Good God in heaven. You elevate this.

This post begins with "terminating ... the regime" and ends with "shoot the nigger."

And in between is a bunch of horseshit. Say we destabilize Syria. You going to occupy it? Or do you have a posse of Ledeen-sponsored lackeys to step into the breach?

Maybe, inside every Arab is an American waiting to come out! And if we liquidate their criminal bourgeois ruling cliques, they'll join the worldwide democratic revolution! Even if that's a bunch of neocon crap, we should give it a try; it's not like anyone we know is going to die trying, eh?

I'll ask again, because it seems to be increasingly relevant:

Do you even read these posts before you start criticizing them?

Tom (via Joe) is proposing a hypothetical scenario in which the US can move against Syria if it wants to in order to bring about a collapse of the regime. He freely acknowledges the possible consequences of such actions and isn't saying that this is an ideal scenario. From a strictly utilitarian outlook, this is what you pay intelligence types to do if you want to know what your options are.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Dan:

Because it's fantasist raving. We destabilize Syria, shit comes down in Iraq. Our troops will probably manage it, but some will die. And the idea that the Syrian masses, yearning to breathe free, will suddenly sing hymns of praise to Uncle Sam, is nuts.

Syria helped us against Osama in 2002. Why adopt an anti-Syria policy now? Because the neocons say so? Or because the Mossad says so? If the overthrow goes south, we'll be occupying the country. What will that cost?

"And the idea that the Syrian masses, yearning to breathe free, will suddenly sing hymns of praise to Uncle Sam, is nuts."

That's what folks like you said about Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran.

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

From TKS

Stickler, few have been dumb enough to say all has a garranty of success. I cant remember any. caution about the future, worry and angst has been the constant companion of even the most strident of the gung ho. there is plenty of opertunity for error at every instant along the way.

Recently, I still took a couple 2 hour helecopter rides out in the gulf, the ride out was in an 40 year old huey, all it needed for SE Asia nostalgia was some green paint and door guners, and we had to refuel halfway out on an oil platform because it was fully loaded.

On the trip back, it was a newer chopper and it made it all the way in without a refuel, but half way in, the left side pilot was barfing into a bag
there was a really nice zero G when he lurched the first time and the other polit grabbed the stick and the collective.

Stuff happens. like the loss of a while chinook full of troops in iraq because the transmission gave out.

But you doom n gloomers, have been unversally, glactically utterly wrong since Gulf War I.

Whats it like to constantly be proven wrong for decades ?

Oh Lord, where do I start ...

Because it's fantasist raving.

No, it's an option. Maybe not the best one and certainly not the only one, but it's there. Picking between options is how you conduct "policy-making" and that means that all of them, even the icky ones, have to be one the table.

We destabilize Syria, shit comes down in Iraq. Our troops will probably manage it, but some will die. And the idea that the Syrian masses, yearning to breathe free, will suddenly sing hymns of praise to Uncle Sam, is nuts.

Since, here again, you clearly didn't read the post or are unable to interpret it through any frame other than your ideology, I'll try again:

The time required might make it costly in terms of Syrian countermeasures.

The real drawback here, IMO, is that there might not be a replacement regime, i.e., 1980's Lebanese type chaos, for a while. Syria's Alawite minority (Shiite-related - about 10% of the population) has been dominant for many years (the Assad clan are Alawites) and is violently unpopular. There is a fair chance of it suffering genocidal massacre and ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Sunni majority when the Alawites lose power.

IMO the major reason for American caution in dealing with Syria is not difficulty in inducing regime change, but whether the consequences might be worse for some time, i.e., chaos with Islamic terrorist controlled sanctuaries in some parts of the country, and eventual emergence of a truly nutball Islamic regime. Much of this is really just fear of the unknown, but we would be taking a significant chance.

I must have missed the whole part about the Syrians singing praises to Uncle Sam in all this.

Syria helped us against Osama in 2002.

Yesss ... I've acknowledged that much (out of curiosity, do you even know how they've helped?). But if they aren't helping us anymore and are in fact seeking to do us harm, that changes the dynamics of our relationship, doesn't.

Why adopt an anti-Syria policy now?

There is apparently evidence that Syria is seeking to enable those who are killing their soldiers over in Iraq. Natural reaction to American Imperialism™, ya know? If that is in fact the case, you would seem to have your answer.

Because the neocons say so?

