On Monday, senior officials justified a weekend attack against a suspected Iraqi insurgent leader in Syria by saying the administration was operating under an expansive new definition of self-defense. The policy, officials said, provided a rationale for conventional strikes on militant targets in a sovereign nation without its consent — if that nation were unable or unwilling to halt the threat on its own.
While this new policy may make sense to Gates and Cheney, the repercussions – as markfromireland noted on Oxdown, are just beginning. With Syria withdrawing their forces from the border, forces tasked with keeping foreign fighters out of Iraq, the inevitable reaction amongst Awakening forces – many of whom share tribal allegiances that reach across the Syrian border, and Maliki’s decision to try and hold the border with additional police forces drawn from the hated SIIC/Badr trends, this one attack has the potential to cause major problems throughout the area – not to mention being pretty self-defeating if the administration actually wants to get agreement on SOFA.
Of course, Gates & Cheney Co are now claiming an Al Quaeda justification for the attack – though how this balances the downsides is beyond me.
Their claims of Al Quaeda activity don’t stop there. In a statement on the devastation of the Christian community in Mosul:
U.S. Department of Defense spokesman Geoff Morrell said the anti-Christian attacks and threats are partly "due to elements of al Qaeda that still enjoy some ability to operate up there."
How convenient when most reliable sources point instead to Kurdish forces as the real culprits – the same Kurds who are now sweet talking Washington with offers of permanent bases for US forces.
Further continuing the Burn the village to save it policy, on Friday US unmanned drones once again attacked Pakistan – with a death toll of 29 – and US forces killed three more Iraqi civilians – two when a “U.S. aircraft targeted a civilian vehicle” near Mosul and one woman in Baaquba when “U.S. Forces mistakenly opened fire.”
Is it any wonder, Iraqis have a very simple request for whoever is elected this coming Tuesday – as Sami Ibrahim told Xinhua:
Ibrahim expressed his hope that Obama would soon pull out U.S. troops from Iraq, saying "Get out of Iraq and leave us alone and we will solve our problems."
I suspect people in Syria and Pakistan feel the same way.



46 Comments










Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Evening Siun.
I think the Bush/Cheney actions are very simple to explain: Leave the worst imaginable mess to the next president. If it Obama, his job will be more difficult and the chances of failure enhanced. If it is McCain, he’ll have additional reasons to keep on shooting. We are dealing with nihilists here.
Have we had any updates on Caribou Barbie’s war in Iran?
dugg
Imagine what they will do between Wed. morning and Jan 19th.
Good evening Siun… your post made me think of this Billy Bragg tune.
Evening all
Rachel is talking about the poll tax people all across America are having to pay now. Paying in time they have to stand in line to vote. She’s made a great point that some people simply cannot afford to give up the hours of wages that it takes to wait in line to vote.
This needs to be fixed.
Hi and thank you, Siun. I notice that these incursions into Pakistan have become so regular that they make not a ripple in the news….
Evening everyone. Curious press conferences. Thanks, Siun.
Some music by Springsteen and our vision of HOPE coming true in 48 hours.
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related
Also, this first-person account from McC’s Inside Iraq, the news being that Jenan wasn’t shot at, when she accidentally entered a US convoy line. She fully expected to die.
Amazing, isn’t it? The article said there have bee 17 so far … each one with casualties.
There’s a brilliant Pat Lang piece that folks should read related to this:
The Villagers in Buner
Springsteen, Obama and 80,000 in Cleveland, Ohio today.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto…..408500.htm
Yes, it’s horrible. And I thought pl’s post was very interesting. Another not-to-be-missed: Barney Rubin’s piece on Iran, Afghanistan and US (or anything else by Rubin, for that matter).
“provided a rationale for conventional strikes on militant targets in a sovereign nation without its consent”
aka: Act of War.
Sounds like it to me.
Also a good case of “How To Make Friends And Influence People”. Or Not.
Watching Obama now in Cincinnati … not always the friendliest turf … great crowd.
No Doubt about it. The way the US has been targeting has become really indiscriminate and seems to be aimed at creating as much hate as possible to make it as near impossible for the Obama/Democrats to clean up! Theruy are hell bent on creating pure havoc!
Obama hitting Halliburton now – nice touch.
And I agree Nahant … sowing chaos.
Gee. Burning a village to save it. Now where have I heard of that policy being used before?
Oh yeah. Vietnam. And it didn’t work worth a damn there either.
I don’t recall if MFIreland’s EXCELLENT post included the info about Abu Ghadiya as being the target of that US attack . . . but elsewhere there was mention that Al Queda had said Abu Ghadiya was killed a few years back!
Now, I don’t know if that’s true, but, if it is, we killed the same dude twice! And apparently, civilians, too. A man and a woman living in a tent to act as eyes on a building housing building supplies and such, so it wouldn’t get looted by passers by. At least that’s one of the outcomes being told by many sources.
These stepped up efforts to bomb and shoot are troublesome when I consider it’s time to lay low and leave things for the next presidency.
We’ve done enough useless damage and killed and displaced enough people under Bush/Cheney to last a few lifetimes.
May things change soon under a new regime in DC.
The present regime is senseless, beyond belief, in their pursuit of wealth and chaos to steal that wealth. May they see The Hague, before I find my grave.
And what of this news report?
Counterpoint to above news article
Another perspective
And lastly -my point being that we can’t always believe the way things seem as there are games played that we don’t don’t about, especially from mainstream media- “The War Briefing“
Not in the MSM they don’t get reported, but they continue to go reported in many a blog. We are lucky for the toobz.
All of these people (Syrians, Palestinsins, Pakistanis et al) are aware of how the US politics works.
The Bush administration is doing a really good job of providing evidence of their War Crimes at The Hague. How deadful that we might have to throw an ex-president under the bus.
But if its calms them down, and ease our way, it would just have to be the pragmatic outcome. Sigh.
Whoops ‘counterpoint’ linky
From all I’ve seen, ubetcha … the attempt to spin this as a Syria approved move is just that, spin – from Special Forces/CIA who carried out the raid.
And Syria’s decision to pull their troops and protections from the border prove their displeasure.
Much weeping and gnashing over Rachel Maddow’s over at KOS. Anyone affected by that here?
Great peril comes out of this business of ignoring/erasing/circumventing borders sovereignity.
One would like to think Bush/Cheney WH has been shut out on attacking Iran before they are evicted from WH in Jan.2009.
Yet these illegal cross border raids are setting up precedents for doing same with Iran.
Based on historical Bush/Cheney disregard for cause/effect and grenade pin pulling this may well be why this is taking place and where it is headed.
One can have faith in cooler heads prevailing to some degree but Bush/Cheney are no respecters of sane overview or caution lights.
Jan.2009 is so close yet so far. Cause for worry regarding the maniacs in Bush/Cheney WH who have bloodlust for Iran.
These cross border raids are testing bad things for bad reasons likely enough.
Sorry. The concern is that she has a tendency toward concern trolling.
Absolutely – Iran is not very relaxed about the Syria raid – with good reason.
And the lack of global reaction of substance to these illegal acts is not encouraging.
Thanks for keeping us up to date on this, Siun. I haven’t seen much about it in the corporate media.
Do you think that after the election the Cheney junta will try to widen the conflict so that it’s hard for Obama to pull out?
Who are we gonna end up with as Secretary of War if Obama wins? The military, from the Joint Chiefs on down, don’t appear to be making any ripples about the administrations expanding military activities. Is a new SecWar gonna cut these ops off at the knees? If Shrub has his way we’ll be technically and legally at war with every country in the Middle East except Israel before Christmas.
Riesz – that sure looks likely.
well, what do ya know, the global “war on terror” means the ability to wage war against anyone, anywhere, anyhow for any reason, in violation of any treaty, article of customary international law, rational strategic doctrine, sane tactical reasoning, or standard of common sense.
Well, I guess that’s why they call it “global”.
Good summary’s and similar in places to what I’ve read at CTut’s Main&Central.com and AW.com . . . . . thanks for sharing.
A fairly clear picture emerges in general, whether the Al Queda operative was a real target or not . . . . one last thought . . . these could be exercises to demonstrate efficacy of the war tools used, for future production, planning nd usage. After all, in one of those clips you use, the author mentins the NEW bigger and better Predator capable of 14 Hellfires, instead of only 4.
Here’s hoping Obama will freeze and reduce a Pentagon and the MIC thru budgetary means . . . . we CAN hope, till proven wrong. Right? *G*
This observation from the same publication quoted above was rather astute:
sometimes I think that the primary mission of shrubco foreign policy is to sow chaos and anarchy globally. Kinda the opposite of neocon doctrine – that the US alone is capable of serving as a bulwark against the rising tide of global chaos and anarchy.
And isn’t that the position that creates a much more dangerous world? If we (US) can invade wherever we by God want to, is there any argument that other folks cannot do exactly the same thing? This has been the danger of the Bush doctrine since the beginning…funny, Sarah didn’t even know about it?
Do others agree that we inspire and provoke a quid pro quo? How can it be otherwise.
Yeah, they’re kinda like a pyromaniac fireman who starts fires just so he can take credit for putting them out.
I think this is how most of the world sees us now… certainly the Germans, for example. We’ve opened the floodgates for anyone to aggress against anyone else in any manner, for any reason. Heck, we can use antiterror laws against Scandinavian countries that lose our money…
A view shared by many Iraqis – and one more reminder that no one election leaves all of us off the hook for bringing about change.
What’s the Rachel story? I checked and didn’t see it. Salon had given her serious recognition.
Kind of like that IDF Israeli “Defense” Force thingy that “defends” Israel by attacking its neighbors. Neoconservative thinking hasn’t changed and probably never will.
Please please please invade Kuwait next. That would be the final link in the wonderful pretzel of doom these guys have been creating – the greatest practical joke on history the world has ever known.