Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

October 27, 2008
Why The Attack In Syria?

What the f— was yesterdays special operation strike against Syria about?

A reader at Joshua Lanid’s blog reports:

I just spoke on the phone with a doctor in ABou Kamal- He confirmed that the attack happened around sunset. The 4 helicopters came from the East of the township, he saw them coming. The soldiers debarked and shot people who were working in a building under construction on the periphery of the township.

9 people were pronounced dead on arrival to the hospital- Two more are severely wounded and are being operated on right now [he does not expect them to survive]- He has not read the papers (there are none to read at this time of the night) nor listened to the news and there is no internet there….His report was completely spontaneous-

I was not able to get the details on the ages of the injured but he described them as poor simple people (Masakeen) from the town. If the matter were otherwise, he would have let me know.

There were no recent reports or accusation from the military against infiltration in Iraq from Syria. So what was the point?

Such an invasion of a foreign country must have been ordered from the highest level of the White House.

The only motive I can think of is that this is supposed to help McCain. Others suspect the same:

What better way to move the American people back to a neoconservative view than by provoking a Syrian/American conflict days before one of the most fateful elections in American history. Most Americans are fed up with foreign wars, unbelievable debt from those wars, and economic failure. Yet if we can provoke Syria into retaliating against the United States somehow, then we can terrify the American people enough right now before the elections. Then they will vote from fear, not from the perspective of pragmatism and realism, and certainly not from a position of vision and hope. It has happened before in history.

But Syria is very unlikely to retaliate. It did not retaliate when the Israelis bombed the box on the Euphrates a year ago. It did not retaliate when Israel in February killed Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyeh with a car bomb in Damascus. Instead Syria continued with a policy of building better relation with its neighbors and even, for the first time in history, officially acknowledged the borders of Lebanon.

So if this was an attempt to stoke up an additional war, the lack of judgment is astonishing. Then again – the neo-cons have never shown good judgment at all.

Posted by b on October 27, 2008 at 10:45 UTC | Permalink
Comments

first linkee no workee
What’s the bet that there is a false flag retaliation?

Posted by: CP | Oct 27 2008 11:19 utc | 1

Wars have a strong tendency to spread beyond the borders of the countries involved. It takes quite disciplined leadership to restrain the military from getting into fights that cross borders. Perhaps the Bush administration in its last days is losing that discipline as it knows it won’t have to deal with the fallout of these kind of stupid acts.
If you were going to pick a fight to get someone to strike back at you Syria would be the last place on Earth you’d choose. They’ve made turning the other cheek into almost an art form.

Posted by: swio | Oct 27 2008 11:23 utc | 2

@cp – thanks, bbc link corrected.
@swio – the military would not do such a raid without orders from the highest command. It doesn’t work that way. This must have been something prepared for a while. It was not a hot pursuit and not a small troop doing something rogue.
I would not be surprised to learn that the regular local commanders even up to CentCom were not informed about this. Special Operations are now the personal troops of the White House.

Posted by: b | Oct 27 2008 11:27 utc | 3

Such cross-border “raids” into Pakistan are now “normal” in the MSM/for Americans, and the UN? – i.e., US attacks on sovereign countries don’t seem to cause any outrage anywhere. If the neo-con goal is to create instability in these regions, one can only expect them to continue/increase. Widening conflicts at this stage must be a reassurance to the MIC, fundamental to US economy, with the added benefit of making an Obama presidency more difficult.
I doubt this will help McC. As Josh Marshall points out McC’s “crisis response” was plain for all to see with the breakout of the economic meltdown and “was the turning point in the election”. My feeling, as an American, is that US voters, at this late stage, won’t be turned by what is easily seen to be a cynical October Surprise.
More from J Cole, with a chilling Al Jazeera video report, in which a survivor, wife of one of the dead men who’d been building the house, describes the event and being shot as she reached for her child.

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 27 2008 11:50 utc | 4

I’m not disagreeing with you. But I was including the top command as much as the regular troops when I said the military has to be restrained. It could just have likely been a gung ho special forces general that requested permission for a raid on Syria from the White House directly and the WH not caring enough any more to say no.

Posted by: swio | Oct 27 2008 12:09 utc | 5

It’s hard not to see this as some sort of electoral maneuver, although we can be sure such motives will be denied if we are lucky enough to see them suggested in the U.S. mainstream press. I also agree with bthat the attack looks like a White House directed operation, perhaps originating somewhere around Elliott Abrams office. No need to worry there about “regime change”, since some Dennis Ross clone will surely take over after January.
With regard to (the appearance of a) regime change, it does seem to me that CNN has its anti-McCain talking points (and more specifically anti-Palin darts) from “some higher authority”. This behavior is just as despicable as that displayed in cheer leading for the invasion of Iraq.
Neither McCain nor Palin are my cup of tea, but I fail to see why she is so obviously unqualified for the White House when compared, say, to the present incumbent, or to Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew, or Bill Miller, just to name a few of the more egregiously weak running mates of the last 44 years. It’s true that she is mouthing all the neo-con pieties, but compared to the cynical conviction with which Joe Biden advertises imminent military adventures or partitions nations, Palin is truly an innocent abroad, and might, in the unlikely event she reaches power, actually think about the human consequences of the policies for which she provides a comely front. Furthermore, compared to the recidivism of the incumbent president and vice president, Ms. Palin has not yet had the chance to become a full-blown war criminal, unless applauding such criminality is itself a crime.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 27 2008 12:25 utc | 6

Ahhh, now here’s an interesting tidbit, Mystery surrounds CIA chief Lebanon trip.

