BBC: US Attack on Syria

What does it take to be a writer for the BBC?

Not much.

Requirement: A generally Eurocentric view of the world, and an anti-American view of the US.

Helpful: Belief in invisible creatures, jin, leprechauns, and fairies.

Desirable: A belief that whatever the US does, is questionable. That what others do, is almost always in response to the US doing or not doing something.

That everything bad that happens can be traced back to something the US has done, or failed to do.

The above seem to be the requirements to work for the BBC, Guardian, and other English papers.

Mr. Marcus - perhaps a few details to assist you in reconciling your fantasy world with reality:
1) Before the US launched any attack into Syria, both McCain and Obama were told. They are not asked for their permission, BUT they have it explained to them, and if they oppose the action, given all the information available - they may oppose it - afterward. As yet, Obama has not gone public with opposition. That Mr. Marcus should tell you volumes.
2) Yes, before the US launched any such action, the president is involved and must give his ok.
3) In the preceding 24 hours, it is almost certain that the US sent messages to Syria to do whatever it was the US wanted done - catch someone, stop someone, close the border, and Syria refused. They were warned at least 24 hours in advance.
4) The action was done to safeguard advances in Iraq - not in the US. Iranian weapons and supplies come across borders - insurgents, al qaida and otherwise, cross from Syria into Iraq. Iraq has a right to do what is needed to protect its borders and Iraq requested the US take whatever action was required (as we will find out soon enough).
5) Blowing up 8 people in Syria will not gain McCain any points you shirtlifter. Imagine how scared everyone will be of 8 men blown up on their way into Iraq. I can see the world tremble. It will hardly register unless those 8 men are more than simply terrorists or insurgents moving across borders.


And no, the timing is NOT curious - just in your mind, and the minds of little people who do not understand how events transpire in the real world.


***************************************



What could lie behind Syria raid?
By Jonathan Marcus Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News

Syria has said American troops carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people - if the claims are true then this will be the first military incursion by the US into Syrian territory from Iraq.

But its timing is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus.

Whatever the local military factors involved in this US operation, it would be unthinkable to imagine that an incursion into Syria would not require a policy decision at a high-level.

The movement of insurgents and foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq has long been a bone of contention between Damascus and Washington.

The US argument has always been that the Syrians are not doing enough to control the border.

The Syrians have always countered that they are unfairly being blamed for turmoil inside Iraq that is not of their making.

Quite apart from their differences over Iraq, Washington sees Syria as unhelpful in Lebanon and as far too friendly with Iran.

While there have been relatively high-level contacts between the two governments - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meeting the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly just a few weeks ago - they have hardly generated any warmth.

Washington has even been lukewarm to Turkey's efforts to broker a peace deal between Israel and Syria.

All of this is in marked contrast to European efforts to engage the Syrians.

With French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the lead, a number of European countries have sought to bring Syria in from the cold.

But despite glimmerings of dissent from the State Department, the Bush administration has held firm to its policy of no substantive talks with Syria unless - as the Americans put it - Damascus decides to take a more "positive role" in the region.

With the Bush administration on the way out, this US military incursion may represent something of a parting shot against the Syrians.

It's clear that if Senator Barrack Obama were to win the White House, his key advisers are among the strongest advocates of engaging with the Damascus across a broad spectrum of issues.







Obama




Syria