Asymmetrical Information

Maybe Assad (looks like it's also spelled Asad) figures that the US won't get around to taking him out or won't have the guts or whatever, and he's going for the PR boost in the Arab world, in the meantime. Maybe the usual delusional thinking that dictators engage in is helping him in this direction.

Certainly, all the Euro whining about the UN might fool him into thinking that we'd worry about world approval before attacking Syria (and in fact, we just might not attack for this reason).

Democracy and Lebanon both immediately come to mind. Democracy in that Syria is anything but. Lebanon is for all intense and purposes a protectorate (dominated by the Syrians) of Syria. If the US is successful in introducing democracy into Iraq (and that is still a big if) and exits, it will be interesting to see how Syria justifies the hisorical treatment of its own people as well as the Lebanese.

I've been thinking about the same thing.

My only guess is that the Syrians are either as delusional as Saddam in believing themselves invulnerable to the hammer-drop - what Brent mentioned - or that they're actually confident in the "Arab street" or terrorist organizations being stoked into action.

Or maybe it's a classic "cry for help"! ;-) We ought to send a family psychologist attachment with each strike division hypothetically liberating Damascus.

Maybe Assad feels immune as he has friends in high places - Tony Blair. Assad studied medicine in England, Tony Blair visited him in Syria, and Assad returned the visit, to London.
As Arthur Silber noted here: http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P511_0_1_0

Britain has supplied Syria with chemicals that could be used to make weapons. (At the same time Britain is boycotting supply of military related materials to Israel, citing their aversion to supplying "zones of conflict").

So maybe there is some relationship between Blair and Assad like there is between Chirac and Saddam, whom Chirac knew personnaly (and liked ? ).

Anyhow - the question about Assad, like the former one about Chirac stems from the premise that heads of state act rationally.
Wrong, in both cases.

At the risk of being thought simplistic, isn't it kind of obvious? They hate us, they don't want us occupying the Middle East, and they think they can kick us out eventually.

Why did the Vietcong keep fighting us even though our military was obviously far superior to North Vietnam's? Because they figured if they kept it up long enough, we'd get tired and leave. The Syrians and the rest of the Arabs probably feel about the same way.

And they might be right. Time will tell.

But trying to kick us out while we have an army moving and shooting -- and still growing -- next door is stupid. If they pick a fight with us now we can just keep on rolling to Damascus. If they waited until after the Iraq campaign is over and the troops are being withdrawn they might have a chance. Encourage random sniping and bombing of occupation forces so we hand control over to Iraqis as fast as possible.

Of course the Vietcong got wiped out in 1968, because they misjudged their strength relative to the US Army; I suppose the Syrians could make the same mistake.

My guess is that they define "winning" differently. "Winning" to them does not require that we actually lose the war in Iraq, only that our inevitable victory be as slow, as painful, and ultimately, as pyrrhic as possible. The more difficult the war in Iraq is for us, the less likely we are to go after Syria next.

The answer is simple: Syria has to live with Iraq long after we're gone. Its a bet that based on recent history, Saddam or a similar tyrant will probably be in power after the Americans leave. The Syrians bet on the Americans in 1991 and they had 12 more years of Saddam afterword.

This isn't to let Syria off the hook however. These are guys who really have only one foreign policy item: get rid of Israel. If they turn on Iraq they risk losing participation in the broader alliance with Egypt and the other protagonists in their fight against "the Zionist Plot."

Ultimately, what I think is going on is that Syria is merely protecting its investment in Iraq's WMD development. You don't think Saddam did this all by himself do you? It simply wouldn't be consistent with his desire to unite the middle east if he didn't take investments from his neighbors to develop WMD which he would later share with them to crush Israel.

Somewhere, deep in the deepest of bunkers in Baghdad is the proof -- that Saddam controls the worst of all slush funds: a grand cache of money designed to fund all sorts of terror ($1B is reputed to have been spent on Arafat's Intifada) ...Saddam controls the resources and development, but the money comes from all corners of the middle east.

Hey, if anything else at least it would make a good movie plot.

Following up Kevin Drum and expanding on my own comment about France... I do not think that they have a full appreciation of either the might or the will of the United States (and Great Britain). Yes, they are fully aware that we could "glass em" (drop a nuke in the sand), but just like Iraq, they are not aware that we can actually muster the converntional force to invade and topple their government with relatively modest collateral damage.

