LoneSyrian

Steve seems bent upon imposing a defeatist, capitulation-orientated policy on Iraq’s Sunnis. It’s the Americans who control the Sunni’s fate in Anbar, says he, not the owners of the land. If only they would come and kiss American and Shiite ass, Steve adds, we’ll make it so much easier for them, the bloodshed would stop, this simple. Had Steve’s great grand parents said to George Washington, it is King George and Cornwallis who control your fate, you best negotiate to stop the bloodshed, Steve’s grand dad would’ve been laughed out of the room and imprisoned for sedition. Had James Wolfe been told New France’s Nova Scotia shall remain French for ever, resign yourself and surrender your fate to Bougainville and the French Empire; it is not you who masters your own destiny, the forbearer of this edict would’ve been disgorged. If Stonewall Jackson were told to stop fighting unionists, and McClellan to negotiate with Lee to stop the bloodshed in the midst of battle, shame would’ve descended upon the advisor adopting such a strategy. It is the duty of occupiers, emperors, empires and their sycophants to instill in any resistance movement a defeatist stance, a conciliatory attitude, a feeling of despair and resignation. Yet throughout history, it is the conviction and endurance of those who resisted that won the day. Sunnis aren’t orphans, they’re the kings of the region, as Arabs have begun to witness an attempt to resurrect the Persian empire, they’ve plans to aid, finance, support and arm their Sunni brethren. An American-sponsored Shiite proverbial island in the midst of a Sunni sea of wealth and determination is barely capable of holding its dick in its hands, let alone the fate of a colossal, proud sect. As for my prior post which agitated you, let me retract its harshness and stipulate, for you’re the master of the house and it’s dangerous waters to delve deep into the morality of war and its combatants, or lack thereof. In terms of you not liking my reasoning for the Lebanese assassination, I can’t invent another reasoning because you challenge it or don’t like it. People in forums present arguments, enjoy public discourse, converge, diverge, let things stand where they and move on. I did notice one thing though, you tend to burnish “logic’ when it suits your argument, then take a fat piss on it when it tarnishes it, nothing serious though, humans do it all the time.

When you label Sunnis “terrorists”, you’ve to understand to Sunnis and most Iraqis, US soldiers are the consummate, indisputable and monstrous terrorists. Take the case of US soldier James Barker of the infamous 101st Airborne, as one of countless examples. This convicted and sentenced American terrorist, along with three 101st terrorists by the names of Jesse Spielman, Paul Cortez and Bryan Howard, committed a most heinous terrorist act and unspeakables a Sunni would never contemplate. In March of 06, the above squad stalked and surveilled a 14-year old Sunni girl in the village of Mahmudiya, Iraq. Once her address became known to them, they proceeded to gang rape and bludgeon her to death with her family present in the house. After raping and murdering this teenager, they burned her along with her entire family, as well as their house to conceal the evidence of the terror and horror they perpetrated. The Sunnis ask you, who’s terrorizing who? You say it’s a few bad apples, an isolated incident, the Sunnis say NOT. Enter the town of Haditha, 19 November, 2005 whereby 24 Iraqi civilians were massacred in cold blood by US troops looking for action and revenge. Again, in March of 06 and after the Mahmudiya rape, murder and incineration act of terror, an entire Iraqi family of 11, including five children is wiped out in a flash by you know who. Do not presume your own kind, be it European or American isn’t well familiar with dispensing terror up close and personal. Wearing a uniform while terrorizing hardly shields the terrorist from the label which best describes him. Amen. Steve, The answer as to who I think done it in the last Lebanese assassination is present in my very first post, the last 2 paragraphs or so. It states names, factions, possible motives, ends and grand designs. You might've missed it, for I admit, my posts are long-winded, Syrians donno brevity.

When General Abi Zeid was asked last week by Senator Warner if US forces have control of Anbar, Abi Zeid answered under oath “we do not control Al Anbar province.” I believe him. Anbar today represents a graveyard for US Marines, they may very well patrol any sector they chose to, but not without sustaining daily casualties which resonate back in the US. There’s no political or military victory, there’s only victory. What good was "winning every engagement” in Vietnam? One need only refer back to the chaotic pictures depicting the US embassy’s last hours in Saigon and the scuttling of copters off the boat home. The US military often says “we don’t like to fight fair” in reference to its devastating air power. Well, Iraq’s freedom fighters and their allies aren’t fighting fair either. They know the US is somewhat paralyzed, it has an incompetent leadership, it cannot nuke, it cannot go all out, it must show restraint, it must retain a semblance of a moral campus, so they asymmetrically stick it in. Anbar IS lost, and it’s a prelude to the entire Iraqi theater. Moreover, Anbar is lost not because of inner Iraqi killings or sectarian violence, it’s lost because Americans no longer accept the level of daily casualties they’re sustaining in the province, the cost has become too much to bear by American standards. American pride and the need of some to parse and justify may see the Anbar situation differently, but the rest of the world sees it as an American defeat and a Sunni Iraqi victory. No one measures the triumph of a superpower over a guerilla force through single engagements or the sum of said engagements, triumph and defeat are measured by the final outcome of a campaign _ will the US maintain presence in Anbar? If NOT and it withdraws soon, then its foe won and America lost. There’s no “political”, “tactical”, this or that, there’s what's there for the entire world to see. And if the US decided to, it can nuke the entire Islamic world, it can incinerate Venezuela, it can obliterate North Korea, it can flatten Cuba. But it won’t decide to, it can’t decide to. Why? Apart from the constraints of its present forces' configuration, the US president says there are forces of good and evil in this world, and the good ole guys can’t go on mass murderin’ now can they?

I as a Syrian Sunni, along with the majority of Iraq’s Sunnis, barring the sect’s puppet, non representative leadership class dependant upon the US for its survival, will say to the US, by all means, “take the leash off”, “withdraw all attempts to help”, get da funk out. The Sunnis like their chances with the above equation, “unleash hell”. One has to look at analysis of pros and cons vis à vis US withdrawal from the perspective of each sect. And from a Sunni prism, the Americans are impeding the Iraqi Sunni agenda as much as they may be impeding the Shias’ desire to go postal. If the US occupation ceases and Iraqis are left to mend for themselves, you’ll have all the Arab countries pitted against Iran and to a certain extent Syria, with the Kurds being checked by Turkey. Ultimately, no Arab country, including most Syrian Sunnis want to see an Iranian Iraq. The biggest fear of all gulf states, as well as Jordan and Egypt is the rising Persian tide and a potentially nuclear Persia. Arab gulf states, as well as Jordan and Egypt, don’t foresee a western threat of force against them or debilitating pressure, nor do they expect them, Iran does. As for Syria, later rather than sooner, it will be pried away from Iran and brought back into the fold. In consequence, Iran can’t take on the US, Europe, Israel and the Arab countries all at once, the Iranian Mullahs will have to relinquish Iraq, abandon their proxies and tend to their regime’s survival instead. You’re looking at a nasty knife fight, but the Sunnis like their chances and won’t be abandoned by their own kind. After all, Saudi and environs is Sunni, Egypt is Sunni, Jordan is Sunni, Syria is Sunni, Indonesia is Sunni, Turkey is Sunni, Pakistan is Sunni, Afghanistan is Sunni, Malaysia is Sunni, Sudan is Sunni, India’s Muslims are Sunni, Central Asian Stan states are Sunni, The US ambassador to Iraq, Khalil Zad is Sunni. Who’s Shia? Iran, southern Lebanon and nearly two thirds of Iraq, das ist it. One trick the US uses for stupid western consumption is to highlight a spurious Sunni untenable plight in Iraq, as if Sunnis are minorities everywhere, which is a mockery of the crystal clear truth. If Iraq’s Sunnis are in such an untenable plight, how come they won the Anbar war and are actively forcing Abi Zeid to plan a full withdrawal and reallocate the western command to a burning Baghdad. With such a move, the sunnis will have a vast base of operations, a mammoth Fallujah if you will, to lauch insurrections into Baghdad. So the Sunni answer to the US powers that be isn’t unlike the following, we're not gonna “knock it off”, do “take the leash off”, sic the Shias on us and go back to Peoria. The Sunnis fabricated a Saddam in a Shia stronghold long before the US knew an Iraq existed. They don’t need the US to baby sit, give hand outs, or put their detractors on a leash, they want an Iraq free of foreign presence and American air power. [ November 30, 2006, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: LoneSyrian ]

