Redstate

If you want your wish to come true, then you'd better pray for a strong and decisive leader next in line for president in 2008.  I don't think Bush is willing to risk another war in Middle East, even if it's only a limited strike at Syria's border with Iraq.

But in any case, I have to agree with your current assessment of what is going on in Syria.  

Call me stupid, but don't you think it's a much better option to use special forces deployed deep behind Syrian border to ambush jihadists on way to Iraq?  Or to search out for secret WMDs left behind by Hussein?  I have a strong feeling that it's all been done...secretly.  So what you were saying may be already on Bush's mind.

If we don't invade Syria, I have to wonder if within five or ten years, would a new, democratic Iraq risk a war with Syria on its own with America on sidelines, cheering for Iraq?  That's if we withdraw from Iraq within that timespan.

Of coruse, that's only assuming that Iran won't go berserk on us.

Dan

NOT to go to war with either Syria or Iran.  We've had all we want for now.  In 10 or 20 years that stance may have changed, but for now, it's just the way it is.  Americans won't take another aggressive war.

Now, Iraq, on the other hand...

By the time we pack up and leave, Iraq will be fully capable of defending their own borders even in a 2-front war against such 2bit militaries as Iran and Syria could throw at them.  Toss in Israel and we have a rout of the bad guys...

We know that Saddam had WMD.  He used them repeatedly against the Iranians and his own people.  "Everyone" agreed that the WMD stocks were there at the start of hostilities in 2003: Neo-cons, Democrats, the UN, Hans Blix, Mohammed ElBaradei, and the intelligence agencies of France, Germany, and Israel.  The only two players who actually expressed doubts about the existence of WMD before March 2003 were Vladimir Putin and Scott Ritter, both of whom profited handsomely from the Oil for Food scandal bribes.

In all the reports out of Iraq, there is nothing indicating that Saddam actually destroyed any WMD, except when forced to do so by the UN inspectors whom he subsequently kicked out.  When the UN inspectors left, there were many identified and tagged stocks of WMD that have subsequently gone missing.

We know that no large stocks of WMD were actually found, but that there were suspicious truck movements just before the war, as at QaaQa.  There have been many reports of limited stocks, such as chemical artillery shells, used (ineffectually) in VBIED.  The USA has, probably wisely, downplayed such reports.

We know, from the Duelfer Report, that Saddam maintained the capability to rebuild his WMD.

So, where are the WMD?

Since we have satellite photos of trucks loading out of the WMD bunkers at QaaQa, and the entire area was under intense scrutiny, it is not likely that the USA simply lost track of that many trucks.  We probably know which direction they went, and quite probably their final destination.  Best guess is Syria, of course, which also corresponds with certain intelligence reports.

But, then what?  If we know where Saddam's WMD stocks are, or if we don't, it is quite certain that we, or somebody, has put a lid on them, so to speak.  Otherwise, whoever had access to them would be tempted to use them.  Some of the reports out of QaaQa had Russian agents overseeing the move of Saddam's WMD stocks.  Russia certainly does not want such stocks floating around.  And, busy as the USA is, it would certainly put a constant monitor on such dangerous materials while it finished the other business in Iraq.  So, both Russia and the USA have an interest is keeping any such stocks under wraps through diplomatic and physical pressures.

After the initial shock of discovering that the known stocks of WMD could not be found, the USA will not be talking unnecessarily about WMD again until they have something solid to talk about.  Russia is not saying anything, naturally.  Assad and Syria are in a weak and rapidly deteriorating position, and they won't be talking either, except as part of a plea bargain.

But the stocks are there, somewhere.

been telling the U.S. to back off Syria for a major reason. All of the scenarios for what comes after Assad point to a worsening of the situation, not an improvement. Assad's likely replacement is going to be a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood. Not an appealing option for the Israelis.

Despite sharing similar assumptions about the Syrian response to pressure, American and Israeli officials appear divided over whether regime change in Damascus would be the best outcome.

Israel is concerned about the chaos that could follow the collapse of Assad's regime. For Israelis, sources said, Assad is more than "the devil you know," he is the only Syrian that can maintain order.

But the Bush administration is becoming increasingly convinced that a change of government is needed in Syria, according to foreign diplomats and pro-Israel activists in Washington. "Now [the Americans] have given up on Assad," said a Washington insider who has access to senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There may be some in the administration who are hoping for a transformed Assad, but most believe that it's not going to happen and that losing Assad may not be such a loss."

Israel's the primary military power in the region and our ally. If they have run the numbers and are worried that the situation post-Assad is likely to be worse doesn't that give you some pause for reflection?

I hate to also be prosaic, but aren't you more concerned about Iran at this stage than Syria? If you have limited resources, which we do, then why expend them on another occupation?

One other concern is that the Assad regime, for all its faults, has done a great job of providing a safe haven for the Christian population in that region of the Middle East. Currently, north of 50,000 Assyrian Christians are hiding in Syria to be safe from the anti-Christian fanaticism currently raging in Iraq. The reason they are in Syria is because the secular Assad regime is quite Christian friendly.

I know that fact matters to few people on this blog, but I feel a kinship for my co-religionists and wish to not make their lives any worse. Call me kooky, but I tend to think Jesus would prefer that.

The Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch also operates out of Damascus, and the Orthodox Church there has an amount of freedom that makes Christians in Egypt, Iraq, and even Israel green with envy. Again, I doubt that matters to anyone else on this blog, but I think that the fact that Syria has created an enviable climate of religious freedom and equality is a really, really good thing.

What I am afraid of is that the U.S. has no clear answer for what comes next in Syria. If we follow the Iraq model, what comes next will be an Islamist regime dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. I suppose then all the Christians could then migrate to Lebanon, until we end up bringing Hezbollah to power there with a demand for 'one-man, one-vote' that will end the proportional powersharing. I'm sure we'll get around to that demand eventually, and then all the Christians from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon can come to the U.S. as refugees.

There are issues with the Assad regime. At the current time, I'm with the Israelis. Without a good alternative, I don't see an invasion and forced regime change doing any good. I think Assad can be pressured and can be dealt with. But the U.S. has to be clear and consistent in its demands, and not appear to merely posturing in advance of a war.

Some of my good friends are Eastern Catholics from Syria, and having spent a lot of time discussing this issue, they are confused by American policy. They and other Syrians genuinely don't understand exactly what the U.S. wants from Syria, or even if its possible to make the U.S. happy. There is widespread fear that the decision has already been made to invade Syria, and that everything leading up to it is just so much window dressing.

While I tend to agree that the WMD most likely went to safe haven in Syria, the thing I don't understand is why the administration is keeping quiet about them.

First, the President and the rest of the administration has been beat practically senseless by the left and the press. Large numbers of Americans think that, while they may not have outright lied, they certainly exaggerated about the WMD. Why would you continue to take this abuse over this issue if you know the truth. Why not simply say "they are in Syria and they have 24 hours to cough them up or we are coming to get them?"

Second every day they sit there they are at risk to "wander away", unless of course we have forces sitting on top of them 24x7.

Third, the credibility of the administration and the President are at perhaps the lowest ebb yet. If we want people to believe that Iran is a problem we have a hard time overcoming the "nonexistent WMD" argument. If  you want to act on Iran, how do you convince the rest of the world, or even the other half of America, that we actually know what Iran is up to?

Fourth, the government of the United States can't keep a secret if our lives depended on it --- and our lives do. I don't see how anything this hot can stay under the covers this long.

As I said, I personally think the "evidence" of the WMD being secreted off to Syria is pretty convincing. But the things above certainly make it hard to maintain this opinion.  

IF the Russians helped move Iraqi WMD to Syria, and/or IF the USA has the WMD under surveillance in Syria, threats backed up with force could protect the WMD until time to do something about it.  The USA has its hands full now, and probably doesn't wish to rock any boats at this tme.

I think the President is indifferent to any consideration except doing the job correctly, first in Iraq, then in Syria and Iran as required.  The only poll that is important is when the American electorate speaks, in November 2006 and November 2008.  What the Dims, and the NYT, and the Guardian, and mad Jack Chirac say now is a matter of supreme indifference as long as Iraq comes to a successful conclusion, WMD don't get spread around, the Irani nukes are eliminated, and the terrorists are dead.  

If we had to act quickly in Iran, and could produce Saddam's WMD in Syria (or anywhere else, for that matter), the President's credibility goes sky high, the Dim's credibility goes way south, and the American people will be more than happy to eliminate a direct nuclear threat to our nation.  

And if the WMD are really in Syria, as we both believe, its not a secret or a surprise.  We just don't take on unnecessary trouble for ourselves before time, and use the information to best effect against the rising nuclear threat in Iran, at the proper time.  

When the Israelis have to fight, the wars always follow a pattern.  Jordan is defeated first, then Egypt, then anybody else, then Syria.  

The reason is that Jordan is the most capable military force among the Arabs, then Egypt, then anybody else, and, last and least, Syria; knock out the biggest threats first.

Jordan and Egypt have signed peace treaties with Israel, and won't be engaging in any dust-ups, especially with the USA in Iraq and carrier groups in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean.

The terrorists must be destroyed regardless.  Iran is a bigger threat than Syria, but Syria may very well be the first to go, depending how the nuke question develops in Iran.  We have had the luxury of dismantling al-Qa'eda in Iraq with only a measure of interference from Syria and Iran.  We have done so with only a very small fraction of the power available to us.  And, in spite of all the idle chit-chat, Iraq is being transformed at minimal cost in American lives, Iraqi civilian lives, and dollars.  

I share your sympathy and empathy for the Syrian Christians, but we have done well in protecting the minorities in Iraq, and I don't see leaving the Ikhwan in charge in Syria when Assad goes.  

I agree that perhaps the major factor in all of this is that the President is simply not concerned about the bleating from the appeasers, pacifists and the Democrats.

In the near term we are simply going to have to deal with Iran and while it would be great to present a united international front I am certain the Bush will act alone if necessary.

have done a good job in protecting minorities in Iraq.

Recent report by the United Nations' High Commission for Refugees reveals that almost half of the 500,000 Iraqi refugees in Syria who have asked for temporary asylum through the UN refugee agency are Christian Assyrians, even though christians constitute an estimated 5% of the population in Iraq. Tens of Thousands of Iraqi Christians are stranded in Jordan also.

The reasons for the Iraqi Christian flight was explained by Halfath Hamama, an Iraqi refugee in Syira, as follows : "Our children, wives, and family members are kidnapped every day. They send us a note telling us to give them fifty thousand dollars or they will kill our family. They send us their fingers or toes, pictures of them beaten and bruised, and tell us we bring this on our head because we are Christians and collaborate with the Christian Americans," Muslim terrorists in Iraq threaten to abduct or kill people whose families refuse to pay amounts ranging from $100,000 to $150,000 for Mafia-style protection. Families must beg for cash, sell their homes and belongings, leave the country or face death.

More than a quarter of a million have left their homes, businesses, jobs and have fled to neighboring countries. In one neighborhood of Mosul alone 30 Christian houses remain abandoned because their owners fled. Muslim religious leaders instigate violence and extortions agianst the Christians hoping to drive the entire community out of the country. They have also advised their followers not to buy Christian property so that they can own it for free when they flee.

Those who were forced out brought with them only what they could carry. They live in terrible conditions because neither the Iraqi nor other governments have shown any interest in helping them. The United Nations reported that if their numbers increases beyond 250,000 the results could be catastrophic for the region. Since they have been driven out of their homeland they may need a safe haven as soon as possible.

While millions of American dollars were spent before these elections to bring the Kurdish refugees to northern Iraq including others from Iran, Turkey and Syria, not a penny is allocated to do the same with the Christian refugees. How can these elections be considered equitable to the Christians if hundreds of thousands of their people have been driven out of the country? Most did not participate in Iraq's out-of-country elections because they have lost all hope of being able to return to their homeland. Given such facts, Assyrians cannot be faulted for considering the recent elections as another opportunity for the Kurds to dispossess them of their rights and land.

I'll go one better for you than just quotes from Assyrian News Agency. If you post an email address, I'll put you directly into contact with Assyrians living in the U.S. and Lebanon who would be happy to set the record straight for you. Tens of thousands of refugees is hardly a minimal cost, in my opinion.

This is what I am afraid of occurring in Syria, and currently nothing is being said by the administration that leads me to believe that anyone in Washington is serious about preventing it. A break out of chaos is not in the best interests of anyone.

This pattern was the same in Kosovo, by the way, where despite the peacekeepers the entire Christian Serb population was ethnically cleansed by the Albanians.

Finally - why wouldn't you 'leave' the Muslim Brotherhood in charge? The Muslim Brotherhood competed in Egypt, but through 'independent' candidates and front parties, even though still banned. If democracy comes via U.S. tanks to Syria, I would expect a similar model. The U.S. is tolerating the rule of religiously-based parties in Iraq. The Israelis are tolerating Hamas winning local elections in the occupied territories. Hezbollah has increased its power via elections in Lebanon. It looks like a trend that I don't see the U.S. bucking.

If you support forced regime change in Syria, you are playing with the possibility of killing thousands of people, or more, and creating a possible nightmare on the Israeli border. You had better be sure that it is worth it before you pull the trigger on that.

...to accept that people that you oppose on policy issues are acting or working in good faith, there is a simple solution: do not talk to them.  Instead, I suggest that you bookmark one of the multitude of specialized hate sites that have cropped up in the last few years.  You might find one of them more congenial to your worldview.

If you decline to take this advice, please be aware that you are still not permitted to use our webspace to casually insult the Christians who post or write here, any more than you would have the right to casually insult Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists or devotees of Elvis.

Kindly do not act in the future as if you are.

Moe

I think Assad can be pressured and can be dealt with. But the U.S. has to be clear and consistent in its demands, and not appear to merely posturing in advance of a war.

I take it you're not a poker player.

There is widespread fear that the decision has already been made to invade Syria

That oughta get his attention. Saddam figured we were bluffing. Assad knows we're not.