Why is the US retreating from Syria?

[STURM]

In comparison to Iraq or Lybia, for example.

Hold on, wait a minute!! You're seriously suggesting that the Syrian military - which is more capable than the Libyan military, is a factor holding back the 'West' from directly intervening in the conflict??

I have reasons to believe Russia also wanted Gaddafi out of the pictures because aside from increased rhetoric that was meant for use at home, they didn't do a single damn thing for him but that's another subject.

You do realise that in the larger scheme of things that for Russia, Syria is much more important than Libya - both at present and during the Cold War??

And still, in my opinion none of you gave me a valid answer why is it like that in this case? Why aren't they acting? You all claim it has nothing to do with Russian presence. You all claim Syria has no means to defend itself successfully from NATO intervention, on which I mostly agree with. So I ask, what's really stopping them?

As I've explained twice before, the geo-political situation in Syria is much more complex and risky than it was with Libya [I base my assessements on facts not speculation]. There are more things that can go wrong for the 'West'' and more resources and more lasting presence will be needed if the 'West'' puts boots on the ground.......... With Libya there was no need for a foreign military presence after the fall of Gadaffi, with Syria it could be very, very different. The Americans remember very well the major mistake they made in Iraq, with regards to not paying attention to the fact that they would have to play a role in rebuilding the country and helping ensuring state institutions could get back on their feet again. And look at Afghanistan, all the initial emphasis initially was on defeating AQ, there were very little plans for what came after, with regards to helping the Afghans get back on the feet again - the result was that in the 2002/3 period the Talibs made a comeback. If the strife continues in Syria after Assad's ouster, is the 'West' going to commit itself to staying in Syria? Is the political will, funding and resources even available?

Let me present a scenario. Let's say Western troops do enter Syria to help the 'freedom loving' 'democratic' rebels overthrow the brutal and hated dictator, what happens if the rebels start fighting amongst themselves? One rebel groups announces that it want to establish the Islamic Caliphate of Syria and starts going after the minorities [the Druze, the Christians and off course the Alawites] and the Kurds announce they want a semi-autonomous region with their brethren in Turkey. Are American and British squaddies going to stay on to help sort out the mess and are the 'big powers' going to provide funding for the UN to step in??

By aiding the rebels in money and weapons, not to mention by aiding them with volunteers (or should I say "volunteers"?), they already got their hands dirty, so why not do more than that?

It should be plainly obvious to you. Providing aid to the rebels - as opposed to actually fighting alongside or for the rebels - entails much less risk, resources and comitment.

 

[Feanor]

I'm positive. Also, I forgot to add 9K38 Igla (SA-18) and 1225 AA guns to the list. You are free to check for yourself, if you want.

The list I have is provided by this guy: enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Miroslav_Lazanski
I find him to be one of the best politico-military commentators out there. Spent quite some time reporting from Syria last year as well.

Interesting. So you're positive that all the types you listed are still in service? And he's positive? Not that it matters, but the very act of listing randomly a bunch of MANPADS, tac-SAMs, division-SAMs, theater-SAMs, and of different generations at that makes me wonder about what your point here even is. Syria has a large and multi-layered IADS. Mostly outdated.

Is this a serious question? Since we can agree that Pantsir-S1 and Buk-M2E are the best they have right now, I think we can agree those would be priority one targets in a potential conflict.
And I doubt NATO planers take it so lightly like you and unlike you it's their job to take everything and I mean everything into equation, because believe it or not those aircraft's don't come for free, even when they are as old as those Phantoms, not to mention the potential loss of human lives.
And you said it yourself, this isn't Iraq or Libya.

They won't take it lightly, they'll take it quite seriously, and consequently disassemble the Syrian IADS node by node, and SAM by SAM. Again, what's your point?

Yeah right, like they need evidence to start and intervention, especially with all the border provocations from Syrian side.
Shoot first, ask questions later. Sadly it has came to that. Remember those WMD's found in Iraq? Neither do I.

Hmm. Well there were those sarine-filled arty shells...

And that's just it. Iraq was pushed through because the US had more credibility, and Iraq had fewer friends. Pushing through a similar move on Syria would be much harder.

I have reasons to believe Russia also wanted Gaddafi out of the pictures because aside from increased rhetoric that was meant for use at home, they didn't do a single damn thing for him but that's another subject.

Wanted or allowed it in exchange for something else?

And still, in my opinion none of you gave me a valid answer why is it like that in this case? Why aren't they acting? You all claim it has nothing to do with Russian presence. You all claim Syria has no means to defend itself successfully from NATO intervention, on which I mostly agree with. So I ask, what's really stopping them? Lack of support from American allies in the region? Oh come on, the guy's (Assad) surrounded by enemies. Literally! By aiding the rebels in money and weapons, not to mention by aiding them with volunteers (or should I say "volunteers"?), they already got their hands dirty, so why not do more than that?

It has nothing to do with Russian physical presence, but maybe something to do with their geopolitical presence both in the region, and in the world at large.

I see a Russian red line here that no one's willing to cross. I say, Russian presence is the main thing stopping the intervention. And I have not one doubt that the original plan was to intervene but only after complete withdrawal of Russian citizens and personnel which they thought would happen when all hell breaks loose. Well they thought wrong, all hell did break loose but obviously not enough to kick out the Russians and no one, at least not anyone normal, has the guts to risk having them as their "collateral damage". We all saw how that type of recklessness ended in Georgia...

Maybe. Or maybe there wasn't much of an intervention plan to begin with, given how little actual pressure was put on Syria. Hell, an Italian telecom company (and Italy's a NATO member state) was delivering comm gear to the Syrians in the middle of the conflict.

 

[StobieWan]

Wait, lack of coast line? One of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard in my life... Iraq has even more narrow corridor and yet they staged that invasion pretty well.

:sigh: GET.A.MAP.


2003, there were bordering countries willing to provide staging points for a land based assault into Iraq so there were plenty of options to work with. Assault could be made from land and sea at will.

Today. the nearest neighbours to Syria are *not* willing to allow any such action. Given that, the only way into Syria is a relatively narrow throat of coastline which is controlled by forces loyal to Assad. I've only stated this about four times so I can see why it's hard to grasp. One more time..yes, there is some coast. There's not a lot of it, and it's all held by the bad guys.

That's *it*...

In 2003, it's worth pointing out that Turkey did not allow land based attacks to stage from her territory and neither as far as I'm aware, did any Coalition air strikes come from Turkish bases. In fact, during the very early hours of the war, Turkey refused flight clearance for missions travelling through her airspace, only relenting for some special forces drops a day or so into the war/

So, no, the US couldn't get into Syria today just relying on the sort of assistance that Turkey gave in 2003 - because there was none..

Without a decent base of support from the neighbours, there's no prospect of international intervention. In addition, I suspect most of the usual Western actors are a bit war weary and less inclined to get into military intervention of any sort in Syria as it'll likely be a decade long struggle to stabilise the aftermath. I don't see fear of Russia as being a major factor here.

 

[STURM]

They won't take it lightly, they'll take it quite seriously, and consequently disassemble the Syrian IADS node by node, and SAM by SAM.

Exactly! Like what they did with KARI.

Given the loss of ground and bases to the FSA, the aged Syrian IADS has been further degraded.

In addition, I suspect most of the usual Western actors are a bit war weary and less inclined to get into military intervention of any sort in Syria as it'll likely be a decade long struggle to stabilise the aftermath. .

The Independent ran an article which mentioned Britain's top brass saying that the British military was over extended and warned against British involvement in Mali.

 

[StobieWan]

The Independent ran an article which mentioned Britain's top brass saying that the British military was over extended and warned against British involvement in Mali.

I should think so - we need to get out Afghanistan, retrain and refocus - ideally, skip any "wars of choice" for a bit. We have some people coming up for their *tenth* active tour of duty in Afghanistan - that's a heck of a career.

