Posted on 04/16/2003 11:24:33 AM PDT by Nonstatist
I was chatting with an Egyptian friend in Cairo two weeks ago when she got a joke e-mailed to her cellphone, which she immediately shared with me. It said: "President Bush: Take Syria — get Lebanon for free."
Now that it's become apparent that the Syrians have given military help to Saddam Hussein's army, and are alleged to be providing sanctuary for members of his despised clique, the question has been raised as to whether the Bush team might take out Syria's regime next. After all, when the Roto-Rooter truck's in the neighborhood, why not take advantage?
My short answer is this: There are many good reasons for the U.S. to promote reform or regime change in Syria, but we have no legal basis to do it now by military means and are not likely to try. Yet Syria, and countries like it, will be a problem, and we need a new strategic doctrine in the post-Saddam era to deal with them.
...snip..
And that leads to (this) reason for regime change in Syria: it could set Lebanon free. Lebanon is the only Arab country to have had a functioning democracy. It is also the Arab country that is most hard-wired for globalization. Trading and entrepreneurship are in Lebanon's DNA. Lebanon should be leading the Arab world into globalization, but it has not been able to play its natural Hong Kong role because Syria has choked the life out of the place.
Iraq is the only Arab country that combines oil, water, brains and secularism. Lebanon has water, brains, secularism and a liberal tradition. The Palestinians have a similar potential. Which is why I favor "triple self-determination." If Lebanon, Iraq and a Palestinian state could all be made into functioning, decent, free-market, self-governing societies, it would be enough to tilt the entire Arab world onto a modernizing track.
...snip..
But, as I said, we're not going to invade Syria to change Syria. So what to do? The Middle East expert Stephen Cohen offers a useful concept. He calls it "aggressive engagement — something between outright military engagement and useless constructive engagement."
....The natural third way is "aggressive engagement." That means getting in Syria's face every day. Reminding the world of its 27-year occupation of Lebanon and how much it has held that country back, and reminding the Syrian people of how much they've been deprived of a better future by their own thuggish regime.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The single overriding rule of International Law is "Might Makes Right".
So9
But I heard that they will be....isn't Fox going to be broadcast in Baghdad?
Syria is an interesting country. It has a large Christian population, for one thing. Also, Syrian businessmen and entrepreneurs are making huge efforts to bring the country into the 21st century economy, but they are faced with outrageous taxes, fees, surcharges imposed by Assad's clique. By the time they finish paying off "bakshish" (bribes), they have insufficient funds left to get their businesses going. I'm sure we, the greatest capitalist society in the world, can find creative, effective ways to increase the pressure on Assad, play to the business hopefuls in Syria, and open the door to real change there without firing a shot.
My friend who lived in Syria, Egypt, & Tunis for several years says that the people there really like Americans and still do after we brought down Saddam, but plunging into an ongoing "conquest" of Arab countries would be senseless and would definitely cause them to hate us. If we can bring the Iraq economy up to snuff within a year or two, we'll have created a firm basis for a peaceful Middle East where all peoples can participate in a prosperous global economy. Bush knows this and his administration is working hard to bring it about.
That will involve engaging the Syrian's directly since theyre heavily invested with troops and materiel in the Bekaa Valley right now, etc. Their support of Hezbolla has to be terminated; any way to do that would suffice.
It's amazing how often the word "occupation" comes up in the mideast. The liberation of Iraq could prove to be the ideal template for real democracy in the region.
Yeah, the UN hasn't given permission, right?
See the incremental delegation of congressional war powers to the executive branch, which the executive branch is urged to delegate to the UN.
And people still claim that the UN isn't a threat to American sovereignty?
Rush was right. The war on Iraq is all about the UN resolutions.
All we have to do is line up with the Israelis and say that's all folks - a free Syrai and free Lebanon within 3 months tops (planning and diplo moves included).
Might as well make it abundantly clear to the Arab world that times have changed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.