tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post113511269624420412..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: Striking a DealGeorge Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-1135181582822370722005-12-21T11:13:00.000-05:002005-12-21T11:13:00.000-05:00Your points are well taken, and I believe (at leas...Your points are well taken, and I believe (at least for a while) we were attempting to work with the Syrians, and get them to sign on in such issues as border security, cutting support for terrorist groups, etc. Needless to say, the Syrians haven't done much, so our "patience" with Damascus is waning. <BR/><BR/> If we do know more about what may have moved from Iraq to Syria, I haven't seen it, and (besides) I couldn't talk about it in this forum. Suffice it to say that there remains a gaping intel hole on the issue of Saddam's WMD, and the possible Syrian connection. I will say that there has been a noticeable increase in Syrian WMD activity over the past 4-5 years--more testing, expansion of facilities, etc. That type of activity is obviously aimed at deterring Israel, but it's also the sort of things you do if you had received--or were expecting--an increase in your stockpile. <BR/><BR/> But clearly, politics does play a role in what we do/say, both publicly and privately. And, if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, I'd say we're taking a much tougher approach with Damascus. I've also noted the comments of FNC military analyst (Ret) AF Lt Gen Tom McInerney, who is very much "in the loop" with the White House and the Pentagon. More than two months ago, Gen McInerney commented that elements of the military wanted hot pursuit authority, allowing them to chase insurgents across the border into Syria. Gen McInerney is a very serious guy, not prone to rash statements. I think his comments reflect a view within DOD that Syria should be held accountable, on a variety of issues .Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712369389411084085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-1135181034042464712005-12-21T11:03:00.000-05:002005-12-21T11:03:00.000-05:00Old 982A writes...Let's go back 40 years... Back i...Old 982A writes...<BR/><BR/>Let's go back 40 years... <BR/>Back in the stone age (middle 1960s) I recall the official US Government position was that there were no bad-guys (PAVN/NVA or VC) in Cambodia. <BR/>I also recall how many of us had the gut feeling that things couldn't be so. <BR/>So when I first walked into an analysis shop in Jan of '68, saw the working/briefing map with all the red stickers west of the RVN/Cambodia border, I had a great "Aha" moment. <BR/>Later, while doing some research for a college paper I was able to talk to a former national security official from the Johnson administration and I asked him why we were BS-ing the world by our story of no PAVN/NVA or VC in Cambodia. His response was that it was a decision based on diplomatic concerns and we didn't want to embarrass Sihanouk. <BR/><BR/>So we denied the existence of several major North Vietnamese headquarters (up in the Tri-Border area and down at COSVN), major portions of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and Lord knows what else in order to "not embarrass" an already less-than-friendly player. <BR/><BR/>And what kind of things that we know already regarding the transfer of materiel, personnel and funds in/out of Syria, Iran, SA, are we not officially stating so as not to embarrass whatever dictator of the moment? <BR/><BR/>Sometimes I think we’re just our own worst enemy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712369389411084085noreply@blogger.com