I keep asking myself about the Syrian response to Lebanese demonstrations and demands why they don't carry out the same policies they did in the past -- suppression, torture, murder -- especially since those methods were effective in the past and are what are still used within Syria. There is a real risk to a strong man regime like Assad's when it appears weak, and being chased out of Lebanon by a bunch of ordinary people is weak. Perhaps the younger Assad isn't as sensative to possible danger as his father was, but it would be very interesting to know the calculus he is using to decide its better to leave than stay. Somehow, I don't think the babeness of the protesters enters into it.
Wretchard has a great post about Lebanon, Syria, and wider American policy. To wit: "If this analysis is correct, the world crisis should accelerate rather than diminish in the coming years and months, not in the least because the United States seems to have no plan to fill the power vacuum with anything. The promotion of democracy is at heart an act of faith in the self-organizing ability of nations; it means getting rid of one dictator without necessarily having another waiting in the wings. It is so counterintuitive to disciples of realpolitik as to resemble madness. Or put more cynically, the promotion of democracy is a gamble only a country with a missile defense system, control of space, homeland defense and a global reach can afford to take. If you have your six-gun drawn, you can overturn the poker table. In retrospect, the real mistake the September 11 planners made to underestimate how radical the US could be. This does not necessarily mean America will win the hand; but it does indicate how high it is willing to raise the stakes."
How high? Well, the Pentagon just ordered 30,000 more JDAMs to go with the over 112,000 they've already ordered. That's a pretty high raise, but we're not even close to going all in.
