Brink of civil war in Lebanon

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I personally think the only logical way for Syria to go is to create a democratic society and to seek to better its neighbors instead of controlling them. But that logic certainly is lost on the Assad government.

Steve

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.

[Battlefront.com]

LoneSyrian,

I had a nice reply typed up, but I feel we are starting to violate the rule of not talking politics here instead of talking about the game. Having said that, there is some room for discussion of the issues surrounding the hypothetical invasion of Syria.

Granted, the foreign policy of the US currently is about as bad as it has ever been in far too many ways. And yes, as you point out, it has been horrible (sometimes criminal, even under US law) most of the 20th century. You cited some specifics, but as a historian I'm sure I could rattle off dozens more. I could also point out that the US has a pretty checkered domestic record as well. Oh, like official second class citizens, feeding mentally retarded children radioactive food to see what would happen, forced sterilization of the mentaly ill, blind eye to industrial polution, massive corruption to favor business interests, etc., etc. All very true, sadly enough.

However, to say that because the US has problems this excuses Syria's is a rather poor line of argument. The alternatives are to withdraw your criticisms of the US or illustrate how Syria's behavior is morally superior. I'm consistent in that I see the US foreign policy as being morally hollow and (unfortunately) horribly ineffective, as I do Syria's. Instead I see you criticizing one position and defending the other. That's what your girlfriend meant about the pot calling the kettle black.

As bad as the US policy in Iraq has been for Iraqis, let's not forget that it isn't all bad. The Kurdish north is certainly pretty happy with the way things are turning out for themselves, as well as large sections of the Shia south. And if the Sunnis weren't so Hell bent on killing everybody they have a quarrel with, including many within their own communities, things would be much better in the rest of Iraq too. The Shias certainly have their own behavioral problems, but they were comparatively restful until the Sunnis switched from targeting Americans to targeting Shias. Therefore, the US led invasion made some things better with the bad side effect of allowing other groups to make things much, much worse. If the US had it their way Iraq would be a happy, peaceful state where the rule of law and free speech were the norm. Argue what you want about the evils of American foreign policy's real agenda, but do not denny that bloodshed and destruction in Iraq is not what America wants. Others do, unfortunately.

Returning to Lebanon, I completely disagree with you that Lebanon has nothing to fear from Syria. That Syria, and Hezbollah, are simply "perceived enemies" as you call them. Someone assassinated Hariri, someone assassinated Gmayel, someone assassinated several other noteworthy people (at least 4 or 5 others) this year. There is only one common thread... all of them oppose Syrian intervention in Lebanese politics. It's hard for me to believe that they weren't killed for their beliefs. Therefore, either it was rather good fortune that someone completely unrelated to Syria happened to kill these people for some other reason, or Syria was in some way responsible for their deaths (most, if not all). I'm curious to know what other explanation there can be.

Syrians would’ve accepted dictation and ridicule from a Woodrow Wilsonian or FDResque US

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

[ November 24, 2006, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Take it for what it's worth, but according to Time Magazine, Hezbollah is already pretty much back to where it was before Israel attacked into Southern Lebanon. As I stated earlier, the weapons are obviously coming in through Syria via Iran. There is no dennying that. The evidence is overwhelming and fairly obvious.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1562890,00.htm?cnn=yes

Steve

[John Kettler]

LoneSyrian,

Welcome! Your unique perspective on the CM:SF situation is valuable, but please don't mistake me as some sort of jingoistic Syria basher. My issue is with governments, institutions, religions and power elites both overt and covert, not average citizens. As any number of my critics on the GDF will tell you, I am perfectly prepared to savage the outrages, usurpations and lies of my own government, going way back to the first treaty we betrayed with the Native Americans, clear to the present. I'm not the formally trained historian Steve is, though I basically minored in it, but I've spent decades studying how things really happen on this planet. I also spent over eleven years working as a professional military analyst, so I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

The fundamental test to be applied in figuring out a political event is determining who benefits, expressed in Latin as cui bono. From where I sit,

the recently offed Gemayel represented, despite the loss of much of the clout once exercised by the Maronite Christians as a result of declining birth rates relative to the Muslims, one of the few credible points in Lebanon around which something resembling effective resistance to Syrian aspirations in Lebanon could coalesce. He might not've been a mortal threat, but he certainly was a threat, and little threats can grow to become big ones. The famous name didn't hurt his cause either.

It takes only a handful of influential people to drastically change a society's course, and in my country, we lost three such via carefully planned assassinations in rapid succession:

John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, fundamentally altering the path this nation was on and in fact, in the view of many scholars, paving the way for the very behaviors by it so you rightfully point out. Lebanon has seen many more high profile assassinations than mine has, to the point where real, credible popular leaders are scarce commodities indeed, and the leverage exerted by one in an already threatened societal grouping is even more magnified. Thus, taking out Gemayel or someone of like stature not only takes out a threat, but acts as a mass trauma

on the group and reinforces feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, in turn paving the way for other actions. For details on the dynamics of the process, please see SECRET SOCIETIES & PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE by Michael Hoffmann.

From where I sit, the Syrian government doesn't want any effective resistance mounted to either its Hezbollah proxies or its own activities in Lebanon, wishes to punish the ejection of its army from Lebanon, wishes to reinforce its control, wishes to deter other would be resistance leaders,

wishes to cowe the populace, and emphatically needs and desires to stop by any and all means the official investigation of the Hariri assassination. The Gemayel assassination does all that and more.

Could Israel have done it? Yes, but it only means more instability and more rockets raining down on Israel. Could Iran have done it? Yes, but Iran's gains for doing so are as nothing compared to Syria's and further, come at a time when were such activities exposed, would only swell the demands for international sanctions and maybe more against Iran. Could other Christian factions in Lebanon have done it? Yes, but anything gained by removing Gemayel would be more than offset by the damage to the overall Maronite position in Lebanon. Net loss, IOW. Nor does it make sense for the CIA or Mossad to do it, for the net effect is to make things worse for Israel, not better. Call it a nonstarter there. If Hezbollah did it, it was either ordered to do so or permitted to do so by Syria, making Syria responsible. Ditto if Syria did it using its own men and resources.

I see no rush to judgment here. One way or another, the finger of guilt points squarely at Syria, which gains by far the most from the murder of Gemayel. Also, Syria has repeatedly demonstrated the capability and the willingness to do some very ballsy things, such as the heliborne

commando raid to seize the Golan Heights. I certainly wouldn't categorize the national leadership as being risk averse.

From the standpoint of a Syrian national, I freely concede that it must be both beyond strange and likely outrage inducing to see your homeland being discussed as a hypothetical invasion target, to see your nation's military capabilies and deficiencies researched and dissected, to see the terrain analyzed for both routes of attack and likely resistance centers, and to see intricate discussions of how to destroy urban resistance centers. It's happened here, though, too: American Revolution, War of 1812 (capital was burned), American Civil War, and on a very small scale, Pancho Villa's Raid.

I certainly don't want another war, for a host of reasons, but for gaming purposes, Syria or qua Syria offers many interesting and at least semicredible possibilities. Nor do I think the U.S. player is going to find it a cakewalk, either. To the contrary, I expect to hear howls of consternation and wounded superpower pride coming from those playing as the Americans when they see what cleverness, gumption and patriotic outrage can accomplish.

Steve,

You're starting to sound like me. Unlike me, though, they don't dare jump on you to anything like the extent I experience!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Imperial Grunt]

John and Steve, well said posts, thank you.

[LoneSyrian]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

LoneSyrian,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Syrians would’ve accepted dictation and ridicule from a Woodrow Wilsonian or FDResque US

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>

[LoneSyrian]

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).

[Battlefront.com]

Lone Syrian,

Even people who speak the same lanuage from birth can have misunderstandings. This becomes more likely when people grew up with different languages.

