Iraq Confronts Syria over Terrorism as U.S. Dithers
Iraq has had enough. Faced with ongoing attacks from forces supported by Syria, the Iraqis are taking an increasingly hard line and are refusing to back down. They are fully aware that a confrontation brings the risk of further instability, but the Iraqis recognize that the only way to ultimately stop the violence is to stop those enabling it. Already, their new stance towards Syria is bringing results, while the U.S. keeps rewarding Syria through inaction — a silent way of confirming to the Syrians that we understand that our security is dependent upon them.
This assessment of the impression given to Syria is not speculation, but is a summary of a thinly veiled, successful Syrian strategy. Take a look at the following words of Ahmed Salkini, a political advisor to the ambassador to the United States, regarding the current state of relations: “A previous administration did not want to cooperate, even if it cost American lives. This administration is realizing you have to cooperate in order to save lives, in order to advance U.S. interests, and that’s what we’re looking forward into the future.”
In other words: you need us and if we’re not happy, you’ll suffer. Supporters of the Assad regime will claim that Salkini was stating a simple fact that international cooperation increases security, but Syria has been directly supporting the insurgents in order to achieve the U.S. policy shift they seek. This is blackmail, pure and simple. The Obama administration apparently recognizes this and has reversed its previous plans by deciding not to send an ambassador to Syria.
The Iraqis are to be admired for refusing to be bullied. State sponsors of terrorism engage in such activity because they believe their involvement can’t be proven and that the victim won’t punish them out of a fear of escalating the conflict and not having the smoking-gun proof to back up their assertions. The Iraqis have wisely responded by making their complaints public, rather than confining them to behind-the-scenes talks. They continue to demand that the United Nations establish a tribunal to prosecute those in Syria involved in the violence. Al-Maliki even hinted at supporting Assad’s own dissident elements in retaliation, saying, “Neighboring countries should behave like good neighbors because it is not hard for us to do the same things they did.”
The former Iraqi national security advisor is saying that they have evidence that Syrian intelligence officers are providing logistical support to al-Qaeda in Iraq, and following the October 25 bombings of the Justice Ministry and Baghdad government buildings killing 160 people, the foreign minister said they had “strong and tangible evidence” that those behind the bombings had safe harbor in Syria. It is unknown if the Assad regime had a direct hand in the attacks, but it is obvious that they at least did not stop acting as a safe harbor with the full knowledge of what it would result in.





It’s almost an interesting piece – but where is the evidence that Iraq is actually going after the Syrians? Recalling an ambassador is just more of the posing that you seem to think is an inadequate response to the provocation.
Won’t matter here in the states. The Left believes what it believs and nothing in the way of proof or evidence will change their belief. Look at AGW.
There is hard evidence that AGW is a scam. Nothing but a Trillion dollar fraud. AGW supporters will not change their mind.
People are still trying to invest with Madeoff.
Mountains of Evidence that Saddam had WMD and transferred it to Syria. That hasn’t prevented the Left from denying it’s existence.
Fools ignore reality. Which is only fair, since reality ignores fools.
Not that I think it is likely to happen, but wouldn’t it be rich if Assad were to lose power in Syria due the actions of a now democratic Iraq. It’s almost like there was a long term goal here…
Why would the current batch of deformed souls, zombies and other ilk inside the Beltway want to emulate Churchill? After all, Malaki is emulating Churchill, and Churchill’s bust was returned to Great Britain by the deformed soul currently in the Oval Office.
My understanding is that Syria is more and more becoming a puppet of Iran.
IMHO, Iran is the bigger story. It has a proxy war going in Yemen Vs. Saudi Arabia and a lot of involvement in the Sudan. Plus it’s supplying Hezbollah, which both Syria and Iran are denying.
Now Syria is offering to MEDIATE with Iran? Excuse me?
Iran, people! That’s the Elephant in the room. Iraqi internal affairs would go much smoother if that threat were neutralized!
Maliki was a much more deserving candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize fighting ruthless terrorists, corruption, foriegn meddling in his country(Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia). Maybe Obama will share it with him, but I doubt it.
We should have done something about Syria when we had the combat power in the region. It wouldn’t have taken much to topple the fascist dictatorship of the Syrian Baath party. Just a nudge…I am a firm believer in Theodore Roosevelt’s school of world power “speak softly and carry a BIG STICK”.
The governments of the Middle East only understand firmness. Back in the early 1980′s it was the fashion of islamic terrorists to take westerners hostage. In Lebenon, a couple of Soviet citizens were taken hostage. Rather than negotiate, the Soviets sent in Spetznaz commando’s who “cleansed” a village belonging to the realitives of the leader of the terrorist group. Needless to say, no other Soviet citizens were seized by terrorists in the area.
By not showing them the stick in 1979, when Iran’s islamic revolution occurred, we have allowed ourselves to be manuvered from awkward position to another. Had Mr. Carter used the stick when Iran seized our embassy (until the advent of the Carter Doctrine, it was an immediate declaration of war when one country seized the embassy of another), we would not have 90% of the problems we have in that area. Syria and Iran’s initial reaction to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was consternation followed by fear of “are we next”? We should have intimated that it was “possible”.
By allowing both countries to be bases from which the insurgency was launched in 2003/4 we have permitted them to greatly contribute to the destabilization of Iraq. Once we had concrete evidence that those nations were supporting the insurgency (by allowing insurgents to base there) we should have spoken directly to those governments “cease and desist or we will destroy those bases.” And then followed through, following through with threats is the important part, we should NEVER dither in making decisions. That only arms our enemies with the belief that our leadership is weak. We have the technology to launch airstrikes into those country with laser guided munitions that the aircraft launching them would never have left Iraqi airspace…that’s the big stick. It have gotten the attention in far more a direct manner than asking, hat in had “please don’t help those bad people, pretty please.”
Assuming this article is true, it’s about time these countries start fighting their own enemies.