However, I do think Syria is exploiting our patience. See Colin Powell's comments in a German press conference today. These were reported on the Command Post.

-Brad

The Baath Party of Syria cannot survive if the Baath Party of Iraq is destroyed and Iraq is subsequently ruled with consent of the governed. Therefore, the Syrian Baathists must try any available means to sabotage a successful transformation of Iraq. They are currently, in all likelihood, fumbling around, to some extent, for a means to do so. They probably have been a little suprised at the rapidity of the military camapign and are just now coming to the realization that they can't prevent Hussein's removal. However, they could do much to sow unrest in post war Iraq, and given that an orderly Iraq would be death to Baathism everywhere, they don't see any choice.

It will be interesting, down the road, to contrast the behavior of Syrian Baathists with the tyrants of Iran. As bad as the Persian Mullahs are, they don't quite have the ideological commitment to instituting mass terror as the Baathists do. To my knowledge, the Mullahs haven't murdered every inhabitant of a village, which has been a common Baathist tactic in both Syria and Iraq. Lacking such a commitment to mass terror, the Mullahs are far more vulnerable to popular unrest,which may affect their willingness to involve themseleves in Iraqi adventurism.

The Vietnam analogy is inapt, for several reasons, like the lack of competing superpower sponsorship, combined with a lack of contiguous border with another hostile foreign power largely immune to U.S. pressure, like China. Also, compared to 40 years ago, the U.S. is far more sophisticated in dealing with hostile assymetrical enemies which desire to inflict a thousand tiny, painful, cuts, and thereby cause the U.S. to withdraw. It won't take 6 years to institute a Phoenix program if the Baathists try to run a guerrilla war; in fact I read a report today that covert American forces have been assasinating Baathists for the past 3 weeks. This will continue, until the Baathists are as shattered as the Viet Cong was by 1969, which unfortunately, occurred 5 years later than it should have.

A difficult struggle lies ahead, which will also entail taking up, once again, the intractable Israel/Palestinian conflict. Driving a stake through the heart of Baathism, and then dismembering the body, however, is a positive first step in attempting to address that conflict. It gives the U.S. more freedom of action in dealing with the most extreme elements in Israel, and it helps that part of Palestinian society that wants to govern themselves by legitimate means. Nothing's guaranteed, but given how awful the status quo was three weeks ago, sending the Baathists to hell was worth the risk.

There's also the possibility that these particular Syrians are...shall we say...difficult Syrians? I.e., as Ninotchka would have put it: "There will be fewer Syrians, but better Syrians".

Michael Ledeen's book "The War Against the Terror Masters" explains Syria's mindset quite well.

There are reports that S.Hussein's WMD are being moved to Syria. If the Iraqi Mujahadeen and Baathists are leaving the country, Syria is where they would go. Perhaps Syria (through the guise of jihadist fighters) are trying to infiltrate agents into the country to try to eventually establish connections with other Baathists to move additional WMDs or manufacturing information to Syria in 1) the current confusion of war, or 2) after things have settled down abit. Maybe they want to get this stuff before the US or Iran does.

So can I make fun of the French yet?

When trying to figure out the motivations of a dictator always keep the following thought in mind. Dictators do one thing - they stay in power. It is what they do, it's ALL they do. It is their reason for existence.

First off it is clear that Assad does NOT think Syria is next, and he is probably right. So pissing off the U.S. (as long as he doesn't go too far) is not a big deal at all - it does not threaten his hold on power.

A dictator's biggest threat is almost always an uprising from the population or a coup from his inner circle. Analyzing both of these threats Assad is doing exactly the "right" thing. Opposing the U.S. pleases the militants (the people who would be the most motivated to take action against him - keeping your populations anger focused on others is the first rule in the dictator's play book).

Even more important, it is critical that the dictator not look weak. A show of weakness gets people thinking that the dictator may be vulnerable. It is important for Assad's survival that he not simply roll over and play dead when the Baath party in a neighboring country is overthrown by violent means. Even if it is only cosmetic he must be seen to be doing something - anything is better than nothing.

