http://www.spacewar.com/news/iraq-05zzzzl.html

Outside View: Another Scapegoat?

'It is true foreign insurgents do infiltrate Iraq from Syria, as do many others from Iran. But how much longer will the administration continue to blame foreign insurgents for its failure to cope with the insurgency in Iraq when in fact, according to American intelligence reports, they constitute no more than 4 percent to 6 percent of total insurgents?'
By Alon Ben-Meir

Oustside View Commentator
New York (UPI) Oct 17, 2005
The increasing number of clashes between U.S. and Syrian forces raises serious questions about the Bush administration's intentions and the wisdom of its actions. It appears this escalation on the American side is dictated not entirely by the urgency over the infiltration of foreign insurgents from Syria into Iraq.
Rather, it is motivated by the administration's desire for regime change in Damascus. This preoccupation explains why instead of persuading Syria to support the administration's efforts in Iraq by offering it real incentives, the White House has chosen to bully yet another nation, at the tremendous risk of escalating the war in Iraq and engulfing not just Syria but other states in the region.

It is not difficult to present a complete dissertation on Syria's egregious past and present support of extremist groups committing acts of terror in Israel, Lebanon and Iraq. Syria can vehemently deny such a role, but any serious review of its conduct and the sanctuary that Damascus offers to these groups affirm that assertion. That said, Syria has in the post-Saddam period also cooperated with U.S. intelligence and has, by the CIA's own admission, proven to be of use.

And time and again, the Syrians have made overtures to the United States for the two nations to engage in meaningful dialogue, only to be rebuffed by an administration fixated on regime change in Syria. The administration's intentions coupled with persistent public criticism from Washington are what pushed Damascus a few months ago to end all security and intelligence cooperation between the two nations. Yet while the administration has made no secret of its goal of regime change, it turns to Syria for help in Iraq, though clearly, if the United States succeeds in Iraq, the Syrian government will be targeted next.

Although it is naive to assume any country will contribute to its own demise, this administration is not looking to offer either a logical approach or a sound rationale for its policies toward Syria. Having systematically misled the American public about the dismal reality in Iraq, now the administration finds itself in need to invent another international crisis to divert attention from the real nature of its plight, which is increasingly coming to light.

It is true foreign insurgents do infiltrate Iraq from Syria, as do many others from Iran. But how much longer will the administration continue to blame foreign insurgents for its failure to cope with the insurgency in Iraq when in fact, according to American intelligence reports, they constitute no more than 4 percent to 6 percent of total insurgents?

Although foreign fighters are more likely to become suicide bombers and thereby inflict disproportionate damage, as was suggested by a former senior intelligence officer, and recently reported by The New York Times, it is always easier to blame foreign fighters for the strength of the insurgency than to develop effective new counterinsurgency strategies.

As recently as Oct. 2, Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said on NBC's "Meet the Press," he recognized the need to "avoid hyping the foreign fighters' problem."

Indeed, the vast majority of insurgents are former Iraqi military personnel the administration disbanded immediately after the fall of Baghdad, thereby itself creating an instant deadly enemy. With their families, these soldiers and officers represent more than 2 million Iraqi Sunnis who have been abandoned with no jobs and no future: it is they who make up the core of the insurgency.

For these reasons, the administration must defuse the conflict with Syria by opening a dialogue with Damascus. Threats and intimidation will work with Syria only up to a point. President Bashar Assad would not last another day in power if he caved in to American pressure, especially after his surrender of Lebanon.

But if the intention of the administration remains to topple Assad, his demise will not provide the regime change it is hoping for. His successor is likely to be smarter, more experienced and certainly much bolder in securing his power base because only a strong leader can muster the support of the Syrian Baath party, which forms the country's military establishment.

Working with Syria's present government is hardly impossible. The administration continues to negotiate directly and indirectly with many unsavory regimes, including those of North Korea and Iran, and with dictatorships and theocracies. There is no reason to treat Syria differently, especially when Damascus can be extremely helpful to the United States. The administration's choices are not, as it would have people believe, limited to seeking diplomatic isolation of Syria, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice advocates, or using more coercive methods, as the Defense Department proposes.

Syria is eager to normalize relations with the United States, because the government there knows that much of the country's economic development and national security considerations, and certainly its hopes for recovering the Golan Heights, depend on U.S. willingness to help. Syria is eager to have an open-ended dialogue with the United States that will serve their mutual interests.

It should be noted in this regard that Syria's relations with these extremist groups, to which Damascus does not admit, is nothing more than a marriage of convenience. They are bargaining chips that Syria will happily trade for an offer of constructive relations with the United States with some security guarantees. Instead of resorting to coercive methods to force Damascus into submission, a policy that will certainly backfire, the administration must first abandon the idea of regime change and use incentives to persuade Syria to support its efforts in Iraq.

Emboldened by its success in Lebanon, the administration can make a tragic mistake in trying to push the Syrians to the breaking point by launching military strikes inside Syria as some administration officials speculate. The unintended consequences of a bloody conflict with Syria will be far more severe than this administration could imagine, if Iraq offers an example. Conflict with Syria could ignite a regional war engulfing Israel and Lebanon and shattering any remaining hope that the Middle East will see democracy and stability in the foreseeable future.

(Alon Ben-Meir is professor of international relations at the Center for Global Studies at NYU and is the Middle East Project Director at the World Policy Institute, New York. Alon@alonben-meir.com.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

All Rights Reserved. © 2005 United Press International. Sections Of The Information Displayed On This Page (Dispatches, Photographs, Logos) Are Protected By Intellectual Property Rights Owned By United Press International.. As A Consequence, You May Not Copy, Reproduce, Modify, Transmit, Publish, Display Or In Any Way Commercially Exploit Any Of The Content Of This Section Without The Prior Written Consent Of United Press International.

Related Links

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-10-19-voa55.cfm

Diplomats: US, France to Target Syria in UN Resolutions
By Peter Heinlein
United Nations
19 October 2005




Rafik Hariri
A U.N.-appointed prosecutor probing the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is due to present his findings to Secretary-General Kofi Annan Thursday. The United States and France are preparing Security Council resolutions that would criticize Syria for interference in Lebanese affairs.

U.S. and French diplomats were consulting other Security Council ambassadors Wednesday about possible action against Syria as German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis put the finishing touches on the Hariri assassination report.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton declined to discuss the diplomatic contacts or the content of the draft resolutions. Speaking to reporters, he would only say that talks are focusing on what he called "eventualities and contingencies" that could emerge, depending on the conclusions of the Mehlis report.

British Ambassador Emir Jones-Parry said a number of possibilities are being considered.

"I think you'll find that a comprehensive response to a possible report is under discussion. How that breaks down depends crucially on what Mehlis reports, and also what we see by way of behavior, and we'll have to take account of both those factors when we come to draft a resolution or more resolutions. We'll see," Mr. Jones-Parry said.

U.N. spokesman Stefan Dujarric confirmed that the German prosecutor would present his findings to Secretary-General Annan sometime Thursday. The report is expected to be made public by Friday, when copies are given to Security Council members.

Depending on the findings, the United States and France could push for action against Syria as early as next week. Damascus has denied any involvement in Mr. Hariri's death, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was quoted in a German newspaper Wednesday as saying "we are 100 percent innocent".

But Mr. Mehlis earlier named four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals as suspects, and questioned seven Syrian officials in his probe. One of them, Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kenaan, committed suicide last week.

Secretary-General Annan avoided most questions on the investigation during a news conference Wednesday on the South Asian earthquake. When asked about the fragility of Syria's government, he admitted that the prospects are troubling.

"I don't know how to answer that question. Syria has an established government," Mr. Annan said. "I know that there are lots of developments in the region. I know a lot has been read into the report of Mehlis report, which I'm going to receive this week. I haven't seen the report myself, and I have refused to speculate without seeing report. Syria, like other governments have difficulties, but I do not want to at this stage give you an assessment as to how fragile it is.'

Mr. Annan repeated comments made earlier this week that he hopes to avoid politicizing the findings of the investigators. But he noted that the report is only the beginning of the process of bringing Mr. Hariri's killers to justice.

"I don't think it should be my business as secretary-general to be engaged or to encourage politicization," Mr. Annan said. "And of course, Mehlis's report is the beginning, not the end, because the magistrates and others will have to follow through on that report and decide who to charge and who to bring to the dock."

Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said in a French newspaper interview Wednesday that suspects in the Hariri assassination case might better be tried in an international tribunal instead of a national court. He has also sent a letter to Secretary General Annan asking for an extension of Mr. Mehlis's mandate to give him time to follow up on his investigation.

Security Council diplomats say one draft resolution being promoted by the United States and France would call for extending and possibly expanding the Mehlis mandate to cover other terrorist acts in Lebanon. Another would address allegations that Syria has been funneling weapons to militants in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1486338.htm

US warns Iran, Syria against interference in Iraq
AM - Thursday, 20 October , 2005 08:04:00
Reporter: Michael Rowland
TONY EASTLEY: Iraq, and its problems, continues to dominate American foreign relations.

The US is now warning Iran and Syria to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, or face the consequences.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is warning Iraq's neighbours that the US is considering all options – including military action – to deal with countries deemed to be helping insurgents attack American troops.

Washington Correspondent Michael Rowland reports.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: For more than three hours today Condoleezza Rice had the job of selling the Iraq war to the increasingly sceptical US politicians – Democrats and Republicans – on the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: As I've said, our strategy is to clear, hold and build. The enemy strategy is to in fact terrorise and pull down. They want to spread more fear, resentment and despair.

And Ms Rice says the enemies aren't just homegrown insurgents. She took aim at both Iran and Syria for supporting the insurgency by allowing foreign fighters to slip into Iraq.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Syria, and indeed Iran, must decide whether they wish to side with the cause of war, or with the cause of peace.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Condoleezza Rice believes Iran is facilitating the insurgency in Iraq to help extend its influence across the Shi'ite dominated south.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The Iraqis show no interest in becoming tools of Iran, just as they've thrown off Saddam Hussein, in fact there is considerable – as you know – tension between Iranians and Iraqis for a variety of historical and cultural reasons. Now, that doesn't mean that Iran is not a troubling presence in itself, it is a troubling presence in itself, it has its friends and allies. Indeed, we've been concerned about support for militias and support for insurgencies.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Ms Rice also revealed the US was taking what she described as new diplomatic steps against Syria over its alleged support for Iraq's insurgents.

Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd pressed her for details on just what the US intended to do about Syria.

CHRISTOPHER DODD: Is there a White House Syrian group, for instance, that's meeting? Are we planning some action in Syria that we ought to be aware of in this committee?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, our policy toward Syria is on the table, and that is, we want change in Syrian behaviour, we want a change in Syrian behaviour on the Iraqi border…

CHRISTOPHER DODD: I understand that…

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: …with regards to Lebanon and regards to the Palestinian…

CHRISTOPHER DODD: …Are we considering military action against Syria?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, I'm not going to get into what the President's options might be, but the course on which we are now launched is a diplomatic course, vis a vis, Syria.

CHRISTOPHER DODD: You're not going to take the military option off the table in Syria, is that what you're telling me?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, Senator, I don't think the President ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force.

CHRISTOPHER DODD: As for the military force in Iraq, Condoleezza Rice assured the Senators that victory was inevitable.

This if Michael Rowland for AM.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...ION04/510190380

Expanding Iraq War into Syria is lunacy

AS I suspected six months ago, and U.S. military and Bush Administration civilian officials confirmed, U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.


An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans - if any - who have died so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who, by the way, insist on remaining faceless and nameless.

The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict - fruitlessly - to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious. The result was not changed in Vietnam; Cambodia itself was plunged into dangerous chaos which climaxed in the killing fields, where an estimated 1 million Cambodians died as a result of internal conflict.

On the U.S. side, no declaration of war preceded the invasion of Syria, in spite of the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973. There is no indication that Congress was involved in the decision to go in. If members were briefed, none of them has chosen to share that important information with the American people.

Presumably, the Bush Administration's intention is simply to add any casualties of the Syrian conflict to those of the war in Iraq, which now stand at 1,970. The financial cost of expanding the war to Syria would also presumably be added to the cost of the Iraq war, now estimated at $201 billion.

The Bush Administration would claim that it is expanding the war in Iraq into Syria to try to bring it to an end, the kind of screwy non-logic that kept us in Vietnam for a decade and cost 58,193 American lives.

Others would see the attacks in Syria as a desperate political move on the part of an administration with its back against the wall, with an economy plagued by inflation, the weak response to Hurricane Katrina, investigations of senior executive and legislative officials, and the bird flu flapping its wings on the horizon. The idea, I suppose, is to distract us by an attack on Syria, now specifically targeted by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.

And then there is the tired old United Nations. An invasion by one sovereign member, the United States, of the territory of another sovereign member (Syria), requires U.N. Security Council action.

Some observers have argued that destabilizing Syria, creating chaos there, even bringing about regime change from President Bashar Assad, would somehow improve Israel's security posture in the region. The argument runs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest regional threat to Israel; Mr. Assad's Syria is second. The United States got rid of Saddam; now it should get rid of the Assad regime in Damascus.

The trouble with that argument, whether it is made by Americans or Israelis, is that, in practice, it depends on the validity of the premise that chaos and civil war - the disintegration of the state - in Iraq and Syria are better for Israel in terms of long-term security than the perpetuation of stable, albeit nominally hostile, regimes.

The evidence of what has happened in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in early 2003 is to the contrary. Could anyone argue that Israel is made safer by a burning conflict in Iraq that has now attracted Islamic extremist fighters from across the Middle East, Europe, and Asia? Saddam's regime was bad, but this is a good deal worse, and looks endless.

Is there any advantage at all to the United States, or to Israel, in replicating Iraq in Syria?

For that is what is at stake. Syria in its political, ethnic, and religious structure is very similar to Iraq. Iraq, prior to the U.S. bust-up, was ruled by a Sunni minority, with a Shiite majority and Kurdish and Christian minorities. Syria is ruled by an Alawite minority, with a Sunni majority and Kurdish and Christian minorities. That is the structure, not unlike many states in the Middle East, that the Bush Administration is in the process of hacking away at.

It seems utterly crazy to me.

One could say, "Interesting theory; let's play it out," if it weren't for the American men and women, not to mention the Iraqis and now Syrians, dying in pursuit of that policy.

What needs to be done now is for the Congress, and through them, the American people, the United Nations, and America's allies, the ones who are left, to have the opportunity to express their thoughts on America's expanding the Iraq war to Syria.

A decision to invade Syria is not a decision for Mr. Bush, heading a beleaguered administration, to make for us on his own.

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Rice Won't Rule Out Force on Syria, Iran

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1229974