Towards A Good Samaritan World

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

HALF-SERIOUS SUGGESTION

Iraq the Model:

Dialogue: Their way...

Lebanese industry minister Pierre Gemayel was assassinated a few hours ago this afternoon…

Prime ministers, MPs and journalists; all are targets for terrorist regimes if they dare show their opposition to Damascus or Tehran.

The message is clear and loud, I just wonder how many more messages do we need before the world realizes that these murderous regimes are not so much into dialogue?

I accuse Syria of being behind this crime. Syria thinks that just because they made a "friendly" gesture towards Iraq yesterday they would have the right to unleash their dogs in Lebanon today.

That's their definition for dialogue.

These regimes and their allied gangs will not stop their crimes; they will do anything they can to stop the movement of democratic changes and reform in the region and to keep their despotic, dark age regimes in power.


Why don't we split the difference? If we talk to both Iran and Syria we just look weak. So how about a mix of diplomacy and liberation?

We'll tell the Iranians they can go ahead and build their nukes as far as we're concerned. (Let the rest of the world take the lead in stopping them if they're so tired of American leadership. We can't stop the Iranians from going nuclear by ourselves anyway; if you can't beat them, join them!) In return for our endorsement of their nuclear ambitions, we'll demand their full cooperation in ensuring that the transition to Shia dominance in Iraq takes place in as peaceful and liberal manner as possible.

Meanwhile, overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. No nation-building this time, just knock out the regime and get out. Call it Bushian democracy-promotion or a Nixonian quest for "credibility," as you prefer.

UPDATE: The political murders in Lebanon can be the "international" case for war against Syria, as WMDs were the international case for the war in Iraq. We can push them harder than anyone wants them to and make the world mad, fine; but there's no harm in posing as the UN's enforcer, since the UN has so much unfinished, and by its own normal processes unfinishable, business, and such vague rules, that you don't even have to be hypocritical. (Did we have international law on our side going into Iraq? You bet! The guy didn't cooperate with the sanctions!)

UPDATE: Nato thinks my suggestion is crazy. But maybe I was just trying to build momentum in the blogosphere for a regime-change-in-Syria movement in order to build the US's credibility, so that Assad will get spooked and try to make a separate deal with us before we make a separate deal with Iran... ;)

4 Comments:

  • I was thinking "He can't be serious." Then I saw the title, and was (half) relieved.

    By Blogger Nato, at 3:17 PM  

  • Thinking outside the box here...

    By Blogger Lancelot, at 3:36 PM  

  • Between Syria and Iran, Iran might actually be a less dangerous choice to decapitate, though both are very poor. Syria, having been dominated by ostensibly secular Allawite Baathists for decades, would be easy to knock out because of the massive discontent with minority authoritarian rule. Those discontented, however, are generally Islamists at best and Takfiris at worst. They would be at least as hostile, but less reasonable and worldly. Dying in a thermonuclear fireball would hardly be a deterrent.

    Iran, on the other hand, would absolutely hate us , but its state would likely hold together as its people rallied around what was left of their leadership. That the US attacked would provide a leverage for all sorts of economic concessions from the international community (especially our enemies) but seems unlikely to isolate them from worldly concerns that keep them from doing really crazy things.

    Corrupt as the ruling elite is, it responds to the normal things one expects people to care about, if in a self-serving way. True believers, on the other hand, are more interested in righteousness, and their earnestness and incorruptibility gets them popular support. And, of course, allows them to choose righteous battles against the Great Satan that they know no one on earth will win.

    By Blogger Nato, at 4:51 PM  

  • I know that your suggestion isn't intended to be like that and my previous response is overserious and pretty heavy-handed. Pardon my complete lack of a sense of humor about Iraq, Afghanistan and etc. Not intentional or personal at all, and a thing that's been getting me in trouble in social situations lately, though no blow up yet.

    By Blogger Nato, at 6:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home