Well France is busy in Mali, and didn't Britain recently cut back its military spending severely as part of its austerity measures? Meanwhile Germany believes in having a military but not in using it, and who knows what the rest of NATO thinks of this. By the way what's the reason we haven't intervened yet? Is it because American public opinion has turned all isolationist after Iraq? Or do we genuinely think that the Syrian rebels aren't yet trustworthy partners? Do we think Assad's threat to use chemical weapons against intervening countries is credible? Or maybe we'd just rather have Assad in power and in control of his chemical arsenal rather than letting those weapons get loose in the chaos of a security meltdown?
As Darth Boba guessed at earlier, special forces and intelligence is probably in there already. My guess is the same. And my hunch is that the situation is one of two scenarios: 1. Western intelligence and special forces are helping the rebels already and have decided that the best and least costly course of action is to just aid the rebels with supplies and information, and only participate themselves on a small scale when necessary. 2. Western intelligence and special forces are helping the rebels already, but have long ago reached the conclusion that they ultimately aren't guys you want to have in power later anyway, so they're waiting it out and aiding the rebels only enough for the two sides to kill each other as much as possible, before entering into the scene in the final stages.
Possibly a stupid question here, but when special forces are sent covertly into a country, do they wear uniforms? Or do they basically dress and fight like guerrillas?
So the Geneva Conventions regarding uniformed soldiers doesn't apply to Special Forces? Or even if it did I can't imagine that a bunch of Navy SEALs behind enemy lines would want to wear something that says "Look at me, I'm an enemy! Come and get me!"
SF from all countries pretty well do what they like based on mission requirements; it's important to remember that when the Convention was drafted soldiers of the skill level and mission purpose descriptive of Special Forces frankly did not exist.
Also, if they're doing undercover intelligence work, I would imagine they would not want the Assad regime to be able to identify them, certainly not with what would probably be noticeable uniforms.
Yeah, I'd agree. Plus wearing the same general clothes as the guys you're training/fighting with promotes solidarity.
What exactly is the situation in Algeria right now? With the hostages? Is this linked to Libyan terrorists, Mali terrorists, both, or something different altogether?
The hostage siege ended yesterday, FWIW. 19 hostages died. Granted, 110 or so lived, but still, pretty sloppy military response from the Algerians.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/20/us-sahara-crisis-idUSBRE90F1JJ20130120 Says here that 48 hostages were killed.
Didn't the hundred number just refer to foreigners? I was under the impression that there were several hundred Algerian workers, in addition to the aforementioned hundred, that also made it out.
Haven't really heard much about local workers-I haven't been following this much TBH. I'd assume there were plenty there, though.
Even with the casualties, I'd say that's still a pretty significant number that got out in one piece.
I'd agree..but the Algerians had the time advantage due to the terrorists deliberately creating a static situation. The last major standoff of this sort I can remember was the Shining Path terrorists in Peru during the 90s when they took over the Japanese Embassy. The Peruvian military chose the best course, which was to lock the place down and wait out the terrorists inside. There's exceedingly little advantage to the terrorists in that situation-they'll have diminishing food and water supplies, have to remain continually alert, etc. Just think waiting them out would have resulted in considerably fewer hostage deaths, IMO.
Unless the terrorists decided to call the bluff and detonate their explosives and/or murder the hostages (several of which they had apparently already killed).
Sure, but that they hadn't already done so after four days. FWIW, these situations where the armed force goes in soon after the situation begins nearly always result in hostage deaths. Ones where they wait out the terrorists frequently don't.
Israel bombed Syria today (some reports say it was a military research center near Damascus, other say it was an arms convoy about to cross into Lebanon) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/2013130165625330449.html Also, people are warning that Egypt could collapse into anarchy, and some cities have already seceded from the country.
It'll probably be a few more days before we know for certain what exactly happened. Although I can't say I'm terrifically surprised-the country is going to pieces with no clear end game, and especially with Islamic fundamentalist portions of the overall insurgent landscape making fairly serious inroads against the Syrian military lately, an Israeli airstrike on a place they view as dangerous to themselves shouldn't be a surprise. And given that Syria is known to possess chems...everyone remember the paranoia about Scuds with chemical warheads being launched from Iraq against Israeli civilian populations during the Gulf War? Sure, it never panned out, but Israel Is probably freaking out at the idea of terrorists gaining the capability to cause them grievous harm.
The U.S. is saying it was an arms convoy from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon, a shipment of antiaircraft missiles. Syria is saying it was a military research center (most likely a chemical weapons factory) that the rebels had been trying to take. Both make sense for why Israel would bomb them, but I don't think the target matters anymore... Syria threatened Thursday to retaliate for an Israeli airstrike and its ally Iran said the Jewish state will regret the attack. Syria sent a letter to the U.N. Secretary-General stressing the country's "right to defend itself, its territory and sovereignty" and holding Israel and its supporters accountable. "Israel and those who protect it at the Security Council are fully responsible for the repercussions of this aggression," the letter from Syria's Foreign Ministry said.Russia, Syria's strongest international ally, said the Israeli raid appeared to be an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. It said it is taking "urgent measures to clarify the situation in all its details". "If this information is confirmed, we have a case of unprovoked attacks on targets in the territory of a sovereign state, which grossly violates the UN charter and is unacceptable," Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement. "Whatever the motives, this is not justified."Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah are harshly condemning Israel... and so is Russia, who are in military alliance with Syria. How could they retaliate? I do not think Syria would militarily retaliate against Israel... unless Assad feels like he's going down anyways, and might as well go down in a blaze of glory against Israel. So how else could they retaliate? Sanctions and blockade against Israel?
