Air strikes into Syria will not be as easy as Libya. The Syrian air defense is quite potent and designed/trained to defend against an Israeli attack, something the Libyans didn’t have to plan against. Thus needing extensive SEAD missions against the SA-5s, SA-6s, etc, which could be costly. Though not an exact comparission, think of the air defenses around Hanoi and Haiphong during the Vietnam war and the losses we took on those SEAD missions.
Flying air strikes against Syria will not, repeat NOT, be the “cake walk” that Libya was.
Flying air strikes against Syria will not, repeat NOT, be the “cake walk” that Libya was.
I suspect stealth takes care of that practical problem. I don't think the real problem is practical. The issue is whether it's wise to put another Muslim Brotherhood regime in power. The Shah was no great humanitarian, but as tyrants go, he was a pale shadow of Khomeini. As a bonus, he was also somewhat friendly to our interests. Iran's pet terrorist group is Hezbollah, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood is merely the civilian wing of Al Qaeda (al Qaeda's number 1, Zawahiri, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and al Qaeda's inspiration Sayyid Qutb, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood). What we have in Syria is a semi-hostile government that really hasn't done much in the way of killing Americans. Why would we want to replace that with a regime run by a movement (the Muslim Brotherhood) that delights in slaughtering large numbers of Americans?
But I do agree that Syria has 100s of AA Weapons.
Our laser guided bombs took out the Thanh Hoa Bridge in 1972, after bombing it with conventional bombs for 7 years prior...Syria would be no cake walk, but it can be done. Obi needs to do something. Maybe another "Monica bombing?"