Is US planning an Iraq-style 'regime change' in Syria?

[sabra]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1109/dailyUpdate.html

Is US planning an Iraq-style 'regime change' in Syria?

A new intelligence report, however, says any successor to Assad's regime won't be any friendlier to US.

While publicly Bush administration officials say they just want to see a "change in behavior" from Syria, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday that some of these officials are saying privately that there is an active debate about whether "regime change" (the use of military force to remove the current Syrian administration) should be a US goal. The discussions come as the US has decided to cut off nearly all contact with the Syria, in an effort to "weaken and isolate" President Bashir Assad's government.
Syrian officials say that they have made progress on many US demands, including stepping up patrols along the Iraq border. They also claim that "powerful neoconservative policymakers in Washington have long hoped to topple their government in a bid to transform the Middle East."

William Arkin, who writes about national and homeland security for The Washington Post, wrote that even before last Monday's vote at the United Nations, where the UN Security Council demanded that Syria support "fully and unconditionally" the investigation into the February assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri, the US had upgraded its plans for possible military action against Syria. Mr. Arkin writes that internal intelligence documents and conversations with military officers involved in the planning show that US Central Command was directed last year to prepare a "strategic concept" for Syria, "the first step in creation of a full fledged war plan. "


In some ways, military officers involved in the high-level planning efforts say Syria has eclipsed Iran in CENTCOM's play book as much because of practicality as imminent threat. Iran is four times larger than Iraq with three times the population. Syria is in a difficult geographic position, especially with US bases and forces in Iraq and its proximity to US military strength in the Mediterranean. US forces have also been operating along the Syrian border since early 2003, and there have been numerous reports of clashes between US and Syrian forces on Syrian soil, as well as reports of US special operations forces operating inside Syria on select missions.

Though Syria's possession of WMD was the early justification for contingency planning for the country – even for American nuclear weapons planning – I imagine that in light of the Iraq intelligence failure and the current scandals, the administration would now have an impossible time selling WMD charges to the international community. But now all of the pieces could easily fall into place without even any mention of WMD. Political genius Karl Rove would be proud.

[hadrons]

1. "Syria has eclipsed Iran in CENTCOM's play book as much because of ...."

national "threats" are being judged on how easy it is to beat them :eyes: ...

[sabra]

3. ding ding ding

aint that scary?

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. In the mean time, they can't even keep a super secret gulag

a secret. If things had gone "well" in Iraq, you can bet that we would have already invaded Syria and Iran.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. They'd be better off going after mighty Grenada again.

Since the "World's Mightiest Military" has got itself confined to well fortified bases in Iraq surrounded by enemies, they really should try a reality check and stick to grandiose ideas that have some chance of success. Maybe they could join with NATO and go after super dangerous Andorra or Lichtenstein. Strawberry Point, Iowa?