Putting Syria in Perpetual Check

Most of the headlined diplomatic news out of Syria this week centered on the diplomatic statements of American's chief diplomat, Colin Powell who said, as he should, "The conversations I had with the Syrians this week did not clear up all of the outstanding issues that we have with the Syrians, but I found it to be more positive than the earlier conversations I'd had."

This focus on a pull-quote from Colin Powell obscures the more draconian messages given to Syria by the United States during the talks.

In a more detailed report via the Defense Department's DefenseLINK news services we learn these other details:

... "Our message to Syria was a warning that this is very serious. Because this means Syria shares responsibility for the killing of Americans and Iraqis, and it has to stop."

.... The official said that pressure on Syria is growing over this situation. "If Americans are dying in Iraq because of Syrian policies, then this is something we are not going to tolerate.

"An Iraq that is successful from our point of view may not be what they want," he continued. "Our job is to convince them that the risk of undermining us is much greater than the opposite."
-- DefenseLINK News: Syria-U.S. Relationship Facing 'Major Deterioration'Subtext: "Seal your borders and stop the flow of terrorists into Iraq or either we or Isreal will deal with you. Maybe both. We don't want to have to say this again."

To underscore this, the news of deeds rather than words in Syria was less diplomatic. Most notable was the killling of the terrorist Izzadin Sheik Khalil with a car bomb in the middle of Damascus. Although officially denied, the consensus of all reports is that Isreali forces set up and carried out the assassination. That this operation happened at the same time Syria was receiving what amounted to an ultimatum from the United States can be seen as coincidental or deliberate. Either way, the message is the same.

Thus the official Israeli position is "Not only will we strike at terrorists in Syria, we already have."

The US State Department today supported the Israeli position at Spokesman Adam Ereli's Daily Press Briefing . Under repeated questioning Ereli not only refused to condemn the Israeli assassination but would not even acknowledge it. Instead he reiterated the US position as:

Thus we see Syria, within a week, presented with both words and deeds that put it on notice that its days of faciliating terrorism are numbered. But although the weapon is being pointed at Syria, the target is Iran.

With the problem of Iran becoming a nuclear power foremost in the minds of all those directing the Terrorist War, it is becoming increasingly evident that, absent some miracle, an air/ground military intervention into Iran will become a necessity in 2005. Having established a pervasive and well-supplied system of bases in Iraq the United States is in a position to launch such an intervention should it become necessary. It is, however, a tactical necessity to take Syria out of the equation before that time.

To heighten the chances a successful engagement in Iran, it becomes essential that Syria be neutralized first. When attacking one enemy you do not want to have another at your back. At the very least it would cause you to split your forces; a military situation to be avoided if at all possible. This goal can be achieved by placing the force at your rear in perpetual check before attacking the primary enemy.

In chess, perpetual check essentially forces a draw in the game. Syria does not lose since it lives to fight another day, but it does not win since it is inhibited from making moves that continue to distract the United States from stabilizing Iraq and being able to bring force to bear on Iran.

In the multi-demensional chessboard of war, it is enough that Syria be effectively immobilized by the threat of attack from Isreal and the United States, as well as international sanctions which have already been put into play through the United Nations.

To achieve such an immobilization it is necessary to convince the Asad government that the game it has been playing is no longer worth the candle. Demonstrations of this are what we saw and heard in Damascus over the past week.

One of the benefits of the military success in Iraq is that no country in the Middle East presently wants to be next on the list, with the possible exception of Iran which is playing the most dangerous game. With Syria in perpetual check, the position of Iran becomes that much less tenable and the possibilty for a non-military settlement of Iran's nuclear weapons program increases.

In the first weeks after 911, a central tenet of the new policy towards terror articulated by President Bush is that nations would be judged on the basis of "whether you are for us or against us," and dealt with accordingly. This week it was encouraging to see events unfold that seemed to underscore this position anew.

Which brings us to my ten reasons why we are there. Most of this was not original to me, I just put my thoughts together here:

Why we are in Iraq - in ten reasons.

1.We are at war with radical Islam. That is the core. And it is more than many think because as has become apparent to the casual viewer, more and more “moderate” muslims are being exposed as the radical muslims they always were.

2. We would rather not fight that war on US soil.

3. For YEARS, Saddam gave us more than enough reason to invade. His belligerence obviously played right into our hands. It is obvious if you know our mid-term goals.

4. Iraq has the perfect terrain and geographic location in which to fight a war where our power and technology will be at it’s most advantageous. Look at a globe. Now look at where the majority of radical muslims live. Now look at where Iraq sits. Look at it’s flora and topography. In other words, it isn't the jungles of Vietnam.

5. Iraq is the perfect place for a large US military presence (air and ground bases) in the heart of the beast – see number four above.

6. We wanted a place that would work to our advantage (see #4 above) to which real terrorists would flock to be slaughtered while fighting their great “satan,” the US. It needs to be a place with nice porous borders where they could easily slip into the battle, and within the firing range of the US military.

7. When the terrorists are in Iraq, they are not someplace else.:)

8. We knew the mindset of the Islamic culture – A culture of no individual decision making ability. We knew this would take decades, if not two full generations to complete. They have been like prisoners in a somewhat benign and malevolent (at the same time) prison warden by the name of Islam. We knew that we must eliminate the wardens power over these people before we could hope to bring true democracy – individual rights [I]and responsibility[/I] to any of the Islamic nations. In a phrase: We fully expect this to take a long time.

9. Their culture understands only power, so that is how we fight this war, and yet protect the “holy” stuff because we are looking towards the long term outcome.

What long term outcome? A world where Islam is put back where it belongs – quaint belief system of the ignorant. A world where Islam’s adherents are believers because of personal choice, not coercion or threats of death. A world of massively diminished and, therefore, de-clawed and de-fanged Islam. A world with no significant “religious system” which promotes suicide and terrorism.

Iraq is the key because of it’s location and condition. And Saddam made it oooohhhh so politically easy!

10. This is WWIV and we are fighting the most dangerous and evil enemy in our nations history. It is not going to be quick, easy nor cheap. But it is most definitely going to be worth the cost!

I agree wholly with your thinking. Had a recent discussion with my (ultra-lib) sis-in-law, and pointed out several of your 10 points. Its pretty clear to me that "W" had a bigger plan in mind than simply getting rid of Saddam, and one of the things in his plan was getting in between two major terrorist countries, Syria and Iran (and dont forget S.A. and Jordan) and let the true believers pour into Iraq. Straight into the gunsights of the best trained and equipped Military force on planet Earth.

Seems to be working pretty well. When the worst is over in a year or so, we will have a base in the middle of the (former) hornets nest. I'll be surprised if Syria/Iran havn't began singing with the choir in 1 - 2 years!

Gotta run. Will check back in later.

FReegards!

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.