1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

U.S. weighed military strikes in Syria, Newsweek reports

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by tigermission1, Oct 10, 2005.

  1. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    Rice the new 'voice of reason'?

    http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=351697

    U.S. weighed military strikes in Syria, Newsweek reports

    NEW YORK — The United States recently debated launching military strikes inside Syria against camps used by insurgents operating in neighboring Iraq, Newsweek reports.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice successfully opposed the idea at a meeting of senior American officials held on Oct 1, the magazine reported, citing unnamed U.S. government sources.

    Rice reportedly argued that diplomatic isolation was a more effective approach, with a U.N. report pending that may blame Syria for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

    The United States has accused Damascus of allowing insurgents to move arms and fighters across the Syrian border into Iraq and of destabilizing the region.

    U.S. troops in Iraq have been waging an offensive in recent weeks against insurgents in western towns near the Syrian border.

    The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said last month that "our patience is running out" with Syria.

    The same article also reported that Syria had ended all security and intelligence cooperation with the United States several months ago after growing frustrated with persistent public criticism from Washington.

    Syria's ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, told Newsweek that his government continued to detain Islamic extremists and remained willing to resume cooperation if the public bashing stopped.

    "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 U.S. intelligence official that Damascus had been angered when Washington exposed one of its operatives.

    While criticizing Syria in public statements, the United States had privately praised Damascus for handing over the half brother of Saddam Hussein, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, earlier in the year, the magazine reported.

    Moustapha said Syria could do more to assist the United States if intelligence was shared as in the past.

    The magazine reported that some U.S. intelligence officials believed Washington now was losing out on vital information. Syrian cooperation in the last few years allegedly had helped avert two possible attacks against U.S. targets, including a Navy base in Bahrain. (Wire reports)
     
  2. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,082
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Congrats,Bush and gang. You have made us less safe from terrorism again.

    I really don't think the Bush, the neocons and their loyal followers, Hayes, Basso, Bigtexx etc. are actually for terrorism; it is just that their policies make us less safe from terrroism.

    I guess their response would be that the US can just invade Syria and then if any of the Syrians fight back then we will know they are terrorists who we need to fight over there instead of on the shores of Galveston or in the Galleria.
     
  3. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    I think it would be cool if you'd just leave me out of your rants. You don't come close to representing my views correctly and it is quite annoying.
     
    #3 HayesStreet, Oct 11, 2005
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2005
  4. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,082
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Hayes, recently I think that you tend to mention me more than vice versa.

    If it quacks like a neocon it is a neocon.

    I will try to honor your wishes.
     
  5. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    The difference is that I don't have to distort your views to make my point.

    I have never denied some of my views are consistent with a neoconservative. If you used it properly instead of as some all-encompassing buzzword it wouldn't be a problem.

    That's alright. Just don't lump me in a grouping I'm not really part of... :)
     
  6. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    it's about damn time.
     
  7. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,795
    Likes Received:
    41,232
    Hayes holds a variety of views, glynch, on a host of topics, as do I. As you know, Hayes and I disagree on a great deal, on Iraq more than anything else, but agree on many other issues. As you also know, you and I, lol, disagree on several issues, and agree on many others.

    One of the things that really bugs me, here in D&D, is how members are lumped into groups by others based on their stand on one particular issue. Would you call me a "neocon," or consider me not being a liberal Democrat because I find Chavez a dangerously loose cannon, and a demagogue? It's how I view him. I have never held a great deal of respect, or any respect at all, to be precise, for those who cater to the "masses" to prop themselves up and secure their power. Too often, they amass the power they desire, and the democracy they purport to fight for slowly disappears, and everyone, except for the diehard supporters, wonder what the hell they were thinking when they voted for him/her. That has happened time and again during the course of history.

    I think Chavez fits that to a T. So does George W. Bush, but using our system, which is quite different, of course. Does thinking that make me less of a liberal Democrat, despite being an ardent feminist, pro-choice, pro-union, pro-healthcare for all Americans, etc., etc.?

    Just something to think about, glynch. Carry on. :)

    And yes, I'm quite familiar with the terrible inequities in the Venezuelan society. I just don't think the answer is to go from one extreme to another.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  8. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,082
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Actually Deckard, I think you can be wary of Chavez and still be a liberal Democrat. That is how I would classify you, but who is into labels. :)

    I tend to agree with your statements above with regard to the path that Marxist Leninism took in the Soviet Union and other places. Pre-existing poverty is not enough of an excuse for what they did. I don't see Chavez as taking that path now. I think there is a great deal of misinformation in the US press about this. Many are hot to classify any attempt to transcend GOP trickle down to the poor as "communist". I do believe that if Chavez eventually resorts to a police state to resist constant US attempts at assasination, coups economic sabotage etc.as we have frequently resorted to, that this is not something that had to have occurred.

    Many conservatives would rather push Venezuela and Chavez into a police state than see a succesful and democratic redistrbution of resources.

    Hayes and I agree on a number of non-military issues. I also agree with Wolfowitz, whom many would call a neo-con on a number of non military issues.

    I'm not sure what you think I mean by "neo-con". It is not some sort of generic bad term, nor does it refer to a pure conservative who is down the line with what are called "conservative" issues as the welfare state, government spending or taxation, privacy, war and peace issues etc.
     
  9. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,795
    Likes Received:
    41,232
    Thanks for the reply. :)

    Being wary of Chavez is where I'm at, so that was a good way to put it. As you pointed out with the comparison you used of the path the Communist Party took in the Soviet Union (not to mention China), it is a real danger. Is the danger being overblown by the press here? Possibly. We'll have to see how Chavez plays out, both at home and internationally.

    There is no question that the previous ruling oligarchy in Venezuela was a disaster for most Venezuelans. Blinded by greed and complacency, they left the door wide open for someone like Chavez to take power. I hope we don't attempt to support a serious coup against him. In my opinion, the chances for success are slim, and chaos would be the inevitable result, along with even more suffering for the average Venezuelan, a disruption in oil supplies, etc.

    I think Bush has provided more than enough chaos and suffering for the world and the American people. We will have our hands full cleaning up his mistakes for a long time.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  10. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    is this the chavez thread, or the syria thread, or did chavez attempt to buy iranian nukes through syria so the us will invade the latter?
     
  11. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,795
    Likes Received:
    41,232
    Hey, I tend to respond to something that interests me, and it turns out that there is a thread about that very subject.

    Sue me. :)



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  12. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,203
    Likes Received:
    15,373
    According to Seymour Hersh, pre-Iraq plans called for a quick invasion of Iraq, where people welcomed us with open arms followed a couple of weeks later by a move against Syria. The story I originally heard had more fact, but this is the best quote I could find online. It's from a Slate interview.

    In radio interview I heard Hersh said that he had been told definitively that the plans were ordered drawn up by Rumsfeld, and that Syria, Lebanon, and Israel were transfered in October 1992 by Rumsfled from USEUCOM to CENTCOM (who controls the war in Iraq) specifically to enable a quick follow on invasion of Syria.
     
  13. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,049
    The Secretary of State has been a figurehead position for this admin. Which isn't a bad thing in past presidencies... but the next one will have a lot on his/her hands.
     
  14. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    http://www.lebanonwire.com/1005/05101101FT.asp

    US ‘seeks new Syrian leader' as pressure mounts

    Financial Times, October 11, 2005

    As it steps up pressure on Damascus, the US is actively seeking an alternative who would take over from President Bashar al-Assad, according to sources close to the Bush administration.

    Washington has consulted its allies in an inter-agency search co-ordinated by Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser. The US is also said to be considering military strikes on the Syrian border in response to its alleged support for Iraqi insur-gents.

    “They are tasking inside and outside the administration with finding an alternative. They would like to find someone to give them a soft landing,” said a former official who asked not to be named. “They would probably accept a military figure but it would be very hard to identify someone to step in and work with the US.”

    A US official in Washington said policy was aimed at “behaviour change”, not “regime change”.

    In Cairo on Sunday David Welch, a senior State Department official, spoke of US concerns over Syria's “interference” in Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “These are very, very difficult issues, and we would ask the Syrian government not to interfere in such matters.

    “It appears they are not listening and it seems that this behaviour is not changing,” Mr Welch told reporters after meeting Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president.

    President George W. Bush, in an important speech last week on the war on terror and the ideology of Islamic radicalism, denounced Syria and Iran as “outlaw regimes” that acted as “allies of convenience” to the militants.

    The US, Mr Bush said, would not make a distinction between those who committed acts of terrorism and those that supported them. Syria and Iran “deserve no patience from the victims of terror”. Flynt Leverett, analyst at the Brookings Institution think-tank, believes the Bush administration is looking at mounting cross-border military operations into Syria.

    He said that the objective was to put pressure on the regime and get the message to Syrians inside or out-side the government that it was time to “dump” Mr Assad.

    A US official told the FT last week Syria had made the “unwise choice” of “allowing its territory to be part of the Iraqi battlefield”.
     
  15. pippendagimp

    pippendagimp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2000
    Messages:
    27,793
    Likes Received:
    22,794
    I don't know about her figure, but DAMN is her head ugly :eek:
     
  16. tigermission1

    tigermission1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,557
    Likes Received:
    17
    Interesting account with more details...

    G.I.'s and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border

    By JAMES RISEN and DAVID E. SANGER

    10/15/05 "New York Times" -- -- WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 - A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials.

    The firefight, between Army Rangers and Syrian troops along the border with Iraq, was the most serious of the conflicts with President Bashar al-Assad's forces, according to American and Syrian officials.

    It illustrated the dangers facing American troops as Washington tries to apply more political and military pressure on a country that President Bush last week labeled one of the "allies of convenience" with Islamic extremists. He also named Iran.

    One of Mr. Bush's most senior aides, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, said that so far American military forces in Iraq had moved right up to the border to cut off the entry of insurgents, but he insisted that they had refrained from going over it.

    But other officials, who say they got their information in the field or by talking to Special Operations commanders, say that as American efforts to cut off the flow of fighters have intensified, the operations have spilled over the border - sometimes by accident, sometimes by design.

    Some current and former officials add that the United States military is considering plans to conduct special operations inside Syria, using small covert teams for cross-border intelligence gathering.

    The broadening military effort along the border has intensified as the Iraqi constitutional referendum scheduled for Saturday approaches, and as frustration mounts in the Bush administration and among senior American commanders over their inability to prevent foreign radical Islamists from engaging in suicide bombings and other deadly terrorist acts inside Iraq.

    Increasingly, officials say, Syria is to the Iraq war what Cambodia was in the Vietnam War: a sanctuary for fighters, money and supplies to flow over the border and, ultimately, a place for a shadow struggle.

    Covert military operations are among the most closely held of secrets, and planning for them is extremely delicate politically as well, so none of those who discussed the subject would allow themselves to be identified. They included military officers, civilian officials and people who are otherwise actively involved in military operations or have close ties to Special Operations forces.

    In the summer firefight, several Syrian soldiers were killed, leading to a protest from the Syrian government to the United States Embassy in Damascus, according to American and Syrian officials.

    A military official who spoke with some of the Rangers who took part in the incident said they had described it as an intense firefight, although it could not be learned whether there had been any American casualties. Nor could the exact location of the clash, along the porous and poorly marked border, be learned.

    In a meeting at the White House on Oct. 1, senior aides to Mr. Bush considered a variety of options for further actions against Syria, apparently including special operations along with other methods for putting pressure on Mr. Assad in coming weeks.

    American officials say Mr. Bush has not yet signed off on a specific strategy and has no current plan to try to oust Mr. Assad, partly for fear of who might take over. The United States is not planning large-scale military operations inside Syria and the president has not authorized any covert action programs to topple the Assad government, several officials said.

    "There is no finding on Syria," said one senior official, using the term for presidential approval of a covert action program.

    "We've got our hands full in the neighborhood," added a senior official involved in the discussion.

    Some other current and former officials suggest that there already have been initial intelligence gathering operations by small clandestine Special Operations units inside Syria. Several senior administration officials said such special operations had not yet been conducted, although they did not dispute the notion that they were under consideration.

    Whether they have already occurred or are still being planned, the goal of such operations is limited to singling out insurgents passing through Syria and do not appear to amount to an organized effort to punish or topple the Syrian government.

    According to people who have spoken with Special Operations commanders, teams like the Army's Delta Force are well suited for reconnaissance and intelligence gathering inside Syria. They could identify and disrupt the lines of communications, sanctuaries and gathering points used by foreign Arab fighters and Islamist extremists seeking to wage war against American troops in Iraq.

    What the administration calls Syria's acquiescence in insurgent operations organized and carried out from its territory is a major factor driving the White House as it conducts what seems to be a major reassessment of its Syria policy.

    The withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon earlier this year in the wake of the assassination in February of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, in Beirut led to a renewed debate in the White House about whether - and how - to push for change in Damascus.

    With no clear or acceptable alternative to Mr. Assad's government on the horizon, the administration now seems to be awaiting the outcome of an international investigation of the Hariri assassination, which may lead to charges against senior Syrian officials.

    Detlev Mehlis, the German prosecutor in charge of the United Nations investigation of the killing, is expected to complete a report on his findings this month.

