Posted on 12/07/2004 7:15:28 PM PST by Minus_The_Bear
Edited on 12/07/2004 9:35:07 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
U.S. military intelligence has concluded the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously thought from Syria, where former Saddam Hussein loyalists have found sanctuary and are channeling money, other support, the WASHINGTON POST will report in Wednesday editions... DEVELOPING...
Link to Article and EXCERPT:
Rebels Aided By Sources in Syria, U.S. Says
Rebels Aided By Sources in Syria, U.S. Says
Baathists Reportedly Relay Money, Support
U.S. military intelligence officials have concluded that the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognized from Syria, where they said former Saddam Hussein loyalists have found sanctuary and are channeling money and other support to those fighting the established government.
Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency.
In some cases, evidence suggests that these Baathists are managing operations in Iraq from a distance, the officials said. A U.S. military summary of operations in Fallujah noted recently that troops discovered a global positioning signal receiver in a bomb factory in the western part of the city that "contained waypoints originating in western Syria."
Concerns about Syria's role in Iraq were also expressed in interviews The Washington Post conducted yesterday with Jordan's King Abdullah and Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar. "There are people in Syria who are bad guys, who are fugitives of the law and who are Saddam remnants who are trying to bring the vicious dictatorship of Saddam back," Yawar said. "They are not minding their business or living a private life. They are . . . disturbing or undermining our political process."...."
Do you not watch the situation in Iraq? We are sending more troops and extending tours for those already there just to try to meet the existing demands there. Pulling any away is not an option.
______________________________________________
"2. Taking Iraq was not the problem, controlling Iraq is. What would make Syria different? And, what units do we use to occupy it? Controlling Iraq has only been a problem because Syria and Iran are working against us. There would not be that much internal opposition without external influence...............................
You are giving opinion, not fact. There are some foreign fighters in Iraq but they are a small minority and could not have gotten there if the Iraqi people were not supportive of the resistance themselves.
______________________________________________
3. How do you keep Israel from being pulled in? Don't fool yourself into thinking this would be a good thing. How did we keep Israel out of it with Iraq? Saddam swore to bring Israel into it and tried his best..................................
Nonsense, Sadam did nothing to attack Israel in March 03, no scuds, no terror attacks, nothing. And Syria borders Israel, Iraq does not.
__________________________________________________
"4. Look west and invade Syria, what do we do then when Iran opens an Eastern front?" If Iran wants to open an eastern front and provide us more targets they can. Wiping out an army that is moving across the desert is a lot easier than driving terrorists out of a city.........................................
With barely enough troops to handle Iraq you believe that we could easily wipe out an Iranian Army, even if we are already fighting in Syria. And you assume that Iran would launch a 1951 style frontal assault instead of creating hundreds of raids, incursions and probes along a virtually undefended hundreds of miles long border. That is just silly.
________________________________________________________
You replied but you gave no reality based answers.
Sure it's an option. We are trying to hold the body of the snake in place instead of cutting off it's head. It's a lot easier to cut off the head.
"There are some foreign fighters in Iraq but they are a small minority and could not have gotten there if the Iraqi people were not supportive of the resistance themselves."
The US military has pretty much said most of the insurgents are foreigners. Yes there is some support. But it's not a coincidence that most of the trouble is in Faluja which lies on the cross roads of the highways to Syria and Jordan.
"Nonsense, Sadam did nothing to attack Israel in March 03, no scuds, no terror attacks, nothing. And Syria borders Israel, Iraq does not."
Saddam tried in Gulf War I and was unsuccessful. He didn't have the ability to try again. Syria does Border Israel. So what? We'd knock out the Syrian airforce just as quick as Israel could. Syria is not going to go walking down into Israel and if they did nobody is going to come to their rescue. Israel is a non-issue.
"With barely enough troops to handle Iraq you believe that we could easily wipe out an Iranian Army, even if we are already fighting in Syria. And you assume that Iran would launch a 1951 style frontal assault instead of creating hundreds of raids, incursions and probes along a virtually undefended hundreds of miles long border. That is just silly.
If they tried a frontal assault, it would be a massacre...theirs. They are already supporting hundreds of raids, incursions and probes. Open your dang eyes!!!!
Your plan is to stay status quo until either they lose enough insurgents and give up or we lose enough men and pull out. That's stupid. Both Syria and Iran are supporters of terror. We vowed to go after the states that support terror.
I'll support the President however he wants to play it. He's got more info than I have. But I won't lose any sleep if he takes out some more states.
Well what are we waiting for? I say we take a warning strike. If Syria fails to change, then a full scale invasion since they are with the terrorist.
A full scale invasion of Syria....how many divisions would that take, any idea? Three? Four? Since we don't have any sitting around just waiting where will they come from?
How many divisions brigades will it take to mop up 25,000? Our kill ratio in heavy battle is about 100 to 1. We could expect 250 casualties.
US State Dept. docs available on the web say 400k active, 5100 tanks including 1000 Russian t-72s, stockpiles of mustard, sarin and VX with delivery systems...but I'm sure you're right, we'll ask them to put on a parade and MOAB their asses, then three or four battalions ought to do for the mop up. Of course that gives us two countries full of suicide bombers to occupy. But, hey, you've got it all figured out.
"Syria is not going to go walking down into Israel and if they did nobody is going to come to their rescue. Israel is a non-issue."
A. Earlier you said that Sadam did his best to pull Israel into the War, which is it? B. Israel is never a "non-issue' in any ME conflict or politics.
" If they (Iran) tried a frontal assault, it would be a massacre...theirs."
You've figured this out but they haven't? They see better than we do what tactics work against us.
"They (Iran)are already supporting hundreds of raids, incursions and probes."
Your statement is that Iran is raiding on a daily basis (hundreds)into Iraq against us. What's your source?
"Open your dang eyes!!!!"
To what? Your theories based on nothing but your imagination? Show me some facts or source sites.
And, btw, the recognized threat from Iran is not land based but maritime. They have the means in place to close off the Straits of Hormuz, disrupting both the flow of oil to the world and our lines of support for our troops in Iraq. I'm sure that your research revealed this to you but you felt it unnecessary to mention.
False dichotomy. Israel is always an issue in ME conflicts. Doesn't mean Israel is easily pulled into a war.
"You've figured this out but they haven't? They see better than we do what tactics work against us."
I don't buy that they are smarter than we are. They probably aren't stupid enough to pull a full scale frontal assault. But they are stupid enough to continue interference in Iraq's affairs, and they need to be dealt with.
"Your statement is that Iran is raiding on a daily basis (hundreds)into Iraq against us. What's your source? "
U.S. Military and Intelligence. Iran is not crossing the border and raiding and then pulling back across the border as you seem to want to infer. Instead they are sending insurgents accross who stay in Iraq and conduct raids. This IS happening and will continue to happen until they become afraid that the cost to them is going to be too high.
"To what? Your theories based on nothing but your imagination? Show me some facts or source sites.
Do a search yourself. There have been many articles linking Iran to insurgents in Iraq. Just like this article that started this thread that links Syria to insurgents.
"And, btw, the recognized threat from Iran is not land based but maritime. They have the means in place to close off the Straits of Hormuz, disrupting both the flow of oil to the world and our lines of support for our troops in Iraq."
The world got along fine without Iraqi oil during Gulf Wars 1 and 2. Iran's oil threat is not a reason to surrender.
You say that your resource is US Military and intelligence...They lift the skirts for you to peek? Sorry, I don't believe that.
"The world got along fine without Iraqi oil during Gulf Wars 1 and 2."
The Straits carry a lot more than Iraqi oil, but I'm sure that your Military Intelligence sources told you that.
"Iran's oil threat is not a reason to surrender"
Who said anything about surrender?
You have given nothing but supposition based on what you you imagine is truth. And you still haven't answered the original question....where are the troops needed to fight and then occupy Syria and Iran while occupying Iraq going to come from? But, please don't bother.
Israel is an issue because the hatred of the Muslims for Israel is a major motivation behind the terrorism. Israel is not an issue in the sense that their being drawn into a war is a major concern. It's at best a minor concern easily dealt with.
You say that your resource is US Military and intelligence...They lift the skirts for you to peek? Sorry, I don't believe that.
They announce it to the press for the whole world to hear.
"The Straits carry a lot more than Iraqi oil, but I'm sure that your Military Intelligence sources told you that."
Doesn't matter. If you are going to let such threats dictate your foreign policy, you might as well run up the white flag now. If the lack of that oil is a serious threat, it simply means we either have to take preventive measures or make it clear to the Iranians that the cost of shutting it down will be greater they they want to bear.
Who said anything about surrender?
You might as well have. You have effectively said, "We can't attack the people who are leading and funding those attacking us, because if we do they might shut down the straits".
Gotta tell you Danny, that is the single most inaccurate statement I have heard from you yet. Keeping Israel on the sidelines of whatever we do in the ME is of paramount concern.
"If the lack of that oil is a serious threat, it simply means we either have to take preventive measures or make it clear to the Iranians that the cost of shutting it (the straits of Hormuz) down will be greater they they want to bear."
As I mentioned earlier, it is not just about oil. It is about resupply and support for our troops in theater. Do you think an air bridge would do it? (I'll help you on this one...not even close).
"You have effectively said, "We can't attack the people who are leading and funding those attacking us, because if we do they might shut down the straits".
That is not the truth. Work with my own words, not what you wish my words to be. What I've said (asked actually) and will ask again (is this the third or fourth time you haven't answered the question?) Where will the troops to fight the three front war and to occupy the three defeated countries come from?
Oh I agree it's important. It's just not that hard to do.
It is about resupply and support for our troops in theater. "
I don't think the Iranians could sufficiently shut our ability to supply our troops from sea. Remember our last conflict with Iran when they were trying to keep our vessels from shipping oil in the mideast. Their success rate was practically zero.
Where will the troops to fight the three front war and to occupy the three defeated countries come from?
If you eliminate the state sponsors, it doesn't take nearly as many troops.
----------------------------------------
Do a little research on Iran capabilities Straits of Hormuz. They could easily choke off our resupply with what they already have in place.
Any such attempt would be short lived.
1) Shutting down the Straits of Hormuz hurts Japan, Europe, and China worse than it hurts the U.S. So we would probably quickly have company and/or financial support.
2) You underestimate our ability to remove what Iran has in place.
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.