By Barry Rubin
It's truly amazing that literally every day the Obama Administration finds a new way to mess up the Middle East. July 14-15, 2011, is a new record since it damaged Western interests and any hope for a stable future in three countries almost simultaneously!
Read more
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Syrian Revolutionary Song Says It All
By Barry Rubin
Wow, watch this less-than-four-minute video and you get the flavor of the Middle East and the "Arab Spring" in every respect. It's an amazing story.
Read more
News Flash: Syrian Regime Mob Attacks U.S. Embassy
By Barry Rubin
In Damascus, a mob organized by the Asad regime attacked the U.S. and French embassies in Damascus. The French guards fired into the air and the demonstrators stopped; the U.S. Marines didn’t fire and the mob surged into the embassy breaking windows and wrecking at least part of the building.
Read more
In Damascus, a mob organized by the Asad regime attacked the U.S. and French embassies in Damascus. The French guards fired into the air and the demonstrators stopped; the U.S. Marines didn’t fire and the mob surged into the embassy breaking windows and wrecking at least part of the building.
Read more
Thursday, July 7, 2011
The Obama Administration Shows How Not To Conduct Diplomacy: Lesson 1, Tipping Your Hand
By Barry Rubin
Professor Hilal Khashan is a political science professor at the American University of Beirut. Although I don't agree with all of his points, he has written a good article on the battle over reform, democracy, and the status quo in syria and Lebanon, available here.
One point is worth repeating about U.S. policy:
Read more
Professor Hilal Khashan is a political science professor at the American University of Beirut. Although I don't agree with all of his points, he has written a good article on the battle over reform, democracy, and the status quo in syria and Lebanon, available here.
One point is worth repeating about U.S. policy:
Read more
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Syria: U.S. Officials President Obama Should--But Doesn't--Listen To
For the full text of all my articles in PajamasMedia go here.
By Barry Rubin
“The international experience of dealing with Bashar [Assad] gave us no confidence to trust his words. We suspected he would employ excuses, trickery and delays.” [Jeffrey Feltman, then U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, quoted in Michael Young, The Ghost of Martyrs Square, p.52.] Feltman is now the assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs. Since he became president, Obama has praised Assad, congressional leaders have called him a reformer; U.S. policy has given him one concession after another, and refused to call for his downfall.
By Barry Rubin
“The international experience of dealing with Bashar [Assad] gave us no confidence to trust his words. We suspected he would employ excuses, trickery and delays.” [Jeffrey Feltman, then U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, quoted in Michael Young, The Ghost of Martyrs Square, p.52.] Feltman is now the assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs. Since he became president, Obama has praised Assad, congressional leaders have called him a reformer; U.S. policy has given him one concession after another, and refused to call for his downfall.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Leader of International Investigation: Syrian Leader Murdered Lebanese Leader
To see all my PajamasMedia articles in full, go here.
By Barry Rubin
Although we've suspected this for years, the head of the international investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has now publicly stated that the assassination was ordered by Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, you know, the guy the U.S. government has been cozying up to for the last 2.5 years and called a reformer? Will this announcement--coupled with the massive killings and torture in Syria--bring strong Western action against the Syrian dictatorship? And if not, why not?
By Barry Rubin
Although we've suspected this for years, the head of the international investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has now publicly stated that the assassination was ordered by Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, you know, the guy the U.S. government has been cozying up to for the last 2.5 years and called a reformer? Will this announcement--coupled with the massive killings and torture in Syria--bring strong Western action against the Syrian dictatorship? And if not, why not?
Friday, June 17, 2011
A Good Article and the Best Source on the Syrian Revolt
Here's the best source for daily developments in Syria.
You can also read this good article on Syria.
By Ahed Alhendi
Twenty years ago, I was a school kid chanting with my peers, “Our leader forever, the father, Hafez Assad!” Back then, I could not have imagined that one day I would see his statues destroyed all over Syria by the people — a sight now common within the country.
Most of those demonstrating in Syria are young people who were taught to love and adore our only president, and later his son, Bashar. As young Syrians, we have always treated the Assads as something of a holy family. We all were forced to join the Baath Party Pioneer Organization at the age of six and we grew up soaking in the Assads’ propaganda — the school system, the single TV station, the official newspaper; they all had a picture of Assad as their logos.
Now, the voices of freedom are sounding louder than the engines of armored vehicles and the whistling of tanks shells. Bashar Assad thought that the military would intimidate and quiet the protesters, but the shout “Bashar must go!” is only getting louder.
Those shouts, however, are not particularly well-organized. Because Syria has been ruled by the Assad clan for more than 40 years, the country’s political life is effectively nonexistent. Nearly all leaders and members of serious opposition parties — both Islamic and secular — have been kidnapped, exiled, jailed or killed.
The year 2000 brought with it a so-called “Western-educated doctor” to inherit the “republic” from his father. Syrian dissidents thought that they would be able to recover from three bloody decades of Hafez’s rule that resulted in more than 30,000 deaths and 15,000 forced deportations.
The exhausted opposition groups succeeded in forming an alliance called the Damascus Declaration. This alliance brought together a multitude of diverse groups calling for democratic change within the country, creating what was widely seen as a shadow government.
The regime, however, cracked down on this effort, arresting many of its members and jailing twelve top opposition leaders, as well as forcing the remnants of some of these groups to make statements denouncing the Damascus Declaration for allegedly serving an American agenda. This sucked the oxygen out of opposition efforts, cutting short the movement’s momentum and denying it much-needed press coverage, effectively killing the Declaration.
Even though rebelling against dictators became fashionable in the Arab world this year, many thought that Syria was immune to change. March 15th, however, was a turning point. On that day, only a few people marched in the heart of Damascus calling for freedom. Now, almost three months later, most of Syria’s large cities are seeing tens of thousands of demonstrators calling on Assad to step down.
Because Syrians were not ready for such momentous change, political parties have so far played a minor role in the uprising. Recently, however, they have begun to play their parts. The organizers of the demonstrations formed “local coordinates” that have been organizing demonstrations all over Syria. These groups began with dedicated cores of just a few members who would go into the streets and initiate demonstrations. They quickly became far more organized; each small neighborhood now has a committee that organizes the protest right down to the placards that will be held by demonstrators, and these groups from each town coordinate across the country in a highly organized national movement.
The majority of these groups are made up of university students and democratic activists, such as Razan Zaitouneh, a Syrian feminist. The role of religious movements is very limited, even though most demonstrations start at a mosque — a logistical matter, as mosques are the only places where people can gather without arousing suspicion.
I speak with the leaders of these groups on a daily basis. Most of them are young and unaligned with any formal political movement. They embody the spirit of the Damascus Declaration, which they hope to revive at a conference that just took place in Antalya, Turkey, for Syrian political parties, businessmen and tribal leaders.
What makes this most recent conference different from the others, different even than the relatively strong opposition movements of the 1980s, is the participation of the tribes. Today, the opposition is far more diverse and cohesive; all the tribes — businessmen, youth leaders, Muslim Brotherhood leaders, and Kurds — were represented at Antalya.
At the end of the conference, the participants voted in favor of establishing a 31-member national committee with four members, one each from the Muslim Brotherhood, Kurds, tribal leaders, and Damascus Declaration members, as well as 15 independents and young people.
All signs point to further brutal crackdown by the regime. The number of protesters is increasing so fast that the security forces cannot imprison all of them, and unrest is spreading within the country. Unfortunately, the Syrian people have no international powers on their side, while Assad’s regime is being backed by its allies in Russia, China and Iran (a fact protesters acknowledge by burning the flags of the regime’s allies).
Assad’s legitimacy has fallen particularly after his security forces killed dozens in the city of Hama, a symbol of his father’s brutality. Statues of Assad have been removed recently by government officers in Hama and Dair Al Zor out of fear that protesters will destroy them, indicating just how bad the regime’s image is within the country. But calls for this ruthless dictator to reform are misplaced and even dangerous. Dissidents throughout Syria know that the Assad regime will end up on the ash-heap of history; we hope the West realizes this too.
Alhendi, a former political prisoner in Syria, jailed for online activities, is the Arabic programs coordinator at CyberDissidents.org, a New York based human rights organization.
You can also read this good article on Syria.
By Ahed Alhendi
Twenty years ago, I was a school kid chanting with my peers, “Our leader forever, the father, Hafez Assad!” Back then, I could not have imagined that one day I would see his statues destroyed all over Syria by the people — a sight now common within the country.
Most of those demonstrating in Syria are young people who were taught to love and adore our only president, and later his son, Bashar. As young Syrians, we have always treated the Assads as something of a holy family. We all were forced to join the Baath Party Pioneer Organization at the age of six and we grew up soaking in the Assads’ propaganda — the school system, the single TV station, the official newspaper; they all had a picture of Assad as their logos.
Now, the voices of freedom are sounding louder than the engines of armored vehicles and the whistling of tanks shells. Bashar Assad thought that the military would intimidate and quiet the protesters, but the shout “Bashar must go!” is only getting louder.
Those shouts, however, are not particularly well-organized. Because Syria has been ruled by the Assad clan for more than 40 years, the country’s political life is effectively nonexistent. Nearly all leaders and members of serious opposition parties — both Islamic and secular — have been kidnapped, exiled, jailed or killed.
The year 2000 brought with it a so-called “Western-educated doctor” to inherit the “republic” from his father. Syrian dissidents thought that they would be able to recover from three bloody decades of Hafez’s rule that resulted in more than 30,000 deaths and 15,000 forced deportations.
The exhausted opposition groups succeeded in forming an alliance called the Damascus Declaration. This alliance brought together a multitude of diverse groups calling for democratic change within the country, creating what was widely seen as a shadow government.
The regime, however, cracked down on this effort, arresting many of its members and jailing twelve top opposition leaders, as well as forcing the remnants of some of these groups to make statements denouncing the Damascus Declaration for allegedly serving an American agenda. This sucked the oxygen out of opposition efforts, cutting short the movement’s momentum and denying it much-needed press coverage, effectively killing the Declaration.
Even though rebelling against dictators became fashionable in the Arab world this year, many thought that Syria was immune to change. March 15th, however, was a turning point. On that day, only a few people marched in the heart of Damascus calling for freedom. Now, almost three months later, most of Syria’s large cities are seeing tens of thousands of demonstrators calling on Assad to step down.
Because Syrians were not ready for such momentous change, political parties have so far played a minor role in the uprising. Recently, however, they have begun to play their parts. The organizers of the demonstrations formed “local coordinates” that have been organizing demonstrations all over Syria. These groups began with dedicated cores of just a few members who would go into the streets and initiate demonstrations. They quickly became far more organized; each small neighborhood now has a committee that organizes the protest right down to the placards that will be held by demonstrators, and these groups from each town coordinate across the country in a highly organized national movement.
The majority of these groups are made up of university students and democratic activists, such as Razan Zaitouneh, a Syrian feminist. The role of religious movements is very limited, even though most demonstrations start at a mosque — a logistical matter, as mosques are the only places where people can gather without arousing suspicion.
I speak with the leaders of these groups on a daily basis. Most of them are young and unaligned with any formal political movement. They embody the spirit of the Damascus Declaration, which they hope to revive at a conference that just took place in Antalya, Turkey, for Syrian political parties, businessmen and tribal leaders.
What makes this most recent conference different from the others, different even than the relatively strong opposition movements of the 1980s, is the participation of the tribes. Today, the opposition is far more diverse and cohesive; all the tribes — businessmen, youth leaders, Muslim Brotherhood leaders, and Kurds — were represented at Antalya.
At the end of the conference, the participants voted in favor of establishing a 31-member national committee with four members, one each from the Muslim Brotherhood, Kurds, tribal leaders, and Damascus Declaration members, as well as 15 independents and young people.
All signs point to further brutal crackdown by the regime. The number of protesters is increasing so fast that the security forces cannot imprison all of them, and unrest is spreading within the country. Unfortunately, the Syrian people have no international powers on their side, while Assad’s regime is being backed by its allies in Russia, China and Iran (a fact protesters acknowledge by burning the flags of the regime’s allies).
Assad’s legitimacy has fallen particularly after his security forces killed dozens in the city of Hama, a symbol of his father’s brutality. Statues of Assad have been removed recently by government officers in Hama and Dair Al Zor out of fear that protesters will destroy them, indicating just how bad the regime’s image is within the country. But calls for this ruthless dictator to reform are misplaced and even dangerous. Dissidents throughout Syria know that the Assad regime will end up on the ash-heap of history; we hope the West realizes this too.
Alhendi, a former political prisoner in Syria, jailed for online activities, is the Arabic programs coordinator at CyberDissidents.org, a New York based human rights organization.
Western Failure to Support the Real Freedom Fighters in the Middle East Is A Disgrace
By Barry Rubin
Anthony Shadid, the New York Times' pro-Islamist correspondent, writes an article on the "resignation" of Rami Makhlouf from the Syrian regime without finding him involved in any actual corruption. This is like writing an article on former Rep. Anthony Weiner and mentioning in one sentence that some claim he uses social media. It's easy to provide a detailed account of Makhlouf's depredations but here he emerges as a sort of sympathetic figure, his resignation as proof that the Asad dictatorship is listening to the masses.
But there's nothing funny about events in Syria. Recently, a Syrian dissident friend wrote me, "People are being massacred and nobody cares a damn." In a real sense, it is tragic that he's right. Yes, the Obama Administration is now saying "tough" things about the Syrian regime and putting on the minimum sanctions, but in the face of mass shootings and torture, it amounts to nothing. Compare this to the media and administration outrage against Israel, or the demand for the immediate resignation of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak for far fewer crimes and in the face of a much less significant uprising.
Read more
Anthony Shadid, the New York Times' pro-Islamist correspondent, writes an article on the "resignation" of Rami Makhlouf from the Syrian regime without finding him involved in any actual corruption. This is like writing an article on former Rep. Anthony Weiner and mentioning in one sentence that some claim he uses social media. It's easy to provide a detailed account of Makhlouf's depredations but here he emerges as a sort of sympathetic figure, his resignation as proof that the Asad dictatorship is listening to the masses.
But there's nothing funny about events in Syria. Recently, a Syrian dissident friend wrote me, "People are being massacred and nobody cares a damn." In a real sense, it is tragic that he's right. Yes, the Obama Administration is now saying "tough" things about the Syrian regime and putting on the minimum sanctions, but in the face of mass shootings and torture, it amounts to nothing. Compare this to the media and administration outrage against Israel, or the demand for the immediate resignation of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak for far fewer crimes and in the face of a much less significant uprising.
Read more
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Tweet of the Day: Syrian Ruling Gangster Quits Corruption, Repents
My articles are featured on PajamasMedia.
By Barry Rubin
My favorite Tweet of the day comes from: "Syrian state TV says business tycoon Rami #Makhlouf, cousin of President #Assad, will quit business and focus on charity work #alarabiya." Makhlouf is Mr. Corruption in Syria and one of the quartet of Assads that runs the country. His thefts are legion. The idea of Makhlouf ladeling out food at a soup kitchen or helping out at an old-age home is quite a picture. In the United States he would go to rehab, find the Supreme Being, or get his own television show on MSNBC. But the point is that Arab dictatorships are used to getting away with the most remarkable nonsense that the Syrian regime might actually think such a gambit would be effective. Of course, it is more effective to feed nonsense to Western reporters and academics. Although, come to think of it, perhaps Syria and the United States is not so different in this respect.
By Barry Rubin
My favorite Tweet of the day comes from: "Syrian state TV says business tycoon Rami #Makhlouf, cousin of President #Assad, will quit business and focus on charity work #alarabiya." Makhlouf is Mr. Corruption in Syria and one of the quartet of Assads that runs the country. His thefts are legion. The idea of Makhlouf ladeling out food at a soup kitchen or helping out at an old-age home is quite a picture. In the United States he would go to rehab, find the Supreme Being, or get his own television show on MSNBC. But the point is that Arab dictatorships are used to getting away with the most remarkable nonsense that the Syrian regime might actually think such a gambit would be effective. Of course, it is more effective to feed nonsense to Western reporters and academics. Although, come to think of it, perhaps Syria and the United States is not so different in this respect.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Syria Hoaxes
Rubin Reports articles in full are available on PajamasMedia.
By Barry Rubin
It is a sign of these times regarding the Internet that a man from Georgia in the United States has been blogging pretending to be a young gay Syrian woman describing conditions in Damascus. The headline revealing this was: "`Syria Gay Girl in Damascus' blog a hoax by US man." It is a sign of these times regarding contemporary politics that I am waiting to see the headline: "`Syria Reformist Dictator in Damascus blog' a hoax by US Government."
By Barry Rubin
It is a sign of these times regarding the Internet that a man from Georgia in the United States has been blogging pretending to be a young gay Syrian woman describing conditions in Damascus. The headline revealing this was: "`Syria Gay Girl in Damascus' blog a hoax by US man." It is a sign of these times regarding contemporary politics that I am waiting to see the headline: "`Syria Reformist Dictator in Damascus blog' a hoax by US Government."
Syrian Regime Flak Calls for Mass Murder; West Does Nothing
By Barry Rubin
Here is the real Middle East not the Fantasyland of the Obama Administration about President Bashar al-Asad as a reformer or the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. This is how things really work.
Taleb Ibrahim is a pro-regime propagandist frequently portrayed as a "political analyst" or some objective thinker in the international mass media. But speaking in Arabic he cuts loose, explaining that killing protestors is a duty because they are Israeli agents. Thus, those demonstrating against the government must be smashed, wiped out so a better future can be built for Syria.
The regime in Damascus is carrying out mass murder and calling for more killing yet Western governments still stand by and not only do nothing, they say nothing.
Meanwhile, despite an international military assault on Libya, dictator Muammar al-Qadhafi is still there, another sign of Western impotence. Hizballah was allowed to defeat the West by returning to southern Lebanon and smuggling in all the weapons it wanted from Syria (without any condemnation of Syria for violating the U.S.-sponsored, UN-mandated ceasefire. Iran zips along toward nuclear weapons; Islamist terror spreads in Egypt. The UN-mandated international investigation of terrorism in Lebanon doesn't advance toward indicting Syria.
Yet we are told either that everything is going great or that the problems are inexplicable.
Has there ever been such a gap between reality and perception? The fascinating question here is how far things will go and how many people will be dead before there is the beginning of some comprehension that Obama and his advisors are dead wrong while most of the mass media has no idea what it's talking about.
Here is the real Middle East not the Fantasyland of the Obama Administration about President Bashar al-Asad as a reformer or the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. This is how things really work.
Taleb Ibrahim is a pro-regime propagandist frequently portrayed as a "political analyst" or some objective thinker in the international mass media. But speaking in Arabic he cuts loose, explaining that killing protestors is a duty because they are Israeli agents. Thus, those demonstrating against the government must be smashed, wiped out so a better future can be built for Syria.
The regime in Damascus is carrying out mass murder and calling for more killing yet Western governments still stand by and not only do nothing, they say nothing.
Meanwhile, despite an international military assault on Libya, dictator Muammar al-Qadhafi is still there, another sign of Western impotence. Hizballah was allowed to defeat the West by returning to southern Lebanon and smuggling in all the weapons it wanted from Syria (without any condemnation of Syria for violating the U.S.-sponsored, UN-mandated ceasefire. Iran zips along toward nuclear weapons; Islamist terror spreads in Egypt. The UN-mandated international investigation of terrorism in Lebanon doesn't advance toward indicting Syria.
Yet we are told either that everything is going great or that the problems are inexplicable.
Has there ever been such a gap between reality and perception? The fascinating question here is how far things will go and how many people will be dead before there is the beginning of some comprehension that Obama and his advisors are dead wrong while most of the mass media has no idea what it's talking about.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Syria Murders Hundreds; "Pro-`Arab Spring'" West Yawns or Supports Syrian Regime
This article is published on PajamasMedia.
By Barry Rubin
The situation in Syria is terrible. Hundreds of people have been shot; others arrested and tortured. And yet after weeks of demonstrations and repression the West has done nothing. True, the U.S. government has shifted from defending the dictatorship to scolding it mildly. Big deal.
How ironic. President Barack Obama extolls the “Arab Spring,” helps overthrow the Egyptian and Tunisian governments, made a try to do so in Bahrain (until the State Department talked the White House out of it), and is still trying in Yemen and in Libya (with military intervention!) yet does nothing on Syria, the most repressive by far of all these countries (except Libya).
So, here’s how the Middle East works. As an Arab friend writes to me:
“Everyone, whether anti- or pro-regime, is convinced that the U.S. government is protecting [Syrian dictator] Bashar al-Assad and wants him to stay. The longer this administration stands by its incredibly stupid position telling him to "lead the transition" as he kills and tortures at will, it will be stained by his obscenity.”
In other words, when the U.S. government defends the Assad regime the people believe it supports the Assad regime. Every principle set down by the Obama Administration on Egypt and elsewhere—whether right or wrong—is being violated by that same government in Syria!
Here’s an example, for those with a strong stomach, about what’s going on in Syria:
And the Syrian oppositionists correctly believe that they aren’t getting any international support. Palestinian groups that have practiced terrorism for decades are treated as saints and victims; the Syrian people (and Iranian, Turkish, and Lebanese oppositions, too) are treated like pariahs. Western students do nothing for them; Western students and activists don’t protest on their behalf.
Why do only anti-Western movements and opponents of governments friendly to the West get Western support?
The White House even rightly accused Syria of letting protesters cross through closed military zones to let them attack Israel's borders in order to distract from its repression of protesters at home. The White House spokesman said, "Such behavior is unacceptable."
But apparently it is acceptable to the White House.
After all, the Washington Post states in an editorial:
"The administration said ten days ago that it would `adjust ... relations with Syria according to the concrete actions undertaken by the Syrian government.' Since then Syrian troops have invaded more cities and killed scores more people. Now the regime has provoked violence with Israel. Has the time not yet come for an `adjustment’?”
No. Two weeks after this editorial and almost a month since promising to do something on Syria, the administration shows no sign of altering a Middle East policy mainly defined as being nice to the West's enemies and nasty to its friends. What's particularly noteworthy is that we aren't just talking about Israel but also: democratic oppositions in Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey; as well as the governments of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Gulf states. This Obama Administration is an equal opportunity unreliable friend.
And what does Israel’s government think about Syria?
The Syrian government is not exactly popular in Israel. There have been times in the past when Israeli policymakers thought Syria might stabilize the Lebanon-Israel border. But this expectation has never really worked out. So nobody’s thought like that for many years.
There are three reasons why Israel has "accepted" the Assad regime. First, it couldn't do anything to change the situation. Second, it viewed the regime's continuation as inevitable. And third Israel worries that a revolutionary Islamist regime would replace it and make the regional situation even worse.
Bottom line:
Israel doesn't have any options to affect Syria's internal politics. Purely as an observation, Assad will probably survive. Israel will lobby neither for nor against Assad's fall. But Israel must be prepared since--as we just saw with the Nakba day events--he will heat up anti-Israel activities to distract attention from his problems and legitimize his regime.
These have been observations, not plans for action. Israel has never lobbied with anyone to preserve or protect the current Syrian regime. Assad hasn't needed "help" to maintain the support, or at least toleration, he has received from the West. Israel's political capital is precious and won't be wasted on an issue where action isn't needed and would make no difference.
If Israel believed that a moderate democratic regime--or at least one that wouldn't attack it and sponsor terrorism against it--would emerge Israel certainly wouldn't oppose such an outcome.
But Assad is likely to survive both because of his own ruthlessness and the West’s shameful behavior. Warsaw, 1944; Budapest, 1956; Prague, 1967; meet Damascus, 2011.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamasMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
By Barry Rubin
The situation in Syria is terrible. Hundreds of people have been shot; others arrested and tortured. And yet after weeks of demonstrations and repression the West has done nothing. True, the U.S. government has shifted from defending the dictatorship to scolding it mildly. Big deal.
How ironic. President Barack Obama extolls the “Arab Spring,” helps overthrow the Egyptian and Tunisian governments, made a try to do so in Bahrain (until the State Department talked the White House out of it), and is still trying in Yemen and in Libya (with military intervention!) yet does nothing on Syria, the most repressive by far of all these countries (except Libya).
So, here’s how the Middle East works. As an Arab friend writes to me:
“Everyone, whether anti- or pro-regime, is convinced that the U.S. government is protecting [Syrian dictator] Bashar al-Assad and wants him to stay. The longer this administration stands by its incredibly stupid position telling him to "lead the transition" as he kills and tortures at will, it will be stained by his obscenity.”
In other words, when the U.S. government defends the Assad regime the people believe it supports the Assad regime. Every principle set down by the Obama Administration on Egypt and elsewhere—whether right or wrong—is being violated by that same government in Syria!
