Regime Change and Wing-Walking

One of the first rules of wing-walking is to never let go of one wing strut until you have a firm grasp on the next one.

That rule ought to apply to regime change. Some of our more hawkish politicians (Miss Lindsey and Mr. McCain, for two) are frothing at the mouth for regime change in Syria, but they have nothing much to say about what any new regime should look like.

I submit to you, Gentle Reader, that there are two poster children for why we should avoid the temptation to push for regime change: Libya and Iraq. Both nations were ruled by dictators who ruled their nations with a strong and brutal hand. We effected regime change.

Libya is now a failed state, though, to be fair, the same could have also been said of the American Confederation. The Libyans may be able to get their act together. The weight of history in such situations, would indicate otherwise.

Iraq was a strategic buffer against Iran. After we effected regime change (and then left, per the terms of our agreement with the new government), Iraq became a nation that is somewhere between an ally of Iran and a vassal of Iran. The government there is becoming less democratic as time passes, the internal security (which was tenuous) is deteriorating, and it is only a matter of time before the government becomes a dictatorship.

Using force to effect regime change is like taking a hammer to a glass table-top and then expecting the shards to reassemble themselves.

But the pro-war neo-cons and their sympathizers in the Obama Administration (I'm looking at you, Susan Rice and John Kerry) seem to think that this time will somehow be different. I submit to you that the classic rule: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result" applies.

Once again, this fifty year old song seems to be appropriate: