Michael J. Totten: Kerry: Syria has "needs"

December 16, 2006

Kerry: Syria has "needs"

John Kerry thinks the Bush administration, the UN Security Council, France, most of Europe, Lebanon, and many "moderate" Arab countries fed up with the Assad regime, are blind to the importance of dialogue. He thinks they don't know what Syria's "needs" are.

The Massachusetts Democrat said his visit to Syria was "a fact-finding mission" to explore "what might or might not affect behavior with respect to Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel and Iraq, where in each of those cases Syria is playing a role."

"Dialogue is an important thing. It's very hard to move the ball if you don't know firsthand what people's needs are, what their own perceptions are," Kerry said in an interview with The Associated Press and several other journalists in Cairo.

Kerry said he was "willing" to go to Iran for talks but had no current plans to do so.

Kerry also claimed he had "no illusions".

Kerry called the refusal to talk to Syria and Iran "a mistake. I think it's the kind of policy that's got us into trouble in the reason and it needs to change."

The former Democratic presidential candidate underlined that he was not engaging in negotiations with Damascus. "Talking to somebody is not rewarding their behavior. I have no illusions about our differences with these countries ... and nothing in the discussion is based on trust," said. "But you cannot get to (action and verifiability) without setting up the modalities. So you have to engage in some dialogue."

"Now that the Democrats are in control of Congress, we have an even larger responsibility to set a direction ... as a counterbalance to policies that have gotten us into trouble," he said.

So, the refusal to talk to Syria and Iran was a mistake that "got us into trouble."? Well, Kerry, how about you go back in time and vote against the war, if you're so concerned about policies that "get us into trouble". And while you're in the past, pray tell Syria not to treat Lebanese like slaves won in some kind of barter deal.

The problem with beltway politics is that politicians always assume that their opponents must not be doing the right thing, even if they can't figure out what exactly they're doing wrong. Democrats like Kerry, who can't figure out where to stand on the Iraq debate, end up pandering to anti-Bush sentiments because that's all they can do. Not that Bush didn't screw up-- but how do you fix someone's mistakes by making more mistakes? How do you replace a grandiose idea with an illusion about a cooperative Assad regime?

Posted by Abu Kais at December 16, 2006 10:28 AM

Comments

Certainly have Kerry talk to someone is not rewarding their behavior. Bush would have asked him to talk to Guantanamo prisoners if not for ethical concerns about subjecting a captive to that drone.

Posted by: bgates at December 16, 2006 10:43 AM

Alright boys, fold up those Hillary posters and unfurl the McCain banners!

Posted by: Blacksmith Jade at December 16, 2006 11:52 AM

تبرىء الكلمات في القلوب

ثم همس الرب في قلوبنا...
الكلمات تصل حيث لا يقدر السلاح

سألنا حكيم قريتنا، كيف ينزل الدفء
على النفوس والشيطان
قد ألقى بسمومه المفضلة
خوفاً ويأساً وكراهية
على القلوب البريئة
كما الرماد من محرقة السعادة

كيف تنام عيون الايمان
وسرير الأمل
تفترشه ملاءة القنوط الشاحب
وعيون الحنث الفاسدة
تنتهك حرمة الكلمات المقدسة
وتسعد باغتيال هدايا السماء

وسألنا :كيف يبتسم الخير
ويصفع الكره الفضيلة من وجه الخجل
و أتباعه يشوهون ويحرفون فى نفوس ضحاياهم
حتى يصل الاعتقاد
بأن الإثم فضيلة والقتل عدالة والكره هو الحب

تحدث الحكيم
بصوته الخفيض وقال
أن للشيطان أتباع
يغتسلون في أنهار النبيذ في حادي*
وبعشق السخرية الفارغ
يحصدون نفوساً مغشوشة جنيت بمنجل الانتحار

مستحيل أن يكون الطريق إلى الفردوس مرصوفاً
بجثث الأبرياء - عبر نهرٍ من الدم
اعتنقوا مد الحق وجزره الرائع في قلوبكم
تقبّلوا الشك والعار أينما كانوا
لكي تدركوا أن النفس تسعد بالعطف وليس بالانتقام

سطع صوته كالضوء وقال:
ابحثوا بشجاعة في أعماق قلوبكم
بلا نفاق ولا خداع ولا إجحاف
وحين تلمسوا الايمان هناك
ستنزل الكلمات الالهيه دواءً للقلوب
مثل مطر أبدي يجذبه البحر دائماً
حتى يرتفع ليملأ حرم النفوس
بودٍ عميق هادىء ويغدو سلاماً
على شواطىء العزم الالهي.

[أرض الموتى في الأساطير الاغريقية*

أبريل 2006

Posted by: Through Gracepeace at December 16, 2006 02:44 PM

Obviously, Kerry has needs too.

ADD.

Posted by: harrison at December 16, 2006 06:11 PM

Well loathe as I am to 'defend' anything that JFK2nd ever says, I must in all fairness say that perhaps he has a point.

'How do you replace a grandiose idea with an illusion about a cooperative Assad regime?'--MJT

I don't think he was precisely saying that. In fact, he was really not saying anything at all. he was just being JFK2nd. As he always is. He likes to be important-sounding , but it really matters little what he actually says. I don't think that he has any illusions as to the nature of the Assad Regime, but let's be frank here,--- What is the alternative game-plan to 'talking' with these 'creatures' We sure need to have one if we are not going to cater to some of their 'needs'.

And based upon the performance of the Bush Team, it is clear that there is no PLAN. Never was. Is not now. And likely will not be in the future. Well unless you call LOSING a plan.

As you said when Israel invaded Lebanon--- CRUSH SYRIA. That is the centre of the problem. But does anyone think that Bush is either interested in or indeed now capable of, dealing seriously ? with the two Regimes that are at the heart of the Mid-East quagmire ?

Anyone ?

So it's on to Plan "X". Known as 'talking' in polite circles or 'abject surrender' in some of the cruder areas of the world.

I am so pissed at the Bush handling of the 'conflict' that I simply prefer not even to annoy myself with it at this point. All that he has done when Iran and Syria have actively been engaged in the conflict in Iraq is 'warn' them not to do what they clearly have every intention of doing.

Working out great so far, don't you think?

Absolutely USELESS Rules of Engagement . Not only IN iraq but OUTSIDE of Iraq as well. Almost CRIMINAL if you really put everything into historical perspective.

Ptui.

Posted by: dougf at December 16, 2006 06:48 PM

I voted for Gore back in 2001...
I voted for Kerry back in 2004...
I voted for the LEAST worst choice we had..

Sadly BUSH won. And Bush has screwed up MANY things in more ways than one.

I just hope America has BETTER choices come 2008 as it's almost to late to correct the mistakes the Bush Adminstration has done regarding the middle east as well as global warming and more..

sigh

Posted by: Cindy at December 16, 2006 07:03 PM

I don't think that he has any illusions as to the nature of the Assad Regime, but let's be frank here,--- What is the alternative game-plan to 'talking' with these 'creatures'

I asked this three threads ago, but there wasn't a single answer. I don't think there IS an answer, and people would rather shoot smoke out their ears and belch fire instead of admitting it.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 16, 2006 07:17 PM

I asked this three threads ago, but there wasn't a single answer. I don't think there IS an answer, and people would rather shoot smoke out their ears and belch fire instead of admitting it.--DPU

Oops. Now this could be problematical.

We have asked the same question and for probably the same reasons as well. We actually agree with each other on this.

Does that mean the world is indeed coming to an end ?--- :-)

Take care,

Posted by: dougf at December 16, 2006 07:48 PM

Would somebody be so kind as to translate Through Gracepeace's comment? I find I am very curious.

Posted by: B. Durbin at December 16, 2006 07:52 PM

Does that mean the world is indeed coming to an end ?

I just figured you were turning socialist.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 16, 2006 07:52 PM

OT: Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah Naim Qassem leading a the crowd in Beirut, screaming "Death to America" and "Death to Israel"

I can't avoid remembering Hitler leading those huge crowds with his hate filled speeches.

Perhaps one day, that footage of Hitler leading his hate-filled crowds will usually be followed by this speech from the Middle east, or a worse but similar one. I know that implies that WWII will be followed by WWIII. But asking that crowd if they want war is like asking a children if they want ice cream.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 16, 2006 10:53 PM

But asking that crowd if they want war is like asking a children if they want ice cream.

Sounds like another crowd I'm only too familiar with.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 16, 2006 11:38 PM

I'm so sorry I forgot to remove the article when I changed that sentence to plural.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 17, 2006 12:20 AM

Sounds like another crowd I'm only too familiar with.

When I was in high school, I made a joke sign during student body elections that read "Josh Scholar for President: Let's get world war III over with!"

I wasn't actually running for president, mind you, though there was one kid who ran as totalitarian despot who won a seat ("I'll make you all into mindless worker drones. No dissent will be allowed!").

In any case, I do notice a nervous group that can't wait for WWIII and want it to start now. I mean it would be such a shame to miss it wouldn't it? I understand that many people have a policy of getting unpleasantness out of the way as soon as possible, and that's usually an admirable trait, but not in the case of war that might be avoided.

But noticed this about the middle east years ago, when I started studying it, before the (most recent) Afgan war. There's a hunger for warfare (I don't feel like explaining where it comes from, right at the moment - it would take longer than I want to spend writing right now).

... asking that crowd if they want war is like asking children if they want ice cream. The problem is that, despite the fact that this fact contradicts tenants of naive pacifism, it really only takes one side that wants war to force war.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 17, 2006 12:35 AM

I really need to get some dinner, my ability to edit English sentences on an empty stomache is nil

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 17, 2006 12:37 AM

The problem with beltway politics is that politicians always assume that their opponents must not be doing the right thing, even if they can't figure out what exactly they're doing wrong.

Well, that's one of the bigger problems. I wouldn't call it the only problem...

In the current hyper-partisan environment, everything your opponent does has to be wrong. The adversary cannot do anything correctly, and nothing good can come of whatever the adversary does.

I despise that kind of thing. It makes me think that the current crop of political conslutants' primary qualification for the job was winning some high-school debates their sophomore year.

Being partisan over domestic issues is fine- let the best idea win. Partisanship over foreign policy turns my stomach. Letting Assad think he can play Democrats vs. Republicans is a huge mistake, and that's exactly what the Senators are doing.

Democrats like Kerry, who can't figure out where to stand on the Iraq debate, end up pandering to anti-Bush sentiments because that's all they can do.

Oh, Kerry knows exactly where he wants to stand on Iraq- wherever he'll get the most votes.

Posted by: rosignol at December 17, 2006 01:03 AM

I asked this three threads ago, but there wasn't a single answer.
-DPU

Oh? I recall answering that question a couple of times. If you missed it, here it is again:

Kill Assad, see if his successor is smarter than he is (should be clear in 3-4 months). Repeat as necessary. We stop when Syria has a head of state who understands that Rule #1 is "don't mess with the US or it's allies".

I'd really prefer that Syria have a democratic government instead of despotic one, but we don't have the manpower to do Iraq and Syria at the same time.

Posted by: rosignol at December 17, 2006 01:13 AM

John flip flop kerry is visiting syria... interesting! claiming syria has needs, also interesting
however i don't think that assad is the best person to be discussing with needs of the syrians such as : democracy, liberalisation of economy, fight corruption, social progress...

Posted by: George at December 17, 2006 01:48 AM

Oh, Kerry knows exactly where he wants to stand on Iraq- wherever he'll get the most votes.

I've heard Kerry give his unbelievably extreme speeches on both sides of the Iraq issue and came away with the impression that he has absolute contempt for the public and will say anything that will get him elected, but I doubt that what he says has much bearing on what he'll vote for. His actual sympathies have always been entirely on the issolationist side.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 17, 2006 02:31 AM

Kerry is completely ignorant about Middle East politic, specially about syria-iran!

Posted by: Catherine at December 17, 2006 03:42 AM

Syria certainly has needs, the main one being to shift Assad and his gang into jail.

Kerry would have been better off talking to the Syrian opposition or to the government of Lebanon, than to the Assda regime. Better off still, listening and not talking.

Posted by: Don Cox at December 17, 2006 03:59 AM

"political conslutants' primary qualification..."

Rosignol, that has to be one of the best typos of the day. But it does gross injustice to those who own hyper sex drives by linking them to those who own hyper mendacity drives.

Posted by: allan at December 17, 2006 08:39 AM

Talk only works if there is a fair amount of common ground. It should be pretty obvious by now that there is none. The sad reality is sometimes there is no peaceful answer.

Posted by: hi-test at December 17, 2006 09:03 AM

Kill Assad, see if his successor is smarter than he is (should be clear in 3-4 months).

And do you think this is a likely scenario? Which is actually part of what I asked.

It's one thing to say "This is how I'd fix things if I were running the world," and quite another to determine what is actually possible.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2006 09:14 AM

You know what's cool? That Firefox (or Windows, not sure which) knows that selection of Arabic goes right-to-left, even when embedded in a largely left-to-right selection comment section.

I tried running the Arabic text above through Google's beta Arabic translator. Either Arabic is quite a poetic language and machine translators can't do it justice, or the beta translator needs a lot of work.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2006 09:17 AM

The problem is that, despite the fact that this fact contradicts tenants of naive pacifism, it really only takes one side that wants war to force war.

This is, of course, true. And the knee-jerk reaction to that from a nation with overwhelming military power is "Oh yeah? They want war? We'll kick their asses!"

But, as we've seen in the last few years, there are a number of restrictions that liberal democracies place upon themselves during war that make the ass-kicking expensive, and that enemies without those restrictions can take advantage of.

For example, were it Nazi Germany in Iraq right now, I'm pretty sure the whole the whole thing would have been over two years ago. Similarly, were Israel to conduct war the way the Soviet Union used to do it, things would have gone quite differently last summer.

Given that, there are several things that can be done. The way war is waged can be changed, which would require giving up parts of society that are actually held up as a differentiating factor from the enemies. Or the power of the military can be increased, which would would increase the velocity that the US is bankrupting itself, and would likely require a draft. Or ways could be attempted to be found to defuse political crises without giving in to knee-jerk reactions to kick their asses.

The first step along that route is the dreaded talking to the enemy. Which isn't much fun, especially since the prospect of an enjoyable ass-kicking scenario has to be shelved.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2006 09:51 AM

The opposition says that Mr. Bush has no plan. Of course, they rarely present one of their own. When they do it's either step for step the same as what Mr. Bush is doing (right or wrong) or cut and run. Seems to me that running from Iraq now would result in the complete collapse of that country.

Then there are the other critics who feel we should have nuked certain Iraq cities, and maybe a few in Iran.

So I agree with Rosignol. Everything Mr. Bush does will be wrong in the eyes of his critics. His actual actions are irrelevant to them. Too wimpy, too brutal, too this, too that.

Yet the Dems won't cut funding. Interesting.

Kerry is a simple, not too bright, politician (well, ok, he's pretty stupid.) He's out for himself and to score points with his base. He has little interest in much else, though I'm sure he'd like to see peace throughout the middle east.

It seems to me that any talking with Iran or Syria should be done with a big stick (eg: several dozen cruise missile pointed at vital targets) and a willingness to use that stick.

Posted by: Greg at December 17, 2006 04:52 PM

Isn't much fun to talk to an enemy that chants "Death to America?" Well, that's an understatement! You don't talk to people who call for your death: you kill them! And as long as they continue, you continue. Talk to the enemy? What stupidity!

Posted by: Abu Nudnik at December 17, 2006 05:59 PM

You don't talk to people who call for your death: you kill them!<.i>

Then get to it.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 17, 2006 07:32 PM

Tossing out "talk to the enemy" as a blanket solution is basically sticking your head in the sand. Yes, there are some enemies you can "do business with", and ass-kicking is not always or even often the right answer. However, it is unfortunately sometimes necessary. You cannot do business with ahmadinejad, nasrallah, bin laden, etc. Those men are all either fanatics or are riding the tiger of Islamism and can't be seen to parley with unbelievers. To the extent that they insist upon physically threatening people outside their own borders, ass-kicking is the only viable solution. Unfortunately, that requires putting a satisfying round of calling your own side warmongers up on the shelf.

Posted by: Stacy at December 17, 2006 08:11 PM

"You don't talk to people who call for your death: you kill them!"--Abu N.

"Then get to it."---DPU

Well once again I agree with DPU, although this time probably not for precisely the same reasons. If you refuse to 'negotiate' with the forces of barbarism, then get down to the killing-off stage. The present 'ineffectual' stage has GOT TO GO.

Everyone agree that the current status is 'unacceptable', but as DPU forcefully states, simply repeating the cant of we 'can't talk with existential enemies, is not a solution. They don't give a rat's ass if you talk to them or not. They disdain you as 'paper-tigers', and you know what ----- they might be right.

