Centerfield

Rather than trying to institute regime change in Syria it might be far more effective to use the old carrot and stick method. The question being do we want Syria to change regimes or do we want them to change their behavior?

First we need to know what it would take for Syria to realign itself with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. It could conceivably be something as simple as a conditional non agression treaty between America, Israel, and Syria combined with Israel returning the Golan Heights after x amount of time of Syria proving their intent. Doing so would cut Hezbollah and Hammas off thereby increasing stability in the region. After all Syria did back us in Gulf War I and if nothing else it couldn't hurt to find out what their price is.

Now I say this because to me regime change means invasion and my belief is that if we are going to invade anyone we should do so with enough numbers to put our boot on the invadees neck. Meaning crush them, occupy them, and then dictate their constitution. Not some half baked Rumsfeldian minimalist military theory.

Given a chioce between the twi I'd opt to negotiate first and crush second.

Dictate their constitution? Is that what Democracy is all about? Im all for the boots to the neck idea for an invasion, but if we want to instill democracy in a country, forcing a constitution down their throats is no better than Imperialism and dictatorship

Syria has always been the key to Hezbollah. Iran cannot provide materials without Syrian cooperation. The best course is to split Syria out of the loop, which orphans Hezbollahs matrials pipeline.

Tully,

Perhaps you could comment. Is this way off the mark?

As for Syria, this would be interesting, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Comments about the Syrian connection.

Why can't I buy this?

This is incoherent and I'm sure Kerry could use it.

When faced with a video of missiles being fired from Quana just before the Israeli strike, Sinora said, "anything is possible with technology". He is claiming evidence is BS which explains why Bush doesn't bother right now to "prove" Iranian complicity. If the following does cause an outrage, niether will facts. Hizb'Allah fills their launch sight with women and children (where were all the men?), hoping the world can't see through this.

At some point Israel simply couldn't hit dozens of populated areas firing longer range missiles. I wonder if you think the present situation favors Syria, Hizb'Allah, and Iran, or am I looking at too short a timeline?

Lost from the Press Coverage is that the land between these two terrorist supporting regimes is vital to the war against extremists. That land is called Iraq. And for all those who say bolt Iraq, imagine what Syria and Iran would do with Iraq the moment we departed.

Are you comfortable with how the US is trying to prevent this from happening? It seems our leverage with Syria and Iran does in part come from the position we have in Iraq. No?

excuse the typos.....

I'm back. Although this thread is about Syria. I think Iran is woven into this. Syria is a key for Iran to support Hizb'Allah. The following link has implications for Syria as well as Iran. Syria certainly wants technology from the axis of evil. The media has ignored this. If true, why is the media not focused on the clear orchestration of North Korea, Iran, Hizb'Allah, Hamas, AQ, Kashmir terrorists, Sudanese attacks, arms landing in Somalia and even Chavez? From Mumbai to Lebanon, there has been coordination.

It is astonishing that Centrist strategic observations are evident everywhere and the world is focusing on Israeli brutality and alledged "failed" US diplomacy and tactics.

Even the J Post is suggesting the US wants a confrontation with Syria. And I thought we want them to bomb Iran too.

Maxtrue sez:
> wonder if you think the present situation favors Syria, Hizb'Allah,
> and Iran, or am I looking at too short a timeline?

Interesting links! Yeah, somehow Choucair's analysis seems like wishful thinking. Too much hanging with Hez?

No, I think the long-term chances are still against them. But things like this emphasize that it could go either way, and that they could last a long, long time. This is a really bad piece of luck that could alienate Middle-Eastern moderates from us for a year or so. My blog-reading suggested many/most were with us before. Hopefully we can find a way to redirect the politics back in the antiterrorist camp's favor.

The Bush administration has soured me on any talk of "regime change" in the foreseeable future. The only one that needs changing is ours.

A couple items on regime change in Syria:

Dyre42: Attempts to get a change in Syrian behavior may require a threat to change the regime and a threat to change regime means a willingness to follow through if push comes to shove.

Main post: The important thing is to be prepared for when the current regime collapses. Prepare to establish some measure of order in the country. Identify who has enough respect in the population to establish a new order. Convene such parties in a loya jirga and turn power over to them as quickly as possible.

Lost from the Press Coverage is that the land between these two terrorist supporting regimes is vital to the war against extremists. That land is called Iraq. And for all those who say bolt Iraq, imagine what Syria and Iran would do with Iraq the moment we departed.

Yep. But "cut and run" is part of someone's official chorus.

Tully,
If Clinton and the DLC don't take a stand (they are waiting for Lieberman Election to read more polls), we will see either a three peat or the worst foreign policy chaos in the last sixty years as Iran, Russia, Chavez, China, Pakistan, Belarus, Syria, Hamas, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Hizb'Allah, AQ, Jihadists and all who benefit by the retreat of the US, all rearm and acquire wmd and the means to deliver. This certainly puts our forces at greater risk in the future as well as increase the ease by which to clandestinely attack the US and its Allies. Defense Tech had an interesting report on the inablitiy to determine where a terrorist nuke came from.

CNN failed to report that the Iranians were caught trying to buy nuclear material from England -just the kind one needs to make a dirty bomb. They were buying used medical equipment.

I am more worried about the media right now, than the Democrats. How can we win a PR war when the networks are playing into our adversary’s game? Name a Western outlet that is covering HIZB'ALLAH SLAUGHTER THEIR OWN WOMEN, CHILDREN AND ELDERLY. Where is the New York Times on this shocking moral crime? I have seen numerous defense blogs talk about this, but if true, this is an outrage a thousand times greater than what Israel has done.

France calls Iran a stabilizing influence in the Middle East.

Syria refuses to allow an international force into Southern Lebanon.

Iran has already refused to stop enrichment.

What more do the Democrats need to see what is going down? The Israelis have attempted to retrieve their soldiers in the Bekka Valley. I fear Americans don’t appreciate the balls or the intelligence needed. Again, nothing regarding what Anti-Syrian Lebanese are already posting on their blogs. Where art thou oh Democrats?

They will not get my vote for a Kossak NSS, which will lead to my city being ground zero once again. This time it may be a dirty bomb. What, pray tell will the Democrats do? Impose sanctions? Blame the Bush administration the way Republicans use to blame Clinton? And he isn’t as yet on the Kossak side.

Crucify Mel while playing right into the amateur plottings of America's worst enemies? Sounds like something CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS seem capable of. Now who is fair and balanced?

I think Israel might see this situation as they move into Southern Lebanon and watch Syrian troop movements.

so why has this not made CNN?