Soccer Dad

Syrian strike

The New York Times reports on yesterday's raid into Syria and concludes:

The United States is trying to negotiate a strategic agreement with Iraq that would allow American troops to remain in the country and carry out military operations. The pact faces strenuous opposition from neighboring countries, especially Syria and Iran, because of fears that the United States might use Iraqi territory to carry out attacks on them.

The United States has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has withdrawn its ambassador to Syria.

It is kind of odd to make the focus of the article the fears of Syria and Iran. Part of the problem is that the Times's report seems to have been early and they haven't updated it.

The Washington Post provides more information and context:

U.S. attacks inside Syria are extremely rare, though the U.S. military has stepped up security along Iraq's border with Syria in recent months to stem the traffic of fighters and weapons into Iraq. U.S. officials say many insurgents, particularly suicide bombers, arrive in Iraq via the Syrian border.

The two most obvious questions are what was U.S. military doing and why now?

(more via memeorandum)
Bill Roggio gives some background and speculates what the United States may have been after.

If the raid occurred, the US military must have detected a senior member of al Qaeda in Iraq in the region. Abu Ayyub al Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, is reported to have left the country earlier this year after the terror group lost its sanctuaries in Diyala province.

The US military may be closing in on al Qaeda's senior leadership. US forces killed Abu Qaswarah, al Qaeda in Iraq's second in command, during a raid in Mosul in northern Iraq on Oct. 15. The military has also killed and captured numerous al Qaeda leader and couriers over the past several weeks. The information obtained during these raids help to paint a picture of al Qaeda's command structure inside of of Iraq as well as in neighboring countries.

Amos Harel of Ha'aretz makes an interesting observation:

The common denominator to all these operations is that nobody takes the Syrians seriously anymore, given the repeated violations of their sovereignty. It is doubtful the domestic security situation there has ever been this unstable.

Then he adds:

The lack of stability in Syria adds to the already-tense situation between Israel and Lebanon. Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said Sunday that weapons-smuggling from Syria to Hezbollah is continuing across the country.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that Israel is prepared to attack weapons convoys, on a background of Hezbollah efforts to equip itself with anti-aircraft missiles.

Is it possible that the American raid is a signal to Israel then?

After observing that the raid took place 5 years too late, Noah Pollak frames it in the context of the Presidential election:

What's important right now is that both candidates go on record about the raid. Should there be repeat performances -- as many as needed to impress Bashar that his days of meddling with impunity are over? Should Iran be targeted for similar strikes? Do you, Mr. Obama, view this news as an unacceptable expansion of the war that will never be countenanced in your administration, or do you believe it a vital component of a winning strategy in Iraq?

Joshua Landis writes:

The Bush administration seems to be ratcheting up action against Syria during its last days in power. The cross border raid undertaken on Sunday, which killed eight people, seems to fit into a broader pattern of the Bush administration initiating cross boarder attacks into countries that it is not officially at war with. The recent attacks in Northwest Pakistan are a case in point.

The Bush warmonger meme, which we will now doubt see quite a bit in the MSM in the coming days. The idea, as Bill Roggio wrote that there was likely as specific target, will get little attention.

Mere Rhetoric, Meryl and LGF have previously blogged this.