Russia launching airstrikes in Syria

[K. A. Pital]

I have no idea why you think a land border automatically means "win". The USSR did not win in Afghanistan. A war next to your borders could be taken more seriously, but it does not guarantee a win. Winning the initial clashes and even occupying the region adjacent to one's border usually does not automatically translate into a win because of guerilla warfare and political instability that comes with such an action. The disparity in forces between US-armed Indonesia and East Timor was massive. Timor was occupied, annexed to Indinesia and subjected to genocide. But did Indonesia win in the long run? No. Its occupation lasted 25 years and still failed.

That is why I do not think the US will automatically win any conflict - much less a conflict that is not viewed as existential. And it will not be seen as such even if there would have been a land border, precisely because of the disparity.

[Borgholio]

Several unconfirmed reports claim that Russian cruise missiles *crashed* into buildings in Iran and injured civilians. Seriously, I think the out of control spiral has just started.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ ... nded-iran/

[Vympel]

Not really. Even if that happened ("US officials say", so yeah, not especially credible right now), the Iranian state media has already declared it a psyop. Its rights there in the article. The Iranians have no interest whatsoever in preventing the Russians from intervening in Syria or corroborating American stories in that regard.

[Simon_Jester]

Nobody is saying that Syria could significantly hurt the US, that's not the point.

The point is superpowers often lose wars because of dithering, incoherent policies, and lack of will.

Well, that's half my point.

The other half of my point is that if you don't enjoy a superpower's enormous technological and economic advantages, and still have that same level of dithering, incoherence, and lack of will... the consequences of those weaknesses can be fatal.

I do not at this time foresee anyone attacking the US in any relevant sense that might pose an existential threat to its future as a major developed nation which enjoys a fairly high degree of freedom and prosperity.

But if such a threat ever arose, and if the US had governance of the quality provided by the current political leadership... we'd lose. Even if the war were important to us we'd still lose, simply because the war would also be equally important to an enemy with the means of defeating us, and with the leadership quality required to fight effectively.

Which I think is worth remembering and bearing in mind, even if only as a hypothetical. Just because the US is presently insulated from all realistic consequences of being too politicized to fight effectively, doesn't mean it will remain insulated forever, or against all possible types of threats (including, say, information warfare via the Internet).

[Channel72]

But if such a threat ever arose, and if the US had governance of the quality provided by the current political leadership... we'd lose. Even if the war were important to us we'd still lose, simply because the war would also be equally important to an enemy with the means of defeating us, and with the leadership quality required to fight effectively.

Which I think is worth remembering and bearing in mind, even if only as a hypothetical. Just because the US is presently insulated from all realistic consequences of being too politicized to fight effectively, doesn't mean it will remain insulated forever, or against all possible types of threats (including, say, information warfare via the Internet).

Hmm... I'm not really sure I agree with that. In our own lifetime we saw how the US reacted to downtown Manhattan taking a serious beating. (Those assholes shut off our stock exchange! They can't do that!) We invaded two countries, one of which was an innocent bystander to our fit of hysterical overreaction.

When a foreign nation directly threatens US home soil, it's really surprising how fast everyone turns into rapid revenge mongerers - even when we can barely identify which foreign nation just punched us in the face.

I think that the real problem here is that for all our bloated, half-trillion dollar military and fancy weapons tech, the US military seems to really struggle to find an actual purpose in the modern world. To clarify, the US military is very good at precisely one thing: rapidly kicking the ass of a non-nuclear power with a blitz of "shock and awe" tactical infrastructure-destroying air strikes via an offshore aircraft carrier, followed by steamrolling an opposing army via an invasion force that has superior coordination, vehicles, firing range, and hardware. That's... actually not very useful in the 21st century. Because after all the fireworks, the US military degrades into a big dumb police force that can't really keep anything under control, and all that superior tech and huge budget quickly becomes mostly useless in terms of achieving larger geopolitical goals. On the opposite end of the spectrum, that same $700 billion military is also mostly useless for engaging any larger nation that has nuclear weapons.

Of course, the US simply hasn't ever needed to use its military defensively since... er... 1812. So since the military is like this half-trillion dollar enterprise struggling to find a purpose, most US "wars" these days are basically just political "projects" - national "advertisements" designed to increase our "sphere of influence" or whatever - to "assert dominance", cultivate our various proxy wars abroad, and remind Russia and China that we're still number one, the same way Coca Cola spends billions on advertising seemingly for no good reason. But nobody really knows how to successfully complete any of these wars/"projects" in any meaningful sense. Most of them turn out to be a big waste of time, leaving countless (non-Americans) dead in their wake, and the geopolitical situation often way worse than it was before.

Anyway, the situation in Syria is simply an impossible situation for the US. Honestly, the best option would probably be to just back Assad and help him reestablish order, and then turn a blind eye as he gasses ISIS (and probably many innocent people) to death. But we can't do that because we'd lose too much face, and we can't look bad in front of the Kremlin or whatever.

[Grumman]

I have no idea why you think a land border automatically means "win". The USSR did not win in Afghanistan. A war next to your borders could be taken more seriously, but it does not guarantee a win. Winning the initial clashes and even occupying the region adjacent to one's border usually does not automatically translate into a win because of guerilla warfare and political instability that comes with such an action.

A land border with ISIL automatically means "win" because with ISIL you are literally talking about a violently expansionist cult built on rape and genocide. It means "win" because under such circumstances, "win" no longer means turning Syria into a Western-style democracy, it means destroying ISIL. ISIL cannot survive a total war against a major power, and putting them on a major power's doorstep would likely trigger that kind of reaction.

[Lonestar]

Russia "accidentally" blows up a hospital.

Gaziantep, Turkey (CNN)After the first airstrike hit near a hospital in eastern Idlib, Syria, no one was injured, according to one local man.

But then the warplane returned.

"Run, the plane is coming back," aid workers can be heard saying on video, right before the next explosion hits.

Activists say the incident was a "double-tap." That's when attackers strike, wait for first responders to arrive and then hit the same spot.

A dozen people were killed in the incident, which was caught on video by the Syrian Civil Defense, a humanitarian aid group.

The Syrian-American Medical Society, which runs the hospital, says the strikes were launched by Russian warplanes.

[fgalkin]

Except Russia doesn't really carry out double-tap strikes, that's more of a US thing.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Patroklos]

I have no idea why you think a land border automatically means "win". The USSR did not win in Afghanistan. A war next to your borders could be taken more seriously, but it does not guarantee a win. Winning the initial clashes and even occupying the region adjacent to one's border usually does not automatically translate into a win because of guerilla warfare and political instability that comes with such an action. The disparity in forces between US-armed Indonesia and East Timor was massive. Timor was occupied, annexed to Indinesia and subjected to genocide. But did Indonesia win in the long run? No. Its occupation lasted 25 years and still failed.

That is why I do not think the US will automatically win any conflict - much less a conflict that is not viewed as existential. And it will not be seen as such even if there would have been a land border, precisely because of the disparity.

Wait a second. US armed Indonesia? How exactly do you come to this conclusion? Their surface navy is almost exclusively Dutch with a few German Submarines. They have a dozen odd US aircraft of all types in their air force but there are a few European nations equally represented. Their tank force is mostly French with a few German Leopards and rounded out with some UK Scorpions. There only US ground system of note are some second hand M113s they got from Belgium.

Did you just make this up?

[K. A. Pital]

Wait a second. US armed Indonesia?
...
Did you just make this up?

The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second question is no.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arm ... htm#etimor

The invasion took place just hours after U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger visited General Suharto in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. While the international community protested, the U.S. government doubled military aid to Indonesia and prevented the United Nations from taking effective action against Suharto.[3]

In 1977, reacting to public pressure, Congress held hearings to investigate the U.S. role in Indonesia’s military action against its tiny neighbor. The House International Relations Committee revealed that several major U.S. weapons systems sold to Jakarta during this period-- including sixteen Rockwell OV-10 "Bronco" counter-insurgency aircraft, three Lockheed Martin C-130 transport aircraft and thirty-six Cadillac-Gage V-150 "Commando" armored cars-- were used against East Timor. Other U.S. weapons linked to the occupation, and referenced during the hearing, included: S-61 helicopters, patrol craft, M-16 rifles, pistols, mortars, machine guns, recoilless rifles, ammunition, and communications equipment.[4]

From 1975 through East Timor’s referendum for independence in 1999, the United States continued its military support, transferring over a billion dollars worth of weaponry. Everything from F-16 fighter planes to military helicopters to M-16 combat rifles was used in the suppression of dissent in East Timor and throughout Indonesia. These weapons were viewed as key to maintaining good relationships with Washington’s strategic ally. The State Department and White House portrayed Indonesia as a bulwark against communism, a source of cheap labor and cheap resources, and a market for U.S. goods. One State Department official summed up the relationship by saying, "the United States wants to keep its relations with Indonesia close and friendly. It is a nation we do a lot of business with."[5] Indeed, the president of Coca-Cola went so far as to exclaim, "When I think of Indonesia-- a country on the equator with 180 million people, a median age of 18 and a Muslim ban on alcohol-- I feel like I know what heaven looks like."

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/

On the eve of Indonesia’s full-scale invasion of East Timor, President Ford and Secretary Kissinger stopped in Jakarta en route from China where they had just met with Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. During his meeting with Suharto, Ford emphasized America’s continuing commitment to Asian affairs despite the “severe setback of Vietnam.” Discussion then turned to the problem of Communist influence in the Non-Aligned Movement and the insurgency movements in Thailand and Malaysia. Ford told Suharto that he would be “enthusiastic” about building an M-16 plant in Indonesia to provide small arms to help Southeast Asian governments counter regional insurgency movements. Kissinger also approved of the proposed arrangement “because of its indication of wider cooperation.”

On 4 or 5 December, while still in Beijing, Kissinger received a cable from the State Department suggesting that the Indonesians had "plans" to invade East Timor.(25) Thus, Ford or Kissinger could not have been too surprised when, in the middle of a discussion of guerrilla movements in Thailand and Malaysia, Suharto suddenly brought up East Timor. Suharto noted that while Indonesia “has no territorial ambitions,” Fretilin has not cooperated with negotiations and has “declared its independence unilaterally.” The current situation, he said, “will prolong the suffering of the refugees and increase instability in the area.” Suharto then assured the Americans that “the four other parties” favor integration, with the apparent implication that a mere majority among the “parties” to the conflict—absent a popular referendum—alone constituted an act of self-determination. “We want your understanding,” Suharto continued, “if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action.”

Ford and Kissinger took great pains to assure Suharto that they would not oppose the invasion. Ford was unambiguous: “We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have.” Kissinger did indeed stress that “the use of US-made arms could create problems,” but then added that, “It depends on how we construe it; whether it is in self defense or is a foreign operation.” Thus, Kissinger’s concern was not about whether U.S. arms would be used offensively—and hence illegally—but whether the act would actually be interpreted as such—a process he clearly intended to manipulate.(26) In any case, Kissinger added: “It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly.”

[Simon_Jester]

Hmm... I'm not really sure I agree with that. In our own lifetime we saw how the US reacted to downtown Manhattan taking a serious beating. (Those assholes shut off our stock exchange! They can't do that!) We invaded two countries, one of which was an innocent bystander to our fit of hysterical overreaction.

When a foreign nation directly threatens US home soil, it's really surprising how fast everyone turns into rapid revenge mongerers - even when we can barely identify which foreign nation just punched us in the face.

Everything you said is still correct, I don't actually disagree with you, but you missed my point.

Thing is, I'm talking about quality of governance.

IF the US were governed as badly in some future war as it has been governed from 2011 to 2015, AND if there were an actual overt military threat somehow capable of seriously endangering the US, THEN the US would lose the resulting war.

Because for most practical purposes the US barely even has a government. It has a legislature that can barely agree to pay the bills, reluctantly, AFTER running up late fees with a lot of "I ain't paying this!" grandstanding.

It has a president who... well, I'm not sure exactly what to say about Obama but it isn't very good. He's had a very tough situation to deal with, and there are very good reasons why his hair has turned gray during his time in office. I like to think he could have done a lot better, though.

In the face of an actual crisis, this wouldn't be enough. If the US government had been this poorly led and this badly divided during the American Civil War, I strongly suspect the Confederates would have won, for instance.

Because of the US's geographic location and wealth, no such threat exists, and no such crisis is likely to emerge. But the reality remains that almost no one with this inept a government would be in a position to seriously talk about winning a war.

Anyway, the situation in Syria is simply an impossible situation for the US. Honestly, the best option would probably be to just back Assad and help him reestablish order, and then turn a blind eye as he gasses ISIS (and probably many innocent people) to death. But we can't do that because we'd lose too much face, and we can't look bad in front of the Kremlin or whatever.

And it turns out that the Kremlin gives zero shits about whether it looks bad in front of us, so they are now doing exactly that...

[Lonestar]

Except Russia doesn't really carry out double-tap strikes, that's more of a US thing.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Except obviously they did.

[fgalkin]

Except Russia doesn't really carry out double-tap strikes, that's more of a US thing.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Except obviously they did.

For one thing, don't double-tap attacks require drones hovering in position, waiting for rescue personnel to arrive? Kinda hard to do that with a plane, no?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Edi]

Except Russia doesn't really carry out double-tap strikes, that's more of a US thing.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Except obviously they did.

For one thing, don't double-tap attacks require drones hovering in position, waiting for rescue personnel to arrive? Kinda hard to do that with a plane, no?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

No, they don't. They require the attacking craft to make one pass for the first attack and then turn around and do a second run. In this case, unless you missed it, the craft hit the hospital, then came around for a second pass and given that it is a hospital, I expect the first responders were sort of quickly on the scene. It fits the definition of double-tap quite nicely even if it wasn't drones.

[Simon_Jester]

In principle, you could have two entirely different groups of craft launching the separate attacks. It would just take a bit of precise timing, and people mastered that trick in aerial bombing many decades ago.