Michael Jansen

The US raid on Syria could, with luck, be the last desperate gesture of a deeply discredited lame-duck regime.

It was hardly the “October surprise” the Republicans might have hoped would project their candidate John McCain into the White House.

A strike on distant Syria could never compete with the financial meltdown and economic crisis in the US itself. The very fact that some people in the Bush administration may have thought that an incursion by US special forces into Syria could make a difference shows that they remain as unrealistic now as they were in March 2003 when US forces marched into Iraq on the basis of the fabricated claim that the Baathist government had an arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The US is now claiming that it launched its first raid into Syria since 2003 and the first ever operation by land forces to kill or capture (not capture or kill) a top smuggler of arms, fighters and funds into Iraq. The man, identified as Badran Al Mazidi, from Mosul, was said to be responsible for channelling men and material into Iraq with the aim of attacking US and Iraqi government forces and harming Iraqi civilians.The US military, which has hardly performed with distinction in Iraq, says it killed the man, but the Syrians say innocent civilians were slain by the helicopter-borne raiders.

Whatever the truth, it is certain that the operation did more harm than good. For one thing, the raid almost certainly finished off the idea that Iraq could sign an agreement permitting US forces to remain in the country until the end of 2011 under conditions which Baghdad could, however reluctantly, accept. By hitting Syria at this critical time in the protracted negotiations over the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), the Bush administration has made it impossible for the Iraqis to agree to a deal.

The administration may have thought that the attack would frighten the Iraqis into agreeing. But the Iraqi politicians who have refused to sign on the dotted line want to survive the Bush administration, which leaves office on January 20, and see what the new team in the White House will propose.These politicians know very well that agreeing to any text - however favourable - at this time could lead to their ouster in parliamentary elections, due next year, and to the defeat of their parties in the coming provincial polls.

Since the (ungrateful) US-backed post-war Iraqi political establishment has dickered over the SOFA for so long, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the Bushies responsible for the operation may have wanted to punish them for refusing to accept the agreement.

Baghdad’s belated condemnation of the raid was mandatory. The 2005 Iraqi constitution - drafted under US auspices - contains a provision banning attacks on neighbouring countries by foreign forces based in Iraq. Therefore, if Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki or his officers or officials gave prior authorisation to this operation, they would have violated the constitution. But the Iraqi government’s reaction suggests that it did not know what the US was going to do and did not approve the raid.Since the prohibition on using Iraq as a launchpad for operations against neighbouring states has been written into the current draft of the SOFA, it is difficult to understand what Washington thought it was doing. It is obvious, however, that, by carrying out a raid on Syria, the Bush administration demonstrated clearly that it has no intention of abiding by limitations imposed by either the Iraqi constitution or the SOFA itself.

Little wonder that Damascus demanded that the Iraqi government accept responsibility for the raid and hold accountable those who launched it.

Perhaps, Washington wanted to show the Iraqis that in the absence of a SOFA, US troops would behave precisely as they wish although their actions could create serious problems for Iraq. This could be a serious miscalculation because Syria and Iran, in particular, and other neighbours of Iraq are certain to put pressure on Baghdad to rein in the US and to urge Baghdad to encourage Washington to withdraw as soon as possible. Iran, in particular, can exert considerable influence on the Iraqi government which, in any case, is dominated by pro-Tehran Shiite factions.

The fact that the raid took place on the eve of a visit to London by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem put Britain in an embarrassing position. Until recently, Britain had been following the US lead by agreeing to isolate and boycott Syria.But following the opening to Damascus engineered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy in July, Britain seems to have been moving towards the European position.

Europe favours dialogue although Syria has steadfastly refused to capitulate to US demands to end its alliance with Iran and support for the Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hizbollah movements. Since Sarkozy invited Syrian President Bashar Assad to take part in the Mediterranean summit and French national day celebrations, Damascus has taken measures which have pleased the European powers and should have softened the hard line followed by the Bush administration.

Damascus sent its first ambassador to Baghdad in 26 years and agreed to open full diplomatic relations with Lebanon. Syria has also cracked down on infiltrators crossing its border with Iraq. The number has fallen from a peak of 100 in 2007 to fewer than 20 a month at present.

In September, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani told George W. Bush that Syria and Iran - often blamed for unrest in Iraq - are no longer a problem. Bush clearly did not listen to Talabani because US military and political spokesmen, determined to explain away the damage from failed policies, try to blame others for their debacles.

In 2003 and 2004 “dead enders” and “Saddamists” were held responsible for the failure of US forces to provide security in Iraq.Later, foreign Al Qaeda elements were said to play a primary role while homegrown insurgents, or resistance fighters, were largely ignored. Occupiers do not like to face legitimate resistance movements.

Those most responsible for the strike may be the very neoconservatives in the administration who concocted the plan to wage war on Iraq. These are the very same people who are now extending into Pakistan the US-led war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Joshua Landis of Syria Comment warned that the raid on Syria “seems to fit into a broader pattern of initiating attacks into countries that [the US] is not officially at war with.”

If Landis is correct, people in this region, in particular, and elsewhere should breathe a sigh of relief if in next week’s election Democrats defeat Republicans who are again fielding a unilateralist candidate for the presidency.