Newsweek - Plans: Next, War on Syria? (Or Iran-Pentagon Planning)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek/

Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries. (Syria is regarded as a major route for jihadis entering Iraq, and Iran appears to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons.) Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran.

This one was only one paragraph - but a scary paragraph if * is reselected. Security Moms line up your teenage kids for the meat grinder. Hope there's Karma and the young Repukes getten taken first.

If * reselected, I'm betting we're pulling out of Iraq 1st quarter and heading right for Syria or Iran.

[girl gone mad]

1. "Some Bush advisers characterize the work...

..as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies.."


Funny, they were saying the same things about their plan to invade Iraq up until a few months after 9/11.

[Wind Dancer]

2. Looks like they are following the

PNAC plan regardless of the situation in Iraq. This is so damn scary and most people have no idea what is really happening in this administration.

It is up to us to get the info out before it is too late.
:scared:

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

3. two points

1. What no North Korea pan update??? you know they have got to be working onthat.

2. If this are looking really bad for * re-election...don't put it past them to initiate more action

3. It wouldn't surprise me if they go ahead with an attack (likely remote use of tomahawks) during the lame duck time frame due to 'time is of the essence' mentality...plus they can flaunt the 'i told you so' factor during the elections in two years

OK three points.

[allemand]

12. North Korea is different from Iran and Syria.

They can't attack it without previous coordination with South Korea and Japan, and I seriously doubt that South Korea would allow such an attack.

[Minstrel Boy]

4. "the two troublesome countries"

And yet, which bellicose country is the world's greatest shit disturber?

Try imagining what any other nation would be called if it had anything approaching the US record of destabilization, intervention, coups and wars, or the millions of its victims, over the past 50 years?

[mzmolly]

5. Spread the word ... contact all the media. This SHOULD be a campaign

issue!

[aneerkoinos]

6. Regime change in Syria?

To whom, may I ask?

Bashir is the most pro-West, cooperative leader that can survive and hold the power in Syria under the current circumstanses.

Even the PNAC idiots must know this.

So, if they are serious, the purpose can be no other than to make Syria unother failed state because that is what the Likundiks want. Are they Harmageddonists, really?

The real tragedy they don't understand is that from the chaos they impose, from the suffering in countries destroyed by Israel's venom, will arise new sense of purpose, new Saladdin will be born in some form or other, and Israel will regret it chose not to be magnanimous in victory and agree to a peace that was just.


Whole lotta bad Karma going on there, from generation to genaration. Blessed be the peace makers...

[leftchick]

8. the PNAC idiots are really INSANE!

:scared:

[allemand]

7. A vote for Bush is a vote for war with Iran and Syria. n/t

[lovuian]

9. The problem for Iraq is its between Syria and Iran

and I would suspect that Syria must be taken care of....
Its not good to have two hostile regimes aiming at ya

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Many of us are well on-record for thinking this is in the offing

I still believe that history will prove that we tried to gin up a pretext right after taking Baghdad, but the situation was much too messy in Iraq and we just didn't have the troops.

Lest we forget, the IDF will be more than happy to lend a hand. The problem is that Syria is an intact and functioning country. Although its military is out-of-date, it IS intact, and that makes for an entirely different opponent.

The PNAC--and right wing elements of Israel--control this administration, and they want to guarantee Israel at all costs. Apparently, this is even more important than oil.

[Nevernose]

11. I think we SHOULD guarantee Israel at all costs

I just don't think that a war with Syria (or, in the case of Israel, ANOTHER war with Syria), is the best way of going about it.

Perhaps someone should send the pResident a memo:

"George, please remember: it's 'blessed are the peacemakers.' Can we keep that straight at our next foreign policy discussion? Thanks!"

[Strelnikov_]

13. "Syria Is Regarded As A Major Route For Jihadis Entering Iraq"

More like Syria is a major route for an oil pipeline to the Med. They need a secure way to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

It is still all about the oil.

[arwalden]

14. Told You So! Told You So!

[w4rma]

15. They are definitely going after one and then the other if Bush is elected

this time. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind of this. And you can bet they they will call up a draft, also. We're undermaned, in TWO countries (Iraq/Afghanistan). So, you can be very sure that we'll be undermanned in 4!