Where next in the war on terrorism?
By: Elie Atme
Mr. James Woolsey, a member of the Pentagon's advisory Defense Policy Board and former director of the CIA, declared in one of his interviews on the NBC show, "Meet the Press" that the U.S. is now engaged in a "World War IV" against regimes that support terrorism; to mention a few: the mullahs of Iran, Syria's fascists and communist North Korea.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage considered a dove in the U.S. Administration declared this unmistakably by saying Hezbollah; they are the A Team of terrorists. They are on the list, and their time will come. There is no question about it.
Since the Bush administration
adopted its policy of a pre-emptive strike as a means of enhancing US security the
question that needs to be asked is not whether Iran and Syria are on the list of
priorities, but rather what ranking they hold on that list.
The US Administration's most important decision has been to enhance the security of the
U.S. and its allies by cracking down on global terrorists and the states that protect
them; Washington is resolute in its war on terrorism.
What's more, the Bush administration's million dollar question and to be exact the force driving this campaign would be: What if terrorists ever possess weapons of mass destruction; will they use them? For this reason, states that have links to terrorism must not be permitted such weapons.
Mr. Colin Powell announced at the
start of this war that the US administration was setting aside the sum of $29 million to
encourage the development of democratic structures in the Middle East. In other words, if
there were true democratic states in the Middle East, the troubles of the region would no
longer spill over into the wider world.
If you accept that analysis, then what should the Administration do now? The government of
Iran supports terrorism with Syria, a supporter of Lebanon's Hezbollah that has long
desired to possess nuclear weapons. In principle, the mullahs of Iran should be quaking
under their turbans and the Syrians who in turn have been busy lately trying hard to
polish the image of the Baathist's rusty regime.
Indeed, by now the debate in the US administration would be along the lines of, when do we begin shifting our policy toward isolating these rogue states (Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea) and toward bringing down these regimes as well? The most likely answer is, not anytime soon!
For a start, obvious American
pressure on the hard-liners in Iran would make the position of liberal reformers
indefensible, forcing them to choose between nationalism and the risk of appearing to be
US lackeys. Second, since the US so far failed to produce the evidence that prompted it to
go to war against Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) it would have difficulties
mustering any coalition of forces to go to war against Syria or Iran in that regard.
Third, as far as the Libyan dictator we all know how he accepted to pay his long overdue
account. Fourth, North Korean engaged in a diplomatic negotiation over the Korean
peninsula, that leaving the issue of Hezbollah.
The mullahs in Iran can sleep relatively easily for now; their protégés in Hezbollah
should not. Even some officials who are privately dismissive of the new agenda seem
prepared to yank the chain of Syrian Dictator Mr. Assad, whom they consider a
disappointing, feeble reformer who has failed to rein in his own security forces. Some US
intelligence officers have indicated on numerous occasions that Syria allowed men and
material to cross its border and join Saddam's forces during the war in Iraq and that
scores of Syrians were captured and interrogated during the war.
When asked last week, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield in his vulpine way reiterated that Iran and Syria are responsible for the troubles in Iraq. On the contrary, Syria denies helping Iraq or its fleeing officials and utterly rejects the US claims that Syrian members of the Baathist regime are infiltrating through the borders to join the war in defending their Baathist Iraqi brothers. Syrian officials claim that terrorist bases in Syria were shut down, in spite of all American officials addressing this problem who confirmed the opposite through the backing of the intelligent communities' substantiating this information.
It seems the regime in Syria is resorting to its old bag of tricks in lying and deceiving as it did in Lebanon during the 80's and why not? It did wonders to the Baathist (Syrian) regime then and at the end it was rewarded for its action when it managed to dupe past US administration!!
Nowadays it's totally different;
Iraq is not Lebanon. The US interest as well as the long term strategy in Iraq is
one of an engagement through all governmental levels. The only conclusion is that the Bush
Administration policy, in so far as it is directed at Syria, is to some extent holding out
that the demonstration of American power in Iraq will encourage Syria to forswear
terrorism and any ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The Syrian regime is
on notice that if it does not start to change its policies, it may find that the U.S. is
prepared to do the job for it alone if it has to. In that this has already been
demonstrated to the Syrians with the cross border fire fight, we all know the end result.
Relative admonition on Iran, relative hawkishness on Hezbollah and Syria! Within the terms
of the Administration policy objectives, that sort of pecking order makes sense. But in
the Middle East and among Washington's closest allies such a priority list would have a
gaping hole in it.
