Barack Obama’s Courtship of Bashar al-Assad

by Clay Claiborne on September 15, 2012

Preface

I have been a Linux advocate since 1996 but today I am using the term “open source” in a new context with a new meaning. I have known it to mean computer software for which the all-important source code is freely available and generally under some degree of “copy-left” protection, but in the intelligence world, i.e. spyville, it refers to publicly available information of the sort found in newspapers, press releases and government publications; the kind of stuff we all have access to.

This history of the relationship between the Obama administration and the regime of Bashar al-Assad has been done as an investigative partnership organiszed by WikiLeaks.

I have been privileged to have access not only to the usual open source medias but also to three generally “closed source” databases highly relevant to my search, thanks to Wikileaks.

The first is the Cablegate database of secret US State Department cables published by Wikileaks. This gave me a window into what the US government was really doing and saying.

The second were the Syria files that WikiLeaks published. This collection of emails and their attachments to and from high Syrian officials, allowed me to see things from their point of view, you might say.

Finally, there are the 5 million emails of the global intelligence company Stratfor obtained by WikiLeaks. I have joined the Wikileaks  Global Intelligence Files research and publication team on this new treasure trove of information from the company commonly known as the “private CIA.”

They track everything happening in world affairs and they run their own string of agents and informers, including in the highest offices in Washington, D.C. and Damascus. This source of material gave me invaluable insights into what was really going on. The material from the GI Files incorporated into this essay is being published by Wikileaks at the same time as this essay. I want to thank Pham Binh of the North Star for editing my rough draft.

Donate to Wikileaks. They deserve and need your support to make projects like these possible.

Barack Obama’s Courtship of Bashar al-Assad
President Barack Obama wasn’t thinking about Bashar al-Assad when he was being sworn in as President of the United States on 20 January 2009, but he was thinking about a second term and he knew nothing could guarantee that like a breakthrough on the Israeli-Arab front; That is why he wasted no time in naming George Mitchell his special envoy to the Middle East only two days after he took office on 22 January 2009. Less than a month later, on 21 February 2009, U.S. Senator John Kerry was meeting with the Syrian President in Damascus. Senator Kerry would become Obama’s key envoy in dealing with Assad.

The “reformer” and the “change” candidate

The main focus of peace negotiations in the Middle East has long been the need for a settlement of Israeli-Palestinian issues. The Arab position was embodied in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, while Israel continued grab more Palestinian land, oppress the Palestinian people and insist that all of Jerusalem is its capital. The two sides were as far a part as ever when Obama took office and the split between Hamas and Fatah made things even more complicated on the Palestinian side.

But there was another road to a peace breakthrough in the Middle East. Syria looked forward to a new administration in the White House and was eager to end its suffering under the Bush administration’s policy of sanctions, isolation and the threat of “regime change.” Bashar al-Assad lead Obama to believe that he was now very serious about doing a peace deal with Israel and was interested in working with the US in other areas including common work in the “Global War on Terror” and cooperating to create more stability in Lebanon.

As he entered the White House, Obama saw two roads to a Middle East peace breakthrough, and since Hamas maintained its headquarters in Damascus, both roads went through Damascus. Furthermore, it was clear to Obama and anyone else that looked at the world situation objectively that Bush’s policy of lumping Syria together with Iran and attempting to isolate it had been a dismal failure. So Obama hit the ground running with a new policy of engagement with Syria, and that meant engagement with al-Assad.

As a matter of fact, Obama didn’t even wait until he was sworn in as president to begin that process. On 12 November 2008, just a week after he had won the election, a delegation representing President-elect Obama , met with Syrian officials at a meeting in Beirut that was very hush-hush. I wasn’t much reported in the Western media or mentioned by the Syrian press, but it was covered by Al-Ahram Weekly:

A US delegation affiliated with President-elect Barack Obama visited Syria on 12 November and met with two figures close to the Syrian government. The US delegation, comprising intellectuals, academics, and politicians from several US states, aimed to find out more about the impact of Obama’s election on the region, explore Arab reactions, and examine the future of US relations with the Syrian government.

The meeting took place at the Arab Institute for International and Diplomatic Sciences in Beirut. Syrian media made no mention of the visit. The delegation is on a regional tour of six Middle East countries, including Lebanon and Jordan to gather information about Arab reaction to Obama’s election and the prospects of peace and dialogue in the region. The US consul in Damascus briefed the delegation on Syrian reaction to US policies.
..
The Syrians told the US delegation that Damascus is interested in defusing tensions in the regions, is earnestly pursuing talks with Israel, and wants the Americans to sponsor and participate in these talks. Damascus holds no grudges towards the US administration and believes that the best way to sort out problems is through dialogue.

Third, the Syrians are looking for yet another way to open up to the United States, and are laying the groundwork for what they hope will be a political rapprochement between the al Assad regime and the incoming administration led by President-elect Barack Obama. By privately demonstrating to Washington and Beirut that it is cooperating against significant militant groups in Lebanon, the Syrians are sending a deliberate message to the incoming U.S. administration that Syria is prepared and capable of dismantling militant organizations – to include Hezbollah – in exchange for normalization of relations and support in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations. The Syrians have also been exhibiting their cooperation in clamping down on insurgent traffic into Iraq toward this.

A week after this meeting between the Obama people and the Syrian official on 20 November 2008, the global intelligence firm Stratfor was reporting that “Syria throws Fateh al Islam under the bus” in internal memos obtained by WikiLeaks [214636]:

Stratfor has learned that Syria has made a decision to cut off ties with Fatah al Islam, a murky Islamist militant group operating in Lebanon whose paychecks primarily come from Syrian military intelligence. The Syrian move is intended to solidify ties with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman to further Syrian interests in Lebanon. In the past, Syria counted on its militant proxies in Fatah al Islam to undermine the Lebanese army and build up a case for Syrian intervention in Lebanon. The Syrians will now focus on Saudi-backed Islamist militants in Lebanon to serve this goal as the Damascus-Riyadh rivalry continues to build. At the same time, Syria appears to be signaling to the incoming U.S. administration that it is; prepared to dismantle militant groups in Lebanon – to include Hezbollah – in exchange for normalizing relations.

So even before Obama took office the Assad regime was signaling a certain willingness to play ball.

Genesis of the US-Syrian Engagement

The hope that Bashar al-Assad would prove to be a less brutal dictator than his father has had a history in the US that goes back to when the son first took over the presidency in 2000. Even the neocon Middle-East “expert” Daniel Pipes told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as much:

“But I’m hopeful that, within the context of Syrian political life, which has been totalitarian, brutalized, impoverished — that within this context, the fresh face, fresh approach of Bashar Assad could lead to good things.”

28 December 2006, Senators Chris Dodd and Kerry had wide ranging discussions with Assad in Damascus that focused on Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict according to US State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks [#06DAMASCUS5447, #06DAMASCUS5448 ]. They were there following the recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report on the situation in Iraq that had been released on 6 December 2006 and recommended that the US move from the Bush policy of isolation towards Iran and Syria to one of engagement. The Israeli news outlet Haaretz told of the report’s recommendations with regards to Syria:

In relation to Israel, the Baker-Hamilton panel is recommending talks along two main axes: Syria-Lebanon and the Palestinians.The committee sets the conditions Damascus must fulfill to be considered an effective interlocutor, some of which are similar to those posed by the Bush administration to the Assad regime in exchange for dialogue.

The U.S. continues to demand that Syria avoid interference in Lebanon’s domestic affairs; that it cooperate in the investigation of the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri; that it cease all assistance to Hezbollah and undertake efforts to persuade Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, the panel concludes that Israel must return the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a peace treaty, and says that in exchange Israel will be granted security guarantees from the United States on this front.

This report was widely praised by many leading Democrats, including Speaker of the House designate Nancy Pelosi and Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)  and a number of Republicans including Senators Chuck Hagel and Susan Collins, but the neocons hated it, the conservatives criticized it and President Bush ultimately rejected it’s recommendations, including direct talks with Iran and Syria, instead opting for escalation in Iraq and isolating Iran and Syria.

The Democrats had already taken back Congress but Bush was still in the driver’s seat with regards to foreign policy. Most objective Middle East observers could already see that his attempt to isolate Syria along with Iran was a dismal failure and was even undermining the goal that most of them agreed on: isolating Iran. While the Bush sanctions were hurting the Syrian economy, they weren’t creating a situation that threatened the regime’s grip on power. With Assad’s close alliance with Iran and through his influence with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, both of which had headquarters in Damascus, Assad made himself the indispensable player in any Middle East peace plan.

The Baker-Hamilton report expressed this view and suggested that instead of trying to isolate the Baathist regime in Damascus, they should instead follow a policy of engagement because all roads to a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement led to Damascus. Against the wishes of the Bush administration, Nancy Pelosi, now Speaker of the House, said that she had “determined that the road to Damascus is the road to peace,” took a congressional delegation that included Dennis Kucinich and Dick Lugar to Damascus and met with Assad in April 2007. She said of Assad:

“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process.”

This was the genesis of the Syria policy that Obama bought with him to the White House. It was about diplomacy and doing deals between world leaders. Whatever problems the Syrian people might have with their leadership, that was their problem; their legitimate grievances were not part of his calculus and he was blindsided when those people rose up against the government he had by then spent so much time cultivating and blew his carefully tended peace plans all to hell. While he was quicker to grasp the meaning of the Arab Spring in the other countries of North Africa and the Middle East, he was in denial for a long time with regards to Syria and I think he still holds out hope that somehow Assad will survive and the deal can be salvaged.

While he was still a presidential candidate in June 2008, Senator Obama foreign policy adviser Daniel Kurtzer took the road to Damascus and met with Assad’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. He was following in the footsteps of Obama supporter Zbigniew Brzezinski who had met with Assad in February according to the New York Sun. After Kurtzer’s stop-over in Damascus, he joined “the presumptive Democratic nominee for the Israeli-Palestinian Arab leg of his Middle East tour.” Officially he went to Damascus for a conference arranged by the British Syrian Society which was described as “closely connected to the [Assad] family”, and officially had nothing to do with the campaign. A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, Wendy Morigi, said: “Senator Obama values the expertise of Ambassador Kurtzer, but he is not a paid adviser, nor is he authorized to conduct talks with any government.” Bush was still the president and he would try to make anyone who took the road to Damascus pay a toll.

This didn’t stop Republican presidential contender John McCain from trying to make hay of the trip:

“If one of Senator Obama’s advisers has been to Damascus, we just wonder how many have been to Tehran.”

Obama’s Courtship Begins

After Obama became president, Assad told the Guardian:

“We have the impression that this administration will be different and we have seen the signals. But we have to wait for the reality and the results,”

Between 17 – 22 February 2009, a Congressional delegation consisting of Benjamin Cardin, Howard Berman and John Kerry visited Damascus. The Damascus Embassy told them From [09DAMASCUS132] obtained by WikiLeaks:

You should expect an enthusiastic reception by government officials of the Syrian Arab Republic (SARG) and from the media, who will interpret your presence as a signal that the USG is ready for enhanced U.S.-Syrian relations. Your visits over the course of February 17 – 22 form a trifecta that Syrians will spin as evidence of the new Administration’s recognition of Syria’s regional importance. The Syrians will look for your assessments on the possibility of reversing U.S. sanctions policy, and they will gauge your views on the probability of returning a U.S. ambassador to Damascus. The SARG may also seek your views on a U.S. role in the Golan track with Israel. While we hope the SARG might reveal a tangible side to their positions, our recent experience (and that of the French) has shown that the Syrian government’s positive rhetoric yields little result over time. Already, the SARG has begun to link potential movement on issues of operational importance to the Embassy — like identifying a plot of land for a new Embassy compound — to major bilateral issues, including their fervent desire to see U.S. economic sanctions lifted. On Syria’s relationship with Hizballah, Hamas, and Iran, we expect President Asad to defend the necessity of ties to these actors because of Israel’s continuing occupation of Arab land. We view your visits as an opportunity to educate senior Syrian leaders on Washington priorities in the region and how Congress views Syria in the context of the United States Government’s new policy of engagement. (They are not always clear on the difference between Congress and the Administration.)

Middle East OnLine reported that this was the second congressional delegation to visit Syria in the first month of the Obama presidency:

The Cardin-led delegation is the second congressional team to visit Syria in less than a month and John Kerry, foreign relations committee chairman, is expected to make the country one of his stops on a current Middle East tour.Assad described the visits as “important” and a “good gesture,” but said he hoped Washington would send an ambassador to cement these ties.

The United States pulled it ambassador from Syria after the February 2005 assassination in Beirut of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri in a car bomb attack blamed on Syria. Damascus has denied any involvement.

The CONDELS and pre-presidential contacts were more like foreplay, just copping a feel. The real courtship began with the meeting of Senator John Kerry and President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on 21 February 2009. Reuters reported on the meeting:

Senator Kerry: Syria willing to help achieve Palestinian unity

After meeting President Assad, Kerry says “this is an important moment of change’ for the Middle East.”

Syria has indicated it is willing to help achieve a Palestinian unity government that could restart peace talks with Israel, chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry said on Saturday.

Syria, which is under U.S. sanctions, hosts the exiled leadership of Hamas and has influence on the Palestinian group.

“Syria could be, in fact, very helpful in helping to bring about a unity government,” Senator John Kerry told reporters after meeting President Bashar Assad.

“If you achieve that, then you have made a major step forward not only in dealing with the problems of Gaza but you have made a major step forward in terms of how you reignite discussions for the two-state solution … I think that Syria indicated to me a willingness to be helpful in that respect.”

Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, is expected to take part in Egyptian-sponsored unity talks between Palestinian groups on Wednesday. Washington supports Cairo’s mediation, although it regards Hamas as a terrorist group.

The Fatah faction of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has historically been on poor terms with Damascus.

Abbas broke off peace talks with Israel during its 22-day offensive against Hamas in Gaza but later criticized the Islamist group for what he described as reckless decisions that invited the invasion.

Syria backed Hamas during the conflict, deepening the rift between Damascus and U.S. allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Kerry, one of several Democratic lawmakers to visit Syria since President Barack Obama took office last month, said Syria had an opportunity to take advantage of the new administration in Washington.

“I believe very deeply that this is an important moment of change, a moment of potential transformation, not just in the relationship between the United States and Syria but in the relationship of the region,” Kerry said.

Assad had emphasized Syria’s desire to have a dialogue with the Obama administration after years of tension with the United States when George W. Bush was in power.

Damascus supports the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Washington has accused Syria of allowing rebels to infiltrate Iraq.

“What I heard is great willingness to share, with respect to Iraq…I heard strong language about the hopes for Lebanon and the possibilities of providing stabilities,” said Kerry, who is close to Obama.

