Syria bluntly warns US not to attack Iraq ...

Syria bluntly warns US not to attack Iraq ...
By George Baghdadi

DAMASCUS - Syria has sent a strong signal to the United States that it risks an Arab walkout from the anti-terrorism campaign if Washington's military strikes against Afghanistan expanded to Iraq as implied by President George W Bush.

Such a venture would deal a "fatal" blow to the international consensus that Washington has mustered since the September 11 suicide attacks on its soil, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said this week after his more-than-two-hour talks in Beirut with Lebanese President Emil Lahoud.

"Any threat to an Arab country would not be tolerated. Any attack on an Arab country would create an endless chain of problems. Any harm to an Arab country would be a fatal mistake," cautioned the veteran Syrian diplomat, whose country had joined the US-led coalition that routed Iraq from Kuwait in the 1990-91 Gulf crisis.

Syria has long been on the US State Department list of nations suspected of sponsoring terrorism, but was not singled out in Bush's warning.

"Washington would be wrong if it was making plans to hit Iraq. Every Arab country would absolutely be against the move," Fayez Sayegh, head of Syria's state-run TV and Radio station, said in Damascus.

Bush has said that the next phase of Operation Enduring Freedom could target countries producing weapons of mass destruction, pointing at Iraq and North Korea as two countries that needed to produce a clean bill of health. He demanded that President Saddam Hussein allow United Nations experts back into Iraq or face the consequences, which he did not spell out. But Baghdad emphasized it would not be bullied by Washington, raising the specter of a showdown that could spell an end to Arab sympathy and support for the United States in the wake of the September 11 events.

"Iraq is prepared to defend itself. We will not be terrified by any arrogant party," Iraq's Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said on Tuesday.

The refusal comes as the UN Security Council debates a resolution to renew the oil-for-food program, including US and British modifications that would ease sanctions on civilian goods reaching Iraq while tightening controls on weapons - so-called "smart sanctions".

The economic embargo against Iraq has been in place since the end of the Gulf War in 1991 but has come under mounting criticism for harming ordinary Iraqis. The oil-for-food program expired on Friday.

Significantly, Arab League secretary general Amr Mousa echoed Sharaa's view in remarks in Cairo on Tuesday. "Any attack against an Arab country will mean the end of Arab participation in the coalition against terrorism," Mousa said at the league's headquarters. Arab leaders have repeatedly said they oppose expanding the US campaign, which has focused on removing the Taliban Islamic militia from power in Afghanistan, to include any Arab state.

Egypt and Jordan, important US allies and supporters of the campaign against terrorism, both fear that a US strike on Iraq, coupled with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would send the whole region up in flames.

Cracks began also to appear in the international anti-terrorism coalition, as Bush's partners reacted with unease to heavy hints that Washington was set to add Iraq to its list of military targets. Britain, Bush's staunchest backer in the anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan, said it had no evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network, while two other key allies, France and Germany, said outright that attacks on other countries were not necessary.

No US official has, as yet, said there are any links between bin Laden and Saddam. But there have clearly been differences within the administration about where Bush's campaign will proceed after Afghanistan, with some senior figures such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his hawkish deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, urging retribution on Saddam, who has defied the Americans since Bush's father elected to leave the Iraqi leader in power in 1991.

According to Western diplomats, the hawks advocate taking Saddam down for good this time. "In the long run, some see Saddam as far more dangerous than bin Laden and infinitely more of a threat to US interests," one diplomat said on condition his name would not be used.

US officials, however, admit that Saddam, for all his sins, has not been involved in terrorism for several years and that they have nothing to implicate him in the events of September 11.

"But US intelligence has begun to take a hard look at reports from Czech authorities that Mohammed Atta, suspected leader of the terrorists who hijacked four US airliners and turned them into flying bombs, met the chief of Iraq's intelligence network in Prague in June, the last of several such meetings," another diplomat said. "Moreover, the Americans have lost three unmanned reconnaissance craft over Iraq in the last few weeks, with the Iraqis boasting they shot down all of them," he added.

Saddam has found himself in an unusual situation, inasmuch as bin Laden, by linking his war against the Americans to the Palestinians and other causes, has stolen the Iraqi leader's thunder. On October 16, Saddam chastised Arab leaders for not doing enough to oppose the US attacks on Afghanistan, and the Babil newspaper, owned by Saddam's eldest son Odai, praised bin Laden, signaling a shift in Baghdad's attitude.

Our good friends the Arabs have been threatening to "dissolve this fragile coalition" for everything from support for Israel to overchilled champagne. Since their "support" has been of dubious or even negligible value from the outset, how would we know if they walked out? There sure as heck aren't any Syrian troops on the ground in Kandahar, and the Egyptian Air Force has been mysteriously silent. Our buds, the Saudis, have done everything but throw a party for bin Laden. Jordan has remained mercifully silent, but that's hardly a boon. Iran is straddling the middle -- much like Saudi Arabia. Iraq is next on the hit parade. Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan -- hostile or worthless already, with the exception of Pakistan which can't be trusted any farther than I can throw a camel.

We have two allies: Russia and the UK. The others are thinly disguised enemies or at best podium pilots. Don't need 'em.

Oh yes, we should include the Turks as our allies. They have shown themselves solidy pro-America, and refreshingly moderate in a corner of the world that doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Any evidence at all that "these guys" think they can bomb "anybody they please?" (Contingency plans don't count--we have those for thermonuclear war too, but it doesn't mean we're going to start one.)

Looks like we have a choice--trust the judgment and instincts of GW and his team --or---who? Dick Gephard? Tom D'asshole? You?

Thanks for the great options. I'll stick with GW.

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.