| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Syria facilitating Iraqi insurgents | |
| 2004-04-21 | |
| Syria is "facilitating" the movement of foreign fighters into Iraq and helping supply them with arms, according to U.S. military officials with access to intelligence reports. The sources said the reporting has not been clear on whether hard-line Syrian President Bashar Assad is involved directly in ordering the aid. But they say he has much to lose if Iraq becomes a pro-U.S. democratic country. The bloody fighting in Fallujah, for example, is inspired, in part, by well-armed foreign jihadists who crossed the Syrian border and have committed some of the most gruesome attacks against Americans and their allies. Officials said Syrian help includes facilitating their border crossing, arming them and allowing them to return for fresh supplies. Asked how conclusive U.S. intelligence is on Syrian aid, one official said, "No doubt about it." It is not clear, however, whether Damascus is actively organizing the influx. Publicly, the Bush administration has stopped short of accusing Mr. Assad's socialist Ba'ath Party regime of facilitating the terrorists' migration. But it has accused Syria of inaction in stopping the flow of foreigners along its 600-mile border with Iraq. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell last week sent a strong message to Mr. Assad through the U.S. ambassador in Damascus. "It urged Syria to work closely with the rest of the international community to promote a stable Iraq," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. "It also made clear to Syria that it needs to control the transit of its border by terrorists and people supporting the insurgents in Iraq. It is a message that we have delivered to Syria in the past. What prompted it now, I think, is that it's an ongoing problem. It's something that we feel needs to be reiterated until it's taken care of, and it's not taken care of yet." Mr. Powell said last week, "Our message to President Assad is that it is in our mutual interest to deal with this problem. It is not in Syria's interest to be seen as a base from which infiltrators can come across — come across to kill innocent Iraqis or to kill coalition troops." Mr. Powell faces a decision soon on whether the administration will slap economic sanctions on Syria. Officials said Syrian agents are aiding the Iraqi insurgency because it is not in Damascus' interest to have a pro-U.S. country on its border. Mr. Assad fears that a free Iraq could spur a wave of democracy in his country, jeopardizing his rigid socialist rule, officials say. Mr. Assad also realizes that Washington is limited in how it can react. The U.S. military is overcommitted globally. It would be politically difficult for President Bush to launch military strikes, thus opening up yet another front in the war on terrorism. "The Syrians know America can bark a lot, but what else can we do?" said one military source.
| |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #22 It's time to make it clear to Baby Assad that leaky borders leak both ways. Maybe we can't use the Iraqi Kurds in Fallujah, but I'll bet they could be inspired to help out their mates in Syria... |
| Posted by: Nero 2004-04-21 5:07:51 PM |
| #21 Jordan has the dubious honor of being the only national entity to be defeated in battle by the less-than-awe-inspiring Syrian Army, in a cross-border catfight during the fall-out of the Black September of 1970. Even the Lebanese militias managed to give the Syrians more of a black eye, in the course of Syria's 1977 "intervention" in the Lebanese Civil War. To put it another way, Jordan seems to be doing a good job keeping the terrorists from gassing their royal family, and anyone else who might get in the way. Let's let the Jordanians concentrate on what they're capable of. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-04-21 4:00:02 PM |
| #20 Syria or Iran? Which will be the October surprise? Too many variables to make predictions. Iran? My guess is that midnight oil is burning on how to trigger and then support a popular uprising to displace the theocracy. That would certainly disrupt any nuclear programs, terrorist support, etc. and take Iran off the table for at least 18 months. Syria? There has been a steady drumbeat in the media indicating that Syria is next on the list. However, if we conquer Syria what would we do with it? The objective there should be the elimination of the Baathist state and its network of affiliated terrorist organizations. The simplest way might be to let Israel take the gloves off and have the IDF eliminate Assad and his cronies. |
| Posted by: Random thoughts 2004-04-21 3:15:46 PM |
| #19 Jordan is the most reasonable and Western Arabic government. Thank goodness for the influence of certain Princeton graduates before the days of PC hint-hint-Queen Noor |
| Posted by: Anonymous4052 2004-04-21 2:59:34 PM |
| #18 I agree mostly with Aris but I'm a bit more aggressive. Syria is run by a minority among minorites. It wouldn't be hard to topple Assad and I think it might be even worse than Iraq trying to hold the place together afterwards. The US doesn't want to invade. I would suggest a modified version of the Afghanistan plan. Special Forces and CIA ops working with the local anti-Assad tribes. I'd also have a backup plan with Jordan so that if Syria falls into anarchy the Jordanian military can move in and heroically occupies Syria to stabalize it and protect it from Israel and America imperialists. Of course Jordan would do so with American funds and logistics and Israel's blessing. The Jordanian option would also be a backup plan in case Iraq goes bad. Jordan is the most reasonable and Western Arabic government. I think they could be induced into the role of saving their Arabic brothers (and their oil revenues) and I think in such a role many of the factions throughout Iraq and Syria would accept them gladly. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-04-21 2:23:52 PM |
| #17 Aris, Iraq was hardly a "random nearby critter". |
| Posted by: docob 2004-04-21 2:19:11 PM |
| #16 Aris yours is not a bad plan, but, I doubt the US will ever formally declare war again. A congressional declaration implies a nuclear strike by the US. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-04-21 1:50:10 PM |
| #15 I agree with the analysis that we don't want to risk a chem weapons attack from Assad the younger. The Syrian-Iraqi boder is less problematic than the Iraq-Iran one thanks to the Brits and Froggys artificial "line in the sand" of 1918. Just monitor the thing, like the Marines are doing, and anything that does not come across at ONE ot TWO approved crossings is Yassined as soon as it is on Iraqi soil. Then in early 2005, if Assad hasn't learned the Daffy Khadaffy lesson . . . |
| Posted by: Anonymous4052 2004-04-21 1:46:36 PM |
| #14 Gentlemen, I think the reason the US is not doing anything balatant about the Baby Doc support for insurgent infiltration is the known fact that Asshat has a proven nerve gas tactical capabilities (originally prepared as a balance of terror weapon against Israel). I think Bush cannot sustain the political damage of a large scale syrian CW counterattack with many American casualties in case of a major American force inading Syria. If Bush get's reelected I think this is going to change, which may then actually make a real attack unnecessary. I also agree that Iran and not Syria is the real problem! Take the Mullahs out, and watch Assad crawl back into his hole. |
| Posted by: Colton L. 2004-04-21 1:16:59 PM |
| #13 There's no point in saying things that aren't actually gonna take place. You don't have the troops to take out and occupy Syria (and certainly not Iran) as long as you are occupying Iraq. The beast is Islamofascism, its fangs are terrorism. Iran is the heart of the beast, Syria is its teeth. Iraq was a random nearby critter that you expended half your power in subduing and now you are seeing it being devoured by the beast which didn't have to waste a breath itself. You don't have the strength to either kill the beast or defang it before it feeds upon the carcass -- at which point it will probably become so powerful that it'll be very difficult to take it down *afterwards*. Only chance I see as halfway doable is to try and scare the beast away for the time being. Declare war on Syria. Don't actually *invade* it, because in that case Syria's regime will know they won't have a chance of surviving unless they launch a full-scale counterattack in both Iraq and Syria, and as I said it doesn't seem you have *nearly* enough strength to occupy both countries at the same time. So, the only solution I see is that you declare yourselves in a state of war with Syria -- reasons being its support to Terrorists in Iraq and because of its support to the rest of the terrorist organizations. Make it clear that though the state of war exists, you may nonetheless withhold your hand (your bombs, your troops) depending on Syria's attitude. For a threat to work the threatened party must know that both possibilies are possible. If you invade on the other hand, there's no way you'll stop before the regime is overthrown -- so the threat won't be credible. It seems paradoxical but that's the way I see it. You've already chosen the battlefield to be Iraq -- I've said from the start that it was a very foolish battlefield to choose (rather than go for Syria itself), the possible gains of a victory small, and the possible losses of a defeat tremendous -- but what's done is done. And I don't think you should declare war with Iran because in that case you'll just be laughed at. The point is to make threats that are halfway believable and nobody out there believes you can launch a war at Syria and Iraq *and* Iran at the same time. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-21 1:15:37 PM |
| #12 "The Syrians know America can bark a lot, but what else can we do?" said one military source. Patience grasshopper - Early 2005 after the elections - count you virgins baby assad! #8 has it correct - we've had operations in the area for a year now - time show assad what the US military can do. resources are def there for this type of show of force. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-21 10:47:18 AM |
| #11 More drones, less groans. |
| Posted by: geoffg 2004-04-21 10:25:44 AM |
| #10 RKB My own answer would be a rotund yes. But on a much larger scale and without the kid gloves taken by Israelis: something like Sherman's march to the sea but with B52s supporting it. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-04-21 10:14:03 AM |
| #9 You're suggesting tactics similar to Israel's in Gaza? |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-04-21 8:53:42 AM |
| #8 You know, fuck invasion. What Syria needs right now is a good old-fashioned, imperial demonstration of what the British used to call "Butcher and Bolt". Form up the First Cav, with max logistics, and do a long thunder run through the eastern Syrian provinces. Break every force that resists, burn every Baathist Party headquarters on the way, and go back to Iraq. Suggest afterwards through diplomatic channels that it might be in Syrian best interests to cease hostilities. Syria is probably more susceptible to a punitive expedition than the Iranians. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-04-21 7:40:31 AM |
| #7 Baby Assad probably does not have the control over things. Think Hezzbalah which gets its marching orders from the Mad Mullahs in Iran. It's way past time to start furnishing covert support to people in Iran who want to end the Mullahs control. If a big enough revolution gets started in Iran look for most of the other stuff to dry up. |
| Posted by: Michael 2004-04-21 5:16:44 AM |
| #6 It is not clear, however, whether Damascus is actively organizing the influx. They don't have to. These things take on a life of its own. The border with Syria is probably the most uncontrolled points of entry into Iraq (and the quickest if you're coming from Europe or North America). There's was a story some months ago about a Canadian who was caught crossing that border with a large amount of cash. Legitimate or not, this was no accident. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-21 4:15:51 AM |
| #5 I am not much of an army expert, but wouldn't the terrain in Iran be a headache? Theoretically, Iran's army should be numerous enough to cause more problems than the Taliban. Sadaam's forces melted, but GW I was a pretty effective object lesson to his forces. When I was ready to move, I would start by demanding that the Security Council pass a resolution for Syria to get out of Lebanon. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-21 4:11:33 AM |
| #4 Fallujah : Syria :: Najaf : Iran But Iran's more important. Besides, what's the plan to clean up Syria & Lebanon after booting Assad? |
| Posted by: someone 2004-04-21 3:12:45 AM |
| #3 OldSpook, I honestly believe that Syria's liberation will happen even sooner. The thwarted attack in Jordan, the continued border skirmishes and interference in Iraq and the fact that they have the WMD hidden in Syria and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley is enough of a causus belli to my mind. I think it's no accident that our troop strength is as high as it's been in Iraq since last April. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-04-21 2:06:35 AM |
| #2 And they will be on that road come November right after the election. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-04-21 1:26:36 AM |
| #1 If Assad doesnt clean up his side of the border, the way out of Iraq for the Marines and the 1st Armored Division will be thru Damascus. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-04-21 1:25:16 AM |