last ally, so to speak, in the Middle East and one of the biggest buyers of Russian arms, don't forget the Russian naval facility in Tartus, don't forget that their reputation is at stake here. If they allow Assad to fall like that, who would ever again want to put their trust in Russia? Well, no one. And for a long time I haven't seen Russians defending their positions so harsh like this. And God knows what their response would be to a foreign intervention in Syria.

So yeah, I'd say this is about Russia...
Lcf is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #27
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 12,873
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
As for the Syrian air defenses which consist of SA-1, SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-6, SA-7 SА-8, SА-9, SА-11, SА-13, SА-14... and approximately 60000 men operating it, now I'm no expert, but I'd say that's a quite serious air defense system.
Especially those SA-2s... right?

Also... the SA-1, also known as the S-25 Berkut, was a stationary SAM deployed around Moscow in the 50s. It was never exported to Syria. There is some info that it may have been exported to North Korea at one point.

Also, I like your giant SAM list. Especially when you use the NATO designations which don't differentiate between MANPADS, and long-range SAMs. It looks very impressive. However, if I were you, I'd at least consider the age of the systems in question. Not even the age of the design, but the age of the physical systems Syria has.

There was a question earlier about modern SAMs that Syria may have. They do not have the S-300, they do have the Buk-M2E, Pantsir-S1, and (I'm not sure if you want to call this modern) the Pechora-2M variant of the S-125.
Feanor is online now  
Old January 14th, 2013   #28
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,805
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
Well I'd say UK at least, because even the British media openly talk about British Special Forces on the ground during the conflict in Libya assisting the rebels (or freedom fighters, whatever you call them) so why not now?
There is a profound difference between having special forces on the ground and actually having regular units engaged in combat operations. The U.K can't and simply will not do more than its presently doing unilaterely, without the support of NATO or the EU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
And strictly speaking, Syria did attacked Turkey on several occasions (downing of Turkish jet, border provocation).
All evidence seem to point to the fact that the Turkish Phantom was downed in Syrian airspace. If indeed the jet was downed whilst in Turkish or international airspace, I think we can agree that the response from NATO would have been a wee bit different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
Also, someone here mentioned the reason why US is backing out is due to practical reasons and not because of Russian (indirect) involvement, and I ask, in situation where country like Syria borders two major American allies and Iraq which happens to be sort of a host to American troops, or at least some kind of logistical support, how come practical reasons represent a difficulty for an intervention?
I'm not sure who you're referring to or what you meant by ''practical reasons'' but I did point out that for countries contemplation on direct intervention, Syria is much, much more risky than Libya, due to a number of factors, namely the geo-political envoroment there and the possibility that things could go horribly wrong for the countries concerned. With Libya, there was little chance of events there spilling over into neighbouring countriesto the extent that the sovereignty of these countries would come under severe threat, with Syria it is very different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
Now people can talk all they want how this isn't about Russia but let's keep in mind that Syria is Russian last ally, so to speak, in the Middle East and one of the biggest buyers of Russian arms, don't forget the Russian naval facility in Tartus, don't forget that their reputation is at stake here. If they allow Assad to fall like that, who would ever again want to put their trust in Russia? Well, no one. And for a long time I haven't seen Russians defending their positions so harsh like this. And God knows what their response would be to a foreign intervention in Syria.
Not sure what your personal definition of ''quite capable'' or even with which other military is the Syrian military ''quite capable'' in comparison with? Two years on, the Syrian military has been unable to contain the rebellion and has been losing ground, to the extent that some parts of the outskirts of Damascus are lost to the rebels and you're suggesting that one factor that has prevented foreign countries from intervening is because the Syrian military is ''quite capable''?

Russia was unhappy with how the West and its Arab allies had their way over Libya, is concerned about maintaining its influence and interests in the Middle East and is concerned about Syria but in event of actual Western intervention in Syria, is extremely unlikely to respond other than diplomatically.

Last edited by STURM; January 14th, 2013 at 04:50 PM.
STURM is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #29
New Member
Private
Lcf's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 35
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
Especially those SA-2s... right?
Also... the SA-1, also known as the S-25 Berkut, was a stationary SAM deployed around Moscow in the 50s. It was never exported to Syria. There is some info that it may have been exported to North Korea at one point.
Thanks for your note, indeed, it was never exported, my mistake...

Though I never said it's the kind of air defense system that can't be outmatched by all the modern wonders of aviation, my point still stands, it's still quite a good system which in no way can be compared to those of Libya.

And I agree with you, much of those systems are outdated, all I wanted to do is to simply stress that even as it is, it's quite a huge system they got out there.
Also agree on Pantsir-S1 and Buk-M2E (which was probably used to down that Turkish jet but then again it might have also been modernized version of Neva that brought it down).
Lcf is offline  
Old January 14th, 2013   #30
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,805
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
my point still stands, it's still quite a good system which in no way can be compared to those of Libya.

And I agree with you, much of those systems are outdated, all I wanted to do is to simply stress that even as it is, it's quite a huge system they got out there.
Also agree on Pantsir-S1 and Buk-M2E (which was probably used to down that Turkish jet but then again it might have also been modernized version of Neva that brought it down).
Do we know for sure that it's more effective and intensive then Libya's IADS was? They indeed have a large air defence network but how effective it is and how fully functioning the whole network is remains the question. Have any missile batteries and radars been abandoned or captured by the FSA? What we do know is that with the exception of the Buk and the Pantsir, most of their stuff is pretty aged, that coverage of the country has diminished given that a number of airbases have been captured and that several air defence sites have had to be abandoned or vacated [the FSA as you know now occupies a significant part of the country]. Back in 1991, we were told how effective Iraq's KARI network was, that Saddam had literally thousands of SAMS and AA guns waiting and that coalition aircraft losses would be high.
STURM is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 PM.