Securing Syria's Chemical Weapons Could Require Up To 75,000 U.N. Troops

I just read this article by Reuters that says that securing Assad's chemical weapons isn't as easy as it seems. Some estimates claim that it could take years to destroy the weapons and could require up to 75,000 U.N. troops? How many of those troops are going to be Americans? And how do they secure those weapons in a war zone without getting attacked? Something is fishy about this. I sense that there's going to be some kind of attack on the troops by Syrian government soldiers requiring an immediate U.N. military response. What a clever way to go around Russia and China and get the U.N. involved.

 

The transfer of chemical weapons from Damascus to Moscow would not be difficult as long as Russia puts Russian boots on the ground under the aegis of the UN. Syria has been Russia's client state since the Soviet era and most chemical weapons in Syria were provided by either the Soviet Union or Russia. Since it's Russia's plan to remove chemical weapons from Syria, Russia should bear the primary responsibility for putting Syria's chemical weapons under international control and Russia should store Syria's massive chemical arsenal in its territory to make them out of reach of both the Assad brothers and al Qaeda as UN inspectors oversee the whole process.

 

Russia not withdrawing its base from Syria's Tartus

http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/27-06-2013/124965-russia_tartus-0/

they already have a naval base in syria

althought the disclosure of .."Russian Defense Ministry rebutted reports on the withdrawal of Russian personnel from the sustainment center of the Russian Navy in the Syrian port of Tartus, the press service of the ministry said Thursday.

Defense Ministry officials said that Tartus was still an official base for Russian vessels in the Mediterranean and continued to perform its tasks. The Defense Ministry stated that the affirmation in the reports about the withdrawal of personnel of the sustainment center was extremely incorrect from the point of view of the actual situation.

It was said that there was no one single Russian military employed at the sustainment center in Tartus. The center is serviced by civil personnel only

 

Do you honestly think that we can trust the Russians with the disarmament of Syria's chemical arsenal? They'll probably get rid of most of them and leave the last 20% in an undisclosed location in case Bashar starts to lose and has no other way to stop the inevitable.

P.S. The Obama Administration came up with the idea of disarming Syria and told Kerry to reveal it in a supposedly "offhand" comment. If you're confused then read this article by Russian Television.

http://rt.com/usa/kerry-assad-weapons-week-617/

 

Are you living in fantasy land? Russian Troops on the ground? Putting them on the ground would put them in battle with al-qaeda terrorists all over the country. There are thousands of Chechen jihadis on the ground, and they will not respect any UN resolution, even if Russian troops operate under any UN mandate. If terrorists find out there are Russian troops anywhere in one particular area, they will try to attack and kill as many. Worst idea I've ever heard.

 

Putin is keen on maintaining Russian presence in Syria and the Syrians are generally deferential towards the Russians due to the long-standing relationship between Russia and Syria. Russia should send its chemical weapons experts to Syria to identify and collect the chemical weapons stockpile that it had helped amass and at least few hundred troops may be necessary to guard the UN-approved mission to Syria. Moreover, Tartus, the last Russian military base outside the former Soviet Union, is conveniently located to ship Syria's chemical weapons back to Russia.

 

You've spoken well of the Russians and their fighting prowess in the past, as well as how little you like al-Qaeda.

Okay, you still want the terrorists out? How?

 

Russians will not put boots on the ground to secure chemical weapons. Only Syrian troops will be doing that. If Russian troops land in Syria in thousands , they will become instant targets of al-qaeda.

Russia is said to have increased supply of new weapons to Syria in return for giving up chemical weapons. Russian ships have left Russian ports with huge supply of "game changing" weapons, according to Israelis. These are said to include planes, helicopters, tanks and night vision devices. Russians are going all in to help SAA without actually putting boots on ground.

 

Oh why do I think in the end, the US got what it wanted?

 

I have serious doubts that Assad will hand over all Chemical Weapons.

Even if Assad does hand over either some or the majority of them he will still be inclined to hide some away.

There is only two ways to ensure all Syrian Chemical Weapons are confiscated....and one of these ways is not something I would recommend....and the second method could cause massive damage and deaths in Syria.

1. If Assad does not disarm the U.S. could strike and send in Ground Forces such as Rangers and Special Forces to capture as many Chemical Weapons as possible.

2. Or....the U.S. could send in B-2's loaded with very special High Temp. Burn Explosives that are capable of burning or vaporizing any Chemical Weapon stored or not.

The problem with #2 is if one of these High Temp. Munitions were to malfunction and hit a civilian site....the detonation is similar to a small Nuclear Weapon.

AboveAlpha

 

Stop with the bravado. US not gonna do anything. They the new paper tiger.

 

You know....how many weeks have gone by since I told you this was going to happen unless something drastic changed?

I am not boasting about U.S. Military Capability as such a thing is self evident.

I am WORRIED.

And YOU should be too.

AboveAlpha

 

Nobody will be willing to secure the chem weapons because the rebels will attack both sides and probably gain control of the chemical weapons themselves.

