TIME Mag: Mission All-But-Impossible: Destroying Syria’s Chemical Weapons from the Air

[avaistheone1]

Taking out Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpile isn’t easy – and is fraught with perils, including creating plumes of deadly vapors that could kill civilians downwind of such attacks.

That’s why Pentagon officials suggest that any U.S. and allied military strike against Syria will tilt toward military, and command and control, targets —including artillery and missile units that could be used to launch chemical weapons — instead of the bunkers believed to contain them.

Secretary of State John Kerry made clear Monday that military action is all but inevitable in the coming days. “We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets,” he said. “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.”

But targeting the weapons themselves may not make the most military sense.

For starters, neither the U.S. nor its allies know where Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is keeping his cache of hundreds of tons of sarin, mustard gas and other chemical agents. That means that any military strike to take them out will surely leave some untouched.

After more than two years of civil war, the Syrian military has distributed many of its chemical arms beyond the original 15 or so major storage sites where Western intelligence agencies believe they were housed when the conflict began. “Dispersing the stuff would make [attacking it] more difficult,” says Eliot Cohen, a former Pentagon official now at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. Blowing up storage sites, he warns, also could “leave the facilities so shattered that people can come in and pick the stuff up that you don’t want them to pick up.”

Secondly, the Obama Administration and its allies aren’t considering deploying troops to seize and secure such weapons. The Pentagon has estimated that mission could take 75,000 troops.

Last month, Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, detailed for Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the armed services committee, the difficulties associated with using military force to seize control of Syria’s chemical stockpile.

“We do this by destroying portions of Syria’s massive stockpile, interdicting its movement and delivery, or by seizing and securing program components,” he said in his July 19 letter assessing U.S. military options in Syria. “At a minimum, this option would call for a no-fly zone as well as air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers. Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites.”


Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/27/mission-all-but-impossible-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons-from-the-air/#ixzz2e2637Xm7

[wandy]

1. And that would be a real problem here....

and is fraught with perils, including creating plumes of deadly vapors that could kill civilians downwind of such attacks.

Why are people not seeing and/or ignoring that?

[avaistheone1]

2. That's what I am concerned about too.

It appears that it is likely we are going to be killing civilians in order to save civilians again.

I think many people have no idea how risky this is particularly to Syrian civilians, and how our actions may well create more hate and animosity toward the U.S.

I think this aspect has been deliberately hidden from the public because it would undermine the strength of the argument for going to war with Syria.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. Sadly, it seems as though the possibility of killing some innocent civilians is for some easier to

swallow than seeing President Obama get "clowned by the republicans".

I don't understand it.