Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Holding Lebanon together by a thread/By Joseph Kechician/GulfNews/March 17/13
Explaining the Denial, Denying Islam's Role in Terror/By: Daniel Pipes/Middle East Quarterly/March 17/13
Facing Division/By: Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq Alawsat/March 17/13

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 17/13

Pope Francis wants 'poor Church for the poor'

Bulgaria will not take lead in blacklisting Hezbollah - PM

Iran and Hezbollah 'have built 50,000-strong force to help Syrian regime' .
Hezbollah Spreads

One Killed, Five Wounded in Family Feud at Tyre Camp

Suleiman Said he Tasked Armed Forces with Arresting Fighters Crossing Border

Syrian envoy: We will no longer accept attacks from Lebanon
Lebanon farmers alarmed by swarms of locusts

SCC Holds Another Protest, Doubts Miqati's Intentions on Wage Scale

Geagea Denounces Cabinet Tardiness in Tackling Security Threats

Report: Shaaban Detained Shortly at Beirut Airport over Samaha-Mamlouk Case
March 14 call for troops on border after Syria threat

 Sleiman urges expats to refrain from voting if 'sectarian law' passed
Syria troop build up on Lebanon border

Syria Brings Military Reinforcements on Border with Lebanon as Army Says Has Backed Its Units

Mansour Plays Syrian Threats, Says Damascus has no Interest in Creating Tension
Lebanon must stem flow of fighters to Syria: president

Security situation tops Mikati's agenda

Lebanon: Group gathers outside Dar al-Fatwa in support of mufti
Jumblatt calls for unity, says difficult days ahead

Canada Pledges Continued Support for Syrian People

France, Britain flout US objections on arms to Syrian rebels
US. hesitation on arms shipments to rebels in Syria frustrates some close allies in Europe and the Middle East
Syria Expands Use of Cluster Bombs says HRW

EU's Ashton urges caution on lifting arms ban for Syria rebels

Assad urges BRICS intervention to end Syria war: aide

10 years on, Iraq still grapples with war's legacy

Iran: Commanders authorized to respond to attacks.

CIA may target Syrian extremists with drones: report

Bulgaria will not take lead in blacklisting Hezbollah - PM
By Angel Krasimirov
SOFIA (Reuters) - Bulgaria's new interim prime minister said on Saturday he would not initiate any move to impose EU sanctions on the Islamist group Hezbollah, even though the country had implicated the Islamist movement in a bombing at a Black Sea resort.Marin Raikov did not give a reason for his decision - but it will likely be seen as a concession to Bulgarian opposition groups, who have argued the country could open itself up to more attacks if it takes the lead in blacklisting Hezbollah. Raikov, a career diplomat, took over at the head of a technocrat administration on Wednesday after mass protests against poverty and corruption by opposition groups and other activists brought down Bulgaria's centre-right government. He was appointed by the president to maintain market confidence and placate protesters before an election on May 12.
Opposition leaders had also used the protests to denounce what they saw as irresponsible government accusations that Hezbollah was behind last year's bombing that killed five Israelis in the Black Sea resort of Burgas.
"Bulgaria will not initiate a procedure (for listing Hezbollah as a 'terrorist organization')," Raikov told the state BNR radio station. "We will only present the objective facts and circumstances and let our European partners decide." Last month, then-interior minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov said three people were involved in the bombing and an investigation suggested they had links to Hezbollah, a powerful Lebanese Shi'ite Muslim movement.
Last week, the European Commission said the EU would consider imposing sanctions on Hezbollah but did not yet have sufficient evidence of its activities in Europe to make a decision.
No one was immediately available in Brussels to comment on what impact Raikov's comments would have on the bloc's broader stance. All 27 member states would have to agree to any sanctions to come into force.
Israel also has stepped up lobbying in Brussels and Paris, calling on European governments to follow the United States in listing Hezbollah as a "terrorist organisation" and impose financial sanctions on it.
Many European governments are wary, arguing that sanctions could destabilise Lebanon's fragile coalition government, which includes Hezbollah, and compound regional tensions.
Copyright © 2013 Reuters

Iran and Hezbollah 'have built 50,000-strong force to help Syrian regime' .
Friday, 15 March 2013/The Guardian
By Julian Borger in Herzliya
Iran and Hezbollah have built a 50,000-strong parallel force in Syria to help prolong the life of the Assad regime and to maintain their influence after his fall, Israel's military intelligence chief has claimed. Major General Aviv Kochavi said Iran intended to double the size of this Syrian "people's army", which he claimed was being trained by Hezbollah fighters and funded by Tehran, to bolster a depleted and demoralised Syrian army. Kochavi, the director of military intelligence in the Israel defence forces (IDF), also said Assad's troops had readied chemical weapons but so far had not been given the order for them to be used. At the same time, he warned of the increasing sway of extremist groups in the opposition, particularly the al-Nusra Front, which he claimed was beginning to infiltrate Lebanon and was making connections with a Sinai-based militant organisation, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, which is focused on attacks on Israel. Israel opposes the western arming of Syrian rebels because of its fears that the weapons will end up in the hands of such groups.
Defence officials say they are focused on Assad's sizeable arsenal of chemical weapons and missiles and they are prepared to carry out more air strikes to stop such arms being transferred to Hezbollah, even at the risk of what a senior official predicted would be an ugly new war in Lebanon.
Western and Israeli governments have long alleged that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are advising Assad's generals, and that Hezbollah guerillas are fighting alongside Syrian government troops. Israeli officials say the commander of the Revolutionary Guards' elite Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani, has been in Damascus to oversee operations.
In his speech on Thursday, Kochavi went much further and claimed that since last June Tehran had been using Hezbollah to build up a large Syrian militia that would be Iranian-controlled even in the event of Assad's fall from power. "The damages of the imminent fall of Syria are very high for both Iran and Hezbollah. Iran is losing a sole ally in the region surrounding Israel. It will lose the ability to transfer weaponry through Syria to Hezbollah. Iran and Hezbollah are both doing all in their power to assist Assad's regime. "They support Assad operationally on the ground, with strategic consultation, intelligence, weapons," Kochavi told the Herzliya Conference, a meeting of security officials and analysts in Israel. "Most recently, they are establishing a 'people's army' trained by Hezbollah and financed by Iran, currently consisting of 50,000 men, with plans to increase to 100,000. Iran and Hezbollah are also preparing for the day after Assad's fall, when they will use this army to protect their assets and interests in Syria."
He said the Syrian regular army was crumbling, claiming that several successive recruitment drives had failed, realising only 20% of their targets as young men had fled rather than join up. The International Institute of Strategic Studies yesterday reported that from a notional strength of 220,000, the army had withered to a core of about 50,000 the regime could rely on. The Institute for the Study of War in Washington estimated the loyal core at 65,000. Israel has warned the UK and France against arming Syrian rebels, arguing there will be no guarantees that sophisticated weapons such as portable anti-aircraft missiles will not ultimately find their way to al-Qaida affiliates and other extremist groups, and be turned against Israel.
Kochavi claimed the al-Nusra Front had sent "subsidiaries" into Lebanon and had forged connections with Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (also known as Ansar Jerusalem), which has launched attacks into Israel from the Sinai. He said al-Nusra intended to help the group establish cells in Lebanon. Israel's immediate focus is on preventing any of Assad's stockpile of chemical weapons and anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles reaching Lebanon.
Israeli officials say they have "intimate co-operation" with US intelligence on tracking these weapons. In February Israeli planes bombed a convoy suspected of transferring modern anti-aircraft missiles from Syria to Hezbollah, and Israeli officials, while not formally acknowledging them, would not hesitate to strike again.
"There is a readiness to strike again and an awareness that this could escalate. Israel is heavily focused on this, but worried that the rest of the world is not," an Israeli security source said.
A senior IDF official said there were an estimated 50,000 rockets of various ranges in Hezbollah hands, of which a few thousand were capable of reaching Tel Aviv. He acknowledged that Israeli air strikes could trigger a war which neither Israel nor Hezbollah wanted at this time, in which Hezbollah would use much of this arsenal, forcing the IDF to launch another invasion of southern Lebanon, as he said only ground troops could root out the rockets and launchers that were hidden in south Lebanese villages. "Hezbollah will give a house to a fighter in a village. It will be a three-storey house and one storey is for the storage of missiles," the IDF official said.
"In a future war, we would have to bomb and to send troops into the village. Unfortunately, it is not getting to be surgical. We will do everything we can to evacuate the area of civilians, but I think it's going to be ugly."

Hezbollah Spreads
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hezbollah-spreads_707694.html?page=2

Mar 16, 2013 •

By KEN JENSEN/The Weekly Standard
Are we watching Hezbollah closely enough these days? Probably not. Given events in Syria and the Balkans, it appears that we’re in for a whole new set of problems to be presented by Iran’s favorite proxy. Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria on behalf of Bashar al-Assad and Iran continues to grow with the party of God in pitched battle with the Syrian rebels. With that has come such new complications as the rebel killing of Gen. Hassan Shateri of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Qods Force, who was a senior Iranian representative in Lebanon. When Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah expressed his dismay at the loss, he noted that Shateri was not the first Iranian to be killed on a mission with Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is also reported to be giving haven in Lebanon to Alawite officers and their families, putting them up in style and paying them, in the hope that the Alawites will be helpful to Hezbollah whatever happens. According to a recent report by Israeli analyst Shimon Shapira, the Lebanese militia, “is particularly interested in officers who are highly experienced in the use of Russian-made weapons systems such as long-range rockets and surface-to-air missiles. Hezbollah’s initiative has been coordinated with the Qods Force, which is responsible for the training of Hezbollah’s forces in Lebanon and Iran.”The struggle for Syria is a struggle for survival for some parties and power for others. Iran and Hezbollah will survive. The question is, what will Hezbollah do if Assad falls, and what will it do elsewhere when it’s no longer occupied with the Syrian front?
Hezbollah is thoroughly entrenched in Lebanon, although if Michael Totten is right, the Party of God may wind up fighting its Sunni rivals in the near future. But will Lebanon be enough of a toehold in the Middle East (and a sufficient threat to Europe and the rest of the world) for its Iranian patron if Assad falls? Perhaps we’ll see an expansion of Hezbollah’s depredations elsewhere.
Of course, there’s always more to be done in Latin America, where Hezbollah’s involvement with drug cartels and anti-American governments means that despite Chavez’s passing, Venezuela is likely to remain a significant base for Hezbollah’s Western Hemisphere operations. Argentina’s recent move to get closer to Iran may also suggest that Hezbollah might gain an even more free hand in the tri-border region than it already has. Then there are the recent reports of Hezbollah bases in northern Nicaragua and Belize.
Another possibility is Africa. Iran has long been active in East Africa, Sudan, Nigeria, East Africa, and even in the Sahel, spying and supplying arms and ammunition. Despite al Qaeda’s surge there, surely the continent has more than enough room for Hezbollah to attack Western interests. After all, it’s been running South American cocaine out of West Africa, across the Sahara, and into Europe for years.
Hezbollah in Europe has been in the news lately on two accounts. First came the Bulgarian government’s fingering Hezbollah for last year’s Burgas bus bombing that killed five Israelis and a Bulgarian bus driver. It remains to be seen whether or not the EU will designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Second, there’s a trial underway in Cyprus charging Hezbollah operative Hossam Taleb Yaacoub with planning terrorist actions similar to the Burgas bombing. Given that Yaacoub has been willing to talk, he has provided a rare look into Hezbollah operations in Europe
There’s every prospect for greater operational activity on the continent. Insufficient attention has been given to the presence of Iran in Bosnia and Balkan jihadism in general in Kosovo, Macedonia, the Sanjak, and other places that have long since been “softened up” for the toleration of holy terror by the Wahhabis.
According to independent researcher Gordon Bardos, the American and British ambassadors to Sarajevo warned Bosnian officials last August to cut their ties to Iran. Reporting on the recent convergence of Islamism and desperate Bosnian nationalism, Bardos claims that “Iran's Revolutionary Guard has eaten up much of the country's political and economic power. In September, the Sarajevo newspaper Dnevni Avaz claimed that pro-Iranian factions in the Bosnian government were “re-activating para-intelligence cells tied to the Islamist regime of the late Bosnian leader Alija Izetbegovic.” In October, Slobodna Bosna reported that 200 Iranian “businessmen” had been granted entry visas during the first half of 2012. Reportedly, one Iranian diplomat seen in Bosnia had been tracked by Israeli intelligence officials in Thailand, Georgia and India, that is, the places where Hezbollah/Iran has attacked Israeli citizens.Can the European Union continue to humor Hezbollah if it shows up just outside (or just inside) the Gates of Vienna? Given that European governments surely know about Iran’s subversion in Bosnia and their lack of real response to the Burgas bus bombing, the signs are not good for a change of direction on Europe’s part regarding Hezbollah. With an end to the Syrian debacle, Hezbollah may considerably speed up Europe’s slow suicide in the face of Islamism.

France, Britain flout US objections on arms to Syrian rebels
DEBKAfile Special Report March 16, 2013/Working through Jordan, Britain and France are determined to get arms shipments to the Syrian rebels fighting Bashar Assad - parting ways for the first time with the Obama administration’s objections to this course throughout Syria’s two-year civil war
The two European powers have embarked on concrete step to make this possible..debkafile’s exclusive military sources reveal that Jordanian Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Mashal Mohammad Al Zaben was secretly flown into Brussels by British military plane Friday, March 14, as 24 European Union leaders led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel voted down the motion put before them by UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande to end the bloc’s embargo on arms for the Syrian opposition. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said EU foreign ministers will again assess the embargo at a meeting on March 22-23 in Dublin. Outside the chamber, the Jordanian general sat down quietly with British army and security officials to work out the details of the transfer of British arms through his country, and decide to which Syrian rebel units they would be allotted. This choice is of paramount importance because President Barack Obama accounts for his objection to letting the rebels have Western arms by the risk of their falling into the hands of Islamist militias, such as the al Qaeda-linked Jabat al-Nusra.  In the twelve years since the US-led NATO invasion of Afghanistan, Britain and France have walked faithfully in step with the United States in their military and intelligence policies towards the Muslim world – although they were not always of one mind. The two European powers’ open pursuit of an independent line on a volatile Middle East conflict is therefore worthy of note.
After the EU summit rejected their demand to lift the arms embargo, Cameron declared: “Britain is a sovereign country. We have our own foreign, security and defense policies. If we want to take individual action, we think that’s in our national interest, of course we are free to do so.”Blunt defiance indeed from a US ally of a presidential policy on a key international issue. It was in sharp contrast to the accent placed by British leaders and their foreign ministers in recent years on the seamless “special relations” between London and Washington.President Hollande had this to say: “Assad is not interested in a political solution to the two-year old conflict and Europe cannot be passive as Syrians are slaughtered. We must also take responsibility,” he said. This was a diplomatic way of saying that Paris had lost patience with President Obama’s wait-and-see policy, which relegates the ending of the bloody Syrian civil war to the diplomatic initiatives of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Hollande was also evening the score with Obama for his failure to rally around militarily when the French launched their expedition in January to rescue Mali from the clutches of al Qaeda-linked Islamist terrorists.
For the British prime minister, the decision was harder. It places his government on the side of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab Gulf emirates. They disapprove strongly of Obama’s attempt to enclose the non-supply of weapons to Syrian rebels in a larger package that would include Iran’s consent to give up part of its nuclear program - a hopeful quid pro quo in support of Tehran’s bid to strengthen its alliance with the Assad regime and the Lebanese Hizballah. Jordan’s King Abdullah decided to join the Anglo-French decision on arms to the Syrian rebels after he was leaned on hard by Saudi Arabia, which argued that unless al Qaeda was stopped, its territorial conquests would not just cover parts of Syria but Iraq too, bringing the jihadists right up to two of Jordan’s borders.

