Syria News Wire

Syria News Wire header image 2

US Military on the Iraq-Syria border: there are no more foreign fighters crossing the border

February 10th, 2006 · 7 Comments · Uncategorized

Col. Greg Reilly of the 3rd squadron of the 3rd Armoured Cavalry, who is at Sinjar, patrolling the Syria-Iraq border, says the flow of foreign fighters from Syria has stopped.

The astonishing claim flies in the face of cries from Washington that Syria is doing nothing to stop militants crossing into Iraq.

Col. Reilly says he has stopped 130 smugglers in the area in the past nine months, but says “we did not find one foreign fighter.”

He also pours scorn on suggestions that money to support the insurgency is pouring across the frontier: “If there was a strong relationship, we’d have found money caches or they would have tried to divert us from the border. That has not happened.”

His claims seem to support a report from American journalist Kevin Sites, who was on the Syrian side of the border last week. He said: “The Syrian Army says it’s done a lot to beef up security on the border after American and Iraqi complaints, including the creation of a defensive sand berm and increasing the number of border outposts to 557, each with eight to ten soldiers on guard.”

And in the past few weeks, even Washington has been forced to concede that things are changing in the desert:

“The pouring of fighters on the Syrian border has declined now,” said Henry Crampton, a U.S. State Department official. “And I believe the Syrians actually took certain measures in that regard, but they can do more.”

When will the White House start singing a new song? These were George W. Bush’s words four weeks ago: “there’s suiciders coming in from Syria into Iraq”.

Tags:

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 norman // Feb 10, 2006 at 5.47 am

    The whole forign fighters claim is an excuse to attack Syria ,only ignorant Americans beleive that.the American govorment follows the theary that if keep repeating the lies people will beleive them,unfortionatly the govorment people are beleiving their own lies.

  • 2 Anonymous // Feb 10, 2006 at 10.07 am

    Assad will bring World War 3.

    This is an email I wrote to some friends.

    Israeli army officers are speculating that if international pressures escalate on Assad, he may order that missiles be fired at Israel. See: http://www.champress.net/english/index.php?page=show_det&id=2288

    This would be a very stupid move for the Syrians and for the world. It would be good for Assad. Why? Because if he attacks Israel, he can do it in the name of the “Arab resistance” and the “Islamic struggle” and would probably win the support of the mobs.

    This would start World War 3. Iran would join Syria. Hezbollah would join, thus bringing Lebanon back into Hell because the non-Muslim factions would most likely not support such a move (which would drag them into war) and would probably side with the US. Hamas of course would join. The US would leave Afghanistan to move more troops to the Middle East. The Afghanis would destroy the new government and murder everybody and their families who was involved in it, and extremists would take over and the Taliban would return. North Korea would “join” Syria/Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas. This might be followed by covert support for them by the Chinese, while they keep an official mask of remaining neutral or on the US side. However, they would not send troops to support the US. Or, China would openly defy the US and join the Middle East in the interests of finding better oil. Japan would be annihilated, and nobody would really care. The US and all of Europe would join forces against the Middle Eastern countries. North Africa would side with Syria and Hamas/Hezbollah.

    Israel as we know it today would be destroyed, either because the Arabs attacked them first or in response to Israeli nuclear attacks. Either way, Israel will use nukes. It will be a nuclear war. The US would probably not use nukes because the war would not be fought on their soil (except maybe by terrorists). South Korea would be annihilated. Taiwan would disappear. The Turkish government would side with the US, but they would then be overthrown by their largely Muslim population and would defect to the Syria-Iran Axis.

    The Latin world (Cuba, Venezuela, Peru) would “side’ with Syria-Iran but they would be negligible forces. No war would actually take place between the US and Latin America, though there might be overseas clashes at US missions abroad. American and European citizens will be kidnapped, taken hostage, and murdered in South America.

    Depending on how long it is before Israel uses its nukes, the war will rage on. Many Middle Eastern governments would probably be toppled relatively quickly, but the so called “insurgencies” would never end, and civilians will all be forces of resistance. The Western axes will never be able to “occupy” and return stability because the citizenries will never give up and they will never succumb because their whole region is in chaos. The East will play the “West attack on Islam” card.

    That said, were all the above to transpire, the Pakistani government would initially ally with the West but they would be later toppled by the people or by a violent coup which would install a purportedly Muslim government. This government would focus initially on the Israeli war, but later, India would officially take a side with the US and Europe and would thus renew tensions with Pakistan. If Israel uses its nukes, the Pakistanis will say fuck it, and they will nuke India (assuming the population is really into the war) purportedly over the Kashmir issue and to kill the “idol worshippers.” India will respond with its nuke. Both countries will be decapitated, and for the remainder would be hotbeds of instability and guerilla warfare, but will cease to be significant players in the war. The West will occupy India under the pretense of helping the people, but more likely to keep army bases and what not. They may also extend into Pakistan.

    Saudi Arabia would initially be opposed to the war, but as it raged on, it would become clear that they could no longer stay the middle ground, reaping the benefits of oil money and staying part of the Arab/Muslim world. The Islamic extremists would topple the Kingdom if it didn’t willingly join the war, and they would fight against Israel.

    Nobody would ever “win” the war, but the West will survive the war of attrition because of their superior and self-dependent economies, militaries, and education systems. The Middle East will be nuked back to the stone ages and the West would remain superior. The 3rd world will remain the 3rd world.

  • 3 Anonymous // Feb 10, 2006 at 10.28 am

    Good, if Israel is destroyed.

    Anyways, Sasa, can I have a link to your article? This is important.

  • 4 sasa // Feb 10, 2006 at 12.12 pm

    Yes, the article is here.

    My article is here.

    And Kevin Sites’ piece is here.

  • 5 Anonymous // Feb 10, 2006 at 3.04 pm

    Norman, go back to your sandbox and hump a camel.

  • 6 norman // Feb 10, 2006 at 4.36 pm

    anon,are you a camel you seem atractive.

  • 7 norman // Feb 11, 2006 at 4.33 am

    If Asad can bring WW 3 , that is more reason for Israel if it has forsight to settle the Middleast problem ASAP before it is destroyed.

Leave a Comment