Walid Joumblatt takes on Lebanon's self-appointed geo-strategists

Walid Joumblatt is hereditary leader of the P.S.P, the Progressive Socialist Party of Lebanon. If that sounds a little strange, it is. Walid inherited the leadership from his father, Kamal Joumblatt, who founded the party and who was assassinated by the Syrians back in 1977.

Kamal was one of Lebanon's true giants, a man who cast his shadow over decades of Lebanese history, who embodied endless contradictions and who combined within himself thinker, mystic, factional chief and politician. I had an opportunity once to spend several hours with him at his home in the Shouf mountains. As I was leaving he walked into another room and returned with a well-worn book by the Indian mystic Sivananda, which he gave me as a parting present. I still have that book to this day and I've spent many an hour with it over the years.

Politically speaking, the P.S.P., over time, became much more the sectarian faction of the Druze community in Lebanon than an ideological party with general appeal.

Walid, who took over after his father's murder and had to shepherd the Druze through years of civil war and invasions by Israel and Syria, has been less the intellectual and more the warlord, by his own accounting. A few years ago, while discussing Lebanon's future he was quoted as saying something like: 'Let the new generation take over. None of us should even have a seat at the table. We all have far too much blood on our hands."

All that said, Walid is a pretty interesting guy in his own right and certainly an intellectual by any standard. With a marked tendency towards shooting from the hip and and a love of heavy sarcasm. The reason I'm writing this post about him is because of something he wrote in the P.S.P magazine yesterday. Sounds like he might be getting just a little fed up with his countrymen.

I'm translating (freely) from a French-language article I ran across in l'Orient le Jour. Translating from the orginal Arabic would take me a week.

"(Walid Joumblatt) indicated that 'if he didn't want to take a position (on the US strikes against Syria) it is because he doesn't want to disturb the integrity and the concentration of the Lebanon's great strategists, and also because he is in full support of the right of the Lebanese to acquaint themselves with every possible military and political point of view, no matter how superficial and assinine it might be.'

'The heavyweights of the Lebanese political class, with their many branches in Lebanon and the four corners of the globe, have long since become geo-strategists in their own right and now can spend their time planning, reflecting upon and interpreting all the huge and momentous changes taking place in the Mideast. '

(What they forget to think about)  'are things like the ever-growing flood of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, the budgetary deficit, the fact that Lebanon has gone now several years without even having a budget, corruption, administrative deterioration,' (and he goes on to mention several other important local issues).

Mr Joumblatt goes on to explain this disinterest by the fact that 'the majority of these political heavyweights have transformed their bedrooms and even their bathrooms into regional operations centers where they wait in front of their personal radar screens for the first missile launch.'"

The Syrian war continues to haunt us.

Here's another dispatch I put together for Pacifica. No idea whether or not it'll see air, but after doing that much writing it seemed silly not to use it as a post. Plus, it's got some new and fairly interesting information.

____________________________________

Beirut, September 10, 2013

While events elsewhere over the last 48 hours have made people here in Beirut cautiously optimistic that a US strike on Syria can be averted, the response from Lebanese officials and the city's diplomatic corps is strangely out of sync.

One day before the anniversary of 9-11, the US embassy on Monday repeated its earlier warnings to US citizens, advising them via a Twitter feed that “U.S. citizens living and working in Lebanon should understand that they accept risks in remaining and should carefully consider those risks.”

The British, French and German embassies have all issued warnings to their nationals to either leave Lebanon or sharply restrict travel within the country to Beirut and its safer northern suburbs.

Among the Gulf states, the Saudi embassy yesterday advised its citizens to leave the country immediately. Kuwait has not only urged Kuwaitis to leave but has organized evacuation flights to help get its citizens out of Lebanon. Bahrain, which itself has been hit by sectarian conflict over the last several years, also urged its nationals to return home.

The exception has been Italy, which has not only issued no warnings, but which reaffirmed Monday that it had no immediate plans to do so. It has, however, urged Italians planning to visit Lebanon to reconsider their travel plans in the light of the current security situation.

At the same time, Lebansese officials have been meeting over the last few days with members of the diplomatic community to reassure them that the government is taking effective measures to combat any possible attack on their personnel or facilities. Given the government's historical inability to counter such attacks it seems these assurances are being taken with a grain of salt. Syria alone has been blamed for dozens of successful assassinations and car bombings in Lebanon over the last few decades. Bashar el Assad's public threats against French and American targets in the last few days can hardly have helped calm the waters. Assad's forces may be weakened on the ground in Syria, but his ability to reach any part of Lebanon, either through his intelligence services or using his local ally, Hezb Allah, is unquestioned.

What IS surprising is the ramping up of tension here in Beirut just as things on the international front seem to be improving. After two weeks of anxiety that led many to flee the city and left the streets miraculously empty, business was just returning to normal after the weekend. In fact, yesterday it took me nearly an hour to travel about a mile in the southern suburbs near Chatilla refugee camp. Last week the same trip would probably have taken less than 10 minutes.

