As panicky U.S. negotiators raced this week to save the endangered Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, they faced a major new issue: Who would be calling the shots in Pyongyang when the breathless American diplomats arrived? Kim Jong Il's absence from the North's recent 60th-birthday celebration unleashed a world-wide torrent of speculation and rumors about his failing health. In both Washington and Pyongyang, voices have been raised essentially arguing that a regime crisis is the last thing we should want. But is the stability of an internationally criminal, cruelly dictatorial, nuclear-weapons-equipped North Korea really something we should value above all conceivable alternatives?
Nightmare predictions of loose nukes, an out-of-control North Korean military, a tsunami of refugees and the prospect that the South might have to absorb over 20 million impoverished new citizens are keeping some awake at night. Unquestionably, a Pyongyang regime crisis carries huge risks and challenges. But let's keep our eyes on the prize. There may be a precious opportunity in the midst of potential disaster to reunite the Korean Peninsula under democratic rule, or at least bring this objective closer. A regime crisis in Pyongyang poses two main challenges: (1) the military and nuclear threat on the Peninsula and more broadly; and (2) the humanitarian and economic consequences of the North's collapse, both the immediate risk of massive refugee flows and the long-term economic impact of reunification. These two challenges actually pose very similar choices for U.S. and South Korean leaders today.
First, there is no doubt that North Korea's nuclear arsenal must not be allowed to fall into the wrong hands, outside or inside the country, nor should the North's chemical and biological weapons be made operational. The U.S.-South Korean Combined Forces Command (CFC) has contingency plans for these circumstances, drawn with the full realization that rapid implementation in a period of high uncertainty may mean the difference between securing the North's weapons of mass destruction and seeing them used in chaotic and deadly ways. Despite contrary speculation, there is no motivation for North Korea's generals to attack South Korea. They are far more likely to engage in an internal power struggle, which is where the most destructive weapons would be used, and why we must act rapidly to secure them. If things really come unglued, the generals' main preoccupation may well be simply getting out of Dodge -- an objective we should be happy to facilitate.
Critical here is that Beijing be told clearly that any military action across the DMZ is intended only to deal with the regime crisis, and is in no way aimed at China. Indeed, to the extent Beijing has information about, say, the location of the North's nuclear weapons, it would clearly be in China's interest to share that information. Not only would a decisive CFC operation minimize the chances for loose nukes or warlord-minded generals, it could also dramatically help reassure the North Korean population that they could stay in their homes, and prevent massive refugee flows into China. That, in turn, could eliminate any thoughts Beijing might have about its own intervention to keep North Koreans from flowing across the Yalu River.
Second, whatever the CFC is able to do, there is little doubt we must plan for urgent humanitarian needs in the North. The scale and expense of the response required to forestall tragedy in these circumstances could be staggering -- but today such an international response is not only feasible, but potentially quite manageable. Key to this assessment is the critical geographical fact that North Korea is adjacent to South Korea, an affluent democracy. For any successful response to humanitarian travails in North Korea, of course, establishing order as rapidly as possible will be imperative. In all too many contemporary humanitarian crises, refugees have nowhere to return to. Not so here: the South Korean Constitution already established their right to citizenship in the Republic of Korea. Like Germany during the Cold War, and Israel today, South Korea guarantees a "right of return" for those in the North. Instead of facing an uncertain future in "displaced persons" camps in China, Russia or elsewhere, North Korean escapees could count on protection and legal rights in the Republic of Korea.
The economic implications of absorbing the North Korean population have seemed terrifying to South Korean policy makers ever since the Berlin Wall came down. But the plain fact is that the economic chasm between North and South will continue to widen as long as the North Korean regime survives. The longer unification is postponed, the greater the immediate challenges of reunification are likely to be. There are potential economic opportunities in an economic reintegration of North and South -- not just expenses. A flexible and market-oriented Korean economy, under rule of law and open to international trade and finance, will be best placed to capitalize upon these opportunities. In the short run, the expenses of dealing with humanitarian needs from the North may be high. But in the long run, if a reunified Korea can recreate the sort of "business climate" in which the South thrived, the "costs" of reunification will take care of themselves.
Kim Jong Il's demise could thus hasten North Korea's demise as well, an outcome we should welcome. A reunited, fully democratic Korea would likely be a strong U.S. ally, a geopolitical benefit too often ignored by our State Department. Let us not lose sight of that prospect as we deal with the perils and prospects of regime crisis in Pyongyang. Preparing for the worst should not keep us from trying to plan for the best as well.
What nuclear arsenal? Last time I heard, they had nothing deliverable, and the test attempt was a dud. Dirty bomb, but that's it. Nuclear material, you betcha we gotta worry about that.
Also, are not men mortal? The death of Kimmie will happen sooner or later.
#2
South Korea has had the perfect storm of good luck since the 1960's: big capital infusion from Uncle Sam for providing troops to the Vietnam War, lots of jobs for Korean firms building roads in the same war, simple defense lines at home with Uncle Sugar paying a minimum of 2/3 the cost, export-driven economy with a protected market at home...yeah, life has been good for them.
If the Norks collapse, all that's gone. Lots of poor Norks to feed, house, educate and employ will mean Sork taxes go up, Sork living standards go down (Sork unions will be toast), and they'll have that LONG border with China and Russia to protect with Uncle Sugar already halfway out the door.
No, things won't be too good in Sorkland once the North implodes. No wonder they're so damned scared of it.
#3
From what I've read the South would love North Korea to have a sane dictator for awhile to bring them up to the modern age before unification. If North Korea collapses everyone will expect South Korea to be heavily involved in any kind of rebuilding and that would take them out of the game for a decade or more.
2. secret junta rules for 3 months before making KJI death public
3. secret junta rules for 3 more months before selecting a new chief biggie
4. new chief biggie resigns
beginning in the late phase 2 a mass immigration to the South begins, by phase 3 this movement begins to be far more than the South can handle and they begin to have a quiet representative in the North Junta in exchange for lots of cash which is used in part to keep Nork peasants out of the South but in a few months this arrangement breaks down and the South is forced to take control of the North
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/03/2008 21:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
MSM-NET > CHINA is reportedly already mentoring/grooming Kimmie's potential successors, which essen means that nothing will take place in NOKOR unless CHINA = CHINESE MODEL FOR NORTH KOREA IS SATISFIED AND INCORPORATED INTO ANY NOKOR AND OR PAN-KOREAN SOLUTION.
AGain, RUSSO-GEIRGIAN CONFLICT + US-PAKISTAN QUARRELINGS > the US is now engaged ina new war wid Radicla Islamism for the control of EURASIA in general, and ASIA in particular AS ISLAMIST PRIORITY = MAIN STRATEGIC WAR FRONT OUTSIDE OF IRAQ, vee "ATTACKING WHERE THE US/US-ALLIES ARE NOT". CHINA is Pakistan's ally and, more importantly, is historically ANTI-EURO/WESTERN = "CHINA FOR CHINESE, ASIA FOR ASIANS".
INDIA's ANTI-CHRISTIAN HINDU VIOLENCE > IMO, Many HINDUS recognize that any Islamist defeat vee USA, etc. may result in US-WEST/NATO-EU domin presence-control throughout ASIA of which INDIA per se is just one nation.
Taken colectively, methinks its safe to say that the NOKOR situation wil be closely linked to how CHINA ACCEPTS = NOT ACCEPTS ANY INTENSIVE POST-GWOT US-WEST INFLUENCE IN ASIA. Many Chin Netters suppor unilateral CHIN MIL INTERVENTION in PAKISTAN + FORMER SOVIET SSRS, ETC. BOTH TO PROTECT CHINA FROM THE LOCAL-REGIONAL ISLAMIST MILITANT THREAT AND TO KEEP THE US-WEST OUT OF ASIA.
#8
Again, the MAP OF ASIA as many generations of AMers know it to be may look different post-WOT, or even after Year 2015 or 2020. IT'S A VERY DANGEROUS TIME FOR THE US, ASIA, + WORLD RIGHT NOW.
#9
I also wouldn't mind seeing mhw's scenerio plan happen. It sounds reasonable and far better than other options I've heard. I would also add another step, and increase in the number of Southerners able to go to the North to visit relatives (and thus introduce a lot of currency into the north in the process). Possibly an agreement to build some factories in the North to get the north working and to provide South Korea with really cheap labor could ease the transition. If the South is smart they would try to staff those factories with North Korean military types so they have something else to do rather than playing with guns or going hungry.
