Is Washington relying on Islamists to topple another secular Arab regime?

[allemand]

There is some evidence for this, for example this article in today's Financial Times:

Muslim Brotherhood leader offers support to Syrian defector

The leader of Syria's opposition Muslim Brotherhood has indicated that his group might back a change of regime involving Abdel-Halim Khaddam, the recently defected former vice-president now presenting himself as an alternative.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/11fb115a-7f22-11da-a6a2-0000779e2340.html

In return, Khaddam told Newsweek that "the Muslim Brothers now have enhanced their way of thinking, and they have come up with a new liberal agenda" (sic).

David Ignatius reported in September that the Bush administration was looking for ways to include the Muslim Brotherhood in its plans for regime change in Syria:

The Bush administration is debating whether to try to accelerate this unraveling with an explicit policy of regime change. President Bush is said to have expressed frustration with the conventional wisdom -- that the only alternative to Assad and his Alawite clan is rule by Sunni fundamentalists from the Muslim Brotherhood -- and asked his aides to explore alternatives. Soon after, a top Middle East expert on the National Security Council staff met for the first time with Farid Ghadry, head of a Syrian opposition group in exile. Ghadry told me he plans to convene by year's end a parliament in exile that would include all strands of the Syrian opposition, including those in the Muslim Brotherhood who are ready to embrace democracy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091400908.html

Subsequently, Radio France Internationale reported in October that "US Pentagon and State Department are developing closer ties with with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood".
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/archives/2005_10_01_archive.htm

Also in October, the Council on Foreign Relations informed that Khaddam was "actively holding meetings with European and U.S. officials about Syria’s future".
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9085/syrias_leaders.html

Expect Syria to become a liberal theocracy soon.

Oh, did I say "theocracy"? What I meant was "democracy", of course. ;-)

[SteppingRazor]

1. It's not the Islamist part of this that worries me most...

it's the "Syran opposition group in exile" led by this Farid Ghadry fellow. I mean, could the M.O. be any closer to Iraq? I haven't looked him up or anything, but I'm guessing Ghadry hasn't been in Syria for decades and is in the pocket of either our government or a U.S. corporation or three.

Ahmed Chalabi, anyone?

[allemand]

3. I'm more worried about the Muslim Brotherhood.

Chalabi famously got less than 1% in the last elections, I don't expect Ghadry to fare any better. But the Muslim Brotherhood could well dominate in elections (which is probably why they are ready to embrace "democracy"), particularly if the Baath party is banned like it was in Iraq.

Also, Khaddam seems to be their new Chalabi now, not Ghadry, even though Khaddam has a track record of over 30 years of brutal oppression, murder and corruption.

[SteppingRazor]

5. You're right about electoral results, but that's not my point...

Though he was later disgraced and kicked to the curb, before the Iraq War, Chalabi served as an example of an ostensibly legitimate alternative to the Saddam Hussein regime. Given this supposedly viable alternative, the policy of regime change by any means necessary in Iraq went down easier among the American public...

edited for spelling

[Wordie]

2. This is just another step in the plan of "A Clean Break"

which called for regime change and destabilization (hence weakening) of countries throughout the ME.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

...Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

And if it works as well as "regime change" in Iraq has for us, not only the US but Israel will be worse off rather than better. Unfortunately, it appears that the regime to which we have now "changed" in Iraq may prove to be more of a problem than Saddam's was. Do we really want to repeat this error in the case of Syria as well?

[allemand]

4. At the same time, I doubt that having the Muslim Brotherhood in power

in Damascus is really in Israel's interest.

There were reports about disagreements between the Israelis and the Washington neocons:

Israel, US disagree on post-Assad Syria
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475675097&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Wordie]

6. Oh, I agree it's not in Israel's interest, but neither is a pro-Iran Iraq.

We toppled Saddam, but the alternative we created, in which the new Shia majority essentially will strengthen the Iranian mullahs, is a arguably a greater threat to Israel. My point is more this: that the failure of the strategy hasn't seemed to stop our adventures in ME regime change is evidence of how misguided Bush and his advisors truly are.

The OP mentions that some of this is being actually considered by Bush. Of course, it could be just a threat, but even still...