Bashar Assad: The evil moron who's running Syria

[subgenius]

....
In the real world, most evil men aren't geniuses. Instead, the real danger, more often than not, comes from evil morons.

Take Bashar Assad. Has there been a more disastrous geopolitical move in recent years than the 38-year-old Syrian president's decision to cast his lot with Saddam just prior to Iraq's stunning military defeat? Before the war, Syria had actually done quite a bit to improve its standing in the eyes of the United States. It cooperated in the war against al-Qaida, sharing the intelligence it gained from interrogations of Muhammad Haydar Zammar, the man suspected of recruiting Mohamed Atta to carry out the 9/11 attacks. In addition, Syria supported the Saudi plan for peace with Israel. And it may not sound like much, but Assad denounced the 9/11 attacks, while Saddam (less smartly) praised them.

Now it appears that Assad may have gambled all of that away. By foolishly providing moral and material support to Iraq during the war—and, the administration says, now by harboring high-ranking Iraqi officials—he's created an environment that makes it possible for a Democratic presidential candidate (Florida Sen. Bob Graham) to openly support war with Syria. Already some hawks are pointing to the tantalizing parallels between Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria. Weapons of mass destruction? Check. Support for terrorism? Check. Repressive domestic intelligence services? Check. The comparisons go further: Both countries were ruled by tyrannical men who are not members of the ethnic majority. (Saddam was a Sunni who ruled over a largely Shiite country, and Assad is an Alawite who rules over a Sunni majority.) To top things off, Syria even has a Baath Party and a Republican Guard. No one expects war anytime soon, but Assad's stupidity has put the subject on the table.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081612/

"Getting to know you, getting to know all about you."

[Tricky]

Yeah, just one thing saving them:
No oil. (http://pdf.wri.org/middle_east_2000_oilprofile.pdf)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tricky
Yeah, just one thing saving them:
No oil. (http://pdf.wri.org/middle_east_2000_oilprofile.pdf)
Good point.

[Mike B.]

Strange the lack of oil in Afganistan did not seem to save the Taliban...:p

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Strange the lack of oil in Afganistan did not seem to save the Taliban...:p
Another good point which emphasizes the petroleum-strategic card both of them do hold. Pipelines must pass through them.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by subgenius

Another good point which emphasizes the petroleum-strategic card both of them do hold. Pipelines must pass through them.

So if anything does happen with Syria it will be beacuse of oil. If anything doesn't happen with Syria it will be because of oil.

I see you've covered your bases pretty well.

NA

[subgenius]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


So if anything does happen with Syria it will be beacuse of oil. If anything doesn't happen with Syria it will be because of oil.

I see you've covered your bases pretty well.

NA

Not my point at all. I had just been wondering where Syria got its money.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by subgenius


Not my point at all. I had just been wondering where Syria got its money.

Ok -- I apologize; Please consider the comment withdrawn. I read too much into the comment.

NA

[Tricky]

Originally posted by subgenius


Not my point at all. I had just been wondering where Syria got its money.
Syria does have some oil, but not much. They may become a net importer before too long. This article (http://www.meforum.org/article/476) indicates that Syria is in pretty dire economic straits, relying on their citizens to work in Lebanon.
The other piece of economic luck has been Lebanon. The Syrian army's Soviet-style gobbling up of Lebanon, with a level of economic production (the gross domestic product, or GDP) four times greater than Syria on a per capita basis, bought a brief economic reprieve. To an extent, Lebanon plays a role for Syria such as Hong Kong does for communist China, serving as the steam valve releasing pent-up economic pressures at home, allowing entrepreneurs to bypass central planners and socialist bureaucracy. Lebanon offers unregulated markets and trade that is largely free; it also serves as the arena of employment for a million Syrians, about a fifth of the entire Syrian labor force. Indeed, with an the unemployment rate in Syria estimated at 12-15 percent, and underemployment probably worse, the Lebanese economy offers the only alternative to starvation for many Syrian families.

Mike B. said
Strange the lack of oil in Afganistan did not seem to save the Taliban...
Yeah, and we never declared war on Afghanistan. We went in to find and root out the Taliban, then we left. They're pretty much back to their old ways now of killing each other off (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/07/06/afghan.assassination/).

Of course, we never promised to rebuild Afghanistan. Oh wait! We did. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65481,00.html)
Bush himself has not done enough to make sure America's commitment is met because his budget for this year sets aside no money specifically for Afghan reconstruction. And, in the name of fiscal discipline, he canceled a $5 billion emergency spending package in August that included $150 million for State Department health and agricultural programs in Afghanistan.

[hammegk]

How much cheaper would transport cost/bbl be if a real pipeline reached a loading terminal in the Mediterranian? Maybe across Syria, even.

That would be at least four million bbl/day of (Iraqi) crude that did not have to start in the Gulf & tanker around the bottom of Africa for W. European & US markets. That should force world crude price downward.

Hmmmm.


Also, Afghanistan offers a strategically important route for another pipeline, that one for the C. Asian oil. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

Syria does have some oil, but not much. They may become a net importer before too long. This article (http://www.meforum.org/article/476) indicates that Syria is in pretty dire economic straits, relying on their citizens to work in Lebanon.



Yeah, and we never declared war on Afghanistan. We went in to find and root out the Taliban, then we left. They're pretty much back to their old ways now of killing each other off (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/07/06/afghan.assassination/).

Of course, we never promised to rebuild Afghanistan. Oh wait! We did. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65481,00.html)


1. Assad is no fool, he is also no Saddam. The US is already planning four bases in Iraq and elections may not be happening for at least 5 years.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/21/1050777213397.html






The first democratic elections in Iraq may not be held for five years, according to a senior Republican lawmaker in the United States.

Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Meet the Press in the US yesterday that "going to elections prematurely" would be disastrous for Iraq.

His comments came as the retired American general who will be the interim ruler of Iraq promised to restore the country to its former glory as a centre of civilisation and democratic government.

"We'll take you back to where you have been before: the best," Lieutenant-General Jay Garner said as he arrived in Baghdad to take charge of the new administration. "The burden's being lifted off your shoulders. What we need to do from this day forward is to give birth to a new system in Iraq."

But General Garner indicated it could be months before essential services were restored throughout Iraq and would not say how long his administration would remain in power.



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/20/1050777165975.html



The United States is reportedly planning to establish a long-term military relationship with the next government of Iraq, including access to military bases in the country.

White House officials have revealed they want continuing access to four military bases in Iraq as part of a wider plan to bolster US influence in the region.



Backing Iraq, while not morally correct, is no more wrong than past US policy of backing the 'enemy of my enemy'. In this case, they are presumably trying to stop the US from basically running the middle east.

The idea that Bashar runs the country is also debateable.

http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-24/reg/hafez_al_assads.htm

It appears he is the nominal president in a country that is still mainly under the control of the military and security forces.

I have met some orthodox christian refugees from Syria, and they felt they had to leave not because they would be killed, but because of discrimination. As they were christian, their refugee application was quickly accepted.

As for the US dipping out on promised compensation, this is a pattern that has been repeated before.

[Kashyapa]

Assad hasn't done a thing for Saddam. The two countries were not friendly, and actually Syria was pro-Iran. Assad was not pro-Saddam, he was anti- something that would endanger his own rule, which has liberalized over the last decade. Assad has no WMD, has never posed a threat to US security, and, while he is of the Ba'ath party, is not particularly anti-west, just anti-Israel.

I would hypothesize that Bush just has a hardon to help out his Israeli buddies by removing a persistent hostile threat to Israel. Considering that the pro-Israel lobby is the most powerful in Washington, and that a good chunk of his administration is highly pro-Israel, as well as being popuplated almost entirely by the pro-Israel, pro-American hegemony Project for a New American Century thinktank, this seems quite likely.

Originally posted by subgenius
....
In the real world, most evil men aren't geniuses. Instead, the real danger, more often than not, comes from evil morons.

Take Bashar Assad. Has there been a more disastrous geopolitical move in recent years than the 38-year-old Syrian president's decision to cast his lot with Saddam just prior to Iraq's stunning military defeat? Before the war, Syria had actually done quite a bit to improve its standing in the eyes of the United States. It cooperated in the war against al-Qaida, sharing the intelligence it gained from interrogations of Muhammad Haydar Zammar, the man suspected of recruiting Mohamed Atta to carry out the 9/11 attacks. In addition, Syria supported the Saudi plan for peace with Israel. And it may not sound like much, but Assad denounced the 9/11 attacks, while Saddam (less smartly) praised them.

Now it appears that Assad may have gambled all of that away. By foolishly providing moral and material support to Iraq during the war—and, the administration says, now by harboring high-ranking Iraqi officials—he's created an environment that makes it possible for a Democratic presidential candidate (Florida Sen. Bob Graham) to openly support war with Syria. Already some hawks are pointing to the tantalizing parallels between Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria. Weapons of mass destruction? Check. Support for terrorism? Check. Repressive domestic intelligence services? Check. The comparisons go further: Both countries were ruled by tyrannical men who are not members of the ethnic majority. (Saddam was a Sunni who ruled over a largely Shiite country, and Assad is an Alawite who rules over a Sunni majority.) To top things off, Syria even has a Baath Party and a Republican Guard. No one expects war anytime soon, but Assad's stupidity has put the subject on the table.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081612/

"Getting to know you, getting to know all about you."

[Kashyapa]

Hell yes. You're quite correct.

Originally posted by hammegk
How much cheaper would transport cost/bbl be if a real pipeline reached a loading terminal in the Mediterranian? Maybe across Syria, even.

That would be at least four million bbl/day of (Iraqi) crude that did not have to start in the Gulf & tanker around the bottom of Africa for W. European & US markets. That should force world crude price downward.

Hmmmm.


Also, Afghanistan offers a strategically important route for another pipeline, that one for the C. Asian oil. ;)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius


Not my point at all. I had just been wondering where Syria got its money.

Checked the CIA factbook?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sy.html#Econ

I think the short answer is, they don't have money. 5 billion dollar budget, one fifth goes to military spending. 5 billion for a country that size isn't so hot.

"petroleum, phosphates, chrome and manganese ores, asphalt, iron ore, rock salt, marble, gypsum, hydropower " are the natural resources according to the factbook.

Water availability seems to be the largest impediment to growth.

I wonder if anyone has thought of using water tech as diplomacy leverage to get them to boot Hezbollah or at least turn a blind eye while we drop a daisy on their camp.

[Ben Shniper]

Bashar is indeed an evil moron, and a Baathist besides.

He has recently been allowing Hizbollah to run the south of his country, and that was a main weapons pipeline for the Palestinian intifadah (as Israel gets its weapons from the outside, so do the Palestinian terrorists from Iran, Syria, and until recently Iraq.)

But I don't support going after him.

Although I was in favor of the war against Iraq, the idea of attacking Syria now would be a great overextension while America still has to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea. I don't feel America has the capability to hold any more territory without putting itself at great risk.

Also, Syria is a diplomatic target now, as is Iran, and that is preferable to an open conflict any day. I think it's safe to say we got their attention.

-Ben

[AN@S]

I’ll tell you something...
Bashar Assad is considered in the Arab World as the best president in the Arab nation because he always says the truth, for example he said that Israelis "try to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality with which they betrayed Jesus Christ and in the same way they tried to kill the prophet Muhammad."
This is a good point to him that makes the Arabs love him.

Assad hasn't done a thing for Saddam. The two countries were not friendly, and actually Syria was pro-Iran. Assad was not pro-Saddam, he was anti- something that would endanger his own rule, which has liberalized over the last decade. Assad has no WMD, has never posed a threat to US security, and, while he is of the Ba'ath party, is not particularly anti-west, just anti-Israel.
Good point.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


Checked the CIA factbook?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sy.html#Econ

I think the short answer is, they don't have money. 5 billion dollar budget, one fifth goes to military spending. 5 billion for a country that size isn't so hot.

"petroleum, phosphates, chrome and manganese ores, asphalt, iron ore, rock salt, marble, gypsum, hydropower " are the natural resources according to the factbook.

Water availability seems to be the largest impediment to growth.

I wonder if anyone has thought of using water tech as diplomacy leverage to get them to boot Hezbollah or at least turn a blind eye while we drop a daisy on their camp.
yeah, read any good books lately?
Figure they get anything for letting oil pipelines cross their country?
No, no one but you has thought of water. You're, ahead of the curve.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by subgenius

yeah, read any good books lately?
Figure they get anything for letting oil pipelines cross their country?
No, no one but you has thought of water. You're, ahead of the curve.

Water is central to all middle east politics. Just refer to the current road-map of peace being negotiated for Israel/Palestine. Water is right in there as part of it all.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Assad has no WMD, has never posed a threat to US security, and, while he is of the Ba'ath party, is not particularly anti-west, just anti-Israel.
Assad does have chemical WMD in great quantities, according to most reports (including this one (http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/syria.htm)). The difference is that Syria, unlike Iraq, is legally entitled to possess such weapons.

[renata]

Originally posted by AN@S
I’ll tell you something...
Bashar Assad is considered in the Arab World as the best president in the Arab nation because he always says the truth, for example he said that Israelis "try to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality with which they betrayed Jesus Christ and in the same way they tried to kill the prophet Muhammad."
This is a good point to him that makes the Arabs love him.


Good point.


Well, Romans crucified Jesus, if he ever existed. How did Jews try to kill Mohammed, exactly? Which other principles of religions did Jews try to kill? Attacks on Zeus or Thor perhaps? Or maybe Buddha? Didn't Bashar also say Jews use blood in matza on Passover? Do you think that is the truth?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by renata

Didn't Bashar also say Jews use blood in matza on Passover? Do you think that is the truth?

Its a common "muslim legend". I don't fault the guy for believing it. 90 percent of the arab world probably believes it.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by AN@S
Bashar Assad is considered in the Arab World as the best president in the Arab nation because he always says the truth, for example he said that Israelis "try to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality with which they betrayed Jesus Christ and in the same way they tried to kill the prophet Muhammad."
This is a good point to him that makes the Arabs love him.
I worry that Syrians do not have wide access to world news. Syria's president is not universally loved in the Arab world. This is no slander against the Syrian people, as we all know that corrupt leaders may rise to the top in any government.

Last week, Ahmad Al-Jarallah, editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyasa, wrote a series of articles which were critical of the Syrian regime.

"We see them in Damascus, denying that they have taken in escaped leaders from the Saddam regime, launching emotional attacks on America's opinions, and referring to events as did [Iraqi information minister] Muhammad Said Al-Sahhaf – who changed his name to Farouq Al-Shar'."

"It is these views, and not American threats, that put the fate of Syria at risk. They present a picture of the Syrian regime that looks like a picture of Saddam Hussein, who went out to the battlefield armed with false religious rhetoric, reciting poems and brandishing swords… As a result, of course, he is dead; Iraq was lost, and none forgive him."
....
"Syria, and with it the same supporters and mercenaries, say that it is a Zionist game, and that Iraq was conquered by the American-Israeli forces. It says that the U.S. is carrying out a Sharonist program in this country, the goal of which is to impose Pax Israeliana on the region, and every one of the statements are part of the game of cat and mouse and are aimed at gaining time. What is demanded from Syria is self-examination that will show that the Damascus regime suffers greatly from sadistic behavior, and that it is identical to Saddam, in the parameters of dictatorship, of single-party rule, and in its refraining from development, change, and adopting the principles of freedom and democracy."

"This Syrian talk, which we heard from the supporters of Saddam Hussein before his fall, helps not at all, except for justifying and reinforcing American pressure… The Syrian regime must not think that if it presents the crisis with the U.S. as confrontation with Israel it will be able to motivate the Arab people… Even if the [Arab people] move to help Syria, they are people who have no weapons – the weapons are in the hands of their rulers, and the rulers know the rules of the game and will not use them..."

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD49503#_ednref4