Here is an amazing article. Quietly, under the radar, Syria had become one of our most important allies in the fight against terrorism. Our best weapon against terrorism is intelligence, and Syria is in a position to obtain a great deal of information on al Qaida. After 9/11 they had been qietly sharing that intelligence with us. Lots of it. They even thwarted at least one al Qaida attack on a US military base in Bahrain.
Syria is officially listed in the US as a state that sponsors terrorism because of their public support for Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is a thorn in Israel's side, not directly in our own, nor has it been directly involved in a terrorist act since 1986. So do we give up this intel on principle? Syria's cooperation with us has saved lives. It is not a clear cut decision. And this cooperation could have been an indication that Syria was turning the corner. They were giving us something that we needed, and giving us both quantity and quality. It should have been looked at seriously.
(This type of murky grey area is precisely why Bush's "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric is naive in the extreme. Which was Syria? You could make the case either way. And it is one of the reasons those of us who use our grey matter on occasion cannot stomach this pretender in the White House.)
The Bush administration decided to throw it all away. By deciding to invade Iraq without UN approval (and how long would we have had to wait to get it? A month? Two?) and by violating Syrian soveriegnty while incompetently pursuing Baath party loyalists, Bush cut off the flow of information from Syria. This invasion of Iraq, whose justifications are proving shakier by the day, was more important than credible intelligence that had proved itself time and again.
What are the administration's real proirities? Are they really serious about fighting terrorism? Or is it more important to keep the American public in a perpetual state of fear and dependence? Is it more important to fight a highly visible yet ultimately counterproductive war rather than do the tough day-to-day job of gathering intelligence and acting on it? What drives the decisions? How can you look at the evidence and not conclude that fooling the electorate is more important than actually securing Americans' safety?
12:01:03 AM 
|
