Within the first few months of 2011, the U.S. and its allies lost three loyal “friends”: Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Zine el-Abbidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Saad Hariri in Lebanon. While Mubarak and Ali were driven out of power by widespread popular uprisings, Hariri was ousted by the parliament.
Inspired by these liberating developments, pro-democracy rebellions against autocratic rulers (and their Western backers) soon spread to other countries such as Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
As these revolutionary developments tended to politically benefit the “axis of resistance” (consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas) in the Middle East, the US-Israeli “axis of aggression” and their client states in the region mounted an all-out counterrevolutionary offensive.
Caught off-guard by the initial wave of the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia, the US and its allies struck back with a vengeance. They employed a number of simultaneous tactics to sabotage the Arab Spring. These included
(1) instigating fake instances of the Arab Spring in countries that were/are headed by insubordinate regimes such as those ruling Iran, Syria and Libya;
(2) co-opting revolutionary movements in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen;
(3) crushing pro-democracy movements against “friendly” regimes ruling countries such as Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia “before they get out of hand,” as they did in Egypt and Tunisia; and
(4) using the age-old divide and rule trick by playing the sectarian trump card of Sunnis vs. Shias, or Iranians vs. Arabs.
Phi Beta Iota: Meanwhile within the USA, Ron Paul has been bought off and firmly put back in place as part of the controlled opposition, and Occupy has been very successfully squelched by encouraging their inherent tendency to kum-ba-ya themselves to their own early demise. Now the 1% has what is left of Occupy competing for small scholarships to tread water and remain irrelevant. It is still possible to re-ignite the Electoral Reform Act of 2012 possibilities, but each month that passes without public coalescing around this ONE THING that the all can agree on and force upon the corrupt two-party tyranny in Congress, is another stake in the heart of the Republic.
Diplomacy is one of those jobs where you actually have to be present on scene to do it. One key point that Ms. Schake does not mention is that a principal reason military is playing a dominant role right now is that Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) are not volunteering for the hardship — such as Baghdad and Kabul — posts in adequate numbers and neither Secretary of State nor Director General of Foreign Service has invoked statutory authority for “directed assignments,” i.e., to involuntarily assign FSOs where they are needed. So, if nobody wants to go to Shitholia, nobody goes.)
Politico.com, April 5, 2012
How State Can Take Back Diplomacy
By Kori Schake
The Obama administration brandished “smart power” as crucial to U.S. foreign policy. “With smart power,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared in her confirmation hearings, “diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.” Yet the U.S. military controls ever wider swaths of our civilian activity abroad.
Despite a U.S. Embassy in Kabul staffed with more than 1,000 people, the U.S. military is running task forces on corruption and building the justice system in Afghanistan. When the Obama administration needed a political envoy for delicate diplomatic work in Iraq, it sent the Army chief of staff.
The militarization of U.S. diplomacy is bad policy. And it doesn’t have to be this way. Our diplomats are talented, resourceful people with the vocation of representing our country. But unlike the military, the State Department makes poor use of its human capital.
Syria: For the record. President al-Asad announced parliamentary elections will be held on 7 May.
Comment: Despite the violence, Asad is undeterred from following the political reform plan he outlined last year, which will include multi-party elections.
The Syrian Opposition. Former judge, attorney and prominent opposition figure Haithem al-Maleh withdrew from the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) because of the party's lack of transparency, clarity and organization, al-Maleh said on 13 March. Al-Maleh added that the group has not been successful in arming the rebels.
Comment: al-Maleh is a long time, well-respected critic of the Asad's and known as a human rights activist and member of Amnesty International. He has served two terms in prison for his political activism, as a prisoner of conscience, most recently between 2009 and 2011. He was released last March under one of President Asad's amnesty decrees, one for political prisoners over 70 years of age.
Al Maleh once predicted that Asad will face the same fate as Qadhafi, but apparently the Syrian National Council will not be the instrument of his justice.
The details of al-Maleh's split with the SNC are not readily available, but his statement contains serious charges that imply he found the council acting in some ways like the Syrian government. His comments about a lack of clarity and organization suggest fundamental shortcomings, plus unwillingness to accept counsel from one of the oldest and most respected foes of the Asad family.
