Re: Syrian uranium enrichment plant
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With all respect Blackbishop, but wasnt the same conclusion reached about Iraq? </div></div>
EventHorizon, I do not recall anything <span style="text-decoration: underline">quite</span> so bold being said, though they did promise a quick conflict, I believe there was a grave miscalculation in the degree to which the country had fallen and time required to rebuild a nation in need. Also, perhaps a bit of good 'ole American egotism, but hey, it's rather well deserved. However, those were not <span style="text-decoration: underline">my</span> words.
Your talking about fighting an insurgency vs. fighting an organized military. A military with old soviet equipment that our military has been training against and studying, as a basis for maneuvers and development for decades. A country which doesn't allow it's fighter pilots over water for anything for fear of Israeli reaction. Think of it this way- how long did the Iraqi military actually last, during the Kuwaiti invasion.
I will admit that 6 days is <span style="text-decoration: underline">a bit</span> insufficient considering we will use a progressive amount of force necessary to avoid collateral damage and in general to avoid devastating a country unnecessarily. That's courtesy and symmetry of warfare. The process of assessing our progress would take more than 6 days. It was meant as a bit of an attempt at a joke... to spur a chuckle. I thought most that would read it, would take it as that. My apologies for an incorrect assumption.
The attack in the 6 Day War on Beit Mirsim, where Israeli forces made the choice to call for an evacuation of villages adjacent the Green Line, then proceeded to level them, is an act that was militarily legal by Article 52 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, and was an action that gave clear advantage on the scale to the Israelis. Now, those actions sanctioned by their military are some that the U.S. would not consider unless those villages posed a specified military threat, which they didn't (technically and in my opinion). Hence, the U.S. is not willing to take the steps necessary to decide a conflict in 6 days. (In Iraq or Syria)
I respect everyone here for his or her experiences and wisdom and for sharing it. I love that fact that so much knowledge revolves around this site from what we all have learned and our willingness to share it. I cannot and will not reveal how or why I have been trained with what I have, short of repeating what I have in the past. I am an Arabic linguist, an enlisted linguist, and that the Air Force teaches its officers languages for friendship and it's enlisted the language of it's enemies- as well as how to anticipate their every thought and move. I assure you, what I hold in my head along with my fellow compatriots begs to see a conflict grow here. It would be the culmination of skills and information long since feared obsolete. I finally would have to nod to my CO's, who for years sought to motivate downtrodden troops with the old, "you are your country's insurance policy" line.
Whatever steps would be required and finally, sanctioned are well beyond my pay grade, as is generally understood. <span style="font-weight: bold">However, if the necessity and desire was actually in place for a conflict to be completed in 6 days or in a reasonably short order, it could be done, with minimal collateral damage and minimal casualty, of this I am sure.</span>
