U.S. OK'd pursuit into Iran, Syria

[flashl]

Source: UPI

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 U.S. rules of engagement permitted American military forces in Iraq to cross Iranian and Syrian borders in pursuit of terrorists, a published report said.

Citing a 2005 document posted on Wikileaks, a Web site that promotes posting of leaked information, The New York Times said U.S. forces were authorized to go into Iran and Syria to follow terrorists and former members of Saddam Hussein's government.

U.S. officials said the document appeared to be authentic, the newspaper said. It contained rules of engagement for the American division that was based in Baghdad and central Iraq in 2005.

Wikileaks says its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East," but the it alos wants to help reveal unethical behavior in ... governments and corporations" elsewhere.

UPI

Read more: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/02/04/report_us_okd_pursuit_into_iran_syria/1180/

---

So... A few more millions in PR from the WH to soften American resistance to the idea of another 'war' and we are off to the races. This admin has already given itself permission to go into Iran and Syria.

[LynnTheDem]

1. And the US of course has no problem with Syria, Iran, France,

Germany, Canada etc crossing into US territory to "hunt terrorists".

Otherwise, the US would be a total hypocrite.

Oh wait...

[Hugabear]

2. How about Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia?

Aren't we harboring terrorists that are being sought by those countries?

[LynnTheDem]

4. We are indeed. And republicans welcome those nations' troops in to hunt em down.

And of course bombing & invading America for harboring terrorists is 100% justified under the bUsh Doctrine.

Coz only terrorist nations harbor terrorists, said george w. bush.

[flashl]

3. Wilileaks do not support the troops?

The U.S. military command in Baghdad Sunday declined to comment on whether the rules of engagement document was authentic, but a spokesman told the Times "the deliberate release of what Wikileaks believes to be a classified document is irresponsible and, if valid, could put U.S. military personnel at risk."

[montanto]

5. The world is OUR oyster!!

[TheLastMohican]

6. That's stupid

It gives total right for the syrian and iranian forces to open fire on our task groups.
Unless they carry large slogans "We are here to hunt terrorists. Don't shoot us. We will leave soon!"

[boricua79]

7. what's with this "permitted" crap

They are sovereign nations and never allowed it. The U.S. decided to flaunt the sovereignty of these nations to chase insurgents. What it is doing is goading a fight with Iran.

I really get angry when I read about American double-standards. We wouldn't like it if Mexico "OKed" allowed incursions into SouthWestern states to follow their enemies. We'd stop it at the first incident.

Why are WE allowed to go to Iran and Syria?

And THIS is Why they Hate Us. (question answered)

[Igel]

8. There used to be a doctrine of hot pursuit.

It's current status is sketchy--nobody on the receiving end likes it, nobody on the giving end has a problem with it.

It goes something like this: If there's a group that raids across the border into your territory, you have four choices: (1) You can do nothing, except maybe try to stop the incursions at the border--assuming that you can't make a separate peace and give the raiders what they'd otherwise try to take; (2) you can complain so that the country on whose territory they're based can do something; (3) when you find them on your territory you can chase them over the border; (4) you declare war on the 'host' country and route that government and the raiders.

(1) is a losing proposition, since it's hard to fortify the entire border (and these days if you try it it's all but a crime against humanity). (2) doesn't always get great results: sometimes the 'host' country is willing but unable to do much about it, sometimes the host country doesn't much care, sometimes the host country rather likes having you harrassed. (4) is also a losing propositions--perhaps it's too much of a hassle, perhaps you'd lose, perhaps it would make the entire situation worse. (3) is the old-fashioned way of doing it: As long as you're giving chase, if the host country's done nothing to stop them you can cross the border to stop them. This is different from what most people up-thread have assumed, doing things like raiding in the absence of hot pursuit. Crucially, (3) has had to follow (2) in order to respect another nation's sovereignty, otherwise it was considered unjustifiable; and (3) has to be of a magnitude such that it's not confused with (4). (3) could also be invoked for crossing the Durand Line, and I'd be surprised if it hasn't been.

Note that if there were cross-border raids into Mexico and we failed to stop it, that would probably be considered a casus belli. We have the ability to make a decent good-faith effort to stop such raids, and if we didn't try it could properly be judged as either not much caring that our territory was used for cross-border raids, that we rather liked the raiders, or even used them as a kind of proxy raiding force.