Bomb Syria

[zoofer]

A lesson in history, primarily for Pinkos.

Bomb Syria ...

Michael B. Oren, The New Republic
Published: Thursday, July 20, 2006
Nearly 40 years ago, Israel and the Arab world fought a war that altered the course of Middle Eastern history. Now, as the region teeters on the brink of a new and potentially more violent cataclysm, it is important to revisit the lessons of the Six Day War, a conflict that few Middle Eastern countries wanted and none foresaw.

By 1967, 10 years after the Sinai Campaign, the Arab-Israeli dispute had settled into an uneasy status quo. The radical Egyptian regime of Gamal Abdel Nasser still proclaimed its commitment to liberating Palestine and throwing the Jews into the sea, as did its conservative rivals in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, but none of these states made any attempt to renew hostilities. On the contrary, Egypt remained quiescent behind the U.N. peacekeeping forces deployed in Sinai, Gaza, and the Straits of Tiran since 1957. Jordan maintained secret contacts with the Israelis. Israel, for its part, had long learned to ignore bellicose Arab rhetoric and to seek backdoor channels to even the most vituperative Arab rulers. As late as April 1967, officials at Israel's foreign ministry were speculating whether Nasser might be a viable partner for a peace process.

But one Arab state did not want peace. Syria, then as now under the rule of the belligerent Baath Party, wanted war. Having tried and failed in 1964 to divert the Jordan River before it crossed the Israeli border -- IDF jets and artillery blasted the dams -- the Syrians began supporting a little-known Palestinian guerrilla group called Al Fatah under the leadership of a Yasser Arafat. Using Lebanon as its principal base, Al Fatah commenced operations against Israel in 1965 and rapidly escalated its attacks. Finally, at the end of 1966, Israeli officials felt compelled to retaliate. But, fearing the repercussions of attacking Soviet-backed Syria, they decided to strike at an Al Fatah stronghold in the Jordanian-controlled West Bank.

The raid unfortunately led to a firefight between IDF and Jordanian troops, and to Jordanian claims that Nasser had not done enough to protect the West Bank Palestinians. Desperate to restore his reputation, Nasser exploited a spurious Soviet report of Israeli war plans to evict U.N. peacekeepers. He closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, concentrated 100,000 of his troops along the Israeli border, and forged anti-Israeli pacts with Syria and Jordan. The Arab world rejoiced at the prospect of annihilating Israel, and even the Soviets, eager to find some means of distracting American attention from Vietnam, were pleased. Israeli leaders had no choice but to determine when and where to strike preemptively.

And so, suddenly and unexpectedly, a regional war erupted that the principal combatants -- Israel, Egypt, and Jordan -- neither desired nor anticipated. The lesson: Local conflicts in the Middle East can quickly spin out of control and spiral into a regional conflagration.

The lesson is especially pertinent to the current crisis. Then, as now, the Syrians have goaded a terrorist organization, Hezbollah, to launch raids against Israel from Lebanon. Then, as now, the rapid rise of terrorist attacks has forced Israel to mount reprisals. If the Soviets in 1967 wanted to divert America's attention from Vietnam, the Iranians -- Syria's current sponsors -- want to divert American attention from their nuclear-arms program. And once again Israel must decide when to strike back and against whom.

Back in 1966, Israel recoiled from attacking Syria and instead raided Jordan, inadvertently setting off a concatenation of events culminating in war. Israel is once again refraining from an entanglement with Hezbollah's Syrian sponsors, perhaps because it fears a clash with Iran. And just as Israel's failure to punish the patron of terror in 1967 ultimately triggered a far greater crisis, so too today, by hesitating to retaliate against Syria, Israel risks turning what began as a border skirmish into a potentially more devastating confrontation. Israel may hammer Lebanon into submission and it may deal Hezbollah a crushing blow, but as long as Syria remains hors de combat there is no way that Israel can effect a permanent change in Lebanon's political labyrinth and ensure an enduring ceasefire in the north. On the contrary, convinced that Israel is unwilling to confront them, the Syrians may continue to escalate tensions, pressing them toward the crisis point. The result could be an all-out war with Syria as well as Iran and severe political upheaval in Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf.

The answer lies in delivering an unequivocal blow to Syrian ground forces deployed near the Lebanese border. By eliminating, say, 500 Syrian tanks -- tanks that Syrian President Bashar Al Assad needs to preserve his regime -- Israel could signal its refusal to return to the status quo in Lebanon. Supporting Hezbollah carries a prohibitive price, the action would say. Of course, Syria could respond with missile attacks against Israeli cities, but given the dilapidated state of Syria's army, the chances are greater that Assad will simply internalize the message. Presented with a choice between saving Hezbollah and staying alive, Syria's dictator will probably choose the latter. And the message of Israel's determination will also be received in Tehran.

Any course of military action carries risks, especially in the unpredictable Middle East. But if the past is any guide, and if the Six Day War presents a paradigm of an unwanted war that might have been averted with an early, well-placed strike at Syria, then Israel's current strategy in Lebanon deserves to be rethought. If Syria escapes unscathed and Iran undeterred, Israel will remain insecure.

- Michael B. Oren is a senior fellow at The Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the author most recently of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Oxford University Press).

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=58a078ab-3ed0-4fe0-9269-7cf63fbb0e9e

 

[Colpy]

HEAR! HEAR!

I'd love to see Syria out from under the Baathist boot......the world would be a much better place, and even Iraq would rapidly become more peaceful.

I fear the west has lost the belly for a fight.....even when the cause is just and the enemy the epitome of evil.....

 

[Canadian with a hyphen]

and wouldn't that be great ...the tyrannic regimes of Syria and Iran need to come down...wouldn't we be a step closer to Peace?

 

[Lineman]

I fear Colpy is right, our citizens do not have the belly for a fight. A just and noble cause has now been replaced with I just want to live like a noble. Deposing tyrants to many has boiled down to how will this affect my wallet.

 

[Finder]

and wouldn't that be great ...the tyrannic regimes of Syria and Iran need to come down...wouldn't we be a step closer to Peace?

by war we have peace... a paradox of sorts.

 

[#juan]

Re: RE: Bomb Syria

I fear Colpy is right, our citizens do not have the belly for a fight. A just and noble cause has now been replaced with I just want to live like a noble. Deposing tyrants to many has boiled down to how will this affect my wallet.

Lineman, while I think getting rid of Saddam might have been an idea with some merit, I have trouble finding anything noble in killing 70,000 to 100,000 people and terribly injuiring God knows how many others with "shock and awe" bombing in what was supposed to be a "liberation".

All the warnings about political vacuums and civil wars were ignored and the mess we have now is the result of no planning and arrogant stupidity.

Maybe Mugabe should have been taken out first.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

no maybe about it #Juan, definatly no maybe

 

[iARTthere4iam]

we can make a list and count our bombs and make the world a better place.
list:Korea uh that's North korea, syria, Iran,Iraq(done), Zimbabwe(no bomb needed implosion imminent)

 

[Daz_Hockey]

when's this implosion happening in Zimbabwe?, we've been waiting since 1982...all the while he racially discrimates, murders, rapes, all in the name of anti=colonialism, a system not seen for decades.

I put it to you that Zimbabwe is much more serious than the rest, although I suggest Dafur is the worst

 

[tamarin]

What's intriguing about Syria is the coverage lately on major networks. They concur that the troublesome country has long had and still has the Mid-East's largest repository of WMD. Strange. The US used the supposed existence of such weapons as a pretext for invading Iraq while its insubordinate neighbour, known for its villainy region-wide, was exempt. Is this only because Syria was part of the Gulf War coalition? Granted the UN was also involved in the Iraq WMD issue and its access to investigate and monitor was impaired, but is that adequate reason to invade when Syria clearly represented a far larger threat on this issue? And despite this threat remained unchallenged and unmolested.

 

[Lineman]

Juan,
I take it you're refering to Iraq. I agree a lack of planning is why its turned into the quagmire it is. Can it be the concern for "costs" is what limited the planning? I may be off the trail but I don't see our citizenry having the will to carry through despite the cost. We've seen it here in this forum, there is a lack of will to do the complete job.
In regards to the 70 - 100,000 deaths I don't think all of these can be blamed on the U.S.'s lack of planning. Iraqi's, and foreign fighters are responsible for the large majority of civilian deaths. Again we have Syrian and Iranian influence pitting Iraqis against the U. S. first and now against each other. Iran and Pakistan support Taliban activites in Afghanistan. Iran funds and directs Hezbullah in Lebanon. Syria and Iran do the same with Hamas in the Palestinian territories. How many deaths can we attribute to their activities? How many times were potential agreements for peace in the M/E scuttled by activities of these groups? Iran, Syria and to an extent Pakistan want instability in the area. It keeps us busy focusing on the areas of conflict instead of them.

 

[#juan]

Lineman

The American or coalition bombing caused a lot of deaths(depends who's numbers we use)and the Red Cross tells us that bombing caused a hundred thousand terrible injuries. I agree that in the last year insurgent bombing has caused 98 percent of the deaths.

I can't help but think American foreign policy in the Middle East is the biggest culprit here. I also think that until the Israeli/Palestine conflict is settled, there will be no peace anywhere in the Arab world.

Arab anger and pride,(insanity any where else)is driving all the suicide attacks. I don't know if a peaceful settlement of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, including a fair Palestinian state would solve the problems but it has to be worth a shot.

 

[Lineman]

I agree that settlement of the Palestinian issue would solve most of the conflict in the region. Unfortunately as history has shown us that every time they get close to peace someone, Israeli or Palestinian, provokes the other side into a response and then the whole thing escalates again. We're all awaiting for the day when two leaders emerge from either camp and despite any provokations sit down and settle the issue once and for all. Ain't gonna happen though. History again has shown us that people like this, with dedication to peace, usually end up dead and at the hands of their countrymen. As distasteful as it might be the only solution may be for the rest of the world to forcefully occupy and the "badlands" between Isreal and Hamas/Hezbullah. It's a bad example but when two kids won't stop fighting and their friends are egging them on you first try to negotiate between them and failing that impose peace between them and banish the friends. Like I said a less than ideal example but hopefully it gets my point across.

 

[#juan]

Lineman

Unfortunately, you are right. I can just see a peaceful settlement announced to cheering throngs and then a suicide bomb blows up all the negotiators.

I think I have an attitude problem...

 

[Lineman]

Careful! I hear Cosmo's cleaning house! :lol:

(Nice to be able to discuss things without the insults and confrontational trolling of two "vacationing" members)

Sorry for the pauses between posts - doing yardwork and posting when I come in for a water break.

 

[#juan]

Lineman

doing yardwork

I used to know what that was.

In the last two weeks our front lawn has changed into the color and consistency of shredded wheat. In Nanaimo we are all on water meters and when we moved here we calculated that to properly take care of the lawns, front and back, it would add twenty five dollars a month to our water bill. We decided to put that money in our vacation fund. Hell, in October it's going to rain for six months anyway. The lawn will come back. (just kidding)

Actually, there is only about two inches of topsoil and the lawn can't sustain it's self for even a day or two without watering. This fall we are going to put down about eight inches of topsoil and re-seed both the front and back. Meanwhile I can ignore it.

 

[Kreskin]

Lineman

doing yardwork

I used to know what that was.

In the last two weeks our front lawn has changed into the color and consistency of shredded wheat. In Nanaimo we are all on water meters and when we moved here we calculated that to properly take care of the lawns, front and back, it would add twenty five dollars a month to our water bill. We decided to put that money in our vacation fund. Hell, in October it's going to rain for six months anyway. The lawn will come back. (just kidding)

Actually, there is only about two inches of topsoil and the lawn can't sustain it's self for even a day or two without watering. This fall we are going to put down about eight inches of topsoil and re-seed both the front and back. Meanwhile I can ignore it.

I hydroseeded when we built a few years ago. I too have about 1 or 2 inches before 6 inches of sand. I also have way too much lawn. If I don't water every second day and fertilize once every three weeks my lawn looks like a British Open golf course.

 

[#juan]

Yeah, we have too much lawn as well. When we landscape we are going to put in a few flower beds and paving stone(Japanese Garden) areas that don't require so much maintenance, and a lot less lawn. :lol:

 

[Kreskin]

Yeah, we have too much lawn as well. When we landscape we are going to put in a few flower beds and paving stone(Japanese Garden) areas that don't require so much maintenance, and a lot less lawn. :lol:

That's the way to go. This big yard stuff is overrated. It seems I spend half my life trying to water it. What a waste of time. Low maintence is the right choice.

 

[Lineman]

Umm.. no offense gents but we've kinda strayed here from the topic though my lawn is starting to look like Syria...
Anyways, back on topic. I've ran different scenarios through my head a few times but can't seem to find a solution that would bring some kind of peace to the M/E. Outright removal of the Iranian and Syrian governments without credible replacements would likely only lead to another couple Iraqs. So how do you remove their influence without removing them? The only scenario I can come up with is to rapidly build a strong professional combined NATO and Lebanese force to impose peace. The Palestinians are another issue and another thread. NATO could spend the their time there training and equiping the Lebanese army and flushing out Iranian and Syrian influence.There would of course be conflict and there is the danger of escalation with Syria becoming directly involved, though unlikely, but I can't see any of this being resolved without outside participation. As with Korea Syria and Iran have to be isolated. Another player that will be tough to deal with is China as they are big suppliers of military hardware to Iran. Remove the equipment, technology, and information transfers from China to Iran and Iran begins to receed.
Just my opinion and likely full of holes so have at 'er and fix it up.