by Eric Martin
For those looking to probe the possible motives behind Sunday's coordinated airstrikes and special forces incursions into Syria, the always informative Daniel Levy surveys a sampling of the most prominent theories, as well as the likely costs. One such cost was felt almost instantly with respect to the ongoing SOFA/strategic framework negotiations:
Iraq wants a security agreement with the U.S. to include a clear ban on U.S. troops using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, the government spokesman said Wednesday, three days after a dramatic U.S. raid on Syria. [...]
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the ban was among four proposed amendments to the draft agreement approved by the Cabinet this week and forwarded to the U.S. [...]
Al-Dabbagh said the Iraqis want the right to declare the agreement null and void if the U.S. unilaterally attacks one of Iraq's neighbors.
Meanwhile, Eli Lake, in reliable fashion, provides the view of events from the neocon camp: that this military action is one of the first manifestations of a new doctrine of soldiers without borders.
We have entered a new phase in the war on terror. In July, according to three administration sources, the Bush administration formally gave the military new power to strike terrorist safe havens outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Before then, a military strike in a country like Syria or Pakistan would have required President Bush's personal approval. Now, those kinds of strikes in the region can occur at the discretion of the incoming commander of Central Command (Centcomm), General David Petraeus...
The new order could pave the way for direct action in Kenya, Mali, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen--all places where the American intelligence believe al Qaeda has a significant presence, but can no longer count on the indigenous security services to act. In the parlance of the Cold War, Petraeus will now have the authority to fight a regional "dirty war."
Reliably, again, Lake keeps his eyes on the prize with respect to Iran - even if his own recounting of the new doctrine doesn't fit quite as neatly with conditions in that country. Lake says this of Iran:
Strikes within Iran could be justified by the order, since senior al Qaeda leaders such as Saif al Adel are believed to have used that country as a base for aiding the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda affiliates in Iraqi Kurdistan. [emphasis added]
That is an interesting choice of words from Lake. First, the less-than-forceful "believed to have" formulation should be recognized as the tell it is. The existing evidence is tenuous at best, and even then, much of it has filtered through dubious channels responsible for so much Iraq war misinformation. Contra Lake, Saif al-Adel is also "believed to have" been placed under house arrest by Iran, not left free to to plan and coordinate attackes, but that is not mentioned. In Internet postings and other mediums, al-Adel complains of Iran disrupting al-Qaeda's efforts and arresting large numbers of operatives looking to escape to Iraq from Afghanistan, through Iran. It's not even clear from available evidence that al-Adel is still in Iran.
Lake then attempts to apply rhetorical brick and mortar to the new framework:
The big mystery now is whether the next administration will dismantle this policy or permit Petraeus to follow it to fruition. Obama has said nothing about Sunday's strikes in Syria (a silence that has rightly earned him taunting from the McCain campaign).
Um, doesn't McCain also taunt Obama for his willingness to openly state his support for airstrikes in Pakistan ("You just don't do that my friends")? But now that Obama won't state his support for airstrikes and other military action against Syria, McCain is right to taunt Obama for his reticence? Regardless, Obama was properly following the lead of the White House and Pentagon in not commenting on military actions that were not yet formally acknowledged. As Ilan Goldenberg points out:
Continue reading "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Show Me Where Them Bombs Will Fall" »
Recent Comments