G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Plucking Low-Hanging Fruit: Christian Rightist Bush Speechwriter Calls for
Attack on Syria
By Gary Leupp
Created Jul 25 2007 - 9:05am
Neocon officials in the Defense Department call them "low-hanging fruit
[1]" - as though countries were produce ripe for picking and eating. The
term refers to nations targeted for regime change that might be achieved
with minimal strain, at least when compared with the effort needed to topple
the regime in Iran. Some neocons are beginning to concede that the effort
might not be feasible at this time (not that they would be climbing the tree
and plucking the fruit; they'd stand below advising on how it should be
done). They're advocating instead that the Bush administration move soon
against Syria.
From late 2003 to late 2005 it looked to me as though Syria would be the
next "Terror War" target, largely because of Bush's rhetoric, Israeli
aggression against Syria and the Israeli propaganda campaign against Syria
(suggesting that the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had been
transported over the border into the Arab state). But then the Israeli
government and Lobby urged the Bush administration to focus its energies on
attacking Iran. (Asked by the administration for suggestions for a new
leader in Syria to be installed after the toppling of Bashar al-Assad, the
Israelis said they couldn't think of one. This position has been repeated
[2] as recently as March 2007.) In any case the Israeli government sees Iran
as the "existential threat" to itself, Syria more of an irritation.
But the advocated Iran attack has been long-delayed. The neocons have lost
some influence, although they remain highly dangerous and influential. Rapid
Islamophobes like Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman and Eliot
Cohen retain their posts, while neocon ideologues such as Bill Kristol enjoy
access to cable TV audiences and readers of op-ed pieces in the most
widely-read newspapers. The latter very often articulate the view of Vice
President Cheney's circle. Cheney is known to be frustrated at the
postponement of the planned Iran attack.
In this context, former Bush speechwriter and Christian rightist Michael
Gerson published an op-ed in the Washington Post last Friday calling for an
attack on Syria to stop its alleged support for the resistance in Iraq. He
revives the horticultural metaphor. "Syria. . is what one former
administration official calls 'lower-hanging fruit,'" Gerson writes, adding
"Syria's Baathist regime provides a base of operations for its Iraqi
Baathist comrades involved in the Sunni insurgency." He immediately adds,
"Suicide bombers from Saudi Arabia [3] and North Africa [4] arrive by plane
in Damascus [5], and, with the help of facilitators, some 50 to 80 cross
into Iraq each month. The Syrians say they lack the ability to stop them;
what they lack is the intention."
He calls for "forceful action against Syria's Ho Chi Minh Trail of
terrorists."
Absent here is any indication of a mature understanding of the complexity of
the Arab world. We're to believe that Syrian Baathists (secularists) are
helping their "Iraqi Baathist comrades" by facilitating anti-Baathist,
Islamist Saudis and North Africans' passage into Iraq? It doesn't make
sense. Those jihadis, the Los Angeles Times reported last month, include 45%
Saudis; 15% are either Syrian or Lebanese, 10% North African, 30% other.
U.S. generals on the ground have repeatedly acknowledged that these fighters
are a tiny fraction of the forces resisting the U.S. occupation [6]. The
Saudis are responsible for the bulk of suicide bombings, and through their
actions acquire a disproportionate ability to affect the overall political
and military situation, but they have become increasingly shunned by the
mainstream Iraqi resistance. They certainly feel little camaraderie with
Baathists of any nationality!
The Syrian government has repeatedly stated that it is trying to prevent the
passage of jihadis over its long border with Iraq into the U.S. occupied
country. It (like Iran) enjoys cordial relations with the Iraqi regime
brought to power by the U.S. The idea that it would help create a "trail of
terrorists" at a time that it's in the Bush administration's crosshairs,
accused of responsibility for the Hariri assassination and support for
Palestinian and Lebanese "terrorism," is inherently implausible, and the
suggestion that the existence of such a trail is a product of Syrian and
Iraqi Baathist cooperation is laughable given the composition of the
"insurgency." The Syrian government, concerned about its own survival, has
indeed been seeking negotiations with the U.S. to resolve differences
between the countries.
The Ho Chi Minh Trail analogy is stupid. That Trail was a well-coordinated
logistical system that brought fighters and supplies from one part of
Vietnam to another part of Vietnam through Laotian and Cambodian territory
controlled by Marxist allies. The Syrian "Ho Chi Minh Trail" to which Gerson
alludes is the supply line from the Euphrates (Iraqi) border town of al-Qaim
to Baghdad, through which foreign fighters interested in joining the jihad
against the U.S. invaders often pass. It is not the production of a state in
alliance with a movement seeking national reunification. It's a route for
the movement of international Islamist fighters produced by the power vacuum
created by an invasion.
But why should facts matter to Michael Gerson? As Bush's chief speechwriter
from 2001 to June 2006, he may have come up with the "axis of evil" phrase
(although some attribute this to David Frum). As a member of the White House
Iraq Group, tasked to disseminate frightening disinformation about Iraq
preparatory to the attack on Iraq in March 2003, he proposed the "smoking
gun turns into a mushroom cloud" metaphor used by Bush, Cheney and Rice in
late 2002 to frighten the nation into war. He was selected as on of the top
25 Christian evangelicals in America by Time magazine in 2005. His is a
faith-based notion of geopolitical reality.
Many evangelical activists look forward to the violent transform the Greater
Middle East, that biblical prophecy might be fulfilled and Jesus come back
soon. According to the Book of Revelation, there must be a great war
surrounding Israel before that happens, involving kings to the east of the
Tigris and Euphrates. That implies war with Persia (Iran). So some want the
U.S. to provoke war with Iran. But if that's not doable just now, why not
attack evil Syria?
I find Gerson's orchard imagery interestingly biblical. Expanding on it, I'd
suggest he wants to pluck the most succulent fruit: the Iranian peach. But
if that fruit is out of reach, he urges, let us snatch up the Syrian date!
(But dates are actually higher up than peaches so it might not be so easy.
Date harvest, by the way, is typically in October.)
I personally see the Devil at work here. I hear the snake telling innocent
Eve: "Eat of the fruit!" Recall how in the myth that bold little bite led to
absolute disaster.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
Attack on Syria
By Gary Leupp
Created Jul 25 2007 - 9:05am
Neocon officials in the Defense Department call them "low-hanging fruit
[1]" - as though countries were produce ripe for picking and eating. The
term refers to nations targeted for regime change that might be achieved
with minimal strain, at least when compared with the effort needed to topple
the regime in Iran. Some neocons are beginning to concede that the effort
might not be feasible at this time (not that they would be climbing the tree
and plucking the fruit; they'd stand below advising on how it should be
done). They're advocating instead that the Bush administration move soon
against Syria.
From late 2003 to late 2005 it looked to me as though Syria would be the
next "Terror War" target, largely because of Bush's rhetoric, Israeli
aggression against Syria and the Israeli propaganda campaign against Syria
(suggesting that the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had been
transported over the border into the Arab state). But then the Israeli
government and Lobby urged the Bush administration to focus its energies on
attacking Iran. (Asked by the administration for suggestions for a new
leader in Syria to be installed after the toppling of Bashar al-Assad, the
Israelis said they couldn't think of one. This position has been repeated
[2] as recently as March 2007.) In any case the Israeli government sees Iran
as the "existential threat" to itself, Syria more of an irritation.
But the advocated Iran attack has been long-delayed. The neocons have lost
some influence, although they remain highly dangerous and influential. Rapid
Islamophobes like Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman and Eliot
Cohen retain their posts, while neocon ideologues such as Bill Kristol enjoy
access to cable TV audiences and readers of op-ed pieces in the most
widely-read newspapers. The latter very often articulate the view of Vice
President Cheney's circle. Cheney is known to be frustrated at the
postponement of the planned Iran attack.
In this context, former Bush speechwriter and Christian rightist Michael
Gerson published an op-ed in the Washington Post last Friday calling for an
attack on Syria to stop its alleged support for the resistance in Iraq. He
revives the horticultural metaphor. "Syria. . is what one former
administration official calls 'lower-hanging fruit,'" Gerson writes, adding
"Syria's Baathist regime provides a base of operations for its Iraqi
Baathist comrades involved in the Sunni insurgency." He immediately adds,
"Suicide bombers from Saudi Arabia [3] and North Africa [4] arrive by plane
in Damascus [5], and, with the help of facilitators, some 50 to 80 cross
into Iraq each month. The Syrians say they lack the ability to stop them;
what they lack is the intention."
He calls for "forceful action against Syria's Ho Chi Minh Trail of
terrorists."
Absent here is any indication of a mature understanding of the complexity of
the Arab world. We're to believe that Syrian Baathists (secularists) are
helping their "Iraqi Baathist comrades" by facilitating anti-Baathist,
Islamist Saudis and North Africans' passage into Iraq? It doesn't make
sense. Those jihadis, the Los Angeles Times reported last month, include 45%
Saudis; 15% are either Syrian or Lebanese, 10% North African, 30% other.
U.S. generals on the ground have repeatedly acknowledged that these fighters
are a tiny fraction of the forces resisting the U.S. occupation [6]. The
Saudis are responsible for the bulk of suicide bombings, and through their
actions acquire a disproportionate ability to affect the overall political
and military situation, but they have become increasingly shunned by the
mainstream Iraqi resistance. They certainly feel little camaraderie with
Baathists of any nationality!
The Syrian government has repeatedly stated that it is trying to prevent the
passage of jihadis over its long border with Iraq into the U.S. occupied
country. It (like Iran) enjoys cordial relations with the Iraqi regime
brought to power by the U.S. The idea that it would help create a "trail of
terrorists" at a time that it's in the Bush administration's crosshairs,
accused of responsibility for the Hariri assassination and support for
Palestinian and Lebanese "terrorism," is inherently implausible, and the
suggestion that the existence of such a trail is a product of Syrian and
Iraqi Baathist cooperation is laughable given the composition of the
"insurgency." The Syrian government, concerned about its own survival, has
indeed been seeking negotiations with the U.S. to resolve differences
between the countries.
The Ho Chi Minh Trail analogy is stupid. That Trail was a well-coordinated
logistical system that brought fighters and supplies from one part of
Vietnam to another part of Vietnam through Laotian and Cambodian territory
controlled by Marxist allies. The Syrian "Ho Chi Minh Trail" to which Gerson
alludes is the supply line from the Euphrates (Iraqi) border town of al-Qaim
to Baghdad, through which foreign fighters interested in joining the jihad
against the U.S. invaders often pass. It is not the production of a state in
alliance with a movement seeking national reunification. It's a route for
the movement of international Islamist fighters produced by the power vacuum
created by an invasion.
But why should facts matter to Michael Gerson? As Bush's chief speechwriter
from 2001 to June 2006, he may have come up with the "axis of evil" phrase
(although some attribute this to David Frum). As a member of the White House
Iraq Group, tasked to disseminate frightening disinformation about Iraq
preparatory to the attack on Iraq in March 2003, he proposed the "smoking
gun turns into a mushroom cloud" metaphor used by Bush, Cheney and Rice in
late 2002 to frighten the nation into war. He was selected as on of the top
25 Christian evangelicals in America by Time magazine in 2005. His is a
faith-based notion of geopolitical reality.
Many evangelical activists look forward to the violent transform the Greater
Middle East, that biblical prophecy might be fulfilled and Jesus come back
soon. According to the Book of Revelation, there must be a great war
surrounding Israel before that happens, involving kings to the east of the
Tigris and Euphrates. That implies war with Persia (Iran). So some want the
U.S. to provoke war with Iran. But if that's not doable just now, why not
attack evil Syria?
I find Gerson's orchard imagery interestingly biblical. Expanding on it, I'd
suggest he wants to pluck the most succulent fruit: the Iranian peach. But
if that fruit is out of reach, he urges, let us snatch up the Syrian date!
(But dates are actually higher up than peaches so it might not be so easy.
Date harvest, by the way, is typically in October.)
I personally see the Devil at work here. I hear the snake telling innocent
Eve: "Eat of the fruit!" Recall how in the myth that bold little bite led to
absolute disaster.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson