Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:47 PM PDT by jmc1969
The United States recently debated launching military strikes inside Syria against camps used by insurgents operating in neighboring Iraq, a US magazine reported.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice successfully opposed the idea at a meeting of senior American officials held on October 1, Newsweek reported, citing unnamed US government sources.
Rice reportedly argued that diplomatic isolation was a more effective approach, with a UN report pending that may blame Syria for the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri.
The United States has accused Damascus of allowing insurgents to move arms and fighters across the Syrian border into Iraq and of destabilizing the region.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
My vote is for the military strikes. Sorry Condi.
"citing unnamed US government sources"
These days there's no way to know how reliable that is.... plus it's Newsweek.
Hark back to Vietnam when civilians dictated bombing targets.
We have troops being killed, because of Syrian safety for the terrorists. And we are going to wait for a UN report on Syria and think diplomatic isolation will work? - Tom
Not credible.
If Condi starts preaching the zero-sum gospel of incremental signaling, we're in deep doo-doo.
Yup, anything that is said ends up in the NYT, WP, and Newsweak thanks to the State Dept.
I understand Condis position, and am willing to give it a couple more months until after the December election in Iraq because I don't want to rock the boat and give the Sunni religious leaders another excuse to boycott.
But, after December it is high time we hit the bastards hard.
I recall when Truman State dept and other assorted communists would not allow the AF to bomb across the Yalu. It might anger the Chinese.
"Hark back to Vietnam when civilians dictated bombing targets."
This is not quite as bad because it involves attacking a "new" country - and should involve policy input. I would assume the President made the final call.
I put "new" in quotes because Syria is already involved... the reality just hasn't set in.
Why did you put a spin on this by using the word "veto" which is not what happened?
Hey -- just how did the Vietnamese Army run China's armies ragged a few years back?
The state dept has a voice and Condi was against it that in my mind is her putting down her veto powers, that is of course if the article is correct which is another question entirely.
The Chinese had been "assured" by people in Washington that we would not bomb. Hell of a way to fight a war. Don't invade Syria, just lob a few in there to get their attention.
They did it by a simple rule of warfare, shoot everyone on sight. To them death of men meant nothing, so the Chinese saw they were not fighting Americans with one hand tied behind their backs.
Yes like in Iraq they will make us wait 12 years until the diploshiite has run out. I dont think 1 american life is worth waiting 1 day for diplomats to try to pull the wedgey out of there cumulative a$$es.
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.