BS?: "US Marines Are Locked In Battle With Syrian Troops"

[akd]

DEBKAfile Exclusive: US Marines are locked in battle with Syrian troops after crossing the border from Iraq into Syria at a point west of al Qaim

November 25, 2005, 12:27 AM (GMT+02:00)

Both sides have suffered casualties. US soldiers crossed over after Damascus was given an ultimatum Thursday, Nov. 24, to hand over a group of senior commanders belonging to Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s al Qaeda force. According to US intelligence, the group had fled to Syria to escape an American attack in Mosul. Syrian border guards opened fire on the American force.

I smell poo, but they have jumped Western media on a few stories.

[IDILIX]

http://www.cnnturk.com/DUNYA/haber_detay.asp?PID=319&HID=1&haberID=141329

CNN Turkey also posted the same news giving casualty figures as 12 US soldiers vs. 3 Syrian Border Guards ( no comment ).

[Dillweed]

I get the feeling that this is really in nobody's best intrest to talk about. I wouldn't be suprised if there is action on the border, tho.

[Sirocco]

I think there have been incidents on the border with casualties to Syrian border guards before..?

[Sgt Joch]

based on various reports, substantiated or not, there seems to already be some sort of undeclared low-level war going on between the US and Syria.

Syria accuses US of launching lethal raids over its borders

"The charge follows leaks in Washington that the US has already engaged in military raids into Syria and is contemplating launching special forces operations on Syrian soil to eliminate insurgent networks before they reach Iraq."

Is US planning an Iraq-style 'regime change' in Syria?

"US forces have also been operating along the Syrian border since early 2003, and there have been numerous reports of clashes between US and Syrian forces on Syrian soil, as well as reports of US special operations forces operating inside Syria on select missions."

GI's and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border

"A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials."

"Some other current and former officials suggest that there already have been initial intelligence gathering operations by small clandestine Special Operations units inside Syria."

The Syrian Bet

"Sometime after midnight, Army helicopters and Bradley Fighting Vehicles attacked two groups of cars heading into Syria, triggering enormous explosions and fireballs that lit up the night sky. A gas station and nearby homes were destroyed. Task Force 20 sped across the border into Syria. Five Syrian guards were injured and flown to Iraq in American helicopters for medical treatment, and several other Syrians were seized, handcuffed, and detained before being released.

[Colin]

Wow.

I love how the US gets to pick and choose the portions of international law that they get to uphold. It's too bad the UN has become impotent.

Do you think the US would do something like kill borders guards if they were at all concerned about international repercussions? I think that using your armed forces against the border guards of another nation is an informal declaration of war. The US has no respect for other nations.

Edit to trim off my US/Nazi comparison.

[ November 25, 2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Colin ]

[Sergei]

Since Syrians don't seem to do enough to prevent groups of armed men cross the border, it kind of makes the border fuzzy, don't you think Colin?

Hey, I'm almost worth 7000 posts!

M1TC, I don't think that a border raid is really the same thing as a pre-emptive strike.

[ November 25, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[M1A1TC]

Dont forget about the US policy change to pre-emptive strike. If US thinks some country is a threat, we attack them

[Vanir Ausf B]

So the US doesn't think North Korea is a threat?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Dont forget about the US policy change to pre-emptive strike. If US thinks some country is a threat, we attack them

Given the fact we're up to our necks in it in Iraq over non-existant WMD, that doesn't inspire confidence.

*grabs tinfoil hat*

[Sgt Joch]

it's too bad things turned out as they did. Before the Iraq invasion, Syria was giving the US very valuable information about Al Qaeda:

"American intelligence and State Department officials have told me that by early 2002 Syria had emerged as one of the C.I.A.’s most effective intelligence allies in the fight against Al Qaeda, providing an outpouring of information that came to an end only with the invasion of Iraq."

"Nevertheless, after September 11th the Syrian leader, Bashar Assad, initiated the delivery of Syrian intelligence to the United States. The Syrians had compiled hundreds of files on Al Qaeda, including dossiers on the men who participated—and others who wanted to participate—in the September 11th attacks. Syria also penetrated Al Qaeda cells throughout the Middle East and in Arab exile communities throughout Europe. That data began flowing to C.I.A. and F.B.I. operatives.

