[Peace-discuss] Elections and assassination

[C. G. Estabrook]

[One of the better comments on how the Iraq elections and the
assassination in Lebanon fit into the administration's war plans in the
Middle East, this is from Kurt Nimmo's blog, "Another Day in the Empire"
<www.kurtnimmo.com/blog/>. Nimmo uses the term "Strausscons" for the more
usual "Neocons" because members of this group were students, directly or
indirectly, of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago (where, e.g., Paul
Wolfowitz and Ahmed Chalabi were classmates). --CGE]

	February 16, 2005
	Vilayet-e-faqih: A Bump in the Road for the Likudite-Strausscons

I believe Bush was backed into a political corner in regard to the
so-called Iraqi elections -- considering his "democracy" rhetoric -- and
in fact the Strausscons did not sincerely want elections, understanding
full well the result would be a Shia majority and the implementation of
vilayet-e-faqih, or rule by the clergy. I am convinced the Strausscon plan
is to create as much chaos and bloodshed as possible, for as long as
possible, and foment civil war in Iraq, based on ethnicity and religion,
and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim Middle East. The assassination of
Rafik al-Hariri is but only the latest staged event to introduce chaos.

Problems arise and plans never go off completely as envisioned. To the
horror of Israel and the Strausscons, the election in Iraq has created a
monster, to their way of thinking, in a Shia majority that will insist on
implementing vilayet-e-faqih and, as Syed Saleem Shahzad writes for Asia
Times Online, has already resulted in "calls for autonomy or federalism,"
an entirely unimaginable situation for the Strausscons, not because they
are opposed to balkanizing Iraq -- in fact, this is at the core of their
plan and has remained at the top of the Zionist wish list for decades --
but rather because autonomy for the Shia south would undoubtedly result in
a miniature Iran, as the Strausscons see it. This nightmare is further
complicated by the fact a lot of Iraq's oil is tapped from the Shia south.

So vilayet-e-faqih and autonomy must be circumvented, if not crushed
entirely. How will this be done? Syed Saleem Shahzad writes:

"To head off this threat of a Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement,
the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm
small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to
'nip the evil in the bud.' Asia Times Online has learned that in a highly
clandestine operation, the US has procured Pakistan-manufactured weapons,
including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets
and other light weaponry. Consignments have been loaded in bulk onto US
military cargo aircraft at Chaklala airbase in the past few weeks. The
aircraft arrived from and departed for Iraq."

In order to better understand what the Strausscons plan for the Shi'ites,
read Shahzad's entire article, "US fights back against 'rule by clerics.'"

Of course, the Shi'ites will see right through this attempt by the United
States to subvert the establishment of a theocracy. More than likely this
will result in a total uprising on the part of the Shia -- long dreaded by
the Pentagon and military strategists -- and possibly even an alignment
with the Sunni resistance.

It is simply amazing that the non-Strausscon side of the Pentagon has not
openly revolted, understanding full well they cannot defeat a popular
insurgency in a country of around 25 million people.

Bush and the Strausscons keep throwing gas on the fire -- one day
threatening Iran, the next Syria. Imagine a scenario where Iran and the
Shia of southern Iraq join together in a marriage of convenience with the
Sunni (and possibly Hezbollah in Lebanon) to defeat the United States and
eject them from the Middle East for good. Of course, the Strausscons and
their Likudite taskmasters are not about to "cut and run," but sooner or
later somebody in the Pentagon, realizing a massive disaster is about to
unfold in the Middle East, will cut and run for them. It can only be hoped
the Strausscons will be rounded up and prosecuted for their treason and
Israel will be told to go take a flying leap.

In the short run, however, we may as well wish for a pony.

	February 16, 2005
	Rafik al-Hariri and the Syria Blame Game

The following headline posted by the propaganda outfit, Voice of America
-- created by the U.S. Information Agency and connected at the hip to the
CIA -- says it all in a few short words: "Israel Welcomes Pressure on
Syria; Campaigns to Stop Russian Missile Deal."

The assassination of Rafik Hariri, former Lebanese prime minister, is a
virtual propaganda bonanza for Israel and the United States and has
resulted in nearly unanimous finger pointing at Syria, even though it
would be excessively stupid for Syria to do such a thing, especially with
the U.S. and Israel beating the bushes, looking for any pretext to invade
the country. Syria figured prominently as a target on the
Strausscon-Likudite hit list even before Bush included the country in his
Manichean "axis of evil" speech, written by the Strausscon David Frum, a
"scholar" flunkey over at Strausscon central, the American Enterprise
Institute.

"Syria has repeatedly called for a resumption of peace talks with Israel
and for better relations with the United States. Indications are neither
is likely to happen soon, while pressure on Syria to withdraw its troops
from Lebanon is likely to increase," reports VOA.

Of course, since the Likudites and the Strausscons have a severe allergy
to peace and both Syria and Iran are to be attacked in one way or another
over the next four years, it only makes sense peace talks are completely
and utterly out of the question.

If you are interested in objective reporting on Lebanon and the Middle
East, you have to read newspapers and visit web sites outside of the
United States.

"If we look at the way the assassination has been conducted, it is very
sophisticated, I knew al-Hariri's security measures -- no local system
could have breached them," Bushra al-Khalil, a Lebanese lawyer and
political activist, told Aljazeera. "The question is, who stands to
benefit from his death? Syria's enemies. I think al-Hariri's death is part
of the plan to divide the region into tiny helpless sectarian states. This
plan has started in Iraq and it will continue to hit all other Arab
countries."

As Bushra al-Khalil points out, al-Hariri was an advocate of pan-Arabism,
that is to say Arab nationalism without regard to borders (most of these
borders were devised by colonialist Europeans). Israel and the United
States have worked feverishly over the years to eviscerate Arab
nationalism -- as the Europeans did before them -- and consider it far
more of a threat than Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, Israel has funded
and organized radical Islamic organizations in the past as a wedge against
Palestinian nationalism (see Richard Sale's Analysis: "Hamas history tied
to Israel"). A war against crazed Wahhabi nut cases is an easier sell than
a war against Arab nationalists who demand self-determination and an end
to foreign domination. In likewise fashion, the United States spent
billions of dollars to create, train, and fund the Islamic terror network
(al-Qaeda, et al) in Afghanistan, initially to oust the Soviet Union, and
then unleashed them elsewhere, most notably in the Balkans under the aegis
of NATO.

"Obviously al-Hariri's assassination was a blow against Syria and Lebanon.
He was not an enemy of Syria. He was a historic and traditional friend and
ally of Syria," Imad Fawzi al-Shuaibi, head of the Strategic Studies
Center, Damascus, told Aljazeera.  "He did have disagreements with Syria
lately, but he did not call for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from
Lebanon, or stir up hostility towards Syria or demand an end to Syria's
role in Lebanon."

In the United States, of course, the story has a completely different
spin.  "Mr. Hariri's death should give in fact it must give renewed
impetus to achieving a free, independent and sovereign Lebanon," William
Burns, assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs, said after a
meeting with Lebanese Foreign Minister Mahmoud Hammod.  "And what that
means is the immediate and complete implementation of the U.N. security
resolution 1559, and what that means is the complete and immediate
withdrawal by Syria of all of its forces in Lebanon."  In the following
sentence, the Bush Ministry of Disinformation, ABC News division, states:
"Washington accuses Syria of aiding anti-Israeli militants and supporting
insurgents in Iraq."

No explanation provided for the first accusation and the second, as
admitted by the Pentagon, is almost entirely baseless.  "There are very
few foreign fighters" in Iraq, Lt. Col. Paul Kennedy, commander of the 2nd
Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, told USA Today last July. In fact, as Jim
Lobe points out, the propaganda campaign accusing Syria of aiding and
abetting the Iraqi resistance is entirely a Strausscon affair. This
propaganda "campaign appears to be based primarily on alleged statements
by unidentified U.S. military and intelligence officials cited in the
Washington Times [a far right-wing Moonie newspaper] op-ed and a
subsequent Washington Post news article to the effect that the Sunni
insurgency in Iraq is being organized, funded, and even managed by, as the
Post put it, 'a handful of senior Iraqi Ba'athists operating in Syria'
...¦ At the same time, a number of published accounts about the aftermath
of the capture of Fallujah established that the number of Syrian and other
'foreign fighters' involved in the insurgency there was far less than had
been expected, putting paid to the theory that foreigners from Syria or
elsewhere were a major factor in the uprising, as had long been claimed by
the Pentagon and its neocon backers."

The Bush Strausscons want us to believe Syria has a death wish, stupidly
running the Iraqi insurgency and killing beloved Lebanese leaders. It
makes absolutely no sense.

Meanwhile, the political results of al-Hariri's assassination are going
exactly in the direction desired by the Likudite-Strausscons.  "The two
most immediate dimensions are internal Lebanese politics and the
Syrian-Lebanese relationship," reports the Lebanon Daily Star.  "The third
dimension is the relationship between Syria and external powers -- the
U.S. and France most notably, the UN and the Europeans more broadly. The
speed, clarity and intensity with which Lebanese opposition groups Monday
blamed Syria and its allied Lebanese government for the killing spoke
volumes about the troubled Syrian-Lebanese axis being the central
political context in which this whole matter must be analyzed."

As usual, history is lost in all of this. Syria was a reluctant player in
Lebanese internal affairs, contrary to what we are told by the Strausscons
and especially the duplicitous Likudites in Israel.  "In July, 1976, the
Syrian army entered Lebanon and imposed a ceasefire [during the Lebanese
civil war]. Syria involved itself initially to protect Christians from
defeat at the hands of the Muslims. President Asad of Syria had been duped
by Henry Kissinger and the Israelis into believing that if he, Asad, did
not enter the war to rein in the PLO and the Muslims, then Israel would
have to go in and do the job itself, a prospect Asad found terrifying.
Kissinger played skillfully on Asad's fears and succeeded in dividing the
Arabs further to the benefit of Israel," writes Ted Thornton, summarizing
the work of Patrick Seale ("Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East"). Of
course, Israel "went in" regardless, with devastating results for innocent
Lebanese civilians, and Hezbollah, effectively a guerilla operation in
opposition to Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, was organized as a
result. In fact, in regard to the PLO’s presence in Lebanon, this was a
situation wholly created by Israel, as there would not have been militant
Palestinians in Lebanon if Israel had not "transferred" (i.e., ethnically
cleansed) large numbers of Palestinians since the creation of the Israeli
colonialist-settler state in 1948.

For more background on Israel's illegal incursions (often in direct
violation to the Geneva Conventions in regard to civilians), see Noam
Chomsky's "Israel, Lebanon, and the 'Peace Process.'"

	###