Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq Condemns US Raid on Syrian Village
American troops used Iraqi territory as 'staging ground' for attack
The Iraqi government has unexpectedly denounced a CIA raid on a compound in a Syrian border village that killed an al-Qa'ida commander who dispatched fighters into Iraq.
![[Amateur video footage of the US raid shows a man standing over a covered body in Sukkariyeh, Syria. The raid was carried out by the CIA (AP)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/syriaraid1029.jpg "syriaraid1029.jpg")
"The Iraqi government rejects US aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria," said an Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, in a surprise rebuke to Washington. "The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighbouring countries."
The raid, the first on Syrian territory by the US since the invasion of Iraq five years ago, highlights the way the US carries out military operations without consulting the Iraqi government. This is humiliating for the Iraqi government and reinforces Iraqi doubts about signing a security pact with the US by the end of the year. The operation on Sunday, in which US helicopters landed 24 special forces troops in Sukkariyeh, five miles inside Syria near the border town of Abu Kamal, was carried out by the CIA according to US officials in Washington. The US soldiers reportedly killed Abu Ghadiyah, the nom de guerre of Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih, who had been denounced by the US for facilitating the "flow of terrorists, weapons and money from Syria to al-Qa'ida in Iraq". His body was flown back to Iraq, officials said.
Syria denied the presence of al-Qa'ida in Sukkariyeh and claimed the dead were local farmers. The Syrian government yesterday ordered the closure of an American school and a US cultural centre in Damascus in retaliation.
Abu Ghadiyah, aided by close family members, had his assets frozen by the US Treasury in February in a directive claiming he was the head of logistics in Syria for al-Qa'ida. The most surprising aspect of the US attack was its timing. Syria has been a conduit for anti-US insurgents since the Sunni Arab uprising against the US occupation started after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
But the Sunni rebellion has largely subsided since 2007 and Syria has become more co-operative in stopping the movement of fighters across the border. The US and Iraqi governments also claim to have succeeded in largely eliminating al-Qa'ida in Iraq in Anbar province, which has a long common border with Syria. Abu Ghadiyah's smuggling activities would have been less significant than in the past. The CIA-led raid into Syrian territory will deepen suspicions in Syria and Jordan that, so long as the US has a military presence in Iraq, it will be used as a launching pad for operations against them. Iran has already made clear that it is against the Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa), negotiated by Iraq and the US over the past eight months. The decision on signing the agreement has divided the Iraqi government, and the cabinet is looking for amendments. In theory Sofa would increase Iraqi control but its critics claim it would formalise the occupation.
US officials are trying to get the pact signed before the UN mandate for the US occupation runs out at the end of the year. The decision on whether or not to sign Sofa has split the Iraqi politicians. The ministers of defence, interior, foreign affairs and finance are in favour; so too are the Kurdish parties. But the Shia religious parties are dubious or against it. The US raid into Syria is likely only to increase those doubts.
21 Comments so far
Show AllLike it hasn't been obvious for the past five and a half years that Iraq was going to be used as a launching pad for the US to go into other 'rouge' nations. Electing Obama will not change this; please wake up.
http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com
It's odd that Cockburn writes, "The Iraqi government has unexpectedly denounced a CIA raid on a compound in a Syrian border village ...."
I don't see what's 'unexpected' about that, and he quotes the basic reason in the second paragraph; part of the reason anyway.
""...," Ali al-Dabbagh, in a surprise rebuke to Washington. "The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighbouring countries.""
This is not the first time that the Iraqi govt has said this! The govt also said it about the U.S. threats against Iran over the past year, or a little earlier, and if the Iraqi govt did this then, then what's surprising about this being repeated now? Would it only be because Syria is not Shia, so, iow, because the Iraqi govt was believed to be discriminatory; refusing U.S. raids launched from Iraq against Iran, but not when it's against Syria? I had immediately believed the Iraqi govt meant what it said the first time it stated this opposition, meaning that the govt meant it regardless of which country U.S. raids from Iraq were launched against.
The wording of the opposition hasn't changed; not from what I recall of the first time's wording anyway.
The opposition might also be one of concern about not having the U.S. cause neighbouring countries to want to send fighters into Iraq to fight against the criminal U.S. occupation and/or very puppet Iraqi govt the U.S. installed. I imagine the Iraqis in the govt would like to get as much control as they can; instead of relinquishing [all] control to the U.S. After all, it's not like the present Iraqi govt's forces could defeat the U.S. if they tried, so the politicians may or do "play along" with the U.S. due to having ..., as they perceive the situation, no real choice; but while still hoping to gain as much real control as they can over their govt and Iraqi territory. Sort of like being caught between a major rock and an awfully difficult or hard place; you try to do the best that you can without killing yourself or getting yourself killed.
After all, the U.S. govt and its ruling Western "Establishment" elites [are] the big, superpower, rogue, ... bully of Earth.
The Iraqi politicians still need to do far better than they have been for Iraqis, for they're extremely complicit, or worse, in many extreme crimes against Iraqis; but they're also caught in this extremely difficult situation and certainly want to survive through all of this. They don't want [all] of the "spoils" to go to the U.S.A.'s ruling Western Establishment "elites" and would like to enjoy some of this for themselves; while "forgetting" about firmly standing for Iraqi sovereignty.
Of course that's not all Iraqi politicians, for some are surely doing all they truly and honestly can; I hope anyway.
Amerika, the Bea......? - furnish your own ending
But I could be wrong !
How do people feel pressuring their government, or hitting the streets will see an end to this?
The opposition to the bailout was overwhelming. I have seen polls that showed that 80 percent PLUS of Americans were opposed to the bailout. People wrote to their reps, flooded their offices with faxes and voice mails and the bailout STILL occurred with both the Democrats and the republicans supporting it.
This was only the most recent example of them not caring one whit what the American people wanted and there a wealth of others.
They do not care. They will do as they please. Remember the framers of the constitution really did not like democracy. They felt that the mob was ignorant and that the ruling elites should make all decisions.
If 99 percent of Americans were against the new president bombing Iran, but the new President , be it Obama or Mccain decided he would do it....the will of the people will not be considered.
Americans that protested would be labeled as "anti-american" "Not Patriotic" or suspected of having links to terrorists and thus be spied upon.
GwNorth
"The opposition to the bailout was overwhelming. I have seen polls that showed that 80 percent PLUS of Americans were opposed to the bailout. People wrote to their reps, flooded their offices with faxes and voice mails and the bailout STILL occurred with both the Democrats and the republicans supporting it."
Thats a fair point. I'll balance it with the defeat of the cheap labor bill last year. Then I'll suggest that we are in a malestrom of events, including a truly important election, so its hard to bring as much attention.
However, its still a fair point.
If the media applies those labels, but 80% of the people support and maybe even join with the people in the streets, then who cares what label the media applies.
Study governments that fall. Yes, there will be someone sitting their trying to churn out the same old propaganda right up to the day he's removed from office. But, it reaches a point where it doesn't matter.
Why does the left always try to focus on what our opposition will say about us? And then try to act in such a way that our opposition will only praise us and never criticize us. We seem to tie ourselves up in knots trying to make sure people we don't like never say anything bad about us. Why?
I love these constant message out here that basically seem to say that any opposition is futile.
The one sure way to lose a fight is to give up.
If you look closely, there's about 70% to 80% of the people who are opposed to the direction the country is going, and basically opposed to anything either Obama or McCain is offering right now. The problem isn't the lack of opposition in the country. The problem is the lack of any coherent place for that opposition to coalesce. The support for Obama just because he hangs a sign that reads 'change' on the front of his podium, even though he offers no real change, is another sign that there is a strong support for real change in this country.
Sure, you describe the way it works today. But, you also seem to imply that there is no alternative. But, let me lay out two alternatives that are available anytime the people want to choose them.
One is, next week, they could go vote for Nader. They could go vote for Libertarian and Green candidates up and down the ballot.
The other is, they could decide to go out into the streets. Not in some permitted and harmless protest through an empty city on a Saturday. But instead leave work and go out into the streets on a work day. That would shut down a lot both from people leaving work and from people clogging the streets of cities.
Money is the real power in this country. And my feeling is that as soon as these wars started costing people money instead of making them, the phones in the White House would be ringing real fast to say "Stop that!"
Of course, the media and the politicians spend a lot of time and effort trying to make sure that the people don't gather around either of these ideas. All the constant messages about the alternative candidates and how 'they can't win' and its a 'wasted vote' are a part of this.
So, that's the hurdle to overcome. How to communicate ideas like this when we don't have control of the media? And, how to we get people to ignore the messages that will come from the media that says we can't possibly do anything or really change anything.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
The only thing -I believe- large and strong enough to penetrate the cloud that has been woven around national and international events is a State Government.
The solution is to ABANDON work at a Federal level and to put ALL efforts into Local and State matters.
These various efforts can be coordinated nationally incredibly easily through the Internets. One site (with a "cluster" of connected sites) would do the job most effectively.
The pole star of such a Big Movement of little movements would be the recent efforts in some of the smaller, less populated States of the NE, especially Vermont.
In addition to much good work on democratization, localization, individual rights, and sustainability, Vermont may soon boast a Governor from the Progressive Party!
I'm going to put this idea of a "Big Movement of little movements" out on this site and others for the next while, specifically the website to connect them. If I do not get directed to such a site -that I feel is of enough utility- after a short time, I will begin work to start one myself.
Nov. 5th (or whenever the "count" is final for Prez.) is when the move toward DE-centralization -in all things, including our strategy- begins.
And it will begin with the ABANDONMENT of all electoral efforts at the Federal level by wise, and good-hearted Citizens, and the re-invigoration of Local and State movements.
"Don't waste time in mourning -Organize!" -Joe Hill.
You can't stop this by "hitting the streets" You can only do it by voting and more importantly, locally and statewide voting.
I see the stars and stripes with pride because it represents the American people, not the whacko's in charge now. Sheep? Only if we stay divided and play the game.
Voting is the best way to change things. It is the legal way to create change that is provided in the system.
The question is, is change by voting completely blocked at this point. Candidates who don't just echo the corporate line are marginalized in the elections. They are excluded from the debates, and the system of paid ads means that their voices won't really be heard.
And, while I doubt seriously that Obama will have the election stolen from him, I do think its very unlikely that a strong vote for Nader, Barr or McKinney will be accurately reported.
So, while I do think that we should always participate in elections, I'm not sure I agree that is the only way for change. If that is deliberately blocked by the system, that just forces people outside the system.
I do believe that any acts beyond elections should be peaceful.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the people think they've voted for change, but all they got was a new puppet behind the podium.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
THe best course is starting at the local level. Work there first. Our Congressmen and Senators hold the real power in this country.
Lets hope you are all wrong about Obama. But at his worst, my rationale was he's a steep upgrade over GWB/Cheney.
How about a call for a new Constitutional Convention?
It is demonstratably within in our rights -in a way that even those with only grade-school concepts of civics can comprehend.
And it could originate in State Legislatures that are much more accessible to non D or R parties and candidates.
I feel strongly that the way out of the trap that the Corporatist's and their whores in the "big two" have put us in will involve a move toward DE-centralization.
History itself argues for this.
Wow,...I look at the stars and stripes and I get a lump in my throat. Sorry, not swelling pride,..it's bile. It's become disgustingly obvious that we're a bunch of sheep paying the corporations to victimize the world with our CIA and military.
And the bulk of us are sooo arrogant and aloof, we don't give a damn enough to hit the streets and stop it.
That's what we've been reduced to -- barbarians who plunge into murder and bloodshed whenever the mood strikes. It's beyond hideous. I am so ashamed.
No, that's what "non-barbarians" have ALWAYS been.
The ancient concept of "barbarians" is the same kind of projection as the more recent concept of "savages". In each case, closer, and more objective scutiny shows the "civilised" to be the main purveyors of "murder and bloodshed".
Not "whenever the mood" struck, though. For Land and Power and Riches.
Just what the "barbarians" were always supposedly after.
Damn, I knew Bush and Cheney were stupid, I didn't need this to prove it. This is just useless provocation.
Past time for these guys to go.
Unfortunately, their likely replacement is Obama, who is on the record as being a supporter of such cross border attacks into a sovereign nation should there be 'actionable intelligence'.
In other words, don't expect any change here. Not unless we elect Nader.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Warmongers from afar should be kicked out of the entire Middle East for the simple logic that they do not belong there. Their presence there causes death and instability.
Several counteies and international figures have condenmed the attack, but all European puppets have remained silent as usual.
The US Military has consistently LIED about such incidents. The so called "Terrorists" and "Fanatics" and "Islamofascists" are more reliable a source of information then is the United States Military, its Government, or its media.
PK
This action was the prelude to the announcement of a policy shift that legitimizes the US as THE "Global Cop". Our "leaders" are now above reproach for ANY unilateral action that is deemed necessary to "protect it's citizens".
To hell with the UN. Screw treaties. Borders are now no longer respected. All citizens throughout the world are now subject to rules of war and "civilian" death within combat zones is not subject to any international law or criminal review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/washington/29gates.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
LinkTV has a program called Mosaic that gives daily news from most of the countries in the Middle East; Israel to Iran and all between. The TV coverage from Syria showed some pretty graphic scenes of the dead men who were killed by the US Special Forces troops in the raid inside Syria. It appears that most were killed at a construction site. The locals insisted that the dead men were ordinary laborers and they said nothing about them being involved in a gun fight with the US troops. According to our military, there was a big gun battle in which all the bad guys were killed and none of the good guys were even wounded. The scenes at the local morgue showed two men on each gurney in the cooler. One looked to be a boy about 15 years old.
This would not be the first time that we have been given bogus information and went rushing in helter skelter,trigger happy, without doublechecking and shot the wrong people. The real kick in the butt for the US is that if it was all a con job, the military will never admit they screwed up, even if the entire country of Syria is pissed off. My biggest concern is that this is a deliberate Cheney trick to try to precipitate a fight that will bring out the idiot base in the US to wave their little flags and then vote for the same war party that brought us the mess in Iraq and is more than ready to blow up Iran.
One interesting thing in propaganda is to look for evidence of return fire.
For example, I remember an incident in Fallujah right after the invasion of Iraq. The US military had occupied a school for their base. The locals wanted their school back, and perhaps misled by our talk of democracy, organized a march. The US military opened fire on the march. They of course claimed they were fired upon.
The pictures of the scene showed the cars along the street across from the school riddled with high caliber machine gun fire, obviously from the Americans. There were also some pictures of Americans on the roof of the school, but not a bullet pock-mark anywhere along the walls. And like in this case, there were not reported American casualties. Not even one wounded. Apparently, if they did come under fire, it was by people who couldn't hit even the side of a building from across the street.
So, that's just a long way to say that its an interesting note that while the Americans say there was a gun battle, that there were no Americans even wounded in the exchange.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"