“My hope [is that] in the next days things will begin to emerge that can begin to signal that kind of different possibility.”

Journalist Seymour Hersh talked to Kerry after his meeting with Assad and wrote about it in the New Yorker:

These diplomatic possibilities were suggested by Senator John Kerry, of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who met with Assad in Damascus in February—his third visit since Assad took office, in 2000. “He wants to engage with the West,” Kerry said in an interview in his Senate office. “Our latest conversation gave me a much greater sense that Assad is willing to do the things that he needs to do in order to change his relationship with the United States. He told me he’s willing to engage positively with Iraq, and have direct discussions with Israel over the Golan Heights—with Americans at the table. I will encourage the Administration to take him up on it.“Of course, Syria will not suddenly move against Iran,” Kerry said. “But the Syrians will act in their best interest, as they did in their indirect negotiations with Israel with Turkey’s assistance—and over the objections of Iran.”

The US Embassy in Damascus passed along the following CONFIDENTIAL assessments of that meeting in three cables. Obama needed Assad’s cooperation in fulfilling his campaign pledge to bring US troops home from Iraq. Assad was in a position to throw a real monkey wrench into that, so that was at the top of the agenda. From [09DAMASCUS158] obtained by WikiLeaks.

Summary: Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator John Kerry told President Asad that he believed progress was being made in Iraq and the U.S. wanted to withdraw its troops as soon as possible. The recent provincial elections in Iraq had been the first real, positive sign that Iraq was moving forward and the first demonstration of the legitimacy of the GOI’s authority, Asad said, but the U.S. should give the Iraqi leadership “more space” or they will be labelled American puppets. Before the U.S. leaves Iraq, Asad said, it must ensure that it won’t allow federalism to fragment the country. If Iraq were to break down into federal states, the Sunni state, Asad predicted, would be governed by al-Qaeda and the Shi-ite state by Iran. The Kurds will end up fighting with Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Syria and Iran see Iraq differently from each other. Asad advised that the U.S. must view Iran as a Persian state, more than as a Shi-ite state ) the cultural identity, he implied, is more important than the religious identify. “Don’t bet on Khatami’s candidacy (in Iran’s June presidential elections),” Asad warned. “You can make deals with Ahmadinejad more (readily) than you can with Khatami
. . .
Never mind the rhetoric, Ahmadinejad has political power.” Kerry expressed concern over Iran’s continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability and Asad responded by saying there should be a mechanism for monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities; states do not operate on trust. Asad said it is necessary to shift discussion from Iran’s right to nuclear technology to means of monitoring its activities. By attacking Iran’s right, Asad said, “you unify Iran.” End Summary.

and the situation in Lebanon is important. From [09DAMASCUS159] obtained by Wikileaks:

Summary: Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator John Kerry asked President Bashar al-Asad February 21 about Syria’s activities in Lebanon in the lead-up to Lebanese elections in June. Asad, clearly primed, demanded, “Saudi Arabia has spent millions of dollars in Lebanon for the elections . . . are you against this (too)?”Asadrefused to yield to pressure to quickly name a Syrian ambassador to Beirut, calling it a “sovereign issue,” and implying that the French had railroaded him unwittingly into making a commitment to send an ambassador before the end of 2008. “Every step has a meaning,” he said, declaring that he knew whom he would appoint and when he would announce the appointment, refusing to share the information before then. Asad alleged the Saudis were “paying out money, approaching the elections like a political war.” If the line that ultimately separates Lebanon’s political opponents is sectarian, then, Asad warned, the seeds of the next civil war will have been sown. Asad’s overt anxiety over trends in Lebanon, and his particular concern over Saudi interference, demonstrates yet again that Syria views Lebanon as its vulnerable underbelly and is still preoccupied by the perpetual concern that civil war could once again erupt there. End Summary.

And finally there was the all important question of the Middle East Peace process. From [09DAMASCUS160]:

Summary: Syrian President Bashar al-Asad told Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator John Kerry that the U.S. position on the Middle East peace process is Syria’s most important concern. Kerry said there was consensus among President Obama, Secretary Clinton, APNSA Jones and himself on their hopes for the Middle East. The U.S. needs to talk respectfully and frankly with the parties in the Middle East. Kerry then advised Asad that the perception he got from other regional leaders is “Bashar al-Asad says one thing and does another . . or he says he will do something and then doesn’t do it.” Asad demanded specific examples: “I need to know this,” he said. Absolving himself of credibility gaps, Asad said he wanted better relations with the U.S. He cited counter-terrorism, a unified Iraq, and peace with Israel as areas where the U.S. and Syria have common interests. Senator Kerry asked Asad what he could take back to Washington as an indicator of Asad’s good will. Asad deflected the question by asking what is the U.S. willing to do? Is it willing to revive the peace process, for example? And that seems to be the main stumbling block in restoring a U.S. ) Syrian dialogue: the Syrians are unwilling to make concessions, convinced as they are that they were ill-used and unappreciated by the Bush Administration. Having apparently made a tactical decision against it, the SARG did not raise the Syria Accountability Act. End Summary.

As the courtship progressed, on 26 February 2009 Syrian ambassador in Washington, DC was invited to meet the acting head of the Near Eastern Affairs bureau, Jeffrey Feltman, who had been U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. We see this as an opportunity to explore those areas where we have potential for progress,” the official told Reuters which also reported the Syrian view of this meeting:

Syrian embassy spokesman Ahmed Salkini said no reasons were given by the State Department for the meeting but Syria hoped for an end to the “dictation” policies of the past administration of President George W. Bush. “We hope we will see new policies, a new approach and a new vision over what we had over the past eight years,” said Salkini of a possible thaw in ties between the two nations.

An internal Stratfor email gives us a clue as to why Assad’s terrible human rights record played no part in the discussions, and also spoke about the beginnings of intel sharing that didn’t make the official reports. Reva Bhalla wrote: [1198916]:

according to one of my sources, the syrians also gave them the middle finger and said they dont have to cooperate when the US is committing human rights violations through its occupation in iraq, etc. at the same time, there has been some ‘low-level intel cooperation’ (which jibes with the insight ive been getting through a source in syria and what we wrote about).

now with bashar going to saudi we could see things move quicker

CNN reported that there also was a meeting between Secretary of State Hilliary Clinton and Syria’s foreign minister Walid al-Moualem at about this time:

Clinton and Moualem met briefly in March 2009 on the sidelines of an international donors conference on rebuilding the Gaza strip after the December 2008 Israeli offensive. They spoke by phone earlier this year about improving the U.S.-Syria bilateral relationship.

Also in March 2009 Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the ruler of Qatar, told Seymour Hersh in Doha that “Syria is eager to engage with the West.” Hersh wrote about this and other observations in a major New Yorker piece, Syria Calling, on 6 April 2009:

A former American diplomat who has been involved in the Middle East peace process said, “There are a lot of people going back and forth to Damascus from Washington saying there is low-hanging fruit waiting for someone to harvest.” A treaty between Syria and Israel “would be the start of a wide-reaching peace-implementation process that will unfold over time.”

Many Israelis and Americans involved in the process believe that a deal on the Golan Heights could be a way to isolate Iran, one of Syria’s closest allies, and to moderate Syria’s support for Hamas and for Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group.

A major change in American policy toward Syria is clearly under way. “The return of the Golan Heights is part of a broader strategy for peace in the Middle East that includes countering Iran’s influence,” Martin Indyk, a former American Ambassador to Israel, who is now the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, said. “Syria is a strategic linchpin for dealing with Iran and the Palestinian issue. Don’t forget, everything in the Middle East is connected, as Obama once said.”

For negotiations to begin, the Syrians understood that Washington would no longer insist that Syria shut down the Hamas liaison office in Damascus and oust its political leader, Khaled Meshal. Syria, instead, will be asked to play a moderating role with the Hamas leadership, and urge a peaceful resolution of Hamas’s ongoing disputes with Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The Syrians were also told that the Obama Administration was reëvaluating the extent of Syria’s control over Hezbollah.

During the long campaign for the White House, Obama often criticized Syria for its links to terrorism, its “pursuit of weapons of mass destruction,” and its interference in Lebanon, where Syria had troops until 2005 and still plays a political role. (Assad dismissed the criticisms in his talk with me: “We do not bet on speeches during the campaign.”) But Obama said that he would be willing to sit down with Assad in the first year of his Presidency without preconditions. He also endorsed the Syrian peace talks with Israel. “We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests,” he said at the annual conference, last June, of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations.”

But just when the re-engagement with Syria seemed to be getting off swimmingly, it started to hit some rapids when the US renewed sanctions against Syria, according to this Stratfor GI File [77025] dated 26 May 2009 and obtained by WikiLeaks:

PUBLICATION: background/analysis
ATTRIBUTION: Source in Syria
SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Adviser to Bashar al Assad
SOURCE RELIABILITY: C
ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3-4My source says U.S. President Barack Obama*s decision to renew the sanctions on Syria has shocked his Syrian counterpart Bashar Asad, who now thinks his advisors and the architects of his foreign policy have misled him. Asad seems to have resolved himself to reshuffling his team of advisors and policy implementers. Asad was given the false impression that the U.S. has accepted a major role for him in the region, and that it sees no harm in his return to Lebanon. Asad came to understand from his
country*s diplomats in the US and ministry of foreign affairs that Washington has waived its precondition to resuming normal relations with Syria that it [Syria] first disengages itself from Iran and Hamas.

My source says Obama was enraged by Asad*s decision to host in Damascus Iranian President Ahmadinejad two days before the arrival of the Feltaman-Shapiro team to Damascus. Asad apparently wanted to play a game, that turned crude, with the U.S. to the effect that the improvement of his country*s relations with Washington will not come at the expense of those with Iran.

My source says the Obama administration was particularly enraged by Asad*s decision to prevent Lebanese President Michel Suleiman from forming his own third wave (between the March 8 and March 14 coalitions) parliamentary bloc that would serve as a swing player in Lebanon*s highly polarized politics. Instead, Asad has moved in the wrong direction by promoting the candidacy of the March 8 parliamentary contestants.

My source says the U.S. has made gestures towards Damascus, but the latter misinterpreted them, such as allowing the sale of Boeing spare parts to the Syrian national carrier, and authorizing the Iraqi government to receive Syrian prime minister Naji al-Utari to Baghdad and concluding an agreement that allows for the resumption of the flow of Iraqi oil through the Kirkuk-Banyas pipeline.

My source says the Obama administration grew fed up with the Syrian style of mercantile negotiations, which they could not understand. Eventually, talks between the two countries amounted to a dialog of the deaf.

Two days after this analysis was filed, on 28 May 2009, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was telling Senator Edward Kaufman and Congressman Tim Waltz at a meeting in Damascus that [09DAMASCUS377]:

he is looking for the Obama Administration to put forward a “road map” outlining a way forward in the U.S.-Syrian relationship, and that Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallim would float the idea with Secretary Clinton during their planned June 1 telephone conversation. Asad wondered about U.S. thinking on the sanctions issue, and asked rhetorically whether one goal of U.S.-Syrian re-engagement might be the removal of these “obstacles.” He expressed irritation with a recently released Country Terrorism Report re-identifying Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, and questioned how the USG could take such a step while sending an envoy to Damascus to ask for security cooperation.

Two weeks later, on 14 June, Obama’s Middle East special envoy George Mitchell made his first official visit to Damascus, breaking the diplomatic cold that prevailed between the two countries since 2005″ by meeting with Assad according to Le Monde. The next day, 15 June, U.S. envoy Fred Hoff left Israel for Damascus July 15 to meet with Syrian
Foreign Minister Walid al Moallem, according to a Stratfor report obtained by Wikileaks. [378139] This may have been to prepare for Mitchell’s second visit to Damascus on 26 July 2009, in any case, Fred Hoff was with him on that trip. AP reported on that meeting:

President Obama’s special Mideast envoy arrived Saturday on his second visit to Syria since he took up his post in the latest U.S. diplomatic outreach to a country deemed a state sponsor of terrorism.Last month, George Mitchell became the highest-level U.S. administration official to visit Damascus since 2005. He acknowledged Syria’s clout, declaring Damascus has a key role to play in promoting Mideast peace.

Mitchell did not speak to reporters after his arrival at Damascus airport Saturday.

He is to meet Syrian President Bashar Assad on Sunday to discuss bilateral relations and the prospects of reviving Syrian-Israeli peace talks. Mitchell later travels to Israel as part of U.S. efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

The Obama administration had a series of meetings with Syria and hopes the diplomatic outreach will encourage Damascus to play a positive role in both the Middle East peace process and also in Iraq.

Syria is seen as a major player in this process because of its support for the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, its backing for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and its intermittent peace talks with Israel.

Turkey has said it is prepared to resume mediating peace talks between Syria and Israel.

Syria also maintains close links with Iran, whose disputed nuclear program is a matter of international concern.

Mitchell’s visit to Syria follows two separate trips in the past few months by senior U.S. officials Jeffrey Feltman, acting assistant secretary of state, and Daniel Shapiro, a Middle East expert at the White House, as part of talks about improving relations with a country shunned by former president George W. Bush.

Ahead of Mitchell’s visit, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said his country is working to rebuild its diplomatic relationship with the United States. The U.S. withdrew its ambassador to Syria in 2005 to protest alleged Syrian actions in Lebanon. The Obama administration said last month it plans to send an ambassador to Syria, though no date has been set.

Al-Moallem, speaking in London after talks with his British counterpart David Miliband Friday, said Syria is looking forward to Mitchell’s visit as “the first step of dialogue.”

From the Medea press review for the week from July 27 to 31, 2009:

This week US Middle East envoy George Mitchell toured widely in the region visiting one after another Israeli, Syrian, Egyptian and Palestinian authorities.During his visit to Damascus, George Mitchell said that President Obama had decided to work for a “comprehensive peace in the Middle East which includes Israel and Palestine, Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon and normal relations with all countries in the regions,” said Nouvel Obs.

The comeback of Syria on the regional scene Le Monde highlights the feat : despite a clear position in favor of the Iranian regime and of Hezbollah and Hamas, Bashar al-Assad has been able to restore Syria in the role of a regional actor that cannot be ignored. The daily commented the failure of the French policy which was trying, by resuming diplomatic relations, to take Syria away from its Iranian ally. On the contrary, Syria has managed to use the blank check offered by France to revive its relations with Washington.

For the second time in just over a month, the U.S. special envoy for the Middle East visited Damascus. Le Monde reminds that on June 14, George Mitchell visited the Syrian capital, breaking the diplomatic cold that prevailed between the two countries since 2005.

Following this visit, Washington has announced the gradual lifting of the economic sanctions imposed to Syria, said AFP. Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the White House nevertheless warned that « to change the U.S. sanctions would require coordination and close consultation with Congress ». AFP also reminds that Washington also announced on pas June 24 the sending of a new ambassador to Damascus.

According to Israeli news agency Guysen news, as they have done with Iran, the United States try to find a compromise with Syria in order to “make Damascus a new bridge between Islamists and Arab moderates, particularly between Hamas and Fatah.”

Le Monde also notifies that Syria is a central player in the palestinian inter dialogue: The Syrian capital is hosting the headquarters of Hamas and Hezbollah, while Mahmoud Abbas is coming there regularly to consult his Syrian counterpart.

The day after Mitchel’s second visit, the US lifted an embargo on information technology products and aviation industry goods to Syria, according to a Stratfor email released today by WikiLeaks. [1679601]“Nice little sign of faith” was the comment of a Stratfor analyst [5464098].

Things seemed to be moving along so well that by 12 August 2009, the US was sending a military team to Damascus for talks. Ynet News reported:

A US security delegation will visit Syria on Wednesday in a sign of growing cooperation between the two countries since US President Barack Obama started talking with the Damascus government, diplomats said.

That same day, Stratfor analyst Reva Bhalla summarized the changes in an email [986090] that didn’t waste any words:

Syria offering intel cooperation on AQ, Iran, HZ
Syria facilitating March 14 win in Lebanon
Saudi pouring money into Syrian coffers
US and Saudi rewarding Syria with diplomatic recognition (notice how quiet everyone is about Lebanon)
Signs that Syria is moving forward — big Syrian military/intel reshuffles; Iran threatening to destabilize the Syrian regime; HZ anxiety
this is all covered in our analysis

From an attachment to an email from hans-georg.mueller[@]gtz.de  and sent to fadl.garz[@]planning.gov.sy of the Syrian government and published by WikiLeaks as part of the Syria files, we have this further report on that meeting:

A senior US delegation visited Damascus, the Syrian capital, on August 12th-13th, led by Major General Michael Moeller, the Central Command’s director of strategy, plans and policy, and including Frederick Hoff, the deputy to the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell. This followed a series of US delegations in April-June. The US State Department said that the main purpose was to follow up on initial discussions about curbing the infiltration of foreign fighters and military equipment into Iraq, although Mr Hoff’s presence suggests the Arab-Israeli conflict was also covered.

The day after the US military delegation left Damascus a Stratfor source was reporting [1699977]:

The Syrian regime is preparing to dismantle two major Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) bases in Lebanon, a STRATFOR source reported.

The source added that the Syrians are making it more difficult for PFLP-GC and Hamas officials to move around in Damascus, where each group has a base of operations. For each meeting they hold inside Syria, these Palestinian militants allegedly require a special permit from the director-general of Syrian intelligence.Syria’s apparent clampdown on Palestinian militants operating in the Syria-Lebanon domain is yet another indicator that Damascus’ ongoing negotiations with the United States and Saudi Arabia are making real progress. According to the source, the Israelis told the Syrians through U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell that closing down these two bases was a critical precondition to resuming peace talks between Israel and Syria.

September 2009 marked the end of the first six months of the Obama administrations re-engagement with Syria and to mark the occasion, a discussion paper, with the Subject: Re-engaging  Syria: Toward A Six-month Plan, and graded SECRET from the Damascus Embassy was circulated on 10 September, according cable [09DAMASCUS671] obtained by Wikileaks.

Summary: March 2010 will mark the end of the first year of U.S.-Syrian engagement. As reported reftel, this period poses a series of formidable challenges. Syrian policies continue to impede government formation in Lebanon, support foreign fighters going into Iraq, maintain close ties with Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas, and reject calls from the IAEA to cooperate. Our engagement efforts have established relationships that will enable us to discuss these subjects, but Syrian officials remain less willing to accept their responsibility in addressing core issues.

¶2. (S/NF) With the trilateral border assessment initiative now all but dead, we need a replacement to demonstrate the ability of both sides to work together constructively. Beyond our focus on national security issues, we should be considering how to expand our contacts in other technical areas in which initial U.S.-Syrian contacts could lead to more routine interaction. Syrian interest in judicial and law enforcement reforms, expanding educational contacts, water management issues, urban planning, and NGO development provide just a few examples of areas in which U.S. government and private sector contacts could dramatically expand our access and influence. We need to frame these initiatives in broader terms of choices facing the Syrian regime and the need for concrete Syrian actions on Lebanon and Iraq for our engagement to continue. We also need to dangle what the Syrians really want — relaxation of sanctions and visits by high ranking officials to expand our dialogue on core issues — as a payoff once Syria has demonstrated its intent to utilize these contacts to build a more solid foundation. If we can advance these ideas over the next six months, we may increase our ability to persuade senior Syrian leaders that their country’s interests is better served by more constructive policies that would bring even closer U.S.-Syrian ties. End Summary.

28 September 2009, AP reported:

A senior Syrian official has been invited to Washington for talks, a U.S. Embassy official said Monday, in the latest signal of the Obama administration’s efforts to improve relations with a country deemed a state sponsor of terrorism.The upcoming visit by Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Fayssal Mekdad, is the first in about five years and is part of U.S. efforts to improve strained relations with Damascus.

Mekdad, who is currently in New York as part of the Syrian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly meetings, will fly to Washington on Monday for talks with U.S. government officials on a range of issues, the embassy official said.

The Syrian diplomat’s visit is part of a continuing dialogue with the Syrian government that began in March, the official said, without giving details. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government regulations

Kuna.net made this further report:

Assistant Secretary of State for public affairs P.J Crowley told reporters that this visit is “part of a continuing dialogue that we’ve opened with the Syrian government, again, earlier this year with visits by Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman and NSC Senior Director Dan Shapiro.” He added that “Obviously there also have been visits by U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell.” He indicated that a wide range issues are discussed but refused to detail them.

Stratfor emails obtained by Wikileaks [1711150] also claim that when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris on 11 November 2009, he gave Sarkozy a message to be relayed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who was expected in Paris the next day for a two day meeting with Sarkozy and other French leaders. The French newspaper La Figaro on 13 November 2009 quoted Assad as saying that US President Barack Obama represented a weak point in the efforts to renew negotiations:

“The American godfather needs to draw up a plan of action and take his own initiative, not wait for others,” said the Syrian President.

Still things did seem to move along, as this 3 February 2010 memo from Seymour Hersh about intelligence sharing seemed to indicate:

One note: a transcript of our talk, provided by Assad’s office, was generally accurate but it did not include an exchange we had about intelligence. A senior Syrian official had told me that, last year, Syria, which is on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, had renewed its sharing of intelligence on terrorism with the C.I.A. and with Britain’s MI6, after a request from Obama that was relayed by George Mitchell, the President’s envoy for the Middle East. (The White House declined to comment.) Assad said that he had agreed to do so, and then added that he also has warned Mitchell ‘that if nothing happens from the other side “in terms of political progress” we will stop it.’

President Obama nominated Robert Ford to be the first US ambassador to Syria in 5 years on 17 February 2010 but thanks to Republican stonewalling of Obama’s appointments, he would not be able to take up the post in Damascus at this critical time for another eleven months. That is a real shame because once he did get to Damascus on 16 January 2011 after a recess appointment, he soon became well known for his out spoken support for the protest movement. As Reuters was to write on 13 September 2011:

U.S. ambassadors are usually the most measured of professionals, weighing each word in a delicate dialogue to advance America’s interests with a minimum of public fuss.But Robert Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria, is taking an undiplomatic tack — flouting government travel restrictions, courting opposition figures and taking to Facebook to publicly denounce Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal crackdown on unarmed protesters.

One of the State Department’s top Arabists, Ford arrived in Damascus in January with a very different brief.

As the first U.S. ambassador to Syria in five years, he was expected to implement a policy of gradual rapprochement in hopes of prising the Assad government away from its alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and other Islamist groups and facilitating cooperation on new peace moves with Israel.

The soft-spoken envoy proceeded to radically redesign his mission to become one of the most outspoken critics of Assad now operating in Damascus.

When news of the appointment hit Stratfor, apparently it was a surprise to some but not to others, sparking discussions like this [1115772]:

On Behalf Of Peter Zeihan
Sent: February-17-10 8:51 AM
To: Analyst List
Subject: Re: discussion3 – US/SYRIA- Obama names first US ambassador to
Syria in 5 yearswhat’s changed? what’s the plan?
i don’t ask questions for my health

Kamran Bokhari wrote:

Nothing has changed now. It has long been in the making. Goes back to the U.S. need to pull Syria out of the Iranian orbit and they have been working with the Saudis in order to accomplish this. DC has also been interested in getting Syria to move forward on the peace process with Israel. The idea is that if you can get Syria on your side that could put some distance between Iran and Hezbollah. The Bush admin’s move to isolate Syria was an anomaly.

WikiLeaks Syria files documents also indicate that John Kerry made a trip to Damascus in April 2010 to meet with Assad [221424]. At the time there was a big dust up about Syria supplying Scuds to Hezbullah. Stratfor made this overall assessment of the situation:

The Syrian government has been accused of transferring Scud missiles to Hizbullah in Lebanon. Despite these accusations, which Syria denied, the US’s policy of increased engagement with Syria is unlikely to be derailed.

The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and his ruling Baath party are expected to retain a secure grip on the country, supported by key elements in the security services. The core of the elite is drawn largely from Mr Assad’s Alawi sect, and any move against him would risk endangering its hold on power. However, tensions within the regime persist, accentuated by external pressures such as the UN inquiry into the killing of Rafiq Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, the ongoing investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into allegations that Syria has a nuclear programme and accusations that Syria has been supplying the Lebanese militant group, Hizbullah, with longrange missiles.

None of these analysts and diplomats seemed the least bit concerned with the internal dynamics of Syria, so this report gave a rare glimpse:

Only limited progress is expected on political reform over the forecast period. Although some promised measures may be implemented, it is hard to envisage any steps being taken that would significantly diminish the Baath party’s hold on power. Mr Assad initially advocated political reform when he came to power in 2000, but he has acknowledged that the pace of reform has been slow since then. He has pledged to increase popular participation in the political process by introducing a political parties law, which will create a second chamber of parliament, the Majlis al-Shura—in addition to the existing lower chamber (the Majlis al-Shaab). He also pledged to devise a local
administration law to bring about greater decentralisation. Although there have been no visible signs of progress with these reforms in over two years, the reduction in international pressure on Syria will make it easier for at least a few cosmetic changes to be made at home during the forecast period. However, the security and intelligence services, which are pervasive and effective, will continue to clamp down on activists demanding democratic reform. The various opposition-in-exile groups and domestic critics are unlikely to pose a substantive threat to the government…..Syria is expected to continue the gradual liberalisation of its centrally planned economy, a process that has been led by the deputy prime minister for economic affairs, Abdullah al-Dardari.

Another email, dated 19 May 2010 from the Wikileaks Syria files revealed the courting friends of the Obama administration could expect in Damascus:

Dear Bouthaina,I hope this finds you well.

Some close friends of mine will be visiting Damascus from May 25-29, for tourism. However, they are influential people in Washington and I think that you and Walid would benefit from meeting them and they would certainly benefit from meeting both of you. Jim was Chief of Staff to Vice President Walter Mondale in the Carter Administration. He has also served as Chairman of the Brookings Institution. I have appended his resume so that you will get a fuller picture. Put simply, he is very influential in the Obama White House and in the Democratic Party. His wife, Maxine Isaacs, is a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government where she teaches about the role of women in foreign policy! So you can see why I thought immediately of putting them in touch with you when they told me they were going to visit Damascus. I would be very grateful if you have the time to meet with them, and to introduce them to Walid.

With very best wishes,

Martin [Indyk]

June 2010 was a busy month for President Assad on the diplomatic front. It began with a visit by Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev on 1 June in Damascus [831135] and ended with Assad’s visit to Cuba for an official visit on 29 June. [816327] While Assad was on his Latin American tour he “declared that the Obama administration’s failure to facilitate change in the Middle East shows that it is weak.” according to this assessment from the Syria files obtained by Wikileaks.

On 23 September 2010 U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the Syrian Foreign minister Walid Moualem“in New York on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.” according to a CNN report that went on

The rare meeting comes on the heels of a visit by Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell to Damascus earlier this month. Although officials stressed the United States still has “serious concerns”about Syrian support for terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, the visit provided enough common ground for discussions to move to a higher level.“The secretary would not be meeting with Foreign Minister Moualem if she did not feel it was an opportunity to make progress,” one U.S. official said.

On 22 October 2010, the Jerusalem Post summed up Assad’s success in overcoming the Bush era boycott:

Despite efforts to internationally isolate Syria, especially during the Bush era, it has reasserted itself as a central player in the Middle East. Following the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, the US withdrew its ambassador to Beirut, intensified sanctions against Damascus and sought to deepen Syria’s isolation from the international community. The recent array of high-level visitors to Damascus – including US officials – demonstrates that President Bashar Assad has weathered the storm of isolation and has emerged as an essential actor in resolving regional disputes, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel should now respond favorably to Syria’s call for renewed peace talks, and in so doing utilize its influence to advance peace, rather than thwart it.

Even more than his Libyan counterpart, Mummar Qaddafi, Bashar al-Assad was being brought in from the cold and welcomed back to the international community of power brokers.

On 28 October 2010 Senator Arlen Specter was in Damascus meeting with Assad and various other Syrian top-brass including Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, Presidential Political and Media Advisor Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban and Deputy, Foreign Minster Dr. Fayssal Mikdad, according to this SANA report:

Damascus,(SANA)_President Bashar al-Assad on Thursday discussed with US Senator Arlen Specter the latest regional developments, stressing the importance of finding suitable circumstances for achieving the just and comprehensive peace in the region.

President al-Assad affirmed that Syria appreciates US President Barack Obama’s desire in this regard, saying that there are no indications for achieving a tangible progress in light of the presence of an Israeli government which doesn’t want peace and doesn’t believe in it.

A Stratfor email [1002707] exchange on 9 November 2010 obtained by Wikileaks gives us a view of the the negotiations:

Reva Bhalla wrote
The US would like to hive Syria off from the Iranians, and that’s why they’ve been working through the Saudis to create some distance between Damascus and Tehran. The problem is that Syria can’t expect to give into all of US/Israeli demands and US often comes at this with an all or nothing approach. If SYria shows real restraint on HZ, then US could start to open up more. this is what we need to watch forJacob Shapiro wrote:
do you think the US will ever give in?

Reva Bhalla wrote:
syria doesn’t care about the Israel/Palestinian talks – those aren’t going anywhere.
Syria wants to negotiate with Israel from a position of strength, and it wants US endorsement. So far, US hasn’t given in and Syria has held back from full cooperation on HZ, Iran, etc., which is why these broader negotiations have always been so piecemeal

National Security Council official Dennis Ross is reported to have made a secret visit to Damascus, on the day after Christmas, 26 December 2010. The facts are a little hard to make out because some sources, including Now Lebanon, put out a counter story that, no, actually it was Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, that took the secret, post-Christmas road to Damascus and met with Assad and Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. Most likely, they both were there. From this Stratfor email [5487260] dated 3 January 2011 it certainly sounds like Ross was:

On January 1, the independent Al-Rai al-Aam daily carried the following report by its correspondent in Washington Hussein Abdul Hussein: What is happening backstage and why did former envoy to the peace process Dennis Ross visit Damascus last week and meet with senior officials? Will Syria and Israel reach the signing of a peace agreement “in the very near future,” as was stated by an American official?

The Arab Spring Slips in Under the Radar

On 17 December 2010, less than ten days before Ross and Assad had their secret meeting, a poor street vendor in Sidi Bouzid lit himself on fire to protest his treatment by the Tunisian dictatorship. I doubt that event was on anybody’s radar when they had their 26 December discussions at the Presidential Palace in Damascus, but what had already begun was shortly to shift the very foundations upon which their grandiose diplomatic schemes were built. They were making yesterday’s plans for the future only they didn’t know it yet. Nine months later Obama would be putting sanctions on Muallem personally for his role in the crackdown.

Exactly one month after this secret meeting, on 26 January 2011, Hasan Ali Akleh from Al-Hasakah became the first Syrian to follow the led of Mohamed Bouazizi of Tunisia, when he poured gasoline on himself and set himself ablaze in an act of “protest against the Syrian government.”

But as the year 2011 began, these fires were as yet unseen from the heights, and in diplomatic circles all the buzz was about a new Middle East peace deal in the works. On 1 January 2011, according to a Stratfor report obtained by Wikileaks [5478219]:

The United States has been in secret contact with Syrian officials in the hopes of realizing a comprehensive Israel-Syrian peace treaty, the Kuwaiti al-Rai newspaper reported Saturday.The past few weeks had witnessed an “unprecedented Syrian cooperation” in the peace process, prompting Washington to talk with Syrian officials to reach a peace agreement between Syria and Israel, informed sources told al-Rai.

Sources said Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem had sent positive signals to the U.S. showing that “the Syrians are ready to re-engage in dialogue with the Israelis to reach peace”.

President Barack Obama’s administration believes that an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement will be “a breakthrough in the peace process as a whole to achieve peace in the Palestinian territories.”
Sources said that Obama adviser Dennis Ross told the U.S. administration that he found “Syria ready to move away from Iran and reduce relations with Hezbollah and Hamas, and work with the United States in the fight against terrorism.”

President Bashar al-Assad laid out his own views at this time in a very extensive interview with the Wall St. Journal on 31 January 2011. He explained why there would be no uprising in Syria:

Internally, it is about the administration and the people’s feeling and dignity, about the people participating in the decisions of their country. It is about another important issue. I am not talking here on behalf of the Tunisians or the Egyptians. I am talking on behalf of the Syrians. It is something we always adopt. We have more difficult circumstances than most of the Arab countries but in spite of that Syria is stable. Why? Because you have to be very closely linked to the beliefs of the people. This is the core issue. When there is divergence between your policy and the people’s beliefs and interests, you will have this vacuum that creates disturbance.

24 February 2011, as the Libyan Revolution was entering its second week and Qaddafi’s goons shot dead 10 protesters in Zawiyah, the Guardian was running an article titled Syria clamps down on dissent with beatings and arrests, and according an article in Haaretz that day “Kerry and Assad began drafting an unofficial position paper.”

U.S. Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee and a close associate of U.S. President Barack Obama, has been working together with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the last few months on a plan to restart negotiations between Syria and Israel.

But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been briefed on Kerry’s talks with Assad, opposes the plan, since he does not believe Assad is serious about making peace with Israel.

Kerry has met with Assad in Damascus five times over the last two years. The issue of restarting Israeli-Syrian talks was raised at all of these meetings, and a few months ago, the two began exploring practical ideas for doing so.

According to both senior Israeli officials and European diplomats, Kerry and Assad began drafting an unofficial position paper that would define the principles of negotiations with Israel and the conditions for restarting them.

Various reports said that Senator Kerry did plan to take the road back to Damascus near the end of January 2011 but the White House had that trip canceled. Mr and Mrs Assad even had Mr and Mrs Kerry over for dinner once.

On 16 March 2011 John Kerry spoke about Syria at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He still had a strong belief in Bashar the reformer. He still had a strong belief in Bashar the reformer:

“President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,” Mr. Kerry said. “I think it’s incumbent on us to try to move that relationship forward in the same way.

“So my judgment is that Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation that comes with it.”

On 27 March 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton answered Bob Schieffer’s questions about the situations in Libya and Syria on CBS’s Face the Nation:

QUESTION:Tens of thousands of people have turned out protesting in Syria, which has been under the iron grip of the Asad for so many years now, one of the most repressive regimes in the world, I suppose. And when the demonstrators turned out, the regime opened fire and killed a number of civilians. Can we expect the United States to enter the conflict in the way we have entered the conflict in Libya?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. Each of these situations is unique, Bob. Certainly, we deplore the violence in Syria. We call, as we have on all of these governments during this period of the Arab Awakening, as some have called it, to be responding to their people’s needs, not to engage in violence, permit peaceful protests, and begin a process of economic and political reform.

The situation in Libya, which engendered so much concern from around the international community, had a leader who used military force against the protestors from one end of his country to the other….

QUESTION: But, I mean, how can that be worse than what has happened in Syria over the years, where Bashar Asad’s father killed 25,000 people at a lick? I mean, they open fire with live ammunition on these civilians. Why is that different from Libya?

SECRETARY CLINTON:
There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer. What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities and then police actions, which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.

The headline that went around the world the next day was that unlike Libya, there would be no military intervention in Syria. This piece in The Peninsulawas typical:

No attack on Syria: Clinton 28 March 2011

Washington: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday said that the United States currently has no intention of launching a military intervention in Syria, despite its brutal crackdown that has left dozens of protesters dead.

Asked on CBS television’s “Face the Nation” programme if Washington is planning military action similar to that launched in Libya, Clinton answered that it is not. “No, each of these situations is unique,” she said and added that the “elements” that led to international intervention in Libya were absent in the case of Syria.

Just hours before Clinton went on “Face the Nation,” Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to Assad, announced that one of the key demands of the protesters, the lifting of the emergency law, would be met. Three days after he had been assured that no military intervention was planned, on 30 March 2011, Assad made a speech blaming foreign conspirators for causing the uprising and reversing the promise to lift the emergency law. When people took to the streets to protest the speech in Latakia and Daraa, the police used live ammunition and killed five. Syrians had expected him to announce an end to the emergency law. The next day 25 people were killed by security forces in Latakia. The term “bloodbath”was starting to be used. After Clinton’s statement, Assad started to use his army to attack the protesters and the death toll started rising dramatically.

The mask of “the reformer” was dropping fast as the bodies piled up now that Assad knew he was not going to get the “Qaddafi treatment.”

The private spooks at Stratfor thought they had a pretty good idea of what was going on. In a 31 March 2011 Stratfor [1154727] memo obtained by Wikileaks:

Since Mubarak has gone and Gaddhafi is under fire, Assad has more than enough reasons to be concerned about Syrian regime’s survival. Regardless of what our Syrian contacts tell us about Assad’s confidence, we know and Assad knows that he is on the thin ice and needs US/Saudi support for survival. US/Saudi (and by proxy, Qatar) back Assad not because they fear things may get worse in Lebanon. Indeed, they think this is the best time to put pressure on Assad to give concessions in Lebanon due to his current weakness. Don’t you really find it a bit unusual that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United States did not even hesitate throwing their support behind Assad at the very beginning? Washington could have easily sent a warning to Damascus by saying that “Libya-like treatment for Syria is one of the options”. France was already willing to get engaged in Syria. But US did the contrary.

Less than a month later, Clinton was trying to strike a different tone without changing anything. Assad had greatly intensified the crackdown and people were demanding action so the leaders of the “free world” had to at least look like they were doing something. Reuters reported

Clinton says Syria must stop detention, torture
Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:49 GMTWASHINGTON, April 20 (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday condemned violence in Syria and said the Syrian government must stop the arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of prisoners.

“We are particularly concerned about the situation in Homs where multiple reports suggest violence and casualties among both civilians and government personnel,” she said at a news conference. Independent confirmation was difficult because journalists were not being allowed access, she said.

Activists in the central city of Homs say more than 20 pro-democracy protesters have been shot dead since Monday by soldiers and other forces.

“The Syrian government must allow free movement and free access, it must stop the arbitrary arrest, detentions and torture of prisoners,” Clinton said.

She called on the Syrian government to cease violence and respond to “the legitimate issues that have been raised by the Syrian people seeking substantial and lasting reform.”

The next day, 21 April 2011, as if to placate Mrs. Clinton, Assad signed decrees lifting the emergency law, but nothing changed on the ground. The following Friday, 22 April 2011, saw the biggest protests to date with tens of thousands turning out in Damascus and ten other Syrian cities. 114 people were killed nationwide as security forces open fired on protesters. That would be a “light” day now with the Assad regime regularly killing more than 200 Syrian’s a day, but then the New York Times called it “one of the bloodiest days in the so-called Arab Spring.”

The Stratfor spooks could see the US quandary, and the meaninglessness of sanction, as we see in an email exchange on 25 April 2011 obtained by Wikileaks [65118]:

the US doesn’t necessarily want to deal with the instabilty that would follow regime collapse in Syria. They’ve been trying to ignore what’s going on there, but it’s getting a lot harder to ignore as the deaths have been climbing over the past few days. this is a way for the US to tone down the hypocrisy by saying, ‘look, we’re taking action.”

and the reply [1001704],

Agree. I would say US sanctions against Syria mean that US wants to buy time and appear like it’s not ignoring deaths in Syria, but in fact it does. Sanctions mean that US is not prepared to do anything in Syria anytime soon.

The Stratfor discussions of the next day give us even more insight into the thinking of these world players: [997505]

From Bayless Parsley

The other thing is that while protests have spread the opposition is far from being an organized force. So, the situation is still salvageable. Bashar will have to do what he did in the aftermath of the Hariri assassination. Get rid of some people saying he is taking action against those who are responsible for the killing of people. and initiate a really slow process of change, which could get a lot of people off the streets.

We need to see if he is up to the task.

Kamran wrote:

See that’s the thing. The Iranians are not asking to back off from using force. Rather saying do what the Egyptians did. Align with the protesters and control the movement. Keep in mind that many people still expect Bashar to engage in reforms.

In another email [968577] that day Parsley gives us a most revealing and interesting analysis of the US response to the Arab Spring uprisings:

I’m aware the situation is very different. In Egypt, the U.S. could afford to abandon Mubarak and let the military keep running the show. US mil was maintaining channels of communication with their counterparts for much of the early days, and though there was a gap for a bit for a week or so after that, DC probably had a pretty high degree ofconfidence that the country was not going to descend into chaos if Mubarak were to be forced out by the deep state.In Syria, that is not the case. The sectarian nature of the country added to the fact that it’s not really isolated from its neighbors by large tracts of desert the way Egypt is, but rather, intertwined with Lebanon, Turkey and, to a lesser degree, Iraq makes the prospect of the Syrian regime collapsing much more dangerous than Mubarak being pushed out.

I should have said “ironic” rather than “remarkable,” because the irony is that everyone thought the US viewed Mubarak as an ally and Bashar as an enemy. And this may have been true. But what I was pointing out is that this is not a good metric for gauging how DC will respond to unrest in a country that threatens to upend the leader.

Then he follows up with this addition for completeness.

forgot to add Jordan in there as well and not to mention Israel actually quite likes Bashar being in power

And that is the naked truth about why it is costing the Syrian people more blood than it did the Egyptian, Tunisian, Yemeni, or even Libyan people to be rid of their dictator. In the “international community,”the major players really don’t want to see Assad go. That’s why they instruct their diplomats to keep themselves busy debating empty U.N. resolutions instead of getting busy taking resolute action.

The truth is that the world’s major powers, including the United States government, rather like Assad. He’s their kind of guy. He could be bargained with in geopolitical and financial matters. He was as greedy and power-hungry as they. He was and is terrible to his own people but that was their problem (and besides, what world power doesn’t use force against peaceful protesters?). He could be counted on to use the Golan Heights and the Palestinian struggle as pawns in his game.

A post-Assad revolutionary Syria or a truly democratic one on the other hand might take the Palestinian struggle seriously and not use them as pawns.

Particularly in the West and among the Gulf kingdoms, world leaders are lining up to abhor Assad’s slaughter but the bottom line is that nobody is doing anything to stop him but the Syrians themselves. However, those world leaders see the need to look and sound like they are doing something. By 10 May 2011 more than 700 Syrians had lost their lives to regime violence and Senator Kerry was articulating a very different stance on Assad, he told the Cable:

[I]n an exclusive interview today, Kerry said he no longer saw the Syrian government as willing to reform. “He obviously is not a reformer now,” he said, while also defending his previous stance. “I’ve always said the top goal of Assad is to perpetuate his own regime.”When pressed by The Cable about his earlier, rosier view of Assad, Kerry denied he had expected the Syrian regime would come around.

“I said there was a chance he could be a reformer if certain things were done. I wasn’t wrong about if those things were done. They weren’t done,” Kerry said. “I didn’t hold out hope. I said there were a series of things that if he engaged in them, there was a chance he would be able to produce a different paradigm. But he didn’t.”

2011 wasn’t half over and the peace deal that Obama’s heart was set on and looked so imminent at the beginning of the year, a deal two years in the making, had been overtaken by events internal to Syria and laid in tatters on the floor. Obama was probably heartbroken that his love affair with Assad had come to naught. On 13 May 2011 George Mitchell, the plan’s guiding architect, resigned. CNN reported:

Former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell is resigning as the Obama administration’s Mideast envoy, the White House announced Friday.Mitchell has served as President Barack Obama’s point man in the region as the administration has tried to keep Arab-Israeli peace talks on track.

Deputy Middle East Envoy David Hale will take Mitchell’s place, according to the White House.

“George Mitchell has worked as a tireless advocate for peace as the U.S. special envoy for the Middle East,” President Barack Obama said in a written statement. He “leaves behind a proud legacy of dedicated public service and the country owes him a debt of gratitude for his extraordinary commitment.”

When Obama first slapped sanctions on Assad on 19 May 2011, France24 wrote:

The Obama administration had pinned hopes on Assad, seen until recent months as a pragmatist and potential reformer who could buck Iranian influence and help broker an eventual Arab peace deal with Israel.
But U.S. officials said Assad’s increasingly brutal crackdown left them little choice but to abandon the effort to woo Assad, and to stop exempting him from the same sort of sanctions already applied to Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi.

But those sanctions didn’t deter Assad, as reported by Reuters on the same day:

Syrian troops backed by tanks deployed in a border village Thursday, witnesses said, ignoring growing pressure from Washington, which has imposed sanctions on President Bashar al-Assad for rights abuses.

A political assessment written for senior Syrian official Fares Kallas by the PR firm of Brown Lloyd James just before sanctions were applied to Assad was even more frank. From the Syria files obtained by Wikileaks we have Political Communications 2.0 doc which was attached to an email [2089956] dated 19 May 2011:

It is clear from US government pronouncements since the beginning of the public demonstrations in Syria that the Obama Administration wants the leadership in Syria to survive. Unlike its response to demonstrations in some other countries in the region, there have been no US demands for regime change in Syria nor any calls for military intervention, criticism has been relatively muted and punitive sanctions—by not being aimed directly at President Assad–have been intended more as a caution than as an instrument to hurt the leadership.However, the tone of the Administration’s statements has grown noticeably harsher in recent weeks and may be nearing a tipping point that could make a reassessment of the US position towards Syria inevitable. One potential bellwether of this shift is the transformation in the public statements of US Senator John Kerry, the Administration’s de facto point man on outreach to Syria. Senator Kerry has begun to publicly backtrack his often-repeated confidence in the leadership’s ability to reform.

May 19th is a special day for revolutionaries because it is the birthday of both Ho Chi Minh and Malcolm X, and 19 May 2011 was no quiet day for the Syrian revolution. It was also the day that President Obama gave his Middle East speechin which he started to grapple with the contradiction between the traditional US view of Middle East priorities and new requirements put forward by the unfolding Arab Spring:

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to peoples’ hopes; they are essential to them.

Notably absent from this “set of core interests in the region” was any concern for democracy, economic inequality or human rights, but now the people of the region are turning out governments over precisely those issues.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense.

Lest people get the wrong impression, we must speak out.

…..While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it is not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime – including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad

Obama recognizes that Assad “has chosen the path of murder,” but he doesn’t demand that he be tried for these murders or even that he be removed from the presidency. Obama is still calling on him to “lead the transition.”

Secretary of State Clinton echoed this administration view that it still was not too late for Assad to lead reform and stay in power as late as 2 June 2011 when she told
reporters
:

“The legitimacy that is necessary for anyone to expect change to occur under this current government is, if not gone, nearly run out. If he’s not going to lead the reform, he needs to get out of the way.”

In another indication of how the US wants to see things evolve in Syria, on 30 July 2012, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told CNN that the current Syrian army and security structure should be keep in place even after Assad leave. In other words, they want to see an Egyptian-styled “revolution” in Syria, only the Egyptian army refused to slaughter their people, didn’t they?

“I think it’s important when Assad leaves, and he will leave, to try to preserve stability in that country,” Panetta said.“The best way to preserve that kind of stability is to maintain as much of the military and police as you can, along with security forces, and hope that they will transition to a democratic form of government. That’s the key.”

So the Obama administration would like to see Assad “step down”but it also wants to keep in place the Assad killing machine that has so far taken more than 20,000 Syrian lives and has been condemned for massive human rights violations by the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

So we might say that Obama is demanding that the Syrian people marry their rapist.

If these US leaders thought the exposure and harsh language would do anything to deter Assad, they were badly mistaken. Michael Weiss wrote in the Telegraph on 31 July 2011:

Several months ago I had a conversation with an American academic specialising in the Middle East. Wouldn’t it be difficult, I’d asked, for Bashar al-Assad to repeat his father’s 1982 massacre in Hama all over again in 2011, in the age of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook?

“Why?” came the frigid reply. “Why do you think having an atrocity filmed in broad daylight and exhibited to the world would stop a dictator like Assad from committing one?”

Still the more Assad murdered, the more the US government turned up the rhetoric. 12 August 2011 Now Lebanon wrote [2608551]:

Last week, the United States signaled it no longer subscribed to the idea that Assad’s survival was necessary for geopolitical stability, saying he had the region on a “very dangerous path.”

But when Obama issued Statement by President Obama on the Situation in Syriaand announce new sanctions on 18 August 2011, it got a yawn from the analysts at Stratfor [109723]:

they already have heavy sanctions on Syria. this is making it sound like it’s a lot bigger of a deal than it is to show that the US is being tough on Bashar

On 19 September 2011, Helen Cooper at the NY Times wrote:

While other countries have withdrawn their ambassadors from Damascus, Obama administration officials say they are leaving in place the American ambassador, Robert S. Ford, despite the risks, so he can maintain contact with opposition leaders and the leaders of the country’s myriad sects and religious groups.
….
Mr. Obama’s call last month for Mr. Assad to step down came after months of internal debate, which included lengthy discussions about whether a Syria without Mr. Assad would lead to the kind of bloody civil war that consumed Iraq after the fall of Mr. Hussein

To be sure, Mr. Assad may yet prove as immovable as his father, Hafez al-Assad, was before him. Many foreign policy analysts say that the longer Mr. Assad remains in power, the more violent the country will become. And that violence, they say, could unintentionally serve Mr. Assad’s interests by allowing him to use it to justify a continuing crackdown.

A collapse in Syria, on the other hand, could lead to an external explosion that would affect Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and even Iraq, foreign policy experts say, particularly if it dissolves into an Iraq-style civil war.

A little over a month later, 24 October 2011, US ambassador Robert Ford did leave Damascus. The Guardian reported:

The state department stressed that Ford’s return did not amount to a formal breakdown in relations and that Ford’s deputy, Haynes Mahoney, would remain in Damascus and carry out Ford’s duties.

Soon Dennis Ross was also out the door. He resigned on Hezbollah Martyr’s Day, 11 November. Stratfor posted this document obtained by Wikileaks [776130]:

The White House announces the resignation of Dennis Ross, President Obama’s assistant and former Middle East envoy, for personal reasons.

Which prompted the following further intelligence obtained by Wikileaks [777026]:

This will leave White House without its chief strategist for the region. Ross had initially pledged to work for President Barack Obama for two years but extended that by another year because of Arab Spring (Israel radio 0430 gmt)

Obama’s Syria Policy

If you want to know what a government’s policy is, you need to focus on what they do, not what they say. That’s what the Stratfor analyst was talking about when he said [5417524]:

These endless statements really don’t matter that much. Trying to suss out what is going on through these statements really doesn’t work. Remember that this is why we don’t go to press conferences.

Trained by the Saudis to be cute.

It has been often stated that a variety of international players are secretly helping the armed opposition in Syria. Months before the Free Syrian Army was formed, Assad claimed that he was fighting armed terrorist gangs sponsored by Syria’s international enemies. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey were most often mentioned, but he claimed Israel, the UK and the US were really pulling the strings. This explanation for what is really doing on in Syria has had a certain traction among many cynics in the West. This is why Assad has put it out there. For there part, most of the listed countries would like it to be known that they strongly oppose Assad’s violence and that they are doing something, at least providing “humanitarian aid.”

Of course, the whole idea of providing only “humanitarian aid” while Assad’s war planes are still allowed to fly is ludicrous. Does anyone think that the surgeons can keep up as long as the bombs are falling?

When you have a heavily armed mad killer on the loose, you don’t call in observers so that you can prepare a strong legal case later, you don’t spend a lot of time trying to talk him out of continuing his killing spree. You call in the sharpshooters and you put an end to it by putting the killer down. That’s how every police force it the world would handle it even if some would accuse them of further militarizing the situation.

So with Bashar al-Assad, adopting the murderous strategy of simply pummeling resistive communities with heavy artillery, tanks, jet planes and helicopter gunships, until they submit, it is becoming clearer everyday that there can be no effective relief for the Syrian people that doesn’t involve an armed response to Assad’s violence, because the people are not going to submit.

This is why the Syrian opposition at all levels and almost from all quarters has been crying out for military intervention from some one, any one, against Assad’s slaughter for many months now as it has become increasingly clear that Assad would be left to his own devices with no international imperialist military intervention forthcoming. They have demanded that they at least be supplied with the heavy weapons to do the job themselves.

What had begun as a peaceful movement against the Assad regime had been forced to become a revolution because the people would not relent and Assad met every demand with increasing levels of violence.

The Free Syrian Army that was first founded in July 2011 to defend the protesters in Daraa has grown, its ranks swelled by a continuing flow of Syrian army defectors and citizens-turned-fighters. They got most of the arms they have from the Syrian Army, either stolen or purchased on the black market. A lot of claims have been made that they have received weapons from outside, claims that have come not only from the supporters of the regime, but also from its detractors that know they should be doing more. The Free Syrian Army has said, in numerous interviews, that they have received no outside military aid.

Since the handful of Assad’s aircraft that they have managed to down have been shot down the old fashion way, with anti-aircraft guns, it’s clear that they have not gotten their hands on modern surface-to-air missiles, or MANPADs, that could thwart Assad’s aerial assault. Frankly, there has been little in the way of hard evidence to support the story that the rebels are being significantly armed by anybody outside of Syria, so when the NY Times ran an article titled C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition, some commentators jumped on it as an admission that the CIA was strongly supporting, if not instigating the armed insurgency against Assad:

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

But if information from other sources is correct, that title would read more correctly if it said the opposite: CIA Steering Arms Away from Syrian Opposition, because here are more details about what those CIA agents in southern Turkey are really doing, according to the Australian:

Over the past 10 months, a Syrian opposition official told The Sunday Times, the CIA has blocked shipments of heavy anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, which rebel units of the Free Syrian Army have long said are vital to their efforts to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.At the same time they have approved supplies of AK-47 Kalashnikov rifles, and just over a month ago gave the green light to a shipment of 10,000 Russian-made rocket-propelled grenades.

It is precisely the lack of those heavy anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons that is keeping the Free Syrian Army from winning and causing this war to go on and on. It is also the lack of those defensive weapons that allows Assad to continue his carnage unabated. Apparently someone, maybe Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Qatar, is willing to supply them, but the Obama administration is putting the kibosh on the deal.

The Syrian opposition lives or dies depending on what the US does much more than on what the US says, which is why the balance of opinion among Syrians is that the US is opposed to the uprising and wants to see Assad stay in power.

As Hannah Allam of McClatchy Newspapers wrote 10 August 2012:

When asked point-blank this week whether the United States supports the rebel movement, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell fumbled through platitudes with four references to a “peaceful”transition. At no point did he give an answer to what had been a yes-or-no question.“Is the United States supporting the rebels? We are being very careful and judicious in supporting the Syrian opposition,” another State Department official said later, speaking only on the condition of anonymity per diplomatic protocol. “The entrance of extremist elements into the conflict is a deeply troubling variable. That is a genuine concern that the United States has. While we support the aspirations of the Syrian people, we should be very cautious.”

The supreme irony of this last concern about the involvement of Islamic extremist in the Syrian revolution is that their involvement is being simulated and encouraged by the inaction of the international “community” as the Syrian revolution continues to drag on. Those most concerned about the growing influence of Islamic extremists in Syria should be first in demanding that whatever needs to be done to end this carnage be done sooner rather than later.

For over a year, US opposition to the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown against the people demanding an end to his dictatorship has been limited to harsh words and mild sanctions. When ” The Obama administration set new, largely symbolic, sanctions Friday on Syria’s state-run oil company and the Hezbollah militant group” which is the way Fox News reported it, 10 August 2012, the question of Obama’s Syria policy again came up at the White House Press Briefing with Press Secretary Jay Carney. The reporters seem to think very little was being done by the US to oppose Assad, and the press secretary seemed eager to play up what was being done, but in the end revealed that the Obama policy was still one of waiting for Assad to ” step aside” and allow a political transition to take place.

A year after the sanctions of 18 August 2011, and a year to the day, of Obama’s 10 August 2011 first call for Assad to lead the transition or step aside, some 20,000 Syrians had been slaughtered, most by Assad’s use of heavy artillery and aerial bombardment on civilian areas, and US policy had not shifted. Here is part of that exchange at the White House Press Conference about the new Syria sanctions:

Q  But these aren’t actually designed then to force the Assad regime into any type of action, or to actually kind of tighten the economic pressure on them?MR. CARNEY: No, I think every time we take a new step that addresses, or comes within the rubric of a financial sanction, it has an impact on the resources that Assad has and to finance his crackdown. No single sanction is going to, by itself, prevent Assad from getting his last bit of financing. But together, collectively, the sanctions enhance pressure.

And the sanctions that we periodically announce, as we look for other means of pressuring Assad, are not — are part of a broader effort that includes diplomatic efforts, includes increasing our humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, increasing our non-lethal assistance and support for the opposition as part of a broader effort to bring about that day that must come when Assad steps aside and a political transition is allowed to take place.

Carney then moves on to talking about the president’s latest fundraiser but the questions soon return to Syria:

Q  Back to the Syrian sanctions, John Brennan, the other day in a speech, said that there was under consideration apparently a no-fly zone. Is that under consideration by the administration to ratchet up?MR. CARNEY: I think, Roger, what Mr. Brennan said was in response to a question about a specific measure, the no-fly zone, and his answer reflected the fact that we have not, and the President has not, taken any option off the table when it comes to Syria.

Everybody in the world knows what it means when a US president says “no option is off the table.” It means he is carrying a “big stick” in the phrasing of an earlier US president, and he may use it. It is diplomatic speak for the threat of US military power. Generally speaking, US presidents always leave that option on the table in any international situation, even when they know they would never resort to it for the stakes on the table. That “big stick” cost trillions and, historically, more of its value has come from waving it than has come from using it. So people in the Obama administration that are desperate to hide the fact that “Responsibility To Protect” has fallen on such hard times, and want to make it seem like the US might do more, probably felt safe making the time-honored empty threat that “all options are on the table.”

Even if there is no there there, Assad might not know that, and if he is lead to believe that Obama is seriously considering a no-fly zone, he might feel compelled the limit the carnage he is creating with his air force. No doubt such thinking played a role in Brennan’s floating of the idea of a no-fly zone, and Carney’s timid support for Brennan.

10 days later, 20 August 2012, President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House Press Briefing in person and took questions on Syria. Apparently, he wanted to make his Syria policy clear and unambiguous: There would be no no-fly zone or any other US military action against the Assad regime or military support for his opposition provided he did not use significant amounts of chemical or biological weapons when committing his mass murder. Obama said:

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation….We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

That statement told Assad there would be big trouble if he used massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction. It also told him that if he continued to do his killing with long-range artillery, tanks fire, helicopter gunships, jet planes dropping cluster bombs, incendiary bombs and thugs on the ground with guns and knives, there might be more sanctions, but the US wasn’t going to stop him.