Syria had accumulated much of its information because of Al Qaeda’s ties to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic terrorists who have been at war with the secular Syrian government for more than two decades. Many of the September 11th hijackers had operated out of cells in Aachen and Hamburg, where Al Qaeda was working with the Brotherhood. In the late nineties, Mohammed Atta and other Al Qaeda members, including Mohammed Haydar Zammar, who is believed to have been one of the organization’s top recruiters, worked on occasion at a German firm called Tatex Trading. Tatex was infiltrated by Syrian intelligence in the eighties; one of its shareholders was Mohammed Majed Said, who ran the Syrian intelligence directorate from 1987 to 1994. Zammar is now in Syrian custody.

Within weeks of the September 11th attacks, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A, with Syria’s permission, began intelligence-gathering operations in Aleppo, near the Turkish border. Aleppo was the subject of Mohammed Atta’s dissertation on urban planning, and he travelled there twice in the mid-nineties. “At every stage in Atta’s journey is the Muslim Brotherhood,” a former C.I.A. officer who served undercover in Damascus told me. “He went through Spain in touch with the Brotherhood in Hamburg.”

Syria also provided the United States with intelligence about future Al Qaeda plans. In one instance, the Syrians learned that Al Qaeda had penetrated the security services of Bahrain and had arranged for a glider loaded with explosives to be flown into a building at the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters there. Flynt Leverett, a former C.I.A. analyst who served until early this year on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, told me that Syria’s help “let us thwart an operation that, if carried out, would have killed a lot of Americans.” The Syrians also helped the United States avert a suspected plot against an American target in Ottawa"

there's also this interesting tidbit:

"Robert Baer, a retired C.I.A. officer who served in Syria and is the author of a new book, “Sleeping with the Devil,” on Washington’s relationship with the Saudis, agreed that the Syrians had more to offer. “The Syrians know that the Saudis were involved in the financing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they for sure know the names,” Baer told me."

from:

The Syrian Bet

[Mike Churchmoor]

Hmm, to me it's a little bit strange that no major US-media, to my knowlegde, have report about these incidents.

If news about fighting between US-Syria are for real one might think that US-public would want to know if they have a new enemy / new front in middle-east.

But then again, what I know.

*volume increased in headphones, Mötörhead kicks ass - drinks more beer*

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Mike Churchmoor:

Hmm, to me it's a little bit strange that no major US-media, to my knowlegde, have report about these incidents.

If news about fighting between US-Syria are for real one might think that US-public would want to know if they have a new enemy / new front in middle-east.

But then again, what I know.

*volume increased in headphones, Mötörhead kicks ass - drinks more beer*

New York Times:

GI's and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border

[Sgt Joch]

I also found this interesting article, Battlefront may be more prescient than we thought:

Los Angeles times:

Despite warnings, US leans on Syria

"The Bush administration has embarked on an effort to build strong international pressure on Syria despite warnings from some Arab leaders and Israelis that doing so could lead to a chaotic collapse or even the rise of a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Damascus, U.S. officials say."

"But some Arab leaders and other allies say the Syrian government is already fragile and isolated. They have warned that international sanctions or other measures could topple the regime, destabilizing an important corner of the Middle East and possibly opening the way for Islamist groups such as the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood."

"Some Israeli officials have been quoted in Jerusalem recently as privately warning that Assad's fall could stir chaos on Israel's northern border and hand power to the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Mike Churchmoor]

New York Times:

GI's and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border

Yep, my bad. I checked the US-news only from the past couple of days.

But then again there should be more in the news (Us & European) about these conflicts if it's true that Us-marines and syrians have shooted/killed each other imho.

[Battlefront.com]

The periodic clashes with Syrians have been going on since very early in the Iraq war. I haven't heard of anything within the last couple of days, but based on prior events there is no reason to suspect the basis of the report (1st post) is totally false.

The problems with enemy forces operating on both sides of a magical line drawn in the sand (literally in this case) is very obvious to any military historian. The problem is what to do about it. In Vietnam the US engaged in clearly illegal activities in Laos and Cambodia, yet at the same time militarily it was completely justified. Earlier in the Korean War the same problem was encountered with the Chinese coming over into North Korea. More recently there was the case of Serbian forces coming out of Serbia into Bosnia. In the latter two cases nothing was directly done at the time. And let's not even get started on what happens in Africa!

I am sure that under International Law it is perfectly legal to attack enemy forces basing attacks on supposedly neutral soil. However, I am also sure that there is some sort of technical proceedure (like declaring war or something) to legalize military action. These days it's all a mess because NOBODY conducts warfare like the "good old days".

BTW, in another interesting development:

Syria caves into UN demands

Steve

[Colin]

I'm thinking more of these border guards that were apparently shooting at.

You shouldn't legally be able to ask them to increase border security (and hold them responsible for the lack thereof) while you actively engage their troops.

Obviously these are dynamic borders for the most part but when you are fighting another nation's armed forces you've gone to far. I just believe that US policy is called US policy for a reason. Too often do they protect 'American interests' and rile their citizens with patriotism. That's just an opinion that I've formed personally in the last few years, and I will not post at 4:13AM again.

Thanks for listening.

[Kellysheroes]

YAY that should mean no CMSF and opens the first module to be CMXWW2 instead.

[Londoner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In Vietnam the US engaged in clearly illegal activities in Laos and Cambodia, yet at the same time militarily it was completely justified.

Steve

Militarily maybe. How about morally? The numbers that died as a result escapes me (not even sure if there are any accurate figures), not to mention the rise of Pol Pot.....

[Battlefront.com]

Militarily maybe. How about morally?

Morality always takes a backseat to military operations when push comes to shove. This is logical since war is, to its very core, immoral. Even if you can construct a moral justification for one soldier to take the life of another, it is difficult to come up with a moral justification that excuses the harm and/or suffering on others who just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Since war inherently can not avoid collateral damage (and I mean that in the broadest, long term sense as well as short term) then war is by its very nature immoral. Since Human behavior is so rarely inline with moral principles, warfare must be viewed in the context of Human Nature and all of its MANY flaws.

The North Vietnamese, and Viet Cong, violated the borders of Laos and Cambodia to acheive their goal of unification with the south through armed conflict. Right or wrong, the US was the major player in opposing this action. Since Cambodia and Laos were unable, and it should be stressed unwilling to some degree, to keep enemy combatants off its soil it forfieted its claim of neutrality. Therefore, military action to correct the situation was justified. Issues of legality and morality are not part of the equation of determining justification. Those things come into play when examining the response as it was executed.

As far as Syria is concerned... if bad guys are taking refuge in Syria, and Syria isn't doing anything about it, then they forfeit their right to protest actions directly resulting from their lack of will or ability to be treated as a sovereign, neutral party. Unfortunately, Syria's mixed record on Islamic militans is extremely well documented. They don't want it at home, but they are perfectly fine with letting it be directed at their enemies (Israel, Labanon, and the US for starters).

That being said, I think the Bush Admin has botched opportunities to improve the situation. It is also clear that the bulk of the insurgency, as it is now, is domestic and not foreign (though the estimated 5% foreign involvement is critically important to the movement as a whole). So even if Syria shut down its border 100% effectively the problem with Insurgents in Iraq would continue (though perhaps less effectively).

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

So if the cubans were to blow up a few buildings in Miami, that were used by peopel who were tarining at weekends and advocating the overthrow of Castro, you wouldn't have a problem with that.

lets face it if the US government isn't doing anything to stop them, doesn't give the cubans the right to do it, doesn't the US

" forfeit their right to protest actions directly resulting from their lack of will or ability to be treated as a sovereign, neutral party."

Peter.

[Kellysheroes]

As someone said in another thread on another forum. There's a set of rules for the US and a set of rules for the "rest of the world". That's how the US goes about playing their wargames.

Basically they make them up as they go. lol

[Grapeshot]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Steve,

advocating the overthrow of Castro, you wouldn't have a problem with that.

lets face it if the US government isn't doing anything to stop them, doesn't give the cubans the right to do it, doesn't the US

Peter.

Advocating and letting armed combantants take refuge on your borders are two different things. If Mexico had a rebel force trying to overthrow the government and these rebels would engage Mexican forces and then duck across into Texas a number of times is a different story. If Mexican Government were pursuing said force across the border and were engaged by US forces, yes the Mexican forces would be right. Or if we engage these Mexican Forces pursuing the rebels we would, by action, be supporting the revolution and at a "soft" state of war with Mexico.

[hoolaman]

That is an interesting example, as it puts the US in the Syrian position. Sometimes its good to put yourself in the other guys shoes.

What if the US tried, but were unable, to track down these mexican rebels? Would the Mexicans be better off to cooperate with the US forces and try to cultivate a spirit of friendship, or to be bellicose and make unilateral incursions into Texas.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Morality always takes a backseat to military operations when push comes to shove.

Perhaps, when you have an all out war. As you don't, it a friggin stupid POV in this context