    If Mr. Mehlis reports that senior Syrian officials are implicated in the Hariri assassination, some Bush administration officials say that could weaken the Assad government.

    "I think the administration is looking at the Mehlis investigation as possibly providing a kind of slow-motion regime change," said one former United States official familiar with Syria policy. The death - Syrian officials called it a suicide - on Wednesday of Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan of Syria, who was questioned in connection with the United Nations investigation, may have been an indication of the intense pressure building on the Assad government from that inquiry.

    Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to Iraq, issued one of the administration's most explicit public challenges to Damascus recently when he said that "our patience is running out with Syria."

    "Syria has to decide what price it's willing to pay in making Iraq success difficult," he said on Sept. 12. "And time is running out for Damascus to decide on this issue."

    Some hawks in the administration make little secret of their hope that mounting political and military pressure will lead to Mr. Assad's fall, despite their worries about who might succeed him. Other American officials seem to believe that by taking modest military steps against his country, they will so intimidate Mr. Assad that he will alter his behavior and prevent Syrian territory from being used as a sanctuary for the Iraqi insurgency and its leadership.

    "Our policy is to get Syria to change its behavior," said a senior administration official. "It has failed to change its behavior with regard to the border with Iraq, with regard to its relationships with rejectionist Palestinian groups, and it has only reluctantly gotten the message on Lebanon."

    The official added: "We have had people for years sending them messages telling them to change their behavior. And they don't seem to recognize the seriousness of those messages. The hope is that Syria gets the message."

    There are some indications that this strategy, described as "rattling the cage," may be working. Some current and former administration officials say that the flow of foreign fighters has already diminished because Mr. Assad has started to restrict their movement through Syria.

    But while he appears to be curbing the number of foreign Arab fighters moving through Syria, the American officials say he has not yet restricted former senior members of Saddam Hussein's government from using Syria as a haven from which to provide money and coordination to the Sunni-based insurgency in Iraq.

    "You see small tactical changes, which they don't announce, so they are not on the hook for permanent changes," a senior official said about Syria's response. "They are doing just enough to reduce the pressure in hopes we won't pay attention, and then they slide back again."

    In an interview with CNN this week, Mr. Assad denied that there were any insurgent sanctuaries inside Syria. "There is no such safe haven or camp," he insisted.

    In this tense period of give and take between Washington and Damascus, the firefight this summer was clearly a critical event. It came at a time when the American military in Iraq was mounting a series of major offensives in the Euphrates Valley near the Syrian border to choke off the routes that foreign fighters have used to get into Iraq.

    The Americans and Iraqis have been fortifying that side of the border and increasing patrols, raising the possibility of firing across the unmarked border and of crossing it in "hot pursuit."

    From time to time there have been reports of clashes, usually characterized as incidental friction between American and Syrian forces. There have been some quiet attempts to work out ways to avoid that, but formal agreements have been elusive in an atmosphere of mutual mistrust.

    Some current and former United States military and intelligence officials who said they believed that Americans were already secretly penetrating Syrian territory question what they see as the Bush administration's excessive focus on the threat posed by foreign Arab fighters going through Syria. They say the vast majority of insurgents battling American forces are Iraqis, not foreign jihadis.

    According to a new study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, intelligence analysis and the pattern of detentions in Iraq show that the number of foreign fighters represents "well below 10 percent, and may well be closer to 4 percent to 6 percent" of the total makeup of the insurgency.

    One former United States official with access to recent intelligence on the insurgency added that American intelligence reports had concluded that 95 percent of the insurgents were Iraqi.


    This former intelligence official said that in conversations with several midcareer American military officers who had recently served in Iraq, they had privately complained to him that senior commanders in Iraq seemed fixated on the issue of foreign fighters, despite the evidence that they represented a small portion of the insurgency.

    "They think that the senior commanders are obsessed with the foreign fighters because that's an easier issue to deal with," the former intelligence official said. "It's easier to blame foreign fighters instead of developing new counterinsurgency strategies."

    Top Pentagon officials and senior commanders have said that while the number of foreign fighters is small, they are still responsible for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of United States Central Command, said on Oct. 2 on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that he recognized the need to avoid "hyping the foreign fighter problem."

    But he cautioned that "the foreign fighters generally tend to be people that believe in the ideology of Al Qaeda and their associated movements, and they tend to be suicide bombers."

    "So while the foreign fighters certainly aren't large in number," he said, "they are deadly."

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
     

Share This Page