Do You Detect A Pattern Here?
I noticed something intriguing over at Captain's Quarters the other day.
First, this post on the Russians joining the U.S., France, and Germany in urging Junior Assad to haul ass out of Lebanon:
Bashar Assad's hope of holding onto some international political cover for his continued operation in Lebanon took a body blow this morning, as his normally reliable trading partner Russia told him that Syria should leave Lebanon as soon as possible:
"Russia has increased the pressure on its ally Syria by joining calls for Damascus to withdraw its troops from Lebanon.
"Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said: 'Syria should withdraw from Lebanon, but we all have to make sure that this withdrawal does not violate the very fragile balance which we still have in Lebanon, which is a very difficult country ethnically.'"
Then, in the very next post, we see the Arab League following suit:
"In another signal that exasperation with the Assad regime may run closer to Damascus than Assad would prefer, members of the Arab League have joined the chorus telling Syria to get out of Lebanon at the earliest possible moment:
"'Arab leaders launched a flurry of diplomatic activity Thursday, including a trip by Syrian President Bashar Assad to Saudi Arabia, as they sought to control a political storm over Syria's role in neighboring Lebanon....
"Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Wednesday night after meeting with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Saud al-Faisal, that they had discussed how to 'find a mechanism to implement' last year's U.N. Security Council resolution that called for all foreign forces to leave Lebanon.
"'Egypt is encouraging Syria to settle the situation surrounding Lebanon as soon possible,' Aboul Gheit said."
Then, just a few hours later, came the trifecta:
"Bashar Assad must feel as though he's auditioning for a remake of The Lonely Guy this week, as his international political support has crumbled in a flash. The Egyptians earlier today alluded to Saudi expectations for a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and now the Saudis have spoken for themselves (via Instapundit):
"'Saudi officials told Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday that he must fully withdraw troops from Lebanon and begin soon or face strains in Saudi-Syrian ties. Assad promised only to study the idea of a partial withdrawal by later this month.
"The kingdom took a tough line as Assad met with the Saudi leader, Crown Prince Abdullah, and other officials in Riyadh. So far, Damascus has resisted Arab pressure for a quick pullout from Lebanon.
"Saudi officials told Assad the kingdom insists on the full withdrawal of all Syrian military and intelligence forces from Lebanon and wants it to start 'soon,' according to a Saudi official who spoke by telephone from Riyadh."
Rat-a-tat-tat. Boy Assad's "nervous complaint" must have attained a similar cadence at this runaway unraveling of his international position.
Which is not, of course, to say that Moscow, Riyadh, Cairo, et al have seen the democratic "light on the Damascus Road" and become born-again Bushies. As Captain Ed elaborates, the Arab regimes, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, want to slow the regional momentum toward democracy that we helped birth in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to save their own regimes, and Syria's numbskulled vaporizing of ex-Lebanese puppet PM Rafik Hariri has only accelerated it by inspiring the Cedar Revolution in their de facto colony. They still doubtless sympathize with Assad, but they're not willing to let him take them down with him, either.
The Russians, though still as two-faced as ever (they're still planning to sell Damascus advanced anti-aircraft missiles), are most likely even less genuine in their urging Syria to quit Lebanon, but they're also not yet rebuilt sufficiently as a great power, either economically or militarily, to be able to ignore the rare-as-hen's-lips united diplomatic front forged between America and "Old" Europe.
What it seems to amount to is that Junior Assad vastly overplayed his hand in Lebanon, played right into the hands of George W. Bush, and the usual gang of international America-bashers is showing that it, in the words of Kenny Rogers, "knows when to fold" a losing diplomatic hand.
Still, despite Dubya's virtual ultimatum to Damascus to evacuate Lebanon immediately and unconditionally, Assad is sticking to his foot-dragging alternative of a gradual, phased withdrawal. Which, when you think it through, is the only thing he can do if he wants to preserve his regime, and his own ass along with it.
Consider his options....
1) He could "go Tiananmen" on the Cedar Revolutionaries, massacre them in the streets of Beirut, and brutally reimpose Syrian control. This would set off a firestorm that would make it relatively simple for the United States to justify military action against Damascus, which the dilapidated Syrian forces couldn't hope to resist. If Assad wasn't overthrown from within, "Operation Syrian Freedom" would be over in a week.
2) He could completely knuckle under to U.S.-led international demands for unconditional withdrawal from Lebanon. This would fan the flames of democratization by encouraging Cedar-minded Syrians to take to the streets and demand their own liberation from Ba'athist tyranny, confronting Assad with the same choice that he faced in Lebanon right in his own backyard. 'Tis doubtful he could survive this choice either.
