Syria Superthread [merged]

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm locking this as dogpiling does nothing but make everyone look bad.

I will unlock it when Cognitive-Dissonance PM's me a point by point response to Enfields post with thought out counterpoints backed up by the kind of research that Enfield has done.

If he fails to do that then he is what some have called him and it will stay locked......

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I have unlocked this as C-D as sent me his reply.

Folks, you have two choices, proper replies or put this thread on ignore.
Dogpiling is not an option.
Bruce

 

[PAT-Platoon]

Very good points Enfield, thanks again for the discussion instead of simply labelling me a "pro-terrorist" and waving away my arguments. Thanks also to Bruce for unlocking the thread, now on to the debate:

1- Foreign fighters have been flowing through Syria into Iraq for five years, causing massive destruction and loss of life, with the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian regime.  Syrian leadership believes it has a vested interest in maintaing the Iraqi insurgency and ensuring chaos, just as it believes it has a role in maintaining anarchy in Lebanon and fighting a proxy war through Hezbollah with Israel.

While this may be the case, again my point being that the destruction of these assets are not worth the political and international relations damage caused by it. By making incursions into Syria to destroy these foreign assets, I believe that you're only worsening the situation. If anything, in the eyes of those sympathetic to the Iraqi Insurgency this is only "proof" of American's "imperialism", so to speak. Its very easily manipulated by enemies of the United States into a propaganda tool, and very easily so (picture this, "American imperialists bomb and kill innocent civilians inside sovereign Arabic nation!"). So it is of my opinion that the end results do not outweigh the immediate and short term benefits of eliminating this threat. Its very short sided on a geopolitical scale.

As for Syrian involvement, while there is most likely involvement there is still a lot of forced information coming in from the United States side that reeks of dubious claims in order to legitimize their operations in Iraq. The United States has always claimed the problems of Iraq are from foreign fighters, when recently it has been proven that only some 5% of Iraqi Insurgents are actual foreign. GlobalSecurity has this to say about Syrian involvement in particular:

"Yet while coalition forces often suspect Syria of assisting insurgents, Syrian denials are adamant and hard evidence is lacking." (from Here )

Now I am not suggesting that the Syrians are happy go lucky and are simply innocent in this regard. They are most likely aiding the actions of foreign fighters going into Iraq by simple inaction. That being said, the hard evidence is still not there on direct Syrian involvement. And even so, again the problems of Iraq come from deep seated ethnic tensions, not the often claimed problem of foreign fighters.


2- If I were a Syrian, I would be unhappy that my government was intentionally fomenting unrest in Iraq, and that my governmet had given up a degree of national sovereignty by allowing armed foreigners to act from my soil.  I would see the role my government played in civil strife in Lebanon and Iraq, it's mad pursuit of nuclear weapons, and a continual support for extremists it can't really control or manage.  Generally, I would be embarassed that Syria constantly places itself in an aggressive regional position, and be consistently slapped down for it.

It's very easy to say this from our perspective but one must be careful not to get caught up in our own experiences and how we view things. You have to understand that in their nations, the reputation and legitimacy of United States foreign affairs has already been massively destroyed because of constant American interventionism. Thus they are unlikely to see American claims of fighting insurgency and bringing peace and stability as legitimate. Personal responsibility is easy to tout while we talk about this in the comfort of our homes in the West, while they are having to hear information filtered through various competing outlets, each with much more overt agendas than objective western media. With that in mind we need to always be careful of our actions in the region, because information is easily used against us in this regard. Futhermore I don't think the majority of those unsympathetic to American causes in the Middle East would be mad about arming foreign fighters, as they see the invasion of Iraqi and occupation to be illegitimate and illegal from the beginning.

3- Frankly, the view of a Syrian or Middle Easterner is largely irrelevant at this point: the view that matters is of the US leaders who are accountable to their soldiers, their soldiers families, and are responsible for fixing the mess in Iraq. US leadership that ok'd this raid were acting in the best interests of the stakeholders that mattered.  Syria itself is largely a pariah state, and it's regional neighbours are likely quite happy to see it slapped a bit.  The US'  response was proportionate, if not cautious - 8-10 soldiers and a few helicopters does not begin to describe what the US could inflict on Syria, at the drop of a hat, should it choose too.  Or, observe the news from the Afghan - Pakistan border - almost weekly strikes. Syria got off easy.

The USA is not only responsible to be accountable to only their soldiers. If the USA wishes to continiue to be a big player in the geopolitical stage, they have an obligation to be accountable to all. Human life is still human life and the threshold of destruction, collateral damage and operations needs to be high, but not too high to warrant risking the lives of innocent civilians. Its a difficult question and theres no easy ratio or equation to know when the risk outweighs the costs. However I believe the response in this sense may have been "good" in terms of short-term military strategy, but I believe the long-term geopolitical repercussions are much more serious than taking out a few insurgents. The trade off is destroying some operatives, in exchange for further destroying the legitimacy of US foreign relations. I believe that trade off is seriously troubling, not just for the bad precedent but even from an American perspective; it destroys reconciliation efforts with the Middle East. If the USA wants to not get into more quagmires like Iraq, and more terrorist attacks on their home soil they need to understand the root problems of the Middle East. Much of these problems come from Western interventionism, both overt, covert, political, military and economic.

4- What "international and foreign relations"?? The fact that if a State is complicit in acts that kill US troops and cause anarchy in another country, that the US will come knocking, is hardly a surprise and I would expect it of any nation.  To the best of my knowledge, relations were barely altered by this laregly symbolic raid - Syria remains a pariah, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait still sell us oil, Iran carries on it's agenda, although maybe a little more circumspectly, and Israel continues on. The true result is that a network that imported suicide bombers that carried out mass casualty attacks on Iraqi civilians was disrupted.

Ofcourse I will acknowledge that the immediete effects aren't changing the status quo, and you are correct in that regard. However I still posit that the long-term precedent with this, coupled with so many other incidents of US unilateralism sets a bad precedent and bad foundation for future reconciliation with the people of the Middle East. How are common Syrians supposed to support the USA when all they hear about is American invasions of neighbouring nations, and incursions into their country? These are very easily manipulated situations and they need to be avoided so the regimes don't have any more ammunition at their disposal for misinformation.

5- What was the alternative? I know of no international law, organization or process that could deal with Syrian and Iranian support for foreign fighters in Iraq. Syria will carry this policy forward until they think they will benefit from a negotiated solution - a solution that pushes the US out, and installs Pro-Syria and Iranian leaders in a fragmented Iraq. Syria has been complicit for five years in moving insurgents into Iraq, a fact that has been protested many times. If Syria is unhappy with the repercussions - easy. Stop allowing terrorists to come from your soil.

The alternative in this certain situations is to see that the benefit of not provoking even more outrage in a region strife with anti-Americanism, is larger than the benefit of destroying a small insurgent compound. Now as for what alternatives the military leaders themselves had, without regards to geopolitics? Well I won't try to stray too far out of my lane in saying this but I am sure there are ways in which an eye can be kept on the movements and travel of insurgents can be monitored from these already known location, and from there they can intercept movements across the border. Though I admit this may not be feasible, so in that case my strongest argument is still that the large-scale geopolitical benefit outweighs the short-term, micro-scale military goals of destroying insurgent military infrastructure.

 

[PanaEng]

Thanks Bruce for letting the discussion continue and thanks to Enfield and C-D for logical arguments and counter arguments. Both have brought up good points.

C-Ds mistake was to start up with pretty emotional references which only bring out emotional responses - and I don't blame them. If you want to have a logical debate, stay away from referring to emotional subjects or making emotional appeals or taking one side of the story at face value. And that goes for most of the other responders as well.

What I would add, and this is counter to C-D central argument that this raid did more damage geo-politically than good, is that there is no surprise there to the middle east countries and peoples; they are used to this "unilateral" behaviour so this doesn't increase their animosity toward us measurably. On the other hand, this is showing Syria and Iran where the line in the sand is - about time!

cheers,
Frank

 

[enfield]

By making incursions into Syria to destroy these foreign assets, I believe that you're only worsening the situation. If anything, in the eyes of those sympathetic to the Iraqi Insurgency this is only "proof" of American's "imperialism", so to speak. Its very easily manipulated by enemies of the United States into a propaganda tool, and very easily so (picture this, "American imperialists bomb and kill innocent civilians inside sovereign Arabic nation!"). So it is of my opinion that the end results do not outweigh the immediate and short term benefits of eliminating this threat. Its very short sided on a geopolitical scale.

