But what did they bomb? Missiles pointed at Israel? Rockets for Hizbollah? Supplies for Iraqi "insurgents"?

If Israel bombs something in Syria, you can bet the Syrians were up to no good. It could be any of those three. It could be nuclear technology that Syria's apparently trying to acquire from North Korea.

You'd think that people would learn their lesson with Soviet/Russian SAMs. _Especially_ the Syrians, victims of the Bekaa Valley debacle. I mean, when there's the following joke:

"Comrade, we have some SAMs for you!"--Soviet general

"Really, how much?"--Syrian General

"1 million rubles."-Soviet

"Okay, how much for the ones that work?"--Syrian

You'd think that folks would be really cautious about going back to the same mill. Not to mention, if you don't want to get the sh*t bombed out of something, buy a _theater_ defense missile and enough radars to have 360-coverage.

With everyone being as tight-lipped as they are, I wonder if the Israelis blew the crap out of the ADA site also?

I remember that the Argentinian air force did the same thing to the british systems, and could have, if they had but realised taken out a huge chunk of the task force.

The issue with the Argentineans, first and foremost, was that they didn't figure out their bombs weren't working. Note that when the Argentinean Navy's A-4s, correctly armed for anti-ship, actually got through bad things happened to the Falklands Task Force.

Now, why the Argentinean Navy didn't share with the Air Force is a much longer, longer discussion than a comment.

Yes James, the British brought a missile system which could not react fast enough. A long story indeed.

Oh, don't get me wrong--Sea Dart was an abomination, Sea Slug was obsolete in 1972 nevermind 1982, and Seawolf had issues.

I'm just saying, however, that the missile reaction speed was less of a problem than something like only 30% of bombs functioning as advertised. A lot of the Bristh "response time" problems were due to the conditions--don't take a missile designed for the North Sea and place it somewhere that land echoes make it ineffective. However, even when the British missiles worked, the Argentineans still bored in and put bombs on target. That said bombs then failed to work is why we're still calling them the Falklands.

Regarding the Incursion into Syria, the article goes too far. Soviet equipment was quite effective in 1973. Anti-aircraft missles and anti-tank missles decimated the Israelis, especially in the Sinai. It was only when the Egyptians decided to retake teh entire Sinai, and thus go beyond their surface to air missle umbrella that they were pushed back, then penetrated and encircled. (Look up China Farms)

I doubt that we will find out what happened last month. However, since 1973, Israel has heavily invested in anti-radar systems.

Regarding the Falkand's War, there are many reasons why they are not known as "Islas Malvinas". The decision to not seriously engage the RAF Harriers with the Mirage IIIs and IAI Daggers (Israeli copied and modified Mirage Vs) comes to mind.

Concur on 1973. It was only after the aforementioned "pass too far" by the Egyptians and the Israelis taking the wood to Syria itself ("Hmm, so you say all your SA-6s are forward? Excellent.") that they got their stuff together.

The reason I think this is amusing is that, yes, the Israelis have invested in ARMs and ECM--but these new Russian systems were supposed to balance the power. Not so much.

True on the Mirage issues. Of course, the couple of times that Mirages did try to engage (albeit outside of their natural envelope and at the end of their fuel tether) didn't exactly go well.