Intervention in Syria may trigger terror attacks
The Washington Times, filling in for the hand-wringing liberal media in this particular discussion, posits that US and western intervention in Syria, whatever that might be, could trigger more terrorist attacks throughout the region and the West. Now, I think that’s probably the least worrisome result of an attack on the Syrian government, but certainly one that I’ve seen left out of the traditionally liberal media. I mean it was a daily concern in the run up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but, since this administration is plunging head-long into the Syrian morass, I’ve not read about it anywhere else.
Tensions between the West and Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program have fueled the protracted and secretive war — a tit-for-tat exchange marked most often by operations and attacks carried out from the Middle East to Eastern Europe and Asia by Hezbollah and Israel’s lead intelligence agency, the Mossad.
“These are groups that have long memories,” Matthew Levitt, who heads the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Monday.
“I think that the type of asymmetric activities that we’ve been seeing already in the context of the shadow war over Iran’s nuclear program would continue with [an American military strike in Syria] serving as yet another factor motivating Hezbollah.”
Iran’s government, which most in the U.S. intelligence community think exerts heavy influence over the activities of Hezbollah, sought Monday to downplay the likelihood of a U.S. strike. But some officials in Tehran said that if a strike occurs, Israel would be targeted in response.
But, see, that’s the result of fighting a half-assed war against terror. Terrorists must be terrorized into submission the same way that they terrorize civilians and governments, and obviously, that hasn’t happened in the last twelve years. Since we have been so head strong about proving to the world that we’re “better than they are”, no one is scared of our military – they’re scared of our bombs and bullets and the troops, but they’re not scared of our commitment to waging total war towards total victory.
We rushed for the exits in Iraq and we’re rushing for the exits in Afghanistan, even though our troops are still engaged with the enemy and taking casualties. I wonder why Iran doesn’t think anyone will use force in Syria against Assad? It could be because no one has summoned the testicular fortitude to bring Iran to heel in regards to their nuclear program.
If anyone in Syria took our “red line” threat seriously, the more recent attacks wouldn’t have occurred. Remember when Qaddafi surrendered his weapons of mass destruction in the weeks following the invasion of Iraq because he thought that he was next. It’s not power that brings these people in line, it’s the credible threat of the use of power. We have no more credibility in that regard. The same way our credibility had eroded through the nineties and caused Hussein to think that we wouldn’t invade Iraq again. Maybe instead of using force on Syria, we should instead target Tehran, the real enemy all along. Like I’ve said before, in 2003, when Baghdad fell, we should have made a hard right turn and taken on Iran which would have solved a lot of problems in the following years of war against terror.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
Yes, Hezbollah has units and sleeper cells all over the world to carry out Tehran’s wishes, including cells in South and Central America, Mexico, and right here in CONUS. But whether Hezbollah or AQ will carry out terror attacks in retaliation for U.S. strikes in Syria should not be the issue; the main issue should be whether we have any FUCKING NATIONAL INTEREST to be intervening there in the first place, and of course obamao and company don’t have a fucking clue on that subject…
Combat Historian: bingo.
We didn’t intervene in Central Africa in the late-1990s for exactly that reason – we had no national interest at stake. IMO that’s one of the few things the Clintoon Administration got right regarding foreign policy.
Considering that our main crime, the one for which they wish to kill us, is that we continue to breath, any excuse is sufficient for them to continue to hate us all. Here, there, it doesn’t matter. They will attack us anyway.
And will do so as long as we allow it.
OWB: I still don’t see that as reason to get involved in Syria. That will be the case whether or not we’re foolish enough to get involved in a civil war where both sides are our enemies in a place that doesn’t matter at all to our national interests.
I see Syria much as I saw Bosnia (and the rest of former Yugoslavia) in the mid-1990s: so long as the violence doesn’t spread, everyone there can kill one-another and it will have no measurable effect on the US. Our only national interest in the conflict is that the violence not spread.
I didn’t see any compelling reason to put people in harm’s way in Bosnia or Kosovo then (or since). I don’t see any reason to do so in Syria today.
Pouring water in your suck hole will trigger hydration. When do these fucktards NOT want to kill us.
The main reason not to get involved in Syria is that it is a cesspool and we will get sucked in with no end state and no leadership. Our military is tired and morale is at an ebb right now. What are we trying to accomplish here?? Impress the Russians? Rattle sabers?? This administration is just full of the cream of the decision making crop….Hagel, Kerry, Biden, Dempsey….yep, a real all star team…..
I don’t either, Hondo! I do see it as a terrific reason to close the borders.
Some of us actually sat around on 9-12 expressing exactly that. Didn’t happen then and the threat is now exponentially greater than it was then.
I wonder how the Israeli’s feel about the U.S. saber rattling in the Med? Nothing good can come of our involvement if U.S. destroyers start launching Tomahawks into Syrian airspace.
That’ll just infuriate the ragheads, and the Arab nations won’t do anything but respond – and it won’t be good.
The won’t intervene with the goings on in their own geo-political back yard, but will raise shit if the U.S. does.
OWB: I wasn’t sure if you were advocating that as justification for us getting involved. Thanks for the clarification.
I think we might have been able to prevent a great deal of suffering in Rwanda with not a great deal of risk if we had intervened, but, having said that, it was Clinton’s decision to make and he is the one who has to look himself in the mirror over it (FWIW, I think he was probably influenced by what had happened in Somalia and didn’t want to see a repeat, which is a reasonable enough position).
The point is that Presidents have to try and figure out what the best foreign policy for the U.S. is, given a wide variety of factors, and now Obama is trying to figure out what to do regarding Syria (I am against intervention here for many of the reasons already stated). But Obama’s supporters-who were generally speaking only too ready to scream and stomp their feet about the decisions Bush made-now seem suspiciously quiet given that their guy is contemplating intervention here and has intervened in several other places around the world (Libya and Yemen for example). Why, you’d think their previous outraged opposition was entirely motivated by party politics or something.
but they’re not scared of our commitment to waging total war towards total victory
Spot on!
If we are going to kill our enemies, I’ve no quarrel with total war. But if we are going to play “world police force of occupation” and leave without making any substantial changes other than toppling regimes, count me the f$ck out. There’s not a single American soldier whose life I would risk for another war without an endgame plan in place.
With the current crop of “leaders” responsible for waging war it appears the concerns over meeting the RIF and f#cking veterans at the VA takes priority over conducting operations in hostile territory, it doesn’t leave a solid taste of confidence on the palate. It rather smells like the p1ss of cowards who’ve eaten too much asparagus,
John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Mr. President, Marty Dempsey…not a group that conjures visions of intestinal fortitude….
I do see a compelling national security interest in starting a real war in Iran since they are the root of all of this terrorism shit, but Syria, no. “Military action” (whatever the fuck that means) in Syria is just encouraging Iran and nipping around the edges of the real problem in the region. And by “war in Iran” I mean having the national will to finish what we start. But the last forty years of politicians have been afraid of pissing off Iran for some reason, so everyone can stand down while we pretend that Iran has nothing to do with the problem. Launch a couple of cruise missiles, kill some goats and then clap each other on the back.
Hondo, LZ, and Marc. Im waiting on yall too attack and insult jonn the same way you did me for saying the only way to beat the terrorists is to terrorize them. I made the same statement on thw SSG Bales thread and was made the greatest villan this place had seen since psaul
I think this entire thing is just hypocritical.
The only people saying that there were chemical weapons used are the Rebels and this Administration. As opposed to back when OIF took place, where the entire world’s intelligence community (and Saddam himself) were saying that there were WMDs in Iraq.
If this government goes into Syria because there may have been WMDs used, then they should be held in the same light as the Bush administration.
Though, I know they won’t be because Dimocraps can do no wrong in the eyes of the media.
I didn’t notice Jonn advocating the murder of noncombatants anywhere above, Smitty – or acting as an apologist for someone who has done exactly that. Rather, what I saw was him advocating targeting state sponsors of terrorist action.
Could you perhaps give me a specific example of where Jonn advocated or condoned the murder of women and children while they slept in his article above?
And before you bring up the “Terrorists must be terrorized into submission the same way that they terrorize civilians and governments . . . . ” quote above, you might want to ask Jonn for clarification.
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
I can’t fathom the “Clear and Present Danger” that Syria poses to us at all.
What I can see happening is we strike. They launch missiles at Israel, who strikes back, the whole bloody region goes up in flames, and we get to buy $30+ per gallon gas.
Yay another Obama win…….
Flagwaver – Doctors Without Borders (Medecins sans Frontieres if I recall the spelling correctly) also confirmed the use of chemical weapons… think they suggested Sarin. They are hardly either rebels or administration members.
Looks like it may be a ‘go’. http://news.msn.com/us/hagel-military-ready-to-strike-syria-on-obamas-order?gt1=51501
So, will this be a throw cruise missiles at the problem type of solution that dems seem to favor? Or, let the French bomb them, we’ll do C and C, type of solution? Or, this time substitute Brits for the French? That said, no one has said anything about any national interest that would be served for us to get involved, as other commenters have posted, already.
This administration (meaning Bodaprez/Jarrett) doesn’t understand that Iran has quickly become a major manufacturer of arms and armaments, including their gunship helicopters and recetly launched warship. I don’t believe for one tiny second that their nuclear program was about anything other than bomb-building, never did.
While Norkland has a big army, it’s mostly show/no go. The Norks may be pretty but they haven’t actually faced real warfare in over 60 years. They might be good, or they might be a hollow force.
The Iranians are at it almost daily in the form of supplies and logistics. Someone somewhere knows how much they actually do in training. I’d like to know that if this turns into something bigger than just a missile strike against Syria (which is a HUGE mistake), the ROE will be ‘win’ instead of ‘wtf?’.
And what happened to sequestration, cutbacks and drawdowns? Are those no longer going to happen? Is this the start of another buildup?
Hondo, I never advocated murdering innocents, I said the only way to beat them was to terrorize them into submission. I never defended SSG Bales, just said the worst loss in that situation was that of his children growing up with out him. I said the exact same thing jonn did, I just said it under a different topic
Smitty: in your first comment on another article ( valorguardians.com/blog/?p=37219#comment-914933 ), you said (direct quote): “i care not for an ounce of arab blood spilled” and in the same comment also called Bales’ sentence an “utter travesty”. In other comments on that article, you repeatedly stated that doing what Bales did (or similar things) was the only way to win.
You’re deluding yourself if you think you weren’t defending him.
Yes, I said that acts such as bales are the only way to win, that is inflicting terror on them and instilling fear in them. Jonn said terrorize the terrorists was the only way to beat them. Sounds the same to me. What you chose to add to my statements is something else entirely.
@22 You really don’t see anything wrong with what Bales did?
Yes I do, but the only way to beat terrorists is to play by their rules. How is what SSG Bales did any different than drone strikes or bombimgs killing civilians. Anwar al awalaki was an american citizen, and while a very evil man, never fired a round against americans. He was killed by a drone strike with out trial or charges being filed against him. So as vov pointed out, why is it so much worse for SSG Bales to kill civilians but ok to do it with a drone? It is all evil, but it is the only way tobeqt tje terrorists. The real question comes down to is the war worth winning if we must resort to these measures.
The difference I see between what Bales did and what the drone strikes do, is that terrorists are targeted with the drones. Civilians may be killed, but as collateral damage, not that they were targeted. Bales shot up a bunch of sleeping people at random, none of whom were identified as combatants. He wasn’t fighting terrorists at that point — he was venting his frustrations.
It sounds to me like you’re advocating Total War. While I have no doubt we could do that, what good would it do us to obtain a smoking, burned out ruin of a foreign country?
What we would gain is a defeated enemy. I am totally opposed to the idea of risking american lives to waste american tax dollars building up a country that will always produce citizens that want to kill us. The arab world, to include all other south western asian ethnicities, will always hate us and there is nothing we can do to change that. The idea of democracy is totally contrary to their religion. We are the epitome of all their religion despises. So to protect our citizens, we either have to turn them into desolate burning ash heaps, or make them fear reprisal against their wives and children for their actions against us. It doesnt matter how many combatants we kill, there are thousands more willing to step up and die fighting us. They do not fear their own deaths, so we must threaten something they do fear losing.
Make sense pinto? I do not condone the indiscriminate killing of civilians, but I do see that, as Jonn said, the only way to win is to terrorize the terrorists into submission
I don’t know what you’re reading, Smitty, but the administration has clearly stated that they’re not planning on defeating anyone. They’ve made it clear that they’re only goal is to “punish” the Syrian government, not remove Assad.
We as a state and a nation are authorized the use of physical force TO MAINTAIN the state and status quo.
Max Weber “Politics as a Vocation”.
If I thought this administration actually had a plan, I would probably be less cynical when I refer to Johnson’s sending troops to Vietnam. He at least had a plan of some kind, even though it did not go as he had been assured it would.
This administration, however, has NO plan for any course of action other than to run its collective mouth, give away the farm and piss people off even more than they are already. That’s the only real difference I can find. A few Cruise missiles will do nothing more than damage some buidings and slaughter bystanders.
There is absolutely nothing to be had from the US interfering in this business in any way at all, unless some Syrian-based individuals make another direct attack on the US. Should that happen, then yes, we should bomb the living crap out of that country – taking care to spare the archaeological sites in the process – and flatten everything in it to the ground. Then you can say ‘Who’s next?’
@26 Smitty, I believe it will come to total war, one day. I think we have to convince ourselves that it is necessary first. That means we will have to be terrorized, before we are willing to terrorize them.
Hahaha jonn, I dont think this administration has wanted to win anything other than elections, I’m just looking at how we can win. Big difference between what should be and what is. I dont think we should punish our soldiers for doing the same things as our enemies and this administration, but we are going to crusify them to appease our enemies
@31 Smitty we already beat this horse to death twice and I think we have to agree to disagree on the terror on terror point; however I think we can both agree that the best course of action in this case would be to allow Syrians to continue killing Syrians.
Aint gonna argue that. Im all for letting these people kill them selves off to the last man
Could we all just cut to the chase with this ME bullshit and go to war against Muslims, please?
We can only pray cav
@34/35 In which case, we could start right here at home.
Well, here is the one person who is actively involved in trying to topple Assad from his position in Syria. And he’s a Saudi prince, too. Who knew?
http://news.msn.com/videos/?ap=True&videoid=31fde382-d8d4-4840-9ab8-24114268be06&from=en-us_msnhp
Oh, yeah — he’s a forme Saudi ambassador, too. And the CIa has known about him for 20+ years. That answers my rhetorical question ‘who knew’ nicely.