Steve, I will take your post in two parts, first, your specific questions part, for you’re eager to ascertain whether I’m robotic, or incapable or criticizing my own. Then your commentating part, for I’ve a few observations as well. Both Syria and the US are allowed to interfere with bordering states for national security purposes and threat control. The notion of absolute sovereignty today is practically extinct. So both the US and Syria are allowed to interfere, like Russia interferes with Georgia and the Ukraine, like China interferes with Tibet and Nepal, like Pakistan interferes with Afghanistan, like Libya interferes with Chad, like Britain interferes with Ireland, like Ethiopia interferes with Somalia, like Turkey interferes with Iraq, like Greece interferes with Cyprus, like Mexico interferes with Guatemala, like Australia interferes with Tasmania and New Zealand, like… The peculiarity of course is that the US interferes with everybody. The only country on earth which evaluates the human rights performance and internal machinations of every single other country of note is the US. Go to the state department’s website and read what the US thinks about Fiji, for example, and what remedies it prescribes for its behavior. My contention is with the who and why of the most recent Gmayel assassination, it ain’t Syria. If you come back to me with a better formulated question that delineates those assassinated, I’ll give you an opinion. I can tell you however, not all Lebanese notables assassinated since 2005 held the same political weight, descended from the same sect, or practiced the same vocation. Certain eliminated notables had their own peculiarities, triggered a different motive and alarmed disparate assailants. The answer to the first part of the question is yes, but to a certain extent. Steve makes it sound in prior posts like Hizbullah is Syria’s made or servant, far from it. Nassrallah retains a great deal of independence and latitude, especially after pulverizing Israeli ground forces last summer. You must understand that Hezbullah’s chairman, after the last Lebano-Israeli war, is more popular and influential than all the Arab dictators combined. Let me add that he’s more astute and resourceful that all Arab leaders combined as well. Nassrallah to the Arabs is what Churchill was to the Brits. As for the second part of this question, it’s simple, Syria will gladly and proudly share responsibility either overtly or covertly whenever anyone attacks Israel. Yet you make it sound as if attacks on Israel are unprovoked. Do you know how many times a day Israel violates Lebanese territorial waters and air space? Do you know how many Lebanese villagers and innocent Shepherds it kidnaps monthly? Hell, it bombarded Ein El Saheb, Syria (Syria being a “sovereign state”) in late 04 and Syria never retaliated. Moreover, Israel’s occupation of Lebanon never ceased, Shebaa Farms, very fertile and revenue dispensing Lebanese land is still under Israeli occupation along with the village of Gajar. Just two weeks ago, a well documented incident, Israeli F16s provocatively overflew French installations in south Lebanon, whereby French batteries almost engaged, It’s a miracle how a crisis was averted. How would Steve like Cubans kidnapping Floridians at will and overflying Miami in strafing formation under the pretext of preemptive aerial recon? If the US expected Iraq to be bloodshed-free after its adventurous dismantlement and occupation of it, then those who made a decision to occupy are irretrievably stupid. No one really gives a **** what the US wants, just like no one gives a **** what Syria wants, WITH OCCUPATION comes “bloodshed”. There’s bloodshed in Palestine and there was bloodshed in Northern Ireland. What the US wants in Iraq and what it will get are articles light years away from each other. But let me explain the “no one gives a **** comment” it’ll crystallize in the following lines. “Are Syria or Iran doing anything to help stop the violence, or are they doing things to encourage it?” I’ll take on the Syrian part: Syria wants to help, it is capable of helping, but it will never ever do it for free, for charity, without incentives, without carrots; that’s not politics, that’s not the way it works between superpowers and little states. Basically, the State department sends a low-level emissary to the Syrian ambassador in Washington who delivers ultimatums. Here’s the way it goes, the emissary conveys a long list of demands on Iraq, attaches them with the threat of force and is eager to leave even though the ambassador shows willingness to discuss the demands. For example, ambassador Mustafa asks, “well, how about night vision goggles, motion detectors and border surveillance kit to meet the state department’s demands?” The emissary, “no, none, you’re gonna use it against Israel or give it to Hizbullah, no and it’s final.” Ambassador Mustafa again, “very well, how about facilitating and sponsoring negotiations to return the Golan heights to its rightful owner in exchange for sincere efforts to stabilize Iraq?” Emissary, “ this administration won’t pressure Israel on such sensitive issues, no and it’s final.” The Ambassador, “Perhaps you can entice president Assad with a robust economic aid package that is long term which can benefit a stagnate Syrian economy.” The emissary, “ Syria is on the US terrorist list and Congress would never approve such a package, you’ve no friends in either the House or the Senate, no.” The ambassador, “do you bring any incentives for Syria in exchange for your numerous demands?” The emissary “no, none.” In essence, the US is saying to Syria “you execute our demands free of charge and you shut da funck up, you should be flabbergasted that we’re taking to you in the first place.” So no, under such conditions and belligerence, no one is gonna help the US in Iraq, and no one is helping, the US is on its own there, it’s absorbing most of the casualties, most of the cost, most of the blame, most of the grief and most of the American public’s wrath. So when the US conveys to Syria that its administration doesn’t give a **** what Syria’s needs and grievances are; just as soon comply or else, Syria returns the favor. In the world of international politics there are carrots and sticks, you offer nothing, you get nothing. That’s the way it always worked before W. If James Baker III and his commission gets the above in Bush’s thick skull, all the greater accomplishment. I hope I haven’t been “boring”.