Here’s an example, for those with a strong stomach, about what’s going on in Syria:
And the Syrian oppositionists correctly believe that they aren’t getting any international support. Palestinian groups that have practiced terrorism for decades are treated as saints and victims; the Syrian people (and Iranian, Turkish, and Lebanese oppositions, too) are treated like pariahs. Western students do nothing for them; Western students and activists don’t protest on their behalf.
Why do only anti-Western movements and opponents of governments friendly to the West get Western support?
The White House even rightly accused Syria of letting protesters cross through closed military zones to let them attack Israel's borders in order to distract from its repression of protesters at home. The White House spokesman said, "Such behavior is unacceptable."
But apparently it is acceptable to the White House.
After all, the Washington Post states in an editorial:
"The administration said ten days ago that it would `adjust ... relations with Syria according to the concrete actions undertaken by the Syrian government.' Since then Syrian troops have invaded more cities and killed scores more people. Now the regime has provoked violence with Israel. Has the time not yet come for an `adjustment’?”
No. Two weeks after this editorial and almost a month since promising to do something on Syria, the administration shows no sign of altering a Middle East policy mainly defined as being nice to the West's enemies and nasty to its friends. What's particularly noteworthy is that we aren't just talking about Israel but also: democratic oppositions in Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey; as well as the governments of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Gulf states. This Obama Administration is an equal opportunity unreliable friend.
And what does Israel’s government think about Syria?
The Syrian government is not exactly popular in Israel. There have been times in the past when Israeli policymakers thought Syria might stabilize the Lebanon-Israel border. But this expectation has never really worked out. So nobody’s thought like that for many years.
There are three reasons why Israel has "accepted" the Assad regime. First, it couldn't do anything to change the situation. Second, it viewed the regime's continuation as inevitable. And third Israel worries that a revolutionary Islamist regime would replace it and make the regional situation even worse.
Bottom line:
Israel doesn't have any options to affect Syria's internal politics. Purely as an observation, Assad will probably survive. Israel will lobby neither for nor against Assad's fall. But Israel must be prepared since--as we just saw with the Nakba day events--he will heat up anti-Israel activities to distract attention from his problems and legitimize his regime.
These have been observations, not plans for action. Israel has never lobbied with anyone to preserve or protect the current Syrian regime. Assad hasn't needed "help" to maintain the support, or at least toleration, he has received from the West. Israel's political capital is precious and won't be wasted on an issue where action isn't needed and would make no difference.
If Israel believed that a moderate democratic regime--or at least one that wouldn't attack it and sponsor terrorism against it--would emerge Israel certainly wouldn't oppose such an outcome.
But Assad is likely to survive both because of his own ruthlessness and the West’s shameful behavior. Warsaw, 1944; Budapest, 1956; Prague, 1967; meet Damascus, 2011.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamasMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Syria: Who Needs a Propaganda Operation When You Have the New York Times?
This article is published on PajamasMedia.
By Barry Rubin
To be immoral is bad; to be immoral against your own interests is worse.
No reporter has seemed more in the pocket of Hizballah and the Syrians than the New York Times' Anthony Shadid. His reporting on Lebanon often quotes mostly or exclusively their supporters, under a variety of labels, as if they are objective observers or represent a range of opinion.
While his latest article includes some material on how bad the situation is in Syria--350 people identified as killed so far by the regime--it reads like a press release from the dictatorship.
Not since the days of the Cold War--probably in the 1970s--has a U.S. government become such an apologist for a repressive dictatorship. What makes the situation truly amazing is that the Syrian government is no U.S. ally but an enemy repressive dictatorship.
Shadid quotes Bouthaina Shaaban, a notorious Assad regime crony as saying, “You can’t be very nice to people who are leading an armed rebellion...." Yet there is no evidence that the opposition has used weapons. Nevertheless, he reports without comment the regime's claim that demonstrators have killed 100 soldiers and police even though not a single such case has been even minimally documented.
Shadid quotes U.S. officials as saying that Shaaban and Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa are the good guy reformers while President Bashar al-Assad's brother, Maher, is the bad guy hardliner. Poor Bashar is supposedly caught in the middle. What's a dictator to do?
Shabaan ridicules international "sanctions" against Syria and is right to do so. They amount to nothing, nothing except a license for the regime to murder its citizens without fear of repercussions.
Some day the Times coverage of Syria will be compared to its terrible reporting on the Stalinist Soviet Union and its largely ignoring the Holocaust.
By Barry Rubin
To be immoral is bad; to be immoral against your own interests is worse.
No reporter has seemed more in the pocket of Hizballah and the Syrians than the New York Times' Anthony Shadid. His reporting on Lebanon often quotes mostly or exclusively their supporters, under a variety of labels, as if they are objective observers or represent a range of opinion.
While his latest article includes some material on how bad the situation is in Syria--350 people identified as killed so far by the regime--it reads like a press release from the dictatorship.
Not since the days of the Cold War--probably in the 1970s--has a U.S. government become such an apologist for a repressive dictatorship. What makes the situation truly amazing is that the Syrian government is no U.S. ally but an enemy repressive dictatorship.
Shadid quotes Bouthaina Shaaban, a notorious Assad regime crony as saying, “You can’t be very nice to people who are leading an armed rebellion...." Yet there is no evidence that the opposition has used weapons. Nevertheless, he reports without comment the regime's claim that demonstrators have killed 100 soldiers and police even though not a single such case has been even minimally documented.
Shadid quotes U.S. officials as saying that Shaaban and Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa are the good guy reformers while President Bashar al-Assad's brother, Maher, is the bad guy hardliner. Poor Bashar is supposedly caught in the middle. What's a dictator to do?
Shabaan ridicules international "sanctions" against Syria and is right to do so. They amount to nothing, nothing except a license for the regime to murder its citizens without fear of repercussions.
Some day the Times coverage of Syria will be compared to its terrible reporting on the Stalinist Soviet Union and its largely ignoring the Holocaust.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Syria: Killing Americans, Murdering Syrians, Allied with al-Qaida. It’s a No-Brainer: The Regime Must Go
This article is published on PajamasMedia. The text is presented here for your convenience.
Please be subscriber 22,058 (daily reader 39,668). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
I merely transcribe the lead paragraph in today’s (May 7) Washington Post:
“Syrian troops used heavy machine guns and artillery to quell anti-government demonstrations in the key city of Homs on Friday in a sharp escalation of their crackdown against regime opponents, as tens of thousands of Syrians again defied the threat of bullets and tanks to take to the streets around the country.”
The article goes on to report “pitched battles in several neighborhoods” and 24 deaths due to firing into unarmed crowds of peaceful demonstrators.
What does the White House say? It “condemns and deplores” the violence, mass arrests, and human rights violations. It threatens to “adjust” U.S. policy toward Syria and issues sanctions against a handful of those directly involved in the violence. And it talks vaguely of a “strong” response and urges the Syrian dictatorship to make reforms.
This policy is a national disgrace. I have no doubt that the Obama Administration’s behavior toward the uprising in Syria and Iran will in future be strongly condemned. The exquisite sensitivity toward America’s enemies compared to the harsh treatment of its friends must come to an end.
Aside from everything else consider one simple point that is publicly known beyond any question:
Syria’s government has allied itself and helps in every way terrorists in Iraq who have killed hundreds of Americans. And those terrorists belong to al-Qaida. Remember them? The group until recently headed by Usama bin Laden that carried out the September 11 attacks. This is also the strongest and most significant remaining al-Qaida member group.
There is no excuse for President Obama not to utter six simple words: The Assad dictatorship must go now.
Please be subscriber 22,058 (daily reader 39,668). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
I merely transcribe the lead paragraph in today’s (May 7) Washington Post:
“Syrian troops used heavy machine guns and artillery to quell anti-government demonstrations in the key city of Homs on Friday in a sharp escalation of their crackdown against regime opponents, as tens of thousands of Syrians again defied the threat of bullets and tanks to take to the streets around the country.”
The article goes on to report “pitched battles in several neighborhoods” and 24 deaths due to firing into unarmed crowds of peaceful demonstrators.
What does the White House say? It “condemns and deplores” the violence, mass arrests, and human rights violations. It threatens to “adjust” U.S. policy toward Syria and issues sanctions against a handful of those directly involved in the violence. And it talks vaguely of a “strong” response and urges the Syrian dictatorship to make reforms.
This policy is a national disgrace. I have no doubt that the Obama Administration’s behavior toward the uprising in Syria and Iran will in future be strongly condemned. The exquisite sensitivity toward America’s enemies compared to the harsh treatment of its friends must come to an end.
Aside from everything else consider one simple point that is publicly known beyond any question:
Syria’s government has allied itself and helps in every way terrorists in Iraq who have killed hundreds of Americans. And those terrorists belong to al-Qaida. Remember them? The group until recently headed by Usama bin Laden that carried out the September 11 attacks. This is also the strongest and most significant remaining al-Qaida member group.
There is no excuse for President Obama not to utter six simple words: The Assad dictatorship must go now.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Syria: Why Are Western Governments Protecting Their Worst Enemy...While Trashing Their Friends
This article is published on PajamasMedia. The text is provided here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
Here’s an unavoidable question: Why is it that when a relatively moderate Middle East state is threatened by demonstrations—Egypt and Tunisia—the Obama Administration calls for their instant departure while when it is a radical, anti-American, terrorist-supporting state—Iran and Syria—it refuses to act at all.
However you explain that paradox it nonetheless, undeniably, exists. And it is totally contrary to the U.S. national interests. Some people think that this sabotage is deliberate; others, like myself, think it is being caused by incompetence, ignorance, and an ideology totally out of touch with reality.
But here's what's really important: If you can't tell the difference between the deliberate destruction of U.S. interests and the inadvertent but systematic destruction of U.S. interests, doesn't that show how serious the situation is?
And where are the protesters on American campuses? The outraged media—and there is some—demanding action? See the above paragraph.
Read on to see proof that the administration is lying to Congress about Syria.
The situation in Syria has turned into a bloodbath far worse than anything that happened in Egypt and Tunisia. Hundreds of demonstrators have been shot. Congress is starting to complain about administration inaction. And government officials have to resort to nonsense to justify inaction. They, too, probably have no idea what is on President Barack Obama’s mind. I could list his arguments here but won’t bother because they are all flimsy to say the least.
Here’s an example: When a member of Congress suggested withdrawing the U.S. ambassador from Damascus, Michael Posner of the State Department ridiculed the idea. The ambassador, he said, is "an individual who can reach out both to the Syrian government at the highest levels, but also to reach out to people who are on the receiving end of this violence,"
"People want to know that governments like the United States are there, meeting with them, aware of what they're facing and trying to help them in a day-to-day way. He's spending long hours helping families, meeting with victims, meeting with human rights advocates, meeting with journalists trying to mitigate what is a terrible situation. It's right for us to have a senior diplomat whose role it is really to be our advocate in chief in Damascus and in Syria fighting for the very principles of human rights…."
That all sounds very nice. But I don’t believe one word of it. Are anti-government protesters freely filing in and out of the U.S. embassy in downtown Damascus or are armed government guards standing outside stopping anyone from approaching?
Is the ambassador “fighting” for human rights? How can he when the Syrian regime knows that the Obama Administration won’t do anything? This is a joke. And here’s the biggest lie: If the ambassador were withdrawn the deputy chief of mission would take over and the embassy would go on precisely as before.
In fact, proof that this is a lie is contained in the ambassador's own interviews which, rather than expressing sharp condemnation he utters not one word of even the mildest criticism but looks forward to pushing Israel-Syria negotiations and the hope that things will calm down in Syria!
Moreover, Jacob Sullivan, director of Policy Planning at the State Department. told reporters, “[Given] the current situation in Syria…it’s hard for us to stand by and see Assad…engaged in this kind of campaign...and to then think easily about how to pursue the other diplomatic initiatives with him.”
In other words, here's the administration line: If Assad keeps killing people that makes it hard for us to give him more rewards.And don’t give me the nonsense about the low-level U.S. responses like sanctions against a handful of individuals directly involved in repression. The Syrian regime knows that this, too, is a joke.
"The people want to topple the regime!" protesters shouted, echoing the cries heard during the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.
But the U.S. and European governments don’t. And that’s a large part of the problem.
By Barry Rubin
Here’s an unavoidable question: Why is it that when a relatively moderate Middle East state is threatened by demonstrations—Egypt and Tunisia—the Obama Administration calls for their instant departure while when it is a radical, anti-American, terrorist-supporting state—Iran and Syria—it refuses to act at all.
However you explain that paradox it nonetheless, undeniably, exists. And it is totally contrary to the U.S. national interests. Some people think that this sabotage is deliberate; others, like myself, think it is being caused by incompetence, ignorance, and an ideology totally out of touch with reality.
But here's what's really important: If you can't tell the difference between the deliberate destruction of U.S. interests and the inadvertent but systematic destruction of U.S. interests, doesn't that show how serious the situation is?
And where are the protesters on American campuses? The outraged media—and there is some—demanding action? See the above paragraph.
Read on to see proof that the administration is lying to Congress about Syria.
The situation in Syria has turned into a bloodbath far worse than anything that happened in Egypt and Tunisia. Hundreds of demonstrators have been shot. Congress is starting to complain about administration inaction. And government officials have to resort to nonsense to justify inaction. They, too, probably have no idea what is on President Barack Obama’s mind. I could list his arguments here but won’t bother because they are all flimsy to say the least.
Here’s an example: When a member of Congress suggested withdrawing the U.S. ambassador from Damascus, Michael Posner of the State Department ridiculed the idea. The ambassador, he said, is "an individual who can reach out both to the Syrian government at the highest levels, but also to reach out to people who are on the receiving end of this violence,"
"People want to know that governments like the United States are there, meeting with them, aware of what they're facing and trying to help them in a day-to-day way. He's spending long hours helping families, meeting with victims, meeting with human rights advocates, meeting with journalists trying to mitigate what is a terrible situation. It's right for us to have a senior diplomat whose role it is really to be our advocate in chief in Damascus and in Syria fighting for the very principles of human rights…."
That all sounds very nice. But I don’t believe one word of it. Are anti-government protesters freely filing in and out of the U.S. embassy in downtown Damascus or are armed government guards standing outside stopping anyone from approaching?
Is the ambassador “fighting” for human rights? How can he when the Syrian regime knows that the Obama Administration won’t do anything? This is a joke. And here’s the biggest lie: If the ambassador were withdrawn the deputy chief of mission would take over and the embassy would go on precisely as before.
In fact, proof that this is a lie is contained in the ambassador's own interviews which, rather than expressing sharp condemnation he utters not one word of even the mildest criticism but looks forward to pushing Israel-Syria negotiations and the hope that things will calm down in Syria!
Moreover, Jacob Sullivan, director of Policy Planning at the State Department. told reporters, “[Given] the current situation in Syria…it’s hard for us to stand by and see Assad…engaged in this kind of campaign...and to then think easily about how to pursue the other diplomatic initiatives with him.”
In other words, here's the administration line: If Assad keeps killing people that makes it hard for us to give him more rewards.And don’t give me the nonsense about the low-level U.S. responses like sanctions against a handful of individuals directly involved in repression. The Syrian regime knows that this, too, is a joke.
"The people want to topple the regime!" protesters shouted, echoing the cries heard during the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.
But the U.S. and European governments don’t. And that’s a large part of the problem.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Obama Administration: Eager to Save Syria's Anti-American Dictator
This is published in PajamasMedia. The full text is presented here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
Before I remark on the idiotic analysis of the day, I have to write a disclaimer. Up to now I usually don't remark on what David Ignatius writes but this latest article is too good--meaning too bad--to pass up. But first some background so you can see how things work behind the scenes in Washington DC.
I grew up within about two blocks of Mr. Ignatius. One of my best friends went to school with him. After my friend defeated Ignatius for the chairmanship of the school's most prestigious club by a landslide, Mr. Ignatius said to him, "I could have beaten you if I'd wanted to!"
In 1982 or perhaps in 1983, I spoke at a conference about media reporting on the Lebanon war. I had witnessed, for the first time in person, the most amazing distortions of truth by the journalists there.
One notorious example I remember was a reporter standing in front of a Lebanese house claiming it had been callously destroyed by the Israeli forces. This statement was somewhat belied by the fact that a rather large and healthy tree was growing in the middle of the derelict building, extending its branches well above the level of the walls.
Knowing that Mr. Ignatius, who had reported the war, was on the panel, I stated several times something to the effect that, "This doesn't apply to David Ignatius who did a great job."
To my surprise, after the event he came up to me and angrily said, "You [word unsuitable for family publications] me and I'm going to get you."
Some time later, he reviewed one of my books in a tiny publication that few if any read. It was the nastiest review I've ever received. But, as I say, nobody saw it and I only noticed because the publisher sent it to me.
