Martha Kessler, writing for the Los Angeles Times, on Danger in Pushing Syria Out of Lebanon:
Early in September, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution calling for the departure of all foreign troops from Lebanon. The resolution — intended to intimidate Syria, which wields de facto control of the Lebanese government — was sponsored by the United States and France, a surprising couple that cooperated for different but compatible reasons.
France would like to reestablish a sphere of influence in Lebanon, as Paris had in the post-colonial ancien regimes in Lebanon. The United States wants a more pliant Lebanon, a weaker Syria, a breakup of the triangular relationship among Lebanon, Syria and Iran, a safer neighborhood for Israel and greater U.S. influence in the region.
More war and more Americans in body bags are around the corner if Bush and his chickenhawk saber rattlers continue on with their charted course of military confrontation with Syria.
For nearly three decades, Syria has been a powerful force in Lebanon. It initially moved troops into the country in the mid-1970s during the civil war, a war fueled by religious sectarianism, radical fundamentalism and agitation by a massive Palestinian refugee population. President Hafez Assad, who had been in office only four years when Lebanon exploded, reluctantly sent troops across the border to try to recalibrate the fragile political balance between Christians and Muslims. It took Syria about 14 years to reestablish a modicum of peace in Lebanon. Today, Hafez Assad is dead, and his son, Bashar, is president, and there are still thousands of Syrian troops in place.
As our war rages on in Iraq, it is important to remember that before Baghdad, it was Beirut that was synonymous with brutality and terror. At different stages in that bloody, 15-year conflict, every major group — Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Druze and Palestinians — fielded multiple militias warring in battles where sides shifted regularly and civilians were always targets. The Lebanese population was traumatized by urban warfare. Western educators and clergy were gunned down, two Lebanese presidents were assassinated, U.S. diplomats were executed, and Americans and Europeans were held hostage for years. The truck bomb, which has proved so deadly in Iraq, was born and perfected in Lebanon. Its victims included the U.S. Embassy, the U.S. Embassy Annex and the U.S. Marine and French barracks, among others. The tactics developed and perfected in Lebanon are all over the Iraq battlefield today.
That's all we need. More foreign policy inspired stateless terrorism. Is this divinely mandated as well?
This is a bag of snakes that we really don't need to reopen.
Link courtesy of Antiwar.com. This entry also posted at Stand Down.
For information, articles, and links, see the Iraq Occupation and Resistance Report at:
[url]http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/ORR.htm[/url]
An Observer
It’s unlikely that the US will move against Syria or Iran in the next four years. Unlikely, but not impossible. Neither Iran nor Syria are obsessions of the current administration in the same way that Iraq was. Moreover, now that both countries have seen what the US is capable of, it’s unlikely they will bait the US in the same way Saddam did.
But that’s not to say that the US won’t move against them. There may well be economic embargoes and sanctions. Moreover (especially in the case of Iran) the US may well try the ‘Allende’ solution and foment an internal coup.
It’s also not to say that the US will not move against Syria/Iran eventually. Syria and Iran are one of the few countries in the region that the US doesn’t have under direct or indirect control.
Here’s a map you will never see in the mainstream media: all the countries of the middle east colour coded with (say) red for ‘friendly to the US’ and blue for ‘not friendly to the US’. I think most people would be genuinely amazed to see that the vast majority of the countries would be red with only a few lonely outposts of blue. Amazed, because of course this demonstrates the falseness of the general view of the Middle East being awash with ‘rogue states’, Islamic fundamentalists and so on. Of course, few Middle Eastern states are democracies, but the vast majority of these are US client states, or states that lean towards the US.
It can’t be pointed out often enough that many in the middle east ARE anti-American but not for ‘irrational’ reasons, or because ‘they hate our freedom’ or anything like that. Most of them, on the contrary, WANT freedom, but their own governments stop them getting it, and their own governments take orders from Washington. For all their faults (although neither Syria nor Iran are in any sense as brutal as Saddam Hussein’s regime…or the regimes of Saudi Arabia or Egypt or…..) Syria and Iran are perceived to stand up to Washington, hence their popularity in the region (though this popularity is probably a bit more muted amongst their own people’s). So, therefore, in the long term they will have to be removed: especially if the rumours about Iran funding insurgents in Iraq are true. Just not necessarily in the next four years.
Brendan,
\”their own governments take orders from Washington\”???????????????????????????
You can\’t be this delusional, bro!
C\’mon………………….
11/5/2004 6:49:00 PM
In Re: Robert Kessler on Nov. 5, 2004 at 6:49 PM —
Like all armchair propagandists, Kessler does not understand international relations and international politics. So he can’t understand something like “governments take orders from Washington.” But deep down, he doesn’t want to admit that his government meddles in the affairs of other countries, or that it does terrible harm to other peoples.
Brendan used the term “US client states,” and that is a common term in international relations and politics. A good example of this is Egypt, which receives huge amounts of money from America every year, and that money props up the Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak. Without that money, the government of Mubarak would collapse, and without that money, Mubarak could not maintain his position and power as dictator. So Mubarak does not want to lose that money. He can’t afford to lose it. And when someone in Washington calls him and tells him to do something or not do something, he complies. This is why the Egyptians, who want freedom and justice as much as anybody else, hate Mubarak AND America. They know very well that it is America that is propping up their dictator and denying them the freedom and justice that they want and deserve.
