Bush to say in speech that Syria's plans for withdrawl "fall short."

[bigtree]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/bush.mideast/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush views the situation in Lebanon as a critical and immediate test to keep the momentum of democratic reform building in the Middle East after decades of stagnation and will say so in a speech Tuesday, senior officials tell CNN.

Bush is expected to use an address on the war on terrorism to make clear that Syria's plans to redeploy its troops within Lebanon fall far short of his call for a complete and immediate withdrawal of Syrian troops and intelligence service personnel, senior officials familiar with the speech said Monday.

The White House on Monday called the Syrian announcement a "half measure" and said it was unacceptable to the United States, France and other countries. Those countries have called on Damascus to comply with a U.N. resolution demanding a complete withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon.

In advance of the speech, Bush had telephone conversations with French President Jacques Chirac and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to discuss the efforts to pressure Syria, as well as other political developments in the region, U.S. officials said.

Bush's speech is scheduled for 10:15 a.m. ET at the National Defense University in Washington.

Bush will again today use his pulpit to pressure Syria to withdraw from Lebanon, citing his crusade for 'democratic reform' in the Middle East as the main impudus for his concern. But with a plurality of Shi'ites living in Lebanon, and plans announced yesterday by Hezbollah to initiate their own protest of U. S. involvement, it is becoming clear that the situation there cannot be managed by such a heavy hand by the U.S. who will always be viewed as a friend of Israel.

It is also clear that what Bush actually wants is to create a climate that would reignite the sectarian strife and division that characterized the political situation in Lebanon during the civil war. It appears that the same groups, albeit with slightly different alliances, are forming opposing sides and the interference by the United States- generated by Bush's rhetoric- will only fuel another conflict as anything the U.S. does there will certainly be seen as aiding Israel. This will cause some Muslim groups like the Shi'ite Muslims to oppose any inituative that would leave Lebanon to the Christian and Druze leadership whose supporters have been orchestrating the recent protests against Syria (who is said to facilitate or allow Iranian support of Hezbollah and others who oppose Israel).

It doesn't help that assassinated former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, whose killing sparked the protests, was seen as favoring some sort of peace agreement with Israel. Such an agreement would not rest well with the Shi'ite majority or with Hezbollah whose opposition drove Israel from southern Lebanon in 2000, especially if the Syrian withdrawl left them vulnerable to some new alliance that would allow Israel to continue to occupy Shebaa which the United Nations considers to be a part of Syria and the Hezbollah insist is part of Lebanon. Syria has not shown any inclination to resume peace talks with Israel and will be pressured to resist any such of entreaty, especially in the wake of Hariri's killing.

So Bush, who cannot be counted on to identify all of our 50 states here at home, is blissfully ignorant of the complex alliances and divisions that characterize Lebanese politics. But, the parties in that region know full well what is at stake and can be expected to resolve this crisis of confidence in the Syrian occupation with intuition and foresight. There was a great deal of blood shed on all sides during the past civil conflict. There is still an incredible amount of festering resentment on all sides that will permeate any future agreement between Syria and their opposition in Lebanon. A lot of the players in the past conflict are still around and active, like former President Amin Gemayel who is a leader in the opposition. It will take a good measure of will to avoid igniting the resentments of the past bloodshed.

Syria promised to redeploy its troops to eastern Lebanon this month under a two-stage withdrawal. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad agreed to a withdrawal plan in talks with Lebanese President Emile Lahoud in Damascus. The talks are more of a measure of 'democracy in action" than any of the blustering, arrogant nagging of Bush. If Bush truly believed in democracy then he would allow these parties, which comprise many opposing sects and factions, to work out their differences without his heavy hand and without his daily interference. More and more, it seems that Bush's true interest is to inflame opposition groups so that the U.S. can claim that Israel is at risk and Bush can come riding in on his high horse to impose his notion of democracy and to isolate Syria by asserting that they are sponsoring any violent reactions that may occur against Israel or its agents in Lebanon, much like Reagan did when he put our troops in Beruit as 'peacekeepers ".

We can only hope that parties and their leadership in Lebanon can ignore the ignorant bleatings of Bush and continue their progress without any exploitation of Washington's interference that threatens to cast Arab against Arab, Christian against Christian, Maronite against Maronite, and the like.

sources:

Hezbollah Rally to Underline Lebanese Rift on Syria-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16095-2005Mar8?language=printer

Hezbollah To Protest U.S. Stance On Lebanon-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11593-2005Mar6?language=printer

[Pachamama]

1. Translation - Syria, you have 60 days before we invade you...

That's what I see in those words....

Anyone else see it differently? :shrug:

[bigtree]

3. I think he will push until there is an action from Hezbollah or those

supporting Syria which threatens Israel. Then he'll act under the ruse of protecting our ally, and he'll gather the likely suspects, France, etc. to start a campaign of condemnation at the U.N.

[Pachamama]

6. Yes, those will be the tactics & strategy within the next 60 days

It's Part 2 to a really bad movie...deja vu all over again...

What comes first - us invading Syria(with the assistance of Israel)or a major Terrorist attack followed by us invading and blaming Syria? :eyes:

[rfranklin]

2. Time to bomb the crap out of those Moslem bastards!

Who's your daddy? George Bush!

[mmonk]

4. Time to grease the war machine

[liberal N proud]

5. Would expect nothing less from a war monger like bu$h

He has already made the decision that we are going to invade. now we start the sell by the whoring media.

[DeaconBlues]

7. Bush is such an asshole he almost makes me want to side with Syria

Almost, but not quite. Lebanon deserves the right to self-determination like any other country, without the interference of Syria, Israel, or America.

[bigtree]

8. I know what you mean

Syria . . .Brrrr!

But if you read the history of the conflict there, the history of the Lebanese war, you can see that without the interference from the U.S. the Soviets, Israel, Iran, Iraq, the PLO, and others, the shape of that region would look very different today. Also you can't view the history of events there without crediting Syria for helping end the bloodshed either, so . . .it gives one pause to brush Syria off as a mere muckraker, even though the Sr. Assad was associated with such a tyranical rule. Syria and Lebanon have formed a dependence of sorts on one another, economically as well as in the mutual resistance to Israeli occupation. That may well be why Syria tolerates and assists(?) Hezbollah, as a wedge against Israel. Indeed, in the '89 U.N. resolution Hezbollah was allowed to keep its weapons because of the continuing Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. I still think that without U.S. interference that Syria could come to some peaceful terms with Israel, but not if Bush and the neocons have their way.

From our distance here in the U.S. most of the actions of the parties there can be viewed through an extreme lens, however, in the context of their bloody history, any reconciliation would be favorable to a reigniting of the strife that led to the hundreds of thousands of killings on all sides of the conflict. Syria can again play an important role in maintaining the uneasy peace.

[DeaconBlues]

9. thanks for the knowledge

as usual, things are more complicated than they seem on the surface of things

[bigtree]

10. *

[theboss]

11. I agree wtih him

For the millionth time, just because Bush says something does not mean it is wrong.

Syria needs to get out of Lebanon completely and let the Lebanese people decide their fate. If that fate turns out to be yet another round of civil war, they will have to live with that. But it has been a proxy state for too long.

[bigtree]

12. I imagine the Shi'ite majority in Lebanon disagrees with Bush

and you. You convieniently ignore the history of Syria's involvement and fail to address the concerns of the Arab Nationalists and the Arab Socialists towards Israel.

My concern about Bush's interference is valid because of the reaction that will surely come from Hezbollah and other groups who are aligned against Israel which could erupt in violence because of Bush's heavy hand. Syria is not the party that has the potential to cause the most unrest, rather, they are the moderating force between real divisions, pro and against Israel, that erupted in the Lebanese civil war. Also there is the issue of Israeli prescence and influence in the south. Indeed, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, whose killing sparked the protests, was likely sparked because he was seen as favoring some sort of peace agreement with Israel. Syria has been implicated. but I doubt that they wanted to create the unrest that would follow such a killing.

It's not just a matter of thinking Bush is wrong on everything, he IS wrong on everything. In this case, Bush's arrogant blustering and grandstanding interference will undoubtably be seen by the Shi'ite plurality as favoring Israel. The consequences of his meddling can only serve to spark action by the Arab Nationalists and others opposed to Israel, like Hezbollah, to resistance and possibly prevent any reasonable compromise which is needed for these sects and factions to live with the change in dynamics that will result from the exit of Syria.

Besides, Syria is moving towards that goal now. Why is Bush trying to muck that up with his heavy hand? What, who can that serve?

[walldude]

13. So who made it our responsibility

to remove Syria from Lebanon and why now? They've been there for over 20 years, this has just become important? Gimme a break... While Bush may be right about Syria needing to get out of Lebanon, thats between Syria and Lebanon. We are not the masters of the world..

[BurtWorm]

14. Just because Bush says something indicates that you have to look into

why he is saying it.

What do you think of the massive rallies in favor of Syria remaining in Lebanon? Aren't they an indication of what the Lebanese people want?