Damascus Road Experience

|

With parts of Baghdad still not fully under coalition control, members of the Bush administration are already calling for a Damascus Road trip, reports The Washington Post:

Conservatives within the Bush administration would like to see a change of government in Syria but want it to happen through peaceful means rather that U.S. military action, according to current and former senior U.S. officials.

On Sunday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said, "There's got to be a change in Syria," which has been accused by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of allowing war materials and Islamic fighters to cross its border to help the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "The Syrians need to know . . . they'll be held accountable," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

NEXT: The Two-Way Iraqi Street

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Syria is indeed next, while China puts the squeeze on North Korea. Who is next? Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia? Far better for these regimges to retire to tropical climates than to get bunker-busted.

    The Bush plan is working toward Machiavellian?perfection. The era of State-sponsored Terror is nearly over (thank goodness!)

  2. Depends on one’s definition of ‘state-sposored,’ I suppose. Also, this will not preclude lone actors of course.

  3. Lazarus Long,

    You are violating your own rule again. Don’t write about you are ignorant of.

  4. Easy, turbo.

  5. Steve,

    How exactly would the US topple the Syrian government without invading it? We talking about a coup d’etat, along the lines of returning the Shah to power? Ahhh, the hubris of empire.

  6. Gary, I don’t normally agree with you, but this is beginning to sound like a classic case of Victory Disease. Not good.

  7. Syria has a secular government that offers sanctuary to some terrorist organizations and is quite open about it. However, (as the article states) our intelligence community has a relationship with Syrian intel, because Al Qaeda has targeted the secular government in Damascus as well as the US.

    Though it would be obtuse to say that only Al Qaeda poses a threat to the US, the fact remains that the biggest and most recent terrorist attack on the US (and the only successful one on our soil) was perpetrated by Al Qaeda, NOT Hamas, NOT Islamic Jihad, NOT Hezbollah.

    So…can someone tell me why we would demand regime change in Syria, when they seem to be nominally helpful with our most serious enemy? (Our most serious enemy that we didn’t attack, anyway.)

  8. Today they are saying they want to do it peacefully. Tomorrow, if things don’t move fast enough, well…

  9. screw ’em! they’ll be better off for it, hehe /lascivious grin 😀

  10. Mark,

    and the peaceful means doesn’t get results within a fortnight the hawks will call it a diplomatic quagmire.

  11. Well, remember they are Baathists too. Maybe a little more cautious than Saddam was – but otherwise close ideological kin.

  12. Brian wants to know why we would demand regime change in Syria. Well, “We” wouldn’t unless the
    “Lets make the world safe for Arial Sharon” crowd,
    who have been advocating attacking Iraq for years, now have their way again. These neo-cons (the operative word here being “con” as they have demonstrated no compunctions at all with regard to using deceit, exaggeration and fear-mongering to persuade the U.S. government to willingly expend the lives and fortunes of its citizens in pursuit of the expansionist Likudnik dream of a “greater Israel”) did not lobby for the abandonment of the proscription against preemptive attack (a wise restraint for a free republic where property and liberty are among the paramount values) for reasons of principle. No, they did so because their quite sure that THEY know whats best for Israel. Syria is just the next domino. Two salient points: After 9/11 a number of the neocons actually attemted tortured arguments in advocacy of going after Iraq either before or even on lieu of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Also, Richard Perle, the chief “D.C. Likudnik” in 1970 while working for Democrat Sen. Scoop Jackson got caught on a federal wire tap sharing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy. If it seems that the prosecution of this
    war is sometimes being pursued with a religous fervor, then that observation is quite likely accurate.

  13. “in rick’s world, replace neocon with “jew” and it will all make sense”

    What an idiot comment! Gee; no reason to actually
    think about points of view if we simply ascribe
    malicious intent to those who post them.

    As Ayn Rand observed; Racism is the most primitive
    form of collectivism. It seems to me that just as its wrong to ever undertake an advocacy based on racial or ethnic bias it is also wrong to refrain from speaking ones mind out of fear of being wrongly accused of prejudice. It should also
    be pointed out that among the critics of the neo-cons hyper-interventionist positions are more then just a few Jews. Check out the libertarian oriented antiwar.com

  14. so what? you are still using “neo-con” as an abstraction. what the hell is a neocon really? — other than a codeword for “secret cabal” which is same tired cliche used by anti-semites. in your tiny mind isreal (which happens to be jewish) can do no right and is the cause of all evil. that is anti-semitism.

    and i would hardly consider anti-war.com as “libertarian” – crackpot, yes. reflexivly anti-american, yes. libetarian, no.

  15. “so what? you are still using “neo-con” as an abstraction. what the hell is a neocon really?” —
    other than a codeword for “secret cabal” which is same tired cliche used by anti-semites.”

    I Don’t think you know what an abstraction is. The term neo-con is common parlance. The neo-cons
    use the term in a self referential way. Your point is ridiculous.

    “in your tiny mind isreal (which happens to be jewish) can do no right and is the cause of all evil. that is anti-semitism.”

    If my mind was tiny yours would have to be sub-atomic. Although the Sharon regime has proved itself capable of great evil there is alot to like
    about Israeli civil (non-government) society – especially its secular components. For your edification (you need it) the sentiment you described could be characterized as anti-Israel but not anti-semetic. There are sects of Jews that are thouroughly anti-Israel.

    “and i would hardly consider anti-war.com as “libertarian” – crackpot, yes. reflexivly anti-american, yes. libetarian, no.”

    What?! anti-war.com is most certainly libertarian
    It was started by libertarians it features oodles of libertarian columnists. Reflexivly anti- American? No way! They often take issue with government policy but thats what libertarians tend
    to do isn’t it? And that is very Pro-American. I can only conclude that as with the word abstraction, you’re also are a little fuzzy about the word “crackpot.”

  16. name names then rick. and every single one must prove to have said they are neo-con.

    and notice then that you slam the non-secular companents of Isreal, the JEWISH componants.

    and the Sharon “regime” is still the only secular, represtative democratic liberal state in the mid-east. but they are jews, so you hate them.

    prove how many “sects” of jews are anti-Isreal

    funny but anti-war.com doesn’t take issue with Iraqi and other terror-state policies, only the “evil” US. that must also be pro-american. doesn’t it say in the constitution that you can blow someone up because they are jewish?

    for your edification: Rick Barton = crackpot

  17. OK,thats it. Im not going to continue this discourse with you any longer. Your too:

    “name names then rick. and every single one must prove to have said they are neo-con.”

    Illogical.

    and notice then that you slam the non-secular companents of Isreal, the JEWISH componants.

    Uninformed

    “and the Sharon “regime” is still the only secular, represtative democratic liberal state in the mid-east. but they are jews, so you hate them.”

    Unfair. You should be ashamed of your self for saying that.

    “prove how many “sects” of jews are anti-Isreal”

    Intellectually lazy. You have the internet. Use it

    “funny but anti-war.com doesn’t take issue with Iraqi and other terror-state policies, only the “evil” US. that must also be pro-american. doesn’t it say in the constitution that you can blow someone up because they are jewish?”

    Incohherent.

  18. Syria will not be invaded for one simple reason — it has little to no oil, and no way to pay for rebuilding the country ..

    Meanwhile, I have to agree. Hamas, Hezbollah, the terrorists in Kashmir are not direct enemies of the US. Al Qaeda is an enemy. The enemy of hamas and Hezbollah is Israel, that of the separatists in Kashmir is India, not the US. They do not directly threaten the uS. Even Hezbollah, the only one to have directly attacked the US has not done for for nearly 2 decades, and that was in Lebanon (not in the US) and it was military, not civilian. Don’t mistake me — these are all poisonous organizations, but the US has no reason to do Israel or India’s work for them (although one notes that US supports Pakistan, sponsor of the Kashmir terrorists).

  19. rick continues to dodge…you are full of it…

    “Illogical”

    not an answer

    “Uninformed”

    not an answer

    “Intellectually lazy. You have the internet. Use it”

    you are intellectually lazy for posting facts without citation

    “Unfair. You should be ashamed of your self for saying that.”

    not an answer and I hit close to home there

    “Incohherent”

    not an answer

    rick, please prove you are not simply another dogmatic anti-semite idiotarian

  20. Gary: I thought you said Battle of Bagdad = Stalingrad? That our supply lines were too long?

    Maybe you should have taken my advice? 😉

  21. in rick’s world, replace neocon with “jew” and it will all make sense

  22. Oh thank goodness for the last post! Before I heard it denounced as racist, I was actually going to have to think about Rick Barton’s ideas.

    One sheep…two sheep…zzzzzzz

  23. I don’t think Wolfowitz called for regime change. I think he said “some change”.

    Simply denying safe harbor to Hezbollah and Hamas is probably what Wolfowitz is talking about. Assad is no fool.

    And that stuff about making the world safe for Arial Sharon – that’s a pile of crap. If we really cared about Israel, we would have taken out the Saudis first, then the Iranians.

  24. Omnibus – Don’t worry about it, bud, we’re going to do the Saudis soon enough. One at a time.

    “If we really cared about Israel…” heh. Oh we care.

  25. The only person dodging here is the anonymous poster, whose singular argument is the use of the anti-semite card.

  26. Lazarus Long,

    I stand by my assessment of the potential for problems. I don’t claim the sort of certitudes you do.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.