U.S. Raid into Syria an Idiotic Move
Also in World
Politicians' Symbolic Opposition to Afghan Escalation is Pointless As Long As Congress Keeps Writing Checks
Norman Solomon
Is Obama Following in the Footsteps of Bill Clinton?
Jeff Cohen
The Battle of Durban II: New Film Brings Dose of Sanity to Debate Over Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Brian White
Palestinian Children Face Daily Attacks While Going to School
Mel Frykberg
What Nidal Hasan, Timothy McVeigh, and the Beltway Sniper Have in Common: All Were Scarred by Pointless U.S. Wars
Nora Eisenberg
Obama Will Announce 34,000-Troop Escalation in Afghanistan 'Within Days'
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.
See more stories tagged with: iraq, war on terror, syria
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »
You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.