Iraq is a disaster not because of too much force used; it is a disaster because too little force against too few targets was employed. That makes it a self-imposed mess. Either because it should never have happened or because once it had happened the WILL to WIN was simply not there. If it was not important enough to have that WILL then it should never have been undertaken. If it was the conduct of the campaign has been at best 'debatable'.

Somebody truly does have some splainin to do ".

As DPU says --- "Then get to it".

Or not.

I would bet on the 'or not' if I wanted to make a bundle on the futures market. DPU might be arguing his case from a particular historical perspective and agenda, but his points are, I fear, very well taken. Very well taken, indeed.

Posted by: dougf at December 17, 2006 08:55 PM

DP: "Well get to it!"
Doug: Well once again I agree with DPU,

Doug I'm sure you realized that DP was being sarcastic.

Posted by: Josh Scholar at December 18, 2006 12:16 AM

And do you think this is a likely scenario? Which is actually part of what I asked.

Likely in what sense?

Likely as in "something that could happen"? Not really- too many people would go batshit as part of the now-ingrained "Bush can do no right" reflex.

Likely as in "something that could work?" IMO, yes. It may not be mother nature imposing the selection, but if creatures adapt to survive in their environment (and I think they do), whoever runs Syria will have to adapt if he wants to survive.

It's one thing to say "This is how I'd fix things if I were running the world," and quite another to determine what is actually possible.

The only thing preventing the F-18s on the USN carrier permanently stationed in the Med from dropping JDAMS on targets in Damascus is a lack of orders to do so.

There is one thing I want you to keep in mind- I am not advocating unrestrained slaughter. I am advocating a direct and targeted application of force on the people who make the decisions, and would greatly prefer to spare the civilians and the conscripts to the greatest extent possible. They are just unlucky with regards to where they were born, they have done me no harm, I bear them no ill will.

However, it is necessary to demonstrate why it is better to negotiate with us than to fight us, and that failing to honor the agreement that results from the negoiation will have dire consequences.

Once those things are clearly established, we can have meaningful negotiations. Until then, all we're going to get are 'negotiations' that are really delaying tactics that accomplish nothing but giving the other side time to recruit and reequip.

Which would you prefer- a long-term insurgency killing ~1,000 soldiers a year, indefinitely, or 3-4 months of all-out combat that kill ~1,000 soldiers a month?

That's the decision we get to make. There is no good option, just bad and worse.

Posted by: rosignol at December 18, 2006 01:29 AM

Doug I'm sure you realized that DP was being sarcastic.

No, I wasn't. I presented a number of points that were ignored by our temporary host, and he simply indicated that talking to one's enemy was stupid. If that's the way that he feels then his only option are to do what he says and try to kill them. If that's the mindset we're dealing with on both sides, then the end is inevitable and better to just move on. The militarily stronger side will win.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 18, 2006 07:19 AM

The only thing preventing the F-18s on the USN carrier permanently stationed in the Med from dropping JDAMS on targets in Damascus is a lack of orders to do so.

Why do you suppose that that order has not been given?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 18, 2006 07:22 AM

Why do you suppose that that order has not been given?

I suspect it is the (mistaken) hope that if we talk to Assad for long enough, he'll come to his senses, foreswear playing by 'Hama rules', and turn Syria into a middle-eastern version of Belgium.

Posted by: rosignol at December 18, 2006 07:56 AM

Abu Kais-- what have you done with Michael Totten? Is he one of the hikers missing in Oregon? Don't you miss your own blog?

Posted by: leb at December 18, 2006 08:25 AM

I suspect it is the (mistaken) hope that if we talk to Assad for long enough, he'll come to his senses, foreswear playing by 'Hama rules', and turn Syria into a middle-eastern version of Belgium.

You actually think that this is an accurate assessment of the thinking of the Bush administration?

I'm thinking less and less of your reasoning powers by the day.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 18, 2006 08:58 AM

You actually think that this is an accurate assessment of the thinking of the Bush administration?

No. I think it is an accurate assessment of the thinking of Bush's critics.

Posted by: rosignol at December 18, 2006 08:58 AM

I think it is an accurate assessment of the thinking of Bush's critics.

But you presented that argument as the reason that was preventing the order being given for fighters to drop ordinance on Asad.

Are you now under the impression the Bush's critics are handing out orders to carrier groups?

If not, I repeat, why has that order not been given?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 18, 2006 09:11 AM

Kerry cares about Syria's "needs?"

Well, why doesn't he supply them with some more carbombs and sniper rifles to take out those darned pro-Democracy Lebanese who keep getting in the way of Assad's precious "needs". Kerry is really being unhelpful and not a "realist" if he's not doing everything in his power to bring "peace" to the Middle East.

Why does he make us all wait?

And by the way, aren't people just supposed to be awed by his mere presence and do whatever he asks?

Posted by: mark at December 18, 2006 03:12 PM

http://www.al-akhbar.com/ar/node/16057

Mehlis trying to de-rail Brammertz's work; accuses him and Kofi Annan through a "planted" reporter at Stern of covering up for Syria

Posted by: leb at December 19, 2006 04:24 AM

I'm thinking less and less of your reasoning powers by the day.
-DPU

Demonstrate errors in my reasoning and we can discuss them. Otherwise, that is only your opinion, which has no more weight than anyone else's.

If not, I repeat, why has that order not been given?

Do I look like a senior official in the Bush administration? Obviously, I do not have access to complete information, and anything I said about the matter would be opinion and speculation.

Posted by: rosignol at December 19, 2006 06:01 AM

Demonstrate errors in my reasoning and we can discuss them.

I think I've been doing that.

Obviously, I do not have access to complete information, and anything I said about the matter would be opinion and speculation.

Exactly. My original point was that discussion should probably stay within the bounds of what is reasonably possible. As The Bush administration seems unlikely to kill Assad, probably for good reasons, talk about dropping bombs on him is fantasy, and other than feel-good bombast, is a waste of time. It's in the same realm as suggesting that he get cancer, or that he trip on some stairs and break his neck.

Now, any other reasonable alternatives?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 19, 2006 07:14 AM

re: John F'N Kerry,

please keep him Assad, you'll be doing America a huge favor.

Posted by: Rubin at December 20, 2006 12:27 AM

I think I've been doing that.

Nope. You've been presenting your opinions- just as I've been doing- and asking for additional information, mostly information that niether of us has access (such as the reasoning behind the Bush administration's foreign policy strategy).

Free clue: asking for more information is not the same thing as refuting a point.

Exactly. My original point was that discussion should probably stay within the bounds of what is reasonably possible.

[shrug]

Reagan ordered air raids on Tripoli back in the '80s with the specific objective of killing Gadaffi. Why do you think trying to do the same to Assad is not 'within the bounds of what is reasonably possible'?

As The Bush administration seems unlikely to kill Assad, probably for good reasons, talk about dropping bombs on him is fantasy, and other than feel-good bombast, is a waste of time.

What are those 'good reasons'?

It's in the same realm as suggesting that he get cancer, or that he trip on some stairs and break his neck.

No, that is 'wishful thinking'- hoping that some fortuitous event take place with no causation on our part.

I am saying that the US should take a specific action, which is both precedented and well within the US's capabilities.

Posted by: rosignol at December 20, 2006 02:40 AM

What are those 'good reasons'?

I don't know what they are, but I can speculate.

- Possibly US intelligence knows who would take power were Assad killed, and don't care for that option. Someone smarter, for example, who would be more flexible on Lebanon but a worse bet for Iraq, for instance.

- Foreign policy is the art of predicting outcomes and working toward goals, which requires some level of stability, and good intelligence. If the order of succession in Syria is not well defined, killing Assad would make things more chaotic, and would render intelligence on him useless.

- Assassinating foreign leaders is often frowned upon by other foreign leaders, because it makes them a target.

- As I think that Lebanon is at best a sideshow to this administration, I don't think they care enough about it to take serious action, especially if doing so will rock the Iraq boat.

At any rate, are you supposing that the US administration is not killing Assad for bad reasons?

I am saying that the US should take a specific action, which is both precedented and well within the US's capabilities.

Want to place a substantial monetary bet that they will not do so in the next twelve months?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at December 20, 2006 03:38 PM

I'm old enough to know better than to put money on the US government doing something intelligent. It's a nice surprise when it happens, but it's foolish to count on it.

Posted by: rosignol at December 21, 2006 12:15 AM

Not to mention, if it were to happen, the US might not take credit. I have suggested using a neutral - an unaffiliated pro a la Day of the Jackal. BTW it is possible that Bashir Assad is not the (main) problem; lack of data, but it seems there are cliques behind his throne. Others less famous might make more suitable targets.

I am always minded of Assad's quip that anytime the US wants him out, please don't bother with shooting, just send him a text message. While I am skeptical that he needs to be kept alive 'to avoid worse,' but again, lack of data.

Thing is, that's from the US POV. For Leb, a deniable hit on Assad would seem to be win-win.

Posted by: nichevo at December 21, 2006 10:40 AM

Not to mention, if it were to happen, the US might not take credit.

Dunno. I think that more than a few of the US's recent problems are due to making a fetish of 'stability' and trying to preserve the status quo at all costs. The cold war is over, the third world is industrializing and becoming prosperous, and we need to stop trying to convince ourselves that the things the US had to tolerate during the cold war are still necessary- and the two big ones are 1) not making it clear to our various less-than-enlightend 'friends' that there are certain standards of behavior that the US's friends need to abide by if they want to stay friends, and 2) pissant thugocracies who mess with us no longer have a superpower covering for them, and should expect us to reciprocate their treatment of us. Basically, you mess with us, we mess with you.

Back during the cold war, it was useful to not be directly accountable for certain things. It kept things from escalating. The cold war is over.

I have suggested using a neutral - an unaffiliated pro a la Day of the Jackal.

Doesn't work. Those so-called 'unaffiliated pros' actually work for someone, and most of them work for the other side. We just pretend they're 'unaffiliated' because if we admitted who they work for, public opinion would demand action, and things would escalate.

Take Sadr, for example. Everyone knows he's Iran's tool, stirring up trouble in Iraq on Iranian orders, using Iranian money and Iranian equipment. But if the US government admitted that the reason Iraq is going to hell is definitely because of Iran, the US government would have to do something about it, and a hell of a lot of people would die in the process.

I dunno if Bush finally admitting that we need a bigger military means that the people in DC have decided that the peaceful options aren't working and a hell of a lot of people are going to die, and we'd better get ready for it, but that's how it looks to me.

I would have preferred adding a division a year, starting back in 2001. It's a lot better to have a big army and not need it than to need a big army and not have it.

BTW it is possible that Bashir Assad is not the (main) problem; lack of data, but it seems there are cliques behind his throne. Others less famous might make more suitable targets.

The usual bogeyman in Syria is the Muslim Brotherhood. That's why I favor hitting Assad and leaving the rest of the government intact instead of going for full-scale regieme change.

Posted by: rosignol at December 22, 2006 03:05 AM

This will all end with crying.

Posted by: shind jander at December 23, 2006 06:30 PM

good site

phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex

Posted by: tom at February 13, 2007 03:47 PM

acrobat
adulte
amateur
amateur2
amatrice
anal
antivirus
antivirus_gratuit
anus
ares
asian
asiatique
ass
astuce
auto
avatar
avatars
baise
bebe
beurette
bikini
bisexuel
bite
black
blague
blagues
blonde
boob
brune
carte
carte2
carte3
cartes
cartes2
cartes3
celebrite
chaleur
chanson_gratuit
chansons_gratuit
charme
chat_gratuit
cheat
cinema
clip_gratuit
clitoris
clone
cochon
code_jeu
coquin
couille
couple
cul
cul_gratuit
diaporama
diaporamas
divx
divx_gratuit
download
ecran_de_veille
ecran_de_veille_gratuit
ecrans_de_veille
edonkey
emoticone
emoticone_gratuit
emoticones
emule
emule_gratuit
enculer
enfant
erotique
erotiques
erotisme
etudiante
exhibitionniste
f1_rallye
familiale
famille
fellation
femme
femme2
fesse
fetiche
fetichisme
film
film2
film_gratuit
film_porno_gratuit
films
film_x_gratuit
firefox
fond_d_ecran
fond_d_ecran_gratuit
fonds_d_ecran
football
gay
gay_gratuit
girl
golf
gratuit
gratuit2
gratuit3
gratuite
gratuite2
gratuite3
gros
grosse
gros_sein_gratuit
hard
hardcore
hentai_gratuit
histoire
homosexuel
horoscope
horoscope_gratuit
horoscopes
hot
humour
icone
icq
illusion
image
image2
image_humour
jeu
jeu2
jeu_adulte_gratuit
jeu_de_voiture_gratuit
jeu_enfant_gratuit
jeu_gratuit
jeu_gratuit_cadeaux
jeune
jeu_pc_gratuit
jeu_video_gratuit
jeux
jeux2
kazaa
kazaa_gratuit
latinas
lesbian
lesbienne
limewire
lingerie
logiciel
logiciel2
logiciel_gratuit
logiciels
logiciels2
logiciels_gratuit
manga
massage
mature
messenger
messenger_gratuit
models
morpheus
movie
mp3_gratuit
msn
msn_gratuit
mure
music_gratuite
musique_gratuite
musiques_gratuites
nero
nero_gratuit
noire
nu
nude
nudiste
orgasme
orgie
parole_gratuit
paroles_gratuit
partition
partitions
penis
photo
photo2
photo_gay_gratuit
photo_porno_gratuit
photo_sexe_gratuit
photo_sex_gratuit
pied
pipe
poitrine
porn
porn_gratuit
porno
porno2
pornographie
porno_gratuit
pps_ppt
programme
pussy
rasee
real_player
recette
recettes
rousse
sado
safari
salope
sex
sex2
sexe
sexe2
sexe_amateur_gratuit
sexe_gratuit
sex_gratuit
sex_gratuit_beurette
sexuelle
sexy
shareaza
skype
sms_gratuit
sodomie
soluce
solution_jeu
spectacle
sport
sportive
spybot
suce
suceuse
sudoku_gratuit
tarot
tarot_gratuit
tatouage
tatouages
teen
tele
telechargement
telechargement2
telechargement_antivirus
telechargement_chanson
telechargement_chansons
telechargement_divx
telechargement_emule
telechargement_film
telechargement_film_gratuit
telechargement_gratuit
telechargement_kazaa
telechargement_logiciel
telechargement_logiciel_gratuit
telechargement_logiciels
telechargement_messenger
telechargement_movie
telechargement_mp3
telechargement_msn
telechargement_music
telechargement_musique
telechargement_nero
telechargement_parole
telechargement_paroles
telechargement_porn
telechargement_porno
telechargement_sex
telechargement_sexe
telechargement_x
telechargement_xxx
telecharger
telecharger2
telecharger3
telecharger_antivirus
telecharger_antivirus2
telecharger_chanson
telecharger_chansons
telecharger_divx
telecharger_emule
telecharger_film
telecharger_gratuit
telecharger_jeu_gratuit
telecharger_kazaa
telecharger_logiciel
telecharger_logiciels
telecharger_messenger
telecharger_movie
telecharger_mp3
telecharger_msn
telecharger_music
telecharger_musique
telecharger_nero
telecharger_parole
telecharger_paroles
telecharger_porn
telecharger_porno
telecharger_sex
telecharger_sexe
telecharger_x
telecharger_xxx
television
tennis
tit
toon
tourisme
touristique
tout_gratuit
traducteur_gratuit
transsexuelle
truc
tuning
tv
vacances
video
video2
video_comique
video_gratuit
video_porno
video_porno2
video_porno_gratuit
videos
videos2
videos_comiques
video_sexe_gratuit
video_sex_gratuit
video_x_gratuit
vlc
voiture
voyage
voyager
voyeur
wallpaper
webcam
winamp
winmx
winrar
winzip
x
x2
x_gratuit
xxx
xxx_gratuit
yoga

Posted by: eleneer at March 6, 2007 01:20 AM

Fioricet prescription online purchasing no prescription needed fioricet Free porn passwords College Porn Order No Prescription Needed Tramadol Tramadol order best price on ultram cheap ultram uses purchasing cheap prozac Brand prozac low cost Order Original Soma Purchase Discount Soma Generic wellbutrin without a prescription cheap wellbutrin lowest price buy tramadol brand tramadol sales

Posted by: Tramadol online at April 17, 2007 11:01 AM

nice site

phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex
phone-sex

phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex
phone sex

Posted by: jj at July 28, 2007 08:19 PM

澳大利亚
 澳大利亚移民
 澳洲移民

压力开关
 压力变送器
 压力传感器
 流量开关
 流量计
 液位计
 液位开关
 温湿度记录仪
 风速仪
 差压开关
 可燃气体检测仪