#10
I always wondered what would happen if say Vladvostok took the old Hong Kong book of laws and government and allowed any North Korean (or Chinese) who could get there to be citizens and work. I mean it worked so well for Hong Kong, what would it take to rekindle that lightening?
I had the privilege of spending a few hours today amongst the bravest people in Canada. One, Marc Lebuis, is a name you won't recognize, because up to now he's kept a low profile as the one-man show running www.pointdebasculecanada.ca. This is an anti-Islamist site that brings francophone Quebecers the news and frank opinions on the relentless push of the soft jihadists in our midst to Islamicize society, opinions that the mainstream media are too politically correct to publish. Marc and some close associates organized today's press conference on the subject, "Political Islam - A Threat to Our Freedoms."
The three other brave people appearing with him should be household names, but their courage and eloquence is, shamefully, only known and saluted by a relative handful of grateful Canadians: Salim Mansur, Tarek Fatah and Raheel Raza, three Canadian Muslims facing death threats by other Canadian Muslims for exposing the dangers of Islamism, a totalitarian ideology that wears the mask of religion.
The room at the Omni hotel in Montreal was filled to capacity, reverberating with frequent applause to statements like these from Salim Mansur: "Islam is my private life, my conscience...[but] my faith does not take precedence over my duties...to Canada and its constitution, which I embrace freely;" "I am first and most importantly a Canadian;" "only in a free society will you find Islam as a faith and not a political religion."
Appreciation was shown as well for the statements of Tarek Fatah, who spoke about the threat to freedom of speech posed by Islamists who constantly seek to chill any perceived criticism of any Muslim. In explaining the danger Islamism poses to society, Fatah said that "Islam is to Islamism as uranium is to weapons of mass destruction." Having lived 30 years in Pakistan and 10 in Saudi Arabia, Fatah knows intimately what constitutes "soft jihad" when he sees it. He expressed his sorrow, as a lifetime social democrat that after 17 years of engaged support for the NDP, he could no longer be affiliated with that party. He saw the doors opening to Islamists under Alexa McDonough and now, under Layton, he has seen them "flood" into the party.
It soon became apparent that the particular political focus of all three of the speakers is the NDP, which has shamelessly courted and integrated into its inner circles Islamist Muslims with views that are antithetical and even dangerous to the continued health of Canadian values. Fatah has watched in frustration as Islamists in the NDP pursue a relentless campaign to instill a sense of victimhood in Muslim youth. Yesterday an NDP candidate in Toronto Centre - an immigration lawyer, Farouk El-Khaki - accused the judiciary of being anti-Islam. He was not chastised by Jack Layton, and even more worrying, he was not held to account by any other party candidate. It is clear that no party leader wants Islamism raised as an election issue.
Jack Layton, Mansur said "has gone to bed with Islamists." He is running candidates in Ontario and Quebec who are closely identified with the push for Sharia law, which, all the panelists made clear is the litmus test for dividing real moderate Muslims from Islamists. Fatah also expressed his contempt for the Ontario Human Rights Commission which, he asserted is "infiltrated by Islamists": There are commissioners in the OHCR closely linked to the Canadian Islamic Congress and the Canada-Arab federation, both of which, according to Fatah, have "contempt for Canadian values." Anyone, he says, "who brings religion into politics should be suspect" because they "are a threat to western civilization." The NDP's failure to interrogate their Muslim supporters for fear of revealing their Islamism is the "racism of lower expectations."
Raheel Raza introduced herself as "the proud recipient of a fatwa" for having the gall to try to lead prayers. She shared her joy in having the freedom in Canada to be spiritually religious without fear of political coercion, something she could never have in a Muslim country: "No Muslim country would allow me the rights I have here." She knows she is being monitored from abroad, since she received her fatwa by e-mail from Saudi Arabia. How would they have known about her if she were not being informed on by Islamists here? She cannot fathom why politicians pander to the Islamists. Actually she can fathom it. "Political correctness" will not allow politicians to raise the question of allegiance in their Muslim supporters.
As for feminists, where are they? Also pandering. They have not spoken up about the Talibanist woman in Mississauga who teaches the virtues of polygamy to her female students, nor have they criticized a cleric who openly admits to performing polygamous marriages. Feminists seem to have lower expectations for Muslim women than for themselves: what Tarek Fatah calls "left wing racism." Ms Raza is, according to an Islamist website, #5 of the "most hated Muslims in the world." "My aim," she chuckles, "is to become #1."
The air began to crackle with political electricity when Samaa Elibyan, a Muslim journalist with close ties to the Canadian Islamic Congress, and an admirer of the infamous Taliban apologist Yvonne Ridley, stood up to challenge the panel's right to criticize Samira Laouni, NDP candidate in Bourassa riding, who was not present, for her Islamist views of Sharia law. Mr Mansur and Mr Fatah reminded her that if the NDP had the right to pick an Islamist candidate - and they do - then anyone else has the right to criticize that choice, including "the right to insult you." After the conference, predictably enough, Radio-Canada were all over Ms Elibyan for her views. Not a single reporter was interested in interviewing the three brave hearts who are trying to warn us of a clear and present danger that nobody, least of all the people tasked with protecting us from our enemies, wants to talk about.
Written before the vice presidential debate, this is still relevant, I think. Here's a taste -- go read the whole thing.
It's true that Alaskans look at foreign policy from a different perspective. They know the world is a globe. They look at their neighbors from the polar projection, while the lower 48 are still thinking east and west along the old Mercator projection maps, maps devised for the navigation of sailing vessels in the 16th century, and published by the Flat Earth Society. The Mercator projection is perfect for backward-looking pols such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Thus a governor of Alaska has to be more cosmopolitan in world outlook than her insular colleagues in the lower 48. Surrounded as Alaska is by the seven Arctic nations (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden) Alaska has a truly strategic location, unmatched by any other U.S. state. It has a contiguous boundary with Canada of 1,538 miles, but none with the lower 48.
It is also closer to the Russian Federation than any other U.S. state. There are no international waters between Russia and Alaska. The boundary in the Bering Strait splits the two-mile difference between Big Diomede and Little Diomede Islands, two bleak rocky islets that may have been part of the prehistoric landbridge crossed by Todd Palin's people eons ago. One hundred forty-six Inuit-Americans still live on a 3,000-year-old village site on Little Diomede, so if Sarah Palin lived there she sure could see Russia from her front porch.
If you are curled up that close to the Russian bear, you want to be sure that he is sleeping quietly. You are very attentive if he moves to make sure that he is not going to roll over on you. You have a sixth sense about Russian fighters and bombers intruding into your territory, or daring to come as close as possible. You are relieved when U.S. military planes scramble from Elmendorf Air Force Base to escort them back. Meanwhile, you make nice. You invite the Russians on trade missions, and you invite them to international conferences.
UNTIL JOE BIDEN was nominated by the Democratic National Convention to be Vice President of the United States, it had never occurred to anyone that the chief qualification of a vice president was to be an expert on foreign policy. It was a drastic step but necessary when the Democrats saw they had a problem. Clearly, Barack Obama's much-touted advisory board of 300 foreign policy experts was inadequate. They had to shore up a nominee whose only foreign policy experience to date had been to interfere in the elections in Kenya on behalf of his cousin, Raila Odinga. They realized he needed one more expert, the 301st , to give the nominee that gravitas necessary to wow the foreign policy establishment.
Thus the nomination of Joe Biden was inevitable. After all, how could you trump a man who was not only the third most liberal Senator in the world's greatest deliberative body, but also Chairman of the august Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Suddenly, it was a game-changer. The vice-presidency was all about foreign policy, and when Sarah Palin was nominated by the Republicans she was held to the new standard. With Palin's inexperience, how could she compete with Biden's 36 years of inexperience, of being wrong year after year on every issue? Of a man so used to reaching out to other nations that he plagiarized his speeches word for word from a British socialist, Neil Kinnock, the leader of the British Labour Party? Of a man who has been around so long that he remembers watching FDR go on television in 1929 and rally the nation when the Great Depression hit? (Those who were unaware that television existed in 1929 should recall that it was invented in 1928 by Al Gore, before he invented the Internet.)
Author Mr. Lucier lives in Leesburg, Virginia, and is a former Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Relations Committee.
Palin also commented Friday on her widely-panned series of interviews with Katie Couric, telling Fox interviewer she did not think the CBS News anchor asked enough issue-based questions.
I did feel there were a lot of things she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are that are represented in our ticket," Palin said. "I guess I have to apologize for being a bit annoyed, but thats also an indication about being outside that Washington elite, outside that media elite also, and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for."
In two separate and lengthy interviews with Couric over the last week, Palin seemed to struggle with a number of answers, including a defense of McCain's record on regulation issues. She also appeared to stumble when relating her views on the financial bailout, her foreign policy credentials, her preferred news sources of news, and a Supreme Court case she disagrees with.
"Man, no matter what you say you are gonna get clobbered," Palin told Fox about her heavily-scrutinized performance. "You choose to answer you are going to get clobbered on the answer. If you choose to pivot and try to go onto another subject that you believe Americans want to hear about, you get clobbered for that too."
#2
I dunno L1011 - the MSM is yesterdays' big leagues. It will interesting to see the Palin media strategy from here on - I expect a surge on talk radio, more friendly to her, as well as lots of local coverage. A sign of certain confidence is if she hits SNL in late October, and a sign of certain victory is if she goes on either of the Comedy Central shows - I can see the former, but will be shocked if she does the latter.
#3
The MSM may be dead but they don't all know it yet, and a fatally wounded animal can be very dangerous.
We have reached the day and age where politicans will only give interviews to pre-approved journalists with pre-approved questions and with their own cameras there to ensure editing games do not happen. It's sad but the journalist profession can not be trusted, not for a second.
#4
Why is McCain tanking? For not taking the gloves off.
Both of you, take the damn gloves off, hit Bambi hard and get us interested in the race again instead of making it look like you are rolling over in the name of bipartisanship again!
#5
The bill passed in the House, and the president signed it. Senator McCain has done the job he set out to do last Wednesday, so now Candidate McCain can get busy.
#6
What Palin and McCain should do is next time one of these hatchet gits from the Demonrats requests an interview, you know, people like Couric and Gibson, say this.
"I'm sorry, we only grant interviews to actual journalists."
#7
Candidate McCain can get as busy as he wants, but Senator McCain has really screwed up. It may be fatal to Candidate McCain's campaign. And the dolt doesn't even know it.
#8
Palin is (or was) under the impression that Couric's and Gibson's goal was to imform the public. That was entirely wrong - their goal was to make her look as stupid, foolish, and unprepared as possible in order to bolster their own candidate.
#9
If you're a conservative, the press is almost invariably your enemy simply due to their liberal bias. Most of them are incompetents who can't do that simple job properly, much less anything more complex, which is why they ended up as journos in the first place. RJSchwarz has it exactly right in his description of how to deal with them.
Only reporters with a proven track record of fairness to conservatives should be allowed interviews with conservative candidates and even then all interviews should be videorecorded. Just because the reporter is decent doesn't mean his editor is.
Cutting off lib reporters access won't hurt anything since they only tell lies anyway. If they don't get access the conservative candidate can always respond to their lies by noting that he never spoke to said reporter so it's obvious their story is cut from whole cloth. It's a pity it has had to come to this but the reality is that the MSM is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Failing to recognize that fact and respond accordingly is simply a self-inflicted wound.
#10
F*ck the msm parrot press corps w/a capital F. They've given Obomba a huge pass - Ayers, Rezko, Wright, 57 states, Memorial day gaffe - all passes. Palin - they try to dig up some bullshit about her husband's driving record. Ridiculous. I have no confidence in them - Gibson was an asshole to Palin - and, he even lied about quoting her - fuck'em all. They have been out of line w/this lady. Sure, it is the big leagues but there ought to be a code of fair play and decency. I even thought Ifill was fair last night w/Palin & Biden, even wrt that idiotic book she wrote basically slobbing obama's knob.
#1
Yup. And so far as I can see, the Democrats are up to business as usual in Washington. At best they are reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic while at the same time punching holes in the hull.
The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a united front of over 20 Taliban groups operating autonomously in different Pashtun tribal areas, was formed on December 14,2007, at a secret meeting held somewhere in South Waziristan, which was attended by 40 tribal leaders from the South Waziristan, North Waziristan, Aurakzai, Kurram, Khyber, Mohmand and Bajaur tribal agencies of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and from the districts of Swat, Buner, Dir, Malakand, Bannu, Lakki Marwat, Tank, Peshawar, Dera Ismail Khan and Kohat in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The idea seems to be based on al-Qaeda's structure: a framework embracing autonomous internals that can support each other in a coordinated manner.
The TTP was projected as a joint resistance movement with three objectives --first, to help the Taliban of Afghanistan in its operations against the US and other NATO forces in Afghan territory; second, to undertake defensive operations against the Pakistani security forces and third, the enforcement of sharia in the entire Pashtun tribal belt.
