Donald Rumsfeld, responding to reports that Syria is covertly assisting Iraq with supplies, yesterday said:
Meanwhile, Debka (not always 100% accurate but often proved right) notes:
What would be the consequences if the US attacked Syria/Lebanon/Iran? Could this war escalate to encompass the entire region?
Oh nooooooo. Bush told us many times that we could never end up with an escalated conflict like that. That could NEVER happen! Just relax and let Daddy Rumsfeld take care of the bad guys, it’ll all be ok.
-C
“Direct threat to coalition forces” could mean “you’re next”.
Same with France, whovever is inconvenient.
Here is the actaul quote from Rumsfeld:
A regional war sure would be uncomfortable, especially with a neutral Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The land area alone would begin to approach the size of the United States itself.
On the other hand, there is one, perhaps two, aces in the hole. The IDF is a three-hour tank ride from Damascus via the Golan Heights, and we might possibly be able to enlist Pakistani, Afghani, and maybe even Turkmenistan.
While that is vaguely comforting, the upshot is an enormous regional conflict begging to blow up into another global conflict. I gotta thank you, jjimm, for proposing the first plausible path to–let’s say it together now–World War III.
Aw, heck. You know what I’m trying to say in that second paragraph. Excuse the hung-overlish.
Don’t worry, we’re speaking the same language. Though what did you mean about enlisting Pakistan and/or Afghanistan? Their armies? They’re not particularly close to the conflict zone. And I don’t know how much leeway Musharaf has these days…
Debka implies that the hitting of a civilian bus in Syria was not a mistake at all - it was actually a warning shot across the bows to Damascus - the bus was allegedly “part of a group of Palestinian volunteers for Iraq. But unheeding of the missile warning, Syria continued the traffic.”
Does anyone else feel that a joint US/IDF operation might be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy for angry Arabs and Muslims?
Oh boy! That means we get to liberate the WHOLE WORLD!
-C
I think the crucial point was the reference to night vision equipment. At this point, the “coalition” forces own the night due to their superiority in that regard, they would be most unhappy to see that equalized.
Hmm… Sofa’s hypothesis might explain why the recent $9 billion in loan guarantees and $1 billion in aid to Israel came as part of the Iraq war chest…
I think what I’m trying to say is that if you could line up the border Afghan warlords, a brigade or two of Pakistani armor, and whatever Turkmenistan has (I am sadly ignorant about that place), Iran would be reticent to commit itself entirely into a war because its backside would be dangerously exposed. Same with Syria, only moreso. That, I suppose, is how you would attempt to keep the lid on the napalm stew.
But hell yes, it would be a self-fulfilling prophesy if Israel joined the fray, especially offensively. The most solid currency the United States has with the Middle East is that of keeping Israel at heel. Hell, it might be enough to make Jordan bar its doors and windows, Saudi to start flexing its American-supplied muscles at Qatar and the UAE, and maybe even make Egypt start courting the dark side. Pan-Arabic, perhaps even pan-Islamic war.
If you need me, I’ll be hiding next to Bernie, under the bed.
It’s probably just a warning shot. It probably won’t amount to anything. We are probably not being led by a bunch of chest beating macho war freaks.
Move over.
What are those stringy things hanging down from the box spring, elucidator?
Here’s a Machiavellian thought:
Could Rumsfeld be threatening Syria and Iran to provide political cover to leaders of those nations who might be secretly helping us?
(I.e., a threat from the US makes the leaders of Syria and Iran look good in the eyes of their people.)
Dunno, ask Bernie. Bernie? (nudge, nudge) Bernie?
Uh-oh.
You might be on to something there, spoke-. People (like me) talk too damned much here inside the Beltway. One dinner conversation I overheard a couple of months ago led me to believe that Iran in particular isn’t walking away from this party without any favors, even if America is pointing its finger at them and croaking like Donald Sutherland.
If I had to guess, and this is a completely honest guess, I’d say that the enormous oil fields right along the Iran-Iraq border which can be seen here but which I can’t recall the name of, might be the payoff we’re not supposed to see under the table.
Maybe Bernie’s just sleeping.
Iran really doesn’t have a dog in this fight. Like Napolean said, if you’re enemies are busy killing each other, don’t interfere. What more payoff do they need?
Does he always smell like that?
I’m not so sure about that, elucidator. Being a card-carrying member of Evil Express since 1978, I would think that Iran’s leadership might be thinking along those classic “enemy of my enemy” lines.
I can’t offer much evidence, except to point out a… corollary? contrapositive? shit, there’s a mathematical/logical term out there which means “look at that there possum in that there tree, and tell me the other one ain’t gonna do the same thing.” Back in the Gulf War, Iraq “donated” a large proportion of its air force to its recent enemy Iran rather than have it smashed to pieces by the (actual) coalition arrayed against it. I can’t imagine modern Iran viewing this tussle abstractly, especially since we just put down one dog (Afghanistan) and are busy scratching Pakistan’s behind the ears.
Give them money,
are they grateful?
No they’re spiteful,
and they’re hateful.
I say we really,
ought to surprise them.
Drop the big one,
pulverize them.
[sub]CHORUS[/sub]
Boom goes London,
boom Paree.
More room for you,
more room for me.
It really doesn’t matter,
they hate us anyhow.
Let’s drop the big one,
see what happens …
[sub]From “Political Science” by Randy Neuman[/sub]
PS: Love those posts, Sofa King.
