US Forces Ready To Strike Syria ?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tomahawk6, Jan 12, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Interesting debka article. The question is not if Syria will be struck but when
    and in what form. I suspect that in any pre-emptive strike the goal will be to destroy the Syrian air force and hit key Syrian targets that are important to the regime. Without a ground operation into Syria it would be difficult to choke off the flow of militants into Iraq.
  2. Debka= Large pinch of salt.

    However , with US and British Forces stretched just to contain Iraq , can we really take on another front?

    Still, it'll make up the minds of all those fence sitting Arabs, especially when Israel enters the fray.

    Or does the US administration seriously think they can somehow keep Israel out of it?

    I'd prefer to think they have more sense, then Debka's anti-Arab neocon wishful thinking.
  3. Any Web site advertising Ten days Holiday in Israel is suspect.
    Anyway as previous poster says not enough troops for Iraq let alone new war.
    Airwar only, well the board has been looking to justify keeping RAF.
  4. Syria wtf have they done now? Even with just a little bit of common sense, it doesnt make any. Moraly, Politically, and financialy it doesnt make sense. To me any way.

  5. So the thoughts of the Neo-cons in the US have evolved into a new world order controlled by the US :roll: and Syria could be next 8O

    Highly unlikely, as stated earlier, given our over-stretch with both US and British forces. If you take a pop shot at Syria, they will not sit there and accept it without retaliating :?

    And then if Israel enters the arena 8O then things do go seriously pear shaped
  6. This looks like balls to me; if the main 'reason' is to cut off the supply of AT and other systems to the Iraqi insurgents and close the borders more effectively to impose a limitation on them, how would war in Syria help?? There would be two insurgencies, not one, Hezbollah would step up attacks in Israel, the Arab world would come down firmly against the Zionist conspiracy (as they see it - mad, but there we go).

  7. Was there not a briefing to GWB prior TELIC from the fundamentalist Christian groups associated with the neo-cons along the lines that the '...end of the world is nigh and every right thinking Christian should work towards that end. The end times will be presaged by the outbreak of wars throughout all the biblical lands - so lets get in there'?

    So two insurgencies IS better than one - and if 'we' can't win it won't matter because by that stage we'll all have seen the parousia anyway!

    I'm reasonably sure that there was a fairly derogatory thread on here - but I can't find it to link to. Most of the vitriol IIRC was aimed at the original poster rather than the Spams in general...
  8. Why not start a war on 2 fronts, I mean historically it has met with so much success! The Syrians are a bit better equipped and trained than the post Desert Storm Iraqis, and any action by Israel would go down really well!

    Personally I can't see it unless Bush has gone mental. Still think small, power crazed leader seeking world domination and starting wars on 2 fronts' now where have we seen that before? :twisted:
  9. Well if you are a Neo-Con true believer, you may well be of the opinion that a full effort war to wipe out the threat of the Arab-Islamic autocracies was a good thing, rather than just pussyfooting around at minimum strength in Iraq; just as the full-on war in the 1940s destroyed the threat to US economic hegemony posed by the Fascist/Imperialist powers. Taking a few big hard slaps at Syria might well provoke the response you're after.
  10. We all say that we don't and never can truly understand the Arab mind - but I'd argue that the US mind is just as puzzling. Decry as we might UK politics and politicians, there is a healthy cynicism and mostly rational debate in UK politics that seems to be absent in the US. The whole neo-con Christian fundamentalist aspect should scare everyone, if only (and sadly this is not the case) because policies get made by religious conviction ("God spoke to me in a dream and told me to invadicise Iraq, Gawd bless 'Merica"). Mental.

    Remember when Iran moved its border 10kms into Iraq just after the war, and everyone was scrambling around making contingency plans in case the next step was 19 Mech taking on the Islamic Republic's finest in Maysan (there's an idea for a wargame at ACSC!)? I remember a conversation with a US officer along the lines of 'bring it on, let's 'do' Iran next' - and the guy meant it. I'm not applying this to all spams, but, f~ck me - if one of us thought like that we'd know to keep it quiet wouldn't we?
  11. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    To whom is Syria a threat ? Israel

    How would the Arab world perceive a USAF strike on Syria? More unqualified US support for Israel.

    Who would benefit from such action? Israel

    Which country appears able to lead any US administration by the nose into ever deepening conflict ? { INSERT ANSWER HERE }

    Is it me ?
    Does the expression " putting out fires with gasoline " ring any bells ?

    Lee Shaver
  12. F2Y2D

    My thoughts initally when I saw that was Barbarossa. 8O

    However, once you've got past the shrill screaming headline on Debka , and read the article, it appears Bush has asked the General concerned, to consider "Hot pursuit" of suspected insurgents over the border. Armitage was in Damascus, and contrary to Debkas wishful thinking article on that , I believe the reason he was there, was to ask for mutual cross border operational support.

    There is NO reason to attack Syria wholesale. Assad II (Anglophile, Former NHS Doctor, Brit wife) has been having a purge of the old guard in Syria, and bringing in young heads that think the way he does.

    We already know that Assad isn't a damn fool, vis, the treatment of Bluppet when he turned up there. Jack Straw (oy-vay are you sure he is Jewish?) received a great reception in Syria after he intimated that Israel needs to wind it's neck in , and stop being so paranoid about Syria. Ok Sharon choked on his breakfast Bagel and protested, but so what?

    Assad will stand for Syrian interests in the region first, but we can bring him onside, and we do have the chance to.

    Syria is not going to be a pushover in Military terms, and thinking of invading the place is lunacy. How the hell are we going to keep a country under control, where the Leader IS popular amongst the young for his secular views. We might have a chance in Iran of getting another velvet revolution, but in Syria? No chance. It'll make the insurgency in Iraq look like a Saturday night in Portsmouth, as half the Arab world picks up an AK.