No, they've actually been saying that Syria is a threat for quite sometime. However, if the Syrians are sponsoring the killing of US soldiers, don't you think we need to do something about it? Or is your concern for US troops only motivated by your ability to use it to criticize of the neocons?

Or because the Mossad says so?

Sure, why not? I mean, if there's an Insidious Plot™ against an Arab government somewhere on the planet, it's gotta be linked to da Joooz ...

If the overthrow goes south, we'll be occupying the country. What will that cost?

I dunno, but I don't think that Tom is advocating a US military invasion or occupation of Syria. As for the cost, Tom was quite candid as to the potential risks involved here, he's just laying out the fact that we have an option if we choose to exercise it.

Economic measures are the perfect way to get rid of Ba'athists, I mean, look how well it worked in Iraq prior to war, they only lasted 12 years or so.

I think I'll stick with the "democracy virus" option, it's probably a bit more realistic.

Where do I start?

Doesn't any one see the humor in America complaining about its Heroin Price Support and Terrorist Finance Program?

Any one at all?

Here is a list of links to the collateral damage of that program. Attacks on people in pain in America and the doctors that serve them.

Of course there is also the attacks on people with pain the government does not recognize and the black market that serves them. But of course that was the whole point of the exercise. Find some people who are different and apply the remedies Germany applied to the Jews. We are of course not to the death camp stage. But we are only one step away. Any one notice the black mask gestapo raids on "drug dealers and users"? Any one at all? I review a book that compares the drug police to the German gestapo

Oh well. Never mind. Not. Our. Kind. Of. People.

Besides complaining could get you a visit from the drug police. Some times they take no prisoners. Damn shame. Too bad.

I suppose that if there are not enough criminals in America, America would have to create them. The Phantom Menace for sure.

Does anyone have an example where an American blockade has actually worked and produced the desired result? I'm assuming we would have a formal declaration of War against Syria and Lebanon in this scenario.

M. Simon, help me out here. What on earth does the war on drugs, which you consistently and bitterly denounce, have to do with the Ba'athist regime in Syria?

Specifically. I.e. not in general terms of heroin traffic supporting Islamacist terror networks, which we all know.

Doug wrote: "Does anyone have an example where an American blockade has actually worked and produced the desired result?"

Cuba- October 1962.

Jim,
Actually you are wrong about that. Our real adversal was the USSR, not Cuba. The US had to give up missiles in Turkey in exchange for the USSR pulling it's missiles out of Cuba.

I think its a bad idea, and not for all the fantastic scenarios Stickler spins to justify coddling dictators for the sake of stability.

Ok, we know sanctions are fantastic failures traditionally. Too many people cheat, it doesnt really touch the ruling classes as much as starve the mainstream, and it rallies the nation around the flag. Now a blockade would seem to get around the first problem, but in reality it will inflame it. There is simply not the international will to mine Syrian harbors etc (we're dealing with the same pinheads trying to ban land mines for that matter). Any unilateral (which is what it would be) military blockade will incite nations from France to Turkey to even Jordan to stick their thumb in Americas eye, especially with all the money to be made doing it. Worse, it will give Syria the perfect excuse to crack down in Lebanon.

Now this might be acceptable if we had no other options, but in fact we have excellent options. Lebanon seems to have taken on a life of its own, which is extraordinarilly helpful to us. So long as we make it clear that any Syrian crackdown will be met with the gravest consequences (cruise missiles), Syrian withdrawal and democratic revolution in Lebanon seem to be fait accompli, so long as we dont muck it up. The effect this will have on Syria proper is critical. Assad will lose his candy store, his prestige, and worse will suddenly be surrounded by unfriendly democracies on 3 sides. Syria will fall into line more quickly than realized, particularly if we decide to return the favor and support Kurdish insurgents with encouragement, a few toys, and perhaps some training.
Lets let nature take its course while we have the chance and deal with Iran which wont be so easy.

Closing ports.

Hmmm. I seem to remember that in 1967, that was considered an Act of War, and justified retaliatory strikes.

I suppose it would still be considered such, but we're a lot bigger than Syria, just as we were a lot bigger than Iraq, so several centuries of international law don't matter to us at all.

You know, I think the small countries of the world wouldn't be so happy to play under these new rules. You know, like Great Britain (Tony Blair made it clear he isn't on board for the Syria War). Hell, they'd probably organize an Airlift into Damascus just to cut us down to size.

