Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Analysts Question Syria Raid

(Inter Press Service) A cross-border raid into Syria by U.S. forces in Iraq, and the subsequent stonewalling by U.S. officials unwilling to divulge details, has led to rampant ...

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

A cross-border raid into Syria by U.S. forces in Iraq, and the subsequent stonewalling by U.S. officials unwilling to divulge details, has led to rampant speculation among U.S. analysts about the origins and meaning of the attack.

"So the question is: Why?" wrote geostrategic analyst and journalist Helena Cobban on her blog (Just World News), wondering if the raid could have been pulled off without explicit permission from the highest levels of the George W. Bush administration.

Middle East correspondent Borzou Daragahi echoed the thought on the Los Angeles Times website: "So why now at the end of the Bush administration, with Washington trying to play nice with Damascus and tensions easing throughout the region, would U.S. forces stage such a gambit?"

The questions started to swirl late Sunday afternoon when U.S. helicopters allegedly crossed 5 miles over the desert border between Syria and Iraq. According to reports, eight U.S. soldiers alighted when a helicopter landed, attacking the al-Sukkari farm in the Syrian Abu Kamal border area.

The cross-border raid—the first of its kind involving a helicopter attack and U.S. boots on the ground that far into Syrian territory—left eight dead, according to Syrian press reports.

The attack is especially curious since, according to a report this weekend in the New York Times, Bush appears to have rolled back his initiative to lead troop-driven cross-border attacks—initially approved this summer—by Afghan-based U.S. forces into Pakistani territory.

The raid also comes as Syria is negotiating with Israel, through Turkish mediation, presumably in a calculated effort to alleviate tensions with the West and the United States. The Bush administration’s take on the Israel-Syria talks has been lukewarm at best.

More immediately for the United States, the raid could complicate negotiations on a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraqi authorities to allow U.S. forces to continue operating in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. The talks on SOFA have been bogged down, and a persistent Iraqi demand has been that Iraqi soil not be used as a launch pad for attacks on other countries.

"The Iraqi government rejects U.S. aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria," a government spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, said Tuesday. "The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries."

The U.S. Department of Defense has repeatedly declined to comment on the Syria incident, including to a direct request, but several press reports have quoted unnamed U.S. officials confirming the attack and saying that it was ordered by the CIA.

One U.S. official anonymously told Agence France-Presse that the strike was aimed at Abu Ghadiya, whom the official called "one of the most prominent foreign fighter facilitators in the region." The official said he believed the target was killed. The spokesman for the Syrian Embassy in Washington, Ahmed Salkini, told the Inter Press Service (IPS) that the name did not appear on the official Syrian list of those dead.

In retaliation, Syria shut down a U.S. school and cultural center in Damascus, and its U.N. envoy has requested that the Security Council intervene to prevent further incursions into Syrian territory.

Neoconservatives and hawks within the administration have long clamored for expanding Middle Eastern conflicts into Syria, which was named as one of the three countries in Bush’s famous "Axis of Evil." Indeed, Bush’s neoconservative deputy national security advisor, Elliott Abrams, told Israeli officials during a high-level meeting that the United States would not object if Israel extended its 2006 war with Hezbollah into Syria.

But if the cross-border attack was an attempt by hawks to lure Syria into a war, it appears to have failed; Syria has engaged in a measured and strictly diplomatic response.

"[T]he Syrians have not responded, and are not about to respond, in any way that is violent or otherwise escalates tensions," wrote Cobban, a well-respected commenter and veteran analyst.

"I’ve been studying the behavior of this Baathist regime in Syria closely for 34 years now. They have steely nerves. They are just about impossible to ‘provoke,’ at any point that they judge a harsh response is not in their interest," she wrote.

While foreign fighters from Syria have long been problematic to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, since 2006, U.S. patrols along the border and some Syrian cooperation have dramatically reduced the number of foreign fighters flowing into Iraq.

Last December, Gen. David Petraeus—the former U.S. commander in Iraq and now the Central Command chief—said, "Syria has taken steps to reduce the flow of the foreign fighters through its borders with Iraq."

Petraeus reiterated that notion this month when he reported that the monthly number of fighters moving from Syria into Iraq has been reduced from about 100 to 20.

But last Thursday, the commander of U.S. troops in western Iraq, Maj. John Kelly, said that while there has been progress, it wasn’t enough.

The suspected involvement of some of the most vociferous anti-Syria hawks of the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have combined with U.S. silence on the matter to fuel a guessing game as to just exactly who ordered or approved Sunday’s cross-border raid.

"This operation is pretty clearly run by U.S. special operations forces pursuing a terrorist target," Col. Pat Lang, a retired U.S. military intelligence officer, told IPS. "Their sole mission is like a SWAT team to go around and hunt terrorists."

Lang said that these special operations forces sometimes operate distinctly outside the normal military chain of command by design of hawkish former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.

"If left to themselves, they would do this kind of thing [the Syria raid]. That’s what they do," said Lang. "They don’t follow policy; they carry out their assigned mission."

Because the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, is dealing with mounting concerns about the SOFA, Lang suspects that he’d be hesitant to directly approve such a bold a provocative attack as Sunday afternoon’s.

"I haven’t established it yet, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the authority to do this came right out of the White House," Lang told IPS.

Asked if the decision doesn’t undermine pressing U.S. goals for commanders in Iraq, Lang said that while the considerations are there, they don’t always filter up into decision making in the executive branch.

"Usually command arrangements of various kinds are messy," Lang said, "and this White House has shown a tendency to want to bypass the established chain of command and influence what’s going on [in the field]."

But in addition to being a bold foreign policy move, the raid has also been interpreted by some as a political stunt. Some journalists and experts have speculated that the raid was a Bush administration attempt to deliver an "October surprise"—a late game-changing development favoring one candidate—for Republican candidate Sen. John McCain just over a week before the presidential election; McCain has been seen as holding an advantage in issues of national security.

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org).


Analysis by Jim Lobe, "Analysts Question Syria Raid" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4962.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, has been selected by President Trump to replace National Security Adviser McMaster, marking a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.

The Institute for the Study of War is a D.C.-based counterinsurgency think tank that has supported long-term U.S. military intervention in the Greater Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

New NSA John Bolton represents an existential threat to the Iran nuclear deal and any hopes for peace in the region.

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.