Now, with the announcement of renewed measures by the embassies and the governement, the question is: what do they know that we don't? At the moment, this is a question without an answer.

Meanwhile, Beirut is about to be hit by another catastrophe in the making: a new wave of Syrian refugees spilling across the border from all parts of Syria and converging on Beirut. This latest exodus is partly the result of terror following the Ghouta chemical attacks and partly fear of US strikes. Relief workers and NGOs are estimating that several tens of thousands of additional refugees will arrive in the near future. Official government estimates are even higher.

Syrian refugees in Lebanon already face daunting challenges. Finding shelter in an area where rents are on a par with much of Europe and the US is often an impossibility. When they can find shelter, many families are forced to share space, and live in dangerously overcrowded conditions. One small apartment in the building where I live apparently housed more than 20 people for several months. Others have no shelter and are reduced to living on the streets, in construction sites or in open areas.


Thousands of Syrian refugees travel for weeks or even months overland before they arrive in the Beirut area. By the time they get here, they are under-nourished and often ill. Relief groups have been overwhelmed and have seen their budgets shrink and then disappear.

Lebanese officials are also warning of a coming crisis in the educational system. With the school year just getting underway, the public school system is facing utter collapse, as the flood of refugee children reaches its doors. Recently, school officials stopped all further admissions, saying that they were already far above capacity. Of course, this means that thousands of children of refugee families will not have access to education for the foreseeable future. According to government spokespersons, millions of dollars in promised international aid has failed to materialize, leaving them with no options.

For Syrian refugees of Palestinian orgin, the situation is even worse. Due to discriminatory policies under Lebanese law and unclear jurisdictions on the part of UN relief agencies Palestinians fleeing refugee camps in contested areas of Syria are subject to much tighter restrictions than other refugees. Among others, they are not allowed to work in the Lebanese economy, not allowed to live outside established Palestinian refugee camps, and subject to harsh security measures. One result is that Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, already hopelessly overcrowded, are now reeling under the influx of tens of thousands of new arrivals.

Going out on a limb....a prediction: no US strikes!

As Yogi Berra pointed out, predicting the future is always so much harder than any other kind of predicting. Nevertheless, I want to go on record here and predict that the US strikes on Syria will not come to pass.

For the last couple of days I've been reassuring friends and family who were justifiably anxious after the State Department announced it was sending people home and advised the rest of us to skedadle. Pointing out that I'm carrying a Swiss passport wasn't sufficient to convince them, so, for the last 48 hours or so I've been explaining why I don't think the strikes will happen. In fact, I think that the US government is hard at work on a climb-down that will allow it to claim victory without military action. And has been, ever since Obama suddenly decided he needed cover from Congress before hitting Syria.

Here's the logic that brought me to that conclusion:

My first clue came when Obama decided to 'consult' Congress. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this looked suspiciously like hitting the brakes hard at 60 mph. You only really do that if you're trying to stop the vehicle. Also, it suddenly imposed at least a 2 week horizon on something that had to be done while the issue was hot, in order to expect public support.

The second clue came in the form of the l'Orient le Jour article I translated here a few days ago. In it, we learned about a whole hidden world of behind-the-scenes communication between the US, Russia, Syria and Iran. One of the important take-aways was the fact that US - Russia channels were hard at work trying to work a solution, in contrast to all the bellicose public posturing. This immediately told me that Russia - ostensibly the bad guy in the movie - was probably going to turn out to be a key player in resolving things.

The US needed international agreement, at a bare minimum, before taking any action. Once the Brits pulled out, it was left to France to play the role of international 'coalition'. This looked like a pretty good bet right up until yesterday, when French officials suddenly started mumbling about needing to go back to the UN, after all. At that point, we're now talking about several more weeks of wearying diplomacy before anything at all can be done.

Letting a hot issue be buried by the news cycle is always a strategy, and it looks to me like this is what Obama is up to. He can talk tough, but as the issue fades in people's minds and public support evaporates (such as it is, according to reports I've seen it's never been even a bare majority) it becomes easier to slowly climb down, at least on the domestic scene.

Internationally, however, things are a little more complicated. The US doesn't want to/can't be seen to make empty threats, so something has to give on the other side. Here's where the Russians ride to the rescue. As we learned from l'Orient le Jour (and elsewhere since then) they've already been putting pressure on Iran and Assad. And to some avail, as Ayatollah Rafsanjani himself referred to the Syrian use of chemical weapons in a speech two or three days ago. The reference was redacted in later versions, but the signal was clear. And yesterday we had reports that Iran has been leaning on Syria to commit to no further use of these weapons.

Simultaneously, an interesting change in US policy: in what was supposedly a 'gaffe' by Kerry, but may actually have been a covert signal to the Russians, the Administration suddenly announced that military action might be avoided if Syria gave up its chemical stocks within a week's time. Aha! So, we might not need to bomb after all. Then came another step: the US went soft on the one-week deadline. So far, so good!

Here's where the Russians come in. And, in fact, we heard this evening, right on schedule, that Lavrov has demanded that the Syrians commit to no further use of chemical weapons.

And, if you think about it, this is all the US needs to hear. The people of Ghouta are dead and can't be brought back, no matter how massive the US attack. The only question ever at issue was that of future use. All the talk about 'punishment' was to drum up support at home and in Europe - and never really seemed to convince its intended audience. ( I have to admit to being somewhat of an exception. However, that's just how I feel about the Assad regime, in general.) Countries don't 'punish' one another for moral lapses, for the simple reason that morality plays no part in how international affairs are conducted - in fact, as opposed to in the public sphere. My friend May a couple of days ago put together a list of US uses of chemical and near-chemical weapons in recent decades...and the list is as long as your arm. If you want to add European countries and the USSR to the list it immediately doubles or trebles in length.

So, here's the scenario going forward - as predicted by Michel:

Efforts to put together some sort of 'coalition' continue, as a pressure tactic. They have no practical importance at this point. Ditto for Congress.

Assad makes as many threats as he likes, whether against the US, the French or the Inuit. He already probably knows his chemical stocks are going back on the shelf, at least for the time being.

The Russians are sitting pretty. They get to make a sudden transformation from outlaws to Texas Rangers. In a few days they announce that Assad has agreed to no further use of chemical weapons, thus obviating the need to strike his forces.

The US gets to announce that they've succeeded in getting Syria to back down without the use of force. Everybody is happy, and the human shields on their way to Syria can go home or spend some time in Greece on the way back.

I think it was my sister, Carole, who asked, 'can Assad be trusted'. To which the answer is twofold: No, of course not. And, it doesn't matter. As long as he appears to knuckle under, the file on this particular crisis can be closed. No doubt, the US will make threats about what will happen if he reneges. But they can use the interim to work on developing a more workable approach, should Assad prove to be a recidivist.

The Saudis, the Qataris, and particularly Prince Bandar (alive or dead?) go back to work doing what they were doing anyway, trying to topple Assad through more humdrum means. By humdrum I refer to the use of jihadi madmen who, if they win, will lead a worldwide jihadi terror attack on...Saudi Arabia. Well, the Saudis feel they're pretty well insulated by their fearsome intelligence services which eats jihadis for breakfast. Nevertheless, they may live to regret the day they adopted this particular strategy.

Wow, that's two predictions for the price of one!

The US and Europe can return to dithering about which particular faction of the Syrian opposition is worthy of receiving support in the form of small arms and maybe a few flak jackets. The war in Syria will continue to kill innocent civilians just as surely, but using acceptable means.

And we, in Beirut, have one less reason to eyeball parked cars anxiously as we head to the cafe whose generator allows full-time (more or less) internet. As opposed to our apartments, where power is always out, about to go out, or shouldn't have gone out, but did.

Until something else big happens in Syria.

Now for something entirely different!

I've been working on a story about the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon, and a sad and infuriating story it is. I've also been planning to start posting a few things on that same topic - it's always easier to run off at the mouth about whatever you're thinking about anyway than to come up with something entirely different.

But instead it looks like this post is going to be about a mishmash of other things. Most of those other things have to do with the current situation here in Beirut - always a huge pleasure to talk about - and some are related to previous posts in one way or another.

So, diving right in, I'm very proud that this blog managed to scoop Democracy Now! a couple of days ago. Yesterday DN! ran this story, Bandar's Iran/contra, in which Wall Street Journal reporter Adam Entous discussed Saudi Prince Bandar's involvement in raising and training an army to take down the Assad regime in Syria. However, attentive readers of this blog (yes, both of you!) will have noticed that I covered exactly the same story two days earlier. And included some details that the DN! story didn't, such as the fact that Bandar may or may not be actually alive. That might have some bearing on the story!

Well, that last bit came from basic research, I.E., the internet. And the rest of my 'story' wasn't actually mine, either. Rather, it was a translation of a story in the local French-language rag, l'Orient le Jour. Nevertheless, coming in with relevant information - whatever the source - TWO FULL DAYS before Democracy Now! was fun.

Onward and upward. No, downward. There have been developments in the recent car bombings here in Beirut and Tripoli (Lebanon, not Libya). My first tantalizing bit of information came from a fellow service passenger who told me he had heard that Syria - meaning Bashar el Assad's regime - was behind both sets of bombings.

This was questionable. For those who haven't been following daily events here (sounds relaxing!) the first two bombings, several weeks apart, were in the Shia' southern suburbs of Beirut, which is Hezbullah territory. In other words, they appeared to be 'payback' for Hezbullah's support of the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war.

The second set of bombings occured together and targeted two Sunni mosques in Tripoli, killing dozens of people just as Friday prayers were ending. They appeared to be revenge for the Beirut car bombs.

So, it would stand to reason that someone who didn't like the Assad regime would have carried out the first bombings. Leaving the Tripoli bombings as probably carried out by Hezbullah and/or Syria as revenge.

Things in Lebanon are not usually that simple.

Nevertheless, I came away from the service ride with serious doubts. I still have some, but later that day I came across the following headline in l'Orient le Jour:

« Les attentats de la banlieue sud et de Tripoli sont l’œuvre du régime syrien », souligne le 14 Mars

In English: "The attacks in the southern suburbs and in Tripoli were (both) the work of the Syrian regime" emphasizes 14 March.

This requires a little explanation, since, unless you live here '14 March' is meaningless.

The term '14 March' refers to the political coalition which led what Lebanese call the 'Independence Intifada' and Westerners the 'Cedar Revolution'. The Cedar Revolution brought hundreds of thousands of people into the streets soon after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri - assumed to be the work of Syria - back in 2005. It was Lebanon's short-lived version of the Arab Spring.

The 14 March coalition was opposed by the 8 March coalition, led by Hezbullah, which brought its supporters into the streets to - quoting from Hassan Nasrallah - 'thank Syria'. He didn't include the assassination in the list of things Syria was being thanked for, but since his speech came just a few weeks after Hariri's murder, the implication was pretty clear.

The 14 Marchers actually succeeded in forcing Syria to withdraw its occupying troops and, at least as importantly, most of its mukhabarat (intelligence services). This was a big deal. The role of Syria in Lebanon is much too big of a topic to go into here. Suffice it to say that the Syrian regime has for decades had ultimate control of most political developments in Lebanon and has used any method at all to enforce that control. Bombings and assassinations have been its preferred method since the 1977 murder of Druze/Socialist leader Kamal Joumblatt. Along with actual invasions when necessary.

Lebanese will tell you that the long-range hopes and goals of 14 March have mostly died the painful death that is the fate of most good ideas in the region. An end to sectarianism, true democratic institutions, good governance and effective control of the entire territory of the nation were among those aims. None seem materially more advanced today than they were in 2005.

Still, getting rid of the Syrians was a huge event, an earthquake in Syrian-Lebanese relations. And the Syrian regime has never forgotten the humiliation for a minute.

So, where was I? Oh yes, 14 March still exists as a loose coalition of parties and movements, and they still meet and operate in concert to some extent. And it was at their most recent meeting that they announced that they had evidence that Syria was behind both sets of bombings. My fellow cab passenger may have been right!

Why would even a guy as clearly mad as Bashar el Assad bomb the neighborhoods of his own allies? Especially in the middle of a brutal war in which that alliance is crucial to his survival?

This is a tricky question, and some light might be shed on it by asking another, related, question: why do Saudi Arabia and Qatar send money and arms to Jihadist rebels in Syria when those same rebels will turn on them immediately if they gain a foothold in the region? One could also ask: why does Iran send money to Hamas in Gaza, when Hamas - as a Sunni organization - is definitely full of people who despise Shia' Islam?

One is tempted to ask why the US essentially created the Afghan mujahideen and al Qa'eda, who very predictably became their worst nightmare. But I'm not asking that question, because I think in this particular case clueless stupidity may be a sufficent answer. Or not, see my earlier posts on the Grand Plot. At any rate, it's worth contemplating the fact that the US engages in this kind of behavior also.

Anyway, helping the enemy of your enemy in this part of the world is a strategy with a long history.* Setting off bombs in your ally's backyard works if it inflames your ally against your enemy. Ironically, it will probably continue to work even after the truth becomes known, because so much blood has now been shed on both sides.

The importance of personal insanity within the leadership can never be discounted, but there are actually advantages for the Syrian regime in fomenting sectarian war in Lebanon. Among them might be, ironically, an important increase in the power and influence of Hezbullah, and thus a back door for a Syrian return to Lebanon.

___________________________________

Well, enough on that topic for the moment. I have a couple of other items I wanted to mention. They both have to do with the Great Plot, which I wrote about at some length a couple of weeks ago. Recall that this plot is an attempt on the part of the West and Israel to carve the Mideast up into sectarian mini-states, thereby assuring Israel's dominance and Western control of resources.

A couple of days ago I came across this headline in the Daily Star, Beirut's English-language paper:

Rai warns of pro-Israel 'foreign agenda' against region

The article goes on to say 'Beshara Rai warned Thursday of a pro-Israel “foreign agenda” aimed at dividing the region into confessional pockets.' And more along those lines. So, what's the importance of this? It's in the fact that Beshara Rai isn't just some guy on the street; he's the Maronite (I.E., Christian) Patriarch of Lebanon. In other words, even the religious patriarch of the most westernized community in Lebanon believes - at least publicly - in the existence of the Great Plot against the Arab world. Interesting, to say the least.

