PDA

View Full Version : RAND Crop Study Evaluates John McCain's No Fly Zone in Syria.




AngryCanadian
08-31-2013, 02:16 AM
RAND Crop Study Evaluates John McCain's No Fly Zone in Syria.

RAND Study Evaluates Airpower Options for Syria Intervention. (http://www.rand.org/news/press/2013/08/30.html#.UiGjt-F11qs.twitter)
The five missions are:


Negate Syrian airpower by maintaining a “no-fly zone” over Syria, or by destroying the Syrian air force. The likely availability of nearby bases in Turkey and elsewhere make this a relatively easy task for the U.S. and allied forces, although maintaining a prolonged no-fly zone could impose significant burdens on the forces involved. Negating Syrian airpower would have only a marginal direct effect on protecting Syrian civilians, as most civilian casualties have been caused by government ground forces.


Neutralize Syria's extensive but mostly antiquated air defenses, which is well within the U.S. military's ability. Syria's integrated air defense system primarily consists of 1970s-era radar and surface-to-air missile technology, which U.S. pilots were able to overcome in Iraq and Serbia. This would begin with intense air and cruise missile strikes against Syrian air bases and air defense systems, followed by a longer hunt for mobile missiles. However, such an effort would be used to facilitate other operations, not an end in itself.

Rand Believes it would be like Libya
sadly they are quite wrong.

Create safe areas where Syrian civilians could be largely — but not completely — protected from air attack, artillery bombardment and direct ground attack by U.S. and allied air forces. Effectively protecting the civilians in these areas would require competent forces on the ground. If not provided by the U.S. and its allies, the forces would need to be provided by the Syrian opposition, in which case protecting safe areas would also amount to providing air cover for anti-regime forces.
No Fly Zones

Enable opposition forces to defeat President Bashar al-Assad's regime, using airpower similar to that employed by the U.S. to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. Such a mission would require the use of fighters, bombers and remotely piloted aircraft to strike Syrian army and other regime targets. The authors assess that the current balance of the war favors the regime, and that the opposition forces would require substantial military support to defeat Syrian ground forces and gain the upper hand. Such a mission, the authors warn, would help both desirable opposition groups and extremists. Moreover, there is a risk that a successful mission could lead to instability spilling over Syria's borders to Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq or beyond, and to widespread retribution against populations associated with the defeated regime.

Full scale not limited as proclaimed and urged by John McCain. Yet even they admit.

Moreover, there is a risk that a successful mission could lead to instability spilling over Syria's borders to Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq or beyond, and to widespread retribution against populations associated with the defeated regime.


Prevent the use of Syrian chemical weapons by using air attacks to strike Assad's chemical weapons stockpiles and their delivery systems, or deter future use of chemical weapons. Attacking or threatening to attack targets Assad values more than his chemical weapons stockpile would help avoid creating “use-it-or-lose-it” incentives for additional chemical attacks. The authors warn that while airpower could be used to reduce the Assad regime's ability or desire to launch large-scale chemical attacks, eliminating its chemical weapon arsenal would require a large ground operation.


Is Rand Crop a mad dog they are basically seeking an all out war.
-Full Scale war
-Destroy supposed chemical sites with air strikes while as they are located in outside civilian areas.
- MUST MUST ASSIST the rebels yet they admit the mission could spill instability over to the other ME countries.

-Nothing on the Russian ships?

devil21
08-31-2013, 03:03 AM
I appreciate the post for informational reasons.

Let's cover a couple things now.

1. Be careful posting about anything "Rand" related on this forum because it's easy for search engines to confuse Rand Paul with RAND CORP. That leads me to #2.

2. Why did you misspell RAND CORP every time in your post, including the title? I clicked on it thinking it was something about how Syrian farms would be affected by missile attacks. WTF?

Anyway, thanks for posting the item. Can you fix your typos please?

HOLLYWOOD
08-31-2013, 04:46 AM
It's always called https://icons.duckduckgo.com/i/2deb74b9.png (http://www.rand.org/)So much for a No-Fly zone. It's bomb the shit out of another country with Raytheon cruse missiles. Protecting civilians is the biggest farce of an excuse by the US government. How's that worked out in the other 10 nations so-called saved by Washington DC? So the question is, puppet John McCain is serving up this "NO-FLY" garbage from someone... I wonder who? AIPAC? AEI? ZOA? Sleeper Cell running the NSC?