Burn it Down

[onedomino]

http://streiff.redstate.org/story/2005/3/4/1653/52334

In the past two days:

The United States and France together called on Syria on Tuesday to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, just a day after the pro-Syrian government of Lebanon collapsed under popular pressure.

Russia and Germany joined an international chorus of demands for Syria to leave Lebanon, and President Bashar al-Assad was expected to travel to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for talks diplomats said would focus on a pullout.

Saudi Arabia told Syria on Thursday to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, adding substantially to Syria's international isolation just a day after Russia joined Western nations in making a similar call.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad prepared to announce on Saturday a partial pullout of troops from Lebanon, but President Bush warned nothing short of a full withdrawal would satisfy Washington.

"When we say withdraw we mean complete withdrawal -- no half-hearted measures," Bush told an audience in New Jersey on Friday. "Syrian troops, Syrian intelligence services must get out of Lebanon now."

The old order in the Middle East is collapsing and we need to take a deep breath, forget about our fears, forget about unintended consequences, and burn it down.

We can't know what the future will hold but it is hard to believe it can be worse for us, and for the people of the region, than it has been for the past 50 years. Despite calls by alleged experts prop up Assad for the sake of stability - just as experts counseled the necessity of the survival of East Germany and the Soviet Union -- now is the time to apply maximum moral and, if need be, physical pressure.

No false encouragement to the young Lebanese rallying to free their country before sacrificing them to the stability of chains as we did in 1953 and 1956.

This is no time to temporize with tyrants. A opportunity like this comes once in a generation. As Michael Ledeen writes, "Faster, please. The self-proclaimed experts have been wrong for generations. This is a revolutionary moment. Go for it."

-

 

[Annie]

-

I agree. Time for a bottle of bubbly, but like the warning, I'll hold off on the case until the war is won:

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php

DON'T GET COCKY
By RALPH PETERS

FOR three years, this column has shot down the pessi mists who warned we were bound to fail in the Middle East. Now those of us who see our confidence vindicated must beware a premature euphoria.

There's plenty of work ahead.

Our successes have been remarkable. In the past six weeks, we've seen more positive movement in the region than we saw in the preceding six decades. The political landscape of the old Islamic heartlands has changed breathtakingly since our first special-operations team went to work in the wake of 9/11.

Afghanistan's finding its footing as a democracy. Iraq welcomed its first free elections with an enthusiasm and valor that should shame apathetic Western voters. Inspired, the people of Lebanon took to the streets to demand freedom from Syrian occupation. Palestinians voted, too — and their new government is resisting the terrorists who want to frustrate peace efforts.

From Iran through Saudi Arabia to Egypt, the first breezes of change are beginning to blow.

But they're not gale-force winds just yet. We would be almost as foolish as the eternal naysayers were we to imagine that our mission is nearing completion.

Excessive euphoria would only play into the hands of those who wanted freedom's campaign to fail all along. If our rhetoric becomes too exuberant, even positive events on the ground could be dismissed as falling short of our promises.

This isn't a time to gloat. Instead, we need to work harder than ever, to keep pushing, to exploit the current momentum.

We should be encouraged -- our enemies are certainly discouraged -- but more American soldiers and civilians are going to be killed in the days ahead. The Middle East's degenerate regimes will not all go down without a fight. Nor will the many terrorists they spawned.

Army planning offices used to have a saying tacked to the wall: "The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes slightly longer." In the greater Middle East, we've accomplished much that our critics warned was impossible. Without slighting those achievements in the least, let's consider just a few of the challenges ahead:

Iran: We're in a race against time with Tehran. Will the Iranian people rid themselves of their oppressors before the ruling mullahs gain nuclear weapons? Would those "men of God" use nukes against Israel as their regime crumbled?

Iraq: Every current indicator is positive. But a unified, democratic Iraq isn't yet a reality. Old rivalries and the cancer of corruption could still undo much of what's been achieved. If the Kurds are cheated, the country will disintegrate.

Syria: The clumsy Baathist regime could topple with surprising swiftness or it could turn even more oppressive and provide even greater support to the terrorists it harbors. Cornered by history, Syria's rulers could lash out or divide against themselves in civil strife. We still may need to conduct military operations against yesterday's men in Damascus.

Saudi Arabia: Our continued indulgence of the "royal" mafia that runs this country is an ugly blot on America's refurbished record of fighting for freedom, human rights and democracy. We can't change everything at once, but our pressure on the Saudis to reform should be relentless even if we don't like all the choices the population makes in future elections. This perverted state could implode if it clings to the past and yes, the oil matters. We may need to intervene to keep it flowing.

Egypt: President Hosni Mubarak is trying to stave off serious change with a promise of "free" elections his government intends to manipulate. We need to cut off the annual billions in aid we send to Egypt until the regime frees legitimate dissidents from its jails and allows truly free, multi-party elections. Half-measures play into the hands of Islamic extremists.

Terror: Al Qaeda and its affiliates have suffered one catastrophic defeat after another since 9/11. Our efforts have cut deep into their base and reduced their freedom of action. But the hard-core terrorists will continue to use slaughter as a tool to advance their agenda until the last man among them is killed or captured. Progress in the Middle East will cut the ranks of future terrorists, but for now we must fight those already converted to fanaticism. This war is far from over.

What our government and, especially, our men and women in uniform have achieved is worthy of our highest praise and gratitude. Even I didn't believe that we could come so far so fast. But we need to remain sober, to keep our eyes on the long game and to keep up our guard for the challenges still to come.

So go ahead: Crack open one bottle of bubbly (I recommend Dr. Konstantin Frank's elixir from New York's Finger Lakes). But save the rest of the case for the triumphs ahead.

 

[Hristowl]

Whilst what has happened in the past week has been encouraging, it's important to have a look at what will be the wider results of any fully democratic elections in Saudi Arabia, Palestine or Lebanon. The end result will almost certainly bring to power largely anti-American and anti-Israeli (and anti-Semitic) political parties, whether populist, nationalist or Islamist.

Whilst some members of the Arab intelligentsia see a correlation between events in Iraq and a desire for wider Middle East democratisation, an election in Lebanon will bring to power a coalition of parties hostile to Israel. The Maronites are a minority and any future coalition will be, essentially, a Muslim one that will pay lip service to the Palestinian struggle and - more importantly in this case - to Hizbollah, an organisation widely respected in Lebanon. In Saudi Arabia there is no politics outside of the royal court, aside from the Islamists. Any change there (and who knows we may have seen a start though I doubt it in reality) is going to have to be incremental. By all means we should isolate them and hold them as a security threat, but there is nothing sensible about provoking the accession of a far more hostile government that would use Mecca as a base.

I'm British and, unlike many of my compatriots, I am a supporter of much of US policy since 9/11 our my governments' role in this. However, we have to look at the Middle East soberly. Nothing is going to change overnight. What is happening in Iraq and Lebanon is still very, very much on the wire and getting carried away at this point is counterproductive. The work ahead will be immense - not just about the loss of US/UK and Middle Eastern lives but also about the careful promotion of liberal democracy in the Middle East (whilst keeping a close eye on nuclear proliferation). A large amount of this could be done through diplomacy and economic pressure - eg The EU with US support says to Syria - "You can have a free trade zone with us if you make peace with Israel and reform your governing institutions. We'll give you some money to cover welfare during austerity measures". A very crude example but worth a go, I think.

 

[Hristowl]

I agree that Iran is a different case precisely because of the nuclear proliferation issue. Surprisingly, in this case the differing EU and US policies make quite an effective good-cop, bad-cop route to diplomacy. But for the Arab world we should concentrate on rebuilding Iraq and take the rest a bit slower. Any talk of, say, invading Syria is downright silly.

 

[Annie]

The flypaper of Iraq is working...http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

 

[Hristowl]

With all due respect I don't think the cornered aminal analogy stretches to issues of international relations. I think we need a more nuanced approach. But in the case of Iran I agree that a robust US policy is something we could be thankful for. Infiltration from Syria is a problem but, as you say, let them come to us. I'm not sure how many people are coming over from Iraq but I think any Farsi speaking guerillas would have caused headlines by now.

 

[Hristowl]

Well how close is Iran to obtaining the technology? I think the easiest way to judge this is by looking at Israeli policy. If nuclear capability in Iran was imminent then Israel would have already reacted. It's highly likely that US and Israeli intelligence is well embedded in Iran already and Israel does not pull its punches if things are getting really hot (eg the Iraqi nuclear powerplant in 81, or whenever that was). If they (and indeed probably Bush) had the slightest suspicion that Iran was about to obtain nuclear capability then a military offensive would occur. In the meantime I think the EU carrot and the US stick policy should continue.