Article

2003-10-29 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-10-29 12:24:02 PM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Just a matter of time for Syria. Once election year is over, Bush can take a hard stance and level them.

Posted by Charles 2003-10-29 12:51:31 PM|| 2003-10-29 12:51:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Agreed, Charles. And Bush's reelection looks better than ever now that Dean has declared himself a "metrosexual". Yep....that'll play well in the heartland. What a pander-bear.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-10-29 12:58:40 PM|| 2003-10-29 12:58:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I don't think that America will have the manpower to take on Syria during the long years it'll take to bring Iraq up to a semi-decent shape. Or the will, for that matter.

The most that will happen, it seems to me, is limited American support while Israel strikes at some Syrian targets; but again less than full-fledged war of "regime-changing" capacity.

With Iraq-seen-as-a-battle-rather-than-as-a-war, the US chose to get a base in a place surrounded by two enemy countries, two long borders to watch out for.

Had it chosen to overthrow Syria's regime as the first battle, it might have gotten even less support from allies (e.g. UK troops might not have participated), but I think it would have managed to do lots more in a single stroke, as Syria is tied much more closely to the whole Lebanon/Palestine/threat to Israel-thing than Iraq ever war. And with Syria "safe", when US eventually went after Iraq, a couple years later perhaps, you'd only have to be truly watchful of the Iranian border...

The only reason to pick Iraq first seems to me to have been the whole idea of an *imminent* Iraqi threat that couldn't *possibly* wait before it was neutralized.

And we know how well *that* argument turned out. So much that it ends up to have never been spoken at all, ignoring the whole 45-minutes thing and stuff.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-10-29 1:21:55 PM|| 2003-10-29 1:21:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Although I'd probably agree that there isn't much possibility of a U.S. takeover (Like Afghanistan & Iraq), I don't believe it would be necessary. I suspect that a sustained air campaign against Syrian Army and terrorist (both in Syria & Lebanon) would be sufficient in the short term. The chances of Syrian units getting within shooting distance of our ground forces would be slim and none.

After all, our flyboys have had a chance to rest up and re-arm since April...

Posted by snellenr 2003-10-29 1:35:39 PM|| 2003-10-29 1:35:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Aris - you're gonna have to do better than parrot the dhimmicrats pathetic arguments. They've been thoroughly done over here so I won't bother to rehash. There are many ways we can skin the Syrian snake as snellnr has pointed out.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-10-29 2:13:51 PM|| 2003-10-29 2:13:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Aris, I think Syria (much like Iran) has been put on notice. I don't believe the Syrian's are stupid, but, if they did something insane - like harbor WMDs from Iraq or instigate some sort of hostilities into Iraq - I think you'll be surprised about the "American will."

As for the WMD argument; most Americans I know don't give a shit about that anymore. I know that may seem strange to you, but here's some background - We know they illegal weapons at one time, there were no real inspections since '98, and there was no evidence of their destruction. Based on that, Hussein's actions up to the war, and our distrust of UN inspections (Blix, French interests) - most feel GWB went off the best intel he had at the time. The intel may or may not be proved wrong in time, but most of us feel the president and Powell gave the best evidence they had at the time without being deceitful. You can argue they presented their favorite facts and you maybe right, but we don't feel anyone flat lied to us or tampered w/the intel.

The Dem's are playing up the no WMD thing now which is to be expected w/an election. However, most of us feel (at least those of us in the military) that when Hussein violated a UN mandate written in the blood of Americans and others of that coalition roughly 17 times - it was time for him to go. Another side note is that when we fought our way up to Baghdad you can be assured that Iran, NKor, Syria, and the other jerk-offs of the world got to see first hand what about only two divisions of U.S. mil can do. Basically cause and effect in practice or as we Marines like to say "fuck around - get dealt with." I'm not trying to personally attack you or anything, just give you something to think about. Your views as someone from the other side of the pond are interesting to me. The attack Syria first strategy has merits.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-10-29 2:41:26 PM|| 2003-10-29 2:41:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Rex Mundi> And you'll have to do *far* better than to accuse me of parrotting arguments of "dhimmicracts" that I've not even been following. CIA itself recognized Syria as a more active supporter of terrorism than Iraq was in the last 10 years. If this is a "War on Terror" then shouldn't Syria have been a greater priority then? Can you tell me in what way was America made safer by the liberation of Iraq that it wouldn't have been made by the liberation of Syria and Lebanon? Add quotes or not around "liberation", as you will.

