Syria Mobilized 300,000 Reservists?

[Ned]

I just love it. Syria mobilizes for an attack on Israel, and the leftists here say "poor Syria." Syria is the aggressor here. They continue to wage war against Israel through terror. Now they are mobilizing.

[lord of the mark]

why syria matters now to Israel

To recap - Israel, after the first intifida, determined that its best strategy was to withdraw from the territories (how much of the territories is a matter of controversy) and make peace with the Pals. the israeli govt in 2000 made an offer that almost all Israelis considered generous (some considered it too generous - probably a majority considered it just generous enough) Arafat not only rejected the offer, but launched a war (intifda 2) againt Israel (either cause he doesnt want peace at all, or wants it only as a result of victorious war, or cause he wants to use violence to improve the terms) This cause israel to turn away from the idea of negotiating with Arafat - the right and center to the idea that he can never be a partner for peace, and the left to the idea that a different partner would be preferable, if possible.

Now you dont have to agree with the above - many here do not - but that is largely the view of the most people in Israel.

Now since Abu Mazen was raised as a possible alternative leader. While views on him differed in Israel, from the far right opposing negotiating with him, to the right willing to negotiate but playing hardball, to the left eager to help him with concessions - all are agreed that he was unable to function because he was undercut by Arafat, Hamas and Islamic Jihad - apparently in concert. The same seems to be happening to Abu Ala.

Therefore, from the Israeli point of view, something needs to be done to weaken Arafat, Hamas, etc sufficiently to enable the peace process to take hold. The right would like to kill or expel arafat. The left would like to make unilateral concessions. The center position, holding the balance, is that neither of these are real options. (or at least that both have VERY substantial negatives) So how else can the Pal rejectionists be weakened? Well, it happens that Syria support Hamas and IJ - which increasingly cooperate with Syrian (and Iranian) backed Hezbollah. And presumably all are in league with Arafat. So the goal is to get Syria to stop supporting Hamas and IJ, and to at aleast reign in Hezbollah.

The military goal would therefore be to inflict enough pain on the Syrian state to get them to do this. Presumably ways can be found to do this that do NOT involve occupying any more of Syria. More likely aerial bombing of key targets. (Certainly any American who lived through the Clinton years of "pinprick aerial attacks" can understand the limitations of this strategy - Im not endorsing, just laying out the strategic rationale) The presumption is that SYRIA would attempt to make this a ground war, to counter the Israeli strategic bombing campaign - and would attack either in Golan, the Lebanese frontier, or both.

Given Israeli air superiority, and the demonstrated usefulness of tactical air power (for example in Operation Iraqi Freedom) its difficult to see how Syria could be militarily successful. Of course such a war would involve political costs for both the US and Israel - so the decision to launch it would depend on Syrian behavior, the course of events in the territories, Iraq, etc.

Given the currently VERY fluid nature of Palestinian politics, including the uncertainties surrounding Arafats physical health, it would seem foolish to launch such a war AT THIS TIME.

[Eli]

I dont think the report is real. If this was true, someone in the IDF would've leaked it already and the Israeli media would've done a huge mess out of it. Maybe there was some mobilization to anti-aircraft units, or unit "cores" in preparations for future escalations... but a 300,000 reserve mobilization cannot go unnoticed in Israel.

[Ned]

Are you guys suggesting that Israel will deliberately invoke a war with Syria by employing a sustained strategic bombing campaign?

What would be the targets?

So long as Israel attacks terrorist camps, bases and other assets, it maintains the high ground. If it begins to attack Sryian assets, it will lose the support of even the US.

[axi]

I just love it. Syria mobilizes for an attack on Israel, and the leftists here say "poor Syria." Syria is the aggressor here. They continue to wage war against Israel through terror. Now they are mobilizing.

I won't repeat that if you get bombed, the reasonable thing to do is fight back. My problem is that the United States are helping Israel to draw Syria into war. My problem is that the US are destabilising whole areas of the globe, just to prove to themselves that they are doing enough about their so-called "war on terrorism". My problem is that they are pushing Syria, Iran and Northern Korea into war, that they can't just let them be. My problem is all that unwarranted agression that is upsetting the balances of decades. My problem is all the nitwits that play with global politics just like kids play cowboys and indians.

Pakistan tested one of it's new missiles yesterday. It has a 700km range and is capable of carrying nuclear weapons. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would have tens of millions of casualties. Such a war came close to happening in 2002, because of Kashmir.

But who gives a damn? The real baddies are all hiding in Damascus.

[DinoDoc]

My problem is that they are pushing Syria, Iran and North Korea into war, that they can't just let them be.

How are we pushing any of these people to violent action?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Are you guys suggesting that Israel will deliberately invoke a war with Syria by employing a sustained strategic bombing campaign?

What would be the targets?

So long as Israel attacks terrorist camps, bases and other assets, it maintains the high ground. If it begins to attack Sryian assets, it will lose the support of even the US.

Im not suggesting that they would just go off like that. I am suggesting that they would raise the issue of Syrian support for Hamas, IJ, and Hezbollah with Syria, and with the US. And that a campaign starting with bombing terror camps might escalate. For example Israel has released a list of the homes and offices of the major terrorist leaders in Syria. All in central Damascus. I alsp assume that any such actions would not take place without consultation with the US.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by axi

Pakistan tested one of it's new missiles yesterday. It has a 700km range and is capable of carrying nuclear weapons. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would have tens of millions of casualties. Such a war came close to happening in 2002, because of Kashmir.

But who gives a damn? The real baddies are all hiding in Damascus.

Yes, and we will do what we can to encourage a peaceful settlement of Kashmir. What exactly would you have us do wrt to India/Pakistan that we arent already doing?

Ultimately its up to INDIA and PAKISTAN to solve the tensions on the subcontinent, NOT the US. The US's interest is to - get this - stop terrorists who would attack American interests abroad and on US soil. Like Al- qaeeda for example. Now how Syria, iran and n korea play into this is debatable, and has been debated here, including on this thread. But i dont see how the subcontinents problems trump these concerns.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by axi


I won't repeat that if you get bombed, the reasonable thing to do is fight back. /QUOTE]

yup. The US got bombed by AL qaeeda. The main opertional leadership of Al qaeeda is now operating in Iran, and is directing terrorist activities in Iraq. Iran AND Syria support Hezbollah, which (as shown in the Washington Post quote above) is working with Al Qaeeda. Syria supports Hamas and IJ, which are blocking Israeli/Pal peace, and thus preventing the one thing that could do the most to reconcile the Muslim world to the US. North Korea is developing nuclear bombs, which it might very well sell to anyone, including terrorists.

[DanS]

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would have tens of millions of casualties. Such a war came close to happening in 2002, because of Kashmir.

Bush was the one who talked both sides down, you dumb ass.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
An Israeli land assult straight into Syria is very unlikely, as it runs right into the bulk of the Syrian army fortwhith. Certainyl an air campaing could do a lot of damague quickly, but the Israelis till have to absorb the Syria attack on the heights, and attacks from Lebanon. And the US would not be getting involved at all.

Would Israel win? Ceartinly Would Israel win without significant cost to itself? NO. Becuase if the Israeli have nukes t keep the Arabs out of Tel Aviv, the Syrians have chemicals weapons waiting for anyone coming into Damascus. Lets put it this way: as much as people talk, the IDF is NOT as good as the US Army, and the Syrians are not as hapless as the Iraqis (at least they feed, clothe and arm their concripts).

Lets take as given that IDF doesnt match US armed forces, and that Syrian army is superior to Iraqi army. The Israelis wouldnt be planning on invading the country and taking the capital. They would have to "absorb the Syria attack on the heights, and attacks from Lebanon" as you correctly state. They would be fighting on the defensive, and Syria would have to attack, something which require both greater material advantage and greater initiative then defending. And they'd have to do this in the face of Israeli air superiority, both tactical and strategic. And while the US might not participate, its likely they would prevent any resupply for Syria via Iraq. Ditto for Turkey and Jordan. Syria is likely completly cut off from resupply.
Nah, the only deterrent is political. And that would, of course, depend on the circumstances.

[axi]

Syria supports Hamas and IJ, which are blocking Israeli/Pal peace, and thus preventing the one thing that could do the most to reconcile the Muslim world to the US. North Korea is developing nuclear bombs, which it might very well sell to anyone, including terrorists.

Your reasoning is warped. A peace which would be humiliating to the Palestinians would not reconcile the Muslim world to whoever would enforce it. And I wonder how attacking yet another muslim country would be a reconciliatory move.

Regarding Korea: for all I know, the UK has nuclear weapons and would have about the same level of motivation as the DPRK to sell them to terrorists. Does this mean that I am justified to threaten them with war?

Bush was the one who talked both sides down, you dumb ass.

Yet he is not so eager to enforce new sanctions against those countries, like he is with Cuba, Syria, Iran and the DPRK. Sanctions on Pakinstan were actually lifted prior to the |Afghanistan invasion, IIRC.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by axi


Your reasoning is warped. A peace which would be humiliating to the Palestinians would not reconcile the Muslim world to whoever would enforce it. And I wonder how attacking yet another muslim country would be a reconciliatory move.

and presumably what abu mazen and Abu ala want to negotiate is not a humiliating peace, but one with mutual benefits. Of course if you think that that Arafat wanted to stop abu mazen from making a humiliating, unjust peace, and that Hamas and IJ and Syria were helping him to stop such humiliation, he can see why youd think attacking Syria would be a bad idea. I hope you can realize that Israel and the US dont share your point of view.

[DanS]

Yet he is not so eager to enforce new sanctions against those countries, like he is with Cuba, Syria, Iran and the DPRK. Sanctions on Pakinstan were actually lifted prior to the |Afghanistan invasion, IIRC.

As they were with India. Would you have done otherwise?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by axi


.

Regarding Korea: for all I know, the UK has nuclear weapons and would have about the same level of motivation as the DPRK to sell them to terrorists. Does this mean that I am justified to threaten them with war?

The US does have nuclear weapons. The UK does not share the motivations for sale, as the UK is not an economic basket case like North Korea. North Korea has attempted to ship long distance missiles to Iran, IIUC, and has attempted to ship illegal drugs overseas.

I was going to mention the sanity of the North Korean leadership, but then i might get snarky comments about Tony Blair and Dubya as a response.

You dont really want me to start posting statements from North Korea, now do you?