Tuesday, April 15, 2003

 
Syria: Key to Israeli-Palestinian Peace?

They can't seem to find them in Iraq, so what do they do? They demand that "the [Syrian] regime of President Bashar Assad surrender Iraqi weapons of mass destruction". If that isn't an obvious precursor to invasion, I don't know what is.

And of course Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice urged Bush to move quickly against Damascus. Rumsfeld asserted:

"We have seen chemical weapons tests in Syria over the past 12, 15 months."

Rumsfeld said the United States also has intelligence that Syria has allowed its civilians and others to enter Iraq with weapons and leaflets indicating that they would be rewarded for killing Americans. As US-Syrian tension mounts, Washington has announced that it is considering imposing sanctions against Syria for its support of the deposed Iraqi regime.US Secretary of State Colin Powell said:

"We will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward."

These assertions sound painfully similar to all of those that the Administration made prior to the Iraq invasion….you know, all the ones that turned out to be complete hogwash.

Not surprisingly, Syria denied U.S. charges that it had chemical weapons and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Buthaina Shaaban pointed out the hypocrisy of the Administration and it's hawkish allies:

"We say to [Bush] that Syria has no chemical weapons and that the only chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the region are in Israel, which is threatening its neighbors and occupying their land."

The Administration specified three charges against Syria: harboring Iraqi leaders, having chemical weapons and supporting terrorism. Given what Syria has seen in Iraq, and given this weekend's meeting between Israel's and Turkey's foreign ministers, it's hard to believe that they're going to try to play out this hand.

The meeting between the Israelis and Turks is of particular significance in this game. When the Turkish government refused to cooperate with the Bush Administration during the Iraq Invasion, it was questionable whether long-term Israeli-Turkish cooperation would survive the U.S.-Turkish split. This weekend's meeting presents at lease some evidence that it has. Such an alliance puts Syria in a difficult position, surrounded by Israel, Turkey and the United States on the ground, with the U.S. Sixth Fleet off shore.

Syria is looking for a way out. The Administration, however, claims to have a particular goal in mind. If we recall the last meeting between Tony Blair and George W. Bush, we will remember that one of the major topics on the agenda was a commitment to a new mediation effort between the Israelis and Palestinians. In addition, prior to the Iraq invasion, both Bush and Colin Powell emphasized this as one reason in their grab-bag approach to rationalizing an attack on Iraq.

The Administration understands that its position in the Arab world in particular would be strengthened if it could either broker peace between Israel and Palestine, or at least make a genuine good faith effort. Certainly after invading the Mideast and setting up camp there, focusing on this issue would possibly mitigate some backlash.

Of course brokering such a deal has failed multiple times in the past. Attempts have been undermined by a division of factions in the region. Specifically, there is a Palestinian contingent that is interested in a "two-state" solution, and those who outrightly reject that solution. Whenever a settlement is approached, those who reject the "two-state" solution would trigger a cycle of violence by attacking Israelis. The Israelis would automatically respond and the attempt would ultimately fail.

Therefore, in order to proceed with this process with any hope of success, one of those groups has to be isolated and destroyed. There must be a rejection and isolation of such groups as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The devastating invasion of Iraq has, as a side effect, contributed to this, as has the recalculation of interests possibly underway in Iran. With that said, the Bush Administration argues that one of the key enablers of the these "two-state opposition" groups remains Syria. They claim Syria allows Hezbollah to operate in southern Lebanon and provides covert aid to other Palestinian groups.

Thus, unless Syria is compelled to change its behavior to comply with Administration demands, the sense of isolation that the Administration claims to want to create around the Palestinian "two-state opposition" group won't exist.

In order to force Syria to change its behavior, the U.S. must isolate, surround and intimidate the Syrians. Of course the Syrian's position militarily is awful, even more so than Iraq's prior to the Bush invasion. Politically, they've received the support of the French. But that certainly didn't help the Iraqi's in the long-run. In addition, the Saudis sent a mission to Damascus to explain the "new realities" in the Middle-East, no doubt at the request of the Administration.

Bush says he has no wish to invade. On the other hand, the Syrians understand that Bush cannot be believed when it comes to any sort of restraint or diplomacy. Thus, Syria is pinned. The U.S. has the options. The Syrians can try to spin out the confrontation, but in the end, regime survival is not something they want to trade for some Iraqi refugees or alleged Iraqi WMD. It's not that Bush wouldn't invade Syria in the end. Rather, it's that he doesn't think the Syrians will let it come to that.

The problem is that, even if the Administration takes Syria out of the equation, cutting off any alleged aid to the Palestinian "two-state opposition", it simply doesn't take significant outside resources for Hamas or Islamic Jihad to carry out attacks that could trigger massive Israeli responses, once again destroying any hope for peace. Thus, the idea that a Syrian capitulation would somehow isolate the Palestinian "two-state opposition" and render them inert, allowing for Israeli-Palestinian peace is highly dubious if not outrightly ridiculous.

Nevertheless, you can look for this issue to be a defining rationalization for further Middle-East conquest.

Join our mailing list!

See also:

"Syria and Iran: Prepare for Invasion - A Reference for Seekers of Truth"

posted by Thomas Ball 4:52 PM

 
Tactic: Downplay the Opponents Rhetoric

This morning I was once again in heated debate with some colleagues regarding the validity of the Iraq invasion. As we were volleying back and forth I noticed a rather interesting execution of an old technique in debate (or perhaps it's an old technique in avoiding debate).

I pointed out that the entire basis for the Bush invasion was based on lies and even gave examples, fabricated dossiers, forged documents, refuted intelligence reports, misread satellite photos, etc.

Their response? They didn't even bother questioning my assertions, probably because they knew they were true. Instead, they simply blurted out, "Oh, your focusing on minutia."

I continued undaunted, referring to the invasion as an "invasion" (as opposed to using the misleading term, "war" preferred by most neocon hawks). This inevitably led to a debate on whether it was an invasion or a war. It didn't matter, as one neocon pointed out, because "that's just semantics."

"Minutia"? "Semantics"? Why won't these guys debate the issues? Answer? Because they can't. They lose at every stage of the game. And what do you do when you can't win based on evidence and reason? You resort to "undermining" tactics.

Hey! I've no problem with that. I'll use them myself when the time is right. And you shouldn't be afraid to either. These conniving tactics are part of the reason that the right-wing is dominating the airwaves. If you don't believe me, you need go no further than the radio and switch to the AM hate-mongering dial. Every point made by these bozos (Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, North, et al) incorporates such techniques to degrade the enemy (progressives) and their line of thinking. Ninety percent of it is pure nonsense. It also happens to be entertaining and simplistic, two things that tend to appeal to the masses. Cynical, but true.

In any event, we, as progressives, cannot be left without such a weapon in our arsenal. We have to be willing to get into the trenches and bust a conservative cap once in a while, even if it means sacrificing some of the dignity associated with policy superiority. After all, what good is dignity if its maintenance requires that we forfeit this nation and the world to the right-wing agenda?

Nevertheless, "Focusing on minutia" and "That's just semantics" served the neocons well as I was pounding them with the truth. Essentially, they were saying that the facts simply don't matter. Of course I thought that was total BS, but some observers were obviously buying into it.

Indeed, This is the way the entire conservative establishment works. The truth comes out. It's broadcast by a member of the opposition.... and the machine goes into hyperdrive, stimulating the pundits and politicians to poo-poo the reports as meaningless "rhetoric", "minutia" or "semantics".

Unfortunately, for some reason the public buys it. Why? Well, that's a question that must be answered by someone who is far more versed in psychology than me. A little commonsense, however, would suggest that the elements involved in being swayed by such tactics include some combination of fear, prejudice, apathy and faith. Regardless of the reasons, the cold fact is that they do work.

With that in mind, here's an (updated) suggestion for using this technique.

Poo-Poo Your Opponents' Rhetoric

Technique: Dismiss, berate, minimize or otherwise talk down any nonsupportive evidence or opinions thrown your way. Claim that the news or accusation is silly, irrelevant and/or unimportant. Whatever it is, it's silly. Stress that this is merely a distraction technique intended to take the focus off the true issue. At this point you state what you want the "true" issue to be. Of course this will be an issue that is to your advantage.

Example: The above referenced conservatives first belittled my factual argument as "irrelevant" (of course it wasn't, but that doesn't matter when using the technique) and continued to state what they wanted the "true" issue to be (in this case it was the liberation of the Iraqi people.)

In any event, give as little attention to the adverse information as possible and immediately follow with what is truly important. (i.e. Your opinion)


Example one liners:

~ "Uh huh. Well, nevertheless, the situation here is… (and then continue as though the other person never said a word)."

~ " ." - Totally ignore what they just said.

~ "The important thing is…(follow with whatever you think is important)"

~ "That's simply not important."

~ "Your focusing on the minutia."

~ "That's just semantics."

Summary: Regardless of their message, downplay its significance.

Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 10:29 AM

 
Bush, Iraq News Summaries

NBC-WSJ poll: New fight for Bush (NBC News) A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows 71% of Americans approve of the job the president is doing right now, while only 23% disapprove. 62% of Americans now think the country is on the right track -- the highest number in a year. 43% said Congress should pass the president's tax cut to stimulate the economy, but 49% said they opposed a tax cut because of the deficit and unknown cost of the Iraq war. With 57% of those polled saying the economy should be his top priority, officials say the president, beginning Tuesday, will put his tax-cut plan front and center with two major speeches this week.