"Hell, they'd probably organize an Airlift into Damascus just to cut us down to size."

That would be entertaining to watch. Better hope the Shieks donate their Gulfstreams.

Lurker, Yes, I knew the object of the blockade of Cuba in 10/62 was the USSR. IIRC, the only ships the US said we were going to stop and search were Soviet ones. Narrowly speaking, the blockade achieved its' objective of stopping the emplacement of more Soviet IRBMs in Cuba. (Never mind endangering all of us in the Northern Hemisphere!)

The real purpose (IMO) of the exercise was to let the never-sufficiently-to-be-damned JFK save face when he withdraw our obsolete Jupiter and Thor missles from Italy, Turkey etc. That was the quid pro quo Kruschiev got for removing the missles from Cuba. Of course, Kruschiev fell from power afterwards but thems the breaks.

BTW Lurker, I see that we share ISPs...

Note that, if the objective is to terminate Syria's overt control of Lebanon, and eventually its covert control of Lebanon, as opposed to terminating Syria's current gangster regime, blockade of Lebanon would be "counterproductive" (a world class understatement).

It all depends on the objective. My understanding is that the principal objective of the U.S. government is to win the war on Islamicist fascism by democratizing as much of the Middle East as is feasible. A blockade of Lebanon would certainly hinder that objective, while prying Lebanon from Syrian control would further it. Ergo, terminating Syria's regime by blockading Lebanon as well as Syria won't happen.

But using the concept of blockade as a vehicle to better understand the true nature and weaknesses of Syria's gangster regime is useful. Note especially Joe's commment in Dan's related topic yesterday:

"And like Soviet Communism (or North Korea, or many parts of China, or...), over time Hayek proves correct and we see the degeneration of the totalitarian structure into what is essentially a criminal aristocracy. We've seen it in Iraq, in Arafat's crew, and in Syria. We are also seeing it, interestingly enough, in the Isalmic Republic of Iran - and had the Taliban survived long enough, their close ties to he drug trade would have produced much the same effect there. In that sense, the PFLP and the drug runners in Lebanon are probably more than just the Syrian regime's client. They're its bridge to its logical endpoint."

im,
Fair enough. It seems you know more about it than me. I just wanted to point out there were other components to the Missile Crisis than just the blockade.

I agree. Kennedy's legacy is due a reassessment. It's something of a boomer affectation. Though, he did make a good inaugural speech.

Correct. I also abhor spam!

This is really absurd. Blockade Lebanese ports? Mining? Sheesh. Look, patient diplomacy in concert with France and the UN are going to be effective, because the Lebanese are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. Syria will leave because the Lebanese want them out. I see no reason to alienate or inflict hardship on Lebanese citizens.

"Look, patient diplomacy in concert with France and the UN are going to be effective, because the Lebanese are increasingly taking matters into their own hands."

So patient diplomacy via France and the UN will work because they wont be required to have any effect. True. But you could have skipped the first part. Syria will leave Lebanon because the Lebanese want them out, period. Diplomacy has nothing to do with it except insofar as US military threat keeps Syria from executing a military reprisal. Its US cruise missiles that keep Syrian troops from the streets of Beirut, not the threat of 3 years of Security Council kibitzing.

If Syria does leave Lebanon and a constitutional democratic government is reestablished, the plan for Middle Eastern democratization would seem to be moving apace, much better than predicted even by the most optimistic war bloggers.

Will the left give Bush any credit for another democratic domino falling?

No.

The last railroad link between Syria and Saudi Arabia went defunct in WWI, when Lawrence and his group blew it up. The remains of tracks and locomotives are still to be found, but they are not functional in any way.

There is a proposal to build a railway linking the Gulf States, through Saudi Arabia, with the Levant and Turkey, but that's only at the discussion stage.

Blocking the Syrian ports (there are really only three, Lattakia, Tartous, and the oil port of Banyas) would be easy, but would probably be globally construed as an act of war if unilaterally imposed. As a UN sanction, though, it'd certainly work.

Will the left give Bush any credit for another democratic domino falling?

No, not when most of the credit goes to Ehud Barak. As long as Israel was overtly controlling the so-called Security Zone in Southern Lebanon, Syrian withdrawal was a non-starter. The Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon allowed to Lebanese to focus on finishing the job of restoration of genuine sovereignty. (Although, of course, we expect sovereign Iraq to accept a US presence at least as significant, and probalby much more so, than the Syrians in Lebanon.)