This kind of thing is going on all over the world. It is the thing that motivates and drives opposition to America, including that of al Qaeda, because America\’s policies and actions around the world have resulted directly in terrible harm and damage to people and their countries and societies. And until the American people understand this and do somethng about it — do something about the policies and actions of their government around the world — they will continue to be hated, despised, and attacked.
An Observer
The only precious thing preserved from Hafez Assad\’s era is \”independency\” which let us survive from the 1980s fundamental Islamic terrorism and keep us alive far away from any foreign aid.
We, as Syrians, are self-proud because we eat from what we plant and we wear from what we fabricate in spite of our limited resources, but not potentials.
This \”independency\” was obtained through sacrifices and pains for the last three decades. We have faced a similar wave of terrorism that you are facing now. Our democracy and human rights were eliminated for the seek of a greater principle \”preserving our homeland and identity as Syrian\” in the same manner that you will dealing with what so-called \”patriot act\”.
Do we hate USA? Definitely NO, because we are sharing the same principles. We both want to enjoy our freedom.
Do we hate Israel? It is difficult to love our enemy as instructed by Jesus, but we love peace and we want our occupied territories to be liberated as stated in the UN resolutions. It is a human right for each refugee to have the option to return back to his homeland.
My Syria is changing. Democracy wind is blowing back over Syria!
Whispers are becoming louder. Newspapers are offensively criticizing the government. Civil society is growing and participating in the national development.
Unfortunately, this good soil is suitable for growing harmful plants too, such as fundamentalism and radicalism.
Does it worth to enjoy this growing \”democracy\” under this \”green threat\”? Frankly, I do not know.
Syrian economy is being strengthened. The President openly declared that the free market economy is our target instead of the social one. Syria Stock Market will be reopened in the beginning of 2005 after an absence for more than 40 years. Private banks are established and some of them are working now.
2005 is a very critical year for Syria. Syria\’s pregnancy lasted 5 years and I think it will give a birth of prosperity unless She is aborted by foreign rude interference.
The situation in Lebanon has to be discussed taking into account these major considerations:
Lebanon is the last standing wing for Syria. Syria is surrounded by USA aligned states that includes Israel, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. Losing the Lebanese wing simply means \”checkmate\” for Syria!
Syrian society is very sensitive to any turbulence in Lebanon. We have to recognize that Beirut is closer to Damascus more than any Syrian city, and it is the same situation between Tripoli and Homs; we are talking not about topographic distances only but also about social relations. Thus, it is very obvious that Syria has a great interest to control the stability of the paradoxical Lebanon to preserve its own stability.
Furthermore, Syria is concerned about the strength of Lebanon to resist any Israeli attack or occupation as it was done in the last quarter of the 20th century. Lebanon is the first defensive line for Syria; breaking this line will allow the Israeli forces to turn over to surround Damascus. Lebanon represents a strategic militant depth for Syria which is forbidden to give up easily. This is why Syria has worked hard in the last 15 years to rebuild, unify and strengthen the Lebanese army who, indeed, belongs to the nation not to militias.
In the other hand, Lebanon\’s free economy is a heaven for the corrupted Syrians to launder their monies. Secret banking and close investment are very attractive for the influencing Syrians who have built a strong relations with the Lebanese politicans based on their mutual financial interests.
From my point of view, the change wind over Syria has triggered 1559 resolution.
This change is affecting Abulhalim Khaddam\’s influence over Syria and his interests in Lebanon. The Syrian vice-president (old guard) has used Lebanon as warning message against Bashar Assad\’s team trials for change.
Khaddam\’s strong statement against the calls (seem to be inspired by Assad\’s team) for modifying the Syrian constitution to release Syria from Al-Baath party control (in fact, the old guard control) just prior to the Lebanese problem amplification (compared with a similar precedence in 1990s) has to be seen in depth as Khaddam\’s \”fear\” from the coming threat.
Khaddam, which was used to be called as the Supreme Commissioner in Lebanon, has lost this position for the sake of Bashar Assad after the death of Basel Assad. However, his direct influence over Lebanon which lasted more than 15 years has enabled him to build his corrupted empire in cooperation with his Lebanese partners, of which Rafik Hariri is the loyalist and the most benefited.
Eliminating Khaddam\’s influence over Lebanon has been compensated with under-the-table multi US$ billions projects in Lebanon such as the cellular monopoly. Khaddam and his sons corrupted empire used to be protected by Khaddam\’s influence as a Syrian vice-president and by his loyal friend and partner Rafik Hariri, prime minister of Lebanon.
Khaddam is not ready to give up of his \”own\” last standing influence which will make him quite naked. Thus, he used Rafik Hariri\’s strong relations with the French president to escalate the Lebanese problem to a higher level that demonstrates the real power of the joined coalition between Khaddam and Hariri.
It is very interesting to follow up the decelerations of Khaddam and Hariri in the escalation period prior to UN resolution. Khaddam\’s declaration was humiliating for the Lebanese when he said \”We will not allow any modification in the Syrian constitution .. We do not mind the modification of the Lebanese constitution by the legal institutions .. France and USA are interfering in a Lebanese internal affair.\”
Hariri\’s declarations show him as a powerless PM when he said \”I will cut my hand before signing any constitutional modification request.\”
In fact, They were playing the escalation game in a harmony credited with an intended misuse of the traditional diplomatic language.
Syrian Citizen
11/7/2004 19:18:00