No comments on U.S. Invasion of Syria?

[JustRalph]

I wondered if anybody was going to post this..............?

Doesn't mean much huh?

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/syrian_strike_aimed.php

The Long War Journal: Syrian strike aimed at al Qaeda's coordinator in Syria

The US military incursion into Syria was aimed at the senior leader of al Qaeda's extensive network that funnels foreign fighters, weapons, and cash from Syria into Iraq, a senior intelligence official told The Long War Journal.

US special operations hunter-killer teams entered Syria in an attempt to capture Abu Ghadiya, a senior al Qaeda leader who has been in charge of the Syrian network since 2005. US intelligence analysts identified Ghadiya as the leader of the Syrian network, The Washington Post reported in July. Ghadiya was identified as a “major target” by the US military in February 2008.

The raid to capture Ghadiya occurred in the town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, just five miles from the Iraqi border. Four US helicopters crossed the border and two of the helicopters landed to drop off special operations forces, who then proceeded to clear structures.

Nine people were reported killed and 14 were wounded. Syrian officials claimed innocent construction workers and women and children were killed in the raid.

US officials contacted by The Long War Journal would not comment if Ghadiya was killed or captured during the raid.

The US military has officially refused to confirm or deny the raid took place. But several senior intelligence officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject told The Long War Journal that the raid was indeed carried out inside Syria.

The raid is the first of its kind against Syria. The US has been striking regularly at Taliban and al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan’s tribal areas since the beginning of September.

Ghadiya, whose real name is Badran Turki Hishan al Mazidih, is an Iraqi from the northern city of Mosul. Ghadiya succeeded Suleiman Khalid Darwish, a Syrian national and lieutenant of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former leader of al Qaeda in Iraq who was killed by US forces in June 2006. US forces killed Darwish in a raid in Al Qaim in June 2005.

Serving Syria notice

The cross-border raid took place just three days after Major General John Kelly, the commander of Multinational Force - West, said Syria is "problematic." Kelly said the Syrian the government refused to secure the border and al Qaeda operatives are openly working inside Syria.

"The Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi intelligence forces feel that al Qaeda operatives and others operate, live pretty openly on the Syrian side," Kelly said. "And periodically we know that they try to come across."

Kelly said that while al Qaeda has been diminished in the al Qaeda region, it still remains a threat to Iraqi and US forces. A May 11 raid in Al Qaim by al Qaeda teams resulted in the death of 11 Iraqi policemen.

The Iraqi border police, with the help of the US military, are "redoubling" efforts to stand up the Iraqi border guards. The military is also rebuilding a berm along the Syrian border in an effort to stop infiltration into Iraq from Syria. "We're doing much more work along the Syrian border than we've done in the past," Kelly said.

~more at the link~

[OTM Al]

My only thought when I read this is, if the administration thinks this is ok, then why was there criticism about striking into west Pakistan if Bin Laden was identified there? Personally, I got no problem with either if you have located genuine military targets and the country in question is doing nothing about it. The answer that Pakistan is an ally is not acceptable here because the government of Pakistan has enough trouble keeping the modernized areas of the country under control let alone that area, to which I doubt anyone in the gov't would be willing to go.

[ddog]

you are right, by itself,doesn't mean much.
jackhammer to kill a fly.

win every battle ......

[pandy]

The today show didn't even report this story.

[delayjf]

I LIKE IT.

And who's to say we are not striking into Pakistan? Politically it's a bit more touchy to foray into Pakistan than in Syria.

[OTM Al]

I only brought Pakistan up because Mr. Obama took some heat for saying he would strike inside Pakistan if Bin Laden was identified there. If we are not striking into that western region, then we aren't serious about Afghanistan.

[Tom]

What we should have done right after Tora Bor was assemble million man, multi-national force and go in and wipe out all of Al Qeda and any supporters. We could have gotten world-wide support.

At this point, with possibility of Obama in the WH, we need to tread lightly everywhere. No sense biting off more than he will chew. We need to consider bringing all the troops home as soon as he is declared the winner, if it comes to that. Bush must realize we cannot allow our troops to be in harm's way under this bozo.

[LottaKash]

I believe it is all a bunch of nonsense, and continued good fortune for the makers of death related devices....To the tune of billions per month, and we the people are paying for all of it, thank you...Now we are being raped and pilfered two ways, what is next.....

We are chasing a GHOST, it takes balls to fight a war, and even bigger cajones to admit that we are not that afraid of ghosts...The whole world is laughing at us, as we quake and shake in our boots in fear of this ghost ........

There is nothing to win....nothing.....I was a soldier in the Vietnam era and I know this......This is not about patriotism and freedom, it is about KASH and needless deaths.....

We have been had........my opinion

best,

[OTM Al]

What we should have done right after Tora Bor was assemble million man, multi-national force and go in and wipe out all of Al Qeda and any supporters. We could have gotten world-wide support.

At this point, with possibility of Obama in the WH, we need to tread lightly everywhere. No sense biting off more than he will chew. We need to consider bringing all the troops home as soon as he is declared the winner, if it comes to that. Bush must realize we cannot allow our troops to be in harm's way under this bozo.

Tom, though our views have often been at odds, I can't agree with you more about what should have been done in Afghanistan. The whole world was shocked and appalled by what happened here, many Muslim oriented countries included. The good will of the entire world would not only have backed that endeavor, but the erradication of terrorism around the world no matter where it was. We could have worked for a greater peace by erradicating the Taliban, Al Quaeda and all those like them. Look what happened with a couple former supporters of terrorism like Libya and the IRA. Though they were already on the process of stopping activities, after the attacks it was over because they knew what would happen and how they would be treated by not just us, but the rest of the world. But instead we took about a year to not only shoot all that political capital, but alienate several allies along the way. Iraq would have never been able to stand up to a strong multinational coallition dedicated to ridding the world of terrorist activities. The threat from the entire world would have broken them in a way that military force never will and if they still refused to see that, it would have been the world taking care of its problem, not just us. We likely would not be in the state we are in with Iran either, who have fully taken advantage of what we have done.

So I ask you, using your terminology, wouldn't we just be replacing one bozo who definitely put our people in harms way for one we really don't know what he would do yet? I know many think he would be weak, but often such men surprise when the decision is actually theirs. I don't know how he will be, but it looks more and more like we are going to find out. Frankly, given the current state of our armed forces, I don't think anyone in office can try to bite off anymore, and the bad part is, the rest of the world knows that, especially the bad guys.

[ddog]

I LIKE IT.

And who's to say we are not striking into Pakistan? Politically it's a bit more touchy to foray into Pakistan than in Syria.


I may get blasted for this but we ARE striking in Pak and we are "training" their forces in the "areas of concern".

Now how much of that "training" is actual "field" is a guess.
I think I hear more than a bit.

I am not against taking out the people that can not be brought or bought along, I am for doing it not in a needlessly cowboy way.

We MUST get a doctrine established that the major parts of the world and a large majority of our own people can see and understand.

It must be supported in rule of law, after all that's what we are trying to uphold.
Yes, that may be harder but in the end if rational nations and their people see us holding ourselves to our own standards that will win over many , since many , many are already with us or not actively against.


We CAN do this, we need to be clear and upfront , less in the shadows and the dark side, we can do it on the up and up.

WE NEED people in the countries more affected by the terrorists than our own to help us out, we will risk that if we can't set out something more than "you are with us or against us".

I realize it sounds nice, but others see that and our power and think the only way to make their case is through violent actions.
Most of them don't have B-1 bombers.

[LottaKash]

We MUST get a doctrine established that the major parts of the world and a large majority of our own people can see and understand.





Most of them don't have B-1 bombers.


Do you understand what you are saying ?.... WE MUST, why?

Perhaps you don't understand the middle-eastern countries as well as you might like to.....Historically, they have been ruled by their own religion for almost 2,000 years,and this is very hard for Infidels such as ourselves to understand.....We are not saving anyone from anything, at least not in their own eyes..... To them we are, simply put, perpetrators of criminal aggression in their own lands, and that is how they see us.... We are not subject to Allah the moon gods's whims and mandates, such as they are...So, MUST is not applicable there..

best,

[delayjf]

I may get blasted for this but we ARE striking in Pak and we are "training" their forces in the "areas of concern".

Now how much of that "training" is actual "field" is a guess.
I think I hear more than a bit.

I am not against taking out the people that can not be brought or bought along, I am for doing it not in a needlessly cowboy way.

We MUST get a doctrine established that the major parts of the world and a large majority of our own people can see and understand.

It must be supported in rule of law, after all that's what we are trying to uphold.
Yes, that may be harder but in the end if rational nations and their people see us holding ourselves to our own standards that will win over many , since many , many are already with us or not actively against.


We CAN do this, we need to be clear and upfront , less in the shadows and the dark side, we can do it on the up and up.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't envision Pak or any other country going along with any policy that would include tactical invasion of other countries. I certainly don't see how such tactics would pass the scrutiny of international law. I think we need to act in our own best interests and if that means tactical insertions into Pak Syria or whereever, then so be it and to hell with world opinion - they will like us just fine once the aid money starts to flow.

[Rookies]

I agree with much of the above thought. Real terrorists need to know that they can't get away with impunity by striking out at indiscriminate, defenceless targets and acting like the spineless cowards they are.

Bush FUBARed it from the beginning by not smashing Al Queda, when he had the opportunity. I do think world opinion would have been on side. Where it is not inside is indicated in another view above. That countries ruled by tribal theocracies for thousands of years ain't going to welcome democracy. Years of bogging down in Iraq after the removal of a tyrant have exacerbated that feeling to the nth. If Bush knew about the intrinsic nature of these countries, he certainly never mentioned it in first days of postwar Iraq and badly miscalculated.

[Tom]

Al, don't get me wrong, I do not support McCain. I oppose Obama. Big difference. The last time we had a dem prez, a dem congress, with a 60+ majority, it was Jimmy Carter. We can never allow that to happen again. Dittoa the other side. Neither party is responsible enough to have that kind of power. Our best hope is gridlock.

[OTM Al]

Washington does always seem to be at its most impotent when one party has the majority in congress and the WH. Got to say though I believe Carter gets a lot more blame than he really deserves, as such seems a fashionable thing to do. He came into office when the country was on the border of absolute fiscal disaster from rampant inflation caused by long years in Vietnam. The Federal Reserve had to change its policy in those years, which made things become really bad in the late 70's, which had to happen for the correction to take place. He also had to pay the price for this country allying itself with an absolute despot in Iran. Frankly I think in 100 years when people look back, Reagan won't get near the credit as he does now and Carter won't get near the blame.

[ddog]

Do you understand what you are saying ?.... WE MUST, why?

Perhaps you don't understand the middle-eastern countries as well as you might like to.....Historically, they have been ruled by their own religion for almost 2,000 years,and this is very hard for Infidels such as ourselves to understand.....We are not saving anyone from anything, at least not in their own eyes..... To them we are, simply put, perpetrators of criminal aggression in their own lands, and that is how they see us.... We are not subject to Allah the moon gods's whims and mandates, such as they are...So, MUST is not applicable there..

best,


Sorry, I think I understand them fairly well.
What you don't seem to understand is that the ME countries have cooperated with us for years, decades even and that the real battle we can't lose is not there BUT here and with what's left of our allies.

That is who the doctrine is for.
You MUST and I mean MUST expand your horzions here, it's a world war , not a ME war.

It seems a bridge too far for most here to accept, we will lose the part we need to win if that doesn't change.

There are many in the ME who do NOT fall into the category you placed them in above.

You are watching too many movies.

[ddog]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't envision Pak or any other country going along with any policy that would include tactical invasion of other countries. I certainly don't see how such tactics would pass the scrutiny of international law. I think we need to act in our own best interests and if that means tactical insertions into Pak Syria or whereever, then so be it and to hell with world opinion - they will like us just fine once the aid money starts to flow.


Sorry, but the "to hell with world opinion", I don't want to be harsh or have this taken as an insult, but you are not then acting in our best interests if that is the "policy" we act from.

Int law does or can cover the actions you state.
We can fashion the int laws we need with cooperation from others to provide sanction for our actions , to say or believe otherwise is to concede the terrorist the one thing they crave. You provide legitimacy to their actions.

You must think about the countries that are not "terrorist" countries now, the majority of thise populations we need on our side.
If we act in ways that proceed from "to hell with them" we will not be able to win anything worth winning.

[delayjf]

Sorry, but the "to hell with world opinion", I don't want to be harsh or have this taken as an insult, but you are not then acting in our best interests if that is the "policy" we act from.

Now I'm confused, from your previous posts, I understood you to mean that you were in favor of tactical strikes inside of countries that Syria or Pakistan.
I would agree that the US can't take a "to hell with the World" approach to all international incidents – that comment was really directed at our recent raid into Syria, but at times, I do believe its warranted and worth the international condemnation .

Two current examples, the US raid into Syria and the Russian invasion of Georgia. No doubt the international community will decry both events, but will anything come of it?? No, the US is certainly not going to risk an armed conflict with Russia over Georgia anymore than Russian would risk an armed conflict with the US over Syria or Iran.

The entire world is in protest over the US invasion of Iraq, So I don't see their support or approval should we decide to carry out more raids against terrorist strong hold in other countries. If I'm wrong on that, great.