The American Main Stream Media (MSM) discussion concerning the tactical options available to be used against Syria unfortunately continues to be mired in down in gross ignorance and misinformation. The current state of the discussion however is welcomed by the American MSM because this particular “estate” thrives on controversy, so they understandably promote confusion big time. This problem is compounded by the obvious fact that it is completely asinine to expect the American military to publicize all of their plans concerning the strike strategy formulated for Syria just to satisfy those anti-war obsessed (former pro-Obama) liberals as they cry out for proof as to exactly how the proposed strikes will do any good as far as forcing Assad to change his mind about using nerve gas on rebel held neighborhoods. Follow me below for an interesting proposal.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is over at the G20 Conference opposing Obama's push for support for an air strike on Syria. Moon is calling for more conferences to search for a diplomatic solution to Assad's use of Nerve gas. He is singing the same song that the previous UN Secretary General Kofi Annan sang just before Bill Clinton started bombing Kosovo. Unfortunately the UN has proven to be just only slightly more effective than its predecessor, "The League of Nations"; which incidentally was the first post-World War convention of the world’s body of nations to outlaw the future use of chemical weapons on the battlefield.
I have only heard one person offer a credible argument for a limited air strike against Assad's regime, and that was provided by Ambassador Marc Ginsberg, formerly ambassador to Morocco. He suggested that the air strikes in addition to taking out airfields be concentrated on the mission of demolishing all of Syria's oil producing capability. He further suggested that the strikes ignore so-called command, control, and communication (3C) buildings and stick specifically to the two targets listed above. His argument acknowledges that whereas Assad has had plenty of time to move equipment and facilities around, attacking these facilities will most assuredly result in high loss of civilian life without substantially disrupting Syria's 3C capability. The projected high losses of civilian life is anticipated simply because Assad is expected to move his political prisoners inside the original 3C buildings, locking them in to serve his purposes as "cannon fodder" for any U.S. cruise missile strike; the deaths of whom he could then exploit for a post-strike propaganda campaign against the United States.
Here is where Ginsburg's argument really makes sense. He stated that the Assad regime receives $18 million dollars a day from its oil revenue. Wiping that resource out will make it hard for the Assad government to pay its people during the period of time that the oil facilities are nonfunctional and are being rebuilt. Furthermore there is only one country in the world that could put out the oil field fires and rebuild these facilities quickly, and that country is the United States. (Remember how quickly the U.S. recovered those oil fields in Kuwait after Saddam Hussein blew them up as his forces retreated back into Iraq during Gulf War I?) Regardless of all of Putin's bluster, Russia does not have this technology, so their assistance would not be an immediate solution. After Assad's oil producing capability has been restored his regime will certainly think long and hard about releasing another nerve gas attack. However if they decide to foolishly to launch another nerve gas attack, we could follow it up will a repeat destruction of Assad's oil producing facilities and likewise reduce his revenue income to zero again. It is doubtful that the Assad government could survive too many cycles of this nature.