According to an AFP/Yahoo! News article, the US recently debated launching military strikes in Syria at camps allegedly harbouring Iraq war insurgents.
According to Newsweek, Condi Rice “successfully opposed” the strikes at a meeting held Oct 1, 2005. Part of her reasoning was that the UN may soon issue a report blaming Syria for the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri. The consequences of such a report are unstated.
Under mounting pressure from Iraq and the United States, “Syria had ended all security and intelligence cooperation with the United States several months ago after growing frustrated with persistent public criticism from Washington.” The diplomatic tension is palpable.
“We are willing to re-engage the moment you want but one condition,” the magazine quotes Moustapha as saying.
“You have to acknowledge that we are helping.”
Moustapha also confirmed an account from a US intelligence official that Damascus had been angered when Washington exposed one of its operatives.
The fact that the Bush administration actually considered military strikes in a country it is not at war with is disturbing. US troops recently launched a campaign that destroyed 12 bridges along the Euphrates River to stop the passage of insurgents from Syria. Whether Bushco can be held off from such aggressive action within Syria itself in the future remains to be seen, but such a tactical offensive could have far broader consequences for the current situation in the Middle East if yet more insurgents are emboldened to fight off the Americans.
This Newsweek story could also very well be a leak from inside the administration used as a warning shot for Syria if it refuses to cooperate with US demands. At this point, however, it appears the diplomatic problems with Syria may only escalate as a result.
Everything seems like a parallel to Vietnam. With Syria and Iran playing the parts of Laos and Cambodia.
I hope the administration realizes there is nothing to be gained by striking across that border. Except international condemnation and more misunderstandings with our allies. An edgy world does not want to see the U.S. spread this fight to Syria. It will solve nothing in securing borders and will further wreck our reputation. The administration should be devising a plan to get us out not ignite the rest of the middle east. These guys are always looking to get in deeper.
That seems to be the way of the Republicans. “We need to do x to fix y” while never admitting that y was their fault in the first place and just causing more mayhem with x.
(I hate math).
Let’s just say: x + y does not always equal freedom
don’t even get me started on z…
I was thinking of Laos and Cambodia also and about the only difference seems to be is that these idiots aren’t trying to do this secretly-but then their on a mission from god so that makes it a-ok I guess.
The ramifications of doing this are beyond me and what might happen to our country although I’ve said from almost day one of bush’s first term that he was going to get us into a world war…with everyone against us.
Syria might be Cambodia in this re-enactment of Vietnam, but Iran is more like China in terms of the strength it could bring to bear if Dubya is foolish enough to drag them into a direct conflict.
At the outset of the war, it was less than clear — at least if you weren’t a neocon hawk — that Iran could be defeated without a much bigger army than we currently have deployed. Now, without any real additional troops to deploy, and with our existing army on the verge of breakdown, Iran is not a fight we want to pick. We will lose, and lose ignominiously if we do.
I suspect that there are only two things keeping Iran from attacking us preemptively at this point:
The pathetic thing is that earnest diplomatic engagement could have won Iran over as an ally. Earnest diplomatic engagement — by a different president, anyway — might still win Iran over as an ally.
Sounds like they are just temporizing before they bomb. I wish there were some way to predict the actions of this administration- but prediction implies science and these are religious wackos.
Great find. Thanks, Catnip.
I nominate Jenna Bush. She’s obviously “qualified” according to how Bush chooses his nominees.
Congress supposed to play in this? Have they already given GW approval to bomb anywhere he wants?? If not, have any of these people commented on this Newsweek article? Are they going to let the president escalate this war! They just can’t let him get away with it…again!
She’s kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. She won’t comment because the conversations were confidential but, at the same time, she can also be seen as denying that she opposed the strikes. It sucks to be her. 🙂
Just to cope with the stress. Or even ask for a sabbatical.
Karen Hughes can fill in.
lol
Karen Hughes – another one of Bush’s pitbulls.
It is really tempting to make some snide remark about Bush’s preference for women who if they are not dumb as a box of rocks, have an extraordinary talent for mimicking that condition.
But that would be unfair, it is not likely he chose any of them.
Catnip your onto something here. I think they may be playing a mind game with Syria. Looking for ways to up the pressure without actually striking. This has the added effect of making Condi look like a sane diplomat. That could come in handy being the Secretary of State and all.