Why I doubt Syrian Involvement
Now this is just speculation….I don’t know anymore than anyone else. But I wanted to clarify my thoughts. Although this debate is looking very ploralized with some name-calling happening on some of the other blogs, I am not trying to offend anyone. Just because I don’t think it is Syria does not mean I think it was Lebanese, Palestinian, Israeli, or anyone else. I simply don’t know who committed this crime. Here’s my nonsense:
It seems inconceivable to me that Syria would conduct such an operation given the unsettling air that continues to follow UN Res 1559 (and the latest threats in Bush’s speeches and Condi’s rhetoric). Syria has consistently tried to build bridges with the US and offer peace initiatives towards the Israelis since 9/11. All they received in return is insults, misrepresentative, military attacks, sanctions (SALSA) and UN security council resolutions against it.
Hariri was never anti-Syrian although obviously not in the pocket of the Syrian’s (like other Lebanese politicians). He and Damascus seemed to always have very pragmatic relations of mutual benefit. Hariri was instrumental with his contacts in Saudi, the Gulf, and France when Bashar was being groomed pre-2000. I took Bashar’s quick appearance and statements as those characterized by a surprised and disorganized response than anything more calculated. Hariri rebuilt Beirut and Syria was a key economic partner in this project. Hariri was a compromiser. The Syrians are not going to assassinate him over speculation that he was going to openly go opposition. Besides such a bold, change in style seems an unlikely move politically in any arena. As one of my better connected contacts in Lebanon and Syria argued via email to me “Hariri never crossed the Syrians anyways….And he was very on the fence about the proposed pullout.”
That said - there are rumors circulating already. There is something about Hariri potentially allying with Jomblat in the upcoming May elections. That may be all the motive the Western press needs. Naturally the Western media are going to argue this all happened under Syrian occupation (or the mukhaberat’s watch). So basically the Syrians did it or they knew about it or their presence created a climate that fosters such assassinations. Particularly the latter reflects the white house’s view (via the McCellan briefing) and is a logic leap. The Bush admin has gone to great lengths to argue that 9/11 was not their fault - its was Clinton’s - even though it happened on their watch. So that logic that it happened because of Syrian occupation is ideological and unrepresentative.
Syria would have not conducted such a risky operation or tacitly let it happen in the hopes of showing that their Lebanese presence is still required. Syrian occupation of Lebanon is unlike the other two occupations in the region. It is more rooted in politics and economics and less on the military.
Perhaps, I will be proven wrong. If that ends up being the case, fine, I can admit when I am mistakenly analyzing something. But I am not going to rush to the western press’s conclusions that Syria’s invisible hand is responsible until I am shown some sort of link.
Categories: Lebanon, Syria.
22 Responses to “Why I doubt Syrian Involvement”
- 1 Pingback on Feb 16th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
Okay, I see your logic about not assuming that the fact that it happened on their watch makes it their fault, but…
The Daily Star’s chronicle this morning of the history of political assasinations makes it pretty clear that while this may be a strategy-of-choice across the political spectrum, Syria has done little to quell the problem in its nearly two-decade tenure.
I have mixed feelings about 1559 and a Syrian pullout, but seeing this list altogether puts a damper on the “we keep Lebanon stable” argument. Maybe.
Read some Scenarios (if yuou can read Arabic) on this blog :
http://arabrevolution.blogspot.com/
it sounds quite complicated if yiou ask me..
It seems too obvious for the Syrians to have done it … but still.
What about the report I read that said Hariri’s defense was so advanced that it jammed cell phones and televisions and therefore the attack must have been carried out by an intelligence agency?
ps. appreciate your blog having recently found it, through Abu probably
I appreciate your analysis. This business has gotten me attacked personally already, and I don’t like the climate of name=calling and vitriol. Your reasoned, calm rhetoric and your humility and willingness to be proven wrong make me pay attention to your argument. I, too, can’t understand why Syria would benefit, but then again there are many things Syria does that I don’t understand. So I don’t know. I wonder if we’ll ever find the culprit.
One more outside motive for an Islamist, anti-Saudi faction - since Lebanon is a big tourist attraction for Saudis and other Gulf citizens these days, attacking the architect of Lebanon’s re-emergence, in the heart of downtown, would serve to warn the Gulf Arabs away from their playground. It’s entirely possible that the group claiming responsibility is just a ruse or a hoax, but I do see certain possibilities for why such people might have done it. For one thing, they wouldn’t care if Lebanon falls apart again. Whereas I find the argument convincing that both Israel and Syria have no interest in seeing a civil war break out on their borders again.
With Shebaa Farms no longer a territorial issue for Lebanon, Syria on the the US s- list, and the potential for big money to flow into Palestine should reconciliation proceed, perhaps Harari, Jumblatt and the Maronites in coalition were considering freeing themselves from Syrian political and economic domination and pursuing a treaty with Israel independently. That does not imply that Assad was personally behind the assasination. If…if the above is true, there are plenty of potential suspects.
In the US media today this is all about Syria. Top headline on Yahoo about Lebanese mob attacking Syrians. CNN hourly radio headline is Bush saying Syrian troops in Lebanon are de-stabilizing. Follow the spin?
US just pulled its ambassador out of Damascus, issued a demarche.
I met Scobey once in Damascus. She is a Bush appointee and very unimpressive. She arrived in Dec 2003.
She once hosted tea for Fulbrighters in Damascus and explained to them that Syria was a “tribal” society when prompted by a leading question.
It is ashame. The embassy people in Damascus were providing good analysis and took time to understand Syria’s complexity as well as its more negative sides. Yet, as the information surfaced towards the top, the stance grew more distorted.
I too think that Syria didn’t have anything to do with this.
there is an argument in certain circles that it had nothing to do with syria and everything to do with anti-syrians within lebanon. the lebanese body politic is known to be anything but organized and united, and while hariri was certainly no lover of damascus, he was never as adamantly anti-syrian as certain agitators might have liked. the thought is that certain more radical factions within the lebanese opposition were responsible for the attack, hoping to force the hand of the international community. (because as we know, the truth of me politics are one thing and the reaction are another- and often anything but nuanced.)
thus they would have eliminated an individual seen as enabling the syrian presence through his moderate approach, and calculated that the blame would be assigned to assad and co. by doing such, and claiming to have operated on behalf of the syrian regime (or even, as the nytimes notes, created the suggestion of an incoherent front with rogue actors) they would increase the pressure on damascus and ultimately the syrians would be forced to withdraw. the only casualties? a billionare developer percieved to be in the pocket of the saudis anyway.
No matter who did it, and I’m rather new to the Arab world learning curve, it works for Bush. As did the UN bombing in Iraq and so many other random acts of violence.
Mr. Stacher,
Yhe assassination aside, you write: Syria has consistently tried to build bridges with the US and offer peace initiatives towards the Israelis since 9/11. All they received in return is insults, misrepresentative, military attacks, sanctions (SALSA) and UN security council resolutions against it.
Do those bridge building and peace initiatives include giving safe haven, political and financial support to Khaled Mesha’al, Musa Abu Marzook and other Hamas operatives, as well as allowing Hezbollah to make “mischief” along the borders they control?
Just curious. I don’t think your reading is entirely fair.
I mean, Damascus has made a few scant verbal overtures, true, but actions speak louder than words and their actions are fairly consistent.
SocalJustice,
Your comments are fair but also come directly from the Western US-press reading of the situation. The reality in Damascus is far more complex.
The Hamas activists you speak of are in Damascus but their organizations have no presence, media access, or activities. Bashar is constantly tried to make connections, back channels, and other ways to reachout to the US and the Israelis and it is the US, not the Syrians, who fail to engage diplomatically and in a constructive manner. That is the trend. This stuff about actions vs. words stems from the Administration’s rhetoric.
Syria is continuously demonized by people and “analysts” who know nothing about it. I am not an apologist for the Syrian government but people need to look a little deeper before they judge the situation. Syria is a highly politicized place in Western academic and journalistic circles. It is precisely because of this politicized air that we need to tread carefully and skeptically. I think giving Bush and co. another blank check against another Arab state so that they can control how Syria is framed at this time is the wrong thing to do (given the Iraqi example).
Mr. Stacher,
Thanks for your reply.
I definitely don’t want to see a blank (or any other kind of check) written for the Bush administration to open up another front in the Middle East.
I think the recalling of the U.S. ambassador today is a bad sign, even if Syria (and I don’t know is to blame) assassinated Mr. Hariri.
Just on the specific point of Syrian bridge building, I think Damascus has a few more relatively easy cards to play if it really were interested in showing good will towards the Israelis.
Having said that, it was nice to see this story last week: Syria to import Golan apples. Even if all the rhetoric employed wasn’t that friendly, it’s understandable.
SoCal Justice,
I think that debate on these issues is important because the Bush admin, State, and Congress have all be sending conflicting statements since 9/11 to Syria. So the political arena is a bit confusing. It does not help Syria does a bad job of explaining itself.
In respect to the Hamas and their activitiesin Syria, Anders Stringberg has written on this. Particularly, one article that stands out is in Middle East International in the Summer of 2003 where he cogently argues that these organizations have been shut down.
The Bush Admin has never done more than suggest that their presence is evidence of their guilt, which I have a problem with. That is just a little much to take on faith given the Admin’s history.
SoCalJustice: I too am no apologist for the Syrians - I signed an Amnesty International letter to Hafez in the 80s, demanding better treatment of political prisoners, then sweated out the 90s wondering if they were taking names. BUT - what about the Syrian peace overtures of late, which I documented at Dove’s Eye View? Some on the Israeli side, including its president, Moshe Katsav, urged Israel to pay attention, but these overtures were dismissed.
Josh Landis covered this, and I linked to him and added news links s here. It was November 2004.
Thanks Leila, I’ll check out your blog.
It should be noted that even the Palestinians now are begging Hezbollah (again, under Syrian control) not to rock the boat:
Palestinians fear Hizbollah trying to hijack truce
It’s far too convenient to blame Syria. So much is not known: The origin of the explosives. This has the same air of “blame first, and hide the facts” that we saw in re 9-11.
It seems strange that the US knows enough to withdraw their Ambassador, but didn’t know anything through Echelon to either warn the Primer Minister; or take steps to stop the attack.
I’m more inclined to believe someone else is behind the attack: The United States. Read more at the link under my name.
This is the link [under my name] I meant to include. Sorry about the mix-up.
I finally got a chance to check out your web page, and I must say that I’m impressed. Hope everything is going well. Take care!