-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-22s vs Syrian Fencers
- Thread starter Uncle Fester
- Start date
I should have been more specific. Just shoot them down, but it needs to be a Growler, Harrier (with an AMRAAM), or a UAV for the sake of this forumIt will teach their entire air force a good lesson. Of course, that could escalate quickly, but I think we're in a much better position to impose our will in that theater than the Syrians. I'll be flying in that AOR next year and a MiG kill painted on one of my Growlers would go a long way in pissing off just about every VFA bro out there.
Why is it always US blood and treasure? Good article from Andrew Bacevich in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. "Ending Endless War- A Pragmatic Military Strategy."
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-08-03/ending-endless-war
Given those two answers, why don't we have an AUMF for contingency operations against the government of Syria? (And I am not saying we should or shouldn't have an AUMF against Assad. I'm pointing out that the cart is 100 nautical miles before the horse.)
We're sending fighter jets into another country's airspace and warning that country if they approach our jets, we'll shoot them down... And it ain't like this conflict sprang up last week and Congress hasn't gotten around to debating it yet.
Last edited:
Because as a country we have the most invested in the world and it is in our vital interest to stay involved. The degree of our involvement is certainly debatable but total disengagement is unrealistic and misguided.
You failed to note that Iran, Russia and even Hezbollah have paid a higher price in Syria than we have.
Welcome to politics.
Armed conflict is a political act. And the the US public views it in terms of a completely false dichotomy. Either we're marching down the Champs-Élysées victoriously, or it's a "quagmire" like Vietnam. Thus, after the "quagmires" of Iraq and Afghanistan, another AUMF was political suicide to even ask for, especially for a Democrat. An AUMF implies this newest of hoary old media cliches: "boots on the ground." As professional military officers, we should understand that war is a rheostat, not an "on/off" switch. ROMO is not just the QB everyone loves to make fun of. The US public can't get that through their heads. To them, it's either "war" (bad because guns and stuff) or "peace" (lovey dovey Kumbaya hippie puppies and rainbows). A second false dichotomy.
That said, while people may argue about the legal reasoning that brought some of them about, the DoD does not do "illegal ops." At least according to the DoD. There are authorizations for everything we do, which have been vetted by legal counsel at many echelons by the time they're used in any particular op. A perfect example is the very recently declassified Presidential Policy Guidance.
That's about as far as you'll get on a forum like this; the CJCS Standing ROE and the text of the various OPORDs that explicitly lay out roles, responsibilities, applicable supplemental ROE, etc. are classified, and for good reason. If the enemy knows them, they know how far they can push us, and how to use our own rules to fuck us over. Hence why not everyone is happy about the PPG getting declassified. But again, war is first and foremost a political act.
Your question, FWIW, is basically the Johnson/Weld platform, to the disgust of doctrinaire big-"L" Libertarians: we're not averse to using the military, but it needs to be run by the Congress and better thought-out than they claim it has been.
I know you're posing a rhetorical question, but this administration has chosen not to go down that road. We're not fighting Syria, and operations against ISIS is covered under the current AUMF (as it is interpreted). If Syria happens to start meddling in our operations in and over their country (how dare they!), then I would imagine the legal basis for U.S. aircraft shooting down Syria aircraft would be under the inherent right of self defense. If we were to then progress to more direct conflict with the Syrian government, I presume that would trigger the war powers resolution, etc, etc, though I can see some legal wiggle room there if an argument could be made that reinstating air supremacy over Syria was necessary, but incidental to continue the fight against ISIS.
A U.S. shoot down of a Syrian jet would escalate the situation - probably not in ways beneficial to U.S. interests in the short or long term.
Is that like a SHOOT or IN LAR cue? I haven't seen a "que" yet, but I only have a decade with the Growler...I'll ask some VFA types to tighten up my attention to detail. We can queue up at Roberto's for some quesadillas.
I believe I said that already.
We agreed on something? That puts you in pretty poor company.I believe I said that already.
In my estimation, we agree on most things.We agreed on something? That puts you in pretty poor company.
I did not say isolation. I agree with the first lines of the article: During the Cold War, the United States preferred to husband, rather than expend, its military power. The idea was not to fight but to defend, deter, and contain... I see no reason to spend trillions of dollars and wear down our military equipment on neo-conservatism in Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya or Syria when they are sideshows to Russia and China.
Iran, Russia and Hezbollah paying a higher price is a feature, not a bug.
Thanks Nerd. I'll be sure to grammar check my posts from now on. Nope. No I won't.
Let's just stick to the fact that the first 2 times "you guys" tried shooting real life AMRAAMs you did so without being IN LAR. Maybe it was even you with your 10 whole years riding in the trunk. Mission creep is real and you guys are the poster child.
New callsign: The donald.