So, no ta to Mali and definitely no thanks for Syria.

 

[explorer9]

Access to Syria via its coast means access through areas with an Alawite majority. This is not the best way to give help to anti-Assad rebels.

AFAIK the coastal region around Latakia is predominantly Sunnite Moslem with significant population of Nusyris/Alawites. I do not know that how much Alawite consolidation took place in that particular region after the beginning civil war.

 

[swerve]

I'm not aware of any route from the coast to the interior that doesn't pass through Alawite areas. There's a patchwork of Alawite, Sunni & Christian districts in that corner of Syria.

 

[S0S0]

Like your statement that Iskanders are now in Syria, there is no evidence at all that Russian instructors are in Syria actively assisting the Syrian army. There is a small Russian marine detachment in Tartus though but their main role would be to assist in the evacuation of Russian nationals if things get worse.

...."Sources familiar with the Moscow-Damascus defence relationship confirmed the presence of Russian air-defence crews inside Syria. Their deployment would be a consideration when western contingency plans for Syria were being considered, they said.

Such a dense, layered and overlapping air-defence system would require a huge air campaign, heavily reliant on thousands of precision-guided missiles. The UK, France and other American allies in Europe used up their stocks of such weapons in Libya and although details are classified there have been reports that they have not yet returned to pre-Libya levels.

“We know they pretty much ran out of them at the end of Libya. Given the budgetary constraints the Europeans are operating with, and in an era where every euro spent on defence is very heavily scrutinised, it is a hard sell to restock on this stuff,” Ben-Ari said. “And it would not be enough to be at Libya levels. You would need far more for Syria.”

A Syrian air campaign would also require stealth aircraft and a great amount of signals intelligence, satellite imagery and aerial reconnaissance, all of which are US specialities. For all those reasons, Washington would not be able to “lead from behind” as it did in Libya"
Russian military presence in Syria poses challenge to US-led intervention | StratRisks

 

[swerve]

SOSO, I hate to do this to you, because I know it can be upsetting, but -
Santa Claus does not exist.
There is no tooth fairy.
The Nigerians who send you emails promising to make you rich aren't doing it because they're nice, kind people.
Just because it's on the internet, it doesn't make it true.

Michael Vail is a chat show host with a financial interest in exaggeration & dramatisation. He has no status. Despite the use of "we", it's his website. It isn't reliable.

The article you posted is not credible. To take one example, it claims that the UK, France & other European countries exhausted their stocks of PGMs in Libya & have none left for Syria. This is untrue, & anyone who has the least bit of knowledge of how many PGMs those countries have bought, & how many were used, knows it's nonsense. Let us consider France, to illustrate this. France bought 500 Scalp missiles. It fired 15 in Libya. 1424 AASM guided bomb kits had been ordered by France by the beginning of 2010, & substantial additional numbers since. It is currently in production against recent orders. 225 were dropped in Libya. The same is true for other weapon types, e.g. the LGBs & the 431 HOT missiles used, & the number used by other countries.

The RAF fired 230 Brimstone, for example, out of over 2000 bought up to then, most of which were still in inventory. It had a surplus of the original Brimstone, & has had hundreds converted to the dual-mode version, which was the most used variant in Libya. Plenty more, & more in production. The RAF used 900 Paveway IVs, which was far from all its stocks (the initial order alone was 2300), & has since ordered another 1600, which should be being delivered by now.

And so on.

You need to be more critical of your sources.

 

[StobieWan]

We're probably down to our last 900+ Stormshadow ?

I think some of the nations less used to getting into shooting matches are or were low on PGM's but the guys you'd expect to cause a riot (UK and France) as as stated, all stocked for fireworks night.

I dunno - we've all agreed from the outset that dismantling Syria's IADS would be a major undertaking, requiring a spot of planning.

I still think the key point is "and we don't want to go in" ...

 

[Lcf]

Hold on, wait a minute!! You're seriously suggesting that the Syrian military - which is more capable than the Libyan military, is a factor holding back the 'West' from directly intervening in the conflict??

And when exactly have I said or suggested something like that? I suggest you read my previous posts and you'll find your answer on what I think about Syrian military as whole compared to Western war machine, you'll also find what I think what's the main reason why NATO is backing out of this mess.

You do realise that in the larger scheme of things that for Russia, Syria is much more important than Libya - both at present and during the Cold War??

Of course I'm aware of that and I'm saying that all along. Again, I suggest you read some of my previous posts where I've stated what I think Syria means for Russian Federation.

As I've explained twice before, the geo-political situation in Syria is much more complex and risky than it was with Libya [I base my assessements on facts not speculation]. There are more things that can go wrong for the 'West'' and more resources and more lasting presence will be needed if the 'West'' puts boots on the ground..........

Of course it's more complex than Libya was. Just look at the number of players in the game with different interests and Gaddafi found himself alone against the world. And who said they need to have their boots on the ground? Why not just launch an air campaign? Anyway, I think France is doing pretty good in Mali. So much for the problem of resources...

With Libya there was no need for a foreign military presence after the fall of Gadaffi, with Syria it could be very, very different. The Americans remember very well the major mistake they made in Iraq, with regards to not paying attention to the fact that they would have to play a role in rebuilding the country and helping ensuring state institutions could get back on their feet again. And look at Afghanistan, all the initial emphasis initially was on defeating AQ, there were very little plans for what came after, with regards to helping the Afghans get back on the feet again - the result was that in the 2002/3 period the Talibs made a comeback. If the strife continues in Syria after Assad's ouster, is the 'West' going to commit itself to staying in Syria? Is the political will, funding and resources even available?

I only partially agree on that one. I agree that they learned a lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan so now they won't stick around longer than they have to. Aside from securing Syria's chemical weapons, I doubt they would have the will and resources to "secure" anything else. Look what they did in Libya where they allowed them to "settle" things amongst themselves. Even though they are not divided by religious line, Libya is more complex than Syria in terms of ethnic diversity. You do know they were at the brink of another civil war? And where was West then? They were gone, so why should now be any different? All they cared about was to take down Gaddafi even if that meant Libya would cease to exist (to be divided by major tribes) just as same as they now want to see Assad gone. Hell, they even refuse to talk to him even though they all admit that rebels coming to power could prove to be even more disastrous to Syria and the entire region. The only logical conclusion is that they absolutely don't care about Syria at all. They just want to see Assad and Russians out of the picture, no matter the cost.

Interesting. So you're positive that all the types you listed are still in service? And he's positive?

I can't claim for him, but I can say I trust the guy. He has a lot of field work. His only comment on this list was "it's a respectable air defense network". Respectable compared to what, I don't know, he didn't specified.

Not that it matters, but the very act of listing randomly a bunch of MANPADS, tac-SAMs, division-SAMs, theater-SAMs, and of different generations at that makes me wonder about what your point here even is. Syria has a large and multi-layered IADS.
...
How is this relevant to the ability of the west to pound the Syrian military from the air and sea, with relative impunity?

I'm sorry, I obviously didn't understood your question for the first time and you obviously missed my post where I said all I wanted to do is to simply stress that even as it is, it's quite a huge system they got out there.
So I fail to see where I actually said or suggested that it's somehow relevant to the ability of the west to pound the Syrian military from the air and sea, with relative impunity? In fact, I think I was pretty clear when I said that it can be easily outmatched by NATO's war machine. So I suggest you to read some of my previous posts.

And that's just it. Iraq was pushed through because the US had more credibility, and Iraq had fewer friends. Pushing through a similar move on Syria would be much harder.

Yeah, but you do remember that the US perceived Iraq and their alleged WMD's as a direct threat to US national security while in this case it's presented like their allies, Israel and Turkey, are the ones who are being threatened by Assad, like they're afraid chaos spilling over to their countries and the region, afraid of chemical weapons etc. and my guess is, if they were act it would be under the guise of protecting their allies while at the same time keeping their credibility intact. Or almost intact...

