Why spoil a war plan with facts?

March 9, 2005 9:52 AM

Who really killed Rafik Hariri? Does it really matter? Is the current finger-waving at Syria really about an assassination, or the culmination of long-held US plans?
posted by clevershark (22 comments total)

From the article:

The "Syria did it" school of thought has suffered a huge blow from which it will never recover.

But this isn't really ever proven in the article. The fact remains that the Syrians or some other party could have been behind the car bombing if that is infact how the bomb was exploded.

Since there doesn't appear to be any evidence as to who was backing this new terrorists group (and I can only assume that they would need some sort of backer as its not easy to find 600 - 700 pounds of explosives even in Lebannon) it could just as easily be extremeists groups in the Syrian Baath party or even elements of the Syrian intelligence agency.

No-one knows at the moment and the "evidence" in teh article is weak to say the least.
posted by pixelgeek at 10:10 AM on March 9, 2005

Actually I felt that this was one of the points of the article -- that the currently-fashionable ganging-up on Syria has lead the actual facts of the assassination to become completely irrelevant. Thus a crime was co-opted by powers with strong political agendas to disseminate their own message, while the facts of the crime itself -- now that said crime has served its purpose -- becomes irrelevant at best, and at worst inconvenient.
posted by clevershark at 10:18 AM on March 9, 2005

Actually I felt that this was one of the points of the article -- that the currently-fashionable ganging-up on Syria has lead the actual facts of the assassination to become completely irrelevant.

Certainly a relevant point but until you know who actually financed the attack you can't make statements like 'The "Syria did it" school of thought has suffered a huge blow from which it will never recover.' as it is just as groundless as the entire "Syria did it" camp that he is deriding.
posted by pixelgeek at 10:49 AM on March 9, 2005

The author makes a boatload of claims without credible citation. Interesting, but so were Ruddy's insinuations about Vince Foster's "murder" which were no more Objective, but I guess that's beside the point. Neither theory convinces me personally because they sound like juicy innuendos triumphing over Occam's Razor. Healthy skepticism is a wonderful thing. Fashionable doomsaying which blinds one to every positive change in the MidEast is a position which will not age well, and we're seeing it in more and more 'progressive' articles.

And what pixelgeek said.
posted by dhoyt at 10:53 AM on March 9, 2005

Well, it might have been Mossad. Or it might have been rogue Syrians. It really might have been Hezbollah. Almost nobody else stands to gain. It doesn't seem to matter -- getting Syria out of Lebanon is a net good, and this isn't likely to lead to a US invasion despite the testosterone talk Raimondo cites. It's just a blunt instrument to put the screws on a nasty, weak regime whose fitful cooperation with our intelligence services has not been able to disguise the fact that its very existence is counter to US regional interests. We didn't orchestrate this, at least I doubt we did, but we're certainly playing it for all it's worth.

The real problem is that deoccupation is likely to put Hezbollah in the driver's seat in Lebanon; after several days of "Cedar Revolution" protests, they lifted a finger and got over 20x the demonstrators. Whether Hezbollah is better under Syria's thumb or not is a matter of some dispute. They might be weaker without their patron, or they might be more dangerous; it's unclear. But the Syrian occupation has gone on too long by any measure, and the government in Damascus deserves whatever's coming to it. I just hope that Lebanon finds a way to stability without going through another bloody civil war.
posted by dhartung at 11:49 AM on March 9, 2005

But now it appears that the pushback from the Shia has led to the likely reinstatement of the pro-Syrian PM:
here
posted by etaoin at 11:53 AM on March 9, 2005

Healthy skepticism is a wonderful thing.

That is true. But that's applicable to any view for which all the facts aren't in, including the ones backed by the White House -- heck, especially the ones backed by the White House.
posted by clevershark at 12:19 PM on March 9, 2005

No no no. The script goes like this:

1) Assasination of former PM (orchestrated by the Mossad)
2) Protests against Syria and the current govement (orchestrated by Mossad and CIA). Lebanese goverment falls, Syria announces partial pullback.
3) Tensions between anti-Syria protestors and Hezbollah rise and factions start fighting in the street
4) Syria reasserts it's position in Lebanon. Anti-Syria protestors killed in the process.
5) Washington announces surprise invasion of Syria along Iraqi border, purpose of which is to stop Syria's aggresive policies towards it's neighbours. Promises to defeat the Baathists and bring freedom and democracy to the long-suffering Syrian populace.
posted by smcniven at 12:52 PM on March 9, 2005

This issue has been pushed forward with such haste that the currently-fashionable ganging-up on Syria has lead the actual facts of the assassination to become completely irrelevant. Thus making it out to be another victim of the "Blink Presidency" that has with in days finalized decisions that will take years to undo or resolve.
posted by ReggieNoble2 at 12:56 PM on March 9, 2005

Speaking of conspiracies, why, oh why is Air America Radio acting like Clear Channel and refusing to answer questions about the disappearance from the air of Lizz Winstead?
posted by etaoin at 1:06 PM on March 9, 2005

smcniven - If only the Bush administration was that smart. That should have been how they handled Iraq.
posted by tkchrist at 1:23 PM on March 9, 2005

Fashionable doomsaying which blinds one to every positive change in the MidEast is a position which will not age well, and we're seeing it in more and more 'progressive' articles.

Sunni Islam’s most active reformers over the past century have been its outsiders, the Salafists. It is the insiders of Sunni Islam who are America’s natural allies. Western advocates of “reformation” understandably want to see the existing secular, Westernized classes in Muslim countries gain the upper hand. But these politically weak classes are small elites viewed with suspicion by both the masses and the regimes. Any American effort to strengthen these elites must be a project for several decades, to be carried out quietly and with the greatest caution. The United States would gain little if more among the Muslim masses came to regard Muslim liberals as agents of the global hegemon, bent on depriving Islam of its capacity to resist a Western culture that most view as morally depraved.

The United States should instead exploit its ties to the existing regimes of the Sunni world in order to combat jointly the revolutionary Salafists. The US struggle against al Qaeda and similar groups will be chiefly a matter of intelligence and police work, with perhaps a role for special forces working with local partners in ungoverned areas. Only the existing Muslim regimes, in coordination with American investigators and spies, can defeat the cells of al Qaeda and similar groups moving among the Sunni world’s masses. The United States needs to support and to engage with these undemocratic regimes even more closely if US security services are to be granted the liaison relationships with local authorities that are essential to the real war against terrorism. Washington should set aside, for now, its ambitions for democratic revolution in the region, at least until the Salafist revolution is contained.

The Origins of al Qaeda’s Ideology: Implications for US Strategy
Parameters - US Army War College Quarterly Spring 2005

You do remember al Qaeda, don't you ? I believe they, and no state, attacked the US in 2001. Of course, Administration policy is not the same as Administration rhetoric, which is why Bush has never spoken and never will speak any time soon about elections in Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco or Pakistan....

Salafists vs. Liberals: The Struggle for Islam
posted by y2karl at 1:40 PM on March 9, 2005

It doesn't seem to matter -- getting Syria out of Lebanon is a net good

Haven't we yet learned not to shoot off assumptions like this? I'm all for a net good accruing to Lebanon, all its neighbors, and puppy dogs everywhere, but I'll believe any of it when I see it. The ramifications are complicated, and the best way to see civil society thrive usually isn't to throw it in the deep end and see if it can swim.
posted by Zurishaddai at 3:12 PM on March 9, 2005

Just to save someone else the trouble. Yes, you could say I'm giving cover to jackbooted thugs everywhere who claim that the people need to be held under a firm grip, etc. But my cynicism in this case doesn't come from nowhere. Certainly the Bush Admin is speaking in bad faith when they say that an immediate withdrawal from all of Lebanon is the only thing that should be discussed. All I want to do here is to speak in favor of caution, because right now some of the loudest voices are coming from parties who don't give a rat's ass about the welfare of the Lebanese. (Hezbollah has not been rendered irrelevant overnight.)
posted by Zurishaddai at 3:17 PM on March 9, 2005

An alternate view.

U.S. intelligence officials agreed it was too soon to start releasing manufactured evidence that attempted to implicate the Syrians. "You don't want to throw your pre-fab shit out there too soon. Its a world in flux. Who knows tomorrow it might be more beneficial to lie and say we have evidence the Libyans or the Iranians did it," offered CIA operative and long time pastry chef at the Chez C-4, Max Purgy.

posted by euphorb at 3:36 PM on March 9, 2005

getting Syria out of Lebanon is a net good...

Maybe. But for whom? The people who actually should have a say in this aren't of one mind: A Zogby poll shows a very mixed (and sectarian) picture. (Estimate of the population: Shiias ~40% Sunni ~ 30% Maronite ~ 15-20%, these are rough estimates. The numbers themselves are a political flash point in Lebanon).
One could safely argue that a majority of the population does not see Syria's withdrawal as the Lebanon's major problem.

Do take seriously James Zogby's (of Lebanese Christian Maronite descent) concluding remarks:

The lesson in all of this is that as important as the demonstrations may be, those not demonstrating and their views must be factored by policy makers into the complex equation of how to move Lebanon forward. While it has become clear that the Syrian military presence in Lebanon has run its course, a Syrian withdrawal by itself doesn’t solve the Lebanon puzzle. Intense U.S. pressure to implement the other half of 1559 may provoke counter-demonstrations that fragile Lebanon may not be able to easily digest.

A cautionary note: before we begin celebrating falling dominos and claiming credit for them, it is important to know where they might fall and what might come after they land.

posted by talos at 3:59 PM on March 9, 2005

How many native Syrians have moved into Lebanon over the past 15 or so years? I've heard estimates of about 250 000?
posted by PenDevil at 11:27 PM on March 9, 2005

How many Israelis have emigrated to the US over the past 15 years?
I've heard estimates of way over 250,000. Not that there's a point there or anything.
posted by y2karl at 8:55 AM on March 10, 2005

Some say as many as 300,000 native Syrians live in Lebanon, but that includes a generation that was born there.

Unlike the 'settlers' to the South, the Syrians who emigrated actually bought the land they live on (or rent apartments), and aren't there as a campaign for 'greater Syria'. For the most part.

Still, it's a very sticky situation for them because they're caught inbetween a terrible government back 'home' and an angry public in Lebanon.
posted by chaz at 9:24 AM on March 10, 2005

Y2karl: So if the Israeli settlers on the West Bank (to use an example in the area) had a pro-Israel march claiming that "West Bank Palestinians residents want Israel to stay" you would take that at face value?
posted by PenDevil at 12:33 AM on March 11, 2005

PenDevil: The analogy is flawed becuase the Syrians aren't *settlers* and because nobody seriously doubts that the Shiites who are a relative majority in Lebanon (and not only them), and who currently feel safer with Syrian troops in the country, could have pulled a demonstration as large as the one we saw. Check out the latest election results and the Zogby poll (and message) above.
posted by talos at 4:50 AM on March 11, 2005

Yeah I know they're not settlers but they sure as hell aren't Lebanese either. And the pro-Syria rally was for all intents and puproses a Hezbollah rally.
posted by PenDevil at 7:56 AM on March 11, 2005