This is the first high-level defection from the SNC.
Syria-Russia: Russia has no intention of curtailing military cooperation with Syria. Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Russia will abide by existing contracts to deliver weapons to Syria.
Comment: The Russians continue to back the government in power. They support a peace plan, but it requires the opposition to stop shooting as well as the government.
The threat of an imminent attack on Iran by Israel or the US seems to be receding, perhaps because Obama stepped back and let the warmongers overplay their hand. No doubt, the White House narrative will trumpet its success in avoiding another war if the reduction in war hysteria continues. But who really took the cape — the warmongers in Israel (and their wholly-owned agents of influence in the US) or Obama?
There is a competing interpretation to this apparent reduction in tensions — the one provided below by Uri Avnery
Uri Avnery is a highly regarded Israeli writer and peace activist. He grew up in Israel and understands both the Israeli and Arab cultures. He is an Israeli patriot who believes Israel must make a fair accommodation with the Palestinians, if Israel is to survive and prosper. His credentials include being a hero of the 1948 war, a past member of the Israeli Knesset, and one of Israel's leading peace activists. Viewed thru Avnery's lens, the recent escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza and the threats of another Gaza invasion, together with the unending settlement expansion in the West Bank and E. Jerusalem, all taking place while Israel threatens to bomb Iran, makes sense — as unfortunately becomes clear in has last paragraph.
The State Department has begun coordinating with Syria's neighbors to prepare for the handling of President Bashar al-Assad's extensive WMD assets if and when his regime collapses, The Cable has learned.
This week, the State Department sent a diplomatic demarche to Syria's neighbors Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, warning them about the possibility of Syria's WMDs crossing their borders and offering U.S. government help in dealing with the problem, three Obama administration officials confirmed to The Cable. For concerned parties both inside and outside the U.S. government, the demarche signifies that the United States is increasingly developing plans to deal with the dangers of a post-Assad Syria — while simultaneously highlighting the lack of planning for how to directly bring about Assad's downfall.
Syria is believed to have a substantial chemical weapons program, which includes mustard gas and sophisticated nerve agents, such as sarin gas, as well as biological weapons. Syria has also refused IAEA requests to make available facilities that were part of its nuclear weapons program and may still be in operation.
The State Department declined to provide access to any officials to discuss the private diplomatic communication on the record, such as the author of the demarche Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Tom Countryman. In a meeting with reporters earlier this year, Countryman expressed confidence that the United States knows where Syria's WMD stockpiles are, but warned that they could become a very serious security issue for Syria and the region going forward.
“We have ideas as to the quantity and we have ideas as to where they are,” Countryman said. “We wish some of the neighbors of Syria to be on the lookout… When you get a change of regime in Syria, it matters what are the conditions — chaotic or orderly.”
Today, in response to inquiries from The Cable, a State Department official offered the following statement:
“The U.S. and our allies are monitoring Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. These weapons' presence in Syria undermines peace and security in the Middle East, and we have long called on the Syrian government to destroy its chemicals weapons arsenal and join the Chemical Weapons Convention,” the State Department official said. “We believe Syria's chemical weapons stockpile remains under Syrian government control, and we will continue to work closely with like-minded countries to prevent proliferation of Syria's chemical weapons program.”
The demarche made four specific points, according to other U.S. officials who offered a fuller explanation to The Cable. It communicated the U.S. government's recognition that there is a highly active chemical warfare program in Syria, which is complemented by ballistic missile delivery capability. It further emphasized that that any potential political transition in Syria could raise serious questions about the regime's control over proliferation sensitive material.
Thirdly, the State Department wanted Syria's neighbors to know that should the Assad regime fall, the security of its WMD stockpile — as well as its control over other conventional weapons like MANPADS (shoulder fired rocket launchers) — could come into question and could pose a serious threat to regional security. Lastly, the demarche emphasized that the U.S. government stands ready to support neighboring countries to provide border-related security cooperation.
“It's essentially a recognition of the danger to the regional and international community of the stockpiles that the regime possesses and the importance of working with countries, given the potential fall of the regime, to prevent the proliferation of these very sensitive weapons outside of Syria's border,” one administration official said. “It's an exponentially more dangerous program than Libya. We are talking about legitimate WMDs here — this isn't Iraq. The administration is really concerned about loose WMDs. It's one of the few things you could put on the agenda and do something about without planning the fall of the regime.”
The administration is also working closely with the Jordanians on the issue. A Jordanian military delegation was at the Pentagon Thursday to meet with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
In addition to the danger of proliferation, there is a concern that Assad could actually use his WMDs if his situation becomes desperate.
“The WMD program is in play now, and that's important because it highlights the innate danger that the existence of this regime poses to U.S. security and regional interests,” the administration official said. “[The demarche] puts Syria's neighbors on notice and it reflects the recognition that a dangerous Assad regime is willing to do anything to save its own skin. If they are willing to kill the country to save the regime, they might be willing to do a great deal more damage throughout the region.”
Some officials inside and outside the administration see the WMD activity as helpful, but lament that such a high degree of planning is not taking place on the issue of how to precipitate the downfall of the Assad regime as quickly and as safely as possible.
Over 70 countries are meeting in Tunis today to develop a unified message on the transition of power in Syria and urge the Assad regime to allow humanitarian access. The Saudi delegation actually walked out of the meeting, complaining of “inactivity” and urging the international community to arm the Syrian opposition.
The Obama administration has consistently rejected calls by the Syrian National Council and others to prepare for a military intervention in Syria and no real strategy exists internally to force Assad from power, another administration official said.
“Our strategic calculus can't be solely about what comes after Assad without taking a hard look at how to bring about Assad's downfall as safely as possible,” said this official. “The reality is, at some point, there will be a recognition you can't plan for a post-Assad scenario without planning how to shape the downfall itself. You can't separate the two.”
Concern about a gap in planning for how to oust the Assad regime is shared by some in Congress, including Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who issued a statement today urging the administration to start directly aiding the Syrian rebels and protecting Syrian civilians.
“Unfortunately, speeches and meetings by themselves will do nothing to stop the unacceptable slaughter in Syria, which is growing worse by the day,” the senators said. “We remain deeply concerned that our international diplomacy risks becoming divorced from the reality on the ground in Syria, which is now an armed conflict between Assad's forces and the people of Syria who are struggling to defend themselves against indiscriminate attacks.”
In her prepared remarks in Tunis, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she supported more sanctions on the Assad regime but she declined to endorse any direct help to the Syrian opposition without the consent of the Syrian government, saying only, “We all need to look hard at what more we can do.”
Syria: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the opposition Syrian National Council is emerging as an alternative to the Bashar al-Asad regime and that the consensus among Arab League and other nations is that the group is a credible representative.
Comment: Lacking a territory that it can defend, the opposition remains inchoate, not unified and different from city to city.That diversity probably saves it from total destruction.
It is a stretch to describe any outside political group as a credible representative of an opposition that lacks any identifiable structure or organization inside Syria and shows no loyalty to the Syrian politicians outside the country. The Western and Arab diplomacy looks disconnected from and irrelevant to what is happening in Syria.
In my Foreign Policy column, I discuss whether Admiral William McRaven's request for greater operational freedom for Special Operations Command will extend to an unconventional warfare campaign in Syria.
This week, the New York Times reported on a draft proposal circulating inside the Pentagon that would permanently boost the global presence and operational autonomy of U.S. special operations forces. According to the article, Adm. William McRaven, the Navy SEAL who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and who is now the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), is requesting additional authority and independence outside of the normal, interagency decision-making process.
After the successful direct action strike against bin Laden and SOCOM's important role in training allied security forces in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere, it is easy to understand how McRaven's command has become, as the New York Times put it, the Obama administration's “military tool of choice.” A larger forward presence around the world and more autonomy would provide McRaven's special operations soldiers with some of the same agility enjoyed by the irregular adversaries SOCOM is charged with hunting down.
