STWR - Share The World's Resources

Don Monkerud ~ STWR Member

Senior columnist for WhatTheyThink.com

U. S. to Attack Syria and Further Destabilize Middle East?

President Bush is on the warpath again, this time threatening to force changes in Syria, which he claims "is out of step" with Middle Eastern "progress."

Following the assassination of billionaire Rafik Hariri, former Lebanese prime minister, the U.S. withdrew its ambassador from Syria, despite the lack of any proof that Syria was involved. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Syria of backing insurgents in Iraq and trying to "blow up" the peace process between Israel and Palestine, and she demanded that Syria withdraw its 14,000 troops from Lebanon.

Bush and Rice claim they will rely on diplomacy and international pressure to achieve their aims, but also say they will not invade "at this time," a thinly veiled threat.

The menacing of Syria-a nation of 18 million people the size of North Dakota-sounds increasingly like the drumbeats that lead to the invasion of Iraq. Neocons have wanted to invade Syria for months because the occupation of Iraq is going so badly. Blaming Syria is an excuse to take the heat off the U.S. failure to quell a wildly raging revolt in Iraq.

The GOP, Christian fundamentalists, the Israeli lobby and neocons are rallying to the cry, thirsting for blood and pushing for an invasion of Syria. Blaming Syria and Iran, whose nuclear threat rings hollow, reveals a way out of a dead end tunnel: If we invade Syria and Iran, everything will be fine. Will Americans buy this rosy scenario like they bought the invasion of Iraq?

There is much to dislike about the Syrian government. Few Americans would support Syria any more than they would support the monarchies and dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and China, which the U.S. touts as allies. When have we threatened those countries?

The Iraq occupation is a failure. How can we forget? The Iraq occupation budget is more than $300 billion and cost 15,000 American causalities; there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq and no connection between Iraq and 9/11; we killed 15,000 to 150,000 Iraqis including women and children; and the attacks in Iraq only increase in frequency and severity.

These problems are being ignored as justifications for further military adventures are put forth. Couched in typical Bush-talk of "good vs. evil," the rhetoric airs U.S. double standards that are a complete embarrassment. The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman claims Syria is exerting "naked imperialism" by leaving 14,000 troops in Lebanon, while the U.S. has 150,000 troops in Iraq. He accuses Syria of leveling Hama to put down a rebellion of Sunni Muslim fundamentalist in 1982, while the U.S. is leveling any city it can't control in Iraq. He forgets that Syrian troops quelled a devastating civil war in Lebanon.

Friedman accuses Syria of shooting journalists and firing on the Red Cross, while U.S. snipers in Iraq kill indiscriminately. He accuses Syria of having a dictatorship, while U.S. military officers dictate to the government of Iraq and torture prisoners. He accuses Syria of ignoring U.N. resolution 1559, calling for an immediate withdrawal from Lebanon, while ignoring U.N. resolutions 242, 338, and 479, which call for Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories.

Then there's the bogeyman of "terrorism." George Friedman, chairman of Strategic Forecasting, Inc., described as "a private-quasi CIA" by Barron's, claims Syria is a threat because it supports Hezbollah, which "is capable of attacking the U.S. if it so desires." This is nothing but fear mongering. Hezbollah's "raison d'être" was opposing Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon, and it generally observed the military cease-fire after Israel withdrew.

Rather than planning new invasions or military adventures-Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector to Iraq, announced that Bush plans to bomb Iran in June-the U.S. needs to implement immediately a time schedule for withdrawing from Iraq. Staying will only continue to bleed U.S. resources and lives, lead to further terrorist attacks and undermine U.S. credibility.

According to U.S. intelligence assessments, there is little chance of attainting Bush's goals in Iraq in the near future. The National
Intelligence Council contradicts Bush's boast that the invasion of Iraq struck a blow against terrorism. Instead, it found that Iraq has replaced prewar Afghanistan as a training ground for terrorists and that the U.S. military is in an untenable position.

Syria isn't the problem. The problem is the Bush administration, which is becoming a victim of its own delusions and is only increasing hatred for the U.S. Let's hope the campaign drumbeat, "Four More Wars" doesn't become a reality.

Copyright 2005

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment