Minuteman III: When it absolutely, positively has to become peaceful over night.
Posted on 09/07/2009 7:19:48 AM PDT by SJackson
Following August 19 Baghdad Bombings, Syrian Daily Teshreen Warns Obama: The Syria-Iran Alliance, Which Is Cultivating the Resistance, Has Won a Great Victory – And Will Not Wait Until Hesitant Obama Reaches a Decision
In an August 22, 2009 article in the Syrian government daily Teshreen, Nasser Qandil, a former Lebanese MP who is close to Syria, wrote that some in Washington were acting to worsen the security situation in Iraq. Their aim, he said, is to extend the U.S. military presence in the country, which will harm U.S. President Barack Obama in his next election campaign; to promote the Biden Plan to partition Iraq into three regions; and to sabotage the relations among Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.
Qandil warned that although Syria and Iran had shown openness to the possibility of dialogue with the U.S., this was in now at risk due to the hesitancy that characterizes the Obama administration.
Following are excerpts from his article:
The Violence in Iraq Is Meant to Prevent U.S. Withdrawal, Harm President Obama
"The escalation of violence and bloodshed in Iraq in recent days came as the Americans were beginning to prepare for their 2011 troop withdrawal, and as the commanders of the U.S. forces tried to draw up understandings with the countries neighboring [Iraq], particularly Syria, to increase coordination at the border...
"Anyone who is following conditions in Iraq knows that the bloody operations against Iraqi civilians are designed to [reinforce] the call for U.S. forces to remain [in Iraq], and perhaps even redeploy in the cities that they have already left. The excuse given is that if the forces withdraw according to the timetable, the security situation could explode...
"These attacks took place just as many articles and studies were being published by the American and Israeli press, and by several institutes researching the Middle East, about the need to extend the U.S. forces' presence for another four years - or at least until after the next U.S. presidential election in 2012 - so that Obama will not be able to use the withdrawal as a card in his election campaign, and will not be able to claim that he kept his promises from his [first] campaign.
"Other studies link the demand to keep [U.S.] forces [in Iraq] to what they call 'the requirements for negotiating with Iran and guaranteeing Israel's security' prior to the U.S. military pullout. Still other studies hint at the possibility of a war on Iran or of an Israeli war on Lebanon - which, according to this approach, requires U.S. willingness to give Israel this opportunity prior to the [U.S.] troop withdrawal [from Iraq]...
"American research institutes are saying that the safest option for Iraq is a return to the three regions theory, presented by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden when he headed the [U.S. Senate] Committee on Foreign Relations. According to this model, encouragement of this track will help provide the safety net required for a troop withdrawal, [by keeping] Iraq stable."
"This Reveals Two Opposing Lines Among the Influential Circles in Washington"
"It was against the backdrop of this American political and media atmosphere that the recent attacks in Iraq took place. This reveals two opposing lines among the influential circles in Washington. While the president's team is acting slowly and hesitatingly on the negotiations track, and opening a window to cooperation with the countries neighboring Iraq - as he started to do with Syria and is about to start with Iran - there are those who are acting to worsen the Iraq security situation, so as to reopen the door to an extension of the [U.S.] troop presence in Iraq, and also to encourage the option of partitioning the country."
The August 19 Attacks Were Aimed at Sabotaging Assad's Syrian-Turkish-Iraqi-Iranian Cooperation Plan
"...It seems that the [August 19] attacks were aimed at [sabotaging] Syria-U.S. contacts by fomenting suspicion between the allies Syria and Iran; at stopping the progress that had been made in Syria-Iraq relations on the security and economic level when the Iraqi prime minister visited Damascus; and at complicating the Syrian-Turkish-Iraqi-Iranian cooperation plan, proposed by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad as a future strategic plan, to which he is devoting much attention, time, and effort...
"Those engaged in escalating regional conflicts - those who lose by, and are harmed by, the American openness to the new reality - are racking up achievements against the Obama administration - because it is hesitant, slow, and irresolute in translating this openness into making the required bold decisions, and because it continues to give the Israeli leadership the right of veto in security and political resolutions regarding the region.
"Further hesitation by the Obama administration would mean another blow to the hopes for change that were pinned on it following the U.S. presidential election... Indeed, there could be Israeli war adventurism, or increased bloodletting in Iraq. But the biggest loser of an escalation in the destruction and blood[shed] would first and foremost be President Obama - they [i.e. those who act against him] want him to end his first term exhausted, without the confidence of the voters or of any of those with whom he promised to turn over a new leaf."
"The Syrian-Iranian Alliance... Will Not Wait Until Those Who Hesitate Reach a Decision"
"The region can tolerate no more experiments with the blood of its sons. Thus, the Syrian-Iranian message was clear and resolute, when President Assad visited Iran - that many, from near and far, must read well the meaning of what is happening in the region. The meaning is that the Syrian-Iranian alliance, which is cultivating the resistance movements, has won an historic, significant victory. Despite its openness to the dialogue option, this alliance will not wait until those who hesitate reach a decision."
Is this “Biden’s Crisis” or maybe what Biden was talking about was the rise from the public against his boss’ policies.
What am I thinking? Biden doen’t ever know what he is talking about.
Never mind.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
some in Washington were acting to worsen the security situation in Iraq
Who? Let's have some names!
It was Biden’s crisis when he publicly made the proposal, caused a diplomatic incident and was nearly declared persona non grata in Iraq. This is perhaps most instructive in the context of the confidence our perceived weakness gives our enemies. They thing their cause is on the rise.
No. The explosion of violence is as predictable as morning following the night.
Anti-civilian violence has been almost constant since the invasion (and actually, under Saddam, it was the norm too, except the perpetrators got government salaries and snappy uniforms).
Since the invasion there have been continuous and bloody attacks on civilians, they have been dying at the rate probably of a hundred to one compared to attacks on soldiers. Why? Because they are a soft target. So you have Syria sending aid to the sunnis at the same time its ally Iran aids the shia, and both of them attacking each other and US troops caught in the middle trying to bring some kind of order out of chaos.
And we did it, mostly. But for political reasons we have prematurely pulled back and handed it over to the Iraqi forces. This is something we needed to do, but its been done on a somewhat artificial timetable and the renewed attacks on civilians are the obvious result. This is for two reasons: one, because the Iraqi forces are not as capable yet of putting down the insurgency. In other words, because they can. And secondly, to prevent the US from declaring victory. Whatever happens our withdrawal must be seen as a rout and not a victory.
What to do? Don't get in a big hurry to head for the door. Don't abandon the field on an artificial timetable, make your draw-down of forces contingent on improvements on the ground. In other words, the Bush plan. Or in other words, common sense plan. It doesn't matter who gets credit, if Obama will implement the common sense plan let him take credit. But what is happening is not a conspiracy in Washington, its a very public conspiracy in Tehran, Damascus, and from where ever else the insurgency draws its strength from.
Reality always gets a vote. Obama can tailor his strategy to reality or he can deal with catastrophe. Either way, reality gets its say. This insurgency has human authors who sit in Tehran and Damascus and they couldn't care less about O's legacy.
obama. He is reversing everything the US has achieved there. Iraq is reverting to its past tribalism. It will soon look as though we had never been there.
It will also make the all the sacrifices of Americans pointless.
This is his intent. This will be his legacy. And Afghanistan is following suit.
While you're correct, were I an Iraqi, I'd advocate a strong military, central control, and aggressive actions to dissuade my neighbors. In 2009, America doesn't recognize her own enemies, much less Iraqi enemies. Iraq can't count on America to deal with Iran or Syria, but fortunately will be able to defend herself against both.
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=IA54709
Inquiry and Analysis - No. 547
September 15, 2009 No. 547
“In South Lebanon, Tension Increases Between UNIFIL and Hizbullah-Syria-Iran Bloc”
By: H. Varulkar *
Introduction
SNIPPET: “In recent weeks, tensions between Hizbullah and the UNIFIL forces in South Lebanon have escalated, following several violations of U.N. Resolution 1701. The first of the incidents was the explosion at a Hizbullah weapons depot in the town of Khirbat Selem on July 14, 2009, followed on July 18 by an attack on UNIFIL troops searching the town for illegal weapons, who were pelted with stones by locals. Another incident was on July 17, when dozens of Hizbullah supporters and residents from the village of Kafr Shuba crossed the Lebanon-Israel border near the village, alleging that the Israeli army had erected a barrier and a watchtower on territory across the border that belonged to the village. The protesters put up Lebanese and Hizbullah flags in the disputed area, and accused UNIFIL of complacency in the face of Israel’s violations. [1]
In the wake of these incidents, Hizbullah officials leveled harsh accusations against UNIFIL, and Hizbullah supporters made threats against the organization. The hostile tone was echoed by Syria and Iran, and also by the Fath Al-Islam organization, whose name has been associated with Syrian intelligence since the 2008 events in Nahr Al-Bared. The London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat argued that the incident was intended to divert public attention from the issue of Hizbullah’s weapons and to minimize the debate on its violations of Resolution 1701. Hizbullah officials and the Syrian press focused on Israel, repeatedly warning that it was preparing for another war on Lebanon. [2]
Hizbullah Officials, Supporters Threaten UNIFIL “
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/lebanon_e001.pdf
#
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/lebanon_e001.htm
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
September 13, 2009
“Rocket fire in northern Israel: On September 11 three rockets were fired into Israel from south Lebanon. As in the past, the attack was launched by a network affiliated with the global jihad and not by Hezbollah.”
Minuteman III: When it absolutely, positively has to become peaceful over night.
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.