This article is about Syrian President Assad’s sentiments (obviously), but it serves pretty well as a template for how any leader of another nation will respond when their nation is at the top of the U.S.’s “to do” list, at least in the present world environment. Especially a nation in the Middle East, where the U.S. must seem to be basically “picking off” nations one by one (with Syria being #3, just a nose ahead of #4 Iran). In fact, in such a situation, it seems reasonable to expect that each successive leader/nation in the area will feel all the more responsibility to resist.

There is, of course, another school of thought which would say it’s reasonable to expect that each successive leader in the region will feel all the more desire to lie down. Defenders of the “remake the Middle East” strategy often point to Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi as an example of that phenomenon, but there are mixed reports on what led Qaddafi to mellow out. We’ll examine that soon.

More likely, I would think, in an area which has cultural roots going back approximately to the beginning of civilization, is the likelhood that each successive leader, and each successive nation, will fight even harder than the one before. Right or wrong.

It’s interesting: neoconservatives are, in one part, super-nationalists. Yet one of their program’s biggest weaknesses– perhaps the biggest– is that they fail to appreciate the strength of nationalists (and super-nationalists) in the countries over which they wish to assert control.

By Rhonda Roumani and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers

DAMASCUS, Syria, Nov. 10 — President Bashar Assad promised Thursday to cooperate with a U.N. investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, but in a defiant speech to cabinet ministers, Baath Party members and students, he warned that a confrontation might be inevitable.

“President Bashar Assad won’t bow to anyone in this world nor would he let his people or country to bow to anyone,” he said to applause. “We only bow to God.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, said Syria was failing to cooperate with the probe, in violation of a U.N. resolution.

Noting that Assad’s government had balked this week at sending six officials to Beirut to be questioned by U.N. investigator Detlev Mehlis — first inviting Mehlis to Damascus to negotiate about the questioning of its security personnel and then saying it needed to complete its own questioning — Rice said Syria must “stop trying to negotiate and cooperate.”

“The U.N. couldn’t have been clearer. The resolution couldn’t have been clearer or more detailed about what was expected of the Syrians,” Rice told reporters traveling with her to the Middle East. “They’re expected to answer affirmatively, yes, to whatever Mehlis needs to complete his investigation. I do not believe the U.N. Security Council resolution contemplated negotiating how they would say yes.”
Read the rest of this entry »

In the following blog post/article, the Washington Post’s William Arkin finds signs of U.S. military preparation for conflict with Syria going back to last year and further, and also highlights some of the quotes from administration figures (most notably, neocon — and now U.N. Ambassador — John Bolton) from as far back as 2002.

I’m archiving the post here, but the original has a lot of inline links that you might want to see.

Last year, U.S. intelligence agencies and military planners received instructions to prepare up-to-date target lists for Syria and to increase their preparations for potential military operations against Damascus.

According to internal intelligence documents and discussions with military officers involved in the planning, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa was directed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to prepare a “strategic concept” for Syria, the first step in creation of a full fledged war plan.

The planning process, according to the internal documents, includes courses of action for cross border operations to seal the Syrian-Iraqi border and destroy safe havens supporting the Iraqi insurgency, attacks on Syrian weapons of mass destruction infrastructure supporting the development of biological and chemical weapons, and attacks on the regime of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

Though Syria was never mentioned by President Bush as a charter member of the “axis of evil” for developing weapons of mass destruction and support international terrorism, it has long been on the administration’s radar screen.

The January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review levied requirements on the military to conduct planning for potential use of nuclear weapons against Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea.

On April 1, 2002, almost a full year before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld accused Iran, Iraq and Syria of “inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing.”

On May 6, 2002, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation entitled “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” Under Secretary of State John Bolton identified Libya, Syria and Cuba as countries that were attempting to procure weapons of mass destruction. “States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort. But those that do not can expect to become our targets,” he said.
Read the rest of this entry »

Syria has been getting pretty well roughed up on the international scene lately (justifiably or not). They’ve been hearing increasingly tough talk from the U.S., they stand accused of taking part in the assassination of the neighboring prime minister, of not cooperating with the investigation of that event, of supporting terrorists, and of allowing replacement insurgents across their border and into Iraq. And now they are the subject of a U.N. Security Council resolution, under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter (which allows it to be backed by force, if necessary). Also, the war in Iraq is at their border, and possibly within their borders, with reported casualties on their side.

But as Syria tries to weather the storms of international pressure (and occasional military incursions), they can know that they have a friend…in the form of Iran, and its recently elected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Which is convenient, in a sense, since the U.S. has been linking the two countries as problem states for some time now. Iran has stated its support of Syria in the face of the pressure at the U.N., and against their “common enemy”, the U.S.

It just seems to be getting easier and easier for the U.S. to end up at war with the next door neighbors of its two current wars. For a while, it seemed like it had to be improbable, what with the U.S. troops being overstretched, and the war in Iraq becoming so unpopular. But regardless of those two things, troubling signs are lapping at the shore with unsettling regularity. Here’s a round of those signs:

Two on the presidents of the two countries connecting and Iran’s president positioning himself as a strong regional ally of Syria and its President Assad…
Read the rest of this entry »

Three stories on Syria’s reaction to the introduction and passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1636.

First, on the events at the U.N., two like-named stories from CNN…

Nov. 1: CNN – Syria rejects U.N. Resolution

Nov 2: CNN – Syria rejects U.N. Resolution

The first story is more in-depth, but the second one has some unique content, including the statement below from Condi Rice:

The resolution is under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which holds open the ultimate possibility of the Security Council considering the use of force with failure to comply.

Speaking in Monday’s meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the resolution “made it clear that failure to comply with these demands will lead to serious consequences from the international community.” She called the Chapter 7 resolution “the only way to compel the Syrians” to cooperate.

It’s worth noting that Syria had, at the request of the U.N.’s Hariri bombing probe leader Detlev Mehlis, created its own commission to investigate the bombing, with a presidential order to cooperate with the U.N. investigation. This occured days before the U.N. resolution.

That fact is noted in the last paragraph of the first, longer story, but it is not mentioned at all in the shorter story– the one with the Rice quote about “the only way to compel” Syria’s cooperation.

The first article has a lot more quotes of the actual debate surrounding the resolution.

Sorry if that was a confusing way of introducing the two articles. :-\

The third, which I’m archiving here in full, deals with Syria’s stated plans to comply with the resolution.

I’ll be tying all this Syria stuff together shortly…there’s just a lot to get caught up on there, news-wise. And it keeps developing.

Syrian ambassador to London says Syria will let U.N. Investigators into Hariri’s killing question Syrian officials in Damascus on their own

-New Agencies

Syria will let U.N. Investigators trying to identify the killers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri to question Syrian officials in Damascus on their own, the Syrian ambassador to London said.

U.N. Chief Investigator Detlev Mehlis has complained that Syrian security figures interviewed in Damascus last month appeared to give only prepared responses. The Syrians had insisted that other officials attend the interviews.

“There shouldn’t be a problem to meet with them as witnesses any time,” The ambassador, Sami Khiyami, told Reuters.

“Mehlis can meet them completely alone, even choose a place in Damascus with a U.N. Flag,” He said, adding that the investigators would be free to produce their witnesses at the interviews, while keeping their identities secret if necessary.

Mehlis, who pointed to Syrian and Lebanese involvement in the assassination in an interim report in October, also accused Damascus of failing to cooperate properly with his mission.

Khiyami said his understanding of the Security Council resolution was that Mehlis must get the approval of a council committee before naming anyone as suspects in Hariri’s killing.

Asked if Syrian President Bashar Assad would agree to be interviewed for the investigation, the ambassador said: “Let us not forget that he is the symbol of the country. Mehlis can ask to meet him, and I don’t think there should be a problem, but there is no other way to meet the president but to ask for an audience.”

Mehlis is expected soon to request interviews with Syrian officials, including members of Assad’s inner circle such as his his brother Maher Assad, a key military commander, and his brother-in-law and military intelligence chief Assef Shawkat.