What I meant by "Stalinist" foreign policy is that Stalin developed a model that was followed by successive regimes. I could have, and probably should have, used "Soviet" instead. My mistake.

I do agree that had France and Britain practiced more enlightened policies in the Middle East perhaps things would be a lot different today (for the better, of course). But they did not and it is ridiculous to hold the US responsible for these early problems. Might as well blame it for all the problems in African and South East Asia as well, two other regions that various European nations screwed up pretty well. From my perspective, the US is responsible for the problems in Central and South America more than any other region of the world. But I digress...

My point is that by the time the US did become interested in the Middle East the problems we see today were already well rooted. You're post illustrates that quite well, actually. I agree that US foreign policy has not done much to fix these problems and, in general, has made them worse. But the US foreign policy, as flawed as it may have been, would have welcomed Syria into its sphere of influence. However, Syria chose to side with the Soviet sphere of influence. It had the choice, and the choice it made is why Syria and the US are not friends today.

What do I mean by choice? Last time I checked Syrians are Human Beings with the ability to think and act on their own. I am correct, right? I'm not saying that choices are easy, but to blame the US for something that only the Syrians could do for themselves is not fair. So I restate my point:

As a Syrian, by blaming the US for all the problems in the Middle East means not taking any responsibility for your own nation's contributions to the problems. If you take no responsibility I can't take your criticisms of US policies seriously because you are only arguing one side of the equation. I have gone out of my way to establish that I am not a hypocrite, you have avoided that part of the discussion. Instead, you pass judgment selectively.

Since you chose not to respond to any of my previous post except for the one small statement at the bottom, I'll ask you a few questions directly:

1. If you believe US interference in the affairs of other states is wrong, what do you think about Syria's actions in Lebanon? Are they wrong or is Syria somehow allowed to do what the US is not?

2. The major assassinations in Lebanon in the last year or two have been vocally anti-Syrian. If pro-Syrian forces are not responsible for these killings, who is? What is their motivation?

3. Is Hezbollah funded, trained, and supplied by the Syrian government or groups operating in the open within Syria's borders? If so, doesn't Syria share responsibility for actions of Hezbollah conducted within a sovereign state (Lebanon) against another sovereign state (Israel)?

4. Do you think the US wants the bloodshed in Iraq or do you think they would like the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds to be at peace with each other? Assuming you answer "yes", then who is responsible for the bloodshed? Is Syria or Iran doing anything to help stop the violence, or are they doing things to encourage it?

I understand that these questions are perhaps difficult for you to answer, but if you will not answer them you really can't engage in an intellectual discussion of the issues. It is also boring since we already know what the general opinion is in the Middle East... everything is the US' fault and if it would just withdraw itself completely everybody would be happy and live without fear or privation. Personally, I feel it would be good to put this theory to the test.

Steve

[Moronic Max]

4. Do you think the US wants the bloodshed in Iraq or do you think they would like the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds to be at peace with each other? Assuming you answer "yes", then who is responsible for the bloodshed? Is Syria or Iran doing anything to help stop the violence, or are they doing things to encourage it?

That seems a lot like a loaded question; I'd bet Syria, Iran, the assorted Iraqi groups, etc. don't want bloodshed in Iraq and would like the groups to be at peace with one another as well.

That's not where the friction lies; the friction lies in determining the shape of the new government(s) of Iraq. Among other things, of course.

[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.

1. If you believe US interference in the affairs of other states is wrong, what do you think about Syria's actions in Lebanon? Are they wrong or is Syria somehow allowed to do what the US is not?

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.

2. The major assassinations in Lebanon in the last year or two have been vocally anti-Syrian. If pro-Syrian forces are not responsible for these killings, who is? What is their motivation?

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.

3. Is Hezbollah funded, trained, and supplied by the Syrian government or groups operating in the open within Syria's borders? If so, doesn't Syria share responsibility for actions of Hezbollah conducted within a sovereign state (Lebanon) against another sovereign state (Israel)?

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?

4. Do you think the US wants the bloodshed in Iraq or do you think they would like the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds to be at peace with each other? Assuming you answer "yes", then who is responsible for the bloodshed? Is Syria or Iran doing anything to help stop the violence, or are they doing things to encourage it?

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”.

[FAI]

I hope I haven’t been “boring”.

On the contrary.... Looking forward to read more of your posts.

[Battlefront.com]

Moronic Max,

That seems a lot like a loaded question; I'd bet Syria, Iran, the assorted Iraqi groups, etc. don't want bloodshed in Iraq and would like the groups to be at peace with one another as well.

Yes and no. They want them to be at peace with each other so long as it is their side that is dictating the terms to the others. Which they are willing to do at the expense of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

That's not where the friction lies; the friction lies in determining the shape of the new government(s) of Iraq. Among other things, of course.

Which is yet another failing of the current Coalition policy. The US tried to be benevolent in that it allowed the Iraqis a large say in how they constructed their government. Clearly the government has been structured in a way that is untenable, at least from the Sunni's perspective. So now the US and its few Allies in the field have to suffer the consequences. A more realistic policy would have laid out certain, specific ground rules and have allowed the Coalition a veto on the government structure. And if the Iraqi government didn't like it, the Coalition forces would go home and let them deal with the mess themselves. Of course, then the world would say "see... the US is trying to control the Iraqi people by imposing its will" so from a public opinion standpoint it is a lose lose situation. However, one likely would have yielded a better result for Iraq and the Coalition.

LoneSyrian,

Thanks for addressing my points directly. I tip my hat to you

Both Syria and the US are allowed to interfere with bordering states for national security purposes and threat control.

I accept this line of argument as logical and reasonable. It is best described as Realpolitik. However, by making this argument you must then withdraw all criticism of the West for trying to influence things for their own national security purposes. As your girlfriend said, you don't want to be the pot calling the kettle black Another one is "what is good for the goose is good for the gander". I don't think anybody really understands where that saying came from, but the meaning is still relevant.

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.

This is the unfortunate position the US has been put in, both because of its own actions and the opinions of others. A large part of the US and world's population demand the US fix the problems all around the world. In fact, many (especially outside of the US) feel it is the US' obligation because of its economic, political, and military power. This is commonly called the "World's Policeman" syndrome. When the US is slow to react to something, like Sudan or Ruwanda, it is heavily criticized for doing nothing even though the tie to national interests is very thin. So there is a lot of pressure on the US, from outside of the US, to interfere.

At the same time there is a lot of pressure on the US to not interfere. Obviously the "thugs" around the world don't want the US to come in and "fix" things because they might actually have to work for a living or go to prison (or worse) for their crimes. These people usually manage to corrupt a certain portion of their own population to hate the US instead of them. Even some of the US' allies do this, such as Saudi Arabia. There is also a genuine fear that the US will bring about other changes that will not be positive, such as becoming less independent and consumerism destroying native cultures. The latter is a very difficult problem since given a choice most people willingly choose to become mindless consumers.

So the US is in a no-win position. If it does nothing it gets blamed for the problems that exist. If it tries to do something it gets blamed for creating new problems. There is no way to satisfy the world when it has two diametrically opposed expectations in such large numbers.

My contention is with the who and why of the most recent Gmayel assassination, it ain’t Syria.

Since this is in your neighborhood, and obviously you understand the area much better than I ever could, I am interested to know who you think is responsible and why?

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.

If that was the impression I gave, and I guess I did, I wish to correct it. I know that Hezbollah is not a puppet in the true sense of the word. If you look at earlier posts about the accusation that Iran ordered Hezbollah to attack Israel this summer, I supported the theory that Iran was not behind the decision and was possibly even opposed to it. I also have a great deal of respect for Nassrallah's capabilities as a leader. Very impressive and not entirely counter-productive. At least Hezbollah actually helps its people instead of pretending to, as most nations in the region are guilty of.

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.

This is my point. If Syria arms, trains, and otherwise helps Hezbollah to wage war and terror then it is in some way responsible for what Hezbollah does. If Syria wishes to get benefits from such support then it loses all ability to claim the penalties for such support are unjust.

Yet you make it sound as if attacks on Israel are unprovoked.

Don't even get me started on what problems I think Israel makes in the Middle East And sadly, I have to blame US foreign policy for a lot of these problems. Like Syria sharing responsibility for the problems Hezbollah causes, the US must share responsibility for the problems Israel causes. Syria could, however, take the "high road" to achieve its aims, but it does not. Because it has chosen the "low road" it loses its ability to be critical of the other side's "low road".

How would Steve like Cubans kidnapping Floridians at will and overflying Miami in strafing formation under the pretext of preemptive aerial recon?

You mean like Hezbollah kidnapping and killing IDF soldiers in an attempt to get Israel to attack? Yes, of course I think this is foolish and criminal behavior that should be punished.

BTW, there was an incident a couple years ago where a Cuban exile propaganda plane, unarmed, was shot down over Cuban airspace. I think it shows the moral corruption of a government when it has to kill civilians armed with only words, but legally they had every right to down that aircraft. The people on board knew exactly what they were doing and the risks, so they lost the moral ability to "cry foul" for that specific engagement. Then we get into larger issues of morality and things become, as they often do, a lot less clear.

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.

Stupid, naive, arrogant, short sighted, incompetent, idealistic, and other things... yes. There is no question about this now. The neocons planned for a war without the planning part.

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.

Very true. And I agree that the US policy so far has been incompetent in general and barely acceptable even on its best days. But note that Syria could do things as a gesture of good faith, but it does not. Let me illustrate...

If Syria applied its internal security services to clamping down on cross border incursions into Iraq, I bet they could make a lot of progress with fairly minimal effort. This is presuming that they already know the major players, routes, and methods. I believe that they do. So shut down a couple, show the US that it is willing to do so, and then ask for something in return. And not something stupidly huge like the Golan Heights. Start smaller and work up to that. If the US gives nothing in return, then take the people out of the jails and put them back into business and ask the US if this is really the way they want it to be.

This all boils down to two thick headed, egotistical groups of people that want to show no weakness. Weakness, unfortunately, is defined by them as anything sensible and fair. So again, criticize the US for its part, but do not excuse Syria for its own failings. The US is in no way forcing it to behave in such a mutually counter-productive manner.

So no, under such conditions and belligerence, no one is gonna help the US in Iraq,

True, but there is a difference between not helping make things better and actively helping make things worse. Europe largely fits into the latter, states like Syria and Iran fit into the latter.

If James Baker III and his commission gets the above in Bush’s thick skull, all the greater accomplishment.

That presumes that Bush is really running foreign policy. While he is certainly involved in it, there is no question in my mind that generations of historians will argue to what degree Bush is calling the shots. There will be the extremes saying he is just a puppet, there are others that will say he is the "mastermind" behind it all, and most will fall somewhere in the middle. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that this President will largely be thought of negatively and heavily influenced by a very small group of thinkers. Only the degree of negativity and degree of submission to others will vary.

I hope I haven’t been “boring”

Quite the opposite. From time to time we get people on this Forum that can't, or won't, engage in an honest debate. I commend you for not being one of them for those people *are* boring.

Steve

[ November 27, 2006, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Moronic Max]

Yes and no. They want them to be at peace with each other so long as it is their side that is dictating the terms to the others. Which they are willing to do at the expense of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Certainly. By the same token, America doesn't want to be prosecuting a counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, but it wants even less (at least for now) to wash its hands of the place and abandon a role in shaping the nation(s) and thereby influencing the rest of the Mid East.

Or, perhaps more to the point, America didn't want to go to war with Iraq (well, PNAC did, but let's leave that aside) but it wanted even less Iraq to have WMD.

I'm not claiming moral equivalency between American and Iran here; I'm simply pointing out that everybody wants peace; the problem is that there tend to be things people want more than peace (in part due to the expectation that they can't maintain peace without x, granted).

Stupid, naive, arrogant, short sighted, incompetent, idealistic, and other things... yes. There is no question about this now. The neocons planned for a war without the planning part.

I was rereading McNamara's In Retrospect recently, and it's astonishing how many of his 'lessons of Vietnam' apply more or less verbatim to Iraq. Particularly apt was the notion (paraphrased) that 'foreign military power cannot substitute for the political order and stability that must be created by a people for themselves'.

For that matter, it's amazing how well some of the RAND Corporation reports on the NLF/VC and what does and doesn't work versus an insurgency seem to be holding up in Iraq as well (mind you, neither the LBJ nor Nixon admins--nor the Joint Chiefs--acted in accordance with the studies, so it isn't surprising Bush & pals didn't thirty years later).

[Battlefront.com]

Moronic Max,

I'm not claiming moral equivalency between American and Iran here; I'm simply pointing out that everybody wants peace; the problem is that there tend to be things people want more than peace (in part due to the expectation that they can't maintain peace without x, granted).

The difference is that in theory everybody could get along and live in harmony without conflict. In reality it doesn't work that way, though the level of violence is of course dependent on the time, place, and people involved. There has been an enormous amount of conflict here in the US over the policies of the Bush Admin and the Republican controlled Congress, but violence was not an issue. In contrast in Iraq the conflict is extremely bloody with neither side wanting to submit to the other.

In theory the US' aims can be acheived peacefully. Therefore its desire for peace is not in conflict with peace itself. Syria and Iran want proxy states to act as a buffer against the other (and other things). These goals can only be acheived through violence and therefore are inherently non-peaceful. That is the big difference on a moral level.

Now, one could say that the US' desire for a peaceful Iraqi society has caused the bloodshed. Not true since this is a continuation of a long standing conflict that was pretty bloody under Saddam. All the US has done, partly through incompetence, is allowed the various waring sides to make things a lot worse for a great many people (but not all!) than they were in 2003. Unfortunately, as discussed above, Iran and Syria are predisposition so far has been to make things worse and not better.

One could say that the US' continued pursuit of a peaceful Iraqi society is coming at the cost of Iraqi lives. Nonsense. If the US were to pull out tomorrow the Sunni body count would go into the thousands per week in no time. There would be an ethnic clensing, for sure. The Sunnis would take out a lot of Shias, but the Shias have the numbers so they would eventually dish out more than they would take. I think we'd be talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths instead of the tens of thousands that are currently being tallied up. Therefore, nobody can say that the US presence in Iraq today is making things worse compared to the alternative of the US leaving.

Since the US "broke" Iraq it has a moral responsibility to put it back together again in some shape or form that is at least no worse than it was before OIF. As Colin Powell put it just before the invasion, "if we break it, we own it". We certainly broke it.

Steve

[ November 27, 2006, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Moronic Max]

Alright, I'll buy that.

[MikeyD]

I'm wondering if Lebanon really is close to civil war. Conflicts like these leave lasting scars and the last civil war is well within living memory. The Lebanese population might simply elect to keep its collective head down this time around, let the politicians spill eachother's blood and hope the bad times don't return. Sorta the Lebanese equivalent of the 'Vietnam syndrome' where any accommodation would be prefereable to reliving those horrors.

The flaw in my theory is the young average age of the population. Most people in Iran are too young to remember the revolution, and a sizeable proportion of them wouldn't even directly remember the Iran/Iraq war! A growing proportion of people in Lebanon recall the civil war only as a distant childhood memory.

About Iraq, Rush (I can't believe I'm quoting him) Limbaugh just came out with the statement that - to greatly paraphrase - the U.S. staying there keeping its finger in the dike to prevent the coming flood is just delaying the inevitable.

"Just let these natural forces take place over there instead of trying to stop them, instead of trying to use -- I just -- sometimes natural force is going to happen. You're going to have to let it take place."

Man, I've never seen partisan opinion change so quickly and so drastically on a foreign policy topic before.

[ November 29, 2006, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Peter Cairns]

Of course the one obvious solution ( Iam not avocating it just pointing it out) is for the Kurds to have the Kurdish bit, the Iranians to have the Shia bit, and the Syrians to have the Sunni bit, and for Iraq as a state to cease to exist.

Given tha annimosity that would create, the US could sit back and watch Syria and Iran fight each other and their proxies for decades over the area around Baghdad, while that fight effectively isolated Hezbullah as it's two principle sponsors would then be at each others throats.

Sunni Bathist Syria would get the West, and Shia Theocratic Iran the East. The Saudi's and Kuwaities would be terrified, but I bet they would suddenly be a lot more cooperative and nicer to the US.

Peter.

[ November 29, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]

[MikeyD]

...to further stir the pot, what would the US. do if Turkey felt compelled to make a deep incursion into Kurdish Iraq? The totally weird prospect of U.S. forces firing on NATO troops boggles the mind. A couple decades ago, back in the old 'bi-polar' days, someone proclaimed "the end of history". Apparently he was wrong.

[Peter Cairns]

MikeyD,

I am not sure of this so don't quote me, but I think at one point when just after the war liberation of kuwait the allies had flights for the Northern "No Fly Zone", protecting the kurds, from bases in Turkey from which the Turks were sending planes to Bomb them.

I think it was probably the same airfields but at different times rather than at the same time, as the world can't be that screwed up... Can it?

Peter.

[Speedy]

Originally posted by LoneSyrian:

Steve,

Both Syria and the US are allowed to interfere with bordering states for national security purposes and threat control. ...snip... So both the US and Syria are allowed to interfere, ...snip... like Australia interferes with Tasmania ...snip...

Hell yeah it's about time we invaded Tasmania and wiped out those twoheaded Tasmanians for ever!

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

It is looking more and more that breaking up Iraq into three states is going to happen one way or another. Personally, I think trying to keep diverse groups in fairly self contained geographical areas together by force (which is what is going on now) is a fool's game. Look at the breakup of Yugoslavia compared to the breakup of Czechoslovakia. Which one was better for all concerned?

The problems with breaking up Iraq are huge, unfortunately. They are, in no particular order:

1. A pissed off Turkey. US will have to put troops on the border with Turkey and boy won't that be a sore spot for US-Turkish relations!

2. Scared neighbors. I don't mean one or two, I mean all of them. Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. None of them want this to happen because nobody gets what they want instead of most not getting what they want. Obviously, this is the Middle East we're talking about here, therefore it is impossible to make any more than a minority happy anyway.

3. What to do about Baghdad? It is very ethnically mixed and the Sunnis would not leave without a stiff fight (which they would lose). Therefore, continued bloodshed is going to happen even under this splitting up scenario. Then again, bloodshed in the Middle East is inevitable because it is the Middle East.

4. Financial assistance. Someone has to get the Sunnis back on their feet, and the US will not be the one to do it. Syria is incapable of a reconstruction effort like this, yet it will likely suffer all kinds of problems if the Sunnis remain empoverished and pissed off. This will make matters worse, I think.

5. The Sunnis are currently destined to be cut off from significant oil revenue. One can argue this is "tough luck" for a people that have largely been the only ones to benefit from oil under Saddam (not to mention other perks). They didn't want to play nice after Saddam left either, so perhaps it serves them right for being so unreasonable. However nice that might sound to Americans, it doesn't sound nice to Sunnis. Resentment against the US will tick up a notch if it lets the Kurds and Shias cut the Sunnis out of the oil riches.

6. More power to Iran since it is likely that the Shia portion of Iraq will likely become a direct or indirect part of Iran. This is a huge concern to just about everybody except Iran. More land, more people, more oil, and more neighbors... just what nobody else in the region (except Iran) wants to have happen.

Still, I see little chance for anything else other than allowing the Shias and Kurds to have a free hand in dealing with the Sunnis. This would amount to genocide, of course, so obviously it doesn't sound like a great solution.

The obvious way to breakup Iraq is to have all occupation troops in An Anbar withdraw to the borders within the Krudish and Shia portions of Iraq, allow the Sunni population within each to be expelled/murdered, and leave the Sunni area to rot on the vine. It is the quickest way to end the immediate bloodshed, but it certainly will result in a lot of problems long term (practical and moral).

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

don't disagree with anything you have said, but....

1) Would handing the problem to Iraq's neighbours really be a

bad option for the US and UK.

2) Two states who dislike the US would have in the medium term

inherited problems that would occupy them, and may even

keep them out of mischief elsewhere.

3) There may well be a lot of powerful people in Iraq who

although they like the idea of Syrian or Iranian backing now

and support when they rule Iraq, don't at all like the idea of

being part of either country.

4) The very thought of partition might well focus the attention

of the waring factions enough for them to pull themselves

together.

5) If neither Iran or Syria actually want the burden of

enlargement, Particularly Syria, they might start behaving

themselves ( not just in Iraq) to try to hold it together.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

The very thought of partition might well focus the attention of the waring factions enough for them to pull themselves together.

This has been my thinking for some time now. If the US basically said to the Sunnis "you think we're bad? If you don't knock it off we'll take the leash off of the Shias and withdraw all attempts to help you." I think that will get most of the Sunnis rethinking their strategy. The Shias need a wakeup call too, but until the Sunnis get a grip on reality I don't think that is possible.

Putting aside all morality, responsibility, long term ramifications, etc. here is a theoretical way to solve the short term problem.

Pick a major city in Anbar, like Ramadi. Put 50,000 Shia dominated police, including those infiltrated by the Shia militias, and into the city after all US troops back out. Give it a couple of months and then ask the Sunnis to choose to have another city get the same treatment or to get to the negotiation table with an unconditional ceasefire in place.

Long term I think the two sides will just have to murder each other until they get tired of it. That's what happened in the Balkans and I think it will have to happen here. I don't think there is any way it can be avoided.

Steve

[MikeyD]

This sorta reminds me of my own earlier 'solution' (cough cough) to the Iraq conflict. Basically I had envisioned that those imported jihadist suicide bomber nutcases would make such a nuisance of themselves that the Iraqi Sunnis and Shias would band together to get rid of them - and cooperation in that would foster coooperation in everything else. That bit of wishful thinking was back before the bombing of the Samarra mosque.

Iraq has done a really good job at confounding our 'standard solutions' to 3rd-world conflicts. I'm still haunted by a published comment by a U.S. intelligence officer before things really started going bad. His concept of how to 'fix' the insurgency problem was to "El Salvadorize" (I think that was his phrase) Iraq. Namely, militia death squads. Before you scoff let's all remember our CIA buddies in Guatamala and Chile from years gone by. Shortly after that statement appeared in print bodies began floating down the Euphrates. I hope to God the current situation isn't an old-school CIA black op that's spun terribly terribly out of control.

[Battlefront.com]

I doubt what we are seeing is the result of US direction. Certain insurgent groups, in particilar Al Qaeda in Iraq, have made it known from the start that they wanted to incite a civil war. Certainly Al Qaeda in Iraq is not following the direction of the CIA! And US forces have been directly attacking Sadar and his militia (as well as others), so I doubt they are being directed by the CIA either.

Al Qaeda in Iraq tried to get a civil war going several times in the past but the Shias, for various reasons, kept their response fairly subdued. Remember the slaughter during the Hadj of (IIRC) 2004. There were also other brazen attacks, but the Samarra mosque was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Steve