Samuel Pickering Jr., "Pedagogica Deserta: Memoir of a Fulbright Year in Syria," The American Scholar, 2001.

This moving article about Latakia in 1980-1981 was sent to me by Damian Quinn, who lives in Damascus. Having spent 1981-1982 as a Fulbright student at the University of Damascus, I was particularly touched by the article. Perhaps it was just nostalgia. Damian wrote:

I'm sure you will be interested in this fantastic article that Jeff, an American graduate student at Georgetown who I met here this summer, sent me. It's by a American who taught in Lattakia under the aegis of the Fulbright programme in the late 70's at the apogee of the Muslim Brotherhood insurgency, and his article gives a great flavour of what it was like living in provincial Syria during those times. Its a wonderful testament to his year here and the episodes he recounts such as his student's tea party, listening to the 1812 overture at night with bombs exploding around them and teaching Hamlet at Tishreen University are pitch perfect. Not sure if you'd want to post it, but its a great read.

All the best, Damian

Samuel F. Pickering (born September 30, 1941) is a professor of English at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. His unconventional teaching style was the inspiration for the character of Mr. Keating, played by Robin Williams in the film Dead Poets Society. Pickering specializes in the familiar essay, children's literature, nature writers, and 18th and 19th century English literature. In addition to teaching, he has published many collections of non-fiction personal essays as well as over 200 articles.

Sam Pickering was born and raised in Nashville, Tennessee, where he attended (and later taught at) Montgomery Bell Academy. He received his B.A. from University of the South, his second B.A. and M.A. from St Catharine's College, Cambridge, and his second M.A. and Ph.D from Princeton University.

Critique Magazine's web site has archived some interviews with Pickering, "A Visit with Pickering" and "On Writing". An excerpt from Pickering "On Writing":

…I tie all kinds of things together because I like to drift. That’s the way life is. Some folks don’t like that.

"We need to do everything possible to destabilise the Syrian regime and exploit every single moment they strategically overstep," said David Wurmser, who recently resigned after four years as Vice President Dick Cheney's Middle East adviser.

"That would include the willingness to escalate as far as we need to go to topple the regime if necessary." He said that an end to Baathist rule in Damascus could trigger a domino effect that would then bring down the Teheran regime…..

Iran and Syria have signed an agreement for Tehran to export a billion dollars worth of gas every year to its chief regional ally.

Assad promises state employees bonus of 50%

Sana: President Bashar al-Assad on Monday issued the legislative decree number 57 for the year 2007 granting a one-time bonus of 50% of the fixed sum of salaries for civil and military employees in ministries, departments, public establishments, general sector companies, municipalities, all the departments of the public and shared sectors, and recruits in the army and armed forces.

The decree stipulates for the grant being offered to all workers, including temporary and part-time workers, and that retired employees and other recipients of pensions will also receive the bonus.

Minister of Finance Mohammad al Hussein announced that the grant will be distributed on Sunday the 7th of October, and that accountants and related authorities have been informed to take all necessary preparations.

"Five Million and Counting — Iraqi Refugees Weigh on Our National Conscience," by Sameer Lalwani on the Washington Note, is excellent.

The 'Israel Lobby’ Goes International, By Marc Perelman

After hitting Europe earlier this month, “The Israel Lobby” is preparing for a frontal assault on the Muslim world. The controversial book by American academics Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who accuse the pro-Israel lobby of hijacking American policy, hit bookstores in Europe in September and soon will be published across the Arab world and in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world.     Read more…

Daniel Levy, director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative, and Senior Fellow of the Century and New America Foundations has an interesting review of the Walt/Mearsheimer book, which is here on his blog. The review is also pasted below in its entirety. In addition, there is a little extra introductory comment on the blog. Levy also has an article calling for a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel and placing that in the context of the November Annapolis Conference here. A shorter version appeared here in the Guardian online.

In their Brookings editorial, "Lessons for Lebanon from Nahr el-Bared," Bilal Y. Saab and Bruce Riedel argue that the Lebanese state will first have to regain its monopoly over the use of force before it asks for any serious military assistance from Washington. The authors also offer some lessons that could be learned by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) from their recent battle with the terrorist group Fatah al –Islam in the Nahr el-Bared camp in the North.

Aoun to Okaz: there are attempts to cancel the Christians & the Shi’is (Website)

Syria & Hezbollah relinquish Aoun & seek to bring Suleiman to power…” (Al Seyassah)

Bush to Syria: Don't Meddle in Lebanon, AP, By JENNIFER LOVEN 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush warned Syria on Thursday against interfering in Lebanon's presidential election and said he is sending a top military commander to Beirut to find more ways to help Lebanon fight extremists.

"The United States strongly supports the success of democracy in Lebanon," Bush said after meeting with Saad Hariri, leader of the anti-Syrian majority in Lebanon's parliament. "The United States is more than just an admirer. We want to help as best as we possibly can."

Saad Hariri still acts like a guest in his own office. The executive chair behind the imposing hardwood desk remains occupied by a dead man. On it sits a huge portrait of his father, Rafik Hariri, 60, the former prime minister assassinated on Feb. 14, 2005.

Michael Young finally talks some sense on Syria in his latest article: Corner Syria at the Annapolis conference. He suggests including Syria in the "Peace Conference" to be held in Annapolis. He argues that Lebanon may possibly be able to gain Syrian compliance on various UN resolutions in exchange for the Golan Heights and Israel's compliance with UN resolutions. This would mean Syria clearing up border issues, halting arms flows to Hizbullah and Palestinians. This is a deal that Bashar al-Assad has welcomed. He has said that both Syria's relationship with Hizbullah and Iran would be on the table if the Golan were to be returned. Young wants Lebanon at the table to police such a deal — all very reasonable.

Of course there is a black lining to every silver cloud. Young doesn't believe that Israel and Syria will actually reach a deal. That is why he insists that Lebanon get its part of any bargain first.

He claims that a main reason that Syria may be allowed into the talks is because Israel wants a "peace process" with Syria, although, not a peace, i.e. it doesn't want to give back the Golan. He writes:

"Israel might have an incentive in resurrecting its Syrian track in order to play it off against the Palestinian track, as it did throughout the 1990s. The fact that Syria might be interested far more in a negotiating process than in a peace settlement would only interest the Israelis more." 

Needless to say, Michael believes that Syria doesn't really want the Golan back and only wants the process of talking with the West and being brought out of isolation. This is a common misapprehension and often repeated.

But, of course, the opposite is true. Syria wants the peace more than the process. That is why Hafiz al-Assad broke off talks with Israel in 2000 when he finally realized that Israel and the US only wanted the process and would refuse to hand over the Golan. Both Clinton and Barak were left blaming Hafiz for abandoning a process he understood was leading no where. "Where is your counter offer?" Barak asked Hafiz. He wanted to go on talking without giving.

At Geneva, Hafiz became convinced that Israel would never return the Golan, so he cut off the process. This is not something he would have done had he really been interested in the process more than the peace. He didn't need the process, Barak did. Clinton confirms this reading of events in his memoirs. He describes Barak's scuttling of the negotiations politely – "Barak got cold feet." In other words, Barak did not want to go through with the peace and did not believe that the Israelis could digest losing the Golan, particularly as Barak hoped to get a Palestinian deal, which would have entail 20% of the Israeli settlers being withdrawn from the occupied territories. Barak was using the process to keep Syria cooperative and pliant while he pursued the Palestinian track. In the end, Hafiz had been suckered by both Clinton, who didn't have the political will to pressure Barak to take the final steps, and by Barak, who jilted him at the alter. As Clinton has said, "A deal could be struck in 30 minutes." Even Sharon admitted that "everyone knows what a deal would mean" — the return of the whole Golan.

Michael believes that Syria wants Lebanon more than the Golan and will not give up its interests in Lebanon to get the Golan. To prove this, he refers to the fact that Syria did not offer to give up Lebanon during the 1990s, which is true. But this argument has no merit.

No one pushed Syria to give up Lebanon in the 1990s. Both Israel and the US believed that Syria was playing an important role in stabilizing Lebanon and restraining Hizbullah from attacking Israel or expanding its power in Lebanon. They were content to leave Syria in Lebanon. Hafiz understood this. The Syrian-US deal that led to the deployment of Syrian troops in the first Gulf war alongside America's laid the groundwork for this understanding. In 1990 Syria offered to help the US consolidate its control over the Gulf region. In exchange the US acquiesced in offering unchallenged Syrian control over Lebanon. This is the cynical view, but one could argue that it was good for Lebanon at the time. Syria brought the Lebanese civil war to a definitive end by subduing General Aoun. Of course it didn't disarm Hizbullah or the Palestinian militias.

Today, Syria does not own Lebanon. It has influence because it arms Hizbullah, but it does not occupy Lebanon, as it did in the 1990s. Syrian calculus will be very different going into peace talks. And so will international calculus. Today, the US and Israel want to keep Syria out of Lebanon; whereas, in the 1990s, they did not. 

"…Hariri’s backbone when the Future Movement leader meets Bush on Thursday. The US government is publicly limiting its involvement to calls for a fair and on-time election, free from foreign meddling. US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman has repeatedly said that the US is not in the business of naming preferred presidential candidates.

Nonetheless, the Bush administration privately supports Jumblatt’s stand, concerned that the election of a consensus president would strengthen Hezbollah, and by extension Syria and Iran, at the expense of Washington’s influence over the current government.

“The Americans are convinced,” Jumblatt said. “But maybe the Europeans and the Saudis need convincing that the president should be elected by the half-plus-one.”

Memo From Damascus Syria, Seeking Investors, Turns Cautiously to Iran
New York Times by HUGH NAYLOR

From car manufacturing plants and a proposed $2 billion industrial zone for Iranian businesses, to plans to overhaul urban transportation systems, Iranian companies are charging into Syria, looking to cash in on a recent privatization push by Damascus.

Weighed down by a behemoth public sector, an influx of nearly two million Iraqi refugees and falling oil production, Syria’s leaders are trying to liberalize their economy in hopes of avoiding a financial meltdown.

 

In another time, the privatization effort might have presented an opportunity for the United States and Europe to use their enormous commercial muscle to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran, Washington’s foremost antagonists in the region.

But the United States imposed sanctions in 2004 as punishment for Syrian support of militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations. These banned American exports to Syria and gave President Bush the added option of outlawing American investment in the country, effectively scaring off American and other Western companies.

At the same time, Iran, the subject of two recent rounds of United Nations sanctions for its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions and a long boycott by the United States, has few opportunities to invest abroad. The end result, Western diplomats and analysts say, is that Washington has effectively pushed Damascus and Tehran into deepening their alliance of nearly three decades.

“It’s logical why we have been working much closer with the Iranians,” said Mustafa Alkafri, head of the Syrian Investment Agency, a government body. “We’re both under the American blockade.”

The Syrian government estimates that Iranian investment in 2006 alone surged to more than $400 million, making Tehran the third-largest foreign investor here, behind Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Though exact figures are unavailable, by some estimates Iran has invested a total of $3 billion in Syria, most of that in the last few years.

In September, officials from both countries announced plans to expand Iranian projects in Syria to $10 billion over the next five years, which would cast Tehran as the economic powerhouse here. … (Read entire article, interesting)

"The consistency of error,"
By Amir Oren in Haaretz, Oct. 3, 2007

The Haaretz request yesterday morning to the military censor for permission – which it could no longer justifiably ban – to report about the IDF operation in Syria on September 6 without referring to foreign sources was finally approved. Any conspiracy theories behind the motive for this newfound openness are ridiculous. After Benjamin Netanyahu and the BBC, a negative answer would have been more stupid than what the Israeli press had become accustomed to hearing over the past month.

Following many weeks of feverish work the censors decided to take a break.

Since the operation the censors have fought on two fronts. One, external, against the Israeli media, which hoped to fulfill its duty and publish as many details as possible on the operation.

The second, internal, had to do with the raison d'etre of the censor – which under government pressure, and particularly from Defense Minister Ehud Barak, sought to seal the mouths of Israeli journalists. Were they to fail in their stringent guarding of secrecy, the matter may have been brought to the courts, which would have made the censorship redundant and put an end to the dispute over how necessary it is.

Consequently, while plenty of light was shone on the incident in the world press, the Israeli press had to feel its way in the dark.

The farce came to a partial end yesterday, and even though there is still a gag order on most of the juicy details, we can safely say that behind the successful blackout campaign lies an enormous failure. The silence of official Israel was not meant to protect military secrets. The victim of the operation knows full well what he had and what happened to him.

Policy was shaped on the basis of a certain assumption about Bashar Assad's behavior in response to the operation. Since one option was chosen – silence – and not others, it is impossible to say with certainty what would have happened had Israel talked and thus added insult to the blow. Still, it seems that once again Assad surprised Israel; whoever expected him to respond to the operation in a military operation was wrong.

If there is one quality characterizing Israel's efforts to decipher the actions of the Assad dynasty in the past four decades, it is the consistency of error. Collecting information about Syrian capabilities has normally been very good. Forecasting the intentions of the Syrian leader has been very bad. Nearly everything Israeli experts expected Hafez Assad to do – up to his death in 2000 – and subsequently Bashar, were either not done, or the opposite was done.

The intelligence assessment for 1973 was finalized in late 1972: No Syrian – or Egyptian – decision was expected on going to war. In September 1973 the signs on the ground were interpreted as Syrian concerns that Israel would attack. In the Yom Kippur War, even though Military Intelligence kept a plan on Syria's expected war plan, both the General Staff and Northern Command were wrong about the Syrian forces' moves on the Golan.

In early 1981, the IDF shot down Syrian helicopters that supported fighting against the Phalange militia in Lebanon. In a surprise response, Syria slipped anti-aircraft missiles into the Bekaa Valley. In the end, Menachem Begin carried out the official annexation of the Golan. One of his aims was to lead to war with Syria and push the new Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, to freeze relations with Israel and offer him an excuse not to evacuate Yamit in the Sinai.

Assad was expected to respond to the annexation with force. In the war maps of the divisions in the North, the lines on which the IDF would counter the Syrian forces – all the way to Beirut – had already been marked. Much to the Israelis' chagrin, Assad frustrated their planning and did not move. In June 1982 the IDF planned to outflank the Syrian army in the Bekaa, "which would have forced them to withdraw without battle," according to the military journal Maarachot. Once more, the Syrians refused to play the roles we had assigned them.

Throughout the 1980s, and especially after Assad surprised by deploying SAM-5 antiaircraft missile batteries around Damascus, Israeli experts warned that the Syrians would attack any minute. Israel prepared for another Yom Kippur onslaught, which never came.

Israel was surprised when Assad joined the alliance against Iraq in 1991, which included the deployment of a division to assist Syria in the American war effort. And after the war was over Israel was surprised by Assad's willingness to send a delegation to the Madrid peace conference.

In 1996, after the failure of the Rabin-Peres government's negotiations with Assad, Israel scared itself into expecting another Syrian attack. This was in part because of Syrian military movements on the ground and a great deal because of the false information their Mossad spy handler, Yehuda Gil, brought them.

We can go on listing the failures, all the way to the present, which begins with last year's assumption that there would be war in the North in the summer of 2007. The failures end (for now) with assessments by experts that Assad will not refrain from responding to the September operation – the only question remaining was the degree of his response.

If the Syrians are mistaken in their assessments of Israel's intentions as often as Israel is about Syria, the mutual mistakes will lead to disaster in the end. To prevent this there is no need for censorship, just greater openness.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said the Israelis struck a construction site at Tall al-Abyad just south of the Turkish border on Sept. 6. Press reports from the region say witnesses saw the Israeli aircraft approach from the Mediterranean Sea while others found unmarked drop tanks in Turkey near the border with Syria. Israeli defense officials admitted Oct. 2 that the Israeli Air Force made the raid.

The big mystery of the strike is how did the non-stealthy F-15s and F-16s get through the Syrian air defense radars without being detected? Some U.S. officials say they have the answer.

U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year.

The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.

A Kuwaiti newspaper wrote that "Russian experts are studying why the two state-of-the art Russian-built radar systems in Syria did not detect the Israeli jets entering Syrian territory. Iran reportedly has asked the same question, since it is buying the same systems and might have paid for the Syrian acquisitions."

The system in question is thought to be the new Tor-M1 launchers which carries eight missiles as well as two of the Pachora-2A system. Iran bought 29 of the Tor launchers from Russia for $750 million to guard its nuclear sites, and they were delivered in Jan., according to Agency France-Press and ITAR-TASS. Syrian press reports they were tested in February. They also are expected to form a formidable system when used with the longer-range S-300/SA-10 which Iran has been trying to buy from Russia. Syria has operated SA-6s for years and more recently has been negotiating with Russians for the Tor-M1. What systems were actually guarding the Syrian site are not known. (Credit: US Navy)

"Weighing Retaliation For Israeli Raid," by Hugh Naylor.

It's been nearly a month since the predawn Israeli air strike on northern Syria. And still no retaliation from Damascus. …

Officials and political analysts here say that in the event of another strike, Syria is preparing to respond using the guerrilla-style tactics of its Lebanese ally Hezbollah. They say Syria, no match for Israel's war machine, is instead adopting the tactics that helped the Lebanese Shiite militia emerge undefeated in its bout with Israel in last summer's war in Lebanon.

"If the Israeli side launches attacks, believe me we will be very harsh in our response," says Mohammad Habbash, a member of the Syrian parliament. "It will be a guerrilla war. There will be guerrilla warfare coming from Lebanon and Syria, and it will be very harsh."

Unconfirmed media reports say Syria has been training its soldiers to fight in the mountainous southern edges of the country, near its border with Israel, using unconventional tactics more in line with a militia than a standing army. A steady supply of rudimentary rockets, which can be transported and launched on short notice and with little manpower, much like those unfurled on Israel by Hezbollah during the 2006 war, are said by Syrian political analysts to be making their way to the south.

"This is hit-and-run war; you don't need a scud missile to do this. The basic philosophy here is defending the land," says a government adviser who, asking to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to discuss the issue, confirmed these reports.

The adviser says that, like Hezbollah, Syria would aim to inflict "civil-economic losses on Israel" with surprise rocket attacks, with the intention of using fear to bring Israeli life to a standstill in a potential conflict.

Officials here insist, however, that they prefer the diplomatic track to war….

Israel has in the past violated Syrian airspace, buzzing the presidential palace with warplanes several times and even taking out a suspected training camp for Palestinian militants near Damascus in 2003. …

… "People are very angry for what they see as a blatant Israeli violation of Syria," says Mahdi Dahlala, a former Syrian minister of information. "They want their government to do something."

Habbash, the parliamentarian, says Syria is more ready now to shore up its ties with Iran, its ally of nearly three decades, in the event of a conflict. "We expect Iran to help us against Israel and aggression, and Iran has the same expectations from us to help protect them."

Still, Syria's apparent readiness to employ guerrilla warfare tactics suggests that it believes that alliance may not be enough to protect the country. Instead, go-it-alone thinking is likely causing the country to rethink its defense strategy, perhaps even its nuclear weapons option, according to Charles Ferguson, a nonproliferation expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. research institution.

"The overriding factor is Syria's sense of vulnerability," says Ferguson. "It lives in a very rough neighborhood and does not have reliable allies to come to its defense. So, from the realist perspective, it would make sense for Syria to at least consider a possible nuclear weapons program."

Al-Akhbar, an independent pro-opposition newspaper, wrote on October 3: “The ongoing investigations into members of the Fatah Al-Islam group arrested by the directorate of intelligence of the Lebanese army revealed that this group is part of the global Al-Qa’idah organization and is not merely a group of amateurs that the government security team insists is subordinated to the Syrian intelligence services. According to knowledgeable sources, the detainee Abu Salim Taha, the most prominent leader in Fatah Al-Islam detained by the Lebanese army, gave a number of confessions: One, the groups which constitute Fatah Al-Islam are mostly made of Islamic elements that are strongly linked to Al-Qa’idah and that leaders in it have communicated throughout the past period with leaders of Al-Qa’idah in Iraq and sent several messages professing loyalty to the Amir of Al-Qa’idah in Iraq Abu Ayyoub Al-Masry who succeeded Abu Mus’ab Al-Zarqawi…

“Two, the person called Abu Youssef Al-Jazrawi, a Saudi citizen, is the backbone on whom the group depended to get money and logistical support, as he is directly connected to Al-Qa’idah abroad. This person escaped from the Al-Barid camp with Shehab Al-Qaddour known as Abu Hureireh. He was also a strong link to the fighters moving between Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. It was not ascertained whether one of the prominent leaders in Fatah Al-Islam is a member of Osama Bin Laden’s family. Three, Shaker Al-Absi’s brother in law who was killed by Syrian border guards was carrying a document professing loyalty to Al-Masry plus other documents proving the link between Fatah Al-Islam and Al-Qa’idah. Four, it was confirmed that there were communications between Fatah Al-Islam and Syrian intelligence officers who facilitated movement between the countries as well as communications with Lebanese factions in other camps and cities.

“Taha also pointed out that after the opposition forces started their protest in downtown Beirut, Abu Hureireh suggested the principle of “defending the Sunnis” and meetings were arranged between him and clerics and local activists including cadres in the Future movement. As for the terrorist operations for which the group was responsible, Taha’s confessions included the following: one, Fatah Al-Islam was responsible for the bombing of the buses in Ain-Alaq on 13/2/2007 which caused the death of three citizens and wounded 20 more. He justified this attack as coming in the context of a plan aimed at shaking the situation in Lebanon and that they chose to target a Christian area to cause anarchy there and to spark strife while also creating an opportunity for accusing the members of the Syrian Socialist National party of being responsible.

“Two, Taha also admitted that Fatah Al-Islam is responsible for the explosions in Ashrafiyeh on 20/5/2007, Verdun on the next day, and Allay on 23/5/2007 and that the perpetrators of the attack are still free and that these attacks came as a response to the Nahr Al-Barid battle. Three, the investigations have not defined yet the relationship between Fatah Al-Islam and the attacks on the UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon. It turned out that those who carried out the second attack in Al-Qasimiyeh on the 14th of last June were not direct members of the organization but members of cells linked to it. These cells were caught by the information branch in the Al-Kharroub area on the 16th of last September and are also responsible for launching Katyusha rockets on Palestine earlier.

“The investigations into an explosion that took place in the Ain Al-Hilweh camp in a shop belonging to Shehadeh Al-Jawhar, a leader in another fanatic Islamic group called Jund Al-Sham, showed that the explosives are the same as the ones used in the fatal attack on the Spanish unit of the UNIFIL and come from land mines. On another front, Taha denied the reports that Fatah Al-Islam were responsible for the assassination of MP Pierre Gemayel in the knowledge that the investigations have not reached a decisive result. Al Akhbar learned that the head of the international investigative committee the Belgian judge Serge Brammertz informed Amine Gemayel that the investigations undertaken by the committee have not achieved any break though into any of the crimes…” – Al Akhbar Lebanon, Lebanon Click here for source

"Palestinian militant confesses to trifecta of terror: Says he is agent of al-Qaida, Syria and Fatah al-Islam," Michael Bluhm, Oct. 3, Daily Star,

BEIRUT: A Fatah al-Islam militant gave "precious" information to investigators on Tuesday regarding the assassination of former Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, a judicial report said.

Ahmad Merhi, who was captured early in the fighting between Fatah al-Islam and the Lebanese Army at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp near Tripoli, was interrogated for two hours on Tuesday concerning the assassination, the report added.

Gemayel was gunned down in broad daylight in Jdeideh on November 21 by unknown assailants who showered his car with bullets from assault rifles and then sped away.

Merhi confessed to being an agent for the Syrian intelligence apparatus and Al-Qaeda, in addition to his membership in Fatah al-Islam, the report said.

Gemayel's colleagues in the ruling March 14 Forces have long blamed Syria for the rash of political assassinations that have plagued the country since the massive bomb blast in February 2005 that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others on Beirut's seafront.

Damascus has denied involvement in any of the eight killings of political figures that have since taken place.

US Needs to Keep Engaging With Syria
Ted Kattouf, Arab News 

With no realistic possibility of overthrowing the Bashar regime or otherwise changing its unhelpful policies, the administration is denying itself an important diplomatic lever that could help save lives in Iraq, ameliorate Syria’s disruptive regional role, and perhaps even lead to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.

Syria is hardly a great regional power or even as influential as when the late and wily Hafiz Assad ruled. But it does have allies in Lebanon, among the more radical Palestinian factions, and to a lesser extent in Iraq. Talking to Syria is not so much a reward for bad behavior as it is a realistic approach that, according to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, is in the best interest of the United States.

— Ted Kattouf is a former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Syria. He is currently the president and CEO of AMIDEAST, www.amideast.org. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Hersh: Bush has accepted "ethnic cleansing" in Iraq

Famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who has a new piece in the New Yorker, had some very interesting things to say in an interview with Der Spiegel last week. Topics ranged from Hitler to the First Amendment in the United States, but his most interesting comments were on Iran and Iraq.

Nuclear Secrets
October 2, 2007; Page A16
Wall Street Journal Review article

Granted, diplomacy requires some confidentiality, but transparency and verification are crucial to disarmament, especially when dealing with a regime like Kim Jong Il's. The February 13 six-party accord called for Pyongyang to deliver a comprehensive accounting of its nuclear program and arsenal within 60 days. We're still waiting.

Transparency is all the more essential given recent news reports about likely North Korean nuclear proliferation in Syria. Washington says the main goal of the six-party talks is to prevent proliferation, and North Korea promised to cease and desist. Yet Pyongyang seems to have been caught in the act in Syria only months after making that promise. The Israelis were worried enough to risk a confrontation with Syria by bombing the site, not to mention flying over Turkish air space. Notably, the Turks didn't object….

President Bush dodged three questions on the issue two weeks ago, except to warn North Korea one more time not to proliferate, which sounds suspiciously like a confirmation. Meanwhile on September 21, the Washington Post quoted government sources as saying that "Israel shared intelligence with President Bush this summer indicating that North Korean nuclear personnel were in Syria."

Then there's the not-so-little matter of North Korea's continuing missile proliferation. Last week the State Department's Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation announced new sanctions against a North Korean company for spreading missile technology. …

All of this is a far cry from the nuclear disarmament model set by Libya's Moammer Gadhafi in the wake of Saddam Hussein's ouster in 2003. Libya abandoned its nuclear program up front, inviting U.S. investigators to see the hardware and haul it back to Tennessee; it was rewarded only after the disarmament was verified.

For North Korea, the U.S. is winking at evidence of further proliferation, while offering more diplomatic bribes — all in the cause of getting Pyongyang to repeat promises it has already failed to honor.

Russia and China delay discussion of new sanctions on Iran until after International Atomic Energy Agency's report in Nov.

Also From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL) By Michael Rubin

(Editor's Note: Mr. Rubin, editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.) 

Last week, the United States turned to the United Nations in an attempt to increase pressure on Iran. The U.S. wanted to expand sanctions against the budding nuclear power. 

Neither China nor Russia would go along. And faced with the prospect of one or the other vetoing sanctions at the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice punted. She put off further action against Iran until at least November. 

It's hard to see how much will change in a month. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is firm in his opposition to sanctions. "Interference by way of new sanctions would mean undermining" the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as it puts pressure on Iran, he said. 

This is a charade. …….

The defiant Mr. Ahmadinejad offers the White House a stark choice: Live with a nuclear Iran, or take action to stop it. Winning Russian approval is a chimera, delaying an inevitable decision.

Ex-diplomats Say US Faces Failure Of Peace Summit, By Suzanne Goldenberg, The Gaurdian, October 2, 2007  

The Bush administration was warned yesterday in a letter (pdf) by former senior US diplomats that it is setting itself up for the failure of its Middle East peace summit by neglecting to lay the groundwork for a successful meeting of American, Israeli and Arab leaders…..

More controversially, the former officials urge the administration to drop its insistence on isolating Syria and Hamas. "Maximising the prospects for a successful meeting entails finding a way to deal with both Hamas and Syria," the letter says. It notes that Mr Abbas, the Palestinian president, has no control over Gaza and so would be vulnerable to attempts by Hamas to undermine any future deal. "Simply saying no to Hamas without planning for the consequences is a likely ticket to new problems," the letter says.

The diplomats go on to sketch out the contours of a future deal between Israel and the Palestinians, including an arrangement for sharing Jerusalem as the capital of two states.

Concern about chaos in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon and fear of Islamist political victories have led many American commentators to identify Middle East democracy promotion as unwise. The Bush administration should not have insisted on elections in Arab countries, according to the new conventional wisdom, but instead should have patiently promoted the growth of institutions, civil society, and the rule of law. This new canon seems utterly reasonable, and indeed has already found its way into the foreign policy pronouncements of several candidates for the presidency of the United States.

But there are three flaws in the new anti-elections thinking about democracy in Arab countries. First, it ignores what is happening in the region. Second, it is out of touch with how democracy typically emerges. And third, it leads to a harmful instrumentalist approach to democracy promotion – one that has already do… Read entire article

Lebanese sources are claiming that the Syria firebrand preacher, Abu al-Qaqa, was the religious mentor and supposed "decider" for Fatah al-Islam's leader, Absi. This is Naharnet's headline:  Fatah al-Islam's Godfather Assassinated in Syria. This claim is fanciful on the face of it. Absi was older and infinitely more experienced than the naive Abu al-Qaqa. Absi is Palestinian, Qaqa is Kurdish. Qaqa is from Aleppo. Absi is not known to have spent time in Aleppo. The contention that Absi would look up to, let alone know, Abu al-Qaqa is foolish. None of this makes sense and not a shred of evidence is offered to back it up. The claim is a last ditch means to bolster the half-baked contention that Absi and his gang of al-Qaida Sunni fundamentalists were taking orders from a secular, Alawite President who had helped America round up or kill al-Qaida jihadists in the past and who had given the order to kill Absi's son-in-law as he snuck across the Iraqi-Syrian border. Not convincing.

Unfortunately this sort of nonsense is convincing to some members of the U.S. House, which Backs Lebanon against "Boot Licking" Proxies of Syria and Iran

Read Sami Moubayed's portrait of al-Qaqa to get the best sense of the man. He explains how Qaqa was an indigenous product of Syrian malaise and why the government allowed him to operate openly. The key was that he was as anti-al-Qaida as he was anti-American.

Addendum: (Oct. 7, Sent by Alex)

Abu al-Qaqa at the office: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82FgAoecBiM

And at home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TmBUJDAVv0

Here is what he looked like this year … shaved and wearing a suit.

Fatah al-Islam's Military Commander Arrested

The military commander of Fatah al-Islam, which led a 15-week uprising against the Lebanese army this summer, has been captured in a northern Palestinian refugee camp, a camp official said Monday.

"Nasser Ismail was captured by a (Palestinian) security force in the camp of Beddawi," Abu Ali Fares, a spokesman for Palestinian factions in the refugee camp told Agence France Presse.

"The force raided the house of a relative of Nasser Ismail and found him hiding in the attic with another person," Fares said.

"He was taken aboard a Red Crescent ambulance during the night of Sunday-Monday. He was handed over to the (Lebanese) army intelligence services," Fares added.

Beddawi camp is where many of the civilians driven from their homes in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp further north by the fighting between Fatah al-Islam and the army were given emergency shelter.

Ismail's wife remains in Beddawi, where, as in Lebanon's other camps, security is left to the Palestinian factions by longstanding convention, Fares said.

Khalil Dib, an official of the Palestinian faction Fatah al-Intifada, told AFP that Ismail told him while in the custody of the Palestinian forces that he had been in Nahr al-Bared until Saturday before heading to Beddawi.

Since Nahr al-Bared fell on September 2, the Lebanese army has been combing the whole area for fugitive militants, including Fatah al-Islam leader Shaker al-Abssi.

Dib said that according to Ismail, "Shaker al-Abssi left Nahr al-Bared one month before the end of the battle" on September 2.

More than 400 people died in the fighting between the Lebanese army and Fatah al-Islam, including at least 222 Islamists. One more soldier died last Friday, raising the army's losses to 168.(AFP)

Syria shuts border to Iraqi refugees – UNHCR

(Reuters) – "The borders are once again closed (to refugees)," said a spokeswoman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "The UNHCR will urge Syria to grant humanitarian visas."

Jordan, the other main escape route for Iraqi refugees, imposed visas a few years ago but Syria had granted Iraqis a three-month permit to stay at the border.

Under the new scheme, only Iraqi merchants, businessmen and university professors with visas obtained from Syrian embassies may enter Syria.

Syria has taken in an estimated 1.4 million to 2 million Iraqi refugees since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, with 4,000-6,000 refugees entering daily across the desert border.

Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdel Mahdi, in Damascus last week, urged Syria to provide better services for the refugees and give them residency in large numbers.

Mahdi did not say whether he had asked the Syrian government to abandon the visa scheme to stop the refugee influx.

"The two countries agree that any Iraqi who wants to go to Syria from now on must have a visa first," an Iraqi official told Reuters.

Either the the White House is engaging in a razzle-dazzle form of psychological warfare and super deception, or it really is preparing the ground for some sort of strike on Iran – and perhaps Syria. Increasingly, it seems we were played by Cheney and crew on the nuclear-North Korea justification for the Israeli strike on Syria. (I  thank t-desco for most of the following links.)

President Assad interview with BBC Monday Oct. 1, 2007

Syrian president tells BBC Israeli warplanes struck “unused military building” last month, AP

Syria says Israeli air raid aimed at justifying future attack (Friday)

Shara says Israel manipulating public opinion to convince world Israel does not want war.

DAMASCUS – Syrian Vice President Faruq al-Shara said on Saturday that a recent Israeli air raid on what is thought to be a Syrian military installation was meant to provide justification for future aggression on the country.

“Those who continue to talk about this raid and to invent inaccurate details (about it), are aiming to justify a future aggression” againt Syria, Shara said at a press conference with his visiting Iraqi counterpart, Adel Abdel Mahdi.

“They are manipulating public opinion to convince it that (Israel) does not want war. They are lying about that,” he added.

Shara went on to denounce “Arab or international parties that write about things that did not happen and who claim North Koreans or others were killed” in the September 6 raid.

“Anyone who says that is wrong and is trying to conduct psychological warfare against Syria, which will not be tricked. Certain people in Israel are hoping that through this they can repair the beating given to the Israeli army by the Lebanese resistance.”…..

New Anti-Syria bill being prepared in congress.
House Res. 690: Expressing grave concern of the House of Representatives…

How to “Democratize” Syria
Essay by Ford Prefect
Sept. 2007  

Why aren’t Syrians taking to the streets by the millions demanding freedom, justice and democracy?  Why does the Middle East seem so resistant to modernity and liberty? Why are the Syrian people so complacent and unable to produce a viable and organized opposition to the current government and the Ba’ath Party?

As the U.S. pursues a more diplomatic approach to the previously shunned Syrian government, these questions have now become the constant preoccupation of scholars, politicians, and human rights advocates everywhere – especially on this forum. Syria is a major player to the region’s stability. This was stated by the Iraq Study Group report and by the many recent visitors to Damascus from America, Europe and Asia.

So why is democracy so elusive in Syria?  In answering this question, several causal threads seem to emerge.  One points to the fact that the current regime is a ruthless one that produced generations of scared citizens whose main occupation is surviving harsh economic realities. These harsh, anti-middle class realities have reduced the number of political actors that would have otherwise posed a formidable challenge to the regime. Subsequently, Syrians have lost their educated and technical elite, en masse, to the rest of the world.  For the vast majority of the economically deprived citizenry of Syria, participating in the political process is considered an unwarranted luxury.

Another aspect points to the war with Israel and other regional unrests as the source of legitimacy that is justifying perpetual authoritarian rule. Security and stability, therefore, are one of the main anchors of the regime’s legitimacy. For example, under the pretext of war conditions with Israel, martial law has been in effect in Syria since 1963.

And yet another, more dangerous reason can be traced to a dormant neoconservative theory that emerged forcefully after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This theory, which eventually turned into U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, posits that the West cannot wait for the region to reach indigenous democracy on its own steam. Even more dangerously, Francis Fukuyama, a leading neoconservative scholar, went on to say in a column published in the Guardian (link) “…there does seem to be something about Islam, or at least the fundamentalist versions of Islam that have been dominant in recent years, that makes Muslim societies particularly resistant to modernity.”

Meanwhile, regimes on either end of the West’s blessing or wrath are busy using Islam as a means to either justify their existence as the defender and stabilizer of true Islam, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or as the dam, defending against its virilent resurgence in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the regimes in Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.  In either case, governments have made clear to their citizens that any alternative will result in the loss of security and stability of the status quo, which people have finally managed to accept as a condition for their survival. Fareed Zakaria once characterized the use of fear as a tool, calling it the “Fear-of-the-Alternative” (FOTA), which gripped people across all strata of society. Better the devil you know…..

While there are many causes for the lack of democratic reform in Syria, it is impossible to escape the fact that in the West, authoritarian rule has become the prime suspect. Many in the West are convinced that Syria and other countries in the region are in desperate need of drastic measures to “import” democracy. Consequently Syria’s fate is inextricably tied to decisions made by the West.  This “need” is based more on the West’s strategic interests in the region rather than the well being of the Syrian people. Historically, the process of installing Western-style democracy ranges from military adventurism in the name of “democracy” – like the invasion of Iraq under the pretenses of spreading democracy in the region – to empowering dissidents and feeding regime-haters with further fuel in order to topple so-called rogue regimes. What is missing from the West’s approach, however, is a genuine and demonstrable desire to invest in the advancements of the people and not in their corrupt and authoritarian governments.

For democracy to grow roots and be able to defend itself through its intellectual human reserve and respected institutions, several factors must be ripe before reaching the “tipping” point.  These factors include maturity in modernization, industrialization, literacy, urbanization, secularization, citizenship, and nationality.  (More factors can be found in Rueschemeyer et al. (1992), Putnam (1993), Inglehart (1999), and Fukuyama (1992)). These factors cannot be created with a magic wand. Creating conditions conducive for democracy takes time.  Syria will only reach this maturity through an organic and stable government that is driven to adopt a liberal economy out of necessity. Force cannot produce such conditions. Washington’s reckless ideology of claiming to bring democracy on the backs of tanks or by starving Middle Easterners through economic sanctions is counter-productive. By increasing instability and pushing people into ever greater economic uncertainty, the US is effectively pushing back the horizon of democracy in the Middle East. By inflaming Muslim sentiment and creating ever greater fear, a militant and demanding US undermines the voice of mederation and compromise and justifies the retrenchment of authoritarian states. The day that we, as Middle Eastern liberals, will taste the fruits of democracy and freedom, is delayed, not brought closer.

Why would the Syrian regime be forced to adopt and promote liberal economy? The answer is the self-enrichment and self-preservation of the regime’s elite.  Ironically, economic liberation as a survival necessity for today’s authoritarian regimes is also the reason for their gradual demise.  Guillermo O'Donnell et al. argue that democracy results from the stable equilibrium between the military, industrialists, technocrats, financiers, and other elitist groups to share power under a system of “checks and balances” in a market-driven expanding economy.  The system of checks and balances (to initially protect their economic interests) is democracy’s best friend and incubator.  Therefore, it is noteworthy to point out that democracy in Syria will be born not out of the threats from the U.S., the EU, or Israel, but rather out of the various struggles to get rich in a market economy that is spreading globally. 

One can already see indications of a growing market-based economy in Syria. The emergence of a private banking system and increasing foreign investment are evidence of a move toward free markets. Ehasni2 on this blog, for example, noticed how today’s young bankers in Syria are scrambling to pursue MBA degrees in order to keep their jobs. In order to sustain economic growth and strengthen a liberal economy that can continue to provide wealth, Syrian elites will sooner or later demand an independent judiciary and government institutions that favor fair trade and the rule of law – another democratic institution.  It is the beginning of Glasnost; the genie is out of the bottle.

If the West and patriotic Syrians are truly committed to liberal democracy in Syria, a call for a liberal economy should be the first and the loudest.  Bringing down the current government in the name of Hariri revenge, freedom-of-speech, Israel’s security, or any one of the smorgasbord of reasons supplied by neoconservatives in Washington and their surrogates everywhere will only delay Syria’s progress toward democracy.

How to “Democratize” Syria
Essay by Ford Prefect
Sept. 2007  

Why aren’t Syrians taking to the streets by the millions demanding freedom, justice and democracy?  Why does the Middle East seem so resistant to modernity and liberty? Why are the Syrian people so complacent and unable to produce a viable and organized opposition to the current government and the Ba’ath Party?

As the U.S. pursues a more diplomatic approach to the previously shunned Syrian government, these questions have now become the constant preoccupation of scholars, politicians, and human rights advocates everywhere – especially on this forum. Syria is a major player to the region’s stability. This was stated by the Iraq Study Group report and by the many recent visitors to Damascus from America, Europe and Asia.

So why is democracy so elusive in Syria?  In answering this question, several causal threads seem to emerge.  One points to the fact that the current regime is a ruthless one that produced generations of scared citizens whose main occupation is surviving harsh economic realities. These harsh, anti-middle class realities have reduced the number of political actors that would have otherwise posed a formidable challenge to the regime. Subsequently, Syrians have lost their educated and technical elite, en masse, to the rest of the world.  For the vast majority of the economically deprived citizenry of Syria, participating in the political process is considered an unwarranted luxury.

Another aspect points to the war with Israel and other regional unrests as the source of legitimacy that is justifying perpetual authoritarian rule. Security and stability, therefore, are one of the main anchors of the regime’s legitimacy. For example, under the pretext of war conditions with Israel, martial law has been in effect in Syria since 1963.

And yet another, more dangerous reason can be traced to a dormant neoconservative theory that emerged forcefully after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This theory, which eventually turned into U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, posits that the West cannot wait for the region to reach indigenous democracy on its own steam. Even more dangerously, Francis Fukuyama, a leading neoconservative scholar, went on to say in a column published in the Guardian (link) “…there does seem to be something about Islam, or at least the fundamentalist versions of Islam that have been dominant in recent years, that makes Muslim societies particularly resistant to modernity.”

Meanwhile, regimes on either end of the West’s blessing or wrath are busy using Islam as a means to either justify their existence as the defender and stabilizer of true Islam, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or as the dam, defending against its virilent resurgence in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the regimes in Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.  In either case, governments have made clear to their citizens that any alternative will result in the loss of security and stability of the status quo, which people have finally managed to accept as a condition for their survival. Fareed Zakaria once characterized the use of fear as a tool, calling it the “Fear-of-the-Alternative” (FOTA), which gripped people across all strata of society. Better the devil you know…..

While there are many causes for the lack of democratic reform in Syria, it is impossible to escape the fact that in the West, authoritarian rule has become the prime suspect. Many in the West are convinced that Syria and other countries in the region are in desperate need of drastic measures to “import” democracy. Consequently Syria’s fate is inextricably tied to decisions made by the West.  This “need” is based more on the West’s strategic interests in the region rather than the well being of the Syrian people. Historically, the process of installing Western-style democracy ranges from military adventurism in the name of “democracy” – like the invasion of Iraq under the pretenses of spreading democracy in the region – to empowering dissidents and feeding regime-haters with further fuel in order to topple so-called rogue regimes. What is missing from the West’s approach, however, is a genuine and demonstrable desire to invest in the advancements of the people and not in their corrupt and authoritarian governments.

For democracy to grow roots and be able to defend itself through its intellectual human reserve and respected institutions, several factors must be ripe before reaching the “tipping” point.  These factors include maturity in modernization, industrialization, literacy, urbanization, secularization, citizenship, and nationality.  (More factors can be found in Rueschemeyer et al. (1992), Putnam (1993), Inglehart (1999), and Fukuyama (1992)). These factors cannot be created with a magic wand. Creating conditions conducive for democracy takes time.  Syria will only reach this maturity through an organic and stable government that is driven to adopt a liberal economy out of necessity. Force cannot produce such conditions. Washington’s reckless ideology of claiming to bring democracy on the backs of tanks or by starving Middle Easterners through economic sanctions is counter-productive. By increasing instability and pushing people into ever greater economic uncertainty, the US is effectively pushing back the horizon of democracy in the Middle East. By inflaming Muslim sentiment and creating ever greater fear, a militant and demanding US undermines the voice of mederation and compromise and justifies the retrenchment of authoritarian states. The day that we, as Middle Eastern liberals, will taste the fruits of democracy and freedom, is delayed, not brought closer.

Why would the Syrian regime be forced to adopt and promote liberal economy? The answer is the self-enrichment and self-preservation of the regime’s elite.  Ironically, economic liberation as a survival necessity for today’s authoritarian regimes is also the reason for their gradual demise.  Guillermo O'Donnell et al. argue that democracy results from the stable equilibrium between the military, industrialists, technocrats, financiers, and other elitist groups to share power under a system of “checks and balances” in a market-driven expanding economy.  The system of checks and balances (to initially protect their economic interests) is democracy’s best friend and incubator.  Therefore, it is noteworthy to point out that democracy in Syria will be born not out of the threats from the U.S., the EU, or Israel, but rather out of the various struggles to get rich in a market economy that is spreading globally. 

One can already see indications of a growing market-based economy in Syria. The emergence of a private banking system and increasing foreign investment are evidence of a move toward free markets. Ehasni2 on this blog, for example, noticed how today’s young bankers in Syria are scrambling to pursue MBA degrees in order to keep their jobs. In order to sustain economic growth and strengthen a liberal economy that can continue to provide wealth, Syrian elites will sooner or later demand an independent judiciary and government institutions that favor fair trade and the rule of law – another democratic institution.  It is the beginning of Glasnost; the genie is out of the bottle.

If the West and patriotic Syrians are truly committed to liberal democracy in Syria, a call for a liberal economy should be the first and the loudest.  Bringing down the current government in the name of Hariri revenge, freedom-of-speech, Israel’s security, or any one of the smorgasbord of reasons supplied by neoconservatives in Washington and their surrogates everywhere will only delay Syria’s progress toward democracy.