There may not be a factual answer to this so if it needs to go to another forum, please move it. Anyway, what is the point of “leaking” what the U.S. will probably do in Syria. Unofficial sources are saying a cruise missile attack on certain targets lasting x hours etc. Are they just fishing for U.S. public opinion on the action? International opinion? Mis-information? I would think that tipping your hand, no matter how obvious it is, would lessen the effectiveness of whatever you plan to do. I’m not looking to debate what should be done with that mess. That’s definitely another forum.
Well, there is always the possibility it really was an unauthorized leak by someone with an agenda different from the administration’s official one.
But it could also be because at this point the administration is still not really sure they want to be militarily supporting one side or the other. They want to separate the chemical weapons issue from the greater issue of the civil war itself. The hypothetical cruise missile strikes are designed to express the administration’s displeasure with the chemical attack, but at this point the actual military impact of them is of little consequence. If the leak alone manages to get the Assad regime in a more cooperative mood (which may be the case given the renewed UN inspections), all the better.
Also, setting lowered expectations? Otherwise, they’ll bomb a few targets, and the rabidly humanitarian types will say “they killed 1300 people and that’s all you are going to do?” Plus, it warns the Chinese and Russians, “don’t worry, we’re not pulling a Libya on your buddy - yet…”
Or it could all be misdirection. What’s the point of bombing a dozen high command centers if most of the poeple are out and the equipment has been moved? I’m sure the Syrians are unloading everything important from the Ministry of Defense building already, if they remember Kosovo. Maybe they’ll aim for air force and missle batteries, take out the capability to drop such weapons (and conveniently, some other more conventional ones.) Also take out the ability to defend against more prosaic air strikes.
(Side note: one article I read said that during the Kosovo retaliation, the USA claimed they “made a mistake” and “accidentally” took out the Chinese embassy. In fact, according to this article, the Chinese were hosting the Serbian Army radio signal system on the theory that the USA would not attack it. Flattening the radio source then saying “oops, sorry, my bad” was the USA’s way of saying they would not put up with that shit.)
I think most of the leaks are not really leaks…they are just speculation by journalists looking for high ratings.
Most of the information they so proudly tell us about is already public knowledge:
The range of tomahawk or cruise missiles, the fact that there are x number of ships of the sixth fleet currently deployed in the Mediterranean. and which type of missiles they can launch,etc.
So the journalists interview some assisant professor of military history from their local college, who they can legitimately present as an expert.Then they draw graphics of concentric circles over a map of the Middle East, showing the potential range of each missile, with lists of how heavy a warhead can reach each circled area. Then they overlay the map over a google-earth photo of Damascus and point out the govermental headquarters,etc, etc.
And it looks so wonderfully dramatic! The drums of war are beating , the targets are in the gunsights and the explosions will begin any minute …And it has to be true right? After all, I saw it on the news! The ratings soar, (and the advertising rates, too, I assume).
But it’s all just a bunch of conjecture by people who don’t know anything more than you or I do.
Just because somebody was employed at an embassy in Egypt 5 years ago and gets 4 minutes of airtime today doesn’t make him a prophet.
The press isn’t part of the government, so the press speculating on probable courses of action isn’t a leak.
Do you have a cite of an official source (even non-attributed… “unnamed source inside the Pentagon”, for instance)?
Otherwise, it’s just punditry.
ETA: Like chappachula sed
It creates a narrative for the public.
Well, first, it’s no secret that there will be an attack. Red Line drawn and crossed. Then the drumbeat to war is kinda loud: UN resolutions; votes among ally parliaments; freakin’ huge warships barreling down to their destination. It’s coming.
So, how? The terribly obvious: bombing military targets.
Why trumpet it with leaks? So the Syrians can get their folks out of there; if they don’t, the US could say that they were ‘warned.’ And to let US citizens know this is a safe (for the US) ranged-attack ‘war’ that’s not going to be ‘feet on the ground.’ Also, it gets all the journalists and the CIA and Mossad agents time to get out of the way.
Lots of journalists have been fretting over that signaling that an attack is coming is giving the Syrian military time to prepare. Well, that didn’t help Saddam much. Also, it’s not like in the middle of a civil war, the Syrians have the ability to play hide-the-missiles. As much as this drumbeat is preparing them for an attack, it’s also psychological soiling of clothing time, too. The Syrians have no way to withstand a sustained US bombardment.
This is Babe Ruth pointing toward the backfield bleachers time.