Powered by WebAds

Saturday, October 20, 2007

'Confront, not attack'?

If you want to know why Iran is successfully developing nuclear weapons right under the nose of the United States, take a look at how the Americans handled information they was given over the summer about Syria's apparent nuclear plant that the Israelis took out in early September. It looks like the neo-cons in the Bush administration have been replaced by the moonbats.

According to an ABC News report over the weekend, after the Israelis had gotten a mole to get them ground level pictures of the facility, the Americans first planned an overly complex mission to destroy the facility in a bid to get additional evidence - for whom? - that what walked and talked like a nuclear facility really was a nuclear facility. They then decided not to carry out the mission, and urged the Israelis to 'confront' the Syrians - not attack.
A senior U.S. official told ABC News the Israelis first discovered a suspected Syrian nuclear facility early in the summer, and the Mossad — Israel's intelligence agency — managed to either co-opt one of the facility's workers or to insert a spy posing as an employee.

As a result, the Israelis obtained many detailed pictures of the facility from the ground.

The official said the suspected nuclear facility was approximately 100 miles from the Iraqi border, deep in the desert along the Euphrates River. It was a place, the official said, "where no one would ever go unless you had a reason to go there."

But the hardest evidence of all was the photographs.

The official described the pictures as showing a big cylindrical structure, with very thick walls all well-reinforced. The photos show rebar hanging out of the cement used to reinforce the structure, which was still under construction.

There was also a secondary structure and a pump station, with trucks around it. But there was no fissionable material found because the facility was not yet operating.

The official said there was a larger structure just north of a small pump station; a nuclear reactor would need a constant source of water to keep it cool.

The official said the facility was a North Korean design in its construction, the technology present and the ability to put it all together.

It was North Korean "expertise," said the official, meaning the Syrians must have had "human" help from North Korea.

...

The Israelis urged the U.S. government to destroy the complex, and the U.S. started looking at options about how to destroy the facility: Targeters were assembled, and officials contemplated a special forces raid using helicopters, which would mean inserting forces to collect data and then blow the site up.

That option would have been very daring, the official says, because of the distance from the border and the amount of explosives it would take to take down the facility.

The options were considered, but according to the official, word came back from the White House that the United States was not interested in carrying out the raid.

But as ABC News reported in July, the Israelis made the decision to take the facility out themselves, though the U.S. urged them not to. The Bush administration, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates leading the way, said the Israelis and the U.S. should "confront not attack."

The official said the facility had been there at least eight months before the strike, but because of the lack of fissionable material, the United States hesitated on the attack because it couldn't be absolutely proved that it was a nuclear site.

But the official told ABC News, "It was unmistakable what it was going to be. There is no doubt in my mind."
I couldn't embed the video, so you will have to go here to watch it.

At the end of the video, the reporter speculates that the 'confront, not attack' strategy is related to an American fear that if the truth came out, the 'negotiations' between Israel and the 'Palestinians' and the six-party 'talks' involving North Korea would fall apart. Maybe they ought to fall apart. The other sides are just using them to buy time until they can confront the good guys anyway.

1 Comments:

At 12:21 AM, Blogger Dave said...

It's supposed to be the Democrats who are weak and unreliable on defense matters and Republicans who are logical, forceful and reliable. I'm starting to get the feeling we elected Democrats masquerading as Republicans.

When all those terrible neo-cons checked out of the Bush Administration, they seem to have taken much of the dispassionate reasoning and fortitude with them, leaving diffident wishful thinking to hold sway.

Bush, Condi & Co. needn't be Macchiavellian brutes but they do need to understand that only disciplined strength and the willingness to use it are respected in this corner of the world.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google