US and Iraq All Set for Strike against Syria

[burek]

US and Iraq All Set for Strike against Syria. Israel Is Braced for Hizballah Second Front

DEBKAfile Special Military Report Updating DEBKA-Net-Weekly 188

January 11, 2005, 2:44 PM (GMT+02:00)


Last Sunday, January 2, US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage performed his last major mission before stepping down in favor of Robert B. Zoellick, whom incoming secretary Condoleezza Rice has picked as her deputy. (Zoellick, currently trade representative in charge US world trade, served as deputy to secretary of state James Baker in the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.

This mission took Armitage to Damascus with nine American demands.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly?s Washington sources published those demands for the first time in its last week?s issue:

To subscribe to DEBKA-Net-Weekly click HERE .

1. Start repealing Syria?s 40-years old emergency laws.

2. Free all political prisoners from jail.

3. Abolish media censorship.

4. Initiate democratic reform.

5. Speed up economic development

6. Cut down relations with Iran.

7. Announce publicly that the disputed Shebaa Farms at the base of Mt. Hermon are former Syrian territory. This would cut the ground from under the Lebanese terrorist Hizballah?s claim that the land is Lebanese and must be ?liberated? from Israeli ?occupation.?

DEBKAfile?s counter-terror sources report that the Iran-sponsored Hizballah?s attack on an Israeli convoy patrolling the disputed Shebaa Farms sector, killing an Israeli officer, on Palestinian election-day, Sunday, January 9, was addressed as much to President George W. Bush as to the new Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as a foretaste of what it has in store.

8. Hand over to US or Iraqi authorities 55 top officials and military officers of the former Saddam regime, who are confirmed by intelligence to be established in Syria and running the guerrilla war in Iraq out of their homes and offices.

(An address, telephone number and cell phone number were listed beside each name).

But the punchline was in the last demand.

9. Syria had better make sure that none of the Kornet AT-14 anti-tank missiles which it recently purchased in large quantities from East Europe turn up in Iraq. US intelligence has recorded their serial numbers to identify their source. DEBKAfile?s military sources add: Because he cannot afford to buy advanced fighter planes and tanks, Assad purchased massive quantities of the ?third generation? Kornet AT-14 anti-tank weapons.

Just in case any are found in Iraq, General Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq has already received orders from the commander-in-chief in the White House to pursue military action inside Syria according to his best military judgment.

Number 9 therefore incorporates a tangible threat. The American general has the authority to launch military action against Syria as he sees fit and without delay if Damascus continues to meddle in Iraq?s affairs.

more at DEBKA

 

[bamacre]

:shocked:

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Yeah right.

We barely have enough troops to keep Iraq secure (which BTW is not very secure), where would we get the troops to invade yet another country? I do not think even Bush is that dumb to try invade another country before the one we invaded a few years ago is secure.

 

[GoPackGo]

I would say if Syrias Anti-Tank missles end up in Iraq, it would be fair to launch a strike of some sort against them...such as a MOAB or Two.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah right.

We barely have enough troops to keep Iraq secure (which BTW is not very secure), where would we get the troops to invade yet another country? I do not think even Bush is that dumb to try invade another country before the one we invaded a few years ago is secure.

Not Invade....Military Strike....there is a difference

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah right.

We barely have enough troops to keep Iraq secure (which BTW is not very secure), where would we get the troops to invade yet another country? I do not think even Bush is that dumb to try invade another country before the one we invaded a few years ago is secure.

Not Invade....Military Strike....there is a difference

True. My vote is for a Neutron bomb 🙂

Jason

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah right.

We barely have enough troops to keep Iraq secure (which BTW is not very secure), where would we get the troops to invade yet another country? I do not think even Bush is that dumb to try invade another country before the one we invaded a few years ago is secure.

Not Invade....Military Strike....there is a difference

either way it is stupid. i hope they realize the flood gate that they would open.

 

[miketheidiot]

and them we can bomb iran the same day and give our troops a jolly old time. I bet they would love to be rewarded with the opportunity to fight off the iranian and syrian armies at once! At least we might finally be able to end up with a properly divided middle east with ethnically homogenous populations.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah right.

We barely have enough troops to keep Iraq secure (which BTW is not very secure), where would we get the troops to invade yet another country? I do not think even Bush is that dumb to try invade another country before the one we invaded a few years ago is secure.

Not Invade....Military Strike....there is a difference

And a military strike would get this done:

1. Start repealing Syria?s 40-years old emergency laws.

2. Free all political prisoners from jail.

3. Abolish media censorship.

4. Initiate democratic reform.

5. Speed up economic development

6. Cut down relations with Iran.

7. Announce publicly that the disputed Shebaa Farms at the base of Mt. Hermon are former Syrian territory. This would cut the ground from under the Lebanese terrorist Hizballah?s claim that the land is Lebanese and must be ?liberated? from Israeli ?occupation.?

8. Hand over to US or Iraqi authorities 55 top officials and military officers of the former Saddam regime, who are confirmed by intelligence to be established in Syria and running the guerrilla war in Iraq out of their homes and offices.

9. Syria had better make sure that none of the Kornet AT-14 anti-tank missiles which it recently purchased in large quantities from East Europe turn up in Iraq. US intelligence has recorded their serial numbers to identify their source. DEBKAfile?s military sources add: Because he cannot afford to buy advanced fighter planes and tanks, Assad purchased massive quantities of the ?third generation? Kornet AT-14 anti-tank weapons.

What about this:

Just in case any are found in Iraq, General Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq has already received orders from the commander-in-chief in the White House to pursue military action inside Syria according to his best military judgment.

We can attack them from the air and do all that?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: amish

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah right.

We barely have enough troops to keep Iraq secure (which BTW is not very secure), where would we get the troops to invade yet another country? I do not think even Bush is that dumb to try invade another country before the one we invaded a few years ago is secure.

Not Invade....Military Strike....there is a difference

either way it is stupid. i hope they realize the flood gate that they would open.

setup a free fire zone along the border...anyone coming across is subject to bullets, bombs, missles, etc....

 

[GrGr]

Interesting. Effective anti-tank weapons could have the same effect in Iraq as the Stinger had on the war in Afghanistan.

 

[Infohawk]

Everyone knows that when a war isn't going well you keep expanding it...

 

[ReiAyanami]

Syriously?!


sorry i had to do it

 

[Aimster]

Nobody is going to attack Syria. If they attack Syria they will attack Iran. Those two are buttbuddies. They bend over for each other. Not to mention Russia loves Syria and they give Iran a little extra on the side. Then you have the Europeans who will cry rape if the U.S dares touch their lovers who give them money for their investments.

 

[Geardo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Everyone knows that when a war isn't going well you keep expanding it...

They war isn't going well for Al Qaeida!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Geardo

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Everyone knows that when a war isn't going well you keep expanding it...

They war isn't going well for Al Qaeida!

That's why they are expanding.

 

[Stunt]

What do you mean Iraq and US are going to attack Syria.
Iraq isn't going to attack anything...Iraq is attacking Iraq.

If this is Bush's idea of coalition #2...that is damn hilarious.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Stunt
What do you mean Iraq and US are going to attack Syria.
Iraq isn't going to attack anything...Iraq is attacking Iraq.

If this is Bush's idea of coalition #2...that is damn hilarious.

Well if the U.S thinks they are as poweful as they are they will have to invade Syria because Syria will invade Iraq and Iran on the other side will invade from the East. I will laugh if Turkey invades from the north to take the north for itself.

Once they invade Iraq, Iraq will have to fight them off. I doubt they will join them.

(BTW I wouldn't really laugh if Turkey decided to do that. It will never happen.)

 

[RabidMongoose]

I guess the US could pretty easily destroy Syria without even setting one man down on Syrian soil. Hopefully they won't do strikes against Syria unless it is a more serious problem.

We could probably kill most of the Syrian and Iranian armies even if they invaded Iraq anyways. Then just follow up with strikes that would cripple both countries. We wouldn't need to hold the land - just destroy installations and infrastructure.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I guess the US could pretty easily destroy Syria without even setting one man down on Syrian soil. Hopefully they won't do strikes against Syria unless it is a more serious problem.

We could probably kill most of the Syrian and Iranian armies even if they invaded Iraq anyways. Then just follow up with strikes that would cripple both countries. We wouldn't need to hold the land - just destroy installations and infrastructure.

I thought the US could take Iraq by air.

What is the motive in syria?...regime change?..cuz you usually need ground troops of some sort.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I thought the US could take Iraq by air.

What is the motive in syria?...regime change?..cuz you usually need ground troops of some sort.

You can't take a country over by air if your goal is to occupy the country. However the US is perfectly capable of absolutely devastating a country through strikes as well as through the use of its own ground forces without entering into urban warfare. It would be more trouble than Iraq, but probable that the US could slap Iran or Syria back in development.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I guess the US could pretty easily destroy Syria without even setting one man down on Syrian soil. Hopefully they won't do strikes against Syria unless it is a more serious problem.

We could probably kill most of the Syrian and Iranian armies even if they invaded Iraq anyways. Then just follow up with strikes that would cripple both countries. We wouldn't need to hold the land - just destroy installations and infrastructure.

Why do you think we could easily defeat them on the ground? We are talking 1 million + people invading Iraq with 8,000+ tanks, missiles and artillery capable of reaching U.S bases. You won't cripple both countries if you strike them in the air. The only way to cripple a country is if you destroy their country. Would the world stand by and let the United States destroy Syria/Iran? I doubt it. If you want to accomplish your goal you have to invade and capture land. Otherwise it just makes the people love their current regime more. Look at Russia invading Afghanistan. They bombed them day and night and it only made the people want to fight more. I don't know how much love the Syrians have for their current regime or not, but I don't think they are supressed.

There is no chance in hell for either the Iranian air force or the Syrian air force to challenge the U.S air force. However, they might be able to knock a few aircraft out from the ground. The problem with Syria and Iran is not the U.S. When someone wants to attack the U.S they will attack Israel. Their hope is to bring in other nations.

If both those countries have learned from the previous wars then they won't just send their armies out in the open for U.S planes to drop bombs on them.

I'm not saying they have a chance in hell against the U.S. They have a great chance to cause 10,000+ deaths from the U.S side if they stayed in their own country. If they invaded I don't know how succesful they would be.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Stunt
I thought the US could take Iraq by air.

What is the motive in syria?...regime change?..cuz you usually need ground troops of some sort.

You can't take a country over by air if your goal is to occupy the country. However the US is perfectly capable of absolutely devastating a country through strikes as well as through the use of its own ground forces without entering into urban warfare. It would be more trouble than Iraq, but probable that the US could slap Iran or Syria back in development.

Good point, but how do you do that without killing millions of people? You are talking about bombing cities with millions of people in them.

The U.S is not like the rest of the world. If we were Russia we would bomb the hell out of Syria and Iran with no regard for civlians.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Stunt
I thought the US could take Iraq by air.

What is the motive in syria?...regime change?..cuz you usually need ground troops of some sort.

You can't take a country over by air if your goal is to occupy the country. However the US is perfectly capable of absolutely devastating a country through strikes as well as through the use of its own ground forces without entering into urban warfare. It would be more trouble than Iraq, but probable that the US could slap Iran or Syria back in development.

Good point, but how do you do that without killing millions of people? You are talking about bombing cities with millions of people in them.

The U.S is not like the rest of the world. If we were Russia we would bomb the hell out of Syria and Iran with no regard for civlians.

I'm not talking about indiscriminately bombing cities. Use precision guided weapons, airstrikes, and make your ground forces to not enter the cities. Iran and Syria would fall apart.

 

[irwincur]

Give me a break people.

Less than 1/20th of the standing military (full time) is in Iraq. Less than 1/40 of the reserves/guard are there. We ARE NOT as overextended as the media would lead you to believe. There are still around 250,000 soldiers in Western Europe doing little more than they ever have. the point is, the US could easily take Iraq, Syria, and Iran all at once without doing more than moving men from Europe.

God forbid some guard/reserves actually get 'forced' to do what they signed up for. For the most part these soldiers realize that going to war may be part of their jobs. It is the rare few morons that the media pick up on that make the rest look scared, angry, or bad. There are some people who signed up without ever having the intention of fighting a war - in short, they like the peacetime benefits and pay yet they don't want to do the work. People like this are no better than welfare whores.




In addition, Syria is... drumroll... A BATHIST STATE. It is not a major mystery that many of the Bathist leadership moved to Syria, that Syria (as well as Hamas and Hezbollah) is funneling men and money over the border (a good deal of the 'Iraqi' insurgents are actually Syrian), and that Syria is most likely the hiding place for the 'missing' WMDs. Syria was and is basically a state of Iraq. If they want to get their hands dirty and try to fight us secretly, I say we give it to them.