US Widens List of Potential Targets of Syria Strike



A Pentagon official has told CBS news that the list of potential targets for possible a military intervention in Syria has been broadened because intelligence suggests that Syrian forces have been preparing for a strike by moving equipment needed to deploy chemical weapons. The same Pentagon official insists that despite the fact that new targets are being considered the scope of any intervention will be no different that the current plan.

From CBS News:

(CBS News) The Pentagon has expanded the list of potential targets for a U.S. military strike on Syria, based on intelligence indicating that the Assad regime has moved around equipment used to deploy chemical weapons in anticipation of a potential attack.

A Pentagon official insisted to CBS News correspondent David Martin that the scope of the operation has not changed, which President Obama has described as limited and tailored. The military began adding new targets to the list as Syrian troops started moving equipment "they think might be targeted and hiding some of it so the U.S. cannot find it again," Martin reports.

The widening list of targets is part of an effort to guarantee that the U.S. can do enough damage to make this strike worthwhile and to truly disincentivize the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons in the future.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at and tweet us at @reason247

NEXT: Tea Party Organization Comes Out Against Syria Intervention

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Now that’s some smart power. Through administration clusterfuckery we’re widening a war we’re not even in yet. This is gonna be great!

    1. Yeah, escalating before the war is even authorized! Or a solid justification given for going to war! But no boots on the ground, unless we decide to put boots on the ground!

      I heard someone while changing the radio dial last night–might’ve been Hugh Hewitt–waving the flag in favor of an attack. Is there any war these guys don’t like?

      1. I’ve said before that this thing needs to end some careers in Congress. Now I think the same needs to happen in the radio business, too.

        1. I just don’t get this desire to continue messing around in the Middle East. We can topple governments, sure, and maybe that can be justified in some situations, but nothing else we do seems to work. In this case, toppling the government makes no sense, as the alternatives may very well be worse.

          What was our last real political success over there–the 1979 peace treaty?

          1. We kicked some ass in Tripoli 1803-4. Back then we understood what “punitive campaign” meant.

            1. Even those should be once in a blue moon, but I can understand doing that. Like with Afghanistan. If we’d gone in, toppled the government,then left with a dire warning that we’d come back again if the Taliban did, okay. But, of course, we had to do it stupid.

              1. Yes – enslaving U.S. Sailors or aiding in a massive terrorist attack against American targets = you get a punitive raid.

                Otherwise, no. Fighting you own civil war, definitely not.

                Call it the Drake Doctrine.

      2. It’s like revving the engine and putting on googles at a stop light. Those Japanese guys in the car next to you will know that you mean business.

        1. Truly a sight to behold. A man beaten. The once great champ, now, a study in moppishness. No longer the victory hungry stallion we’ve raced so many times before, but a pathetic, washed up, aged ex-champion.

          1. “Gee, I’m really sorry your mom blew up, Ricky.”

      3. I prefer the construction “my fellow citizens at risk of having their shit blown away” to “boots on the ground”.

  2. Preemptive mission creep!

  3. Does this come from talks with Congress. Is this in effort to get to a yes vote?

  4. We watched this movie in Kosovo. If there are no ground forces, you have no need to create any mass. So, you just spread out, turn all of your radar and radios off and sit tight. The US air force can only bomb you if they can find you. We won’t hit shit, just like we didn’t hit shit in Kosovo. It is a bit different here in that there is a rebel ground force. But that just means Syria will have some ground forces massed. Great, but that is not our target. We can no doubt provide some devastatingly effective tactical air support to the rebels. But that is not what the village idiot claims to want to do.

    1. “Al Qaeda’s Air Force” is really the best description of this plan that I have heard. And that’s exactly what you’re describing, because the only thing we’ll be able to hit are the guys fighting Al-Qaeda.

  5. Pro tip for Mr. Obama courtesy of playing Axis & Allies with my 10 y/o nephew:


    1. I used to rule at that game. I’ve conquered the world from every country, using all sorts of crazy strategies. Industrial complex in Brazil? Why not?

      1. Was that the old rules where you could build unlimited units in a country with an industrial complex or one where you were limited in the number of units you could build by the value of the territory?

        1. Easier with unlimited, but either way. Kill and kill again.

          I don’t want to think about the millions of Russian dead alone I created in my lust for world domination.

      2. When I worked at summer camp we had week long, wee hours of the morning, massive campaigns and would do crazy shit like that too.

      3. We keep up this Axis and Allies policy long enough maybe we’ll get around to playing Fortress America, eh?

  6. “The list of potential targets for possible a military intervention in Syria has been broadened because intelligence suggests that Syrian forces have been preparing for a strike by moving equipment needed to deploy chemical weapons.”

    And when they say that what they hit was equipment for deploying chemical weapons, who can argue with them?

    Oh, I hope there are a dozen more Snowdens out there, somewhere.

  7. I am so tired of reading articles about Syria.

    Can we have some more articles about ObamaCare, GMOs, CPS, or really stupid regulations, please?

  8. Just nuke the whole place – while Obama screams lines from Scarface from a podium.

    “Look at you now! I told you not to Fuck with me!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.