On the day before Obama made that statement, 130 Syrians died in the violence, on the day after he explained his cold-blooded calculus and drew his “red-line”, 250 Syrians were slaughtered and the level of violence perpetrated by the Assad regime has only accelerated since then. This is why I said Obama gave a green light to Assad’s slaughter.

  • Pingback: Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

  • Arthur

    I would prefer a more positive stress on the importance of urgent military support and the dangers of delay.

    The negative slant can actually undermine mobilization for US military support by implying that it is a hopeless cause because the US wants the regime to survive.

    I don’t think that analysis is correct. The extensive quotes from Stratfor etc add nothing much to the well known fact that the Obama administration had hopes for better relations with Syria (and wasn’t expecting the Arab spring).

    Given the well known hostility of the Democrat administration to the Bush administration’s policy for “region change” there is nothing surprising about them dithering. The fact that they did act when it was urgent to do so over Libya suggests that a key difference is that there is no danger of the regime surviving if they don’t act quickly. Obama’s “calculus” could be simply that saving a few hundred lives a day to speed things up isn’t worth the effort. That can be attacked vigorously without any suggestion that he wants the regime to survive and that therefore calling for more urgent action won’t succeed.

    • http://linuxbeach.net Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

      What you seem to overlook is 1.) the fact that at crusial moments the Obama Administration signaled to the Assad regime that there would be no military response, and each time was followed by a sharp escalation in Assad’s violence, and 2.) The Obama Administration is activily blocking the FSA from getting the weapons they need.

      • Arthur

        I’m not convinced on either of those:

        1) The US does often engage in “signalling” about threats being “on the table” or “not off the table”. But these are primarily directed at domestic audiences. Regimes like Iran and Syria are not impressed by them. I think the reality is that the US had no intention of overtly intervening and the regime was in no doubt about that. Conveying the opposite impression could have been irresponsible if it created false expectations among the rebels (eg cf Bush senior’s call for overthrow of Sadaam during Kuwait war). Esclations in violence can be explained by increasing desperation rather than increased assurance.

        2) There are some reports along those lines of blocking arms supplies but the same reports speak of shipments of 10,000 RPGs going through. I certainly hope they are trying to block munitions reaching the takfiri elements (eg those who are crossing back to Syria from Iraq after a mass murder campaign there). That could lead to complaints that they are blocking supplies to the FSA without those complaints necessarily being true. No doubt the FSA does want and need MANPADs. It is quite plausible that the US is blocking those, given the enormous efforts they had to go to for recovery of Stingers after providing them in Afghanistan. That may reflect a justified or a completely unjustified caution, but it need not reflect a desire that the regime stay in power.

        It would be EXTREMELY counter productive for the US to commit itself to ending the regime, as it has, if they in fact want it to remain. There has been a significant shift since the clear intention not to intervene a year ago. It is likewise counter-productive for people who want US assistance to the rebels to commit themselves to the idea that it won’t happen.

        On that point I (really) don’t understand your comment elsewhere:

        “Also why does anyone interpet pointing out that Obama doesn’t want to see the opposition succeed as being a call for western intervention?”

        To me the entire logic of your writing denounces the failure to intervene and so implicitly or explicitly calls for inervention.

        The only contradictory note is the one I pointed out above that claiming the West WON’T intervene undermines your own efforts to mobilize people in favour of such intervention.

        I don’t know you personally, but it strikes me as implausible that you would be writing with such energy and passion if you were not seeking to influence events rather than just impotently denounce them.

        If its just a quibble about the word “intervention” then you should not be surprised at people regarding supply of munitions and funds to an armed insurgency as a form of “intervention”.

        Also related, you mention elsewhere that Saudi support “hasn’t amounted to much”. My impression is that a lot of the funding is coming from the Gulf (Qatar as well as Saudi) even if mainly from individuals rather than official channels. Also Turkey is clearly assisting.

        • http://linuxbeach.net Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

          As I have pointed out above, Assad started using his army against the protests right after Clinton told the world that Assad would not get the “Qaddafi treatment” at the end of March 2011.

          Also allowing RPGs but not heavy weapons is worst than what Bush did in signalling support that didn’t exist. It would seem that US policy is to allow just enough weapons to keep the conflict going, but denying them the weapons to win. This is a formula for a very long struggle which will cost more Syria lives than a decisive one that is much shorter.

          And blocking the FSA from getting MANPADS is objectively intervening on the side of the Assad regime regardless of the reason you may think it justified.

          Also, have there been any terrorist attacks were MANPADS from Afghanistan were used or is this another boogieman?

          • Arthur

            1. Security forces opened fire in Daraa on 20 March and troops were sent to the city on 21 March 2011. Hilary Clinton’s speech was a week later. That was a year and a half ago. At that time neither the Syrian National Council nor the Free Syrian Army existed and there had been no serious calls for US intervention. The first “Friday of International Protection” was several months later (a year ago). Clinton’s statement was factual then. A lot has happened since then and the US is still not ready to intervene, but the pressure is building and operational plans are already being drawn up. Clinton’s statement that the situation was significantly different from Libya was and is accurate. Assad didn’t need a signal from the US to turn from a security solution to a military solution. The security forces were being overwhelmed and Baathist officers occupied and destroyed. His only other option was to quit.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(January–April_2011

            3. Fighters can and will do a lot with RPGs. The regime is not winning.

            3. The Afghanistan Stingers were still being bought back two decades later. Reasonably or not they viewed it as a very serious problem.

            http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1057196.html

            The issue isn’t whether either of us think refusing MANPADs is reasonable but whether it is evidence the US administration wants the regme to survive. You have not even attempted to respond to my point that there is an obvious alternative explanation, instead simply repeating that the refusal is unjustified. Agreeing on that would not change the fact that the (unreasonable) refusal is not convinving evidence of wanting the regime to survive in view of the other explanations.

            • http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/ Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

              If I ask you for a job, you have every right to refuse me, but when you use your clout to cause other employers to refuse me also, that is a whole different matter. That’s called blacklisting.

              Ditto for the US trying to limit the weapons the FSA can received from anyone. That is not non-intervention. That is intervention that objectively helps the Assad regime regardless of the motivation.

              Your alternative explanation on MANPADS doesn’t explain why Clinton volunteered the statement that there would be no attack on Syria, or Obama’s statement a year later that only the use of WMD (and a whole bunch at that) would change that stance. It also doesn’t explain why the US is stopping them from getting effective anti-tank weapons.

              Not allowing the Syrians who are being bombs to received weapons that are effective against aircraft, at a minimum, indicates a callus disregard for human life.

              Using RPGs against tanks is virtually a suicide mission according to FSA people that are forced to rely on them for lack of a better alternative. And while it is true that the regime is not winning, neither is the FSA. What we have now, thanks in part the these Obama policies is something like a 200+ Syrian lives a day stalemate. I think that is what the US, Saudi and Israel want out of this, a seriously weaken Assad, but still in power.

              My assessment that Obama wants Assad to survive is not based on any one thing, like denying them heavy weapons, but based on the totality of the relationship that I outline in some detail. It also concurs with the assessment of the Syrian governments own consultants. Remember:
              > It is clear from US government pronouncements since the beginning of the public demonstrations in Syria that the Obama Administration wants the leadership in Syria to survive.
              Hard to be any clearer than that! This is from people that know how to cut away the wool – that’s why they don’t parrot public statements and instead look at policy.

              Also these opinions from Stratfor:
              > we know and Assad knows that he is on the thin ice and needs US/Saudi support for survival. US/Saudi (and by proxy, Qatar) back Assad not because they fear things may get worse in Lebanon. Indeed, they think this is the best time to put pressure on Assad to give concessions in Lebanon due to his current weakness
              > Don’t you really find it a bit unusual that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United States did not even hesitate throwing their support behind Assad at the very beginning? Washington could have easily sent a warning to Damascus by saying that “Libya-like treatment for Syria is one of the options”. France was already willing to get engaged in Syria. But US did the contrary.
              > the US doesn’t necessarily want to deal with the instabilty that would follow regime collapse in Syria. They’ve been trying to ignore what’s going on there, but it’s getting a lot harder to ignore as the deaths have been climbing over the past few days. this is a way for the US to tone down the hypocrisy by saying, ‘look, we’re taking action.”
              > not to mention Israel actually quite likes Bashar being in power
              You have to look at the situation as a whole, you take each thing piecemeal and say refusing MANPADS doesn’t prove that they want the regime to survive. That alone may not, but look at the whole policy over that past 3 years. That’s what I did above and you have to take all that on.

            • http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/ Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

              There is also this: #Obama opposes French support for #Assad’s opposition in #Syria
              Like i said, you have to look at the whole policy and throwout the rhetoric.

              • Arthur

                I just read the whole of the “opposes French support” thread.

                1. Your detailed reports of daily killings by the regime and exposure of the US failure to do much about it are doing a great job.

                2. Its clear you are under siege from a group of Kossacks who appear to be some combination of 1) outraged at any undermining of Obama 2) hostile to “another war” – “remember Iraq”, 3) supportive of the regime as the only alternative to “muslim terrorists”.

                3. The first two strike me as inevitable at Daily Kos. The third ought to be easier to defeat there.

                4. You appear to be somewhat isolated. Even though the siege is only by a small group it has the appearance of much wider support. I would urge others here to join in the discussions at Daily Kos to help reduce the isolation and get a sense of what we are up against in convincing a Democrat administration to act. We can’t directly intervene in Syria but we should at least be able to help relieve a siege at Daily Kos! (Sorry I can’t follow that advice myslf – combination of time constraints and being out of place at a US Democrats site).

                5. Your claims that the Obama administration wants the regime to survive are directly playing into the hands of the people trying to isolate you. Step back for a while and review how the discussion is going, reading back over it and thinking about how it looks to others reading it.

                6. Simply denouncing the administration for its callousness and strategic ineptitude in allowing the casualties to mount and extremism to become more entrenched will still leave the same Kossacks out to get you for undermining Obama etc but won’t feed them ammunition that they are successfully using to isolate you.

                • Brian S.

                  @ To whom it may concern re Clay/Arthur debate. The thread is getting a bit confused here, so don’t know where this will end up.
                  Clay, as always, has provided a useful and well-documented background account of US policy towards Syria (but be careful of over-reliance on Stratfor – they provide a good clipping service and some useful B+/A- college-level analysis: but there’s a high bullshit quotient in their operation.) However on the key issues under debate here, I think Arthur is on more solid ground:
                  * There is little value in relying on an alleged continuity between US policy at a time when the Syrian revolt was just beginning and the present: the situation has changed dramatically over that period, and US policy is bound to have moved accordingly. As I have argued elsewhere, what imperialist states most want in international affairs is control and stability. That often leads them to favour reliable tyrants who can demonstrate effective control over their people – but Assad clearly has neither of those properties. There is no reason to doubt that the Obama administration would prefer an orderly removal of the Assad regime – which is what its policy is floundering towards. But its constrained by two factors: 1. election-year paralysis, which blocks it from doing anything that might generate a chain of events with unpredictable political fallout; 2. post-Iraq paralysis – after the Iraq debacle no US administration is going to gamble on a major intervention without first establishing a forest of hedges (multilateral support; reliable allies; clear exit strategy).
                  I don’t see any real conflict between the Obama administration and Hollande in France over Syria: their policy looks to me fairly coordinated (one of the accusations against Hollande in France is that he is an “Atlantacist” ). Hollande calls for a “provisional government” predicated on the Syrian opposition getting its act together; Clinton calls for the opposition to get its act together, after which a provisional government could be formed. To me it looks more like a “soft nanny” / “tough nanny” double act. Similarily, Clinton mutters vaguely about a “safe zone” and Hollande tries to give it a more definite shape.
                  But the bottom line is that none of this is likely to produce anything before the US elections.
                  Let’s just hope that the rumoured Libyan arms shipment (including MANPADs) is real and gets to the right people.

                  • Arthur

                    Thanks. I hadn’t thought about the French-US duet but agree that “soft nanny” / “tough nanny” is an excellent description.

                    PS interesting point elsewhere about Libyan arms in Turkish ports.

                    Unfortunately a lot of the Turkish “left” side with the secularist right who are opposing the “islamist” government’s support for the Syrian people. I hope the real left have more influence among port workers!

  • David Thorstad

    My response to all this verbiage? So what? Claiborne and his cohorts confuse revolution with sectarian revolt sponsored by the worst and most reactionary of the Islamic regimes (the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia above all). So, however justified the revolt of the masses against a ruthless and totalitarian regime is, our impotent lefty Western commentators like Claiborne see no alternative, apparently, to criticizing the Obummer administration for not rushing to help overthrow the regime, as it did in the case of Libya, for instance. Meanwhile, the true colors of the Islamic quasi fascists who have wind in their sails as a result of the Arab Spring are showing up in widespread attacks on the United States. I have nothing against that; the chickens are coming home to roost. But where does all this leave our lefties whose advice to the imperialist powers is to militarily support a military revolt by forces that seem intent on dragging the Middle East back into a theocratic califate? Cheering from the sidelines.
    One can only wonder what foreign policy such leftists would pursue if they ever came to power. Reckless and stupid, most likely. Claiborne doesn’t show the slightest knowledge of Syrian history, or even what forces are at work in the rebellion. To him, and his cohort, rebellion per se is wonderful, and since they lack any wherewithal to influence it themselves, they call on imperialism to step in. How naive can you get? They almost make Obama look good. In the absence of any radical working-class forces involved in the Syrian rebellion, their program amounts to fanning the flames of Muslim fanaticism. If anyone in Syria is paying them any attention, it must make them feel just great to foresee a future of permanent civil war, as happened in Lebanon. Where the French and European colonial powers chopped up Mideast countries and used divide-and-conquer methods, does Claiborne believe imperialist military intervention (as in Libya) is the solution? If so, he’s dreaming with his eyes open. It is sad to see a quasi-Trotskyist site sponsoring such foolishness.

    • http://www.planetanarchy.net Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street, Class War Camp

      “But where does all this leave our lefties whose advice to the imperialist powers is to militarily support a military revolt by forces that seem intent on dragging the Middle East back into a theocratic califate? Cheering from the sidelines.”

      Better to cheer than sneer like closet counter-revolutionaries.

      And who here is on the sidelines besides you? Proyect is reaching out and getting involved in the nascent solidarity movement: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=2304

      Please, pay attention. And try to respond to the points raised in Claiborne’s piece instead of making completely irrelevant comments about the Muslim Brotherhood.

    • http://linuxbeach.net Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

      The view that this is essentially a Sunni secterian revolt being pushed by Saudi Arabia is the Assad line on this popular revolt that involves all sects and religions and is demanding the continuation of the democratic revolution, which in my book is the immediate task of all revoltuionaries in MENA countries.

