What is going to happen with Syria?

[frank frankly]

The BFEE is linking the 5 car bombs yesterday to Syria, so:

Are we going to move into Syria next?

Will Israel slog this out for us (since we are out of soldiers)?

[WilliamPitt]

1. Nothing soon

We're out of army at the moment.

[solinvictus]

2. Israel

We're already fighting a proxy war for Israel in Iraq now. We can't do another one.

[acmavm]

3. We can't but Israel is looking for an excuse to go in there. Maybe

Bush & Company will be able to persuade them to do it for us.

[sam sarrha]

15. The way the settlements are expanding, Syria will be surrounded

in a couple years...

[acmavm]

4. Whoa, don't know what happened here. Got two for the price of one.

.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. Yes, and not entirely.

Syria is next.

Israel won't slog it out alone for the US, because the US is in the Middle East in part so Israel won't need to slog anything out.

I think it will be later rather than sooner. Most likely next Spring - early Fall, before the bump in the polls Bush would likely receive collapses thanks to another misadventure turning most decidedly to shit.

[Dagaz]

11. I agree

Syria is next follwed by Iran. Too insane you ask? Ask again.

[frank frankly]

12. it is what they outlined and dreamt of for so long at PNAC headquarters

bastards

[frank frankly]

6. but what if things escalate?

what if Israel launches another attack and Syria responds in kind?

[acmavm]

9. Then they truly will have brought on their Armegeddon that the want so

badly. (Someone needs to check for those three 6s in Bush's scalp.)

[Flying_Pig]

7. I think their "links" are 100% bull. Both PNAC and Israel have been

frothing at the mouth to attack Syria, ...and Iran. It's a setup. Perle, Wolfowwitz, Feith, Abrams, and the rest of PNAC's Likudnik stooges, are setting the stage. These people are so brazen, they care not about the setbacks in Iraq. They are going to stick with the PNAC/Sharon plan, and invade Syria, one way or the other, sooner or later.

[frank frankly]

8. I agree the link is probably bullshit

but once the bombs start falling...

[Cat Atomic]

10. Syria would fight back, therefore, no Syria invasion.

We might get an invasion of Iran.

But you know, if I were going to bet on this, I'd actually put my money on Venezuela or Brazil. I know they sound like longshots, but South America is organizing and pushing for more democratic reforms. They're trying to give their people a decent standard of living.

Thems fightin' words in Washington.

[ComerPerro]

13. Shut Up! The Kobe trial is on!

You are gonna make me miss it! I heard Kobe just got up to take a leak!

[Aidoneus]

14. Bush and who's army?

Sharon may be able to pick up the slack, but the Israeli economy is in bad enough shape without having to call up that many reservists from their jobs. I suspect that the hostile rhetoric against Syria may be toothless barking, and not signs of a future aggression.

This is under the assumption that Team Bush DOESN'T want a mutiny in the ranks of the army. If DOES he want that, then it's on to Damascus to get a better view of the Tomb of Salahuddeen(RA).

The really remarkable thing here is not the hostile rhetoric--American politicians and media bosses are always talking nasty about somebody, it's a rule they have to follow--, but how impotent the strill barkers actually are in backing it up.

[DivinBreuvage]

16. I don't think there's any doubt...

that Bush and his fellow ideologues are just itchin to get into Syria and/or Iran when they think the time is right.

BUT.

I've read many opinions stating that the US armed forces can't handle another Iraq-sized invasion right now (I admittedly know nothing about the current status of the US armed forces or modern warfare, so I have to go on what others say). I don't believe I've ever read a single opinion stating that they can. So this presents the Cabal with a problem.

Perhaps they could solve it by pulling troops out of Europe, South Korea (which they've already discussed), and Afghanistan (which they appear to be getting ready to leave). I've heard people say that part of the reason for occupying Iraq is to use it as a base for further operations in the Middle East; again, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that in light of what we've seen thus far they couldn't divert a significant number of troops from Iraq to a Syrian invasion without risking a dangerously large uprising in Iraq. As for re-instituting the draft, the common consensus is that this is fraught with political peril.

But even assuming they could get the troops, they still have to persuade Congress and the average American that there's a justification to send them into Syria. They were able to phony up that case for Iraq. As things are now, however, I don't think the "Perpetual War on Terror" or "Syrian Car Bombs in Baghdad" are going to cut it. Even some congressional Republicans are now starting to question the motivations and the costs of being in Iraq. And unless Rumsfeld has made significant progress already in his plan to replace military professionals with party fanatics (as, it may be noted, both Hitler and Stalin did when things didn't go their way, with less than positive results), I don't think huge numbers of the military brass are going to go along with it either. I'm sure you recall that some of them even had the temerity to question the wisdom of Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy. Who does it appear now was right?

So it seems to me that both military and political reasons prevent them from making war on Syria, UNLESS we have another major terrorist attack that can be pinned on the Syrians. In such a case the Bush Cabal would then be given the men and money to go into Syria, with the same eventual result that we now see in Iraq. But I don't think the Bush Cabal has any serious qualms about letting American soldiers die in small batches on a daily basis so long as their agenda is met. I think that agenda in Iraq is primarily economic. I think that agenda in Syria is something creepier.

Françoise