======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff via Marxism
. But you can't really blame people getting bombed
from the sky for trying to shoot down the planes that bomb them. If you
do, then you have to agree with the shabby and transparently dishonest
excuse the US gives for blocking Manpads to the FSA for years - that
"jihadists" might get them
Jeff: "But those have a much shorter range. I don't study military
matters, but
from what I understand bombing is normally done from low altitudes in
order
to increase target accuracy, against which the shoulder fired missiles
would be effective, and actually more portable. The "separatists" who
fired
that missile surely did not think they were protecting themselves from a
bomber."
MK: OK, if we're making that kind of technical distinction between the
range of manpads and the BUK system, then that seems sensible enough to
me. So to be clear, we are in favour of the Syrian rebels getting
manpads but not anything with a far greater range. Thanks for another
good argument against the US excuse for blocking manpads to the FSA.
Of course that technical discussion is entirely separate from the
political discussion of right and wrong in Ukraine. Unfortunately, Clay
got that confused: he also noted, very usefully, that:
"Because MH 17 was cruising at 10 km, it was in no danger from MANPADS.
They
can't reach that high. The Ukrainian AN-26 can't fly that high either.
Only
the Ukrainian IL-76 military transport, with a ceiling of 13km could
have
been seen were the Boeing 777 was. It is not a bomber and the Ukrainians
haven't been conducting air attacks from 10km so the argument that
shooting
down a plane at 10km [ which require very special and expensive
missiles ]
was necessary air defense is weak."
MK: Good, very useful. Unfortunately, he then confuses this with
"learn(ing) to justify Russian imperialist military
aggression in the Ukraine with reference to what I want the FSA to have
for self-defense against that aggression in Syria."
A statement which is of course as irrelevant as it is confusing. I
oppose both sides in the Ukraine, but specifically re this issue, if
Putin supplied the rebels with warplanes to drop on Ukrainian-loyalist
cities to try to subdue people who do not want to be subdued to them,
then certainly Ukrainians would have the right to shoot down planes
bombing their cities. But in this case, the shoe is on the other foot.
Whatever your overall view on the Ukraine, launching an air war against
cities in part of the country that does not want to be subdued by the
current regime in Kiev is aggression, and the people below have the
right to shoot down warplanes.
But the more useful part of Clay's (and Jeff's) discussion clarifies
that they don't need missiles of the range the rebels apparently have.
Back to Jeff and Syria, Jeff says:
"The American concern for misuse of those portable missiles has to do
with
them being used closer to an airport where passenger planes are flying
low."
Is it? Or is it more that the US will use any excuse to make sure the
FSA has hardly any arms? Given the fact that the US has also given
pretty much nothing else in terms of actual arms (as opposed to night
goggles, radios and readymeals), I suggest the latter. My understanding
is that Jeff generally agrees with this.
"And anyway, I'm not particularly keen to see ISIS obtain them (though
I'll
concede they'd have a right to shoot at planes bombing them). But if
ISIS
were to obtain these BUK missiles? Whoa."
Obviously I'm not keen on that either. But of course the only force in
the region that has been actually fighting - indeed, putting up an epic
battle - against ISIS has been the FSA, its Islamist allies and Jabhat
al-Nusra. They need good arms to fight both Assad and ISIS. Of course,
it is not out of the question that ISIS could capture manpads from the
FSA if they defeat them in battle. But things then become difficult to
the point of impossible: as the US says, it can't allow the FSA to have
manpads (or any other arms) because the FSA fights *together with* JaN,
so JaN may get the weapons; and it can't allow the FSA to have manpads
(or any other arms) because the FSA fights *against* ISIS, so ISIS may
get the weapons; so even against the most terrible continuous air war
against a population in the world, the victims are never entitled to
defense no matter what they do. I know this isn't Jeff's opinion, but
again this is why we need to separate the political from the technical
discussion.
Of course, as I said, Kiev's air war compared to Assad's is like a flea
next to an elephant, but the principle that air war is war crime
remains, IMO. So in conclusion, Manpads, yes, BUKs, no.
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
