US may strike at Ba'athists in Syria, official tells 'Post'

[newyorican]

Sorry about the "source", take with king-sized grain of salt

The US is contemplating incursions into Syrian territory in an attempt to kill or capture Iraqi Ba'athists who, it believes, are directing at least part of the attacks against US targets in Iraq, a senior administration official told The Jerusalem Post.

The official said that fresh sanctions are likely to be implemented, but added that the US needs to be more "aggressive" after Tuesday's deadly attack on a US base in Mosul. The comment suggested that the US believes the attack on the mess tent, in which 22 people were killed, may have been coordinated from inside Syrian territory.

read more...

[PurityOfEssence]

1. Just a minor incursion; we'll stop when we link up with the IDF

Syriasly, we want to pop them so bad it hurts. The PNAC cares more about Israel than about the United States, and it shows. They want nothing short of the complete conquest of the entire country and its subjugation by whoever can be the least objectionable, whether it be us, some local stooges recruited for the task or the Israelis. This shouldn't be a shock.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

15. This big:

Oogah boogah!!!

[Zhade]

34. The deleted posts make this lose all context.

All I can say is :wtf: was THAT about?

[Cobalt Violet]

47. LOL!

Really.

[Jim Sagle]

50. I could post an explanation, but then the mods would have to kill it.

;-)

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSun]

2. Syria

Sounds like Richard Nixon's incursions into Cambodia just before we lost
Vietnam. Desperation!

www.timnews.com

[leftchick]

10. yes indeedy

and that was oh so fucking not successful. :eyes:

[Zhade]

35. Good analogy.

NT!

[d_b]

46. Indeed

[jimshoes]

3. Could this possibly

be another MIHOP to implement phase II of the plan? Sure smells like it.

[0007]

6. Smells like Wolfowitz and his friends are trying to fire up the

propaganda.

[aquart]

7. With WHAT army?

Would George like a war with Syria? SURE. Can he have one? NO.

How many people in Syria? How many under arms? How many we got in the area? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Can we stop talking like idiots who can't read an almanac?

[newyorican]

12. The question is...

Can our government stop talking like idiots who can't read an almanac?

The answer is still pending...

[NMDemDist2]

14. i have noticed several new "Recruiting Offices" open up all over town

in strip malls

I mentioned it to hubby the other day and his response was "Of course they have, they will need them to process the new recruits when the draft comes next year"

makes ya wonder....

[Tempest]

56. The newest recruiting offices are in video and game stores

I went to a couple of video and game stores last week and each had a guy in a military uniform talking to high school age boys. I caught enough of a couple of conversations to know he was trying to recruit them.

[annabanana]

18. Just because he "can't" have one doesn't mean

that he won't try. He is completely uninterested in facts that he doesn't like.

[VegasWolf]

22. Why the new draft of course. Since all jobs are outsourced to

other countries, the military is the only game in town.
Step right up!

[aquart]

4. Gosh, wouldn't that be foolish.

[newyorican]

17. So would a draft...

but that won't stop *

[teryang]

8. Legends in their own minds

Like the Nazis.

[GetTheRightVote]

9. I am afraid they are not facing the reality of the situation which will

only cost us more of our children before they accept the truth.

:grr:

[Oversea Visitor]

11. Nooooooo

:cry: Sad but your President has the power to make war without Congress approval.

[newyorican]

13. This sounds like wet-dreaming...

by the Likkudniks that run the J(com)post. If acted upon by the idiot-in-charge it would turn a fucking disaster into a fucking incredible disaster.

[The Magistrate]

16. That, Sir, Would Hardly Stop Them

One of my most formerly useful analytical tools was the concept of "too damn stupid for anyone to really try...". It quite breaks off short in attempting to predict the actions of this regime; there seems to be nothing too stupid for them to really try.

Incursions into Syria would seem quite likely in future, modeled in the incursions into Cambodia and Laos, after guerrilla base areas and logistics. Such things are certainly present across the border from Iraq in both Syria and Jordan. Nor can the possibilty be ignored that under Sharon the Israeli armed forces could be deployed against Syria.

[Maat]

20. I absolutely do not want to offend my Jewish friends.

But I care for the World's Arab peoples as much as I care about the World's Jewish peoples. And I greatly resent my tax dollars going to dictators and inappropriately aggressive leaders around the world, and that includes the Likhud gov (Sharon's). I do not like my tax $ going to what I consider daily war crimes. Going in and bulldozing houses, and filling them with big barrels. Sick!!!! So is blowing oneself up in the middle of a cafe. I want peace! And it won't come until we address everyone's safety, well-being, and poverty problems.


Remember Ray McGovern, of Veteran Intelligence Officers for Sanity, stated that the reason we invaded Iraq in the first place was O.I.L. (O=Oil, I=Israel wanted us to, and L=Logistics). I'm angry that this occurred with my tax $. I'm sick of doing whatever Ariel Sharon thinks is right (rampant unconscionable preemptive aggression). It certainly does not jive with my values.

We have to stop the madness. If Sharon wants to rule the world - let him do it with his people and his money, and risk jailtime themselves (when the world decides that are war criminals). NO MORE WAR! No more pre-emptive war - not because Sharon or anyone else wants it!

What has Sharon done for me and my kid? NOTHING. He's spied on us!

Disgusting!!!

[MrPrax]

25. OIL...?

I thought it was 'Operation Iraqi Liberation'...

I think US designs go a little beyond the X-selling, tech-transfering offshore banking shell called 'Israel'...nothing Sharon is doing is any different than what any of their Leaders have been doing since 1967.

[Zhade]

36. GREAT POST.

Very balanced and honest. I fully, fully agree. Sharon must go, for the good of the Israeli people and the world.

[Jim Sagle]

51. Ariel's da man, doin' the best he can...to make the world a better place.

[Zhade]

59. Thanks for the laugh, it's been a rough morning!

:toast:

[newyorican]

60. You may not realize...

but he is serious.

[Zhade]

62. I do, but it's still a joke.

It's the holidays, though, so I thought I'd spare him my usual rant against that murderous war criminal.

:)

[VegasWolf]

23. LOL. Trying to prune the logic tree with 'too damn stupid" predicates

will not work. I've found that exploring the "too damn stupid" branches works well with this administration.

[The Magistrate]

44. That Is Quite True, Sir

And what you suggest above has indeed become my guide in assessing this current bunch of reptiles: if it is stupid enough, it is certain to be attempted....

"When you oppose stupidity, you oppose an entrenched interest with friends in every branch of government and walk of life, and you can expect to make small progress in the attempt."

[Sterling]

39. Syria has a pretty big army I think.

Syria will make Cambodia and Laos look easy I think. I do agree that PNACers are just dumb enough to widen the war any minute now.

[The Magistrate]

45. Oh, They Will Be Able To Shoot Their Way In, Mr. Sterling

Syria's air force is inconsequential in modern terms, and its armored vehicles are poorly maintained: both these things cost a good deal of money, and no one is handing them out below cost as during the Cold War. After one gets in is, of course, when the thing becomes interesting....

"For the attack, it is necessary only to know where the enemy is, and that you intend to attack; what the enemy intends is of no consequence."

[The Stranger]

52. Getting in is all that PNAC, Wolfowitz, and Perle want.

It is not stupidity, but intent that drives these invasions, and none of you are thinking long term enough.

It doesn't matter that the army lacks the divisions -- the U.S. can generate the divisions by instituting a draft. What is important is that the U.S. go in. It will have to worry about geting out, but once it gets in, the PNAC agenda is accomplished. This is a reprise of Iraq, when the crescendo of propaganda required immediate invasion when everyone in Washington was asking how the U.S. was going to exit, and Wolfowitz was telling Congress it would be done in six months. All they need to do is get the U.S. in -- that is mission accomplished for them and their constituents.

[The Magistrate]

57. There Is Something To That, Sir

But a policy of staying in will present many problems, perhaps sufficient to overthrow the policy itself.

A draft in particular is quite problematic. The military leadership does not want a conscript army, and for excellent reasons: short-term conscripts cannot be trained to the pitch long-term volunteers can, and the practice of modern war requires a great deal of training, for the ordinary private today wields a destructive force roughly equal to a squad element in the Second World War, and accordingly, a person who would not have been viewed, in that day, as sergeant material, is positively dangerous to have as a private nowadays. A draft, by forcing involvement of the greatest proportion of the country's population in the war, risks a genuine political backlash here: make no mistake about the country's eventual revulsion with the Viet Nam war, it had nothing to do with the brutality of U.S. forces there, but was a reaction almost wholly to the prospect of people's own children being carted off to the abbatoire....

[Demeter]

19. US and What Army?

This reminds me of that knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail...

[Disturbed]

21. Surgical air strikes.

What could Syria do about it?

[Demeter]

24. I Don't Even Want to Think About What Syria Could Do

Because a lot of the world is going to get together and simply shut out the US, sooner rather than later, and then US will know the real meaning of "economic sanctions".

[Maat]

27. I'm afraid you are right, Demeter.

n/t

[Tinoire]

29. It's already started

but our government will blame everything but the truth.

[DBoon]

31. Cross reference the news about the dollar continuing to fall vs. the Euro

They can't beat us in war, but they can ruin us financially

[The Stranger]

53. Not if they want to have any money.

Keep dreaming . . .

[happyslug]

28. Nothing but what will it accomplish?

Remember the REASON for the attack is to take out the "Ba'athistst" leadership. If that leadership is like any other guerrilla leadership, it is dispersed and designed to take several successful hits AND STILL FUNCTION. Thus Air attacks in Syria will NOT help the Situation in Iraq.

Please note the previous paragraph assumes that the "Ba'athists Leadership" is in Syria, something that is NOT a given in real life. The "Ba'athists Leadership is probably in Iraq, but no one in the Department of Defense wants to admit that for it indicates a complete lack of control over HUGE areas of Iraq. Furthermore given the borders of Iraq, any Effective leadership will be from Iran not Iraq, for Iranian Rivers flow right into the Twin Rivers of Iraq. Not the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers both start in Syria, but to get to Iraq proper the Rivers have to go through Kurdish Controlled Territories, which would prevent any control/Supplies coming from Syria.

Furthermore Al Queda probably is controlling its Troops in Iraq from Saudi Arabia. The Border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq is a line drawn in the Sand (In the Open Desert on top of it all). It Appears the US has FAILED to control this line more than any other line. It is the easiest to do IF YOU ARE NOT COMMENTED ELSEWHERE (All you have to do is fly over in a Piper Cub every so often and report any trucks moving in from Saudi Arabia, but you still to have someone stop the trucks coming in from Saudi Arabia).

My point is if ANY outside forces are entering Iraq it is from Iran and Saudi Arabia more than Syria.

This gets us back to the problem "Why Attack Syria?". I still believe Bush and Company want to invade Iran. The plan for Iran calls for the US to secure its supply line. For the Invasion of Iraq the US Supply line went along the Persian Gulf WHICH IRAN BORDERS FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE GULF. Iran has Shore to Land Missiles that can take out those Supply ships. Thus before any invasion of Iran the US want to secure its supply line. Saudi Arabia is a Desert Kingdom, not sufficient ports facilities etc except in the Persian Gulf. With the Persian Gulf out as a "secure" supply line that leaves Bruit as the best port to supply the US forces. Syria is between Bruit and Iraq.

Thus an air Attack does NOT secure that Supply line. A Bruit-Lebanon Supply line will also give the US an additional Supply line into Baghdad. A Supply line not now under attack (It will be whenever the US does attack but wishful thinking has always been an hallmark of this administration).

Now we also have to consider the frustration level of this Administration. NOTHING has gone according to plan since the initial invasion. When to are being defeated the best thing to do is to pull out and save what you can, but this administration CAN NOT WITHDRAW WITHOUT GIVING UP WHAT THEIR TRULY WANT, PERSIAN GULF OIL. People do stupid things when their are frustrated. Things that they would NOT have done if they were thinking straight. While the Present US Army can NOT attack Syria (do to its involvement in Iraq) that does not mean this Administration does NOT want them to attack. Thus I can see this administration ordering a Air Raid on Syria to Kill the Ba'athists leadership even if everyone knows before the attack is even planed that the plan will NOT accomplish its goal. Furthermore I can see an Invasion being order even it is is doomed to fail because that was to goal in the first place and the Civilian Leadership in this Administration unwilling to change the plan even if the plan can no longer be implemented.

This is the Frustration level of this administration. Iraq has been compared to Stalingrad, where the Germans threw in more and more men and supplies AFTER the battle had been lost. Hitler only gave up on the German Army Sixth Army in Stalingrad when it surrendered (and even then ordered an New "Sixth Army" to replace it, showing you his frustration, his plans for conquest of Russia was dead with the Sixth Army but Hitler was NOT about to admit it).

I see this administration at that same frustration level, can't win but do not want to pull out. At least in Vietnam LBJ admitted he only stayed in Vietnam to keep his Republican Critics somewhat muted (LBJ knew he was frustrated couldn't win but didn't dare pull out do to fear of the political fall out such a pull out would unleash). Nixon had a similar frustration, after beating Humphrey for the Presidency Nixon had to solve the problem of Vietnam (Ended up adopting LBJ's Final Plan, which Nixon called Vietnamization, which was turn the war over the the South Vietnamese and than abandon them when you have political cover. Unfortunately for out troops in Vietnam no such Political Cover ever occurred and finally Congress took us out over the objection of Nixon and than President Ford). The US Bombing of North Vietnam, the Invasion of Cambodia, the South Vietnamese Invasion of Laos, where all the product of frustration. The US could not win but did not want to pull out. It took an overwhelming Democratic Congress to pull the US out and even than you had massive (Through Minority) opposition to the pull out.

The same thing with Iraq. Bush is no LBJ, Bush could not engineer some sort of Political Cover to cover a pull out from Iraq even if he wanted to. Anyway such a pullout would deny Bush control over the Persian Gulf Oil. Control over the Oil is why Bush invaded Iraq and he will NEVER give that up. At the same time the US can not control Iraq. Thus the US can not win but will not withdraw. For this reason the fighting will continue for years until either the American People kick the GOP out of Office (and that would require a Candidate that clearly states he wants to withdraw the US from Iraq, something Kerry was not) OR some other disaster strikes that forces the US to abandon its forces in Iraq (For example Saudi Arabia goes into Revolution and stops shipping oil forcing the price of oil to $200 a barrel while the US economy tanks). In many ways the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 forced the people of the US and the US Congress to face the fact that the US could NOT afford to tie up its resources in Vietnam. Congress within a year saw the numbers and cut funding for Vietnam knowing Vietnam would fall without that funding.

I see the same thing occurring in Iraq. I do NOT see any President pulling out of Iraq. Such a Candidate will be like Governor Dean, never get the Nomination. On the other hand Congress seeing it had to do SOMETHING about the deteriorating economy will be forced to cut the Budget for the War in Iraq. Hopefully the Troops will be evacuated from Iraq before their are driven out, but I fear that will not happen. In Vietnam by 1974 most of the fighting was being done by South Vietnamese Troops NOT US Troops, thus once the money ran out, the US did not have to evacuate to many US troops. In Iraq I fear that WILL not happen. The Iraqi National Guard will fall BEFORE The US can pull all of its troops out. Worse the Iraqis will hit the US as it withdraws for that is when an Army is at its weakest. Furthermore it would be the last chance for many Iraqis to Act out their frustration over this war. It will be a bloody mess.

Back to my original post, what this administration will do will NOT be the product of logic, but of Frustration. Like Hitler in Stalingrad and Nixon in Vietnam, this Administration will NOT want to withdraw but somehow "win" a war it can not win. This administration will keep throwing things into this debacle until it has nothing left to throw.
Thus I have to agree with the alleged reports from bin Laden, the US will only withdraw if its economy collapses and that will occur when oil to the US (and the World) is cut off. When that happens the US will have NOTHING left for Bush to throw into Iraq and the US will withdraw. You will have fighting in the streets of the US as the US withdraws from Iraq (and some of out Soldiers may take years to come back do to the US being unable to pay their ticket home).

Yes, Bush and the GOP has made a real mess of Both Iraq and the US.

[Zhade]

37. Very nicely done.

NT!

[daleo]

42. Yes, an excellent review of the historical parallels. n/t

[ckramer]

30. Is the first of the four more wars about to start?

[Moloch]

32. The source for this story....

I'm not familiar with The Jerusalem Post is it a Likud rag?

[newyorican]

33. Sort of the Wash Times for Israel...

not sure whom that insults more...the Times or the Post.

[Zhade]

38. Neocon Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle is a director of the JP.

That should tell you a lot right there.

[ElectroPrincess]

58. Using "The Jerusalem Post" as a source is no more ludicrous

as Brian Lamb quoting from "The Drudge Report" <ewe!> as the inspiration for CSPAN's Journal's first Question of the Day. If it wasn't for FOX and at times, CSPAN, poor ole Drudge would be be just another crap right wing web blog. Wish we could ignore *all* the fringe news on both sides of the spectrum. /rant off <blush>

[madrchsod]

40. right wing jewish rag is

as credible as the moonie times. if the us would do this the whole middle east would go up in flames. the ba`ath party in syria is keeping the lid on the brotherhood,if the ba`ath party goes the brotherhood takes over then the last man standing wins.

[oblivious]

41. The U.S. really does control the world.

So here we have one senior US official threatening to attack Syria, and last week we had the Under Secretary of Defence musing about a nuclear strike against Iran (see below), and this is hardly news -- doesn't even rate a front page item on any newspaper or magazine, or even a mention on radio and TV news - anywhere in the world!!!

If anyone was to make a similar comment threatening the US, it would be headline news in every country of the world.

What a funny world we live in!


"The clock is ticking for Iran," writes Michael Rubin, a former advisor to the Office of Special Plans--the outfit responsible for much of the US's faulty pre-war intelligence on Iraq (news - web sites). "Bush may have no choice but to order a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities." Neocon academics and policy advisors such as Reuel Marc Gerecht, Orde Kittrie and Norman Podhoretz have also called for decisive action.

Washington seems responsive. On a recent visit to the region, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith--Rumsfeld's number three man--told the Jerusalem Post that even the nuclear strike option remains on the table.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2281&ncid=742&e=1&u=/thenation/20041216/cm_thenation/132075

[Disturbed]

43. When insanity prevails...

will any military leader have the guts and sanity to stand down?

Right now we have no leader in Amerika that has the ear of the majority of the slumbering population that either voted for Bush2 or didn't even bother to vote. Am I incorrect?

[xchrom]

48. just in time for christmas!

:crazy:

[JennC]

49. Rummy was ranting about Syria "neighboring countries" to the troops

he is visiting in Iraq. I caught some of it on the news this morning. Complaining about how Al Jazeera prints propaganda stories written by reporters who have been bought by governments and how "we" don't do that. I about choked on my coffee.

[gizmo1979]

54. not enough troops

If *would have put enough boots on the ground we could have closed the borders and we would'nt be in this mess!Why doesn't * carpet bomb the whole arab world and I'am sure there would be peace! ha idiots all idiots!

[shanti]

55. and the beat goes on....

according to plan:-(

[truth2power]

61. "The US is contemplating incursions into Syrian territory ..."

It seems accepted as normal that the US has a right to engage in military operations in any country we choose. Does anyone see how bizarre this is?

"The US is contemplating incursions into <Canadian> territory..."

Canada is a sovereign nation! So is Syria.

[OutsourceBush]

63. Read my lips...there will be no draft

/sarcasm

[Rochambeau]

64. It sounds so much like the "Vietnam then Cambodia" old story....n/t