Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
December 12, 2005
Did Syria Notch Another Murder On Its Guns?
Another anti-Syrian Lebanese politician died in a car-bomb attack this morning, a day after the UN heard the latest report on the last victim of Syrian assassination, Rafik Hariri. The circumstances provide an eerie sense of deja vu in the case of this journalist-turned-MP:
Gebran Tueni, a prominent politician and journalist, was among those killed in a car bomb attack in Lebanon, police have said.
Mr Teuni's armoured SUV car exploded as it was driving through the mainly Christian Mekalis area of east Beirut.
Three other people also died and 10 were wounded in the blast.
Mr Tueni, 48, was a well-known journalist and fierce critic of Syria. He was elected to parliament in this year's election.
Tueni had only just returned to Lebanon from Paris, where he had published his anti-Syrian newspaper in hiding from Assad's security forces. The 48-year-old journalist had been back in his native country for just hours when the bomber struck. His newspaper, An-Nahar, lost another reporter in June to a car bomb in Lebanon as well, Samir Kassir.
That sounds like a long string of coincidences -- or a pattern which points in only one direction: Damascus.
In yet another "coincidence", UN investigator Detlev Mehlis presented his latest interim report on the murder of Hariri to Kofi Annan. The BBC reports that it confirms Syrian government involvement and includes "concrete evidence" implicating high-ranking officials in the Assad regime. The UN should release that report shortly, although this time I suspect someone will take the time to convert it to a PDF rather than leave it in Word format. It will demonstrate a pattern of arrogance and oppression that Assad could not abandon when he retreated from Lebanon in the face of American and French ultimata.
The Syrians must pay for their transgressions in Lebanon. Clearly, the threat of further UN investigations has not terrified them into stopping their assassinations of hostile Lebanese politicians. The Americans and the French must demand a complete withdrawal by the Assad regime of both Lebanon and Iraq of Syrian intelligence personnel immediately. Any failure to comply should be met with a couple of shots across the bow -- perhaps a nighttime air raid that takes out the Syrian air force as a starting point, just to get Assad's attention. It's time to start looking at the next state sponsor of Islamist terrorism and clearly a direct actor in international terror themselves.
Posted by Captain Ed at December 12, 2005 05:40 AM
Kathianne said:Links at site. He said what I was thinking this morning when I heard this, but better:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005930.php
Only two months ago, Trump's aides thought they'd persuaded him that the U.S. needed to keep its presence in Syria open-ended — not only because the Islamic State group has yet to be entirely defeated, but also because the resulting power vacuum could be filled by other extremist groups or by Iran. Trump signed off on major speech in January in which Secretary of State Rex Tillerson laid out the new strategy and declared "it is vital for the United States to remain engaged in Syria." But by mid-February, Trump was telling his top aides in meetings that as soon as victory can be declared against IS, he wanted American troops out of Syria, said the officials. Alarm bells went off at the State Department and the Pentagon, where officials have been planning for a gradual, methodical shift from a military-led operation to a diplomatic mission to start rebuilding basic infrastructure like roads and sewers in the war-wracked country. The officials weren't authorized to comment publicly and demanded anonymity.
Trump's first public suggestion he was itching to pull out came in a news conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister Alastair Campbell on Feb. 23, when Trump said the U.S. was in Syria to "get rid of ISIS and go home." On Thursday, in a domestic policy speech in Ohio, Trump went further. "We'll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon — very soon, we're coming out," Trump said. The public declaration caught U.S. national security agencies off-guard and unsure whether Trump was formally announcing a new, unexpected change in policy. Inundated by inquiries from journalists and foreign officials, the Pentagon and State Department reached out to the White House's National Security Council for clarification. The White House's ambiguous response, officials said: Trump's words speak for themselves. "The mission of the Department of Defense to defeat ISIS has not changed," said Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway, a Pentagon spokesman. Still, without a clear directive from the president, planning has not started for a withdrawal from Syria, officials said, and Trump has not advocated a specific timetable.
For Trump, who campaigned on an "America First" mantra, Syria is just the latest foreign arena where his impulse has been to limit the U.S. role. Like with NATO and the United Nations, Trump has called for other governments to step up and share more of the burden so that Washington doesn't foot the bill. His administration has been crisscrossing the globe seeking financial commitments from other countries to fund reconstruction in both Syria and Iraq, but with only limited success. Yet it's unclear how Trump's impulse to pull out could be affected by recent staff shake-ups on his national security team. Tillerson and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both advocates for keeping a U.S. presence in Syria, were recently fired, creating questions about the longevity of the plan Tillerson announced in his Stanford University speech in January. But Trump also replaced McMaster with John Bolton, a vocal advocate for U.S. intervention and aggressive use of the military overseas. The abrupt change in the president's thinking has drawn concern both inside and outside the United States.
Other nations that make up the U.S.-led coalition fighting IS fear that Trump's impulse to pull out hastily would allow the notoriously resourceful IS militants to regroup, several European diplomats said. That concern has been heightened by the fact that U.S.-backed ground operations against remaining IS militants in Syria were put on hold earlier this month. The ground operations had to be paused because Kurdish fighters who had been spearheading the campaign against IS shifted to a separate fight with Turkish forces, who began combat operations in the town of Afrin against Kurds who are considered by Ankara to be terrorists that threaten Turkey's security. "This is a serious and growing concern," State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said this month. Beyond just defeating IS, there are other strategic U.S. objectives that could be jeopardized by a hasty withdrawal, officials said, chiefly those related to Russia and Iran.
Israel, America's closest Mideast ally, and other regional nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are deeply concerned about the influence of Iran and its allies, including the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, inside Syria. The U.S. military presence in Syria has been seen as a buffer against unchecked Iranian activity, and especially against Tehran's desire to establish a contiguous land route from Iran to the Mediterranean coast in Lebanon. An American withdrawal would also likely cede Syria to Russia, which along with Iran has been propping up Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces and would surely fill the void left behind by the U.S. That prospect has alarmed countries like France, which has historic ties to the Levant. In calling for a withdrawal "very soon," Trump may be overly optimistic in his assessment of how quickly the anti-IS campaign can be wrapped up, the officials said. Although the group has been driven from basically all of the territory it once controlled in Iraq and 95 percent of its former territory in Syria, the remaining five percent is becoming increasingly difficult to clear and could take many months, the officials said.
In Private, Trump Has Mused About Syria Pullout for Weeks
American forces and their local allies control a large and strategically important area in the eastern part of the country in which they have mostly, but not entirely, defeated the Islamic State (IS) group. The White House has now said the US military will complete its mission to eliminate IS remnants, but says that shouldn't take long. That's as far as it's gone to clarify matters since US President Donald Trump seemed to be rewriting Syria policy on the fly by declaring the US would exit "like, very soon". Despite the success of the anti-IS campaign, ending it won't be as rapid as Trump would like. Remaining IS fighters have proven tenacious.
US military vehicles in Syria
Crucially, America's key local partners, the Kurds, have abandoned the battle against the Islamic State terror group to help their brethren in another part of Syria under attack by another US ally, Turkey. It's complicated. Ground operations against IS were put on hold last month. But even if there comes a moment called "Victory", the Pentagon fears that a complete withdrawal of US troops would leave a dangerous void. It would in effect cede US-controlled territory to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its Russian backers, betraying America's Syrian allies and neutralising its efforts to influence a post-war order that takes into account Washington's interests and those of its regional allies.
It would disrupt the administration's strategy to help stabilise the devastated battle zones in order to prevent an IS comeback - by providing basic services so that people can return to their homes. The Pentagon and the Department of State are in lock-step on this approach. And it would allow Iran to expand its already considerable influence in Syria and the region, facilitating Tehran's efforts to establish an overland supply route through Iraq and Syria to its allies in Beirut, the powerful Hezbollah movement. This is of great concern to Israel, which fears an Iranian military presence on its borders, and to Saudi Arabia, Iran's biggest regional rival.
A US outpost in northern Syria
The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has called the American troop presence in Syria the last bulwark against Iran's regional expansion. Israel has publicly held its council, but can't be expected to for long. Foreign policy hawks in Washington who've applauded Trump's assault on the Iran nuclear deal haven't minced words: "Trump cannot have a serious Iran strategy if he allows Tehran to win in Syria," Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of Foundation for Defence of Democracies, told the Wall Street Journal. Trump may have good reasons for wanting to pull out of a messy Mideast war, aside from the fact that he promised to.
MORE
Advisers reportedly convinced him that it could risk a resurgence by the Islamic State (IS) group. The White House said on Wednesday the US military mission in Syria was coming to a "rapid end". But it has not announced a timetable for a full troop withdrawal. A statement said IS was almost completely destroyed, and that the US would consult its allies regarding future plans. A senior administration official told NBC News that the president had agreed at a meeting on Tuesday to keep troops in Syria for an undetermined period, but "wasn't thrilled about it, to say the least".
US-led coalition forces are deployed in the Kurdish-controlled Syrian town of Manbij
The US has about 2,000 personnel on the ground in eastern Syria supporting an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias called the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). With the help of US-led coalition air strikes, SDF fighters have captured tens of thousands of square kilometres of territory from IS over the past three years. Separately on Wednesday, Turkey, Iran and Russia pledged to speed up efforts to bring stability to Syria after a meeting between leaders in the Turkish capital Ankara. All three countries are significant players in the conflict, albeit on different sides: Iran and Russia support Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, while Turkey has backed rebels opposing the regime.
In October, US-backed SDF fighters took full control of the IS stronghold of Raqqa
But the three countries' leaders are united in their contempt for Washington and their belief that they now hold the cards in Syria, says BBC Turkey correspondent Mark Lowen. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told BBC Arabic that the US made the "wrong decision" to get involved in Syria in the first place and had created divisions and "worked on fault lines between various ethnicities".
Why does Mr Trump want to withdraw?
President Donald Trump's strong condemnation Sunday of an alleged Syrian chemical attack on a Damascus suburb raised the possibility that he would again call on the Navy for a response. On Sunday night, Defense Department officials published a statement countering false reports of airstrikes in Syria, saying that no such strikes had been conducted. "However, we continue to closely watch the situation and support the ongoing diplomatic efforts to hold those who use chemical weapons, in Syria and otherwise, accountable," they said. Following a chemical attack in northwestern Syria last April, the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers Ross and Porter launched a total of 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) against a Syrian airfield believed to have been the point of origin for the aircraft that carried out the attack.
The Tomahawk strikes were focused on the al-Shayrat Airfield, from which the U.S. charged that aircraft took off to hit the town of Khan Sheikhoun, killing dozens with the suspected nerve agent sarin. "A total of 59 TLAMs targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars," Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement at the time. "Every precaution was taken to execute this strike with minimal risk to personnel at the airfield," Davis said. To that end, Davis said that U.S. military warned Russia of the attacks before the cruise missiles were launched to have Russian military personnel at the airfield clear the area. "Shayrat Airfield was used to store chemical weapons and Syrian air forces," Davis said. "The U.S. intelligence community assesses that aircraft from Shayrat conducted the chemical weapons attack on April 4. The strike was intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again."
The U.S. Navy launched a total of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles against a Syrian airfield around 4:40 a.m. April 7
In a White House statement at the time, Trump said that he "ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield where the chemical attack was launched." "It is vital to the national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons," Trump said. "There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligation under the chemical weapons convention and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council." In a series of Tweets Sunday, Trump called Russian-backed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad an "animal" and said Russian President Vladimir Putin shared the blame for a suspected chemical attack in a Damascus suburb on Saturday that reportedly killed at least 40. Trump said Syria would have "a big price to pay."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was among several Republican senators who used Sunday talk show appearances to call for a U.S. military response. Graham said on ABC-TV's "This Week" program that it was "no accident" that the Syrian regime carried out another chemical attack despite U.S. warnings. "They see us and our resolve breaking, they see our determination to stay in Syria waning," Graham said in a reference to Trump's call for a U.S. withdrawal from Syria "very soon." "But President Trump can reset the table here," Graham said. "If he doesn't follow through and live up to that Tweet, he's going to look weak in the eyes of Russia and Iran. So this is the defining moment, Mr. President."
Could US Deploy Tomahawks in Response to New Chemical Attack?
