US weighed military strikes in Syria

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
I am no historian, but this is sounding very familiar... historically speaking.



NEW YORK, Oct 9 (AFP) - The United States recently debated launching military strikes inside Syria against camps used by insurgents operating in neighboring Iraq, a US magazine reported on Sunday.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice successfully opposed the idea at a meeting of senior American officials held on October 1, Newsweek reported, citing unnamed US government sources.

Rice reportedly argued that diplomatic isolation was a more effective approach, with a UN report pending that may blame Syria for the assassination of former Lebanese premier 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.

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

The US 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 US 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 US 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 US targets, including a Navy base in Bahrain.

One unnamed intelligence official told the magazine that US pressure on the Syrian leadership could prove counter-productive and that Washington may be "radicalizing the country."
 
I doubt the US will invade Syria, more surgical strikes against campsites known for hosting rebels and terrorists. Pretty much the same we saw in some parts of the Kosovo conflict during the NATO airraids.
 
I don't think we have the structure for sustainment to get that job done. We are missing crutial support from other major nations.

I don't think it will ever happen. Not for a while at least.
 
Seems like a good idea. Maybe the communist countries of China, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea should be added for good measure.
 
I think it would be a huge help to homefront war-moralle if we attacked certain parts of Syria. Right now, it seems, everyone is displeased with the Iraq war.

The left is always going to hate war. The right is frustrated that no progress is being made. The president, more than ever after the Katrina debacle, REALLY needs to do something decisive to turn the tide in Iraq.

Americans who see Prez. Bush as a strong leader are now a minority in America. That is VERY VERY bad for war moralle. If I was him, I'd look at the bold options at this time to re-assure Americans that the US is going to win this war in Iraq and not let international politics stand in the way of winning a war.
 
Whispering Death said:
I think it would be a huge help to homefront war-moralle if we attacked certain parts of Syria. Right now, it seems, everyone is displeased with the Iraq war.

The left is always going to hate war. The right is frustrated that no progress is being made. The president, more than ever after the Katrina debacle, REALLY needs to do something decisive to turn the tide in Iraq.

Americans who see Prez. Bush as a strong leader are now a minority in America. That is VERY VERY bad for war moralle. If I was him, I'd look at the bold options at this time to re-assure Americans that the US is going to win this war in Iraq and not let international politics stand in the way of winning a war.

but you think attacking another country will get him more support?
 
I believe surgical strikes against Syria are likely to happen, in the future, but I rule out any invasion of the country. The US does not have the possibility to sustain another world crisis like the 2003 one. Syria knows what it risks, they're just trying to be annoying. I think the US should really strike those camps, if that's going to help the situation in Iraq.
 
Briefly speaking since the UK knocked out key installations in Libya - Colonel Ghadaffy have more or less done whatever possible to create a normalized relationship to the region, and the US and UK, - so in general terms he learned the lession of hosting and supporting terrorist cells is not a wise thing to do.

If Syria do the same, things can go either way in the theatre, but I hope for the world peace that this issue are sorted on diplomatic levels.
 
5.56X45mm said:
Seems like a good idea. Maybe the communist countries of China, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea should be added for good measure.

I didn't know that Venezuela are Communists.
 
Back
Top