US Raid inside Syria Kills 8
US troops made a raid inside Syrian territory near Iraq, according to Syrian media, which left 8 persons (the Syrians say civilians) dead.
What is odd is that the Bush administration did not behave that way when the infiltration of fundamentalist vigilantes from the Syrian side was a more significant problem.
I don't know if this is election politics on Bush's part, an attempt by Bush-Cheney to mire Obama down in a Syria conflict they started.
Or maybe the secular, Alawi-dominated Baath Party of Syria, always afraid of the Sunni fundamentalists, has grown so terrified of Fatah al-Islam that they gave a secret go-ahead to the US to hit the fundamentalists where they had intelligence on them.
The ruling clique in Syria, Alawis, are a kind of folk Shiites much despised by Sunni fundamentalists. The feuding between the two has been visible in nearby Lebanon, in the northern port of Tripoli.
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/26/2008 03:44:00 PM
|
Facebook
3 Comments:
I wouldn't be surprised if Assad gave the US the go ahead for this and possibly even the September 6th tactical strike on the "nuclear" (not nuclear) sight.
Prof. Landis has analyzed the Syrian bombing caper as "a bit of personal revenge on Syria without the US paying a price" and "a good-bye salute from [Syria's] friends in Washington."
Naturally JL makes Damascus the center of the universe. Those of us who do not will assume it must have had something to do with either the militant extremist GOP's situation in the former al-‘Iráq or else with the presidential election.
From that viewpoint, Prof. Landis started off better than he ended, speaking of "a broader pattern of the Bush administration initiating cross-border attacks into countries that it is not officially at war with" but never following it up.
If this ‘pattern’ were formalized as a policy, even a Doctrine, I think one might get something of this sort:
"We Republicans have a RIGHT to bomb anybody who needs bombin’, any and all borders or treaties or alliances or informal commitments to the contrary notwithstandin’. [Our] FREEDOM [to act like that] MEANS PEACE!"
And that seems to me a thoroughly appropriate thing for the Big Management Party perps to be yellin’ as -- ’in shá’ Alláh -- they are kicked out of the Oval Office. But God knows best.
Happy days.
Mr Cole and Mr Schneider - I think you're both wrong to imagine that el-Assad gave the US a green light to attack. Such an attack is a humiliation for Syria and the regime, and makes it more difficult for the president to continue warming relations with the West. I've seen one report that the area bombed was already surrounded by Syrian troops, so there may have been Salafi nihilists in the vicinity, but that doesn't mean the Syrians invited this outrageous violation of their sovereignty.
Prof Cole - with respect, I have to tell you that I've removed your usually excellent blog from the links to my blog, because since election season started in the US 'Informed Comment' has become a pro-Obama propaganda sheet. It seems to me that the US is winding down, but not leaving, Iraq whoever gets into the White House, but Obama is much more dangerous on expanding the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama's statements before AIPAC were disgusting. Certainly, there are attractive sides to Obama but, apart from his skin colour, there is nothing really new about him. I wonder why he's made Informed Comment lose its professionalism.
Post a Comment
<< Home