Replies

Tomahawks and stand off systems yes. stealth, since the F-117 is retired, the F-35 still trying to make it into production and the F-22 designed for air superoirity and having problems with its oxygen systems, are “No Go.”

My main point is that Syria will not be as easy as Libya from an air war aspect. The land options are: 1 - to go in through the small area of Syrian coast line and fight our way to Damascus; 2 - land in Lebanon and fight (?) our way through it to get to Syria; 3 - go in through Israel and that opens up, I can’t even begin to imagine what.

Too many Russians for "land options." Too many Iranians as well. I suspect NATO Air, as in Libya, and some combination of Turks/French, etc. to secure "safe areas" for Syrian civilians. Or try to. But any/all options are subject to major fail.

Have the Brits/US re-built their Tomahawk supplies since Libya attacks?

Tomahawks and stand off systems yes. stealth, since the F-117 is retired, the F-35 still trying to make it into production and the F-22 designed for air superoirity and having problems with its oxygen systems, are “No Go.”

B-2's are still available, and they were used over Libya.

My main point is that Syria will not be as easy as Libya from an air war aspect. The land options are: 1 - to go in through the small area of Syrian coast line and fight our way to Damascus; 2 - land in Lebanon and fight (?) our way through it to get to Syria; 3 - go in through Israel and that opens up, I can’t even begin to imagine what.

I don't think there's a land option - it's a career-ending political stinker for any politician who endorses it. If our elites could be counted on to pick someone simultaneously good for Syria's non-Sunnis and our interests to succeed Assad, I'd favor intervention. However, our sorry record in Iraq (Maliki) and Afghanistan (Karzai) leads me to believe that such hopes are chimerical.