The TTP was projected as a joint resistance movement with three objectives --first, to help the Taliban of Afghanistan in its operations against the US and other NATO forces in Afghan territory; second, to undertake defensive operations against the Pakistani security forces and third, the enforcement of sharia in the entire Pashtun tribal belt. In effect this puts them in the position of running a foreign policy independent of the central government: making war on a neighboring country and establishing their own legal system within their territory while keeping the Federales out. The two weak points in that policy are that 1.) no state can allow an internal group to tear off a chunk of its territory and run it independently. Another way of describing that is as seceding; and 2.) they can't really expect to hide behind the concept of Pak sovreignty while carrying on hostile operations against Afghanistan. If Pakistain doesn't bring them under control then Afghanistan and/or NATO/ISAF are perfectly justified under international norms to do it for them. Baitullah Mehsud of South Waziristan was nominated as the Amir and Hafiz Gul Bahadur of North Waziristan and Maulana Faqir Muhammad of Bajaur as the deputy Amirs. What brought them together was what they perceived as the divide-and-rule tactics of the Pakistan Army, which was accused by them of ostensibly making peace overtures to some Taliban leaders while undertaking military operations against others. It was reportedly agreed at the meeting that while each local Taliban group would be free to undertake operations against the security forces depending on the local requirements, there would be no unilateral peace negotiations by any group with the Government or the Army. The meeting decided that peace negotiations, if any, would be undertaken only after approval by the shura of the TTP as a whole.
Continued on Page 49
This article starring:
Aurakzai
Bajaur
Bannu
Buner
Dera Ismail Khan
Islamabad
Khyber
Kohat
Kurram
Lahore
Lakki Marwat
Malakand
Mohmand
North Waziristan
Peshawar
Rawalpindi
Sargodha
South Waziristan
Swat
Tarbella Gazi
BAITULLAH MEHSUD
Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto
DR. ISMAIL
TNSM
HAFIZ GUL BAHADUR
Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan
Lal Masjid
Maj. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, who was the Director-General of Military Operations
MAULANA FAQIR MOHAMAD
TTP
MAULANA FAQIR MUHAMAD
Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan
MAULANA FAZLULLAH
TNSM
MAULANA MASUD AZHAR
Jaish-e-Mohammad
MAULANA SUFI MOHAMAD
TNSM
MAULVI NAIMATULLAH
TTP
Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani
QARI SAIFULLAH AKHTAR
Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami
QARI WALI REHMAN
Jaishul Islam
QARI ZIAUR REHMAN
Taliban
Rehman Mallik, the adviser to the Ministry of Interior
Posted by: Fred ||
10/03/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: TNSM
When the Syrian capital of Damascus was rocked by a car bomb on Sept. 27, the wheels started spinning wildly inside intelligence agencies, Middle Eastern tea houses, and conspiracy theorist circles alike. The explosion, which killed 17 people and injured 14, took place along the Damascus airport highway close to a Syrian intelligence installation. The question on everyone's mind was: Who did this and why? The most striking aspect of the search for answers is just how many theories are potentially credible. Clearly, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been walking a high wire of strategic alliances, making friends and enemies within every conflict in the Middle East; a dangerous game, indeed.
Under the young Assad, Syria has built strong links with Shiite militias operating in Lebanon and with Sunni extremists in the Palestinian territories. It has allied itself with Iran and it has initiated indirect peace talks with Israel. The regime is simultaneously strengthening ties with France, while vowing lasting and deep friendship with Iran. Syria has worked to bolster relations with a resurgent Russia, even as it looks to the West in search of new friends.
Countries ruled by secure and well-entrenched dictatorships tend to look calm on the surface. But Syria has lately seen a number of attacks that indicate the regime of Bashar al-Assad does not have as firm a grip on the country as his father Hafez did. The elder Assad ruled Syria with an iron fist for almost 30 years, until his death in 2000. Since succeeding him, Bashar has sought to keep his minority Alawite regime in control of the country while navigating the treacherous strategic landscape of the Middle East.
Continued on Page 49
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By John Bolton and Nicholas Eberstadt
I had the privilege of spending a few hours today amongst the bravest people in Canada. One, Marc Lebuis, is a name you won't recognize, because up to now he's kept a low profile as the one-man show running 
The 