About four or five years later I was attending some conference sitting at the dinner table with him and Ignatius said something to the effect that I had served my sentence, been punished enough, and so his wrath had been sated.
There. So now you can judge whether I am biased against him.
Ignatius, who has all along been a defender of Obama Administration policy toward Syria, wrote in the Washington Post:
"U.S. officials see signs that Syria’s embattled president, Bashar al-Assad, has concluded that to survive the massive protests against his regime, which continued today across the country, he will have to distance himself somewhat from Iran.
"Whatever happens in the anti-Assad protests, Iran is likely to lose some of its easy access to Syria, its key Arab ally. If Assad survives, he will have to establish some distance from Iran to appease Sunni protesters, U.S. officials believe. And it he’s toppled, Syria is likely to be ruled by a Sunni-dominated regime that will be more hostile to Iran."
Now this is a sparkling example of the kind of idiocy that passes for analyzing the Middle East on the part of "U.S. officials" and big-name analysts in the media. Demonstrators demanding that Assad distance himself from Iran has not been a leading feature of this uprising.
Remember that Assad has adopted a strategy of identifying his opponents with America, Israel, and al-Qaida. He is toughing it out. Why would be want to distance himself from an ally which:
--Provides Muslim religious credentials to his regime ruled mostly by Alawites who are not Muslims. (When I once told an emigre Syrian Muslim journalist that a lot of people disagreed with me about Alawites not being Muslims, she laughed and said that everyone knew they weren't.)
--Gives it strategic cover against the West and Israel. When Iran has nuclear weapons that umbrella of protection would be even more valuable.
--Pays a lot of its bills through subsidies.
--Pays for its weapons and for supporting joint Iran-Syria clients like Hamas and Hizballah.
The possibility of any decision by Assad to move away from Iran? Zero.
And if he's toppled would there be a Sunni regime more hostile to Iran? That's possible but unlikely. If he is overthrown by military officers--the most likely possibility--they would not change Syrian foreign policy.
True, a Muslim Brotherhood dominated regime might well be anti-Iran, as well as anti-American and eager to go to war with Israel. A moderate democratic government would be anti-Iran. But there are plenty of Islamists and radical nationalists who would align with Iran as their only good choice of strategic ally.
At any rate what this all amounts to is merely another argument that Assad is a moderate at heart. Don't try to overthrow him and he'll come around to realizing that America is his best friend. Really?
Why is it that president Obama called for the overthrow of Mubarak and somehow believes that Assad is better for American interests than the former Egyptian president? There is a risk of an Islamist takeover in Syria but it is certainly lower than it was in Egypt when the White House helped push that regime over.
Remember the Syrian regime is the main sponsor of the terrorists killing American soldiers in Iraq. It is the main sponsor of Hamas and Hizballah. It is seizing control of Lebanon and turning that country into a satellite. And it subverts any chance of peace with Israel.
This is the regime that the administration and its pet journalists wants to preserve?
What really irks me is that one virtually never ever sees any of the points made above even mentioned in the mass media though they are all obvious and well-documented.
Here's a good policy for the United States: Assad should go now! Yesterday!
Uh-oh. I better watch out for that next book review!http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/syrias-turmoil-shakes-iran-and-hamas/2011/03/04/AFXBunDF_blog.html
By Barry Rubin
Before I remark on the idiotic analysis of the day, I have to write a disclaimer. Up to now I usually don't remark on what David Ignatius writes but this latest article is too good--meaning too bad--to pass up. But first some background so you can see how things work behind the scenes in Washington DC.
I grew up within about two blocks of Mr. Ignatius. One of my best friends went to school with him. After my friend defeated Ignatius for the chairmanship of the school's most prestigious club by a landslide, Mr. Ignatius said to him, "I could have beaten you if I'd wanted to!"
In 1982 or perhaps in 1983, I spoke at a conference about media reporting on the Lebanon war. I had witnessed, for the first time in person, the most amazing distortions of truth by the journalists there.
One notorious example I remember was a reporter standing in front of a Lebanese house claiming it had been callously destroyed by the Israeli forces. This statement was somewhat belied by the fact that a rather large and healthy tree was growing in the middle of the derelict building, extending its branches well above the level of the walls.
Knowing that Mr. Ignatius, who had reported the war, was on the panel, I stated several times something to the effect that, "This doesn't apply to David Ignatius who did a great job."
To my surprise, after the event he came up to me and angrily said, "You [word unsuitable for family publications] me and I'm going to get you."
Some time later, he reviewed one of my books in a tiny publication that few if any read. It was the nastiest review I've ever received. But, as I say, nobody saw it and I only noticed because the publisher sent it to me.
About four or five years later I was attending some conference sitting at the dinner table with him and Ignatius said something to the effect that I had served my sentence, been punished enough, and so his wrath had been sated.
There. So now you can judge whether I am biased against him.
Ignatius, who has all along been a defender of Obama Administration policy toward Syria, wrote in the Washington Post:
"U.S. officials see signs that Syria’s embattled president, Bashar al-Assad, has concluded that to survive the massive protests against his regime, which continued today across the country, he will have to distance himself somewhat from Iran.
"Whatever happens in the anti-Assad protests, Iran is likely to lose some of its easy access to Syria, its key Arab ally. If Assad survives, he will have to establish some distance from Iran to appease Sunni protesters, U.S. officials believe. And it he’s toppled, Syria is likely to be ruled by a Sunni-dominated regime that will be more hostile to Iran."
Now this is a sparkling example of the kind of idiocy that passes for analyzing the Middle East on the part of "U.S. officials" and big-name analysts in the media. Demonstrators demanding that Assad distance himself from Iran has not been a leading feature of this uprising.
Remember that Assad has adopted a strategy of identifying his opponents with America, Israel, and al-Qaida. He is toughing it out. Why would be want to distance himself from an ally which:
--Provides Muslim religious credentials to his regime ruled mostly by Alawites who are not Muslims. (When I once told an emigre Syrian Muslim journalist that a lot of people disagreed with me about Alawites not being Muslims, she laughed and said that everyone knew they weren't.)
--Gives it strategic cover against the West and Israel. When Iran has nuclear weapons that umbrella of protection would be even more valuable.
--Pays a lot of its bills through subsidies.
--Pays for its weapons and for supporting joint Iran-Syria clients like Hamas and Hizballah.
The possibility of any decision by Assad to move away from Iran? Zero.
And if he's toppled would there be a Sunni regime more hostile to Iran? That's possible but unlikely. If he is overthrown by military officers--the most likely possibility--they would not change Syrian foreign policy.
True, a Muslim Brotherhood dominated regime might well be anti-Iran, as well as anti-American and eager to go to war with Israel. A moderate democratic government would be anti-Iran. But there are plenty of Islamists and radical nationalists who would align with Iran as their only good choice of strategic ally.
At any rate what this all amounts to is merely another argument that Assad is a moderate at heart. Don't try to overthrow him and he'll come around to realizing that America is his best friend. Really?
Why is it that president Obama called for the overthrow of Mubarak and somehow believes that Assad is better for American interests than the former Egyptian president? There is a risk of an Islamist takeover in Syria but it is certainly lower than it was in Egypt when the White House helped push that regime over.
Remember the Syrian regime is the main sponsor of the terrorists killing American soldiers in Iraq. It is the main sponsor of Hamas and Hizballah. It is seizing control of Lebanon and turning that country into a satellite. And it subverts any chance of peace with Israel.
This is the regime that the administration and its pet journalists wants to preserve?
What really irks me is that one virtually never ever sees any of the points made above even mentioned in the mass media though they are all obvious and well-documented.
Here's a good policy for the United States: Assad should go now! Yesterday!
Uh-oh. I better watch out for that next book review!http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/syrias-turmoil-shakes-iran-and-hamas/2011/03/04/AFXBunDF_blog.html
Syria Not A Partner For Peace? So What's New?
By Barry Rubin
The Obama administration no longer considers Syria a potential peace partner for Israel because of its repression against its own people. This is according to media background interviews with government officials.
But wait a minute! What do we know about that regime now that we didn't know--I should say, should have known--a month or six months or six years ago? Syria has been a repressive, radical dictatorship at least since 1963 and arguably a few years earlier.
We know the same thing about Hizballah and the other rulers of Lebanon; Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip; and--to a much lesser extent but it's still basically true--the Palestinian Authority.
So what has been the Western idea up until now? Namely for Israel to make a peace with these "partners" involving major risks and concessions. For example, Israel is supposed to give the Golan Heights to this regime in Syria in exchange for its promise of peace.
If you've never seen the Golan Heights in person you can't imagine its unique strategic significance. Israel's territory is perfectly flat and stretches to the nearby Mediterranean. The Golan Heights rise almost vertically above it and looks over this land like a balcony. Those up on the Heights can bombard downward to their heart's content with artillery, rockets, missiles, and mortars. Once Israel gives up the Heights there are no natural defenses between there and the sea. And by the same token it would be very hard--and costly in casualties--for Israel to recapture the Golan.
It is almost impossible for any piece of territory to have a greater military advantage.
Giving this territory to the Assad regime is the kind of silly idea that passes as somewhere between brilliance and conventional wisdom in every Western government and mass media outlet.
Of course, if the Syrian government were the kind of regime that would agree to eternal peace and keep that agreement then such a deal would make sense. But it isn't.
If one could have a real knowledge in advance that its successor would also keep a peace treaty--as long as the sky is blue and the rivers flow--it could be justified. But that's not true either, as the situation in Egypt is showing, as the situation in the Gaza Strip has shown. How many examples do you need?
And if one could know that the Western countries would keep their promised guarantees and then come riding like the cavalry to smite the evildoer who broke agreements with Israel than those guarantees would be credible. But, once again, that's not true, as the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip with Hamas, and the truce ending the 2006 war with Hizballah, and the 1993 agreement with what became the Palestinian Authority show. How many examples do you need?
According to the current way of thinking then, only after the concessions have been made, the risks undertaken, and the piece of paper signed do we find out that these weren't partners for peace. But then it would be too late.
Isn't it better to learn such things beforehand? In fact, isn't it better to learn that reality right now this minute?
The Obama administration no longer considers Syria a potential peace partner for Israel because of its repression against its own people. This is according to media background interviews with government officials.
But wait a minute! What do we know about that regime now that we didn't know--I should say, should have known--a month or six months or six years ago? Syria has been a repressive, radical dictatorship at least since 1963 and arguably a few years earlier.
We know the same thing about Hizballah and the other rulers of Lebanon; Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip; and--to a much lesser extent but it's still basically true--the Palestinian Authority.
So what has been the Western idea up until now? Namely for Israel to make a peace with these "partners" involving major risks and concessions. For example, Israel is supposed to give the Golan Heights to this regime in Syria in exchange for its promise of peace.
If you've never seen the Golan Heights in person you can't imagine its unique strategic significance. Israel's territory is perfectly flat and stretches to the nearby Mediterranean. The Golan Heights rise almost vertically above it and looks over this land like a balcony. Those up on the Heights can bombard downward to their heart's content with artillery, rockets, missiles, and mortars. Once Israel gives up the Heights there are no natural defenses between there and the sea. And by the same token it would be very hard--and costly in casualties--for Israel to recapture the Golan.
It is almost impossible for any piece of territory to have a greater military advantage.
Giving this territory to the Assad regime is the kind of silly idea that passes as somewhere between brilliance and conventional wisdom in every Western government and mass media outlet.
Of course, if the Syrian government were the kind of regime that would agree to eternal peace and keep that agreement then such a deal would make sense. But it isn't.
If one could have a real knowledge in advance that its successor would also keep a peace treaty--as long as the sky is blue and the rivers flow--it could be justified. But that's not true either, as the situation in Egypt is showing, as the situation in the Gaza Strip has shown. How many examples do you need?
And if one could know that the Western countries would keep their promised guarantees and then come riding like the cavalry to smite the evildoer who broke agreements with Israel than those guarantees would be credible. But, once again, that's not true, as the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip with Hamas, and the truce ending the 2006 war with Hizballah, and the 1993 agreement with what became the Palestinian Authority show. How many examples do you need?
According to the current way of thinking then, only after the concessions have been made, the risks undertaken, and the piece of paper signed do we find out that these weren't partners for peace. But then it would be too late.
Isn't it better to learn such things beforehand? In fact, isn't it better to learn that reality right now this minute?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
If The Obama Administration Doesn't Understand Syria's Dictator is No Sensitive Westernized Wimp, It Understands Nothing
This article is published on PajamasMedia. The full text is published here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
Why was Egyptian President Husni Mubarak so evil in the eyes of the Obama Administration while Syrian President Bashar al-Assad seems to enjoy endless indulgence?
If you cannot explain this fact then the current government's policy cannot be justified in terms of U.S. interests. And if the media and most "experts" were not solidly soft on the incumbents that policy would be torn to shreds and help up to public ridicule.
Consider this simple comparison
Mubarak: Ally of America; Assad: Enemy of America
Mubarak: Enemy of Iran; Assad: Ally of Iran
Mubarak: Fights revolutionary Islamism; Assad: Sponsors revolutionary Islamism
Mubarak: Opposes international terrorism; Assad: Sponsors international terrorism
Mubarak: At Peace with Israel; Assad: At War with Israel
Mubarak: Supports peace process; Assad: Sabotages peace process
Mubarak: Repressive; Assad: Extremely repressive
Mubarak: Dictatorship with some pluralism; Assad: Total dictatorship
Mubarak: Mixed economy; Assad: Largely Soviet-style statist economy
Mubarak: Limited reforms; Assad: No reforms at all
Obama Response to Egypt Upheaval: Mubarak must go! Yesterday isn't soon enough!
Obama Response to Syria Upheaval: I'm sure if we show a little patience and understanding Bashar will show himself the Westernized, sensitive reformer we expect him to be.
Well, you get the idea.
No matter how much you favored the overthrow of the Mubarak government and the success of that revolution, you should support all the more the overthrow of a worse government that is far more hostile to the United States and the West.
And yet there is this bizarre illusion in the Obama Administration that somehow--despite two years of total failure by American flattery and concessions to get Assad to do anything, anything!--he's a good guy.
And despite the fact that he's shot down hundreds of demonstrators--more than Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Yemen put together--the most minor response is acceptable.
The failure of the Obama Administration effort to engage the UN human rights council is shown by that body's total uselessness in dealing with Middle Eastern dictatorships. No, it's worse! It's largely comprised of Middle Eastern and other dictatorships.
Here's an administration official quoted in the New York Times on these points:
"Administration officials say that while they lack many effective economic tools, they believe Mr. Assad is sensitive to portrayals of his regime as brutal and backward. `He sees himself as a Westernized leader,' one senior administration official said, `and we think he’ll react if he believes he is being lumped in with brutal dictators.'”
Is this for real? How cannot one be sarcastic and hypercritical when leading U.S. officials think that a ruthless dictator--in fact, the most cleverly ruthless dictator in the Arabic-speaking world--really cares if people in the West say mean things about him.
Look, anyone who has read any of Bashar's speeches and watched his action should know that the exact opposite is true. He knows he looks like a giraffe and has a most non-macho past. He has based his career on trying to be like his father, tougher than his father. Bashar has constantly posed as the toughest of the tough, the patron of Hamas and Hizballah, the chief resister who taunts Israel and spits in the face of Uncle Sam.
It would be impossible to find someone more eager to be a brutal dictator and who does not see himself as a Westernized leader. If this were the "Godfather," Bashar would be Michael, not Fredo.
If the Obama Administration doesn't understand this, it understands nothing. Yes, that's the point. It understands nothing.
And if they still don't get it, let them examine this graphic illustration by Martin Berman-Gorvine, done specially for Rubin Reports:
P.S.: In an interview with a Los Angeles Times correspondent covering the upheaval in Syria, the NPR host and the journalist tried desperately buf futilely to find some way to excuse Bashar of blame for the killing of demonstrators. Perhaps he didn't have enough riot control gear or someone else gave the orders? Truly amazing apologetics. With Israel's they act like a lynch mob, with Syria like a groupie. How revealing.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
By Barry Rubin
Why was Egyptian President Husni Mubarak so evil in the eyes of the Obama Administration while Syrian President Bashar al-Assad seems to enjoy endless indulgence?
If you cannot explain this fact then the current government's policy cannot be justified in terms of U.S. interests. And if the media and most "experts" were not solidly soft on the incumbents that policy would be torn to shreds and help up to public ridicule.
Consider this simple comparison
Mubarak: Ally of America; Assad: Enemy of America
Mubarak: Enemy of Iran; Assad: Ally of Iran
Mubarak: Fights revolutionary Islamism; Assad: Sponsors revolutionary Islamism
Mubarak: Opposes international terrorism; Assad: Sponsors international terrorism
Mubarak: At Peace with Israel; Assad: At War with Israel
Mubarak: Supports peace process; Assad: Sabotages peace process
Mubarak: Repressive; Assad: Extremely repressive
Mubarak: Dictatorship with some pluralism; Assad: Total dictatorship
Mubarak: Mixed economy; Assad: Largely Soviet-style statist economy
Mubarak: Limited reforms; Assad: No reforms at all
Obama Response to Egypt Upheaval: Mubarak must go! Yesterday isn't soon enough!
Obama Response to Syria Upheaval: I'm sure if we show a little patience and understanding Bashar will show himself the Westernized, sensitive reformer we expect him to be.
Well, you get the idea.
No matter how much you favored the overthrow of the Mubarak government and the success of that revolution, you should support all the more the overthrow of a worse government that is far more hostile to the United States and the West.
And yet there is this bizarre illusion in the Obama Administration that somehow--despite two years of total failure by American flattery and concessions to get Assad to do anything, anything!--he's a good guy.
And despite the fact that he's shot down hundreds of demonstrators--more than Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Yemen put together--the most minor response is acceptable.
The failure of the Obama Administration effort to engage the UN human rights council is shown by that body's total uselessness in dealing with Middle Eastern dictatorships. No, it's worse! It's largely comprised of Middle Eastern and other dictatorships.
Here's an administration official quoted in the New York Times on these points:
"Administration officials say that while they lack many effective economic tools, they believe Mr. Assad is sensitive to portrayals of his regime as brutal and backward. `He sees himself as a Westernized leader,' one senior administration official said, `and we think he’ll react if he believes he is being lumped in with brutal dictators.'”
Is this for real? How cannot one be sarcastic and hypercritical when leading U.S. officials think that a ruthless dictator--in fact, the most cleverly ruthless dictator in the Arabic-speaking world--really cares if people in the West say mean things about him.
Look, anyone who has read any of Bashar's speeches and watched his action should know that the exact opposite is true. He knows he looks like a giraffe and has a most non-macho past. He has based his career on trying to be like his father, tougher than his father. Bashar has constantly posed as the toughest of the tough, the patron of Hamas and Hizballah, the chief resister who taunts Israel and spits in the face of Uncle Sam.
It would be impossible to find someone more eager to be a brutal dictator and who does not see himself as a Westernized leader. If this were the "Godfather," Bashar would be Michael, not Fredo.
If the Obama Administration doesn't understand this, it understands nothing. Yes, that's the point. It understands nothing.
And if they still don't get it, let them examine this graphic illustration by Martin Berman-Gorvine, done specially for Rubin Reports:
P.S.: In an interview with a Los Angeles Times correspondent covering the upheaval in Syria, the NPR host and the journalist tried desperately buf futilely to find some way to excuse Bashar of blame for the killing of demonstrators. Perhaps he didn't have enough riot control gear or someone else gave the orders? Truly amazing apologetics. With Israel's they act like a lynch mob, with Syria like a groupie. How revealing.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Syria: Crackdown Begins; West Does Nothing
This article is published on PajamasMedia. It is provided here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
As I predicted yesterday, the Syrian government has now started a full-scale violent crackdown against oppositionists beginning in the south, the most active area for protests. Dozens of people are being killed or wounded. Where are the Western governments and mass media who are ready to criticize Israel at the drop of a hat and are mainly stuck in the theme of, "Please, Mr. Dictator, be a reformer!"
This should go down in history alongside the indifference to the Warsaw uprising of 1944, the Hungarian revolt of 1956, and the indifference to Iran's repression in 2009 as a shameful Western failure. Ironically, this comes at the very moment of supposed obsession with protecting civilians and a confused war in Libya which--whether or not it is the right thing to do--is far less important in both humanitarian and national interest terms.
About three years ago, a brave Syrian dissident asked me if there was hope for democracy in Syria in his lifetime. When I hesitated to answer, he said, "Perhaps in my children's lifetime." Little did I dream that the West's refusal to help would be as responsible for the long wait as the regime's demagoguery and repression. Shame on President Obama who for the second time--Iran being the first--has only empty words at a time when one of the world's most repressive states, enemy of America, and sponsor of terrorism could be brought down.
In recent weeks, the Western countries have said that Mubarak must go, that Qadhafi must go. But not a single one has said what should be shouted out right now: Assad must go!
By Barry Rubin
As I predicted yesterday, the Syrian government has now started a full-scale violent crackdown against oppositionists beginning in the south, the most active area for protests. Dozens of people are being killed or wounded. Where are the Western governments and mass media who are ready to criticize Israel at the drop of a hat and are mainly stuck in the theme of, "Please, Mr. Dictator, be a reformer!"
This should go down in history alongside the indifference to the Warsaw uprising of 1944, the Hungarian revolt of 1956, and the indifference to Iran's repression in 2009 as a shameful Western failure. Ironically, this comes at the very moment of supposed obsession with protecting civilians and a confused war in Libya which--whether or not it is the right thing to do--is far less important in both humanitarian and national interest terms.
About three years ago, a brave Syrian dissident asked me if there was hope for democracy in Syria in his lifetime. When I hesitated to answer, he said, "Perhaps in my children's lifetime." Little did I dream that the West's refusal to help would be as responsible for the long wait as the regime's demagoguery and repression. Shame on President Obama who for the second time--Iran being the first--has only empty words at a time when one of the world's most repressive states, enemy of America, and sponsor of terrorism could be brought down.
In recent weeks, the Western countries have said that Mubarak must go, that Qadhafi must go. But not a single one has said what should be shouted out right now: Assad must go!
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Syria: Is It So Hard to Understand that Bashar al-Assad Is Dictator Not A Reformer in Training?
This article is published in PajamasMedia. The full text is provided here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
It is often hard to believe the density of some New York Times writers. One can disagree with someone and still respect them, or you can find their opinions too illogical or detached from reality to take seriously.
Consider this passage from the New York Times article of Robert Worth on April 25:
"Mr. Assad could still succeed in quelling the unrest, diplomats and analysts say. But to do so he would have to realize the hopes once placed in him when he inherited power from his father 11 years ago and confront his own family, which controls Syria’s thuggish security apparatus and appears to be pushing hard for a continued crackdown."
Note the touching belief on a level with illiterate nineteenth-century Russian peasants who believed that "if only the czar knew" about the malfeasance in the kingdom all would be made right.
The truth is that anyone who placed any hope in Bashar when he took power--or at least within the first few months--was quite deluded. His father got rid of the old guard to ensure Bashar's firm rule, something Egyptian President Husni Mubarak should have learned from. There is no old guard.
Who controls the "thuggish security apparatus" but Bashar himself? And who is the big power in his family? His sister and brother-in-law with whom Bashar closely coordinates his reign.
This kind of mediocrity would look bad on a college newspaper, much less what used to be called the "newspaper of record." But then this is the same newspaper--and same establishment view--that has yet to acknowledge that a policy of trying to win Assad away from Iran through flattery and concessions was totally ridiculous and has failed totally.
By Barry Rubin
It is often hard to believe the density of some New York Times writers. One can disagree with someone and still respect them, or you can find their opinions too illogical or detached from reality to take seriously.
Consider this passage from the New York Times article of Robert Worth on April 25:
"Mr. Assad could still succeed in quelling the unrest, diplomats and analysts say. But to do so he would have to realize the hopes once placed in him when he inherited power from his father 11 years ago and confront his own family, which controls Syria’s thuggish security apparatus and appears to be pushing hard for a continued crackdown."
Note the touching belief on a level with illiterate nineteenth-century Russian peasants who believed that "if only the czar knew" about the malfeasance in the kingdom all would be made right.
The truth is that anyone who placed any hope in Bashar when he took power--or at least within the first few months--was quite deluded. His father got rid of the old guard to ensure Bashar's firm rule, something Egyptian President Husni Mubarak should have learned from. There is no old guard.
Who controls the "thuggish security apparatus" but Bashar himself? And who is the big power in his family? His sister and brother-in-law with whom Bashar closely coordinates his reign.
This kind of mediocrity would look bad on a college newspaper, much less what used to be called the "newspaper of record." But then this is the same newspaper--and same establishment view--that has yet to acknowledge that a policy of trying to win Assad away from Iran through flattery and concessions was totally ridiculous and has failed totally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