Syrian investigating committee calls for informants

Also Friday, the Syrian judicial committee investigating the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister called Friday for the public’s help, urging anyone with information related to the February 14 bombing to come forth, Syria’s official news agency said.

The call came a day after the committee, headed by Syrian Prosecutor-General Ghada Murad, met for the first time since President Bashar Assad ordered its creation on October 29.

The decision to set up the committee came after U.N. Investigator Mehlis called on Syria to conduct its own probe into the assassination to work with the international investigation.
Read the rest of this entry »

CNN has a summary of the main action points if the recent U.N. Securinty Council resolution on Syria. Generally it insists that Syria cooperate fully with the U.N. investigation team that is looking into the killing of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Rafik Hariri (and 20+ others, via car bombing) this past February.

Here’s more, courtesy of CNN/Reuters:

We’re storing a copy of a PDF version of the entire Resolution 1636 here at PNAC.info. It can also be found at its original location on the Security Council’s 2005 resolutions page.

—
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

More on the developing Syria saga, from Voice of America News.

Note this statement by Secretary of State Rice:

“With our decision today, we show that Syria has isolated itself from the international community through its false statements, its support for terrorism, its interference in the affairs of its neighbors, and its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East.â€?

There’s another nation in the Middle East that was being characterized in much the same way, prior to being invaded by the U.S. Another thing happened before the U.S. invaded Iraq as well, and that was the passing of a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iraq comply with UN weapons inspections and disclosure requirements or face “serious consequences”. This one against Syria threatens to consider further action if necessary. My next post will be a summary of the resolution.

U.N. Demands Syria’s Cooperation

04 November 2005

U.N. Demands Syria’s Cooperation (MP3) audio clip
U.N. Demands Syria’s Cooperation (Real Player) – Download audio clip
Listen to U.N. Demands Syria’s Cooperation (Real Player) audio clip

The United Nations Security Council has adopted a resolution that calls on Syria to cooperate in the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Mr. Hariri was an opponent of Syria’s nearly three-decades long occupation in Lebanon. He and twenty other people were killed in a February 2005 car bombing in Beirut.

A report prepared for the U.N. Security Council implicated both Lebanese and Syrian high-ranking officials in the murders. The report said Syria failed to cooperate and that several Syrian officials tried to mislead investigators by giving them false or inaccurate information.

The resolution demands that Syria detain any officials or individuals that U.N. investigators suspect of involvement in the Hariri murder and make them available for questioning. It also bans travel for individuals designated as suspects in the assassination and freezes their overseas assets.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the U.N. Security Council resolution “sends a strong signal to Syria�:

“The resolution tells the Syrians in no uncertain terms, in very strong language, that they should not interfere in Lebanese affairs in any way. . . . .it allows the Council to come back to consider further action should that be necessary; should Syria not comply.�

The resolution, said Ms. Rice, “is the only way to compel the Syrian government to accept the just demands of the United Nations and to cooperate fully with the investigationâ€?:

“With our decision today, we show that Syria has isolated itself from the international community through its false statements, its support for terrorism, its interference in the affairs of its neighbors, and its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East.â€?

Secretary of State Rice says Syria needs to make “a strategic decision” to change its behavior. “Until that day comes,â€? she said, “we in the international community must remain united.”

The preceding was an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government.
—
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Here are two different stories about the same news item– namely, the report that a Syrian general who was giving a tour of their border security efforts told reporters that Syrian troops have been fired upon on more than one occasion, and killed on at least one, by U.S. troops.

Both articles touch upon most of the same elements: that Syria has made overt efforts at border security and is showing them off to dispel accusations to the contrary; that the U.S. was willing and ready to do whatever it felt necessary in that area in pursuit of its anti-terror aims; and things are hot at the Iraq/Syria border. This last point is addressed more in the Telegraph (UK) article than in the USA Today/AP article.

For what it’s worth, the AP writer apparently was unable to pin down the Syrian general’s full name, and, given that the Telegraph does have a full name, I’m inclined to think they have it right. Which one has his rank right is anyone’s guess.

Syria accuses US of launching lethal raids over its borders
By Harry de Quetteville in Baghouz
telegraph.co.uk
(Filed: 29/10/2005)

Syria has accused the United States of launching lethal military raids into its territory from Iraq, escalating the diplomatic crisis between the two countries as the Bush administration seeks to step up pressure on President Bashar Assad’s regime.

Major General Amid Suleiman, a Syrian officer, said that American cross-border attacks into Syria had killed at least two border guards, wounded several more and prompted an official complaint to the American embassy in Damascus.

He made the allegations during an official press tour of Syrian security forces on the Iraqi border, which the US claims is a barely guarded passage into Iraq for hardcore foreign jihadis.

While showing off what he said were beefed-up Syrian border measures designed to blunt those criticisms, including new police stations and checkpoints, Maj Gen Suleiman alleged that his own border forces had come under repeated American attack.

“Incidents have taken place with casualties on my surveillance troops,” he said, near the Euphrates river border crossing between Syria and Iraq. “Many US projectiles have landed here. In this area alone, two soldiers and two civilians have been killed by the American attacks.”

The charge follows leaks in Washington that the US has already engaged in military raids into Syria and is contemplating launching special forces operations on Syrian soil to eliminate insurgent networks before they reach Iraq.
Read the rest of this entry »

Representative Ron Paul, the respected Republican congressman from Texas, provided one of the most resounding statements of alarm about the aims and machinations of the neoconservative movement, in his widely-distributed speech “Neo-conned”.

Now he’s here to let us know what’s staring us in the face, in the form of what he sees as the U.S.’s next target for regime change– Syria.

Dr. Paul hits it right on the head so many times in this piece that I will just let it speak for itself.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 26, 2005

We Have Been Warned

We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S. led regime change– in Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: “Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.â€? This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunityâ€? refers to the long-held neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq.

This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad.

Congress already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions placed on Syria last year. Harmful sanctions, as applied to Iraq in the 1990s, inevitably represent a major step toward war since they bring havoc to so many innocent people. Syria already has been charged with developing weapons of mass destruction based on no more evidence than was available when Iraq was similarly charged.

Syria has been condemned for not securing its borders, by the same U.S. leaders who cannot secure our own borders. Syria was castigated for placing its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring country, although such action was invited by an elected government and encouraged by the United States. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon elicited no suicide terrorist attacks, as was suffered by Western occupiers.

Condemning Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange, considering most of the world sees our 150,000 troops in Iraq as an unwarranted foreign occupation. Syrian troops were far more welcome in Lebanon.

Secretary Rice likewise sees the problems in Syria– that we helped to create– as an opportunity to advance our Middle Eastern agenda. In recent testimony she stated that it was always the administration’s intent to redesign the greater Middle East, and Iraq was only one part of that plan. And once again we have been told that all options are still on the table for dealing with Syria– including war.

The statement that should scare all Americans (and the world) is the assurance by Secretary Rice that the President needs no additional authority from Congress to attack Syria. She argues that authority already has been granted by the resolutions on 9/11 and Iraq. This is not true, but if Congress remains passive to the powers assumed by the executive branch it won’t matter. As the war spreads, the only role for Congress will be to provide funding lest they be criticized for not supporting the troops. In the meantime, the Constitution and our liberties here at home will be further eroded as more Americans die.
Read the rest of this entry »

While the U.S. considering military strikes may be the more startling news in this next article, I didn’t find it to be the most interesting. More interesting is the fact that Syria has become increasingly aggravated by the U.S. government’s constant one-two punch of demands and disses, which has been going on for quite a long while now. As you can see in the article, this constant rain of disapproval and pressure has gotten on Syria’s nerves to the point where they have withdrawn their cooperation in security and intelligence operations, saying that they will gladly resume cooperation if they can just get some public appreciation for the significant help they apparently have provided in matters related to the “war on terror” and the war in Iraq.

NEW YORK (AFP) – The United States recently debated launching military strikes inside Syria against camps used by insurgents operating in neighboring Iraq, a US magazine reported.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice successfully opposed the idea at a meeting of senior American officials held on October 1, Newsweek reported, citing unnamed US government sources.

Rice reportedly argued that diplomatic isolation was a more effective approach, with a UN report pending that may blame Syria for the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri.

The United States has accused Damascus of allowing insurgents to move arms and fighters across the Syrian border into Iraq and of destabilizing the region.

US troops in Iraq have been waging an offensive in recent weeks against insurgents in western towns near the Syrian border.

The US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said last month that “our patience is running out” with Syria.

The same article also reported that Syria had ended all security and intelligence cooperation with the United States several months ago after growing frustrated with persistent public criticism from Washington.

Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, told Newsweek that his government continued to detain Islamic extremists and remained willing to resume cooperation if the public bashing stopped.

“We are willing to re-engage the moment you want but one condition,” the magazine quotes Moustapha as saying.

“You have to acknowledge that we are helping.”

Moustapha also confirmed an account from a US intelligence official that Damascus had been angered when Washington exposed one of its operatives.

While criticizing Syria in public statements, the United States had privately praised Damascus for handing over the half brother of Saddam Hussein, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, earlier in the year, the magazine reported.

Moustapha said Syria could do more to assist the United States if intelligence was shared as in the past.

The magazine reported that some US intelligence officials believed Washington now was losing out on vital information. Syrian cooperation in the last few years allegedly had helped avert two possible attacks against US targets, including a Navy base in Bahrain.

One unnamed intelligence official told the magazine that US pressure on the Syrian leadership could prove counter-productive and that Washington may be “radicalizing the country.”

Here is the first of several items about the growing geopolitical drama concerning Syria, Iraq’s neighbor to the west. Syria, of course, is on the PNAC’s list of nations whose leaders should be made to change their ways, or suffer the consequences. This goes back at least to their Letter To President Bush On The War On Terrorism, sent 9 days after the September 11th attacks. That letter is a five-item list of requests vis-a-vie the then-brand-new War on Terror(ism). Iraq is of course on that list, and, via the item “Hezbollah”, so is Syria. Here’s an excerpt:

We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

In December 2004 PNAC Chairman William Kristol, in his capacity as Editor of the Weekly Standard, wrote the following, in an article titled Getting Serious About Syria:

By Bush Doctrine standards, Syria is a hostile regime. It is permitting and encouraging activities that are killing not just our Iraqi friends but also, and quite directly, American troops. So we have a real Syria problem.

…

What to do? We have tried sweet talk (on Secretary Powell’s trip to Damascus in May 2003) and tough talk (on the visit three months ago by Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman and Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt). Talk has failed. Syria is a weak country with a weak regime. We now need to take action to punish and deter Assad’s regime.

It would be good, of course, if Secretary Rumsfeld had increased the size and strength of our army so that we now had more options. He didn’t, and we must use the assets we have. Still, real options exist. We could bomb Syrian military facilities; we could go across the border in force to stop infiltration; we could occupy the town of Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, a few miles from the border, which seems to be the planning and organizing center for Syrian activities in Iraq; we could covertly help or overtly support the Syrian opposition (pro-human rights demonstrators recently tried to take to the streets of Damascus to protest the regime’s abuses). This hardly exhausts all the possible forms of pressure and coercion. But it’s time to get serious about dealing with Syria as part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.

I could find a lot more quotes, but suffice it to say, the neoconservatives in the PNAC have been agitating for action against Syria for some time. And now, their wishes may be coming true.

By JAMES RISEN & DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
(Link to original story)

WASHINGTON — A series of clashes in the last year between U.S. and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials.

The firefight, between Army Rangers and Syrian troops along the border with Iraq, was the most serious of the conflicts with President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, according to U.S. and Syrian officials.

It illustrated the dangers facing U.S. troops as Washington tries to apply more political and military pressure on a country that President Bush last week labeled one of the “allies of convenience” with Islamic extremists.

One of Bush’s most senior aides, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, said that so far U.S. military forces in Iraq had moved right up to the border to cut off the entry of insurgents, but he insisted that they had refrained from going over it.

But other officials, who say they got their information in the field or by talking to Special Operations commanders, say that as U.S. efforts to cut off the flow of fighters have intensified, those operations have spilled over the border — sometimes by accident, sometimes by design.
Read the rest of this entry »