Wanted or allowed it in exchange for something else?

I'd say wanted, though I don't dismiss the other possibility entirely. I don't believe in neutrality for 3rd world countries and you can imagine how annoying it can be for countries like US and RF?
So my best guess is they wanted him out too. Not having means and international support to do it themselves, like the West had, is another subject.
But aside from wanting him gone, maybe they've managed to get a little bonus on top of things, to "exchange" him for something else, who knows...
And if you look at it closely, why not? They've learned that even countries under US occupation, like Afghanistan and Iraq, can still do business with them. As far as I know, Russian Lukoil is in Iraq right now. Russia's portfolio of agreements also includes a package of contracts with Iraq worth more than $4 billion. The new Libyan authorities are interested in the hardware that was left in the country after the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. The country has already signed a contract to upgrade 200 T-72 tanks. The Pentagon even concluded a contract with Rosoboronexport on Mi-17 helicopters for Afghan, worth $900 million.

Hell, an Italian telecom company (and Italy's a NATO member state) was delivering comm gear to the Syrians in the middle of the conflict.

I've heard of that and to be honest I don't know what to make out of it.

Access to Syria via its coast means access through areas with an Alawite majority. This is not the best way to give help to anti-Assad rebels.

The entire Syrian army doesn't stand a chance in that potential conflict, so I fail to see how a certain region, even the one populated with Alawite's, can be that much of an obstacle.

 

[STURM]

And when exactly have I said or suggested something like that? I suggest you read my previous posts and you'll find your answer on what I think about Syrian military as whole compared to Western war machine, you'll also find what I think what's the main reason why NATO is backing out of this mess.

Below is what you earlier wrote,

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 my reply on Page 2 of this thread was based on that -

''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''?''

Most, if not everyone, here is in agreement that Syria has [or had] an extensive integrated IADS, including large numbers of SAMs and Triple A. The question is how effective the IADS is, given the age of most of the equipment and that it has in all certainty already been degraded due to a loss of territory, bases and assets to the FSA.

Of course it's more complex than Libya was. Just look at the number of players in the game with different interests and Gaddafi found himself alone against the world.

Here you are acknowledging that the situation in Syria is more ''complex'' than it was with Libya yet you're still insisting that nobody here can give you a valid/compelling reason as to why the West won't intervene in Syria. And you're insisting that the main reason the West hasn't intervened in Syria is due to the Russian factor.

And who said they need to have their boots on the ground? Why not just launch an air campaign?

You're assuming that just because the West had no need to deploy boots on the ground in Libya - as airpower achieved the results intended - that the same will happen in Syria

So much for the problem of resources...

Stobi Wan and I were talking about Britain.

Top brass warn No 10: Avoid Mali escalation - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

And you'll probably agree that the resources allocated for the Mali mission by France would be a small fraction of what will be needed if a ground intervention was done in Syria, for obvious reasons. Unlike some others, I'm not convinced that foreign air power alone will do the job in Syria as was done with Libya - admittedly I could be wrong.

 

[Bonza]

If this thread is going to stay open then some of the posters in here really need to pick up on the quality of posts and their engagement style, notwithstanding the attempts by more senior members to inject reason into the debate...

 

[Todjaeger]

Having read through the posts here in this thread, it seems that some feel the US/Western Europe should become directly and actively involved in Syria, while others seem to be of the opinion that the Syrian military under the Assad regime is too effective and/or capable for the US/Western Europe to take action.

IMO frankly, neither are true presently.

Without going into whole lists of who has what and where, between standoff munitions, LO aircraft and formidable C4ISR resources, the Syrian IADS is not capable of preventing a rollback should the US and NATO which to do so. It would not necessarily be accomplished completely (MANPADS can be virtually anywhere) or without cost/casualties, but a dedicated SEAD/DEAD campaign would not end in Syria's favour.

What really needs to be asked for those advocating Western involvement, or arguing on why the West has not gotten more involved, are questions involving what would be considered a favourable outcome to the West. If it was only something simple (i.e. elimination of the Assad regime) then the West would likely have already had greater involvement. As has been learned though, if a regime falls, another needs to rise in its place otherwise chaos reins. Having Assad gone, but half a dozen intermingled warring factions in Syria is not IMO an improvement. The West is looking at how things are, and apparently waiting for a better alternative to Assad, chaos, or Western forces in Syria to appear.

Which makes sense if one looks at how long, and how much funding has been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. The difficult and costly (in terms of treasure and especially blood) parts of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan was not invading or defeating the hostile military, it was attempting to run those countries and rebuild them. Without a pressing need to do so, why bother?

 

[gf0012-aust]

To reinforce what has been said before by other Mods and the attempts by various snr members to try and inject some reality constraints and sensibility into the debate

anything from this point on that even smells like trolling will be treated as such

/patience off

for those who are struggling to understand

When any thread attracts the attention of multiple Mods due to quality issues, then its a sure sign that positive reinforcement is not far behind

 

[swerve]

...
The entire Syrian army doesn't stand a chance in that potential conflict, so I fail to see how a certain region, even the one populated with Alawite's, can be that much of an obstacle.

Because you can't ship aid to anti-Assad forces through such a region without first securing a route through it, & to do that through rough country (look at a map, or some photos) with hostile & well-armed occupants needs soldiers. This makes it very different from Libya, where most of the main rebel-held areas had ports.

I am not arguing that it would be impossible for NATO to defeat Assad. That would be a very foolish argument. I am merely pointing out that it would be more difficult & much more complicated than the Libyan operation.

 

[StobieWan]

You still need to be more critical of your sources : look at how long Eisenhower has been out and what she's been doing. Her return to port is, if anything, over due.

CV Locations

She's been out six months including combat ops.

The entire article is a straight forward US hate-piece - if you're citing it as a source, it's overdue you left here.

 

[swerve]

Ok, the poignant truth here is that the West' retreat from Syria has more to do with Russian stance on Syria than any other fabricated reason, that can be brought forth by any Western spin doctoring.

it seems im not the only one who is harbouring such thoughts, here are other guys who share my centiments,Syria: Apocalypse Cancelled, Towards a Western retreat from Syria | "Before our very eyes"

What retreat? You keep going on about this imaginary retreat. There hasn't been one!

And please stop linking to conspiracy theorists, shock jocks, & Syrian propagandists. The internet is full of sites explaining in tedious detail exactly how the moon landings were faked, the September 11th 2001 events were a Western conspiracy, etc. Your latest find is one of these loonies. He's even published a book called "9/11: The Big Lie".

Did you notice where the latest website you've linked to is based? Where its author works? He's employed by the Syrian state.

Tell me, are you trolling, or just incapable of telling paranoid fantasists & paid propagandists from legitimate analysts? Whichever, please stop posting garbage.

 

[Feanor]

Some updated info, Russia is (finally) evacuating civilians from Syria, two MChS planes are on their way, an Il-76 and a Yak-42.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ì×Ñ îòïðàâëÿåò íà Áëèæíèé Âîñòîê äâà ñàìîëåòà - ýâàêóèðîâàòü æåëàþùèõ èç Ñèðèè

EDIT: A little update, the total number of civilians being evacuated is 150. This is not a total evacuation, merely a way out for people who want to leave. Large numbers of Russians will remain in Syria.

 

[fasciatus]

Retreating? No way!

The US are definitely NOT retreating from Syria. They just use more subtle tactics. They pay Syrian rebels salaries and provide them with weapons with help from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Senator Lieberman himself voiced such policy. Believe it or not, but rumors circulate (according to diplomatic sources of the Guardian) that CIA agents helped Syrian opposition establish command and control within rebel ranks last year. And one of the leaders of Lybian rebels, who fought against Ghaddafi - Abdel Hakim Belhaj - was seen on the Turkish-Syrian border, and this person is also rumored to be a CIA operative. The US did not retreat, they simply conduct a 'covert operation'.