One of the understated benefits of a democracy combined with freedom of information is that your nation is smarter than the highest decisionmaker. The populace itself acts as sort of sentient, living supercomputer, in which the super-smart come up with ideas, debate and improve, and the rest of the populace considers, debates, accepts and rejects ideas. (not to say the process doesn't go the other way, too) Sure, there are separate channels for liberals and conservatives (and even finer gradations) to develop their ideas, but my point is that we ALL truly do have a hand in the decision-making of our nation. Not a direct hand, to be sure.
But in Syria, as in France, the decisions are made by the leaders with little or no input from the masses. Indeed, there is often an obvious contempt for what the masses think by the leaders of nations such as France.
Therefore, it is easier for a misapprehension or miscalculation to take root in the mind of a leader like Assad or Chirac.
I'm not actually explaining this very well. Steven Den Beste says it better in his explanation of signal vs. noise essay in relation to democracy.
Just another reason why the US has risen to the top and stayed there.

"A difficult struggle lies ahead, which will also entail taking up, once again, the intractable Israel/Palestinian conflict. Driving a stake through the heart of Baathism, and then dismembering the body, however, is a positive first step in attempting to address that conflict."

Well said, Will: however, I have noticed that so far, in the course of the Iraq war, Israeli/Palestinian issues have been quite below the radar as far, at least, as US media are reporting. Most of what we have been seeing both on TV and in print, has concentrated virtually exclusively on the course of combat on the road up to, and into Baghdad. "Political" issues taken up by the media seem to deal only with post-war Iraq: Israeli/Palestinian issues have entered the discussion only sporadically, and have been viewed (at least by the CNN/MSNBC/FoxNews crowd), when at all, as a peripheral affair.
Yet, for most of the world outside the US, and especially in the Middle East, Israel/Palestine is THE main issue in world and regional politics -an issue which the Bush Administration has, so far, shown little if any serious interest in resolving, or even trying to resolve, or even trying to be seen to try to resolve. Short of the announcement last week of Dubya's take-it-or-leave-it "road map" plan (whatever happened to that, anyway?), this Administration seems to be content to abdicate any role in the Palestinian Question to Ariel Sharon - and, and typical for the Bushies, ignore, dismiss or disparage any input from any outside nation or organization (UN, EU) unless it agrees with their preconceived policies; as we have seen in the "diplomatic" fiasco which was the run-up to the war in Iraq.
The destruction of Baathist Iraq is certainly a positive thing in and of itself, but given the realities on the ground in the Middle East, your comment that this victory will
" ...give the U.S. more freedom of action in dealing with the most extreme elements in Israel, and (help) that part of Palestinian society that wants to govern themselves by legitimate means" is certainly a fine sentiment, and one which I deeply deeply hope can be made to influence US policy in the region. However, given the track record of our government recently,a "hope" is about this will remain, as no one on our side, anyway, seems be making any effort to translate this "hope" into a "plan"
It certainly does not help matters that for the Palestinians, those who want to "govern themselves by legitimate means" (by which I am guessing you mean reasonably democratic and/or non-violent) seem to be, from all accounts, a small and relatively powerless fringe. In Israel, though those "extreme elements" (presumably the more fanatic of the removalists) are not just a fringe, but a significant percentage of the population and the electorate, who have a great deal of leverage over the government's policies. There are, of course, many who consider the Sharon Government itself an "extreme element" - especially in Israel.
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict may indeed be "intractable", but it is not impossible to devise some sort of solution which, however much it pisses off one side or another, could halt, or at least suspend, the chronic cycle of violence and bloodshed that both side have had to live with for far too long. Unfortunately, apart from the too-easy task of demonizing and marginalizing Yasser Arafat, Bush 43 has seemingly abandoned US policy of any hands-on involvement in the "peace process" - flawed though it may be, it is certainly better than no process at all.

There is no sense in engaging in a "process" until there is a chance for success. This is why the Clinton Administration's efforts were doomed to failure, and were in some respects counter-productive. Arafat needs to be marginalized because his primary political objective is to kill Jews. If the majority of Palestinians share this objective, which may be the case, then there isn't anything the U.S. can do to foster a solution. On the chance that most Palestinians don't share this objective, the U.S. should take all measures that allow the Palestinians to choose their leaders, and should do anything it can to influence Israel to withdraw from the settlements, since the settlements add nothing to Israeli security.

