A Liberal Marines Progressive Perspective

Marines are defenders of the republic and the Constitution. That is our oath, that is our purpose, that is our calling. Many are Democrats. This is the journal of one such Marine. This leatherneck's progressive perspective is as follows...

My Photo
Location: Southwest, United States

U.S. Marine,0300 MOS,eight years in,honorably discharged,college-educated. To all the damned trolls, you better believe there are liberal Marines. Read "War Is A Racket" by 2-time Medal of Honor recipient Maj.Gen.S.D.Butler, plus Lewis B. Puller, Jr.'s "Fortunate Son" and maybe then you'll understand. Semper Fi!

Play M.L.1775 Theme Song

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Slowly, But Surely This War Is Expanding By Way of Gradual Encroachment: Bush Administration Hell-Bent and Determined to Move On Damascus as U.S. Forces Inch Closer and Closer to Syrian Border Posted by Hello
Good morning to all of the faithful. It's been a pretty long four or five days for me, alot of melodrama swirling in my area of operation such that I've been distracted (in terms of current events) for the past few days. Allow me to get back in gear with today's topic, which is the gradual expansion of the Iraq War into the surrounding regional area, i.e., Syria and how such a step will pan out when it comes to future implications and potential consequences. The current Administration's insistence on encroaching onto the Syrian border (which common sense tell us such a move will only INCREASE the possibility of "mistakes" and "misunderstandings" that could very easily escalate into open hostilities...on second thought, maybe that's what the neocons have wanted all along, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002420.php) is clear, especially with the latest offensive taking place in the town of Tal Afar, located in western Iraq and roughly 40 to 50 miles from the Syrian border (http://www.whotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3441008). Folks, this is not good from a diplomatic (nor from a military) point of view. The situation in the region is very tenuous (at best) and explosive (at worst). With the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri on 14 February 2005 (http://www.answers.com/topic/rafik-hariri), the status of the region has devolved from bad to worse and (in fact) is becoming even more amplified, aggravated and intense as the days go by. Indeed, political pressures between the United States and Syria have never been higher, so much so that the American ambassador to Syria (recalled 15 February 2005 , http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/upulls16.htm) has still not been returned to post in Damascus (especially since there is mounting suspicion that Syrian intelligence elements had something to do with the assassination of al-Hariri, http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5542168). What also adds fuel to an already overstoked fire is the Russian's determination to sell Syria advanced missile systems in defiance of the outrage and protest directed against them by Israel and the United States. The United States and Israel have strenuously urged Moscow to drop any such plans, saying Russian arms supplies would only strengthen militants in the Middle East (link is as follows, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7647769). The 'Reuters' article states:

"...Moscow is looking to sell Syria its flagship Igla shoulder-fired missiles, widely used by militants around the world...".

Moreover, to increase the bellicosity to practically cataclysmic levels, Iran and Syria have formed a common front or an "alliance of support" to counter the mounting challenges and threats both nations face from the United States and Israel (link is as follows, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7648646). With all of this swirling in the international ether, I decided to revisit a post I made awhile back, explaining how I believed (as I still do) that the United States (or, perhaps a joint US/Israeli operation) is preparing to strike Syria sometime this year; more than likely, sometime in the summer months. Like the the Bob Dylan songs say, not only can I can feel this "...blowin' in the wind..." but I also "...don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...". Ladies and gentleman, this Administration IS GOING to attack Syria sometime this year. In fact, if I had to bet (and I'm not a betting man) the odds are far greater the U.S. will attack Syria than attack North Korea. So, my questions are these: when the current Administraton finally attacks Syria, will the primary mission be to: (1) neutralize and eradicate insurrgent platforms/bases of operation?, (2) neutralize Ba'ath leadership and elements in exile?, or (3) facilitate the dismantling of the Bashir Assad regime?; or, will it be some kind of combination of all three? Of course, none of these three goals will be easy, but it is the third goal that will make this affair an extremely difficult "nut to crack". The bottom line here is this: trying to extract Assad and his regime out of Damascus and out of power ain't going to be easy. In closing, Bush and the current Administration had no idea what they were doing when they invaded Iraq in the early spring of 2003 and they still don't know what they are doing. I'm afraid they have set in motion events that are tragically spinning out of their control (or, for that matter quite frankly, anyone's control). Like the stellar GlobalSecurity.org website postulates (link is as follows, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/syria-intro.htm):

"...Should Syria and Israel drift into war, what would the United States do? With a full army in nearby Iraq and Mr. Bush's conviction that Syria is a pipeline for Islamic terrorists who are attacking Americans in Iraq, who knows? There are many scenarios. But it seems clear the US could drift into the equivalent of a World War -- an all-out conflict of the Arab world against the US and Israel...".

Oh boy, this is bad. Feedback and analysis are always encouraged. Semper Fidelis


Post a Comment

<< Home