I am sure this had something to do with Syria giving Saddam material support. I'd be very surprised if any invasion is forthcoming...not for some time anyway.

Yikes.

...only if you define "material" as supplying ammunition, weapons, terrorists, and hiding illegal weapons for Iraq...

Reports like this are so disengenuous. We have contingency plans for just about anything you could think of. Hence the term, contingency. There are people in the pentagon who do nothing all day but put these kinds of plans together. Excellent chance that there is plan slouching around somewhere for the invasion of Luxemburg.

One war at a time, please. This one ain't over yet, as the Marines in Baghdad would tell you.

One additional angle to consider is that the 'leaking' of this information is part of an program to ratchet up the pressure on Syria.

If the Syrians can't be certain that we wouldn't do it, then...they just might capitulate to coalition demands on things like Ba'athist leadership or possible weapons of mass destruction.

These reports are not disingenuous because as Rumsfeld said himself, the old plans were out of date. He wants to redue the plans with updates in the ability of US forces to integration rapid information flow, special forces and other fast moving pieces.

If you look at a map of the Middle East you will see that frightening reality of the situation. The US military is all over the place. Iran, for example, is completely surrounded by US military forces.

My point was not that the plans were disingenous, its that the reporting on the plans is. You get a report like this every couple of months by some cub that thinks he's cracked 'the big plan'. Or someone that knows better but has an agenda. As I said, we do this kind of thing all the time. It would be nuts if we didnt. How would the secdef look if Syria did some crazy thing and the president said wheres the plan and there was no plan?

from a uk perspective such a move would not be smart - of course you always need to have plans but you don't need to use them

I think that it's pretty clear from 'research' done at the Cato institute that some of the very senior admin hawks do plan on attacking Syria.

Here's the link: www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wosyri103215060apr10.story

I would love to see you document that.

Sorry to post here but Time reporter (reporting on CNN) in Najaf is saying that the son of a former grand ayatollah has been assasinated near Najaf. All confusing for now he's saying. He was on his way to a press conference with several journalists and that it may be part of an internal power play. He was meant to be one of the potentional leaders in the reconstruction of iraq.

Attack Luxembourg? Are you kidding me? QUAAAAAGMIIIIIRE!!!!!!!

Well, crap. At the beginning of this war, I was on another board arguing with an anti-war / anti-American Canadian who said the war mongers in the White House were going to take over the whole region and Syria was going to be next. I said told her she was paranoid.

I hate being wrong.

I don't see how we can justify this. Nazis went to Argentina after WWII - we didn't take them out. Sorry, but this is beyond the pale. Unless Syria actively acts against us (selling weapons does not count, unless your willing to go to war with Russia too), the Administration should put a lid on it. We have to build the peace in Iraq and scaring the shit out of everyone in the region isn't going to help.

Anonymously leaked contingency plans are a throw-away. Like Armitage noted above.

Such a move doesn't cost anything, and will put the Syrians in a more thoughtful move when "good cop" UK FM visits them soon.

Bush is the key here. Bush does not buy completely buy into the Hawkish notions. He is the one who will prevent the invasion.

Argentina only gave refuge to the Nazis, the country posed no threat to the U.S. Totally different situation here. Syria is run by haters of the West and Israel, and possesses weapons and the desire to use them.

Yawn.

Folks, we have plans for the invasion of Canada. It doesn't mean we INTEND to do it.

I disagree with the strong arm tactics at this time. The Arab world was stunned yesterday - this is the best time to lay some good PR groundwork - while there is an opening in opinion. Help the Iraqis and don't look like colonialist warmongers. This Syria is next talk will feed the fires of those claiming the U.S. only has bad intentions. Bad timing.

The 4th ID has to have something to do. Bet they're p*ssed at having to sit out the war while the 3rd ID and 1st Marines got all the glory.

Only half-joking. We'll know when we see where the 4th ID deploys next week.

FOG - This came up before. Syria has had WMD for years - do a google and check for yourself. If they haven't used them yet, I don't see any reason for them to use them now. Nothing on the ground has changed with respect to Syria.

To all those who are worrying that we might go around invading Syria just for the hell of it -- folks, remember that even the Taliban were given a chance to cough up Osama and friends and stop sponsoring terrorism before we made the decision to turn Afghanistan inside out.

So what we're probably going to do is tell Syria "We want you to hand over the war criminals and terrorists, and stop your covert funding of terrorism. If you do, everything's cool. If you don't... jeez, you'd think that after the last two examples, people like you could figure out the 'or else' part without us having to draw you a goddamn diagram."

Actually invading Syria is a non-starter for the foreseeable future. It took a good year to muster the political will to go after Saddam, and Americans have detested him for more than a decade.

Most people in this country don't know the first thing about Syrian ties to terrorism, couldn't find it on a map and don't know who its leader is. They will not be interested in stretching the military thinner for such an adventure.

As for Bush, he would like to get re-elected, and starting another military campaign is a step in the wrong direction for the reasons stated above.

I agree that this is almost certainly just another contingency plan, of hundreds sitting in the Pentagon, and the leak is intended to tighten the diplomatic screws on Assad just a little bit more. Who knows, they may suddenly find that "without their knowledge" a bunch of mustard gas crossed their border, which they will gladly turn over to UN weapons inspectors.

Call me an insane warmonger, but I say we split the invasion duties with the IDF. They can drive to Damascus while 4th ID moves in from the west.

Fantasy aside, I think there's compelling evidence that Arabs respect strength above all else. If we're dedicated to deposing existing terrorist-supporting governments (an open question, I know) and preventing others from arising, then attacking Syria makes sense.

Of course, the cost-benefit calculation here is much different than it was for Iraq. Absent a compelling justification (i.e., evidence that Syria is housing substantial portions of WMD), we would likely never move against Syria, as there would be a substantial global backlash that consists of more than mere whining.

Of course, we could always park 4th ID in western Iraq, and start laying the pressure on Assad to stop allowing Lebanon to be used as a duck blind for pot-shots at the Israelis.

I would very much love to see all the Middle East stormed and democratized after Iraq, but I doubt that will be the case;

Bush won't go against his Saudi buddies, as for Syria and Iran one has to consider them as a package, because they are close allies, and going against them two would be too much of a war effort..;

Lori, I agree with you, this type of threat would be simply stupid at this time, militarily and politically. For the first time in a long time, if ever, you have average Arab citizens beginning to think they were wrong about Iraq and Saddam, and that Al-Jazeera and other Arab media lied to them and tricked them. It's a start. To talk of Invading Syria right now would demolish any hope of a new Arab world, and would likely damn-near cause world war. Syria will be dealt with, but not at this moment.

Having said all that, I think the story is bogus.

No-one is advocating going into Syria. All the so called 'evidence' of this are quotes taken out of context and the leaking of a contingency plan that we have for every country in the ME. Look, plenty of reporters of a certain political bent have an axe to grind with Rumsfeld and they think they see an opening here. It took the US 12 years to muster up the political will to invade Iraq, so despite what the paranoid androids out there think we are not going to invade Syria.

Rumsfeld diplomacy at work. Couple more of these little leaks, which he'll denounce of course so they're put into media circulation again... it's amazing how compliant the Syrians will become.

Lori! Whoa! I didn't say I wanted us to invade Syria or that we should, I was simply drawing a distinction between that and your rather stupid comment that "Nazis went to Argentina after WWII - we didn't take them out." Speaking of stupid comments, "Unless Syria actively acts against us" makes me realize you're no different than the 'peaceniks' who tried to stop THIS war! Did Iraq actively act against us? We can talk liberation all we want, but let's be real - PART of the reason we invaded Iraq was a preemptive move, and one that could've saved millions of US lives. This is a move I'm all for doing anytime intelligence far greater than yours or mine tells us we should, whether that be in North Korea, Syria, Iran, or freakin' Luxembourg.

Lori - IF Syria didn't help Saddam hide his WMDs, IF Syria isn't hiding some of the Iraqi leadership, and IF the Syrian government had no role in shipping men and equipment to Saddam during this war, what's "on the ground" hasn't changed much.

But what is already "on the ground" is that Syria has been a long-time supporter of interntional terrorism, and the Syrian government is a threat to the stability of the Middle East, especially for peace between Israel and the Palistinians.

They will have to be dealt with or neutralized one way or another.

Thank you, Toner. That's what I was getting at.

What a splendid idea! I've been waiting a long time for this. And if we do it now, think of the money we'll save on shipping! Bush & Co. will go down as the most far-sighted administration in US history. Friends, go forth and multiply...we are witnessing a new Golden Age of America!

Agree, this is meaningless. There was a leak about a year ago reporting that the US had updated its contingency plan for invading Russia. Hysterical response from some quarters, but not from the Russians themselves. They just said "Of course you have military plans for every contingency. We understand this, we have some of our own. No big deal."

Get all Syria-supported Hezbolla out of Lebanon, ASAP. A simple thing Syria can do to avoid military sanctions. Easy as pie. Doesn't require weapons inspections, negotiations, or hard to pronouce words.

The Soviets were professionals, who knew how the game was played. Say whatever else you could about them -- and you could say one hell of a lot -- at least their grasp on reality was both good and pragmatic.

OTOH, most of the Arab world appears to spend 99% of their time lost in fantasy land. Before you can even begin to reason with them, you've got to get their attention -- and it takes some pretty drastic measures to get it.

Why in the world is Syria allowed to be in the Security Council?

as for Syria and Iran one has to consider them as a package, because they are close allies

Indeed. Iraq and Syria were allies as well, at least economically. Since the war, a pipeline between the two that feeds Syria with deeply discounted oil, has been shut down. This already puts the screws to them to some extent.

Were Syria to subsequently lose Iran (through revolution, for example), it would almost certainly bankrupt the state.

-Vic

Get Hezbollah out of Lebanon? Where will they go? Damascus of course. Folks, Syria is the Ba'ath Party too...They're just as odious as Saddam! They just don't get as much press, 'cause the Brits have been embedded with them for far too long. It's time to pull the curtain on this charade. You want peace in the Middle East? It's an old saying: You can't have a war without Egypt and you can't have a peace without Syria. And since Syria refuses to sign on, they should be taken out. We'll be greeted with dancing and flowers over there too!

Were Syria to subsequently lose Iran (through revolution, for example), it would almost certainly bankrupt the state.

-Vic

You say that like it's a bad thing . . .

YES YES YES

YES YES YES

>

... But there's always hope, eh?

FOG - There is a difference with Syria and Iraq. We had the cover of 12 years of failed U.N. resolutions with Iraq, and could engage some support from our allies - we don't have the same cover with Syria.

My points are valid. Other countries aid former deposed dictators and there regimes, like Saudi Arabia. Other countries have recently equipped Saddam, like Russia. These are not reasons enough to go to war.

Pablo -

You beat me to it. I immediately thought about the 4th ID when reading this !

My comments on the above posts...

1. _Of course_ Rumsfeld is drawing up Syrian invasion plans. That's his job. As others have pointed out, the Pentagon has contingency plans for invasions of all kinds of countries, including currently friendly ones.

2. And _of course_ he leaked this story. That's the whole point. Listen, we don't _need_ to invade Syria. They are completely surrounded by U.S. allies (except for Lebanon), and can easily be pressured. That pressure, in the reality of today's Arab world, can only take the form of subtle or unsubtle military threats. I think we'd be fools to invade Syria right now (bigger fish to fry), but I think we'd also be fools not to threaten them now that we have a credible back-up for those threats. What are they going to do, launch a pre-emptive strike at us? It's time to put the screws to Syria, but not invade them.

3. I totally agree that there's a good cop/bad cop game going on, and that's a great idea. It was funny how quickly Blair phoned Syria to praise their valued friendship. That's the diplomatic game that we and the British will be playing with Assad. And that's fine.

4. I still believe that military action against Syria is utterly unecessary for American interests. If you're Israel, then of course you want America to tak out Syria. But as an American, I don't see what it gains me. They will atrophy in isolation anyway. As someone pointed out, get rid of the Iranian mullahs and Syria and especially Hebollah will already start to wither.

Also, why is everyone forgetting that North Korea is way scarier than either Syria _or_ Iran? We're talking about a nation of psychotic automata, led by a sociopathic playboy murderer and kidnapper, on the verge of becoming the nuclear breadbasket of the world. Confronting North Korea can help us win friends and influence people. Invading Syria will just make us look like bullies. And above all, we don't NEED to invade. Syria is already screwed; let's just enjoy looking at their borders on the map, and imagine what that means for them in the near future.

No one seems to be drawing the very importance distinction between two different kinds of invasion: a temporary incursion or a total conquest. I agree that the latter is extremely unlikely. However, if (for example) the Syrians were foolish enough to give refuge to Saddam or his sons or other high-ranking Iraqis (whichever ones are still alive), or if they were keeping substantial quantities of Saddam's chemicals, germs, and missiles for him or for themselves, and if any of those people or weapons were near the Syria-Iraq border, then (and only then) I think a quick cross-border raid to grab them would be a definite possibility. I can't say it would necessarily be a bad idea, either.

Another angle that you may not have considered is the source. As everyone knows, the CIA does not "leak" information unless they are pursuing their own agenda. The intelligence community is still smarting from the way the Bush administration tried to twist their arm and enlist them in the process of creating documents to justify the invasion of Iraq which they resisted.

Aside from the fact that I do seriously believe that Rumsfeld is planning on invading Syria based on wild stories that they are now harbouring Saddam and inner circle of his "regime." Current propaganda being floated says that somehow he managed to give them the slip and is even now speeding acrose the Western Desert of Iraq. What is he, a character from Super Mario Bros. or something? How many times are we gonna bomb him?

In spite of credible reports filed outside the American press that Saddam may have fled to Russia.
Administration will not even entertain this notion.
You will not hear them even speak about it.

Meanwhile the CIA may have floated this to stir foment for the growing movement in Congress to impeach Bush.

That's my read.

What is he, a character from Super Mario Bros. or something? How many times are we gonna bomb him?

Wish it were so, 'cause he'd be on his third and final "life" right now :)

-Vic

Meanwhile the CIA may have floated this to stir foment for the growing movement in Congress to impeach Bush.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

The "growing movement" to impeach Bush! Oh my, this type of comedy is what I love!

Syria harbors and supports Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. Syria was also sending busloads of crazed Muslims to fight against our troops in Iraq (an act of war?). What friggin' more reason do we need?

Level the friggin' place I say... but we won't.

If I had anything intelligent to say about this matter - informed opinion, so to speak - I would comment.

I don't. So, I won't.

But I wonder what the commanders and troops now fighting would think of such a set of orders.

Some people are,apparently unaware of the meaning of the military term 'contingency plan'.All militaries make these plans,which are exactly what the word suggests :"if country X does Y ,do we know what to do militarily to respond?"I'm pretty sure Pentagon had contingency plans lined up before the war just in case Syria or Iran decided to intervene .(No matter how stupid that would have been of them).

Bottom line is,contingency plans don't make policy.(USA indeed had,after WWI,a contingency plan to invade Canada in case of hostilities.There is not one now,as far as I know).

We could invade Alberta. They have O-i-i-i-i-l, the best ice in the NHL and when it's all said and done, they would probably be happy about the tax cut.

"Syria harbors and supports Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas."

All of them Israel's problem, not America's. I'd love to see all of those groups disappear too, but is it really worth another war? There's no proof I'm aware of that these groups have attacked Americans since the Lebanese Civil War, two decades ago.

There's a difference between supporting Israel's right to exist and becoming Israel's bodyguard service at our own diplomatic expense. I favor #1, not #2. In terms of American policy interests, North Korea is now clearly the top threat and Iran the second biggest. No one besides me has mentioned North Korea in this entire thread. Why not?

"Syria was also sending busloads of crazed Muslims to fight against our troops in Iraq (an act of war?)."

Technically, yes. But it was militarily insignificant. I suppose it could _morally_ justify our attacking them morally (though just barely), but the bigger question is whether Syria really matters so much to us right now. They are pipsqueaks to the U.S., a threat only to Israel, and even then only by proxy. We can handle those proxy groups first by strong, unyielding diplomatic pressure. If we want to fight some more land battles, there are much better candidates than Syria. And as much as I mocked world opinion on the Iraq war, we should not forget that Syria would seem far more dubious to wold opinion than even Iraq did.

"What friggin' more reason do we need?"

We could surely justify an attack on Syria to ourselves, but at what cost? Is the cost really worth it? Let's stick with the official Axis of Evil for now. 2 still to go, and 1 of them (N.K.) is very, very, very dangerous in the very short term.

Now why would you invade Canada and break my igloo?
The simple fact is it's too cold in Canada for most Americans to settle in for any length of time. Fishing is good in the summer though. excellent hunting too. loads of black flies and mosquitoes though.
And yes Alberta has loads of oil, but you already get most of it , LOL

I hear china is next.

Graham, at this point in time, I agree that for the current period, the involvement of those groups is not reason to pursue military action against Syria. Just saying it's [just] "Israel's problem" is a bit of a simplification, no? The US will clearly have to be involved in the Israel-Palestine negotiations at some level, and any group that imperils that negotiation will have to considered to some extent.

Also, it is in the US' interest to keep Israel stable, for strategic purposes in the region. I'm not sure if you are sidestepping that issue, or classifying it for a different kind of discussion.

Yikes is right. I'd hope that we can pressure Syria to do what we want. Perhaps we should just let our actions speak for themselves, rather than leaking threats.

IMHO, we should let Israel off the leash.

Let them run wild for a few weeks.

Watch the Arabs come begging.

I notice that Graham is the only one who has focused North Korea.

Surely folks here don't consider Syria a greater threat than North Korea?

Well ... Horse's Butt. Glad (NOT) I am not the only one who is thinking Rummy is about to lay his bike down ... with Wolfy and Perle in the side car.

Guess it makes sense though... one of the mandates the NWO guys have to master is the ability to fight multiple wars simultaneously.

Ok ... getting there.

Crap, where is that Bullshit Button?