Syria: the case for action

[jmm99]

Mueller et al, Airpower Options for Syria - Assessing Objectives and Missions for Aerial Intervention (RAND, 2013):

Key Findings

Destroying the Syrian air force or grounding it through intimidation is operationally feasible but would have only marginal benefits for protecting Syrian civilians.

Neutralizing the Syrian air defense system would be challenging but manageable; however, it would not be an end in itself.

Defending safe areas in Syrias interior would amount to intervention on the side of the opposition.

An air campaign against the Syrian army could do more to ensure that the regime fell than to determine its replacement.

Airpower could reduce the Assad regime's ability or desire to launch chemical weapon attacks, but eliminating its arsenal would require a large ground operation.

See also, Table 1. Summary of Mission Assessments at page 16.

Pew, Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes - Few See U.S. Military Action Discouraging Chemical Weapons Use (3 Sep 2013):

President Obama faces an uphill battle in making the case for U.S. military action in Syria. By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adults, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.

The votes that count are those in Congress, which doesn't necessarily follow the polls.

Regards

Mike