.

Oh, What A Lovely War!

Last year I said that if not careful we could be going down the path towards war with Russia over Syria.

It is a terrible thing to say but someone had to say it because the politicians are either too deaf or too ignorant to be paying attention.

Perhaps a war is required to silence the 'Gung-ho' attitude coming from Washington Senators and House of Representative Members whose only knowledge of war is derived from Hollywood and its characters?

On The Other Hand.........

What would a war between the United States and Syria entail?

Let us get a number of issues straight here.

A war with a superpower (Russia) will not be confined to Syria but, as I said eighteen months ago, involve the European Union and Britain (no matter how great a distance both attempt to place themselves from the political and military position of the United States via-a-vis the Russian Federation) it will cut no ice when the rubber meets the road.

With Friends Like These...................

The likelihood is that Turkey, given the present political climate, would declare itself 'neutral' (yes folks, withdraw from it's NATO commitments) if such a particular conflict went 'hot'.

Lines In The Sand
In the case of Syria, Russia has pretty much said to the United States (if it cared to listen) - 'this far and no further - this is where we draw our line in the sand.'


Living In Another World

The frightening thing for myself is that Washington is in its own 'bubbleworld' and is living in a sort of 'Reality TV' environment - which bares little to no relationship with what is happening in the real world.

A Stitch In Time

[As you may not know, very few U.S. politicians have ever travelled outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.  A few have travelled to NATO allied countries for conferences but that's about it.

I don't wish to be too critical here but our 'open society' does not provide adequate arrangements to facilitate most but the very senior U.S. VIPs (Senators and House members) to travel abroad with the resourced security detail required to guarantee their safety.  This is just one of the reasons so few travel outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.  

I want here to relate a story from some time ago (at least one decade.)

I recall a visiting VIP (Head of State/Senior Politician) had his/her own security.  A sort of row broke out between his/her (government assigned) security and British security (which was of course also assigned to protect the VIP whilst on British soil.)

The row was because I gave 'priority' (in the context of my minor involvement) to the  visiting VIPs security detail as opposed to the British security detail (because of their known reputation for efficiency, alertness and expertise.)   An unholy row almost broke out between me and the senior officer assigned by H.M. government to protect the VIP - which I managed to diffuse - and things settled down with everyone (almost!) happy again.  I could say more about this matter but I don't want to slight anyones reputation since some may still be serving officers in some capacity somewhere or other.  Suffice to say, here, at this time, I got the message - loud and clear(!)

Of course everything went smoothly.  But.....looking back....and with hindsight..... it would have been far better to have given priority to the visiting VIPs security detail because they were better trained than their British counterparts.  Indeed, their country provides training in diplomatic and personal protection to nations, corporations and VIP agencies across the globe - and has a reputation second to none in this regard.

The point I want to make here is that a number of countries have genuine concerns about the adequacy of 'local' security when their VIPs travel overseas - and in many cases they have every justification in being concerned in this regard.  So it should therefore not come as a total shock to learn that few U.S. Senators nor House Members travel abroad for the above reasons.]

Where The Rubber Meets The Road

Thankfully (at least at the present time) there exist in the senior ranks of the Pentagon, people who do have their feet firmly on the ground.

I have said for many years - and I repeat it again, the last thing any military high command  in the democratic world wants is to go down a path which could lead to nuclear war - especially with another nuclear superpower such as The Russian Federation.

If I am to be blunt and honest, military Staff in the democratic world would prefer to give speeches (about war preparations and readiness to fight future wars) attend conferences worldwide and 'party' than to fight in real wars (!)

This was the case in the past, and it's still the case today in the democratic world.

The last thing any sane serving officer wants to do is to fight in a real war - which they will of course do (with maximum efficiency) should they be so directed  by their politcial bosses.  Many have had first hand experience of a war zone in the course of their careers.  From what I was told, when you have this, the last thing which you want is to fight a war - because you have experienced, first hand, the horrors of warfare on both your colleagues and on the general populace.

I will not get into the argument here about drone warfare and how 'dehumanizing' it is to the remote service personnel. 

Ship Of Fools

The Chief of Defense Staff and senior military personnel have repeatedly warned U.S. politicians that a confrontation with the Russian Federation will become likely if they embark on particular actions.

The U.S. military is ready and prepared for a confrontation with Russia over Syria - should the need arise.

(Indeed I would imagine that battleplan operations to defeat Russia in Syria have been rehearsed for several years.)

Harum Scarum

What appears to be happening in the United States at present, particularly in the run up to the Presidential Election, is that both parties want to appear strong and confrontational with regard to Syria and Russia.

(Russia, in many respects, meddling in U.S. politics, has only itself to blame.  The heads of Russia's FSB and GRU should both be fired for gross incompetence since their actions equally share responsibility for the current state of tensions between Russia and the West.)

The Democrats cannot be seen to be perceived as 'weak' on defense matters - nor can the Republicans.

So expect everything to 'hot' up in the run up to the final countdown (Election Day.)

I would hope that after the election, the rhetoric will ease off  and then just pitter away into oblivion with the war in Syria just dragging on for years - with no end in sight - and, more importantly, no major military U.S. ground forces commitment into Syria.

So that's it folks (!)   The likely shape of things to come in Syria.
Iraq, however, with its strategic asset, is a very different kettle of fish.

©Patrick Emek, October 2016

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh!_What_a_Lovely_War
(but remember folks, this was another era; these days, it's the democratic civilian politicians who are in ignorance and arrogance,  not their generals, in most instances)

http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/473025/syria-red-line-that-wasnt/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Fools_(satire)

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/harum-scarum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harum_Scarum