The Curtain Rises (The Belmont Club, on what's next after Iraq)

The Belmont Club | February 16, 2005 | Wretchard

[68skylark]

The US has recalled its ambassador to Syria to indicate its anger at Damascus over the assasination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. CNN reports:

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States has "made it clear" it wants Syria, which maintains some 16,000 troops in Lebanon, to use its influence to prevent such attacks. ... "I have been very careful to say we really don't know who committed this murder at this point, but we do know what effect the Syrian presence in Lebanon has," Boucher said. "And we do know that it doesn't bring security for Lebanese." Ambassador Margaret Scobey was returning to Washington for "urgent consultations," Boucher said, because of "deep concern, as well as our profound outrage, over this heinous act of terrorism."

The diplo-blog New Sisyphus explains the convention behind the diplomatic signal of 'recalling the ambassador'.

In a move that traditionally signals extreme displeasure with the host nation, the U.S. today recalled its ambassador to Syria to Washington for urgent consultations. ... This development is significant in two respects. First, it is a sign that worsening relations between Syria and the United States have left the "behind-the-scenes" stage and have moved squarely into the "active confrontation" stage. Second, it appears to us that USG believes that Syria was directly involved in the bombing, either as actor or facilitator.

The Great Ophthalmologist has been gambling for months that he can bleed the U.S. in Iraq at little cost. To date, that gamble has paid off. With the Bush Administration facing domestic and international opposition to the Iraq War, Syria's government has apparently drawn the not entirely unreasonable conclusion that the U.S. either cannot or will not make Syria pay a cost for its more or less open support for terrorism in Iraq or for its occupation of Lebanon. (Note to the Left: there is an unjust, illegal "occupation" of land in the Middle East, and the name of that land is Lebanon).

We trust that the patience of President Bush is running to an end. No other act, except maybe for strikes on Iran, would signal our seriousness at changing the chess board in the Middle East than military strikes aimed at Syria's command and control infrastructure. The illusion of Syrian invulnerability must be broken if Syria is ever to have incentive to change its ways.

If as the New Sisyphus argues, Assad has been "gambling for months that he can bleed the U.S. in Iraq at little cost" and that it has been waging "war more-or-less openly on the U.S. in Iraq", the question is what has changed? It is hard to imagine how the assasination of a Lebanese politician could provoke a more drastic response than months of Syrian-supported attacks on US troops in Iraq and harder still to imagine how Washington could have taken the ultimate diplomatic step without implicitly being prepared to go further. Yet it has. Unless Washington is playing a hollow hand, where the conclusion has changed the premises must be re-examined -- the principal one being that America was too hamstrung by Iraq to take anything else on -- not Syria, Iran or North Korea.

The aggressive posture taken by America against North Korea, Iran and now Syria suggests the bonds that held it down in Iraq, if ever they did, may be loosening. Dan Darling's survey of the Iraqi election results at Winds of Change may provide a clue to what is happening. It discusses whether the recently concluded election has delivered Iraq into the hands of Teheran. He concludes that it has not, at least, not obviously.

I suspect that much of the regional assumptions about the new Iraqi government being an Iranian pawn have to do with fears, even fears held by reasonable people like King Abdullah of Jordan, that the Iraqi Shi'ites will try and support their co-religionists in other parts of the Arab world, destabilizing the existing post-colonial order and plunging a number of neighboring states into chaos. I don't think that this fear is all that plausible because it conceives of Shi'ites as a monolithic force throughout the region based in large part on what happened to them in Lebanon and led to the formation of Hezbollah during the 1980s.

The underlying reason is straightforward: a unitary Iraq, the only context in which the elections have legitimacy, cannot be totally dominated by any single group without precipitating civil war. In short, the reason Iraq cannot be delivered in a ribboned box to Teheran -- even assuming some Shi'ite candidates wanted to -- is because of the Kurds, and ironically enough, the Sunnis. Hence, having engineered a Mexican standoff at worst and a functioning democracy at best in Iraq, it may be possible that the Iraqi campaign is strategically over. If this proves true it may have been inherent in conception. Whether consciously or not, the choice of Iraq as a beachead into the mainland of Middle Eastern terror was a blow directed at a faultline in the Islamic world, just as generals of the previous century directed attacks at the command boundaries of enemy armies. If that strategy proved profitable, so would its sequel: Lebanon lies along another such faultline.

If this speculation is true, the evidence will not be long in coming. The indicators will be a gradual quieting of Iraq as a military theater and a corresponding shift of emphasis onto Iran and perhaps, Lebanon. Assuming the confirming developments are observed, the question will be 'to what end'. There have been rumors about a 'second front' against Syria for some time. In January, 2004 Janes reported a plan to use US Special Forces in the Bekaa Valley.

According to JID's intelligence sources, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering plans to expand the global war on terrorism with multi-pronged attacks against suspected militant bases in countries such as Lebanon and Somalia. In a week in which Israel launched airstrikes against Hizbullah positions, our regional correspondent reports from Beirut. ... However, sending US special forces into Lebanon - and in particular an area like the Bekaa Valey (which is virtually Syrian territory) and where the bulk of Damascus' military forces in Lebanon are deployed - would be an entirely different matter. Deployment of US forces in the area would almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops. ... The US administration has long considered Damascus as a prime candidate for 'regime-change' (along with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and possibly even Saudi Arabia). Syria, once a powerhouse of Arab radicalism that could not be ignored, has been seriously weakened, both militarily and politically. Washington may feel that the time is coming to oust Bashir Al-Assad and the ruling generals. Targeting Syria via Lebanon, the only concrete political influence Damascus has to show following decades of radical diplomacy, could prove to be a means to that end.

The same information snippet was reported in a Washington Post article of about the same date in the context of a supposed debate on the employment of Special Forces in the GWOT. Such plans, perhaps one of thousands of planning contingencies in what has become a global war, may have been put on hold pending developments. It is early days yet. All that can be done is to lay down a few analytical markers against which to measure the march of events.

[68skylark]

I think the Syrian government is playing a losing game against the Bush Administration. If they're smart, they'll change their attitude -- quickly.

[snowsislander]

The stakes in Iran are far higher, and we will take action against Iran first.

[68skylark]

The stakes in Iran are far higher, and we will take action against Iran first.

Well the costs of action are higher in Iran also, and there might be some chance that a democratic revolution in Iran will take care of regime change without us. So I'm not so sure.

[Tolik]

Very Interesting!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[sarasota]

Insightful as always and thanks.

[ml1954]

The stakes in Iran are far higher, and we will take action against Iran first.

Syria should be neutralized before taking on Iran, and the sooner the better.

We don't need all the problems Syria could cause on our flank (or in our rear, depending how you look at it) if we take on Iran.

[NonValueAdded]

"If as the New Sisyphus argues, Assad has been "gambling for months that he can bleed the U.S. in Iraq at little cost" and that it has been waging "war more-or-less openly on the U.S. in Iraq", the question is what has changed?"

Two things have changed and, for that matter, changed dramatically. First the Iraqi vote has silenced all but the most rabid critics of GWB's strategerie. Second, the people of Lebanon, witnesses to the events that have taken place in neighboring Iraq, have turned on their Syrian occupiers. If the people of Lebanon themselves call for an end to the Syrian occupation, aided by a larger coalition backing UN Resolution 1559, Syria might just be rolled back into its own borders. This is Domino Theory writ large, but in reverse. This time the dominoes are falling in a good direction.

[68skylark]

Yeah, I've always been a believer in the domino theory. It was widely reviled by the left in the 1960's and 1970's, but it came to pass in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. And it came to pass again in Eastern Europe in 1989 (in a good way).

Now we've had two of the worst countries in the Middle East change to democracy, and I'm looking forward to more positive changes. It's just interesting to speculate where the next changes will occur, and how they'll happen.

[Valin]

If they're REALLY smart they''ll take their loot and head for the south of France.

[68skylark]

If they're REALLY smart they''ll take their loot and head for the south of France.

Yeah, I'd like to see more anti-American dictators take that approach. They can live happily in France, and it saves lives of American troops who otherwise have to go yank them out of power by force.

[Valin]

Great minds think alike!
I wonder just when the left wing fever swamp dwellers and thier Palio-cons allies will figure out that George Buch and Co. MAY have an idea of what they're doing?

[Valin]

Well they can live, how long and weather or not it's a happy life is a subject for another time.

[NonValueAdded]

Yes, we do :)

Here's another domino:

Crowd [in Baghdad] kills suspected bomber

Call it the "post 9-11 airline passenger effect." It is hard to refrain from being over optimistic these days. There will be setbacks, but the progress is becoming clear to just about everyone. Wait until a crowd turns on a democRAT here in the US! Imagine Howard Dean or John Kerry booed off the stage? Whoops, there goes that optimism again!

[FreedomPoster]

>>The stakes in Iran are far higher, and we will take action against Iran first.

>Syria should be neutralized before taking on Iran, and the sooner the better.

Clearing one's flanks before taking on the main objective is common military SOP.

[Southack]

"Two things have changed and, for that matter, changed dramatically. First the Iraqi vote has silenced all but the most rabid critics of GWB's strategerie. Second, the people of Lebanon, witnesses to the events that have taken place in neighboring Iraq, have turned on their Syrian occupiers. If the people of Lebanon themselves call for an end to the Syrian occupation, aided by a larger coalition backing UN Resolution 1559, Syria might just be rolled back into its own borders."

It's that plus more. Saddam Hussein is no longer leading the Ba'ath Party. Yasser Arafat is dead. The Iraqis and Palestinians have held democratic elections. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are on the run in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda made enemies out of the Saudi Royal family. France co-sponsored UN Resolution 1559 demanding that Syria withdraw from Lebanon and end its illegal military occupation there.

These are enormous military and diplomatic victories for the Bush Administration against the very heart of the Axis of Evil.

Moreover, Syria has made a serious (pardon the wordplay) blunder that has enraged the Lebanese against Assad. This is Syria's *second* assasination of a population Lebanese leader (Hariri this month, Bashir back in the 1980's).

Lebanon already boasts a Christian Militia that routinely beat Hezbollah on the battlefield...it took Syria's own government Army to save Hezbollah, in fact. This assasination of Hariri will certainly unite the Druze and Christians of Lebanon against Syria, and may even bring some of the Muslims over to unite in that common front against secular Assad and his Awalite clan.

*though in all fairness, this assasination of Hariri *could* have been Iran's way of distracting the U.S. away from its nukes by entangling us in Lebanon and Syria.

Nonetheless, the opportunity for us to drive Syria out of Lebanon and return Lebanon to its recent (circa 1982) democratic past has presented itself to us on a silver platter.

If the Bush Administration is looking for low hanging fruit to pluck as it harvests democratic governments in the Middle-East, then Lebanon, with its succesful history of democratic elections of ethnic/religious tolerance would have to appear as a tasty fig on a convenient tree in our garden right now.

As with Afghanistan back in 2001/2002, Lebanon boasts an opposition military, this time in the form of the Lebanese Christian Militia, which we could easily use "Northern Alliance" style to drive Syria out of Lebanon.

A little air power, a few special ops troops, some Druze and Christian power-brokering, and poof! Lebanon is holding democratic elections again, just as it did in the 1980's prior to Syria's assasination of Bashir and invasion of Lebanon to save Hezbollah from the LCM.

Moreover, we got an armored division parked in the neighborhood such that we could increase the military pressure if required...and Israel has sucessfully conquered Lebanon in the recent past, as well, so yet another military option is available.

In no way can Syria stand up to any of that, much less all of it.

Do we have the time, though...prior to Iran finishing its nuke construction?

If so, then Lebanon is ripe for easy picking. If not, then it may have to wait until after we deal with Iran.

[Cicero]

Hmm. What has changed? I don't think it was the assassination. I think it was the American and Iraqi elections and the passage of time, making it feasible for us to start a new round in the war against terror six months or a year from now. (Bush doesn't move in a hurry; he needs to consult his allies and bring it to the UN, as he did with Iraq, to give them a chance to come in with us or once more be proved weak and useless.)

This article suggests one possibility that hadn't occurred to me. We don't need to invade Syria first. We can start destroying the terrorist networks in Lebanon and clean out that country. How would Syria respond? If they let us do it, they look weak. If they challenge us with their occupying troops, we will wipe the floor with them. And we can point out that Syria is the invader in Lebanon, not the U.S.

Sounds like a plan.

[Cicero]

I just came back from folding the laundry. I think I see a scenario here.

Why make the assassination in Lebanon a casus belli, rather than Syrian cross-border intervention in Iraq? Because that puts the focus on Lebanon. We can go the UN security council, say that Syria is illegally occupying Lebanon, and demand a resolution. If and when they fail to pass one, we can go into Lebanon ourselves and free the Lebanese people from Syrian oppression and clean out the terrorist enclaves. We're not invading anyone, we're freeing someone and cleaning out terrorist infrastructure in self-protection.

The best that Syria could do about that is nothing. But that would make them look weak, and it isn't in their nature. Cross border intervention in Lebanon would open a move into Syria itself, again on the basis that they started it.

Should I be saying this openly now? I don't think there's a thing Syria can do to change it. It's like the flanking movement with armor at the start of the First Gulf War. You could see that coming six months ahead of time. We did it twice in Korea. It's the obvious response to a heavily fortified line with limited extension. Saddam could do nothing to prevent it, even if he saw it coming, because we had air superiority and could have wiped out anyone he sent into the desert to extend his line. Nor could he extend it that many miles further, because he lacked the troops to do so.

[Billthedrill]

FWIW, there already is such a UN resolution, 1559. Past experience in getting the UN to authorize enforcement of resolution 1441 kind of puts a damper on that, but at least this one the French are less likely to veto.

What changed, IMHO, wasn't just the Iraqi election, it was the stunning revelation that the Shi'ite leaders are insisting on an inclusive, representative government there. Why that is significant is that up until now and especially in Lebanon, it was relatively easy to get disparate groups at one another's throats, and the Syrians are experts at it. If current directions in Iraq hold the Syrians will be under intense pressure to leave Lebanon by the only ones who really matter - the Lebanese. I think we hear early echoes of that sentiment already.

The Iranians will fight it tooth and nail. Lebanon has been their principal base for world Islamic terrorism since the 1980's, and if they don't confront us there they look at confronting us on their own soil. Payback for 1979 is long, long overdue, IMHO, and the interest has mounted up.

[Dog Gone]

I'm not sure we have the troop strength available to take on the Syrians in Lebanon today. Perhaps in October if the Iraqis adopt a new constitution, we'll be able to start drawing down our troops there, but our armed forces are limited in size.