Saturday, March 18, 2006

Abizaid: "Syrians have moved against the foreign fighters"

General John Abizaid, chief of US Control Command in the Middle East, has said: "We know that the Syrians have moved against the foreign fighters. " Why? Because of Syrian self interest: "because the foreign fighters represent a threat to Syria." Syria does not want continued instability in Iraq. Fighting there has already led to the formation of Jihadist cells in Syria and the training of a new generation of Syrians in military tactics and command. Of course, Syria has been eager to have the Americans withdraw from Iraq and dragged its feet on the border issue. But for the last year, Washington has been talking about an exit strategy, forcing Syria to plan for the day after. Syria has begun thinking about a post-American Iraq and restoring stability to the neighborhood.

Abizaid's pro-Syrian statement is recognition of this fact. Now that Khalilzade is about to open negotiations with Iran, there seems to be a large-scale reassessment of strategy going on in the military. This military reassessment to draw in Iraq's neighbors, it would appear, is in conflict with thinking in the White House. Rumsfeld recently slammed both Iran and Syria for aiding the insurgency. Abizaid has contradicted him. The new campaign to raise pressure on Iran, isolate it internationally, and hurt it economically by the White House will undermine Abizaid's and Khalilzade's efforts to work with it to calm factionalism in Iraq and restrain the insipient civil war.

Syria does not have the influence Iran does in Iraq, all the same Syria and the US share many objectives. Syria, like the US, was a big supporter of Iyad Allawi in the last elections because he is secular, an ex-Baathist, and had good relations with the Sunni tribes, which spill over into Syria. Damascus, like the US was pushing for a secular arrangement in Iraq. Syria has cultivated good relations with all factions in Iraq. Barzani has traveled to Damascus many times; he has said that he will always be grateful for the help and refuge Syria gave him and his people during his long battle with Saddam. He has tried to mediate between Asad and Washington.

Shiite leaders have also been to Syria. Muqtada Sadr most recently. He promised he would defend Syria against America. I don't believe Hakim has traveled to Damascus, but I am not sure of this. He will be the most difficult nut for Damascus to crack, because he is so pro-Iran and favors an autonomous Shiite state in the south of Iraq, something Damascus opposes. When Khaddam was in charge of the Iraq file during the second half of 2003 and first part of 2004, he brought most of the Sunni tribal leaders to Damascus for meetings in an effort to organize them and "deliver" them to America. By this I mean, he wanted to use them to get Syria back into the Iraq game and open channels to the US. There were rumors in Damascus that Syria was offering to "stop" the resistance, etc. This was clearly an exaggeration, because Syria had little power to do such a think. All the same, had the US played a more aggressive role in trying to accommodate the Sunnis rather than alienate them at every turn during the first years of occupation, the resistance might not have grown so furiously.

Some refused to allow Syria a role in Iraq calling it "blackmail" or "asking the arson to help put out the fire." There is no doubt some truth in this claim. But this charge denies the central role that America played in igniting the resistance. The resistance grew up in opposition to the American occupation, not because Syria commanded it. Moreover, every militia in Iraq is a blackmailer by definition. Neither is the US army immune to this charge. Using force is blackmail, and Baghdad has become blackmail central. The US has arrived at a situation in which it must choose by whom it is willing to be blackmailed and by how much; there is little whitemail being sent in Baghdad today. In fact, the postal service, last I heard, was not operating at %100.

Syria and Iran have discussed plans for building a pipeline from Iran through Iraq to Syria. They have also discussed other ideas for incorporating Iraq into regional economic plans. Turkey will be eager to participate and so will many Iraqis. For any of these plans to move forward, Iraq will have to realize a modicum of stability. The received wisdom about an America withdrawal from Iraq is that the region would be sucked into chaos and civil war should America quit Iraq, each neighbor funding its own proxy militia, as happened in Lebanon. There is much to suggest that Iraq will not be a carbon copy of Lebanon. Turkey, Iran, and Syria have coordinated their policies. Saudi Arabia and the gulf countries are also eager to restore stability to Iraq and play the kind of possitive role there that they played in Lebanon. It is quite likely that as America withdraws and the role of neighboring states grows larger in Iraq to fill the vacuum, this will help stabilize the country rather than rip it apart. The neighbors are eager to stop civil war, put the Jihadists out of business, and invest in Iraq. The US has few options other than to go along with this possibility.

U.S. General Praises Syria for Border Tightening
From a LA Times Staff Writer
March, 17 2006

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East offered rare words of praise Thursday for Syria, saying Damascus has taken steps to stop the movement of foreign fighters over its border into Iraq.

Army Gen. John P. Abizaid said Syria had begun taking action on long-standing complaints by the United States about foreign fighters, one of several issues dividing the two countries.

Abizaid, the chief of U.S. Central Command, was asked by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) at a Senate hearing whether Syria raised the same level of concern as Iran in relation to U.S. efforts in Iraq.

"No, I'd say that the flow of foreign fighters across the Syrian border has decreased, and that's clear from our intelligence," Abizaid responded. "We know that. We know that the Syrians have moved against the foreign fighters.

"Why have they? Because the foreign fighters represent a threat to Syria, and they certainly don't want to have these organizations and groups operating within their own country that are ultimately going to be a threat to their own government," Abizaid continued. "So, out of self-interest, the Syrians have reacted in a way that has slowed the flow of foreign fighters."

Earlier Thursday, Syrian President Bashar Assad said his nation was central to stability in the region and the West's goals there.

"If they want to talk about peace, then Syria is essential," Assad said in an interview with Britain's Sky News. "If they want a stable Iraq, then Syria is essential."

Besides accusing Syria of inadequate border control, U.S. officials have accused Damascus of interfering in Lebanon, even though Syria removed its troops from there under international pressure after the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

This week, Assad relaxed his government's stance toward a United Nations probe of the killing and agreed to meet with the commission conducting the investigation.

The Washignton Post published this article about the border situation some weeks ago.
Tighter Borders Take a Toll In Iraq

Success of Effort Against Smuggling Hits Villagers Hard

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 11, 2006; A12

OM AL-KABARI, Iraq -- In this once-thriving smuggling village on Iraq's border with Syria, the last donkeys are dying.

Mothers complain they have no shoes for their children and only soup to feed them. Men sit idly playing checkers and bemoaning the night when American scout helicopters swooped overhead, spelling the end of their livelihoods.

"We could get around everything, but not the helicopters," sighed Mahmood Ahmed, 29, who, along with most of the men in this village of 400 people, admitted he was a smuggler. "We're having nightmares about them."

With their income shriveling, the smugglers could no longer afford food for the hundreds of donkeys they used to haul 30-gallon drums of benzene, cartons of cigarettes and other goods into Syria.

"There is no grass, no money to feed them. So they all died," said Yassin Ali, 39, pointing to a mangy, skeletal white donkey lying listless nearby.

The dramatic downturn in the fortunes of villages along the border is one sign that a surge of American and Iraqi troops into the region in recent months has sharply curtailed illegal traffic over the frontier, U.S. and Iraqi officials and local residents say.

U.S. commanders last year launched a plan to gain better control of Iraq's borders to try to stop the flow of outside fighters, weapons and cash to the Iraqi insurgency. Several thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi troops have been sent into regions near Syria since last summer to bolster a growing contingent of Iraqi border guards. Scores of border forts have been built or refurbished and manned, and there are plans to erect a double chain-link fence along the border during the coming year, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

"It's much more than just a line in the sand right now," said Lt. Col. Gregory Reilly of Sacramento, Calif., commander of a U.S. cavalry squadron that oversees about 115 miles of Iraq's northwestern border with Syria, from the Tigris River to the Euphrates. "It's not like a vast open border, not at all. It's a very difficult border to cross."

Syrian border police are also aggressively patrolling their side, Reilly said, in contrast with official statements in Washington accusing Damascus of lax control. "The Syrians are actually doing their job. They are more violent than we are. If they see someone, they will open up shooting," Reilly said as he walked along a dirt berm in view of Syrian guards several weeks ago. Iraqi officers said Syrian guards had recently shot at Iraqi border police, leading to skirmishes.

Controls have been tightened at official border-crossing points. At the town of Rabiyah, a 10-wheel cargo truck rumbled past a newly constructed Iraqi customs station toward a Syrian checkpoint marked by a huge portrait of Syria's late president Hafez Assad. A few months ago, the Iraqi entry point here was in disarray, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. Inbound and outbound traffic were mixed together. Iraqi guards had only five rifles, lacked ammunition and "had no idea what passport was fake and what was real," said Col. Fadel Shaaban Abas, commander of Iraqi customs police at Rabiyah...

"The myth is that foreign fighters are crossing a porous border," said Maj. Chris Kennedy, executive officer with the 3rd Armored Cavalry. Instead, many of the incoming fighters can simply fly into Baghdad, using valid Iraqi passports made from "boxes and boxes" of blank passports shipped out of Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule, Kennedy and other U.S. officers said. Iraqis are now posted at the border to listen for foreign accents, although many insurgents entering are Iraqis themselves, he said.

But while U.S. officers are less worried about foreign fighters trying to sift through border villages, they express concern that the severe economic impact of shutting down smuggling routes could create a new breeding ground for insurgents in Iraq.
It is also worth reading Imad Mustafa's recent interview on the border situation, terrorism, Lebanon, Peace with Israel, Hammas and more. He is spinning a bit, but what he says is not impossible under the right conditions.

Syrian diplomat: Syria doesn't aid terrorists
March 17, 2006]
(Copley News Service Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)Copley News Service

Syria's ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, holds a doctorate in computer science from Britain's University of Surrey and was formerly dean of the faculty of information at the University of Damascus and secretary-general of the Arab School on Science and Technology. He speaks four languages and was a co-author of the United Nations-sponsored Human Development Report in the Arab World.

Moustapha visited San Diego recently as a guest of the San Diego World Affairs Council and was interviewed by the San Diego Union-Tribune's editorial board.

Q: The U.S. government has complained repeatedly that Syria was aiding and abetting the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. What is your government's response?

A: This is an extraordinary story which is not well-known in the United States. In a nutshell, I would say that this story is equivalent to the story of Iraq's WMDs prior to the war. Two or three months after the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, suddenly we in Syria started worrying a lot because suddenly, day in, day out, top U.S. officers would appear on the media channels and say, you know, all these insurgents are infiltrating; they are not Iraqis, they are jihadists coming through Syria into Iraq. We looked at what was happening in Iraq. Syria is a very small country. You are the world superpower. And we know how easily it would be for you just to move your troops from one country to another. Of course, this does not mean that it would be easy for you to win the war. I immediately received instructions from my government to contact top U.S. officials. I had a series of meetings with top officials at the Pentagon and the State Department telling them these accusations were untrue. But we don't want to go into a game of allegations and counterallegations. We are willing to do whatever it takes to secure these borders. We are willing to work with you. We initially proposed three things.

Q: We're talking 2003 now?

A: I would say April, May 2003. We said Syria is willing to immediately engage with you on whatever it takes to secure these borders; we offer you trilateral patrols, patrolling these borders; we offer you intelligence exchange, information sharing; the field officers from our side of the border meeting with field officers on your side of the border. These are just initial suggestions. But whatever you think is fruitful to secure these borders, we are willing to do for practical reasons. And then the level of the accusations continued to build. And when we felt that there was no way whatsoever we could engage the U.S. administration, we started taking unilateral actions on this.

Q: Such as?

A: You need to understand that these are deserts with porous borders. We never had checkpoints or marked borders. So we started by building more and more sentries on these borders, multiplying the number of border guards there. A year before the war, we only had 700 Syrian border guards. Today we have something like 10,000. This is a huge burden on Syria. And then we started building sand barriers. We installed barbed wire. And we increased the number of our patrols. And yes, we managed to capture people who were trying to infiltrate these borders. And then we started inviting the world media, the diplomatic corps based in Damascus, to see our side of the border, see what we were doing, and most importantly look at the other side of the border, the Iraqi side. Not a single human being (standing guard)! All the burden fell on Syria for something that we have always felt would not bring any good to our region. I mean, with due respect, we do not support your war in Iraq. We think that this war created more problems than it has resolved. But just to focus on this, in the past two or three months, if you have noticed, the U.S. administration has stopped mentioning the border issue at all. For a very clear reason: because we have proved to all of the world, not only to the United States, that Syria was not causing the infiltration. In the past two years, we have managed to capture 1,300 individuals trying to infiltrate these borders. Each individual was incarcerated. If he was Syrian, he was imprisoned in Syria, and if he was Moroccan, Egyptian, Pakistani, he was handed back to the authorities of his country. Our message was a simple message: we are doing whatever we can do to control this situation.

Q: So you deny absolutely that the Syrian government was providing sanctuary in any way for insurgents or terrorists from Iraq?

A: These folks who try to infiltrate these borders usually are fundamentalist extremists. They are our enemies as well. And we don't play games with these guys. We know how dangerous they are. Your government used to train them, finance them and send them to Afghanistan to conduct holy war against the Soviets. We in Syria used to tell the Americans you are playing a very dangerous game. These are extremists who will turn against you after the Soviets leave Afghanistan. And they did. And we understand the nature of these people in Syria. We have a secular regime in Syria. They consider us infidels.

Q: There is a perception in the West that many people have that in the Arab world in particular there is a kind of resentment for the West, that Muslims are viewed by the West as second class.

A: In the Islamic world and in the Arabic world, they believe that the West is targeting the Arab and Islamic worlds. They look at what's happening in Palestine and in Iraq and they don't feel happy about it. The United States is so worried, so concerned, about Iran's potential nuclear capabilities, yet it ignores the fact that Israel has the world's largest per capita nuclear arsenal in the world.

Q: A United Nations investigative panel has concluded that Syria's intelligence service was responsible for the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. There is a further extension of this investigation going on. What is the status of Syria's cooperation with that investigation?

A: Probably this is the most serious issue that is facing Syria today. Yes, assassination of Hariri has caused Syria great damage. Great damage. The day he was assassinated, before even the commission did anything, everybody, especially in Washington, was pointing fingers at Syria, saying Syria assassinated Hariri. The important thing is that the United Nations formed a commission and sent it to Lebanon. And the commission was headed by Detlev Mehlis, a German prosecutor. After a year, Mehlis published a report in which he says we have no evidence whatsoever against Syria, incriminating in Syria in this assassination. However, he said he believes Syria was involved. Within one week, a resolution was passed in the United Nations that was very critical of Syria. Of course, Syria was outraged. We tried to say that this report is unfair. Mehlis in his second report did accept the fact that one witness had committed perjury and had misled the investigation. Days later, the other witness recounted his testimony. Mehlis was replaced. Today we have another commissioner, Serge Brammertz. He has actually visited Damascus. We are very happy with the way he is dealing with this investigation. They have 400 investigators. This is considered the largest criminal investigation in the history of mankind. Forensic scientists, criminal investigators, judges. Our concern is that there may an inconclusive result that nobody knows who killed Hariri. Then, the blame will always be held against us.

Q: Now that Hamas has been elected to run the Palestinian Authority, and given Hamas' background and its declared aims, what hope is there for a revival of a genuine peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

A: When Yitzhak Rabin, the late prime minister of Israel, signed the peace accord with Yasser Arafat, and engaged Syria in peace negotiations, we were on the verge of signing a historic peace treaty between Syria and Israel. Hope was prevalent throughout the Middle East. Today, I hear this in the United States: what are the prospects for peace after the victory of Hamas? And we are bemused and flabbergasted. What prospects of peace were there in the past two, three, four, five years, when the Palestinians were suffering in terrible conditions? Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate, peace loving and was unable to do anything. Israel kept on building new outposts and settlements in the West Bank, grabbing more and more of the Palestinian territories. Building a wall deep into their land. The Palestinians were in a very desperate state. And suddenly, suddenly here everybody is saying so what are the prospects of peace now? I think the Palestinians opted for Hamas because they gave up any hope with the so-called moderate Palestinians. But we believe that it's not Hamas who can deliver or prevent this from happening. It's Israel. Does Israel want peace with its neighbors or not? If Israel wants peace with its neighbors, it must allow the Palestinians to have a sovereign, viable, free state. Otherwise these conditions will continue to prevail for yet another decade. With more violence, with more bloodshed, with more lives lost. And this is insane. And the same applies to Syria. Twice in the past 15 years - twice - we were on the verge of signing a peace treaty with Israel. And twice, this failed. Not because of us. Twice Israel backed out at the very last moment.

Q: Is there any chance of reviving a deal between Israel and Syria in which Israel relinquishes the Golan Heights in exchange for a peace treaty signed by the Syrian government?

A: We cannot convince Israel today to engage in peace talks with Syria. If the Israelis really want their grandchildren to live in peace with our grandchildren, they have to allow us to have back our Golan and allow the Palestinians to have their independent sovereign state.

Q: It looks like the ties between the Syrian government and Hezbollah have become much stronger over the last few years.

A: Hezbollah is part and parcel of the Lebanese social and political fabric. They have representatives in the Lebanese parliament. And most surprisingly, and this always astonishes us, they have cabinet ministers in the Lebanese government headed by Fouad Siniora, who had a red carpet reception in Washington. This is amazing. So the United States administration is upset because of the relations between Syria and Hezbollah, but they think it's all right and good for Hezbollah to be represented in cabinet ministerial positions in the Lebanese government and the United States is happy to deal with this government. I think there is no correlation whatsoever between the Syria/Hezbollah relation and the peace process.

Q: The U.S. State Department says Syria's government facilitates the subsidies and supplies that Iran provides to Hezbollah. True?

A: Of course this is untrue. What I'm trying to say is that Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese entity. If the United States has troubles with Hezbollah, it should discuss this with the Lebanese government, not blame Syria for it. Just like you blame Syria for what's happening in Iraq. The extraordinary thing is we have the best possible relations with all leaders of all the Iraqi factions - Sunni, Shiites and Kurds. And they all come to Damascus, and they all ask for help and for mediation between the Iraqi factions. And yet here in the United States we are considered the party that is causing all the troubles in Iraq.

Q: If you were the U.S. national security adviser looking at Iraq now, what would you be telling President Bush?

A: I can tell you what Syria thinks should be the best exit strategy for the United States from Iraq. We do not ask the United States to immediately withdraw from Iraq. We advise the United States that they should come out with a very clear plan, a road map, for the withdrawal of your troops from Iraq. With milestones and benchmarks developed by you in cooperation with the Iraqis. In which you say publicly and as explicitly as possible, by this date we will redeploy our troops and withdraw them from the major cities. By this date, we will start reducing the number of troops. We expect that by this date, I'm not talking two or three months, we will withdraw our troops from Iraq. Today in Iraq, people that are not convinced that you will ever withdraw. They think that you are occupiers.

Q: What would happen in Iraq after the troops withdraw?

A: The presence of foreign elements in Iraq will never help stabilize the situation in Iraq. Forget about the mess that circulates here in the United States about the Iraqis unable to live with each other forever. They have lived with each other for thousands of years. We are not asking you to leave immediately. Today the United States is engaged in building four military bases in Iraq. Two of them are ordinary military bases. Two of them are the world's largest military bases ever. The Iraqi people, the Arab people wonder why the Americans are building those huge, enormous military bases. You've done a good job. Declare victory and leave.

Q: Can we expect a democratic opening in the Syrian political system?

A: I personally believe that democracy is a process no one can stop. But it's a process that should evolve from within, not from without. If you look at the democracy you have enforced on Iraq, if you look at the appearance of it, well, that's very good. But we in Syria look at this democracy and we fear some of the aspects. As an example, we in Syria, we are planning to introduce very soon a multiparty law. That will allow different parties to compete freely in the parliamentarian elections in 2007 in Syria. Because of what we have seen in Iraq, we are terrified. We don't want Syria to end up exactly like what's happening in Iraq, where the Sunnis only vote for Sunni leaders, Shiites follow the directives of their clergymen and vote for religious leaders, Kurds for Kurds, Turkoman for Turkoman. No parties would be allowed in Syria based on ethnic or religious platforms. Today Syria is opening up in a controlled way that's not well understood here in the United States. Under the Syrian constitution of the past 50 years, women have had absolutely equal rights to men.

Q: As a Syrian, do you have fears about a nuclear-armed Iran?

A: We do not have even joint borders with Iran. Iran is thousands of kilometers away from Syria. Why are we are supposed to worry about a potential Iranian capability to develop nuclear weapons while a part of Syria today is occupied by Israel? And Israel has a huge nuclear arsenal. When we go to the United Nations Security Council and request that our Middle East becomes free of all those weapons, it is the United States who immediately opposes and rejects our proposal.

Q: Maybe one difference is that Israel has never said that Iran ought to be wiped off the map, and the president of Iran has said that Israel should be.

A: Living comfortably in this beautiful San Diego environment, you can worry about a rhetorical debate. The reality on the ground is today in Syria we have 250,000 Syrians, refugees in Syria, dreaming of the day they can go back to their villages and homes and houses in the Golan, and we have 128,000 Syrians living under the Israeli occupation in their own Golan. Without any rights whatsoever, political or civil.


At 3/18/2006 01:29:00 PM, Blogger zobahhan said...

Does this conincide with the new report claiming that syria is co-operating? Funny how these things always line up.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home