2-3 Carrier Battle Groups to Head Home in next Couple of Days (Including Kitty HawK)

Fox News | Burr5

[Burr5]

On now. Does this say anything about letting the Syrians off the hook?

[Cable225]

I'm not sanguine about the prospect of "selling" the diplomatic community on the idea of knocking out Assad either

That good, because we'll never sell it. Regardless of the fact that everyone knows Syria is "Terror High School", they haven't attacked any country or gassed its own populace. Outside of providing help to Iraq, they haven't done enough to justify being attacked. Let me rephrase that - It would be difficult to build support (internationally and domestically) for an attack, coming on the heels of the Iraq conflict. Just close your eyes and imagine the shrieking from the libs, press and UN upon the announcement of a campaign against Syria. Start with "war-monger" and spiral downward from there -

* "What about North Korea?"
* "The economy is in shambles!"
* "Another war? How can you even think about a tax cut?"

The hand-wringing list could go on forever.

Right now, our primary focus has to be getting the new government in Iraq off the ground. Anything that appears to get in the way of that will only invite the left to beat us over the head with a very large club. I have yet to see GWB give his enemies that opportunity, and I don't imagine he'll do it this time. He's got a ton of political capital and goodwill built up from the Iraq conflict, I can't see him spending it on something we won't even get Congress to go for.

What ever happened to "You're either with us or against us?"

Since you clearly remember that, perhaps you recall the part about how this war will be fought on many different fronts - diplomatically, miltarily, financially, economically; some will be out in the open, some will not. There isn't anyone on this forum that has a clue how many ways we are approaching the Syrian problem behind closed doors. I for one, don't think for a minute it's being ignored, I just seriously doubt the public will be privy to any of the operation.

[MinuteGal]

I hope the military on board these ships receive the mother of all grateful and rousing receptions from our citizenry after they pull into port and the heroes disembark.

Leni

[tomahawk]

Syria is Hezbollah's daddy.

Hezbollah is a terrorist group that has murdered hundreds of U.S. Marines.

Syria may now have Saddam's WMD's.

Syria is sending fights to kill American troops in Iraq.

Syria gave Saddam Kornet missiles which killed American troops.

Syria supports other terrorist groups in Syria and Lebanon.

Syria is a terrorist state.

Its actions show it is not with us, but with the terrrorists.

No action may be needed towards Syria at this time, but in time, action should be taken.

[tomahawk]

"sending fighters", not "sending fights".

Also, Syria is now harboring lots of Saddamites.

[I_dmc]

Agree. We will not attack Syria. This does not mean, however, that unpleasant things could not happen to Iraqi leaders, Iraqi WMD, and other terrorists that happen to be in Syria. Possibly by the Syrian gov't itself.

[katana]

IMHO we are not going to play dominoes, at least not unless and until it becomes very necessary to do so. The Syrian Baath Socialist Party is a close cousin to the party of the same name in Iraq and it will be interesting to see what effect that party's demise will have on Syria. There are lots of things we can now do, short of invasion, as Iraq is consolidated to really stir the pot in both Damascus and Tehran.

[Illbay]

"Are we going to do anything about it?"

To me, this is a feckless expression of contempt for a President who has been the very picture of following words with deeds. I think you owe Pres. Bush an apology.

He said that we would move against the terrorists, and we effected regime change in Afghanistan, captured hundreds of al-Qa'ida and other terrorists there and have them locked up or otherwise engaged.

We have captured or killed many of the top al-Qa'ida leadership, and those we don't have are in a veritable prison cell as they cannot move without knowing we will have them.

He said that if Saddam did not disarm, he would effect regime change there. He did so, in the face of vicious and rabid opposition by people here and abroad. He tried to use the U.N. route, but finding it blocked he went around it, and now the Iraqi people have a chance at freedom, and Saddam Hussein is GONE, maybe even having shuffled off this mortal coil.

Meanwhile, terrorists the world over are on the run, being besieged or killed. There have been no further terrorist acts to speak of on our own shores--even though the naysayers on the Left and in the media whined about the terrible things that would happen if we "made them mad" by not appeasing them.

And you ask "are we going to do anything about it?"

Shame on you.

[winner3000]

I agree with you. Also, morally, how can we say that Iraqi occupation of Kuwait will not stand, and let Syria keep Lebanon. Wouldn't that mean that we liberated Kuwait strictly because it's an oil producing country?

[Illbay]

Syria doesn't "rule" Lebanon, though. They have great influence there, but it isn't the same thing.

[tomahawk]

Good points, and we should all be very proud of Pres. Bush's accomplishments in the war against terror.

Syria will have to stop its support for terrorism, and give up Saddam's WMD's and Saddam's war criminals now residing in Syria, or it will also need to be dealt with. Not today (as persuasion may work) but eventually.

[not-an-ostrich]

President Bush has a campaign coming up. The administration needs to finish the current clean up in Iraq (WMD and democracy) and focus on the econmy.

[Illbay]

And I'm sure that Syria is going to feel the heat very soon now. I have no doubt of it, because Pres. Bush has SHOWN that he doesn't just talk.

[tomahawk]

That is for sure! As sure as anything in geopolitics today.

So the opposite of BJ Clinton.

[Brian Allen]

Where do you think Carl Vinson has been all this while?

Off the Solomons, maybe?

[Clue: Kim knows where she is!]

[SoCal_Republican]

I agree. If we handle things in Iraq properly I bet we will see the Syria problem start to solve itself. Wait until democratically elected Iraqis start to deal with the nations that help keep them under Saddam's brutal control. A peaceful democratic Iraq will do more to change the Middle East than any follow-up military action by our troops.

[randita]

Whatever happens in Syria will be run by Special Ops, much like Afghanistan. There is no real Syria military force to be reckoned with. There are just nests of terrorists and their leaders and abetters that will have to be rooted out and destroyed.

[ScholarWarrior]

The Vinson was in the vicinity "just in case" of action either in Korea or Taiwan.

You'll need more than one carrier to really make them nervous.

[Cable225]

No action may be needed towards Syria at this time, but in time, action should be taken.

I hope I didn't give you the impression that I don't feel the Syrians needs to be dealt with, because I do. I also didn't say they weren't being dealt with, I just don't think the public is going to be aware of any of the measures taken.

All the points you raise are correct and indispustible. However, taking into consideration all of the political realities, can you actually see a scenario where we openly take military action against them in the forseeable future?

And by action, I mean along the same lines as Iraq or Desert Storm; coalition building, military buildup, etc. I can't see the Brits jumping on with us for that. I also don't see some of our ME "allies" (Qatar, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) giving us any support out of fear of a US "takeover" of the ME. Hell, I can't even see Congress on board.

[WOSG]

Here is how we will 'get' Syria. As they and the Arab world demand we end the occupation of Iraq, we will just reply "what about the Syrian occupation of lebanon".

We will keep putting pressure on them until they either crack or are forced to withdraw. A free lebanon and a free Iraq will put a big crimp on Syria's terror support.