New Iranian-Syrian Pact is both Dangerous and an Insult
Posted by editor on 29 May 2008 at 11:46 am UTC
Iran and Syria continue to slap the West in the face: And they are doing so in the face of the recent unchallenged terrorist attacks by – and subsequent over-the-top concessions granted to – Lebanon-based Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy army supported by Syria.
Fact is, Iran and Syria have achieved a near inextricable foothold in Lebanon (read our previous commentary) over the past few weeks.
Now, the two nations have reinforced — and even expanded — their reciprocal pledge of strategic military support to one another.
According to Naharnet:
“Iran and its close ally Syria have signed a new defence cooperation pact, Iranian media reported on Wednesday, just a week after news broke that Israel had begun indirect peace talks with Damascus.
“’The two countries pledge their mutual support regarding territorial independence and integrity in terms of international and regional authorities,’ the state-run IRNA news agency reported.”
This pact comes on the heels of not only the failure of the Lebanese government and the army (as well as the Western nations allied to Lebanon) to thwart this month’s terrorist attacks and political gains achieved by Hezbollah; but it comes during a series of so-called peace talks between Israel and Syria, in which Syria is now negotiating from a position of new-found strategic strength (Hezbollah’s recent success against the Lebanese state and Israel’s bloody nose from the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war, brings Syria to the table blustering and thumping its chest.).
Israel has been demanding that Syria break “its three-decade alliance with Iran and end support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups as a condition for progress in the talks.”
And the U.S. was hoping in a pipe dream that an ongoing peace-process developing between Israel and Syria might isolate Iran.
Fat chance for either.
Fact is, these two state sponsors of Jihadist terrorism and their terrorist proxies, continue playing solid hands, continue threatening to wipe nations off the globe, continue deliberately targeting and murdering civilians, continue to build their armies, continue their quests to become nuclear powers, continue to feint and deceive, continue to infiltrate Western media, continue to extend their global reach, and continue to buy time.
Meanwhile, our response is to continue to support impotent UN forces in the region, station a U.S. Navy strike group in the region (but only permit that force to observe), and one of the American presidential candidates proposing change wants to talk with the bad guys.
I don’t pretend to have the answers: I’m a reporter and an analyst, not a planner. But I do know a little something about confronting and combatting terrorists – conventionally, unconventionally, assymetrically – and building alliances with friends and potential friends who can depend on us to always do exactly what we say we are going to.
I also know, if we – meaning the U.S. and the West – continue on this same trek of effortless “hope”: doing nothing more than observing, issuing hollowless declarations of support, and hoping we might hold peace talks with thugs like Ahmadinejad, Assad, Nasrallah, or anyone else calling for our “deaths,” we will continue to be slapped in the face. And it’s only going to get worse … much, much worse.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Posted by editor on 28 May 2008 at 5:51 pm UTC
[Maj. Fred Galvin]
An article published yesterday in the New York Times, focuses on a crack group of leathernecks with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, who have been taking the fight hard to the Taliban in Afghanistan since landing in that country earlier this year. The Marines’ performance has been exemplary – in very tough environs I might add – as would be expected of America’s few good men.The Times cannot deny this fact. But the Old Gray Lady also and obviously cannot pass up an opportunity to get in its personal dig against U.S. Marines – or any other soldiers, sailors, or airmen who might give it the opportunity – even when the dig is based on an obvious untruth (at the very least, a public deception).
Here’s what the Times says regarding the 24th MEU:
“It was their first major combat operation since landing in March, and it stood in stark contrast to the events of a year earlier, when a Marine unit was removed in disgrace within weeks of arriving because its members shot and killed 19 civilians after a suicide bombing attack.”
What the Times fails to explain in this piece (but to its credit, did mention in a Saturday piece), is that the Marines in 2007 – WHO WERE NOT REMOVED IN DISGRACE by the way – have since been exonerated. And there never was any proof — forensic or otherwise — that 19 civilians were killed.
This is the kind of thing that shames me as a journalist (Far too many in our profession are too quick to publicly condemn – thus convict in the court of public opinion – and then fail to adequately retract the inaccuracies which have the potential of ruining peoples’ lives.) and boils my blood as a former Marine.
In a statement released Friday, Lt. Gen. Samuel T. Helland, commanding general of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Central Command, determined that the officers – including Maj. Fred C. Galvin, commander of Fox Company, Second Marine Special Operations Battalion; and Capt. Vincent J. Noble, special ops platoon commander — and the troops in the Marine convoy “acted appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures in place at the time in response to a complex attack.”
Galvin’s Marines were ordered out of Afghanistan – far too hastily in my professional opinion – pending an investigation that dragged on far too long, and in which too much political correctness and perhaps (based on my own personal musing) a bit of inter-service rivalry were infused: Not to mention the fact that the word of the locals, and a human rights group that was not there at the time, was considered more believable than that of the Marines. The locals, whose stories often conflicted with one anothers,’ never could come up with a firm casualty count (though U.S. Army officers reportedly made cash payments to Afghans who said they were survivors or members of survivors’ families).
Fact is, there is no proof – much less evidence – that any civilians were killed: No bodies or forensic evidence, except for that of the suicide bomber, were recovered.
“No civilians were killed,” says Galvin’s mother, Toni Galvin, who along with her family and an entire network of Marine Moms, have been fighting to get their sons vindicated in the public eye. “Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney took the word of the area locals. Yet many of our guys withstood nearly a year of interrogation by the NCIS [Naval Criminal Investigative Service] trying to get them to break.”
But truth can’t be broken.
Maj. Galvin, Capt. Noble, and the other brave Marines who have had to endure this shabby treatment after serving our country honorably in one of the world’s most dangerous places, are the true victims: These young men deserve medals and promotions. Why aren’t those Americans who say they support the troops demanding that? Instead, most Americans reading the Times on Saturday would have simply picked up the paper, read about a Marine unit being “removed in disgrace,” shaken their heads (wrongly assuming the report to be true), had another sip of coffee, and gone on with their lives. Meanwhile, Galvin, Noble, the other Marines wrongly accused of “overreacting” in a firefight, were hung out to dry.
Yes, the Marines were exonerated – as they should have been – which means they will not be sent to prison. But what about their careers? Their reputations? The one-plus year of hell they’ve had to endure? And what about the third-largest newspaper in the nation still reporting that they were “removed in disgrace?”
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Gunbattles Erupt Today in Lebanon … and Updates
Posted by editor on 26 May 2008 at 11:21 pm UTC
Brief gun-battles erupted between Hezbollah (with its Amal allies) and the pro-democracy majority in Beirut today. Clashes also have been reported between the same in the Bekaa Valley: Reports are thus far sketchy. Between nine and 18 people are said to have been wounded. And one of our sources has reported at least one rocket-propelled grenade attack.In addition to our sources, NOWLebanon is reporting:
“Amal and Hezbollah gunmen opened fire and hurled rocks in the direction of Tarik al-Jedideh and Corniche al-Mazraa earlier today, coinciding with Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech. RPGs were also fired at the Abed an-Nasser mosque. The Lebanese army has been deployed and has cut off the roads between Corniche al-Mazraa, Barbour and Tarik al-Jedideh. The wounded have been transferred to nearby hospitals.”
Narharnet also reports:
“Clashes between the Hizbullah-led opposition and majority supporters in the Beqaa Valley village of Taalabaya.”
The firefights come the day after the election and inauguration of Pres. Michel Sleiman, the pro-Syrian, Hezbollah-friendly former commander-in-chief of the Lebanese armed forces (I discussed him here); and hours after Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, delivered a fiery speech in which – according to the AP – he, “warned against any efforts to disarm his Iranian-backed guerrilla group.”
Updates will follow.IN RELATED NEWS:The Baltimore Sun is reporting:
“[Hezbollah’s] rising influence around the world has led some intelligence and counterterrorism officials to ask whether the Iranian-financed organization has grown more dangerous to the United States than al-Qaida.”
We’ve been reporting this FOR MONTHS.Moreover, Haaretz is reporting:
“The head of the Military Intelligence research division Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz on Monday said that Syria was continuing to transfer significant amounts of weapons to the Lebanon-based guerilla group Hezbollah.”
We’ve been saying this FOR MONTHS, TOO … along with our accurate reporting on Hezbollah’s strength and activities over the past eight months, including: Unreported and underreported military exercises and operations, predictions that Hezbollah would indeed turn its weapons on the Lebanese people (and when), the extent to which the terrorist group had established an internal telecommunications system, and the extent to which the terrorist group has infiltrated Lebanese and international media (to include buying off seemingly objective media outlets and reporters).There is so much more to this story, and so much that continues not to be reported.— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Speaker of Lebanese Parliament Blasts U.S.
Posted by editor on 25 May 2008 at 6:30 pm UTC
Several days ago, I wrote a piece for Human Events entitled, Lights Out Temporarily in Lebanon, in which I discussed the strengthening of Hezbollah and the temporary setbacks faced by the majority pro-democracy movement in that country.
I still believe freedom and democracy will prevail in Lebanon: a crucial front in the broader war on terror. But just as I said, “the lights will only be out temporarily,” it is becoming increasingly evident that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah have all of their electricians on the case, ensuring that the proverbial circuits are cut so that the lights will never be switched back on.
All of the concessions granted in so-called “crisis talks” have been in favor of the dark side. And which side is dark, is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact, as evidenced by what has happened in Lebanon since May 7 when Hezbollah begin killing and burning.
Today pro-Syrian, Hezbollah-friendly Gen. Michel Sleiman was elected president.
During Sleiman’s inauguration ceremonies, pro-Syrian speaker of the Lebanese parliament Nabih Berri — a Hezbollah ally and leader of the Amal movement – took the opportunity to blast the United States (a key ally of the Lebanese government and the majority of the Lebanese people) with a sarcastic expression of “gratitude” to America, “because it [America] got convinced that Lebanon is not the proper place to apply its agenda for the new Middle East.”
Berri and his newly empowered ilk, of course, prefer the lordship of Syria and Iran, and the still-wet sword of Hezbollah.
Yes, the lights may be out for awhile.
— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.
Gen. Sleiman Elected President of Lebanon
Posted by editor on 25 May 2008 at 4:05 pm UTC
I discussed the presidential election of Gen. Michel Sleiman in my previous post.
Following are a few quick highlights from his inauguration address delivered an hour or so ago (translated from one of our sources):
1) “We will respect the UN Security Council Resolution [regarding the pressing forward with the investigation into the 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri].”
2) “The resistance movement [Hezbolla] was necessary and has done a lot for Lebanon: liberated the south, Shebaa farms still occupied by Israel, therefore it is necessary to build a strategy around the resistance and work with them … ”
3) “The Lebanese prisoners in Israel must be released [no mention of Lebanese prisoners in Syria] …”
4) “We need to work with Syria, and we need to establish diplomatic relations …”
5) “We need to protect Lebanon and we need to keep our weapons [a vague suggestion that Hezbollah should keep its weapons]. Those weapons shall be used only against the enemies [of Lebanon] … And we won’t let those weapons be used for any other purpose …”
Yeah, right.
Apparently, there was no mention of disarming Hezbollah as called for under UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701: No expressed commitment to reigning in Hezbollah. Just an expression of what Pres. Sleiman sees as a justification for the continued existance of Hezbollah despite the terror Hezbollah unleashed on the state this month.
NOTE: The opinions expressed in these articles are solely those of the author, and do not represent the opinions of World Defense Review and its affiliates. WDR accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content of this or any other story published on this website. Copyright and all rights for this story (and all other stories by the author) are held by the author.
Archives:
"Hunt for the Somali Pirates" airs soon on the National Geographic Channel.
When Somali pirates hijack the Maersk Alabama -- and international headlines -- Navy SEALs launch a sneak attack to rescue the ship's American captain. Pirate Hunters recounts the harrowing five days from hijack to final fatal shots, and reveals sophisticated Navy SEAL training methods that prepare the world's most elite reconnaissance teams for daring missions with no second chances.
J. Peter Pham, Ph.D. : 'Strategic Interests'
Ballots and Bullets: The Tale of the Two Somalias
[06 Jul 10]
Walid Phares, Ph.D.
Iran Global Terrorist Reach
[15 Jul 10]
Abigail R. Esman : 'International Desk'
Islamophobia
Is the rejection of radical Islam "anti-Muslim"?
[27 Jul 10]
Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker
The Roots of Washington's Failures in Dealing with "Rogue Regimes"
[01 Apr 10]
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
'Beyond the DropZone'
Intelligence and Analysis