The Invasion of Syria and Iran

[Kusala]

I'd almost forgotten about how we were treated to a buildup for these two invasions, with no end-result. Today I was reminded, and I recalled how hard the "machine" pushed the syria/iran angles. But then it stopped. Which leads me to much speculation on who pulled the plug. I used to think they would be put off until re-election time. Now I have to wonder if either will still happen. If what Clark said(referring to another thread) about Iraq, then Syria is correct, then will we still see a Syria invasion in 2004? I'd like to think that the neocon train has derailed, and that Iraq was the last stop.

[HawkerHurricane]

1. I have Syria in February in the pool

I hope I lose. Badly.

[papau]

9. I have March 15 in pool - and an under bet in 180 day over/under

I'm afraid it is a lock as to Syria.

Iran may wiggle out by agreeing to inspections - but I have the "before 10/1/2004" in the Iran pool.

[Brian Sweat]

2. I thought they had given up on throwing another invasion,

until yesterday. They are really hyping up Syria. I saw a couple of shows where GOP pundits were claiming that Syria was acting as a staging ground for Iraqi guerrillas.

With the popularity of the Iraqi invasion tanking, I am really surprised they are trying to make a case for another invasion.

I do not believe they will invade. Bush is the most poll driven president in history and I don't think they will be able to get the popular support that they need in order to feel confortable invading another country. Could be wrong.

[DCDemo]

3. We can't do it militarily

If we could, the f***s would in a heartbeat. We don't have enough spare troops and equipment to invade and occupy Syria.

[hadrons]

4. this is one of the reasons why the UN won't bail him out ....

it keep the loonies bogged down in Iraq

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Iran-- no Syria--maybe

That's my take, fwiw.

Somebody down there must have gotten the word by now that Iran would be much worse than Iraq. Our forces are stretched, and Iran is much bigger (pop. 65 million, and all mountains) and might fight back harder. If we're not doing a decent job running Iraq, Iran would be an even worse nightmare. And, what would be the justification?

Just can't see even this lapdog Congress falling for a line on Iran.

Syria, though, is much smaller (pop. 16 million) and weaker. And, they might try to justify it by saying Hussien is hiding there with his poison gas. Israel would also love it if we did their dirty work. Syria has its nose in Lebanon and harbors Hamas and other terrorists.
I think they want to go into Syria, but they haven't come up with a good story yet. After Iraq, though, it would still be a hard sell. Not only Congress, but the military might rebel against it.

What a thought... Order them to invade Syria and they refuse to fight. Don't think that's ever happened before.

7 Days in May, innit?

[Zero Gravitas]

6. Quagmire

these morans running the war are so delusional they believed their dancing in the streets scenario. They thought they'd move out of Iraq in a few months leaving things in the hands of a "friendly" government overseeing the largely intact Baathist apperatus (just minus Saddam and his cronies). Then they'd have had enough troops to invade who ever else Bush* felt like attacking. But instead the Iraq invasion took place in the REAL WORLD (a place the Bushies are not well aquianted with) and we're stuck there for years and do not have enough troops "spare" to invade and occupy another country.

[proud patriot]

7. I remember how the troops sitting in kwuait for months stating

"The only way home is through Bagdad, so I'm ready to go in"

little did they know at the time about the no exit strategy
and that going to bagdad meant they'd be away from their
families longer .

[Another Bill C.]

8. Future action in Iran and Syria

will depend on whether those two countries will allow the construction of the new big pipeline that the petroindustry wants to run through Iran, Iraq, and Syria to the Mediteranean. If Iraq had okayed this line, we probably would have stayed home.

[nolabels]

10. A link someone might want to look at

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_04_10_weblog_arch...

Thursday, April 10, 2003

Syria and Iran: Prepare for Invasion - A Reference for Seekers of Truth

The other day, John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was asked about speculation that Syria and Iran could be America's next targets after the war in Iraq. He responded:
"We are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest."

He called the pursuit of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs a terrorist threat and said it "will remain our priority to achieve a peaceful elimination of these programs so that supporters of terrorism cannot use them against innocent people." No, he wasn't referring to the US… and no, he wasn't referring to MOAB "collateral damage".

He continued by slipping a little warning to Syria:

"This is a wonderful opportunity for Syria to forswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region, to see if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace process."
Of course, this is just the latest sign that the Bush Administration is preparing to continue it's policy of preemptive invasions. Next on the plate --- Syria and Iran.
To some this comes as no surprise. Certainly in beltway circles, plans for further invasions are no secret. Just two short weeks ago George McGovern claimed that Bush intends to invade North Korea and Iran after finishing with Iraq.

"Even now, these wars are being planned by the current administration…I'm positive, based on conversations with people close to the White House, that plans are in place for the next invasions. …This is clearly an American invasion. The chance of Iraq attacking the U.S. is about the same as an attack from Mars. Everybody knows Osama bin Laden was the man who conceived the 9-11 attack, but by harping on this, has gradually convinced 51% of the American people that Saddam was behind it."
(snip)

[MariMayans]

11. the Iraqi's pulled the plug

We are shit out of troops. We have gave up on Afghanistan to pursue this adventure in Iraq. Kabul will probably fall within a year or so. The fools that put this thing together were far, far, too arogant.

[ShaneGR]

12. Never going to happen: Reason inside

We're broke and we don't have enough troops.

Period.

[Resistance Is Futile]

17. Agreed

The Pentagon is already overstretched to the point that Iraq is being garrisoned with what amount to surge reserve forces. This level of deployment cannot be sustained beyond march-april. Pulling together enough forces to invade Syria, Iran or North Korea would require abandoning Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, or the Balkans.

Unless the UN catches a severe case of the stupids and bails Chimpy out of the Iraq tarpit, the most Chimpy will be able to do for the next while is rattle the bars on his cage and bomb anyone who fails to pay proper tribute. Invasions are out of the question as troop deployments are now a zero sum game: there are simply no more troops left.

Expanding the Army is doable but it will take years and cost a fair bit of money for equipment, training, and ongoing expenses. Running a world-dominating imperial goon squad isn't cheap.

As for money, this is nothing that a repeal of Chimpy's tax cuts won't fix. We all know, however, that this isn't an option because Chimpy can't repeal his tax cuts without alienating his base.

[radfringe]

20. broke and not enough troops

do you really think that those "little details" will stop the whistleass?

[skip fox]

13. Capability is what stopped it. We simply cannot wage another

war comfortably with current troop strength. Everybody's already bitching about rotation. Can you imagine the headaches of having another 100,000 troops fighting and patrolling in the Middle East?

But this thread's implicit question, of "why not?" implies, correctly, I think, that we would if we could.

There are also global-political reasons for not attacking Syria and pragmatic reasons for not attacking Iran or North Korea (they're crazy and could well "clean our clocks" if we weren't at full troop strength.

[Aidoneus]

14. using what army, the Israelis?

with the situation in Iraq and worldwide as it is, the only thing they could do against Syria is carry out massacres with jets while the Israelis (or the Turks, but only if their democratic government is overthrown by the military as the anti-democratic hawks here begged them to do when they refused to rubberstamp the aggression against Iraq) put the actual boots on the ground..

With Israel trying to provoke another war against Lebanon the idea of another war doesn't seem too absurd to me in itself (combined with the Lebanese version of Chalabi, the rightwing Michel Aoun, whining before Congress and begging them to bully around Syria), but it does seem absurd to me that these thinktankers could actually start a war now on another front where the other side hasn't been starved and bombed for over a decade already. They'll sanction Syria now then invade in 10yrs when nobody can resist, maybe.

[Padraig18]

15. I have this awful, gut feeling that...

... the North Koreans will render all of the "will it be Iran or Syria" debate moot.

[mlawson]

16. No way it will happen, now.

The Pentagon would not go along with either. The Joint Chiefs would resign, and there might even be a mutiny among the ranks.

[WilliamPitt]

18. We are out of army

and the world will not stampede to invade Syria to save Bush's ass in time for 2004. Nope. Iraq was the hard sell. It didn't sell.

[radfringe]

19. Syria and/or Iran invasion within six months

after the UN pulls the whistleass's ass (is that redundant?) out of the fire in Iraq

Not that it would stop the whistleass, but if Syria and Iran are also scheduled to be invaded, then going after Iraq FIRST was a mistake.
Iraq is in between Syria and Iran, soooooo it's not hard to imagine that when the whistleass invades either Syria or Iran that the other country will join in - 2 front war with Iraq squeezed in the middle

This would also mean that UN troops would have to take a defensive postion and not a peace-keeping or nation-building one

[Ani Yun Wiya]

21. Two days ago....

Syria was treated to raiding parties of the 101st Airborne.
This time they only grabbed a few "tribal leaders".

It is quite possible that the US will "leave" Iraq by the end of the first quarter of '04.
Then * will spend a few months "improving" people's perception of the economy.

If *'s numbers are not up by August, how hard would it be to morph a new "terror attack" in the US into "Saddam and Osama did it" and "they are hiding" in Syria?

Iran would be a bit much to chew off even by next year, but I would not put it past the * crew to have that on the menu for '05.

[Noordam]

22. Not till after 2004 (if elected) and a major draft in place

for troops. The Army of One is going that way.

[nannygoat]

23. Yesterday at a Senate Appropriations Committee

where Bremer was testifying, Brownback from Kansas asked this leading question--where are the majority of terrorists inside Iraq from? Of course, the most were from Syria or Iran. Nice lead-in to starting wars with them, wouldn't you say?