And to think that the West lets me
get away with it time and again!
That’s the way the Middle-East (even during Bush administration) is handled by the West, in spite of it being proven to be a losing strategy. There is not a lack of ME “experts” who insist that secular Arab states like Syria and the deposed Baathist regime in Iraq, would never have anything to do with radical Islamists (fundamentalist Muslims).
That is of course nonsense, since it is well known that Saddam Hussein financed suicide terrorism against Israelis and allowed Kurdish jihadis freedom of movement inside northern Iraq. Jihadis, whether they are in fact al-Qaida related or just operate under the pirate flag of the international jihad, are operating from Iraqi soil, and that makes the Syrians accomplices to terror and the international jihadist terror network. And yet, the Obama administration seeks a “productive dialogue” with the Damascus. In short, it’s fool’s errand.
The only engagement the US should be having with Damascus, is with the opening of the bomb bay doors of it’s stealth bombers as the US takes out all of its tanks and other military armament. At least, that’s how the Tundra Tabloids would respond to al-Qaida operating from Syrian soil. KGS
By Barry Rubin
You know that two car bombs hit three government buildings in Baghdad on October 25 and killed 132 people. You probably know that this was a devastating hit against the effort to stabilize the country, which in turn is a precondition for U.S. withdrawal. Many analysts viewed this as an attemt to discredit the January election and to pull the rug from under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who has staked his job on reducing violence to a minimum.
But here’s what you don’t know: Where did the bombs come from? Where did the terrorists come from? Where did the orders to stage a very politically focused attack come from.
The Iraqi government has now answered these questions with one word: Syria.
Remember that the Iraqi government has been warning about this for months, blaming Damascus for specific attacks based on evidence and interrogations. When this last happened in September, the U.S. government refused to take Baghdad’s side. Nor was there any break in the move to engage Syria. Nor was there any interruption–in fact, the exact opposite–in the European move to make a partnership agreement which would pump more money into Syria.
Nothing. No denunciation. No UN resolution. No international investigation. No U.S. efforts to punish those responsible.
Just as with the 241 American soldiers killed in Beirut in 1983 through similar means.
So what is the result of Syria being involved in sponsoring, financing, organizing, and facilitating terrorist attacks on Iraq without any cost?
More attacks on Iraq. U.S. policy unintentionally sent Damascus a signal: you can do whatever you want and not fear retribution from the United States or its European allies. Naturally, the Syrians stepped up attacks.
This has happened before, notably in 1990, when a soft U.S. stand in defending Kuwait convinced Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein that he could invade and take over that country without the United States reacting.
Iraq was wrong in 1990–the George Bush administration did fight back and defeat Iraq–but Syria might well get away with aggression in 2009, and of course what Damascus is doing now is more subtle and thus easier for Washington to ignore.
True, the Obama Administration has declared the “war on terror” to be over and stated that only al-Qaida and its allies would be the target of American wrath.
But wait a minute! Isn’t al-Qaida the group that is being based in Syria and carrying out many of these attacks? Doesn’t that make Syria an ally of al-Qaida?