WAR: US Contemplating Syrian Incursion

While all have been concentrating on the recent events surrounding Irans nuclear program and the possibility of US or Israeli attack a quieter but equally serious series of events has begun to bring the possibility of US incursion into Syria to the forefront.

In May of this year the Bush administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria. Bush accused Damascus of supporting terrorism, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and failing to stop anti-US guerrillas from entering Iraq.

Since October and most recently this Monday after the deadly attack in Mosul the Bush administration has stepped up its warnings of increased sanctions imposed on Syria for its failure to arrest former Iraqi Ba'athist officials suspected of leading and funding the insurgency in Iraq. According to deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage quoted recently on NBC news �All options are obviously on the table. We don�t want to make it a military problem�

In diplomatic circles Armitage's comment constitutes a plainly direct threat to the Syrians.



The offensive against the insurgents in Fallujah has provided intelligence leading to information showing Syrian based support has been provided to the insurgents fighting in Iraq.

After attacks such as happened in Mosul and the elections scheduled for the end of January I see the US getting much more aggressive with incursions on the Iraq - Syrian border possibly including covert strikes or missions cross border in an attempt to neutralize opposition leadership and support for the Iraqi insurgents.

I would also speculate an increase in rhetoric and military movement on the Iranian border as a cover for any possible operations involving the US against specific targets in Syria.

Related News Links:
www.turks.us
economictimes.indiatimes.com
www.dailystar.com.lb

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
TA-ATTACKS: Blast at US Mosul base kills 22
NEWS: U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Syria for Terror Support

i would assume if any military response is to be taken against syria it will be covert considering the lack of media attention an preparidness of the american people for any type of invasion.

also wasn't syria being praised by the US not too long ago for making an effort to pull out of lebanon? i guess not much progress has been made with that.

-raven

Military action against Syria was planned many years ago.

Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29, 2001
On the short list of countries to be attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war against terrorism cannot be won in this manner.

The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, made it clear: "We are going to continue pursuing the entire al Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan." Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us to take on Iraq.

They just need to convince the American public that it's the right thing to do.
By blaming the Iraq insurgency on the Syrians, they can rally support for military action in that country.

It strikes me as prudent to eliminate Syrian based opposition more or less sitting in the rear of the US positions in Iraq if the US ever intends any meaningful action with Iran.

Its also possible for Iran to effect a spoiling attack across the frontier with Iraq by first having allied Syrian based insurgents force a move of US forces to western Iraq ahead of any Iranian moves. In my view this becomes much more likely in the event Iran possesses a nuclear capability of small to medium atomic weapons to use in the open desert areas of Iraq when a co-ordinated US response is formed in rear areas behind a battle front.

I know at this time the above scenario seems far fetched but it is based on sound military principles that could have the effect of forcing the US out of Iraq or facing an extreme escalation of conflict that I'm not to sure we're ready to take on in the region.

The key is to keep Assad of Syria out of play fearing US retribution both economically and militarily.

Originally posted by Phoenix
It strikes me as prudent to eliminate Syrian based opposition more or less sitting in the rear of the US positions in Iraq if the US ever intends any meaningful action with Iran.

You have to guard the rear as it were. Assad is in a rough spot. His grasp on power is nowhere near as complete as his fathers. The Alwhites are a huge minority and there is some evidence of internal powerstuggles there as well. If he capitulats too muh to Washington, he is gone, but if he does not move, he will go eventually.

Excuse me but what is US doing now?

How did we jump from Iran to Syria?

US must have so unlimited power to be able to wager war and threads all over the middle east. From Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and now Syria.

Humm, does Bush knows something we don't, I mean how much more can our country afford when it comes to invasions and possible wars and I am not talking about financially alone.

I though Syria were "Friends"

Originally posted by marg6043

Excuse me but what is US doing now?


I though Syria were "Friends"

Merry Christmas Marg,

Wherever did you get the idea that Syria was considered a friendly country?
Um I believe it is suspected of having smuggled Iraqi WMD, it harbors Saddam loyalist's materially and financially supporting insugents that are killing our troops and if teamed up with an Iranian strategy to expel the US from Iraq, Syrian complicity presents a great danger.

Hows that for "Friendly"?

Well I am not joking here your know US went of the way to said that they were doing the right thing.

So now the administration is going to combine Iran and Syria and strike both of them?

The bush administration is drinking to much eggnog with brandy

And merry christmas to you too Phoenix, the liquor 43 is getting to my head.

The US will start and sustain as many wars as are necessary to prove to the world governments that we are still militarily superior. I think that's the plan anyway. I do see a few problems with a war vs. Syria though.

