Israel carried out its second air strike in days on Syria early on Sunday, a Western intelligence source said, in an attack that shook Damascus with a series of powerful blasts and drove columns of fire into the night sky. ...
People living near the Jamraya base spoke of explosions over several hours in various places near Damascus, including a town housing senior officials: "Night turned into day," one man said.
The Western intelligence source told Reuters the operation hit Iranian-supplied missiles headed for Lebanon's Hezbollah, a similar target to the two previous strikes this year, which have been defended as justifiable by Israel's ally the United States.
The missile in question has a range of 200 to 300 kilometers, depending on the model.
Once again I'll say that whether or not it is a good idea to take on Syria's air defense network, if we choose to do so we can shred it. All the government leaks fretting about Syria's "formidable" air defenses are just embarrassing, really:
MSNBC's Chris Matthews elaborated on the political subtext of these leaks, warning that if the United States were to intervene in the Syrian conflict, Assad "can shoot anything that goes overhead. So if we get in there, we start losing pilots and start losing planes and start getting captives - how can you bail out over Damascus?"
While it is prudent for U.S. decision makers to weigh the risks posed by Assad's air defenses, this panicked response is unhinged from the actual debate over U.S. options to intervene in the Syrian conflict.
Thank you. The author is spot on.
If our Air Force is allowed to take its time rather than being ordered to fly directly over Damascus during daylight hours at low altitude, the risks to our pilots will be minimal. We have the ability to take apart Syria's air defense network if we have the luxury of time to do so.
Of course, one commenter approaches multiple levels of stupid in response to this more sober analysis than what we've been getting:
Maybe Mr. Griffin should volunteer to ride in an aircraft flying in the first wave. It is much easier to discount risks when you are not the person facing them.
Hey, Sparky, this isn't World War II. The first wave won't be flying over Damascus if we do it right. The first wave won't even be with manned aircraft. And maybe next time you can work up the courage to openly make the "chicken hawk" charge. But the commenter isn't interested in a debate. It's much easier to simply attack the author's personal courage than explain why the risk is so great that the mightiest Air Force in the world must stand down.
And the leakers who are vigorously scrubbing away at the "red line" of chemical use that they thought would insulate us from having to make good on the President's threats (who knew that they would be used even a little?) are desperate to avoid a debate. That's why people who should know better are trying to stop a debate by falsely claiming that Syria's air defenses are just too tough to tangle with.
And as Mr. Griffin notes, if we were to intervene, who says we even need to take on Syria's air defenses?
And if we do need to do that, the Israelis actually are facing Syria's air defenses and getting through. Ask them about the risk, eh? If Israeli raids continue, perhaps the government leakers will stop calling the air defenses "formidable" and simply refer to them as "awesome." Or maybe just "super cool."
Reason number 512 of why I don't enable comments. If someone wants to email something that dumb to me, I can just ignore it.
We obviously need to have some respect for what Syria has, but that is different from being frozen into inaction by fear. We need to focus on what we can do to them rather on what they can do to us.
And if we really need to fly directly over Damascus on day one? Armed drones and cruise missiles won't risk a single pilot.
Oh, and Hezbollah can't be too happy that their payments for fighting on Assad's side can't be delivered.
UPDATE: More on the raid here.
