Posted on 07/15/2006 9:50:52 PM PDT by humint
John: You have wonderfully made my point by cheering speeches and words instead of actions. There is a real opportunity now. The Lebanese—even, a couple of hours ago, thousands of Lebanese in Paris—are demonstrating against Hezbollah and Syria and Iran. The Saudis and the Egyptians have publicly criticized Hezbollah, and for the first time in human memory have not blindly condemned Israel.
They are taking a risk here, hoping that we will understand the gravity of the moment and the dimensions of the opportunity. The great opportunity, and indeed the just consequence of the attack against Israel, is to bring down Assad along with destroying Hezbollah. That must be the mission. There are many Syrians who are ready to act, but the first step toward the removal of Assad is for the president and the secretary of state to call for regime change in Syria.
The hard work on the ground belongs to the Israelis, and you are right to say we have done well to support them rhetorically. But we have to after Assad, and we have not done that. Perhaps this is due to my own ignorance; it may be going on behind the scenes (not movie scenes, the real ones). I hope so. But I don't see it. I don't see or hear our leaders condemning the Syrians and the Iranians, aside from the original White House statement (in direct conflict with the statement from the State Dept, let's not forget) holding Syria and Iran responsible. Okay, so they're responsible. And then?
There has to be a "then." And it has to be aimed at the total destruction of Hizbollah and the downfall of the regime in Damascus.
Otherwise, it will all rewind. There will be no semblance of a strong, free, and independent Lebanon, and the next time around things will be much worse. You will see more and more Iranian missiles, in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Israel. It's a war, not a debate.
On the many wonderful things that would likely follow the fall of Assad, I'll try to get something for Monday's NRO.
It's amazing how people respond to armies in their back yards...
The last I checked, the US had open troop presence in virtually every country in the Mid-East except for Syria, Iran and Libya.
Uh, does that make us the modern Roman empire? or the latest Ottoman Empire? Between those 2, the region was ruled for 2000 years.....
I have to think that since G.W. Bush has given his support to Israel that this is a war he has been waiting for.
He could not attack Syria even though he knows many WMD went there and they continue to sponsor terrorism inside Iraq.
Why? Durbin, Kennedy, Pelosi, etal.
However, with this event, and the libs are calling it a pretext, yes a pretext, both Bush and the Israelis get what they want.
Regime change in Syria.
Wait for it! It is coming. One more (unnamed) Axis of evil countries going to go down!
Oh, BTW, I do not mind the pretext. The bad guys need to lose!
Let's get it on!
...the group did not throw its support behind Hezbollah. Squabbles over the legitimacy of the rebel group's attacks on Israel — including the capture of two Israeli soldiers that sparked the 4-day battle — caused dissention in the ranks, delegates said. The Saudi foreign minister appeared to be leading a camp of ministers criticizing the guerrilla group's actions, calling them "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts."
the part I can't get a grip on is that most muslim Syrians are sunni......so why are they in the sack w/Iranian shia?
enemy of my enemy is friend? can it be that superficial?
Amen
Amen
Amen
We've tried the Clinton/Oslo peace plan, where Israel creates yet another hostile regime tucked against its bosom. We can see how that turned out.
Now its time to implement a real peace plan. Hamas and Hezbollah must not survive in any country that borders Israel, they have to take them down and remove them as an equation if they have to roll all the way into Damascus.
Ledeen is right, however. Taking down Hezbollah, and leaving the Assads in place, leaves the door open for the whole thing to unravel yet again. There is an opportunity here and now to bring down yet another member of the axis of evil. We aren't likely to get a better chance.
---the part I can't get a grip on is that most muslim Syrians are sunni......so why are they in the sack w/Iranian shia? ---
The Assads and much of the top leadership are Alawites, sort of extremist Shiites.
Because the ruling Assad family is Alawite (which is an offshoot of Shia) and they are very unpopular with other Arab states and Iran is the only friend they have.
Here is a link to put things in 5,000 years perspective.
And, I support the contention that the Israelis are descendant from the Schumerians (correct spelling and yes Charles Schumer, Senator, is nominally connected and possibly related).
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM
excerpt
"Among the earliest civilizations were the diverse peoples living in the fertile valleys lying between the Tigris and Euphrates valley, or Mesopotamia, which in Greek means, "between the rivers." In the south of this region, in an area now in Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia, a mysterious group of people, speaking a language unrelated to any other human language we know of, began to live in cities, which were ruled by some sort of monarch, and began to write. These were the Sumerians, and around 3000 BC they began to form large city-states in southern Mesopotamia that controlled areas of several hundred square miles. The names of these cities speak from a distant and foggy past: Ur, Lagash, Eridu. These Sumerians were constantly at war with one another and other peoples, for water was a scarce and valuable resource. The result over time of these wars was the growth of larger city-states as the more powerful swallowed up the smaller city-states. Eventually, the Sumerians would have to battle another peoples, the Akkadians, who migrated up from the Arabian Peninsula. The Akkadians were a Semitic people, that is, they spoke a Semitic language related to languages such as Hebrew and Arabic. When the two peoples clashed, the Sumerians gradually lost control over the city-states they had so brilliantly created and fell under the hegemony of the Akkadian kingdom which was based in Akkad, the city that was later to become Babylon."
end of excerpt
aaah!
Thanks....makes sense now.
"Arab League: Mideast Peace Plan 'Dead' "
One really has to admire the humor here. With Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and the barbarian leading Iran, all in this picture, when did the "peace plan" to which the Arab League refers, ever really exist?
Political relationships in the ME are convoluted to say the least. Determining friend from foe is rarely as simple as tracking sectarian boundaries. With regard to the Syrians, I estimate Ledeen is getting ahead of himself when we are basically waiting for Syria to make its next move. The next 72 hours are key.
What we do know is that the West has allies inside Lebanon right now. To me, these Israeli operations make it look like Tehran is going to lose its proxy force in Lebanon. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscious relay a consensus opinion to you. I spoke with some friends this evening who are not nearly as optimistic as I am...
BTW Interesting Source
Syria is not a wealthy country and its prominence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has come as a bitter fruit of violence. I personally wouldn't get too sentimental about the Syrian resistance, if any, and I wouldn't waste a dime rebuilding the country that Assad's family has wrecked.
Iran will NOT allow Syria to be defeated without a fight because they know that they're next once the Syrians go down. More specifically they will fight desperately to maintain their proxy army in Hezbollah, and it is doubtful if they can do so without Syria's help and geographic proximity. We're going to be seeing a lot more of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards if I am not mistaken. I'm hoping it's through our gunsights.
I think the U.S. 'Empire' represents a new kind of entity. The Romans directly taxed their 'provinces'. This was a good source of revenue for them. We conversely make quite a few investments in our 'provinces' (Marshall Plan, etc...). We do not tax them directly. They are free to determine their own form of governance, but if they turn their backs on democracy, we can turn our backs on them. Basically, World War II ended with the complete conquering of Europe. The west, called 'English' by Germans, conquered Western Europe. The east, called 'Mongols' by Germans, conquered Eastern Europe. During the Cold War that division was crystal clear. Which form of empire worked the best was determined when the west won the Cold War. Many former Eastern conquered nations, quickly joined the west and NATO. I think it was fare to call the Eastern Europe Nations conquered lands as part of the Eastern 'Mongol' Empire. The word empire is not accurately applied to the Western nations that were conquered by the Western 'English'. We may need a new word eventually.
I think the word you are looking for exists already and it’s ‘Globalization’. The United States, the world’s most able nation, does not even remotely resemble an ‘Empire’ with one exception, its incredible ability. I recently read a book writen in the 1950s which contained an interesting categorization of politically minded people:
By this measure, the voice that names the United States an ‘Empire’ is a truly conservative voice. By this measure, the times we live in are both liberal and revolutionary. Certain enhancements in communications technologies, born of free and open societies, have created new actors, a new stage and entirely new behavior, aka ‘Globalization’. The first actors were American but we are not necessarily the most comfortable with it. There is no guarantee that globalization will indefinitely drive our success and by no means are Americans in control of it. There are societies with infrastructures better prepared than are own to adopt and succeed with the new tools of globalization. These future successes will not be dictated by a central authority in any imperial way. The fact is everyone is welcome on this new stage; it is of no consequence who built it.
Technically speaking, the real architects of globalization were not American, but philosophers who inspired Americans to behave in revolutionary ways. I believe many Americans take for granted how revolutionary our lives still are and how much our nation has changed in so short a time. We as a society are often dumbstruck with our own success and successes inspired by us. That said, not every step has been a step forward and a lot of blood has been spilt along the way. If one were to simply look at American falters I’d not be surprised that they might use the following phrases to blaspheme the Untied States and its leadership… its an Empire, because empire is historically familiar… its an Empire, because it is the most able nation on earth… its an Empire, because it is widely emulated… its an Empire, because it regularly engages in war…
The United States is not an ‘Empire’ because it is not in control of society nor does it seek to control society, but instead fights to eliminate arbitrary control over society. The United States is defined as anti-imperialist by its constitution and remains so to this day.
The 'Reactionaries' are the ones right now who are most vocally fighting the new 'Globalization'. So that relation fits your defined scenario. The problem with 'Globalization' from the U.S. citizen point of view is that a global governance structure of any kind could supersede the constitution and therefore remove our anti-imperalist protection.
I think advanced forms of communication (technological advancement) has made all of this possible. So can we compare this new world stage to the new advanced form of communication called the Internet or WWW ? Nations will hook up to it and use it the way they seem fit. That sounds like a New World Order without the Order part. Hey, that would make in simply a New World.
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.