I don’t know anything about america’s attack plan, but as a guess would have it, it’s easily defeated if you have as smidge of intelligence. They tend to use the same game plan time and time again. It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out.
Defeating the US or at least holding their own quite a bit longer than expected would be quite easy for Syria since America plays the same attack pattern time and time again. It’s simple to formulate a defense.
Preamble: Iran and Russia send troop divisions to bolster defense of key points.
Stage 1) America will do flyover recon looking for radar emitters
Here it’s important for Syria to confuse the targeting. Hide small power stations. Set up phony radar emitters (which really emit) with phony anti-aircraft gun tubes. After a night of recon they will discuss targets and set up the cruise missile attack.
Stage 2) Cruise missile attack
Set up jammers on the main frequency to protect power stations and city centers. Six ships carrying 70 cms each is about 350 missiles. Expect about 200 the first night. Just by surviving this attack you will have forced Ameirica to have spent half a billion dollars.
Stage 3) Flip back
The night after the cruise missile attack they will use daylight to assess success. Now they will feel it is safe to send in the jets and bombers. These will strike from a few miles away. So if you placed instant on radar between their most likely flight path and target about five miles in, and triggered radar on seismic sensors, then you can easily get a target of a supposedly invincible plane for attack with a sam.
Failure against the flip back will force America into using very expensive stealth hardware and the loss of that will be an even bigger blow. Eventually having a clean radar sky and full dominance in the air will be impossible and that is a first for America who has been used to unchallenged no-fly zones in Iraq and tiny awkward stinger missle attacks in Afghanistan which really were only effective against helicopters.
stage 4) Since the shot down planes would make it too costly to continue to send in missions, simply providing ground cover to the al-qaeda and al-nusra and blackwater/ cia forces on the ground as they march for the main cities will most likely become the new goal. But these can be countered with shoulder fired SAMS. In the meantime while the fleet will be 1000 miles away several boats can carry anti-ship missles secretly within range. There are also many fleets in the gulf. striking carrier groups is easiest since they comprise of so many ships.
Psychologically, only a few small victories would be needed to put that much more political pressure on the american agression and the war would be called off.
Attacking Israel would NOT help Syria and would simply create more support for attacking back at them.
Finally, cornering one small battle division and driving off air support with well embedded radar assisted SAM arrays and exposing the Americans on the ground as well as the Al-Queda would finally shame America into ending the agression.
Would any of this work? Up until now America has gone to war against basically 9th century savages. The armed forces have no idea what going up against a thinking enemy is like, well unless they remember Vietnam. The Viet Cong had thousands of miles of tunnels underground. They would run out of the tunnels and ambush the Americans then dissapear. For the decade of war not one American general figured out that they were using tunnels. Instead Kissinger kept bombing women and babies in Laos.
Let’s face it, America got high on hubris after WWII and that was the last big bulk attack war of our lifetime. The new wars are complex, fast, and involve small skirmishes. They are harder to predict and harder to win. While I’m certain that if the entire US army marched into Syria it would be over quick, the new world order shows us all the well the dangerous policy Obama has in starting wars all over the place. The truth is many of our troops are spread thin all over the world defending iraq, afghanistan, germany, korea, japan. Add to that the tens of thousands of wounded from a decade of war and one truly has to ask, does this war by proxy of psychopath rebels who eat hearts out of their enemies and think nothing of blowing up the world trade center is that REALLY the way we want to go? That’s just quite sad.
In the end of the day Obama is an angry sad has been, a Harvard Law Review editor who never wrote an article, a affirmitive action law school graduate who never really deserved it. Someone utterly incapable of understanding economics and hell bent on driving America into socialism. It’s no wonder at the end of the day all that’s left for him is to think of war. As if one good win would somehow wipe the slate clean from a man whose hands are covered in blood and has shredded so much of the constitution it looks like one of those paper christmas trees.
Why Obama wants to support the terrorists who destroyed the world trade center (according to his official story) is beyond me. How he can sell that to America is even more insane. Initiating it during a congressional recess is even more staggering. If nothing else his law degree should be removed, oh wait that’s already happened.