There's been a lot of speculation that Iraq was just the first in a line of nettlesome problems in the Middle East that neo-cons wanted to "solve." Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in an interview almost a year ago that Iran should be the next target. However, it seems Washington has decided to step up its campaign against Syria.
U.S.-led coalition troops treat wounded soldiers after an attack on a Humvee on the main road about 50 miles south of Baghdad. The extent of the soldiers' wounds was unclear. (Greg Baker -- AP) Click to enlargeLast weekend, "to caution Israel's enemies at a time of heightened tensions in the region and concern over Iran's alleged ambitions," Washington revealed that Israel now has land-, air- and submarine-based nuclear launch capability. This came just days after Turkish lawmakers voted to send up to 10,000 troops to Iraq. With the Turks now a dues-paying member of the "Coalition of Willing," this means Syria is effectively surrounded. Remember that the major fighting in Iraq ended with Syrian and American forces skirmishing on the border, and now Damascus is pressed on the north and south by the formerly neutral Turkey and its old enemy Israel. The pressure is on Syrian President Bashar al-Asad to cease support for groups such as Hizballah and other groups operating out of Damascus. Asad is facing a dangerous gamble: Is the United States bluffing in its deployment of its and its allies' forces around Syria in an attempt to force behavior change? Will a regime change follow if Syria's behavior doesn't alter? Adding further to pressure is the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1828). It passed the House this week, and particular note should be paid to Section 4 -- Statement of Principles:
U.S.-led coalition troops treat wounded soldiers after an attack on a Humvee on the main road about 50 miles south of Baghdad. The extent of the soldiers' wounds was unclear. (Greg Baker -- AP) Click to enlargeLast weekend, "to caution Israel's enemies at a time of heightened tensions in the region and concern over Iran's alleged ambitions," Washington revealed that Israel now has land-, air- and submarine-based nuclear launch capability. This came just days after Turkish lawmakers voted to send up to 10,000 troops to Iraq. With the Turks now a dues-paying member of the "Coalition of Willing," this means Syria is effectively surrounded. Remember that the major fighting in Iraq ended with Syrian and American forces skirmishing on the border, and now Damascus is pressed on the north and south by the formerly neutral Turkey and its old enemy Israel. The pressure is on Syrian President Bashar al-Asad to cease support for groups such as Hizballah and other groups operating out of Damascus. Asad is facing a dangerous gamble: Is the United States bluffing in its deployment of its and its allies' forces around Syria in an attempt to force behavior change? Will a regime change follow if Syria's behavior doesn't alter? Adding further to pressure is the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1828). It passed the House this week, and particular note should be paid to Section 4 -- Statement of Principles:
- Syria will be held responsible for attacks committed by Hizballah and other terrorist groups with offices, training camps, or other facilities in Syria, or bases in areas of Lebanon occupied by Syria;
- the United States shall impede Syria's ability to support acts of international terrorism and efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction;
- the Secretary of State will continue to list Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism until Syria ends its support for terrorism, including its support of Hizballah and other terrorist groups in Lebanon and its hosting of terrorist groups in Damascus, and comes into full compliance with United States law relating to terrorism and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (September 28, 2001);
- efforts against Hizballah will be expanded given the recognition that Hizballah is equally or more capable than al Qa'ida;
- the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity is in the national security interest of the United States;
- Syria is in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982) through its continued occupation of Lebanese territory and its encroachment upon Lebanon's political independence;
- Syria's obligation to withdraw from Lebanon is not conditioned upon progress in the Israeli-Syrian or Israeli-Lebanese peace process but derives from Syria's obligation under Security Council Resolution 520;
- Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs threaten the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;
- Syria will be held accountable for any harm to Coalition armed forces or to any United States citizen in Iraq due to its facilitation of terrorist activities and its shipments of military supplies to Iraq; and
- the United States will not provide any assistance to Syria and will oppose multilateral assistance for Syria until Syria ends all support for terrorism, withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon, and halts the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction and medium- and long-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles.
