Oh, please. We still outspend something like the top 20 powers combined. Syria is not one of those 20.
Whenever you suddenly cut spending there are costs. In this case training cycles were eliminated, spare parts were never ordered, and deployments were cancelled. Without continual training, without continual repairs, without deployments, readiness will dip and in this case CAGs will not be able to perform their missions effectively.
In this case, we would be invading or at least bombing a country with a semi-modern air defense system and modern anti-ship cruise missiles. We would need at least two carrier air groups to destroy their defenses and establish air superiority. If the Syrians deploy the S-300 we will lose planes and pilots.
Simply comparing the budgets is mistake. It's much easier to defend your own country than it is to project power half way across the globe. We'll need quite a bit of hardware to do the job.
Seriously, what is even our interest over there?
I would argue we have none. Even the Israelis are leery of intervening, they believe Assad is the best worst option.
This post was edited on 7/22 at 12:42 am