Right Wing Nut House

This articile originally appears in The American Thinker

Peter Rodman, one of the architects of our military and political policy in Iraq and William Shawcross, liberal hawk now branded traitor by the left for his support of the Iraq War, have written what I believe to be an extremely important Op-Ed in the New York Times on why walking away in defeat from Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster:

SOME opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat. A number of them are simply predicting it, while others advocate measures that would make it more likely. Lending intellectual respectability to all this is an argument that takes a strange comfort from the outcome of the Vietnam War. The defeat of the American enterprise in Indochina, it is said, turned out not to be as bad as expected. The United States recovered, and no lasting price was paid.

We beg to differ. Many years ago, the two of us clashed sharply over the wisdom and morality of American policy in Indochina, especially in Cambodia. One of us (Mr. Shawcross) published a book, “Sideshow,” that bitterly criticized Nixon administration policy. The other (Mr. Rodman), a longtime associate of Henry Kissinger, issued a rebuttal in The American Spectator, defending American policy. Decades later, we have not changed our views. But we agreed even then that the outcome in Indochina was indeed disastrous, both in human and geopolitical terms, for the United States and the region. Today we agree equally strongly that the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even more serious and lasting.

So true. The only problem is, there is absolutely no way forward at present that would bring what the Democrats, the world media, the Arab Street, and the America-hating left would be willing to call “victory” in Iraq. These groups have a vested interest in an American defeat - economic, political, strategic - and will proclaim our surrender (along with Osama and his crew) no matter what the military or political situation when most of our combat troops are removed, probably before the 2008 election.

It is maddening to read the pious pronouncements from the left about how desperately they wanted American to succeed in Iraq (this despite the fact that they opposed the war in the first place) all the while deliberately undermining support for the war by the American people. And by “deliberately” I mean they had a game plan, a narrative that they have pushed for the last 4 years with the stated purpose of weakening the resolve of voters so that Democrats could ride the anti-war sentiment into power.

Readers of this site know that it hasn’t been the left alone that caused this drop off in support by the American people. Our war policies have been flawed from the get go and until recently, nothing we tried seemed to stem the violence in Iraq and indeed, made it worse in some respects. But there is a huge difference between mistakes made in planning and policy and the cold, calculated effort by the left to work to crush the morale of the American people so that they could use the Iraq War to vault back into power.

But if the left is trying to convince us that their withering criticisms of the justification for the war, its subsequent prosecution, and all the ancillary issues that have arisen because of it as well as vicious personal attacks on the President were only for the purpose of improving our policies so that we could achieve victory, only little children who still believe in Santa Claus take them at their word. Therefore, one must conclude that their stated reasons for wishing an American defeat in Iraq - that we “deserve” it or that it would teach us a lesson in “humility” - are a true reflection of their beliefs and thinking.

And that kind of thinking, as Rodman/Shawcross point out, is sheer, unadulterated lunacy. It would repeat the mistakes we made in getting out of Viet Nam:

The 1975 Communist victory in Indochina led to horrors that engulfed the region. The victorious Khmer Rouge killed one to two million of their fellow Cambodians in a genocidal, ideological rampage. In Vietnam and Laos, cruel gulags and “re-education” camps enforced repression. Millions of people fled, mostly by boat, with thousands dying in the attempt.

The defeat had a lasting and significant strategic impact. Leonid Brezhnev trumpeted that the global “correlation of forces” had shifted in favor of “socialism,” and the Soviets went on a geopolitical offensive in the third world for a decade. Their invasion of Afghanistan was one result. Demoralized European leaders publicly lamented Soviet aggressiveness and American paralysis.

How does this lesson travel across the years to become relevant in Iraq:

Today, in Iraq, there should be no illusion that defeat would come at an acceptable price. George Orwell wrote that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. But anyone who thinks an American defeat in Iraq will bring a merciful end to this conflict is deluded. Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences.

As in Indochina more than 30 years ago, millions of Iraqis today see the United States helping them defeat their murderous opponents as the only hope for their country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have committed themselves to working with us and with their democratically elected government to enable their country to rejoin the world as a peaceful, moderate state that is a partner to its neighbors instead of a threat. If we accept defeat, these Iraqis will be at terrible risk. Thousands upon thousands of them will flee, as so many Vietnamese did after 1975.

No word from the Democrats or the left on what to do with these brave Iraqis who are constantly at risk of being assassinated for helping us and their government. In their world, they don’t exist or worse, are stupid dupes fooled by us evil Americans into helping to legitimize a puppet government. And our government has shamefully denied most Iraqis visas, setting a strict limit on the number of Iraqi immigrants who can come to this country (a total of 692 so far). While security concerns are paramount, it would seem to me that Iraqis who have served American interests should have their visa applications expedited. Indeed, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff has just recently put procedures in place that will do just that, allowing 7,000 more Iraqi citizens the opportunity to live in the United States.

Rodman/Shawcross conclude by pointing out the necessity for maintaining our credibility:

Osama bin Laden said, a few months after 9/11, that “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” The United States, in his mind, is the weak horse. American defeat in Iraq would embolden the extremists in the Muslim world, demoralize and perhaps destabilize many moderate friendly governments, and accelerate the radicalization of every conflict in the Middle East.

Our conduct in Iraq is a crucial test of our credibility, especially with regard to the looming threat from revolutionary Iran. Our Arab and Israeli friends view Iraq in that wider context. They worry about our domestic debate, which had such a devastating impact on the outcome of the Vietnam War, and they want reassurance.

When government officials argued that American credibility was at stake in Indochina, critics ridiculed the notion. But when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, he and his colleagues invoked Vietnam as a reason not to take American warnings seriously. The United States cannot be strong against Iran — or anywhere — if we accept defeat in Iraq.

Already, a chorus is growing on the left that Iran is not a threat, that evidence for their aggressive intentions has been fabricated “just like the evidence that got us into Iraq.” To call that kind of myopic twaddle “suicidal” gives bridge jumpers a bad name. We may very well end up going to war with Iran - or not. But to dismiss them as a threat to the United States, our friends, and our interests is childish and stupid.

Even Barak Obama sees Iran as a serious threat and has not taken the military option off the table. Nor has Hillary Clinton or any other serious Democratic candidate for President. Only those who live in their little Bush-hating cocoons and view every action taken by the government as more evidence of the President’s deviousness can possibly believe we are “manufacturing” evidence in order to justify military action against Iran. Why bother? The Iranians have supplied us with plenty of justification without us having to manufacture anything.

We must find a way through to a satisfactory ending to our involvement in Iraq. There is no alternative. Even if the rest of the world crows about our “defeat” in Iraq when our combat troops depart, governments in the region - including Iran - will know better and base their actions on what is going on in the real world and not the desperate imaginings of fanatical jihadists, the anti-American Arab street, and bitter leftists whose desire to see America humbled has so unbalanced them that it is impossible to tell the difference between the language urging the defeat of the United States used by our enemies and the rhetoric that emanates from supposedly respectable liberal quarters in Congress and on the internet.

That too, evokes memories of Viet Nam, the last time our “humiliation” was seen as a good thing by the left.

The United Nations Security Council voted this afternoon to give the Lebanese parliament until June 10 to approve the sitting of the International Tribunal to try the murderers of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and others. Failing that approval, the UNSC vote means that they will invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and sit the Tribunal under the auspices of the United Nations:

The U.N. Security Council voted on Wednesday to establish a special court to prosecute the murder two years ago of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri.

Ten council members voted for the Western-sponsored resolution and five — Russia, China, Qatar, Indonesia and South Africa — abstained, with no votes against. The resolution will go into effect on June 10.

The fact that Russia and China - two of Syrias friends and benefactors - failed to veto the motion is a huge victory for US diplomacy. Too bad it will never be reported that way.

The resolution became necessary when the opposition forces in Parliament led by Hezbullah ally Speaker Nabih Berri refused to call the legislative body into session to consider the law authorizing the Tribunal. Following a plea from Prime Minister Siniora to the UN, the Security Council has now issued what amounts to an ultimatum to the Lebanese parliament to vote on the Tribunal by June 10 or the Tribunal will be seated automatically.

The relief and joy of the majority March 14th forces is being seen all over the country:

Meanwhile, Hariri supporters celebrated the Security Council’s decision.

But the government appeared fearful that the celebrations would turn violent between pro-government and opposition factions. The Interior Ministry banned the public from firing guns in the air, releasing fireworks and using motorcycles from 8 p.m. (1700 GMT) Wednesday to 5 a.m (0200 GMT) Thursday. Some of the bomb attacks in Lebanon have been blamed on assailants riding motorcycles.

Security forces were instructed to implement the measures and violators would be prosecuted, according to the ministry.

Hariri’s son, Saad Hariri, also urged supporters to refrain from firing guns and called on them to exercise calm by staying home and lighting candles on balconies.

The slain leader’s supporters began celebrating in Hariri’s hometown in the southern city of Sidon more than six hours before the Security Council met in New York to vote on the tribunal resolution.

Carrying Lebanese flags and pictures of Hariri, supporters set up what they called “love checkpoints” in Sidon’s main roads and intersections handing out sweets and flowers to motorists.

And along with that joy comes the inevitable feeling of unease at what Syria might do now to block the road for the Tribunal. The recent clashes involving the Palestinian terrorist group Fatah al-Islam are widely seen by many in Lebanon and around the world as being inspired if not directed by Assad’s Syria. And as a sign that there may be more trouble on the way, Naharnet is reporting that a “ranking al-Qaeda terrorist” has been arrested acting as a Syrian double agent:

Lebanese security agents have arrested a ranking al-Qaida terrorist who was acting as “a double agent for Syrian intelligence,” a reliable source told Naharnet.
The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the suspect whose name and nationality could not be revealed pending completion of the ongoing investigation, was busted Tuesday at a hotel suite in Beirut’s district of Ashrafiyeh.

The “very dangerous terrorist,” according to the source, had crossed into Lebanon “illegally” overland from neighboring Syria over the weekend to follow up “coordination with Fatah al-Islam terrorists” besieged in the northern refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared.

[...]

The suspect, according to the source, had “sold out al-Qaida in favor of cooperation with Syrian intelligence after he was offered safe haven in Syria.”

Last week, according to the source, the suspect “turned in to the Syrian intelligence a ranking Saudi member of al-Qaida known as Abu Talha. He did the Syrians a major favor that could help them boost their tense relations with the Americans.”

Abu Talha, whose real name is not known, is on the U.S. list of most wanted terrorists, according to the source.

After turning in Abu Talha, the Syrian intelligence command “sent the suspect to Lebanon to re-organize Fatah al-Islam and other Syrian-sponsored terrorists and sponsor a spate of attacks on a variety of targets in Lebanon aimed at destabilizing the situation,” the source added.

“The Syrians want to destabilize Lebanon and tell the Americans: ‘We can control the situation like we arrested Abu Talha. Strike a deal with us and Lebanon would be under control’,” the source said.

He said Fatah al-Islam terrorists arrested in north Lebanon “told investigators of the suspect’s moves and revealed important information which led to his arrest.”

As with many things having to do with Lebanon, this particular report is interesting but until it can be at least partially confirmed, caution is advised.

But it rings true to many observers who have witnessed Syria’s aggressive use of terrorist groups in the past to sow chaos in Lebanon. And it fits in with Syrias maximum effort to bring down the government of Prime Minister Siniora before the Tribunal can start to present evidence of high level Syrian complicity in the Harriri murder as well as almost two dozen other political attacks on anti-Syrian Lebanese.

For the government of Lebanon as for the people, trying to anticipate Syria’s next move in this campaign of destabilization is almost impossible. For in the end, the question on everyone’s mind is “What will Hizbullah do?”

Hizbullah leader Hassan Nassrallah has made it plain that he opposes the move to invoke Chapter 7 to sit the Tribunal. He has rejected every compromise to end the stand-off over increased opposition representation in the cabinet as well as various formulas for parliament to approve the enabling legislation for the Tribunal. But it would be a mistake to simply say that Nasrallah is doing Syria’s bidding. The Hizbullah leader has his own agenda which, in this case, happens to mirror the wishes of President Assad in Syria. And the fact that Hizbullah’s paymaster Iran has expressed its support for the Tribunal makes Nasrallah’s position vis a vis Syria delicate indeed. His reaction to the UNSC vote will be closely examined for any give at all.

How far will Assad want to take this effort to de-legitimize the government and bring it down? How far will he go in preventing the Tribunal from doing its work? The two issues are interconnected for Assad. He believes the only way to stop the Tribunal is to unseat the majority. He has tried intimidation, murder, bombings, and now terrorist uprisings. Nothing has deflected the majority from seeking justice for Hariri and others who have been victimized by Assad’s brutality. Could the Syrian thug now try and foment another civil war in Lebanon as a last resort? Anything is possible with Assad who must see the Tribunal as a threat to his hold on power. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be so desperate to destroy it.

For the moment, the people of Lebanon have been handed a victory by the world community. But Lebanon is on edge tonight as well, fearful of an unknowable future with many dangers yet to be overcome before justice for Hariri can be done.

UPDATE

Allah is on the story as well:

Wonderful news, even if Russia and China couldn’t quite bring themselves to endorse it. This has been Assad’s greatest fear since Rafiq Hariri, the anti-Syrian former prime minister of Lebanon, was assassinated two years ago: all signs point to the Syrian government’s involvement and he knows it and soon the rest of the world will know it too. That’s why people ended up dying every time the UN inched a little closer to approving the tribunal — it was Assad’s version of a shot across the bow, a warning of what could and would happen in Lebanon if the UN went ahead with the investigation. His puppet was already making threats in advance of the vote:

The “puppet” Allah refers to is Syrian toady Emile Lahoud who has threatened that a wave of violence will erupt in the wake of the UN vote.

Lahoud has also been busy trying to undermine Siniora. He proposed a “Salvation Cabinet” during a meeting with the Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir made up of 6 ministers “each representing one of the main religious communities.”

This is a non-starter since it would give Hizbullah control over one third of the cabinet thus giving it veto power over the majority. But give the toady high marks for doing his master’s bidding in Syria.

And Ace has his doubts - for good reason.

News out of Iraq today from the Los Angeles Times, a fierce critic of the war, quotes several anonymous military sources they say are close to General Petreaus, that the government of Prime Minister Maliki will fail to achieve any of the major political goals set by the Administration when the troop surge began:

U.S. military leaders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that most of the broad political goals President Bush laid out early this year in his announcement of a troop buildup will not be met this summer and are seeking ways to redefine success.

In September, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, is scheduled to present Congress with an assessment of progress in Iraq. Military officers in Baghdad and outside advisors working with Petraeus doubt that the three major goals set by U.S. officials for the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki will be achieved by then.

