May 2, 2005
EVEN THE A.T.:
A different type of regime change in Syria (Ehsan Ahrari, 5/03/05, Asia Times)
When presidential historians look back at the presidency of George W Bush, the phrase "regime change" will stand out as his major contribution to the policy options of US presidents. Whether or not a future US president will be able to carry out one or more regime changes is not that significant. What is important to note is that Bush carried out two changes of regime - one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq - through military actions, and continues to contemplate a similar outcome in Syria, but by implementing a different strategy.The window of opportunity proved to be the assassination of Lebanon's former premier, Rafik Hariri, on February 14. [...]
Quite deftly, the Bush administration snatched the opportunity and demanded an imminent withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, where they had been stationed for the past 29 years.
Syrian President Bashar Assad fully understood what he must do and what would happen if he stalled. [...]
In the case of Syria, the US is likely to bring about the same results it has in Iraq and Afghanistan by using different tactics. First, the US is likely to continue its demands that Syria liberalize and pluralize its government. The most obvious purpose of such demands is that it dovetails the Bush administration's overall policy of transforming the authoritarian states of the Middle East into democracies. [...]
Second, as the US intensifies its pressure on Syria to liberalize, according to Flynt Leverett of the Brookings Institution (and author of a recently issued book, Inheriting Syria), it has also told Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel not to agree to open a negotiating front with that country over the future status of the Golan Heights. Assad is willing - indeed anxious - to open negotiations on that issue. The US is in no mood to offer any opportunity to Syria whereby it would gain any momentum stemming from a potential breakthrough on the Golan Heights, which has been under Israeli occupation since 1973. [...]
[I]t can be argued that the best way to bring about regime change in Syria is by sustaining the demands of liberalization, and then letting the forces of change create an explosive situation, which would eventually dismantle the regime. Bush has little less than four years to wait for the success of this strategy. Another regime change is in the making.
As long as you never lose sight of your end, you're always ready to sieze upon any means. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 2, 2005 7:03 AM
I happened to catch Mr. Leverett's discussion of his book at Brookings on C-Span last night. His "nuanced" view of Baby Assad, reading between the lines, was that Bashar was not western, having spent only 1 year in a London residency, had vague ambitions, but no definite plans, to reform Syria, was saddled with ministers and a bureaucracy viruently resistant to any change, and was unprepared and not competent to rule.
Given such a dismal assessment, I was gob-smacked that his suggested U.S. policy was that we should engage Assad and work with him to reform Syria ! I should have known to expect such from a Clinton era CIA analyst speaking at a liberal foreign policy institute. Don't these people ever learn anything from the past?
Posted by: jd watson at May 2, 2005 4:07 PM