Greg Djerijian posted an attack on columnists and bloggers who are calling for regime change in Syria. He accuses us of being idiots who don't appreciate the chaos that might result, and argues that slowly moving on the diplomatic front "with the devils we know" is much safer. In this he agrees with JOSH MARSHALL, and that should be tip enough to clue all in that Greg is WRONG! Here's Greg's attack:
"Diplomatic" status-quoists like Greg are "apologists for tyrants." They discount the terrible price being paid NOW (and for the last several decades) by Syrians and Lebanese and Israelis because of the Batthist dictatorship and their police state.
It's NOT unlike the ravings from the Leftie-doves who argue that Iraqis were better off under Saddam and IGNORE the fact that 400 mass-graves have been uncovered in Iraq, each with more than 1000 MURDERED corpses.
An argument similar to Greg's argument was made in defense of the USSR and the Taliban and so many other tyrants I cannot list them! It was wrong them and it is wrong now. SURE: (As Clinton used to say): Change is difficult to accept, but it is important.
Have you no faith in Syrians, Gerg!? Do you think them uninterested in freedom? Do you think them unable to acheive freedom? It's racist, if you do. Sure: there's a price to pay. The Iraqis are paying it. All peoples always do in order to achieve freedom and democracy. As they say: "Freedom isn't free."
That's why I think we should be doing all we can to foment democratic revolution in Syria and Iran.
Will it create chaos? Probably. It's "creative destruction" and there's really no other way. I would only argue that the TIMING of this is important, and we can focus our efforts in a way to try to make these revolutions occur when we are best equipped to manage the inevitable chaos which will temporarily follow. It would be GREAT if Syrian Baathism was overthrown AFTER a final arrangement was achieved between Israel and the West Bank Arabs (an arrangement acceptable enough to allow other Arab nations to start diplomatic relations with Israel, and thus further isolate Syria and Iran).
It would be GREAT if the Iranian Mullah-archy was overthrown after that and after the North Korean situation was taken care of. But it may not be possible to manage those situations so perfectly as to guarantee that. In the meantime, we must keep our "regime change" policies in place against those three nations -- THE AXIS OF EVIL: Iran, Syria and North Korea, (and someday soon for Cuba, Zimbabwe and Venezuela, for good measure!).
And in regard to these dangerous and threatening tyrannies, Bush is pursuing a deft multi-level strategy which adeptly combines unilateral and multilateral diplomacy, as well as overt and covert miltary actions.
As you point out, we are pursuing Assad via the UN and the Harriri case. We pursue Iran via the EU-3+Russia and the secret Iranian nuke program. And we pursue Kimjongil via a regional mulitalteral diplomatic efforts. The aim of these efforts is ostensibly containment, but it is REALLY MORE THAN THAT. These three regimes are actively and offensively interfering with tha stability of the ENTIRE world! Syria and Iran are actively destablilizing Iraq and Israel. And NOKO is aiding them by helping them with their nukes and missiles - and by disatracting us, and forcing us to commit more miltary assets to the Korean peninsula.
If we and they stay on the path we are on now, then things will get worse; the Axis will get stronger, and then it will be MORE difficult to defeat them. And Iran - and maybe NOKO - will get nukes. So: The clock is ticking. The time for regime change comes BEFORE iran and NOKO get nukes, and that may come before it is MOST opportune, before we can best manage the chaos which might follow.
But that chaos is BETTER than lettying Syaria ruin Iraq and than letting iran go NUCLEAR!
If you would allow Iraq to fail and Iran to go nuclear you are a fool.
If Bush allows it, we are either doomed to dhimmitude, or a nuclear war.
YUP: I belive the jihado-extremists would certasinly use nukes. Folks who hijack jest and crash them inot skyscrapers and who stuff grenades in baby-dolls and take over schools and slaughter school-children and who commit gemocide against Shias in Basra and Hindus in India and Buddhists in Thailand WOULD CERTAINLY USE A NUKE.
That's what muts be avoided at all costs. That is WORSE than a chaotic Syria. And Syria's meddling in Iraq is a joint strategy with Iran which is INTENDED to distract our ability to stop Iran from getting nukes.
REMEMBER: A nuclear jihadoterrorist islamofascist Iran is the ultimate goal for our ENEMY, and IT'S OBVIOUS that Iran/Syria continue to sponsor attacks against Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan, and that this is how they intend to BUY THE TIME THEY NEED to be able to continue with their nuke programs until their completion. Then they feel that they will hold all the cards they need - the TRUMP CARDS.
I think that democatic revolution in Syria and Iran would be the BEST way to stop them. Even if it did cause some chaos. Chaos will not ehlp them get nukes. It will hurt their nuke programs. And so it is preferable.
Maybe Greg and the status-quoists believe that a pre-emptive unilateral military strike against Iran's nuke assets (by the "Little Satan" or the "Big Satan") would be better!? I do not. I believe that regime change with some chaos is preferable to a pre-emptive military attack.
I think we are trying to foment revolution in Iran and Syria in such a way as it would happen AFTER Iraq's democracy is installed/stabilized and they have the LEAD role in their own defense -- which would be probable next wointer: the winterof 2006-7.
But this MIGHT be too late. So: what's the TIMELINE!? We must effectuate regime change before Iran gets nukes. We must assign a date to that eventuality and take all necessary measures to prevent it. CHIEF among these measures is being able to redploy miltary assets to contain Syria and Iran and Hizb'Allah (and their other jihadoterrorists stooges) in order to handle the wake of regime change (or - worst case scenario: to handle the counter-attack after we pre-emptively take down their nuke program with a MASSIVE missile attack).
IN MY OPINION: this was the chief reason Sharon decided he had to exit Gaza: he knew he needed to get ready for regime change in Syria and Iran by re-deploying IDF to protect the vast contiguous majority of Israel's people and land in the aftermath of a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nukes and/or regime chanmge in Syria.
STAY TUNED.
UPDATE: MY PET JAWA writes THE WINDOW IS CLOSING, and points to an article about the Russian SAM-missile deal with Iran, (which I noted below). IOW: time is running out; we must prevent a nuclear Iran AT ALL COSTS - and that inlcudes regional chaos. As the man says: FASTER PLEASE!
It's not shocking, of course, that there are many in the blogosphere who chant on about sacking Boy Assad without any serious regard for what ramifications would ensue should precipitous action to unseat him occur (the level of discourse could be summed up, perhaps, by 'just whack him dude', or slightly more developed variants thereto). After all, the vast majority of 'regime change now!' bloggers know little to nothing about the Middle East, as is painfully apparent from their incoherent ramblings, non-sensical fantasies, and manifest abject cluelessness. They read Mark Steyn, however, and get all excited and hot under the collar from their perches in New York and L.A. and Minnesota and belabor, if it weren't for the cowardice of men much weaker in resolve than they, how glorious a future awaits the region if only, say, we had the gumption to topple the House of Saud, Bashar, and, why not, mean Mubarak too (the better so that the Muslim Brotherhood rise to power more easily there!). ... But regime change is not necessarily the panacea on this front. Until we have a credible opposition there, one we feel would materially impact U.S. national interests in beneficial manner if it assumed power, we need to work with the devil we've got.How shocking, Greg, that you should come out for the status-quo/stability and against regime change because regime change might lead to chaos! **sarcasm off.**
"Diplomatic" status-quoists like Greg are "apologists for tyrants." They discount the terrible price being paid NOW (and for the last several decades) by Syrians and Lebanese and Israelis because of the Batthist dictatorship and their police state.
It's NOT unlike the ravings from the Leftie-doves who argue that Iraqis were better off under Saddam and IGNORE the fact that 400 mass-graves have been uncovered in Iraq, each with more than 1000 MURDERED corpses.
An argument similar to Greg's argument was made in defense of the USSR and the Taliban and so many other tyrants I cannot list them! It was wrong them and it is wrong now. SURE: (As Clinton used to say): Change is difficult to accept, but it is important.
Have you no faith in Syrians, Gerg!? Do you think them uninterested in freedom? Do you think them unable to acheive freedom? It's racist, if you do. Sure: there's a price to pay. The Iraqis are paying it. All peoples always do in order to achieve freedom and democracy. As they say: "Freedom isn't free."
That's why I think we should be doing all we can to foment democratic revolution in Syria and Iran.
Will it create chaos? Probably. It's "creative destruction" and there's really no other way. I would only argue that the TIMING of this is important, and we can focus our efforts in a way to try to make these revolutions occur when we are best equipped to manage the inevitable chaos which will temporarily follow. It would be GREAT if Syrian Baathism was overthrown AFTER a final arrangement was achieved between Israel and the West Bank Arabs (an arrangement acceptable enough to allow other Arab nations to start diplomatic relations with Israel, and thus further isolate Syria and Iran).
It would be GREAT if the Iranian Mullah-archy was overthrown after that and after the North Korean situation was taken care of. But it may not be possible to manage those situations so perfectly as to guarantee that. In the meantime, we must keep our "regime change" policies in place against those three nations -- THE AXIS OF EVIL: Iran, Syria and North Korea, (and someday soon for Cuba, Zimbabwe and Venezuela, for good measure!).
And in regard to these dangerous and threatening tyrannies, Bush is pursuing a deft multi-level strategy which adeptly combines unilateral and multilateral diplomacy, as well as overt and covert miltary actions.
As you point out, we are pursuing Assad via the UN and the Harriri case. We pursue Iran via the EU-3+Russia and the secret Iranian nuke program. And we pursue Kimjongil via a regional mulitalteral diplomatic efforts. The aim of these efforts is ostensibly containment, but it is REALLY MORE THAN THAT. These three regimes are actively and offensively interfering with tha stability of the ENTIRE world! Syria and Iran are actively destablilizing Iraq and Israel. And NOKO is aiding them by helping them with their nukes and missiles - and by disatracting us, and forcing us to commit more miltary assets to the Korean peninsula.
If we and they stay on the path we are on now, then things will get worse; the Axis will get stronger, and then it will be MORE difficult to defeat them. And Iran - and maybe NOKO - will get nukes. So: The clock is ticking. The time for regime change comes BEFORE iran and NOKO get nukes, and that may come before it is MOST opportune, before we can best manage the chaos which might follow.
But that chaos is BETTER than lettying Syaria ruin Iraq and than letting iran go NUCLEAR!
If you would allow Iraq to fail and Iran to go nuclear you are a fool.
If Bush allows it, we are either doomed to dhimmitude, or a nuclear war.
YUP: I belive the jihado-extremists would certasinly use nukes. Folks who hijack jest and crash them inot skyscrapers and who stuff grenades in baby-dolls and take over schools and slaughter school-children and who commit gemocide against Shias in Basra and Hindus in India and Buddhists in Thailand WOULD CERTAINLY USE A NUKE.
That's what muts be avoided at all costs. That is WORSE than a chaotic Syria. And Syria's meddling in Iraq is a joint strategy with Iran which is INTENDED to distract our ability to stop Iran from getting nukes.
REMEMBER: A nuclear jihadoterrorist islamofascist Iran is the ultimate goal for our ENEMY, and IT'S OBVIOUS that Iran/Syria continue to sponsor attacks against Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan, and that this is how they intend to BUY THE TIME THEY NEED to be able to continue with their nuke programs until their completion. Then they feel that they will hold all the cards they need - the TRUMP CARDS.
I think that democatic revolution in Syria and Iran would be the BEST way to stop them. Even if it did cause some chaos. Chaos will not ehlp them get nukes. It will hurt their nuke programs. And so it is preferable.
Maybe Greg and the status-quoists believe that a pre-emptive unilateral military strike against Iran's nuke assets (by the "Little Satan" or the "Big Satan") would be better!? I do not. I believe that regime change with some chaos is preferable to a pre-emptive military attack.
I think we are trying to foment revolution in Iran and Syria in such a way as it would happen AFTER Iraq's democracy is installed/stabilized and they have the LEAD role in their own defense -- which would be probable next wointer: the winterof 2006-7.
But this MIGHT be too late. So: what's the TIMELINE!? We must effectuate regime change before Iran gets nukes. We must assign a date to that eventuality and take all necessary measures to prevent it. CHIEF among these measures is being able to redploy miltary assets to contain Syria and Iran and Hizb'Allah (and their other jihadoterrorists stooges) in order to handle the wake of regime change (or - worst case scenario: to handle the counter-attack after we pre-emptively take down their nuke program with a MASSIVE missile attack).
IN MY OPINION: this was the chief reason Sharon decided he had to exit Gaza: he knew he needed to get ready for regime change in Syria and Iran by re-deploying IDF to protect the vast contiguous majority of Israel's people and land in the aftermath of a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nukes and/or regime chanmge in Syria.
STAY TUNED.
UPDATE: MY PET JAWA writes THE WINDOW IS CLOSING, and points to an article about the Russian SAM-missile deal with Iran, (which I noted below). IOW: time is running out; we must prevent a nuclear Iran AT ALL COSTS - and that inlcudes regional chaos. As the man says: FASTER PLEASE!
5 comments:
Seems to me that the downfall of the "Boy" is quite marginal to our long term interests and the Israelis are certainly up to the task if it becomes important. We, the US, have not been overly successful in that regard so let us leave it to those who have a higher stake in the process (Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia among others) and spend our "capital" in other more critical areas such as China, North Korea and energy self sufficency.
the marginality argument doesn;t hold water: to get to Iran we need to isolate them. we have them surrounded, now.
once we take syria out, then except fopr russia and north korea, they are all alone - militarily speaking.
then we can zero in.
most often in warfare, you do NOT take on the major enemy head-on at frst.
we did not invade japan or germany until THE ENDGAME; infact THAT IS THE EFFIN ENDGAME.
before the endgame is played, one must set up the board.
afghanistan and iraqw were setups. syria is another CRITICAL part of the setup. them noko.
then WHAM!
what i am arguing here in this post is that chaos is preeable to a nuclear iran.
and that chaos in the region can be our friend.
israel CAN NOW handle the added chaos.
iraqw will soon be able to, too.
THEN WHAM! BAM!
and before iran has nukes and too many damn Russian SAM's.
"Do you think them unable to achieve freedom? It's racist, if you do."
Thanks for pointing that out, Reliapundit. I agree, and have said the same thing on CUANAS many times.
I don't understand why people are not called out on the racism inherent in believing that brown-skinned Arabs, and Pashtuns, etc, are not capable of establishing Democracies for themselves.
And, it is doubly hard to understand such a perspective when we have the evidence that an even more alien (to the West) culture - that of Japan - was turned from an Emperor-worshipping Shinto-Jihad government into a thriving Democracy.
Good post.
I put Belgravia Dispatch on my blogroll at one point, because it was on the blogroll of so many whom I respect. But, it didn't take long for me to burn out on that guy and his realpolitik-appeasment-dhimmified arrogance.
thanks posto. well said.
the doctor prescribes a u238 enema for the mullahs of iran
Post a Comment