War (of Words) with Syria

View current page
...more recent posts

Thursday, Apr 17, 2003

Summary and Conjecture

This page is as much about educating myself as anything else. I read everything I post here, and at least as much that doesn't make the cut -- either because it's redundant or tangential to the narrow focus.

I've been trying to estimate the most likely course of events. Early this year I had residual hope that the confrontation with Iraq was an elaborate game of good cop/bad cop --that the impression of "I'm crazy, don't mess with me" given by the US would be strong enough to get Iraq to acquiesce to a very invasive inspection regime. But that wasn't the plan at all. I guess I understood that, but it didn't really sink in until great flocks of tomahawks descended on Iraq.

This time around I'm trying to read more deeply, to better understand the historical background, and to look into the personal beliefs and motivations of the players.

So here's my take today. Bush, ever the MBA, is looking over the costs of war. The first two invasions have been a political success, but the bills are starting to stack up. And perhaps someone on his staff has raised the issue of Arab nationalism. Perhaps he's noticed that his last few major allies (UK, Spain, Australia) and the Gulf Cooperation Council are much less enthusiastic about military intervention in Syria. His instincts tell him that he needs a few buddies who live outside the US. This set of factors has caused him to lean in the direction of using the State Dept. to tackle Syria.

I'm not sure how the road map dynamics will affect this. Tel Aviv and Washington are engaged in the some serious horse trading. A few billion dollars are at stake. US relations with Arab nations are at stake. And there are domestic political agendas in both Israel and the US. Oh, and the fate of the Palestinians, the pawns of an entire region.

I don't believe Israel will allow a partition of the West Bank and Gaza so long as it feels threatened on the Lebanese border. It's close to political suicide for Sharon to give up settlements in the territories. He won't do it without huge gains on security issues. The US doesn't want to do a full scale invasion of Syria to assure Israeli security, so the US and Israel must find other security solutions.

Perhaps "young" Assad is susceptible to coercion by a combination of offers of aid and threats of sanctions. By stepping back to allow the US to deal with Lebanon, Syria could satisfy Israel's demand without suffering the wrath of the tomahawk. Could Assad do a Musharraf, and sell his radical friends down the river?

But if we are to go into Lebanon, we need pretext. The US public is pumped up about Syria, but Lebanon?

On the other hand, if Assad won't make a deal to let the US liberate Lebanon, neither Bush nor Sharon need peace to win re-election. Strong stances in a cold war stalemate would satisfy their base constituencies; it's their political opponents who are looking for peace.
- mark 4-17-2003 8:51 am [link]