Ace of Spades - Clock Ticking Softly For Damascus?
Overstated, perhaps, but two interesting stories suggest that Syria might have made its last consequence-free mistake.
From World Net Daily:
'U.S. will get Syria out by May'
Former Lebanese PM says war in Iraq will allow his country to be free
By Aaron Klein
JERUSALEM -- The U.S. led war against terrorism and its advances in Iraq and Afghanistan have enhanced the climate in the Middle East and will enable the international community to force Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon likely by May, former Lebanese Prime Minister Michel Aoun told WorldNetDaily today in an exclusive interview.
"The U.S. and EU are backing us in our movement to free Lebanon," said Aoun, speaking to WND from France. "They are interfering through diplomacy and threats of sanctions, and the situation is such today that Syria must comply. If the U.S. and Europe follow through, Syria will be obliged to withdraw before Lebanese elections in May."
Without offering a timeline, Syria announced Wednesday it will withdraw its troops from Lebanon to the eastern Bekaa Valley....
"The U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed the Middle East. Not only the attacks to oust the rulers of those countries, but the consequences of the attacks changed things as well. They are democratizing the region and this will put pressure on [Syrian President Bashar] Assad to follow through," said Aoun.
"All these changes in the Middle East make obsolete the previous ways of Syria in dealing with Lebanon and Syria's involvement with political terrorism, which is not accepted anymore."
Meanwhile, a reader of TKS says...
...that the Iraqi forces are being built up to eventually take action against Syria. He adds the military action would be associated with Syria's refusal to police the border with Iraq to prevent terrorists and Baathists from entering Iraq.
This oddly echoes Kevin McCullough’s Pentagon source who said yesterday, “Likely, Syria's meddling in Iraq and the upcoming Lebanese elections will provide sufficient trigger for some "coalition" action. That action may well have an "Iraqi" face.”
The liberals may bleat, but a couple of points:
1) Europe actually seems to give a rat's ass about Lebanon's freedom, largely because France has always viewed itself as the protector of Lebanon's Christians. They might even pony up peace-keepers to keep order as the Syrian army departs.
2) It would not take a land invasion to drive Syria from Lebanon, should it come to that. Airstrikes on their troops should encourage them to depart as soon as humanly possible.
3) We wouldn't have to invade or occupy Syria, which we don't consider a threat like Iraq or Iran at this point; simply driving Syrian from Lebanon, and perhaps hitting military targets within Syria, would be enough. Not all military action needs to be a full-scale Iraq-style invasion and occupation (and reconstruction); American airpower can make life miserable for an intransigent regime.
I don't agree with Pat Buchanan much these days, but I do agree with his critique that Bush has to stop "warning" countries and threatening consequences unless he's actually prepared to do so-- unless he wants to see his credibility fall to nearly UN-levels.
Perhaps Bush agrees, and is putting out these sorts of low-key, unofficial threats out there to let Damascus know we're serious... or that we soon might be
ace.mu.nu |