Americans See Clear Victory in Iraq, Poll Finds (NY TIMES) he latest New York Times/CBS News Poll found that 73% of Americans approve of BUSH'S job performance - up from 59% the week before the war - and that his approval rating among Democrats was 61%. For the first time since 2001, a majority of Americans, 62%, believe that the nation is winning the war on terrorism. 79% of respondents approve of Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq. The number of Americans who believe the country is heading in the right direction has jumped nearly 20% points since February, to 56%. Americans are exactly divided, 42 percent to 42 percent, on which party would do a better job in managing the economy. And there has been a jump of 7% points since January, to 54%, in the number of Americans who said they had confidence in Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the economy.

Major Combat Is 'Over' as Tikrit Falls (Washington Post) U.S. Marines seized control of Tikrit today, wrapping up the last significant Baath Party stronghold in Iraq and marking a shift in the U.S. campaign from grabbing territory to targeting pockets of resistance, rebuilding war-ravaged infrastructure and creating a new system of government. U.S. officials said the Marines who captured Tikrit encountered lighter resistance than they expected, most of it coming from paramilitary Baath loyalists instead of the organized military defenses some had feared.

Guerrilla fighters seen as threat to allied forces (WASHINGTON TIMES) Conventional military conflict in Iraq is nearly over, but thousands of foreign fighters and supporters of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remain in the country and pose a danger to U.S. and allied forces, U.S. officials said yesterday. The allies have discovered that Iraq was training or harboring guerrillas from North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Central Command, said the foreign guerrillas are "still threats" even though organized fighting by the Iraqi military has all but stopped.

As Iraqis Flee To Syria, U.S. Nets Scientist (Washington Post) Jaffar Dhai Jaffar, who founded and led Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program and was one of deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's three top science advisers, could provide valuable information about the status of Iraq's proscribed weapons programs. Jaffar and Lt. Gen. Amir Saadi, an Iraqi scientist who surrendered to U.S. troops Saturday in Baghdad, "know, between the two of them, everything about the country's nuclear, biological, chemical and missile programs," said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who is now president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

Chalabi Says He Doesn't Want Role in Iraq Govt. (Reuters) Ahmed Chalabi said in an interview published on Monday that he did not plan to play a political role in his homeland. "I want to take part in the reconstruction of the civilian society," Iraqi National Congress leader Chalabi told French daily Le Monde by phone from southern Iraqi city of Nassiriya. Chalabi said he had been "extremely well-received" in Iraq where he returned after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, but asked if he intended to play a political role there, he said: "Absolutely not. I am not a candidate for any post." "I don't believe the United Nations would be able to play a central role in Iraq. It has become a de facto ally of Saddam Hussein," he added, citing the refusal of U.N. Security Council members France and Germany to support the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

France Says It Will Be Pragmatic About Postwar Iraq (Reuters) France said it would be "pragmatic" about postwar Iraq, setting aside differences with the United States over what exact role the United Nations would play in reconstructing the country. "Let us be pragmatic, let us start from the reality of the problems," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters during a meeting of European Union foreign ministers. "It is in the interest of Iraq, the region and the international community," he added.

US ACCUSES SYRIA (Sky News) Syria has conducted chemical weapons tests during the past 15 months, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said. "We have seen a chemical weapons tests in Syria over the past 12, 15 months," he said. Rumsfeld said the United States also has intelligence that Syria has allowed Syrians and others enter Iraq with arms and leaflets indicating that they would be rewarded for killing Americans.As US-Syrian tension mounts, Washington has announced that it is considering imposing sanctions against Syria for its support of the deposed Iraqi regime.US Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "We will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward.

Syria Denies Having Chemical Weapons, Saddam Link (Reuters) Syria denied U.S. charges that it had chemical weapons and, brushing aside British allegations, said it had never cooperated with Saddam Hussein's administration. "We say to him (President Bush) that Syria has no chemical weapons and that the only chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the region are in Israel, which is threatening its neighbors and occupying their land," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Buthaina Shaaban told Reuters.

Britain: There Are No Plans to Invade Syria Next (Reuters) Top British officials said Washington and London had no plans to invade Syria, but Damascus had "important questions" to answer about its own weapons programs. "As far as 'Syria next on the list', we made clear that it is not," Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters in Bahrain during a Gulf Arab tour. "There is no 'next' list," he said. "There are important questions which the Syrians need to answer." "There is much evidence of considerable cooperation between the Syrian government and the Saddam regime in recent months," Straw told a news conference in Kuwait.

Bush vetoes Syria war plan (UK Guardian) The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday. In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad. Meanwhile, his undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of the Pentagon's office of special plans, were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. Mr Feith and Mr Luti were both instrumental in persuading the White House to go to war in Iraq.

Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 7:17 AM