Frankly, if we have some political success in Iraq (still an open question) I would favor the immediate suspension of all aid to Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinians; all the more to direct to Iraqi reconstruction. If Mubarak wants to run a hereditary authoritarian government, and Sharon want to continue a land-grab, and the PA wants to continue their regime of tyranny and murder, they can do it without our assistance, while we aid those who govern themsleves by legitimate means.

I make no predictions of what the Bush Administration will do if they have political success in Iraq, because such an universe will be completely new, and will foster all sorts of new approaches. Remember, Wolfowitz was recently jeered at a pro-Israel rally when he spoke of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.

And then there are the reports that Syria was an arms conduit between Iraq and Russia -- among other things brokering some 500 laser guided anti-tank missiles to Iraq last year.

Lovely answers, every one. All one has to do is think back to any slightly complex policy development in the US (which we know better than policy thinking in Syria, and so are less surprised that it can involve complexity and unanticipated factors) to know that Syria's reasons for doing things can be complex. Asad's decision cannot be simple, because risk lies in any direction. He rules only partly through consent, with a big dose of coersion, so domestic threats are very real. His neighbors, value him, fear him, wish him gone, and will him to stay. We threaten him, but we are not the only threat. If we were, his behavior would have been different all the way along. In the same way as with the France question, thinking of Syria's motivation from a mostly US perspective is unlikely to give a good answer. Each of the answers here which attempt to address the question (Down, Kate!) probably reveals a bit of the complexity. Surely, we have all missed some of it.

I think various posts explain aspects of it.
I'd like to add one more possibility.

Syria and Iraq have been rivals for dominance in SE Asia. The pan-Arabist Ba'athism, IIRC, divided into Syrian and Iraqi branches because of this.

Hence the Syrian participation in the Gulf War. Assad's regime had no wish to see Iraq absorb Kuwait, dominate Arabia, and expand its military power.

Now, with Iraq no threat, Syria can forge links with Sunni/Ba'athist elements. If Iraq falls apart, they may scoop up the Sunni Arab north. Maybe even the Shia south as well, later.

Syria also has had ambitions of a "Greater Syria" incorporating Lebanon, Jordan, maybe Palestine, and ultimately Israel too.
Building up a credibility with anti-American elements, may help politically, especially in Jordan.
Ideally, political and power advantages could reinforce each other. Dominance or rule of Syria over (at least) all Arabs east of Sinai might be realisable.
Thus the dreams of tyrants?

The Syrians may be simply counting on us not wanting another war so soon - and they are scoring a PR victory among their own people as long as they can insult us and not get wiped out.

Or they may actually be thinking in terms of a Vietnam analogy. That means they forgot two important details:

The VC/NVA was successful because it had superpower sponsorship (has there ever been a revolutionary movement that was successful without foreign help?) and a refuge which was safe from American land forces, because of the possibility that the Russians would respond with nukes. What would the Syrians have? France and Germany threatening to speak severely to us. ;-)

Less important but still signicant, the Middle East does not have jungles. I know the Iraqi leadership has been saying something like "we'll make the cities our jungles", but it only works if they don't hurt us enough to be 1/100th as callous about civilian casualties as they are. In Vietnam, we never had the possibility of blasting the whole jungle down...

Another thing to take into account is that people in power in general, and dictators in particular don't always get the best information. If giving bad news to the Dear Leader means that you get to watch your son fed feet first into a plastic shredder and your wife & daughters brutally raped in front of you before you get doused in gasoline & burned alive, guess what? You aren't going to be giving the Dear Leader any bad news. And neither is anyone else, except for the US Marine Corporal in the commander's hatch of that M1A1 that just drove through the gate of the Presidential Palace.

Somehow, the French and Russian revolutions
suceeded without any outside help.

The Russian revolution received help from the Germans, both indirect (a war that pretty nearly eliminated the Tsar's military forces), and direct aid to Lenin. I'll give you the French revolution though - the US gave them an example (which they horribly misinterpreted) but no material aid. And there are also various coups which may have been called "revolutions", for instance 1688 in England - where one part of the ruling elite (Parliament) rather forcefully replaced another part, but with no fundamental change.

I think the French revolution also defines the minimum necessary conditions for a true revolution to succeed without help: a ruler who is unwilling or incompetent to resist.

Frank,

I'm not if your French revolution reference is comparing apples to apples - after all they WERE fighting the French!!

Oops, I forgot the word "sure"... I'm not "sure" if your...

Note to self: Preview, then Post!

Comments are Closed.