War (of Words) with Syria
View current page...more recent posts
Friday, Apr 18, 2003
[Analysis and opinion.]
Washington Post -- April 18
Syrian Power Play
By Charles Krauthammer
Syria does not act out of sentimentality. Its harboring of high officials from Saddam Hussein's government is not an act of Baath Party brotherhood. It's a form of realpolitik, a postwar continuation of Syria's prewar opposition to America's aim to democratize Iraq.
[Report on a suspected missile facility.]
Christian Broadcast Network -- April 17
Syria’s Weapons of Terror Aimed at Israel
By Chris Mitchell
JERUSALEM — Secretary of State Colin Powell says he will travel to Damascus to meet Syria's President Bashar Assad. The meeting comes in the face of Syrian denials that it has weapons of mass destruction. But in the past six years, CBN News shown exclusive evidence that Syria does have such weapons, and the missiles to deliver them.
PakTribune -- April 18
Syria says no to arms inspection
CAIRO - Syria's foreign minister said on Thursday his country would not accept arms inspections, but would join forces with the world to rid the entire West Asia of weapons of mass destruction in line with its recent proposal to the United Nations.
[Retargeting?]
NewsMax -- April 17
Hezbollah: ‘Death to America’
Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, in a speech before 150,000 supporters in a Beirut suburb said the U.S. will be made to suffer greatly as a result of its presence in Iraq, according to a report in the L.A. Times:
Daily KOS -- April 17
Syria countermoves, scores against US
The US continues its bizarre on-again, off-again war of words against Syria. Seriously, do a Google News search for "Syria" and "US", and get headlines like:
No Plans for war on Syria: US
US renews its attack on Syria
US 'would enter Syria for Saddam'
US will not cross Syrian border to hunt Saddam
So who the hell knows who will come out ahead what is obviously a power-struggle at the top of the Bush Administration.
[From this past Sunday.]
Meet the Press -- April 13
Russert and Rumsfeld, Russert and Moustapha
MR. RUSSERT: What happens if Syria doesn’t change their behavior?
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: Oh, that’s above my pay grade. Those are the kinds of things that countries and presidents decide. That’s broad national policy. I’m a participant, but I’m certainly not a decider.
-----
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe there’s a potential of war between the United States and Syria?
AMB. MOUSTAPHA: No, I do not believe this. I’ll tell you why. Because we believe that the
American values and we believe in American fairness. We don’t think that extremist people will further push the agenda. It does not serve the long-term interests of the United States to be seen as attacking one country after another. This is not good. We believe in lots of good American values and we would love to see those American values applied in the West Bank and Gaza.
Boston Globe -- April 15
New Syrian diplomat has a voice, and he tries mightily to be heard
By John Donnelly
WASHINGTON -- Imad Moustapha arrived in Washington on Feb. 16, in the midst of one of the most powerful snowstorms in years. More than 2 feet fell in some areas.
Perhaps Mother Nature was giving him a heads up.
Moustapha was moving here to be the deputy ambassador at the Syrian Embassy, and his first task was to head up public diplomacy. Since he arrived, he has been caught in another storm, this one political, and it is swirling all around him.
''He seems Americanized; he's persuasive,'' said Edward S. Walker Jr., a career diplomat who was assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs in the early months of the Bush administration.
''The problem is,'' Walker said, ''he will have to show he can deliver. The Syrians have not taken seriously the threats from the administration until now. I don't think they are reading the situation correctly. Imad is concerned about this. If you look at where the neoconservatives are coming from, Syria is next, and I think he understands this.''
Slate -- April 16
Bashar Assad
The evil moron who's running Syria.
By Chris Suellentrop
In the real world, most evil men aren't geniuses. Instead, the real danger, more often than not, comes from evil morons.
United States Department of State -- May 2002 via NPS
Patterns of Global Terrorism
Hizballah (Party of God)
Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut April 1983 and US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984. Three members of Hizballah, ‘Imad Mughniyah, Hasan Izz-al-Din, and Ali Atwa, are on the FBI’s list of 22 Most Wanted Terrorists for the hijacking in 1985 of TWA Flight 847 during which a US Navy diver was murdered. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Western hostages in Lebanon. The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and is a suspect in the 1994 bombing of the Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires. In fall 2000, it captured three Israeli soldiers in the Shabaa Farms and kidnapped an Israeli noncombatant whom it may have lured to Lebanon under false pretenses
Summary and Conjecture
This page is as much about educating myself as anything else. I read everything I post here, and at least as much that doesn't make the cut -- either because it's redundant or tangential to the narrow focus.
I've been trying to estimate the most likely course of events. Early this year I had residual hope that the confrontation with Iraq was an elaborate game of good cop/bad cop --that the impression of "I'm crazy, don't mess with me" given by the US would be strong enough to get Iraq to acquiesce to a very invasive inspection regime. But that wasn't the plan at all. I guess I understood that, but it didn't really sink in until great flocks of tomahawks descended on Iraq.
This time around I'm trying to read more deeply, to better understand the historical background, and to look into the personal beliefs and motivations of the players.
So here's my take today. Bush, ever the MBA, is looking over the costs of war. The first two invasions have been a political success, but the bills are starting to stack up. And perhaps someone on his staff has raised the issue of Arab nationalism. Perhaps he's noticed that his last few major allies (UK, Spain, Australia) and the Gulf Cooperation Council are much less enthusiastic about military intervention in Syria. His instincts tell him that he needs a few buddies who live outside the US. This set of factors has caused him to lean in the direction of using the State Dept. to tackle Syria.
I'm not sure how the road map dynamics will affect this. Tel Aviv and Washington are engaged in the some serious horse trading. A few billion dollars are at stake. US relations with Arab nations are at stake. And there are domestic political agendas in both Israel and the US. Oh, and the fate of the Palestinians, the pawns of an entire region.
I don't believe Israel will allow a partition of the West Bank and Gaza so long as it feels threatened on the Lebanese border. It's close to political suicide for Sharon to give up settlements in the territories. He won't do it without huge gains on security issues. The US doesn't want to do a full scale invasion of Syria to assure Israeli security, so the US and Israel must find other security solutions.
Perhaps "young" Assad is susceptible to coercion by a combination of offers of aid and threats of sanctions.
By stepping back to allow the US to deal with Lebanon, Syria could satisfy Israel's demand without suffering the wrath of the tomahawk. Could Assad do a Musharraf, and sell his radical friends down the river?
But if we are to go into Lebanon, we need pretext. The US public is pumped up about Syria, but Lebanon?
On the other hand, if Assad won't make a deal to let the US liberate Lebanon, neither Bush nor Sharon need peace to win re-election. Strong stances in a cold war stalemate would satisfy their base constituencies; it's their political opponents who are looking for peace.