Try "Company of Heroes" from THQ online, you'll be decimated before you can say WWII.

John, Thank you for your decorous welcome and interesting insights as to who done it and why. Let me just agree to disagree with you. Not because I'm Syrian, but because I believe to have commited such a stupid assassination at a cruicial juncture which beaconed huge transformation in the Lebanese balance of power is suicidal and defeatist. You and Steve believe the Syiran regime possesses in it such irrational, sel-defeating, erratic and miscalculating behavior, and I don't. I believe this regime is able to distinguish who it should assassinate and when as to suit its agenda and not disturb its international obligations and sympathizers (however few may they be).

Factually flawed. They had a choice back then and they chose to go with the Stalinist foreign policy instead. And you can't tell me that was a better pick for the Syrian people. Again, I completely acknowledge the failings and hypocrisy of US foreign policy, but not without looking at the alternatives and the choices that were made by governments like the Assads. Looking at only one side of the equation removes the relevance of any arguments that follow. Steve </font>

Do Iraqis seem subserviant to you? Syrian insurgents just took out 100 of your best of the best last month and 6 this weekend. The "new holiday" is alive and well here, it's called Yanks Bone Collectors. Woof yaself. And shouldn't you be shopping for body armor and shipping it to your cousins.

I personally think today's U.S. should do exactly what you suggest as well. Nevertheless, I certainly more than appreciate the non-enmity you profess for civilians and non protagonist citizens of Bush’s Axis of Evil nation states. Your level of civility is noble. During my education days in the state of Utah, my Mormon girlfriend often uttered two very famous American sayings “if it isn’t the pot calling the kettle black” and “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” And yes, during 90s America Mormons did date Muslims, but I digress. Now I wouldn’t presume what’s good for a mighty superpower like the States is good for a minor player like Syria, but little players are always impressed by and emulate big players. Forget about your present, ruinous administration and go back to your Kennedy presidency. Back then, international political assassinations were a legendary compartment of US foreign policy and are making a comeback. As for control of thou lesser neighbors, the US is the bastion and champion of such Machiavellian stratagems. Begin by Castro’s rigged cigars, to the Bay of Pigs, to LBJ’s assassination of North and South Vietnamese leaders, all the way to Reagan’s Granada and Bush Senior’s Panama, ending in W’s neo Cordon Sanitaire along 700 miles of Mexican border. And god forbid Canada venture outside the sphere of US policy. It took a pacifist like Carter to outlaw assassinations and bring a bit of morality to US policy in the 70s, but this was short lived. The wisdom of the cessation of assassinations and employment of heinous elements is being questioned vigorously in America at present. You can’t fault Syria for refusing to transform its backyard to an American and French outpost. The present Lebanese government represents a hornet’s nest of conspiratorial plots against it, aided and abetted by the US, France and Britain. Syrian appeasement at this juncture is tantamount to suicide, it’s the unconditional death of Syria that’s demanded, not its unconditional surrender. The obsession of the present Lebanese government with Syria’s demise isn’t unlike Bush/Cheney’s obsession with Iran. Savvy diplomats caution Bush and point to a resurgent Russia that is wishing the US slow stomach cancer, but Bush points back to Iran. Diplomats in the know point to a scornful China and a dangerous DPRK, but Bush goes back to Iran. The same is happening with Lebanon’s present government; ideologues say to this government, look, Israel destroyed your country, your economy and inner fabric, yet this Lebanese government, like Bush, points to Syria and Iran. Theirs is a dangerous and bizarre obsession that’s convenient as well. Bush and the present Lebanese government figure you tackle and tussle with perceived enemies that are doable, the major, nuclear players cost too much. Syrians would’ve accepted dictation and ridicule from a Woodrow Wilsonian or FDResque US, but the chicanery, duplicity, hypocrisy and brutality of today’s America is more than any nation can bear. I can tell you that the majority of oppressed masses in the region are saying to the US, please don’t come and save us, compared to present Iraq, our dictatorships are bliss and extra virgin olive oil.

