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
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | Washington Monthly

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

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