Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?
Washington Note ^ | 1/11/07 | S Clemens

Posted on 01/11/2007 6:49:34 PM PST by voletti

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

The bare outlines of that order may have appeared in President Bush's Address to the Nation last night outlining his new course on Iraq:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Miscellaneous
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last
To: voletti

I certainly hope so!

41 posted on 01/11/2007 8:57:01 PM PST by airborne (What good is having air superiority if you don't use it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

A large part of Iran in included in "Kurdistan." Right now, the Kurds are talking, as they have for years with the Iranians. Suppose we made it worth their while to stire them up in Iran and, at the same time, made them promise to leave Turkey alone.

42 posted on 01/11/2007 9:02:30 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

A difference is that Ford was looking for re-election in 1976. Therefore, he did not confront Congress. If Nixon had no blundered into Watergate, the history of Vietnam would have been quite different.

43 posted on 01/11/2007 9:06:46 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Yup, the Iranian subs should fail to return to port after submerging for starters.

44 posted on 01/12/2007 6:55:48 AM PST by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

The Kurds have been betrayed numerous times. America betrayed them at least twice in my memory. So they are likely to be very careful about any assurances we give them, especially since they are well aware that there are forces in America that would love to leave them dangling once again.

Also, Turkey would be strongly resistant to an independent Kurdistan, even if it did not include their own Kurds. An independent Kurdistan would be a magnet for Turkish Kurds in the future, regardless of any promises made now.

Still, it may be a possibility. I'm sure everyone in the region is considering it.

45 posted on 01/12/2007 8:26:26 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: darth

One would be sufficent, don't you think?

46 posted on 01/12/2007 9:33:31 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

The best assurance we can give them is not good enough, but any is better than none.

47 posted on 01/12/2007 9:35:04 AM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
[ Works for me. Insert sniper teams, and aim for the generals(mullahs, imams, or other potentates) ]

Exactly.. Insurgency works both ways..

48 posted on 01/12/2007 9:42:52 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Actually, if there is no budget, the President has complete authority to spend mony on what he deems necessary. Although he would close down the national parks, and various welfare agencies, he would continue to fund the military, border patrol, coast guard. Money would continue to flow into the IRS.

Lincoln fought the Civil War for some 6 months after he was elected, without benefit of Congress.

You may recall that Clinton vetoed the budget just after the Republicans took office in 1994.

49 posted on 01/12/2007 9:58:23 AM PST by donmeaker (If the sky don't say "Surrender Dorothy!" then my ex wife is out of town.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: voletti

This president does not know that killing people is the only way to win a war. He should be studying Caesar, Genghis Kahn, and Lincoln's terrorist-in-chief, Bill Sherman.

50 posted on 01/13/2007 3:26:31 AM PST by tailgunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 last

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
Topics · Post Article

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