Posted on 05/02/2003 3:09:41 PM PDT by FairOpinion
WASHINGTON, May 2 (UPI) -- Key White House advisers, ignoring pressure from Pentagon hawks and senior Israeli officials, abruptly shut down proposed U.S. plans to expand the Iraqi ground war to Syria in the closing days of combat, administration officials have told United Press International.
The U.S. strikes on Syria would have taken the form of brief across-the-border forays under "hot pursuit" rules of engagement, these sources said.
Contingency plans for such raids were being drawn up by Doug Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, after the approval of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, these sources said on condition of anonymity.
But the stern refusal to expand U.S. military actions in Iraq to another country came from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, backed by the president's chief domestic adviser, Karl Rove, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, according to the sources.
One proponent of the plans disagreed: "I saw no reason why we shouldn't have gone in. Powell wanted to return to regular bilateral relations with states in the area, but the balance of power (in the region) had changed, and we had the troops and we had the momentum.
"Rice's message was quite succinct: There will be no further military adventures during the remainder of the president's first term," one senior administration official said.
Another source with close knowledge of the White House meetings said: "The hawks didn't understand the emphasis had all changed: Everything was focused, not on the war any more, but on the president's re-election."
This official added that Rove had handled the elections of 2002 on the basis that "the American public knew the economy was a disaster, but the president asked them to put the war on terror first, and to vote Republican. And the public voted Republican. We think he felt any movement into Syria was pushing his luck."
Government spokesmen did not return calls from UPI seeking comment.
The hawks proposed punitive raids because Syria and the United States already were bristling at each other, and the war simply took an unfortunate series of circumstances and brought them to a point of crisis, administration sources said.
In spite of Syria's heightened cooperation in the war on terror, with Syria giving the United States much useful information about al-Qaida, it was still supporting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the war.
In an April 13 Washington Post report, Powell issued a harsh warning to Syria against giving safe haven to Iraqi officials fleeing Baghdad. At a Pentagon press conference, Rumsfeld charged, "We are getting scraps of intelligence saying that Syria has been cooperating in facilitating the move (of senior members of Saddam Hussein's regime) from Iraq to Syria."
He warned that arms and supplies were moving into Iraq from Syria as well. Syria replied strongly that such charges were "baseless."
In an interview with The Washington Times, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying: "Syria is shipping killers into Iraq to kill Americans."
There was some truth to this, say serving and former U.S. intelligence officials.
Former senior CIA officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told UPI that U.S. combat forces in Iraq detained at least 700 Lebanon-based Hezbollah fighters who came in buses over the Syrian border to fight against the U.S. coalition.
In one incident, a bus filled with Lebanese Hezbollah militants stopped in Iraq included two dozen Chechen terrorists, a very former senior agency official said.
He added that another 100 members of Hezbollah are being detained at a camp at Tanaa in Iraq. After stern U.S. warnings, Syria tightened up scrutiny at checkpoints, but more Hezbollah and jihadis "simply went over the border" with weapons and explosives, he said.
"We were seeing some very disturbing signs of plans for anti-U.S. activity" on the part of the Hezbollah, another administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
(Naim Qassem, Hezbollah's deputy secretary general, told UPI's Claude Salhani in an interview in Beiurt last week, "We are not a threat to anyone." Qassem said that although now he felt Hezbollah was stronger politically and militarily than ever, it was not to attack anyone, "but only to defend ourselves.")
The hawks also saw Syria as the only remaining military threat to Israel.
Former CIA Middle East expert Bob Baer told UPI that Syria possesses "a chemical arsenal that is much more lethal than anything Saddam has," and explained that "in Israeli strategic thought, the most dangerous threat is the geographically closest" -- which would mean Syria.
According to an April 18 report in Middle East International, Israeli intelligence chief Gen. Rossi Kupperwasser told a Knesset committee, "It is possible that Iraq has transferred missiles and weapons of mass destruction into Syria."
UPI previously reported that U.S. intelligence agencies believe that rogue elements of Syria's ruling elite have accepted millions of dollars in bribes in return for providing a safe haven for some of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, according to U.S. administration officials, both former and serving.
Chemical and biological weapons were taken by truck to a Syrian munitions compound near a military base near Khan Abu Shamet, about 50 miles northeast of Damascus, these officials told UPI. The chief suspects in the operation are Bushra Assad, the sister of Syrian President Bashar Assad, and her husband, Gen. Assaf Chawkat, No. 2 in Syria's military intelligence organization, the Mukhabarat.
The latest Pentagon press for action against Damascus was bolstered by the visit of Israeli National Security Adviser Efrian Halevy, who visited Washington on April 12-14, invited by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, according to Israeli Embassy officials.
According to a Haaretz report of April 13, Halevy and another senior aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dov Weisglass, were visiting Washington to "suggest that the United States take care of Iran and Syria because of their support for terror and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction."
The report added: "Israel will point out the support of Syria and Iran for Hezbollah."
The meeting with Halevy took place in the president's conference room with only top NSC officials and White House advisers in attendance, administration sources said.
In response to Halevy's entreaties for action, Rice repeated her assertion of no more military adventures for the rest of Bush's first term, according to sources with knowledge of the meeting. They said Rumsfeld objected, and, at one point, turned to Rove and asked his opinion. Rove said the president agreed with Rice, and the meeting came to an end.
On April 15, the Washington Post quoted Rice as saying of Syria, "The president has made clear that every problem in the Middle East cannot be dealt with in the same way."
I am disappointed that Rice and Rove want to put artificial limits on what Bush does.
I doubt an adviser as savvy as Condoleeza Rice would ever say such a thing, knowing that if it got out, it would give a signal to Al Qaeda operatives and their allies that the heat was off.
Didn't we do this in Cambodia?
Gee, one would think we went into Iraq to remove a military threat to Israel.
This is not hard news. It is discussion of possible motivations. Of course Rumsfield would be ready to take on Syria. Of course Powell would prefer diplomacy. Of course Rice would rather not get the US involved in a situation that has more minuses than pluses. As to this being the campaign season: it is always campaign season.
News or revelation content = zero. Perfect as a filler for Rather or Jennings.
I think it was the right decision.
With our heavy presence in Iraq, we're now in a much better position to get Syria to do what we want through *threats* of force than through actual force.
Yeah, we could leave the country a smoking ruin, but what would that really buy us except another nation-building headache, with all the uncertainty and instability and risks that entails?
Better to just send Powell to visit Assad, as was done a few weeks ago, to personally "give him an offer he can't refuse". I suspect we won't see much trouble from them for a long, long time now (and perhaps we'll get a lot of behind-the-scenes cooperation).
There's little to be gained by creating another Lebanon.
Yes, often Isrel's interests coincide with our own.
Deal with it.
No. You are disappointed in what "...[unnamed] administration officials have told United Press International."
Bush "administration officials" who actually know what's going on don't talk to UPI -- or anybody else.
Clinton-appointed low-level paper pushers who know nothing other than what the media wants to hear are the ones to talk to UPI -- and everybody else.
It's a way to get UPI to buy them lunch...
Yes, with very patchy results I would add.
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.