Monkspider investigates: Sowing the whirlwind? Washington vs Damascus

[monkspider]

One thing I have noticed in following the news is that, since the fall of Baghdad, there has been a sharp increase in tensions between USA and Syria. In fact, the rhetoric that US leaders are using now make it completely clear that Syria is "next". In fact, I would even go so far as to say that rhetoric they are using nearly makes war unavoidable.

April 4th
Rumsfeld says that Syria had "better be careful", but when asked if he was threatening military action, he refused to answer

http://msnbc.com/news/895509.asp?0cv=CB10

April 8th
Top officials within Bush's administration hint that Syria is next in line for "regime change"

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/08/wsyria08.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/08/ixportal.html

April 9th
Rumsfeld offers a new warning to Syria, saying that they hold the supplies they send Iraq as "hostile acts" and that the Damascus government will be "held accountable".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2934287.stm

April 10th
Syria continues it's own tough talk, warning the Americans to end their occupation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2937749.stm

April 11th
In a remarkable statement, Powell warns Syria and Persia that they await the "lessons" learned in Iraq

http://7am.com/cgi-bin/catwire.cgi?EYEONIRAQ_1000_2003041103.htm

Bush warns Syria that they must deny refuge to any loyalist elements of Sadaam's regime, or face consequences.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2552970

April 12th
Syria fires back by accusing Bush of waging an "aggressive war" on the "Iraqi people".

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20030412/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_syria_iraq

April 13th
Here, point blank, Rumsfeld says that Iraqi leaders have fled to Syria. Which is something Bush strongly warned against two days before.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030413/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_us_military_659

Washington pledges that it's next target in the "war on terror" is an organization called Hizbollah, which, coincidentally, happens to be based in Syria.

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,935943,00.html

Syria offers it's strongest words to Washington yet, saying allegations of sending supplies or harboring Sadaam loyalists are "baseless", saying they are "victimized" by Bush and co.

http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2517&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258

(Thanks to Sloww for supplying this story in the news thread)

Bush tells the press today that he believes that "Syria possessed weapons of mass destruction". When asked point blank if he was threatening military force, Bush simply said that Syria "must cooperate".
Earlier today Rumsfeld say there was "no question" that top Saddam loyalists were in Syria and that Syria was making "a lot of bad decisions". Powell offered his own comments saying that "We have designated Syria for years as a state that sponsors terrorism"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945045.stm

-------------------------------------------
So are we seeing the seeds planted for a future conflict this year or next between Syria and America? Moreover, could such a conflict have grave consequences for an already troubled region? Could it even provide the catalyst for a "United Arabia" to form, in the name of staving off the infidel crusaders?

My opinion: All signs point to yes.
Interestingly, I had a dream a few days ago, where, among other things, I saw that there was a great falling out amongst countries once thought our allies sometime in mid-August, followed by a great economic collapse sometime around mid-October. If this dream turns out to be prophetic, this great "falling out" could be triggered by a war with Syria.

[Urban Ranger]

Appears so. Rummy has been making all sorts of noises wrt to Syria. However, it seems a completely silly thing to do, as they have their plates full with both Iraq and Afghanistan on their hands.

[Spiffor]

I don't believe in an upcoming war with Syria.

- The international opposition will be much more stiff, as even UK might be against such a war, and since it has no chance whatsoever to be approved by the UN. The "coalition-of-the-willing-against-Syria" will be Uganda and of course Israel.

- Militarily, Syria hasn't been ruined by a previous conflict and 12 years of sanctions. They are much weaker than the US, but they'll have some troops that'll put up a fight.

- On the domestic area, Syria is infinitely less oppressive than Iraq, and the power lies' on the population's apathy rather than the population's fear. Unlike Iraq, there won't be a hate of the government to counterbalance antiamericanism, so the Civilian population will be hostile to the invaders.

- In the current situation, it will be hard to justify a war against Syria to the Americans, because there has been no previous demonization campaign against Bachar.

Until know, the Bush admin has always been limited to some extent in its moronicness. It would be utter cretinism to attack Syria now, and I think even your admin is unable to do such a stupidity. It doen't mean the diplomatic barking will end up any soon though.

[Zkribbler]

This had better be just saber rattling. If the U.S. invades one more Islamic country, the Middle East could easily explode into one big religious war.

[BeBMan]

Perhaps a try to exploit the victory in Iraq politically by increasing the pressure on other regimes too. I doubt that we´ll see a new war in the ME that soon, but diplomatic and economic isolation for countries like Syria could follow if they don´t become nice guys (at least a bit).

[monkspider]

I updated the initial post just a little bit with a few doozeys that have just come out.

[Drake Tungsten]

Perhaps a try to exploit the victory in Iraq politically by increasing the pressure on other regimes too. I doubt that we´ll see a new war in the ME that soon, but diplomatic and economic isolation for countries like Syria could follow if they don´t become nice guys (at least a bit).

Sounds like a good plan to me.

[Spiffor]

Impressive new tidbits.
I wonder when they'll start attacking Leshoto because of its "weapons of mass destruction". Heck, why not attacking Syria because it has weapons at all ? After all, tanks and rifles kill people, how come a country such as Syria can be allowed to be that dangerous ?
Besides, I'm awaiting their terrible proofs for the presence of Iraqi rulers in Syria. I have patience, I'm still waiting for the irrefutable proofs there are WMDs in Iraq.

[JCG]

It would be a political & PR suicide if they attacked Syria/Iran straight away...let's hope it's just an aggressive warning and they keep it at that.

[monkspider]

As far as the question of justifying this war, I think that most people who supported the Iraqi war in the name of fighting terror will suppor this one as well. That could make for an interesting poll though.
In terms of regional stability, there are neoconservative elements of Bushs' cabinet such as Wolfowitz that think they will have to fight these people someday anyway, and it is better to do so now than later.

[Spiffor]

If we are into war against terrorism, I am really wondering why Wolfy isn't threatening the Sauds instead

[Drake Tungsten]

If we are into war against terrorism, I am really wondering why Wolfy isn't threatening the Sauds instead

Iran and Syria are far bigger supporters of terrorism than Saudi Arabia is.

[Urban Ranger]

Yup, I saw this morning on TV news Cowboy Dubya was saying "Syria has chemical weapons" with a straight face. I almot choked on water I was drinking because I laughed so hard.

[DinoDoc]

Oh well given that Syria has sealed its border with Iraq stopping any flow of pro-Saddam volunteers into Iraq, the saber-rattling seems to be paying off somewhat.

[Ming]

I disagree with you monkspider. I think the foaming at the mouth responses toward Syria from the administration is all part of a different game plan. I think they are calling Syria's bluff right now. And why not... it costs them nothing (it's not like anybody is really going to hate them worse than they already do) They have just done a number on Iraq... so some might believe (as you do) that Syria is next on the list if they don't start playing along. If I were Syria, I would take one look at Iraq, and not want to call that bluff at this moment. So why not give it a try... again, it really costs nothing to do so.