War (of Words) with Syria
View current page...more recent posts
Thursday, Apr 17, 2003
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.
[Sharon interview again.]
Toronto Star -- April 16
Israeli leader adds his voice to new Mideast war of words
Sharon demands Syria curb terror Calls for 'pressure,'
but not invasion
by OLIVIA WARD
JERUSALEM—As Washington turned up the volume against Syria, the voice of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reverberated most loudly throughout the Middle East.
Syrian President Bashar Assad "is dangerous. His judgment is impaired," Sharon was quoted as saying in yesterday's Yedioth Aharonoth, a popular Hebrew newspaper.
"In the Iraq war, he proved he was incapable of drawing conclusions from very obvious facts. Anyone with eyes in his head would have known that Iraq was going to be on the losing side. But Assad thought the United States was going to fail," Sharon said.
The prime minister's interview was the latest of a number of government statements in the escalating battle of words between the neighbouring countries, which have technically been at war since 1948.
Israel has accused Syria of harbouring chemical weapons, aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein, and encouraging terrorism against the Jewish state. Syria, meanwhile, has made it clear that if a new conflict began, Israel would not escape unscathed.
In the Arab world, Washington's growing hostility toward Syria has been blamed on Israeli goading, and there is widespread belief that Sharon is hoping to use the presence of hundreds of thousands of American troops in the region as a handy means of settling scores with Israel's old enemy.
"Before even proving that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, (the Americans) are levelling accusations against Syria," Arab League spokesperson Hesham Youssef said yesterday.
"What is even more worrying is that Israel has entered the situation. This is like throwing oil on a fire, and makes the situation even more tense and precarious."
[Round of statements from Sharon, Mofaz, others from earlier today. The interviews were carried by Hebrew language papers. I haven't found English transcripts. My impression is that the Israeli government appears to be looking for a non-military solution to Syria. But they still want the US to do something about Syria, as part of the road map negotiation.]
Washington Post -- April 16
Sharon Asks U.S. to Pressure Syria on Militants
By Molly Moore
JERUSALEM -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has urged the United States to exert "very heavy" pressure on neighboring Syria to dislodge militant organizations supported by Damascus, but stopped short of advocating military action that analysts warn could put Israel in far more imminent danger from missile attacks than ever posed by Iraq.
Sharon and his defense minister, in parallel interviews published today in Israel's two most influential Hebrew daily newspapers, outlined "precise and specific" demands they suggested the United States impose on Syria.
Maariv
Yedioth Aharonoth
[More detail on Syria's proposal to the UN.]
UPI via Washington Times -- April 16
Syria backs anti-WMD resolution in U.N.
By William M. Reilly
UNITED NATIONS -- Syria on Wednesday introduced in the U.N. Security Council a draft resolution calling for a ban on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, in the wake of the toppling of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime and U.S. accusations Damascus is producing chemical weapons.
It was seen by many diplomats as a move principally aimed at nuclear weapons believed held by Israel.
[State triumphed over Defense in Syria question?]
AP via Herald Sun (Australia) -- April 17
Powell to meet Syria's Assad
US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the US had launched a "very vigorous diplomatic exchange" with Syria and he intends to go to Damascus to meet with President Bashar Assad.
Powell again insisted that Syria expel officials of the fallen Iraqi government who crossed the border.
"Syria does not want to be a safe haven in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom," he said.
But rather than distancing itself from the Arab government that was Saddam Hussein's only close ally in the war, Powell said "lots of messages have been passed back and forth" between Washington and Damascus through US Ambassador Theodore Kattouf, and via Britain, France and Spain.
In fact, Powell told Associated Press Television News, he spoke earlier in the day to Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio, who will go to Damascus this weekend "about a message she might deliver".
Beyond that, Powell said, "I would expect to travel to Syria to have very candid and straightforward discussions with my foreign minister colleague (Farouk al-Shara) and with President Bashar Assad".
[More background stuff. I found this paper while looking up Feith biographies. In his position at the DoD, Feith is involved in setting policy towards Iraq and Syria.]
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Reflections on Liberalism, Democracy and
Zionism
Douglas J. Feith
I began my talk by noting that liberalism emphasizes two
concepts: the autonomy or separate character of individuals,
on the one hand, and the equality or same treatment of
individuals, on the other. There is inherent in liberalism a
tension between these two concepts. Excessive emphasis on
equal treatment will not do justice to the separateness or
diversity of individuals. This helps explain the paradoxical
manner in which liberalism—with its emphasis on individual
th liberty—became a way station for the journey of some 19
century progressives toward socialism—which obliterated
individual liberty in the interest of uniformity .
For liberalism to thrive in practice, balancing of its two
elements is required. There is a lesson in this for those Israelis
who, intent on comparing their country with the United
States, contend that Israel like America should not be an
ethnic state—a Jewish state—but rather a “state of its
citizens.” Such Israelis advance a logic that would make all
states in the world “states of their citizens,” a classic, liberal
universalist view, but one that, as we have seen, ignores the
reality that human beings cherish their ethnic identities and,
given free choice, will often prefer
to live in an ethnic state in which their own people is the
majority.
If one gives due emphasis to the first element of
liberalism—autonomy or the right of human beings to enjoy
what distinguishes them from others—one should recognize
that there is a place in the world for non-ethnic nations and
there is a place for ethnic nations. Human freedom is best
served when people have a choice of the type of democratic
state in which they wish to reside.
Foreign Policy in Focus -- April 16
Calls to Attack Syria Come from a Familiar Choir of Hawks
By Jim Lobe
Many of the same people who led the campaign for war against Iraq signed a report released three years ago that called for using military force to disarm Syria of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to end its military presence in Lebanon.
Among the signers are several senior members of the administration of President George W. Bush, including the chief Middle East aide on the National Security Council, Elliott Abrams; Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith; Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky; and senior consultants to both the State Department and the Pentagon on Iraq policy, Michael Rubin and David Wurmser. Also signing were Richard Perle, the powerful former chairman of the Defense Policy Board (DPB); Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former United Nations ambassador; Frank Gaffney, a former Perle aide who heads the Center for Defense Policy; Michael Ledeen, another close Perle collaborator at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); and David Steinmann, chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
The study, Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: The U.S. Role, was co-authored by Daniel Pipes, who has just been nominated by Bush to a post at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), and Ziad Abdelnour, who heads a group founded by him called the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL). The study was released by Pipes' group, the Middle East Forum.
[Slow news day on Syrian front. More analysis, background, etc. This is a refutation of several of the Bush administration charges against Syria.]
Foreign Policy in Focus
Talking Points on Recent Concerns Raised by Bush Administration Officials Regarding Syria
By Stephen Zunes
There is no evidence that Iraq has moved any weapons of mass destruction or related technology and raw materials into Syria. With open deserts, mostly cloudless days, and detailed surveillance by satellites and aircraft, the movement of such material would likely have been detected. The United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC), empowered by the United Nations Security Council to verify the destruction of Iraq's WMD programs, disputes Bush administration claims that such proscribed materials have made their way out of the country.
[Analysis, opinion.]
New York Times -- April 15
Roto-Rooter
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
But, as I said, we're not going to invade Syria to change Syria. So what to do? The Middle East expert Stephen Cohen offers a useful concept. He calls it "aggressive engagement — something between outright military engagement and useless constructive engagement."
[Analysis, with commentary on Mofaz's
kibitzing.]
Talking Points -- April 15
I doubt very much that we're about to move militarily against Syria. This strikes me as a brush-back pitch.