The Benefits of Having a Texas Cowboy
(Created March 5)
Last week an historical event took place in Lebanon: for the first time since the start of the civil war, all of the 14 fighting factions in Lebanon seat together at the same table to discuss the future of Lebanon. Looking around the table one could see figures like Druze leader Walid Junblat, Sa'ad Hariri – son of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and yes, even Hezbollah's Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah. Three days into the conference, the event has taken another historic step when all 14 delegates agreed to oust pro-Syrian president Amil Lahoud from office; even Sheikh Nasrallah showed no objection. How do all these events tie to President Bush? It is along story and I am glad you asked, and even happier to answer.
In the 'good old days' of Lebanon under the late Syrian president Hafez Al-Assad, such an event would never have taken place. The late president would have secretly pulled the strings to make sure Syria's 'invitation' to stay in Lebanon remained, thus keeping the vision of greater Syria alive. But those days are gone, and Assad's son Bashar is in power and he is no where near his father's strength. That fact is what started events rolling in the region; events that have culminated with the murder of Rafik Hariri and this recent conference.
It is unclear who killed Rafik Al-Hariri but one thing can be said for certain: Syria had a hand in it for no one in Lebanon even dared to breath without Damascus saying it was ok. The question remains who was it, and two theories come to mind, both of them related to Bush's attempts to convince Bashar Assad to join the 2003 war in Iraq as his father did in 1991. As noted, Bashar was not his father when it came to strength. And so when that happened Bashar declined in accordance with the wishes of the Syrian street. His father might have said 'yes' and have the army take care of dissidents; but Bashar's weakness was apparent to the Syrian generals who helped his dad come to power and they would not have followed Bashar. And so the first theory is that Bashar had a hand in Hariri's killing to show he still carries a punch.
The second theory is probably the more plausible one and relates to Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. As the Lebanese people saw that as oppose to previous presidents, President Bush has backed himself into full fledged commitment to democracy, they sought to take advantage of it. Demonstrations began calling for Syria to leave; demonstrations that have made Syria look weak, something had to be done. And so it is possible that the generals decided to kill Hariri without Bashar knowing of it in order to show Syria still holds the reigns. If Lebanese reaction would have been quite the way the generals hoped it would be, the next step would have probably been to oust Bashar Al-Assad in the same way his father came to power – through a military coup. But things did not go as planned due to the riots the murder has created and so the question arises: what caused Syrian generals, who have their hands in almost anything that moves in Lebanon, miscalculate the reaction so dearly? The answer lies in Washington; in the connection between the war in Iraq and the Lebanese people.
When the Lebanese people saw that President Bush was serious about Iraq, they decided to take advantage of it for themselves. The calculation was simple: If they call for Syria to leave and Damascus responds with threats, all they will have to do is yell 'democracy in danger!' and the Texas Cowboy would knock on the door as he surely did through UN resolution 1559. This line of thinking is evident through the actions of Walid Junblat, the Lebanese Druze leader who in 2001 drank tea with Bashar, in 2003 said that every US soldier killed in Iraq is a blessing and in 2005 called for Syria to leave saying that he now saw the necessity of the war in Iraq. This also influenced the actions of Hezbollah strong man Hassan Nasrallah, who is dependent on Syria for arms but now had no choice but to oust the puppet president of Lebanon to the dismay of his patrons back in Syria in order to remain popular with the people in Lebanon. Indeed none of this would have happened if there was not a stronger man seating in the White House.
This line of reasoning is not particular to the Lebanese-Syrian case. It continues in Libya who has openly disarmed itself and ceased giving refuge to terrorists; and if that is not enough, it also continues in countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where women are now allowed to vote and run for elections and even drive! The line also continues in long time ally Egypt where democratic reforms are continuously under way. All these are countries that according to many should have nothing to fear due to their ties to the US and hence no reason to change their ways. But they do have something to fear, just like Syria: a Texas cowboy with a strong commitment to democracy; and that ladies and gentlemen, is the benefit of having a Texas cowboy.
Last week an historical event took place in Lebanon: for the first time since the start of the civil war, all of the 14 fighting factions in Lebanon seat together at the same table to discuss the future of Lebanon. Looking around the table one could see figures like Druze leader Walid Junblat, Sa'ad Hariri – son of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and yes, even Hezbollah's Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah. Three days into the conference, the event has taken another historic step when all 14 delegates agreed to oust pro-Syrian president Amil Lahoud from office; even Sheikh Nasrallah showed no objection. How do all these events tie to President Bush? It is along story and I am glad you asked, and even happier to answer.In the 'good old days' of Lebanon under the late Syrian president Hafez Al-Assad, such an event would never have taken place. The late president would have secretly pulled the strings to make sure Syria's 'invitation' to stay in Lebanon remained, thus keeping the vision of greater Syria alive. But those days are gone, and Assad's son Bashar is in power and he is no where near his father's strength. That fact is what started events rolling in the region; events that have culminated with the murder of Rafik Hariri and this recent conference.
It is unclear who killed Rafik Al-Hariri but one thing can be said for certain: Syria had a hand in it for no one in Lebanon even dared to breath without Damascus saying it was ok. The question remains who was it, and two theories come to mind, both of them related to Bush's attempts to convince Bashar Assad to join the 2003 war in Iraq as his father did in 1991. As noted, Bashar was not his father when it came to strength. And so when that happened Bashar declined in accordance with the wishes of the Syrian street. His father might have said 'yes' and have the army take care of dissidents; but Bashar's weakness was apparent to the Syrian generals who helped his dad come to power and they would not have followed Bashar. And so the first theory is that Bashar had a hand in Hariri's killing to show he still carries a punch.
The second theory is probably the more plausible one and relates to Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. As the Lebanese people saw that as oppose to previous presidents, President Bush has backed himself into full fledged commitment to democracy, they sought to take advantage of it. Demonstrations began calling for Syria to leave; demonstrations that have made Syria look weak, something had to be done. And so it is possible that the generals decided to kill Hariri without Bashar knowing of it in order to show Syria still holds the reigns. If Lebanese reaction would have been quite the way the generals hoped it would be, the next step would have probably been to oust Bashar Al-Assad in the same way his father came to power – through a military coup. But things did not go as planned due to the riots the murder has created and so the question arises: what caused Syrian generals, who have their hands in almost anything that moves in Lebanon, miscalculate the reaction so dearly? The answer lies in Washington; in the connection between the war in Iraq and the Lebanese people.
When the Lebanese people saw that President Bush was serious about Iraq, they decided to take advantage of it for themselves. The calculation was simple: If they call for Syria to leave and Damascus responds with threats, all they will have to do is yell 'democracy in danger!' and the Texas Cowboy would knock on the door as he surely did through UN resolution 1559. This line of thinking is evident through the actions of Walid Junblat, the Lebanese Druze leader who in 2001 drank tea with Bashar, in 2003 said that every US soldier killed in Iraq is a blessing and in 2005 called for Syria to leave saying that he now saw the necessity of the war in Iraq. This also influenced the actions of Hezbollah strong man Hassan Nasrallah, who is dependent on Syria for arms but now had no choice but to oust the puppet president of Lebanon to the dismay of his patrons back in Syria in order to remain popular with the people in Lebanon. Indeed none of this would have happened if there was not a stronger man seating in the White House.
This line of reasoning is not particular to the Lebanese-Syrian case. It continues in Libya who has openly disarmed itself and ceased giving refuge to terrorists; and if that is not enough, it also continues in countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where women are now allowed to vote and run for elections and even drive! The line also continues in long time ally Egypt where democratic reforms are continuously under way. All these are countries that according to many should have nothing to fear due to their ties to the US and hence no reason to change their ways. But they do have something to fear, just like Syria: a Texas cowboy with a strong commitment to democracy; and that ladies and gentlemen, is the benefit of having a Texas cowboy.
posted by The Middle East News Addict at 8:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home