Road to Damascus next for Bush?
THOMAS WALKOM
Apr. 15, 2003. 01:00 AM
The United States has now successfully invaded two nations in less than two years. Is Syria next? Or will it be Iran?
Logic favours Iran. It has important oil reserves, is trying to acquire nuclear weapons and occupies a strategic position between the
Persian Gulf and the new oil fields of Central Asia.
A successful invasion of Iran would restore American suzerainty over the entire Persian Gulf region as well as remove a theocratic Shiite
regime that Washington simply does not like.
On the face of it, Syria offers none of these advantages. The country's aging military poses a serious threat to no one, not even its
arch-enemy, Israel. Under its new dictator, Bashar Assad, Syria has quietly co-operated with the Americans in their fight against
terrorism.
More to the point, Syria is not a major oil producer. The U.S. energy department estimates that Syria will become a net oil importer
within 10 years.
Still, the regime in Washington is deliberately beating the drums. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell
and President George W. Bush, himself, accuse Syria of various sins.
Even the old chemical weapons wheeze is being dragged out. The reason that no so-called weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, the U.S. now says, is that they've all been moved to Syria.
Bush is not yet committing himself to another war. But he has not exactly ruled the idea out either, saying only that "We expect Syria to
co-operate" - the same formulation he used in the initial lead-up to his attack on Iraq.
A U.S. invasion of Syria would discomfit the British. Even Israel's Ariel Sharon seems nonplussed by the idea and, as the Star's Olivia
Ward reported yesterday, would prefer that Bush focus on Iran, Libya or Saudi Arabia.
Still, the idea of finishing off another Arab regime must be appealing to the president - particularly if it could be done easily.
Politically, war is good to Bush. He knows his father lost re-election because he allowed the first Gulf War to end too quickly, thus
allowing voters to focus on other issues such as the economy.
The younger Bush does not wish to make that mistake. With the 2004 presidential election campaign about to begin and the U.S.
economy slowing, he will find it tempting to keep the war - any war - going.
Bush already has an extraordinary carte blanche from Congress to invade just about any country he chooses. And he is endowed with a
frightening moral certainty that allows him to believe that whatever he thinks - or thinks he thinks - must be correct.
He has already labelled Iran as one of the three links, along with Iraq and North Korea, is his "axis of evil."
Practically, however, Iran is a difficult nut to crack. It's a big country (66 million compared with Iraq's 24 million) and - as the 10-year
Iran-Iraq war demonstrated - is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands in order to beat off foreign invaders.
Its Shiite mullahs, who wield ultimate authority, can count on a religious loyalty that Iraq's Saddam Hussein could never muster. As well,
the elected government in Tehran is relatively democratic and has the support of those Iranians distressed by the theocratic excesses of
the mullahs.
Yet if Bush has to wait to take on Iran, what can he do in the meantime? What war can he undertake that will be sufficiently easy, high
profile and explicable to carry him to a second term?
Certainly, Iraq can no longer fit the bill. The flashy part is over. As the British discovered in Northern Ireland, troops welcomed as
liberators are soon reviled as oppressors.
But with no viable domestic force capable of restoring order, the U.S. may not be able to get out of Iraq before the presidential election
cycle begins in earnest back home. Televised images of U.S. troops trying to contain the mayhem of a destroyed country will not play in
the president's favour.
Better to keep the electorate distracted. And what better distraction is there than another war?
This is where the advantages of attacking Syria come into play. Unlike North Korea, it has no nuclear weapons to defend itself. Besides,
U.S. troops are already next door.
The American public is still primed for war. U.S. casualties in the Iraq campaign have been just about right - enough to make the war
seem serious but not so many as to reduce popular appetite for carnage.
So why not Syria? The "liberation" of Damascus should play well on television. After all, Syria has a Baath party government, too (albeit
one that is hostile to Saddam's Baath party - but who cares about the details?).
If Assad isn't hiding Saddam's henchmen and chemical weapons, he's probably hiding something.
Besides, they're all Muslims. And they all have those moustaches.
thestar.com
Thomas Walkom's column appears on Tuesday. He can be reached at twalkom@thestar.ca.
Additional articles by Thomas Walkom |
