Syria in the Gunsights

NewsMax ^ | Monday, April 26, 2004 | Jack Wheeler

[First_Salute]

The policy of containment continues with Syria --- we have agreed with Egypt that Syria is "hands off unless Syria engages in overt acts." We wait, therefore, for Syria to "shoot first."

Iranians would rather settle their own differences. I'm not sure, but I am under the impression that Iranians make up the largest mid-East represenation of descendants within the United States. Those that wish for more freedom "back home," generally like the soft approach. So, again, without an overt act by Iran, we wait for them to "shoot first."

Yet, I must say, that as I look back on certain events of Year 2000, I wondered then, about the sudden rise in arrogance that could be found, here, among the students at university who were allegedly from Lebanon.

They were definitely overt, so to speak, and they were arrogant, and they were then, already acting like conquerors. I wondered what was up.

I was given to understand that President Clinton had ordered U.S. Marine officers to train certain parties under the auspices of the government of Syria, done to demonstrate an act of faith by him, that he was "neutral" in regard to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Sounds like one of his "military agreements," such as that whereby we were also training Red Chinese military "operatives." Something that Anthony Lake & Co. probably approved/promoted.

Which reminds me of the aid given to the same Red Chinese by Israel.

Not to mention the other cockeyed schemes of Morton Halperin.

You might say, that the lawyers have the thing so entangled, that the lawyers still have the thing entangled, because un-entangling is not their nature.

Because President Bush is determined to do things upon the advice of lawyers at each step, well, there's your answer.

You might have wondered why we did not invade Lebanon, so that our forces would be on the west and on the east of Syria, just in case, when we went into Iraq?

Yet the planners looked upon Lebanon as being, what indeed, Iraq has become, and so they demurred.

Lack of resources, yes, but the problem is, that combat power is not patrol power, and the Defense Department is a much tougher nut to crack than apparently any of the countries in the gunsights --- DoD, as we have seen, has not figured out the manpower requirements for patrol power.

The efficiency experts have entangled so much of what "the Pentagon does." At the core, the problem is that in peacetime, in order to procure, you must have a doctrine upon which to justify expenditures.

In wartime, a lot of that doctrine is discovered to be ineffective, wasteful, and sometimes harmful, as the training that accompanied the doctrine, is "all washed up." Suddenly you have equipment that must meet demands outside the peacetime doctrine; and many other plans that are "scrapped."

Mr. Rumsfeld, to his credit, is trying to resolve that nightmare come to life, yet again; but his Robert McNamara-ish tendencies are selling wartime expectations very, very, very short.

Lack of resources, yes; and, a lack of giving the arts of deception and surprise, not to mention other capabilities of the enemy, enough credit, such that, we find ourselves wrapped up in the "new paradigm" zeitgeist at the expense of several lessons learned the hard way, that are thrown out because they are errantly confused with "being part of the past" and "being part of the old ways" simply because on a sheet of paper, on a memo, the lessons learned are from the "old eras."

We continue to fail to plan for heavy losses of material, something that Pearl Harbor taught us the hard way, and the modern leaders have chosen to ignore.

[Momaw Nadon]

Didn't China just send people to Syria last week?

Got a link?

[ThermoNuclearWarrior]

I didn't mean to say that Iran would be easy to occupy. I just think it would be easier to occupy than Iraq or Syria. There is a much larger educated pro Western movement in that country. I think a lot of people would be surprised at the amount of pro western people over their. It's nothing like Iraq or Syria. But I understand there are still a lot of people we would have to deal with in that area. Syria seems like the most difficult nation to occupy of the three. I have a feeling Syria is going to make a mistake of supplying chemical and/or biological weapons to terrorist groups. Once a chemical attack is used in Iraq against our troops or in Israel, especially if it kills many, I think we/they will use nukes in retaliation. We have to show that any state sponsored WMD attack is met with our own, even more devastating, WMD attack.

[boris]

Number eight is certain to be successful, and yes--we DO have the assets.

[monkeywrench]

http://www.beijingfm.com/p/33/023cc9a12f0f6b.html?id=WNAT17ff2133e3d8f097ff7764f85c399434

[Jabba the Nutt]

All of the below:

2. Impose more economic sanctions on Syria and Iran to get them to abandon terrorism and WMDs.

3. Use covert operations to topple the regimes in Syria and Iran. Hope that democracies arise from the aftermath.

4. Launch a surgical air strike against sites in Syria and Iran that are believed to contain terrorist assets and WMDs.

5. Launch a surgical air strike against the heads of state and their loyalists in Syria and Iran. Also, launch a surgical air strike against sites that are believed to contain terrorist assets and WMDs.

First, what is our goal in the Middle East? We need a strong pro-American regional power. We had Iran, until Jimmah Cartah abandoned the Shah. Then, we had troops and bases in Saudi Arabia. Now, we are attempting to set up a unified, peaceful, prosperous and democratic Iraq. The Sunnis don't want that and the Shiites aren't supporting us enough to ensure success. So, what now?

I would send Powell to Syria, Iran and to the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. I would give all parties an ultimatum. To Syria and Iran stop supporting the insurgents in Iraq and give up all WMD's.

Here's what the or else is:

!. We will bomb the leadership, intelligence, terrorist and WMD sites.

2. The US will back the Kurds and take slices of territory out of Iran and Syria to create a Kurdish State with 50 million Kurds.

This Kurdish State will be under American protection. The remainders of Syria, Iran and Iraq will be attacked at will, if the continue to harbor terrorists. We'll move our Turkish, Iraqi and Saudi bases into Kurdistan.

[M Kehoe]

Syria needs to be addressed (not in the way clinton would think).

I hope Assad realizes he has a bullseye on his forehead (just like Arafat). Time to take out the garbage.

5.56mm

[Jabba the Nutt]

You would be right, if we were trying to establish democratic governments in Syria and Iran. Personally, I say we give the Iraqis six months, then give up on the Democracy Project. We cannot do this for them, they must fight the terrorists within their own country.

For Iran and Syria, we just want governments to give up on WMD's and stop sponsoring and harboring terrorists. We can bomb them until they comply. Both countries are making our Iraq construction project much more difficult.

My plan be would include the formation of Kurdistan with slices of territory taken from Syria and Iran. That's what we need to tell these people. Do they want an American-backed Kurdistan on their borders filled with American military bases?

[First_Salute]

containment but no state sponsorship