Iraq Confronts Syria over Terrorism as U.S. Dithers
The Iraqis previously accused Syria of having responsibility for the twin bombings in Baghdad on August 19, which really escalated the crisis between the two countries and resulted in the recalling of ambassadors. The Iraqis say they have wiretaps, confessions from captured terrorists, and photos of terrorist training camps in Syria to prove the Assad regime’s role in facilitating the attacks. They also have documents outlining the routes used by the terrorists to reach Iraq from Syria. On August 30, the Iraqis released the videotaped confession of a captured al-Qaeda terrorist believed to have led operations in Diyala Province, saying that he was trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Syria that “was well known to Syrian intelligence.”
The U.S. has disgracefully reacted to the crisis with neutrality. On August 26, a spokesperson for the State Department was asked about the tension between Iraq and Syria. He responded with: “We consider that an internal matter. We believe that, as a general principle, diplomatic dialogue is the best means to address the concerns of both parties.”
An Iraqi official has said that his country is experiencing major resistance from the U.S. in its push for an international tribunal to be created to target those in Syria involved in the insurgency. By failing to act against Syria or even provide political support for this move, the U.S. is helping the Assad regime and failing to understand that by waging war on Iraq they are waging war on the U.S. and its interests.
Al-Maliki now has to make a move. Some Iraqi politicians are accusing him of pointing the finger at Syria in order to distract from his own failure to establish security ahead of the elections. His government’s statements are failing to capture the attention of the world or convince the U.S. to modify its “engagement” policy to account for these transgressions.
After the threat to push for a tribunal, terrorist activity in Iraq dropped by three-fourths according to one Foreign Ministry diplomat. The October bombings obviously alter that statistic, but it is clear that al-Maliki made the right move in trying to remove the incentive for Syria to engage in covert support of terrorism by exposing it. More evidence should be released in a dramatic fashion, similar to Colin Powell’s 2003 presentation, albeit with more solid information. This will force America’s hand — and the Obama administration can’t accuse the Iraqis of disloyalty if they do so, considering their reaction to the Iraq-Syria crisis. It will also prove the credibility of the accusations and make the Assad regime think twice about putting its fingerprints on such violence.
The U.S. has complained about Syria’s sponsorship of terrorism for years and years, but for whatever reason has failed to make public the evidence to demonstrate how serious and deadly it is. The Iraqis have shown the way forward, not only in handling Syria, but in helping to deter state sponsorship of terrorism as a whole.
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.