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 ...

(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 (https://rightweb.irc-online.org).

Citations

Analysis by Jim Lobe, "Analysts Question Syria Raid" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
/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

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share