Syria-ous Trouble (and the NAAA-ADC)

www.netwmd.com ^ | 5/19/2003 | Donnel Jones

[forty_years]

Syria-ous Trouble By Donnel Jones, May 19, 2003

It is probably a commonplace, after September 11th, to note the realism and sheer believeability of black satire. How hilarious, now, is the topsy-turvy madness of Monty Python when "Baghdad Bob" announces the imminent ruin of American forces just as Baghdad itself is falling to them? Does Joseph Heller's pitiless novel, Catch 22, hold anything more heart-breaking yet numbingly bizarre than Saddam's children's prisons? What can compare in the real world to the lurid recesses of perversion and cruelty found in David Lynch's suburban settings? How about the blood libel taught to Palestinian children who are led to believe their blood is used to make matzos for Passover?

If you're in the mood for zany humor, try this link to the Congress.org website's "Action Alert" page. On it you will read a bulletin written and presented by The National Association of Arab Americans/American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (NAAA-ADC). In the world of political acronyms that one's a doozie. Its bulletin opposes the Syria Accountability Act. In the best tradition of blogs I will offer my fisking of the NAAA-ADC's bulletin almost line for line.

The proposed legislation includes a series of findings, "sense of Congress" views and statements of policy, all of which are highly critical of Syrian government policies.

With the blithe air of some poor hag who thinks she's a heiress, the delusion that dare not speak its name (hint: it has to do with apologizing for terrorism) begins its assault on common-sense reality. What are we to make of a Congress that is highly critical of a government that sponsors terrorism according to the U.S. State Department? Sure, the U.S. has dealings with Syria to help broker the infinitely quixotic "peace" between the Israelis and Palestinians. And I think we would all agree that kind of nonsense should stop. Yet that same State Department, in the person of Colin Powell, has put the squeeze on Mr. Assad. All this to say, the U.S. is focusing on Syria because it is a terrorist nation and we all know terrorism is a bad thing and must be stopped. Unless, of course, you're the NAAA-ADC.

The proposed legislation seeks to "hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East" by requiring the President to determine and report to Congress that Syria has completely stopped support for terrorism, ended its occupation of Lebanon, stopped its development of weapons of mass destruction, and ceased its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to Iraq. The President must also certify that substantial progress has been made in achieving peace agreements between Israel-Syria and Israel-Lebanon.

What do you do when confronted by an irrationalist who spews junk about astral projection or crystal therapy? You would think it a good idea to ignore him but, when terrorism is afoot, one has no choice but do otherwise. God forbid we should "hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East". That would be like holding Timothy McVeigh responsible for the security problem he caused. Or holding a serial rapist accountable for countless rapes. Of course, the NAAA-ADC doesn't come out and say that Syria is not an international security problem. No where in the screed is there an argument to refute the government's findings about Syria. Hint: it is not only the Congress and State Department that understand Syria is a terrorist state. Watch out for that executive branch with the ten-gallon hat!

As for the occupation of Lebanon, why quibble? Since this occupation is completely ignored by the United Nations, the Arab/Muslim world, and our friends the Europeans, which mean France, Germany, and Mother Russia, why should I bring it up now? It can't be that important since the NAAA-ADC simply states that such occupation is indeed a fact and the government is apparently wrong-headed to call for its cessation. That is, the NAAA-ADC is acknowledging the fact without calling it a crime while simultaneously opposing the government's attempt to do anything about it. Unless, of course, the NAAA-ADC doesn't consider Syria's occupation of Lebanon illegal and an act of brutal aggression.

. . . its development of weapons of mass destruction, and ceased its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to Iraq.

Same reality check. NAAA-ADC nowhere claims that Syria is not developing weapons of mass destruction. It seems to acknowledge the fact that Syria is developing them. Then how would it explain that the U.S. shouldn't hold Syria accountable for developing weapons of mass destruction and, for that matter, importing illegal shipments of Iraqi oil?

Until the President does so, he is required to prohibit export to Syria of any item on the U.S. munitions list or Commerce control list of dual-use items.

Sounds sensible to me unless, of course, you don't think Syria is a super-rogue state. Surely Hamas, Hizbollah, and Islamic Jihad are only vacationing in Syria between gigs murdering Israeli babies. But I ask the NAAA-ADC if it is right to prohibit export of arms to, say, North Korea.

The President must also certify that substantial progress has been made in achieving peace agreements between Israel-Syria and Israel-Lebanon.

Will there be peace in our time between Israel and Syria, and between Israel and Lebanon - excuse me - I meant Israel and Syria? No kind of "peace" can be implemented when a thug like Assad (no, not because he's Arab but because, as with the non-Semitic Iranian mullahs, he's part of a bad bunch) maintains a terrorist infrastructure linked to Tehran and, formerly, to Baghdad. Because it is a member of the UN Security Council, the NAAA-ADC might think Syria is a respectable sort of nation, willing to negotiate with those ruffians in Congress. Nothing could be further from the truth, but this will have to remain academic (like the question of whether or not terrorism is something bad) because the truth is not something the NAAA-ADC and its supporters at all understand when it comes to Syria.

In addition, unless Syria meets certain conditions, the President would be required to impose two additional sanctions from a "menu" of six sanctions.

Oh dear! How awful! The President must exact good behavior on the part of Syria! Yes, there is something faintly absurd about the use of the word "menu" but would we prefer a "menu" of suicide attacks against Israelis on buses or in cafes complete with an a la carte assortment of other tactics like dirty bombs or anthrax for world-wide consumption, compliments of the house of Iran and Syria as well as Syrian occupied Lebanon?

According to H.R. 1828, the report must include details about any connections between terrorists or terrorist groups that maintain offices, facilities, or bases in Syria or Syrian occupied areas of Lebanon as well ways in which the U.S. is increasing efforts against Hizballah "given the recognition that Hizballah is equally or more capable than al Qaeda."

There we go again, naming the "Syrian occupied areas of Lebanon." I have to say I'm impressed by the level of moral obtuseness that is able to name the crime that is not deemed a crime. "[T]he U.S. is increasing efforts against Hisballah"? Can we only hope? Is there an Allah? Do you prefer cream or artificial dairy? I'm willing to wager that the U.S. will continue to recognize that "Hizballah is equally or more capable than al Qaeda". Moral clarity and vigilance against over-estimating your enemy - that is, knowing the enemy - are a good thing. I wonder what enemy the NAAA-ADC recognizes. Does it, for that matter, truly, in its heart of hearts, recognize the state of Israel? But that, again, is an academic question.

The scare quotes around "Hizballah is equally or more capable than al Qaeda" might tell us the NAAA-ADC doesn't believe Hizbollah has what it takes to be big league like al Qaeda. Does it want to wager that implication? Or are we to believe that Hizbollah would never harm America? Or merely that it isn't capable? The quotes put the statement within them in question. What question or counter-argument is the NAAA-ADC proposing? None. We're left with a silence of omission. Such is the resort of appeasers and the complicitous.

We urge you to contact your members of Congress to ask them not to cosponsor the "Syria Accountability Act" (H.R. 1828 and S. 982). The proposed legislation could circumvent the Executive Branch's constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

It especially warms my heart when I see the NAAA-ADC care about balance of power and due process. You wanna bet that the NAAA-ADC would support legislation against Israel? I might agree with the argument that the Congress shouldn't determine foreign policy but I can assure you that that is not foremost among the NAAA-ADC's concerns. We can only hope that with or without the Syria Accountability Act, Bush will not tolerate Syrian duplicity and complicity in terrorism for too long.

In addition, cosponsoring the proposed legislation as U.S. troops leave Iraq and when the Bush Administration has announced a "road map" for peace in the Middle East would send a confusing message to the international community that raises serious doubts about American intentions in the region and about the Administration's commitment to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

And the point is? Since when was the U.S. leaving Iraq anyway? I thought more troops were on the way. At least, that better be what is happening because we can't allow chaos to continue in Iraq. As for the "road map," I too used to believe in the tooth fairy, but there is a time you really have to grow up. I hope we are not only reading Bush's lips as we did his father. The sign reads No "road map" till Arafat and all other terrorists and their supporters are out of the picture.

Finally, the proposed legislation appears to purposefully set the Syrian compliance standard so high which would force the President to severely undermine current U.S.-Syrian relations and possibly jeopardize successful U.S.-Syrian cooperation in the war against global terrorism. Instead of singling out one country, the U.S. Congress should endorse the creation of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). NAAA-ADC firmly agrees with Secretary of State Colin Powell statement on April 15, 2003: "With respect to weapons of mass destruction, it has always been U.S. policy that we would like to see that whole region free of weapons of mass destruction."

How high the standards? Consider that Syria is host to the biggest terrorist resort in the world, the Bekka Valley in Syrian occupied Lebanon. The IRA did a stint there too and even taught the Colombian FARC a few tricks along with giving them a supply of weapons. Syria is a terrorist nation by any standard, except by that of the NAAA-ADC which seems to have no standards at all for terrorism while holding the U.S. Congress somehow accountable for trying to make Syria accountable.

Let's repeat . . . appears to purposefully set the Syrian compliance standard so high which would force the President to severely undermine current U.S.-Syrian relations and possibly jeopardize successful U.S.-Syrian cooperation in the war against global terrorism.

Just what on earth are we to make of this? Remember "Baghdad Bob" and his insistence on a reality that never was. Syria, likewise, is not an ally of the U.S. in the war against terrorism. Syria is part of the terrorist problem. O.K., the U.S. has diplomatic ties with Syria but the rogue nation is by no means a cooperative agent in the war against terrorism. That's like the State Department calling Iran a democracy. It's simply false on its face.

Instead of singling out one country, the U.S. Congress should endorse . . .

That word "endorse." I thought the NAAA-ADC didn't want Congress to circumvent the Executive Branch in matters of foreign policy.

As for the U.S. Congress should endorse the creation of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, I quite agree. What could be a clearer statement of moral fact and necessity than that? The NAAA-ADC has the right priorities after all. There could be no better endorsement to bring about peace in the Middle East. How to do it? That's where the NAAA-ADC and sane human beings everywhere part company.

Start with Syria. What's all this nonsense and double-speak about not picking on poor Syria? If we want the whole Middle East free of terrorism we have to uproot it where it most resides and festers. That means Syria, ladies and gentlemen. As well as Iran. These nations form the nexus of Islamist terror. Of course, Saudi Arabia is also in cahoots, but having the "holy" nation surrounded by a democratic Iraq and, one hopes, a democratic Iran and Syria will not make things pleasant for the royal family or its religiously crazed subjects who hate them.

But this is a useless, and therefore academic, exercise. The NAAA-ADC doesn't really believe Syria has weapons of mass destruction or why would it oppose the Syria Accountability Act or, at the very least, why does it not explicitly acknowledge that Syria is to be held accountable even while it opposes Congressional action in favor, one might assume, of Executive action? And if Syria doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, the belief in which assertion would otherwise explain the NAAA-ADC's "innocent" aversion to holding Syria accountable, then where in the Middle East do such weapons exist? In Iran only? Because, if the NAAA-ADC calls for freeing the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, there has to be a pretty clear realization that there are weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. What better place to start than Syria?

Or would the NAAA-ADC suggest the U.S. treat the entire Middle East the same heavy-handed way it should Syria in order to free the whole area of weapons of mass destruction? Of course, not. The NAAA-ADC wants the entire region to be appeased because it certainly wouldn't endorse having strong medicine, requisite for Syria and Iran, applied to the entire region. The NAAA-ADC can barely stomach having Syria be held accountable.

Quoting Colin Powell, "[w]ith respect to weapons of mass destruction, it has always been U.S. policy that we would like to see that whole region free of weapons of mass destruction." It is not very helpful, or respectful, to have Powell playing the village idiot. Yes, we would all like to see the whole region free of weapons of mass destruction. Everyone, apparently, but the NAAA-ADC since they profess that dealing with Syria so harshly is bad for Syria, the Middle East, and the United States. That leaves us with appeasement.

Wouldn't you too want your neighborhood free, say, of child molesters? But you don't throw all the adult males in jail without due process. No. You find the perpetrators (read, Syria) and jail them and make the penalty very harsh to discourage would-be molesters (read, someone in Los Angeles). Ditto for terrorism.

Let's end this "fisking" by linking you to WMD's support for the Syria Accountability Act. Please sign up to support this legislation. If you're squeamish about Congress circumventing the foreign policy authority of the President, drop him a line and tell him you don't want him to coddle Bashar Assad and the Iranian mullahs. Let them be buried in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

[forty_years]

How can Arab-Americans defend regimes like Syria?