Cruise Missiles off Syria?

U.S. naval forces are moving closer to Syria as President Barack Obama considers military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad government. The president emphasized that a quick intervention in the Syrian civil war was problematic, given the international considerations that should precede a military strike.

The White House said the president would meet Saturday with his national security team to consider possible next steps by the United States. Officials say once the facts are clear, Obama will make a decision about how to proceed.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel declined to discuss any specific force movements while saying that Obama had asked the Pentagon to prepare military options for Syria. U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.

via News from The Associated Press.

One of the great annoyances of relying on the MSM is that they manage omit information that might give a clearer picture of what may or may not be possible, and also manage to give incorrect information. I can assure you, there is not a fourth warship with ballistic missiles in the Med. The author presumably means Tomahawk cruise missiles.

I don’t know what the current order of battle for US Navy warships is in the Levant. I suppose I could look it up. But AP and other news sources have often pointed to the presence of two or more battle groups in the Arabian Gulf as a certain sign of an imminent attack on Iran. What’s to say the same thinking isn’t at work in the Levant?

Of course, it is entirely possible President Obama will decide that some level of military retaliation is required in response to the alleged Syrian use of chemical weapons. And a cruise missile strike would be very, very near the top of the preferred responses, mostly because it keeps American airmen and soldiers out of immediate danger.



6 responses to “Cruise Missiles off Syria?

  1. Sounds Like a show of Naval force for public consumption with no real plan and no plan for any action that brings death to the plan by the actions of any power that decides to disrupt that plan.
    It’s appearing to be a screw up and train wreck about to happen.
    Hope none of our guys get left holding Obama’s empty bag of crap.


  2. So how do we know that the rebels didn’t gas the town, in order to bring in bigger guns, ie the US, etc to get rid of Assad?


  3. Sarin is an oily liquid, released as an aerosol. It is NOT a gas. The pictures of un-mopped, dust-mask wearing medics, give me pause…
    Also, who is it that poisoned who?
    Whose word are you willing to take?
    Are you willing to start WW-III over it?

    It’s not like we’ve never seen staged photos out of that area before, is it?

    As far as the AP, the only “Ballistic Missile” armed ships in the USN are Ohio-class, armed with MIRVD Tridents. They would not have to be in the Med to turn Syria to glass. Not that that is a BAD idea, they are just wrong…
    The LIVs don’t know any better, and that is who they are talking to. Layers and layers of “Fact Checkers”.
    Kinda like: TOP. MEN.


  4. ultimaratioregis

    Mein Guter Kamerad JPP over at Op-For has a superb take on the “cruise missile” option. He makes the point that this is what passes for strategic thinking and planning in today’s national security environment.

    Set TLAM warheads to “gesture!”

    Aye, aye, sir!

    As before, I will reserve judgment on just who used chemical weapons on whom.