    We need to engage the Syrians , and get them onside, and stop bowing to Israels' paranoia.
  13. The men hold hands, and their SF wear pink uniforms with black pixel-cam overlay!
    They're well overdue! :wink:
  14. Tom DeLay, the de facto Republican leader in Congress laid out the initial case for war against Iraq in 2002. DeLay said Bush had established a new doctrine : "America must preempt threats before they damage our national interests." Is DeLay right? Is attack now, ask questions later, the right doctrinal stance?

    Those questions can't be answered in isolation. The test of any doctrine of military intervention is whether you can stomach its consequences. On what principles could we justify war with Iraq, and where else would those principles apply? Where would the DeLay Doctrine take us? Let's examine his criteria for pre-emptive military action in light of recent developments.

    Sponsorship of terrorism. DeLay calls for "the destruction of every terrorist organization and its sponsors." He interprets this category loosely, saying we shouldn't "require American standards of criminal evidence in making the case against state sponsors of terror." What other sponsors must be destroyed under this principle? According to a State Department report released three months ago, six nations other than Iraq "support or tolerate terrorism." They are Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.

    Weapons of mass destruction. DeLay warns that "unless America stops him, Saddam will soon have nuclear weapons. Failure would immensely strengthen a vicious predator and would make the costs of overturning his regime far too high. … Only by taking them out of his hands can we be certain that nuclear, biological or chemical weapons won't wind up in the hands of terrorists." We all know now that the entire WMD claims were largely a load of rubbish. However, what other potentially dangerous regimes should have their weapons programs taken away under this principle? According to a CIA report issued last year, Pakistan and North Korea already have nuclear weapons. Iran and Syria have chemical or biological weapons and are trying to get nukes. Libya and Sudan are trying to get all three. In addition, the report cites Russia, China, India, and even Western Europe as possible sources of WMD proliferation.

    Violating WMD agreements. DeLay said we must take Iraq's arsenal by force rather than diplomacy because "Saddam broke every promise" he has made to end his weapons programs. Who else can't be bargained with under this principle? According to a 1998 State Department report, China, Russia, Egypt, Iran, Libya, and Syria violated the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ukraine, and North Korea violated other weapons agreements.

    Aggression. DeLay said Saddam must be ousted in part because he "invaded his neighbours." What other governments have recently invaded their neighbors? Ethiopia, Eritrea and Armenia have certainly done so. If you count all cross-border conflicts, the list of offenders includes Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh; North and South Korea; Israel, Lebanon, and Syria; Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda; Chad and the Central African Republic; Saudi Arabia and Yemen; Myanmar, the Soviet Union, and various parties in the Balkans.

    Attacking and threatening Israel. DeLay noted that Saddam "attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the Gulf War and threatens Israel with weapons of mass destruction today." Who else has attacked and threatened Israel? In 1967, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan went to war with Israel. They were assisted by Algeria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. More recently, Iran and Syria, both of whom are on the WMD list, have directed violence against Israel.

    Domestic murder and terror. Saddam "holds power through cunning, cruelty, and constant purges," observed DeLay. "And it's only through continuous murder and terror directed against the Iraqi people that this tyrant keeps power." What other regimes maintain power in this way? The list is too long to count, but the State Department's March 2002 report on human rights indicates that in Africa alone, 18 regimes, including Libya and Sudan, are guilty of such practices.

    Religious and ethnic persecution. DeLay pointed out that in addition to his atrocities against Kurds, Saddam "persecutes and murders religious leaders in Southern Iraq. He represses Iraqi minorities in Southern Iraq by razing villages." What other regimes persecute such minorities? The State Department's latest report on religious freedom accuses Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Laos, Myanmar, North Korea, and Vietnam of "totalitarian or authoritarian attempts to control religious belief or practice." The report also charges Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan with "state hostility toward minority or nonapproved religions." There is no such list of ethnic persecutors, but a survey of the State Department's human rights reports indicates that at least 12 African governments, including Sudan, would qualify.

    Thwarting democracy. "Returning their government to the people of Iraq would signal democratic reformers around the region that the United States is deeply committed to expanding freedom," said DeLay. "It would demonstrate that we stand ready to help any willing country discover the blessings of self-government." What other peoples, under this principle, would we be obliged to assist militarily in discovering such blessings? Of the world's 189 countries, the State Department says 117 are democracies. If we're truly committed to expanding freedom, we've got 72 more to go.
    DeLay offered a few other reasons for war. Some applied exclusively to Iraq—Saddam has used chemical weapons against his own people, and he tried to assassinate former President Bush — but these crimes are now a decade old. Other reasons given by DeLay—that Saddam is "ungoverned by reason or morality" and is "evil because of what he intends to do" — could apply to dozens of other tyrants. Sticking with the eight criteria listed above, I reckon that seven apply to Syria and North Korea, six that apply to Iran, and five apply to China, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.

    Hawks in the US say critics who shrank from confronting the Iraq situation lacked "moral clarity." But they, too, failed to supply moral clarity. Which of the nine other regimes that meet five or more of the criteria above do they think we should attack next? If they won't attack those regimes, exactly which of those criteria do they deem sufficient to justify war? Not one of the eight reasons applied to Iraq alone.

    It's a fundamental task of foreign policy. Maybe the Bush Administration can convince us to go to war somewhere else in the world. Maybe their critics can convince us not to. But each side must spell out its doctrine of military intervention and where else we'll have to fight, or not fight, if we accept that doctrine.

    Rant over! :D
  15. The spams have a population of 300million souls. This is one-eighteenth of the world's population. They simply do not have enough people to take on the world! Or money, with a trillion-dollar deficit!