Page 3 | Syria | TaylorMarsh.com

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Syria

The Trouble with Saudis

By Taylor Marsh on 11 May 2009

Earth to Saudis, get a grip. Oh, but not on your woman.

Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily newspaper based in Riyadh, reported that Judge Hamad Al-Razine said that “if a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment.”
Women in the audience immediately and loudly protested Al-Razine’s statement, and were shocked to learn the remarks came from a judge, the newspaper reported.

Regular readers know about the conference I attended on US/Saudi relations recently. An attempt to begin to get a clue about the most important Arab leaders in the region, though as a modern American woman it’s tough, very, very tough.

After the conference I talked about the importance of the Saudis when it comes to Middle East talks and trying to get to equilibrium. The challenge being that Saudi pr in the United States is awful and it’s not just about 9/11. In fact, I talked to Lucien Zeigler of the Committee for International Trade (Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce & Industry), who sponsored the conference along with the Saudis (and the New America Foundation), about their pr problem, particularly among one specific group of voters who aren’t going to give the Saudis a pass for obvious reasons. It’s one thing to have religious differences that make customs diametrically opposed to our nation. It’s quite another to condone violence against women, which the Saudis clearly do.

This is my pet peeve with the Saudis, even as they step up in the Middle East. They set themselves up for failure, which can blow back on Obama at a cost. Not the least of which is because a leading demographic in this country think they’re no good. Part of the Saudi story lies buried because many in the U.S. don’t want to hear it, which is understandable. Gates on the Saudis:

“The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has been one of the mainstays of stability in the Middle East for more than 60 years,” he said at the Eskan Village military base outside the Saudi capital.
“Saudi Arabia continues to be an important partner for the US in counter-terrorism and a range of other issues.”

How the Saudis hope to get credit or support for anything they do in the Middle East as long as stories like the wife slapping come out of Saudi Arabia is beyond me. You’d think the Saudis would look at the bigger Middle East picture when these stories come out of Arabia. It won’t help us solve issues in the Middle East.

If we don’t the region is headed for another war, as King Abdullah of Jordan has said before, but reiterated again in an interview with The UK Times.

The Obama Administration is pushing for a comprehensive peace agreement that would include settling Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and its territorial disputes with Syria and Lebanon, King Abdullah II told The Times. Failure to reach agreement at this critical juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year. “If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months,” the King said.

The Saudis are so incredibly tone deaf on pr they never move fast enough on stories like the one above making any U.S. partnership, even for the good of the Middle East, impossibly complicated for Obama. How can Americans who only think of Saudi Arabia in terms of 9/11 possibly cut them slack, even when they’re doing good? They can’t and won’t, because the Saudis are just too easy to hate.

Why do I care?

Because women matter in the Middle East. Like the reality of Arab Israeli women, who can’t work and have no independence, as Knesset Member Jamal Zahalka said on a media conference call I was on recently when I asked about the challenges of Arab Israeli women: “… the main problems for Arab-Israeli women is participation of work for them, which ‘is very, very low. … Without work you can’t have independence.’” They stand beside Afghan women, who stand in front of Saudi women, who stand in front of Pakistani women… not to mention Egyptian, Iranian… As women are treated in countries, so goes that country’s stability, which is very much an American interest, especially in the Middle East.

Are you hearing me now?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Foreign Affairs: What’s Next for the Peace Process?

By Taylor Marsh on 02 March 2009

I’ll be attending a forum on the Middle East peace process this afternoon moderated by Steve Clemons.

You can follow on Twitter.

Now let’s just hope I don’t get stuck in the snow.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

In Our World

By Taylor Marsh on 21 December 2008

Taj
and Trident Tower reopen, but not the Oberoi which will take another seven
months or so.

An unsmiling policeman stood behind sandbags, rifle poised. If the metal
detector beeped, a polite staffer requested guests to have their bags checked.
Besides the security, on Saturday, a day before the Trident reopened, it felt
like the most brazen terror attack on India never happened.
[...] On the fringes of the crowd were those who see the Taj every day. Prakash
Chavan, who has been selling peanuts outside the Taj for 15 years, said: “I
can’t afford to walk into the hotel, but when they reopen their doors,
I’ll clap proudly.”

Cheers to India. Never let down. Never let the thugs win.

Iraq’s parliament has dealt
al-Maliki a serious defeat. Sadr is smiling.

Iraq’s parliament has rejected a draft law that would have permitted forces
from the UK, Australia and a number of other countries to remain after 2008.
The bill, rejected by 80 votes to 68, would have given the 6,000 non-US troops
a legal basis for staying once the UN mandate expires on 31 December.
It will now be sent back to the cabinet for amendment. A vote is due next
week. [...]

It’s bad enough the Brits were demeaned to this lower agreement, but now that
Sadr has successfully defeated it that means the non U.S. forces could basically
be kicked out of Iraq. Juan
Cole has more.

The shoe thrower was beaten, according to reports by the Guardian.

he Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George Bush was viciously beaten after being taken into custody, according to a police officer who accompanied him to prison.
Wrestled to the ground and then buried under a frantic mound of security officers, Muntazer al-Zaidi was last seen being dragged into detention. Controversy has since raged over what treatment was meted out to the man hailed a hero in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world for his protest against the invasion of Iraq. Yesterday there were further demonstrations in the Middle East calling for his immediate release. …

The story of the
Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip hardly makes the news in the U.S. It’s
indicative of our blindness to the suffering of the Palestinians. As good a
friends as we are with Israel, which is as it should be. If that is really true
then it’s time for us to tell our friends enough.

Impoverished Palestinians on the Gaza Strip are being forced to scavenge
for food on rubbish dumps to survive as Israel’s economic blockade risks causing
irreversible damage, according to international observers.
[...]The figures collected by the UN agency show that 51.8% – an “unprecedentedly
high” number of Gaza’s 1.5 million population – are now living below
the poverty line. The agency announced last week that it had been forced to
stop distributing food rations to the 750,000 people in need and had also
suspended cash distributions to 94,000 of the most disadvantaged who were
unable to afford the high prices being asked for smuggled food. …

Our problems with the Arab and Muslim world will not be solved until we give a little tough love to our Israeli friends.
The situation in Gaza is something no one should countenance. Will Barack and Clinton have the spine to do it together? They make the right team.

Settlements and the Palestinians, will we ever find a reconcilable medium?
At least PM Brown is making a concerted effort, one of the few. It’s a never
ending quagmire that awaits Obama. Our national security is tied up in it.

The international community must do more to hold Israel accountable – particularly
on its accelerated West Bank settlement construction – if peace efforts are
to have a chance, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad said in
an interview Saturday.
[...] However, in recent months, Fayad has tried a new approach, proposing
practical steps in which European countries could help curb settlement expansion.
In May, he wrote to 27 EU nations, proposing the link between an upgrade
in Israel-EU ties and halting settlement construction. Fayad also exchanged
letters with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who said he wants to make
sure products from West Bank settlements are denied favorable EU tariffs.
Under a 2003 agreement between Israel and the EU, settlement products must
be clearly labeled. Brown wrote Dec. 9 that he wants to make sure the agreement
is implemented effectively “and any abuse of the system fully investigated.”
Brown also wrote that he’s looking into ways to discourage British citizens
from buying property in settlements. [...]

As the 21st century unfolds, Russia goes backwards to the bad old days. George
W. Bush looked into Putin’s soul, but was too ignorant to see the darkness. Bush ignored Russia, which is odd considering Condi’s historical prowess on all things Soviet. Treason
is now being expanded to include talking to journalists as a possible punishable
offense.

In a country where government critics already feel vulnerable, legislation
to expand the definition of treason has inspired a new round of hand-wringing
about how far the state will go to rein in dissenters and regulate Russians’
contact with foreigners.
Even certain conversations with a foreign reporter could be “considered
treason under the new legislation,” contended Ernst Chyorny, the leader
of a human rights group in Moscow, because they could be seen as “consultative”
support to a foreign entity. And that, he says, could land a violator in prison
for as long as 20 years. [...]

China
sends navy vessels to fight pirates off of the Horn of Africa.

Iran
sends warships to battle the pirates off of Somalia as well.

In the plot thickens, Lebanon
now has an ambassador to Syria. Yep, that’s right. It coincides with another
tale I’ll tell you after the jump.

Lebanon appointed an ambassador to Syria on Saturday, the first time the
Arab neighbours will have full diplomatic relations since gaining independence
from France in the 1940s.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had issued a decree in October to establish
diplomatic relations with Lebanon, with whom bilateral ties have thawed since
the end of a Lebanese political crisis in May. [...]

Now before going on, this exchange was expected “before the end of the
year.” They made it by a week. But that’s not the thing to watch.

The real
story is the pending trial at the international court at The Hague regarding
the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri of Lebanon. After
judges being replaced, deaths, disappearances, witness protection and every
other manner of mob like threats, the beginning of the most dangerous part is near. All signs
are revealing the Assad government had a hand in the assassination, which doesn’t shock anyone who follows this region. The Atlantic lays it out in their December issue: Getting
Away With Murder? This will be yet another swirling wind President Obama will have around him in the coming year.

There is
much talk that even though many facts point to Assad and the people around him, including his brother-in-law, as well as generals in Lebanon, with things as tenuous as they are
in the region, the question is being asked whether the fall of Assad is something
anyone can afford. You likely know where I’m going. In order to save the Syrian
government, people around him could be held up, not exactly patsies but not the head of the snake, which would save Great Britain, the U.S., Israel, etc. from having to deal with the aftermath of Assad falling. The reality is that an assassination of this magnitude would need the backing of a state, with Assad the person at the top. But wait! There’s an on the other hand. What
will the majority Sunni in Syria do if it’s seen that people who planned al-Hariri’s
assassination (likely Shia) are not held accountable? Quite a dangerous situation, with the trial in early in 2009. We’ll see who has the courage to demand justice for the Lebanese people,
as well as for “Mr. Lebanon,” who clearly was more than just a politician to the people.
That’s why he’s dead, with his son in hiding for his life.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Israel’s Preemptive Syrian Strike Redux

By Taylor Marsh on 13 October 2007

Last year’s Lebanese debacle for Olmert meant Israel felt it had to re-establish the country’s military prowess. Cue up the strike against Syria. The New York Times
has more today, including a source who admits to that fact.

Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site
that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed
nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create
its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials
with access to the intelligence reports. … ..
… .. Behind closed doors, however, Vice President Dick Cheney and other
hawkish members of the administration have made the case that the same intelligence
that prompted Israel to attack should lead the United States to reconsider
delicate negotiations with North Korea over ending its nuclear program, as
well as America’s diplomatic strategy toward Syria, which has been invited
to join Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., next month.
Mr. Cheney in particular, officials say, has also cited the indications that
North Korea aided Syria to question the Bush administration’s agreement
to supply the North with large amounts of fuel oil. During Mr. Bush’s
first term, Mr. Cheney was among the advocates of a strategy to squeeze the
North Korean government in hopes that it would collapse, and the administration
cut off oil shipments set up under an agreement between North Korea and the
Clinton administration, saying the North had cheated on that accord.
Analysts
Find Israel Struck a Nuclear Project Inside Syria

It’s all about Dick Cheney, battling the saner contingent that now also includes
SecDef Gates, who joins Condi. All this bluster because Olmert doesn’t know
what he’s doing. That sure rings a bell.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hoping for the Worst

By Taylor Marsh on 21 September 2007

Being prepared for anything is one thing, but the neocons are just gnashing
their teeth for more war, not to mention nudging it along. As for the presidential
candidates, no one is willing to go out on a limb and criticize Israel on anything, but
Rudy
is positively nuts if he thinks his ideas are going to help anyone.

Bush is not talking. The questioner is David Gregory:

Q Sir, Israeli opposition leader Netanyahu has now spoken openly about Israel’s
bombing raid on a target in Syria earlier in the month. I wonder if you could
tell us what the target was, whether you supported this bombing raid, and
what do you think it does to change the dynamic in an already hot region in
terms of Syria and Iran and the dispute with Israel and whether the U.S. could
be drawn into any of this?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not going to comment on the matter. Would you like another
question?
Q Did you support it?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not going to comment on the matter.
Q Can you comment about your concerns that come out of it at all, about for
the region?
THE PRESIDENT: No. Saying I’m not going to comment on the matter means I’m
not going to comment on the matter. You’re welcome to ask another question,
if you’d like to, on a different subject.
Bush
press conference

UPDATE: Lieberman is up to no good again and it’s worse than his nonsense on Iraq. (Here’s a different link on the same subject.) Target Iran:

… … (snip) … ..
(b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures
its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for
the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard
to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose
a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the
people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia
extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests
inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions
of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain,
and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq
of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators
such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United
States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence,
and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph
(3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its
proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards
Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the
list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency
to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security
Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006
and March 24, 2007, respectively. … ..

Read full story · Comments are closed

Our Nukes are Better than Yours

By Taylor Marsh on 16 September 2007

Israeli fighter jet
IDF-Reuters

It’s the wingnut philosophy on nuclear proliferation. It’s why we have a modern
arms race right now.

That’s also why the US had better start harking back to the Bush Doctrine
on terror-supporting states. Israel has the right idea, and if we don’t stop
nuclear arms from getting to terrorists, it won’t just be Tel Aviv that goes
up in a mushroom cloud.
The
Axis Threw A Spoke

But sometimes even wingnuts say something ironic even if they don’t realize what they’ve said.

As everyone else is saying; assuming this is true, it’s pretty damned amazing. The thing that gets me is Israel’s seeming ability to shut down the Syrian air defenses.

Foreshadowing of where this is all heading is revealed in this beauty: The other thing that gets me is that even Ehud Olmert gets it. Chinless ophthalmologists and short, apocalyptic Islamist religious fanatics should not be allowed to play with nukes. Again, assuming this is true, it’s real nice to see that Israel still has the biggest balls on the block.

Ah yes, the cajones quotient. It’s been such a reliable predictor of successful national security hasn’t it?

Let’s not play name the nuke countries, shall we? Everyone knows Israel has
nukes. Pakistan has them. India has them. We have them, including newer, smaller, better version, so they tell us. So with the neocons reminding everyone that preemptive war is the official foreign
policy of the Administration, wingnutters flog the “mushroom cloud”
theory of national security hoping to create the same kind of furor that foreshadowed
the disaster in Mesopotamia, all this leading into another presidential election. Hear the footsteps.

Engage your suspension of disbelief now. Murdoch minions weigh in:

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship
and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft
had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the
planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.
But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid
on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.
Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of
the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring
Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route
to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.
… ..
Israelis
â€˜blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’

Claims of North Korea’s involvement have been unsubstantiated and not even
Bolton ever said there was any evidence supporting this fantastical claim. But
it’s an axis of evil through line to connect the Bush dots in support of friends. So if you want to honestly confront our policies towards Iran you must be willing to take on the Bush administration’s one-sided and clearly biased viewpoint of our Middle Eastern challenges.

For Israel, the possibility of a nuclear-armed adversary might have been
enough to warrant the operation. Officially in a state of war with Syriaâ€”and
Iranâ€”Israel has vowed to let neither country obtain nukes (though Israel
itself is believed to have built at least 200 nuclear bombs in its secret
Dimona plant). Earlier this year, according to a well-placed Israeli
source, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked President Bush for assurances that
if economic and political sanctions failed to get Iran to shut down its nuclear
facilities, Bush would order the U.S. military to destroy them before he leaves
office. Bush has yet to provide the assurances, according to the
source, who refused to be quoted because he is not authorized to speak for
the government. The source says the Israeli government believes the Iranians
will reach the point of no return in their nuclear-enrichment program sometime
next year.
U.S. intelligence agencies, by contrast, believe Iran is still two to eight
years away from mastering the technology to build a bomb. Some officials warn
that attacking Iran would mire U.S. forces in another messy war and might
prove ineffective, since the Iranian facilities are believed to be scattered
across the country and buried deep underground. Still, from Israel’s perspective,
there might never be a more supportive White House. “It makes sense that
if Israel has to do it alone, it would want to do it on Bush’s watch and not
wait to see what the political attitude of the next administration will be,”
says Alpher. That Arab states, and the world, will look away next time might
be too much to assume.
A Mission of
Mystery
Israel sends Iran a signal with a stealth raid into Syria.

The highlighted portion above is the rub. Olmert should have been thrown out
of the Oval Office. We are an ally of Israel and clearly have a special relationship to that country, but Iran isn’t a clear and present
danger to our country, which is an important distinction that’s not being considered or represented in Bush’s policies. Of course actions inside Iraq by Iran against U.S. forces, when
proven conclusively, must be addressed, no doubt. But someone needs
to remind Bush of the job of the president. Keep this country safe.
Hitting Iran does just the opposite, no matter what some neocon nut job may
think (however incorrectly) it will do for Israel.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Israel – Lebanon: Bolton Blows it Again

By Taylor Marsh on 08 August 2006

Israel – Lebanon: Bolton Blows it Again –updated–

How many times do we have to endure this insipid, yet highly dangerous, stupidity? Oh right, I keep
forgetting what Joe said. Bush will be president for a couple of more years
so just STFU.

Evidently, in the middle of working on the draft resolution for the Israeli-Lebanon
escalation, Bolton and Bush wanted to send troops into the area BEFORE a ceasefire.
That's right; in the middle of all the bombs flying and the bullets strafing,
Bolton's idea and Bush's policy was to send French troops into a LZ on fire
to try and stop the fighting.

What in the world were they thinking? Do they
even have a clue about what can happen in Middle East conflicts, especially when troops are sent to navigate between two hostiles as volatile as Israel and Hezbollah? I guess they still haven't learned a thing from Iraq.