Do *you* have any argument about why attacking Iraq was any more necessary or justified than attacking Syria would have been?

And I don't think that anyone believes that those UN mandates Iraq violated are the all-important difference. To consider them important, or to consider their violation an ethical crime justifying an intervention, you first have to respect UN itself as something more than an assemply of tyrants and tyrant-supporting states.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-10-29 3:53:35 PM|| 2003-10-29 3:53:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I think its very unlikely Saddam would have moved WMD to Syria because (a) numerous other sources indicate he didn't think the US would actually invade and (b) although they are Bathists the Syrians are also primarily Shia and have worked with Iran to threaten Iraq.

Oh, and I think Syria would fall quicker than Iraq did. I think the US has far more troops than required (according to the Generals on the ground) and it would solve many of the problems in Iraq (since infiltraters will lose access to Iraq) and Lebanon. The world would be upset at US involvement and it would further stretch the US beyond the ability to do much about Iran. Still Syria is the next lowest hanging fruit and I wouldn't be surprised.

Posted by Yank 2003-10-29 4:10:34 PM|| 2003-10-29 4:10:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 The US should play pseudo-imperialist-kingmaker and take out Syria and combine Syria/Iraq/Jordan into a single constitutional monarchy Heshemite Federation. A Federation that once it becomes stable and prosperous enough (so they they have something to lose) can take responsibility for the West Bank.

Most Arabs talk about an single-Arab nation, this could be the first cautious step.

Posted by Yank 2003-10-29 4:14:19 PM|| 2003-10-29 4:14:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Aris....I'll take your word about not following the Donks line of argument - but you do one hell of an impersonation. Sure Syria is a big sponsor of terrorism...but Iraq makes more sense geopolitically AND the American people were more receptive to that. Now we've got multiple border access to Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Soddi Land because we're in Iraq. You better believe these countries have taken notice. However the flipside of that coin is true as we've seen...anyone who didn't think this would be high stakes was kidding themselves. You can think whatever you like about "liberation"...the Iraqis know the difference and that's what matters.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-10-29 4:41:56 PM|| 2003-10-29 4:41:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "Now we've got multiple border access to Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Soddi Land because we're in Iraq. You better believe these countries have taken notice."

*sigh* If Iran has taken "notice" then I've admittedly not noticed the notice it's taken. Likewise with Syria and the Palestinians -- if the defeat of Iraq made them change their tunes, I haven't seen it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-10-29 5:15:20 PM|| 2003-10-29 5:15:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 "Do *you* have any argument about why attacking Iraq was any more necessary or justified than attacking Syria would have been?"

-Yes Aris, his name is Saddam Hussein.

"And I don't think that anyone believes that those UN mandates Iraq violated are the all-important difference. To consider them important, or to consider their violation an ethical crime justifying an intervention, you first have to respect UN itself as something more than an assemply of tyrants and tyrant-supporting states."

-Do you talk to many Americans besides arguing w/the ones on Rantburg? Or, did you not read my last response? We'd respect the UN if they had any balls.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-10-29 5:51:51 PM|| 2003-10-29 5:51:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Aris, re the Syria strategy:

The biggest problem as I see it is that we would not have had a causus belli that it could take to the U.S. public (or even the U.N.) with a reasonable chance of it being accepted.

Pre-empting the obvious rejoinder:

Jarhead covered the basic causus belli vis-a-vis Iraq, both the one actually presented to the UN (violation of various resolutions), as well as the reasons that are more important to Americans than the rest of the world after 9/11:

a history of WMD possession, development and use combined with unaccounted-for WMD weapons and programs that could be pulled out of hiding once the sanctions were lifted and the US took its eye off the ball.

