The Battle Over Syria - Don't Forget about Justice in Lebanon

Syria has launched an interesting ploy in response to the Mehlis Report. American blogger Joshua Landis is offering the Syrian regime assistance in promoting their rhetoric.

What maks their stance so offensive to me is that they entirely neglect Lebanon. To them, Syria didn't bring this mess on itself: "This whole situation is entirely an American game that has to do with Iraq with Syria in the middle. Lebanon? Hariri? Justice? No, no, no. This is all about Syria and America, and America's current abuse of Syria." This line of thinking is downright offensive to anyone who gives a wink about Lebanon or justice or terror or conspiracy to commit murder or blackmail or...

Landis posts a letter from Syrian Ambassador to the United States Imad Mustapha. Over the last few weeks, Landis has made many similar claims to those offered by the Ambassador.

The Syrians are framing the current debate as one between the United States and Syria. They are basically contending that "the Mehlis Report is simply a token part of America's argument. The Mehlis Commission is merely a device through which to use international institutions to isolate Syria for other reasons."
There is some truth to this argument, and Lebanese are frightened that the US will make some sort of deal with Syria that denies justice to our country.

Syria is smart to dialogue with prominent Americans that could put pressure on the administration.
Syria is trying to define the debate as being about Iraq. Landis makes the outrageous claim that the Bush Administration is allowing the killing of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians by not engaging with Syria. In their logic, the US campaign for democracy is somehow damaging the campaign in Iraq. This argument is appealing in the face of growing American opposition to the Iraq War. They are offering Americans a way to say, "Support our troops," even if it is really a way to say, "Support the Assad regime."

Regardless of how tailored the Syrian and Landis arguments are to the American audience, they do not reflect the truth.

1. Mustapha and Landis argue that America is putting pressure on Syria to secure its border. They contend that if America cooperated with Syria, even more terror in Iraq could be stopped. Simultaneously, Syria claims it has secured the border. In his letter, Mustapha claims that the border patrol is now at 10,000 men and that Syria has built massive walls of sand.
So, why haven't insurgents stopped coming across the border? The Syrians claim they can't do much more. But is it America's job to stop terrorist activities brewing in Syria? Does Syria want a brigade of FBI investigators running around their country looking for insurgents? Wouldn't that be an infringement on Syrian sovereignty? Americans don't have nearly as much experience implementing security states as a regime that's been doing that for forty years.
So, how EXACTLY would American "cooperation" do anything to stop the insurgent campaign in Iraq? Or, is that just a Syrian excuse to get the US to stop pressuring them?

2. The Mustapha and Landis arguments are predicated on the possible collapse of the Syrian regime. They claim that this will cause horrible things to happen: ethnic strife, the proliferation of terror, the Syrian black market being used to promote terrorism, further conflict in Lebanon, a mass wave of immigration to Europe, and on. However, it's truly hard to see all of this happening simultaneously.
a. Syrians are already part of the massive immigration wave to Europe. Ask the Greeks.
Of course, violent conflict would create refugees, but violent conflict is not guaranteed. That is, unless the Assad regime wants to make sure that proliferation of violent conflict occurs with the collapse of the regime. If so, the US would be keeping the regime in power because the regime is blackmailing the region.
b. Would Syrian terrorists up and move to Iraq if ethnic conflict occurred at home? Will more American soldiers die because Syrian terrorists stop going to Iraq? Would the US and Kurdish peshmerga stand by and watch as terrorists from other countries flock to war torn Syrian to take advantage of the black market and then use Syria as an entry point into Iraq?
c. Aren't there possible ways for the Assad regime to come down without violent consequences? Tony Badran has a few suggestions.

3. Mustapha and Landis are claiming that if only America dialogued with Syria, all of the problems would stop. They claim that Syria is not promoting terror. Landis uses arguments made by human rights officials (translation, Democrats read this part) to say that Syria is cracking down on Islamic militants.
And yet we know that Syria continues to support Palestinian terror and is promoting the terror campaign in Lebanon. The Palestinian Authority is being undermined because the violent parties remove legitimacy from Mahmoud Abbas. Dennis Ross believes Abbas needs to reign these folks in to gain credibility. But how can Abbas do this if Syria is constantly supporting Palestinian terror.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command leader Ahmad Jibreel was receiving massive shipments of weapons until the Lebanese government stopped their illegal movement from Syria just a few weeks ago. When UN inspectors went to the Bekaa to investigate if Syria fully complied with the pull out this past spring, Jibreel's men fired on them. Jibreel was accused in the Mehlis Report of taking part in the Hariri assassination.
This week, the Lebanese government arrested men responsible for the recent assassination and terror campaign in Lebanon. These men claim that Syrian Brigadier General Jamaa Jamaa was the one who initiated and supported these attacks. And Syria and Landis claim that the Assad regime is cracking down on terrorism?

Syria wants to play the game both ways. It wants to claim that it doesn't support terror, but then also hold "cards" for negotiations. They want to claim their innocence, but then have bargaining chips with the US and Israel. They want to continue ruling Lebanon by controlling machines of violence.

4. The Syrians and Landis completely neglect the importance of the Mehlis Commission to Lebanon. It's as if the Hariri assassination isn't a big deal to them. It's as if they are saying, "Why should a government collapse if the entire leadership is implicated in a terrorist attack they planned, implemented, covered up, have lied about, and intentionally obscured?"
They claim the whole debate is about Iraq and Syria's relations with the United States. But they are wrong and intentionally misleading.
In a post prior to reprinting Imad Mustapha's propaganda, Landis posts an interview with US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. In this interview, Bolton continually stresses that the main issue of importance regarding the Mehlis Commission is the heinous act Syrian security commited in Lebanon. He does not suggest that the Syrian regime needs to be overthrown.

I'm glad that the United States is defending the interest of Lebanon and the Mehlis Commission at the UN. Lebanon does not have the power to do so itself, and Syria is continually trying to work its way back into Lebanon.

We have nothing to do with the US debate over Iraq. But we do need the Mehlis Commission, and we do think that the Assad regime needs to be held accountable until it fully complies with the Commission. Given that the Mehlis Report implicated the Syrian regime, we believe those found responsible must be brought to trial.

Overthrowing the regime is another issue entirely, and yet that is what the Assad regime and Landis are focusing on. They are basically saying, "Why should the Syrian regime cooperate with the Mehlis Commission? Why should the Hariri family and the Lebanese people know the truth? Why should we admit that we committed an indefensible attack? The only thing important to us is our regime, and we will make excuses up as to why we should be kept around. Those excuses include our ability to blackmail you by threatening the stability of the entire region. If you bring us down, we will launch a terror campaign against everyone else in the neighborhood. If you let us stay around, we'll do something for you about Iraq."

Landis and Mustapha may not be admitting this, but stellar journalist Anthony Shadid - who the propaganda abetting Landis even links to - gets Syrian parliamentarian Georges Jabbour to admit this: ""Of course, we know really what matters to the United States is Iraq," said Jabbour, the Syrian legislator. "So is there a Syrian-American deal on Iraq? Would Syria help the United States pacify Iraq? I don't know.""