While many on this forum will most likely jettison logic and simply claim "Air Power" will rule the day, some thinking individuals might assess the situation closely and find that the logistics of keeping an army well fed and supplied in Syria are not favorable for us. Supply lines are bad enough in Iraq, worse now than ever because the American Machine is moving further north, into Mosul. When their lines are stretched thin enough, I think the Iraqi Resistance is just going to cut their lifeline. There's something like 600 miles of desert between forward air bases and the troops they supply. And air power can't find loads of good targets in Syria or Iran, or Iraq for that matter. The generals and Intel guys just had a laugh bombing hundreds of Saddams multi-million dollar palaces to dust. They took out a bunch of SAM sights, targeted barracks that had already been evacuated, stuff like that.

Syria would devolve into the same sort of perpetual guerilla war as Iraq has already. How many quaqmires must we walk through before we learn to identify the quicksand?

Anyone who thinks Iraq was only about Iraq hasn't been paying attention to the story thus far.

Whether or not Syria is up next on the U.S. chopping block is still a subject of speculation, but under international law, harboring enemy combatants is and has always been sufficient justification for extending combat into a foreign country. For a prior example of this, see Pancho Villa and his border incursions -- and that's hardly the only example, just a relatively clean one.

It's not a question of if, but when for Syria. The U.S. will bring Syria in line. It's mainly a matter of when doing so will be most appropriate to our plans.

For those who may object, you won't find any sympathy from me. We are at war, and whether you like or not, it really is a matter of being with us or against us.

I'm sorry of that seems harsh, but that's the way war works. Good luck if you really desire a place on the sidelines, because you'll need a hell of a lot more luck than is going around right now.

IF, and it's a real big IF, the US succeeds in quelling violence in Iraq to an acceptable level, then it will go after Syria and Iraq up to the extent that cross border meddling will stop. This is the logical progression of things. However, it seems to me that any action will have to wait until after the elections in Iraq and be based on a request from the new Iraqi government for assistance. So, it will on the face of things, an Iraqi action, protecting the sovereign soil, with the US "assisting" them. Politically, that should be the game plan.

In another article available it has been noted that Syrian ties were found in Fallujah,

www.csmonitor.com...

DAMASCUS, SYRIA � When US troops stormed the rebel-held city of Fallujah last month, they uncovered photos of senior Syrian officials that have further strained the already tense relations between Syria and Iraq, according to the Iraqi ambassador to Syria.

The ambassador said that the photographs were found in the possession of Moayed Ahmed Yasseen, also known as Abu Ahmed. He is the leader of the Jaish Mohammed group, which is composed of former Baathist intelligence personnel. One picture showed Mr. Yasseen standing beside a senior Syrian official, the ambassador said. He would not identify on the record the Syrian officials in the photos.

US Marines in Fallujah released a report on Nov. 20 that revealed they had discovered a hand-held Global Positioning System receiver with waypoints originating in western Syria and the names of four Syrian foreign fighters contained in a ledger

I do have to agree with dixon's opinion that any action may be under the auspices of an Iraqi government request.

For those post responders that replied as if any action would entail a full scale classic ground campaign - I do not believe that would be the case with any action taken to keep Syria out of Iraq or interfering in any future plans to deal with Iran.

What I do see happening is covert land/air assaults to keep Syrian support of the insurgency in check to the extent that large land forces will not have to be moved from central and eastern Iraq.

Where the Hell is 'Lawrence of Arabia'...he's not gonna like this At ALL..

Bush, "Thy Mother mated with the Devil"...remember that....

I wanna see Great Britian joing in on this Ludecrous'mission'..

Get OUT OF MY Back Yard...Croll up a Bush...bush...!!!...

Originally posted by Phoenix
It strikes me as prudent to eliminate Syrian based opposition more or less sitting in the rear of the US positions in Iraq if the US ever intends any meaningful action with Iran.

The key is to keep Assad of Syria out of play fearing US retribution both economically and militarily.

Well Excuse Me..MR, while I get my Atlas out and see who else is in the region.....Emm I guess Saudi AraBia is in the clear..right..
Ohe..there's Jordan ,Turkey,Iran.too sharing a border...Does this mean the whole of the Middle East will be enileated ...
Maybe he can go up all the way to conquerring Russia too.. something tells me the Wolf 'z would slip his tail between His legs and RUNNnn,,,

Originally posted by Horus_Re


Well Excuse Me..MR, while I get my Atlas out and see who else is in the region.....Emm I guess Saudi AraBia is in the clear..right..

Ohe..there's Jordan ,Turkey,Iran.too sharing a border...Does this mean the whole of the Middle East will be enileated ...

Maybe he can go up all the way to conquerring Russia too..

something tells me the Wolf 'z would slip his tail between His legs and RUNNnn,,,

Horus_Re, pulling my comments out of context makes it look as though I am calling for this to happen which is far from the truth - what I have pointed out is what I see as a distinct possibility based on sound military principles - mainly that it is sound judgement to protect your rear and flanks when holding territory.

The neccessity of operations is up to Syria and its actions concerning support of the insurgency in Iraq.

The better solution all the way round is for Syria to take internal steps to prevent any incursions on the Iraqi border making the possibility of US action moot.

Short of that - alot of very nasty possibilities become available - not all of them positive for the US effort in Iraq.

I don't think the US is ready to attack another country. We have a huge debt and strained troops. We are trying to keep peace in so many countries already. The only way this will work is with a draft, which will inflame the American people.

The US has only so many people and is only so big, whether or not I agree with these wars, it is simply not possible at this time.

If this sort of support continues to flow over the border, then there may be no choice but to establish a killing zone at the border area. Make it clear that anything coming through will be exterminated. If it is more convenient to set this up on the Syrian side, then so be it. After this is done, then as I've mentioned before, it would have to wait until the elections and the new government will then have the legitimacy to choose how to deal with it. NOT the US.

Syria's been a problem for the world, and particularly the USA, since the mid 1970's. I believe that Syria has at least one atomic bomb and perhaps as many as 10. The weapons are probably theater-sized rather than strategic, but continue to threaten the whole world.

I was in Lebanon in the late 1980's, when Syria basically annexed another sovreign state. Until Syria's invasion, Lebanon was a democratic state, with a vibrant intellectual and cultural life. It was a banking and tourism hub, and in some ways was analgous to Turkey, linking the Arab and European worlds.

I think Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was a sweeping success, with the sole exception of his retreat in the face of Syria's commitment to turning Lebanon into a Muslim police state. Basically, the UN and US sent troops into Beruit, to enforce a cease-fire between Syrian troops and what was left of Lebanon in the south. The Syrians killed about 200 marines at the american army base; Reagan pulled all US troops unilaterally out of the Middle East, and the UN followed suit. Lebanese resistance collapsed by 1990.

Long term, I think Syria hopes to Annex Iraq and become a major oil power. They befriended Saddam as he became a pariah; they also egged him on in his escalation of tensions with the US.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by Horus_Re


Well Excuse Me..MR, while I get my Atlas out and see who else is in the region.....Emm I guess Saudi AraBia is in the clear..right..

Ohe..there's Jordan ,Turkey,Iran.too sharing a border...Does this mean the whole of the Middle East will be enileated ...

Maybe he can go up all the way to conquerring Russia too..

something tells me the Wolf 'z would slip his tail between His legs and RUNNnn,,,

Horus_Re, pulling my comments out of context makes it look as though I am calling for this to happen which is far from the truth - what I have pointed out is what I see as a distinct possibility based on sound military principles - mainly that it is sound judgement to protect your rear and flanks when holding territory.

The neccessity of operations is up to Syria and its actions concerning support of the insurgency in Iraq.

The better solution all the way round is for Syria to take internal steps to prevent any incursions on the Iraqi border making the possibility of US action moot.

Short of that - alot of very nasty possibilities become available - not all of them positive for the US effort in Iraq.

Pheonix I did'nt mean to pull anything out of text ,and it was definately not to be taken personaly..
O.K. let's look at this from the reality perspective...'Based On Sound Military'...flanks...Ellections ..Well Let Me tell You my friend from what I feel in my sound heart as a FULL BlooD ARAB......there's No Way In Hell that the Iraqi people Or Any Other ARAb nation for that matter,Would Allow This Or any Other Admin...to go after another Arab country...that is Not Gonna happen...
Let's say the Ellections are sorted and Iraq is 'Somewhat' repeat 'Somewhat' stable..You think that the US can turn around towards Syria and invade...IF you call that Sound Millitary tactics..man ....come on..!!
Anyways like you or someone else mentioned that this should happen once the ellections have been a success,if that would be SO..then Why the Hell would America want to invade Syria....I thought the whole point of this so called 'Freedom' War was to bring 'Democracy' to a region...I'd say if that's achieved the US...should get OUT ASAP....and be glad that they succeeded in doing so,but to start another invation.....What are you Hawks Thinkin.....I don't believe I'm even hearing this....
Jordan is doing all it can in helping the situation in Iraq I'm sure,and King Hussein is very respectful towards the British..but I would'nt count on His Highness to join in disrupting the whole region again..IT simply makes no sence...

Originally posted by Horus_Re


Pheonix I did'nt mean to pull anything out of text ,and it was definately not to be taken personaly...............

..Well Let Me tell You my friend from what I feel in my sound heart as a FULL BlooD ARAB......there's No Way In Hell that the Iraqi people Or Any Other ARAb nation for that matter,Would Allow This Or any Other Admin...to go after another Arab country...that is Not Gonna happen.................

,but to start another invation.....What are you Hawks Thinkin.....I don't believe I'm even hearing this....

Horus_Re, Nothing was taken personally

This is from the article originally posted,

The US is contemplating incursions into Syrian territory in an attempt to kill or capture Iraqi Ba'athists who, it believes, are directing at least part of the attacks against US targets in Iraq, a senior administration official told The Jerusalem Post.

It is important to note that word "incursion" used rather than "invasion"

I do believe that the Iraqi Ba'athists are in fact coordinating operations from the believed safety of Syria and that at some point the problem will have to be addressed - better that the Syrians do it themselves.