Or do you think it's the prospect of American Social Security reform that's made such a big difference in Lebanese attitudes?

Gee Andrew, why not reach back to Lawrence of Arabia? Funny how all these coincidences just keep happening. Libya gives up their WMDs, democracy protests in Lebanon and Egypt, limited elections for the first time in Saudi Arabia, Palestinian elections... but all just a coincidence.

Im sure after 20 years its just a total accident of history that the Lebanese stop fighting each other and decide to kick out the Syrians... right.

>There is simply not the international will to
>mine Syrian harbors etc

International will is irrelevant.

Only American will, to both lay mine fields and back them up with sufficient force to see that mine sweeping does not occur, matters.

>Closing ports.
>
>Hmmm. I seem to remember that in 1967, that was
>considered an Act of War, and justified
>retaliatory strikes.

So is providing terrorists sanctuary to strike American forces in Iraq.

Syria has already started a war with America.

The question remains does America have the will to fight one with Syria to the knife.

I wouldn't put too much stock in a Lebanese conversion to democracy, especially by Lebanese leaders. Jumblatt's comments on the Iraqi elections should be viewed in light of his income opportunities. Here's a reader comment of mine in today's on-line Wall Street Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/responses.html?article_id=110006335

"Bear in mind that, where Lebanese leaders are concerned, there are no good guys, just bad guys and even badder guys. Jumblatt's major issue with President Bashar Assad of Syria concerns sharing--specifically of the Lebanese drug trade which the Syrians have been excessively territorial about (by Lebanese standards) through their military control of Lebanon."

Once the Syrian ground forces are gone, Syria's control of the drug trade will be eroded and it will have to share more with warlords of factions which they have less influence over, one of whom is Mr. Jumblatt.

And, as I noted in my initial post yesterday which Joe used to create this thread, such sharing will cut into the income of Syria's gangster regime and the support of its regime protective forces.

This is a handy way of pressuring them into reducing their covert war on us in Iraq. As I mentioned, there are reasons why we don't want to terminate the regime just yet.

By the way, note that some here utterly deny that Syria is attacking us in Iraq. They ignore all evidence that such is going on. This is known as cognitive dissonance. See:

http://www.propaganda101.com/SocialPsychology/cognitiv.htm

As long as Israel was overtly controlling the so-called Security Zone

The Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon allowed to Lebanese to focus on finishing the job of restoration of genuine sovereignty.

(Although, of course, we expect sovereign Iraq to accept a US presence at least as significant, and probalby much more so, than the Syrians in Lebanon.)

Or do you think it's the prospect of American Social Security reform that's made such a big difference in Lebanese attitudes?

Blockades, as opposed to sanctions, can and have been highly effective. The American phase of the Vietnam War was ended in 1972 with the mining of Haiphong Harbor; the Union blockade of the Southern ports were very effective during the American Civil War, and folks have already discussed the Cuban blockade of 1962. Blockades work, under the right circumstances.

The problem is that blockades are acts of war, and pretty flashy ones at that. If you're going to commit acts of war against the Syrians, you might as well roll your armored columns through the desert and storm Damascus from the east. As well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

Robin, you asked about the relevance of drugs. Tom's post states his belief that one of the biggest consequences of the Lebanon blockade option would be to significantly disrupt the drug traffic out of that country, of which Syria's cut is a noticeable component of its economy. I'd be interested in any statistical estimates people could come up with on the size of Lebanon's drug trade, that would be a good addition to the debate....

And yes, M. Simon, the dark humour here is obvious, especially given that one of Lebanon's bigger export crops is marijuana amd its derivatives like hashish. Having said that, Lebanese drugs are far more significant in Europe and the Middle East (including Israel - how's that for dark irony?) than they are in America, which tends to have other marijuana sources closer to home.

So even full legalization in America would only make a partial dent, except insofar as an explosion of cultivation might drive down worldwide prices. Mind you, Congress would probably set up a co-op marketing board with quotas as a farming support program/sop to the antis, and you'd lose that benefit too.

Yup, Tom's comment did indeed say that. I've been fighting a virus something all day -- I think I'm at the "not very effective" stage of being sick. Ugh.

Joe said:

We can close Syrian and Lebanese ports with naval mines, i.e. blockade the Syrian economy, including its criminal one.