Jonathan Steele (Guardian Utd): Now Syria is the top bad guy

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Friday February 25

Now Syria is at the top of the bad guys' league table
Neocon pressure for regime change in Damascus is building up
By Jonathan Steele

In the world of the American neocons, salsa is not a sexy dance. It is in-group jargon based on the initial letters of a congressional bill which George Bush signed into law just over a year ago.
At the time, European chancelleries barely noticed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. If spotted at all, it was written off as ideological froth with little practical relevance. Even now, in spite of the international interest caused by Washington's accusations of Syrian involvement in last week's murder of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, salsa has not got many European policy-makers jumping.

More's the pity, since the act increasingly looks like a key marker in setting the tone for Bush's second term. Don't be fooled by the president's visit to Europe this week. With its grand talk of a new era in transatlantic relations, the trip was designed to sound a note of reconciliation, like the earlier foray by the new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

Washington understands European concerns about the need for multilateral consultation and more use of diplomacy, we were told. Even on Iran, where Europe clearly diverges from Washington, Bush put the soap on softly.

Read more.

[amber dog democrat]

1. But Syria has no oil.

How can we be interesed in invading a country with no oil?

[Goldeneye]

3. It gets them

to the Mediterranean sea. Maybe thats it. I know I read a strategic reason for Syria somewhere.

[amber dog democrat]

6. We need to invade Greece

and then Tunisia. I say we create an American Expeditionary Africa Corps for this purpose. Maybe we will succeed where Rommel failed.
Italy is next ?

[htuttle]

21. Pipelines

It's about oil pipelines, and creating a new US protectorate stretching from the Israeli border to Afghanistan.

If they control all that territory, they can get oil out of the Middle East through the Mediterranean. Otherwise, if China gets uptight it can control the Eastern tanker routes, and going South around Africa is a long, vulnerable trip for a tanker.

At least that's how I'd see it all if it were a big game of RISK, which is how I suspect Cheney and Rumsfeld plan strategy.

[bpilgrim]

4. they're supporting an insurgency in the one that does, though

neoCONs must be PI$$ED

peace

[amber dog democrat]

7. correct

My oversight, but won't we be a tad over extended?

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Yes, we would be just a tad overextended

And no closer to shutting down al Qaida.

With 150,000 troops in Iraq with all they can handle, what's the obvious solution? Invade Syria and Iran, what else? With whose army? They haven't figured that out yet.

[amber dog democrat]

9. I think we need to get more volunteers to enlist

wave flags, wail about pay back for 9/11, beat war drums about yet even MORE WMDs
and if that fails.... press gangs ?

we need to shovel in more coal - open the throttle wide and nevermind the switch is lined against us and we are going to derail.

[bpilgrim]

11. all options are on the table, though

:nuke:

peace

[bpilgrim]

2. sure pulled our diplomatic ties pretty quick by withdrawing our ambassador

the international sign for prepare for war.

with the neoCONs there's almost no telling what they might do next since apparently ANYTHING is possible while they have power :scared:

more madness round the bend, bet.

peace

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Oh, come, Mr. Pilgrim

Recalling an ambassador is not necessarily a prepration for war. It is a sign of displeasure.

You're right about the neocons: there's no telling what they're up to, and it's usually no good.

[bpilgrim]

10. it is in diplomatic speak

though that certainly ain't always the outcome but we must always remember who's driv'n the bus and their recent track record :scared:

peace

[Jack Rabbit]

13. I'll stand by what I said

It was merely a sign of extreme displeasure. It is a move that even a sane administration could have made in the wake of the Hariri assassination. I would take it to mean that the US is blaming Syria for the car bombing, which is not an unreasonable theory.

I wouldn't get too nervous about the Bushies invading Syria until there are actual preparations. If you know of any, please keep us posted.

[bpilgrim]

20. well, i think it was certainly rash yet in character for the neoCONs

since no one knows who did it, especially then AND we were the only ones to take such a dramatic action. are admin doesn't need FACTS to back their decisions.

we ILLEGALLY invaded Iraq, have a heavy presence on the Syrian border and the neoCONs (PNAC) are at the helm so i am worried.

peace

[ET Awful]

12. Ideological froth with little practical relevance

Hmmm, sounds like the type of banter being tossed around right before a certain chap with a funny moustache invaded Poland.

[necso]

14. Do keep in mind

that Israel borders Syria.

And while it would be an act of madness to coordinate with Israel in a joint attack on Syria, this cannot be ruled out.

The Israeli military can mobilize quickly, is quite capable of taking Syria out on their own and would not have to be be involved in (or even mobilized for) an initial US attack on Syria. And even the threat of a second front would draw off Syrian forces, making a US invasion less well-opposed.

An invasion of Syria done in the same dumb-ass fashion as Iraq was would not necessarily require a huge force. And particularly if the Israeli military participates -- or is available as "back-up" -- then an attack with the forces (more or less) in place in Iraq might be possible. But a lot would have to do with how and how well the Syrians fight. (To make myself clear, some portion of our forces in Iraq might be able to be used for an attack on Syria -- and what number are we up to now?)

And you have to believe that the Israeli counterparts of the neocons would be delighted with the idea.

It's kinda like the game Risk -- look at the board.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Viewed as a game of Risk, you're right; but it's more complicated

I'm not sure from whose point of view a coordinated attack on Syria would be nuttier: the US' or Israel's. This time last year, I might have taken that more seriously, but not now.

Sharon seems to realize that his lifelong dream of Greater Israel is kaput and that he needs to negotiate his way out of the Palestinian Territories. A direct military action against Syria, unless there were an immediate threat to Israel from Syria, is not in his interests at this time.

[necso]

16. Perhaps,

but the withdrawal from Gaza is an essentially military move -- these settlements are isolated outposts in a very densely populated hostile area. Had this been a diplomatic move, it would have been wiser to keep these as bargaining chips for future negotiations. And, of course, the most positive spin would be put on this move -- "making sacrifices", etc.

And one of the really intractable parts of an overall "peace settlement" is the Golan Heights and the Syrian-Israeli border. Moreover, disregarding the spin, I have seen little from Sharon except military solutions to the "Palestinian problem". The "wall" certainly fits in this category -- along with retaliatory raids, demolishing houses, etc.

And, of course, my point was that in this case, there is a bordering nation that could come into play on our side.

You can give Sharon all the credit you like, I give him none.

Besides, it might be possible to drag Israel into a war that they didn't really want.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. I try not to give him too much credit

I certainly don't admire the man or what he's done. However, for a more detailed discussion of that, we should adjourn to The Basement.

The Golan Heights will be an issue to be settled between Israel and Syria. The Palestinians may not want to complicate the issue of Israeli withdrawal from their territory, either. Making demands over the Golan Heights on Syria's behalf would be just such an unnecessary complication.

Of course, you're right. The Bushies haven't shown any sign of being too concerned about an Israeli-Palestinian peace other than rhetorically. They may think it's a nice to have, but they may have higher priorities: like hanging on to their colony in Iraq.

[necso]

18. I doubt the Palestinians are overly

concerned about the Golan Heights. And if Israel carved off a chunk of the Heights, I don't imagine that the Palestinians would let this be a big hurdle to any "settlement" between them and Israelis. (Although the Palestinians might make a big deal out of it -- and you never know.)

But a (our) new government in Syria might be more willing to give up a piece of the Heights, in return for "peace". And particularly if Israel didn't have to become openly involved, I can't see Sharon or his cronies arguing very hard against a US attack on Syria. (And I bet that they didn't argue too hard against the US invading Iraq either.) -- The Heights have significant strategic value to Israel.

..

Frankly, I have little interest in the other forum. In my few brief sojourns there I have found a great deal of unnecessary passion. Besides, the great majority of my interest lies in things that more directly involve the US.

Friends and allies come and go, essential interests tend to have longer staying power.

[Igel]

19. There can be only one top bad guy? We can have a 8-way tie? n/t