I spoke with a US Army enlisted soldier recently returned from Afghanistan the other day and he told me that he and his buddies are concerned that his airborne unit may soon be redeployed. This time to Syria, of all places.
Syria? What the… ?
I haven’t heard anything in the news about Syria being a threat. I asked this soldier why, and he didn’t have a very good understanding of the politics, just that “they’re getting uppity over there.”
So I’m asking in GD, where we have astute people on all sides of the issues:
Why would the US deploy airborne troops to Syria?
Has anyone heard about any threats over there, or requests for aid from the Syrian government? Or is it just a baseless rumor? (There have been rumors of neocons threatening Iran or Syria that they’re “next,” but I don’t give them much credence.)
The vehicles, loaded with explosives, plus the unnamed chemical weapon, came from Syria. Assad has claimed that his government knew nothing of the planned attack, which could have killed up to 20,000 people. Apparently, it’s the word of Zarqawi.
There were rumors that Saddam’s chemical weapons were transported into Syria. I’m not saying that these are the missing WMDs, but perhaps someone thinks they are. If the chemicals and explosives came from Syria as the article (and every other report on this I’ve seen) says, then there are only three possibilities: A) The Syrian government just launched a terror attack against Jordan using terrorists as intermediaries (no chance), B) Terrorists inside Syria managed to get their hands on chemical weapons without the government knowing about it (either manufactured or stolen from the government), or C) The chemicals came from Iraq via Syria.
Now, given the potential seriousness of this, I don’t think it’s entirely impossible that the governments of Syria and Jordan are actually allowing the U.S. to make limited incursions into Syrian terristory to deal with terrorists. Neither country wants 20,000 dead people.
But having said all that, here’s the most likely possibility - The soldier and his buddies are simply repeating rumor and hearsay.
Karl Rove knows that there’s no point in invading Syria until after the November elections. After all, once Bush gets back into office (with a little under-the-table thank-you to the nice folks at Diebold), there’s nothing the voters can do to stop him any more…
I’ve a hard time considering the USA making an agressive move in Syria in the current situation.
I could remotely envision the Syrian government allowing some american special forces in for some specific and unknow purpose.
Still, it seems weird.
One Russian soldier during Afghanistan campaign in 1980-s swore to me that his unit was deployed in Iran all the time.
Didn’t you say before that WMD was an excuse? That terrorism was an excuse? And if they weren’t real excuses, what is a real excuse? I am trying real hard to take you guys seriously, so please stay on message.
Yes, because we all know how well this President responds when he gets PDBs talking about how terrorists are planning major attacks inside the United States with hijacked airliners. </sarcasm>
Runner-up: “We didn’t want to attack al Qaeda in retaliation for the USS Cole because we were afraid that would embolden them to make more attacks on us.” :rolleyes:
Well, I don’t really think its fair to blame Clinton for all that. I really think he was doing the best he could given the situation. Sure, he could have attacked AQ after they attacked the Cole, but it was a pretty complicated situation and he was also coming to the close of his term in office soon. Oh wait…
On a serious level, I find it improbable that we’d end up in Syria, for this simple reason:
We’d end up militaristically overextended. Any soldiers deployed in Syria would have to be taken from somewhere else, and there aren’t that many spare troops.
Come on rjung…at the time people were speculating that it was AQ. Hell, the day it happened they were speculating that it was AQ as I recall on the news. I’m sure Clinton had some inkling of who dun it, though he might not have had 100% proof…hell, we don’t have 100% proof that AQ did 9/11 for that matter! I’m not blaming Clinton btw for not flying off and bombing random targets on the off chance it might be AQ…but what you are saying is just not reasonable. Look at the time between when the Cole was attacked and when Bush took office for gods sake! Its not reasonable to blame it all on Bush…if there is any blame at all, which I doubt. Waste of electrons me typing all this to you though.
Nice to know that Clinton wasn’t willing to start a war until some substantive evidence was available, unlike certain other Presidents.
“U.S. intelligence didn’t conclude that al-Qaida had sponsored the attack on the ship (USS Cole) in the harbor at Aden, Yemen, until after the Bush administration took office.” –Associated Press, 4/10/2004
The evidence is there, in public testimony: when definitive intelligence linking the USS Cole attack to al Qaeda was finally available, the Bush Administration did nothing.
Yeah, I know the feeling – I bring facts and cites, and you bring halfhearted excuses.
Is it common knowledge? Undisputed fact? Rumors? Conspiracy theory?
I just can’t understand (genuinely) how a president could ask : “who attacked our ship?” And two civil servants telling him : “We know, but we won’t tell you”
It appears just totally nonsentical to me. Please, I need some clues.
I don’t think they knew who did it. It wasn’t that they knew and refused to disclose it. IIRC, even Condi Rice admits that the conclusion wasn’t made until January.
And honestly, does anyone really think that such an attack by a lame duck Clinton, in the last month of his term, would have been met by anything other than scorn and derision?
No, I don’t think its reasonable for Clinton to have ordered an attack with only 4 months of his presidency left (October-January). However, I was merely responding to rjung stating that Clinton didn’t have a clue who did it. Thats bullshit. If I was in a ‘blame Clinton’ mood I’d be more apt to point at the first WTC bombing. However, I think its hindsight to blame Clinton for not going after AQ with everything we had at the time. Certainly at the time I felt his responses were completely correct, as I at least wasn’t aware that AQ and terrorists were a serious threat to the US homeland.
Of course, I also don’t think its reasonable that Bush, in the first months of a shakey presidency (note the 2000 election) would have taken any meaningful action either, who was more focused on the tanking economy and other domestic issues. I’ve never seen a President in their first year do much of anything except get the feel of whats going on, re-evaluate policies, etc. Again, to me its hindsight to blame Bush for not focusing everything on terrorists and AQ when its clear that they didn’t think it was a serious and urgent threat to the US homeland. However I know you disagree with this as we’ve debated this before so I’ll just stop now.