At 4am on April 14, the United States, France and the United
Kingdom executed a strike on Syria. The Syrian Free Press reported:
US Navy warships in the Red Sea and Air Force B-1B bombers and
F-15 and F-16 aircraft rained dozens of ship- and air-launched cruise missiles
down on the Syrian capital of Damascus, an airbase outside the city, a
so-called chemical weapons storage facility near Homs, and an equipment-storage
facility and command post, also near Homs. B1-Bs are typically armed with JASSM
cruise missiles, which have a 450 kg warhead and a range of 370 kms. US Navy
warships launched Tomahawks, which have 450 kg warheads and an operational
range of between 1,300 and 2,500 kms. The British Royal Air Force's contingent
for the assault consisted of four Tornado GR4 ground-attack aircraft armed with
the Storm Shadow long-range air-to-ground missile, which the UK's Defense
Ministry said targeted 'chemical weapons sites' in Homs. These weapons have a
range of 400 kms. Finally, France sent its Aquitaine frigate, armed with SCALP
naval land-attack cruise missiles (SCALP is the French military's name for the
Storm Shadow), as well as several Dassault Rafale fighters, also typically
armed with SCALP or Apache cruise missiles. According to the Russian defense
ministry, the B-1Bs also fired GBU-38 guided air bombs. Undoubtedly weary of
the prospect of having their aircraft shot down after Israel lost one of its
F-16s over Syria in February, the Western powers presumably launched their
weapons from well outside the range of Syrian air defenses, with all the
targets located just 70-90 kms from the Mediterranean Sea, and having to fly
through Lebanon first.
Recapping the
information on the strike, the US and its allies used the following assets:
● 2
destroyers (USS Laboon,
USS Higgins)
● 1 US
cruiser (USS Monterey)
● 1 French
frigate (Georges Leygues)
● 5 Rafale
jets
● 4 Mirage
2000-5F
● 4 British
Tornado fighter-bombers
● Virginia-class submarine
USS John Warner
● 2 US B-1B
bombers
Their
ordnance brought to bear consisted of the following:
● The cruiser Monterey launched 30
Tomahawk missiles
● The
destroyer Higgins 23
Tomahawks
● The
destroyer Laboon 7
Tomahawks
● The
submarine John Warner 6
Tomahawks
● 2 B-1
bombers 21 JASSM missiles
● 4 British
Tornado GR4 fighter bombers 16 Storm-shadow missiles.
● The French
Languedoc fired 3 MdCN land-attack missiles.
The US
Pentagon reports the strike group targeted:
- 76 missiles
at the Barzah research center in Damascus:
(Source)
- 22 missiles
at an undefined "chemical" structure:
- 7 missiles
against an undefined "chemical bunker":
The Syrian
anti-aircraft forces responded, firing a
total of 112 air-defence missiles:
● the Pantsyr
system fired 25 missiles and hit 24 targets;
● the Buk
system fired 29 missiles and hit 24 targets;
● the Osa
system fired 11 and hit 5 targets;
● the S-125
system fired 13 missiles and hit 5 targets;
● the
Strela-10 system fired 5 missiles and hit 3 targets;
● the Kvadrat
system fired 21 and hit 11 targets;
● the S-200
system fired 8 and hit no targets.
(Source)
The Russians
have stated that the
target of the raids and the effectiveness of the missiles have resulted in a
big fiasco for the Americans:
● 4 missiles
were launched targeting the area of the Damascus International Airport; these 4
missiles were intercepted.
● 12 missiles
were launched targeting the Al-Dumayr Military Airport; these 12 missiles were
intercepted.
● 18 missiles
were launched targeting the Bley Military Airport; these 18 missiles were
intercepted.
● 12 missiles
were launched targeting the Shayarat Military Airport; these 12 missiles were
intercepted.
● 9-15
missiles were launched targeting the Mezzeh Military Airport; 5 of them
were intercepted.
● 16 missiles
were launched targeting the Homs Military Airport; 13 of which were
intercepted.
● 30 missiles
were launched targeting targets in the areas of Barzah and Jaramani; 7 of which
were intercepted.
The
effectiveness of the attack is called into question, especially in light of the
prompt reaction of the civilian population that took to the streets in support
of Bashar al Assad and the Syrian government only a few hours after the US-led
attack.
What emerges
immediately from the Syrian/Russian and American narratives are contrasting
assessments of the outcome of the attack.
We can
certainly try to dispute some statements. The Americans repeated that at least
two chemical-weapons laboratories together with a chemical-weapons storage
center were affected. As evidenced by the images shot by PressTV a
few hours after the attack, the structure is destroyed but there are no
chemical contaminations. To confirm this, the television operators were able to
perform interviews and live footage a few meters from the site of the strike
without experiencing any physical effects, which would have been impossible
were the American version of events true, given that the release of chemical
agents would have made the whole area inaccessible.
Further
confirmation comes from Ammar Waqqaf interviewed on The Heat on CGTV,
claiming that his relatives were about 500 meters from one of the alleged
chemical-weapons research centers attacked by the Americans. Ammar says that
even in this case, no chemical agent appears to have been released, thus
disproving Washington's claims.
Another
important consideration concerns the targets. For Washington, the targets were
limited to research laboratories (Barzah and Jaramani) and storage centers. But
Moscow revealed that the objectives also included military bases as well as the
civilian Damascus International Airport, namely: Al-Dumayr Military Airport,
Bley Military Airport, Shayarat Military Airport, Mezzeh Military Airport, Homs
Military Airport. These were mostly unsuccessful attacks.
In light of
the foregoing, we can assume that the operational goal of the Americans was
twofold. On the one hand, it was aimed at the media, to show a response to the
(false) accusations of a chemical attack in Douma (Robert Frisk has
just dismantled the propaganda and RT reminds us of the various false flags
perpetrated by the US in the past to start wars); on the other, it was used by
the military to actually permanently damage the Syrian Air Force, as suggested
by the warmongering neocon Lindsey Graham. The
failure of this latter objective could be seen in the following hours when the
Syrian planes resumed operational tasks.
What does all
this information tell us? First of all, the American goal was not to hit the
non-existent chemical weapons or their production sites. The aim was to reduce
as much as possible Syrian Air Force assets at different military airports. The
mission was a failure, as reported by the Russian military envoy in Syria
thanks to the air-defense measures of the Syrian forces as well as probably a
high electronic-warfare (EW) contribution from the Russian forces present in
the country. Very little has been leaked out in technical terms from the
Russian Federation, which officially states that it did not contribute towards
defending against the attack. It is probable that Russia played a decisive role
in terms of EW, with its little-known but highly effective systems as
demonstrated in previous attacks in 2017.
Moscow has no
interest in promoting its cutting-edge EW systems, and often does not confirm
the reports issued by more or less government agencies, as in the case of the
USS Donald Cook in 2014. Yet Russia Beyond explains EW as probably
being fundamental in foiling the American attack:
Before the electronic jamming system kicks in, the aircraft
scans the radio signals in its zone of activity. After detecting the traffic
frequencies of the enemy's equipment, the operator on board the aircraft
enables the jamming system in the required bandwidth," a defense industry
source told Russia Beyond.
In addition to onboard systems, there are ground-based Krasnukha-4 EW complexes
stationed around the Khemeimim airbase, Russia’s key stronghold in the Middle
East. Their purpose is to suppress enemy "eavesdropping” and weapons
guidance systems. The Krasnukha-4 blinds enemy radar systems to targets at a
distance of 250 km.
The general
public is yet to understand that the American attack was a complete fiasco,
much to the irritation of
Lindsey Graham, thereby confirming Damascus’s narrative, which presented
Syria’s response as decisive and effective.
The logic of
the matter must also be considered. We know that the US and her allies launched
105 missiles aimed at various targets, including some military bases, but none
of them hit the targets indicated, except for two buildings already emptied
previously and a non-existent chemical-weapons depot. The Pentagon amplified the military report with the
lie that only two research centers and a chemical-weapons depot were
intentionally bombed with something like 105 missiles; this in order to account
for the number of missiles launched and to drown out other assessments that
contradict the preferred narrative. But it is ridiculous to believe that the US
used 76 missiles to hit three buildings. A much more plausible explanation is
that there were many more targets but only three of them were hit, this measly
success carrying zero tactical or strategic importance.
We should ask
ourselves what the real goal of Washington was. First, let us split the story
into two parts. On the one hand we have a PR exercise, and on the other an
intended military strategy. In the first case, Washington was able to pursue
its self-assigned role as “protector of the weak”, like those victims of the
alleged Douma chemical attack. The intended optics were those of a humanitarian
intervention, in line with the West’s self-assigned role of regent of the
post-World War II neoliberal world order. In reality, we know very well that US
hegemony is based on millions of deaths in dozens of wars scattered around the
globe. According to the fictitious narrative of the media, it all boils down to
good-guys-versus-bad-guys, and Assad is the bad guy while the US is the good guy
punishing the regime for the use of chemical weapons.
The success
of PR exercise depends very little on the military outcome and much more on the
story as told by the media. It is based solely on the affirmation of the role
taken up by the US and her allies, that of being in the right and driven only
by the noblest interests. But such a series of unreasonable lies has only
served to drag the world into chaos, diminished the role of the mainstream
media, and destroyed the credibility of practically the whole Western political
class.
From a
military point of view, however, the goals, intent and results show a far more
disturbing result for Washington and her allies. Soviet-era weapons that were
updated by Moscow and integrated into the Russian air defense infrastructure
network severely degraded the effectiveness of the American attack. Washington
wanted to ground the entire Syrian air force, hitting air bases with precision,
but failed in this objective. It remains to be seen whether this attack was a
prelude to something bigger, with the USS Harry S Truman Carrier Strike Group currently
heading towards Syrian territorial waters. Following the logic of deconfliction
with Russia, it seems unlikely that a more intense attack will occur, rumors
even circulating that Mattis dissuaded Trump
from targeting Russian and Iranian targets, being well aware of the risks in a
Russian response.
Let us focus
for a moment on the risks in this kind of scenario. We are told that it would
have brought about World War Three. This is probably true. But the consequences
could also entail something much worse for Washington than for the rest of the
world. The rhetoric that an American attack on Russian forces in Syria would
trigger a direct war between the two superpowers is certainly true, but perhaps
it is wrong in its interpretation. The danger seems to lie less in the possibility
of a nuclear apocalypse and more in exposing the US’s inability to go toe to
toe with a peer competitor.
While we
cannot (and hope not to) test this hypothesis, we can certainly join the dots.
If Soviet-era systems, with a slight Russian modernization, can nullify an
American attack, what could the Russian forces do themselves? They could
probably even block an attack of the scale visited on Baghdad, where several
hundred missiles were directed towards civilian and military targets. It would
be highly unlikely in such a scenario for Washington to peddle the false
propaganda of a successful attack with little in terms of bomb-damage
assessment commensurate with the number of missiles launched.
Already in
the April 14 attack, the explanation that 76 cruise missiles were directed
against three buildings is ridiculous but is nevertheless sustained thanks to
the lies of the mainstream media and the paucity of available information.
However, when thinking of 500 Tomahawks launched with limited damage to the
Syrian infrastructure, even that would be impossible to sell to a very ignorant
and deceived public. It would be the definitive proof of the decline in
American military effectiveness and the potency of Russian air-defense systems.
Just like during Putin’s presentation of new weapons some months back, when the
Empire feels its core (military power) is threatened, it simply dismisses such
reports as false, in the process becoming a victim of its own propaganda.
Yet one would
only need to listen to the words of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering, Michael Griffin, in a conference at the
Hudson Institute where he explained how Moscow and Beijing capabilities are far
more advanced in hypersonic and supersonic missile defense and attack
capabilities. He openly explained that Washington takes about 16 years to
implement a paper-to-service idea, while its rivals in a few years have shown
that they can move from concept to practical development, gaining a huge
advantage over rivals like Washington.
The problem
is inherent for the United States in its need to keep alive a war machine based
on inflated military spending that creates enormous pockets of corruption and
inefficiency. Just look at the F-35 project and its constant problems. Although
Moscow's spending is less than twelve times that of the United States, it has
succeeded in developing systems like hypersonic missiles that are still in the
testing phase in the United States, or systems like the S-500, which the US
does not possess.
The S-300,
S-400, P-800 anti-ship missiles and the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missiles, in
addition to EW, pose a fundamental problem for Washington in dealing with
attacks against a peer competitor. The military in Washington are probably well
aware of the risks of revealing the US to be a paper tiger, so they prefer to
avoid any direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, more for the purposes of
maintaining military prestige than out of a desire to avoid risking World War
Three. If Russian forces ever were targeted by the US, in all probability
Moscow would simply disable the electronics of the US ship rather than sinking
it, leaving it to float in the Mediterranean uncontrolled for days.
The last fig
leaf hiding the US military’s inadequacy rests in Hollywood propaganda that
presents the US military as practically invincible. Accordingly, some sites
have spread stories that Russia had been forewarned of the
attack and that the whole bombing event was the same sort of farce as a year
ago. In the first place, it is important to clarify that Moscow had not been
given advanced warning of the targets, and the reason for this is simple: the
attack was real and, as explained above, did not succeed precisely because of
Moscow and Damuscus’s effective parries and blocks.
In reality,
Washington has failed in its military strategy, and the media have turned to
the usual propaganda of chemical weapons and the need to enforce justice in the
world and proclaim a non-existent success. In the meantime, Moscow fine-tunes
its weapons and prepares to deliver the S-300 to the Syrian state and its
allies (Lebanon?), effectively limiting Washington's ability to attack in the
Middle East. This is a fitting conclusion for a story that has only damaged the
status of the United States and her allies in the Middle East, bringing Syria
closer to a final victory.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/04/22/lies-and-deception-in-failed-us-strike-syria.html
