HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
The Turkish authorities would be delighted if Syria was the next target and would probably participate gleefully. They have some misgivings about an attack on Iraq, not for any principled reason but simply because they fear the break-up of Iraq would encourage Kurdish nationalism. But they would not have such misgivings about Syria. Steve K. >From: Rick Rozoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Alexander Haig: Attack Syria First [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] >Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 00:31:56 -0800 (PST) > >HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK >--------------------------- > >http://upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=07012002-022358-8327r > >Haig: Syria should be next target >By Arnaud de Borchgrave >UPI Editor at Large >Published 1/7/2002 2:57 PM > > >WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 (UPI) -- The man who has held three >key appointments in past administrations -- secretary >of state, White House chief of staff, and NATO supreme >commander - said Monday Syria, not Iraq, should be the >next target in the war against terrorism. > >In an exclusive interview with United Press >International, Gen. Alexander M. Haig, Jr., said >Syria's "footprints" are much clearer than Iraq's. > >"This doesn't mean that Iraq isn't a more venal threat >... There's a great deal of culpability in Iraq for >the past 10 years, but not necessarily as a branch of >Global Terror, Inc.," he said. > >"Syria," Haig made clear, "is a terrorist state by any >definition and is so classified by the State >Department. I happen to think Iran is, too." > >The defeat of Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terror >network in Afghanistan "did not neutralize the >venality of other (terrorist) tentacles, such as >Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah," he explained, >organizations that would not hesitate to provide "aid >and succor" to al Qaida fighters. Syria and Iran are >the sponsors of these terrorist groups, not Iraq. > >For the United States to take on Iraq, Haig said, >would require about 100,000 combat troops. > >"We have to recognize that we had far more people over >there the first time than we ever needed," he >continued. "The Gulf War itself was fought essentially >by two units." > >Haig said, "Saddam is not part of a transnational >terrorist network. Which is not to say he is not a >threat to the entire Gulf region with his growing >arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Because he is. > >"First and foremost we must go after hydra-headed al >Qaida's global tentacles. These Islamist terrorists >look upon their defeat in Afghanistan as the loss of a >piece of real estate on the larger canvas of Islamist >fundamentalist extremism that has developed roots in >some 40 Muslim countries and which has cells all over >the Western world, including the United States, " the >retired general said. > >But, he went on, "Iraq doesn't belong on this canvas. >International terrorism continues to be the mission. >So Iraq is not an immediate priority. There are >several factors that will determine future targets. >First of all, our capability to deal with them >effectively and efficiently. Also evidence of their >culpability, conflicting priorities with other >objectives, and how much time we have before the >venality of these regimes becomes a bigger threat than >the evidence we have." > >Asked whether culpability had been proved in Iraq in >the context of international terrorism, Haig replied >that there has been "a great deal of culpability in >Iraq for the past 10 years, but not necessarily as a >branch of Global Terror, Inc. Iraq is a substantial >target, but not an insurmountable one. We've proven >that. And it won't be as tough a nut next time as Iraq >is now a much-weakened state. But we still have to >assess the situation against our worldwide >commitments, our current forces levels and >capabilities, our priorities for dealing with >transnational terrorism, and our intelligence with >respect to the nature of the targets we develop." > >Haig also hinted that the United States does not have >sufficient troops on the ground in Afghanistan "given >the magnitude of the problems we now face (there). A >major U.S. force on the ground would convince the >world we were in for the long haul recovery of a >country devastated by 21 years of warfare," he said. >"We lost interest in Afghanistan and left it in the >lurch after the Soviets pulled out in 1989 -- and paid >a terrible price for our shortsightedness, witness the >emergence of Taliban and al Qaida. If we are to thwart >another round of warlordism and tribal warfare, such >as what followed the Soviet withdrawal, and encourage >the Afghans to get on with rebuilding their own >nation, U.S. assistance, diplomacy and a muscular >military presence will be required." > >"In Desert Storm," in 1991, Haig said, "we had too >many troops; in Afghanistan probably not enough for >the major commitment we have made." He blamed the >inadequacy of current force levels on the Clinton >administration. With all the commitments made by >Clinton "and a continued reduction in our manpower >base in all the services, we should be asking >ourselves whether or not we have sufficient forces to >cope with a global war against terrorism that involves >several nation states. Sooner or later something had >to give. But President Bush, faced with the >unprecedented affront of 9-11, could not wait to take >action. So he had to do what we were capable of doing >and he did it brilliantly ... he achieved maximum >success despite a number of formidable restraints." > >Other key points made by Haig: > >* China -- "We could begin by refraining from >gratuitous insults. Our interventionism in China's >internal affairs is something we committed not to do >in the Shanghai and subsequent communiqu�s. And yet >we've proceeded to do just that with increased >intensity, especially during Clinton's eight years. >... How can we expect China to live up to its >commitments when we don't live up to ours? ... The >fact is that interventionism usually aggravates the >improvement in human rights and sets things back ... >The best way to promote our values, whether its human >rights or a market economy...[is] by example and by >success ...The conditions for what we are today do not >exist in large parts of the world. So we ought to be >more patient. Most of our posturing is done by >politicians for domestic political gain, not to >achieve results around the world." > >*Taiwan - "Of course, we should defend Taiwan in case >of attack." > >* Europe -- The United States continues to maintain >70,000 U.S. troops in Germany because: "This presence >is the basis of our influence in the European region >and for the cooperation of allied nations whose >security it enhances. A lot of people forget it is >also the bona fide of our economic success ... it >keeps European markets open to us. If those troops >weren't there, those markets would probably be more >difficult to access." > >* Russia -- President Bush has moved toward a new >global security system "when he said Russia is no >longer our enemy, that NATO wants to cooperate with >them, and he didn't discount future NATO membership >for Russia...[but] if you make the case for Russia in >NATO, then there would be no reason for NATO. You >would have to rechristen it and change its overall >objective." > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! >http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ > > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
