Monday, July 24, 2006
Syria to "come clean" on al Qaeda in Lebanon
Syria continues to claim that (i) it is essential to security in the Middle East, and (ii) the United States needs to negotiate directly with Damascus. Is this nervousness, or bravado?
The latest news is even more revealing than yesterday's admission that Syria controlled Hezbollah. The Daily Telegraph is passing along a Sky News report that Syria claims to know the al Qaeda cells in Lebanon.
Syria is prepared to tell the US the whereabouts of al-Qaeda cells in Lebanon, Britain's Sky News television reported today.
Sky News said they had spoken to Syrian cabinet minister Amr Salem. "Syria has real hard knowledge," the channel quoted him as saying.
A Sky News correspondent said the Syrians were offering to tell the US where many fundamentalists were.
He said the channel was told specifically there were cells of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network in Lebanon, and Syria knew of their whereabouts.
Since Syrian troops pulled out of Lebanon last year, the cells have grown, he said.
Let's assume, just for yucks, that this claim is true, and add Syria's proposal to "play an important role in Iraq" (presumably in the opposite direction of the important role it has already played). This news tells us a number of things about Syria.
First, that it has been subverting the war against al Qaeda all along, and is not ashamed to be seen as having done so. This is roughly equivalent to Iran's position.
Second, that it is nevertheless willing to turn on al Qaeda. This implies that al Qaeda is, in Syria's judgment, less likely to retaliate against it than Hezbollah, or at least that al Qaeda's retaliation is less likely to threaten the Assad regime.
Third, that it is rather desperately trying to engage the United States in direct negotiations. That eagerness should be rather enough to persuade virtually everybody in the Western chattering classes that the United States should avoid direct negotiations with Syria until it gets something really good in return. Sign up anybody who thinks otherwise for the next poker party you throw.
Fourth, that it is scrounging around for anything to trade the United States other than Hezbollah, probably because of the second point above.
So, the question remains, what to do about Syria?
6 Comments:
By 
C. Owen Johnson, at
Mon Jul 24, 09:02:00 AM:
It's being said that the US strategy is to isolate Syria, but isn't that essentially the same as divide and conquer? One of the classic methods to achieve divison, especially when one is in a position of strength, is to make an offer that one enemy faction can find acceptable but another cannot. It helps of course when one faction is deeply ideological or otherwise intransigent. In such a case, one can sometimes afford to appear generous because the likelyhood of ever having to actually go through with it is lowered. With the enemy divided they can be defeated in detail, probably by different methods.
That said, I'm sure Syria knows a great deal we would like to know. The trick is to get Syria rattled enough that they start to tip their hand in negotiation. Some good cop/bad cop action could possibly help that along and it may well be that we're seeing some of that as well.
So perhaps "what to do about Syria" is not exactly the question; rather it could be: "What is Syria good for and how do we exploit it?" To use Syria to get leverage on Iran and then abandon them to their fate would be an elegant bit of diplomatic jujitsu. Of course that may be just wishful thinking; we may not be that clever. Then again, we may be.
By Jeremiah, at
Mon Jul 24, 09:31:00 AM:
For the identical reasons that we wisely avoid sitting down to one-on-one talks with the North Koreans, we should avoid sitting down to one-on-one talks (with or without Hezbollah). We have nothing to gain and everything to lose. However, a regional approach including Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt (for example), but not the U.S. or Hezbollah seems to me to be the best chance of diplomatic success. For one thing, it elevates the new Iraq government and leaves Iran out of the picture. For another, it reinforces our long-held stand against negotiating with terrorists or the states that sponsor them. And last, but not least, it points up the changing face of the Mideast in the face of the Bush doctrine - Syria is surrounded by moderate and, to one degree or another, semi-democratic partners.
By 
, at
Mon Jul 24, 09:39:00 AM:
Convincing Syria to "defect" from Iran and Hezbollah is a clever strategy, and gets nearer to the fundamental source of the problem, but, regrettably, is unlikely to be successful under current circumstances.
Syria's leaders have too much to fear from Iran and Hezbollah, and they probably don't feel like they can trust the West to protect them if they did decide to defect. Defection is just too risky for them.
In order to strip away Syria, one must weaken Iran first. Fortunately for Israel, Iran seems to be isolating itself. Israel, observing this, is thus conducting a largely "political" military strategy with its latest campaign against Hezbollah. It's the only choice Israel has, as we explain in
Israel's military strategy is all political.
Westhawk
By John Hinds, at
Mon Jul 24, 10:55:00 AM:
I agree with Westhawk. Once you have made a pact with the devil your fate is doomed. Assad was foolish enough to do this. Let us hope that his fate is to be hoisted on his on petard.
By , at
Mon Jul 24, 05:39:00 PM:
What to do? nothing, other than telling them that you will stand down while the Israelis stomp the crap out of them, whispering unofficing that the US available to help if they need us. That's because Israel isn't going to wait on Kofi, or Hans, or some other hanky twisting twit in the UN or elite media who criticizes them (unlike we did). Kick the crap out of Syria, without regard to the absurd "excessive force" garbage, and watch the Iranians stand down or get their arse-whoopin' as well.
By High Power Rocketry, at
Wed Jul 26, 09:59:00 PM:
