| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon |
| Bush vetoes Syria war plan |
| 2003-04-15 |
| I hear a collective sigh in the land of Rantburg. The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday. In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad. There's always somebody at DoD planning. Heck, we probably have plans to invade France, done as an exercise by some honors students at West Point. Wonder if those have been updated lately? Meanwhile, his undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of the Pentagon's office of special plans, were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. Mr Feith and Mr Luti were both instrumental in persuading the White House to go to war in Iraq. Bet it was a long document. Mr Feith and other conservatives now playing important roles in the Bush administration, advised the Israeli government in 1996 that it could "shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria". However, President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the "war on terror" to Syria. I don't think re-election has anything to do with it. This is strategic. "The talk about Syria didn't go anywhere. Basically, the White House shut down the discussion," an intelligence source in Washington told the Guardian. Faced with rising apprehension over the prospect of a new conflict, Tony Blair also offered categorical assurances to anxious MPs yesterday that Britain and the US had "no plans whatsoever" to invade Iraq's neighbour. "No, my right honorable friends, we will take a short break from deposing dangerous tyrants. Today at least." Dismissing fears of an Anglo-American invasion as another "conspiracy theory", the prime minister said that Mr Bush had never mentioned an attack on Syria during their regular talks. "I have the advantage of talking to the American president on a regular basis and I can assure you there are no The Bush administration is nevertheless determined to use its military ascendancy in the region to exert diplomatic and economic pressure on Damascus and resolve what Washington sees as longstanding problems, including the threat to Israel posed by Damascus-backed Islamic extremists, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and Syria's chemical weapons. Mr Rumsfeld repeated accusations yesterday that Syria had tested chemical weapons in the last 12 to 15 months. However, Syria is not a signatory to the chemical weapons convention and would not be breaking international law if it did possess,nor is it suspected of selling chemical weapons to others. One US administration official conceded: "They've not taken any actions that we can see so far that would justify military action." Mr Blair made clear to Syria yesterday that it must not accept high-level political fugitives or weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. "It is important Syria does not harbour people from Saddam's regime or allow any transfer of material from Iraq to Syria. I have spoken to President Assad and he has assured me that is not happening and I have said it is important that assurance is valid," Mr Blair told MPs. A diplomat in Washington with close ties to the administration agreed there was no sign of military action on the horizon. "There's no question of this at the White House," the diplomat said, pointing out that the Syrian army would be a far more potent adversary than Iraq's bedraggled forces. "Anyone who lives in the real world would never see this as more than noise." However, if Bashir gets worried and takes some steps to rein in Hezbollah, that would be good. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 Tibor - Oh, no! Not the Brutal Syrian Winter! |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-04-15 23:04:13 |
| #13 I hope the Syrians aren't getting off this easy. They owe us the lives of the hundreds of Marines and embassy staff killed in separate bombings during the 80's. Syrian-backed Hezbollah was responsible. This blood debt has not been repaid. I seem to recall that President Bush also said something about having no war plans on his desk regarding Iraq about 6 months ago. If Syria acts up, I don't think this statement is going to save Bashir al Assad from being toppled. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-04-15 16:51:37 |
| #12 What's going to happen vis-a-vis Syria is the US will ramp up the pressure economically, politically and militarily. If we have proof that some of the top Ba'athists or some WMD have been given refuge or otherwise found their way into Syria, we may invoke some sort of "hot pursuit" right to go in with the Abrams blazing, but it's more likely, if only to allow us to rebuild our JDAM and TLAM stocks and to park a few satellites overhead, that we ask the UN to demand inspections, etc., for a few months. After some diplomatic wrangling, we will then throw up our hands and say "inspections aren't working!" and start massing the 4ID on their eastern border. Just in time for the Syrian winter . . . |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-04-15 12:29:22 |
| #11 "The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday." Military double-talk to quiet the raving crowds. There are ALWAYS plans, for anywhere and everywhere. Things happen too fast in the modern war to wait until AFTER an event before developing plans to contain it. Just to show how serious this is, there are plans at the Pentagon to "invade" the island of Reunion, in the Indian Ocean. There's no real political NEED to invade Reunion, but it's one of several HUNDRED "emergency landing sites" for the Space Shuttle. Should one of those go down and be taken captive by a radical group, say from Somalia or Yemen, the plan is already in place to go in and take it back. I'm sure that includes coordinating with the French before taking such action, and providing support for French troops engaged in the exercise (Reunion is an overseas department of France). Those plans are written, and get updated on a routine basis, as needed. Saves a TON of hurry-up work at the last minute, where things can get left out or totally screwed up. The United States would be criminally negligent if it DIDN'T have such plans. There's a big difference between HAVING a plan, and IMPLEMENTING it. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-15 11:36:19 |
| #10 Hmm... I'm sorry to see him to this, although I can understand he's doing it for political reasons. Still, you never want to take any options off the table. It gives you more leverage in negotiations, and I'd love to see Boy Assad sweat it out. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-04-15 09:05:33 |
| #9 (1) Demand inspectors. If they have Iraqi transfered WMD they probably didn't have enough time to hide them the way the Iraqi's did. (2) Push for UN involvement in Lebanon and make it uncomfortable politically for Syria to keep their troops there or pretect the training areas there. (3) Put spies into Syria looking for Saddam or his cronies. (4) Blast Syria with VOA broadcasts showing the fall of Saddam and speaches from the Shia's. (5) Watch and listen for something to crack. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-04-15 10:51:44 |
| #8 These guys aren't rocket scientists. They don't learn from past mistakes. The joy boys of terrorism, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are eventually going to do something real stupid in Israel. Then all the US has to do is sit and watch as the IDF, taking a page from the US playbook, drives up to Damascus and solves the problem. I don't think there is anyone else available to stop 'em other than the US which will not be in the mood to intervene. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-04-15 09:25:39 |
| #7 "Economic sanctions never work when you have countries like France." Well if France has to make up the costs to Syria of shutting the pipeline, that at least imposes a cost on France :) The main point is that this is not the time. the main strategy for using Iraq to advance our interests in the arab world is Iraq as a political example, not Iraq as a military base. And that must wait until Iraq has been substantially reconstructed. When Syrians see Iraqis living much better than they do, it will be relatively easy to achieve change in Syria. While they see cities without electricity or water, all Iraq buys us vs Syria is geographic positioning, which is good but not enough. And i would venture that we dont want THREE nation building projects going on simultaneously. Yes we should keep up momentum - as Fred Barnes said in the Weekly Standard the other, day, if 5 years go by and we have made no further progress, thats a big lost opportunity. But this is only 1 week after Baghdad fell, only 4 weeks after the war began. I say the same thing to you that i would say to lefties complaining about looting in Iraq - be patient. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-15 07:55:57 |
| #6 "There are no plans on my desk to attack Syria" Now, where have I heard that before? |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-04-15 07:36:53 |
| #5 Looks like it is time to do some maintenance on that oil pipeline. Y'know, to repair "war damage". Maybe TotalFinaElf has a tanker in the Mediterranean that could help Syria out in the meantime. |
| Posted by: Baba Yaga 2003-04-15 07:17:54 |
| #4 "...I have spoken to President Assad and he has assured me that is not happening and I have said it is important that assurance is valid," Mr Blair told MPs. Heh, Tony's no fool. Talk all you want Assad, but be sure all that talk is valid. For arabs, it appears the latter is more of a challenge than the former. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-04-15 07:10:38 |
| #3 Doug, it is true that economic sanctions, by themselves, generally don't do a complete job. However, Syria, which is already a basket case, has depended on ripping off border trading with Iraq for many years and stealing from the oil pipeline from Iraq. Also, the Syrian army depends on fees from the drug trade in Lebanon and bribes and protection money from their occupation of Lebanon. Lots of this kind of revenue is needed because Assad Jr. has to pay off a lot of flunkies to remain flunkies, has to keep the military brass happy, etc. He can be hurt and hurt bad. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-04-15 07:09:26 |
| #2 Economic sanctions never work when you have countries like France. If he doesn't want to hit Syria, then he should consider the Becca valley and the Hezbollah. Finally, Debka is reporting today that France is offering sanctuary for Saddam's buddies. |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2003-04-15 06:57:37 |
| #1 Plans for economic sanctions are probably being ramped up with some being implemented already. |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-04-15 06:44:17 |