Zacht Ei - Opening moves in Syria

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Opening moves in Syria

I'm probably not the only one who is trying to make sense of what seem to be the opening moves of a possible confrontation with Syria. As you all know, former prime minister Rafik Hariri was murdered on Monday. Subsequently, the USA have withdrawn their ambassador from Syria 'for consultation'. It seems that the time for silent diplomacy is now well and truly over.
Of course, the USA have a number of reasons to be displeased with Syria, as its Ba'ath party does not exactly have a healthy influence on the state of affairs in the Sunni Triangle in Iraq. But up until now, the USA never bothered to bring the conflict out in the open, which makes me wonder what changed.
As I see it, there are a number of possibilities:

a.) The USA is hoping to capitalize upon anti-Syrian anger currently rife amongst the Lebanese (and perhaps Syrian) opposition. The current momentum of anger, fueled by the moral support of the USA (and the French, see below), may very well provide the Lebanese opposition with enough of an incentive to rise up against the Syrians themselves.
b.) By withdrawing their ambassador, the USA are trying to scare the Syrians into cooperation. This would be corroborated by implicit French support of American policy. Yesterday, during the Hariri funeral, France once again reiterated its position that Syria should remove its troops from Lebanon. France previously supported a Security Council resolution demanding just that.
c.) It's not a bluff; the whole Hersh/New Yorker story about a possible attack on Iran as well as the unmanned drones story were all diversions. In reality, Syria is the next target. This would make strategic sense, as Syria is costing the USA, the Lebanese, the Israeli's and the Palestinians. I can't imagine any sort of peace between the latter two without Syria moving out of the way and stopping to fund the Lebanon-based Hezbollah. The downside is that American forces seem so overstretched I can't imagine them occupying a third country (besides Iraq and Afghanistan). (Of course, a pending Syrian invasion may be the precise reason the USA hasn't been willing to greatly increase its troop numbers in Iraq.). Nevertheless, I also find it hard to imagine the French going along with this.

There probably are other scenarios which I haven't thought of. Considering the current weirdness - Syria and Iran joining up 'against common threats'; a strange explosion in Iran - I'd like to hear them all. Also, does anyone know if there are any websites tracking American troop deployments?

8:45

permalink comment(s) (7) trackback(s) (0)

Eason Jordan and the partisan French response

Norwegians research Van Gogh murder

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

What you say is sounds fairly credulous, especially the Seymour Hersh part - given his track record. But as for tracking American troop deployments, I think that is going too far. I just wonder how D-Day would have gone if the Internet and bloggers had been operating in those days.

Liam (ip:194.159.73.69) 17 February 2005 - 14:17 uur

Ah, but any general worth his salt would try to make use of bloggers. They're an excellent tool for spreading disinformation. D-Day knew its own diversionary tactics. In fact, the Germans initially believed D-Day *was* the diversion. Maybe much in the sense that everybody, thanks to the internet, now believes that US operations against Iran are imminent, whereas the opposite may be the case.

Also, don't forget that since the advent of the internet, lots of reasonably intelligent and reasonably well-informed people spread their often very reasonable sounding but nevertheless conflicting analysis through the web. You could argue this does only increase confusion about (for example) American plans, rather than decrease it.

Which doesn't mean I'll stop trying to understand, but anyway ;)

Arjan Dasselaar (ip:82.161.93.35) 17 February 2005 - 15:20 uur

Maybe the French are going to invade Syria?

Don't laugh. Politically, they could get away with it. They probably have the capability, too. Syria's military isn't all that great, as I recall.

Morally? Heh heh heh. Didn't you hear me say "France"?

Liam -- "credulous" means "gullible", "easily fooled". "Credible" is the word you're looking for. But anyhow, I think you're right about Hersh. Hersh is... credulous.

Marky Markov (ip:66.236.178.100) 17 February 2005 - 23:54 uur

I'm not about to laugh. The one country in the world that always (and I do mean always) acts in what they perceive to be their own self interest is France. No one is better than the French to agreeing to everything and implementing nothing. An excellent example is France's conduct within the European Union; they agree to every proposal radiating from Brussels yet fail to actually implement any of them. World opinion? Remember the "Rainbow Warrior"? No other country in the world would have had the gonads to pull that off. If the French intend to remove the Syrians from Lebanon, find out what's in it for them. Syria and Lebanon were both League of Nation "Protectorates" following the First World War. I'm positive nobody involved has forgotten that and would not return to the status of French Colonies.

Always bear in mind, no country is as deceptive as France.

deyank (ip:68.86.239.108) 17 February 2005 - 3:34 uur

There is nothing new about American hostility to Syria. As I recall, there has been legislation in effect imposing sanctions on Syria for some time now in the U.S. Pre-dates Bush, I believe. A few months ago Bush announced he was going to put that law into use. (it had passed but not implememnted) His announcement was made before the recent bombing.

As to the French, the previous poster said it all quite eloquently. I might add that the French just love to send military troops into their former colonies. Syria being one. Witness the Ivory Coast debacle still going on.

ttonn (ip:69.168.240.231) 17 February 2005 - 6:30 uur

True, and the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act (you'd think they'd be able to come up with something catchy) has been long in the making. But there's a huge gulf between making threats and actually doing something, like withdrawing your ambassador. The withdrawal of an ambassador in effect signals that the time for diplomatic talk is over. New Sisyphus puts it better: http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005/02/us-ambassador-to-syria-recalled.html: 'Syria has been bucking for full Axis of Evil status for some time now. What we may be witnessing are the first steps of its promotion to full membership.'

Arjan Dasselaar (ip:82.161.93.35) 17 February 2005 - 20:05 uur

Yes, but being part of the axis of evil didn't prevent Syria from chairing the U.N. panel on human rights. Syria knows all about human rights. It violates them every day.

ttonn (ip:69.168.240.231) 17 February 2005 - 7:41 uur

Comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(By submitting comments you agree to have read and accepted the forum rules. If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Doorbakken kan altijd nog

Opening moves in Syria

Trackback Pings

Comment

Wat deed ik recent?