Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (25757)	1/22/2004 8:01:04 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793846

The Cedars of Lebanon Belmont Club Reader DL points out a Jerusalem Post article that suggests a US planned deployment of special forces in the Bekaa puts it on a collision course with Syria. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering provoking a military confrontation with Syria by attacking Hizbullah bases near the Syrian border in Lebanon, according to the authoritative London-based Jane's Intelligence Digest. In an article to be published on Friday, the journal said multi-faceted US attacks, which would be conducted within the framework of the global war on terrorism, are likely to focus on Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon. It noted that the deployment of US special forces in the Bekaa Valley, where most of Syria's occupation forces in Lebanon are based, would be highly inflammatory and would "almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops." The Washington Post, in a wide-ranging article entitled Military Split On How to Use Special Forces In Terror War , reported two weeks earlier that Secretary Rumsfeld was reviewing proposals to "send the Special Mission Units into areas such as Somalia and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, where little government authority exists and terrorists congregate, seemingly safe from the long arm of the United States". This coincided with a release of a Weekly Standard article called Showstoppers, which excoriated the Clinton and Bush administrations for failing to deploy Special Forces against terrorist threats even when these had become known dangers. This takes place against a changing canvas in Iraq, where US forces are waxing in strength even while the insurgency is slowly being crushed. The Boston Globe reports that Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the Army's 4th Infantry Division, told reporters that ''the former regime elements we've been combating have been brought to their knees''. He was referring to the Iraqi Ba'ath -- who are the ideological kindred of the Syrian Ba'ath. In the meantime, a massive rotation of units will momentarily result in the presence of a quarter of a million men in Iraq, as relief units take the place of outgoing outfits over the next few months. The Jerusalem Post article rightly suggests that any US special forces deployment would inevitably bring Americans into direct conflict with the Syrians, who occupy most of Lebanon and sponsor the Hezbollah. Their use would imply not simply the use of a few men, but the constitution and training of indigenous Lebanese auxiliaries, a feature of all US special forces campaigns from Indochina to Afghanistan. It would also mean the commitment of special air units and fire support, plus the availability of light infantry forces to cover any spec ops engagement with regular Syrian units. Units would be able to rely on a substantial American prepositioned equipment in Israel, located in the mysterious Sites 51, 53 and 54. But worst of all, it would create a strategic nightmare for Damascus. Americans in the Bekaa would be 40 km west of downtown Damascus -- less than a marathon run. The Israeli army is crouched on the Golan Heights a mere 60 km south of the capital and American forces on the Iraqi border lurk a mere 300 km to the east. American ally Turkey occupies the northern border. The acceptance of an American presence in the Bekaa would effect the literal encirclement of the Assad regime. The US probably feels that it has the Iraqi problem in hand. It may also want to maintain the operational tempo in its wider campaign against the Middle Eastern dictatorships. An American deployment to the Bekaa would at the minimum open a new low-intensity warfare front which would resemble a cross between the campaign in Afghanistan and the recent anti-Saddam counterinsurgency in Iraq, which in the light of recent experience, the Pentagon feels it can safely assume. It has become a familiar operation of war with a known cost. But to the Syrians, it will be a mortal threat, to which they must respond. If they cannot bloody America and force a withdrawal, the spring of 2005 will see the Bekaa transformed from a Syrian stronghold to a dagger in the heart of Damascus. It would also fundamentally weaken the position of Arafat's Palestinian Authority, which will be boxed in and probably beset by American-sponsored auxiliaries. A successful campaign to topple Syria would in turn mean an America in control of an uninterrupted swath of territory between the Mediterranean and the Iranian border. It would cut off the Arabian Peninsula to the north and squeeze Saudi Arabia and Yemen between forces to the north and American deployments on the Horn of Africa -- of which the Washington Post's report of a return to Somalia would be a part. Will it happen? Wait and see. Can it happen. Yes it can. belmontclub.blogspot.com