      The Saudi support for the FSA is something else we hear about from both the Saudi’s and Assad. Both camps, and you, have their reasons for playing this up, but according the the FSA, it hasn’t amounted to much.

      One thing I would hope my “verbage” will contribute is a little real history, including much more on the complex relationship between the Saudis and Assad. Assad’s current line suites his current situation, and you dutiful repeat it but as I have shown, that hasn’t always been the case.

      Also why does anyone interpet pointing out that Obama doesn’t want to see the opposition succeed as being a call for western intervention?

  • Louis Proyect

    It is sad to see a quasi-Trotskyist site sponsoring such foolishness.

    It is doubly sad to see David spouting Marcyite nonsense.

  • David Thorstad

    Huh? There’s nothing “Marcyite” at all in my comment. If “Marcyite” means anything, it means a Manichaean worldview, a struggle between good and evil, good guys and bad guys. That’s what led them to support the Soviet crushing of the rebellion in Hungary, as well as the suppression of the Tiananmen protest. I have always condemned such a simplistic black-and-white approach. That said, if anyone is “Marcyite,” according to my understanding, it is leftists who beat the drums for the Syrian rebellion, who are seen as the good guys against bad guy Assad. What does this approach have to do with Marxism? It resembles more bourgeois moralism. Of course, Assad is a dictator. The Baath regime is totalitarian, ruthless, just plain awful. Its ruthless enforcement of state and sectarian control goes back to the days of the Ottomans. But the Muslim, mostly Sunni, rebels? By their works ye shall know them. And so far, the main benefactors of the Arab Spring have been the Muslim Brotherhood or even more fanatical Muslim sects. I don’t think anyone denies that. Certainly, I haven’t seen any evidence whatever that there is an organized working-class, let alone leftist, component to the Syrian revolt (unlike Egypt, where the labor movement did play a role). My own personal view is that all governments ought to be overthrown, and that goes for the ones such as the Cuban regime that Louis supports. The problem, as I see it, is that those leftists who give backhanded, or open, support to imperialist military intervention in countries like Syria are not only crossing a class line, they are ignoring the history and specific facts of the Syrian revolt.
    It is slanderous to assert that taking a broader, critical view of what is going on equates to a “Marcyite” support for the Assad regime. So low has the level of discussion sunk, apparently. Louis seems to have learned his polemical technique at the Jack Barnes school of the Socialist Workers Party.

    • Arthur

      The main beneficiaries are the peole. The largest party in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood just as Puritans were the largest party in the English revolution. That is not a reason for opposing the elementary bourgeois democraic right of the people to choose which party should govern and consequently for the largest party to govern.

      The salafi parties got about a quarter of the vote in Egypt and there are signs they could be far more popular in Syria and even become dominant. That would be a serious setback, the danger of which is increased the longer external military assistance is delayed. But it is still no excuse for denying the right of the Syrian people to choose who shall govern.

      The trotskyist jargon about Marcyism misses the real point about David Thorstad’s position. It is basically identical with the “realist” US foreign policy establishment position that defended maintaining autocratic stagnation throughout the region on the basis that the alternative would be mustlim extremists. That can be said politely or with denunciation about being a paleo-conservative imperalist stooge.

      The polite version is simply factual. One can argue that the US “realist” foreign policy establishment have turned out to be right about their prognostications concerning democracy in the region. But one cannot pretend that this is a “leftist” viewpoint merely by claiing one would hold different views from them if only the world was different and an organized working class was taking the lead.

      The working class cannot emerge as an independent, let alone a leading force while all free political development is crushed (and hence channelled towards islamist sects) by a police state.

      Even the salafis will open up the political space compared with the current regime – and they will discredit themselves and their form of “anti-imperialism” far more rapidly than the Baathists did theirs.

      • Brian S.

        I agree with Arthur that a committment to “democracy” sits uneasily with a rejection of the actual democractic choices people make: we can’t delegitimise a government just because we don’t like its ideas. But there are limits to this. I think the rules of liberal democracy as formulated by John Stuart Mill are relevant – there can be a “tyranny of the majority” as well as of various minorities. A government with a democratic majority that systematically denies the rights of other groups in society, or worse persecutes them, should not be seen as legitimate or apologised for by the left. That would very likely apply to a salafist/takfirist regime elected democratically (although there is a political spectrum even here).
        But I don’t think this is a real issue at the moment: the Muslim Brotherhood is not salafist, and even its influence is limited in Syria. I don’t know what Arthur bases his view on that salafists “could be far more popular in Syria and even become dominant.” I see no evidence of this – the main salafist element in the revolt appears to have come from the small number of foreign jihadists, and the civilian opposition has been vigorously anti- salafist (e.g. the latest Kanfranbel poster mocking the salafist agitation against “the film”.)
        Having said that, I think we should be careful that we don’t fall into the same trap as those we criticise, and start closing our eyes to things that don’t fit in with our preferred narrative.
        Clay has argued, quite rightly, that the fact that the revolt is centred in the Sunni community doesn’t mean that it is “sectarian” when that community constitutes a large majority in the country, and is even more predominant among the popular classes. But it is almost inevitable that this conflict will start to acquire a sectarian inflection – given the nature of the Assad regime and its use of brutal sectarian militias, how could it be otherwise? And there are reports that sectarian sentiment is starting to grow, particularly in the refugee camps.
        The point for me, however, is that the responsibility for this lies with the Assad regime and its repressive action, and the only realistic solution is the victory of the FSA as rapidly as possible. Once that happens, the situation will remain volatile, but there is a least a hope that the civilian opposition can rebuild itself and provide a politically mature leadership for a frustrated people.

        • Arthur

          Brian, we are broadly in agreement, although I would not conflate salafi/takfiri and insist that takfiris have to be crushed militarily to prevent mass murder whereas the spectrum of salafis ranges from takfiris to far right extremely authoritarian reactionaies who could still be thrown out in subsequent elections.

          There aren’t any elected governments I think the left should apologize for so I don’t see any problem with opposing a future democratically elected Syrian government – whether led by ikwhanis, salafis, liberals, nasserites or neo-ottomans. The point is to open things up by overthrowing the tyranny

          I was surprised that Salafis got a quarter of the vote in Egypt. That is HUGE!

          The only evidence I have that they could be more popular and even dominant in Syria is that they seem a lot more visible than in Egypt and they have the military and financial benefit of Saudi support. There are relatively few foreign jihadis while quite a lot of the fighters in videos look Salafi (no moustache with the beard is a specifically Salafi fashion statement).

          Yes, there is a (natural) tendency to play down the sectarian dangers, especially since the other side highlights them.

          I think those dangers are real. (The Iraqi government is especially worried because of the linkages between takfiris in Iraq and Syria).

          One reason I am not opposed to CIA screening who gets arms supplies.

          • Brian S.

            @Arthur. I agree that we shouldn’t necessarily conflate salafi and takfiri (which is why I referred to there being a spectrum ): but the distinction is likely to get blurred in practice. I stand by my “Millist” reading of liberal democracy, but the key distinction here is between what political forces advocate and that they DO. The former alone may not delegitimise a government with democratic support, but a government that imposes its preferred values on dissenters will void any claim to being a “democracy”. And I think even a “salafist” government would be likely to do that.
            As I understand it, the main reason behind the strong salafist support in Egypt was their heavy involvement with social support among the poor (something that fits well with strong Islamic belief): that shows how difficult it is to interpret developments in simple “class” categories in these societies and cultures.
            I doubt that the same factor will be at work (or not to the same degree) in Syria but the Islamisation of the revolt alongside its militarisation could strengthen more Islamist political currents as well.

            • Arthur

              The distinction is clear. Salafis or wahabis are an extremely reactionary religious tendency dominant in Saudi Arabia and promoted elsewhere by Saudi missionary activity. Takfiris are people (generally Salafi) who denounce and kill other muslims and non-muslims for being infidels.

              The Muslim Brotherhood or ikwhanis did a lot of social work. The Salafi parties seemed to have been obeyed instructions to be apolotical under the Mubarek regime and crawled out of the wooodwork with Saudi backing when it fell. As I mentioned I didn’t expect them to be so popular and so don’t have a good explanation. But I suspect you are confusing them with Muslim Brotherhood social work.

              The Muslim Brotherhood is also pretty conservative, and includes some Salafis. But it isn’t as reactionary as most Salafis and the Salafi parties seem to be a reaction against the brotherhood’s democratic orientation,

    • http://linuxbeach.net Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

      Isn’t Syria a mostly Sunni country? I thought it was, but as you point out: How much do I know about Syria.
      I ask because you seem to think there is a problem with “mostly Sunni rebels.”

      So, Mr. Syrian Knowledgebase, what should the revolt it Syria mostly be if not Sunni?

  • Louis Proyect

    What does this approach have to do with Marxism?

    Read Leon Trotsky’s “Learn to Think”. It explains everything.

    • Joe Vaughan

      LTT was written in 1938 under conditions very different from those in the United States today.

      At the very least, there’s no issue now of American or any workers under the control of the U.S. debating whether or not to supply weapons to the anti-Assad forces. No workers in this country or within the U.S. sphere of control have the power to do this , as was generally the case in the examples Trotsky considers..

      Trotsky spoke, for example, of situations where “cases of ammunition” were actually waiting to be delivered and, (e.g.) French workers could debate, decide, and use direct initiative to realize the delivery.

      In LTT, “support” for sending weapons could lead directly to the weapons actually being sent. In the USA now, “support” merely means a public expression of opinion about a matter that is completely outside the control of the supporters. Imperialist policies must be debated and elaborated, missions funded, tasks allocated, contracts awarded, and a whole train of events set in motion the future consequences of which are not obvious.

      Surely some historical accounting is required if people are to grasp concretely exactly how LTT “explains everything” now as it probably did, for its intended audience, under the very different conditions of 1938.

      • Brian S.

        Not quite. There are reports that a shipment of some 400 tonnes of weapons (possibly including MANPADS) from Libya have docked in a Turkish port (I don’t have complete confidence in this source: but presumably the Syrian airforce will be able to confirm in the next couple of weeks if its true). Now, if you belonged to an organisation that had some influence among Turkish dockers would you be urging them to boycott the load or work overtime to get it quickly to its destination?

        • Joe Vaughan

          Brian S.

          Thank you for your information.

          But the comment of mine to which you replied, as I tried to make clear in context, is narrowly concerned with the applicability of Trotsky’s “Learn to Think” tout court as a definitive explanation of why U.S. socialists should support an as-yet purely hypothetical U.S. war effort in Syria.

          The post to which I was replying was a one-liner that I think missed its mark by saying this, for the reasons I gave in my comment. I was not the only person who spoke up about this.

          Unless someone can show a) that the Turkish arms shipments do exist (and I hope they do, btw), b) that those shipments are the subject of debate among Turkish workers who have it in their immediate power to make the shipments happen, c) that the debate is being influenced negatively in situ by socialists who Do not Know How to Think Trotsky-lectically–and moreover, d) that support by Occupy activists of a new U.S. war effort in Syria is necessary to causing the obstructing socialists’ to stop obstructing and permit the shipments to ship–then I don’t believe “Learn to Think” is relevant to the Turkish situation, at least in the present context.

          Its application to the debate about U.S. war policy needs clarification.

          For what it’s worth, I find the possible arms shipments much more interesting at this point than “Learn to Think.”

          I’d like to see much more on the shipments and related matters at the headline level (not buried in a comments thread) if the information is available.

  • http://www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com Richard Steven Hack

    You are so unbelievably wrong about all of this that I don’t know where to start.

    I will say that relying on Stratfor analysis is pathetic, as those guys are almost universally wrong on every subject, and that’s one thing that has been established by the Wikileaks emails…

    Now I will explain to you the strategic reality on the ground and how the desires of the US military-industrial complex, the oil companies, the investment banks who fund those entities, the Israel Lobby, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar are what are calling the shots, not some fabulous attempt by Obama to “engage Syria” – in the same pathetic manner he “engaged” Iran which has brought the US closer to war than even under the Bush Administration.

    Allow me to explain the purpose of the Syrian crisis…

    Back in 2006, Bush and Cheney were pushing for Israel to attack Iran. However, Israeli leaders balked because they believed that attacking Iran would result in Iranian, Syrian AND Hizballah missiles raining down on Israel, causing Israelis
    to hide in bomb shelters for most of every day, damaging the economy, and possibly causing the electorate to vote out the leaders in the next election.

    In short, Israel wanted a “cheap” Iran war where they only had to deal with a couple hundred missiles from Iran (if that, once the US air strikes had taken out most of Iran’s missiles or where Iran had used most of its missiles on US assets in the region.)

    So Israel decided with US blessing to attack Hizballah in Lebanon, hoping to force them far enough north that their (at that time limited-range) missiles would be ineffective in an Iran war. As we know, Israel failed miserably due to Hizballah’s superior preparation.

    At that point, Middle East expert Colonel Pat Lang pointed out that the only way Israel could take out Hizballah in Southern Lebanon would be to attack Hizballah in the Bekaa Valley which provides Hizballah with “defense in depth” simultaneously with an attack in southern Lebanon, i.e., a classic “pincer movemt”, with the intent of forcing Hizballah to move, in classic guerrilla manner, further north, thus forcing them to abandon most of their missile arsenal and at the same time render the remaining arsenal unable to cover all of Israel.

    To do this, however, would require Israeli forces to enter Syrian territory and engage Syrian forces. Not that Israel couldn’t do this, but it would result in Israel forces facing Hizballah guerrilla war in their front while the remnants of Syria’s forces engaged in guerrilla war in Israel’s rear – not a good position to be in if you want to minimize casualties and get Israel electorate support.

    BUT…IF Syria were ALREADY under attack by the US/NATO/Turkey air strikes for “humanitarian reasons”, that would make such an attack feasible because large concentrations of Syrian forces would be suppressed by air strikes.

    And this is why Syria is where it is today. And this is what will happen:

    1) The US and NATO and Turkey will find a way to bypass the lack of UNSC Resolution authorization and will attack Syria before the end of this year.

    2) In the course of that war, Israel – using the excuse that Syrian weapons are being sent to Hizballah (already floated in the Israel press as an excuse that Israel “will have to” attack Syria and Lebanon) – will send one armored division into Syria to protect a second armored division which will proceed up the Lebanese/Syrian border and then turn into the Bekaa Valley, while a third armored division attacks Southern Lebanon as before, in a classic “pincer movement”.

    3) IF Israel succeeds in damaging Hizballah enough (which I am not sure is feasible but Israel has to try) and IF the US and NATO can damage enough of Syria’s missile inventory, then in the next year or so Israel and/or the US will
    attack Iran.

    The ENTIRE purpose of the Syrian crisis is to remove Syria and Hizballah as effective actors in an Iran war, and thus to enable the Iran war to proceed.

    • http://www.planetanarchy.net Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street, Class War Camp

      I hate to be the bearer of good news, but there isn’t going to be any Iran war. Just ask Col. Lang.

      “The US and NATO and Turkey will find a way to bypass the lack of UNSC Resolution authorization and will attack Syria before the end of this year.”

      This is probably the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time. Syria shot down two Turkish planes and NATO declined to invoke the “self-defense” clause in its treaty. The reality is they don’t want to attack. You’re like a neocon prattling on about the imminent threat (fill in country name here) poses because you ignore the facts that don’t fit your fixed preconceived conclusion.

      • Arthur

        The fact that the author has fantasies that revolution in Syria is really about an Israeli war with Iran does not add credibility to his claim that:

        “The US and NATO and Turkey will find a way to bypass the lack of UNSC Resolution authorization and will attack Syria before the end of this year.”

        But, leaving aside the deadline, the fact that a nutter in superhero costume is saying it, doesn’t prove its false either.

        Clearly the US, NATO and Turkey were not interested in an attack at the time when Turkey was probing Syrian air defences (and/or perhaps became less interested when Syria proved those air defences are real).

        But the focus on a UNSC resolution is merely a symptom of not being serious rather than a significant barrier if or when they do decide to act.

        France has already pointed out an obvious mechanism and supported going ahead with it. Simply recognize an alternative Syrian government and respond to its invitation.

    • http://linuxbeach.net Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

      Your whole explanation of the Syrian crisis doesn’t mention the revolt of the Syrian people. You don’t explain why students and teachers from Aleppo U. have taken up arms against the regime or why so many of Assad’s soldiers have defected.

      Clearly, without these fighters and the many thousand of protesters since Mar15, there would be no Syrian crisis, but you speak only about external factors. Are these brave Syrians to be so easily dismissed as pawns of the forces you think responsible?

      I don’t “rely” on the Stratfor analysis, it is only one of the sources I use. As I point out, the analysis of the firm hired by Syria said:

      It is clear from US government pronouncements since the beginning of the public demonstrations in Syria that the Obama Administration wants the leadership in Syria to survive.

      • Arthur

        Quoting from a sales pitch by PR firm seeking Syrian business is not the way to do analysis.

        The very next paragraph of that letter says:

        “However, the tone of the Administration’s statements has grown noticeably harsher in recent weeks and may be nearing a tipping point that could make a reassessment of the US position towards Syria inevitable. One potential bellwether of this shift is the transformation in the public statements of US Senator John Kerry, the Administration’s de facto point man on outreach to Syria. Senator Kerry has begun to publicly backtrack his often-repeated confidence in the leadership’s ability to reform. ”

        In quoting so selectively it is clear that you are not studying the material to assist in reaching objective conclusions, but seeking support for preconceptions.

        This of course is still on the right side and way better than those who ignore the people and their revolution, speculate only (and ignorantly) about external factors and end up where they started – on the enemy side.

        But we need to provide soundly based analysis. Nobody else will!

        • http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/ Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

          Why do you diparage a paper titled “RE: Crisis Communications Analysis” as a sales pitch? Shouldn’t a sales pitch contain an offer to sell in it? You think this paper was sent unsolicted to Fares Kallas on spec? I don’t.

          Not that that invalidates their analysis. You think they told them stuff they don’t believe?

          And I did quote that 2nd para in my essay, didn’t I?

          Now about all my other arguments ….

          • Arthur

            Sorry, you did quote that 2nd paragraph your long post. I didn’t notice it there but when I saw the more selective version in comment immediately above I remembered that did not convey the flavour of the document at all from reading it before and went and looked it up directly.

            Just wanted to acknowledge for now that in complaining about selective quotation I hadn’t noticed that you did quote it fully earlier on same page. More on other arguments later.

            PS I do think the document was a sales pitch emphasizing how much the regime needs more of the PR flacks valuable services. Presumably solicited and/or on retainer rather than on spec.

  • David Thorstad

    Louis Proyect says Trotsky’s “Learn to Think” “explains everything” about a Marxist position on what is going on in Syria. Baloney. For those not familiar with the piece, here’s a link:

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm

    The many hypothetical examples discussed in the article bear not the slightest relevance to the current Syrian situation. Trotsky is discussing what the approach of a mass proletarian party in the imperialist countries should be to a revolt by the masses in a colonial country who are fighting under the banner of national independence. (It didn’t take me long to discover that there is no mass “proletarian” party in the USA facing anything like the hypothetical situations Trotsky discusses.) If Proyect thinks this article justifies isolated, impotent Western leftists (who have nothing approaching anything like a mass left party, even a reformist one) supporting military intervention by “their own” bourgeoisie and imperialism in Syria, then either he hasn’t read the Trotsky piece recently or he is deliberately misapplying the lessons Trotsky was trying to draw. He did the same distortion by accusing me of a “Marcyite” worldview–a silly argument I demolished earlier.
    I don’t wish to belabor this point, so suggest anyone interested read the Trotsky piece. That said, quoting (and misconstruing for polemical purposes–which confirms my point that Louis appears to have learned his polemical style at the knees of the one-armed bandit Barnes and his degenerate(d) SWP), one should learn to think on one’s own and not resort to throwing the red book against the red book.
    If this is an example of “Marxism,” it might explain why some “leftist” imperialist supporters seek to wrap themselves in gospel from the past that does nothing to explain the present.

    • Brian S.

      @David Thorstad re Learning to Think: “In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist ”
      I think this is highly apposite to the different views being expressed over Syria (and Libya previously). But perhaps the final phrase cuts too close to the bone for you?

    • http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/ Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

      “impotent Western leftists”

      Tell that to the Atlanta high school kid that became a weapons identification expert in the Libyan struggle and organized a group via tweeter that produced a whole series of manuals in 3 languages on everything from bomb defusing to emergency medical procedures, that were used in every front in the Libyan revolution.

      Tell that to the Paris mother & communications engineer that played a vital role in the opposition’s comm network in Libya.

      Tell that to the Anons that kept the Internet up when Qaddafi tried to bring it down.

      Tell that to the Google engineers that setup speech-to-tweet in Egypt and Libya in their 20% personal projects time.

      Maybe the problem is that these people aren’t “leftists” so they don’t know they’re impotent!

  • Cort Greene

    Thank you Clay for a very clear and insightful analysis and many worldwide who are real anti imperialists and for socialism do have a similar take on it.

    Have gotten it out to about 28 egroups and on Indymedia with no negative comments.

    Cort

    • http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/ Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

      Thank you

  • Louis Proyect

    Trotsky is discussing what the approach of a mass proletarian party in the imperialist countries should be to a revolt by the masses in a colonial country who are fighting under the banner of national independence.

    Actually the era of formal colonialism ended long ago. There are very few colonies in the old-time sense except for Puerto Rico, the Malvinas, and Tibet–maybe some others. But really the overarching question is whether socialists should oppose the imperialist arming some insurgent movement somewhere as a matter of principle, like not crossing a picket line. People like David Thorstad, Thierry Meyssan, Michel Chossudovsky, Diana Johnstone, et al take that position and I don’t. I opposed arming the KLA but am not opposed to arming the FSA. One movement reflected the counter-revolution in Eastern Europe while the other reflects a democratic revolution in the Middle East. Trotsky warned against formulaic thinking, something that Thorstad and company exemplify. To put this in the concrete, we must assume that if David was a socialist member of the French parliament, he would vote against France providing surface to air missiles to the FSA–not that this has the remotest chance of ever happening. For all the bullshit about imperialism arming the FSA, they can’t even get such weapons from the Saudis. The net effect of voting against such weapons is to back counter-revolution in the Middle East. al-Assad is trying to drown a revolution in blood and David advocates opening the faucet wider.

  • Pingback: The Revolution Betrayed: Obama and the Syrian Uprising

  • http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/ Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

    Thank you for your interest and advice. Obviously blogging at the DKos is very different from blogging here but it does expose me to the attitudes and perceptions different than in most left blogs, and of course that is why I blog there. Especially in this election year criticizing Obama is like touching a 3rd rail for those folks and has served to isolated me.

    There is a core of 4 pro-Assad/anti-interventionists who have been very dedicated in attacking me, often responding within minutes after I post with the latest RT.com take on things. I had them pretty well isolated themselves until I came out with Obama “green lights” Assad’s slaughter in Syria. That was universally condemned among the Kossacks and allowed those 4 to build some allies and isolate me. It been interesting to see what unprincipled alliances whose RT leftist have tried to make with the Obama people.

    On the other hand my “green light” response, published a few hours after Obama’s “redline” comment was tweeted widely among the Syria activists and even provoked a response from Assad “Syria doesn’t need a green light” . I don’t say he was responding directly to me, but I do think I may have well started the “talk on the Syrian street …of an American green light” as Assad’s interviewer put it.

    Obama donne le feu vert à Assad Check out the cartoon associated with this, I’ll have to add this to my blog.

    Every time I published something along those lines, I get hammered at the Dkos. So Friday morning, I publish this piece, which I spent weeks on, and it gets really hammered, only 3 rec’ and a lot of negative comments. Then that latter that same day I publish Seven Libyans Injured Defending US Embassy which I knocked out in a little more than an hour, and it gets 294 rec’s. Go figure!

    Maybe I should blog about Obama elsewhere? But I like keeping it real and directly confronting their illusions. Anyway I do feel that the DKos is a worthwhile forum for Marxists to struggle with the “masses” in and I could certainly use some help as well as some advice.

    Thanks again for looking into it.

    • http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/ Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

      Now even John McCain has picked up on my “green light” metaphor. This won’t help me at all with the DKos crowd. However I have to say that I do agree with his basic recommendations.

      I was googling around after that last post to see where Obama’s green light for Assad was showing up lately and I found this:

      September 8, 2012 – CNN interviews John McCain on Syria “Obama Gives Assad Green Light to Kill Everyone But Don’t Use Chemical Weapons” McCain demands that the USA Give CNN Interview with War Hero John McCain, who criticizes Obama over the President’s Inaction on Syria and for not standing up and not speaking up for the Syrian people who are being slaughtered by the thousands by the evil Dictator Bashar Assad.

      McCain doesn’t actually say “green light” in the video of the interview that is with this article so that may be CNN’s extrapolation.

      It also made the NY Times, [29/08/12] according to this:

      The New York Times reports that…

      While maintaining good relations with the Obama administration, the group has also been a critic of the administration’s approach, with added credibility because of its ties inside Syria. Dr. Danan, for example, said President Obama’s warning that any use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would be “a red line” that could provoke intervention amounted to a “green light” for Mr. Assad to use as much conventional force as possible.

      and this:

      Daily Kos: UPDATED: #Obama “green lights” #Assad’s slaughter in #Syria
      Following article is generating some interest, with 134 tweets in last day

      • http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/ Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

        My two comments above are a respond to Arthur “I just read the whole of the “opposes French support” thread.” above, how it got down here i haven’t a clue.

        • Arthur

          Glad you welcomed input, despite disagreement.

          “I had them pretty well isolated themselves until I came out with Obama “green lights” Assad’s slaughter in Syria. That was universally condemned among the Kossacks and allowed those 4 to build some allies and isolate me.”

          “Every time I published something along those lines, I get hammered at the Dkos. So Friday morning, I publish this piece, which I spent weeks on, and it gets really hammered, only 3 rec’ and a lot of negative comments. Then that latter that same day I publish Seven Libyans Injured Defending US Embassy which I knocked out in a little more than an hour, and it gets 294 rec’s. Go figure!”

          Umm, well I think these facts about responses are telling you something that you can figure out ;-)

          “Maybe I should blog about Obama elsewhere? But I like keeping it real and directly confronting their illusions. Anyway I do feel that the DKos is a worthwhile forum for Marxists to struggle with the “masses” in and I could certainly use some help as well as some advice.”

          I hope others join you there as its certainly more “real” than left blogs. Problem in’t your choice of venue but the specific analysis and tactic.

          An implicit attack on Obama by simply highlighting the consequences of delay will obviosly win more support than a claim that Obama is actively assisting Assad with a green light because he wants Assad to win.

          Even if your analysis was correct an indirect approach to convince people would be more effective.

          As there is now a new topic on “The Revolution Betrayed: Obama and the Syrian Uprising” I’ll post further on the analysis being incorrect there.

          But I’ll leave one parting thought on your earlier comments supporting your analysis:

          “Not allowing the Syrians who are being bombs to received weapons that are effective against aircraft, at a minimum, indicates a callus disregard for human life.”

          THAT analysis makes total sense AND will make it harder to isolate you among Kossacks.

          Its a strong idictment. Adding “maximal” conclusions only weakens it.

          • http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Clay%20Claiborne/ Clay Claiborne (@clayclai)

            Thanks, I just republished Binh’s piece in my DKos blog http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/17/1132837/-Syria-The-Killing-Field-the-World-is-Learning-to-Live-With

            So we’ll see what the response is today.

            • Arthur

              I haven’t seen the photo, but I gather including the photo wasn’t a fair test of the reaction to Pham Binh’s version.

              Do you have any real doubt that even without the photo, that version would have helped isolate you further, especially with the Hitler and Zyklon B stuff?

              The fact that some people there are so determined to isolate you proves you were doing a great job. The fact that they have now completely succeeded means you played into their hands.

              I’m not familiar with the mechanism at Daily Koss but I gather that unless the administrators decide to declassify you as a Troll any further posts will simply be invisible to most readers.

              So take the time to reflect on how to help them make that decision. Consulting with “mindful” might help. Merely removing the photo won’t change the fact that they want you out. Only active work by people lke “mindful”, combined with a list of appealing posts from you that clearly show you are NOT just there to annoy and embarass them (like the Libya embassy post) could work. But first you need to actually convince yourself that you really do want to influence them rather than beat them with clubs.

              • Brian S.

                @Arthur/Clay: Much as I’ve valued Daily Kos ever since I discovered it early in the Libyan revolution, I’ve never been able to understand how it works: on my screen posts appear with extensive comments, but I can find no facility for adding comments. Can anyone clarify?

                • Arthur

                  My understanding is that Daily Kos is a world of its own, not similar to other web sites. You have to register/join the community and read the help documents/FAQ to understand how it works.

                  • Brian S.

                    Thanks Arthur: I hadn’t noticed that “sign up” button – advancing old age strikes again, I fear.

  • Pingback: Nothing Left in Syria? Why the Western left hasn’t, but should, support the armed resistance

  • Pingback: “Red Line” or Empty Threat? How the Left Gasses Itself on Syria « arabmaoists

  • Pingback: The Incredibles: Tony, John, Barack….and Dave | The Knife and me

  • Pingback: George W. Bush was right about Syria and Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton were all wrong | Flopping Aces

  • Pingback: Homepage

Previous post:

Next post: