Syria stays defiant as US raises the stakes

The Daily Telegraph ^ | April 11, 2003 | Alan Philps

[MadIvan]

Increasingly isolated and viewed by many as Washington's next target in the Middle East, Syria issued a defiant statement yesterday calling for an end to the "occupation" of Iraq.

But the government of president Bashar al-Assad did not answer accusations that it was harbouring fugitives from Iraq.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, echoed statements from Washington demanding that Syria make clear whether it was supporting the coalition or aiding the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime.

"We look to Syria to end any and all assistance to the Iraqi regime and to co-operate fully with the people of Iraq and with the coalition forces," Mr Straw told the House of Commons.

Mr Straw said he was sending Mike O'Brien, the foreign office minister, to Syria and Iran to discuss their role in Iraq's post-war reconstruction.

On Wednesday Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said he had intelligence saying that Syria had helped to move people from Iraq.

Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary, yesterday told the Senate armed services committee: "The Syrians are behaving badly. They need to be reminded of that, and if they continue then we need to think about what our policy is with respect to a country that harbours terrorists or harbours war criminals, or was in recent times shipping things to Iraq."

A Syrian foreign ministry statement said Syria "urges the international community to exert every possible effort to put an end to the occupation and manage the catastrophic situation that has resulted from the aggression". The people of Iraq should be able to choose their government freely, away from foreign intervention.

[MadIvan]

Syria has chosen poorly.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Support Free Republic]

Is Somebody Else Carrying Your Water?
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Dog]

Syria will go down easier than Iraq....they better not push it to hard.

[zingzang]

So be it, they can suffer the consequences as well.

[Minty]

Boy they are asking for their spanking and can not hold themselves to wait.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

It was inevitable that they would (choose poorly). Assad the younger is certifiably evil and probably just plain certifiable. He will destroy Syria before he's done (which is no great loss to anyone).

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Syria will be given an ultimatum by year's end.

Get out of Lebanon.

The new Lebanese government will invite our troops to come in and set-up shop early in 2004.

[Dog]

Scott I can't believe Syria would be this stupid....to challenge us after what we just did to Iraq.

[prairiebreeze]

My understanding was that France historically has maintained a fairly close bed-fellow relationship with Syria as well. If I'm correct with that, I Wonder what France's role is in this?

Prairie

[MadIvan]

Let's not forget, Syria has an advanced programme of chemical weapons too.

One further thing: if they did assist Iraq in ways that could get our troops killed, they need to be destroyed.

Regards, Ivan

[Grymskull]

All I gotta say to Syria is.. If your feeling froggy... Jump! At the end it will be another state sponsorer of terrorism down.. oh and just one other word.... Lebanon.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Syria will go down easier than Iraq....they better not push it to hard.

What does the NY Times call a twenty-minute war? A Quagmirette?

[Scott from the Left Coast]

I can't believe Syria would be this stupid

To some extent I can believe it -- they believe their own propoganda...and they're not the first to fall into that trap.

They also see how long and hard the diplomatic manuever regarding Iraq took, on top of the 12 years before that. Assad may just think that "we wouldn't dare" go after him on the fly, making France/Germany/Russia just that much more upset.

Assad is nutty enough to believe both things and not be paying attention to the very powerful "follow on" forces we have just entering the theatre. If he gave us a really good reason (like acquiring some of Iraq's WMD's (mobile bio labs or such) or actually started to foment serious terrorist disruption in Iraq, then it wouldn't be all that difficult to take him out. We've probably got Special Ops over his border right now anyway. But Israel would be attacked this time, so the situation could get interesting.

[Reborn]

You'd think that Syria would get the message. Sheesh, what more do they need to see to be convinced of our position on terrorism?! If you aren't with us....

Perhaps it's just as well that we have an unused MOAB in the area over there.

[f.Christian]

I thought that 3rd army moving in from kuwait was overkill !

[George W. Bush]

In Syria's case, they're probably trying to get us to invade them, biding their time by fleecing the Iraqi government's refugees who have fled with the nation's treasure to Syria.

I think we need to consolidate our Iraqi position before dealing with Syria more forcefully.

I like to see the British Foreign Office taking the lead in diplomacy here. Especially with Iran. Britain gets to play the 'good cop'. (Tony: "Oh please, don't do ______ or my friend George, the bad cop, will come beat the hell out of you... I can't stop him when he gets like this...")

[longjack]

I just read this German article in today's "Spiegel" online.

They were saying that the US/Rumsfeld speed tactic worked against a "rotted out" Iraqi, but that it would be a lot different with other armies.

The article said the Syrian army was highly armed and it's society was well off. The US would have a hard time against Syria, according to the article.

This is the "Spiegel", which has been decidely anti-American in it's reporting, AFAIC.

Are there any arms wizards out there who would care to comment on this?

These guys are beginning to irritate me.

"Spiegel" (in German).."Speed Kills"

longjack

[Mister Baredog]

Syria has chosen poorly.

They almost seem to be asking for it.

[templar]

What does Syria have that we want? Or what does invading Syria accomplish that we want? There has to be some reason that the American people will accept. Other than considering Asad a very, very dangerous man, I don't know that much about Syria itself.