-Caveat Lector- From http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1999/99-D76.html > Publications of the Center for Security Policy > No. 99-D 76 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > > > > DECISION BRIEF > 6 July 1999 > > > The Next U.S. Peacekeeping 'Boot' To Drop: > The Golan Heights? > > (Washington, D.C.): The full costs of President Clinton's latest > diversion of the U.S. military into a distant and highly > problematic peacekeeping operation have not yet been properly > estimated, let alone paid for. It is a safe bet, however, that > the tab for the Kosovo mission will turn out to be very high, > costing the Pentagon billions of dollars that are desperately > needed to restore its troops' present combat readiness and > provide for that needed in the future. > > Given this backdrop, it is little wonder that the Clinton > Administration hopes that it can quietly get the United States > committed to another, similarly open-ended peacekeeping mission > -- a mission that is, if anything, even more fraught with danger > and potentially costly risks than that underway in the Balkans > today. > > Mission Impossible? > > For at least five years, the Clinton team has sought to lubricate > negotiations between Israel and Syria, and increase the prospects > that they would produce a "peace" agreement, by offering to > assign U.S. troops the task of guarding (or "monitoring") the > strategic plateau between the two countries known as the Golan > Heights. The theory is that Israel would feel more comfortable > relinquishing physical control of high ground that has long been > recognized as critical to its security if American forces were in > place there. > > This theory appears about to be put to the test. Ehud Barak, who > was finally installed today as Israel's Prime Minister, has made > it clear that he intends to make the completion of a treaty with > Syria a top priority. In point of fact, the governing coalition > he has painstakingly cobbled together appears to have only one > common denominator: A determination to make "peace" with Israel's > Arab neighbors on whatever terms are necessary. In the case of > Syria, that means paying the price long demanded by the Syrian > despot, Hafez Assad -- the surrender of the Golan Heights > captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. > > In his inimitable fashion, Assad -- long recognized as one of the > most cunning and ruthless dictators in the Middle East (which is > saying something) -- has responded by combining laudatory public > comments about Barak with an arms-shopping spree in Moscow.(1) > There he hopes to purchase new fighter jets, tanks and other > military hardware that might prove useful should he wish to > launch future attacks on Israel once the Golan Heights are > restored to Syrian control. > > What is at Stake > > Those who favor Israeli territorial concessions to Syria often > argue that an American deployment on the Golan would mitigate > against such a danger in several ways: First, they suggest that > U.S. peacekeepers would ensure that Israel continues to receive > the sort of early warning and other critical intelligence about > Syrian military activities the Jewish State has collected from > installations on the Heights over the past thirty-two years. > > Second, they have implied that American forces would serve, at a > minimum, as a "trip-wire" with which Syria would have to reckon > were it to decide once again to mount an attack against Israel > from this vantage point. And third, some have even argued that > the U.S. deployment could be sufficiently large and powerful to > defend the plateau -- and, therefore, the Galilean valley below > it -- against a determined Syrian attack. > > Unfortunately for the advocates of an American mission on the > Golan, none of these propositions stands up to close scrutiny. In > fact, in 1994, a blue-ribbon group sponsored by the Center for > Security Policy carefully considered each argument for deploying > U.S. troops on the Golan and found them to be seriously > defective.(2) This group, whose eleven members included five > distinguished four-star general officers (notably, former Chiefs > of Naval Operations Admirals Carl Trost and Elmo Zumwalt and > former Marine Corps Commandant Al Gray),(3) determined that: > > > > If Israel withdraws on or from the Golan, it will be required to > adopt measures to compensate to the extent possible for the > military risks inherent in relinquishing the territory. It will > have to consider: Investment in more surveillance assets, higher > sustained readiness for air and other forces, a larger standing > army, and means and methods to increase the speed of military > mobilization. All such measures entail large costs -- political > and societal as well as financial. A U.S. force deployment to the > Golan will not significantly reduce those costs. One of the > dangers of such a deployment is that it may create a false sense > of security in Israel and discourage the investments necessary to > address such risks. This would not serve U.S. interests, much > less Israel's. > > > > > > A Dangerous, Unwarranted Sense of Security > > This last point is especially important. If Israel decides it > wishes to assume the risks associated with making a peace > agreement with a notoriously untrustworthy despot like Assad, > that is its business. But the Jewish State must understand that > those risks will be sharply increased, not kept the same -- let > alone mitigated -- were American forces to replace Israeli ones > on the Golan. > > The Center for Security Policy panel of top former military and > civilian officials concluded that: > > > > There is no mission or rationale for a U.S. peacekeeping force on > the Golan that would justify the resulting costs and risks. > Indeed, the net effect could be negative for Israel's security > and regional stability, while the consequences could include the > loss of U.S. lives and, possibly, a credibility-damaging retreat > of the U.S. forces under terrorist fire. In any event, such a > deployment would increase the danger of direct U.S. involvement > in a future Middle East war and undermine Israel's standing with > the U.S. public as a self-reliant ally. > > > > > > The Bottom Line > > These facts demand that the question of deploying U.S. forces on > the Golan Heights be subjected to rigorous public debate now, > before such a deployment becomes an integral part of any > Israeli-Syria deal. Otherwise, Congress is likely to be presented > with another Clinton fait accompli, whereby any action to prevent > an ill-advised commitment of American troops is portrayed as a > mortal threat to the "peace process" and, therefore, politically > untenable. > > The interests of a true regional peace will only be served if an > agreement between Israel and Syria is forged on the basis of > genuine, mutual reconciliation and a shared commitment to > peaceful coexistence. Absent such sentiments on the part of Hafez > Assad, a Golan in Syrian hands will likely once again become a > locus for conflict. It would be a double disservice if the > commitment of American forces has the effect of increasing the > chances for such a conflict and of putting those troops into its > midst. > > - 30 - > > 1. It remains to be seen whether State Department Spokesman James > Foley's statement today that "We would be very concerned about > any new Russian arms sales to Syria or to any other designated > state sponsor of terrorism," will have any perceptible effect > upon either the Syrians' efforts to buy advanced weapons from > Moscow or the Russians' efforts to makes subsidized arms sales to > Damascus. Both the Kremlin and Assad could be forgiven, however, > for finding any American threat to withhold aid to Russia for > abetting a state sponsor of terrorism given the Clinton > Administration's assiduous determination to promote cordial > relations with the Russians and Syrians. > > 2. The full text of this study may be seen by visiting the > Center's web site at > www.security-policy.org/papers/studies/golan94.html. > > 3. The other eight authors were: General John Foss, former > Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command who > had responsibility for U.S. forces in the Sinai; Lieutenant > General John Pustay (USAF, Ret.) former President, National > Defense University; General Bernard Schriever, former Commander, > U.S. Air Force Systems Command; Douglas J. Feith, former Deputy > Assistant Secretary of Defense and Middle East specialist on the > National Security Council; Frank Gaffney, Jr., former acting > Assistant Secretary of Defense and Deputy Assistant Secretary of > Defense; Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense; > Eugene Rostow, former Director of the Arms Control and > Disarmament Agency and Under Secretary of State for Political > Affairs; and Henry Rowen, former Assistant Secretary of Defense > for International Security Affairs and chairman of the Central > Intelligence Agency's National Intelligence Council. > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > > > NOTE: The Center's publications are intended to invigorate and > enrich the debate on foreign policy and defense issues. The views > expressed do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the > Center's Board of Advisors. > > Top of Page© 1988-1999, Center for Security Policy A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." --Buddha + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