CIA Director Michael Hayden sparks controversy by holding covert meetings with top Lebanese officials in a secret visit to the country.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 27 2008 13:12 utc | 7

Timing is everything.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 27 2008 14:10 utc | 8

Syria does not have to attack, but then again, “Syrian-backed, Iranian-equipped” terrorists might choose this time to strike against the US or its allies, providing the Republicans the perfect backdrop to play up McCain-the-warrior vs. Obama-the-Muslim-Terrorist.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 27 2008 14:16 utc | 9

After the hundreds of thousands killed at the best of the vicious pampered degenerates who rule Washington, what could be more appealing to them than ordering one last murderous hit against a random group of hard-working farm-people – for any reason or none? One last exciting sip from the bloody chalice before their time runs out – praying that it will poison them: may they vomit blood for this.

Posted by: parvati_roma | Oct 27 2008 15:11 utc | 10

I’m sure McCain would love to “play” warrior. Playing warrior has been pretty much been his shtick since Vietnam. And if he wants to really be a warrior I’m all for him challenging someone to single combat in the hills of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Me, I’ll take professional SOLDIERS under someone with good judgement (i.e. no one in the current Administration).
I’m not sure an incident a week before the election helps any more. The “fear, fear, fear” drumbeat hasn’t been working so well and it’s not clear that President 24% and Flailing McPalin wouldn’t screw it up royally at this point – a smooth running machine they ain’t.

Posted by: Butch | Oct 27 2008 15:15 utc | 11

I’m currently watching a live Press conference with the Syrian FM in London – both on Sky and the BBC.
Al Mouallem was meeting with Milliband today and this was originally scheduled as a joint presser – Milliband has had to withdraw from the conference, which is, to put it bluntly, hugely embarrassing for the UK FCO, and I would imagine that in private they are absolutely furious about this; the implication is that Milliband would have had to be critical of the US action and didn’t want to do it in public.
Mouallem is pissed – and is asserting that the Syrians will defend their territory if the US tries anything like this again, and is going to press both the Iraqi government and the US administration for an explanation – he’s also recycling Petraeus’s positive comments on Syria of earlier this year to underline that Syria has been cracking down on foreign figher infiltration. The action is being denounced as a deliberate terrorist attack, blatant aggression etc..
General reaction by the seasoned UK commentators is that there’s no rational “security” explanation for this, it’s a sign of the utter dysfunction of the US government and that it’s a parting shot from the crazies. The idea that it is a “political” act designed to assist McCain is being discounted as the action is too small and unlikely to provoke the kind of military response that might play into that agenda – I’d concur with that analysis, but it remains to be seen how the campaigns “play” it.

Posted by: dan | Oct 27 2008 15:32 utc | 12

An attempt to undermine Maliki – to squeeze him on the sofa?
16:30 CET. An angry Syrian Foreign Minister in live interview on CNN, SkyNews, and BBC says the attack is “serious aggression” and “if it happens again” Syria will defend itself. Also, claims outright that the deadly US helicopter attack is motivated by US domestic election.
The Syrian Ambassador to US just now interviewed on CNN also claims it was done for political reasons. For “balance” I presume, Jim Clancey asked a retired military person “why would the US attack now?” given cross-border infiltration into Iraq of suicide bombers has subsided. The answer was a bunch of stuff about long border, Syria not doing enough, blah blah. The Ambassador responded forcefully that Malaki and all his ministers, he listed them, have assured Syria and all its neighbors that they will not allow US attacks from Iraq on its neighbors, and that Iraq and Syria have good relations regarding borders, etc. The running newsline below the picture said that Iraq wants to maintain good relations with Syria.
Today’s attack would call that assurance into question, no? Earlier today I saw a headline – can’t find it now – something like: US military threatens to stop protection in Iraq if sofa isn’t passed. Something like that. Cheney must be desparate to get the sofa he wants before end of December, when it expires. Playing hardball with Maliki is what Cheney most likely thinks he’s good at. Ordering an attack in Syria to undermine Maliki might be right up Cheney’s alley.

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 27 2008 15:49 utc | 13

I think this is going to backfire on the Republicans.

