Why are we blaming Syria?

[Relbeek Einre]

Lebanon's former PM Hariri was assassinated. In response the US pulled its ambassador from Syria.

No evidence has emerged that Syria had any hand in said assassination. Syria's vehemently denied it, saying (quite credibly) that this assassination does not serve Syria's interests in any way. This is true - though Hariri was an opponent of Syrian presence in Lebanon, he was fairly moderate and was a man the Syrians could deal with. Many experts have noted the first organization to which we should look is al-Qaeda, who do have a vested interest in destabilizing secular governments in the region.

Evidence may yet emerge tying Syria to this assassination, but to blame them prematurely when the real enemy is more likely to be the same perennial foe that is responsible for the Cole, two embassy bombings and 9/11, smacks once again of a "weapon of mass distraction" to the American people.

And now Syria has allied itself with Iran in a move which is not in the interests of either the US or the world, partly in response to this blamecasting.

Are we scapegoating Syria to continue to promote the ends of the PNAC?
Are we setting the foundation for yet another invasion?
Are we trying to deflect from evidence that al-Qaeda's strength is not as diminished as we've been led to believe?
Are these questions rhetorical?

[Partha]

Yes.

[Aabe]

I'm a bit underknowlegeable about the Syrian involvment in Lebanon. Untill a few months ago, I didn't even realize Syria was in Lebanon. I'm unsure why Syria is in lebanon. Are they a stabalizing influence or is it just a security thing Syria does to maintain their border?

[Partha]

Syrian troops moved in sometime during the period after the Israeli invasion. The ostensible reason is to secure their borders. The real reason is unknown to me, besides the obvious move of putting pro-Syrian pols in power.

I was listening to the BBC the other morning, and they had an interview with a MidEast expert whose talk boiled down to "Who killed him? Line forms on the right." Lebanon is STILL a mess three decades after the civil war started.

[Ddrak]

Well, add this to the fact that the new Iraqi government has close ties to Iran...

Dd

[superwalrus]

Relbeek..

The Lebanese said the SYrians did it, not us.

Walrus

[Burz]

I'm a bit underknowlegeable about the Syrian involvment in Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War is pretty accurate on this one.

[Relbeek Einre]

The Lebanese said the SYrians did it, not us.

No, the Lebanese said it -first- but we did too.

[superwalrus]

The President of the United States has said that we are not blaming Syria yet.

Walrus

[Relbeek Einre]

Yeah, we just pulled our ambassador as part of routine maintenance.

[Burz]

Gotta get him out before the bombs start going off, derrr

[Akhbarali]

The short answer is that we are not officially blaming them for killing Harrari. We are blaming them for creating the conditions that allowed him to be killed. A "nuanced" position that it sends a clear indiction of what the real answer is to your question. The current administration and intelligence community believe Damascus called the shot (not to mention a large % of the Lebanese people).

I am not entirely convinced but if I had to place a bet, my money would be on Damascus as the final approval point for the operation. I also wouldn't be fooled by the, "We have nothing to gain from this" nonsense being spewed by the Syrians or their Maronite allies. The Syrians have plenty to gain from the death of the most popular and respected politician in Lebanon. A man who, oh by the way, was going to spearhead the effort to install an anti-Syrian majority in Parliment. The Syrians know all too well one of the great lessons of Middle Eastern politics. Dead men cannot be ressurected but public images can. The complexity of this operation dictates a level of sophistication that exceeds Joe Palistinian terrorist. In Lebanon, that level of sophistication is commonly associated with factions that are relatively tightly controlled by Syria. Best motive + most realistic opportunity = prime suspect. Doesn't take the CSI crew to figure that one out.


Akhbar

[vaulos]

More than likely, we are blaming Syria because they either knew of the assassination attempt (and decided not to do anything about it) or they were implicit in said assassination. The correlation between this incident and Bosnia circa 1914 are just mind boggling.

Anyway, the extent to which the Syrian military, intellicence, et al are involved in Lebanon makes it highly unlikely that they were not at the least aware that it would happen, before it actually occured.

[Aabe]

I'm a bit underknowlegeable about the Syrian involvment in Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War is pretty accurate on this one.

Thanks for the article Burz, it helped a lot.

[Relbeek Einre]

Anyway, the extent to which the Syrian military, intellicence, et al are involved in Lebanon makes it highly unlikely that they were not at the least aware that it would happen, before it actually occured.

How many assassinations in Iraq are the US forewarned of?

[vaulos]

At least a couple attempts on Saddam I would imagine. But what does that have to do with it? I mean, are you asking for why we are blaming Syria for the resent assassination or for some sort of moral defense of the Iraqi invasion?

[ZanypherCocoapuffs]

I was on the understanding that while Hariri was fairly moderate while he was in power and for a while in the private life, that recently he had been shifting support to anti-Syrian presence in Lebanon and that his support to the opposition parties was giving them credibility. Sounds to me that while he was in power he knew where the grease for his palm was coming from, and the one holding the brush became unhappy when the palm turned into a middle finger.

Motive. Certainly Oppoturnity.

Not saying Syria is the culprit, but they should have a big fat "suspect" painted on them right now.