So diplomacy *can* succeed. After 29 years.

Noted.

Diplomacy backed by 135,000 of the best troops in the history of the world works? Who knew?

Of course the 27 years without ground forces in Army strength were needed to prepare the conditions. The two years of steadily destroying Syria's irregular forces should be ignored...that had no effect on the diplomatic outcome.

And that whole Ukranian thing, purely coincidence...

And when 1/3 of the country showed up for a protest rally, just youthful high spirits with no results...

It was all about diplomacy...

Let us hope that Lebanon is a viable state. I have a nasty suspicion the Syrians will be back, and welcomed.

Sounds as if I missed something. What happened?

...there were 135,000 Spartans in Lebanon?

Syria is supplying most of the insurgency in Iraq with weapons, training, and money. They are also providing a substantial number of terrorists. Since our troops have been doing a very good job of capturing and killing the terrorists, much of Syria's capacity for "wet work" has been eliminated.

Since the providers of bloody handed murderer earned their power in Syria based on their ability to deliver mayhem, the diminishment of their capacity has diminished their power.

Today's US forces are much more capable than anybody else in history. Not to take anything from the glory of 200 Spartans, but they never had to fight an insurgency with political concerns like respecting local culture. While Lysander's fellows died exceptionally well, they had a limited mission for a limited duration.

Holding it together for years at a time over changing conditions with extreme limitations on the use of force is hard. Staying alive is hard.

So you're saying that Syria is not a terror supporting state? Or perhaps you're saying that our Marines who engaged in pitched battles with insurgents at border posts over the last two years are liars? Or are the troops who captured Syrian nationals in Fallujah fabricating evidence?

When the military relates facts that you find uncomfortable, just ignore them?


[Edited on Apr 26, 2005 4:25PM]

You got any stats to back that up, or are we putting that in the long list of hyped up assurances of mythical progress? Are these Syrian fighters the same guys who are hiding all of Saddam's WMD?

Assuming that is true, what has the situation in Iraq to do with the position in Lebanon? I'm still missing a link here.

To me, this seems like a clear case for the concept of evolution and natural selection. Now that I've pissed off every Creationist, just let me explain.

Lebanese opposed to Syrian rule have finally been able to band together to form a political force that was arguably instrumental in the Syrian decision to withdrawal.

Now let's move over to Iraq, where internal pressure wasn't strong enough to oust Saddam Hussein from power. After we went in guns blazing, we discovered to our horror that it's pretty damn hard to set up a democracy in a country whose people don't seem to be all that fond of it as a whole.

What I'm getting it is that real democracy must come from within, when a people are truly unified enough to embrace it. The Lebanese have evolved to the point where they were able to band together to force the Syrians to withdrawal, whereas a sufficient number of Iraqis haven't yet seemed to embrace this concept yet (as evidenced by the insurgency that, I think I can safely say, is a little bit more than a few "disgruntled thugs").

Real democracy comes from within; bringing it to a country like Iraq with bombs more often than not yields the kind of response we're seeing now. Just read British or French colonial history to see how countries with histories as ancient as Iraq's tend to respond to foreigners coming in and saying "Try our way of life."

Iraq is Syria's back door and was a fellow Ba'athist state. While Iraq was in the Hussein crime family's control, there was no chance of a successful invasion of the land-locked Syria. Now that Syria has to protect hundreds of miles of border with a military developed to protect itself along a short border on the other side of the country, their capacity to effectively project power in Lebanon is severely compromised. Without the acceptance of the Lebanese people, Syria no longer can maintain control of Lebanon.

Additionally, Syria operated on what was called Hama rules, based on their willingness to commit atrocity without blinking. Exporting all their best atrocity committing stooges across the border to drive America out of Iraq and restore genocidal fascist rule has tapped Syria's ability to impose Hama rules. This problem was exacerbated by the limited return on their murder investment, since US forces have left dead Syrian and Syrian-trained stooges buried around the Sunni triangle.

A lot of Syria's problems are inherent in long term dictatorships. Where democracies are forced to reinvent themselves all the time, dictatorships are forced to commit to a limited ideas and enshrine them, no matter how bad the ideas are. Syria's control of Lebanon was predicated on the notion that their Eastern frontier was secure, and that no longer pertains. Additionally, their control was based on their ability to destroy any dissenters with murderous atrocities, and they are fully engaged in doing that in Iraq.

Geography plays a huge part in all this as well. I suspect that since Syria just lost control of friendly ports, their resupply of heavy weaponry just became problematic as well. It looks like being a murderous dictator in Syria just became a lot harder and try as I might, I just can't shed any tears over that development.

More Here. Hard evidence is lacking because Syria's intelligence/terror apparatus is both evil and competant. Got to give the devils their due.

s5,

We're not going to have a civil conversation playing gotcha games. You're welcome to maintain your "Bush Lied, It Doesn't Matter that I Ignore Genocides" stance as long as you want. I suspect it will get you crushed in 2006 and 2008, but you go wild.