Posted by: a | Oct 27 2008 16:00 utc | 14

Here’s another take:
US raid in Syria spooks Iran

…
Tehran feels increasingly threatened by the United States-Iraq security agreement that will allow 50 US military bases throughout Iraq, including several in areas close to the Iran-Iraq border.
“The Status of Forces agreement permits the construction of large US forward bases near not only Iran but also Syria and as a result is a cause of serious worry by both Tehran and Damascus,” said a prominent Tehran University political science professor.
In light of the incursion on Sunday by US forces inside Syrian territory, ostensibly to pursue al-Qaeda terrorists, there is suddenly concern on the part of many analysts in Tehran that the security agreement between Baghdad and Washington is not simply an internal matter for Iraqis to decide, but rather a regional issue that calls for direct input by Iraq’s neighbors.
American military helicopters struck in Syrian territory bordering Iraq, killing eight people. The raid is said to have targeted a network of al-Qaeda-linked fighters using Syria to reach Iraq. The raid comes as Washington and Baghdad are negotiating a bilateral agreement that will set the terms for how US and coalition troops continue to occupy and fight in Iraq. The current United Nations mandate for the multinational forces expires on December 31.
“Iraq’s neighbors have been asked by the international community to participate in Iraq’s reconstruction and therefore by definition they should also be involved in security matters as well,” another analyst at a Tehran think-tank told the author.
This is not altogether an unreasonable request. Iran and the US have participated in three rounds of dialogue on Iraq’s security, and that, according to Tehran analysts, is as good a reminder as any that Washington’s decision to ignore Iran’s viewpoints on the security agreement is a bad error.
However, from the moment the initial news of the agreement was leaked to the public last year, Iraqi officials have insisted that the agreement is harmless toward Iraq’s neighbors and, in several visits to Tehran, Iraq’s foreign minister and national security advisor have commonly played the theme that the US would be prevented from using its bases in Iraq to attack Iran.
But, such assurances, previously doubted due to the structural weaknesses of the Iraqi government, now ring hollow in the aftermath of the US’s raid inside Syria, which could easily be replicated in Iran with similar excuses. Or even worse, ones pertaining to hot pursuit of Iran’s supposed accomplices with the people who plant roadside bombs.
Clearly, the small US raid inside Syria has already had a disproportionate impact on Iran, by heightening the already high national security concerns of the country in the post-September 11, 2001, context. [1] As a result, in reaction to the US’s calculated move inside Syria, Iran’s close ally, Tehran is sure to escalate its rhetoric against the security agreement.
In turn, this will mean more friction between Tehran and Washington at a crucial time when the White House change of guard is imminent and a less hawkish president, Obama, seems destined to replace President George W Bush, widely regarded as a warmonger in the Middle East.
“The chances are that the US incursion into Syria is a dress rehearsal for action against Iran and the [Iranian] Revolutionary Guards [Corps], just as they often portray Israel’s aerial attack on Syrian territory last year as a prelude for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said the Tehran political scientist, adding that since the US had already branded Iran’s Guards as terrorists, it had the necessary rationale to do so.
In the event the US indulges in such a gambit, the issue becomes whether it will be a one-shot single incursion or a series of raids and, more important, what will happen should Iran fight back and respond in kind, within Iraq’s territory.
There are serious scenarios for major escalation nested in every micro action and US policymakers would be remiss to focus on their own action without taking into consideration the likely chain reaction that could lead to a regional flare-up.
The timing of the US’s raid, coinciding with the heated cabinet debates in Iraq on the security agreement, is also important since it may signal a new and more aggressive US determination to force the issue and set aside diplomatic niceties.
There is always the nationalist undercurrent as well, that the US may be tapping into via this show-case raid, to somehow shore up support for the security agreement. That seems unlikely to succeed, however, and given the recent huge popular Baghdad turnout against the agreement, the unintended consequences of the US’s raid into Syria may turn out to be more ammunition not only in the hands of Iranians but also the forces of Shi’ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr and others who have categorically opposed the security agreement as anti-Iraqi.
A sign of overconfidence, the US raid may also signal the Pentagon’s conclusion that the security agreement is a fait accompli and only cosmetic changes will be added before it is fully adopted. If so, that could be a costly mistake, since in today’s volatile Iraq nothing can be taken for granted and should such provocative moves by the US military actually help the opposition to the agreement, then we may conclude that the US military may be discretely sabotaging the agreement in light of the major revisions injected into it by Iraqi politicians, on withdrawal of forces, legal immunity, prison control, and the like.
While such speculation about the real purpose and timing of the US’s raid inside Syria can now be found aplenty, there is on the other hand a clearing effect on the threat perception of both Tehran and Damascus with respect to the net minus of the security pact with respect to their national security interests.
This will probably cause a greater bond between Tehran and Damascus, contrary to recent efforts by Washington and Tel Aviv to drive a wedge between them. At the same time, small-scale US attacks inside Syria could well trigger larger such actions, threatening Syria’s military power or, at a minimum, an overt bullying of Syria (considered relatively vulnerable).
This could be yet another miscalculation. Syria cannot be so easily bullied and the most likely result of such blatant moves by the US military is to cement the alliance of regional forces who oppose the US’s military presence.

This is an insightful and informative article, so I’ve pasted most of it here.

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 27 2008 16:14 utc | 15

From a bit broader perspective, partly because I rarely understand the details of these things, I am with parvoti_roma @10, who suggests that the only rationale for this attack may be that somebody wants to kill more ragheads for the fun of it.
The evidence will show that Cheney and his lizard comrades need bloodletting for survival. Why else start wars when diplomacy works better? An essential part of his being relies on murder & mayhem; no further rationale requested or required.

Posted by: rapt | Oct 27 2008 16:20 utc | 16

Hamburger
It’s an interesting article, but there’s one HUGE flaw in the assertion of Pentagon overconfidence that a SOFA is close to being agreed when the reality is 180 degrees the other way – I’ve repeatedly asserted that there will be no SOFA agreed with the Bush administration, that the UN mandate will be renewed at the end of the year and that there will be no movement on anything until the next US administration comes into office. If anything, this action will undermine what’s left of the Pentagon push for a legal agreement – and, in fact, may be a signal of this being the case.
The more that I think about the whole incident, and the repercussions that it has had for the UK-Syria meeting, the more that I’m inclined to think that it was meant to spike something on that track.

Posted by: dan | Oct 27 2008 16:56 utc | 17

@Hamburger @13 – Earlier today I saw a headline – can’t find it now – something like: US military threatens to stop protection in Iraq if sofa isn’t passed.
McClatchy: U.S. threatens to halt services to Iraq without troop accord

In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq’s economy, educational sector and other areas _ “everything” _ said Tariq al Hashimi, the country’s Sunni Muslim vice president. “I didn’t know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services.”
Hashimi said that Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, listed “tens” of areas of potential cutoffs in a three-page letter, and he said the implied threat caught Iraqi leaders by surprise.
“It was really shocking for us,” he said. “Many people are looking to this attitude as a matter of blackmailing.”

That blackmailing will only infuriate them an will not work …
@Hamburger @15 – that ATOL piece is a quick shot from the hip and not well thought through.

In light of the incursion on Sunday by US forces inside Syrian territory, ostensibly to pursue al-Qaeda terrorists, there is suddenly concern on the part of many analysts in Tehran that the security agreement between Baghdad and Washington is not simply an internal matter for Iraqis to decide, but rather a regional issue that calls for direct input by Iraq’s neighbors.

Suddenly concern? How dumb does the author think Iranians are? Whoever has watched this “game” knows that they are for years working to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

Posted by: b | Oct 27 2008 17:21 utc | 18

Dan,
spikes and … tossing more wrenches into the machine
What could lie behind Syria raid?

… if the claims are true then this will be the first military incursion by the US into Syrian territory from Iraq.
…
The US argument has always been that the Syrians are not doing enough to control the border. The Syrians have always countered that they are unfairly being blamed for turmoil inside Iraq that is not of their making.
Quite apart from their differences over Iraq, Washington sees Syria as unhelpful in Lebanon and as far too friendly with Iran.
…
All of this is in marked contrast to European efforts to engage the Syrians.
…
With French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the lead, a number of European countries have sought to bring Syria in from the cold.
…
With the Bush administration on the way out, this US military incursion may represent something of a parting shot against the Syrians.
It’s clear that if Senator Barrack Obama were to win the White House, his key advisers are among the strongest advocates of engaging with Damascus across a broad spectrum of issues.

Serious-faced reported at Pentagon: “targeted enabler believed killed, perhaps children killed … if target is surrounded by civilians, this will not stop US”.

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 27 2008 17:25 utc | 19

hamburger, excellent article.
There are serious scenarios for major escalation nested in every micro action and US policymakers would be remiss to focus on their own action without taking into consideration the likely chain reaction that could lead to a regional flare-up.
at a time when we are pressuring iraq to sign the sofa knowing one of their primary sticking pts is the requirement US forces not use iraq as a launching locale to attack iraq’s neighbors AND that the US work in tandem and agreement w/iraq’s ‘government’ this is a blatant bullying slap in the face.
It could just have likely been a gung ho special forces general that requested permission for a raid on Syria from the White House directly and the WH not caring enough any more to say no.
swio, thank you so much for showing up at the beginning of the thread to demonstrate how benign our administration is.
Perhaps the Bush administration in its last days is losing that discipline as it knows it won’t have to deal with the fallout of these kind of stupid acts.
losing discipline? how cute. ‘won’t have to deal’? yeah, we all know neocons are loosing interest in these foreign wars and the silly acts the minions carry out when they aren’t oaying attention.
the alternative being they are taking the final stabs at provoking escalation. i think there is little chance an action like this is likely to change the outcome of the election unless the syrians respond. i am less worried about the incidences of relatively small attacks such as these prior to the election that i am worried about what kind of attacks (bambarding whole syrian villages?) happen after the gop will not suffer the consequences of the incursions, say between nov 5th, and dec 31st. what’s to stop them? it could be a cheney free for all. if mcCain doesn’t steal the election any last stab at provoking the caldron effect will take place then. the failure of iraq to comply w/the demand required of them to fullfill the US obligations to meet standards of legality may meet w/retaliation and punishment. the justification of this needs a narrative. that narrative will not be gung ho special forces carrying out stupid acts.

Posted by: annie | Oct 27 2008 17:28 utc | 20

Look at the markets, they are inching up. So is oil. Could this be a small litmus test as to how the markets will respond if we go for war as a therapy?

Posted by: a | Oct 27 2008 17:34 utc | 21

b,
Thanks for finding that link – amazingly open blackmail ..
I doubt as well that Iranian “concern” is “sudden” but I take the larger point that even “micro” attacks are signals and Cheney et al. are working nonstop to achieve their goals including but not limited to foiling any diplomatic measures by UK, France, US State, an O admin, intimidating Maliki, stirring up Iran and US hawk voters, even satisfying their blood-lust.

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 27 2008 17:36 utc | 22

B
Further to the ATOL article – the Iranians have been arguing for a regional approach to Iraq’s security since at least 2005, so nothing new or sudden there.

Posted by: dan | Oct 27 2008 17:36 utc | 23

a@21,
Likely not.
Credit Crisis Indicators: Progress
The progress is slow, but this is a positive day in the credit markets.
DOW +203.

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 27 2008 17:48 utc | 24

Annie
It’s been a “popular” theme that there will be a bout of unrestrained Cheneyism after November 5th – I’m somewhat dismissive of this notion as it fails to account for how restricted in its room for manouevre the US has become. The Bush administration is already a legless duck, and it will be a dead duck in just over a week.
The internal strife and policy dysfunction within the Bush administration won’t end next Wednesday, so the internal dynamics and the objective realities that have stymied the more radical items on the Cheney wish-list will still render those unachievable.
For seconds, in the event of a McCain victory – unlikely as it is – he won’t want to risk being inaugurated as an equally dead duck if things go tits up – reality has been quite the bitch of late; if Obama wins, he’ll have his “team” in the White House by the following Monday – looking over shoulders, whispering legal threats in ears, handing out the redundancy notices and wielding an effective veto.

Posted by: dan | Oct 27 2008 17:50 utc | 25

I still think of h’s invasion of Somalia after he lost to cigar bill. In doing that he forced slimy into a war he may have otherwise avoided. Who knows what ramifications these assholes are considering. The games get awfully small at a micro level, eg a bunch of chippies building a house on their farm, but can be construed by some washington padded ass as part of the ‘great game’.
Some of the bushco bandits will have read the writing on the wall and recognised that the dem half of the party is gonna be hangin in pennsylvania ave for a while. So they begin a slow escalation to war, begun before the election so no one can question their mandate, but their purpose is to ensure Obama can’t ‘cut and run’ from that region of the ME.
Cheney is a mass murderer but he’s also a money grubber and he’s not gonna spend money on bullets and helicopters unless he thinks there will be an opportunity to recoup further down the line.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 27 2008 18:56 utc | 26

Hmm – Syrian villager says 2 men grabbed in US raid

SUKKARIYEH, Syria – Families in this village near the Iraqi border on Monday buried loved ones they said were killed in a rare U.S. attack in Syrian territory, and one of the villagers said American forces grabbed two men and took them away by helicopter.
…
A Sukkariyeh resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his life, said he saw at least two men taken into custody by American forces and whisked away by helicopter. Another villager displayed amateur video footage he took with his mobile phone that shows four helicopters flying toward them as villagers point to the skies in alarm.
An Associated Press journalist saw the grainy video on Monday.
…
Sunday’s attack comes as the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has been declining. A senior U.S. military intelligence official told the AP in July that it had been cut to an estimated 20 a month. That’s a 50 percent decline from six months ago, and just a fifth of the estimated 100 foreign fighters who were infiltrating Iraq a year ago, according to the official.

Hmm – two guys abducted would explain some motive for the raid – but why would there be a need to catch them at such high cost and risk?
The killed folks are obviously Syrian locals who didn’t fight at all. So why kill eight of them?

Posted by: b | Oct 27 2008 19:21 utc | 27

b
they kill 8 innocent people because that is what they excel in – the people do not matter wherever they come from eve from inside the belly of the beast itself
the planners & practitioners of this little operation plan & kill innocent people like you i breathe. they simply do not care. the u s presence in the middle east is just another word for massacre

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 27 2008 19:49 utc | 28

As a commenter at Pat Lang’s blog says, it is somewhat frightening that even he doesn’t know what to make of this attack or what is the reasoning behind it.
That is the real issue here. What is the idea behind this? This must have been launched by some high up entity, most likely Cheney for what/no reason? What will he launch next for what/no reason?

Posted by: b | Oct 27 2008 20:44 utc | 29

It’s more likely to be related to this:
“A key Israeli demand in indirect peace negotiations with Syria is that it cut its ties with Hezbollah, and in particular, cease supplying the resistance group with weapons.”
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/179367

Posted by: atheo | Oct 27 2008 21:04 utc | 30

Hamburger at 4: Such cross-border “raids” into Pakistan are now “normal” in the MSM/for Americans, and the UN? – i.e., US attacks on sovereign countries don’t seem to cause any outrage anywhere.
Whole territories are seen as ‘bad zones’ by the US — sovereignty, international law, and normative diplomacy in case of horrific boo-boos, is ignored, discarded or outright rejected.
Why one or another instance makes it to the international Press dispatches (Reuters etc.) is a roll of the dice, and in part dependent on the influence of the victims, more pertinently what their leaders judge they can make out of it, internally (mostly) or externally.
The small number of victims are deplored for a week or so, they are always poor people, of no account. Scandalous but soon forgotten.
Iraqis have been decimated, if you tot up the dead, the prisoners, the displaced to other countries, the internal refugees, the uncounted..the poor dying in slums.. the farmers with no farms…well it is about 6 million ppl. Or less, or more, but in the millions.
——-
Suspected U.S. strike in Pakistan kills 20 militants. Mon 27 Oct 2008. By Aftab Borka.
“ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Missiles from a suspected U.S. drone aircraft killed up to 20 militants in a Pakistani region on the Afghan border on Monday, officials said, hours before Afghan and Pakistani tribal and political leaders met to discuss peace.” Reuters
Hours before? What on earth does that mean? Militants?
PAKISTANI, AFGHAN ENVOYS CONVENE ’PEACE COUNCIL’ AS CONFLICTS MERGE. Mon 27 Oct 2008. By Abubakar Siddique.
“Afghan and Pakistani politicians and tribal leaders have launched talks in the Pakistani capital to find ways to end surging militant violence.
The two-day event in Islamabad is a follow-up to last year’s “Joint Peace Jirga,” or grand assembly, in which delegates in the Afghan capital called for talks with Taliban militants to put an end to insurgencies in the two countries. This year’s “jirgagai”, or mini-jirga, features 25 participants from Afghanistan and Pakistan each.” more at: link

