Post-War....Shifting Alliances

[TennesseeCarl]

The war in Iraq is really going to shuffle the deck, so to speak, in terms of global politics.

I guess we always knew where France stood, but Russia's assistance to Iraq (and there was a lot more than we knew about) is going to place a strain on relations with them.

Syria was always unfriendly, but now they may have painted a target on their own backs. As you've seen, Mr. Assad, the stakes to get into the game are rather high.

From the markings on the ammo crates found by our soldiers, I think we all know now where all that military aid we've sent Jordan over the years has gone. It's time for that crud to end.

We probably are edging a lot closer to Pakistan - their government has been mighty friendly, even if their citizens hate us.

It'll be interesting to see if the Bush Administration plays down the fact that Saudis have been entering Iraq to fight us (some have died). We're real critical of most of the nations helping Iraq ....except for our dear ally, Saudi Arabia.

I think we're on better terms with Iran than we've been in a long while.

While there have been a lot of nations critical of the U.S., as it is in football, victory is a great deoderant.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by TennesseeCarl

I think we're on better terms with Iran than we've been in a long while.

I agree, but any faith in them is dangerously ill-placed. Iran is only months away from having nuclear weapons. When that happens, we will be in big trouble. Israel even more so. Iran is far more supportive of terrorist organizations than any nation on earth. Much more so than Saddam was. It is well within the realm of possibility that they would slip a warhead or two into the hands of Hezbollah. Ironically, this becomes even more of a possibility if Israel were to make peace with the Palestinians. Iran opposes peace with Israel not on the grounds of the oppression of Palestinians, but rather theological grounds. They consider it blasphemous for infidels to be in control of the 3rd holiest site in Islam, Jerusalem (although as Shiites, it might be ranked 4th after Najaf). I really wish Sharon would bomb their reactor site and the enrichment facility before it's too late.

[NavyDave]

I'm starting to think we should do to Syria and Iran while we are there what Patton wasnt allowed to do when Russia was there for the conquering.

When it comes to terrorist fighting like soldiers or the almighty sailor they end up dead

We did in a little over three weeks what Iran couldnt do for 20 yrs.

Wonder what they and Syria think about that place the fact they have been placed on notice.

[The Sisko]

We'd probably be able to go through Syria like a hot knife through butter. Asad and I suppose his son after him, was/is like Saddam lite and are not exactly loved by the Syrian people. As for Iran, I think they'd be a much tougher nut to crack. We'd take a heck of a lot of casualties.

I don't think either scenario is very likely since our reputation in the eyes of the world does count for something. Also, this war was a tough sell at home as well....even with the WMD issue. Add to that the fact that we wouldn't have even the British as allies for any further missions and I think it means Asad can sleep comfortably for a while.

[fansince62]

let's hope all emphasis is placed on installing and buttressing the institutions of democracy (all the checks and balances) BEFORE an election is held. otherwise, I can easily envision a Shia Imam, very anti-American/Pro Iran, being elected. Democratic elections are nice, democratic institutions are better.

don't want to be back in Iraq fighting another war in 10 years.

[Riggo-toni]

Despite all the rhetoric, Syria really doesn't pose a threat at all. Unlike Iraq, they don't have the resources to finance a significant WMD program, and have never had much of an army. Assad may not be Mr. Popular, but he is not hated the way Saddam was. I doubt we would be viewed as liberators the way we are in Iraq. You don't hear about Syrian ex-patriates setting up an opposition in exile. I don't see Syria as being worth the political risk.

As for Iran, if we would just bomb their nuclear facilities the way the Israelis did in Iraq, I would feel a whole lot better.

[Romo]

I think Riggo is right about Syria. I remember when the old President died and his son was put in office there was actually a great deal of hope for progress in that country among both the people and the world community. It hasnt happened and it may never happen but there does not seem to be enough if any real reasons to attack Syria.

[Kilmer17]

If they are hiding Saddm et al; and/or they allowed them to hide their WMDs in Syrian soil, then we certainly do have a reason and a responsibility to attack them.

[redman]

Good topic.

The Syrians and N. Koreans are s****ing their pants right now because of what we've done in Iraq. The Iranians are being quite quiet and even cooperative too.

That said, I just don't see where we're going to invade Syria, however much saber rattling we'll do over chemical weapons and Iraqi Baath party leaders seeking refuge there. We'll hurt them economically. I don't have much optimism regarding their leader's reforms. It's awfully hard for a dictator to forsake absolute power in exchange for a democratization that would effectively leave him devoid of power. That could too easily appear to be weakness on his part, and lead to assasination or a coup.

Iran is at a crossroads. They have a democracy movement that is gathering force there, however, they're still run by the Shiite ayatollahs who are as conservative as ever. Right now, while our relations with them have been calm in recent weeks, we can regard our relationship with them at best as being useful. It certainly isn't warm.

As for N. Korea, the concession they made about our insistance about multilateral talks is nothing short of astounding. In several short weeks they went from aggressively "test-firing" ballistic missiles to agreeing to our terms, when we offered nothing and when we were distracted by a war halfway around the world from them. That's a great lesson in how you tend to get more of what you want when you deal from a position of strength.

[Riggo-toni]

Bashir Assad was actually educated in England - he has a degree in Opthamology. He is not quite the thug his Dad Hafez was; and Syria has, at least according to some news sources, provided us with significant intelligence on terrorist activities. Like Saudi Arabia, they are often playing both sides of the fence.

Still, invading them would be the same mistake that Israel made in invading Lebanon. Its people are not as educated, nor as moderate and secular as the Iraqis. We would not be able to go in there, set up democratic institutions, and leave at some point, as we hope (perhaps foolheartedly) to do in Iraq. You would be talking about a very long term occupation which would in fact invite more terrorism. The fact that so many Syrians are eager to go into Iraq to vainly fight US forces while Iraqis are welcoming the US presence en masse should give you some clue as to the perception of/attitude towards the US in Syria. The sight of Iraqis rejoicing at their liberation will go a long way towards changing Arab views of the US, and significantly more so if we can somehow facilitate the creation of a peaceful, democratic state. Invading Syria would simply reinforce Arab paranoia about American imperialism while accomplishing little.

[TennesseeCarl]

I'd agree that invading Syria has little merit. HOWEVER...look for a special ops action if and when we determine where the Iraqi leadership is lounging about.

While I'm generally pessimistic about anything connected with the Middle East, a seed has been planted throughout the Arab world that their media are liars. There are heady debates in most of the English-language press over there (perhaps not in the mainstream Arabic media) over true freedom of the press and the oppressive bias their news spews forth.

More than anything since the '67 War vs. Israel - even more than the Gulf War - the liberation of Iraq has got Arabs questioning some of their long-cherished beliefs. I believe there are even mutterings about free speech and free expression of religion (A side note - in one of the Arab netsites I've been visiting, they were justifying how progressive Saudi Arabia was - they now permit non-Muslims to observe their own spiritual ceremonies, so long as it's not done in public and doesn't offend decent Muslims).