Share this story!            

Hawks recycle arguments against Syria

By David R. Sands

WASHINGTON: The talk over war with Syria increasingly resembles a spring rerun of the debate over war with Iraq; with virtually the same cast of characters and plot.

Neoconservative Richard Perle, a leading hawk in the Iraq debate, on Tuesday called for Congress to pass a “Syrian Liberation Act” modelled on the 1998 law that made regime change in Baghdad official US policy.

“There are many ways to fight these battles,” Mr Perle, a civilian adviser to the Pentagon, told a forum at the American Enterprise Institute.

“I would hope that Congress would take a look at helping those who want to free Syria from the tyrannical rule of the Ba’ath Party,” the secular ruling party dominated by Syrian President Bashir Assad, Mr Perle said.

Critics of the war against Saddam Hussein are already accusing hawks of targeting Syria as the first in a new string of conflicts with Middle East regimes.

“The War Party has blood in its nostrils and is headed for Damascus,” said conservative columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, a fierce critic of the Iraq war who accused American hawks of putting Israel’s security needs above US interests in the region.

“This is the neocons’ hour of power, and they do not intend to lose this chance to remake the Middle East in their own image,” Mr Buchanan said.

Said analyst Jim Lobe of the leftist Inter Press Service news agency; “There is no question that the hawks, boosted by the easier-than-expected victory in Baghdad, are eager to throw their weight around, particularly in Syria’s direction.”

The neoconservative call for a tough line against Syria long predates the volley of criticism directed at Damascus by senior Bush administration officials, including Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in the past two weeks.

Syria’s occupation of neighbouring Lebanon, its reported chemical-weapons programs, its support for Hezbollah and other Palestinian terrorist groups targeting Israel, and Mr Assad’s rapprochement with Baghdad in recent years have all been criticized by neoconservatives.

A May 2000 study by the pro-Lebanon Middle East Forum called for an escalating series of punishments to get Damascus to change its policy.

The study did not rule out military action, saying, “The use of force needs to be considered. ... If there is decisive action, it will have to be sooner rather than later.”

Among those signing a letter in support of the report were Mr Perle; Elliott Abrams, now the head of Middle East policy at the National Security Council; Douglas Feith, now undersecretary of defence for policy; and David Wurmser, now a senior Pentagon official on Iraqi policy.

There also appears to be an emerging policy division within the Bush administration itself. Pentagon officials, including Mr Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, have been notably tougher in their rhetoric in recent weeks than Mr Powell and the State Department.

The case has been strengthened, US officials say, by clear signs Syria provided aid and comfort to Saddam’s regime in recent days, despite siding with the United States in the 1991 Gulf war against Iraq and despite Syria’s decision to vote for UN Resolution 1441 in November, demanding Iraq disarm or face the consequences.

Mr Assad, Pentagon officials say, ignored repeated warnings to stop the flow of military equipment and fighters into neighbouring Iraq. Syria has also tested chemical weapons in the past 15 months and harboured fleeing figures associated with Saddam’s regime, US officials say.

Yesterday, US forces turned off a pipeline carrying oil from Iraq to Syria.

Foreign Minister Farouk Sharaa told the Syrian parliament earlier this month “Syria’s interest is to see the invaders defeated.”

As in the Iraqi debate, Israeli officials have been vocal in backing a hard US line against Syria.

Israel wants to see Hezbollah guerrillas ousted from Syrian-controlled Lebanon and an end to Syria’s policy of providing a haven for militant Palestinian groups.

Israel has “a long list of issues we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians, and it would be best done through the Americans,” Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said in an interview with the Israeli daily Ma’ariv published Monday.

The parallels to Iraq are not perfect.

While few in Washington had any use for Saddam Hussein, Syria and Mr Assad provided what US officials concede was highly useful intelligence on al Qaeda in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The Bush administration established a back channel for communications with Damascus through a Texas public-policy centre named for James A. Baker III, secretary of state under the first President Bush.

The administration opposed a bill last year imposing new economic sanctions on Syria, saying punitive measures would harm US efforts to influence Syrian policy for the better.

And Britain and Spain, which backed Mr Bush on Iraq, have both said they will not support a quick military move against Syria.

“Syria has been and will be a friend of Spain,” Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said yesterday. “It will not be the target of any war actions.” —TWT

Home | Foreign

Share this story!