First, US (or Western, or European) foreign policy and security policy cannot be held hostage to notions of Syrian or Iranian public opinion.  Second, Syrian media is no doubt working very hard to maintain the idea of Evil American Imperialist Crusader, no matter what the US actually does.  On the day of the raid, I'd bet my house that the Syrian Gov't killed more Syrians than the US military, but that will never make the headlines in Damascus, so arguing about perception is largely irrelevant. Popular (and officially sanctioned) Syrian opinion is already so anti-American that a raid like this is hardly going to change much. Besides, given that Syrian public opinion has zero influence on Syria's policies, what does it matter?

As for Syrian involvement, while there is most likely involvement there is still a lot of forced information coming in from the United States side that reeks of dubious claims in order to legitimize their operations in Iraq. The United States has always claimed the problems of Iraq are from foreign fighters, when recently it has been proven that only some 5% of Iraqi Insurgents are actual foreign. GlobalSecurity has this to say about Syrian involvement in particular:

"Yet while coalition forces often suspect Syria of assisting insurgents, Syrian denials are adamant and hard evidence is lacking." (from Here )

Now I am not suggesting that the Syrians are happy go lucky and are simply innocent in this regard. They are most likely aiding the actions of foreign fighters going into Iraq by simple inaction. That being said, the hard evidence is still not there on direct Syrian involvement. And even so, again the problems of Iraq come from deep seated ethnic tensions, not the often claimed problem of foreign fighters.

I could line up quotes from websites - in fact, here's several from the GlobalSecurity.org site you cited:
"...[as of 2005 there were three factions] The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq."
" London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency. And there is no doubt many of these have had a dramatic effect on perceptions of the insurgency through high-profile video-taped kidnappings and beheadings."
"One group of Ansar al-Islam militants captured in the Kurdish region during early August 2003 consisted of five Iraqis, a Palestinian and a Tunisian. It was reported that the men had five forged Italian passports for another group of militants. It is estimated that at least 150 members of Ansar al-Islam have entered Iraq with the help of smugglers within the last few weeks."
"The recalcitrant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is widely perceived as an Iranian proxy, while in a television interview, Muayed al-Nasseri, commander of Saddam's "Army of Muhhammad," said his group received weapons and cash form both Iran and Syria."

- but I could go on forever with various quotes from various reputable sources.  I'd only add that whatever we see in open media (who have almost no real access to the insurgency) is a shadow of what American forces in Iraq see, hear about, and monitor.  Given Syria's record of interference n Lebanon, it's support for Hezbollah, and it's proxy conflicts aganst Israel, I have no doubt they have the will and capacity to support anti-American insurgents in Iraq. Therefore, when American authorities present facts regarding Syrian complicity in fighter networks, I'll believe it, unless they suggest something wild or outlandish.

It's very easy to say this from our perspective but one must be careful not to get caught up in our own experiences and how we view things. You have to understand that in their nations, the reputation and legitimacy of United States foreign affairs has already been massively destroyed because of constant American interventionism. Thus they are unlikely to see American claims of fighting insurgency and bringing peace and stability as legitimate. Personal responsibility is easy to tout while we talk about this in the comfort of our homes in the West, while they are having to hear information filtered through various competing outlets, each with much more overt agendas than objective western media. With that in mind we need to always be careful of our actions in the region, because information is easily used against us in this regard. Futhermore I don't think the majority of those unsympathetic to American causes in the Middle East would be mad about arming foreign fighters, as they see the invasion of Iraqi and occupation to be illegitimate and illegal from the beginning.

I don't understand why we need to be careful of our actions in the region - Syrian popuar opinion should guide Western foreign policy?
Does the President of France evaluate a trade policy based on how it will play in Saskatchewan?
Anyways, as Syria is already a pariah state pursuing destructive, anti-social policies, I don't see what else can go wrong. And why should Syria matter? It has no means to retaliate, There's a reason Syria was raided and not Iran.

The USA is not only responsible to be accountable to only their soldiers.

You're right - they are accountable to American voters and taxpayers, and are obligated to always act in the best interests of American citizens. Always.

If the USA wishes to continiue to be a big player in the geopolitical stage, they have an obligation to be accountable to all.

The US has an obligation to be accountable to all if it wishes to continue to be a big player on the world stage???
Come again?

Ok, Poli Sci 101:
1) Might makes right.
2) History is written by the victors.
3) God is on the side of the big battalions.
4) States do not have permanent friends, they have permanent interests.

The US is a hyper-power because it has by far the world's largest, most prosperous and most innovative economy, coupled with a dynamic scientific and intellectual community, and fields a military exponentially more powerful than anything before, and anything existing.
Being a "big player in the geopolitical stage" has nothing to do with accountability to others; otherwise, we'd be discussing Swedish foreign policy and the US, Russia, China would be relegated to the level of Bolivia.  Like all states, the US will go along with international norms/treaties/organizations to the extent it furthers the interest of the US. Because, in the end, the US is accountable to American citizens - just like Iceland is accountable to Icelanders, and Poland is accountable to the Polish.

The trade off is destroying some operatives, in exchange for further destroying the legitimacy of US foreign relations. I believe that trade off is seriously troubling, not just for the bad precedent but even from an American perspective; it destroys reconciliation efforts with the Middle East. If the USA wants to not get into more quagmires like Iraq, and more terrorist attacks on their home soil they need to understand the root problems of the Middle East. Much of these problems come from Western interventionism, both overt, covert, political, military and economic.

I believe this raid just added to the credibility and legitimacy to American foreign relations, because it fulfills the Bush Doctrine, and transplants the policies of the Afghan/Pak theatre to the Iraq theatre.  I think it forces nations like Syria to take the US seriously, and shake them of the misconception that the US is too "tied down" to react or retaliate against further aggression. Globally, the presence or threat of American military force is the single greatest stabilizer (well, perhaps second after the global standard of the US dollar) - just as the Royal Navy kept the peace in the 1800s. The re-assertion of the capacity and will of America to intervene reinforces this stabilizing factor.

Ofcourse I will acknowledge that the immediete effects aren't changing the status quo, and you are correct in that regard. However I still posit that the long-term precedent with this, coupled with so many other incidents of US unilateralism sets a bad precedent and bad foundation for future reconciliation with the people of the Middle East. How are common Syrians supposed to support the USA when all they hear about is American invasions of neighbouring nations, and incursions into their country? These are very easily manipulated situations and they need to be avoided so the regimes don't have any more ammunition at their disposal for misinformation.

I see no true reconciliation in the Middle East - it's hardly as if this US raid prevented the signing of a sweeping Mid East Peace Accord tomorrow. In the long run, this (and future such raids) will contribute to Mid East stability by preventing pariah nations like Syria from acting as 'spoilers'.  Syria has NOT acted as a legitimate stakeholder in Iraq, and acts against US policies in Iraq that will eventually create peace and stability there. 

The alternative in this certain situations is to see that the benefit of not provoking even more outrage in a region strife with anti-Americanism, is larger than the benefit of destroying a small insurgent compound. Now as for what alternatives the military leaders themselves had, without regards to geopolitics? Well I won't try to stray too far out of my lane in saying this but I am sure there are ways in which an eye can be kept on the movements and travel of insurgents can be monitored from these already known location, and from there they can intercept movements across the border. Though I admit this may not be feasible, so in that case my strongest argument is still that the large-scale geopolitical benefit outweighs the short-term, micro-scale military goals of destroying insurgent military infrastructure.

The small insurgent compound was not just a nest of foot soldiers - it was a key transit point, and home to a High Value Target. The seriousness of this attack was not lost on US policy makers - it was deliberately chosen for the High Value of the Target.
"An eye" cannot be kept on the movement and travel of insurgents to the degree necessary  - if that were possible, there would be no insurgency left in Iraq. Perfect situational awareness is a pipedream.

my strongest argument is still that the large-scale geopolitical benefit outweighs the short-term, micro-scale military goals of destroying insurgent military infrastructure.

As there has been no backlash in foreign relations - even Syria is barely compalining - and as a insurgent leader is dead and a network disrupted, I guess that's it then. The benefits of the raid did outweigh the costs.

 

[2 Cdo]

I'll go with game, set, match for Enfield. ;D I can't wait for some tired, anti-US rhetoric masquerading as a rebuttal!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'll go with game, set, match for Enfield. ;D I can't wait for some tired, anti-US rhetoric masquerading as a rebuttal!

Yea, but maybe he will spread it over an even bigger post.

 

[1feral1]

;D I can't wait for some tired, anti-US rhetoric masquerading as a rebuttal!

I/we, and others hear you.

As far as I am concerned, this world is going ghey or green in a spiriling vomit of PCness, and I don't know whether to laugh, cry or....... shoot  ;D

However the phrase 'enough rope' comes to mind, and he has this already.

Meanwhile from the Batcave, and in the interim, I remain  op:

Cold XXXX's,

Wes

 

[CougarKing]

A more recent article.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11026964?source=rss

Syrian site bore evidence of reactor
U.N. inspectors say the Israeli-bombed facility in the desert was tainted with uranium.
By Joby Warrick
The Washington Post
Updated: 11/19/2008 10:58:44 PM MST


WASHINGTON — The Syrian facility bombed by Israeli planes last year bore multiple hallmarks of a nuclear reactor, and the ruined site was contaminated with uranium, U.N. nuclear inspectors confirmed Wednesday in a report that largely backed Bush administration accounts of a secret atomic program in the Syrian desert.

The report stopped short of declaring the Syrian facility to be a nuclear reactor, noting that Damascus had taken extensive steps to sanitize the site before officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency were allowed to visit. But agency officials said Syria had failed to provide blueprints or other documents to support its claim that the destroyed building had a nonnuclear purpose.

In a separate report, the agency also heaped new criticism on Iran for failing to cooperate with U.N. inspectors in clearing up questions about past nuclear research that appears linked to a military weapons program.

The report said Iran continues to expand its capacity for making enriched uranium, a key ingredient in both commercial nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has been engaged in contentious negotiations with both Syria and Iran as it seeks to assess claims that both countries were secretly planning to make nuclear weapons. Syria has denied having nuclear ambitions, while Iran contends that its nuclear program is exclusively for electricity production.

The Syrian facility, on the banks of the Euphrates River near the village of Kibar, was obliterated by Israeli bombs on Sept. 6, 2007.

While the Bush administration previously released photographs and other evidence suggesting that the building was a partly completed nuclear reactor, the new IAEA report provides independent support for the U.S. claim.

 

[geo]

Israel certainly snookered all that modern Russian Air defence hardware that had been put in place.

and then Syria removes every single last trace of the facility before it can be inspected.... kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar I guess...

 

[twistedcables]

:argument:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AO3Y520081125?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA (Reuters) - A bid by Syria for aid in planning a nuclear power plant poses no proliferation risk and a Western move to block the project could discredit the U.N. nuclear watchdog, its chief said in remarks released on Tuesday.

Major Western nations want the project shelved because Syria is being investigated by the watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), over U.S. intelligence asserting that it tried covertly to build a nuclear reactor designed to make plutonium for atomic bombs.

Their push has met resistance at an IAEA board of governors meeting from Russia, China and developing states who see no grounds for "politicizing" IAEA nuclear energy development aid without proof a country has violated non-proliferation rules.

An IAEA report last week said a Syrian building demolished in an Israeli air raid last year bore similarities to a nuclear reactor and uranium particles, possibly remnants of pre-enriched nuclear fuel, had been found in the area.

But it stressed that the findings were preliminary and more on-site checks, and Syrian documentation to prove its denials of covert nuclear activity, were needed to draw conclusions.

IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said the intervention by Western powers against Syria had no legal basis and there was no way Syria could abuse the project -- a feasibility study for a nuclear power plant -- for military ends.

Barring IAEA aid to a country on the basis of unproven allegations "is not part of our lexicon, it's not part of our statute," he told a session of the agency's 35-nation board on Monday in remarks released by his office.

"INNOCUOUS" STUDY

The disputed $350,000 project is a "technical and economic feasibility and site selection" study for a nuclear power station in Syria. It would run from 2009 to 2011.

ElBaradei said all equipment that would be provided to Syria under IAEA auspices was "relevant to the project and...of an innocuous nature."

"None of it requires any safeguards," he added, referring to IAEA oversight meant to prevent diversions into nuclear bomb-making.

He warned if the Syria project were blocked over "political considerations," the IAEA would lose credibility with developing states seeking peaceful nuclear power and it would discourage cooperation by states under investigation.

Diplomats said a deal was being discussed under which a U.S.-led Western group would drop objections, enabling the project to be adopted by consensus, if the IAEA pledged to stagger it to ensure no equipment was introduced until the end.

"Some Western powers want ElBaradei to back down but he will not," said a senior diplomat familiar with the deliberations.

"If it works, a compromise would be noting all the West's reservations in the official summary of the meeting and let the project go forward, albeit with delayed equipment purchase. It would be a face-saver," he said. 

The meeting recessed for much of Tuesday to allow negotiations. It was adjourned later without a result and will reconvene on Wednesday, when a decision is expected.

An IAEA official said the governors could easily revisit the Syria study next year if by then the inquiry found Damascus to be in "non-compliance" with safeguards rules, as North Korea and Iran were previously, which led to cut-offs of IAEA aid.

Tensions between ElBaradei and U.S. officials over their suggestions he is "soft" on alleged nuclear proliferators, something he denies, have simmered for years.

"The latest clash between ElBaradei and the Bush administration goes back to his insistence on maintaining the agency's independence, following due process and preventing the IAEA from becoming a kangaroo court," said a senior IAEA official who asked for anonymity due to political sensitivities.

(Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

 

[Greymatters]

Very true but, as we all know, the truth is irrelevant in the propaganda wars.

Ours or theirs? 

 

[CougarKing]

A war of words that hopefully won't escalate any further:

Canadian Press

JERUSALEM - Israel's outspoken foreign minister harshly warned Syria Thursday against drawing the Jewish state into another war, saying the Syrian army would be defeated and its regime would collapse in a future conflict.


Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also advised Syria to abandon its dreams of recovering the Israeli-held Golan Heights in a speech that ratcheted up simmering political tensions between the two longtime foes and sparked an urgent damage control campaign from the prime minister's office.


Lieberman's exceptionally sharp words followed Syrian President Bashar Assad's accusation on Wednesday that Israel was the one avoiding peace, and the Syrian foreign minister's earlier threat that Israeli cities would be attacked in a future conflict.


The Syrians "have crossed a red line that cannot be ignored," Lieberman said in a speech at Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv.


"Our message must be clear to Assad: 'In the next war, not only will you lose but you and your family will lose power,"' he added.


Lieberman heads the ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu faction. He has stirred controversy before with statements that Israeli-Arab lawmakers who meet Palestinian militants should be executed and that the president of Egypt could "go to hell." He later apologized for the comment directed at the Egyptian leader.


Lieberman's bellicose language contrasted sharply with a statement Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued late Wednesday, saying Israel seeks peace. It also said Netanyahu "would be willing to go anywhere in the world, and doesn't rule out any assistance by a fair third party, to promote the political process in order to begin peace talks with Syria without any preconditions."

In another statement Thursday, Netanyahu's spokesman Nir Hefetz said the prime minister spoke with Lieberman about the Syria issue.


"The two clarify that the policy of the government is clear: Israel seeks peace and negotiations with Syria without preconditions. Having said that, Israel will continue to act aggressively and persistently to any threat toward it," the statement read.


In a third statement, the prime minister's office said Netanyahu will ask his ministers to refrain from speaking out about the Syrian issue.


Syria demands the return of the Golan Heights - the strategic plateau Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war - as the price of any deal.


But Lieberman said there would be no such thing.


"We must make Syria recognize that just as it relinquished its dream of a greater Syria that controls Lebanon ... it will have to relinquish its ultimate demand regarding the Golan Heights," Lieberman said.


There was no immediate comment from Syrian officials to Lieberman's remarks.


Several rounds of indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel in 2008 ended without agreement.


Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak warned earlier this week that the absence of peacemaking with Syria could result in a regional war.

 

 

[CougarKing]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States voiced concern on Wednesday that Syria may have supplied Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas with Scud missiles that can hit deep inside Israel, potentially altering the military balance between the long-time foes.

A day after Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of handing over "sophisticated Scud missiles to Hezbollah that threaten Israel," the White House said it had warned Damascus of a possible "destabilizing effect" for the region.


"There's concern that this is under consideration, but it's unclear whether or not the missiles have been transferred," said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.


Such a development could threaten U.S. President Barack Obama's diplomatic outreach to Syria and create new obstacles to the confirmation of a new U.S. ambassador to Damascus after a five-year absence.


One Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Scuds were smuggled in to Hezbollah, an Islamist group backed by Iran and Syria, over the past two months.

Another Israeli official said the missiles were believed to have come without launchers but called that "irrelevant" since they were placed in improvised silos. There was no immediate word on where in Lebanon the missiles were stationed.


(...)
 

 

[Retired AF Guy]

It appears that some people may have jumped the gun on this story.

On Friday, American sources said it was unclear whether the missiles were indeed transferred to the Lebanese group.

"We think the intent is there," a senior US official told Reuters. "We believe a transfer of some kind occurred but it is unclear if the rockets themselves have changed hands," the senior official said.

Another official said doubts were growing that Syria had delivered the Scuds in full and allowed them to transit to Lebanese territory: "We don't believe it happened."

"It's unclear at this point that a transfer has occurred ... and the United States has no indications that the rockets have moved across the border," a third US official said.

Full story here.

 

[a_majoor]

Political disarray in Washington:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/283866

The Scud Saga Continues
Noah Pollak - 04.25.2010 - 8:15 AM

Michael Young, the opinion editor of the Beirut Daily Star, has a fine column parsing the latest developments on Syria, Lebanon, and the Obama administration. He confirms the interpretation I made recently on this blog, that the administration is puzzled at the failure of its opening gambits and unsure of what to do next:

    The problem is that Washington is of several minds over what to do about Syria…because there is no broad accord, and because the president has not provided clear guidance on resolving Mideastern problems, there is confusion in Washington. And where there is confusion there is policy bedlam, with everyone trying to fill the vacuum. That explains why the Syrians feel they can relax for now, and why the Iranians see no reason yet to fear an American riposte.

    Lebanon should be worried about American uncertainty. When there is doubt in Washington, it usually means the Israelis have wide latitude to do what they see fit here. With much of the Lebanese political class openly or objectively siding with Hezbollah, rather than shaping an American approach to Lebanon that might reinforce its sovereignty, we can guess the calamitous effect of that abdication.

Young’s worry is confirmed by this remarkable report from Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin:

    As for why Syria seems to be playing such an unhelpful role, “that’s the million-dollar question,” the [Obama administration] official said….”We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem,” the official said. “Until then it’s all damage control.”

This is quite simply amazing. The Assads, father and now son, have run the same foreign policy for decades. It is a very simple model, and one that gets discussed in detail on a regular basis: They are the arsonists who sell water to the fire department. The administration official should start his odyssey of discovery by reading Bret Stephens’s 2009 Commentary essay, “The Syrian Temptation — and Why Obama Must Resist It.”

Bashar is a promoter of a remarkable array of death and destruction in the Middle East: killing American soldiers in Iraq, murdering Lebanon’s pro-democracy community into submission, killing Israelis, arming Hezbollah, hosting Hamas, and so on. This is intended not only to make Syria into a bigger player than it would otherwise be, but allows Bashar to maintain his illegitimate police state of a regime by constantly invoking foreign threats. And it ensures that the United States and other western powers will continuously drag themselves to Syria to beg for cooperation. “The road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Nancy Pelosi famously declared on her visit in 2007, unintentionally confirming to Assad the wisdom of the mayhem he sponsors. This is like saying that the road to the brothel is a road to virginity.

In the Obama administration, there are a few people, like Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, who understand Syria. But foreign policy is run from the top. The person who doesn’t get it is the president, who seems confused by the failure of the region’s dictators and terrorists to respond constructively to his sensitive reorientation of American foreign policy. Right now he is stuck between his ideological commitments and the reality of their failure, and in the meantime the Middle East’s rogues are not waiting around for The One to figure out what level of nuance he ultimately wishes to pursue. They see naivety and irresolution, and they capitalize.

 

[Rifleman62]

When there is doubt in Washington, it usually means the Israelis have wide latitude to do what they see fit here

I don't think so. Not after the recent mishandling by Washington of the proposed new housing, leaked by a member of the opposition who was in the coalition Israeli government, and the snubs by the President and the Administration to PM Netanyahu.

No bows to the Israelis thank you very much!

 

[a_majoor]

I think what the article is really saying is Washington has fewer levers available to use when it comes to dealing with Israel. Israel is facing existential threats to its very existence, but is no longer seeing help or support from Washington (and when the POTIS bows to the King of Saudi Arabia and makes "smart diplomacy" noises to Israel's avowed enemies but seems to have no stick or will to back up their intentions, while making angry noises over a long planned and entirely legal housing development in Israeli territory, that idea rises very fast indeed).

Given these alarming developments, Israel may increasingly decide to take measures on its own, without regard to what Washington thinks or how Israel's actions might affect Washington's interests in the region.

 

[Rifleman62]

The Israelis may as well proceed with the backbone they have, the current US Administration lacks, and take out Iran's ability to manufacture WMDs. Almost the entire UN (joke) and the CBC hates them anyway.

 

[HavokFour]

From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/syria-bans-full-islamic-face-veils-at-universities/article1645185/

Syria has forbidden the country's students and teachers from wearing the niqab — the full Islamic veil that reveals only a woman's eyes — taking aim at a garment many see as political.

The ban shows a rare point of agreement between Syria's secular, authoritarian government and the democracies of Europe: Both view the niqab as a potentially destabilizing threat.

“We have given directives to all universities to ban niqab-wearing women from registering,” a government official in Damascus told The Associated Press on Monday.

The order affects both public and private universities and aims to protect Syria's secular identity, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Hundreds of primary school teachers who were wearing the niqab at government-run schools were transferred last month to administrative jobs, he added.

The ban, issued Sunday by the Education Ministry, does not affect the hijab, or headscarf, which is far more common in Syria than the niqab's billowing black robes.

Syria is the latest in a string of nations from Europe to the Middle East to weigh in on the veil, perhaps the most visible symbol of conservative Islam. Veils have spread in other secular-leaning Arab countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, with Jordan's government trying to discourage them by playing up reports of robbers who wear veils as masks.

Turkey bans Muslim headscarves in universities, with many saying attempts to allow them in schools amount to an attack on modern Turkey's secular laws.

The issue has been debated across Europe, where France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands are considering banning the niqab on the grounds it is degrading to women.

Last week, France's lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on both the niqab and the burqa, which covers even a woman's eyes, in an effort to define and protect French values — a move that angered many in the country's large Muslim community.

The measure goes before the Senate in September; its biggest hurdle could come when France's constitutional watchdog scrutinizes it later. A controversial 2004 law in France earlier prohibited Muslim headscarves and other “ostentatious” religious symbols in the classrooms of French primary and secondary public schools.

Opponents say such bans violate freedom of religion and personal choice, and will stigmatize all Muslims.

In Damascus, a 19-year-old university student who would give only her first name, Duaa, said she hopes to continue wearing her niqab to classes when the next term begins in the fall, despite the ban.

Otherwise, she said, she will not be able to study.

“The niqab is a religious obligation,” said the woman, who would not give her surname because she was uncomfortable speaking out against the ban. “I cannot go without it.”

Nadia, a 44-year-old science teacher in Damascus who was reassigned last month because of her veil, said: “Wearing my niqab is a personal decision.”

“It reflects my freedom,” she said, also declining to give her full name.

In European countries, particularly France, the debate has turned on questions of how to integrate immigrants and balance a minority's rights with secular opinion that the garb is an affront to women.

But in the Middle East — particularly Syria and Egypt, where there have been efforts to ban the niqab in the dorms of public universities — experts say the issue underscores the gulf between the secular elite and largely impoverished lower classes who find solace in religion.

Some observers say the bans also stem in part from fear of dissent.

The niqab is not widespread in Syria, although it has become more common in recent years, a development that has not gone unnoticed by the authoritarian government.

“We are witnessing a rapid income gap growing in Syria — there is a wealthy ostentatious class of people who are making money and wearing European clothes,” said Joshua Landis, an American professor and Syria expert who runs a blog called Syria Comment.

The lower classes are feeling the squeeze, he said.

“It's almost inevitable that there's going to be backlash. The worry is that it's going to find its expression in greater Islamic radicalism,” Landis said.

Four decades of secular rule under the Baath Party have largely muted sectarian differences in Syria, although the state is quick to quash any dissent. In the 1980s, Syria crushed a bloody campaign by Sunni militants to topple the regime of then-President Hafez Assad.

The veil is linked to Salafism, a movement that models itself on early Islam with a doctrine that is similar to Saudi Arabia's. In the broad spectrum of Islamic thought, Salafism is on the extreme conservative end.

In Gaza, radical Muslim groups encourage women to cover their faces and even conceal the shape of their shoulders by using layers of drapes.

It's a mistake to view the niqab as a “personal freedom,” Bassam Qadhi, a Syrian women's rights activist, told local media recently.

“It is rather a declaration of extremism,” Qadhi said.