The Syrian Option [Superb analysis alert]

The American Thinker ^ | 18 Jul 06 | Ed Lasky

[elhombrelibre]

This is long, but it's well worth reading the full article.

[elhombrelibre]

ping

[elhombrelibre]

Readers should keep in mind that Syria aids terrorists who kill Iraqis, Americans, and coalition forces. Assad's Syria provides training, supplies, safe houses, transshipping, infrastructure, and in all ways facilitates the killing of Americans.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

Syrian Option, heck.
Should be Syrian Vendetta. Sounds like a Ludlum novel.

[grapeape]

The problem with the article is that it completely dismisses with the Russians. They and the Syrians have had a long standing relationship and (I think) a mutual protection pact.

[exit82]

The time is fast approaching for us to take out Syria once and for all, and Hezbollah with it.

The world will not hate us any less for acting in our own interests. We owe payback to Syria and Hezbollah back to 1983.Syria has sent men and arms to our enemies in Iraq.Saddam's WMD's are in the Bekaa Valley.

As the article says, the nations are aligned in a most unusual way so that an attack on Syria would almost be welcome.

If we take out Syria, that isolates Iran.And shows the mullahs and crazy Ding Dong in North Korea that we found our testicles. And the lesson will not be lost on Russia and China either.

It's time for Gulliver to shake off the politically correct Lilliputians of the world and protect America's strategic interests and put an end to these two groups of terrorists.

So we may have terrorist attacks on the US--like we wouldn't anyway? We can't live in fear--we're Americans.

Let the jihadi bast@rds live in fear.

[elhombrelibre]

No, there is no pact between Syria and Russia, and Russia won't be so short sighted that it will side with Syria. The future will not be with Assad if Israel decides to eliminate him. New customers and markets will emerge in Syria; it won't pay to be on the losing side again, like in Iraq.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks. A well written article Freepers should understand in full.

[Sisku Hanne]

Bookmark bump

[Billthedrill]

An interesting article, much of which I agree with. The principal difficulty with dispensing with the Assad government is the likelihood of a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, who have already once tried to take the country from Assad's family. That is exchanging a near-term problem for an only slightly less near-term one. A thing to ponder.

There is a regional dynamic between the Shi'a in Iran, who consider themselves the fount of radical Islam since they took that country in 1979, and the Sunni Wahhabi/Salafi, who consider themselves the original proponents of militant Islam. It is from the latter that we got al Qaeda, and to a great degree their infamy motivated the former to solidify their own efforts within Hezbollah. We now have a competition of militant nut cases to see who can pose larger against Israel. If Hezbollah loses this contest, as seems quite possible, then only Iran's proxy will have lost. If that paves the way for Mecca's proxies, a good deal of time will have been bought but perhaps little else.

Still, one opponent at a time. The difference between the two is that the Shi'a have under their control a formal state government whereas the Sunni do not. Insofar as the War on Terror is a war on state-supported terror, the Iranians have earned their precedency in the target zone.

[elhombrelibre]

I agree with the fear you express about the Moslem brotherhood. It's something that must be considered. I'm sure you don't really mean the Sunnis have no formal government since they obviously have Saudi Arabia.

[lepton]

France also became progressively angry over the looting of Lebanon, a former colony with a large Catholic population, by the Assad regime.

Chirac was just declaring solidarity with the Lebanese against Israeli attacks. France is and has been for some time, the biggest problem and the biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East.

[nopardons]

bttt

[grapeape]

Thanks, i was not sure. I went to college with a consulates son. He use to call Lebanon Syrias "trailer Park" with a big smile.

He said that Russia would never let anything happen to Syria. Tell me about the ceremonial weapons and such that the Russians would bring dignitaries and his father.

[Just mythoughts]

Russia is in the process of setting up a port deal between them and Syria. Russia has a long history of being short sighted.

[Belasarius]

Great article selection....it seems like a foregone conclusion that Assad has to go. Maybe he can go back to practicing Optometry somewhere.....

[Billthedrill]

No, I know it looks like I'm splitting a hair here but I think it's an important one. The Wahhabi do not control the Saudi government. They'd like to. One of the Saudi princes is an open adherent. But they lost in a very nasty little covert war not too long ago (remember the Riyadh bombings?) in which certain Saudis simply disappeared. One royal family member appears to have died of thirst upon the desert. Careless of him.

That doesn't make these folks any less an enemy. But I think the fact that the Shi'a of Qom enjoy open and formal control of Iran bumps them up on the target list a bit because I think that's the real focus of this poorly-defined War On Terror - formal states using terror organizations as proxy armies. The time of the Wahhabi will come, and perhaps soon, but not yet, IMHO.

One other thing I've been thinking about is this - should Iran openly possess a bomb that dynamic I referred to above will certainly motivate their Wahhabi rivals to do so as well, either by pushing to formal control of the Saudi government (bad) or as a more or less private organization (worse). That's one more reason Iran must be stopped from doing so.

[elhombrelibre]

Iran's drive to develop a bomb is why it's the most dangerous threat. We both agree on who is the most dangerous threat in the near term. But...the removal of Assad weakens Iran and forces them to come to his aid or lose a major ally. If they come to his aid, all bets are off and they'll be destroyed - their air force, their navy, their army, their research facilities, etc., all destroyed. If they do not come to his aid, they'll be seen as unwilling to risk beyond proxies. That would err ode their evil role as leaders among terrorists.

[Starboard]

...the nations are aligned in a most unusual way so that an attack on Syria would almost be welcome. If we take out Syria, that isolates Iran. And shows the mullahs and crazy Ding Dong in North Korea that we found our testicles.

Opportunity knocks. If not now, then when? Also, with the two neighboring troublemakers neutralized, Iraq would have a better chance of stabilizing.

[Billthedrill]

I agree. Iran doesn't have a direct land route to Lebanon and the sea one might just be a tiny bit congested right now what with the Sixth Fleet and all. So how do they make a show of support?

They use their Iraqi proxies - Moqtada al-Sadr, for one - and their intelligence assets in eastern Iraq to create as much violence there as they think will draw the U.S. (and the world's) attention away from Lebanon. I don't think even Ahmadinjead is stupid enough to try a conventional invasion in the face of deployed U.S. air assets - I almost wish he would - and if he does that he might even find some of Mookie's boys end up shooting at his as they did in the 80's. Loyalties in that part of the world tend to be, ah, transient...