Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iran And Syria Told To Stop Foreign Fighters Going To Iraq
Independent (UK) ^ | 10-29-2003 | Andrew Buncombe

Posted on 10/28/2003 5:18:34 PM PST by blam

Iran and Syria told to stop foreign fighters going to Iraq

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
29 October 2003

President Bush yesterday demanded that Iran and Syria close porous borders that he claimed were allowing "foreign fighters" to enter Iraq and carry out terrorist strikes.

On a day which brought a fresh spate of attacks, including a suicide bombing that killed six, and the news that one of Baghdad's deputy mayors had been assassinated, President Bush blamed Ba'ath Party loyalists and foreign operatives for the ongoing violence.

"It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe we are soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders," Mr Bush said. "We are working closely [with Syria and Iran] to let them know we expect them to enforce borders to stop people coming across."

Earlier, his spokesman, Scott McClellan, said he would not want to speculate on who was behind the recent attacks, but added: "We're making it very clear to [Syria and Iran] that they need to also take action to stop that cross-border infiltration. And they know what those concerns are and we expect them to act to address those issues."

Military and intelligence officials are divided over who is responsible for the increasingly organised and coordinated attacks, which on Monday targeted the Baghdad offices of the Red Crossand several police stations. Thirty-five people were killed and 230 injured in Baghdad's bloodiest day since Saddam Hussein was ousted.

Mr Bush and his senior officials are involved in a determined PR campaign to try to persuade the American public that progress is being made in Iraq and that much of the positive news in not getting through the "media filter".

But he is not having it all his way. Last week he suffered an embarrassing defeat on Capitol Hill when the Senate voted to turn part of an $87bn request for Iraqi reconstruction into loans rather than grants. At the international donors conference in Madrid at the weekend much of the money pledged by other countries was also in the form of loans

Perhaps partly as a result of Mr Bush's visible difficulties in obtaining international support, recent polls suggested the American public is losing trust in the President's ability to deal with the situation in Iraq and prevent the US from being immersed in a quagmire similar to the situation in Vietnam 25 years ago.

Aware of the danger that both this and the escalating violence in Iraq represent to his re-election fortunes, Mr Bush used his Rose Garden press conference at the White House yesterday to repeat what has become a regular theme: that the so-called war on terror launched in the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September, 2001, now has its focus in Iraq.

"Basically, what they [the attackers] are trying to do is cause people to run," he said. "They want to kill and create chaos. That's the nature of a terrorist. That's what terrorists do. They're not going to intimidate America. The terrorists rely on the death of innocent people to create the conditions of fear that therefore will cause people to lose their will. That's their strategy. And it's a pretty clear strategy to me. It's in our interest that we do our job for the free world."

Mr Bush twice compared the assaults in Iraq to the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, though he did not claim Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the hijackings. He said: "It's the same mentality, by the way, that attacked us on 11 September 2001. Just destroy innocent life and watch the great United States and their friends and allies, you know, crater in the face of hardship. [We] must never forget the lessons of 11 September.''

One of the biggest challenges facing Mr Bush and his senior military advisers is the development of a realistic exit strategy from Iraq. While the White House has indicated it would like to reduce the current US military presence from 130,000 troops to around 50,000 within 12 months, most analysts say that is probably unrealistic given the current violence.

Mr Bush is regularly asked about his comments at the beginning of May when he announced an end to "major combat operations" in Iraq. Yesterday he declined to be drawn on when the US may be in a position to pull out of Iraq. "I think you ought to look at my speech," he said. "I said Iraq's a dangerous place. We got hard work to do, there's still more to be done."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: fighters; foreign; insurgents; iran; iraq; iraqsyria; syria

1 posted on 10/28/2003 5:18:34 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
There'd better be teeth in this.
2 posted on 10/28/2003 5:23:56 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
It will take considerable political preparations before Bush is in a strong position to attack Syria, which should be next on the list. I haven't seen any signs that he is preparing the way for any such move.

The chief impediment to action is not the Syrian military or the Muslim extremists, but the US media and the Democrats. He managed to get around them with Afghanistan and Iraq, but it took careful maneuvering to do it. Now he may be waiting until after the 2004 election. But who knows?
3 posted on 10/28/2003 5:27:26 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Give them 72 hours to stop the flow of terrorists into Iraq. Tell them that any person found within a zone near the border is considered to be an "enemy terrorist invader" subject to immediate attack. Also advise we will not provide medical care or rescue services for any terrorist invaders found in the region.

After the deadline, carpet bomb the entire region and lay down anti-personnel mines.

4 posted on 10/28/2003 5:28:38 PM PST by ex-Texan (My tag line is broken !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I don't think he can wait that long. Something's got to happen, and I think it's got to happen fairly soon. Not only for the sake of the Iraqis, but to maintain confidence in the US.

The Dems are enjoying the fact that the war was so successful they were never called upon to make any decisions about their own positions or do much of anything, until their presidential candidates decided to rewrite their own personal voting histories under the mistaken impression that this would appeal to their base. Well, maybe if their base is a 55 year old single white female librarian in Utica, it might...

But I think Bush has got to stop being intimidated by the Dems. They all shut up and put up when they know they have to, Fat Teddy is about to retire and in any case went way over the line with his "Bush lies" speech, and Bush has just got to do what's right and is going to win this thing.

He talked a lot today about winning the peace, and I thought that was a good thing. But we can't win the peace until we can stop the war.
5 posted on 10/28/2003 5:35:47 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Nope, the chief impediment is the fact that our forces are stretched thin. Iraq must be completely secured before the frontlines are extended so drastically, and that will take some time. Maybe sometime in Bush's second term.
6 posted on 10/28/2003 6:18:06 PM PST by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: livius
It's increasingly clear the Iraqis themselves must assume far greater responsibility for security at a much faster pace. If anything, we're looking to significantly scale back troop levels in the Middle East ASAP. The relatively porous borders with Iran and Syria are a clear indication that we don't have enough forces to secure Iraq's frontiers, let alone launch another invasion.
7 posted on 10/28/2003 6:24:51 PM PST by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
careful maneuvering

Oh, you mean it wasn't clear cut evidence of weapons of mass destruction then?

8 posted on 10/28/2003 6:58:54 PM PST by droberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam
We as the wealthiest, most powerful, most technologically savy nation on planet earth cannot shore up our pourus borders.

How can we expect third world nations to do it?
9 posted on 10/28/2003 9:19:50 PM PST by Kay Soze ('Tis safer in Sunni triangle than in the liberally controlled area known as Los Angeles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson