December 21, 2002
WARNING!--OBJECTS IN MIRROR MAY BE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR:
Syria: U.S. no right to attack Iraq (Reuters, 22/12/2002)Syria told the United States on Saturday it had no right to attack Iraq and warned that U.S. support for Israel was fuelling popular anger in the region. [...]Syria's President Bashar Assad said in London on Tuesday a U.S.-led war on Iraq would set the Arab world back decades and sow the seeds of future terrorism.
In his blunt criticism of Western policies, Assad also denied Iraq's President Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the region and said most people believed Washington was confronting Baghdad because of oil, not weapons of mass destruction.
That theory will happily be put to the test soon, because, to the best of my knowledge, Syria is not a petro-state but it is next on the list for regime change. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 21, 2002 9:13 PM
" . . . [W]ould set the Arab world back decades . . . "? Huh? When one's starting point is the eighth century, what's a few decades, either forward or backward. Plus, wasn't our invasion of Afghanistan impelled by it being a major OPEC player?
Posted by: F.A. Jacobsen at December 21, 2002 8:54 PMIf one looks at the kind of regimes the Arabs developed over the last 5 or 6 decades, one can only conclude that a setback of a few decades won't be bad for the Arab world.
Posted by: Peter at December 22, 2002 5:46 AMSomebody should tell Bashar Assad that his support for Arab terrorists, in Israel and elsewhere, is fuelling popular anger in America . . . and our anger is likely to be a lot more consequential for him than Arab anger is for us.
These silly Arabs, who think that we are like Europeans and that threatening us will help them . . .
I'm not sure if Bush will move directly against Syria.
There would be nowhere near as much consensus in America about the need for regime change in Syria as compared to Iraq, North Korea or Afghanistan.
Syria funds terrorists but I'm not sure they've done anything recently (other than being irritants on the diplomatic stage) that would push the US in an active direction against them.
More's the pity since ridding the world of that police-state dictatorship would be a blessing.
Yeah, Reagan promised regime change in
Libya, and while he's drooling at his ranch,
the regime continues unchanged.
I cannot figure out Bush II's strategical view.
Nothing he is doing makes any sense, and
if he's going to change regimes, the time to
do that was about a year ago. What has he
gained by waiting?
I agree with M. Ali that, rank as Syria may be, the
American public opinion is not mobilized
about it, and it's hard to imagine what might
accomplish that.
There are plenty of scummy regimes in the
world that Americans are content to ignore.
Yes, I would think Iran would the next priority, although the move would not be open war because of their nuclear weapons and lack of connection to recent terrorism against the U.S. Saudi Arabia is another possible target, but again pressure seems more likely. North Korea would be a target only if they provide Middle Eastern enemies with nuclear weapons. I think after Iraq we play it by ear, continue the police actions, and see if democracy in Iraq motivates change.
Posted by: pj at December 22, 2002 10:17 PMIran is toppling without our help.
Posted by: oj at December 23, 2002 4:13 PM