"Rumsfeld Considers Striking Hizbullah To Provoke Syria"

From Jane's Intelligence Digest via The Jerusalem Post. 22 June 2005

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering provoking a military confrontation with Syria by attacking Hizbullah bases near the Syrian border in Lebanon, according to the authoritative London-based Jane's Intelligence Digest.

In an article to be published on Friday, the journal said multi-faceted US attacks, which would be conducted within the framework of the global war on terrorism, are likely to focus on Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon.

It noted that the deployment of US special forces in the Bekaa Valley, where most of Syria's occupation forces in Lebanon are based, would be highly inflammatory and would "almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops."


I hope this isn't true. I foresee nothing but grief for the USA and the world if it is.
Yes. Goading Syria and Iran while concurrently occupying Iraq could lead to grave repercusssions for the USA.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned this country to beware of entanglement in foreign wars. That was pretty good advice. I don't think the crew we've got now in the District of Columbia is superior to Washington in either intellect or moral purity.
Syria's leadership is on shaky ground and with a bit of pressure they will
either capitulate and stop supporting terrorists or the regime will collapse.
Either way I think its a good thing.
George Washington - Moral? Is this the same President GW the salve owner?
What's your name? Mr Spam Isolationist?
oops! Slave owner..bit incensed there!
tomahawk6 said:
Syria's leadership is on shaky ground and with a bit of pressure they will
either capitulate and stop supporting terrorists or the regime will collapse.
Either way I think its a good thing.
Agreed, but we disposed of the Taliban and Saddam faily sharpish.

And it's sure netted the US alot of peace and security...

And what's everyone else going to think?
Currently we have Iran and North Korea working towards nukes, while every one else is trying to get them to stop. do you think there's a ghost of a chance of them stopping if the US lands on Syria with both feet?

You hear that Twanging noise? That's the UK armed forces snapping under the strain, folowed closely by the econemy as most of the TA have to be deployed, that's if bLair backs Bush...

And As a last point Iraq had no terrorist network already in place, Syria does. Do you honestly think that knocking syria out of the equation and occupying her is going to be easy, quick or cheap? or do you belive the US will be welcomed with open arms like Rumsfeld claimed we'd be in Iraq?
The Israelis have enough on their plate withdrawing from Gaza and stopping suicide bombers. They dont want to invade Syria unless of a major provocation [which the Syrians dont want].
is it coming up to some ones election time in the US? coz thats where all this maddness seems to come from, some one own little power trip to get themself re elected!.

If the US went into Syria then best of luck to them, but be prepared to get your arrse's kicked big time. The middle easten countrys will end up clubbing togther then turning it around to come back after you.

This is now the 21st century, not the 15th , and going on a global conquest using the now ageing excuse of war on terror does not give you a right to invade any country you see fit, just because they dont have elsaticated jeans, or live by the so called civilised American way of life.

Nostrodarmus predicted the end of the world would start from some where in the middle east, we dont need the USA giving it a helping hand.

All i say is glad i am out and on the other side of the world!
tomahawk6 said:
The US can handle Iran and Syria without an invasion. No further strain on UK forces is necessary.
Lemme guess, it will involve lobbing things from passing Airplanes? Just like those American Tornado GR7's (Or whatever number we're up to now) the other day up near the Syrian border? :p :wink:
I have zero sympathy with Syria and a good shafting would work wonders on them.
However the Mid East is a powder keg on a good day.
King George's rotwieller would do more good by sorting out the Palastinian situation then starting yet another war for ar' Tone to get the troops invoved in. AGAIN.
Seems a tad bloody stupid as far as I can see there is more than enough at present for the current Coalition Forces to deal with without adding extra theatre areas. Did no one learn anything from the very basic lesson of The Russian Front? I know that may seem like drawing a long bow to compare it to the ME but to spread even thinner already stretched and stressed troops and deploy some of them elsewhere and then bring in maybe a grossly insufficient number to supplement the troops is just asking for trouble.

If this report is accurate (one time I hope it is just a bluff) what in God's name does the Bush Administration think it is doing? Are they trying to make it outright Muslim v Christian? Do they have any idea how ridiculous this all looks to normal, sane people across the globe and how pointless and wasteful of not only resources but lives is all their posturing and chestbeating? The Crusades did not seem to be a terribly good idea when they did it the first time and in my opinion helped to create a lot of the attitude "we will get you Infidels one day just see if we don't" passed down through the generations to the current day. If Dubbya and his posse want to prove they are real men and not bullies stop acting like they are currently.

I would not be half as contemptuous of the current crop of Western "World leaders" if they were not all so intent on making troops go in where they cannot be arrsed to negotiate/communicate adequately. Afghanistan as far as I can see was a totally different situation to Iraq. Yet the approach seems to have been the same "shock and awe" and GO GO GO!! The public reaction to the two situations should surely have given someone in the 'Advice to the President' department something to show them pre Telic. Perhaps they were just too intent on showing off what big lads they were and were "gonna make Dad proud" :roll:

Hezbollah, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Al-Q'aida, Muslim extremists are issues that will not go away in a hurry nor will they be resolved by stomping all over a different culture and telling it "might is right" and "all the way USA". There must be a better way that is still firm, yet face saving for all involved and sustainable for the future. Anything that smacks of patronising and patriarchal condescension will just continue to fuel resentment and breed the new generation of martyrs. Unless that is what Dubbya is after? I mean he has to justify keeping all those spies and bottomless unaccountable operations going now the "Reds" aren't "Under the Bed" till the "Yellow Peril" situation is allowed to simmer to the right point does he not?
I had a look a the Jerusalem Post site refered to in the first post. The article is dated January 22, 2004, this means right during the American presidential election campaign.

Agreed, but we disposed of the Taliban and Saddam faily sharpish.
The Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan, so 5000 British troops are going to have to go back to finish the job.

The geopolitics aside, Rumsfeld is obviously as barking mad as Hitler if he thinks it is a good idea to open up new fronts without closing down old fronts.
Every self-respecting NeoCon should be urging military action in Zimbabwe. Take out Mugabe, make SA wake up to it's regional responsibilities, scare the sh*t out of the other dictators, make life better for a whole load of people and (who knows) help boost the region's economies.

Is Geldof with me on this one? Don't send money, send 16th Airborne Brigade!

I believe it was :)

As the article was dated 2004 , perhaps it was a consideration , as this was pre-Syrian withdrawl from Lebabnon. The face of the Middle East has changed slightly , with Condispellingmistake actually winding her neck in , and telling both sides they need to get a grip in Gaza.

However, the disturbing thing in the Lebanon , is the meteoric rise of Hamas and Hizboolah (sic) to the Lebanese Parliament. The comment was made in one of the news reports, that this was due to the civic strides being made, 'They've sorted out the sanitation and the trains are running on time'

As Mizkrissi comments , and I think it is a valid analogy , you cannot even consider opening a second front against Syria , whilst the situation with Iraq remains at stalemate. Iran may well elect Rafsanjani in the run-offs , and Assad II is getting a grip of the old guard.

Before anyone bangs on about ' Bomb terrorists back to the stone age' you need to look at what's going on in Syria with the next generation. You need to look at the imagery coming out of Iran with progressive youth voting for Rafsanjani , and women taking the pi*s as far as they dare out of the Islamic dress code.

There is a real chance here for things to improve. It would be helped, by a lot more dialogue, and a damn sight fewer belligerent statements , which seem only to be aimed at pleasing one particular nation in the region.

America needs to reach out , and show she can still be the great benefactor , as well as carry a very big stick.

Similar threads

Latest Threads