« Movie Review - "The 40 Year Old Virgin" | Main | Dubai, Then and Now »

22 October 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

searp

It seems to me that the report says what has been known for decades: the Syrian regime will protect itself and its perceived interests ruthlessly. Shocking. Did anybody anywhere think the Syrians didn't have a hand in the Hariri assasination?

I shudder whenever the words "regime change" and "Syria" are conjoined. I sure hope the gov understands the internal situation before it floats those trial balloons.

I sure hope that instead of taking premature credit for freeing the (second, third?) country in the Middle East from oppressive government we understand the cauldron of tribalism that is Lebanon.

Why can't we just stay the hell away from these people? Anything we do is almost certain to blow up in our faces. Talk about masochism.

Comforting to know that we cannot do anything effective, but will that actually stop this administration...

Michael Murry

searp:

Have you heard the famous conversation between the masochist and the sadist?

The masochist pleads: "Hurt me!"

The sadist replies: "no."

b

They are waging the dog. Let´s hope the dog doesn´t bite.

Curious

Questions:

If we are keep doing the same thing in Iraq (no big diplomatic change or ground strategy), ho much damage can the Syrian do to us?

eg.

-start entering Iraq and play the political scene just as they do in Lebanon.

- what sort of supply can they give to Iraqis? (military advice, supply, etc etc... They have strong baathist tie afterall. )

- what is the chance they actually call our bluff and create an actual military movement that will drag Israel into the scene. (hence bringing the entire region to war) or to put it simply, what is the chance they can create a war condition (Israel/us vs, the entire middle east)

- what is Russia, Iran and China stand on Syria?

- If time is no concern, how many troop do we need to win against 'Syria+sunni insurgency' ? Say in the next 10-15 years? (noting Lebanon, southern Lebanon)

Curious

I shudder whenever the words "regime change" and "Syria" are conjoined. I sure hope the gov understands the internal situation before it floats those trial balloons.

Posted by: searp | 22 October 2005 at 08:14 AM >>>

And knowing how dumb Bush can be. It is that much more dangerous. I seriously doubt Bush even consider, what if the syrian respond to his threat, and already executing various soft power strategy?

Remember how Bush was loud for 1 year, and Saddam prepare all his secret service and military to go underground? And Bush thinks he can pull a latin american gambit/regime change? (Which requires the government NOT preparing, so the operation can be swift and effective.)

So, what if Syria starts developing long range hostile plan against our international assets while chimpie busy talking tough? (ie. the Syrians are thinking. Okay better move it and do something now.)

J Thomas

I want to assume that the syrian government will look after its own survival, and failing that the survival of their population.

In that context they wouldn't want a big hostile plan against our international assets, except maybe in iraq. They wouldn't want the US population ready to kill them, if they can help it.

Smuggling advanced weapons into iraq would be good, shouder-fired antitank and anti-helicopter weapons would be good, if they were easy enough to learn. Anti-warplane stuff would be good if they have them that work. It would be risky. We'd get mad at them for doing it at the same time we saw how hard it was to occupy the area.

It wouldn't be a good idea for them to get a war started with israel. A lot of people would get killed for no good result. Not like pakistan or indonesia would come save them.

If I was Assad, and it looked like a US invasion was very likely, I'd figure that the syrian government couldn't survive it. So I'd ship all the top people to russia or china to start a government in exile, and disband the military (let them take their weapons home) and announce to the USA "We have decided to skip the shock-and-awe phase and go directly to the occupation phase. Come occupy us but please don't blow anything up first." The trouble with that approach is that Assad might possibly win a fair election afterward, but he couldn't keep control. Once the weapons are spread among the people there's no avoiding a rough democracy. "One gun, one vote".

But look at it from our side. How can we possibly be serious? This just does not make sense. Would the US public put up with it? Fool Me Twice? Would Congress put up with it? With the whole House up for re-election next year?

It's more plausible that this is an attempt to distract the media. Since the media can't pay attention to more than one political issue at a time, we can go some months discussing syria while the various scandals get pushed to the background. Then maybe they can try another failing attack on Social Security to distract us some more. The media is looking for excitement. So the administration needs to go on the offensive or else the media will spend their time on scandals.

Old Bogus

"Did anybody anywhere think the Syrians didn't have a hand in the Hariri assasination?"
Actually, I did. My first reaction was that Israel had done it to frame Syria.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad