I considered blogging it but didn't know what to make of it. Simple routine recon? Syrian propaganda?
I didn't know, so I left it alone.
I was too hasty. Perhaps. (Tip to Belmont Club)
Israel did something and they are happy with the results. And accomplishing that something included ground forces!
Did the Israelis knock out new Syrian air defense systems bought for them by Iran?
Did the Israelis knock out nuclear targets? The North Koreans seem awfully upset at something so far away.
Did the Israelis knock out air defenses paving the way for Israeli helicopters to drop troops to do something?
If so, why ground troops? Why not more precision missiles? Heck, the Syrian air defense missiles in question have a range of 20 km and an altitude of 15 km. . The Israeli aircraft didn't need to get close to hit whatever the target being protected by the missiles was, although at higher altitude they'd have been detected. If you want helicopters to get in close, taking out the air defenses makes perfect sense. Modern air defense missiles can chop up troop-carrying helicopters very nicely.
So the troops did something that could not be done with precision missiles. What? Did they bring something out with them? Or someone?
And the area of the strike is, if I recall, the general area (northeast Syria) where we think Iraq's Baathists might have sent WMD materials prior to, during, and just after our invasion, if some reports on this issue are to be believed.
Really, with the risk of possibly scores of dead Israeli commandoes being displayed deep in Syria, what would be of such high value that the Israelis would risk this type of operation?
With another report (tip to Pajamas Media) indicating that the Israelis signalled that this was not intended to trigger a wider war, Israel's earlier decision to pull back ground force exercises from northern Israel can be interpreted as an Israeli effort to keep this from triggering a war should the Syrians think the strike was a prelude to ground invasion.
Something happened there. Something that appears to be a win for the good guys.
UPDATE: The press doesn't know what happened either, but something happened:
"The picture is still foggy," said Christopher Pang, head of the Middle East and North Africa program at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
Most information has come from outside: A U.S. official confirmed this week that Israeli warplanes had staged a strike. The official, who would not speak publicly, said the target was Iranian-made weapons stored in northeastern Syria and destined for Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.
The Washington Post reported Thursday, however, that Israel had gathered satellite imagery showing possible North Korean cooperation with Syria on a nuclear facility. It cited an unidentified former Israeli official as saying the airstrike was aimed at a site capable of making unconventional weapons.
Syrian's U.N. envoy denied the country had weapons for Hezbollah. And its information minister, Mohsen Bilal, told the Saudi newspaper Asharq al-Awsat on Thursday that the accusations of North Korean nuclear help were a "new American spin to cover up" for Israel.Other theories abound.
One possibility is the Israeli planes simply made an intelligence-gathering reconnaissance flight, said David Hartwell, Middle East and North Africa editor for Jane's Country Risk.
Others speculate Israel's military was testing Syrian air defenses or perhaps scouting an air corridor for a possible strike against Iran.
Either way, the incursion probably served at least one main purpose — as a warning, experts said.
"In terms of deterrence, the effect was clear, by invading Syrian airspace, by showing that Israel is not only able, but willing, to still launch strikes against Syrian targets," Pang said.
North Korea piqued interest when it condemned the Israeli air incursion.
The communist state has a long alliance with Syria, and Israeli experts say North Korea and Iran both have been major suppliers of missiles to Syria. But many experts, including Hartwell, said they found the idea of North Korean nuclear help to Syria unlikely, in part because Syria's weak economy leaves it hard-pressed to afford nuclear technology.
So what of these other theories? First of all, analysis of what happened might be fouled up if the reports of Israeli ground troops participating in the raid are false.
Was it intelligence gathering? I assumed that when I did not blog the initial report. IEven with ground troops, it could still be intelligence gathering. But the stakes would have to be pretty high to justify a raid that deep into Syria (of course, the Israeli helicopterss could have come from Turkey or Iraq, I suppose).
Testing Syrian air defenses? Sure, that is possible. But what about the troop report? But I don't buy that Israel would plot an attack route through Syria to get to Iran. Syrian and Iranian lookouts could simply report on any large group of Israeli aircraft flying through Syrian air space and notify Tehran. That's a lot of populated enemy land to fly over for such an important mission. Even with radar gaps to run through, Israel can't count on that many planes flying through unnoticed. They certainly couldn't fly back that way. And since an attack on Iran could not succeed (without nukes) in one raid, what would be the point?
Why is North Korean involvement unlikely? North Korea did pipe up over this obscure incident depsite floods and famine. Did North Korean technicians die in the strike? Is that why North Korea was so interested? So what if Syria is poor? Iran has the check book. I've long warned that elements of Iran's nuclear program could be outside of Iran to really screw up our targetting challenge. Why wouldn't West Iran (Syria), the mullahs' loyal lap dog, pull this duty?
If it was a warning to Syria's leaders, I'd expect a mission that would be visible--or audible to--the leaders. Buzzing leadership property in Damascus or resort areas would seem more likely than a distant site. And again, how do ground troops fit into this picture?
It is murky, to be sure.
