Did we invade Syria and start another WAR???, What does all of this mean? Options

[JasonATexan]

First of all I'm confused on these articles. I'm also wondering if there is anything else to this or what this means?

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/20/rice-s...-against-syria/


Rice Suggests Iraq War Resolution Could Allow For War Against Syria

Yesterday, in her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Lincoln Chafee wanted to clarify a simple issue – did the Iraq war resolution passed by Congress restrict military action only to Iraq? Chafee asked, “So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?” Rice responded:

RICE: Senator, I don’t want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you’ll understand fully that the president retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war on Iraq. …

CHAFEE: So that’s a no.

RICE: Senator, I am not going to be in the position of circumscribing the president’s powers.

The first line of the Iraq war resolution signed by the President on October 16, 2002 clearly states its purpose: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

So how could the administration possibly justify any military action against Syria without getting another congressional resolution? Tie it to Iraq, of course. Rice, in a response to a question about Syria from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), said yesterday:

Senator, our policy toward Syria is on the table. And that is, we want a change in Syrian behavior. We want a change in Syrian behavior on the Iraqi border…

But before Rice gets too far down the track of equating the conflict in Iraq with Syria, perhaps she should recall this previous statement in June 2005:

[E]very situation is different. Syria is not Iraq, and Iraq is not Syria. And I need to emphasize that Iraq was, in many ways, a very special circumstance given all of the problems with Iraq… So Iraq is not Syria, and Syria is not Iraq.

Why is Rice so intent on keeping her options open on Syria? Perhaps because a “shadow struggle” is already under way.
-----------------

Then there is this article

-----------------

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05292/590727.stm

U.S. forces have started fighting Syrians at Iraq's border. Can anybody say 'Cambodia'?

As I suspected six months ago, U.S. military and Bush administration civilian officials confirmed last week that U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.

An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans -- if any -- who have died in Syria so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who by the way insist on remaining faceless and nameless.

The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious. The end result was not changed in Vietnam; Cambodia itself was plunged into dangerous chaos, which climaxed in the killing fields, where an estimated 1 million Cambodians died as a result of internal conflict.

On the U.S. side, no declaration of war preceded the invasion of Syria, in spite of the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973. There is no indication that the Congress was involved in the decision to go in. If members were briefed, none of them have chosen to share that important information with the American people. Presumably, the Bush administration's intention is simply to add any casualties of the Syrian conflict to those of the war in Iraq, which now stand at more than 1,970. The financial cost of expanding the war to Syria would also presumably be added to the cost of the Iraq war, now estimated at $201 billion.

The Bush administration would claim that it is expanding the war in Iraq into Syria to try to bring it to an end, the kind of screwy non-logic that kept us in Vietnam for a decade and cost 58,193 American lives in the end.

Others would see the attacks in Syria as a desperation political move on the part of an administration with its back against the wall, with a failed war, an economy plagued by inflation --1.2 percent in September, a 14.4 percent annual rate if it continues -- the weak response to Hurricane Katrina, grand jury and other investigatory attention to senior executive and legislative officials, and the bird flu flapping its wings toward us on the horizon. The idea, I suppose, is to distract us by an attack on Syria, now specifically targeted by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.

There is some question as to how America's military leadership feels about fighting Syria too, given its already heavy commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. At least some U.S. military officials must wish that President Bush and his associates would move away from his administration's "Johnny One Note," hand-it-to-the-military approach to its problems, now to include Hurricane Katrina-type disaster relief and the newest possible duty, dealing with a bird flu epidemic.

And then there is the tired old United Nations. An invasion by one sovereign member, the United States, of the territory of another sovereign member (Syria), requires U.N. Security Council action.

What of the regional impact in the Middle East? Some observers have argued that destabilizing Syria, creating chaos there, even bringing about regime change away from the current government of President Bashar Assad, is somehow to improve Israel's security posture in the region. The argument runs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest regional threat to Israel; Bashar Assad's Syria is second. The United States got rid of Saddam; now it should get rid of the Assad regime in Damascus.

The trouble with that argument, whether it is made by Americans or Israelis, is that, in practice, it depends on the validity of the premise that chaos and civil war -- the disintegration of the state -- in Iraq and Syria are better for Israel in terms of long-term security than the perpetuation of stable, albeit nominally hostile regimes.

The evidence of what has happened in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in early 2003 is to the contrary. Could anyone argue that Israel is made safer by a burning conflict in Iraq that has now attracted Islamic extremist fighters from across the Middle East, Europe and Asia? Saddam Hussein's regime was bad, but this is a good deal worse, and looks endless.

Is there any advantage at all to the United States, or to Israel, in replicating Iraq in Syria?

For that is what is at stake. Syria in its political, ethnic and religious structure is very similar to Iraq. Iraq, prior to the U.S. bust-up, was ruled by a Sunni minority, with a Shiite majority and Kurdish and Christian minorities. Syria is ruled by an Alawite minority, with a Sunni majority and Kurdish and Christian minorities.

That is the structure, not unlike many states in the Middle East, that the Bush administration, by word and now by deed, in the form of U.S. forces fighting in Syria, is in the process of hacking away at.

It seems utterly crazy to me. One could say, "Interesting theory; let's play it out," if it weren't for the American men and women, not to mention the Iraqis and now Syrians, dying in pursuit of that policy.

What needs to be done now is for the Congress, and through them, the American people, and the United Nations and America's allies, the ones who are left, to have the opportunity to express their thoughts on America's expanding the Iraq war to Syria. A decision to invade Syria is not a decision for Mr. Bush, heading a beleaguered administration, to make for us on his own.

[mommadona]

Mission Creep....
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:1TNhEsm...lient=firefox-a

[Snuffysmith]

Jason: Mommadona is right: Mission Creep. See also:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...&st=0&p=417945&

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E2703,00.html

US readies to challenge Syria
Correspondents in Washington
October 20, 2005
THE US and France are preparing new UN Security Council resolutions critical of Syria ahead of a UN report that is expected to show Syrian complicity in a political assassination in Lebanon.

The timing of the new resolutions - which officials described on condition of anonymity because negotiations are not final - is also intended to highlight recent claims that Syria is funnelling weapons and stirring up trouble in Palestinian camps in Lebanon.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed Syria and Lebanon during a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday.

"It was a good opportunity for her to raise the issues surrounding the calendar," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon blame Syria for the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, a charge Damascus denies.









UN investigator Detlev Mehlis is to release his report by October 24.

Also on the way is a report on Syrian compliance with a joint US-French Security Council resolution last year that demanded the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, among other requirements.

Both reports are expected to be taken up by the Security Council next week.

Dr Rice shuttled between Paris, Moscow and London last week for discussions that included the Syria-Lebanon question six months after Damascus withdrew forces from its smaller neighbour.

Syria was the dominant military and political force in Lebanon for nearly three decades, and the Bush administration claims Syrian intelligence agents remain there.

Two measures are on the way, one of which recommends what to do with material compiled by Mr Mehlis about the February 14 assassination of Hariri in downtown Beirut.

The second concerns US allegations that Syria is supporting anti-Israeli militants in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

Both UN measures would probably be sponsored by France, a former colonial power in Lebanon.

The US recalled its ambassador to Syria in protest over Hariri's killing. While Syria denies any role, UN investigators have named four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals as suspects and questioned seven Syrian officials, one of whom - interior minister Ghazi Kenaan - committed suicide last week.

The US is also at loggerheads with Syria over its alleged support for Iraqi insurgents, accusing Damascus of failing to do enough to stop fighters from crossing into Iraq.

Separately, a Lebanese judge has charged a former Syrian intelligence officer accused of lying to UN investigators in the Hariri case.

Hariri supporters have begun lobbying foreign embassies representing UN Security Council members to back their call to set up an international tribunal to try those accused of being responsible for his murder.

Egypt is trying to defuse tension between the US and Syria, Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said.

"The last thing Egypt wants is to see another point of tension in the region," he said before leaving for Moscow for talks with the Russian government, which has long been allied with Syria.

AP

[jimiray]

Oh Sure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Next thing you guys are gonna come up with is that we were in Cambodia or something
Then all you tin hatters will say that Bin Laden was a CIA asset during Russia's invasion of their country and he got those stinger missiles from us

Then you'll even stoop to the level of accusing Rumsfeld of buddying up with Saddam Hussein during the Iran Iraq war




Sarcasim !!!

[Snuffysmith]

U.N. Report Sees Syrian Involvement in Hariri's Death

By Robin Wright and Colum Lynch

A U.N. investigation has implicated senior Syrian and Lebanese officials in the assassination of Lebanon's leading reformer in a move that U.S. and European officials expect will generate new international pressure on the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad.

In blunt language, the report by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis concludes that the Valentine's Day bombing of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others "could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security forces."

The report faulted Damascus for failing to fully cooperate with the probe and cited several officials, including Foreign Minister Farouk Charaa for attempting to mislead the investigation by providing false or inaccurate statements. Nevertheless, Mehlis said many leads now point directly to Syrian security officials.

The findings have been eagerly awaited by U.S. and European officials. Along with a second U.N. report on Lebanon due in days, key members of the Security Council hope to use the findings to increase pressure on the Assad government to end years of meddling in Lebanon and to generally change its behavior both at home and throughout the region, including ending support for extremist groups.

Mehlis concluded that the complex assassination plot involved several months of preparation and was conducted by a sophisticated group with "considerable resources and capabilities." Although the primary motive was political, some of the perpetrators may have been motivated by issues involving fraud, corruption and money laundering, he added.

The slaying followed a "growing conflict" between Hariri and senior Syrian officials, including Assad, the report said. Tensions came to a head during a 10-to-15-minute meeting between the two men on Aug. 26, 2004. The Syrian leader informed Hariri that he wanted to extend for three years the term of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, a close ally of Damascus, in defiance of the Lebanese constitution -- a move Hariri firmly opposed.

Syrian officials have repeatedly denied any role in the Hariri slaying. Earlier this week, Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha said, "We are absolutely categoric in saying we had nothing to do with Hariri." Messages to Syrian officials in Washington and at the United Nations were not returned last night.

Mehlis's report includes excerpts of interviews and statements about the meeting, including several by Hariri's close associates and his son recounting how the Syrian president threatened to get Hariri and his family if he did not support the plan. "This extension is to happen or else I will break Lebanon over your head," the son, Saad Hariri, told Mehlis's commission.

In a conversation tape recorded between Hariri and a Syrian deputy foreign minister on Feb. 1, the former prime minister recalled the meeting with Assad as "the worst day of my life." Hariri then told the Syrian official that Lebanon would no longer be ruled from Syria.

Walid Mouallem, the Syrian official and a former ambassador to Washington, warned Hariri that Syrian security services had him cornered and not to "take things lightly," according testimony given to the commission. Two weeks later, Hariri was dead.

When the commission tried to follow up these leads, Syria refused to provide substantive information, Mehlis reported. Assad refused to be interviewed. And interviews conducted last month produced "uniform answers" that contradicted the weight of evidence, he added.

The U.N. probe also said the Hariri murder needs to be evaluated in the context of the bombings that both preceded and followed the assassination, as the former prime minister's entourage drove across Beirut because there could be links between some, "if not all, of them."

Peppered with riveting details, the report said both Syrian and Lebanese intelligence officials wiretapped Hariri's phone. Some evidence also suggests that a telecommunications antenna was jammed near where the car bomb went off.

But the 54-page report said the full picture would require a more extensive investigation, and called for the international community to help Lebanese authorities continue the probe. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan announced late yesterday that he will extend the Mehlis mandate to Dec. 15.

The Bush administration said it would not immediately comment. "We intend to read and study it tonight very carefully and decide tomorrow in consultations with other interested governments what the next steps will be," said U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton. Diplomats expect the report to lead the Security Council to consider action, however.

A second U.N. report on Lebanon is expected next week. It will focus on the implementation of Resolution 1559, which calls for the end of Syria's meddling in Lebanon and the disbanding of armed groups that are tied to Syria.

To follow up on both reports, the United States and other nations have been discussing language for two resolutions that could be introduced as soon as next week to hold the perpetrators to account and add new pressure on the Syrian government, according to U.S. and U.N. officials. Under consideration are new sanctions on Syria.

Mehlis's probe included more than 400 interviews with witnesses and suspects and review of more than 16,000 pages of documents. Among those interviewed was Ghazi Kanaan, the former Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon, who committed suicide last week.

Mehlis warned that many Lebanese fear that the international community may not follow through, leaving them vulnerable to the return of Syrian military and intelligence services and a revenge campaign. Recent bombings and assassinations have been carried out "with impunity," deterring potential witnesses from testifying before the Mehlis commission, he said.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

[tomhye]

It means you need to stop reading op eds as news, they're opinion pieces (not expert opinions) with some cherrypicked facts mixed in.

It's not a war, not an invasion. If it was either don't you think Syria would have noticed and commented?

[lazyboy]

It means you need to stop reading op eds as news, they're opinion pieces (not expert opinions) with some cherrypicked facts mixed in.

  It's not a war, not an invasion. If it was either don't you think Syria would have noticed and commented?

Sure. And nobody was torturing prisoners before it was on TV either.

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20051...95906-4805r.htm

Rice calls war part of post-9/11 plan
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 20, 2005



Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that it was always the Bush administration's intent to redesign the Middle East after the September 11 attacks, which exposed a "deep malignancy growing" in the region, and that the Iraq war was part of that plan.
Miss Rice, in her first testimony on Capitol Hill in eight months, refused to outline benchmarks for reducing the U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
Instead, she offered a short-term strategy to stabilize the country, including the creation of civil-military teams in key provinces, but that plan was met with skepticism by both Republican and Democratic senators on the Foreign Relations Committee.
"Even if withdrawal timelines are deemed unwise because they might provide a strategic advantage to the insurgency, the American people need to more fully understand the basis upon which our troops are likely to come home," said Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican and committee chairman.
"We have to level with the American people," said Sen. George V. Voinovich, Ohio Republican. "This is another world war."
The testimony, during which Miss Rice was interrupted several times by senators on both sides because they did not feel she was answering their questions, culminated in objections by three Democrats to the administration's mission to rebuild the Middle East.
"Unless we commit to changing the nature of the Middle East, and if we tire and decide that we are going to withdraw and leave the people of the Middle East to despair, I can assure you that the people of the United States are going to live in insecurity and fear for many, many decades to come," Miss Rice said.
Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Barack Obama of Illinois and Bill Nelson of Florida said that was not the reason the administration had given Congress for the Iraq war; rather, it was the threat dictator Saddam Hussein was said to have posed with his weapons of mass destruction, which were never found.
"Now, in an unbelievable rewriting of history, you talk about this bolder mission we undertook in response to 9/11 to transform the Middle East with Iraq as an anchor," Mrs. Boxer said, adding that the administration "didn't tell the American people that at the time."
"This broadening of the mission is disturbing and difficult for us in the Senate to deal with as it requires a leap of faith on our part that a mission of that breadth can be accomplished in a reasonable time frame," Mr. Obama said.
Miss Rice, while conceding that the Senate's war resolutions regarding Afghanistan and Iraq were limited to action against the Taliban, al Qaeda and Saddam, argued that killing Osama bin Laden and other terrorists will not secure a victory over extremism.
"We had to make a decision that we were going to go after the root cause of what caused September 11," she said. "So what I'm describing to you, Senator, is not what you voted for in the war resolution, but the broader strategy of the administration."

Turning to the short-term strategy in Iraq, the secretary defined it as "clear, hold and build" against "the enemy's strategy to infect, terrorize and pull down."
"To execute our strategy we will restructure a portion of the U.S. mission in Iraq," she said. "We will embed our diplomats, police trainers and aid workers more fully on military bases, traveling with our soldiers and Marines."

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...20-100359-7402r

Politics & Policies: U.S. steps up pressure on Syria
By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Published October 20, 2005


WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is taking new diplomatic steps against Syria, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington on Wednesday, indicating that regime change was not out of the question.

Rice said the United States was using diplomacy to urge change in Syria's behavior, but did not rule out military force.


"I'm not going to get into what the president's options might be," Rice said. "I don't think the president ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Syria was "trending in the wrong direction from the rest of the Middle East."

Earlier this month, Newsweek magazine reported the U.S. government had discussed a possible military intervention in Syria. According to the article, Rice convinced her colleagues in the administration to await the release of Detlev Mehlis' report on his investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri before making a decision.

This was confirmed to United Press International by Western diplomatic sources who say they convinced the Bush administration to at least wait until the Mehlis report was published and its results were made known.

The goal seems to be to "get (the regime) by the throat, and then really squeeze," Joshua Landis, a Fulbright scholar in Damascus who runs an influential Web log, or online diary, called Syriacomment.com, told Newsweek.

Between the apparent suicide of Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kenaan and pending the publication of the Mehlis report, analysts are asking just how stable is Bashar Assad's regime? Some believe Bashar is walking a tightrope without a safety net.

Indeed, after decades of relative political stability, never has the mood in Syria been so fraught with incertitude, say several observers who recently visited the Syrian capital. In a country where events traditionally moved at a snail's pace, where time almost stood still during the 30 years of Hafez Assad's rule, events have suddenly shifted into warp speed.

Hariri's assassination on Feb. 14 jolted Lebanon's silent majority out of their years of political stupor, driving them to the streets en masse, demanding the withdrawal of Syrian forces. With the tacit support of France and United States, the Cedar Revolution coerced Syria to pull its military and intelligence units out of Lebanon after almost three decades of occupation.

The pace suddenly picked up. Syrian troops withdrew and Damascus reported that it also pulled out its intelligence units. Then came the investigation into Hariri's killing by Mehlis, the unrelenting German U.N. investigator -- the Elliott Ness of the Middle East -- whose mission in Beirut and Damascus raised a political storm and left a climate of uncertainty as to what may come next.

Mehlis and his team of "Untouchables" questioned several high-ranking Syrian officials, including Roustom Ghazalé, the former head of Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon, and Asef Shawkat, the current security chief in Damascus who is also the Syrian president's brother-in-law.

Mehlis questioned six more high-ranking Syrian intelligence officials, according to the German magazine Stern.

The Mehlis report also led to the arrest of four top Lebanese security officials. In June, Mehlis' team had searched the office and private apartment of Mustafa Hamdan, the pro-Syrian head of the Lebanese presidential guard. Hamdan is accused of messing with evidence at the scene of the crime, having ordered the crater left by the bomb to be filled in, Stern reported. Prosecutors arrested three more Lebanese officials, including Jamil Sayyed, the country's former security chief.

Then came the apparent suicide of Syria's Kenaan, though informed sources have told UPI that Kenaan did not commit suicide but was killed by someone very close to the Syrian president. This information, of course, could not be independently confirmed.

At the same time, pressure on Damascus from Washington is mounting more than ever before. Western diplomatic sources told UPI the Bush administration wants Damascus to:

a) Secure its border with Iraq to prevent jihadi fighters entering Iraq to help the insurgency.

Stop interfering in Lebanon.

c) Force the groups Washington considers as terrorist organizations to close their offices in Damascus. (One possibility is that they may relocate to Gaza.)

d) Establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon; something Syria has resisted until now claiming the two countries are too close to require the exchange of diplomatic missions.

Meanwhile, a key part of the U.N. investigation focused on the Lebanese and Syrian mobile phone networks, and call records in the days preceding Hariri's death. In late September, the Lebanese police raided the offices of mobile phone company MTC Touch. In Damascus, the investigators demanded data from Syriatel and Spacetel, the country's two mobile phone operators. What the investigators found was that the requested information was provided with the notable exception of data relating to one particular transmission station serving Lebanon.

Given those circumstances, commentators have speculated that Kenaan might have been killed as a sacrificial lamb to enable the regime to shirk responsibility for Hariri's killing, by portraying Kenaan as a loose cannon who had acted alone.

It is widely expected that the U.N. report will implicate Syria's intelligence apparatus in Hariri's death. This is raising fears in Damascus that the United States will use the report as justification for direct military intervention.

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.spacewar.com/news/iraq-05zzzzl.html

Outside View: Another Scapegoat?

'It is true foreign insurgents do infiltrate Iraq from Syria, as do many others from Iran. But how much longer will the administration continue to blame foreign insurgents for its failure to cope with the insurgency in Iraq when in fact, according to American intelligence reports, they constitute no more than 4 percent to 6 percent of total insurgents?'

By Alon Ben-Meir
Oustside View Commentator
New York (UPI) Oct 17, 2005
The increasing number of clashes between U.S. and Syrian forces raises serious questions about the Bush administration's intentions and the wisdom of its actions. It appears this escalation on the American side is dictated not entirely by the urgency over the infiltration of foreign insurgents from Syria into Iraq.
Rather, it is motivated by the administration's desire for regime change in Damascus. This preoccupation explains why instead of persuading Syria to support the administration's efforts in Iraq by offering it real incentives, the White House has chosen to bully yet another nation, at the tremendous risk of escalating the war in Iraq and engulfing not just Syria but other states in the region.

It is not difficult to present a complete dissertation on Syria's egregious past and present support of extremist groups committing acts of terror in Israel, Lebanon and Iraq. Syria can vehemently deny such a role, but any serious review of its conduct and the sanctuary that Damascus offers to these groups affirm that assertion. That said, Syria has in the post-Saddam period also cooperated with U.S. intelligence and has, by the CIA's own admission, proven to be of use.

And time and again, the Syrians have made overtures to the United States for the two nations to engage in meaningful dialogue, only to be rebuffed by an administration fixated on regime change in Syria. The administration's intentions coupled with persistent public criticism from Washington are what pushed Damascus a few months ago to end all security and intelligence cooperation between the two nations. Yet while the administration has made no secret of its goal of regime change, it turns to Syria for help in Iraq, though clearly, if the United States succeeds in Iraq, the Syrian government will be targeted next.

Although it is naive to assume any country will contribute to its own demise, this administration is not looking to offer either a logical approach or a sound rationale for its policies toward Syria. Having systematically misled the American public about the dismal reality in Iraq, now the administration finds itself in need to invent another international crisis to divert attention from the real nature of its plight, which is increasingly coming to light.

It is true foreign insurgents do infiltrate Iraq from Syria, as do many others from Iran. But how much longer will the administration continue to blame foreign insurgents for its failure to cope with the insurgency in Iraq when in fact, according to American intelligence reports, they constitute no more than 4 percent to 6 percent of total insurgents?

Although foreign fighters are more likely to become suicide bombers and thereby inflict disproportionate damage, as was suggested by a former senior intelligence officer, and recently reported by The New York Times, it is always easier to blame foreign fighters for the strength of the insurgency than to develop effective new counterinsurgency strategies.

As recently as Oct. 2, Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said on NBC's "Meet the Press," he recognized the need to "avoid hyping the foreign fighters' problem."

Indeed, the vast majority of insurgents are former Iraqi military personnel the administration disbanded immediately after the fall of Baghdad, thereby itself creating an instant deadly enemy. With their families, these soldiers and officers represent more than 2 million Iraqi Sunnis who have been abandoned with no jobs and no future: it is they who make up the core of the insurgency.

For these reasons, the administration must defuse the conflict with Syria by opening a dialogue with Damascus. Threats and intimidation will work with Syria only up to a point. President Bashar Assad would not last another day in power if he caved in to American pressure, especially after his surrender of Lebanon.

But if the intention of the administration remains to topple Assad, his demise will not provide the regime change it is hoping for. His successor is likely to be smarter, more experienced and certainly much bolder in securing his power base because only a strong leader can muster the support of the Syrian Baath party, which forms the country's military establishment.

Working with Syria's present government is hardly impossible. The administration continues to negotiate directly and indirectly with many unsavory regimes, including those of North Korea and Iran, and with dictatorships and theocracies. There is no reason to treat Syria differently, especially when Damascus can be extremely helpful to the United States. The administration's choices are not, as it would have people believe, limited to seeking diplomatic isolation of Syria, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice advocates, or using more coercive methods, as the Defense Department proposes.

Syria is eager to normalize relations with the United States, because the government there knows that much of the country's economic development and national security considerations, and certainly its hopes for recovering the Golan Heights, depend on U.S. willingness to help. Syria is eager to have an open-ended dialogue with the United States that will serve their mutual interests.

It should be noted in this regard that Syria's relations with these extremist groups, to which Damascus does not admit, is nothing more than a marriage of convenience. They are bargaining chips that Syria will happily trade for an offer of constructive relations with the United States with some security guarantees. Instead of resorting to coercive methods to force Damascus into submission, a policy that will certainly backfire, the administration must first abandon the idea of regime change and use incentives to persuade Syria to support its efforts in Iraq.

Emboldened by its success in Lebanon, the administration can make a tragic mistake in trying to push the Syrians to the breaking point by launching military strikes inside Syria as some administration officials speculate. The unintended consequences of a bloody conflict with Syria will be far more severe than this administration could imagine, if Iraq offers an example. Conflict with Syria could ignite a regional war engulfing Israel and Lebanon and shattering any remaining hope that the Middle East will see democracy and stability in the foreseeable future.

(Alon Ben-Meir is professor of international relations at the Center for Global Studies at NYU and is the Middle East Project Director at the World Policy Institute, New York. Alon@alonben-meir.com.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

All Rights Reserved. © 2005 United Press International. Sections Of The Information Displayed On This Page (Dispatches, Photographs, Logos) Are Protected By Intellectual Property Rights Owned By United Press International.. As A Consequence, You May Not Copy, Reproduce, Modify, Transmit, Publish, Display Or In Any Way Commercially Exploit Any Of The Content Of This Section Without The Prior Written Consent Of United Press International.

