January 16, 2004
DIVIDENDS:
The splits (David Warren, January 14, 2004, Ottawa Citizen)
It isn't in the forefront of the news, but the Syrian dictatorship is under huge and growing pressure from an increasingly impatient Bush administration to stop the terrorist insurgency into Iraq through Syria. The U.S. also wants Syria to open to Western inspection, as Libya has just done, the Assad regime's illicit weapons programmes, and for them to surrender Saddamite agents and weapons that they are almost certainly hiding.This at a time when Syria has never been so isolated within the Arab world. It is now surrounded by American allies on all sides, except for a small patch of oceanfront, and the former state of Lebanon, which it continues to occupy in defiance of all international law. And Damascus is the headquarters for about a dozen Jihadist organizations whose senior members are on almost everyone's most-wanted list. [...]
The back-pedalling now is frenetic. Last week, Mr. Assad went on an appeasement tour of Turkey, the northern neighbour that almost invaded Syria in 1998 -- before his father and predecessor evicted the Kurdish guerrilla leader, Abdullah Ocalan, and shopped his Damascus-based terror operations to the Turks.
The Turks strongly advised, as the Americans had been doing, that it was time for Syria to make peace with Israel; and this week Mr. Assad is wrestling with his own past vows, in order to make that possible. There were semi-secret Israeli-Syrian negotiations for the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for a Sadat-style recognition of Israel's legitimacy, that ended in the year 2000. These should shortly resume.
But, not yet able to acknowledge domestically the evaporation of his negotiating position, Mr. Assad cannot stop blustering.
Has there been another war since the American Revolution where so many of our wildest ambitions came to fruition? Posted by Orrin Judd at January 16, 2004 9:28 PM
During his talk in Houston last night, Mr. Perle suggested our diplomats need to be making extra sure that Mr. Assad understands that helping Iraqi insurgents is most unhelpful. He also said that Mr. Assad has a chance to follow the Qaddafi example -- or the Saddam example.
Perle is great.
Posted by: kevin whited at January 16, 2004 11:21 PMThis is a reason taking Iraq after Afganistan was a strategic master-stroke. Syria and Iran now both find themselves surrounded.
Posted by: jd watson at January 17, 2004 1:26 AMToo bad old Hafez isn't alive to enjoy the feeling. I'll bet he wouldn't keep Powell waiting 6 hours for a meeting.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 17, 2004 9:54 AMI always thought GW was a great poker player; but he must also play at chess. Look at the board.
Warren may not be correct about Syria's violation of International law. If that were so the UN would have tossed him out of Lebanon years ago ... multilaterally of course.
I think Syria's small coast would be an ideal location for a USMC Camp Zinni Middle East, with it's own pipeline from Iraq.
But there I go dreaming again.
Posted by: genecis at January 17, 2004 12:11 PMActually, the Bush is showing himself to be knowledgeable of Go strategy, to, where the goal is to surround and capture your enemy.
And I too like the part about the occupation of Lebanon "in defiance of international law." Why hasn't Assad appeared in shackles in The Hague by now? Because he's not American, he's not allied with Americans, he's not advancing Western interests, he's a murdering dictatorial thug, and the ICC weenies are waiting for us Americans to do their dirty work for them.
I believe the Syrian occupation is actually UN-sanctioned, to provide "stability" after the chaos and civil war of the 70s and 80s ... I don't have a cite but I remember reading this in the last few months ...
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at January 17, 2004 5:46 PM"This is a reason taking Iraq after Afganistan was a strategic master-stroke. Syria and Iran now both find themselves surrounded."
And the Sauds. WMD was a side show, only geography is real. Although, if Sadam doesn't have them, where are they?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 17, 2004 6:38 PMYes, Robert, this is the big question; you would think all these smart people, like Ken Pollack, and whoever else insists "there just aren't any of those darned WMDS!", might ponder the possiblity that if they did exist, and they aren't in Iraq now, then .... what?
The quote "do you feel lucky?" comes to mind.
I've noted here and on my weblog several times that my money is on Syria and/or the terrorist controlled Bekka Valley.
Worth looking into, since the "no WMD" position requires suspending all reason and evidence. But, alas, the media will not touch this issue, probably because it might validate GWB and unilateral cowboys and pre-emption. The horror!