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 27 2008 22:06 utc | 31

I just wrote about this over at Lang’s place but in case others have difficulty hanging with the company there or it doesn’t surface for whatever reason I thought it might be opportune to remind readers why amerika itself, had to get it’s hands dirty in Syria. The proxy for dirty work done dirt cheap, Israel is having a slight hiatus on the megalomania front. Livni’s attempt to form a new government has become a complete cock-up.
I suppose we should be heartened by the notion that waging war with the neighbours isn’t seen as the guarantee of votes that it once was but that will only last until the next ziononazi (eg Yishai) from the right wins power and then shows an adoring and bloodlust riven community, that there is the olmert way of murdering arabs and then there is our way, the right way of murdering arabs.
Something related but different is that this wanton murder of syrian village folk quietly going about their business reinforces the sub text I found in the latest Coen brothers flick “Burn After Reading”.
That is that no one, anywhere, is safe from the blunders of empire. At any time any one of us could be massacred by thugs operating off faulty intelligence. Sure there may some regret, but that would only be at the trouble and expense of covering up any evidence of the intelligence bungle.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 27 2008 23:09 utc | 32

dan, It’s been a “popular” theme that there will be a bout of unrestrained Cheneyism after November 5th
i must have missed this, can you point to any sources for this ‘popular’ theme?

Posted by: annie | Oct 27 2008 23:09 utc | 33

Dear debs
Re: Pat Lang blog –
maybe he prints it, maybe not.
It’s too bad. I’ve written comments there that pat doesn’t deign to publish.
No slurring, no slandering. Don’t know what the problem is but he sure doesn’t encourage conversation.
The bar however – it’s the place to be. Pour me another bartender.

Posted by: Fighting Bob | Oct 28 2008 0:41 utc | 34

Uncle $cam’s link @ 7 could be relevant here, considering the attack in Syria took place only hours before the long announced reconciliation talks between the two blocs in Lebanon:
Awaited Meeting between Sayyed Nasrallah, Hariri Held

(snip)
Sayyed Nasrallah and MP Hariri stressed, during the meeting, on the importance of consolidating the national unity and civil peace as well as the necessity to take all needed procedures to prevent sedition and internal tension. They highlighted the need to abide by dialogue and communication between the various political factions in the country regardless of political difference as the means to avert sedition.
Hezbollah Secretary General and Future MP also agreed on the promotion of the government’s actions, the attachment to the Taef Accord and implementation of Doha agreement. They focused on the necessity of pursuing contacts and encouraging dialogue through applying ground and media calm.
(snip)

Posted by: Alamet | Oct 28 2008 0:55 utc | 35

When your only tool is a hammer…

Posted by: Pvt. Keepout | Oct 28 2008 1:35 utc | 36

One last exciting sip from the bloody chalice before their time runs out
this is so far from the last sip. these criminals were murdering civilians on a daily basis in at least 3 countries and now hapless Syria’s been added to the mix. there’s months of bloody war crimes to go till the baton’s passed to the next group of thugs.

Posted by: ran | Oct 28 2008 2:50 utc | 37

markfromireland points out the the real casualty of the incursion into Syria. The SOFA. Because one the biggest sticking points has been the notion that the U.S. occupation might use Iraqi soil to launch an attack on another country. As if Maliki needed any additional proof that the U.S. was not trustworthy in this respect, they certainly have the answer now. Keep this up and Maliki won’t even sign a temporary UN agreement.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 28 2008 4:01 utc | 38

but anna missed, if Maliki doesn’t sign Iraq will miss out on the following “essential services” provided by the occupiers that these primitive sand people would never be able to provide for themselves.

U.S. would stop sharing intelligence with the Iraqi government and would cease to provide air traffic control, air defense, SWAT team training or advisers in government ministries, according to the document. The list also says that there’d be no “disposition of U.S.-held Iraqi convicts” without a security agreement.
Odierno’s letter adds that American forces would stop training Iraq’s Security Forces and its barely functioning navy and air force, patrolling its borders and protecting its waterways. The U.S. military would stop employing some 200,000 Iraqis and wouldn’t refurbish 8,500 Humvees it’s given to the Security Forces. Nearly every Iraqi unit works in tandem with the roughly 151,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and American training teams are training Iraqi Security Forces nationwide.
With no agreement, U.S. troops would pull back to their bases and begin to withdraw from Iraq, American officials have said.

there’s also the trusty old “either your signature or your brains will be on this SOFA” card to play. and it will be played if all else fails.

Posted by: ran | Oct 28 2008 4:31 utc | 39

Think if you spare yourselves the Marxism and read more Machiavelli, you’ll find we’re about due for another “emergency funding bill” for “Desert Yield in Iraq, Enduring Bleed-dom in Afghanistan, and other national security purposes” which the dog-and-pony-show in Syria serves to enable. The dead civies were just icing for another $150B down the rathole of def.con corporate welfare before Cheney drags up.
Interesting the corporate media called the operation an interdiction of rat lines, and the popular media focused instead on what Sarah Palin was wearing, the point being that Karl Rove isn’t particularly bright, he’s just got a good script going.
Now will someone please invent some glitzsy green technology so we can enter the Neo era of green.con and enjoy another hyperbubble, catastrophic collapse and renewed slaughter of the next generation of 401k deposits?
Sheeps Look Up!

Posted by: Neo Pilot | Oct 28 2008 4:31 utc | 40

Taliban rule returning to Kandahar province
Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Monday, October 27, 2008
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — They mete out justice in their own courts, ban schools and even organize large religious gatherings, like one that drew thousands of people just outside Kandahar city recently.
As Canadian Forces continue to fight and die throughout Kandahar province, the Taliban have quietly set up parallel governments only kilo-metres away from the provincial capital, local residents say.
Large swaths of the province for which Canada is responsible have fallen under the control of the insurgents, they said, and out of the grasp of a national government villagers consider corrupt and weak.
The three farmers, interviewed this weekend by a Canwest News Service translator, painted a fascinating picture of life under the unofficial Taliban administrations. And while they voiced dismay at the continuing conflict and some of the insurgents’ policies, they say not everyone is displeased with the situation.
A panel of three or four judges in Maiwand district, for instance, has for the past year been issuing prompt rulings on civil and criminal matters, said one man.
“The Taliban announced to the villagers that if they face any kind of problems, they should come to the court and they will find a transparent judgment,” he said. “They deal with a number of cases: land disputes, family disputes, loan disputes, robbery, killing, fighting… and the people are happy with them.”
In Zhari, the insurgent court has sentenced 27 people to death, said a resident of that district. Surprisingly, the farmers said the Taliban have issued no edicts against radio and TV or even shaving beards — all things banned under their government — though the villagers tend to eschew such behaviour out of fear, anyway.
… more after the jump …

Posted by: Shah Loam | Oct 28 2008 4:36 utc | 41

Could that be the motive for the raid – simply to set precedence for the executive power of the president? That would fit to Cheney:

In seeking to carry out cross-border missions inside Pakistan and now in Syria, the United States government is expected to make the case that these operations will help protect the lives of American troops. It is not clear how far-reaching the White House may be in seeking to apply the rationale, but several senior American officials expressed hope that it would be embraced by the next president as well.

Posted by: b | Oct 28 2008 5:31 utc | 42

The situation in Syria can only help McCain by distracting attention from the next set of GDP figures due out.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 28 2008 9:33 utc | 43

Where would this administration be without level Al Qaeda lieutenants? Those guys can ex post facto justify anything!

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 28 2008 12:40 utc | 44

“senior level”. Not an English keyboard, and I guess it was the “insert” key I couldn’t figure out. 쎵!!! 모ㅓㄹ 봐?!

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 28 2008 12:45 utc | 45

I agree with Debs on her comments that they’re squeezing Obama on it i.e. war with Syria.
The idea is to force Obama to choose war over negotiations. If the current crowd can get Syria to retaliate and kill a few Americans, that’s all the excuse that is needed.
War.
Dead Americans will be avenged. There is plenty of time between now and Jan before the next president takes office. And we can’t have a new president stop a war suddenly, can we? The nutters will say, see Beirut marines bombing fiasco repeat. Events will force Obama to stay on the sidelines.
Now, if the Israelis can do a half decent false flag ops, then they win big time. Syria goes down, American casualties, cost paid by Americans, Hezbollah support crimped a bit. 2 enemies down(Iraq, Syria), only Iran left.
I mean, what’s the downside to all this for Zionists?

Posted by: shanks | Oct 28 2008 15:42 utc | 46

Of course, the picture wouldn’t be complete without the obligatory dose of bald-faced lies from some Israeli “expert”:
Syria ‘Gave Green Light For Raid’

(snip)
Now, a respected Israeli intelligence expert says he has been told the operation was carried out with the knowledge and co-operation of Syrian intelligence.
Ronen Bergman, author of The Secret War with Iran, makes the claim in the Yediot Ahronoth newspaper, based on briefings with two senior American officials, one of whom he says until recently “held a very high ranking in the Pentagon”.
Mr Bergman told Sky News the raid happened after America had lobbied Syria intensely to deal with an al Qaeda group conducting activity on the border.
The Syrians were unwilling to be seen publicly bowing to US pressure to tackle the group, he says, but in the end gave the Americans the green light to do so themselves.
(snip)

Uh uh, why be seen publicly bowing to pressure when it is so much more appealing to cast yourself as helpless and incapable of defending your borders?.. One would need to have the IQ of a cabbage to “respect” this Bergman, I suspect.

Posted by: Alamet | Oct 28 2008 18:11 utc | 47

b @ 42 – Could that be the motive for the raid – simply to set precedence for the executive power of the president?
Robert Dreyfuss at The Nation would agree.

A parallel new Bush doctrine is emerging, in the last days of the soon-to-be-ancien regime, and it needs to be strangled in its crib. Like the original Bush doctrine — the one that Sarah Palin couldn’t name, which called for preventive military action against emerging threats — this one also casts international law aside by insisting that the United States has an inherent right to cross international borders in “hot pursuit” of anyone it doesn’t like.
They’re already applying it to Pakistan, and this week Syria was the target. Is Iran next?
…
the attack is raising cross-border hot pursuit to the level of a doctrine:

“The military’s argument is that ‘you can only claim sovereignty if you enforce it,’ said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ‘When you are dealing with states that do not maintain their sovereignty and become a de facto sanctuary, the only way you have to deal with them is this kind of operation,’ he said.”