Enactment of a new law to share Iraq’s oil revenue among Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions is the only goal they think might be achieved in time, and even that is considered a long shot. The two other key benchmarks are provincial elections and a deal to allow more Sunni Arabs into government jobs.

With overhauls by the central government stalled and with security in Baghdad still a distant goal, Petraeus’ advisors hope to focus on smaller achievements that they see as signs of progress, including local deals among Iraq’s rival factions to establish areas of peace in some provincial cities.

The political realities facing the Iraqi government are no secret and it doesn’t take high ranking aides to Petreaus to tell us what has been obvious at least since the beginning of April; that Maliki is unable to bring most of the Shia parties along with him (if he himself is even committed to many of these political goals) in an effort to reconcile the country’s factions and bring peace to Iraq.

The fact is, we can point to our great successes in Anbar province and elsewhere in defeating the insurgency and al-Qaeda but if Baghdad continues to bleed the way it does today, there is no way the surge will be seen as a success in any way, shape, or form. Of course, most of the press, the Democrats, and the left have already declared the surge a failure which makes subduing Baghdad even more important. And in this case, we are bedeviled by the fact that the terrorists only have to succeed once and a while in setting off huge bombs that kill dozens of people for the perception to kick in that the surge has been useless.

Couple the continued bloodshed in Baghdad with the inability (or outright refusal) of the Maliki government to deal with sharing oil revenue, de-Baathication, and constitutional changes and you can see where Petreaus aides are coming from. The surge is next to useless without the Iraqi government using any reduction in violence and the subsequent increase in confidence by the people that this would inspire to reach out to the Sunnis who are cooperating with us in Anbar and other provinces and make them partners in rebuilding the country.

What’s the answer then? Apparently, we are beginning to shift the playing field, bypassing the empty suit of a prime minister, and dealing with the problem of reconciliation Anbar-style; by making deals with the Sheiks and their tribes at the local level:

Military officers said they understood that any report that key goals had not been met would add to congressional Democrats’ skepticism. But some counterinsurgency advisors to Petraeus have said it was never realistic to expect that Iraqis would reach agreement on some of their most divisive issues after just a few months of the American troop buildup.

The advisors and military officers say the local deals and advances they see are not insignificant and can be building blocks of wider sectarian reconciliation.

Military officers in Iraq said the efforts included recruiting Sunni Arab nationalists into security forces, forging agreements among neighborhoods of rival sects, establishing new businesses in once-violent areas and shifting local attitudes.

Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and early advocate of the troop buildup, said the military would have few major political accomplishments to report by September. “I think the political progress will be mostly of this local variety,” said Kagan, who recently visited Iraq and met with American commanders.

This is an intriguing approach and once again I weep because we waited 4 years to try it. But the sad fact is, the sands in the hour glass are draining fast and all the signs point to a dramatic political change in September if Petreaus can’t convince lawmakers - and through them the American people - that the progress being made at the local level is worth the expenditure in lives and treasure this war has cost us already.

It is still unclear to me how this progress at the local level will translate into putting the pieces of Iraqi society back together. In some ways, it sounds as if it could actually work to further separate the factions:

The push for smaller, local deals represents a significant shift for the Bush administration, which has emphasized that security in Baghdad has to be the top priority to allow the central government to make progress toward national political reconciliation. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have pressured Iraqi political leaders to reach key agreements by the end of summer.

But Gates said last week that U.S. officials may have over-emphasized the importance of Iraq’s central government.

“One of the concerns that I’ve had,” Gates said, “was whether we had focused too much on central government construction in both Iraq and Afghanistan and not enough on the cultural and historical, provincial, tribal and other entities that have played an important role in the history of both countries.”

The new command has realized that there will be no quick national-level deal on the key issues, said the senior military officer in Baghdad.

“You are talking about Sunnis who had power and Shiites who have power forgetting about what happened over the last 30 years,” the officer said. “How easy is that going to be?”

In Iraq, local leaders have doubts about the central government’s abilities to make a meaningful deal.

“The sheiks are not waiting to see if the law is passed or not,” Kagan said. “The Iraqi local leaders clearly don’t see reconciliation as something that has to come from the top or necessarily should come from the top.”

There is good reason that local leaders don’t trust the central government. They have promised much and delivered nothing. And the fact that it is generally recognized in the country that the writ of Baghdad law does not run much outside of Baghdad itself makes the Sheiks wonder how the central government could enforce any agreements it makes with other factions like the Mahdi Army or the Badr Organization who Sunnis see as largely responsible for the sectarian killings. Perhaps they consider it suicide to trust the national government to rein in the militias through any agreements signed with them.

Frankly, I just don’t think our progress in Anbar and other provinces will be enough to convince the Congress to grant the Administration the time it needs to assist the Iraqis in pacifying their country and leave behind a viable state. The Democrats will return with a vengeance hawking their timetables and advocating a cut off in funds on some date certain. They will be driven by their base of rabid netnuts who are already livid with most Democratic lawmakers for what they see as caving in to the President this last go around on Iraq funding.

And not surprisingly, they will be joined by a substantial number of Republicans who fear for their electoral lives. Just over the horizon, it is easy to discern the political disaster for the GOP if they stick with a lame duck Commander in Chief at less than 30% in the polls who refuses to budge on doing what a majority of Americans want him to do; start bringing the troops home.

It should also not come as a surprise that when both Democrats and Republicans are driven by fear, the chances of something less than desirable for the national interest coming out of this mess are considerably increased. What is needed is rationality and a compromise both sides can live with. What we will probably end up getting is political panic and bitter recriminations over who to blame for our situation.

Meanwhile, Iran continues its winning streak, Syria may very well feel emboldened in its campaign to bring chaos to Lebanon, and our friends in the Middle East wonder about the future.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

The worried eyes of the western world are turned toward Lebanon as the under trained and under equipped Lebanese army does battle with the Palestinian terrorist group known as Fatah al-Islam in and around the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp just outside of the northern port city of Tripoli.

So far, the terrorists are staying true to form. They have taken refuge among the civilian population in the densely crowded camp and are using innocents as human shields. The Lebanese army, under orders to destroy the terrorists, tries to spare civilians the worst of the fighting but apparently, to no avail as many of the refugees streaming out of the camps this evening report dozens of corpses lying in the street and in buildings.

The death toll as reported by Lebanese media is 66 which includes 30 Lebanese soldiers, 18 Fatah al-Islam gunmen, 17 Palestinian refugees and one Lebanese civilian. That number is clearly too low as the United Nations reports gunmen opening fire on convoys bearing relief supplies into the camp killing several more civilians who approached the trucks to get much needed water and food. And as a tenuous, undeclared cease fire seems to be holding over the last 24 hours, thousands of Palestinians have taken advantage in the lull to flee the camp, relating stories about the fierce firefights in the streets and saying that the stench of death is everywhere.

Much has been made in the western media of Fatah al-Islam’s ties to al-Qaeda. There is ample evidence that, in fact, the leader of the group, Shakir al-Abssi, has been inspired by Osama Bin Laden, adheres to al-Qaeda’s ideology of establishing a world wide Caliphate, fought with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, and shares al-Qaeda’s goal of kicking the United States out of the Middle East.

But many Lebanese see the hand of Syria in al-Abbsi’s machinations. They point to the fact that around the time that al-Abssi was sentenced to death along with al-Zarqawi in Jordan for assassinating the United States diplomat Laurence Foley, he was freed from a Syrian jail where he had spent three years for plotting terrorist attacks there. Released last fall, he made his way immediately to the northern Lebanese refugee camp Nahr el-Bared where he began to recruit not only Palestinians but also Arab fighters and jihadists from as far away as Chechnya.

The New York Times caught up with the 51 year old al-Abssi in March of this year and found him well organized and fanatical in his desire to hurt the United States. At that time, Syria denied sending Abssi to Lebanon to create chaos calling the charges “baseless.”

But the facts are that Syria has a long history of supporting Palestinian radicals in Lebanon and using them as surrogates to create havoc. Dr. Walid Phares:

The Fatah al Islam is the latest marriage of convenience between a group of committed Jihadists, rotating in the al Qaeda’s constellation but gravitating around Damascus influence. The group accepts Bashar’s support and the Syrian regime tolerates the organization’s “Sunni” outlook: Both have a common enemy, even though they may come at each other’s throats in the future. The men of Bin Laden anywhere in the world, including in Lebanon, have the same standing order: Bringing down the moderate Arab and Muslim Governments (even in multiethnic societies) and replace them with Emirates. The men of Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmedinijad have converging goals, bring down the democratically elected Government in Lebanon and replace it with a Hizbollah-Syrian dominated regime, as was the case before 2005. Thus each “axis” has one objective in Lebanon: crush the Seniora Government. They will take all their time to fight each other after.

Indeed, Phares paints a grim future for Lebanon unless the Lebanese army can annihilate Fatah-al-Islam:

Today’s clashes between the al Qaeda linked terror network and the Lebanese Army are a prelude to terror preparations aimed at crumbling the Cedars Revolution, both Government and civil society this summer. It is a move by the Assad regime to weaken the cabinet and the army in preparation for a greater offensive later on by Hizbollah on another front. In short the Damascus-Tehran strategic planners have unleashed this “local” al Qaeda group in Tripoli to drag the Lebanese cabinet in side battles, deflecting its attention from the two main events, highly threatening to Assad: One is the forthcoming UN formed Tribunal in the assassination case of Rafiq Hariri. The second is the pending deployment of UN units on the Lebanese-Syrian borders. Both developments can isolate the Syrian regime. Thus, the Fatah al Islam attacks can be perceived as part of a preemptive strategy by the Tehran-Damascus axis. But the results, if the Lebanese Army fails to contain the terrorists, could be very serious to the Seniora Government and the UN. Worse, if the first piece of a Sunni Triangle is put in place in Lebanon, this could affect the geopolitics of the War on Terror globally: The rise of Salafi Jihadism along the coasts of Lebanon, from Tripoli to Sidon, passing by Beirut. This Emirate-to-be, could become the closer strategic enclave of Bin Laden to the US Sixth Fleet, Europe’s cities and Israel.

The violence has temporarily healed the breach in Lebanese politics as all sides in the current stand off between the Hezb’allah led opposition and the coalition of democrats elected in June, 2005 following the forced departure of the Syrian army are united in urging strong action by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s government to destroy the threat posed by Fatah al-Islam. But the longer the battles go on, the more dicey the situation for the government. That’s because one faction in Lebanon is absolutely livid with the government for attacking the terrorists in Nahr el-Bared; the 200,000 Palestinian refugees spread out in 11 camps along the border.

Violent demonstrations against the actions taken by the Lebanese army were reported in several camps today as word got out that many civilians were killed in the attacks. In an effort to ease tensions in the volatile camps, Prime Minister Siniora met with several Palestinian leaders and agreed with him on working out what was described as a “mechanism” to contain the situation in the besieged camp. Details of the agreement were not forthcoming but “Palestinian sources told Naharnet they focus mainly on pacifying the camp’s civilian population, estimated at nearly 30,000.”

The big problem is that it is illegal for the Lebanese to police the camp itself. Only with the agreement of several Arab states, signatories to the Cairo Agreement brokered by Egyptian President Nasser would the Lebanese be allowed to police their own territory. This holdover from before the ruinous civil war has made the refugee camps a haven for violent groups where their jihadist ideology finds fertile ground among young, disaffected Palestinian youths.

If Dr. Phares analysis is correct (this editorial in The Daily Star confirms the rise of militant terrorist groups in Lebanon) it becomes of paramount importance for the Lebanese army to succeed in wiping out the threat posed by Fatah al-Islam. To that end, the United States is reportedly sending military supplies to the Lebanese army and has promised much more through the Paris Roundtable on aid to Lebanon. France has also offered aid as have other Arab nations who see the threat of radical Islam taking hold in Lebanon as threat to their regimes as well.

But the question of Syrian involvement in this episode (and several huge bombs that have gone off in and around Beirut over the last 72 hours) cannot be answered definitively. The reach of Syrian intelligence into all facets of Lebanese society is still so vast that it becomes easy for the government to blame Damascus for just about anything. But the confluence of timing and events would seem to point the finger at Syria as benefiting the most from chaos that would ensue in Lebanon if the terrorists were successful in creating a new “Sunni triangle” in the north.

President Assad is desperate to avoid the consequences that would flow from the sitting of the International Tribunal. Just today, the United Nations discussed the option of seating the Tribunal under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter since the Lebanese government and Parliament are prevented by Hezb’allah and their allies from taking up the matter themselves. Hezb’allah ally Speaker Nabih Berri has refused all pleas from the Parliamentary majority to call the legislature into session to consider the enabling legislation for the Tribunal. And the Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, who is widely seen as doing Assad’s bidding in Lebanon, also refused to use his powers to call Parliament into session. Thus, the Prime Minister has called upon the United Nations to seat the Tribunal itself.

This is not an optimum solution for Lebanon. And there is opposition in the Security Council from Russia, Syria’s major benefactor. But it seems likely that Russia would not press the issue to the point of vetoing such a plan which means that sometime in the next 2 or three months, there will indeed be a prosecution of the murderers of Rafiq Hariri as well as a close look at nearly 15 years of Syrian meddling in Lebanon.

The evidence so far points a finger directly at President Assad and his top henchmen, including his brother who ran Syrian intelligence in Lebanon as well as his brother in law. The Tribunal will also reveal the involvement of several prominent Lebanese military and security officials.

This much is known. What has not been revealed is the evidence that links this vast conspiracy to the numerous other bombings and assassinations - including last November’s killing of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel - that have silenced so many Syrian critics and opponents in Lebanon. It is expected that the evidence will be overwhelming that President Assad has carried out a campaign of terror directed against his political foes in Lebanon. And it is this prospect that has Assad doing everything in his power - including backing Hezb’allah in their effort to unseat the ruling majority government - to prevent the Tribunal from doing its work.

A convenient convergence of interests between Fatah al-Islam and Syria? Or outright collusion? The answer to that question may hold the key to the future of a free and independent Lebanon.

This kind of cynicism deserves a special reward.

Mort Kondracke thinks he’s being sensible by coming up with a “Plan B” for the day that the surge proves itself to be a tactical success but a strategic failure. The plan is simple, elegant, immoral, and would condemn millions of people to slaughter and misery.

But hey! Who’s countin’ noses when we get our very own pet Shia running Iraq?

The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.

No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it - and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it’s the best alternative available if Bush’s surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows.

On the other hand, as Bush’s critics point out, bloody civil war is the reality in Iraq right now. U.S. troops are standing in the middle of it and so far cannot stop either Shiites from killing Sunnis or Sunnis from killing Shiites.

Winning dirty would involve taking sides in the civil war - backing the Shiite-dominated elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and ensuring that he and his allies prevail over both the Sunni insurgency and his Shiite adversary Muqtada al-Sadr, who’s now Iran’s candidate to rule Iraq.

What’s a little ethnic cleansing among friends, eh Mort? Standing by while Sunnis are slaughtered is going to sit quite well with our friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the majority Sunni Gulf States.

The plan, of course, is as immoral as the Democrat’s current political gamesmanship which would accomplish exactly the same thing - Sunni slaughter - but would have the advantage of giving the US plausible deniability. (”How were we supposed to know that was going to happen?”) Kondracke doesn’t even pretend the murder of several hundred thousand people would come as a surprise. In fact, it’s part of his master plan.

And in the muddle that is Iraqi politics, it is unclear whether Mookie al-Sadr is, in fact, an “adversary” of Maliki at all. In some respects and on some issues, he is almost certainly an “ally.” And while a rival for power, as long as Ayatollah al-Sistani draws breath, the SCIRI will never allow the young upstart cleric to run much of anything in Iraq - even if he’s backed by Iran.

As for the rest of this tripe, is Kondracke sure this “anonymous” Congress critter wasn’t pulling his leg? I can’t imagine the US standing by watching as Shias herd Sunnis like cattle, whipping them toward the Saudi, Syrian, or Jordanian border. It would be the largest forced migration of people since the India-Pakistan partition in 1947. But that’s what a lot of the Shias who surround Maliki are all about - making Iraq a Sunni-free nation. It’s why the political benchmarks demanded of the Iraqi government by Congress will never be met. There is not the desire much less the political will among major Shia parties and personalities to unite the country.

Kondracke’s explanation is unconvincing:

Prudence calls for preparation of a Plan B. The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing - but without any guarantee that a government friendly to the United States would emerge. Almost certainly, Shiites will dominate Iraq because they outnumber Sunnis three to one. But the United States would get no credit for helping the Shiites win. In fact, America’s credibility would suffer because it abandoned its mission. And, there is no guarantee that al-Sadr - currently residing in Iran and resting his militias - would not emerge as the victor in a power struggle with al-Maliki’s Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Iran formerly backed the SCIRI and its Badr Brigades but recently switched allegiances - foolishly, my Congressional source contends - to al-Sadr, who’s regarded by other Shiites as young, volatile and unreliable. Under a win dirty strategy, the United States would have to back al-Maliki and the Badr Brigades in their eventual showdown with al-Sadr. It also would have to help Jordan and Saudi Arabia care for a surge in Sunni refugees, possibly 1 million to 2 million joining an equal number who already have fled.

Sunnis will suffer under a winning dirty strategy, no question, but so far they’ve refused to accept that they’re a minority. They will have to do so eventually, one way or another. And, eventually, Iraq will achieve political equilibrium. Civil wars do end. The losers lose and have to knuckle under. As my Congressional source says, “every civil war is a political struggle. The center of this struggle is for control of the Shiite community. Wherever the Shiites go, is where Iraq will go. So, the quicker we back the winning side, the quicker the war ends. … Winning dirty isn’t attractive, but it sure beats losing.”

Allah asks the tough questions that Kondracke shrivels from and lays out “we broke it, we’ve got to fix it” case for at least maintaining enough of a presence to forestall genocide:

We all understand the dilemma here: we’re the only thing preventing a pogrom, but it’s at a huge human cost to our own military. At what point does our responsibility to get our boys out of harm’s way morally justify leaving a power vacuum within which Iraqi Arabs can slam away at each other? We’re not going to solve a Sunni/Shiite rift that’s existed for 1400 years so why waste any more American lives trying to postpone it? The answer, or my answer, in two words: Pam Hess. It’d be unconscionable for the United States to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing in a country whose security we’ve taken responsibility for; if you believe some on the left (and right), it’s unconscionable for us to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing even in countries whose security we’re not responsible for, like Sudan. When we leave, we have to leave with a good faith belief that the two sides can co-exist, which is why political reconciliation within parliament is so important and why we’re stuck there until it happens. If you take Kondracke seriously, the best solution might actually be to have the Air Force carpet-bomb Anbar: it’d solve the problem instantly, we’d get “credit for helping the Shiites win,” and it’d send a none-too-subtle message to Sadr that he’d best not antagonize us in the future. It would also send the Sunni countries in the Middle East into a frenzy, of course, and would mean the destruction of a part of Iraq where the leadership is, increasingly, unabashedly on our side and has taken the lead in fighting Al Qaeda — but of course, Shiite ethnic cleansing would accomplish the same things.

Strangest of all, in what sense does Kondracke think “American credibility” would be served by letting Sadr put the Sunnis to the sword? We’d be hearing about it from the left and the Islamists for the next thousand years. Al Qaeda would make it a centerpiece of their recruiting strategy. Even Iran, the ostensible beneficiaries, would demagogue the hell out of it with crocodile tears about their “Sunni brothers” whom the Sadrists had no choice but to fight after the U.S. goaded them into it.

Kondracke is wrong on so many levels it is beyond belief that he isn’t just throwing this out in order to initiate discussion about what next in Iraq.

And if he’s seriously considering what he wrote as an actual course of action for the United States, he should, as I suggest above, be sentenced to be dressed in Sunni garb and dropped smack in the middle of Sadr city.

Methinks his perspective on Shia ethnic cleansing would benefit by a little first hand experience with the process.

Via the excellent Lebanese-Syrian blog Across The Bay comes Syrian President Bashar Assad’s formal response to Speaker Pelosi’s visit as well as Condi Rice’s sit down with the Syrian Foreign Minister in Egypt last week:

The latest news came today, when dissident Kamal Labwani, who was arrested in 2005 for meeting with State Department and White House officials to call for democratic and human rights reforms in Syria, was sentenced to life in prison, commuted to 12 years with labor. (And the NYT never questioned the Syrians’ bull when they said they sentenced a suspected al-Qaeda member for 3 years!)

This is what you get when you engage Syria: intransigence in foreign policy (a euphemism for the regime’s policy of sponsoring terror and destabilizing its neighbors), and wanton brutality domestically, against brave civic and human rights activists.

I’ll end with the words of the Post’s editorial: “The danger of offering ‘friendship’ and ‘hope’ to a ruler such as Mr. Assad is that it will be interpreted as acquiescence by the United States to the policies of dictatorship.”

In addition to the verdict against Mr. Labwani, two other human rights activists in Syria have been punished for daring to speak against the murderous Assad regime. The WaPo editorial Anton references above from two weeks ago highlights the plight of Anwar al-Bunni, democracy advocate and someone mentioned specifically in Pelosi’s statement on her meeting with Assad:

In a statement, her delegation reported that it had talked to Mr. Assad about stopping the flow of foreign terrorists to Iraq and about obtaining the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It also said it had “conveyed our strong interest in the cases of [Syrian] democracy activists,” such as imprisoned human rights lawyer Anwar al-Bunni.

Three weeks have passed, so it’s fair to ask: Has there been any positive change in Syrian behavior — any return gesture of goodwill, however slight?

Mr. al-Bunni might offer the best answer — if he could. On Tuesday, one of Mr. Assad’s judges sentenced him to five years in prison. His “crimes” were to speak out about the torture and persecution of regime opponents, to found the Syrian Human Rights Association and to sign the “Damascus Declaration,” a pro-democracy manifesto.

I’m sure Mr. al-Bunni is thanking the Speaker profusely for her “intervention.”

And that’s not all. One prominent opposition figure, a former Syrian MP turned human rights activist who spent 5 years in jail and has since fled the country, begged Pelosi not to visit Syria:

Another source explains that Syrian activists believe Pelosi’s trip gave the Asad regime much needed breathing room. “Whether there is a real connection or not, political dissidents note that Anwar al-Bunni was sentenced to five years in prison in the wake of Pelosi’s visit.”

Another opposition figure, Muhammad Ma’moun Homsi, a former Syrian MP who was imprisoned for five years beginning in 2001, and who has now fled Syria, revealed that he had sent a letter to Pelosi asking her not to come to Damascus. In an interview on an Arabic-language website, Homsi added that the idea of engaging such regimes is “a very dangerous proposition cause next will be a call to engage terrorist organizations.”

And now some regional observers believe that Ibrahim Suleiman is a signal to the Democrats that they have an eager partner in Damascus. Walid Choucair, a columnist for the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, writes that Suleiman is part of a Syrian “wager on the changed position of a future administration (and) the Democrats coming to power in 2008.”

It’s hardly surprising that the Asad regime is trying to wait out a highly unfriendly White House and see what fate throws them next. But what has the Democrats so excited about a government that is helping to kill U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, targeting American allies and interests in Israel, the PA, and Jordan, all while trying to reassert its presence in Lebanon?

Since that Weekly Standard article by Lee Smith came out on May 2, Anton reports:

[T]he regime seized Homsi’s assets, stripping his family of its home ownership, in order to pressure him and his family. That happened the same day Rice met with Syria’s FM at the Iraq conference in Egypt.

The level of cynicism it takes to engage Syria in any kind of “dialogue” while they round up and persecute those who expose themselves to extreme danger in order to affect democratic changes in their country is beyond me.

In a few weeks, after the UN invokes Chapter 7 to seat the International Tribunal that will try the murderers of the ex-Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and other Syrian opponents in Lebanon, solid evidence will be presented of complicity in those murders by the highest levels - the absolute highest - of the Syrian government. And then where will the proponents of engaging the Syrians be? On the outs looking in as the world recoils in horror and Syria becomes a pariah nation with a real effort in the Security Council to impose draconian sanctions on her.

Anyone could have told Pelosi and Rice this if they didn’t know it. But of course, they both knew. And they were probably aware that any discussion with Assad about going easy on human rights and democracy advocates was also doomed to failure.

That foreknowledge exposes their rank cynicism for the despicable attribute it clearly is. There are other ways to stop foreign fighters from coming into Iraq via Syria. And if Assad doesn’t know what they are, he should be informed in no uncertain terms of the options open to the United States military to deal with the problem.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Secretary of State Condi Rice’s meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Waleed Moallem - the first high level contact between Syria and the US in more than 2 years - may be a significant step on the road to better relations between the two countries. At the very least, it signals a willingness on the part of the Bush Administration to explore ways to get the Syrians to stop assisting the Iraqi insurgents by funneling fresh Arab fighters on to the battlefields of Iraq.

Just prior to the meeting in Egypt, a US military spokesman reported that Syria had moved to reduce “the flow of foreign fighters” across its borders into Iraq. This was a prerequisite for any contact to take place between Syria and the US. But one wonders what has changed? Syria has been saying that they have taken steps to close their borders before. The fact that we now “accept” Syria’s contention at this time could mean that our State Department has employed a diplomatic device to justify the meeting.

Cynics would argue that this is the way of the world and that artificial roadblocks to talking with the enemy need to be taken down sometimes with artificial pretensions. But the fact is, this meeting between Syria and the US is not taking place in a vacuum. It comes at a crucial time for Lebanon, now entering the 5th month of political gridlock as a result of the Hezb’allah led opposition’s attempt to bring down the elected government of Prime Minister Siniora.

The fallout from that effort has now reached all the way to the United Nations where the Security Council will take up Lebanon perhaps as early as next week. At issue: Invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter that would allow the world body to enforce its will and convene the International Tribunal to try the murderers of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The Syrian backed opposition in Lebanon has blocked the sitting of the Tribunal at every turn, most recently in the Parliament as Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezb’allah ally, refused to even convene the legislature in order to consider the measure that would have authorized the sitting of the judges.

The reason is simple. High level members of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government as well as members of his family have been directly implicated in Hariri’s murder as well as more than a dozen other politically motivated killings. Some observers believe the reason Assad is fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Tribunal from sitting is because of the nature of his dictatorship. The Syrian President is part of a small clique of Alawite Muslims who, with a few Sunni allies, have governed Syria for 40 years. If several of his closest advisors and family members were to be tried and convicted, it could knock the legs out from underneath this clique and lead to the President’s downfall. At the very least, it would make Syria a pariah state with tough international sanctions a real possibility. Given the precariousness of the Syrian economy, that too could lead to personal disaster for Assad.

So Assad’s friends in Lebanon have obliged him by paralyzing the government, setting up a protest camp in front of the government building that serves the dual purpose of putting pressure on Siniora while bringing most of the economic activity in downtown Beirut to a virtual standstill. It has also raised the spectre of civil war - something none of the sides claim they want but that appears almost inevitable at times.

Every effort at reconciliation by the majority has been rebuffed by Hezb’allah leader Hassan Nasrallah. It would appear only complete capitulation by Siniora to the opposition demands regarding cabinet representation (which would effectively kill the Tribunal) would satisfy Nasrallah. And this, Siniora cannot do without his coalition collapsing.

And now 6 months into this stalemate, Syria and the US appear ready to hold serious talks about stabilizing Iraq. The problem for the US is relatively straightforward; there is precious little we can offer Syria in the way of compensation for their assistance in tamping down the violence. Syria would dearly love the US to put pressure on Israel to make a deal on the Golan Heights, Syrian territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 War. This will never happen - at least as long as George Bush is President. Too many Israelis are still alive who remember Syrian gun emplacements on those heights firing indiscriminately and without warning into the valleys below, killing civilians and terrorizing the population. And Bush would never ask any Israeli leader to risk going back to those days by handing the Heights back to Syria.

We could facilitate peace talks between Israel and Syria. But Assad has made it clear that issues involving the Palestinians must be settled first before there could be formal peace negotiations. And given the confused, violent, and contradictory situation in the territories, it doesn’t seem likely that there will be movement on that score any time soon.

Trade and commercial concessions would be welcome but would hardly amount to much. Syria doesn’t produce much of anything the west wants while the country is too poor to afford much of anything the west produces.

Realistically, about the only other enticement we could offer Syria that would possibly interest them would involve Lebanon. US support for the Siniora government has been unwavering. Our commitment to seeing the Tribunal sit and mete out justice has been total. We have urged our allies in the area - especially the Saudis - to play an active and positive role in trying to resolve the political stalemate in Lebanon, something that King Abdullah has done with great skill and unflagging energy.

So what could we possibly offer Syria on Lebanon without selling them down the river?

This question has been on the minds of many Lebanese as several factors loom as possible goads to push US policy toward making some kind of deal on Lebanon with the Syrians.

First and foremost is time. The US military commitment to pacifying Iraq is now hostage to the 2008 Presidential election. The closer the election gets, the more likely that the Democrat’s plan for a withdrawal of combat troops will attract more and more support from Republicans, peeling away enough skittish Bush supporters concerned about their own re-election chances so that any veto by the President can be overridden. To forestall that possibility, some kind of bargain on Lebanon with Syria could be in the offing.

Then there is the practical reality that involves some of the insurgents being directed and funded by Saddam loyalists safely operating in Syria. Over the last few years, Syria has handed over several high ranking former members of Saddam’s security services. But it is believed that many more are still in hiding, funnelling money and arms to some of the insurgents. Assad could be convinced to give the rest up for a price.

Finally, there is the Iraqi government’s need for a secure border with Syria. As mentioned above, the Syrians may be doing more than they were previously to close off the border to foreign fighters. But given the weakness and inexperience of the Iraqi military, Assad’s efforts on the border will probably spell the difference as the current surge strategy unfolds in Baghdad and the western province of Anbar.

Given these and other factors, what could we possibly offer President Assad on Lebanon that would be the basis for some kind of deal?

The answer is not much. At the United Nations, the Russians - Syria’s ally - have been grumbling that Lebanon should be able to deal with its own problems and not always look to the UN to bail them out. And in order to bring the Russians on board, it may be necessary to compromise on the Tribunal in some small way. But any major changes in the makeup of the Tribunal, its mandate, rules of evidence, or even who it may indict will be vigorously opposed by both the French and the United States. It seems improbable that we would make a deal with Assad on the Tribunal even if it would help bring the violence down in Iraq.

The same goes for any other issue that Assad would be willing to deal on with regards to Lebanon, including the future influence of Syria in that country as well as territorial and economic issues. There may be some small, ancillary matters that we would agree on - perhaps a recognition of Syrian “interest” in Lebanon. But anything that would smack of reestablishing Syrian hegemony over the tiny country would be a non starter.

This is what we all hope anyway. And it is what the Lebanese expect. But many Lebanese remember what they consider the abandonment of their country by the United States at the time the Taif Accords ending the civil war that were signed in 1989. At that time, Secretary of State James Baker fully backed the agreement even though it legitimized Syrian occupation and dominance in Lebanon. Many considered our support at that time as a sell out.

But this is a different world, a different Lebanon. Despite our need for Syria to play a constructive role in Iraq, it won’t come at the expense of Lebanese democracy or the Lebanese people who are struggling to throw off the yoke of decades of bloody civil war and humiliating occupation. We must make this absolutely clear to Assad’s Syria and disabuse him of any notion that we would sell out our friends in order to reach some kind of agreement that would nominally affect the battlefield in Iraq.

Anything less would betray our values as well as the Lebanese people.

Now we know why Pelosi was wearing that head scarf in Damascus yesterday. It wasn’t in deference to Muslim tradition. It was to keep her brains from dribbling out of her ears:

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a rare “clarification” Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.

According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that “although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.”

Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria’s sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to “cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran.”

The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

Obviously, she should have tied the scarf a little tighter given the copious amounts of gray matter that must have oozed out during her visit to the Middle East. Or perhaps she should have used a tin foil hat:

Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks.

“We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said after meeting Assad.

She said the meeting with the Syrian leader “enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well.”

According to officials in the Prime Minister’s Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.

Anyone who believes any “assurances” from that murderous thug Assad obviously needs some additional Reynolds Wrap on their tin foil beanie to deflect all the rays marked “stupid” from penetrating their skull.

Assad has given Lebanon all sorts of “assurances” that he will respect their independence and not assassinate their citizens on a regular basis. The killing of the beloved Pierre Gemayal last November would seem to give the lie to the latter. And as for the former, Assad is working closely with his Hizbullah allies to bring about a return of Syrian domination of the tiny country.

Hey! But he’s talking to a liberal Democrat so he must be telling the truth, right? Because our Nancy is so good, so pure in motive, so…so…EARNEST, she can charm the hair off of an orangutan . And the fact that both Assad and Pelosi hate Bush with a passion probably gave them a lot of common ground to reflect upon.

Someone get Matt Stoller an oxygen mask. This breathless paean to Pelosi is so off the mark that it should be listed under “wishful thinking” rather than any kind of serious analysis:

Pelosi, in going to Syria, and in telling Bush to calm down, is looking much more like a President than Bush is. Bush is even having his role as commander-in-chief challenged, by both his own ineptitude and the public’s willingness to strip him of power. By default, that power is slowly bleeding over to Pelosi, Reid, and whichever member of Congress is leading that day and filling the massive void Bush has left. This is not an ideal scenario, but it’s the one that Bush set himself up for when he refused to acknowledge the results of the 2006 elections and what that meant for his method of governance.

He may hold the constitutional office, but he is less and less the President every day. He can still do a lot of damage, but we are increasingly going to see leaders like Pelosi in positions of authority. Power abhors a vacuum, which is why Pelosi looks like a President today.

Bush may not be able to set the agenda anymore. But to doubt the power of the veto pen is stupid. And by his own admission, Bush can still “start wars” - a not inconsequential power that would bolster his standing among Americans (at least temporarily) if the President were to be dumb enough to attack Iran; something I don’t think is in the cards for the foreseeable future.

And as far as Bush’s powers as commander in chief being “stripped,” perhaps Mr. Stoller might offer an example other than the sure to be vetoed war spending bill which also is a rock solid certainty of the veto being upheld. And any attempt to cut off funds for Iraq entirely will result in a smashing, humiliating defeat for the Democrats. So unless we have some other example of Bush losing his power as Commander in Chief, perhaps Stoller should just put a sock in it.

The Washington Post also wonders where Pelosi’s brains have gone:

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration — rightly or wrongly — has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

The Post is too kind. Why is this so surprising? The Democrats have sought to undermine this President’s foreign policy almost from day one. They have ridiculed his support of democratic reforms in the Middle East. They have undercut his authority by making the wildest, most baseless charges about why we are fighting in Iraq. They have gone to tremendous lengths to even question his legitimacy by constantly posing the most outrageous conspiracy theories about “stolen elections” - despite the fact that independent forums have confirmed the President’s victory in 2000 and only the looniest of Democrats actually believe that the 2004 election was won by Kerry.

There is much to criticize in the Bush presidency - a lackadaisical attitude toward important issues, cronyism (which certainly leads to questions of competence), an overarching drive to politicize government, and a reliance on loyalty as a determining factor in personnel decisions - to name a few.

But Pelosi’s performance in Syria - played to the hilt by the Syrian press who didn’t mention any of Pelosi’s traveling companions or any of the Republican lawmakers who also visited Assad - proves that she is a not ready for prime time national leader. Her egregious error in misinterpreting Prime Minister Olmert’s “message” and her jaw dropping myopia about Assad’s “assurances” brand her as an amateur’s amateur.

As long as she’s wearing the scarf, perhaps we should tell her to “Get Thee to a Nunnery.” Anything would be better than the disaster she’s already perpetrated and the confusion she’s already sown.

UPDATE

The normally placid Ed Morrissey has some tough words for the Democrats:

The Democrats, led by Pelosi, have tried to undermine Bush for years. Now that they have the majority in Congress, they can give full vent to their schemes. The efforts of the past couple of months show that the Democrats want to turn the Constitution upside down, strip the executive branch of its power, and make Congress the supreme power in the American system.

Well, sorry, but that’s the British system. Perhaps Pelosi would be more comfortable there or in Canada, but here in the US, the elected President has all of the Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy and command the military. That remains true even when Congress dislikes the policies in both areas. If the Democrats want a new foreign policy, then let them nominate someone who can articulate one that the American people support, and stop nominating appeasers and vacillators.

Dear Senator Harry,

As for my next trip, I hear Iran is lovely this time of year . . .

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

The traditional folk dance of Lebanon is called the Dabke, or literally “stomping of the feet” - a descriptive that refers to the communal nature of the dance and the fact that it is most often performed at joyous occasions like weddings. As in other traditional folk dances like the Jewish Hora, it’s purpose is to unite the celebrants with feelings of nationhood while drawing on the emotional power of the community and family.

For the Lebanese people, who have endured 3 months of being on the edge of civil war, teetering over the abyss while the politicians have exchanged bitter and personal denunciations of each other, recent events have given them hope that soon, the political impasse that has led to strife and bloodshed will be broken and they can dance the dabke with abandon.

Yesterday, Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri of the opposition Amal Party sat down with Said Hariri, leader of the majority March 14th coalition for talks aimed at resolving the crisis. What made the meeting so significant was that it was the first time in months that the two sides sat in the same room, face to face, to discuss a way to cut the Gordian knot of sectarian differences that threatens to plunge the country into the unimaginable tragedy of civil conflict.

In a nutshell, Hezb’allah has been in the streets since December 1 calling on the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to resign or to give the Shia parties enough ministries in the cabinet so that they would have veto power over measures they dislike. And the measure they most definitely want to see vetoed is the establishment of an international tribunal, authorized by the United Nations and approved by the Security Council, to try the assassins of the former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

Quite simply, Siniora refuses these demands on the very practical grounds that his coalition received roughly 2/3 of the vote in the last Parliamentary elections and giving the opposition veto power over the decisions of the majority would be tantamount to nullifying the election. Hezb’allah’s real game is to act as a cat’s paw for Syria, who desperately wants to stop the tribunal from sitting since it is clear from the 2 year investigation by UN special prosecutors that responsibility for Hariri’s death extends to the highest levels of the Syrian government.

The very highest levels.

The prospect of a tribunal has President Bashar Assad of Syria so spooked that during a phone conversation with his friend and partner President Ahmadinejad, he lost his temper when the Iranian came out in favor of seating the international body. The Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyassah reported on Wednesday that “Assad became enraged and launched into an angry tirade, cursing the Iranians at the end of the conversation.”

Why would Ahmadinejad break with his ally over an issue that Assad feels so strongly about? The fact is, the Iranian president has his own agenda with Hezb’allah and Lebanon. Right now, it will be in Iran’s best interests to help get the best deal possible for Hezb’allah and end the crisis that is threatening the Lebanese economy as well as political stability in the country. Neither Ahmadinejad nor Hezb’allah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah desires a civil war. And if they can get a much larger presence in the cabinet without having to bother with messy democratic details like elections, it is time to pick up their winnings and leave the table a winner.

Hence, the meeting between Berri and Hariri and the start of the endgame for the two sides. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has been extremely active in trying to work out a compromise solution that will get Hezb’allah off the streets of Beirut - where they’ve been since December 1, strangling the economy and causing jitters among foreign investors who are waiting to pour more than $7 billion into rebuilding the country so devastated by the war with Israel last summer. Abdullah’s close relationship with Siniora as well as being Lebanon’s number one financier gives him a unique position that enables him to work with both sides while acting as a go between for Siniora to President Assad.

Up to this point, Assad has absolutely refused any compromise that includes the sitting of the tribunal. But he is alone now, having been abandoned in that position by his erstwhile ally Ahmadinejad whose recent visit to Saudi Arabia underscores Assad’s growing isolation. It is not known whether Ahmadinejad gave the go ahead for the tribunal at that meeting but his subsequent phone conversation with Assad would seem to indicate he has at least dropped his objections to it. This could mean a relatively quick end to the crisis if some face saving deal on the tribunal can be worked out that would satisfy Nasrallah. In the past, some ideas for such a deal included a substantial representation of Lebanese judges on the tribunal or limiting the scope of its mandate.

In the meantime, the diplomatic dance continues behind the scenes with King Abdullah and the Arab League in the lead. It should be noted that Abdullah is acting with the full blessing and support of the United States who have quietly urged the Saudis to take a more active and forceful role in combating the influence of Iran in the region. The Saudi King hasn’t shied away from this task, becoming more active in brokering peace in the Palestinian conflict between Hamas and Fatah while also taking a more pro-active role in Iraq with the Sunnis. You can say what you wish about Saudi support for ultra-conservative Wahabbists in the region but the fact is, the King is performing very well in this expanded role.

And Washington has not been idle either. When George Bush took office, aid to Lebanon amounted to around $35 million. This year, in keeping with our pledges made at the recently concluded Paris Roundtable on aid to Lebanon, the President is asking Congress for $770 million which would make Lebanon the third largest recipient of US aid per capita. This is an amount that Iran can’t come close to matching. Clearly, Lebanon has become one of the most important Middle Eastern countries to American interests.

As if to underscore that point, the canny old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt paid a visit to Washington a few weeks ago and sat down with President Bush for an extraordinary 35 minute, face to face meeting. In contrast, the President met with Prime Minister Ohlmert for 45 minutes on his recent trip to Washington. There is little doubt the passionate Jumblatt impressed on Mr. Bush the continued support of the United States for the government of Prime Minister Siniora was vital to maintaining Lebanon’s independence.

But the United States is severely limited in exactly what kind of diplomatic help we can give Beirut given Siniora’s sensitivity to the opposition charges of being in the pocket of France and the US. Thus, our quiet and effective support of King Abdullah, backing up his efforts to resolve the crisis while working behind the scenes with other regional actors to bolster support for Siniora’s government.

While the meeting between Berri and Hariri didn’t solve anything, there is no doubt that there has been positive movement. There appears to be agreement that the March 14th forces will be granted 19 ministers in an expanded 30 member cabinet with the Hezb’allah led opposition allowed 10 posts. The sticking point involves the issue of who will name the “11th” minister? That minister is supposed to be “neutral” - a near impossibility in a country so divided. Hezb’allah says that they will name the “neutral” minister. But just recently, Abdullah got Ahmadinejad to sign off on a plan that would have the Saudi King naming that minister. This sits well with his good friend Prime Minister Siniora but didn’t go down well with the opposition.

The important thing, as Hariri points out, is that both sides recognize the fact that they need each other to rule. “”We can only accept the no victor, no vanquished formula,” the son of the martyred ex-Prime Minister said yesterday. Can Nasrallah find the statesmanship to agree? He has gone out on a very long limb by proclaiming early in the crisis that his people would be in the streets until the government fell. He is finding it very hard to find his way back from that position. It appears, however, that his partner Mr. Berri is willing to act as a bridge between the opposition and the majority. Given the determination of the two men to come to an agreement, this bodes well for the near future.

Coaxing Hezb’allah back into the government will not solve Lebanon’s problems. A new electoral law must be drafted and Presidential elections held. There’s the issue of the small spit of land called Shebaa Farms currently occupied by Israel but claimed by Lebanon. And the issues raised by the sitting of the Hariri tribunal will almost certainly affect the effort to normalize relations with its powerful and intrusive neighbor Syria. There is war reconstruction to think of, economic reforms promised to the Paris Roundtable to enact, and the stickiest problem of all - how to get the guns away from Hezb’allah without starting a civil war.

Daunting tasks all. But first things first. And before the people can celebrate, the forces that threaten to tear the country apart must be harnessed and turned towards building a future where all Lebanese regardless of sect can enjoy independence and freedom.