Assad's days are limited. It's high time the US invokes the "hot pursuit" operations mentioned in the article. US 'aiming at Syria regime change' By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor Israel predicted yesterday that America would impose fresh sanctions on Syria in an attempt to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. Shaul Mofaz, the defence minister, said he believed sanctions would follow publication of a United Nations report expected to implicate senior Syrian officials in the murder of Rafik al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister. "I won't be surprised if Syria gets a red card," Mr Mofaz told Israel radio. "[The United States] will take actions against Syria, beginning with economic sanctions and moving on to others, that will make it clear to the Syrians that their policies do not comply with UN decisions, the US's new world order or the prohibition of sovereign states to support terrorism." On Saturday, President George W Bush and his national security council are to discuss America's options on Syria, ranging from tightening existing limited sanctions to military action. Washington regards Syria as a transit point for fighters travelling to Iraq and a safe haven for Iraqi Ba'athists to organise and finance the insurgency. With US troops mounting repeated campaigns against insurgents in Iraqi towns along the Syrian frontier, some senior US officers advocate cross-border "hot pursuit" operations. Others call for assassinations of insurgent masterminds in Syria.
I blame Israel zionist government and that American neo-con satanic BushCo in unjustly blaming poor Syrians for anything. Oops, I thought I was Iranian Monitor for a second...
I agree that wouldn't piss of anybody in the Middle East. Saying that Israel radio isn't the most reliable source.
What kind of insurgency would we face in Syria? A country whose people don't hate their leader and who aren't divided fifty ways to sunday? No thanks. While the "hot pursuit" option is interesting, and probably something we should have been doing all along, it sounds a bit much like the beginning of a wider military campaign against Syria. But those borders have to be secured, too bad we didn't figure that out years ago.
I am not too sure about just how far I want to see the US go in pursuit of Syria, but given how they are aiding and abetting enemy fighters coming into Iraq, I wouldn't mind the US Military getting some latitude in striking over the Syrian-Iraqi border at places where those insurgents are coming over.
Funny that. Regime change. I suppose it means change one regime or form of government for another regime or form of government. And the US is now supposed to be thinking of trying it in Syria. When it was such a thumping great success in Iraq.
And we're going to change Syria's regime using what, wiffle ball bats? We're far too tied up in Iraq to start going about toppling another government.
Syria doesn't have any oil so there's a 0% chance that there would be an occupation. As for the divided part, you may want to read up a bit before making that comment. Excluding Iran, the region would benefit from non-fundamentalist Sunni leadership in Syria, though I would be against any military actions from the USA or Israel.
Interesting. I didn't really mean that there aren't many different ethnic groups. I was alluding more to the idea that they don't all hate each other and might be more unified and resistant to any U.S. military actions in or against that country. Maybe not.
Somebody hurry and design the war strategy board game. I know which army I'm gonna choose. I don't even need the rule book.
The behavior of the Syrian regime in Lebanon is beyond reprehensible. Ive won dead pool multiple times betting on the vicious nature of the Asasd Family. Right now Ive added Wally Jumblad to my list. That being said what are WE to do about it? We need stability in the region. By what tactics would we be able to stop the Baathists and maintain local stability simultaneously? Im afraid the latter takes priority over the former. FOr now.