And when did Bush invade Syria?
Well, he didn’t. But Syria is (once again) openly struggling with radical Islamists — a struggle involving death and destruction.
For years the Assad regime has had trouble if Islamist militants. They also make tactical and operational alliances with the radicals.
But this Reuters report is still very interesting.
The lede:
Syria is facing a violent campaign by Islamist militants and six border soldiers died in attacks launched from inside Iraq, a senior Syrian security official said on Thursday.
This is the first time Syria has publicly disclosed details of the fight against militants, which has intensified this year.
“We are conducting operations against terrorist cells and we have taken martyrs,” Mohammad Mansoura, head of the Political Security branch of Syria’s intelligence apparatus, told a closed door session of an international security conference on Iraq.
“Raids have yielded arsenals of weapons including suicide explosive belts. Our border forces have come under 100 attacks from inside Iraq. Six soldiers died and 17 were injured,” he said in a speech obtained by Reuters in a translated copy.
This crops up on the second page of the Reuters report:
Officials from Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Britain and the United States ended closed talks aimed at coming up with security cooperation measures to help stop the violence in Iraq and attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces.
The conference concluded with a call to set up intelligence hotlines with Baghdad and take practical measures to stabilize Iraq, delegates said.
A copy of the classified recommendations seen by Reuters called on border experts from Iraq’s neighbors to meet in a month to prevent the flow of fighters and weapons into Iraq.
Read the entire report.
It was a double-secret invasion of Syria that Bush ordered.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 8/9/2007 @ 12:47 pm
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/10/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Comment by David M — 8/10/2007 @ 8:49 am
Great site! Would you consider a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network?? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 26 of America’s top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO! http://netradionetwork.com
Comment by Steve — 8/11/2007 @ 4:07 pm
I suppose we have to care about this, but knowing that Mr. Assad has a domestic insurgency problem just warms the deepest cockles of my heart. Mr. Assad will paint the insurgents as ‘radical Islamicists’, of course — it’s in his best interest, and who’s going to argue with him? It will bring about more sympathy from the Left in the West, and if he plays his cards right he might get another visit from Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps the insurgents are Islamicists. But perhaps, just perhaps, the insurgents are people who are just sick and tired of living under a brutal dictatorship. The Left always told us during the Cold War that the poor, downtrodden people of [fill in the blank] turned to communism because the west wouldn’t hear their pleas, and perhaps today people in the Middle East likewise turn to Islamicism because there is no alternative. The Mad Mullahsâ„¢ of Iran also have multiple problems with domestic unrest, and the U.S. should be helping both this and the Syrian problem along — denying it all the while, of course. People who want to overthrow our enemies are our friends, and if they’re people who are willing to turn away from radicalism, that’s a bonus. Couldn’t hurt to try.
Comment by Steve White — 8/14/2007 @ 7:58 am
I wonder when Middle Eastern dictators will get the memo: sending your most violent opponents out of the country to a place where they can get weapons, get organized, and get lots of funding is not good for you. Particularly when the place you send them to is *right across the border*.
Comment by Ray — 8/14/2007 @ 8:26 am
I’m never quite convinced on the genuine nature of anything Syria claims. It could easily be that Syria would simply like the world to believe that they too are fighting against radicalism, when they may not be doing much at all. Do they have problems with radical militants? Yeah sure, even the worst, especially the worst, totalitarian governments do. Are radicals in Iraq attacking Syria? Ah, maybe, but at what risk and cost? This isn’t the first time I’ve wondered this. I started thinking along these lines when the a few of these same militants in Syria attacked the US Embassy in Damascus, and Syria so helpfully defended the Embassy. My first thought was, why did these guys think they could get away with that in broad daylight in the first place? Call me crazy, but somebody probably put them up to it, knowing that it would be a great PR stunt as well as an internal purging of liabilities. Two birds with one stone. Thanks Syria, but for what? I almost feel bad for you, but not really.
Comment by REN — 8/14/2007 @ 8:38 am
“For years the Assad regime has had trouble if Islamist militants.” “If?” You mean “with,” right? (Sorry, it’s the copy editor in me. Great post otherwise. Having the chickens come home to roost on Assad seems great news to me.)
Comment by Dean Esmay — 8/14/2007 @ 8:44 am
#4 - Having raised chickens, the idea of a bunch of them roosting on Asad’s head …
Comment by Phillep — 8/14/2007 @ 9:00 am
Over a hundred and thirty years ago, during the long [quagmire] of dealing with the Apache raids from across the Mexican border, the turning point started when enough pressure was brought upon the Apache raiders in the US, that they decided to go after the lower hanging fruit in and around their encampments in Mexico. Suddenly the Mexican government, which had given lip service to diplomatic complaints from Washington and sort of winked and nodded [payback for the gringo’s appropriation of New Mexico and California], found it had a serious domestic problem that needed to be dealt with. Now the governments in Damascus and Islamabad are awaking to the same results of human behavior. History may not exactly repeat itself, but human behavior is consistent.
Comment by Don — 8/14/2007 @ 9:17 am
The petard is a harsh mistress.
Comment by Achillea — 8/14/2007 @ 12:01 pm
Of course Assad could just be faking it to see what his enemies are up to. This is the Middle East. Double crossing is part of the sport.
Comment by M. Simon — 8/14/2007 @ 1:03 pm
He invaded Syria as a going away present for Karl. He also caused the bridge collapse in China to show the Dems he still has his evil powers despite Rove leaving soon.
Comment by Bill Wilson — 8/14/2007 @ 1:06 pm
Some while ago there was a bit of a blip when a very radical Islamic absolutist group declared war on the Syrian regime. Assad’s tribe and sub-sect (Alawi?) are small and otherwise insignificant inside Syria, and their beliefs are at serious variance with the majority. They are very nervous about fundamentalists; essentially, Ba’athism is raw secular Nazism, after all. But Bashir is undoubtedly playing far too many ends against the middle. Like the Israelis, tho’, we ought to be somewhat worried about simply toppling him. The alternatives could be even worse. Aside from Iran’s outrage, taking the place over would be a militarily trivial exercise. There is even an internal anti-Ba’ath community dearly hoping for this. [ http://amarji.blogspot.com/ , e.g. ]
Comment by Brian H — 8/19/2007 @ 10:43 pm
Correction/update on the Amarji link: http://www.tharwacommunity.org/amarji/
Comment by Brian H — 8/19/2007 @ 10:46 pm
It is really disgusting that most of the Muslim countries are facing terrorism within their religion and country. I’m really wonder whether this is also part of jihad. One thing is for sure, terrorism is the viable option for few leaders to make them rich and popular, for that they using religion as weapon. PVC conservatories north east
Comment by Peter — 8/26/2007 @ 10:17 am
nice nice
Trackback by nice — 8/30/2007 @ 4:46 pm
university of florida law school levin university of florida law school levin
Trackback by university of florida law school levin — 9/1/2007 @ 6:31 am
my title my description
Trackback by my caption — 9/4/2007 @ 10:20 am
anc10 anc10
Trackback by anc10 — 9/4/2007 @ 11:04 am
anc8 anc8
Trackback by anc8 — 9/4/2007 @ 11:07 am
anc3 anc3
Trackback by anc3 — 9/4/2007 @ 11:09 am
ghrtyrtyreyt ghrtyrtyreyt
Trackback by ghrtyrtyreyt — 9/4/2007 @ 12:18 pm
ryutuihd ryutuihd
Trackback by ryutuihd — 9/4/2007 @ 12:33 pm