What America Fears
Following the recent airstrike against Syrian territory, the U.S. position concerning the ongoing conflict there has not undergone any major changes in principle. What has really strengthened is the position of those who call for directly supplying arms to the rebels, without masking the action by referring to it as deliveries of dual-use equipment.
As for the two main positions — "a no-fly zone" and a "game-changer" if the Assad regime uses unconventional weapons — there has been no progress.
American military and civilian experts explain the "immobility" of the U.S. position as a reluctance to get involved in a conflict that could result in a very similar situation to what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq: that is, a reluctance to get bogged down in a civil war in that country. And that, of course, is a real danger.
One cannot say the same about the opinion of a few highly-placed representatives of the U.S. presidential administration of whom the media write. They believe that America cannot allow itself to appear in the skies over Syria because they fear the local air defense systems supplied by Russia.
This point of view was not shaken by the recent success — from the point of view of the attackers — of the airstrike against Syrian targets, during which there was no reaction from the air defense systems of that country.
It is interesting to cite the publication of the opinion of retired General Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the media: "Russia has provided Syria the latest in air defense weaponry, and my understanding is that these attacks were done from a long standoff range where the aircraft did not have to come into close range to those air defenses. So I'm not sure it tells us anything. I think any air war over Syria, given their air defenses, would be very difficult actually," said the general, according to INO TV.
As for the two main positions — "a no-fly zone" and a "game-changer" if the Assad regime uses unconventional weapons — there has been no progress.
American military and civilian experts explain the "immobility" of the U.S. position as a reluctance to get involved in a conflict that could result in a very similar situation to what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq: that is, a reluctance to get bogged down in a civil war in that country. And that, of course, is a real danger.
One cannot say the same about the opinion of a few highly-placed representatives of the U.S. presidential administration of whom the media write. They believe that America cannot allow itself to appear in the skies over Syria because they fear the local air defense systems supplied by Russia.
This point of view was not shaken by the recent success — from the point of view of the attackers — of the airstrike against Syrian targets, during which there was no reaction from the air defense systems of that country.
It is interesting to cite the publication of the opinion of retired General Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the media: "Russia has provided Syria the latest in air defense weaponry, and my understanding is that these attacks were done from a long standoff range where the aircraft did not have to come into close range to those air defenses. So I'm not sure it tells us anything. I think any air war over Syria, given their air defenses, would be very difficult actually," said the general, according to INO TV.
Next article![]( "Austerity Light")