3) He can do what he appears to be doing: stall. Promise to withdraw and then dawdle, fiddle, twiddle, and fritter away the days as they turn to weeks and then months, until the diplomatic storm blows over and he can slowly reestablish control in Lebanon when the heat is off.
This wouldn't call off the American dogs, but it would make it a great deal more difficult for the Bush Administration to make a case for allied military action, since the ostensible issue would not be whether Syria was withdrawing, but how and how fast. And you could count on this united front with the French, Germans, and Russians - and most likely the Brits as well - evaporating like a sneeze in a tornado.
Would the White House then have the stomach to "go it alone" (for real this time) on another necessary military campaign? Particularly when it would serve as a major distraction from the primary regional confrontation with Iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons?
My guess is no. Which, it must be said, is a function of its repeating the mistake of tethering its freedom of action to another UN Security Council Resolution - #1559, the one demanding a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Given that Damascus is already waging war against the Coalition in Iraq (e.g. the sudden discovery last week of thirty Saddamites operating a support network for the carbombing lunatics in Baghdad, including Saddam's half-brother, from Syrian territory and with their active support), that by itself is perfectly valid justification for a military response to eliminate this threat. Sure, the "international community" would howl, but they have no credibility after the exposure of scandals like the corrupt backing of Saddam by the EUnuchs and Russians, and the Oily Food Scandal at the UN, to say nothing of the success of our democratic "experiment" in Iraq.
Going the UN route the last time cost us six months, time which Saddam was able to use to evacuate his WMD stockpiles to (yep, that's right) Syria and lay the groundwork for the post-liberation "insurgency." If not for that needless delay the election that took place five weeks ago may have transpired six months or a year earlier, at considerably less cost in Coalition (and Iraqi) casualties. And the diplomatic result ("Success is the best revenge...") would have been comparable.
We've gone down the same paralyzing path vis-a-vie Syria/Lebanon, and the result will be either another "pariah-izing" blitzkrieg or a credibility-eroding back-down from our demand for Assad to "scram."
Not to be a conspiracist, but given that Iran appears to be the biggest beneficiary of all of this, I cannot help but wonder whether, if you peeled away enough layers of complicity in the Hariri assassination, you'd find Tehran's fingerprints on the atrocity. By the time we're done with the mullahs' junior partners, they will have their nukes, and the whole Middle Eastern equation will have changed.
"People power" versus mushroom clouds? Seems like a mismatch to me - and the beginning of a new, dark "pattern."
First, this post on the Russians joining the U.S., France, and Germany in urging Junior Assad to haul ass out of Lebanon:
Bashar Assad's hope of holding onto some international political cover for his continued operation in Lebanon took a body blow this morning, as his normally reliable trading partner Russia told him that Syria should leave Lebanon as soon as possible:
"Russia has increased the pressure on its ally Syria by joining calls for Damascus to withdraw its troops from Lebanon.
"Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said: 'Syria should withdraw from Lebanon, but we all have to make sure that this withdrawal does not violate the very fragile balance which we still have in Lebanon, which is a very difficult country ethnically.'"
Then, in the very next post, we see the Arab League following suit:
"In another signal that exasperation with the Assad regime may run closer to Damascus than Assad would prefer, members of the Arab League have joined the chorus telling Syria to get out of Lebanon at the earliest possible moment:
"'Arab leaders launched a flurry of diplomatic activity Thursday, including a trip by Syrian President Bashar Assad to Saudi Arabia, as they sought to control a political storm over Syria's role in neighboring Lebanon....
"Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Wednesday night after meeting with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Saud al-Faisal, that they had discussed how to 'find a mechanism to implement' last year's U.N. Security Council resolution that called for all foreign forces to leave Lebanon.
"'Egypt is encouraging Syria to settle the situation surrounding Lebanon as soon possible,' Aboul Gheit said."
Then, just a few hours later, came the trifecta:
"Bashar Assad must feel as though he's auditioning for a remake of The Lonely Guy this week, as his international political support has crumbled in a flash. The Egyptians earlier today alluded to Saudi expectations for a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and now the Saudis have spoken for themselves (via Instapundit):
"'Saudi officials told Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday that he must fully withdraw troops from Lebanon and begin soon or face strains in Saudi-Syrian ties. Assad promised only to study the idea of a partial withdrawal by later this month.
"The kingdom took a tough line as Assad met with the Saudi leader, Crown Prince Abdullah, and other officials in Riyadh. So far, Damascus has resisted Arab pressure for a quick pullout from Lebanon.
"Saudi officials told Assad the kingdom insists on the full withdrawal of all Syrian military and intelligence forces from Lebanon and wants it to start 'soon,' according to a Saudi official who spoke by telephone from Riyadh."
Rat-a-tat-tat. Boy Assad's "nervous complaint" must have attained a similar cadence at this runaway unraveling of his international position.
Which is not, of course, to say that Moscow, Riyadh, Cairo, et al have seen the democratic "light on the Damascus Road" and become born-again Bushies. As Captain Ed elaborates, the Arab regimes, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, want to slow the regional momentum toward democracy that we helped birth in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to save their own regimes, and Syria's numbskulled vaporizing of ex-Lebanese puppet PM Rafik Hariri has only accelerated it by inspiring the Cedar Revolution in their de facto colony. They still doubtless sympathize with Assad, but they're not willing to let him take them down with him, either.
The Russians, though still as two-faced as ever (they're still planning to sell Damascus advanced anti-aircraft missiles), are most likely even less genuine in their urging Syria to quit Lebanon, but they're also not yet rebuilt sufficiently as a great power, either economically or militarily, to be able to ignore the rare-as-hen's-lips united diplomatic front forged between America and "Old" Europe.
What it seems to amount to is that Junior Assad vastly overplayed his hand in Lebanon, played right into the hands of George W. Bush, and the usual gang of international America-bashers is showing that it, in the words of Kenny Rogers, "knows when to fold" a losing diplomatic hand.
Still, despite Dubya's virtual ultimatum to Damascus to evacuate Lebanon immediately and unconditionally, Assad is sticking to his foot-dragging alternative of a gradual, phased withdrawal. Which, when you think it through, is the only thing he can do if he wants to preserve his regime, and his own ass along with it.
Consider his options....
1) He could "go Tiananmen" on the Cedar Revolutionaries, massacre them in the streets of Beirut, and brutally reimpose Syrian control. This would set off a firestorm that would make it relatively simple for the United States to justify military action against Damascus, which the dilapidated Syrian forces couldn't hope to resist. If Assad wasn't overthrown from within, "Operation Syrian Freedom" would be over in a week.
2) He could completely knuckle under to U.S.-led international demands for unconditional withdrawal from Lebanon. This would fan the flames of democratization by encouraging Cedar-minded Syrians to take to the streets and demand their own liberation from Ba'athist tyranny, confronting Assad with the same choice that he faced in Lebanon right in his own backyard. 'Tis doubtful he could survive this choice either.
3) He can do what he appears to be doing: stall. Promise to withdraw and then dawdle, fiddle, twiddle, and fritter away the days as they turn to weeks and then months, until the diplomatic storm blows over and he can slowly reestablish control in Lebanon when the heat is off.
This wouldn't call off the American dogs, but it would make it a great deal more difficult for the Bush Administration to make a case for allied military action, since the ostensible issue would not be whether Syria was withdrawing, but how and how fast. And you could count on this united front with the French, Germans, and Russians - and most likely the Brits as well - evaporating like a sneeze in a tornado.
Would the White House then have the stomach to "go it alone" (for real this time) on another necessary military campaign? Particularly when it would serve as a major distraction from the primary regional confrontation with Iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons?
My guess is no. Which, it must be said, is a function of its repeating the mistake of tethering its freedom of action to another UN Security Council Resolution - #1559, the one demanding a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Given that Damascus is already waging war against the Coalition in Iraq (e.g. the sudden discovery last week of thirty Saddamites operating a support network for the carbombing lunatics in Baghdad, including Saddam's half-brother, from Syrian territory and with their active support), that by itself is perfectly valid justification for a military response to eliminate this threat. Sure, the "international community" would howl, but they have no credibility after the exposure of scandals like the corrupt backing of Saddam by the EUnuchs and Russians, and the Oily Food Scandal at the UN, to say nothing of the success of our democratic "experiment" in Iraq.
Going the UN route the last time cost us six months, time which Saddam was able to use to evacuate his WMD stockpiles to (yep, that's right) Syria and lay the groundwork for the post-liberation "insurgency." If not for that needless delay the election that took place five weeks ago may have transpired six months or a year earlier, at considerably less cost in Coalition (and Iraqi) casualties. And the diplomatic result ("Success is the best revenge...") would have been comparable.
We've gone down the same paralyzing path vis-a-vie Syria/Lebanon, and the result will be either another "pariah-izing" blitzkrieg or a credibility-eroding back-down from our demand for Assad to "scram."
Not to be a conspiracist, but given that Iran appears to be the biggest beneficiary of all of this, I cannot help but wonder whether, if you peeled away enough layers of complicity in the Hariri assassination, you'd find Tehran's fingerprints on the atrocity. By the time we're done with the mullahs' junior partners, they will have their nukes, and the whole Middle Eastern equation will have changed.
"People power" versus mushroom clouds? Seems like a mismatch to me - and the beginning of a new, dark "pattern."
posted by JASmius at 4:50 PM
<<< Home