'It is Syria's turn after Iraq'

by Musa Keilani

President George W. Bush is determined to keep pressuring Syria until the country and its leadership fit into his scheme of things. His flat rejection of any partial withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, even before Syrian President Bashar Assad announced it, clearly shows the US president's determination not to let Damascus off the hook after the Feb. 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Assad is trapped. There is not even the remotest possibility that Washington would accept any of his positions, whether political or military, in Lebanon now and, soon, on the regional scene. Even if Assad is ready to do America's bidding and conveys this willingness to Bush, it seems there is no way the US president will accept it and allow Syria a face-saving formula.

The daily anti-Syrian protests and slogans coming out of Lebanon should be music to the ears of the Bush administration. All the pieces have fallen into place in the American quest to evict Syria from Lebanon. Washington's ultimatum to Syria to get out of Lebanon is backed by France, other European countries, some Arab states, as well as the United Nations. The other half of the job is on the shoulders of the people of Lebanon, who have risen to the occasion by clearly signalling that they would no longer put up with the Syrian dominance of their country, their politics and their life.

They are insisting on non-interference of external forces, mainly Syrian, in their affairs. They are absolutely justified in their demand and positions. It is their right to demand to be free from external dominance. For many reasons, few in the Arab world spoke out until now against the Syrian dominance of Lebanon, a repeat of the situation in Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein. Everyone knew what was happening in Iraq under Saddam, but few highlighted it. It was as if the rest of the Arabs did not care if Saddam maintained his oppressive reign on his people as long as he stood out as an Arab leader who dared to challenge the US.

The situation in Lebanon is slightly different because of the Israeli involvement there, but there could never be any valid reason or justification for the Syrians to keep their stranglehold on Lebanon.

Comparisons are many, but the best could be that of a jealous secret lover, with Damascus considering Beirut as its prized possession committed to obeying its master's wishes no matter what. Any third party looking at that beauty would trigger violent reactions from the secret lover. We have seen it happen several times, and perhaps it was partially apprehension at the Syrian reaction that made many in the Arab world keep their thoughts to themselves regarding the Syrian-Lebanese relationship until a drastic change took place with the assassination of Hariri last month.

Indeed, it is yet another major Arab failure. It reminds us that many Arab commentators and media sought to project the image of an invincible Saddam, thus raising Arab hopes that somehow the Iraqi strongman would be able to withstand the US attacks. What was underplayed in Iraq was the American determination to remove Saddam from power, wreck the country's military to ensure that it would never be a threat to any country, impose an "America-friendly" regime in Baghdad and turn the natural resources of Iraq and its strategic location into a weapon in the American quest for international domination.

One has to take very seriously Bush's words that "when the United States and France say withdraw, we mean complete withdrawal".

"Syria, Syrian troops, Syria's intelligence services, must get out of Lebanon now," said Bush on Friday, reflecting his conviction that he has the Syrians by the jugular. "The world is beginning to speak with one voice. We want that democracy in Lebanon succeed, and we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power and that power is Syria."

The US' quest to get Syria out of Lebanon does not stem from an overwhelming desire to restore democracy to that country or from any sympathy for the Lebanese people. Washington couldn't care less if a military regime took power in Lebanon as long as the Syrians and the Iranians don't have a say in it and the regime does not challenge American/Israeli interests. Once we understand that this is the foundation of the American approach to Lebanon, it becomes very easy to understand Bush's pronouncements, including his declaration that the US would not accept the kind of "half-measures" Damascus was expected to propose as a compromise.

Many in the Arab world have indeed understood the seriousness of the situation. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah have warned Assad their relations will suffer if Syria does not start soon on a complete withdrawal and leave the Lebanese alone. Damascus sees the outcome of the tussle over Lebanon as a make-or-break factor for its future because its influence in and dominance over its neighbour is deemed to be key to Syrian options in dealing with Israel.

Withdrawing its forces from Lebanon and allowing the Lebanese to take control of their lives has deep political, military and economic implications for Syria. Damascus knows well that if it loses the "Lebanese card", its options will be narrowed to a large extent before being deprived of all options altogether, hence the Syrian effort to somehow escape from the trap with its skin intact. But it does not seem to be a likely prospect at all. It is Syria's turn after Iraq.

This article was published in the Sunday, March 6, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.