U.S. Special Forces Went into Syria on Sunday

October 27th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Late Sunday night we reported that reports said that the United States had attacked a target within Syria that day. We were, as of yet, unsure about the goal of the operation, nor were we sure that the U.S. was willing to go public by defending the attack.

One day later, however, it has become clear that the attack was carried out on purpose. The goal, as publicly admitted by top U.S. officials, was to secure the Iraqi-Syrian border in order to stop the inflow of foreign terrorists into Iraq.

One year ago, 100 foreign terrorists entered Iraq each month. Once in Iraq they joined forces with extremist organizations such as Al Qaeda and fought against U.S. troops, government troops and even Muslims who did not agree with the extremist Islam the terrorists adhered to.

Six months ago, this number had dropped to 50, today to 20 a month.

The drop is in large part due to successful efforts to close the borders with Iraq’s neighbors. Virtually every border has been sealed except for one, U.S. officials said yesterday: the border with Syria remains open. Syria is either unwilling or unable to close it.

So, the U.S. is “taking matters into our own hands,” as one of the aforementioned U.S. officials told the AP.

Syria has condemned the attack, charging that several civilians, among whom four children, died. More than anything, though, the Syrian response seems to be a matter of keeping up appearances, for they are not doing anything against the United States, not publicly at least.

Meanwhile, a reader of Power Line, with knowledge about military affairs commented:

The announced goal was to shut down a family who were facilitating jihadi entry into Iraq. The intel was obviously good . . . so good we did a very risky and un-necessary thing, if the “goal” is as advertised: we endangered American helos and troops by inserting them conspicuously into hostile territory, needlessly endangering both and our prestige (imagine if something had gone wrong and the helos had tangled like in Iran after the Shah’s overthrow).

This was not a subtle operation. We could easily have sent exactly the same message — if a message we were sending — by using a drone and some smart munitions.

Something else was going on there — kidnapping, the appearance of kidnapping (to remove a friendly operative), computer theft, setting up sensors, or something else.

More, I am sure, in the coming days.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.