|
Which “War Torn” Country? – U.S. Slaughter In Somalia, Yemen And Syria
bigger – original tweet
When I saw the above tweet this morning I wondered which "war torn" country those Somalis were fleeing from when they were murdered. The tweet doesn't say. Were they fleeing from the "war torn" Somalia? Or were the fleeing from "war torn" Yemen?
It is a sad world when has to ponder such.
It tuned out these people were fleeing from both wars:
Coast guard Mohammad Al Alay told Reuters the refugees, carrying official UNHCR documents, were on their way from Yemen to Sudan when they were attacked by an Apache helicopter near the Bab Al Mandeb strait.
An Apache attack helicopter shot up the refugees' boat. There are Saudi, United Emirati and U.S. Apache helicopters in or around Yemen. It is unknown which of them ordered and which executed the strike. These helicopters, their ammunition and the service for them are a favored U.S. export to belligerent dictatorships like Saudi Arabia.
The UN warns that 5 million people in Yemen are only weeks away from starving. The Saudis, the U.S. and the Emirates block all land routes, air ports and the coast of Yemen and no food supplies come through. This is an ongoing huge war crime and literally a genocide. But "western" media seem totally unimpressed. Few, if any, reports on the war on Yemen get published. Never have they so openly displayed their hypocrisy.
Somalia is falling back into an all-out civil war fueled by the decades old unwillingness of the U.S. to condone an independent local unity government. The Islamic Court Union, a unity government created by the Somalis in 2006, was the last working instance of a real Somali state. It had no Jihadist agenda and held down local warlords. It was destroyed by the Bush administration:
A UN cable from June 2006, containing notes of a meeting with senior State Department and US military officials from the Horn of Africa task force, indicates that the United States was aware of the ICU’s diversity, but would “not allow” it to rule Somalia. The United States, according to the notes, intended to “rally with Ethiopia if the ‘Jihadist’ took over.” The cable concluded, “Any Ethiopian action in Somalia would have Washington’s blessing.” Some within the US intelligence community called for dialogue or reconciliation, but their voices were drowned out by hawks determined to overthrow the ICU.
During the last 10 years an on-and-off war is waged in Somalia with the U.S. military interfering whenever peace seems to gain ground. Currently a new round of war is building up. Weapons are streaming into Somalia from Yemen, where the Houthi plunder them from their Saudi invaders:
Jonah Leff, a weapons tracing expert with conflict Armament Research, said many [Somali] pirates had turned to smuggling. They take boatloads of people [from Somalia] to Yemen and return with weapons, he said.
The wars on Somalia and Yemen are the consequences of unscrupulous and incompetent(?) U.S. foreign policy. (Cutting down the size of the U.S. State Department, as the Trump administration now plans to do, is probably the best thing one can do for world peace.)
The U.S. military should be cut down too. It is equally unscrupulous and incompetent.
Last night the U.S. military hit a mosque in Al-Jīnah in Aleppo governate in Syria. It first claimed that the strike, allegedly targeting a large meeting of al-Qaeda, was in Idleb governate. But it turned out to be miles away west of Aleppo. Locals said a mosque was hit, the roof crashed in and more than 40 people were killed during the regular prayer service. More than 120 were injured. The U.S. military said it did not hit the local mosque but a building on the other side of the small plaza.
The U.S. maps and intelligence were not up-to-date. A new, bigger mosque had been build some years ago opposite of the old mosque. The old mosque was indeed not hit. The new one was destroyed while some 200 people were in attendance. Eight hellfire missiles launched from two Reaper drones were fired at it and a 500lb bomb was then dropped on top to make sure that no one escaped alive. Al-Qaeda fighters were indeed "meeting" at that place – five times a day and together with the locals they have pressed by force to attend the Quran proscribed prayers.
Had the Russian or Syrian army committed the strike the "western" outcry would have been great. For days the media would have provide gruesome photos and stories. The U.S. ambassador at the UN would have spewed fire and brimstone. But this intelligence screw-up happened on the U.S. side. There will now be some mealymouthed explanations and an official military investigation that will find no fault and will have no consequences.
Amid this sorry incident it was amusing to see the propaganda entities the U.S. had created to blame the Syrian government turning against itself. The MI6 operated SOHR was the first to come out with a high death count. The al-Qaeda aligned, U.S./UK financed "White Helmets" rescuers made a quick photo session pretending to dig out the dead. The sectarian al-Qaeda video propagandist Bilal Abdul Kareem, which the New York Times recently portrait in a positive light, provided damning video and accusing comments. The amateur NATO researchers at Bellingcat published what they had gleaned from maps, photos and videos other people created. The NATO think tank, which defended al-Qaeda's invasion of Idleb, will shed crocodile tears.
Each new lie and obfuscation the U.S. Central Command in the Middle East put out throughout the day was immediately debunked by the horde of U.S. financed al-Qaeda propaganda supporters. This blowback from the "information operation" against Syria will likely have consequences for future U.S. operations.
In another operation last night the Israeli air force attacked Syrian forces near Palmyra which were operating against ISIS. The Israeli fighters were chased away when the Syrians fired air defense missiles. This was an Israeli attempt to stretch the "rules of operation" it had negotiated with the Russian military in Syria. The Russians, which control the Syrian air space, had allowed Israel to hit Hizbullah weapon transports on their way to Lebanon. Attacks on any force operating against Jihadis in Syria are taboo. The Russian government summoned the Israeli ambassador. Netanyahoo broke the rules. He will now have to bear the consequences.
Re the ‘Israeli Airstrikes’ … longish explanation/clarifications, TL;DR ?
Syria nor Russia have never been reticent to call-out US/coalition airstrikes on SAA forces. Quite the opposite.
The S400, modernized S300 series and lesser/older S300-200 systems are not used to fire their missiles at maximum range, that is not how they operate via doctrine nor operationally. The exact version the Syrians may have been given to deploy is unconfirmed, nor even if effectively deployed/operational, AFAIK. Only the S400, S300VM4 & Antey 2500 are capable of the 250-400km MAXIMUM engagement ranges, and only under very limited, specific circumstances. Ie, not in real world engagements.
However, there is no doubt the Russian systems were deployed to provide an air defense umbrella over their strategic assets and deployments in western Syria, ie Latakia locale, etc. Those deployments cannot cover all of Syria. Not … even … close …
The often breathlessly quoted maximum ranges do not reflect the operational firing range of the most capable versions of these SAM systems batteries. ‘Slant Range’ to target, detection range of target, category of target and available missile versions ready to launch, are the crucial factors in the real world. The altitude of the attacking aircraft determines its possible detection & engagement (DE) range, the lower the altitude the shorter the DE. The higher the altitude the greater the detection range but the shorter the relative engagement range (re theoretical maximum) given linear distance & altitude climb (Slant Range).
It is the radars and missile versions capabilities/combinations, ready to launch, that determine what target can be detected and possibly engaged and at what range, this varies dramatically by target type, ie, Ballistic Missile, Cruise Missile, manned Aircraft, unmanned Aircraft, AWACS, etc
If the likely target of the opposing strike aircraft is not identified/assessed as a Russian strategic asset or pre-agreed Syrian/SAA strategic asset, the Rules of Engagement (ROE) would highly likely preclude a Russian response, even if within ‘operational’ range & detected. No one wants to start WWIII. Non strategic assets are expendable and have to depend on lesser systems for defense, ie Syrian S200, etc. Military/Political ‘Necessity’ is applied, ruthlessly.
Other systems such as TOR/Pantsir are deployed & integrated into the S400/300 systems multi-layer Air Defense (AD) umbrella re overall multi-layered mutual defense & support. They are only very rarely deployed in isolation, re doctrine.
The various reports of the Israeli Airstrikes are piecemeal and highly conflicting.
The Israeli have historically limited themselves to attacks they can plausibly-deny as being against Hezbollah/Iranian targets supposedly transferring/transporting arms. A strike in Palmyra locale does NOT fit.
Amongst the various uncorroborated reports is an Israeli jet was damaged & one was downed over ‘occupied territory’. The latter is an unusually specific and entirely out of place phrase, especially given a supposed strike on Palmyra locale ?!
Hence, in the current ‘Fog of War’ re the Israeli Airstrikes, my best guess, partial assessment given insufficient, accurate nor reliable reports, is the strike was on a target in southern Syria, Not Palmyra, and a jet was downed, in the ‘occupied’ Golan. This aligns with no Russian AD launches, ie out of range, not a strategic threat, outside ROE. Also aligns with past Israeli strikes/patterns limited to S & SE Syria, usually using stand-off ordnance and calculated avoidance of Russian SAM ‘capabilities’.
A probable reason for the conflicting and fragmented, false(?) reports is to pollute/cover the loss of the downed Israeli jet to maintain the myth of the IDF invincibility/superiority. They do it as a matter of routine.
Lastly, and most crucially, military forces/commands conduct operations based on opposing force capabilities. NO Israeli strike aircraft in their inventory has any better than a ~2-10% chance of survivability if within detection & engagement range, if fired upon, by s400, S300VM4, modernized S300 AD systems. ~2-10%. Unless they were to launch an all out series of multi spectrum strikes using numerous various aircraft assets in multi flight/squadron packages, against the RUSSIAN SAM/AD batteries, FIRST, taking significant losses in the process. Welcome to WWIII, in that scenario.
Hence, they (Israeli’s) haven’t in the past, and don’t see any reasonable rationale for ’em now, nor in the foreseeable future, re strikes on Palmyra locale or ever within engagement envelope of Russian AD systems (integrated-systems/multi-layered capabilities/Integrated command & control). YMMV
Posted by: Outraged | Mar 18 2017 15:32 utc | 73
@ Posted by: Wwinsti | Mar 18, 2017 6:24:42 PM | 92
Our warmongers actually like to always refer to maximum capabilities (overcook), without context, to justify the MICC $. Ie Bomber/Missile/Mineshaft Gap (imaginary).
The Russians have long range missiles for the S400, the unknown question is whether they went operational, and where ? No way to easily tell what’s in a launch tube/canister. For example, they have ‘magazine’ inserts, so you can fit 4 smaller missiles in one large tube, sneaky russkies 😉
The articles pretty good actually, but, the Long range missiles fit in the same large canister/tube as previous, so 4 per launcher, as before. Yet there are other configs as well, such as two small tucked in between two large canisters on a single launcher. None of this binary, or black & white, huge flexibility, and the Russians like it that way, keeps everybody guessin’ 😉
The key issue that keeps being missed is the effect of altitude in combination with target size/type given earth curvature re detection and therefore targeting by radar & subsequent engagement by appropriate missile. Longer range missiles don’t matter if the target is aircraft size, fast and low, over the horizon … in that scenario, best detection/engagement range is ~120Km, regardless of max missile range … see graphic in post @ 79. To increase detection & targeting of fighter aircraft fast & low, Nap of the Earth (NOE) beyond that, it’s a question of effective & accurate upgrades to longer range ‘Over the Horizon Radars’ (OTHR), not the missiles themselves … but as the range increases with OTHR it’s accuracy diminishes …
Palmyra and Damascus are ~250Km & ~230Km linear distance from Latakia. Therefore, the RU Latakia integrated complexes of S4/300 batteries are short by minimum ~110-130Km re Fast & Low NOE strike aircraft engagement, and at maximum range even then. Actually worse than that, ’cause it doesn’t take into account stand-off ordnance by the strike aircraft …
So, does anybody actual have an idea of where the S4/300 SAM complexes are deployed, other than Latakia & almost certainly Tartus ?
To cover Syria S4/300 complexes, with EFFECTIVE integrated/layered mutually supporting/overlapping defense-in-depth Tor/Pantsir systems as well, would have to be positioned along an internal border approximately every 220Km (site 1 120km > < 120Km site 2). Since Syria has open borders under threat in every direction, that would require a shitload of SAM complexes, and they’d all have to be emplaced, secured and assigned local defense. At what $ cost, where do the qualified techs to operate & support ’em come from, plus local security/defense ? Can’t see it happening. Best case realistic coverage is Western Syria, Damascus to Latakia/Alleppo parallel to the coastline, suppose ~0-40Km inland, giving coverage up to ~160Km inland from the western coastline, IMHO … as territory is recovered and secured add another complex and increase inland coverage by another ~240Km radius … all speculative …
So Southern, Central, Eastern & NE Syria is highly probable undefended re effective SAM. What the SAA could do is scatter ZSU23/4 Shilka, TOR/Pantsir, etc, throughout to ambush low/fast aircraft, but, unless carefully concealed, would simply become defenseless stand-off … targets …
Re the Arrows having to defend the F16’s … old systems like S200s, modernized or not, have to be fired in large numbers, salvos, to overwhelm in order to have a chance at a hit, given the need to engage/intercept with Arrows as the IAF was hightailing it back to Israel, the pilots would have been prayin’ hard.
If those same fighters HAD BEEN successfully detected/targeted/engaged by S4/300 systems ~9 out of every 10 fighters would be smokin’ wreckage, EW/ECM pods or not. The Israeli’s learnt that lesson re Russian ‘current tech’ SAMs back in ’73 the hard way. Hence all the skulking about in Sth & E Syria.
Posted by: Outraged | Mar 18 2017 23:54 utc | 96
|