.. Bolton then took a leaf from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's 2003
criticism of France and Germany as “old Europe” – calling the French
ceasefire initiative “old thinking”. La Sabliere not only bristled
at Bolton's language, he threatened to end all discussions with the US over
ending the Lebanon conflict.
While Bolton and La Sabliere eventually buried their differences, the US-French
face-off reflected deep-rooted and long-lasting French resentments over America's
apparent willingness to allow the conflict to run its course – under the belief
that it is only a matter of time before Israel destroyed Hezbollah.
“The Bush people have never heard a shot fired in anger, and it's apparent,”
an official in the UN Secretary General's Office noted. “The French were
quite fearful that one miscalculation, one stray rocket could set the region
on fire. No one in Washington seemed willing to admit that as a possibility.”
Bolton's continued “cheerleading for Israel” didn't help, according
to this same official. “It's a real row that started with Bolton's statement
that you couldn't compare the deaths of Lebanese to the deaths of Israelis,”
the official said. “He implied that because Lebanon harbored Hezbollah,
Lebanese lives were forfeit. It was a stupid thing to say. It tore the scab
off the wound.”
(snip)
The US press was quick to pick up on this, parroting the administration's
line. Even the venerable Washington Post implied that seven Canadians who
had died as a result of Israeli air strikes in the war's first days were of
lesser value than other Westerners – since they were “Lebanese holding
Canadian passports”. …
The
loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance

That's really one of the biggest problem with conservatives regarding this
messy escalation between Israel and Lebanon. They don't seem capable of realizing that amidst
Hezbollah there are innocent Lebanese fighting to stay alive. Bush and Bolton also don't realize that the organization helping the Leganese people isn't, unfortunately, Sinior's government but Hezbollah, which was covered yesterday here and here.

We all know too well that Israeli citizens are unjustly and heinously attacked
through terrorist bombings from Hezbollah. We sympathize and support Israel fully and their right to defend themselves.

But what about the Lebanese people? Why the wholesale onslaught when they have nowhere to go?

Besides, after the Syrians were kicked out of Lebanon, upon Hariri's
assassination, sure we had 1559. But what did President Bush do to help
the Lebanese government stabilize itself? In the vacuum created by Syria did
anyone attempt to aid Siniora in making deals with Hezbollah that would disarm
them, while also bringing them into the military so they had a real stake in
the new Lebanon? Bush did nothing, while Iran continued to use the power vacuum
to arm Hezbollah, which the Israelis are now finding out first hand.

Not too long ago, in an email to Billmon, in fact, I made a comment that basically
questioned Israel's intel inside Lebanon. Today (tomorrow in their world) we
get some evidence of why it's been so bad.

Intelligence failed at a vital moment
… The Lebanese government is in part responsible for this. Several months
ago the Lebanese Security Service, working in close cooperation with Hezbollah's
own counter-intelligence unit, smashed an Israeli spy ring. As many as 80
Lebanese Christian, Sunni Muslim and Druze agents working for Mossad were
arrested in a series of police operations.
Hezbollah
– a clever and determined enemy

We're in very dangerous territory, which Billmon outlines today. John Bolton
is making it worse.

As I've stated earlier, there's only one way to stop the fighting. Like it
or not, Israel has to get out of sourthern Lebanon. Hezbollah won't stop shooting
until that happens. Why should they?

In other words, the PR strategy is also the diplomatic strategy — and, as
we've seen in Iraq, the military strategy as well. Mike Gerson (Bush's chief
speechwriter, crafter of all those fine phrases about freedom and democracy)
really is running the war. And when you let your speechwriters run your war,
you have no right to complain when you lose.
(snip)
The distinction between these two viewpoints has been overanalyzed to death
in recent years. America is from Mars, Europe is from Venus, etc. But at this
point it looks pretty fairly straightforward: Americans believe their own
PR spin and the Europeans don't. But the French are the ones being asked to
put boots on the ground in southern Lebanon, not the Americans. The French
aren't very happy about doing this because it's not really in their interests
— although papering over their differences with the Cheney administration
is in their interests. But they certainly won't go in unless they're satisfied
Hizbullah is ready to stop shooting. So if Shrub wants a French-led peacekeeping
force in southern Lebanon, he has no choice but to accept French terms, which
at this point means accepting Hizbullah's terms, which means getting the Israelis
out of Lebanon.
Babes in Toyland

UPDATE (3:45 p.m.): Read Pat Lang – interesting.

Read full story · Comments are closed

EXPERT ANALYSIS: Charles Peña on Lebanon

By Taylor Marsh on 03 August 2006

EXPERT ANALYSIS: Charles PeÃ±a on Lebanon

The following is a guest post from Chuck PeÃ±a, whom I
heard speak at Steve Clemons' New America
Foundation in Washington, D.C. not too long ago. I was struck by Pena's
amazing candor, his blunt analysis and his unemotional clarity on the issues.
At the time he
was discussing Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Darfur. He was joined by
Peter Bergen and Christopher Preble. Preble and PeÃ±a are both involved
with the Coalition for a Realistic
Foreign Policy.

Well, one thing led to another, because of new friends, which led to Chuck
agreeing to lend his expertise in guest blog posts when his time permits. One
post you may have seen recently was for Steve
Clemons regarding Why Liberals (like Peter Beinart) Can't Win the War
on Terror. Seriously, it's a must read.