[tomhye]

Sure.  And nobody was torturing prisoners before it was on TV either.

If you really believe the two are comparable there's no using logic with you, there's never been an invasion of a country where the country being invaded didn't notice, comment immediately and have their comments reported in the press promptly.

Don't you ever wonder why the wars you say are happening (or about to happen) never occur?

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/635922.html
U.S. says it won't rule out military option against Syria

By News Agencies

The United States on Wednesday refused to rule out possible military action against Syria but said it had not exhausted diplomatic moves to get Damascus to change its ways over Iraq and Lebanon.

Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said both Syria and Iran were allowing fighters and military assistance to reach insurgents in Iraq.

"Syria and Iran must decide whether they wish to side with the cause of war or with the cause of peace," Rice told a hearing called to discuss U.S. strategy in Iraq, where more than 150,000 U.S. troops are struggling to end an insurgency.

Pressed by senators over whether the Bush administration was planning military action against Syria in particular, Rice said the United States was still on a "diplomatic course" with Damascus but the military option remained open.

"The president never takes any option off the table and he shouldn't," said Rice when asked about a military option.

The Bush administration has accused Syria of doing too little to stop foreign fighters from entering neighboring Iraq. Syria, in turn, says the United States has not done enough to secure the border or deliver technical help it has promised.

Rice declined to say whether the president would present any plans to Congress before launching military action against Syria, saying she did not want to circumscribe his powers.

Her strong criticism of Syria comes before the United Nations is set to release a report on Friday on the assassination last February of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

The United States, France and others, say they believe Syria might have played a role in the killing of Hariri and 20 others in a massive truck blast in Beirut on Feb. 14 and are calling for strong action if that is the case.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said Syria was not involved in Hariri's death and he reiterated this in an interview with a German newspaper released on Wednesday, telling Die Zeit that Syria is "100 percent innocent."

"We are 100 percent innocent," Assad said in an interview in Die Zeit weekly newspaper released on Wednesday.

Chief UN investigator Detlev Mehlis will hand over a copy of a report on the February killing of Lebanon's former prime minister to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Friday and it will form the basis of a debate in the Security Council next week.

Lebanese political sources and diplomats expect it to charge Syrian and Lebanese officials with the murder, which led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Beirut after mass protests.

Assad told Die Zeit that Hariri's assassination was a crime which Syria did not understand.

"Also what has happened in Lebanon is not in Syria's interests. Quite the opposite. It damages us. Why should we support such acts?" Assad said, adding that Syria was fully cooperating with UN investigators.

Syria has grown increasingly nervous over Lebanese and international charges that is it linked to Hariri's death.

Syrian officials have blamed a Lebanese smear campaign for pushing Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan to commit suicide last week. Kanaan had been questioned by UN investigators in connection with the Hariri investigation.

German magazine Stern said on Tuesday the UN's investigator had named Syrian military intelligence chief Asef Shawkat, Assad's brother-in-law, as a suspect in the killing.

The United States and France are readying new United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Syria ahead of a UN report expected to show Syrian complicity in the February 14 assassination, diplomats and U.S. officials say.

On Tuesday, a UN investigator named a brother-in-law of Assad as a suspect in Hariri's killing, a German report said.

The timing of the new resolutions is also intended to highlight recent allegations that Syria is funneling weapons and stirring up trouble in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that negotiations on the resolutions have not been completed.

Annan and Rice discuss Syria
Rice discussed Syria and Lebanon during an unannounced breakfast with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Tuesday.

"It was a good opportunity for her to raise the issues surrounding the calendar," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said afterward.

Anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon blame Syria for the assassination of Hariri, a charge Syria denies. UN investigator Detlev Mehlis is to release a report on the matter by October 24.

Also in the works is a report on Syrian compliance with Security Council resolution 1559, which demands the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, among other requirements.

Both reports are expected to be taken up by the Security Council next week.

Rice shuttled among Paris, Moscow and London last week for discussions that included the Syria-Lebanon question six months after Syria withdrew forces from its much-smaller Western neighbor.

Syria was the dominant military and political force in Lebanon for nearly three decades, and the Bush administration charges that Syrian intelligence agents remain there.

Washington recalled its ambassador to Syria in protest over Hariri's murder and is at loggerheads with Damascus over its alleged support for Iraqi insurgents, accusing it of failing to do enough to stop fighters from crossing into Iraq.

Mehlis has named four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals as suspects and questioned seven Syrian officials, one of whom - Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan - committed suicide last week.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said U.S. officials want to discuss both reports with other council members, among other countries.

The goal, he said, is to review "what actions, what further steps, if any, might be warranted by what's contained in the reports. But we have to see what's in the reports first."

Separately Tuesday, a Lebanese judge charged a former Syrian intelligence officer with murder, accusing him of lying to UN investigators in the Hariri case.

Hariri supporters also began lobbying foreign embassies representing UN Security Council members to back their call to set up an international tribunal to try those responsible for his murder.

One of the new UN measures would seek an extension of Mehlis' mandate, a U.S. official said, perhaps to continue investigation or to refer his findings to some kind of court or tribunal.

Egypt is also trying to defuse tension between the United States and Syria, the Egyptian foreign minister said Tuesday.

"The last thing Egypt wants is to see another point of tension in the region," Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit told reporters before leaving for Moscow for talks with the Russian government, which has long been allied with Syria.

Another Egyptian diplomat said Cairo wants to avoid a situation like the U.S.-Iraq standoff, which culminated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

The Lebanese government has asked to extend the Mehlis investigation, but a UN diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Lebanese officials are divided about whether to expand it to either the suicide of Syria's interior minister or the assassination and attempted assassination of journalists.

[Snuffysmith]

I'd say Syria is responding:



http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBO5SRB2FE.html

TBO.com > News > AP Breaking



Syria Rejects Accusations in Hariri Probe, Calls Findings False
Skip directly to the full story.
By Zeina Karam Associated Press Writer

Published: Oct 21, 2005

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Syria on Friday rejected U.N. findings that linked Damascus to the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

"I think the report is far from professional and will not lead us to the truth," Mehdi Dakhlallah, the Syrian information minister, said in an interview on Al-Jazeera television from the Syrian capital.

He said the report, about which he had seen media reports but did not have an official text, was "100 per cent politicized" and "contained false accusations."

The report of the U.N. probe, submitted to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, implicated top Syrian and Lebanese intelligence officials in the Feb. 14 assassination of Hariri in massive bombing in Beirut that also killed 20 others.

AP-ES-10-21-05 0315EDT

[Snuffysmith]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1021/p06s03-woiq.html
Specials > Iraq in Transition
from the October 21, 2005 edition

Does Iraq arrest signal Syrian turnabout?

Captured insurgent backer was deported by Syria.

By Dan Murphy and Rhonda Roumani

BAGHDAD AND DAMASCUS – Yasser Sabawi al-Tikriti's appearance at a rally demanding the release of Saddam Hussein in the former dictator's home town Tuesday, turned into a costly mistake that Iraqi officials quickly seized on.
"Basically he was found, and caught red-handed giving money to the demonstrators, who he was trying to incite to violence,'' says Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser. "We believe he was a major fundraiser and a major supporter of the terrorists."

But there are indications that help in Mr. Sabawi's arrest came from an unexpected corner: Syria.

The country Iraqi officials and the Bush administration accuse of aiding Iraq's raging insurgency recently deported Sabawi to Iraq, according to an official at the Defense Ministry, who asked not to be named. This was first reported by the Associated Press, citing two anonymous sources.

However, Mr. Rubaie said "there was no Syrian help" in Sabawi's arrest, saying it was a lucky break brought about by the man's own carelessness. Asked if he knew whether Sabawi had been expelled from Syria, he replied: "I don't have any comment on that."

Sabawi's arrest came on a day when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice maintained US pressure on the Syrian regime, alleging that it and Iran are funding and supporting insurgents inside Iraq. "Syria and Iran must decide whether they wish to side with the cause of war or with the cause of peace," Rice said. She added that President Bush had not taken the possible use of force "off the table" with regard to Syria.

Thursday, UN investigators were expected to submit a report in New York implicating members of the Bashar Assad's regime in Damascus of master-minding the assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri earlier this year. That report is expected to be used by the US in its ongoing campaign to isolate the regime.

Nevertheless, Mr. Assad's Syria, a secular regime that is confronted by Islamist militants, has been taking steps to relieve the pressure from the US. It also worries that fighters radicalized in Iraq could return home and cause trouble for the regime.

"In the last few months, Syria has been cracking down on Islamic insurgents and is trying to open up an intelligence dialogue with the US and show that they are cooperating,'' says Josh Landis, a history professor at the University of Oklahoma who runs the influential Syriacomment blog and currently lives in Damascus.

Mr. Landis says he doesn't know what aid, if any, Syria provided in apprehending Yasser Sabawi, but said it fits a recent pattern. "This [arrest] is Syria's way of saying that we're ready for a deal - of course, a backdoor deal.... They are not ready for public humiliation. They don't want to be completely humiliated in front of an international audience. And the US doesn't want to hear this kind of yes. The US is insisting that Syria [make] a clear break with the past."

While circumstances of the arrest remain unclear, Sabawi and members of his family have long been sought inside the country. An official at the Joint Command Center in Tikrit, a body that coordinates Iraqi and US military efforts, says he only knew of the arrest from the media.

In July, the US treasury department added Sabawi, thought to be 35, and five of his brothers to a list of suspected terrorist financiers. Their father is Sabawi Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikriti, a half brother of Saddam Hussein and a former adviser to the deposed dictator.

Though Iraqi officials continue to insist that Syria and Jordan, a close US ally, are providing sanctuary to members of Mr. Hussein's Baath regime who are funding violence here, Syria has surrendered other alleged financiers in the past.

In February, Syria handed over their father, who was head of Iraq's intelligence service during the 1991 Gulf War and head of security until 1996, and who has been accused of ordering the torture and murder of Hussein opponents.

In September, Ayman, one of his sons, was sentenced to life in prison by an Iraqi court for bombmaking and providing support to insurgents.

"From the human rights activists in Syria, we have a picture that the Syrians have put the heat on anybody going to Iraq,'' says Landis. "They have arrested brothers, relatives going to Iraq to fight. They have arrested anybody coming back. Syria has been trying to crack down on these networks that are moving people through Syria into Iraq."

[tomhye]

I'd say Syria is responding:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBO5SRB2FE.html

TBO.com > News > AP Breaking
Syria Rejects Accusations in Hariri Probe, Calls Findings False
Skip directly to the full story.
By Zeina Karam Associated Press Writer

Published: Oct 21, 2005

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Syria on Friday rejected U.N. findings that linked Damascus to the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

"I think the report is far from professional and will not lead us to the truth," Mehdi Dakhlallah, the Syrian information minister, said in an interview on Al-Jazeera television from the Syrian capital.

He said the report, about which he had seen media reports but did not have an official text, was "100 per cent politicized" and "contained false accusations."

The report of the U.N. probe, submitted to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, implicated top Syrian and Lebanese intelligence officials in the Feb. 14 assassination of Hariri in massive bombing in Beirut that also killed 20 others.

AP-ES-10-21-05 0315EDT

Yes, and since they're responding to a UN report and not an invasion I doubt it's just an oversight. The further actions they're afraid of (and Bush is pushing for) are increased economic and diplomatic isolation, all sides are in agreement on that. It's longstanding (and IMHO wise) US policy to never rule out the use of force, to do so reduces our bargaining power and ability to gain compliance with lesser measures.

To be blunt we can't afford (militarily, economically and diplomatically) an invasion of Syria and everyone knows it (including the Syrian government which was afraid of it just a year ago).

[Snuffysmith]

To be blunt we can't afford (militarily, economically and diplomatically) an invasion of Syria and everyone knows it (including the Syrian government which was afraid of it just a year ago).

[/quote]


I agree with you there. But I would be curious to know what portion of the DOD budget is being spent on a possible run up exercise in Syria - ie. diverting funds from other authorized and appropriated activities and spending them on Syria planning like they did in the lead up to the Iraq war - in that case they diverted authorized and appropriated funds from Afghanistan to support the war effort in Iraq.

[tomhye]

[quote=Snuffysmith,Oct 21 2005, 09:02 AM]
To be blunt we can't afford (militarily, economically and diplomatically) an invasion of Syria and everyone knows it (including the Syrian government which was afraid of it just a year ago).

[/quote]
I agree with you there. But I would be curious to know what portion of the DOD budget is being spent on a possible run up exercise in Syria - ie. diverting funds from other authorized and appropriated activities and spending them on Syria planning like they did in the lead up to the Iraq war - in that case they diverted authorized and appropriated funds from Afghanistan to support the war effort in Iraq.

[/quote]

Probably very little, at this point an invasion of Syria would probably be the end of NATO because Turkey has formed fairly strong bonds with Syria in the last year even dropping their 82 year old territorial dispute with them. The thrust of US efforts has been to get the EU to end trade with Syria (we're alone in taking that approach) and force regime change through economic hardship. Syria is a problem but moving in the right direction a lot faster than Saudi Arabia, my best guess is our government sees the UN report as an incident that will quickly force Syria into better compliance and is looking for any statement or action that will allow them to take credit for the change. All I see is the typical posturing.

[Arneoker]

Remember folks that the runup to Iraq wasn't exactly a secret. We didn't need someone like Wayne Madsen to break it to us. I think that even a watcher of Fox News would have guessed in the winter of 2002-2003 that we were about to invade Iraq.

It's not that I trust the Bushies to avoid doing something horrendous and dumb. But I think that Tomyhe has the right read on this.

[lazyboy]

If you really believe the two are comparable there's no using logic with you, there's never been an invasion of a country where the country being invaded didn't notice, comment immediately and have their comments reported in the press promptly.

  Don't you ever wonder why the wars you say are happening (or about to happen) never occur?

When we get enough public opinion against an administration we can stop them from conspiring wars against innocent people. Unfortunately in the case of Iraq the administrations have both been planning Iraq for years (you can tell by the false propaganda preparation they made in Bush's case, and in the ways the intell agencies and establishment were polluted with evil people in Clinton's days). Either Clinton was ignorant, or a part of the process. Anyway he has his own skeletons in the closet, not sexual ones either.

Conspiracy theorists like me try to tell people that they are planning things, and watch for signs of the times, and hope that people will listen and revolt against it. Like prophets in the Bible you just tell it like it is and say 'this is the way you are heading if you do not change (your government in this case.)' Therefore, what the prophets said would happen were sometimes averted, but not always, depending on the response of the people to their words.

In my case I try to point out that they are lying to us 'big time' and we have to wake up to it. Even the UN may be being used by 'them' through the people doing investigations being corrupt from the start. The UN itself is not pristeen either. I also try to point out the way CNN and BBC World are big players in the propaganda and lying department, moreso than ever after Blair deflected the blame for Dr Kelly's death on to the BBC (who tried to protect Kelly). In almost an identical thing as 'Who outed Plame's name?' The difference between Blair and Bush is that Blair is a charmer and so more insidious.

This post has been edited by lazyboy: Oct 21 2005, 03:54 PM