The U.S. cannot meet its
objective of building a safer world without determinedly addressing its winning strategy;
with the Israeli-Palestinian Road Map declared dead by no other than Mr. terrorist
himself, Yasser Arafat. The constant political scoring of these terrorist states and
groups beamed into televisions in homes all over the Middle East, is a recruiting sergeant
for militant groups.
Is Bush serious about winning the war on terror? With the US presidential election just
around the corner his winning streak should uphold his Middle Eastern strategy to convince
the undecided by means of presenting a lasting achievement such as solving the Lebanese
dilemma. It's a domino effect!
Why the question everyone is asking whether or not Bush is serious in winning the war on
terror? Well, four (4) basic particulars:
Human rights a basic necessity in anyone's life, for any human being to enjoy freedom his
rights must be protected, for any person to be able to express his or her opinion they
should feel safe they are not going to end up in any dictator's private dungeon.
By bringing back human rights to Lebanon you have a voice from within the region demanding more. The people on the streets in the Middle East are always on the look out for a strong voice, with the militant zealots overcoming the voices of the majority with their death threats and loud explosions, you cannot expect these people to listen to distant voices (USA, Europe, Australia, etc.) thousand of kilometers away discussing human right issues.
With the region devoid of
thriving and prospering human rights in any country in the region, you can forget about
political and economical changes. The people in the region need to feel and
experience the change firsthand in order for them to accept it, how can you explain
freedom and democracy to any individual if they never experience it beforehand, then again
they don't have the right to express their opinion openly?
Freedom and democracy - Simply putting it; by freeing Lebanon from the claws of evil
(Syria), the Lebanese society could have a solid base for a successful democracy (which is
a bit rusty) but it can be revived very quickly, with freedom injected back into the
Lebanese body so it can speak the language of the region wherein at one prior point or
another was a respected voice regionally and worldwide. Common sense tells me that
you have a better advantage in spreading the word of freedom and democracy using a native
tongue than through speeches delivered by foreigners.
Furthermore, Lebanon before the
war was the driving force behind freedom and democracy in the Middle East; bear in mind
Beirut was the voice of the voiceless in times when dictatorships were sweeping the
region, until the Baathist (Syrian) regime and its cronies silenced our free voice in
Lebanon under the watchful eyes of the whole world.
Political and economic change - Freeing Lebanon would dilute and expose the Syrian feeble
political forte and destabilize their economy. Just think about that for a minute! With
the US forces in Iraq, the Baathist Syrian regime lost a golden opportunity for a trading
market to off-load their cheap products in Iraq, the shutting down of the infamous
Syrian-Iraqi oil pipeline and last but not the least a loss of income from arms deals done
by Syrian officials on behalf of the Iraqi army in the black market. An economic bazaar
(market) that siphoned hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars out of the Iraqi
Baathist regime benefiting no other than Mr. tyrant himself (Assad junior) and his inner
circle. By pulling the rug from underneath the Syrian regime in (occupied) Lebanon you
will tighten the grip on their airway passages just enough to force them to submit to
conciliation.
Terrorism with Syrian manipulation diminished from the Lebanese scene you would neutralize
the Baathist regime's trump card in its political poker game and the use of terrorism as a
political leverage. Mr. Assad made it clear when he said in one of his interviews that
"Hezbollah serves Syria’s interest on the Lebanese-Israeli frontier until"
he "regains the Golan Heights".
In addition, with Lebanon free
and democratic, the closing of Palestinian terrorist camps in Lebanon could be
accomplished; more then ever drying up financial and arms shipments, making it difficult
for the Bassist (Syrian) regime to bluff anymore. Moreover, delivering a stern message to
terrorist circles that you can run but you can not hide.
If the Bush Administration were to promote a lasting serene settlement in the region, they
need to implement these four (4) basic facts in any Middle-Eastern country and which
country is more ready than Lebanon! Introducing a new political concept to the region by
means of mediation, negotiation, road map or whatever you want to call it cannot, YES! I
repeat cannot be responded to by the people unless they experience first hand this
positive change which they disparately need in their lives.
Without seeing solid proof of what the US methods would bring the people would regard these policies with suspicions and at the end they will melt away as the previous attempts beginning with the Tenet proposal to the road map. The list of failed attempts on Lebanon's behalf is getting longer for the past decades.
The power of the U.S. is too great and its influence too pervasive for it ever to be loved by all. But a live experience--a free Lebanon--in the region is all the region might need to launch a domino effect to replace the never ending violence in settling a dispute that has bedevilled the globe and caused deep human suffering for generation
This new course might have a chance of lasting longer than most of them.