THE Syrian newspaper Al Thawra has warned that the US is beefing up its forces in Iraq in preparation for an attack on Syria.
The article of August 11 says that ‘In his speech about the growing strength of the Iraqi resistance against his forces and the coalition forces that occupy Iraq, US President George W Bush said that the resistance, which he describes as terrorism and its elements as terrorists, has expanded and intensified its operations and that the quality of its operations and performance have developed such that it now surmounts the ability of his forces to contain and confront.
‘Moreover, Bush said that containing the situation in Iraq, in light of the qualitative and quantitative development of the national resistance, warrants the dispatch of more US forces to Iraq to face what he called terrorism and its growing strength, and to contain its operations and its ability to attract Iraqi public opinion and mobilise it to join the resistance against the occupation represented by the United States and the occupation’s command represented by the US forces.
‘Bush’s remarks about Iraq came more than 10 days after the onset of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, the aggression that has destroyed buildings, displaced people, killed children, women, and elderly, and failed to defeat the resistance.
‘In fact, the aggression is being defeated by the resistance. Moreover, the aggression has failed to turn the residents of southern Lebanon in particular and the Lebanese in general against the resistance in its attempt to exert internal pressure and undermine the stability of Lebanese society so as to topple the equation, and turn its, the aggression’s defeat, into victory.
‘Why did President Bush declare at this time in particular that Iraq needs more US forces to confront the alleged terrorism inside Iraq?
‘And why did he declare that additional forces will be sent to Iraq, and has perhaps already begun to dispatch such forces?
‘It was announced in the United States that 25,000 soldiers will be sent to Iraq to confront a popular uprising against the occupation, an uprising that portends death and destruction, and wards off peace, security, stability, building, and reconstruction from Iraq.
‘Is it true that the additional Marines will serve the US democracy in Iraq? There is no doubt that the US occupation forces are facing painful blows in Iraq, and their size, equipment, and technology are totally unable to undermine the resistance’s will and actions in Iraq.
‘Increasing the size of US forces and conducting visits will not subjugate the will of the resistance, for it defies all weapons.
‘The resistance is not a body that can be torn apart by a missile fired from an aircraft, nor is it a wall that can be destroyed by a tank shell. It is a spirit that moves to create life. It is against death, because it is something that comes out of death and means life.
‘If the will and actions of the resistance in Iraq defy US and any other weapons, what is the purpose of sending additional US forces and US weapons to Iraq? Simply, they are there to support Israel’s aggression against Lebanon and to expand the aggression towards Syria, or at least send a message of military threat to Syria to stop supporting the legitimate Arab resistance against the US-Israeli plan in the region.
‘Cogent proof that the additional US forces to be sent to the region will serve this purpose is that the birth of the “new Middle East” that the US secretary of state announced, thus becoming a secretary of war, will be a difficult birth and could lead to the death of the foetus.
‘By dispatching more US soldiers to the region, the United States will have announced in a more provocative manner its bias towards Israel in its aggression against Lebanon to ensure the implementation of Resolution 1559 at a later stage.
‘So far, the US position has been limited to diplomatic efforts that became clear through the thwarting three times of the Security Council’s attempts to reach a cease-fire agreement and in preparing for the dispatch of international forces to southern Lebanon to serve as a hammer that pounds the heads of the Lebanese whenever Israel wants and whenever it senses any danger from the south.
‘In other words, the international forces would be recruited to defend Israel and protect it based on an international resolution.
‘Hence, the dispatch of additional US forces to the region, about three military divisions, is not to work in Iraq, but rather to threaten Lebanon and Syria and to threaten Iran which stands firmly in favour of just Arab and Muslim causes.
‘If, in addition to the dispatch of US forces, we take into consideration the fact that Israel has called up three military reserve divisions and the time period it requested to complete its aggression against Lebanon, the most recent of which was the speech by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert immediately after the Qana massacre, in which he said that he needs 10 to 14 days to complete his hostile military operation in Lebanon, and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s remarks that a cease-fire could be reached one week after the Qana massacre, one can deduce or determine the general framework of the reason behind dispatching additional US forces to Iraq.
‘The United States does not conceal its goals and designs in the region. It is employing all its capabilities to achieve its goals and attain its objectives by using all available means and by using the United Nations and the Security Council as tools of diplomatic pressure that pave the way for launching aggressive military operations in the region.
‘Within a few days only Israel will launch a very big aggressive operation, one that will be commensurate with the size of the forces that are being mobilised for this purpose in addition to the US forces that will be dispatched to Iraq.
‘Moreover, such an operation will first be commensurate with the size of the US objective; namely eliminating Hezbollah and the Islamic resistance and establishing the new Middle East that the United States wants to establish and that is going through a difficult birth.
‘We say to the United States and Israel that because this birth is against the laws of nature it will result in a stillbirth.’
