comments_image -

U.S. Raid into Syria an Idiotic Move

The attack give Iraq's neighbors proof that the presence of U.S. troops on Iraq's soil is a major reason to worry.
November 1, 2008  |  
 
Advertisement
 

U.S. military incursion on a Syrian village late last month was illogical and ill-timed.

The U.S. has a formidable force in Iraq with massive air power which theoretically can attack whenever and where it wishes.

But the attack on Syria, regardless of whatever was mentioned with regard to the "value" of its target has come at a difficult time first for Washington, second the Iraqi government and third Iraq's neighbors.

The U.S. now finds it extremely difficult to persuade Iraqis that the security agreement it wants to impose on Iraq is for the benefit of Iraq as a country and its regional interests.

The attack gave Iraq's neighbors, particularly Syria and Iran, the proof that the presence of U.S. troops on Iraq's soil is a real source of worry and now they fear if the troops stay they will turn their land into a theater for their military operations.

What made matters worse was the irresponsible and light-headed statement by the Iraqi government spokesman trying to "legitimize" the attack even before the U.S. had officially reacted on it.

Thus, the attack and the way the government handled it are very good signs of a state without sovereignty and responsibility. Otherwise, how foreign troops based on a country's soil could attack a foreign neighboring state without this country's approval and moreover this country's government instead of denouncing the act welcomes it.

Forces opposing the security agreement now use the attack as an example of what will happen in case the agreement is passed. Even those who were for it now ask for substantial revisions.

Victory in the "war on terror" cannot be achieved by launching military attacks on Iraq's neighbors. There will be no stability and peace in Iraq if its neighbors feel threatened.

If U.S. Republicans think such attacks will increase their chances of winning the White House for a third term they are wrong.

They need "heavyweight" victories like capturing or killing Bin Laden for example. This is the event the media will jump on and pave the way for the Republican presidential nominee to win the elections.

This was an ill-timed operation with negligible military benefits.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: iraq, war on terror, syria
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Occupy Protesters Mic-Check Palin During CPAC Speech

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Apple, Accustomed to Profits and Praise, Faces Outcry for Labor Practices at Chinese Factories

By Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez | Democracy Now!

 
 
Could Santorum Actually Beat Romney? And Would the Obama Campaign be Ready?

By Steve M. | Booman Tribune

 
 
Bill Moyers: The Economy Has Been Engineered to Screw Over Millennials (With an AlterNet Shoutout!)

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Maher: Conservatives Are the Ones Dividing the Country

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
In Kansas, Is Catholic Church Trying to Destroy A Victim's Advocates Organization?

By Julie Cain | Ms. Magazine Blog

 
 
Obama vs. the Concern Trolls on Nonsense "Religious Liberty" Issue

By Digby | Hullabaloo

 
 
At CPAC, Santorum Surges Despite Idiotic Claims; Romney Poses as 'Severe' Conservative; Gingrich Makes War on GOP

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Wisconsin's Gov. Walker Appeals to CPAC Crowd for Help Fending Off Recall

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
In Birth Control Debate, Cable News Disproportionately Asked Men What They Thought of Women's Health

By Faiz Shakir and Adam Peck | Think Progress

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]