American raid in Syria

[Tez3]

What are people's thoughts on this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7692153.stm

Some political commentators are saying that this was ordered now as the present government doesn't have to take the ensuing flak. Whatever though it seems odd timing after the negotiations that have been taking place.

 

[Nolerama]

I can see both sides to this "developing story" but I agree with the author of this article: regardless of the intent of the US servicemen involved in this incident, it certainly damages Western ties with Syria.

What does that mean? More instability in the Middle East. It means more reasons to send in more US soldiers when/if things go haywire in Syria. Need I mention the relations with Israel?

The Iraq war is overwhelmingly an unpopular war (there may be some that might disagree) in the world and in the US. Does allegedly killing civilians the kind of thing that we need in the world's eyes? Heck no.

In terms of US service people attacking a village in Syria: yeah, sometimes, you have to maintain that hot pursuit, regardless of the criticism you might get after the incident. What if they took out an insurgent leader? Good job, right? But at what cost?

I really hope that there was a very good reason for this incident...

Now, say Obama becomes President. And tensions (stemming from this incident with Syria) come to a head. This might mean more time in the Middle East. This might go against any plans of a major military pullout from that region.

This simply stacks on more reason to call the current state of International conflict "World War 3."

 

[grydth]

I can see both sides to this "developing story" but I agree with the author of this article: regardless of the intent of the US servicemen involved in this incident, it certainly damages Western ties with Syria.

What does that mean? More instability in the Middle East. It means more reasons to send in more US soldiers when/if things go haywire in Syria. Need I mention the relations with Israel?

The Iraq war is overwhelmingly an unpopular war (there may be some that might disagree) in the world and in the US. Does allegedly killing civilians the kind of thing that we need in the world's eyes? Heck no.

In terms of US service people attacking a village in Syria: yeah, sometimes, you have to maintain that hot pursuit, regardless of the criticism you might get after the incident. What if they took out an insurgent leader? Good job, right? But at what cost?

I really hope that there was a very good reason for this incident...

Now, say Obama becomes President. And tensions (stemming from this incident with Syria) come to a head. This might mean more time in the Middle East. This might go against any plans of a major military pullout from that region.

This simply stacks on more reason to call the current state of International conflict "World War 3."

Modern US Presidents tend to go a little wacky when they begin considering their what their "legacy" will be. They act like flies in October.

I'm thinking Bush the Lesser fears his legacy will likely be to be loathed by the left and condemned as indecisive by the conservatives. He's now seeing all the things, 'he should have done so many years ago'.... seal off Iraq's borders, use the force necessary to complete the victory in Afganistan, stamp out foreign killers in Pakistan... All those blunders and half measures in a war that itself was an error.....Too little, too late.

I've little sympathy for the Syrians or Pakistanis - they've supported murderous terrorists who've wreaked mayhem across other lands. Now, when somebody blows THEM up for a change, suddenly its 'destabilizing the Middle East'. Right...

According to the world's ghouls, whenever we strike back, all we ever kill are innocents.... again, riiiiiiiiiight, sure. Oddly enough, not everybody in Syria was given the script and some folks blurted out that all they saw were dead adult males..... ooops!

I'm guessing Iran and Syria make nice to Obama.... if he's willing to speak with them, and he gets the US out of Iraq asap, why ruin that?

 

[elder999]

This is Porter Gates's doing, I'll bet....

 

[HKphooey]

Sometimes you just gotta take the fight to the enemy's turf.

 

[Archangel M]

Apparently foriegn fighters always have kiddos carrying their Semtex for them. Looks like we only ever hit women/children/baby formula factories.

We hit something vital or embarrassing to the Syrians, anybody who thinks this was a random "hey lets blow that up operation" is ignorant of special operations.

 

[Big Don]

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

President George W. Bush 9-20-2001
Maybe, someone decided to take the fight to the enemy again...
It is well past time to do so.

 

[Nolerama]

That's all well said, and I really do see your perspectives. But what about the long range outcome of military actions like these?

It's not about who hit who first, or if the Syrians are really "bad guys." It's about the perception that the United States, which is supposed to be a world leader/power, is a moral and intelligent country.

In terms of "taking the fight to the enemy's turf" no one ever said that Syria was anyone's enemy. They're not official bad guys. That's like saying the American presence in the Middle East is a "civil war" since there was a single American guy (John Walker Lindh) fighting against the US. That's kind of ridiculous, right? The actions of a few do not account for the rest of their home population.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that this is only the tip of the iceberg. There will be an official American statement on the subject as the world flares up over this incident.

Maybe those children killed are insurgents, fleeing to Syria. That's very likely, considering the style of fighting that the insurgents practice. However, we need to find proof. As the nation that apparently takes the "high road" we need to prove our actions tenfold in comparison to the groups that we fight... As Americans, we need to see beyond our instincts to immediately fight back. We need to think.

Or we're just stuck looking for WMD's (or here be dragons!) all over again.

 

[Tez3]

To a large extent it doesn't matter what the facts of this are, it's how the spin is put on it that will count. Wars these days aren't just won on the battlefield but also in the media and the public perception. It was a huge faux pas on whoever ordered this raids part as they should have realised how it can be turned into a wonderful propoganda tool for the Syrians.
I don't doubt for the moment that they were acting on information that insurgants had fled to that village, it's common for such people to hide among innocents and also not care if they brought destruction on them. However someone should have thought taken the wider view about how it would look to the rest of the world. It's no good saying that America doesn't care what the world thinks, it does matter where international relations is concerned. America is also the birthplace of advertising and spin. It could have been handled in a completely different way.
Syria has been behind more terrorist activities than Iraq ever was, if anything Iraq was the wrong target, it should have been Syria but as Nolerama points out, they aren't the official enemy so a raid into their country is seen as being the heavy handed bad guys.
It also makes other countries wonder if their borders are safe, do the Americans think they can go wherever they like, don't they respect borders? it comes across as arrogance. It will make non aligned countries think long and hard about the position they take in future.
I've no doubt that whoever thought up the raid thought it was a good idea at the time, militarily it probably was though I suspect a 'quieter' SAS type raid would have been more successful (been listening to the military commanders where I work, their criticisms are on the actual mechanics of the raid lol too many helicopters, too much noise and too much like an invasion)

 

[buldog]

Just think of this in a different way. Someone, say Canada or Mexico or Cuba sends a missle strike or a helicopter raid in the US without warning saying afterwards it was targeting drug lords or what have you.(unlikely but just try to imagine it) How would you think the American public respond to such a breach of our borders? We have done this time and time again across the world, just recently in Pakistan and Syria. Is it little wonder we are one of the most hated countries in the world? We violate international law with impunity and expect everyone else to toe the line or we will drop the hammer on them. I hate terrorism as much as the next guy and support our troops 100%, but I think our country needs to think more before it acts. just my $.02

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The US doesn't respect other nations sovereignty, but expects them to respect ours. Can't have it both ways. Unless you have the bodies and bullets to back it up.

 

[CoryKS]

The US doesn't respect other nations sovereignty, but expects them to respect ours. Can't have it both ways. Unless you have the bodies and bullets to back it up.

A tautology. A nation's sovereignty is defined by what that nation can back up with bodies and bullets. International law is a myth.

 

[Nolerama]

For some reason, this was a blurb in today's Post-Dispatch. The blurb stated that American troops were attacking a supposed hidden nuclear reactor. Soil samples were proven to be radioactive as well.

But does that makes this sort of situation right?

 

[Tez3]

For some reason, this was a blurb in today's Post-Dispatch. The blurb stated that American troops were attacking a supposed hidden nuclear reactor. Soil samples were proven to be radioactive as well.

But does that makes this sort of situation right?

I don't know the background of this source, Americans obviously will though but it gives another slant on it.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-10-28-voa8.cfm

 

[Archangel M]

Sounds like a successful hit to me....

 

[grydth]

That's all well said, and I really do see your perspectives. But what about the long range outcome of military actions like these?

It's not about who hit who first, or if the Syrians are really "bad guys." It's about the perception that the United States, which is supposed to be a world leader/power, is a moral and intelligent country.

In terms of "taking the fight to the enemy's turf" no one ever said that Syria was anyone's enemy. They're not official bad guys. That's like saying the American presence in the Middle East is a "civil war" since there was a single American guy (John Walker Lindh) fighting against the US. That's kind of ridiculous, right? The actions of a few do not account for the rest of their home population.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that this is only the tip of the iceberg. There will be an official American statement on the subject as the world flares up over this incident.

Maybe those children killed are insurgents, fleeing to Syria. That's very likely, considering the style of fighting that the insurgents practice. However, we need to find proof. As the nation that apparently takes the "high road" we need to prove our actions tenfold in comparison to the groups that we fight... As Americans, we need to see beyond our instincts to immediately fight back. We need to think.

Or we're just stuck looking for WMD's (or here be dragons!) all over again.

You know, at this very late date, you may well be right about this act bringing more harm than good..... but what if this had been done years ago.... again and again, until the infernal traffic was stopped....and there hadn't been years of muddle and half measures?

From what I understand, the Syrians began regularly routing foreign fighters into Iraq to murder our troops very soon after our victory in the conventional phase of the conflict. That deadly traffic has continued to date, the Syrians apparently not needing to worry about - or being responsible morally or politically - for the murder they export.

We do indeed have to prove our actions tenfold, but that's only because cannibal states like Syria and Iran get a blank check from the media. Somehow the fiction persists that their exporting terrorists and IEDs into Iraq is fine; only when we do something about it do solemn considerations about international law arise. One of Bush's most signal failures - besides getting us into Iraq in the first place - is passively yielding the court of public opinion over to these monsters. It has been said the Presidency is a "bully pulpit".... he wasted it.

There likely won't be an uproar with the election so close, just a lot of dead people and more what might have been's....

 

[Nolerama]

That's a really good point. Americans (at least from a media POV) advocate a prosperous society through capitalism and democracy. But what happens when its citizens commit to military action in the same way as the insurgents we're fighting now?

What I'm saying is that we're losing our standing as "liberators" and "idealists" and moving towards "enforcers" and "fascists" in the world's eyes. Our policing actions around the world are a huge example. The War Against Terror is another. When will it stop?

Or another question: Does it really matter what the world thinks we do?

Personally, I think it does. I don't want another Cold War mixed in with an interdependence on natural resources with China, India, or Russia due to retracted ties with those countries based on the sheer amount of wars we're involved with. Hey, at least we would have fewer places to outsource our jobs...

I wholly believe that Pax Americana is alive and well- in the media, products, and ideals we SELL to other countries. If we're on that path, it should stay that way and not backwards, where we attack potential customers' countries.

 

[grydth]

See, I don't view a targeted special forces op against foreign killers in Syria as being the same type of thing they do - which all too often intentionally makes children and other civilians the primary targets. I note with interest those sources that saw no dead kids in the strike zone, only dead men.

If we are to - and we should - hold our government to strict accountability, let's not give regimes like Assad the Lesser's in Syria a free pass. Why ever assume those guys are being honest?

I don't care what terror regimes like Syria and Iran "think" of us. But I do agree that we ignore world public opinion at our peril. At some points in time, there will be consequences on many planes.... few of them good.

I'm more pessimistic - I think Pax Americana is a wreck. We face another Cold War.... and who lost the Peace there? Hint: same guy who detoured us into Iraq.

Unlike some, I don't blame Bush for hurricanes and Giants losses.... but he seems to have lost something after 2001-2. He's never done what either FDR or Reagan could do - communicate his policy and rationale to the American people. He's never been energetic enough in defending our troops or deriding our enemies - or in explaining why they are enemies. He can't martial either world or public opinion. He strikes me as a man of shifting tides and half measures. Time will tell what that has cost us.

 

[Nolerama]

I'm more pessimistic - I think Pax Americana is a wreck. We face another Cold War.... and who lost the Peace there? Hint: same guy who detoured us into Iraq.

Unlike some, I don't blame Bush for hurricanes and Giants losses.... but he seems to have lost something after 2001-2. He's never done what either FDR or Reagan could do - communicate his policy and rationale to the American people. He's never been energetic enough in defending our troops or deriding our enemies - or in explaining why they are enemies. He can't martial either world or public opinion. He strikes me as a man of shifting tides and half measures. Time will tell what that has cost us.

Right on. So you're saying that if you screw up as a President, you'd better screw up with some style?

Just kidding. You're absolutely right about that.

 

[grydth]

I believe Musashi had it right when he repeatedly emphasized the importance of timing one's strikes. What could have been a decisive move years ago will likely only yield more mayhem now.

As a military matter, I would not call it style, but instead being decisive. My daughter's karate renshi always tells them not to be hesitant - - - it is better to err while giving it one's all than to stutter through a kata hesitantly. War is much the same.... one either wages a war savagely and decisively, with the cold and full intent to win it - or do not fight it at all. (Not fighting would have been an excellent choice here). Viet Nam should have taught us that one cannot fight a war by hesitancy or compromised half measures. That only yields death and then defeat.