Syria is having a bad month. The Hariri killing, then the fake confession on al-Iraqiyya TV, the propaganda arm of the US in Iraq, by an alleged Syrian claiming he had been sent into Iraq in 2001 to join the opposition by Syrian Intelligence were media spectacles designed to undermine the world opinion of Syria. But now the Islamic Jihad office in Beruit claimed responsibility for the bombing in Israel apparently without the prior knowledge of the Syrian government. France and the US have called for sanctions against Syria, it seems likely that Germany will follow suit. Sixty percent of Syria's trade is with Europe. Syria may well be more isolated than ever.
Joshua Landis points out that sanctions tend to last a long time and seldom are removed without regime change. If Europe jumps on the band wagon with the US, the US will hold most of the cards on sanctions. The biggest problem is that sanctions really don't hurt governments. They hurt the people who can least afford it and are the least responsible for the actions that lead to sanctions. One might argue that sanctions may well radicalize the population. In the Middle East, because their historical political tradition is Islam, a radicalized population is going to be working for theocracy not democracy. This is what's happened in Iraq. The West is not likely to find any more friends in Syria by imposing sanctions.
February 27, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree. So the logical conclusion from your post is...allow me to finish it for you... is direct military attack. In my opinion we need to put Syria on notice that they better shape up RFQ or face the consequences. Invasion is not necessary (nor do we have the troops for it), but air attacks on terrorist training camps and/or Syrian military installations would do the trick. We need to stay on the strategic offensive and not become complacent.
No, as I've said before, elective war is always a mistake. My views on war are outlined fairly extensively there.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. There are always "other options." Churchill didn't have to declare war on Germany over Poland, and one can always say that we "rushed into declaring our independence." After all, couldn't we have made more appeals to King George? One can always "do more". The real question is, "have reasonable alternatives been exhausted."
But I don't want to get into a pissing match over this. It's your blog, so you get the last word. I don't want to be a troll here.
take care,
Tom
You are probably right, we won't see eye to eye on this, but no point ending the discussion yet. I think Churchill and the French leader whoever that was, had plenty of reason to draw the line at Poland. After Czechloslovakia was annexed, it was clear Hitler, if he was not contained, would eventually threaten Britain and France. The problem was the allies were no where near ready for war. They knew Hitler had the upper hand. They hoped he wouldn't risk crossing the line before they had geared up. But Britain had a defence treaty with Poland. Their credibility was on the line if they didn't declare.
There is always a judgement call to be made. Hitler's threat was palipable. But so was Stalin's. But no one was willing to take him on after Hitler. Sadaam was small potatoes. And we'd have bothered to wait, we would have found that the inspections actually worked!
Post a Comment