Facing Division
By: Hussein Shobokshi /Asharq Alawsat
In the latest statement by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi regarding the situation in Syria, he acknowledged that the country will never return to how it was before. Many of those monitoring Syria took this to mean one thing, namely that the country is facing “division” along sectarian and ethnic lines. Brahimi’s statement was issued just two days after a senior Kurdish official confirmed that the Kurdistan Region’s secession from Iraq has become “inevitable.”
Meanwhile, southern opposition factions in Yemen have held one conference after another confirming that they are genuinely discussing the issue of secession from the north and announcing independence. In addition to this, South Sudan, itself a secessionist country, had earlier assured supporters of independence that their “demand” would find international acceptance and support.
This is the crux of the matter that encourages different political adventures and the launching of trial balloons from time to time, to measure public response and the views of the political street. This occurred in Libya with various proposals being put forward by “independent” parties, while the same also applies to Algeria. Fragile civil societies where legal and human rights institutions are absent, not to mention the rule of law, leads to widespread feelings of isolation and hopelessness across society. Fragile societies are therefore more susceptible to division. However, we have seen a strong Basque independence movement for decades in Spain, while there are also calls for Francophone Quebec to secede from the rest of Canada, which is dominated by Anglophone culture and heritage. The same applies to calls for Scotland to secede from the United Kingdom, particularly as the Scots claim a separate Celtic identity distinct from the English culture that has historically dominated Britain. However, such secessionist positions and calls have always failed to convince the majority of the population and therefore remain unfulfilled because these countries are democratic and law and order enjoys an unassailable status. Therefore the prospects for secession or independence remain low as the secessionists remain unable to convince a sufficient number of people, not to mention the strong economic reasons against it. The Kurds, in the Arab world, see themselves as the victims of injustice and prejudice. They are of the view that three different groups should have benefited from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire: the Arabs who got what they wanted in terms of independent nation-states, Israel which was created by western-backing, while the Kurds were completely forgotten and their rights ignored. This is why they are convinced that now is the time to obtain their “homeland.” However similar views will no doubt tomorrow be espoused by the Druze, Shi’ites, Alawites, Christians and Berbers. Division represents the next major political challenge. Truly this will be an era where maps and borders are redrawn, and new flags come to replace the old.

Syria Expands Use of Cluster Bombs says HRW
VOA News/March 16, 2013
An international human rights group says Syrian forces are expanding their use of banned cluster bombs in residential areas, causing mounting civilian casualties. Cluster bombs open in flight, scattering smaller bomblets. They pose a threat to civilians long afterwards, since many do not explode immediately.Human Rights Watch said Saturday it has identified at least 119 locations where the bombs have been used in the last six months in Syria's civil war.The rights group said cluster bomb attacks in the last two weeks have killed 11 civilians, including five children and two women.In another development, European Union governments delayed making a decision Friday on a push by Britain and France to arm Syrian rebels against government troops, as the civil war in Syria marked its second anniversary. France has said it is ready to work with Britain to help arm Syrian rebels, even if there is no agreement with other nations to send the weapons. EU leaders will revisit the issue next week at a meeting in Dublin. The embargo currently bars member countries from providing weapons to the Syrian opposition. That embargo ends in May. Demonstrations were held Friday in protest centers across Syria to mark the second anniversary of the conflict which has claimed the lives of 70,000 people. Anti-government protesters first took to the streets in Syria to demand democratic change on March 15, 2011, during the early days of the region-wide upheaval known as the Arab Spring.

US. hesitation on arms shipments to rebels in Syria frustrates some close allies in Europe and the Middle East
By Karen DeYoung/Mar 16, 2013/
The Washington Post Saturday, March 16, 6:26 PM
Decisions by France and Britain to step up direct support for Syrian opposition forces, possibly with arms shipments to the rebels, threaten to leave the United States on the sidelines of what many see as the approaching climax of a two-year effort to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
That may be precisely where the Obama administration decides to stay, once it concludes a renewed internal debate over whether to pursue a more aggressive policy in Syria.
But U.S. hesi­ta­tion has frustrated some of the United States’ closest European and Middle Eastern friends, who say that the time for debate is fast running out. More than 70,000 have been killed and millions have fled their homes. The raging conflict has begun to spill over Syria’s borders, and there is no negotiated end in sight. ­
“We’re at the point where we have to show some real progress,” said a senior official from a Middle Eastern government that actively supports the Syrian rebels. Sophisticated weapons that could help break a months-long military stalemate in and around Damascus and consolidate rebel gains in other parts of the country, he said, could finally convince regime supporters to break with Assad and hasten his downfall.
Beginning last fall, “everyone was waiting for a new administration, then a new cabinet” in Washington to formulate and lead a new joint strategy, the official said. If Assad and his military now “see business as usual, then he could survive.”
Anti-Assad governments in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, are privately acerbic in their assessment of U.S. dithering. The Europeans express more understanding, even as they question whether the Obama doctrine of close coordination on issues of shared foreign policy concern is viable if the United States declines to participate.
“It slightly undermines the model” established with the military intervention in Libya, a senior European official said. There, President Obama took credit for organizing and supporting a strategy implemented along with European and Persian Gulf partners.
“We would hope the Americans would join us” on Syria, the official said.
Officials from several European and Middle Eastern governments agreed to discuss Syria policy only if they were not identified by name or country to avoid antagonizing the United States.
Last week, Britain and France broke away from what had been a cautious united front with the administration on Syria.
At a European Union meeting in Brussels on Friday, France called for an end to an E.U. arms embargo that has prevented weapons shipments to the Syrian rebels and indicated it was prepared to act on its own if others disagreed. The rebel coalition “needs to have the means to defend the areas that have been liberated,” French President Francois Hollande said.
British Prime Minister David Cameron backed the call to end the embargo and appeared to directly address U.S. concerns in a Brussels news conference.
“I think it’s worth taking on for a moment the two arguments that the opponents of change make. The first is that what is required in Syria is a political solution, not a military solution. Well, of course people want a political solution .. but this is not an either-or situation,” Cameron said, adding that political progress was more likely if democratic opposition forces were seen as growing stronger.
U.S. hesi­ta­tion on arms shipments to rebels in Syria frustrates some close allies in Europe and the Middle East
The second argument, he said, was that “the arms will go to the wrong people, to which my answer is: That is what has happened already,” as Islamist radicals in the rebel ranks have strengthened their arsenals.
Last fall, the White House rejected proposals to arm the rebels, supported by then-leaders of the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. In addition to fears that sophisticated weapons would end up with extremists, it concluded that opposition political unity was a higher priority.
It remains unclear where the new national security leadership stands under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and CIA Director John O. Brennan. Beyond the administration’s intense focus on domestic issues, the White House has been distracted by Obama’s upcoming trip to Israel. Syria is only one of several foreign policy crises, including North Korea and Iran, competing for urgent attention.
There has been some incremental movement over the past several weeks, based on decisions that a senior administration official said have come “directly from the president” in response to growing “dangers on the ground” in Syria and a recognition of opposition progress.
Traveling overseas for meetings with allies and rebel political leaders, Kerry publicly acknowledged for the first time that the United States was coordinating with governments already sending arms and has confidence that “the weapons are being transferred to moderates.” A small contingent of U.S. forces, working with the Jordanian military, is reportedly training some rebel forces at a camp north of Amman.
Kerry announced that the United States would provide humanitarian aid directly to the Syrian opposition’s political coalition and would provide food and medical supplies to the rebel military. He told allied governments that he would bring their pleas for more U.S. involvement back to Obama.
But the administration is not alone in its reluctance to send arms. At Friday’s meeting of the 25-member E.U., Germany, the Scandinavian countries and others disagreed with French and British insistence that the embargo be dropped.
“Just the fact that two have changed their minds doesn’t mean that the other 25 have to follow suit,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said.
The issue will be debated again in coming days, when E.U. foreign ministers meet in Dublin. The existing embargo lapses at the end of May. If it is not renewed by unanimous vote, each country will be free to act as it wishes. Britain and France would like a new version that continues sanctions on Assad’s government while allowing arms shipments to the rebels.
There are similar splits in opinion in this country. A number of Republican leaders have criticized the administration for inaction, some Democrats have warned against a new foreign involvement, and the public is weary of faraway wars.
Even Britain and France — and the United States, should it eventually decide to join them — are unlikely to provide everything the rebels and their supporters in the region say they need. Air support remains highly unlikely, absent Assad’s use of chemical weapons, as do portable surface-to-air missiles, which the rebels want to shoot down Assad’s helicopters and jets.
But as the United States’ closest allies in Europe move rapidly toward a new level of involvement, Cameron said, the important thing is “persuading people who have been less willing to move on this that there really [are] very strong arguments for saying that what is happening now isn’t working.”

EU's Ashton urges caution on lifting arms ban for Syria rebels
By Adrian Croft/BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union's foreign policy chief urged caution on Saturday about a Franco-British drive to lift an EU arms embargo to help rebels in Syria, questioning the impact such a step might have on attempts to reach a political settlement there. Other EU governments rebuffed efforts by Paris and London at an EU summit on Friday to lift the Syrian arms embargo to help opponents of President Bashar al-Assad, although they asked foreign ministers to discuss it again next week.EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said the EU needed to think "very carefully" about French and British arguments that lifting the embargo would encourage Assad to negotiate. The EU should also consult U.N. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi and Moaz al-Khatib, head of the opposition Syrian National Coalition, about impact lifting the embargo might have on their efforts to start talks to end the Syria crisis, she said. "What we've got to make sure of is anything we do does not make that (work) harder," she said, speaking at a conference organized by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a group committed to strengthening transatlantic cooperation. Germany led opposition to the Franco-British move to lift the embargo to help the rebels after two years of civil war that have killed 70,000 people, according to U.N. estimates.Opponents argue that arming the rebels could encourage Assad's backers, Russia and Iran, to step up weapons deliveries to the government, fuelling an arms race, and they also fear that weapons could fall into the wrong hands, such as Islamist militants in the rebel ranks. Ashton said she had told EU leaders at Friday's summit that they must think through very carefully the implications of lifting the arms embargo.
"Would putting weapons into the field make it more or less likely that others will do the same? What would be the response of Assad based on what we know about his response so far? Would it stop people being killed or would it kill people faster?" she said. Although Ashton did not mention it, Western governments are concerned about chemical weapons the Syrian government is believed to hold. U.S. President Barack Obama has warned Assad he would be held accountable if such weapons were used.EU diplomats think it is unlikely France and Britain will be able to persuade its EU partners to back lifting the arms embargo to help the rebels, a decision that needs unanimity. But a compromise allowing some increased aid to Assad's opponents might be possible before current sanctions expire on June 1.
Ashton, a Briton, said there was "no possibility" of her staying on for a second term as EU foreign policy chief after her five-year term expires at the end of next year.
"It needs to go to someone else now," she said.
(Editing by Roger Atwood)

Canada Pledges Continued Support for Syrian People
March 15, 2013 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:
“In the 24 violent months since the Syrian people began rising up against the Assad regime, tens of thousands of Syrians have been killed, more than a million have fled to neighbouring countries, and many more have been displaced within Syria’s borders.
“Canada continues to stand resolutely with the people of Syria in this very dark period.
“We have acted with like-minded countries, and Canada stands ready to do more. We look forward to a day when the bloodshed has ended, and the work of building a peaceful, democratic, pluralistic Syria can begin.”
Canada has committed $48.5 million to meet the urgent humanitarian needs of Syrians inside and outside the country.
Canadian sanctions against the Syrian regime are among the toughest in the world. They are designed to increase the pressure on Assad to end the bloodshed and relinquish power while cutting off access to the financing that sustains its repressive apparatus.

Bouthaina Shaaban: Assad Urges BRICS Intervention to End Syria War
Naharnet/Syria's President Bashar Assad on Saturday called on the BRICS nations to intervene to end the conflict in his country, in a letter delivered by his adviser Bouthaina Shaaban during a trip to South Africa.
Speaking to Agence France Presse, Shaaban said she had delivered the letter to South African President Jacob Zuma ahead of the BRICS summit in South Africa on March 26."Today I passed a message from President Bashar Assad to President Jacob Zuma, who will preside over the March 26 BRICS summit, on the subject of the situation in Syria," Shaaban said, reached by telephone from Beirut. "In this message, President Bashar Assad asks for intervention by the BRICS to stop the violence in his country and encourage the opening of a dialogue, which he wishes to start."Shaaban said during the meeting with Zuma, which was also attended by South Africa's foreign minister, "the president was very positive and deplored the destruction affecting this beautiful country."The BRICS acronym refers to the nations of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, all developing powers which opposed the use of force in Libya.
SourceAgence France Presse

Report: Shaaban Detained Shortly at Beirut Airport over Samaha-Mamlouk Case
Naharnet/The General Security detained on Friday the Syrian president's media adviser Buthaina Shaaban at the Rafik Hariri international Airport against the backdrop of the Mamlouk-Samaha case, al-Liwaa daily reported Saturday. The General Security detained Shaaban for nearly an hour upon arrival at the airport at 7:00 am, but was later allowed to catch her flight heading to Dubai when no judicial order was found against her in terrorism case. Shaaban was said to be involved in the case of former Information Minister Michel Samaha, charged with plotting terrorist attacks in Lebanon.
The ISF’s Information Branch had forwarded a report in October including Shaaban’s name to the military prosecutor’s office, which in turn referred it to the military investigative judge.
The file included the analysis of phone conversations between Shaaban and Samaha made during the latter's presence in Damascus, reports said.
Lebanese judicial authorities have charged Samaha and Syrian security chief Maj. Gen. Ali Mamlouk with forming a group to commit terrorist crimes in Lebanon.
The two were also charged with plotting to assassinate political and religious figures.
According to judicial sources, General Mamlouk is suspected of forming a group to provoke sectarian killings and terrorist acts using explosives, which were transported and stored by Samaha.

Holding Lebanon together by a thread
By Joseph Kechician, Senior Writer/GulfNews/March 16, 2013
Beirut: Shaikh Ahmad Al Assir, a firebrand Sunni cleric who presides over the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque in Sidon’s Abra area, and Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, seldom mince their words.
In the current political environment, the little-known but immensely charismatic cleric filled a tactical void within his community in response to what many of his coreligionists perceived as an anti-Sunni wave throughout Lebanon, while the equally alluring Shiite cleric, who branched out into international politics and searched for global audiences, repeatedly warned Al Assir to cease and desist.
Caught among such magnetic personalities, Prime Minister Najib Miqati sought to balance extremist views, even if his lacklustre performances engendered ridicule. To be sure, Miqati worked hard to prevent an all-out sectarian war that threatened a resumption of the dormant civil war, although many doubted his intrinsic capabilities to deliver.
Beyond calls for calm, as well as repeated pleas with both Al Assir and Nasrallah to limit their war of words, Miqati muzzled appeals to unleash the army and risk its break-up. Instead, he opted for a ‘quick fix’ in Sidon, which required negotiations. For the prime minister, this quick fix was another way of saying that one imposed his will at great risk, and contended that the security situation was “still acceptable.”Still, and in as much as this focus in the ‘still acceptable’ formula aimed to prevent a spillover of the Syrian civil war into Lebanon, Miqati overlooked an even greater challenge that he knew was existential in nature.
What preoccupied him was the gradual erosion of the Sunni community’s traditional role in Lebanon, with extremely grave consequences to the fragile 1943 National Pact, and the equally brittle 1989 Ta’if Accords. Serious sectarian clashes in Tripoli, disturbances in Sidon and the astonishing performance of the outgoing Grand Mufti, Shaikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani, highlighted his numerous concerns. Remarkably, the mere fact that the prime minister failed to persuade the Grand Mufti to participate in the Higher Islamic Councils’ elections, further tarnished his image.
In the event, Qabbani refused to hold any meetings at Dar Al Fatwah to consider a new term and, in the process, not only challenged state authorities that financed the institution but also significantly weakened the office of the prime minister that legitimised Sunni weight on the internal chequerboard. To make matters worse, and though Miqati claimed that security was “still acceptable,” the Syrian ambassador to Lebanon, Ali Abdul Karim Ali, announced that Syria submitted a protest letter to Lebanese authorities, which complained of “violations of the neighbouring country’s territory along the border.”
Damascus warned that its forces would fire into Lebanon if “terrorist gangs” continued to infiltrate Syria, which was ominous to say the least.
Equally gloomy was Michel Aoun, the head of the Free Patriotic Movement that allied itself with Hezbollah, who warned that Lebanon was going through a period that was reminiscent of 1975, the beginning of the civil war. Although he quickly reassured his audiences that politicians were aware of how to prevent a similar conflict, Aoun raised the spectre of takfiris (extremist Islamists) operating in the country, obliquely referring to Al Assir in Sidon and leading Sunni movements in Tripoli. Uncouth in tone as well as substance, such remarks against the Sunni community challenged Miqati, who was, to put it mildly, caught between a rock and a hard place. The ultimate test that confronted him was to project the state’s authority, which he incarnated by virtue of his position, in an equidistant mode. Equally important were his skills at subduing elite disputes for raw power, as leading protagonists etched for fresh disturbances, each confident of imminent victory.

Lebanon must stem flow of fighters to Syria: president
AFP/Shortly after his office announced the comments, made in a meeting with the Lebanese community in the Ivory Coast during an official visit, witnesses on Saturday reported a Syrian troop buildup along parts of the border with Lebanon. Lebanon's stability depends "on all of us... not sending militants to Syria and not receiving them," Sleiman said, adding "we must commit ourselves to neutrality."
Sleiman said he had tasked Lebanon's army with "the arrest of any militants intending to fight (in Syria), whether for the opposition or not."
A statement released by Prime Minister Najib Mikati's office said the premier had met the army chief to discuss "the measures being taken by the Lebanese military... on the border with Syria to prevent the infiltration of militants and arms smuggling operation."
Syria warned on Thursday that its forces would fire into Lebanon if "terrorist gangs" continued to infiltrate the country.
"These past 36 hours, armed terrorist gangs have infiltrated Syrian territory in large numbers from Lebanon," the Syrian foreign ministry said, in a message quoted by official news agency SANA.
"Syrian forces are showing restraint by not striking these gangs inside Lebanese territory to prevent them crossing into Syria, but this will not go on indefinitely," it said in a message to its Lebanese counterpart.
A Lebanese government source, speaking to AFP on Saturday, said Beirut took the warning "very seriously" and that "intensive consultations are underway to find the best way to control the border."
On Saturday afternoon, witnesses in villages along Lebanon's northern border reported an increased Syrian troop presence on the Syrian side, visible from villages including Wadi Khaled and Al-Arida.
Lebanon's opposition March 14th movement, which opposes the Damascus regime, has called for the army to deploy along the border with Syria to halt the flow of arms and militants, and protect Lebanese territory.
Beirut has officially pledged neutrality in the violence engulfing its neighbour, but has found itself increasingly embroiled in the civil war.
Lebanon's opposition backs the revolt, which entered its third year on Friday, while the Shiite Hezbollah and its allies stand by the Syrian regime.
Violence has already spilled over into Lebanon on several occasions, causing fatalities, and on Thursday the UN Security Council expressed "grave concern" about cross-border attacks.

Syria troop build up on Lebanon border
March 17, 2013/The Australian/LEBANON must prevent fighters from crossing into Syria, Lebanese President Michel Sleiman says, after Damascus threatened to respond to cross-border infiltrations.
Shortly after his office announced the comments, made in a meeting with the Lebanese community in the Ivory Coast, witnesses on Saturday reported a Syrian troop build up along parts of the border with Lebanon.
Lebanon's stability depends "on all of us ... not sending militants to Syria and not receiving them," Sleiman said, adding "we must commit ourselves to neutrality.
Sleiman said he had tasked Lebanon's army with "the arrest of any militants intending to fight (in Syria), whether for the opposition or not."
A statement released by Prime Minister Najib Mikati's office said the premier had met the army chief to discuss "the measures being taken by the Lebanese military ... on the border with Syria to prevent the infiltration of militants and arms smuggling operation." Syria warned on Thursday that its forces would fire into Lebanon if "terrorist gangs" continued to infiltrate the country.
"These past 36 hours, armed terrorist gangs have infiltrated Syrian territory in large numbers from Lebanon," the Syrian foreign ministry said, in a message quoted by official news agency SANA.
"Syrian forces are showing restraint by not striking these gangs inside Lebanese territory to prevent them crossing into Syria, but this will not go on indefinitely."
A Lebanese government source, speaking to AFP on Saturday, said Beirut took the warning "very seriously" and that "intensive consultations are underway to find the best way to control the border".
Beirut has officially pledged neutrality in the violence engulfing its neighbour, but has found itself increasingly embroiled in the civil war.
Lebanon's opposition backs the revolt, while the Shi'ite Hezbollah stands by the Syrian regime.
Violence has already spilled over into Lebanon on several occasions, causing fatalities.

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"
GotQuestions.org
Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”
The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.
On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?
The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).
Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.


Explaining the Denial, Denying Islam's Role in Terror
by Daniel Pipes/Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2013, pp.
http://www.meforum.org/3466/islam-terrorism-denial

Over three years after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009, the classification of his crime remains in dispute. In its wisdom, the Department of Defense, supported by law enforcement, politicians, journalists, and academics, deems the killing of thirteen and wounding of forty-three to be "workplace violence." For example, the 86-page study on preventing a repeat episode, Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood, mentions "workplace violence" sixteen times.[1]
Indeed, were the subject not morbid, one could be amused by the disagreement over what exactly caused the major to erupt. Speculations included "racism" against him, "harassment he had received as a Muslim," his "sense of not belonging," "mental problems," "emotional problems," "an inordinate amount of stress," the "worst nightmare" of his being deployed to Afghanistan, or something fancifully called "pre-traumatic stress disorder." One newspaper headline, "Mindset of Rogue Major a Mystery," sums up this bogus state of confusion.[2]
U.S. officials' denials of Islam's role in terrorism might be humorous if they were not so frightening. During congressional testimony in May 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly sparred with his congressional questioners over the possible part played by "radical Islam" in inciting the actions of domestic terrorists and refused to acknowledge its decisive role.
In contrast, members of congress ridiculed the "workplace violence" characterization and a coalition of 160 victims and family members recently released a video, "The Truth about Fort Hood," criticizing the administration. On the third anniversary of the massacre, 148 victims and family members sued the U.S. government for avoiding legal and financial responsibility by not acknowledging the incident as terrorism.[3]
The military leadership willfully ignores what stares them in the face, namely Hasan's clear and evident Islamist inspiration; Protecting the Force mentions "Muslim" and "jihad" not a single time, and "Islam" only once, in a footnote.[4] The massacre officially still remains unconnected to terrorism or Islam.
This example fits in a larger pattern: The establishment denies that Islamism—a form of Islam that seeks to make Muslims dominant through an extreme, totalistic, and rigid application of Islamic law, the Shari'a—represents the leading global cause of terrorism when it so clearly does. Islamism reverts to medieval norms in its aspiration to create a caliphate that rules humanity. "Islam is the solution" summarizes its doctrine. Islam's public law can be summarized as elevating Muslim over non-Muslim, male over female, and endorsing the use of force to spread Muslim rule. In recent decades, Islamists (the adherents of this vision of Islam) have established an unparalleled record of terrorism. To cite one tabulation: TheReligionOfPeace.com counts 20,000 assaults in the name of Islam since 9/11,[5] or about five a day. In the West, terrorist acts inspired by motives other than Islam hardly register.
It is important to document and explain this denial and explore its implications. The examples come predominantly from the United States, though they could come from virtually any Western country—except Israel.
Documenting Denial
The government, press, and academy routinely deny that Islamist motives play a role in two ways, specific and general. Specific acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims lead the authorities publicly, willfully, and defiantly to close their eyes to Islamist motivations and goals. Instead, they point to a range of trivial, one-time, and individualistic motives, often casting the perpetrator as victim. Examples from the years before and after 9/11 include:
1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York: "A prescription drug for … depression."[6]
1991 murder of Makin Morcos in Sydney: "A robbery gone wrong."
1993 murder of Reverend Doug Good in Western Australia: An "unintentional killing."
1993 attack on foreigners at a hotel in Cairo, killing ten: Insanity.[7]
1994 killing of a Hasidic Jew on the Brooklyn Bridge: "Road rage."[8]
1997 shooting murder atop the Empire State Building: "Many, many enemies in his mind."[9]
2000 attack on a bus of Jewish schoolchildren near Paris: A traffic incident.
2002 plane crash into a Tampa high-rise by an Osama bin Laden-admiring Arab-American (but non-Muslim): The acne drug Accutane.[10]
2002 double murder at LAX: "A work dispute."[11]
2002 Beltway snipers: A "stormy [family] relationship."[12]
2003 Hasan Karim Akbar's attack on fellow soldiers, killing two: An "attitude problem."[13]
2003 mutilation murder of Sebastian Sellam: Mental illness.[14]
2004 explosion in Brescia, Italy, outside a McDonald's restaurant: "Loneliness and depression."[15]
2005 rampage at a retirement center in Virginia: "A disagreement between the suspect and another staff member."[16]
2006 murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle: "An animus toward women."[17]
2006 killing by a man in an SUV in northern California: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed."[18]
This pattern of denial is all the more striking because it concerns distinctly Islamic forms of violence such as suicide operations, beheadings, honor killings and the disfiguring of women's faces. For example, when it comes to honor killings, Phyllis Chesler has established that this phenomenon differs from domestic violence and, in Western countries, is almost always perpetrated by Muslims.[19] Such proofs, however, do not convince the establishment, which tends to filter Islam out of the equation.
The generalized threat inspires more denial. Politicians and others avoid mention of Islam, Islamism, Muslims, Islamists, mujahideen, or jihadists. Instead, they blame evildoers, militants, radical extremists, terrorists, and al-Qaeda. Just one day after 9/11, U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell set the tone by asserting that the just-committed atrocities "should not be seen as something done by Arabs or Islamics; it is something that was done by terrorists."[20]
Another tactic is to obscure Islamist realities under the fog of verbiage. George W. Bush referred once to "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East"[21] and another time to "the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."[22] He went so far as to dismiss any Islamic element by asserting that "Islam is a great religion that preaches peace."[23]
In like spirit, Barack Obama observed that "it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations, but that those organizations aren't representative of a broader Arab community, Muslim community."[24] Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, engaged in the following exchange with Lamar Smith (Republican, Tex.) during congressional testimony in May 2010, repeatedly resisting a connection between Islamist motives and a spate of terrorist attacks:
Smith: In the case of all three [terrorist] attempts in the last year, … one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?
Holder: Because of?
Smith: Radical Islam.
Holder: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It's one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. [Feisal] Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.
Smith: Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?
Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people ...
Smith: But was radical Islam one of them?
Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious...[25]
And on and on Holder persisted, until Smith eventually gave up. And this was not exceptional: An almost identical denial took place in December 2011 by a senior official from the Department of Defense.[26]
Or one can simply ignore the Islamist element; a study issued by the Department of Homeland Security, "Evolution of the Terrorist Threat to the United States," mentions Islam just one time. In September 2010, Obama spoke at the United Nations and, using a passive construction, avoided all mention of Islam in reference to 9/11: "Nine years ago, the destruction of the World Trade Center signaled a threat that respected no boundary of dignity or decency."[27] About the same time, Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, stated that the profiles of Americans engaged in terrorism indicate that "there is no 'typical' profile of a homegrown terrorist."[28]
Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, rightly condemns this mentality as "two plus two must equal something other than four."[29]
Exceptions to Denial
Exceptions to this pattern do exist; establishment figures on occasion drop their guard and acknowledge the Islamist threat to the civilized world. Gingrich himself delivered a uniquely well-informed speech on Shari'a in 2010, noting, "This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form."[30]
British prime minister Tony Blair offered a stirring and eloquent analysis in 2006:
This is war, but of a completely unconventional kind. … What are the values that govern the future of the world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred? … It is in part a struggle between what I will call Reactionary Islam and Moderate, Mainstream Islam. But its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values.[31]
The current British prime minister, David Cameron, gave a fine analysis in 2005, long before he reached his current office:
The driving force behind today's terrorist threat is Islamist fundamentalism. The struggle we are engaged in is, at root, ideological. During the last century a strain of Islamist thinking has developed which, like other totalitarianisms, such as Nazism and Communism, offers its followers a form of redemption through violence.[32]
In 2011, as prime minister, Cameron returned to this theme when he warned that "we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism."[33]
The former foreign minister of the Czech Republic, Alexandr Vondra, spoke his mind with remarkable frankness:
Radical Islamists challenge practically everything that our society claims to stand for, no matter what the Western policies were or are. These challenges include the concept of universal human rights and freedom of speech.[34]
George W. Bush spoke in the period after October 2005 about "Islamo-fascism" and "Islamic fascists." Joseph Lieberman, the U.S. senator from Connecticut, criticized those who refuse "to identify our enemy in this war as what it is: violent Islamist extremism"[35] and sponsored an excellent Senate study on Maj. Hasan. Rick Santorum, then a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, gave a notable analysis:
In World War II, we fought Naziism and Japanese imperialism. Today, we are fighting against Islamic fascists. They attacked us on September 11th because we are the greatest obstacle to their openly declared mission of subjecting the entire world to their fanatical rule. I believe that the threat of Islamic fascism is just as menacing as the threat from Nazism and Soviet Communism. Now, as then, we face fanatics who will stop at nothing to dominate us. Now, as then, there is no way out; we will either win or lose.[36]
Antonin Scalia, an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, observed in an opinion that "America is at war with radical Islamists."[37] A New York Police Department study, Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat, discusses "Islamic-based terrorism" in its first line and never lets up. It contains explicit references to Islamism; it states, "Ultimately, the jihadist envisions a world in which jihadi-Salafi Islam is dominant and is the basis of government."[38]
So, reality does on occasion poke through the fog of denial and verbiage.
The Mystery of Denial
These exceptions aside, what accounts for the persistent denial of Islamic motives? Why the pretense that no elephant fills the room? An unwillingness to face the truth invariably smacks of euphemism, cowardice, political correctness, and appeasement. In this spirit, Gingrich argues that "the Obama Administration is willfully blind to the nature of our enemies and the forces which threaten America. … it's not ignorance; it's determined effort to avoid [reality]."[39]
These problems definitely contribute to denial, but something more basic and more legitimate goes further to explain this reluctance. One hint comes from a 2007 Ph.D. dissertation in politics submitted by Gaetano Ilardi to Monash University in Melbourne. Titled "From the IRA to Al Qa'eda: Intelligence as a Measure of Rational Action in Terrorist Operations," it refers frequently to Islam and related topics; Ilardi has also been quoted in the press on the topic of radicalization. Yet in 2009, as acting senior sergeant of the Victoria police, he was the most vociferous of his twenty law enforcement colleagues insisting to this author that the police not publicly mention Islam in any fashion when discussing terrorism. In other words, wanting not to refer to Islam can come from someone who knows full well the role of Islam.
Confirming this point, Daniel Benjamin, the Obama administration's coordinator for counterterrorism in the U.S. State Department, explicitly refutes the idea that silence about Islam means being unaware of it:
Policymakers fully recognize how al Qaeda's ideologues have appropriated Islamic texts and concepts and fashioned them into a mantle of religious legitimacy for their bloodshed. As someone who has written at length about how al Qaeda and the radical groups that preceded it have picked and chosen from sacred texts, often out of all context, I have no doubt my colleagues understand the nature of the threat.[40]
Ilardi and Benjamin know their stuff; they avoid discussing Islam in connection with terrorism for reasons deeper than political correctness, ignorance, or appeasement. What are those reasons? Two factors have key importance: wanting not to alienate Muslims or to reorder society.
Explaining Denial
Not wanting to offend Muslims, a sincere and reasonable goal, is the reason most often publicly cited. Muslims protest that focusing on Islam, Islamism, or jihad increases Muslim fears that the West is engaged in a "war against Islam." Joseph Lieberman, for example, notes that the Obama administration prefers not to use the term "violent Islamist extremists" when referring to the enemy because using such explicit words "bolsters our enemy's propaganda claim that the West is at war with Islam."[41]
Questioned in an interview about his having only once used the term "war on terror," Barack Obama confirmed this point, stating that "words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds." Asked, "So that's not a term you're going to be using much in the future?" he replied:
You know, what I want to do is make sure that I'm constantly talking about al Qaeda and other affiliated organizations because we, I believe, can win over moderate Muslims to recognize that that kind of destruction and nihilism ultimately leads to a dead end, and that we should be working together to make sure that everybody has got a better life.[42]
Daniel Benjamin makes the same point more lucidly:
Putting the emphasis on "Islamist" instead of on "violent extremist" undercuts our efforts, since it falsely roots the core problem in the faith of more than one billion people who abhor violence. As one internal government study after another has shown, such statements invariably wind up being distorted in the global media, alienating Muslim moderates.[43]
This concern actually has two sub-parts for two types of Muslims: Those who would otherwise help fight terrorism feel insulted ("a true Muslim can never be a terrorist") and so do not step forward while those who would not normally be involved become radicalized, some even becoming terrorists.
The second reason to inhibit one's talk about Islam concerns the apprehension that this implies a large and undesirable shift away from how secular Western societies are ordered. Blaming terrorist attacks on drugs gone awry, road rage, an arranged marriage, mental cases going berserk, or freak industrial accidents permits Westerners to avoid confronting issues concerning Islam. If the jihad explanation is vastly more persuasive, it is also far more troubling.
When one notes that Islamist terrorism is almost exclusively the work of Muslims acting out of Islamic convictions, the implication follows that Muslims must be singled out for special scrutiny, perhaps along the lines this author suggested in 2003:
Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples.[44]
Implementing such a policy means focusing law enforcement attention on a community that is defined by its religion. This flies in the face of liberal, multicultural, and politically correct values; it also will be portrayed as illegal and perhaps unconstitutional. It means distinguishing on the basis of a person's group characteristics. It involves profiling. These changes have unsettling implications that will be condemned as "racist" and "Islamophobic," accusations that can ruin careers in today's public environment.
Islam-related explanations may offer a more persuasive accounting than turning perpetrators into victims, but the imperative not to tamper with existing social mores trumps counterterrorism. This accounts for police, prosecutors, politicians, and professors avoiding the actual factors behind Islamist attacks and instead finding miscellaneous mundane motives. Those soothing and inaccurate bromides have the advantage of implying no changes other than vigilance against weapons. Dealing with unpleasant realities can be deferred.
Finally, denial appears to work. Just because law enforcement, the military, and intelligence agencies tiptoe around the twin topics of Islamic motivation and the disproportionate Islamist terrorism when addressing the public does not stop these same institutions in practice from focusing quietly on Islam and Muslims. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that they do just this, and it has led to an effective counterterrorism effort since 9/11 with close scrutiny on everything from mosques to hawalas (informal Muslim financial exchanges). As a result, with rare exceptions (such as the Fort Hood shooter), Islamist terrorist networks tend to be stymied and successful assaults tend to come out of nowhere from perpetrators characterized by sudden jihad syndrome.
Arguing against Denial
While respecting the urge not to aggravate Muslim sensibilities and acknowledging that the frank discussion of Islam can have major consequences for ordering society, this author insists on the need to mention Islam. First, it is not clear how much harm talking about Islam actually does. Genuine anti-Islamist Muslims insist on Islam being discussed; Islamists posing as moderates tend to be those who feign upset about a "war on Islam" and the like.
Second, little evidence points to Muslims being radicalized by mere discussion of Islamism. Quite the contrary, it is usually something specific that turns a Muslim in that direction, from the way American women dress to drone attacks in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan.
Third, while conceding that discussion of Islam has costs, ignoring it costs more. The need to define the enemy, not just within the counsels of war but for the public, trumps all other considerations. As the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu observed, "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles." Karl von Clausewitz's entire theory of war assumes an accurate assessment of the enemy. Just as a medical doctor must identify and name a disease before treating it, so must politicians and generals identify and name the enemy to defeat it.
To censor oneself limits one's ability to wage war. Avoiding mention of the enemy's identity sows confusion, harms morale, and squanders strengths. In brief, it offers a recipe for defeat. Indeed, the annals of history record no war won when the enemy's very name and identity may not be uttered; this is all the more so in modern times when defining the enemy must precede and undergird military victory. If you cannot name the enemy, you cannot defeat him.
Fourth, even though law enforcement et al. find that saying one thing in public while doing another in private works, this dishonesty comes at the high price of creating a disconnect between the high-flying words of politicians and the sometimes sordid realities of counterterrorism:
Government employees at risk: On the one hand, out of fear of being exposed, public servants must hide or lie about their activities. On the other, to do their work effectively, they must run afoul of studiously impartial government regulations, or even break the law.
A confused public: Policy statements piously reject any link between Islam and terrorism even as counterterrorism implicitly makes just such a connection.
Advantage Islamists: They (1) point out that government declarations are mere puffery hiding what is really a war against Islam; and (2) win Muslim recruits by asking them whom they believe, straight-talking Islamists or insincere politicians.
"Security theater" and other pantomimes: To convince observers that Muslims are not specifically targeted, others are hauled in for show purposes, wasting finite time and resources.[45]
An increase in resentments and prejudices: People keep their mouths shut but their minds are working. An open public discussion, in which one could condemn Islamists while supporting moderate Muslims, would lead to a better understanding of the problem.
Vigilance discouraged: The campaign of "If You See Something, Say Something" is fine but what are the costs of reporting dubious behavior by a neighbor or a passenger who turns out to be innocent? Although vigilant neighbors have been an important source of counterterrorism leads, anyone who reports his worries opens himself up to vilification as a racist or "Islamophobe," damage to one's career, or even a law suit.[46]
Thus does the unwillingness to acknowledge the Islamist motives behind most terrorism obstruct effective counterterrorism and render further atrocities more likely.
When Denial Will End
Denial is likely to continue until the price gets too steep. The 3,000 victims of 9/11, it turns out, did not suffice to shake Western complacency. 30,000 dead, in all likelihood, will also not suffice. Perhaps 300,000 will. For sure, three million will. At that point, worries about Muslim sensibilities and fear of being called an "Islamophobe" will fade into irrelevance, replaced by a single-minded determination to protect lives. Should the existing order someday be in evident danger, today's relaxed approach will instantly go out the window. The popular support for such measures exists; as early as 2004, a Cornell University poll showed that 44 percent of Americans "believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans."[47]
Israel offers a control case. Because it faces so many threats, the body politic lacks patience with liberal pieties when it comes to security. While aspiring to treat everyone fairly, the government clearly targets the most violent-prone elements of society. Should other Western countries face a comparable danger, circumstances will likely compel them to adopt this same approach.
Conversely, should such mass dangers not arise, this shift will probably never take place. Until and unless disaster on a large scale strikes, denial will continue. Western tactics, in other words, depend entirely on the brutality and competence of the Islamist enemy. Ironically, the West permits terrorists to drive its approach to counterterrorism. No less ironically, it will take a huge terrorist atrocity to enable effective counterterrorism.
Addressing Denial
In the meantime, those who wish to strengthen counterterrorism by acknowledging the role of Islam have three tasks.
First, intellectually to prepare themselves and their arguments so when calamity occurs they possess a fully elaborated, careful, and just program that focuses on Muslims without doing injustice to them.
Second, continue to convince those averse to mentioning Islam that discussing it is worth the price; this means addressing their concerns, not bludgeoning them with insults. It means accepting the legitimacy of their hesitance, using sweet reason, and letting the barrage of Islamist attacks have their effect.
Third, prove that talking about Islamism does not lead to perdition by establishing the costs of not naming the enemy and of not identifying Islamism as a factor; noting that Muslim governments, including the Saudi one, acknowledge that Islamism leads to terrorism; stressing that moderate Muslims who oppose Islamism want Islamism openly discussed; addressing the fear that frank talk about Islam alienates Muslims and spurs violence; and demonstrating that profiling can be done in a constitutionally approved way.
In brief, even without an expectation of effecting a change in policy, there is much work to be done.
Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. He initially delivered this paper at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel.
[1] Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2010.
[2] The Australian (Sydney), Nov. 7, 2009.
[3] Associated Press, Nov. 5, 2012.
[4] Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood, p. 18, fn. 22.
[5] "List of Islamic Terror Attacks," TheReligionOfPeace.com, accessed Dec. 19, 2012.
[6] The New York Times, Nov. 9. 1990.
[7] The Independent (London), Sept. 19, 1997.
[8] Uriel Heilman, "Murder on the Brooklyn Bridge," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2001, pp. 29-37.
[9] The Houston Chronicle, Feb. 26, 1997.
[10] Time Magazine, Jan. 21, 2002.
[11] "Terror in LA?" Honest Reporting (Toronto), July 8, 2002.
[12] Los Angeles Times, Oct. 26, 2002.
[13] Daniel Pipes, "Murder in the 101st Airborne," The New York Post, Mar. 25, 2003.
[14] Brett Kline, "Two Sons of France," The Jerusalem Post Magazine, Jan. 21, 2010.
[15] "Italy: McDonald's Jihad Foiled," Jihad Watch, Mar. 30, 2004.
[16] The Washington Post, Jan. 11, 2005.
[17] Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2006.
[18] San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 30, 2006.
[19] Phyllis Chesler, "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2009, pp. 61-9.
[20] Dateline, NBC, Sept. 21, 2001.
[21] Remarks, The Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., June 27, 2007.
[22] Remarks, UNITY 2004 Conference, Washington D.C., Aug. 6, 2004.
[23] Al-Arabiya News Channel (Dubai), Oct. 5, 2007.
[24] Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, Feb. 3, 2009.
[25] Testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C., May 13, 2010.
[26] Testimony before the U.S. House Committee for Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., Dec. 13, 2011.
[27] Remarks, U.N. General Assembly, New York, Sept. 23, 2010.
[28] "Nine Years after 9/11: Confronting the Terrorist Threat to the Homeland," statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, D.C., Sept. 22, 2010.
[29] Newt Gingrich, "America Is at Risk," American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., July 29, 2010.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Aug. 1, 2006.
[32] Speech at the Foreign Policy Centre, London, Aug. 25, 2005.
[33] Munich Security Conference, Feb. 5, 2011.
[34] Alexandr Vondra, "Radical Islam Poses a Major Challenge to Europe," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2007, pp. 66-8.
[35] Joseph Lieberman, "Who's the Enemy in the War on Terror?" The Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2010.
[36] "The Great Test of This Generation," speech to the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., National Review Online, July 20, 2006.
[37] Scalia J., dissenting, Lakhdar Boumediene, et al., Petitioners, Supreme Court of the United States v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.; Khaled A. F. Al Odah, next friend of Fawzikhalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al., June 12, 2008.
[38] New York: 2007, p. 8.
[39] Gingrich, "America Is at Risk."
[40] Daniel Benjamin, "Name It and Claim It, or Name It and Inflame It?" The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2010.
[41] Lieberman, "Who's the Enemy in the War on Terror?"
[42] Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, Feb. 3, 2009.
[43] Benjamin, "Name It and Claim It, or Name It and Inflame It?"
[44] Daniel Pipes, "The Enemy Within and the Need for Profiling," The New York Post, Jan. 24, 2003.
[45] Daniel Pipes, "Security Theater Now Playing at Your Airport," The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 6, 2010.
[46] M. Zuhdi Jasser, "Exposing the 'Flying Imams,'" Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008, pp. 3-11.
[47] "Fear Factor," Cornell News (Ithaca), Dec. 17, 2004.