STRIKES ON SYRIA ?

[Zlatko Waterman]

U.S. mulls strikes on Syria


By Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent


New York, NY, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- Bush administration hard-liners have been considering launching selected military strikes at insurgent training camps in Syria and border-crossing points used by Islamist guerrillas to enter Iraq in an effort to bolster security for the upcoming elections, according to former and current administration officials.


Pressure for some form of military action is also coming from interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, these sources said.

Some former and serving U.S. intelligence officials who have usually been opposed to any expansion of U.S. military activities in the region are expressing support for such strikes.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official told United Press International, "I don't usually find myself in sympathy with the Bush neo-cons, but I think there is enough fire under this smoke to justify such action."

Referring to the escalating attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq by Iraqi insurgents, he added, "Syria is complicit in the (anti-U.S.) insurgency up to its eyeballs."

"Syria is the No. 1 crossing point" for guerrillas entering Iraq," Gary Gambill, editor of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, said. He added that Damascus "does nothing about it."

An administration official said Syria has "camps in which Syrians are training Iraqis for the insurgency and others where Iraqis are training Syrians for the same purpose" which could be hit by U.S. air strikes.

Gal Luft, a former Israeli military official with ties to Israeli and U.S. intelligence, said, "I have heard of the same thing about the camps."

Recently, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that senior Baath Party officials from Iraq are operating from Syria where they provide financing and direction to the cells of Iraqi insurgents killing Americans, sparking new discussions within the administration about possible measures against Syria.

"There are all sorts of discussions going on, the White House, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs," said former CIA counterterrorism chief, Vince Cannistraro.

He felt the talk of strikes "is part of a general plan of intimidation."

The White House did not return phone calls.

U.S. officials told United Press International that money, direction, weapons and personnel are flowing into Iraq from Syria, ending up in Iraqi cities such as Iskanderiya, Baqouba, Latafiya and Fallujah.

Damascus is also home to associates of a top insurgency commander now affiliated with al-Qaida, Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, who is responsible for many major suicide bombing attacks in Iraq, U.S. officials said.

The presence of a Zarqawi branch in Damascus, discovered last summer, was said to have acted as a major spur in uniting France and the United States in supporting U.N. Resolution 1559 that demanded Syria withdraw from Lebanon and that elections be held in April 2005, U.S. officials said.

Gambill charged that a major Zarqawi deputy lives in Damascus.

In addition to Syria being used as a rear area for insurgents, it is a key center of finance for former Saddam Hussein officials who are leading the insurgency, thanks to stashes of Iraqi cash that could run as high as $3 billion, which is all in the Syrian banking system, according for former and serving administration officials.

There are also allegedly "many millions of dollars" from Palestinian groups flowing into Syria that are also being used to help finance anti-American guerrilla groups in Iraq, these sources said.

The Bush administration has applied increasing pressure on Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt the activities of militant groups inside Syria, and to arrest and extradite former Saddam Hussein officials who are the leading financiers, according to several U.S. government sources.

So far there has been no positive response, they said.

What especially worries U.S. former and serving intelligence analysts is the seeming weakness of Assad to act against these groups. According to these sources, Assad is "well aware of the U.S. Army on its border to the east," and does not want to antagonize the United States, in the words of one.

In fact, Bashar's inner circle of key advisers consists of reformist, "smart, streetwise young technocrats" who are urging Bashar to yield to U.S. pressure and begin to shut down some of the anti-U.S. activity, one U.S. official said.

But Bashar is also surrounded by "the old guard" -- rogue members of the ruling circle, "various people who are making millions and millions of dollars" by allowing former Baath officials to shelter in Syria, this source said.

"If something goes wrong, they can pack up and go and live in Geneva," he said.

Because of the rogue elements, after the technocrats (who are also pro-reform) give Bashar their views, they often find themselves visited the next day by hard-line members of Syria's Mukhabarat, or secret police, who tell them to keep their mouths shut, according to this official.

"Bashar is trapped," this U.S. government official said. "He's the prisoner of Zenda."

Luft agreed, saying, "The Mukhabarat and some of the old guard are known to be pressuring Bashar's senior confidents to ignore U.S. demands."

One former senior CIA official, usually an administration critic, said, "We should send a cruise missile into south-side Damascus and blow the Mukharbarat headquarters off the map. We should first make clear to them that they are the target."

But are the hawks likely to get their strikes?

Former CIA Syria expert, Martha Kessler doesn't think so. "I don't think the administration can afford to destabilize another country in the region," she said.

Kessler pointed out that Syria has tried, often in vain, to cooperate with the United States, only to be either snubbed or ignored.

According to Kesssler, Syria offered to station U.S. forces on its soil before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Syrians have also opened their intelligence books that identify assets in Europe, including front companies, to the administration in an attempt to help track down al-Qaida.

But Kessler said a chief reason for not moving against Damascus is that any strikes would "destabilize Lebanon," where the Lebanese Hezbollah movement awaits orders from Iran before launching retaliations against Israeli attacks.

"Damascus is not the heartbeat of this Iraqi insurgent movement," she said.

However, one administration official said, "We have got one hell of a problem."

[Dave The Dov]

That Son Of a Bush's policy of either your with us or against us. Ah yes this harkens back to the Reagan dictorship. When he said the Soviet Union has been outlawed and we start bombing it. Where as Nixon and Johnson just bombed then North Vietam. Ah yes the "Let's Bomb It That Will Take Care Of It" solution. It works every time.
_________________
Honda Dylan 125

[Lightning Rod]

Remember our cowboy incursions into Laos and Cambodia?

[knip]

makes perfect sense to me

in the sandstorm that followed the start of operation whack iraq, convoys of trucks headed into syria with baath officials on board...those guys have to go before iraq has any chance of success on their own


it's just an opposing point of view...no need to get all mad at me for it

[Zlatko Waterman]

When one thinks as a strategist in an on-going war I would expect your comment, Knip.

No offense taken.

--Z

[Dave The Dov]

More like the up and coming prolong power struggle.
_________________
college grants

[knip]

i suppose it depends on how one looks at it, dave...isn't history one continuous power struggle? isn't the 'up-and-coming power struggle' merely a power struggle on a slightly different path...a path caused by a different chosen path?

what i mean is that, yes, operation whack iraq created the conditions for a very difficult (and deadly) power struggle...but i'll argue that had the attack not happened, there still would have been a power struggle, merely one that followed a different path

where has usama gone in the past? he went to afghanistan to fight a jihad...later he went to the sudan in the hopes of better state backing for his jihad, which was expanded to include anti-US and anti-(non-islamic rules-based) powers in islamic countries...he chose sudan because good conditions existed for him to operate there...then after quite a bit of strategic political effort, he was forced out of the sudan, and he ended up in afghanistan...here the conditions were still good for him to operate, although for different reasons

so now usama has to go somehwere, and where are conditions likely best to help him further his goals? despite usama hating saddam i think the answer is iraq, if not before the attack, it certainly is now

i think i'm starting to lose my point in my mind, here


let's say the iraq attack didn't happen...there would still be power struggles...probably on saddam's death and certainly elsewhere as usama or someone else regrouped...likely candidates are the sudan (again), indonesia, somalia, possibly malaysia, pakistan, and syria...all have predominately muslim populations with significant percentages of the fundamentalist jihad bent...the coalition still has to go get them there, which will undoubtedly cause power struggles and insurgencies...seems to me that dealing with these power struggles is easier in a place like iraq than most of the other places

[Dave The Dov]

Just like in Vietnam your neighbor to the south gets involved with something that it should never had been involved with in the first place.
_________________
BMW Z9

[mnaz]

Operation "Whack Iraq" had nothing to do with dealing with real threats from Islamic jihadists. That was the main smokescreen sent up by the current band of power-hungry, unconscionable, blatant liars, now in power in DC. If anything, the Admin. let Usama off the hook when they had a chance to close in on him.
Usama is too valuable to Bush. Why sacrifice all that valuable political capital?

[Dave The Dov]

Oil and capital are the two products that are made by the Son Of a Bush's company.
_________________
Nervous System Disorders Forum

[knip]

frankly, that seems a little far-fetched to me...i haven't joined the conspiracy club just yet

my opinion is that they lost osama because they wanted the northern alliance to get him to validate them as future afghansitan leaders, to let them take the risks, and because frankly, western armies don't operate well in that terrain...unfortunately they didn't get him

[Dave The Dov]

Osama and Bush are in bed together.
_________________
Honda NX250

[knip]

do you really believe that, dave?

it seems just way too 'out there' for me

[Dave The Dov]

Just set their alarm clock and you'll see what I mean!!!!
_________________
Honda Deauville

[abcrystcats]

This is slightly O-T, but does anyone think capturing Osama and putting Al Qaeda completely out of business would have a significant effect on the problem of terrorism throughout the Middle East?

I personally think that if we captured Osama and completely dismantled his organization it would send an effective message to the Muslim world (and to terrorists everywhere) that we will not tolerate their activities. It's quite probable that more terrorists would spring up in his place, but if we kept punching them back down, terrorist activity would eventually quiet down.

Osama's public messages and his very existence perpetuate the "War on Terror." I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that much.

Knip, you say western armies don't operate well in that terrain. But they operated well enough to overthrow the Taliban in a very short time. I admit it's an entirely different project to capture one slippery terrorist skittering around in the hills, but I do think that if it had been in someone's vested interest to take this guy (Osama) down, they would have done it a long time ago. Our armies have generally succeeded in the recent past, when they've wanted to succeed. It still isn't too late, but there just doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to get Osama.

Why?

He must serve a useful purpose to this government, or at least that is my opinion.

We are not fighting terrorism effectively. An out and out war targeting a country or countries to fight terrorism is kind of like trying to swat flies by throwing water balloons at them. But if the flies keep buzzing around, at least you have an excuse to keep throwing the water balloons ...