Pierre Gemayal assassinated in Lebanon. Members of the anti-Syrian bloc currently controlling the opposition blame Syria. Syria and members of the opposition deny involvement, claiming it was a provocation designed to destabilize Lebanon. One hopes this doesn't prefigure a return to civil war conditions.
« Arab Winter | Main | The Clampdown »
Speaking of the Arab Spring
21 Nov 2006 12:44 pm
Comments (19)
It is a bit far afield, but there is a nagging question I have that I don't ever see addressed:
Why would Syria be promoting the transit of foreign fighters to Anbar province in Iraq? Those fighters are almost universally Sunni. Syria is currently a majority Sunni state dominated by Allawites and Shiites. Having a radical, seperatist Sunni state on their border comprised of many Syrian expatriots would seem to me to be the worst possible outcome for Syria.
I have to be missing something. Are they not really doing it? Do they think it is better that they be out of Syria rather than in it? Anybody know?
The director of the CIA testified before Congress a few days ago that there there are relatively few outside fighters in Iraq. Washington Post...I will look for the article. The problem in Iraq is domestic, not outside to more than a minor degree.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601509_pf.html
November 17, 2006
Violence in Iraq Called Increasingly Complex
By Walter Pincus - Washington Post
Although the Bush administration continues to emphasize the role of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Maples described the current situation as "mostly an intra-Arab struggle to determine how power and authority will be distributed," with or without the U.S. presence. Al-Qaeda and foreign terrorist numbers were put at roughly 1,300, while Hayden, pressed by senators, estimated the number of insurgents in the "low tens of thousands." Maples estimated the number of Iraqi insurgents, including militias, at 20,000 to 30,000, and said there are many more who supply support....
The problem is not in Syria or Iran, but in Iraq, and, as Matthew says, we should leave.
That was Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the DIA director, testifying along with the director of the CIA.
Ari,
I'm sorry for getting you busted for having all those people over to get wasted while your parents were away, but you know you were trying to get me busted for showing up at your house first, and of course I was resentful that you got like - what? - 70 grand for your bar mitzvah (although I liked the circus tent in the backyard, and all those bread dips).
Or is this a different Ari?
Njorl:
The Syrian government facilitated infiltration into Iraq until about May 2003, providing moral encouragement and probably some logistical support. The reason for this was threefold. First, Damascus seems to have been genuinely (and justifiably) concerned that the US Army might roll right over the Iraqi border into Syria, and hoped to keep US troops bogged down in Iraq for as long as possible. Second, Syria's secular Alawite government is always sensitive to the sympathies of the Sunni majority, and was eager to take a strong stand on the invasion of Iraq in order to stave off their own Islamist threat (cf. support for Hizbullah and Palestinian groups). Third, Damascus hoped that, if Syria's most militant jihadis shipped off to fight the US military, they might get themselves killed and not cause any future trouble in Syria.
Syria toned its support for infiltration way, way down after the initial invasion. It became clear that foreign fighters not only wouldn't be effective at keeping US troops bogged down in Iraq, but might actually provoke a harsh US response towards Syria. Damascus had already won points with its domestic audience for its strong stand against the invasion, and Syrian jihadis were now returning home without having been obliging enough to die, so the central Syrian government decided active encouragement of infiltration had served its purpose.
The region of eastern Syria through which infiltration took place, however, is far from Damascus politically as well as geographically. The "Syrians" who live in Deir ez-Zor governate are the same Sunni Arab tribes who inhabit central Iraq; they have an awful lot in common in with those Sunni Arab Iraqis, and not so much in common with the "real" Syrians who live out west (thanks, Sykes-Picot!). Deir ez-Zor, Mayadin, and Albukamal (Abu Kamal) are all closer to Mosul than they are to Damascus. Baghdad is an easy trip down the Euphrates river valley (whereas Damascus is across 200 miles of desert). These people have old and intimate ties with central Iraq, and have long ignored any supposed international border.
This local population was happy to see infiltration into Iraq continue--especially as the Iraqi insurgency began to pick up steam. Damascus banned non-Syrian Arabs from approaching the Iraqi border region, but local officials were unable or unwilling to enforce this new anti-infiltration policy. Bashar al-Assad's government didn't like this, but its hold over the region has historically been fairly tenuous and it wasn't willing to press the point. When Syria joined the Gulf War coalition in 1991, the people of Albukamal revolted, and Damascus was forced to dispatch several divisions of the Syrian army to restore order. Al-Assad wasn't in the mood to pick a fight like that in 2003-2004, when Damascus had its hands full on other fronts (a final push to get rid of the powerful old guard from his father's government, a post-Iraq Sunni Islamist revival, stirrings of ethnic unrest in Syrian Kurdistan and the Isma'ili regions, increased opposition to Syria in Lebanon etc.).
After the Hariri assassination in 2005, the Bush Administration really put the heat on Syria and succeeded in getting other nations to do so the same. Likewise, increased US military activity along the Syrian border made Damascus fear that Washington, blaming the growing success of the Iraqi insurgency on "foreign fighters," might "flee forward" into Syria. Also, Syrians who returned from Iraq became active in Syrian Islamist groups in large numbers, and began to take part in a troubling new string of terrorist attacks in Syria. Gravely concerned by these new dangers, Syria's central security apparatus finally swung into high gear to seal the Iraqi border. Anyone leaving Deir ez-Zor for the south (towards the Iraqi border) was watched and interrogated intensely by the Syrian security services; those suspected of intending to infiltrate into Iraq were arrested. Syrians suspected of having returned from fighting in Iraq, or of having given significant assistance to the insurgency, have also been interrogated, tortured, and imprisoned for long periods of time. (This information is accurate as of July 2006, and is based on personal travel in the region.)
Syria hasn't encouraged infiltration since 2003, and has done a very effective job of sealing the border since 2005. I'm sure foreign fighters are still crossing from Syria into Iraq, but it's not because Damascus wants them to.
Why would Syria be promoting the transit of foreign fighters to Anbar province in Iraq? Those fighters are almost universally Sunni. Syria is currently a majority Sunni state dominated by Allawites and Shiites. Having a radical, seperatist Sunni state on their border comprised of many Syrian expatriots would seem to me to be the worst possible outcome for Syria.
The Black Watch was first raised in the Scottish Highlands in the mid-18th century. This was a controversial move: the '45 Jacobite Rebellion was only twenty years in the past, and it was suggested that it might not be entirely wise to take the fighting men of the most rebellious areas of Scotland and train them in modern warfare.
William Pitt, then Prime Minister, replied: "Not at all. When they are raised, I shall be sending them to fight in North America, and I do not anticipate that many of them will return."
Working out the parallel with Assad, Syria, Iraq and fundamentalist Sunnis is left as an exercise for the reader, who might also be interested to know that King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and President Nelson Mandela of South Africa would have known exactly what Pitt was talking about.
Very interesting opinion polls from a USAID-funded research company in Beirut showing opinion differences between religions (and also how unclear people are on who is pulling the strings):
http://www.information-international.com/opinionpolls.php
Among the findings:
89.3% support deployment of Lebanese Army in the South
77.7% support deployment of international force in the South
80% support U.N. Resolution 1701
"Believe the war was an Israeli-American War against Lebanon"
- 46.3% Maronites/93.6% Shia'a
"Believe the war was a Syrian-Iranian War against Israel and the US" - 26.1% Maronites/0.5% Shia'a
"Believe the Lebanese politicians knew about the war before it began"
73.6% of Shia'a
"Party that Should Hold the Decision of Peace and War"
Lebanese Government - 79.8% Maronite/7.3% Shia'a
Lebanese Government & Resistance - 15.4% Maronite/72.7% Shia'a
Blame the US and Israel for the Hariri assassination - 39.2%
Blame Lebanon and Syria for the Hariri assassination - 34.1%
Members of the anti-Syrian bloc currently controlling the opposition blame Syria. Syria and members of the opposition deny involvement, claiming it was a provocation designed to destabilize Lebanon.
Awesome. Let's make sure we get those negotiations with Syria over the future of Iraq started right away.
If Syria was behind this, then Bashir Assad is an incredible moron. This only helps the Seniora governments and puts the pro-Syrian/Hizbollah/Aoun on the defensive at time when the Seniora government was on the verge of falling apart.
Linus, you are an ....... idiot.
This article in Haaretz fits in with my last comment:
However pure political and diplomatic logic makes it difficult to see Damascus behind the assassination. The day Gemayel was killed, Syria chalked up one of its most significant diplomatic achievements since its defeat in Lebanon in April 2005: the renewal of full diplomatic relations with Iraq.
Syria is also on the way to achieving a semi-official stamp of approval from Washington as able to calm things down in Iraq. Syria could have been on the verge of an important political success in Lebanon - the possible fall of Fuad Siniora's government, which would mean Syria could increase the power of its supporters in the government by means of the Hezbollah ultimatum. If that came about, the international tribunal on the murder of Rafik Hariri would be delayed, or at least be of a sort convenient for the Syrians
Re: Lebanon if "everything" changed after 9.11 you'd think the major American media organizations would have a bureau in Beirut large enough to recognize and cover the fact that the country has been enduring a battlefield calm, not enjoying a final peace since the end of the civil war. More or less every thoughtful independent journalist who has visited the country in the past several years has noted this fact. I don't claim to know what the Syrians think they're doing, but all this talk of strengthening or weakening the Seniora government (and even probably talk of strengthening or weakening Hezbollah) is absurd. The country is like Iraq and Afghanistan going to be partitioned, and it is only a question of how unpleasant things get before that partition takes place. And after it happens Israel is going to have to deal directly with the new Hezbollah-led government of Southern Lebanon.
"Linus, you are an ....... idiot."
And a jerk too.
Linus, that was a thoughtful comment on Lebanon. Thank you, and you are not either then, but were just playing, which is OK with me. Thank you. I agree with the absence of understanding of Lebanon. I have been increasingly worried since Syria withdrew, and before there was a sort of battlefield calm. Partition however seems almost impossible and likely most undesirable, but mentioning partition was helpful to me.
Peter, then speculatively what might have happened?
"Linus, that was a thoughtful comment on Lebanon."
Thank you.
"Partition however seems almost impossible and likely most undesirable, but mentioning partition was helpful to me."
You can't tell people to break apart their countries (although in our looking glass world you can apparently invade other countries and more or less precipitate the conditions which make partition the most probable final outcome).
But what was Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe again? A few gaffes that mention the "p" word might be helpful.
(I'm actually with Michael O'Hanlon on this point.)
Comments closed December 05, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I noticed that Bush was quick to condemn the killing as an act of terrorism designed to "destablize" the region.
So to recap
Killing a government minister from our preferred faction: Bad
Remaining silent while the Israeli government goes hog-ass wild and kills 1,000 civilians plus: A-OK.
Posted by Mike | November 21, 2006 3:12 PM