That’s right. Regime change worked so well with Iraq, that Mr. Bush wants to expand it to Syria, this time through covert actions designed to bring down the regime of Bashar Assad:
(cont.)
The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad. Parts of the scheme are outlined in a classified, two-page document which says that the U.S. already is “supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists” in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that “these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists.”
The document says that Syria’s legislative elections, scheduled for March 2007, “provide a potentially galvanizing issue for… critics of the Assad regime.” To capitalize on that opportunity, the document proposes a secret “election monitoring” scheme, in which “internet accessible materials will be available for printing and dissemination by activists inside the country [Syria] and neighboring countries.” The proposal also calls for surreptitiously giving money to at least one Syrian politician who, according to the document, intends to run in the election. The effort would also include “voter education campaigns” and public opinion polling, with the first poll “tentatively scheduled in early 2007.” […]
The proposal says part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). The Front includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that for decades supported the violent overthrow the Syrian government, but now says it seeks peaceful, democratic reform. (In Syria, however, membership in the Brotherhood is still punishable by death.) Another member of the NSF is Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former high-ranking Syrian official and Assad family loyalist who recently went into exile after a political clash with the regime. Representatives of the National Salvation Front, including Abdulhamid, were accorded at least two meetings earlier this year at the White House, which described the sessions as exploratory. Since then, the National Salvation Front has said it intends to open an office in Washington in the near future.
And to think Bashar Assad thought he could get a “Get Out of Regime Change card” from Bush for helping the CIA torture a few renditioned detainees in the War on Terror. I bet he’s sorry for that now, eh?
The only good thing about this so-called plan to destabilize the Syrian government is that it doesn’t involve any US troops. Yet. It does make you wonder, though. Is Bush trying to bring on the apocalypse by roiling the Middle East in a death spiral of violence and war? Because that seems like the only logical explanation for his actions some days. They certainly don’t have much to do with promoting peace in the Middle East. Or democracy. Or anything a sane human being would conceive of doing absent a motivation based on blind faith in the coming Rapture.
Oh, great, Dubya is trying to ensure that the US Army gets trapped in Iraq when they opt for the “Go Mad” plan and attack Sadr. At least, with Syria kinda neutral, the US Army could withdraw to the Med if necessary. This action closes that avenue for sure. How do they expect to withdraw from Iraq at that point, a fighting withdrawal the length of the river valleys contesting every bridge along the way?
Somebody better do some fast reading on the Korean War, WW1 in Mesopotamia, Afghanistan and the Anabasis to find out when that happens. This means you, Mr. Bush.
Of course were talking about the neo-cons and Bush, not “a sane human being”. A sane human being goes to Syria to start a diplomatic dialog, like Bill Nelson’s recent trip. Then, if that is not possible, you try other avenues. And what have we ever gained by this same type of meddling in others affairs other than a big headache and further complication at any type of a normalized relation? Nothing.
So many regimes to change, so little time.
I am no supporter of the Bush regime, but it puzzles me sometimes when some progressives criticizes the US for supporting authoritarian regimes in Saudi-Arabia and Egypt while they they go all ballistic when the US at the same time support oppositional groups within authoritarian states that are anti-American.
Either you are against all authoritarian regimes or you support them.
… US support oppositional groups within authoritarian states
Sounds a bit like copy cat policy of Israel: create Hamas to oppose the PLO.
Guess I prefer a dart board to pick our enemies, perhaps U.S. foreign policy is it’s weakest ally in fighting terror in the world.
Spread of Islamist Terror in Asia
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
My point is not what kind of oppositional groups the US support or not, because I am not here to defend the Bush administration. They may support any kind of oppositional group they want and I am not going to defend it.
What puzzles me though is that it is alright to criticize people for supporting the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but when people criticize the authoritarian states in Syria and Iran then it is suddenly something else. I guess what I am criticizing is the lack of consistency in the argument.
For a good example of this inconsistency on the left, see any discussion of Hugo Chavez.
I see no inconsistency in opposing (material) support for the Saudi regime and opposing (material) support for groups working to overthrow the Syrian regime. Both are consistent with a policy of non-intervention. Both are also consistent with criticizing the Syrians and Saudis.
“What puzzles me though is that it is alright to criticize people for supporting the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but when people criticize the authoritarian states in Syria and Iran then it is suddenly something else.”
I haven’t seen anyone arguing against criticizing these authoritarian states. Who has been saying that this is wrong? If anyone has, they are in a tiny minority.
You seem close to asserting that folks around here perversely support authoritarian opponents of the United States, when they are instead arguing only that it would be unwise to attack them. A readiness to believe the worst of those who advocate other views tends to poison both discussion and politics. I hope that you are taking care to avoid this.
Well, I do. When some criticizes people for supporting non-democratic regimes in Egypt and Saudi-Arabia and then go about defending the rights of authoritarian states then it is inconsistent when you are arguing in favor of democracy. But then again I don’t expect people who disagree with me to see face to face with me on this issue, I just had to get it off my chest though.
I hope that you are taking care to avoid this.
I will do my part, but it takes two to tango.
Responding to groups as if they were defined by their worst creates an inflammatory cycle. Which is what we see.
If you are against intervention then you seem to be at odds with the credo of the UN, which is to intervene on behalf of Human Rights, including the right to express and exercise their free will politically, done according to international laws and standards of course.
If you are against intervention then you seem to be at odds…
You make a good point, but as I’ve said nothing about my position, a (perhaps archaically) precise phrasing of it would be “If one were against intervention then one would seem to be at odds…”, or more strongly, “If one is against intervention then one is at odds…”
Yep.
I wrote this on Sunday:
building aspirations if he wasn’t some scrawny Texan wannabe talking out his ass aiming a rubber band gun at me.
Your “Is Bush trying to bring on the apocalypse” link is quite amusing. The “Landover Baptist Church” site (headline: “Santa Claus Clings to Life After Brutal Horsewhipping by Angry Children!”) reminds me of The Onion.
The guy he’s working in concert with is a dissident now living in Maryland with his own blog