Pentagon Plans: Next, War on Syria?

Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says.

Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries.

Source:
MSNBC - Newsweek

Considering that Big Firefights between US and Insurgents in Iraq take place close to Syrian Border, it is only a matter of time, when the "president" Bush decided to change the Regime in Damascus also.

no surprise there since Syria is supporting the insurgency by using their agents. and since Syria's history with covert act its no surprise the U.S. is goin after them, probably bomb the camps on the Syrian side thats training the foreign fighters.

Originally posted by Souljah
Considering that Big Firefights between US and Insurgents in Iraq take place close to Syrian Border, it is only a matter of time, when the "president" Bush decided to change the Regime in Damascus also.

When diplomatic messages are being broadcast such as ‘all options are on the table’ you can bet there is intense planning going on behind closed doors. Ergo US military force is one of the options and, when called upon, the Pentagon will need to have multiple options to throw on the table for consideration. Does this mean attacks are imminent? No.

There is always the possibility of open conflict by the US concerning Syria or Iran or both in the region mentioned with tension escalations. Although it is probably far too remote as a US primary option for an ‘all-out’ maneuver given current conditions to even slightly be considered as the viable solution for a known problem. Are Iran and Syria supporting the insurrection? Yes, but at what real levels?

The article as posted is probably closer to reality in this statement:

Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran.

Note: There is no mention of Bush.

This type of planning and revising goes on in the Pentagon around the clock. There are SOP ‘manuals’ OB etc. for the US forces which provide the frame work for reference ‘in the event’ and are revised and updated as needed. The Russians, probably the Chinese and any other nation capable of power projection beyond their respective contiguous borders do the same. Do policies such as this reach beyond prudence? No.


.

Originally posted by Souljah
Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says.

Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries.

Source:
MSNBC - Newsweek

Considering that Big Firefights between US and Insurgents in Iraq take place close to Syrian Border, it is only a matter of time, when the "president" Bush decided to change the Regime in Damascus also.

You do realize we have war plans for every country on the planet, right?

Originally posted by deltaboy
no surprise there since Syria is supporting the insurgency by using their agents. and since Syria's history with covert act its no surprise the U.S. is goin after them, probably bomb the camps on the Syrian side thats training the foreign fighters.

They aren't supporting the insurgency, that's just Fox News BS.
Syria has been fighting the insurgency, even working with the US at one point until the US kept criticising their efforts and not publicly acknowledgeing their help.

Syria has been surpressing radical Islamists for decades now, even fighting on the side of the Christians during the Labanese civil war.

If Assad is removed from power, the radical Islamist groups will probably take over and make things much worse than they are right now.

If the United States turns up the heat, it risks getting burned

"You might get what you wish for. But not quite what you wish for," said one diplomat in Damascus who requested anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. The prospect of regime change in Syria worries even Israel, Syria's longtime enemy. If al-Assad's rigidly secular regime were toppled, the nation's mosaic of competing sects and ethnicities could explode into conflict. Islamist radicals—including a group called Soldiers of the Levant—are already gaining influence in Syria, where they were once ruthlessly crushed.

--snip--

The ambassador says that while Damascus is still detaining jihadists on its own, it got "fed up" with the Bush administration's public al-Assad bashing, even after Washington had privately lauded Syria for handing over Saddam's half brother, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hasan, earlier in the year. Moustapha also confirmed an account from a U.S. intel official who said Damascus was angered when Washington exposed one of its operatives. "We are willing to re-engage the moment you want—but on one condition," Moustapha says. "You have to acknowledge that we are helping."

-snip--

"We won't take yes for an answer from Damascus," says one intel official who declined to be identified because his work is classified. In the last few years before contacts were cut off, he says, Syrian intelligence helped avert two major attacks on U.S. targets, including a Navy base in Bahrain. U.S. pressure, he adds, may be "radicalizing the country." That is one risk, perhaps, of engaging with no one in Syria—neither dictators nor democrats.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by AceOfBase

They aren't supporting the insurgency, that's just Fox News BS.
Syria has been fighting the insurgency, even working with the US at one point until the US kept criticising their efforts and not publicly acknowledgeing their help.

Syria has been surpressing radical Islamists for decades now, even fighting on the side of the Christians during the Labanese civil war.

If Assad is removed from power, the radical Islamist groups will probably take over and make things much worse than they are right now.

www.breitbart.com...

The United States recently debated launching military strikes inside Syria against camps used by insurgents operating in neighboring Iraq, a US magazine reported.

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.

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.

it must be the same Syrian operative who confessed on Iraqi tv for helping the insurgency. i believe that he said something about takin on the Americans and keep them busy with Iraq so the U.S. would not invade Syria. go figure.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by deltaboy
it must be the same Syrian operative who confessed on Iraqi tv for helping the insurgency. i believe that he said something about takin on the Americans and keep them busy with Iraq so the U.S. would not invade Syria.

go figure.

Even Fox News referred to that tape as propaganda and said the confessions couldn't be verified.

Fox News

The bearded man in a gray jacket and shirt who appeared on the U.S.-funded Iraqi state television station Wednesday had a stark message about the insurgency — he was a Syrian intelligence officer who helped train people to behead others and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops.

--snip--

"We received all the instructions from Syrian intelligence," said the man, who appeared in the propaganda video along with 10 Iraqis who said they had also been recruited by Syrian intelligence officers.

--snip--

He claimed he infiltrated Iraq in 2001, about two years before the U.S. invasion, because Syrian intelligence was convinced that American military action loomed.

An unidentified Iraqi officer introduced the video, saying all insurgent groups in Iraq were covers for Syrian intelligence. He named a number of well-known groups, including one that has killed and beheaded foreigners

Isn't that very unlikely that every single insurgent group in Iraq are just covers for Syrian intelligence?

That tape was pure propaganda.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by AceOfBase]

If the military has said they are expecting the insurgents to ratchet up the attacks to coincide with the 15th, couldn't it be possible that the pentagon is preparing for that?

or Iran?

Originally posted by AceOfBase
They aren't supporting the insurgency, that's just Fox News BS.
Syria has been fighting the insurgency, even working with the US at one point until the US kept criticising their efforts and not publicly acknowledgeing their help.

You are correct in the notion Syria has supported and worked with the US. The real ‘criticisms’ which I read and hear frequently (not just on FOX) that show a thread of consitancy are those which are the concerns of Iraqi, US and coalition forces in that Syria is 'not doing enough' to stop the smuggling (proceeds which help to fund the insurrection) and human crossings (which bolster the resistance ranks) via its' border with Iraq.

That said, Syria by no means is or will openly support or condone as a state the Iraqi insurrection. The criticisms are such that by not doing ‘enough’ to counter the border problems, investigating alleged training camps and turn in the Baathists who are supporting the insurgents she is de facto aiding the resistance movement. There is currently too much room for accustation and denial and on the topic I doubt seriously the nation of Syria will be directly attacked by the US.


.

Our history with covert acts?

LOL !!!!!!!

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Syria an Iran have alliance. You can't take us both at the same time.

And by the way, just so you know.

Syria is not Iraq.

And neither is Iran.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iraqi resistance is Iraqi, even the US admits that.

Ace of Base you are correct in exactly what you said.

Syrian government is working with the americans sadly, just like the iranian one.

Governments are filthy corruptable things, they do whatever profits them.
Capitalists, whatever they call themselves, they are truly just capitalists.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Originally posted by Syrian Sister

Our history with covert acts?

LOL !!!!!!!

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

should look more closely wat Syria has been doin. o yeah the assasinations and stuff against anti Syrian Lebanese. thats somthing to look at.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Syria an Iran have alliance. You can't take us both at the same time.

alliances in the ME changes constantly, shouldnt depend on Iran to save yer butt.

Syria is not Iraq.

o yeah, of course. Syria would do things different from Iraq.

And neither is Iran.

The Iraqi resistance is Iraqi, even the US admits that.

so there are no Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians, etc?

Syrian government is working with the americans sadly, just like the iranian one.

Iranian one? wat do u mean?

Governments are filthy corruptable things, they do whatever profits them.
Capitalists, whatever they call themselves, they are truly just capitalists.

no comment on that one.

Mod Edit: Fixed Quote Tags.



[edit on 10/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Syria supports no Islamic fundamentalists? Last I checked practically the entire hezzbolla leadership is based in Damascus. They may not be supporting sunni fundies but they sure do support the poo ones.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

I'm sure Syria has its place on the list, but the far riper target now would be Iran.

They're really asking for it.

Originally posted by Souljah
Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says.

Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries.

Source:
MSNBC - Newsweek

Considering that Big Firefights between US and Insurgents in Iraq take place close to Syrian Border, it is only a matter of time, when the "president" Bush decided to change the Regime in Damascus also.

if syria had the means to attack us, would they take the moral highroad, or take advantage of the oppty

it would be nice if the real world was like the avg college philosophy class, but the reality is its a jungle out there. kill or be killed. I vote kill

Originally posted by deathstar1000
Syria supports no Islamic fundamentalists? Last I checked practically the entire hezzbolla leadership is based in Damascus. They may not be supporting sunni fundies but they sure do support the #e ones.

The last itme I checked they were located in Lebanon, not Syria.
Although Syria did help Hezbollah for many years in their fight to expel Israel from Southern Lebanon.

Originally posted by Souljah
Considering that Big Firefights between US and Insurgents in Iraq take place close to Syrian Border,

There’s a reason for that, the Insurgents are infiltrating and taking refuge near there.

Originally posted by Souljah
it is only a matter of time,

Obviously you have no concept of what contingency means, planning is a good thing, you don't want to be caught sitting on your hands if a particular situation might arise.

Originally posted by Souljah
when the "president" Bush decided to change the Regime in Damascus also.

It’s nice to see your Denying Ignorance by putting president in quotes

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It’s nice to see your Denying Ignorance by putting president in quotes

I knew you wouldn't understand, but for me a President is Somebody that is actually ELECTED by his own People - and not if he rises to power with Deception, Lies and his Daddy's Friends.

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It’s nice to see your Denying Ignorance by putting president in quotes

I knew you wouldn't understand, but for me a President is Somebody that is actually ELECTED by his own People - and not if he rises to power with Deception, Lies and his Daddy's Friends.

First of all, Bush was legally elected within the boundaries of US law (whether you think the man is an idiot or not).

Second of all, the US Supreme Court certified the legality of the election. Again, whether or not you think Bush is an idiot, no one will argue with the ruling of the SCOTUS because our system is long-standing, integral, and open to public scutiny.

Thirdly, all US presidents are elected by the Electoral College, not by the general public. You should understand our political process before you criticize it.

Finally, how does this relate to Syria? As far as I am concerned, I pay the president to do many things, one of which is to have contingent war plans ready for any nation that is hostile to the US, hostile to our friends and allies, or supports world terrorism. Syria qualifies under all three categories. I have seen enough data, data which is not available to the general public, over the last 15-20 years to be absolutely certain that both Assads have been and are harborers or terrorist and participants in terrorist acts.

Does that mean we or anybody else are going to strike Syria? No. For the most part Syria is a known entity who has been contained, and whose influence is limited. It may even be true that the existing Syrian leadeship does not want anything to do with Iraqi insurgents (If you were Assad and had a front row seat as to whats going on in Iraq, wouldn't you want to prevent that sort of thing from crossing over into your country?). But....that doesn't mean our warfighters shouldn't be making plans and keeping them updated.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by Pyros]

If americans want to bomb Syria, first they have to find it on the map

But siriously, do you people think USA can afford another debacle such as Iraq? Will the whole population of USA sign in for a tour of duty or what. If really you need to wage pointless wars all the time, perhaps you should try finishing one war before starting another.

Or is that really the point, drag the whole middle east into a long lasting conflict in which the loosers are innocent people living there and 18 year old US soldiers that "think" theyre doing the right thing and winners are the few corporations that are run straight out of the white house.

Originally posted by nukunuku


But siriously, do you people think USA can afford another debacle such as Iraq? Will the whole population of USA sign in for a tour of duty or what. If really you need to wage pointless wars all the time, perhaps you should try finishing one war before starting another.

its more likely air strikes against training camps near the Iraqi border. of course we dont want to make the same mistake in Serbia by bombing the Chinese embassy and almost started WW3. do we?