It’s a shame American wargaming buffs have been relegated to bone seekers. And Battlefront is exploiting your subservience to make you believe you owe them servitude or else they won’t release. In essence, every time you ask for bovine bones, Battlefront is saying bark like the junkyard dogs you are. Plus, don’t Americans acquire plenty of Bird bones during their famous November holiday? So suck on that.

Syrian nationals like me aren’t surprised at Steve’s stance and conjecture towards Syria, nor the similar stance of most members of this forum. The motto around here has been: when in doubt, there is no doubt, Syria is the villain, assassin, instigator, perpetrator and facilitator, says Steve. “No way (none)” says the admin, after all, this is a country of mine he chose to invade through our PC screens, yet he denied it its most precious defense, civilian human shields and Toyota pickup trucks. In the absence of hard evidence and convincing motives, at least let logic prevail. And logic would dictate Syria was not involved in the clipping of Pierre Gmayel for one simple reason, it was winning the war. To perpetrate such a high profile assassination at a time when the Saniora government was reeling and about to collapse means managing to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, the act is senseless. This assassination in effect prevented Syria and its Lebanese allies from going for the real kill, it has re-instated vigor and oomph in the Saniora/Harrri/Jumblat government and energized a hitherto comatose Christian Lebanese street. This assassination turned the tables; whilst the pro Syrian forces were preparing and scheduled to hit the streets and finish the Saniora pro American government, it is the followers of the latter who usurped Beirut’s streets post assassination. Syria’s desire to maintain a low profile at this juncture has also international implications. After its proxies eviscerated and humiliated Israel in Lebanon, and after Syria and Iran strategically defeated the US in Iraq, the US president was about to kiss the ass of Syria’s president. James Baker III had convinced Bush to pucker up, for the US is at a loss what else to try with Syria, none of its cowboy threats worked. Then came the assassination, and Bush’s ass kiss now seems a bit distant along with everything else that was almost at hand. If the aim was to create chaos in Lebanon, I was in Beirut last week and the situation couldn’t have been more chaotic, assassination or not. Inter-Christian factions assassinations aren’t alien to Lebanon, especially amongst prominent ruling families of the Maronite sect. The surreptitious machinations and brutality of this Christian sect are world renowned. After all, all these Christian leaders who kiss American ass today were yesterday’s warlords and assassins. They’re the assassins of the 70s, 80s and 90s, only now they’re out of their assassination fatigues and in Armanis. Just like you cherchez la femme, cherchez la motive and benificiary of a crime. Syria, Hizbullah and their Christian ally, General Aoun are the biggest losers because of Pierre Gmayel’s slaying today. And Jumblat, Jaajaa (two well known assassins), Israel and France are the beneficiaries because they bought more time for a western puppet government in its last throws. To have lost Lebanon today to the Syrian-Irano camp would’ve had disastrous implications for the Euro forces stationed in the south of the country, especially the French contingent. When Abraham sacrificed Isaac, it was for the greater good of Christianity. Lebanon’s Christians felt the same on this one, they assassinated the son to give the rest of the flock a chance to survive and maybe prosper. Happy Thanksgiving Day.