I doubt trying to win the affections of the Arabs will do little good. Building friendly states like Free Iraq will. Killing our enemies and frightening the hell out of the rest will suffice.
Regards, Ivan
Posted on 04/12/2003 3:35:26 PM PDT by MadIvan
A JOKE circulating in the Arab world last week concerned Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the missing Iraqi information minister whose vain boasts of glorious victories against the American infidels proved tragically wide of the mark.
When Sahaf dies they send him 63 angels, the joke begins. Three ask the usual questions about how he had behaved while alive. The other 60 are needed to stop him denying he is dead.
Sahaf’s antics apart, the demolition of the Iraqi regime is proving no laughing matter for governments across the region. From the Gulf to the Mediterranean, the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s rule has been greeted by rage, shame, despair and bewilderment.
One Tunisian wondered why the Iraqis had “crumbled like a biscuit”. Stunned Arabs puzzled over the crushing defeat of Saddam’s Republican Guard. Where were the promised rings of steel? Where was the street fighting supposed to turn Baghdad into a 21st-century Stalingrad?
Most pressing was the question that most troubles Saddam’s neighbours: which of us is next?
Barely able to conceal their glee at the transformation of their much-criticised march on Baghdad, the conservative masterminds of the US victory last week turned their sights on Damascus. A barrage of threats against Syria signalled a volatile new phase in George Bush’s plan to redraw the map of the Middle East.
When Bush first issued his warning that state sponsorship of terrorism “will not be tolerated”, he specified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as his “axis of evil”.
Yet since the Iraqi conflict began, Syria has emerged as the most likely target of any extension of the war. “There’s got to be a change in Syria,” said Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy US defence secretary who is the administration’s most fervent apostle of Middle Eastern transformation.
Despite subsequent assurances by Colin Powell, the secretary of state, that no US attack was planned on any other country, Washington has continued to accuse Damascus of harbouring high-ranking Iraqi fugitives and producing weapons of mass destruction. “Syria is a good case where I hope they will conclude that the chemical weapons programme and the biological weapons programme they have been pursuing are things they should give up,” said John Bolton, a US under-secretary of state allied with Wolfowitz.
On Friday, Bush stepped up the pressure by demanding that Syria hand over any Ba’ath party members or relatives of Saddam who might seek refuge. President Bashar al-Assad “needs to know we expect full co-operation”, the president said.
Behind the threats lies a conviction in US circles that Syria’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups is one of the main obstacles to a Middle East peace plan that would produce a Palestinian state.
“It is clear that the Pentagon’s policy group is intent on eliminating the Syrian government as a factor in the Arab- Israeli dispute,” said Walter Lang, a former Defence Intelligence Agency specialist.
Iraq’s collapse paves the way for renewed negotiations over Bush’s “road map” for peace. Tony Blair has long been pressing for increased American commitment as a means of defusing Arab anger over the attack on Iraq.
Yet doubts remain that Bush will be prepared to lean hard enough on Ariel Sharon, the hardline Israeli prime minister, to secure concessions on Jewish settlements and other key issues that are crucial to a Palestinian deal. Saddam’s demise has done little to encourage Arab optimism of an imminent breakthrough.
Most Arabs see their 20th-century story as a chapter of disaster and betrayal. It starts in the 1920s with Britain’s failure to curb Zionist immigration to Palestine despite the Anglo-Arab alliance of the first world war. It continues through three lost wars — in 1948, 1967 and 1973 — against Israeli forces armed to the teeth by the Americans. The last time an Arab capital was invaded was in 1982, when the Israelis entered Beirut.
By the end of the first week of the war in Iraq, Arabs had a feeling that this time it might be different. The idea began to take root that Saddam might be able to hold the allies until there was a ceasefire and perhaps a return to United Nations inspections.
Many Arabs cheered when Sahaf boasted of the Americans: “God is grilling their stomachs in hell.” They badly wanted to believe his windy rhetoric, just as in 1967 they wanted to believe the Egyptian commentator who assured them Israeli planes were being swatted like flies.
Undoubtedly the most disillusioned of Arabs last week were the Palestinians who looked up to Saddam as an Arab leader who supported them. “This is a tragedy and a bloody comedy,” said Walid Salem, a shopkeeper in Ramallah. “The Iraqis have given up Baghdad without a fight.”
Yet the Palestinians could emerge in a better position than many seem to realise. Last weekend Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, returned from Washington in no doubt that Bush was not paying lip service to Blair on a Middle East peace plan.
British officials appear satisfied that the White House’s determination to try and heal wounded Arab pride is genuine. Shalom is said to have been particularly troubled by his meetings with Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser. Both continue to insist that all illegal settlements be weeded out of the occupied territories.
Progress on a Palestinian deal might also clear the path for a more aggressive US approach to other Middle East autocracies. If Israel is seen to be bowing under pressure to create a Palestinian state, some US officials believe that regional anger may turn away from America.
At the heart of Washington’s Middle East strategy is the doctrine of pre-emption, inspired by September 11 and designed to ensure that terrorist groups are denied the support of hostile states.
The strategy document warned that America would “not hesitate to act alone” by “convincing or compelling states” not to aid terrorists. Senior sources in Washington said last week the administration hoped that Damascus, Tehran and other hostile capitals would learn from Saddam’s demise.
But the same Wolfowitz allies who argued so forcibly for war against Iraq are beginning to speak in far harsher terms about Syria. James Woolsey, the former CIA director, last week described Syria as a “fascist” regime that has to be replaced.
It may not be long before the Pentagon announces that wanted Iraqi fugitives have been granted sanctuary in Damascus, or that US intelligence has detected supplies of chemical weapons. Next time Washington may not bother to wait for the UN to tie itself in knots.
I doubt trying to win the affections of the Arabs will do little good. Building friendly states like Free Iraq will. Killing our enemies and frightening the hell out of the rest will suffice.
Regards, Ivan
That is funny! Who would ahve thought that the Arab world had a sense of humour? ;-)
I agree, Ivan.
backhoe
No going to the UN on this one..
Barely able to conceal their glee at the transformation of their much-criticised march on Baghdad, the conservative masterminds of the US victory last week turned their sights on Damascus. A barrage of threats against Syria signalled a volatile new phase in George Bush’s plan to redraw the map of the Middle East.
First they laugh at Sahaf and then they engage in Sahaf-sized exaggerations. I've watched all the news conferences. There is no "glee", but rather sober reminders that much work remains. And there is no "barrage of threats", just a prudent reminder to Syria that we are aware of it's actions. And there's no redrawing of maps. Iraq's territorial integrity will be maintained and US soldiers will hand a free Iraq over to a freely chosen Iraqi government.
Most journalists are Sahaf's at heart.
Oh, I knd of like surprises, but that's just the kid in me!
Chemical:
According to open sources, Syria has one of the most extensive chemical weapons (CW) capabilities in the Middle East and among developing countries worldwide. Syria allegedly received initial chemical warfare assistance and supplies, including chemical agents, from Egypt prior to the October War against Israel in 1973. Analysts claim that the country now has an indigenous capability to produce and weaponize nerve (e.g., sarin and VX) and blister (e.g., mustard) agents. There are some allegations that Syria received Russian assistance in developing these agents, and that it acquired dual-use technology and equipment from various European countries and India. Syria possesses Scud-B and Scud-C ballistic missiles capable of being fitted with chemical warheads, and in 1999 it allegedly tested a Scud-B carrying a warhead designed to disperse VX. Open sources assert that there are at least three Syrian facilities currently engaged in producing CW, located near Damascus, Hama, and Safira village (in the Aleppo area). Damascus ratified the Geneva Protocol in 1968, but so far has declined to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).Missile:
Syria’s missile program began in the early 1970s as a means to counter Israel’s superior conventional military capabilities; since that time, the missile program has grown in tandem with the development of chemical weapons (CW). Syria now has one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, made up of hundreds of Scud-derived missile systems. In the 1970s and 1980s, Syria relied on Soviet technology and support for its missile program and imported the Soviet FROG-7, Scud-Bs, and the solid-fueled Scarab SS-21 missiles. In the 1990s, Syria looked to other states to supply it with missile technology and found willing partners in Iran and North Korea. Iran provided Syria with technical assistance for solid-fueled rocket motor production, while North Korea supplied it with equipment and technical assistance for liquid-fueled missile production. Syria, however, has had difficulty creating an indigenous production capability and has had to rely on continued imports from countries such as North Korea and China. Syria reportedly purchased 150 Scud-C missiles from North Korea in 1991. In September 2000, Syria tested a North Korean, 700 km-range Scud-D, revealing its commitment to expanding its missile capability. Syria is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
That plus helping Saddam means there ought to be a rope with Assad's name on it.
Regards, Ivan
Hey, just have they always have..., through a state controlled media!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