Oh, but one thing you need to know. Mr. Pena is a libertarian. (NOTE: That's a small “l,” because Chuck is not a member of the party.) That should
set your brain afire. I hope you enjoy Chuck's first blog post, which is clear,
blunt and unequivocal. He's a former Director of Defense Policy Studies
for the Cato Institute, and is currently, well, you'll see. He's like a splash
of cold water in the face on a sleepy morning; an awakening in a world gone
dumb on political correctness and tired, outworn political conveniences.

“Un-war” is right and many others feel the same way too.

Coming from me this will probably come as a surprise to Taylor, but it is impossible
for the United States to adopt a do-nothing approach to the conflict in Lebanon.
On the one hand, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah does not directly
threaten U.S. national security. Strictly speaking, it is an Israeli security
issue. Unfortunately, because successive U.S. administrations have needlessly
made Israeli security a component of U.S. security policy, what Israel does
has ripple effects all the way back to our shores. The fact that so many innocent
civilians â€“ many of them Muslims â€“ are being killed or displaced
affects Muslim opinion of the United States (which was already well below sea
level), which in turn affects U.S. security in the post-9/11 world. The growing
anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world (driven largely by opposition to
U.S. policies) is the foundation for hatred which is the steppingstone to violence
and the basis for a vast recruiting pool of would-be terrorists.

Because the Bush Administration is not advocating an immediate cease fire and
instead repeats the standard refrain (with many Democrats joining the chorus)
that Israel has the right to defend itself, many Muslims believe that the United
States does not care about the lives of innocent Muslims being killed as a result
of Israeli military operations. This impression is further reinforced by the
fact that the United States provides over $2 billion in military grants to Israel,
including a recent shipment of precision-guided bombs. Thus, the United States
is seen as complicit in the deaths resulting from Israeli military action â€“-
such as the attack on Qana. And it does not help when President Bush says, “We
care deeply about the people whose lives have been affected in Lebanon… And,
yes, we want to help people rebuild their lives” — implying that the United
States cares less about stopping the destruction, which is not lost on Muslims
around the world.

Although the United States may not be able to stop the conflict, it must take
steps that are in America's strategic interests. First and foremost, this means
recognizing that Israeli security is not a U.S. strategic interest — it is
a parochial interest not worth risking American security. Second, the United
States should support an immediate cease-fire rather than a conditional cease-fire
based on achieving broader Middle East goals, which will be more difficult (if
not impossible) and take longer to achieve. Third, the United States should
stop supplying the Israeli military with the precision weapons being used against
targets in Lebanon, which makes America an accomplice in the deaths of innocent
civilians. Fourth, U.S. rhetoric must stop holding Hezbollah responsible for
Israeli military action resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians — the last thing the United States needs to do is make Hezbollah a direct terrorist
threat. Finally, the United States cannot afford to use the conflict in Lebanon
as an excuse to take action against other targets unrelated to the al-Qaeda
terrorist threat, such as Iran and Syria (recently advocated by former CIA
director and neoconservative luminary James Woolsey).

Charles
Pena

Via WashingtonNote:
Charles V. PeÃ±a is an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project,
senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, senior fellow
with the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute, and
analyst for MSNBC television. He is the author of Winning the Un-War: A New
Strategy for the War on Terrorism (Potomac Books, 2006), co-author of The Search
for WMD: Non-Proliferation, Intelligence and Pre-emption in the New Security
Environment (Dalhousie University, 2006), and co-author of Exiting Iraq: Why
the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against al Qaeda
(Cato Institute, 2004).

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rockets, Lebanon, and Tom Friedman

By Taylor Marsh on 30 July 2006

First, some very big and exciting news. Congratulations to Ned Lamont and everyone working so hard on his campaign. As Joh mentioned yesterday, the New York Times has endorsed him. Needless to say, this is huge, not because it's an editorial endorsement. It's huge because the Times has always backed Lieberman. Not even Bill Clinton can undo this damage. But there are more thoughts from Broder and the Courant, which endorses Joe.

Now, on to the sobering stuff, especially for a Sunday.

When the new Hezbollah rockets were first launched, the CNN general talked about the “khaybar”
missile, though it's actually a rocket. No one could confirm it at the time,
so a big void expanded into a pit. Nothing on the web about them either. I contacted
Billmon, but he didn't know about them, though we had a productive email exchange,
for which I'm grateful. I don't need to tell any of you how invaluable his insight
has been over these last weeks.

I was able to find out that Hezbollah's latest rocket is a longer version of
the Fadjr-3 or Fajr-3, depending on who's doing the spelling, which I discussed earlier. It's actually the Fadjr-5. (Here's pictures of the Fajr and the Zilzal missiles. The picture below is a Katyusha rocket.)
However, I found something else out recently. It is indeed called the Khaybar rocket
and for a very good reason. No doubt, Nasrallah
would prefer that identification, though the Israelis do not, as it
threatens innocent civilians deeper inside their country; but that's only one reason.

Hezbollah's Khaybar rocket is named after the Battle
of Khaybar in 629 A.D. Khaybar is considered an historical oasis by anyone
who has written about the famous location, which is around 95 miles from Medina
(once spelled “Madinah”)
on the Arabian Peninsula, now known simply as Saudi Arabia. Khaybar was once
inhabited by Jews, but in the 629 A.D. battle, Muhammed and his followers attacked
Khaybar and expelled the Jews, though it wouldn't be until the next caliph (Islamic leader) before they would vacate the peninsula completely. This battle was significant
to Muslims because it signaled the beginning of the rise of Islam. The naming
of the missile is no doubt symbolic. Hezbollah's
new rocket, which is not guided like a missile, is being
reported by the Israelis like this: “Khaibar-1 rockets were renamed, Iranian-made Fajr-5s.”
This is for obvious reasons.

Here's a very interesting

clip
from CNN last night, which gives some background, which is helpful. Also
covered is the environmental disaster from an Israeli strike that released over
15,000 tons of oil along the Lebanese coast. CNN military analyst David Grange
explains the rocket at the end of the clip.

VIEW THE VIDEO

This second clip is a re-run of Tim Russert's interview of Thomas Friedman
on CNBC last weekend. I wrote about the discussion last Sunday in About
Syria, because I found it significant, though it was more of a gut feeling.
Russert made a point of saying Friedman's bags were packed for Israel and Syria,
then Tom continued on talking about Syria's importance. Here's
the clip I explain in the post “About Syria.” above.

VIEW THE VIDEO

Well, Friedman will now be on “Meet the Press” today, after coming
back from Israel and Syria. I obviously have no idea what will transpire, but
Russert is pushing Friedman hard. An interview airing two Saturdays in a row
on CNBC, which also happened to announce Friedman's trip to Israel and Syria;
now a follow-up interview when Tom returns to be broadcast on “Meet the
Press.” All this Timmy and Tom stuff can't be a coincidence, but I could
be wrong.

Unfortunately, no matter what Tom brings home, or what Condoleezza concocts
can balance this sobering military account from an Israeli, Ze'ev Schiff (h/t
Billmon).

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the figure leading the strategy
of changing the situation in Lebanon, not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Defense
Minister Amir Peretz. She has so far managed to withstand international pressure
in favor of a cease-fire, even though this will allow Hezbollah to retain
its status as a militia armed by Iran and Syria.
As such, she needs military cards, and unfortunately Israel has not succeeded
to date in providing her with any. Besides bringing Hezbollah and Lebanon
under fire, all of Israel's military cards at this stage are in the form of
two Lebanese villages near the border that have been captured by the IDF.
…
ANALYSIS: Israel
failing to give U.S. the military cards it needs

Israel has played this terribly because they never had any intention of destroying
Hezbollah, not realistically. The memories of the last time they marched into Lebanon
still burn. However, this disaster, with Bush's horrific fumbling and waiting, will likely
have long term ramifications for us all. An emboldened Hezbollah is the last thing we need right now.

Read full story · Comments are closed

BUSH: Syria Can Save the Middle East

By Taylor Marsh on 17 July 2006

–updated–

UPDATE: A couple of sites for you: Blogging Beirut; and Israellycool” is “liveblogging the war.” Please, if you know of other blogs in the current war region, please let me know in the comments. … Oh, and by the way, this is just nuts…. as is this piece from The New Republic, which also advocates that Israel bomb Syria. WHERE ARE THE GROWN UPS?

God Bless Ezra
Klein, Allah too, for that matter. If he doesn't capture it all.

It's just about the way I felt yesterday and most of this morning. I do a post
on the Sacred Cow of taking on the problem of Bush's personal faith as it relates
to his presidential responsibilities, especially as commander in chief, and
what do I hear? Comments that my picture is inflammatory and might “incite
anti-Semitism.” God forbid we might offend someone through graphics!

Besides, that's the whole point, which was proven through the reactions of some. When the president of the United States is shown making emotional gestures that have the power to tilt American foreign policy and world opinion, especially on something as sensitive as religion and the Middle East, it's a problem, people. I can't believe I have to spell it out.

Some were incensed by my using the picture of President Bush lighting a menorah, and
what it might mean.

Never mind that Bush has outsourced our Middle East foreign policy to Israel.

Never mind that Bush can't send anyone to the Middle East to put pressure on
the parties because he's blown our honest broker status for the first time in
history.

Never mind that the war in Iraq rages, while Prime Minister Olmert ignores
our precarious position in Baghdad and the Iraqi desert.

Never mind we have 125,000 plus/minus troops in Iraq trying to hold the country together.

Then Ezra Klein hits another important issue. It's not just that Bush was caught speaking
with the microphone on, saying ridiculous things, spiced up with an expletive
deleted. But the president of the United States actually believes Syria can
end this crisis.

That's a big deal: Bush believes it within the Syrian government's power
to calm the conflict. Theoretically, that should have major implications for
American diplomacy and, possibly, policy. So what's CNN's headline? “Open
mic catches Bush expletive on Mideast”! The story is not that his substantive
views on the issue have been uncovered, but that the president curses. Indeed,
the article even speculates on how such a stunner slipped out, arguing that
“the escalating crisis in the Middle East prompted him to use an expletive
in a conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.”
This is your press corps. The President has a potty mouth is a more pressing
story than the President believe sufficient pressure on the sovereign nation
of Syria could be the key to ending an intensely volatile war in the Middle
East. What a proud day for my profession.
Ezra
Klein

Potty mouth and a picture fracas; but at least we have our priorities in line, right?

To make sure I've offended everyone, all religions (including my own), I offer
the picture of Bush celebrating Ramadan at the White House above.

But do you notice anything different about the two pictures (menorah lighting here)? The Ramadan celebration
looks very formal, a dinner, with Bush standing behind the presidential lectern.
The lighting of the menorah is quite different. It's emotional for Bush, personal.
If it weren't in the White House that would be one thing. Why isn't he having
the same type of formal dinner that was reserved for Ramadan? The answer is
obvious. Again, that's the problem.

Back in 2003, this is what Frank Gaffney had to say about Bush even acknowledging
Ramadan.

The question occurs: Could the President's recent decision to pursue a “road
map” for Mideast peace that is, in important respects (notably with respect
to the need for a new Palestinian leadership “untainted by terror,”
the dismantling of Palestinian terrorist infrastructure and an end to Palestinian
incitement as preconditions to U.S. recognition of a state of Palestine) —
at odds with the “vision” he enunciated last June also be a product
of the undesirable influence of the Wahhabi Lobby? The far-reaching changes
were reportedly the subject of major internal fights between top Administration
officials.
According to the Middle East News Line, unnamed officials and congressional
sources said, that “most of the issues were submitted to Bush's chief
political strategist Karl Rove. They said Rove, who engineered the Republican
victory in Congress in November 2002, has been granted major input in U.S.
foreign policy as part of an effort to prepare Bush's reelection campaign
in 2004. Rove accompanied the president during the Sharm e-Sheik and Aqaba
summits.”
If cultivating votes is the motivation for affording Islamists unwarranted
access and undesirable influence, it seems likely to backfire on the President.
A new national poll conducted by Luntz Research to be unveiled today [Tuesday]
by the Center for Security Policy indicates that a strong majority of Americans
(72.7% to 18.0%) support the precondition on dismantling terror Mr. Bush laid
out last June. Among one of President Bush's core constituencies, Christian
conservatives, the result is even more dramatic (78.6% to 13.6%).
Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, the effort to curry favor with Islamists may
not only be bad for the national security. It may jeopardize his political
base without producing offsetting gains among Muslim voters and/or donors.
UNDESIRABLE
INFLUENCE, By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Ah, yes, “undesirable influence” indeed. My passion is your problem
and all. This is where all this leads, meanwhile America loses its honest broker
status and ends up tipping our hand before the bombs even go off.

Frankly, all this nuance is likely lost on President Bush, because if he actually
believes Syria can bring about peace, can the Rapture be far behind?

NOTE: Here's another view, opposing the Washington Post article yesterday, on how the Jewish lobby not only helps Israel, but the peace process as well. It's authored by Daniel Levy, an adviser in the Israeli prime minister’s office, a member of the official Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks, and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative: Is It Good for the Jews? The recent controversy over the Israel lobby has focused on how it distorts U.S. foreign policy. Forgotten is whether it helps Israel (and the peace process).

TM Connect

The Trouble with Saudis

Foreign Affairs: What’s Next for the Peace Process?

In Our World

Israel’s Preemptive Syrian Strike Redux

Hoping for the Worst

Our Nukes are Better than Yours

Israel – Lebanon: Bolton Blows it Again

EXPERT ANALYSIS: Charles Peña on Lebanon

Rockets, Lebanon, and Tom Friedman

America will be Blamed for Israel’s Actions

About Syria

BUSH: Syria Can Save the Middle East

Saturday Middle East Kaboom Edition

Follow Taylor on Twitter

TAYLOR MUST READS

New Media