Syria next ? You bet.

Syria must be dealt with, but how? The Americans do not want a war, but are encouraged by the Turkish experience with Bashir Assad's late father, a mere five years ago. The issue then was Syrian hosting of anti-Turkish Kurd terrorists. The Turks moved a mighty army to the Syrian frontier, and triggered a series of incidents. They made plain to Hafez Assad that they would invade if he didn't evict Abdullah Ocalan and his Marxist PKK terror organization from their headquarters in Damascus. Lo and behold, they were evicted.

The U.S. is thus calculating, "like father, like son": that insuperable pressure, short of an invasion, can make the Assad regime change its entire way of looking at the world. It does not follow this is a bluff, however. The Bush administration is hardly prepared, after the cost of its mission to Saddam Hussein, to fritter away its credibility on Bashir Assad. As before, Mr. Bush will take his time, but in the end he will be prepared to liberate Syria and Lebanon, just as he liberated Iraq, if Assad does not "co-operate fully".
More...

from

"By way of Syria"
by David Warren

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/Apr03/index132.shtml

The rest of this piece also includes some very interesting observations on the Israel-Palestine "Road Map," how Bush intends to have it implemented, and how Syria and Hizbullah figure into it.
 
Hey keymar and clan, just in case you conveniently forgot this:

UN top inspector: We never asserted Iraq had any remaining weapons of mass destruction
Iraq-UN, Politics, 3/19/2003

Speaking on the day the last United Nations weapons monitors were withdrawn from Iraq, the top inspector, Hans Blix, yesterday said he feels the inspections should not have been stopped at this stage.

"I don't think it is reasonable to close the door to inspections after three and a half months," Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said in answer to questions during a briefing of the UN Correspondents Association in New York. He added that he did not think Security Council resolution 1441, adopted in November, foresaw such a short inspection time.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered the withdrawal of all UN personnel, including UNMOVIC inspectors, after receiving information from the United Kingdom and United States regarding the continued safety and security of UN personnel in Iraq.

Blix, who is to discuss a work plan of remaining disarmament issues today at the Security Council, also said the inspectors had never asserted that Iraq had any remaining weapons of mass destruction, only that there were a lot of things unaccounted for.

This comes as statements made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell revealed that the US knew that a second UN Security Council Resolution was needed for any military action against Iraq, making the US aware that any military action against Iraq are illegal.

same crap about Syria now? give it a rest bud :mad: :mad:
hmmmm, why isn't the pic about SYRIA showing ON THE POST but only as a link?:confused: :confused:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16236&perpage=6&pagenumber=9
 
KymarFye said : "Unless some "clear and present danger" arises, there are many reasons not to take on another war right now. "

Going to Syria (if so) wouldn't be another war, it would be just an extension of the Iraqi affair, a mopping up situation, a preventative action, getting hold of the Republic Guards so they
cannot cause trouble after the Coalition forces leave.

Now if Syria were to shoot at the US whilst this cleaning up situation was going on now that would be another matter, it would be Syria who propvoked the Coalition forces. :D

Coalition forces, that is if Britain participates.

Syria is, militarily speaking very weak. The question on everybody's mind is whether they will see what is good for them and what is bad action for them.

BTW have you guys noticed when seeing the pictures of the jubilant Iraqi mobs, that no women are to be seen ?


freealways
 
Some interesting analysis re the future of the Baath party in Syria:

SYRIA is beginning to wobble; its old regime could soon fall. Behind its resolute rejection of Washington’s accusations, its Baathist regime is weakening. It may be the first Middle East domino to topple after the end of war in Iraq.

The man whose finger is on the Damascus domino is not Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary. The victor will be Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, who is now standing his strongest chance of toppling the old guard who have blocked his reforms.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=440832003
 
Quote from Babak:

Some interesting analysis re the future of the Baath party in Syria:

SYRIA is beginning to wobble; its old regime could soon fall. Behind its resolute rejection of Washington’s accusations, its Baathist regime is weakening. It may be the first Middle East domino to topple after the end of war in Iraq.

The man whose finger is on the Damascus domino is not Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary. The victor will be Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, who is now standing his strongest chance of toppling the old guard who have blocked his reforms.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=440832003
More...

Thanks, Babak - very interesting, and another set of reasons why war would remain a last resort.

You can only hope it's not too optimistic.
 
I predict Syria will cave soon and give up some of the "most wanted" Iraqi's.

Tough talk, having shown we can back it up, coupled with diplomacy and support from France, who is in bed with Syria, will work for a while.
 
Quote from trader556:

Hey keymar and clan, just in case you conveniently forgot this:

UN top inspector: We never asserted Iraq had any remaining weapons of mass destruction
Iraq-UN, Politics, 3/19/2003

Speaking on the day the last United Nations weapons monitors were withdrawn from Iraq, the top inspector, Hans Blix, yesterday said he feels the inspections should not have been stopped at this stage.

"I don't think it is reasonable to close the door to inspections after three and a half months," Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said in answer to questions during a briefing of the UN Correspondents Association in New York. He added that he did not think Security Council resolution 1441, adopted in November, foresaw such a short inspection time.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan ordered the withdrawal of all UN personnel, including UNMOVIC inspectors, after receiving information from the United Kingdom and United States regarding the continued safety and security of UN personnel in Iraq.

Blix, who is to discuss a work plan of remaining disarmament issues today at the Security Council, also said the inspectors had never asserted that Iraq had any remaining weapons of mass destruction, only that there were a lot of things unaccounted for.

This comes as statements made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell revealed that the US knew that a second UN Security Council Resolution was needed for any military action against Iraq, making the US aware that any military action against Iraq are illegal.

same crap about Syria now? give it a rest bud :mad: :mad:
hmmmm, why isn't the pic about SYRIA showing ON THE POST but only as a link?:confused: :confused:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16236&perpage=6&pagenumber=9
More...

Yes they never said that Iraq had WMD or a nuclear program. That came to light in 1995 as Saddam's son in law fled to Jordan and spilled the beans. The UN was shown to have been ineffective, once again.
 
>>I predict Syria will cave soon and give up some of the "most wanted" Iraqi's.<<

Hey Optional in that case it should read 'I predict Syria will cave in soon and give up some of the "most UNwanted" Iraqi's' :D

freealways
 
Syria may not be "next" in the sense of being the next regime that the US army is sent to dismantle, but it may still qualify as the next or even the current target.

I'm thinking there are two possibilities, and they may have more to do with the correlation of forces within Syria than with US preferences: If and when Assad is strong enough to move against the old guard, then he can "discover" whatever Iraqi WMDs or senior Iraqis that have turned up in Syria, and hand them over (or allow us to come get 'em). In that case, Assad could turn almost into our Middle Eastern Musharraf, a result which would have to be by far be the Administration preference. If, on the other hand, Assad cannot or will not defy anti-American forces, then the US can act directly in a limited way - through surgical strikes, covert actions, hot pursuit, and so on - against WMD sites or Iraqis of special interest. (According to Mansour Ijaz, we know exactly where some of the former are, and could target them.) Such actions or even their mere possibility might be enough to tip the balance in Syria.

In the meantime tactics like the threat of sanctions, turning off the oil pipeline, organizing international pressure especially from the Arab world, or demonstratively deploying military assets are ratcheting up the costs of anti-US policies and implicitly threatening near-term escalation and, down the line, the "death penalty" if all else fails. Talking as though the decision is entirely Assad's also serves to build him up internally, even while establishing the current situation as a test of his power and of his intentions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top