Drones attack US Military base in Syria, US officials say | Hacker News Reader

Drones attack US Military base in Syria, US officials say

apnews.com

26 pointsperihelions63 comments

With all the money that goes into weapons systems, it’s only going to be a decade before we have jets, tanks, artillery, etc that are all (semi)automated.

Rather than expensive jets and tanks, swarms of cheaper robotic systems are going to overwhelm current technology.

I see a synergy between both. An expensive hard to shoot down jet lets out a swarm of drones to take out things like anti air capabilities. The expensive jet will likely be a drone itself.

You gotta be a bit ballsy attacking the US military. Sometimes they may be a bit sleepy and not do anything. Other times they may get excited "Oh boy a legitimate target" And spend a few million dollars ruining some lives.

You think the US gives a damn about "legitimate targets?"

sure. we dont bomb people for fun and put it on pay per view.

nah we hand the bombs to israel and let them do it.

Not for fun but for oil and riches. Also maybe a tad bit of fun hence the wikileaks leaks

You haven't checked LiveLeak then. There's plenty of leaked footage of US soldiers using afghan civilians as target practice for shits and giggles, plus all the civilian drone strikes.

While there is a certain amount of truth in that. I also note that the opposing troops were unable to operate in a uniformed manner. making them indistinguishable from civilians.

You clearly haven't seen the U.S. bombs used deliberately on pure civilian targets in Yemen. All targeting data also provided by the U.S.

I haven't but am willing to change my mind, source?

I'm looking for Deliberate and knowingly bombing civilians.

Depends on your definition of deliberate and knowingly bombing of civilians. If you give all intelligence to your Saudi partners - including residences of Houthi fighters, if you give the weapons to bomb them, if you give the fuel to re-supply the fighters, if you give the training to fly them and only wash your hands of the final decision - does that make one not liable ?

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/09/world/yemen-airs...

https://time.com/4528393/yemen-saudi-arabia-strike-wedding/

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/09/yeme...

https://quincyinst.org/report/the-yemen-war-in-numbers-saudi...

well, yes, I think there is some moral culpability there.

But as a matter of fact, I think that is still different than deliberate and knowingly bombing civilians by the US- let alone killing them for target practice and fun, as some claimed.

The US defines legitimacy. So...

This isn't some quiet base in an allied country.

The US has been fighting an undeclared war against the Syrian government 2014, occupies part of the country, and has military bases in that country, and you think they are "sleepy", as if they are quietly minding their own business'.

At least don't rewrite history. Fighting was mostly against ISIL.

Not the history I remember. ISIL was an afterthought. Everything I remember was about evil dictators, Redlines, chemical weapons, Heroic Kurdish separatists, and Russian/Iranian allies.

Still, US striked Asad forces handful times and was not directly involved into civil war, otherwise Asad would be gone already

? Do you have any idea of what happened there at the time? ISIL was fighting against Syria Government just like the US. The US gave ISIL their initial funding and guns to fight Assad.

Yes, I do. There are very many parties to that conflict. US did not fight Syrian government forces other than to repel them from attacking US bases and US allies (SDF), and one lone bombing by Trump of some airfield "because of the babies".

Occupying the country and also stealing Syrian oil behind the scenes. But, hey, that's what the good guys do.

I am not targeting you personally but am seeing a bunch of similarly formed comments around the Internet (mess with the US military and find out?); and am not sure what's that coming from.

> You gotta be a bit ballsy attacking the US military.

Lots of people are ballsy then. People (or terrorists) have been attacking the US military and its bases for the last 70 years or so without stop. Many (most?) times to the disadvantage of the US (Vietnam, Iraq, and recently Afghanistan).

> and am not sure what's that coming from

A lot of it comes from one particular incident in Syria where a contingent of Wagner troops + local Syrians were on the receiving end of an overwhelming application of US air support. Around the same time, we killed the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani after "credible" evidence he was planning attacks on US forces in Iraq. So those were two high-profile "FAFO" incidents that have had Americans thumping their chests for years now.

Terrorism by definition is an attack on civilians. An attack on a military target is not terrorism.

Police are a grey area. As an armed uniformed force they are a legitimate military target. However as they they operate in such close proximity to civilians means any attack will cause heavy civilian causalities.

Disadvantage is a strange term. I would have used "operate more efficiently in cost/operation category but loosing in the causality/territory numbers. persisting until the US gets tired and goes home" But that does not exactly roll off the tongue.

Specifically, at no point in those conflicts was the US military at a disadvantage. Iraq or Afghanistan were unable to operate as an independent nation after the first week. You know the infamous 2003 Bush photo of him on a carrier with a big "job done" banner. we all laugh at how incorrect that claim was, but he was not entirely wrong ether. At that point there was no real Iraq military left, it was all insurgents, un-uniformed guerrilla troops with no infrastructure that could project no power. The North Vietnamese were more successful, maintaining a government. But could do little to prevent US air superiority. or gain territory until the US left. Korea was perhaps the most successful, managing to restore territory to the original demarcation line. But not past that, leading the the stalemate left in that area today.

70% of active duty service members are overweight.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/10/13/...

If there was a time to attack, it's now.

Being overweight is a lot less of a disadvantage in a fight than you might think.

Then why haven't we won a war in 20 years?

The US wins wars, no problem. What it appears unable to do is win the peace afterward.

I would like to know the specific drone in use. Nowadays, adversaries are employing DJI drones for combat purposes, yet prior to their widespread availability, drones were commonly associated with larger, purpose-built UAVs.

Why is there a US military base in Syria?

You just have to read the first paragraph. So much laziness...

" A military base in southern Syria where U.S. troops have maintained a presence to train forces as part of a broad campaign against the Islamic State group was attacked by drones on Thursday, two U.S. officials told The Associated Press."

I think it's a valid question. Read between the lines.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/middle_east/2023-08-17/syri...

https://dod.defense.gov/OIR/

The question should be why the U.S is not doing more not why it has a military base in Syria.

The lesson from Afghanistan is that military alone is not sufficient. Social and political issues(i.e bribery vulnerabilities, education level of the locals, Turkey's relation with the kurds) needs to be addressed as well. However you can't train local troops without a military base in the first place regardless of their education level nor you can enforce social changes.

Your quote is circular. There is base because US want so, not more not less.

I don't see anything circular in that. U.S wants to protect its interests in that region and to do so it considers it needs a military base.

As the only military Superpower I think it makes sense.

Are you looking for a different kind of argument(i.e ethical or biblical)?

Let's go for a biblical one. Circular one I've see twice in this thread.

Unfortunately I don't have that one. You have to ask on a different forum.

I think it was ethical or political. e.g. "WTF is the US doing having bases in Syria".

The answer of "WFT it wants to" isn't very enlightening, even from a realpolitik perspective.

Why is the US occupying part of Syria? Why is the US involved in the middle east at all?

>> Why is the US occupying part of Syria? Why is the US involved in the middle east at all?

Because it has economic or geopolitical interests(or both) in there and because it can. Even a tiny country(i.e Belarus, North Korea) can play a role in a big conflict so why would U.S give up influence?

If the U.S doesn't show up Russia or China takes the whole cake(influence wise).

Not to mention the 9/11 thing. Imagine the whole Syria ruled by Al-Qaeda or IS

Like it or not America's isolationism ended after WWII began and I think overall it was a good thing for the whole world(at least a big part of it).

You didn't answer the question. You just said "doing what it wants“ in different words.

It sounds like you have no idea what those nebulous reasons are.

That was my first question.

So the US has military bases in a country that it has been bombing and fighting but never declared war on?

In a round about way: Protecting trade routes during the most prosperous epoch in human history.

Because it is a regional hegemon and wants to protect its assets and there's nothing Syria can do about it.

The US has been in a war with the Syrian regime trying to take it down (which is an ally of Iran which is an ally of Russia which is an ally of China).

When was this "War on Syria" declared ? Can you point me to the congress declaration of War ? Even a Presidential declaration of War on Syria would be great.

The military base is primarily there to protect the U.S. exploitation of the al-Omar oil field.

Here's the Assistant Undersecretary for Defense explaining it in 2019:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSE3FWKFp4g&t=115s

It's so we can starve the Syrian government of oil income (which was ~25% of government revenues pre-war), and prevent them from rebuilding their country.

The Kurdish locals there want them there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com