 

Worried indeed. There can be no easy way to deal with this, and the easiest ways are the least likely. That being that Russia would take a benign approach to their fellow planetary inhabitants, and do all of this themselves. They will not.
Whether the required personnel are provided by Russia, the UN, the US, or some new alliance of partners, the fact is that they will be engaged by persons who view them as enemy. Whoever is involved with the CW cure, they have to be trustworthy and relatively highly trained/trainable.
I don't see this happening in any other way than what would amount to an invasion force, because the people who have to deal with the actual weapons would have to be provided with a substantial military buffer.
This is quite the little Pandoras' box. You can trust that we'll keep prying at the lid until only the most evil alternative remains.

 

I have been involved with this issue since the beginning and I was worried then and I am worried now.

Russia could very easily help solve this issue by presenting itself as a partner in a United Front dedicated to having Assad give up those Chemical Weapons.

A U.S. Military Strike without boots on the ground will create more issues than it would solve unless we do use those special High Temp. Munitions. But those damn things are too powerful for the areas that would have to be hit.

AboveAlpha

 

Still indulging in my silly habit of listening to KNPR. The current consensus is that there are far too many eyes on the whole situation to allow a quick 'n' nasty burn of any kind. If that were to be allowed, why, we could just haul in a bunch of the same kind of thermite that the Bush administration used to burn down the WTC, and left molten steel in the basement a full 2 weeks later. But we can't.
To days KNPR interview was with a former UN inspector who was involved with the disposal of Saddams' stockpile. He laid out the general progression involved with a similar disposal in Syria. He said that it would have to involve civilian contractors, and the cost would run in the hundreds of millions. Those contractors would require military cover.
I think the time for all of this speculation is over. What remains of civilized leadership in the world has no alternative but to set about just plain doing this. Cooperation at this point between the US and Russia could only help both countries. We have worked together on the space station. We need to do it here.
As far as establishing the needed military buffer between the workers and the combatants, we need to echo what I heard the Commander of CincPac Fleet 7 say when the Carl Vinson battle group anchored with us at Ras al Haad: (it was put out over the 1MC of all ships in the battle group)
"This is the Commanding Officer of US 7th. fleet, aboard the USS Carl Vinson. All vessels within 7 nautical miles will depart immediately, or be annihilated".
The moral of the story is that we can't just beat our chests. Move in. Take control. Make it right. Or don't even talk about it.

 

Haven't we learned anything after the fiasco of UNSCOM in Iraq? When Libya said they disarmed and we found WMD after Gadhafi was killed 8 years later? Bill Clinton thought he could bomb and inspect Saddam into compliance, it was folly. And Russia will be in charge of disarming Assad? More folly.

 

We were absolutely promised that there would be no boots on the ground, so obviously the Chinese and Russians need to step up to the plate and bravely take their turn at being hated and shot at by Muslim nutters.

 

I have stated that I DO NOT advocate a Military Strike upon Syria.

But since I happen to know a bit about what is going on I do know that unless Assad does give up Chemical Weapons we will strike.

This will cause more issues than it will solve as the ONLY Military Strike that would resolve this issue would result in Mass Casualties.

AboveAlpha

 

The lovely relations between the Russians and their Cossacks and Chechens and the sweet relations the Chinese have with their Uighurs ought to be helpful with their relations in Syria.

I imagine there will be hugs and kisses for all.

 

And how well did such strikes work in ridding us of the threat Saddam posed? Clinton found out they don't work. We found out they don't work when we uncovered all his proscribed materials after we removed him.

 

I agree. The majority across the US, did not want war. The lobby did. name that lobby?

I knew if anyone could back up out of the war, Obama could.
So far, so good.

But the swine next door to syria are not going to be happy that Russia is arming syria to the teeth. Each day that goes by, syria will be getting stronger.

What no one has claimed is whether Russia has already armed syria with nukes and why the chemical weapons are trivial.

On that note, if Russia has proven to itself that syria DID NOT use the chemical weapons and that they believe it was the rebels that were armed by western suppliers, then i have no doubt that nukes will be given to syria.

Think about it. If the east sees the west as being that corrupt, then no treaty is of merit for non proliferation of nukes.

The most ignorant error is by holding the opinions of one side of a divide.

Russia is now a player in the middle east divide and I believe syria and iran will be (are) the eastern blocks israel.

I suggest people lean on israel to back off because the tides have just changed

 

Let me be clear.

I do not advocate this but we have the capability to strike using specific munitions that would get the job done.

This could also kill a Hell of a lot of people as well.

AboveAlpha

 

Depends on what that "job" is. To rid Assad of chemical weapons? No it will not, he could produce more just as Saddam would have and had every intention of doing so. We don't even have a clue as to what Assad has, at least we had the list from UNSCOM of what they had uncovered and were trying to find.

 

Mysterious art of american stupidity open up in "Saddam would have" .Great americano stupidness.