Posted by Carl in N.H. 2003-10-29 5:53:24 PM|| 2003-10-29 5:53:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Aris: not followin' the Dems? Good. You're better off. Now you've dished some good points. To cut to the quick...I do think Iraq is the best move - no pussyfootin' around. We're smack dab in it with multiple border access to Iran, Jordan, Soddi-land and Syria. I think it's safe to say we have their undivided attention. Of course, that access works both ways...but the fine point is we have established the battle field in their yard...not ours. Militarily and geopolically this makes sense. It's a tough go you bet, that's war. Justification? We had plenty...UN aside. As for "liberation" think of it what you want...the Iraqis can tell the difference, and that's all that matters.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-10-29 7:44:52 PM|| 2003-10-29 7:44:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 "Yes Aris, his name is Saddam Hussein"

Which isn't an answer as to whether Iraq was a greater supporter of terrorism (and thus a greater threat) than Syria is.

"We'd respect the UN if they had any balls. "

Whether you should respect it or not, is irrelevant to the fact that you don't respect it, and therefore (if you are self-consistent) you shouldn't care about whether its mandates were violated or not. Or about whether the UN accepts your "casus belli" or not. In the end America went ahead on Iraq without UN authorization; it could have done the same with Syria or any other country, had it wanted to.

Carl> Saddam Hussein didn't use WMDs against Americans even when Americans were destroying his troops in the first Gulf War. And he didn't use them now. The idea that he'd suddenly give them to terrorists now, when he hadn't given them for 10 years or so... eh, we've gone over all this before.

That's the bit nobody outside the US gets. Invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons *does* make sense, but invading it as part of a "War on Terror"... when it's been far more peripheral in its support to terror than several other large countries in the region have been... well it just really doesn't make sense to me.

And as for your public, I don't think that "we'll attack this country, because our public doesn't like it, even though attacking *that* country would have made more sense" is an argument that actually supports your side.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-10-29 7:47:09 PM|| 2003-10-29 7:47:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Aris, why Saddam Hussein. The answer is simple, there area a lot of dictatorships in the world and its impractical to take them all down at once. Someone had to go first. Iraq was stratetically positioned, had ignored a decades worth of security council resolutions and a cease-fire agreement with the US, and was the major reason why the US had to have our forces in Saudi Arabia (a location that caused issues with Islamic fundamentalists). Saddam was the lynchpin to all of that. The low hanging fruit so to speak.

Posted by Yank 2003-10-29 8:25:31 PM|| 2003-10-29 8:25:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 "Which isn't an answer as to whether Iraq was a greater supporter of terrorism (and thus a greater threat) than Syria is."

-Very well Aris, I see this is not getting through to you. I'll try to be more clear -

Most Americans don't see Syria as the threat that Iraq is (or was). Not to us at least. Why would we?? The Israeli situation is different. Syria is probably more of a threat to them - I will give you that. Hussein was a bigger a-hole to us. If you don't think he had the track record to rate what happened then I got some nice San Diego forest land to sell you. That bit about our planes patrolling no fly zones & still getting shot at by Iraq, UN violations galore, no weapons inspections for 5 years, Hussein's own behavior & rhetoric - the guy signed his own death warrant. Syria never made for itself the type of exposure Iraq did. Step outside the Euro-mindset and look at it from an American view point.

First, the obvious - we fought a war w/Iraq, they since violated (17 times) UN resolutions which were written in American blood (yeah, Gulf War I), that tends to piss a lot of us Yanks off. If Americans die to set up a cease-fire agreement then the UN better damn well enforce it and stop acting like a bunch of pussies. The guy's thumbing his nose at us - what the hell you going to do? Maybe the Greeks don't understand that but there it is. I know you're gonna talk about the Bush imminent threat quote again, save it, I already said we believed he was going off his best intel. Hind sight's always 20/20 - if it proves to be wrong then so be it. However, most of us don't believe anyone flat out lied about WMDs in Iraq.

Second, you say - "In the end America went ahead on Iraq without UN authorization" - so what's your point? We did that in Kosovo under Clinton in your own back yard and basically cleaned up a euro mess and I don't remember anybody belly-aching about not getting UN approval for that. When the UN doesn't enforce any of its own resolutions after 17 f*cking times - then yes, they have no balls and don't deserve any respect. Your counter argument to me on that point doesn't wash.

"The idea that he'd suddenly give them to terrorists now, when he hadn't given them for 10 years or so"

Okay let's wait and see what he does....gimme a break. After 9/11?! Use some logic. Like Yank said, we took the fight to them, one less place for shit-heads to hang out. No more Hussein, no more uncertainty. GWB took care of a loose cannon, and I hate to sound arrogant, but most of us don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks about that. Afghanistan was the first piece of the puzzle. Iraq the second. If Bush wins re-election look for Syria, Iran, and NKor to be dealt with.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-10-29 11:33:27 PM|| 2003-10-29 11:33:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 My two cents' worth: you've all talked all around the point, but never covered it. The problem is Wahabbi fundamentalism. THAT, and that alone, accounts for WHY three civilian aircraft slammed into civilian targets in the United States. A turbantop declared war, and struck us with a one-two Sunday punch. Stupid, stupid thing to do. I guess Been Lardbutt never watched "Tora, Tora, Tora". He should have - he might have learned something.

Our intelligence organizations aren't that bad - at least, not the unpoliticized ones. We knew where our enemies were, how they operated, and the most likely things they MIGHT do next. George Bush and his administration developed a plan to counter the threat. That included moves against the Taliban, because they provided the islamofascists with an unfettered training ground. We see how that's working - regime change, Taliban discredited, trying to make a comeback against HORRENDOUS odds - the people don't want them back.

Part two of the plan involved invading Iraq, and destroying one of the most unpredictable governments in the world - a government that not only had WMD, but had used them - against its own people, against its neighbor. There were significant indicators active that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons as hard and as fast as he could. That made him the number one threat, after the Taliban. He was therefore the number one target after the defeat of the Taliban.

A lot's been said about strategic versus tactical positioning. The US now has strong forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. A shaky Iran lies between them. American troops in Afghanistan keep Pakistan from doing anything stupid. US forces in Iraq are not only drawing the 'flies' from half the Arab world, they're building a strong, sectarian, popular army in a country happy to be liberated. Iraq has oil, is strategically located on the borders of Syria and Iran (two other sponsors of terrorism), overlooks Saudi Arabia (where the money comes from), and provides security to a half-dozen small Arab Sheikdoms whose security is otherwise tenuous at best.

As for military attacks on Syria: it's far easier to defend a single front than two simultaneously. Syria, when it was on really, REALLY good terms with the old Soviet Union, was given some rather sophisticated weaponry - far more effective than the crap Saddam ended up with. Syria also has more difficult terrain to fight in than Iraq. Being in Iraq also allows the United States to put the squeeze on Syria without having to resort to weapons - Iraq was the country's major oil supplier, a supply that has now stopped, and may not be revived for some time.

Armchair quarterback all you want, all of you. The truth is, the plan that came out of this administration to attack terror has been brilliant, whoever devised it. We see the proof in one major area: there hasn't been an overt, hostile terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11. We see other proof: the death or capture of a significant number of 'leaders' of the Al Qaida movement and its subsidiaries, the destruction of a secure home where the gunnies can rest and recuperate, train and re-arm, and the destruction of huge numbers of potential gun-bunnies as they flock to the killing fields of Iraq.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-10-30 12:28:40 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-10-30 12:28:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Well said Old Patriot but I still think Syria would go down far quicker than Iraq. The Assad's are sitting atop a Shia majority that would tear them to shreds given the slightest opportunity.

Posted by Yank 2003-10-30 12:35:35 AM|| 2003-10-30 12:35:35 AM|| Front Page Top

03:44 Bulldog
01:14 Old Patriot
00:57 Old Patriot
00:35 Yank
00:28 Old Patriot
00:03 Anonymous
23:56 Old Patriot
23:56 Jabba the Nutt
23:53 Steve White
23:52 Old Patriot
23:44 Old Patriot
23:41 Jarhead
23:33 Jarhead
23:28 Old Patriot
23:08 Old Patriot
22:59 Old Patriot
22:37 Old Patriot
22:33 Old Patriot
21:57 Steve White
21:08 Super Hose
21:06 Hyper
20:58 Super Hose
20:48 Seafarious
20:47 Hyper