…
Of course, the very invasion of Iraq was illegal in 2003, and it flouted international law. So some may say, these cross-border raids are small potatoes. But they’re not. This is a big deal. If it becomes a standard part of U.S. military doctrine that any country can be declared “criminal” and thus lose its sovereignty, then there is no such thing as international law anymore.

Not clear to me that Americans care about international law, at this point 5 years after the attack on Iraq, and given recent attacks within Pakistan. And B.O. has already said he’d favor hot pursuit into Pakistan. So why does he need convincing now – if “setting a precedent” is the goal. The US bombed Cambodia and Laos under the same rationale … Seems to me that this practice is already, and has been, part of US military doctrine.
Will someone ask the candidates to discuss this? Larry – how about tonight when you host McC’s free hour on your show.
The article says Special Ops forces are in 60 countries around the globe … “‘have been and will remain a decisive strategic instrument.'” Effectiveness? Cost? Yes, let us now talk about the cost of all this, in the context of financial/economic breakdown and US moral authority. Please.

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 29 2008 10:23 utc | 48

@Hamburger
Have a look at my recent post entitled: Thermal Nuclear Monarchy and the Flexible Floor Doctrine, wrt preventive military action. Well worth your time.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 29 2008 10:33 utc | 49

I always read your posts Uncle – thanks. Will view the Scarry vid later today.
the latest signal

…
His speech here before the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was the latest signal that the administration was moving in its closing months to embrace more far-reaching notions of deterrence and self-defense.
On Monday, senior officials justified a weekend attack against a suspected Iraqi insurgent leader in Syria by saying the administration was operating under an expansive new definition of self-defense. The policy, officials said, provided a rationale for conventional strikes on militant targets in a sovereign nation without its consent — if that nation were unable or unwilling to halt the threat on its own.
By law, the new president must conduct a review of the nation’s nuclear posture, and Mr. Gates’s address could be viewed as advocating a specific agenda for the next occupant of the White House.

Ah yes … all part of the plan. Now, could we please discuss this topic among the citizens of our great democracy? Larry? Ask JMcC.
Americans, should the prez have even greater war powers? Will this make us feel safer? Will you pay for it? How much of your tax dollars should war get? Should we ever bother funding a State Dept.?

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 29 2008 11:11 utc | 50

Iraq to share results of U.S. raid probe with Syria
Snip…

The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, after initially saying the raid targeted an area used by militants to launch attacks into Iraq, on Tuesday denounced the raid and said Iraq must not be used to stage attacks on other nations.
The careful stance reflects the U.S.-backed government’s delicate position, caught between Washington and Damascus, which has been a longtime target of American ire.
Baghdad has been hoping for rapprochement with Syria and other Arab neighbors, despite complaints since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that Syria has failed to staunch the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq.

If the ultimate purpose of this raid was for anything other than to foment greater hostilities and redouble insurgent actions against the American presence in the ME, it fails epically. If that was its purpose, then job well done.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 29 2008 12:02 utc | 51

anna misses 38, of course. note my comment on 20, 2nd paragraph.
nothing could make the point clearer the US knows the sofa is dead in the water. it’s the FU.

Posted by: annie | Oct 29 2008 12:08 utc | 52

Monolycus
Nuri al-Maliki, after initially saying the raid targeted an area used by militants to launch attacks into Iraq, on Tuesday denounced the raid and said Iraq must not be used to stage attacks on other nations.
of course. i didn’t see your post before my last one responding to anna missed. this is the obvious glaring message from the attack. anyone not paying attention to current events may not make the connection but what could possibly been important enough to fuck w/a cross border raid and risk screwing w/the chance iraq was going to sign the sofa unless you knew it was dead? this is just gruesome posturing. of course maliki is going to say this.

Posted by: annie | Oct 29 2008 12:29 utc | 53

i meant this is gruesome posturing by the US and the only realistic (expected)response from maliki in light of the sofa sticking pts.

Posted by: annie | Oct 29 2008 12:32 utc | 54

Bush Doctrine 2.0 gets a pushback:
Pakistan Protests U.S. Attacks Within Its Borders

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — The Pakistani government lodged a formal protest Wednesday against American missile attacks on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the nation’s tribal areas and told the American ambassador the strikes should be “stopped immediately,” the Foreign Ministry said.
Ambassador Anne Patterson was summoned to the ministry two days after a missile strike by a drone aircraft in South Waziristan killed 20 people, including several local Taliban commanders.
…
The escalation of the missile attacks has riled the Pakistani public, and the new government led by President Asif Ali Zardari has been under pressure to distance itself from what is perceived as an American-led war on terror inside Pakistan.
Many Pakistanis, including representatives of political parties in the government coalition, say they believe the increase in suicide attacks, including the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad Sept. 20 , is a result of the American strikes.
…
After Ms. Patterson left the ministry, the Pakistanis said in a statement, “It was emphasized that such attacks were a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and should be stopped immediately.”

Posted by: Hamburger | Oct 29 2008 15:33 utc | 55

Back to Main