Eutrusca
10-11-2005, 17:30
COMMENTARY: If this is accurate, I certainly hope it doesn't involve any significant military operations. We're not prepared to do that.
Is US planning an Iraq-style 'regime change' in Syria? (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
While publicly Bush administration officials say they just want to see a "change in behavior" from Syria, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that some of these officials are saying privately that there is an active debate about whether "regime change" (the use of military force to remove the current Syrian administration) should be a US goal. The discussions come as the US has decided to cut off nearly all contact with the Syria, in an effort to "weaken and isolate" President Bashir Assad's government.
Syrian officials say that they have made progress on many US demands, including stepping up patrols along the Iraq border. They also claim that "powerful neoconservative policymakers in Washington have long hoped to topple their government in a bid to transform the Middle East."
William Arkin, who writes about national and homeland security for The Washington Post, wrote that even before last Monday's vote at the United Nations, where the UN Security Council demanded that Syria support "fully and unconditionally" the investigation into the February assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri, the US had upgraded its plans for possible military action against Syria. Mr. Arkin writes that internal intelligence documents and conversations with military officers involved in the planning show that US Central Command was directed last year to prepare a "strategic concept" for Syria, "the first step in creation of a full fledged war plan. "
In some ways, military officers involved in the high-level planning efforts say Syria has eclipsed Iran in CENTCOM's play book as much because of practicality as imminent threat. Iran is four times larger than Iraq with three times the population. Syria is in a difficult geographic position, especially with US bases and forces in Iraq and its proximity to US military strength in the Mediterranean. US forces have also been operating along the Syrian border since early 2003, and there have been numerous reports of clashes between US and Syrian forces on Syrian soil, as well as reports of US special operations forces operating inside Syria on select missions.
Though Syria's possession of WMD was the early justification for contingency planning for the country – even for American nuclear weapons planning – I imagine that in light of the Iraq intelligence failure and the current scandals, the administration would now have an impossible time selling WMD charges to the international community. But now all of the pieces could easily fall into place without even any mention of WMD. Political genius Karl Rove would be proud.
A new US intelligence report, however, calls into question the idea of Iraq-style regime change. The new intelligence assessment was compiled in late September 2005 by the office of John Negroponte, the director of National Security. Knight Ridder reports that the new document says that anyone who replaced Bashir Assad would likely have to come "from the ruling leadership who'd pursue the same policies or even more confrontational ones, according to officials who've read it or been briefed on its contents." Knight Ridder also reports that "such is the concern over destabilizing Syria" that even its chief enemy, Israel, has told the US to "proceed cautiously."
Columnist Abdul Wahab Badrakhan wrote Saturday in the Lebanese newspaper Dar Al-Hayat that the "comparisons between Iraq and Syria" will likely temper any plans for "regime change" in Syria. It notes that the US wants to change the regime in Syria, but "it is following a completely different strategy."
The first reason is that the US is not tense and anxious as the case was in Iraq. Secondly, this time it wants international support. Thirdly, it is unsure of the consequences on the Iraqi scene. Fourth, Israel only wants to weaken the regime since it is not comfortable about its alternatives. Fifth, Washington itself has not prepared an alternative to the regime as was the case with the Iraqi opposition to Saddam. Sixth, the developments in Iraq do not allow the American administration to think about a military act which would commit more troops, if any would be available, in Syria.
Even opposition figures in Syria say they are concerned about what would happen after a regime change. The Boston Globe reports that Syria has so effectively quashed all forms of protest, that "even the most committed dissidents find themselves in a depressing bind: They're willing to risk prison by speaking out against the regime but are so convinced of their own weakness that they don't want the regime to fall, fearing that only chaos would follow."
Haitham al-Maleh, a 74-year-old human rights lawyer considered one of the most influential opposition leaders, neatly sums up the plight. "We have a problem: The opposition is weak," he said.
Despite his visceral anger at the government he calls a fascist dictatorship, he doesn't want to see it collapse, because he doesn't think there's anything to replace it. "We believe in change step by step," Maleh said. "We don't want to jump and break our necks."
The Daily Star of Lebanon writes that after the recent UN resolution about Syria, the way the "main actors" want to deal with Syria has become clearer. Countries like France and other members of the UN Security Council seem to have convinced the US that "achieving unanimity is more important than using strong language in UN resolutions."
... there is a visible tempering of the previous American attitude, driven by the neoconservative triumphalists, that "Washington should use diplomatic and military force to clear the decks in the Middle East and let the cards fall where they may," in the words of one diplomatic source who is directly involved in these issues.
"Condoleezza Rice, ironically, is carrying out the more pragmatic Colin Powell policies that she had blocked or resisted in the first Bush administration," said one Washington analyst who closely follows US diplomacy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Arabian Business magazine says that the great concern in Syria is that the West doesn't know what it wants. Joshua Landis, a professor at the University of Oklahoma and an expert on Syria who is currently in Damascus told the magazine that the Syrian government is very unstable. "You can’t really separate [the UN] investigation and ... let the chips fall where they may on the Mehlis report and not call this regime change in this situation. That’s what has this government in complete chaos right now."
Is US planning an Iraq-style 'regime change' in Syria? (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
While publicly Bush administration officials say they just want to see a "change in behavior" from Syria, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that some of these officials are saying privately that there is an active debate about whether "regime change" (the use of military force to remove the current Syrian administration) should be a US goal. The discussions come as the US has decided to cut off nearly all contact with the Syria, in an effort to "weaken and isolate" President Bashir Assad's government.
Syrian officials say that they have made progress on many US demands, including stepping up patrols along the Iraq border. They also claim that "powerful neoconservative policymakers in Washington have long hoped to topple their government in a bid to transform the Middle East."
William Arkin, who writes about national and homeland security for The Washington Post, wrote that even before last Monday's vote at the United Nations, where the UN Security Council demanded that Syria support "fully and unconditionally" the investigation into the February assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri, the US had upgraded its plans for possible military action against Syria. Mr. Arkin writes that internal intelligence documents and conversations with military officers involved in the planning show that US Central Command was directed last year to prepare a "strategic concept" for Syria, "the first step in creation of a full fledged war plan. "
In some ways, military officers involved in the high-level planning efforts say Syria has eclipsed Iran in CENTCOM's play book as much because of practicality as imminent threat. Iran is four times larger than Iraq with three times the population. Syria is in a difficult geographic position, especially with US bases and forces in Iraq and its proximity to US military strength in the Mediterranean. US forces have also been operating along the Syrian border since early 2003, and there have been numerous reports of clashes between US and Syrian forces on Syrian soil, as well as reports of US special operations forces operating inside Syria on select missions.
Though Syria's possession of WMD was the early justification for contingency planning for the country – even for American nuclear weapons planning – I imagine that in light of the Iraq intelligence failure and the current scandals, the administration would now have an impossible time selling WMD charges to the international community. But now all of the pieces could easily fall into place without even any mention of WMD. Political genius Karl Rove would be proud.
A new US intelligence report, however, calls into question the idea of Iraq-style regime change. The new intelligence assessment was compiled in late September 2005 by the office of John Negroponte, the director of National Security. Knight Ridder reports that the new document says that anyone who replaced Bashir Assad would likely have to come "from the ruling leadership who'd pursue the same policies or even more confrontational ones, according to officials who've read it or been briefed on its contents." Knight Ridder also reports that "such is the concern over destabilizing Syria" that even its chief enemy, Israel, has told the US to "proceed cautiously."
Columnist Abdul Wahab Badrakhan wrote Saturday in the Lebanese newspaper Dar Al-Hayat that the "comparisons between Iraq and Syria" will likely temper any plans for "regime change" in Syria. It notes that the US wants to change the regime in Syria, but "it is following a completely different strategy."
The first reason is that the US is not tense and anxious as the case was in Iraq. Secondly, this time it wants international support. Thirdly, it is unsure of the consequences on the Iraqi scene. Fourth, Israel only wants to weaken the regime since it is not comfortable about its alternatives. Fifth, Washington itself has not prepared an alternative to the regime as was the case with the Iraqi opposition to Saddam. Sixth, the developments in Iraq do not allow the American administration to think about a military act which would commit more troops, if any would be available, in Syria.
Even opposition figures in Syria say they are concerned about what would happen after a regime change. The Boston Globe reports that Syria has so effectively quashed all forms of protest, that "even the most committed dissidents find themselves in a depressing bind: They're willing to risk prison by speaking out against the regime but are so convinced of their own weakness that they don't want the regime to fall, fearing that only chaos would follow."
Haitham al-Maleh, a 74-year-old human rights lawyer considered one of the most influential opposition leaders, neatly sums up the plight. "We have a problem: The opposition is weak," he said.
Despite his visceral anger at the government he calls a fascist dictatorship, he doesn't want to see it collapse, because he doesn't think there's anything to replace it. "We believe in change step by step," Maleh said. "We don't want to jump and break our necks."
The Daily Star of Lebanon writes that after the recent UN resolution about Syria, the way the "main actors" want to deal with Syria has become clearer. Countries like France and other members of the UN Security Council seem to have convinced the US that "achieving unanimity is more important than using strong language in UN resolutions."
... there is a visible tempering of the previous American attitude, driven by the neoconservative triumphalists, that "Washington should use diplomatic and military force to clear the decks in the Middle East and let the cards fall where they may," in the words of one diplomatic source who is directly involved in these issues.
"Condoleezza Rice, ironically, is carrying out the more pragmatic Colin Powell policies that she had blocked or resisted in the first Bush administration," said one Washington analyst who closely follows US diplomacy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Arabian Business magazine says that the great concern in Syria is that the West doesn't know what it wants. Joshua Landis, a professor at the University of Oklahoma and an expert on Syria who is currently in Damascus told the magazine that the Syrian government is very unstable. "You can’t really separate [the UN] investigation and ... let the chips fall where they may on the Mehlis report and not call this regime change in this situation. That’s what has this government in complete chaos right now."