Entry: Deja Vu, Syria Saturday, February 26, 2005



So... here we are again, at the same familiar crossroads. Once again, we face a fascist dictator in the Middle East known to support terror, manufacture weapons of mass destruction and trample on the civil rights of his people. Once again, the United Nations has wasted years and lives issuing demands with which that dictator has no intention of complying, and which the UN seems to have no intention of enforcing. We've been here before. Only the names and the countries have changed.

This time, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad makes the choice to become our enemy. You would think he'd have learned the magnitude of such a mistake after watching what happened to the last one who chose that path. It's still possible that Assad will follow instead the lead of Libya's Moammar Ghaddafi, and surrender to the inevitable before it leads to his removal from power. "I will do whatever the Americans want," Ghaddafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, "because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid." If not, we may end up watching Assad emerging from a spider hole of his own before long. The choice is entirely up to him. However, the recent alliance between Syria and Iran doesn't make it seem likely that Assad will accede to the wishes of the UN. "We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," said Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref. Iran is on shaky ground itself, having repeatedly defied UN and US demands that they cease working on their nuclear program.

Since the 1970's, Syria has occupied Lebanon, originally to repel Israeli troops. The Israelis sent troops in 1978 to destroy terrorist bases in Lebanon, but withdrew after two months. Terrorists flooded right back into Lebanon. In 1982, in response to hundreds of terrorist attacks on Israel from terror groups based in Syria-controlled Lebanon, the Israel Defense Force again invaded, and withdrew to a narrow "security zone" in 1985. The 1989 Taif Accords were supposed to outline a one-year plan for returning sovereignty of Lebanon to the Lebanese people, and allowed Syrian forces to provide security while the transition of power took place. That transition, of course, never did happen. Rather than insist, the UN Security Council simply kept moving the deadline. Finally, all Israeli forces withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, but the Syrian forces remained. The UN extended the deadline for their withdrawal yet again. In September 2004, the UNSC passed resolution 1559, which called for "all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon." Syria still has approximately 16,000 troops in Lebanon who apparently did not get the memo.

Congress passed the Syria Accountability Act in 2003. The act noted, "Since 1990 the Senate and House of Representatives have passed seven bills and resolutions calling for the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon." The act also reminded us of Syria's manufacture of WMDs, oil smuggling and ties to terror. "Terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities on Syrian territory and operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by the Syrian armed forces and receive supplies from Iran through Syria." Unfortunately, the strong words stopped at the condemnations. As possible penalties, the act suggested such actions as restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats and reducing US diplomatic contact with Syria. Surely Assad and his Ba'athist thugs are quaking in their boots at the thought of having to eat fewer formal dinners with US diplomats. Maybe we can have the staff do a less thorough job of cleaning the silverware, too. That'll teach 'em.

The Bush administration has repeatedly warned Syria about their support for terrorists, especially those who have been killing Iraqi civilians. Despite warnings, Assad allowed fugitives from Saddam's government to find safe harbor in Syria, and even supplied Iraq with military equipment before the US-led invasion. General Ali al-Jajjawi, a former Republican Guard commander, said Saddam's deputy Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri and other high-ranking Iraqis fled to Syria just before Mosul fell in April 2003. Syria has been supporting the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq ever since.

Syria's response to all this pressure was to announce that their occupying forces will be moved around a bit without leaving Lebanon. Who said diplomatic measures don't produce results? Syrian troops will be repositioned to comply with the long-outdated Taif Accords, but not one single Syrian soldier will leave the country. Syria didn't even set a timeline for this "repositioning," and the UN didn't bother to ask for one. It looks as though Assad intends to remain in control of Lebanon, in defiance of the UN and the US. After decades of occupation (and why don't those who cry about the "Israeli occupation of Palestine" ever say anything about the Syrians in Lebanon?), how long will the UN just keep asking nicely?

We faced a similar situation in 1990, when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was ordered to give up his occupation of Kuwait. He refused, so an American-led coalition drove Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. Unfortunately, we left Saddam in power, while Iraq festered for another decade. It doesn't seem likely that President Bush will make the same mistake. If Assad forces America to act, there won't be any half-measures on our part this time.

What should we do about these terror-supporting dictators who repeatedly defy both the UN and ourselves? Liberals insist that we keep waiting for incontrovertible proof of their direct involvement in terrorist attacks before acting to stop them. Life isn't an episode of CSI: Middle East. How long can we watch Syria- and Iran-backed terrorists attack civilians in Iraq and Israel? Using another country's children as bait seems a little cold-blooded, too; not doing everything we can to prevent needless innocent deaths seems just plain wrong.

The question is, if we do enforce the Security Council's latest resolution, will the other nations on the Council back us up this time... or do they have secret deals to sell their votes to Syria, as they did with Iraq?

   12 comments

Jamie
February 26, 2005   08:26 PM PST
 
Secret deals? This time around they aren't even bothering with trying to keep their deals a secret. Just recent "Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and President Vladimir Putin of Russia signed a joint statement to continue deepening cooperation and friendship relations between the two countries." This happened just a month ago in January.

http://tinyurl.com/6my7f
Jamie
February 26, 2005   08:29 PM PST
 

In that joint agreement it was stated that:

--The two countries condemn all kinds of terrorism and assert the dire need for mobilizing the international community to fight this phenomena, asserting necessity for defining "terrorism" and for combating its political, economic and geographical factors, including regional disputes.

They also announced that terrorism has no relation with ethnic or religious beliefs and could never be considered as a clue for the alleged civilization conflict, expressing readiness for cementing joint action to fight international terrorism and the double-standard policy towards this phenomena, the organized crime, the illegitimate use of WMD and drugs smuggling.---

Could someone please interpret that last statement??????


Jamie
February 26, 2005   08:41 PM PST
 
Russia is already selling anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. (Possibly shoulder-fired missiles.)

http://tinyurl.com/54e7l

And they are planning to supply Iran with nuc-u-lar fuel. (Some reports say there has already been a shipment of it delivered!) Of course, Iran PROMISES to send the spent fuel back to Russia instead of using it to build nuclear bombs. And we all know that they will comply, don't we? Just like N. Korea complied with the agreement brokered by Jimmy Carter and Mattie Albright, right?

Now FRANCE.... that's different. They do everything in secret. But the clue as to what they are doing will be to see just how quickly they move to block any actions agains Syria!
JM
February 26, 2005   09:18 PM PST
 
>they aren't even bothering with
>trying to keep their deals a secret

Of course, I meant "secret deals in which they sell their UN votes, as they had with Iraq." At least Russia's deals seems to be strictly for cash.
JM
February 27, 2005   06:32 AM PST
 
There... I clarified my meaning in the last sentence. :)
Jamie
February 27, 2005   08:40 AM PST
 
I wasn't wanting clarification of YOUR meaning, JM. I realized that you meant the U.N. But we all know that the U.N. "Security Council" is a joke and that anything that comes out of it is toothless because it will never be enforced.

I meant clarification on the statement in the Russia/Syria agreement - specificall this part:

"... terrorism has no relation with ethnic or religious beliefs and could never be considered as a clue for the alleged civilization conflict...."
Mannning
February 27, 2005   11:14 PM PST
 
I suggest a full-court press diplomatically, with not-too-subtle reminders of what we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once more into the breech in the UN to seek a resolution with teeth, and give them a month to react.

Or, call up some more troops and get ready for another go. Come to think of it, call'em up now anyway: we are still short in Iraq, and that is a good place from which to pressure Syria -- and Iran.
Clee
February 28, 2005   09:53 AM PST
 
I would be interessed in if you really believe by yourself the rubbish you write here. I could puke to read such propaganda...
JM
February 28, 2005   12:21 PM PST
 
Well then, don't read it, if an opposing point of view affects you so adversely. No one forced you here at gunpoint (that I'm aware of...) Bye!
Name Calvin A
February 28, 2005   09:13 PM PST
 
Maybe the news broke after you'd written this article, but Syria did turn over a bunch of most wanted this weekend to the Iraqi govt. Hard talk, but they are softening if they are turning over the folks they've been supporting all this time. Be interesting to see how far it goes, but you have to wonder if maybe Boy Assad has realized that listening to all his dad's lunatic advisors might have him hiding in a rathole a year from now.
JM
February 28, 2005   10:12 PM PST
 
Assad's decision to do so was probably due more to an attempt to buy us off than a serious desire for reform, but I'll take what I can get. :) Assad's certainly taking a body blow from the tens of thousands of Lebanese protesters yelling "Syria out!," and the resignation of the entire Lebanese puppet government. I wouldn't be surprised at a coup in Syria before long.
Draven
March 2, 2005   08:47 AM PST
 
Looks as though someone picked this article to be reprinted in Insight Mag. Way to go!
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2005/02/28/Commentary/Deja-Vu.Syria-879861.shtml

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments