Month: April 2018

US and Russia in Syria

by
Background:
In 2015, more than four years after the outbreak of the Syrian Civil war, Russia carried out its first airstrike in the besieged country. Russia’s military intervention claimed to be counter-ISIS; however, many anti-Assad rebel factions were targeted. Vladimir Putin is a committed supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his continued authority over the Syrian people. Since 2014, the United States has been fighting ISIS in Syria. Despite attempts at cooperation in Syria, tensions have remained high between Russia and the US.
What has happened:
*   This morning, President Trump warned that airstrikes against Syria were imminent.
*   Russia responded by saying any incoming missiles (and their sources) would be shot down.
*   French President, Emmanuel Macron has called for a “strong joint response” to the latest chemical attack.
*   Navy Destroyer, USS Donald Cook, left port in Cyprus earlier this week. The Destroyer is armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were used in response to last year’s chemical attack.
Why it matters:
*   A Military response is expected to be stronger than last year’s; expect the destruction of any means of delivery for chemical weapons – airplanes, helicopters, artillery tubes, and crews.
*   Syria has long served as a proxy war for many nations. Iran, Russia, and Turkey are all vying for influence in the somewhat ungoverned state; any US-Russia hostilities will intensify an already unstable dynamic.
“The price of poker just went up based on the POTUS tweet. Both Russia and the US are now at the center of the US response rather than Syria and President Assad. The escalation in rhetoric is dangerous but, in my view, very Trump-like. I suspect the Russians probably don’t have the density of counter-missile capabilities to support their rhetoric. The US can engage and re-engage multiple times, but I think the Russians will have great difficulty responding beyond an initial volley. Based on the President’s tweet, I suspect the US options will be more robust. There is a significant risk to Russian prestige if they try to counter and it doesn’t go well.”
Lieutenant General (Ret.) Frank Kearney

“As part of the synchronization of the elements of national power (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic), the president is responding to Russian threats to shoot down coalition missiles. This and diplomatic measures such as proposed UN resolutions, are a necessary part of the information and diplomatic preparation that can either shape or avoid military action.”
Brigadier General (Ret.) Anthony Tata
Original Post 04/12/2018

Chemical Weapons Strike: Whats Next?

by

Background:

In the summer of 2012, Syria’s government confirmed that it had chemical weapons but stated these weapons would not be used against its people but only against “external aggression.” Later that year, President Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons would be considered crossing a “red-line”; changing the US military Response in Syria. Since 2010, there have been more than ten reported chemical attacks by the Assad Regime. In April of 2017, President Trump ordered targeted air strikes against a Syrian airfield from where a recent chemical attack was launched.

What has happened:

  • Less than a week after President Trump said that he intended to pull the remaining US troops out of Syria, a chemical weapons attack against the Syrian town of Douma has killed more than 40 civilians.
  • In a series of tweets yesterday morning, President Trump condemned the use of chemical weapons and blamed Russia and Iran for enabling the atrocity.
  • On the heels of the last month’s nerve agent attack in the UK and escalating diplomatic tensions between the US and Russia, President Trump admonished Vladimir Putin by name in his tweets.

Why it matters:

  • Given the President’s “America First” policies, this action by Russia and Assad may strengthen his new national security team’s ability to convince him that remaining engaged in Syria is our most effective tool to influence Russia and Iran…and indirectly Iraq.
  • US Central Command Commander, General Votel, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, have both voiced the need to stay engaged in Syria; additionally, the Chairman has consistently stated that Russia is a significant concern to our national security.
  • This is one of the first and most significant military and foreign policy decision points for President Trump and his new national security team; the global community will be observing their response.

 “The Administration will likely wait for confirmation and attribution which is protocol in these situations.  Considering Russia’s recent use of nerve agent on its own spies, followed by this Syrian chemical attack; the President will have to act with a greater effect than the last Syrian chemical strike.  The DOD will expect elevated Syrian air defense alertness and the potential for a Russian-US air to air confrontation.  I expect a coordinated response will take a few days to align capabilities with potential target sets as well as ensure counter-air capabilities and refueling assets are sufficient in the area of operations. The US Government should attack with a proportional response against Syrian forces or assets.  This response should not be a hit on airfield infrastructure which is rapidly reparable; rather it should be a punitive attack on key IADS (integrated air defense systems), aircraft (fixed and rotary wing) and the Syrian forces attributed to the attack.  Anything less will disappoint allies and will be viewed as an impotent response.” 

Lieutenant General (Ret.) Frank Kearney

 

Original Post 04/9/2018