From AFP:
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad threatened former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri just months before he was assassinated, Syria’s ex-vice president Abdel Halim Khaddam said
“I will destroy anyone who tries to hinder our decisions,” Assad told Hariri during a meeting in Damascus, Khaddam told Dubai-based television Al-Arabiya in an interview from Paris.
Khaddam said the meeting took place a few months before the February 14 assassination of Hariri in a Beirut bomb blast for which a UN probe has implicated Syrian intelligence.
The Syrian intelligence services could not have carried out such an operation without the approval of Assad, he said, when asked if the head of state could have been unaware.
“No Syrian security service could take such a decision unilaterally.”
In late March, Syria denied a report from a UN fact-finding mission that Assad had threatened both Hariri and Lebanon’s Druze leader Walid Jumblatt if they opposed the policies of Damascus.
In a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara demanded the deletion of a reference to Assad from a report into the circumstances of Hariri’s killing.
The report said Assad had said he “would rather break Lebanon over the heads of Hariri and Jumblatt than see his word in Lebanon broken.”
[…]
Khaddam, who long served Bashar’s father Hafez before his death in 2000, was also close to former interior minister Ghazi Kanaan, for 20 years Syria’s intelligence chief in Lebanon, who committed suicide in October.
Lebanese media speculated at the time that Kanaan had been killed because he was about to reveal the authors of Hariri’s killing.
Khaddam now lives in Paris, where he said he was writing a book, and, like Kanaan, was also close to the pro-Western Hariri.
Kanaan and Khaddam were reportedly stripped of responsibility for the Lebanon file by Assad, in keeping with an agreement with pro-Syrian Lebanese President Emile Lahoud who accused the two men of being in Hariri’s pay.
One serious prediction I have for 2006 is that Syria will either change its ways and extricate itself from Iraq and Iraqi politics (and expel jihadists rather than facilitating their entry into Iraq), or else we will see limited US military engagement with Syria and the deposing of Assad.
Oh. And a run on grape leaf futures. And cedar furniture.
(h/t Allah)
Ever eat a Syrian fig?
Man, I like those – I’d buy those here in Chippewa Falls if only I could get me some of those. Bulk.
Can’t Assad see what he’s missing? There’s are 50 million middle Americans who want to buy stuff from his desert nation.
If I were Condi, I’d put on those black leather boots and tell Baby-Assad to get happy, chill with the terrorist ‘stuff’, and get with the program, dude.
-Steve
I love baklava from Semiramis. I just wish something would happen to make me feel better about buying from Damascus.
…or else we will see limited US military engagement with Syria and the deposing of Assad.
We’re goin’ to Iran, we’re goin’ to Syria, to Jordan, to Egypt, to the Halls of Tripoli and YEEEEEAAARRRGH!
I feel better now.
Syrian food is really my favorite Middle Eastern cuisine, probably because I have Syrian relatives (by marriage, long story, don’t see them often enough) and their version of baklava, etc. imprinted early. If they got their political act together they could write their own ticket as far as I’m concerned: American foodies will come running.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS! SEND THEM FROM IRAQ TO SYRIA!
Um, sorry. Got carried away, there. But I do believe Jeff is on the money, here.
Frozen concentrated grape leaf futures?
TW: working Well, yeah, I’m supposed to be…
Can’t we invade somewhere with good beaches?
Grenada was so long ago…
If Syria is invaded, the Alawites, Christians, and Armenians will get slaughtered by the “real” Muslims. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
They’re turning on each other. The end is near…
Wasn’t it Ghadaffi’s son that said Arab militaries are always weak because the Dear Leader du Jour would never promote anyone who could take him in a pinch. Same applies to VPs, I guess.
Arab (and Persian) armies suck because their weaponry is horribly outdated and the training they receive is not sufficient enough for mastering any new weaponry they acquire. The only Muslim army that is actually decent in the Middle East is Turkey’s and that’s mainly because the army, unlike its people, is pretty secularized.
I wonder..
My son’s just back from there, and he says the Iraqis may, just possibly, be half as good as we are.
What will they do with their shiny new toy?
Regards,
Ric
Toga party?
Arch – Not quite true. The biggest threat to Israel, besides a nuclear armed Iran is Egypt. Egypt’s Army is nothing to scoff at. In fact, the Camp David peace accords were as important to Israel as to Egypt – why else would they have given up so much?
I would advise that you read books on the Yom Kippur war. I recently read a newer one, and despite it all, the Egyptian (and in fact part of the Syrian) Army fought admirably.
Regarding Turkey the there is mandatory conscription, therefore it is the officer and NCO ranks that keep it professional. Further, the cities are very secular (Istanbul, Adona, etc).
Why Arabs Lose Wars.
TW: ‘house’. Dar Al-Harb?
Arch,
I agree with H; the Egyptian Army is very good. The best Arab army is the Jordanian as it is British-trained and has a good NCO corps (e.g. professional sergeants). The re-built Iraqi Army is on its way to being a first-class security force.
The Jordanian army is British-trained, using doctrine from the Fifties—little changed from that of WWII. AIUI, the Egyptians are much the same.
The Syrians use a mixture of Soviet and British doctrine, and don’t seem to do much serious training. The Iraqis under Saddam used the same system, and were regarded as the most credible army in the ME—remember all the warnings of fierce resistance and thousands of casualties when we invaded?
Both are excellent doctrines for the kind of columns-of-droves wars that used to be the norm. American doctrine since Viet Nam is quite different, and twice now US forces have wrapped up Iraqi armies like so much tinfoil. Don’t be fooled by the high-tech equipment. It’s useful and important, but it isn’t all that much better than the Soviet stuff that’s common there, and it’s much more expensive and therefore there’s less of it. (Which is one reason we aren’t re-equipping the Iraqi army with our gear—there are others.)
From what I’ve seen, Sistani’s faction of Shi’ia regard the Iranians about the way Missouri Synod Lutherans do speaking in tongues. Sadr’s faction leans toward the mystics but will follow Sistani in a pinch. Arab Sunni are always ready to beat up on Shi’ia, and the Kurds, with axes of their own to grind, are likely to remind them to keep it down range. In the other direction, both Shi’ia and Kurds seem moderately displeased with Assad &cie, and the Sunni would likely go along, however reluctantly—it’s no fun to go to a party and not dance.
There’s been speculation that either we would use more military force to solve problems in the ME or that we’d depend on the Israelis. There’s a new kid on that block, and it’s worth remembering the historical means for dealing with divisions at home when you have a credible military force at your disposal.
Regards,
Ric
tw: simple. Of course you think the solutions are simple if you have a simple mind.
Hey, Ric:
It’s late and I’m tired. One thought I couldn’t quite wrap my mind around:
Don’t be fooled by the high-tech equipment. It’s useful and important, but it isn’t all that much better than the Soviet stuff that’s common there, and it’s much more expensive and therefore there’s less of it. (Which is one reason we aren’t re-equipping the Iraqi army with our gearâ€â€there are others.)
Other armies?–or other types of equipment? Or are you saying that the Iraqis already have decent technology, but it’s their training, discipline, professionalism and commitment that have been lacking?
Does someone with functioning brain cells want to clarify this for the literal-minded copy editor?
Other reasons, I think Ric means. For instance, it’s probably mostly there already, and paid for. If not, AK-47s and ex-Soviet APCs are cheap, and we’ve got piles of older desert uniforms and such to get rid of.
And as far as not being “fooled by the high-tech equipment. It isn’t all that much better than the Soviet stuff that’s common there,” goes, I’d have to agree, except in the areas of body armor, personal weapon attachments, NODs, RPVs, GPS, personal electronics, counter-battery radar and other sensors, sensors in general, APCs, tanks, helicopter gunships, aircraft (support, fighter, attack and bomber), precision munitions and naval support.
Attila Girl,
You’ve got it right. East-Bloc surplus tanks used with US doctrine, nav aids, & radios.
There is a ranking out there somewhere on the internet (can’t remember the link for the life of me) but it ranks every country’s army based on many different factors such as tradition, discipline, technology, mobility, etc. Israel ranks pretty high based on its size but it is nowhere near to being the military juggernaut some people make it out to be. IMO, Israel reminds me of Canada during WWII – can pull its own weight and makes a great ally but not powerful enough to lead a war. The fact that Egypt did fairly well in the Yom Kippur war does not impress me because they had so many advantages over Israel at the time. If I remember correctly, Turkey ranked the highest in the Middle East according to that ranking so I’ll give credit where credit is due. But the Arab countries and Iran are not impressive. Yes, Egypt has a lot of toys (thanks to the 2 billion we send her for “relief”) but can she use them properly?
Attila Girl,
Yes, pretty much what Noah said. Soviet gear is what the Iraqis had already, so equipment training isn’t added to the rest of the problem. But he’s being unnecessarily snarky. What the Iraqis are getting is new or factory-refurbished Soviet gear, some second-line but mostly first.
The advantages are, primarily, that it’s cheap and abundant, familiarity, and the maintenance. Maintenance is important. Soviet gear is built on the same principle as Western electronics—it will function for a long time with no or little care, and when it fails, throw it away and get another one, or send it in for factory rebuild. A Kalashnikov (“AK-47”) will keep working even if it’s never cleaned. Russian jet engines last about half as long as American ones, so they make them easy to change and keep lots of spares around.
American gear is notably better in almost all instances, but we have a lot less of it because it’s so expensive—this includes the soldiers; we spend more on training a private than most armies do for an officer. It is regarded as axiomatic in the US military that they could trade equipment with anybody in the world and still kick ass and take names. That has never been put to the test, and probably won’t be. But if the Iraqis really do accept American military doctrine and American training standards, we’ll have a proxy to test the theory.
Regards,
Ric
De Atkine’s “How Arabs Lose Wars” article quoted above is on my top 5 list of “Essential reading for understanding the world today” pieces.
Everybody should read it in its entirety, but a telling quote related to an age-old military maxim, that good NCOs are the most critical component of a successful military:
“A sergeant first class in the U.S. Army has as much authority as a colonel in an Arab army.”
But…but…but…
How are our defense contractors profiting from the blood of others if we aren’t exploiting the Iraqi people by forcing over-priced weapons on them?
Arch, et al,
Agree that De Atkine’s work is excellent and accurate. However, the Egyptian Army has profited from hosting 20 years of Bright Star joint training exercises with the US and NATO countries. The Egyptians built a combat training center in ‘97 East of the Nile to practice and improve its army on the model of our National Training Center at Fort Irwin, CA. The Turks aren’t really the ME, but best considered Balkan/European and are the largest army in NATO and have fought a counter-insurgency against the Kurds for a generation. Soviet/WarPact gear is rugged, no-nonsense stuff made for a huge “Red Storm” blitzkrieg.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t most real war games we engage in (those on the ground, rather than using computer simulations) place the “black” (non-U.S., opposition) team in Soviet-style equipment? And they generally win 98% of the time, IIRC . . .?
Attila Girl,
You’re exactly right. When the US military does large-scale wargames, the OpFor (Opposing Force) uses Soviet equipment (either simulated, or actual captured equipment). And yes, they kick serious ass most every time. We’ve got two facilities for that: JRTC in Louisiana, and NTC in the California desert.
BUT, everyone knows that this isn’t entirely realistic. I had a few friends who were OpFor, and you wouldn’t believe how much they trained. 2 weeks our of every four, they were down range and training. It wasn’t considered training so much as it was their job. The BlueFor (good guys), on the other hand, gets to do this sort of exercise maybe once every few years. It goes without saying that the OpFor was expected to win.
Of course, a “win” at JRTC or NTC is not a matter of actually winning, but losing less than other BlueFors have.
TW: defense. Jeff, knock that off!
Attila Girl,
What TomK said. TomK, don’t forget CMTC Hohenfels in Germany or the BCTP traveling circus. The best analogy for the general public is the Top Gun training program run for entire US Army units in the dirt rather than individual aircrews in the sky. What was said of Frederick the Great: His drills were bloodless battles, his battles were bloody drills.