Official Syria thread of evidence supporting war

[Phoenix Dark]

Well, I got nothin'

 

[Great Rumbler]

 

[brob]

 

[Phoenix Dark]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said in an interview with “NewsHour” on PBS. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet’s insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad’s forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.

The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House’s full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies’ concerns would affect their plans.

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad’s supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad’s military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-intelligence-slam-dunk.php?ref=fpa

sound familiar?

[Great Rumbler]

sound familiar?

No. The last time around, an article like that would never have seen the light of day.

[hampster]

Well I'm convinced
 

[Polari]

You're not trying hard enough PD: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/08/27/where-syria-fits-in-the-worlds-oil-supply-system/

[Himu]

Hahahahaha. That statement from Biden about killing innocent women and children? And how America won't stand for it? Hahahahaha. More and more I feel so good not voting for these ass clowns again in 2012. It feels so good on my conscience.

[Brehvolution]

We all know how Prez R-Money would have done the right thing. Shiiiet, we might already be in there by now.

[Himu]

esch

[radioheadrule83]

Someone carried out that attack, and I don't think this was a false flag op or anything... because that's ridiculous. That said, I'm not convinced that this wasn't the rebels -- we don't really know who is in control of their chemical weapon stocks. To actually deploy a chemical shell and leave no trace certainly does place heavy suspicion on the regime, but I don't know... if strikes were simply targeting the chem weapon sites or infrastructure for deploying them, I might be somewhat understanding of that. But do I trust what our armed forces or intelligence services say about such things after Iraq? No.

What I don't really get in all this is why the Syrians are playing it so badly... blame the rebels, hope the clout of the Russians, Chinese and Iranians is enough to dissuade attacks.

I can't help but feel that Assad, like Gaddafi and Hussein before him, is walking headstrong into his own eventual demise. If it WASN'T Assad's regime or Army who did this, why not pledge a joint, transparent investigation? If it turns out to be an unauthorised attack on their side, own up to it, prosecute those responsible, make apologies, make financial reparations... it becomes much harder for the US/UK/FR to take military action if the regime is seen to be doing something about righting the wrong.

Instead, they push a guy out on State television to flatly deny they had anything to do with it and place blame on the other side. They restrict access to the site for a UN investigative team for days... I'm sure things are more complex than I could ever know, and that Assad's people think they know what they're doing - but they seem a little bit stupid to me. Or maybe naive. It remains to be seen how much their 'friends' like Russia *really* care.

The chemical attack and the harrowing images and video it generated are the likes of which some young people have never seen. I've seen some gruesome sights on the internet, but the news reels of men women and children (even babies) with pinpoint pupils, difficulty breathing and dying in cold convulsive sweats really invites the worst kind of emotional response - I'm assuming in politicians too. Its something the world hasn't really seen since Iraq in 1988 or during the Tokyo Subway attack in 1995. If they're responsible, they've definitely crossed a line that they may come to regret. For all the will in the world, I won't be able to default to sympathy for the regime if it does come under attack. My only sympathy would be with any innocents caught up in the bombing.

People are arguing that Syria's relationship with Iran and Hezbollah should give pause for thought, but I actually think it will be seen in some quarters as all the more reason to get rid of this regime. They see it descending into prolonged civil war anyway.

[CatsCatsCats]

I have hopes this will be avoided with the amount of "this is bullshit" I've been hearing

[Positive Touch]

sorry brehs i dont see how this parallels iraq at all. the whole debate with chem weapons is wtf to me because regardless of their existence assad has already killed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people as is continuingto do so. not saying america's gonna rush in and be superheros because lol hell no. but at the same time the extreme pushback ive seen from liberals sounds more reactionary than anything else.

[Mupepe]

War fatigue is just at an all time high in the US.  Most don't want it.  Obama is doing a terrible job at leading the American people on this.  He should have been out in front of a camera already if he's that damn positive.  If he wants America to follow him on this he needs to get on TV and say that if we allow the use of chemical weapons then other enemies will think America won't act  regarding other atrocities and that it's a free for all.  Even if you don't agree with it, that's his reasoning and I think most Americans would rally behind that.  But instead the administration seems to be ducking any real discussion of the matter.  That's what disappoints me most.  We also have no idea which side used these weapons.  There's so many unknown variables and we are going to give some half ass response just because the President talked himself into this position.

[Boogie]

So we all cool now with Clinton standing back and watching the slaughter in Rwanada in '94?

Just trying to keep my International Intervention scorecard straight here.

[radioheadrule83]

War fatigue is just at an all time high in the US.  Most don't want it. 

Fatigue is not just in the US... to go and do something, with the most legitimate platform possible, they need other nations on board. France seems eager, as with Libya, but the UK parliament reconvened today and the air of extreme caution is apparent as this could definitely be a vote loser in 2015 if it all goes to shit. Politicians on our side are now waiting to see what the inspectors say... I seem to remember inspections being a drawn out facet of the build up to the Iraq war, Saddam was able to stand in their way for years, I don't think Assad is going to get that privilege.

Having said that,
http://news.sky.com/story/1134531/syria-russia-sending-warships-to-the-med

Who knows!

[Polari]

So we all cool now with Clinton standing back and watching the slaughter in Rwanada in '94?

Just trying to keep my International Intervention scorecard straight here.

It's difficult. The Security Council lacks the appropriate institutional design to deal with these kind of issues effectively.

[Joe Molotov]

Well I'm convinced
 

They exist because they do.

[Mandark]

1) No, it's not like Iraq.  One was a relatively stable, if brutally autocratic regime that the US administration decided it wanted to oust, and believed it could replace with a friendly government (at minimal cost, no less).  The other is a state involved in a very active, bloody civil war.  If y'all didn't want a government that might intervene to stop ongoing mass slaughter, you should have made a stink when Samantha fucking Powers became a close advisor to the presumptive president of the United States.

2) The British and French governments have been the hawks on Syria, generally being restrained by the US.

3) If you read the TPM story, the main caveat isn't whether the Syrian government has chemical weapons or whether they were used, or which side used them, but whether Assad personally ordered their deployment.  Fine.  So?  If Assad didn't order the attacks, but allowed them to happen and is protecting the officers who gave the orders, he's given his sanction.  If a US president tried that, we'd recognize it right away as a bullshit attempt to avoid responsibility.

4) The use of chemical weapons, even with the public "red line" rhetoric from the White House, is not the sole factor in US policymaking, and probably not even the most important one.  To reiterate, there's a civil war happening in a state that borders three or four US allies (depending on how you want to count Iraq), with more allies (Saudi Arabia and some EU countries) demanding action and already getting involved themselves.  Hopefully nobody gets any crazy ideas about a ground invasion and occupation, but this was never something that the US could avoid any involvement whatsoever.


Worth reading this NYer piece from May on Syria.  Take it with a grain of salt because Filkins strikes me as tilted towards the rebel cause, but it's an interesting snapshot of the pressures inside and outside the US government on Obama to act.

[Mandark]

So we all cool now with Clinton standing back and watching the slaughter in Rwanada in '94?

Just trying to keep my International Intervention scorecard straight here.

The middle east is a complicated mess of conflicts about ethnicity, religion, and the control of resources.  Best to avoid getting bogged down.

Africa, on the other hand, is just a place where awful things happen to its helpless, infantilized populations and it could be stopped if only people would act!

[Positive Touch]

i knew mandark would come in to save the day

seeing people like rachel maddow piss away their credibility on this sudden anti-intervention kick would be pretty funny if it weren't so sad and dangerous

[radioheadrule83]

UK parliament is debating this now btw
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23877247

[Diunx]

I support an intervention, but a real one like they did here in the early 1900s, exterminate the government and rebel leaders, install a group approved by the UN to run the country, create a new military and police force and leave when the new generation get their shit together.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

that strategy created a ruthless US backed pedo dictator who ruled us with an iron fist for 30 years but I'm sure Mandark or someone else can deal with little details like that from my plan

[close]

[Mupepe]

1) No, it's not like Iraq.  One was a relatively stable, if brutally autocratic regime that the US administration decided it wanted to oust, and believed it could replace with a friendly government (at minimal cost, no less).  The other is a state involved in a very active, bloody civil war.  If y'all didn't want a government that might intervene to stop ongoing mass slaughter, you should have made a stink when Samantha fucking Powers became a close advisor to the presumptive president of the United States.

2) The British and French governments have been the hawks on Syria, generally being restrained by the US.

3) If you read the TPM story, the main caveat isn't whether the Syrian government has chemical weapons or whether they were used, or which side used them, but whether Assad personally ordered their deployment.  Fine.  So?  If Assad didn't order the attacks, but allowed them to happen and is protecting the officers who gave the orders, he's given his sanction.  If a US president tried that, we'd recognize it right away as a bullshit attempt to avoid responsibility.

4) The use of chemical weapons, even with the public "red line" rhetoric from the White House, is not the sole factor in US policymaking, and probably not even the most important one.  To reiterate, there's a civil war happening in a state that borders three or four US allies (depending on how you want to count Iraq), with more allies (Saudi Arabia and some EU countries) demanding action and already getting involved themselves.  Hopefully nobody gets any crazy ideas about a ground invasion and occupation, but this was never something that the US could avoid any involvement whatsoever.


Worth reading this NYer piece from May on Syria.  Take it with a grain of salt because Filkins strikes me as tilted towards the rebel cause, but it's an interesting snapshot of the pressures inside and outside the US government on Obama to act.

This is definitely something worth discussing.  This was the one of the biggest worries when the war started... can Assad control his chemical weapons stockpiles?  Regardless of who deployed them, it was up to him to protect them and keep them out of the hands of people who wanted to use them.  Saying "It was the other side" is not a valid excuse

[Skidmark]

Assad forces launching missiles. It is not the exact same event of 21 August since this is done during the day.
However, it is the same kind of missiles that seem to be used in the CW attacks.



You can read more details on the munitions here:
http://brown-moses.blogspot.se/

[Mupepe]

BTW, the GAF thread is disgusting.  Bunch of armchair generals pounding their chest about "outdated" Russian military equipment and how easy the West could control this whole situation with military might. 

[Mandark]

BTW, the GAF thread is disgusting.  Bunch of armchair generals pounding their chest about "outdated" Russian military equipment and how easy the West could control this whole situation with military might.

Reminds me of the Iraq War.  By the mid/late-00's Poli-GAF was pretty solidly liberal, but in 2003 when the invasion happened, there was an Iraq War thread which was almost like a sports thread: mostly immediate reactions to what was being shown on TV.  There was a lot of enthusiastic discussion of the military hardware being used in the shock'n'awe campaign, IIRC.

[Joe Molotov]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/experts-point-to-long-glorious-history-of-successf,33642/

[Skidmark]

I would also like to add this link too, very informative summary on what we can tell so far:

http://rogueadventurer.com/2013/08/29/alleged-cw-munitions-in-syria-fired-from-iranian-falaq-2-type-launchers/

[Mupepe]

BTW, the GAF thread is disgusting.  Bunch of armchair generals pounding their chest about "outdated" Russian military equipment and how easy the West could control this whole situation with military might.

Reminds me of the Iraq War.  By the mid/late-00's Poli-GAF was pretty solidly liberal, but in 2003 when the invasion happened, there was an Iraq War thread which was almost like a sports thread: mostly immediate reactions to what was being shown on TV.  There was a lot of enthusiastic discussion of the military hardware being used in the shock'n'awe campaign, IIRC.

I wasn't around on GAF back then but I could totally see it.  It seems like all the hawks come out in these types of threads to regurgitate whatever their coworkers or the TV told them about the situation.

[Positive Touch]

BTW, the GAF thread is disgusting.  Bunch of armchair generals pounding their chest about "outdated" Russian military equipment and how easy the West could control this whole situation with military might.

Reminds me of the Iraq War.  By the mid/late-00's Poli-GAF was pretty solidly liberal, but in 2003 when the invasion happened, there was an Iraq War thread which was almost like a sports thread: mostly immediate reactions to what was being shown on TV.  There was a lot of enthusiastic discussion of the military hardware being used in the shock'n'awe campaign, IIRC.

in other words, it was just like EVERY major media outlet in the u.s. at the time

[Great Rumbler]

It's a mess now, it's been a mess for several years, it'll continue to be a mess for a very long time, regardless of what we do.

[Human Snorenado]

Guys. GUYS.

I've just had an epiphany.

We'll bomb Syria with Miley Cyrus. BOOM. Two birds, one stone. Ok, that much awesome deserves a nap as a reward. See y'all in a couple hours.

[Phoenix Dark]

1) No, it's not like Iraq.  One was a relatively stable, if brutally autocratic regime that the US administration decided it wanted to oust, and believed it could replace with a friendly government (at minimal cost, no less).  The other is a state involved in a very active, bloody civil war.  If y'all didn't want a government that might intervene to stop ongoing mass slaughter, you should have made a stink when Samantha fucking Powers became a close advisor to the presumptive president of the United States.

2) The British and French governments have been the hawks on Syria, generally being restrained by the US.

3) If you read the TPM story, the main caveat isn't whether the Syrian government has chemical weapons or whether they were used, or which side used them, but whether Assad personally ordered their deployment.  Fine.  So?  If Assad didn't order the attacks, but allowed them to happen and is protecting the officers who gave the orders, he's given his sanction.  If a US president tried that, we'd recognize it right away as a bullshit attempt to avoid responsibility.

4) The use of chemical weapons, even with the public "red line" rhetoric from the White House, is not the sole factor in US policymaking, and probably not even the most important one.  To reiterate, there's a civil war happening in a state that borders three or four US allies (depending on how you want to count Iraq), with more allies (Saudi Arabia and some EU countries) demanding action and already getting involved themselves.  Hopefully nobody gets any crazy ideas about a ground invasion and occupation, but this was never something that the US could avoid any involvement whatsoever.


Worth reading this NYer piece from May on Syria.  Take it with a grain of salt because Filkins strikes me as tilted towards the rebel cause, but it's an interesting snapshot of the pressures inside and outside the US government on Obama to act.

So what's the endgame of this? We apparently don't know where said chemical weapons are, so I guess we'll be bombing military installations/bases.

I can't support this. But then again, I didn't support Libya either.

[Human Snorenado]

I don't support pussy ass half measures.  Either we go biblical and turn that whole fucking area of the earth into a sheet of glass, then salt that sheet of glass for good measure, or just stay the fuck out of it. 

[Great Rumbler]

Obama is about to bomb Dasmascus, Syria! Can you find Damascus on the map?

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/damascus/

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Missed it by just 38 miles.

[close]

[Mandark]

The endgame is likely to keep Syria embroiled in civil war because it keeps Iran right where we want them: stuck in a quagmire proxy war against Saudi Arabia. As long as the U.S. can avoid playing a its full hand (i.e. major military action--not surgical strikes) it's going to. After the failures of Iraq (where ironically many of the Syrian rebels were trained and seasoned fighting coalition forces), we're not in a hurry to go balls out for this one--especially as long as it suits our interests. Not only is this pay back to Assad for allowing fighters to use his country to fight the US in Iraq, but it keeps Iran bogged down as well.

That's roughly Dan Drezner's take, but I don't think it's what the administration's actually going for.  Iran's economy is pretty fucked regardless, and I think Obama and co. would rather de-escalate so Israel or a future US administration doesn't do anything stupid.

This seems basically like a sectarian civil war where the neighbors have various rooting interests.  So it ends with the Sunni majority dominant, some kind of partition, or some kind of hybrid setup like in Iraq.  The other big questions are how long it takes to get there, whether the settlement is recognized by all the major parties involved, which outsiders mediate, and what deals the other countries make among themselves regarding Syria.

[Momo]

You were 77 miles away!
But how do you stack up against the world?

[Steve Contra]

You know when someone has a horrible death in their family and you're kind of but not really close to them and you want to say something but know whatever you say will just be awkward but you say it anyway and you immediately realize you probably should have just said nothing and given them a hug instead.  Apparently this is American foreign policy now.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

All I know is that Obama is doing what is best for his country

[Phoenix Dark]

British MPs just voted against military action. Good.

[TakingBackSunday]

Won't mean a thing if the US still decides to bite.

[Phoenix Dark]

President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said on Thursday, even with a rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, an increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.

Although the officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that the strike could occur as soon as United Nations inspectors, who are investigating the Aug. 21 attack that killed hundreds of Syrians, leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus, the capital, on Saturday.

The White House is to present its case for military action against Syria to Congressional leaders on Thursday night. Administration officials assert that the intelligence will show that forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.

The intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack, officials briefed on the presentation said, but the administration believes that it has enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again.

Mr. Obama, officials said, is basing his case for action both on safeguarding international standards against the use of chemical weapons and on the threat to America’s national interests posed by Syria’s use of those weapons. Administration officials said that threat was both to allies in the region, like Turkey and Israel, and to the United States itself, if Syria’s weapons fell into the wrong hands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?hp&_r=0

 

Business/Mandark: you have outlined the strategic view on things. But do either of you think this is a good idea?

[Verdigris Murder]

Fun fact: the Israelis only actually managed to intercept comms between the regime because of Jewish phone companies having many contracts with Syria.

[Polari]

US going to go it alone? Would be a big call on their part.

[chronovore]

I don't think Obama is willing to go in alone. He probably recalls The Coalition of the Willing, and "You forgot Poland!" better than most.

[Human Snorenado]

I don't think Obama is willing to go in alone. He probably recalls The Coalition of the Willing, and "You forgot Poland!" better than most.

Well, our current Secretary of State sure does.

[Phoenix Dark]

He hasn't. Given his past views though, it's very hard to imagine him being positive about a Syrian strike. It just doesn't make sense to me, even if we explore the reasons behind this/Iran. It strikes me as very dumb, and I'm surprised Obama seems intent on doing this (if the reports are true). Is this just about saving face on the red line comment and ensuring chemical weapons remain a global stigma?

Gotta say the red line comment struck me as odd coming from him, given how careful he is when it comes to foreign policy comments.

[Mandark]

Hagel voted in favor of using force in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  I don't see that he'd particularly object here.

How bad an idea is it?  Depends.  If it's a limited strike used as a deterrent against the future use of chemical weapons, depends on whether Assad takes the hint.  If it's a sustained bombing campaign to weaken the regime, then we're basically picking sides in a sectarian conflict.  Which I'd say is probably very very not good.

[Momo]

I can't understand why the USA thinks it needs to be the world's policeman. Let them sort their own shit

[Human Snorenado]

I can't understand why the USA thinks it needs to be the world's policeman. Let them sort their own shit

It would be a lot easier to do so if the world wasn't full of people who want to blow us up, and they weren't geographically located above our oil.

[Momo]

My oil is wherever I can drive my pickup 

[brawndolicious]

For chemical weapons, isn't the issue that you can't just bomb them to oblivion even if you know exactly where they are? I heard that that would cause the nerve gas to get dispersed in that immediate area and that you might also have some rockets or their components left intact after a bombing.

You can either do strikes on the chem weapon sites that are known about as a warning or you could bomb every military installation of any kind and establish a no-fly zone like with Libya. I don't see how either option will get UNSC approval but at least the second option worked once.

[chronovore]

That's... just about the nicest thing I've ever heard a Canadian say about US foreign policy.

[Momo]

I can't understand why the USA thinks it needs to be the world's policeman. Let them sort their own shit

i'm not a big fan of the idea from an idealistic standpoint, but practically, in every community, there needs to be a policeman, or else the weak will get fucked over again and again.  if we could trust people to not be shitheads, then yeah, but we can't even trust people to not be shitheads on a neighborhood level.

and as world police go... ehn, america's been pretty good.  i don't agree with everything they've done, but historically kings of the world haven't been nearly as benign as the USA.  things are going to a be lot worse when china picks up the job, i tell you what.

I agree here, except I disagree that the policeman should be the states. The UN needs to shape up or fuck off. They need to sort this shit not cast a longing eye over to the USA every time some fucked up shit happens in the world. That the USA/UK/France need to start side coalitions to sort shit out is pathetic.

your national hockey team still sucks, though.

Too late to save face now

[Mandark]

I'd say that it's too early to say what the administration is going for, but it's not. It's not like this started last week. The Syrian Civil War has been raging for two and a half years now and my explanation, macabre as it may be, at least shows a reason why the U.S. has been dragging it's feet.

Yes, a Sunni-majority (and in power) state, or a hybrid, or a multi-state are all possibilities and have been since the beginning. And yes, it's extremely complicated, and yes, we do not know how long it will take to get there. I can tell you how long it won't take though, less than two years. And why? See above.

Eh, I think if this were a deliberate, coordinated effort to prolong the war in order to hurt Iran, then there would be some evidence for that .  AFAIK there's nothing in Obama's choice of foreign policy boffins, in his previous diplomatic efforts (especially with Iran, but also generally), in the vast Wikileaks document dump, or in any of the insider reporting which has suggested that's the case.

I think it's just as simple, and vastly more plausible, that Obama just really doesn't want to make a large new commitment of ground troops, is too wary of the rebels to arm them heavily, and would never consider actively supporting Assad, and so is left with the least-bad choice of making disapproving noises from a distance, while hoping something comes along that will push the combatants towards a mediated peace settlement, or otherwise fix the situation for him.

[Momo]

I agree here, except I disagree that the policeman should be the states. The UN needs to shape up or fuck off. They need to sort this shit not cast a longing eye over to the USA every time some fucked up shit happens in the world. That the USA/UK/France need to start side coalitions to sort shit out is pathetic.

Too late to save face now

I actually think the UN can never work as the police of the world.  Too many foxes in the hen house, too many differing agendas.  As long as veto power is a thing, it's never going to be able to apply force where it would hypothetically need to.

The hypothetical need to is too strongly aligned with "US interests" in this case. Remove veto and make UN majority vote based as a start, and go from there imo.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/30/1235109/-Obama-s-message-to-Syria
 

There are worse ways to make yourself look (like sending troops to Iraq) but this just straight up dumb messaging.

[Phoenix Dark]

Not saying we should do that, but how many messages and leaks are there going to be? And why hasn't the president spoken to the American people about this, outside of a quick answer in a PBS interview?

[Mupepe]

Not saying we should do that, but how many messages and leaks are there going to be? And why hasn't the president spoken to the American people about this, outside of a quick answer in a PBS interview?

Yeah I think he is making a huge mistake by not being willing to really address people if he wants support to beat the war drum. A few news sites seem willing to do that for him though. Yahoo News has a big image showing Syrias defenses in numbers and locations of Western fleets.

But maybe he is trying to make it seem like its not a big deal