In this case, arming the opposition is a different kettle of fish entirely than Libya or Syria. Right now, it would seem more like the old days of 2002-03 and the Iraqi National Congress. It is very unclear what the "opposition" is composed of and who, if anyone, is leading. I've read many reports from old Syria hands and Syrians themselves -- none of which are fans of Bashar -- that preach caution in arming the Free Syrian Army. Hopefully, people at State and the intelligence services are talking with Saudi intelligence and Lebanese vets about what the sunni community is doing in Syria and how much of what we're seeing is popular (Libya, Egypt) and how much is opportunistic provocation (dissidents, ex-pats). If supprting/arming the opposition in Libya and Egypt was criticised because we just didn't know for certain the makeup of said opposition and/or who was in the lead, Syria, at this stage in whatever is happening there, is a truer case than the others.

On Syria, we aren't calling plays from the Libya/Egypt playbook; we're working with the Iraq playbook. The problem is, Sec. Clinton and others don't seem to think that. The real danger here is Sec. Powell's pottery barn rule -- Syria, unlike other hotspots in the Arab Spring, could lure us in and then we'd have to own it if it isn't just another "leading from behind" soft regime change. Unless and until we know with any sort of confidence whether "the opposition" is popular or part of "the plot" (as Lebanese like to say), it would be Bushian (43) in its recklessness for the US to dip its toes inside Syria.

The fact is that both of the gentlemen advocate US intervention; one favours Diplomacy Heavy and the other Military Light. The ouster of Bashers unites them, however.

Spoeaking of Bashers, it is surely a gross over-simplification that if he'd stepped down a six month or so ago then today everything would be hunky-dory. There is an element of Family Feud because Uncle Rifaat and his descendance (currently sitting in London) and old-days Lebanon Adventure friends is still peeved that Hafez didn't anoint him. Ungrateful, seeing that Rifaat was a long-time enforcer at home and also in Lebanon. The only thing I can't figure out is what Onkel Rifaat and friends hope to gain. It'll take a great deal to persuade, say, the Ikhwan to do anything excet call for his head.

There has been a lot about the Alawite-Sunni divide. Sad to relate, a chum of Daddy's from early days, Gen Mustapha Tlas, is Sunni and his son is or was a rather wealthy chap; having people fear daddy's worse than the tax-man does help. So that was a long time ago but the ties that bind still need a lot to rupture.

The oddest thing about ML is that he believes that the US can guarantee the minorites that there'll be no settling of scores and the such. The man is clearly delusional if he believes that this is doable. The truth is first make a promise you can't keep and when the crap hits the fan point elsewhere with an innocent expression.

The aad fact is that US mucking about in Syria has a very long history involving multiple coups and generals put forward by the CIA being killed by the next CIA chum in line. Col Meade and his various adventures, y'know.

As you say, it's all about power. Refreshing to see that stated clearly. Haven't heard Madam Secretary say it, though. Not part of her eating diplomacy.

PS I wasn't aware of Onkel Rifaat's marital ties to the 'king' of the oily places.

From the NYTimes:

"Mr. McCain said the United States would not have to send weapons directly to the opposition but could work through “third-world countries” and the Arab League."

Why even bother with 3rd parties? If the US is to arm the rebels, why not do it directly (a horrible idea, btw) and cut out the indirect cutsy cloak and dagger stuff? Indeed, the rise of Islamic extremists is a byproduct of the US relying on intermediaries. One could argue the demands of the Cold War necessitated using villains like the Pakistani ISI, but is Syria so existentially crucial that the US should engage in similar risky behavior again, albeit on a smaller scale?

Is this an example of Cold War psychology still affecting our leaders or an inability to deal with the availability of information? Mustn't leave our fingerprints; plausible deniability and all that. Who are they kidding? Do they actually think that the bulk of the world's population is fooled by the US and its close allies' geopolitical fig leaves?

US backing would be a deciding factor in an Arab league-backed successful Sunni rebellion and the US would demand a place in a post-Assad Syria; that might even be part of the equation.

Perhaps it's no more complicated than DC is freaked out that a situation might occur anywhere that the US is not in charge of- geopolitical control freaks.

Quote: "Perhaps it's no more complicated than DC is freaked out that a situation might occur anywhere that the US is not in charge of- geopolitical control freaks."

Your sentiment is accurate, but politicians react to stimulus -- they have been treated to decades of Pavlovian shock therapy by the media and various pundits that when something regrettable happens, they have to "do something."

You know. For the children. etc.

CNN pictures of starving babies dragged us into Somalia.

Mystical threat of mass murder dragged us into Libya.

How long can politicians resist the pressure? And as more media members get killed in Syria, who doubts that the shrill demand for "action" will not increase?

It being an election year can't help. One hopes that the candidates don't get dragged into a rhetorical corner, being forced by media questions to defend/attack the administration's action/inaction. We could easily end up on the road to Damascus...which runs through Abilene.

If I see another goddamn Arab flash a peace sign I will lose it. It's bad enough that in the 60s the damn hippies stole the 'V for Victory' sign from Churchill!

Is this an example of Cold War psychology still affecting our leaders or an inability to deal with the availability of information? Mustn't leave our fingerprints; plausible deniability and all that. Who are they kidding? Do they babyblog actually think that the bulk of the world's population is fooled by the US and its close allies' geopolitical fig leaves?

Stay home ! Most Americans leave a pretty ugly footprint wherever we go, especially the legacy left by our military. Let's face it, people are better off resolving their own problems, and usually much quicker when it is their blood that's spilling..

"Is rio orange war always comparateur forfait inevitable ?"
MaximB