Note that many of these principles are almost identical to those expressed against Iraq, particularly the violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, the weapons of mass destruction and its ties to terrorism -- in this case Hizballah, which has been promoted to Al Qa'ida rank in evil. Even the "axis of evil" rhetoric has been heated up, as this statement from the office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, illustrates:
Stratfor.com notes that the capture of Baghdad shocked the Arab world, and the United States seized the psychological initiative with the city's fall. The United States went from being perceived as a hated but impotent power to a hated but feared one. Since the fall of Baghdad, however, the perception that the United States is bogged down by guerillas has taken hold and much of the initiative has been lost. The passage of HR 1828 and the coalescing of a regional coalition against Syria is required if the United States' is to regain its footing and momentum. If pressure by Washington works, then Syria will reduce support to terror groups targeting Israel and halt the flow of fighters into Iraq. If it doesn't, the United States will need to deal with Syria by force. Related link: Why Iraq?Syria is a government at war with the values of the civilized world and a violent threat to free nations and free men everywhere. We'll send a clear message to President Asad and his fellow travelers along the axis of evil: The United States will not tolerate terrorism, its perpetrators, or its sponsors. And our warnings are not to be ignored. (Emphasis added -- Ed.)
Good lord. Will someone please stop this?! I don’t know what I can do myself, but I’ll do what I can where I can, when I can. I’m not sure what or how, but I’m not just going to sit back and let things go on the way they are. Anyone with me?
thank you Trish, for not being lethargic - most of the anti-war marchers of the early 2003 are now silent, paralysed by their powerlessness
but if we take powerlessness of the majority for granted, we take death of democracy for granted
BTW: is there anybody who knows what happens to the “freedom in iran”-blog?
“most of the anti-war marchers of the early 2003 are now silent, paralysed by their powerlessness”
Nope. Anti-war folks have morphed into Anti-Bush folks.
We’re just waiting for the 2004 Republican Convention. And planning what to do then. After that, the next step is the voting booth.
Agreed. And just hoping like hell that the rest of our voting “peers” out there in cheetos-n-beerland are paying enough attention to not simply vote for the richest candidate, believing the gold will trickle down into their pocketbooks. Surely everyone can see by now what substance actually trickles down, if one hasn’t had the good sense to be born a billionaire.
Syria is a lot easier to squeeze than Iran.
Bush may hope to scare Iran and North Korea while controlling the oilfields. He is a Texan. If they become Nuclear powers, then there is the simple fact that the USSR never launched and the USA simply would get there first.
In other words, nuclear deterence does not work for oil.
Chris,
Just a note to say thank you for inspiring, and keep up your landmark work with blogging as journalism. As a journalist/law student myself, I am truly inspired by your writings and willingness to get at the truth. Thank you for your spirit. Keep it up!
hopefully when I get out of law school I can really help ‘fund’ sites and great endeavors such as yours! until then, I will scrounge for some pennies and help in any way i can!
Gosh… It’s become such a scary time to be in the world.
message text
message text
message text
I have been telling my soldier friend’s that Syria is the next hot zone for two weeks now. And they all say, affirmative, roger that.
for SzaffireBlue:
My husband is a soldier, and the Syria talk has made him pretty nervous too.
for Amy N.:
I can tell you that I, an anti-war person, am unable to march anywhere in public protests - The United States Army has too much power over the fate of my husband, and they don’t like freedom of speech or protest. But I am glad to say that my soldier will be marching out of the Army next year. He’ll be part of the Exodus that isn’t going to happen.
I do have one question about spreading democracy. Doesn’t democracy imply that if the majority of the people don’t want something to happen it shouldn’t happen? So how was it “democratic” to invade Iraq when the world was “voting” against it?
Attacking Syria would surely be too lunatic even for Bushco? To some extent at least, Bush insists that there is no genuine Iraqi resistance, and Syria comes in handy to explain why soldiers are still dying nevertheless.
I can sympathize with many who are uncomfortable with Washington publicly trying to coerce Syria to change its behavior and that this could be a lead up to another armed confrontation. But no one here seems to offer an alternative course of action.
I’m generally an anti-war guy, but I’m also pro-democracy and anti-terrorism. Times like the present make for some tough choices. Although not enamored with the Bush rhetoric, I do think on some of the big-picture strategic issues the current administration has been justified, and more than not correct. I think it’s a good thing that the US take a clear stance towards countries like Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia — repressive, undemocratic regimes that, regardless of how Bush sells it, are certainly not governments that any liberal/Westerner should be a big fan of.
In fact, I am not so much afraid of the US going further down the present path; I’m am much more worried about whether the US remains committed. The idea that a democratic Iraq might be the catlyst for positive change might not be thought of highly by readers of this site, but I think we all agree that it would be a good thing if it were to happen. I hold out a lot of hope that moves like HR 1828 help this happen without resorting to more warfare.
God knew the future before it happened and He revealed it to the prophets. Long ago Isaiah and Amos wrote of the utter destruction that seems to be on the horizon. It is written in the Word of God and it can not be averted. The day looms near, the sands of time have almost run out on Damascus.