Finally, just to cap the whole business off, here's another recent headline from l'Orient le Jour:

Egypte: une cigogne arrêtée pour espionnage

This is going to require some translation:

Eygpt: stork arrested for espionnage

The story goes on to explain that a stork was captured and detained by Egyptian security because it was wearing a small, mysterious, box on its person. The authorities suspected immediately that the box contained some sort of spy apparatus and that the stork had been sent into Egyptian airspace to carry out espionnage. After several days, the bird was released when it was determined that the box's function was 'un appareil ornithologique destiné à suivre les migrations de l'oiseau', I.E. an ornithological device to track the bird's migrations.

It also transpired that the stork was Hungarian, not Israeli.

At first I thought of this story as a perfect illustration of how completely over-the-top the regional predeliction for suspicion has gotten. And, in fact, that was the slant of the orginal story, which ran as a kind of can-you-believe-this? in-joke.

Then I remembered a couple of things. Back when I was at Yale, in the late 60s, I worked briefly in the lab of Jorge Delgado, famous for his experiments at using brain implants to control animal activity. Famous also because he was once gored by a bull who failed to respond to his button presses. That lab was entirely funded by the US Navy, and the shelves were stuffed with documents - probably classified - on the progress of experimentation on using dolphins as living torpedos and other similarly uplifting examples of science at work.

I also recalled a recent magazine article, kind of an update to Delgado's ancient work, that detailled progress in using insects as tiny drones. Apparently, the technology is well-advanced and should be in the field before long.

The problem with a drone is that it's a very small plane. Small, but still a plane. If you can turn a bird into a drone...well, then it's just a bird.

Which intelligence service in the world is NOT working on this?

_____________________________________

* For those who might be inclined to think to themselves, 'well, at least the Israelis don't do this kind of stuff', let me point out quickly that shortly after independence Israel carried out a well-documented series of bombings against the Jewish community in Iraq, in order to encourage Iraqi Jews to move to Israel. Since then, the number of false-flag and other terrorist operations that can reasonably be attributed to Israel is very high.

Syria: the back channel according to l'Orient le Jour

Today I had an interview down the street at Mar Elias Refugee Camp. The interview, with Palestinian jurist Suheil Natour, was extremely interesting. On the way back, given the sun and the heat, I decided to stop for a drink before climbing the hill back towards the apartment. The obvious place to stop: the Sheraton Four Points. In addition to the certainty that I could spend even more there for an iced coffee than I would in Paris, the lure of the cognitive dissonance was simply too strong. What the stock picture I just grabbed online fails to show is that the hotel basically overlooks the camp. From either place, the other is just a stone's throw and a universe away.

Here's the Sheraton:

And here's Mar Elias camp:

My visit to the Sheraton had a couple of upsides, other than the $7 coffee. First, it proved my suspicion that there are no tourists whatsoever in Beirut this summer. In the hour I sat in the lobby drinking and reading the paper I saw not one - not a single one - tourist or, for that matter, westerner. Worrying about the Sheraton is beyond my abilities, but the situation for thousands of small businesses in Beirut is catastrophic.

The other positive result was that I happened upon today's l'Orient le Jour, Beirut's French-language newspaper. In it I ran across an interesting article by one of their reporters entitled "Four days that made the planet tremble" - apparently an insider account of the diplomatic maneuvering around the Syrian gas attack and the US response. The reporter claims an inside source among the diplomatic corps, specifically one of the BRICS countries: Brazil, Russian, India, China and South Africa. The content of this article was very interesting and I thought it might be worth translating the gist of it, as it reveals very clearly - even if I can't vouch for it's complete accuracy - the behind-the-scenes activity that normally remains hidden in a crisis of this kind.

The author starts off by citing some US media opinion that the Syrian crisis was the worst since the fall of the USSR, then asks, what was it that made Obama back off from what appeared to be an imminent attack? What really happened behind the scenes?

She then proceeds to tell the following story, based on her diplomatic contacts: Until the Kerry-Lavrov meeting was called off, back channel negotiations between the US and Russia had been going well. The US had agreed with the Russians that Assad would be forced to step down but be allowed to designate his successor. In other words, no regime change.

Unfortunately, when the Russians approached the Iranians with the idea they got a flat refusal. Therefore, it became necessary to apply more pressure.

Meanwhile, again according to the article, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, formerly Saudi Ambassador to the US, had developed a plan* to take Damascus in a lightning strike, using forces he had assembled and trained in Jordan. To this end, media reports - which we've all seen - about a coming battle in Aleppo had been planted to draw Assad's attention away from Damascus. The recent attacks by the opposition in the area of Latakia were also a diversion, to draw Assad's troops away from the capital. All of this was supposed to take place in concert with a media blitz aimed at forcing Hezb Allah to withdraw its support of the Assad regime, and allowing the attack on Damascus to proceed with minimum opposition.

All of which would have made all the back channel diplomacy irrelevant. Unfortunately, the regime apparently got wind of the plan and struck back with major attacks around Latakia and Damascus. The gassing of nearly 1500 people in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta was presumably part of the effort to secure the Damascus area from Bandar's forces.

The article goes on to characterize the media blitz around the gas attack as part of a US-led campaign to force the Russians and Iranians to agree to abandon the Assad regime. According to the author, the Americans sent envoys to both parties, saying - and here she uses quotes - 'Either you let go of Assad or we'll take him down by force'.

At which point, the Russians and Iranians, rather than objecting, said surprisingly little. The US, in turn, interpreted this as a green light to take down Assad, and started moving forces into the area.

In fact, the Russians and the Iranians were hard at work preparing for the coming attack. The Russians, Iranians, the Syrian regime and Hezb Allah established a joint 'war room' and Russia mobilized its navy in the eastern Mediterranean. Iran mobilized all its military forces. Iran and Russia then warned the US that any strike against Assad would result in a response involving the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb - in other words, a direct threat to Western oil supplies. The US was also warned that other targets would be included in the response, meaning, presumably, Israel. And, as we've seen, Assad publicly warned the French on TV that he would attack French targets of opportunity anywhere in response to a French attack. By this, he meant, in the opinion of experts here, car bomb or other attacks in Beirut against French diplomatic targets and French nationals.

Result: the Russian/Iranian gambit seems to have worked, for the moment. Britain has pulled out - who knows what threats were secretly conveyed to ensure this result? France has backed off for the moment, and, as we know, Obama suddenly decided he needed Congressional approval before even considering action. At the moment, I'd bet he's hoping the delay will allow the emergence of some other option (maybe Bandar's cowboys will ride to Damascus, after all), or even simply allow internal opposition to become strong enough to 'force' a change of policy.

____________________________________

* If he's even alive. There were reports last year that Bandar  had been killed by a bomb in Riyadh. The attack was supposed to have been a Syrian retaliation for an attack in Damascus which killed members of Assad's inner circle.  Bandar is said to have been working for a very long time to topple Bashar el Assad.

Dad, I can't believe you just said that!

My daughter and I have been Whatsapping* like mad about the possibility of US-led strikes against the Syrian regime in the next few days or weeks. As is often the case, she finds me infuriatingly prone to realpolitik, whereas I find her positions theoretical and divorced from the messiness of the real world. In this case what makes her jaw drop is my apparent willingness to countenance a US strike against the Assad regime. From her point of view that position contradicts even the thrust of my own statements on this blog.

She sent me a link to an article in Jacobin Magazine (here it is, for those who might be interested: http://jacobinmag.com/2013/09/good-wars-real-or-imagined/), which provoked a furious session of Whatsapp that lasted well past my bedtime. The article makes a broad anti-interventionist case, in a rather smarmy tone. So broad, in fact, that it reminded me of anti-interventionist writing before World War II, which is not company I'd be comfortable keeping.

Making the case for intervention in Syria or anywhere else is a tricky task. As my daughter was quick to point out, history is littered with failed interventions, bogus interventions, imperialist and colonialist forays disguised as humanitarian interventions, and the like.

Nevertheless, there are some things to be said in favor. I'd list them as follows:

1. Anything that contributes to the erosion of the idea that crimes can be committed under the cover of 'sovereignty' is a positive development.
2. The concept of a universal code of human rights and protections is historically new and slowly taking root in a messy, contradictory world. Nevertheless, it needs to be nurtured, as it is one of the most important developments in the history of human ethics.
3. No universal code will ever succeed without some enforcement mechanism. Therefore, in principle, there can be no freedom from intervention, and no prevention of the kind of violations we're seeing in Syria is possible without action from the outside.

What drives me crazy about these political arguments with my daughter is that somehow, while my attention was elsewhere, she's gone from a little kid to a formidable and ferocious interlocutor. I give her an example; she counters with six. I state a principle; she pokes a dozen holes in it, complete with historical footnotes. Oh well, at least she's keeping me on my toes....

At about the same time, she forwarded me a link to something I found much more to my liking. So much so that I decided to include it here. It's a statement on the situation in Syria and the looming Western intervention by a coalition of Arab left, socialist and communist groups. While the tone is more Marxist than I would personally adopt, the basic analysis is very strong. What I particularly like is the effort to include all aspects of the crisis in the analysis, rather than just firing angry rhetoric at the West for either doing too little or too much (or both).

I've edited the statement somewhat, partly for length and partly due to some repetitiveness in the argumentation. I've used parenthetical ellipses, (...), to indicate my cuts. For anyone interested in the entire thing, here's a link: http://syriafreedomforever.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/we-stand-behind-the-syrian-peoples-revolution-no-to-foreign-intervention/

________________________________

We Stand Behind the Syrian People’s Revolution – No to Foreign Intervention

Statement by: Revolutionary Socialists (Egypt) – Revolutionary Left Current (Syria) – Union of Communists (Iraq) – Al-Mounadil-a (Morocco) – Socialist Forum (Lebanon) – League of Worker’s Left (Tunisia)
Published on Saturday 31 August 2013

Over 150 thousand were killed, hundreds of thousands injured and disabled, millions of people displaced inside and outside Syria. Cities, villages, and neighborhoods were destroyed fully or partially, using all sorts of weapons, including warplanes, scud missiles, bombs, and tanks, all paid for by the sweat and blood of the Syrian people (...)

Yet, despite the enormous losses mentioned above, befalling all Syrians, and the calamity inflicted on them, no international organization or major country – or a lesser one – felt the need to provide practical solidarity or support the Syrians in their struggle for their most basic rights, human dignity, and social justice.

The only exception was some Gulf countries, more specifically Qatar and Saudi Arabia. However, their aim was to control the nature of the conflict and steer it in a sectarian direction, distorting the Syrian revolution and aiming to abort it, as a reflection of their deepest fear that the revolutionary flame will reach their shores. So they backed obscurantist takfiri** groups, coming, for the most part, from the four corners of the world, to impose a grotesque vision for rule based on Islamic sharia. These groups were engaged, time and time again, in terrifying massacres against Syrian citizens who opposed their repressive measures and aggressions inside areas under their control or under attack, such as the recent example of villages in the Latakia countryside.

A large block of hostile forces, from around the world, is conspiring against the Syrian people’s revolution (...)

The people’s uprisings aimed to put an end to a history of brutality, injustice, and exploitation and attain the rights to freedom, dignity, and social justice.

However, this did not only provoke local brutal dictatorships, but also most of the imperialist forces seeking to perpetuate the theft of the wealth of our people, in addition to the various reactionary classes and forces throughout those areas and in surrounding countries.

As for Syria, the alliance fighting against the people’s revolution comprises a host of reactionary sectarian forces, spearheaded by Iran and confessional militias in Iraq, and, to much regret, Hezbollah’s strike force, which is drowning in the quagmire of defending a profoundly corrupt and criminal dictatorial regime.

This unfortunate situation has also struck a major section of the traditional Arab left with Stalinist roots, whether in Syria itself or in Lebanon, Egypt, and the rest of the Arab region – and worldwide – which is clearly biased towards the wretched alliance surrounding the Assad regime. (...)

The United Nations and the Security Council, in particular, was unable to condemn the crimes of a regime, which the Syrian people rejected continuously and peacefully for more than seven months, while the bullets of the snipers and shabbiha took demonstrators one by one and day after day and while the most influential activists were being detained and subjected to the worst kinds of torture and elimination in the prisons and detention centers. All the while, the world remained completely silent and in a state of total negativity.(...)

Russian imperialism, the most important ally of the Baathist regime in Damascus, which provides it with all sorts of support, remains on the lookout to block any attempt to condemn those crimes in the Security Council. The United States, on the other hand, does not find a real problem in the continuation of the status quo, with all the apparent repercussions and destruction of the country. (...)

It is clear that Obama, who gives the impression that he will go ahead with his threats, would have felt great embarrassment if he did not do so, since it will not only impact negatively on the president, but also on the image of the mighty and arrogant state that he leads in the eyes of subservient Arab countries and the entire world.

The imminent strike against the Syrian armed forces is led by the US in essence. However, it occurs with the understanding and cooperation of allied imperialist countries, even without rationalizing it through the usual farce, known as international legitimacy (namely the decisions of the UN, (...)

In all cases, we agree on the following:

• The western imperialist alliance will strike several positions and vital parts of the military and civilian infrastructure in Syria (with several casualties, as usual). However, as it was keen to announce, the strikes will not be meant to topple the regime. They are merely intended to punish, in Obama’s words, the current Syrian leadership and save face for the US administration, after all the threats concerning the use of chemical weapons.
• The US president’s intentions to punish the Syrian leadership does not stem, in any way or form, from Washington’s solidarity with the suffering of children who fell in the Ghouta massacres, but from its commitment to what Obama calls the vital interests of the US and its homeland security, in addition to Israel’s interests and security.
• The Syrian army and its regional allies, led by the Iranian regime, will not have enough courage, most probably, to fulfil what seemed to be threats by their senior officials that any western attack on Syria will ignite the entire region. But this option remains on the table, as a final option with catastrophic results.
• The imminent western imperialist assault does not intend to support the Syrian revolution in any way. It will aim to push Damascus into the bargaining table and allow Bashar al-Assad to retreat from the foreground, but keeping the regime in place, while greatly improving conditions to strengthen the position of US imperialism in the future Syria against Russian imperialism.
• The more those participating in the continuing popular mobilization – who are more aware, principled, and dedicated to the future of Syria and its people – realize these facts, their consequences, results, and act accordingly, the more this will contribute to aiding the Syrian people to successfully pick a true revolutionary leadership. In the process of a committed struggle based on the current and future interests of their people, this would produce a radical program consistent with those interests, which could be promoted and put into practice on the road to victory.

_________________________________

* For those who aren't familiar with Whatsapp, it's a convenient texting channel that avoids getting dinged by your phone provider everytime you send a message. At current Lebanese prices, it's probably saved me several hundred dollars, so far.

** takfiri: This term comes from the same root as kuffar, meaning unbeliever. In the form takfir it has the sense of 'label someone an unbeliever'. Extreme jihadi groups 'prounounce' takfir on others, after which they feel entitled, under shariah,  to take whatever measures they wish, including murder.

In this country... we're not allowed to make plans

So yesterday afternoon May and I jumped in the car and headed north to Jbail, or - as it's traditionally known - Byblos.

Byblos is the supposed source of our word 'bible'. It's also one of oldest inhabited settlements in the world, having a continuous and well-documented history going back over 7000 years. The Arab name, Jbail, is apparently a variation on an original Canaanite name for the settlement. Like other places in Lebanon (Baalbeck being the most well-known) there are also placenames referring back to the worship of Ba'al, along with layers of ruins from neolithic times through to the Romans and beyond.

Our interest was more mudane than archeology. We wanted to get out of Beirut, forget about car bombs and US strikes on Syria for a few hours, and relax in a pleasant environment.

And pleasant Byblos/Jbail certainly is. The entire port area and old souk have been largely rebuilt and/or very tastefully recreated. The town is so
liberally strewn with the ruins of vanished civilizations that it's easy to forget, within a couple thousand years, what era you're in. I took lots of photos, which I'll add to this post to give a feel.

The only criticism one might make would be the sense of unreality that surrounds the place. As one would say in French, ça cloche un peu. The artificiality doesn't come from a flaw in the renovation of Byblos itself. It's more in the discontinuity between it and everything around it. The drive up from Beirut was astonishing. The last time I made this drive it was largely rural. One left Beirut's northern suburbs and drove through a largely undeveloped coastal plain until one reached Jounieh, a small town on the water with red tile roofs. From Jounieh, the drive reverted quickly to agriculture, beaches and small villages until one got to Jbail, which was then an even smaller town than Jounieh.

Today, all that has changed. The entire drive is urban. It's a kind of 'miracle mile' gone wild. The hills, which drop quite precipitously to the water along most of the drive, are covered helter-skelter with thousands upon thousands of appartment blocks, seemingly thrown up in minutes with no regard for nature nor any attempt to create something that might resemble a neighborhood. It's very impressive in its own way, yet the whole drive up I couldn't stop thinking of....cancer.

Anyone who's been to Costa del Sol or the southern areas of Athens has seen similar things. And it goes without saying that the US, despite some improvement in the last few decades, is still full of horrific examples. I'm thinking of large areas of Orange County south of LA and the Northeast coast between New York and Boston, for example.

What was so striking in this case was the complete disparity between my memories and the new reality. And the feeling that it's all happening so fast that by the time we drove home in the evening things would have gotten visibly worse.

So, the drive up, along with the surreal atmosphere in Beirut itself, combined to make Jbail seem rather otherworldly. Still, we had a wonderful afternoon wandering about, meeting and chatting with people as only May can do, and ended up at Pepe's (yes, Pepe's) overlooking the harbor, where we took in the sunset over a cold beer.

By late evening - 10 PM or so - as we were making our way up to the car, the place was packed to the rafters. The many outside restaurants were absolutely full and music was blaring on every side. Here again, there was a feeling of surreality - a minor clash of civilizations was going on. I noticed as we were making the long walk up from the harbor that all the music - from the teenagers sitting in groups among the ruins with guitars to the cranked-up night club PA systems - was western. Folk, rock and hip-hop were the order of the day. Of course, Byblos is deep in the Christian heartland of Lebanon, so a western orientation is omnipresent. Last night, however, there was a bit of an edge lent by the presence of many quite conservative Muslim visitors presumably from places like Tripoli. At one point we passed an open-air restaurant whose blaring sound system had some horrific - yet, I'm sure, highly popular - American rap singer growling something like, 'come on bitch, get the fuck over here when I tell you, I'm ready to make it!'. I've toned it down, since my kids might read this post. ;-> All to an audience largely made up of women in hijab and even in niqab (which covers the entire face except for the eyes). Nobody except me seemed particularly put out by the lyrics, so perhaps the clash of civilizations was primarily going on in my own mind, but it certainly felt pretty weird.

On the way home, as we approached Beirut our conversation inevitably returned to real life in the big city and the worries and stresses that go with it. In this case, car bombs, civil conflict next door, sectarian violence, social discord and all the rest. At one point May made the comment that I used as a title to this post, and which I found really striking. In fact, the whole of what she said was even more striking...and sobering. She was talking about life in Lebanon and the unrelenting struggle to create something lasting in the face of constant crises and endless disasters, large and small. And this is what she said: 'In this country we are not allowed to make plans. I can't make plans. Muhammad and I couldn't make plans. My father couldn't make plans. My grandfather couldn't make plans. None of us can make plans."

That comment  is still echoing in my head today.