A Syrian Anschluss?

Tuesday’s assassination of anti-Syrian Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel follows a pattern of murders of other anti-Syrian Lebanese public figures. The office of Michel Pharaon, another Christian legislator and member of the Anti-Syrian majority in the Lebanese parliament, was sprayed with bullets only hours before the assassination of Gemayel. If only one more cabinet member resigns or is killed, the Lebanese government will be forced to dissolve.

Samir Geagea, a Christian anti-Syrian leader, warned a few days ago that Syria would attempt to assassinate two sitting ministers to complement the six that resigned, so that the government will be automatically dissolved. If the Lebanese government is dissolved, it is highly unlikely that a pending UN resolution supporting an international trial for the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri would go forward.

The rationale for the recent assassination of Gemayel (as well as the assassination attempt of Geagea) seems to be that Syria is trying to prevent an international trial on the assassination of a Lebanese Prime Minister from taking place in Lebanon.

If this had happened at any other time in history, I'd be inclined to agree. But the fact that the assassination occurred at a time when the world perceives the United States to be weak, even hobbled, as a result of the recent midterm elections makes me think otherwise. The assassination of Gemayel in Lebanon echoes events leading up to the 1938 Anschluss (annexation) of Austria by Germany. The Anschluss was preceded by the assassination of Austrian chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss. A successful Austrian Nazi party coup initiated just days prior to a plebiscite transferred power to Hitler, and Austria was conquored without a shot being fired. If the Syrians succeed in dissolving the Lebanese government and a new government is formed with a pro-Syrian majority, overnight Lebanon will become a Syrian satellite with close ties to Iran (through Hezbollah) in close proximity to the Little Satan, Israel. A perfect storm.

Are we witnessing a Syrian Anschluss of Lebanon?

Posted by Chris Rowan at November 22, 2006 5:13 PM
Comments
Comment #196246

There was also a new article out indicating that the UN is refusing to patrol at night in the south where they are supposed to be keeping Hezbollah out and disarming them. I may have read that here. The UN commanders have announced they will not disarm Hezbollah and now are apparently afraid to confront them as Hesbollah moves toward the Israel boarder and rearms for thier next attack.

Does this surprise us? that the forces of radical Islam are brutal and murder the vocies of moderation in the middle east…or that they do not keep peace treaties, and that the UN does not attempt to keep the peace treaty or enforce it’s own mandate? That the forces of Islamic Intollerance spit upon the good will gestures of the world and continue in their agenda of hate, violence, terror, and war?

Some on the left may not be at war with them, but they are at war with US and any who oppose them and their desire for global radical Isalmic empire.

Even in Europe the people are waking up and abandoning thier “Elightened Elite and their Politically correct Religion” and demanding that their governments stand up to the wave of radical islam that is threatening to swamp Europe.

The governments may be slaves to the radicalized Politically correct religion but the people are starting to abandon it out of self preservation..and preservation of their nations, their culture, flags, and way of life.

Political correctness and socialism are failing in Europe but still greatly desired by the left in the US.

Posted by: Stephen at November 22, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #196253

There may be merit to your notion that pro-Syrian forces are attempting to dissolve the government, but I think 1)it’s more likely to foment a civil war, and 2)it’s the weakness caused by Iraq that’s brought us to this, rather than any recent political shift. You folks give yourselves far too much credit for having a reputation for being tough. The Iraq war has been useful to our enemies in demonstrating the weakeness of American military power. Though I’m sure America would be quick to dispel notions that we are weak if we were attacked, we still must deal with the fact that we might get attacked simply because somebody thinks we are too occupied in Iraq to fight effectively.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 22, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #196260

Stephen Daugherty:

OOOOOGA!! OOOOOOOGA!! WARNING! OFFTOPIC ALERT!

I think the results of the midterm elections were a clear and unambiguous signal to this nation’s enemies that we have had enough of Iraq and just want our troops to come home. Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University; professor emeritus at California University, Fresno) in a recent article entitled “Will the West Stumble?” writes:

The recent November election made it clear that the American public is tired of Iraq, tired of the televised bombings, tired of the Middle East and just wants to be left alone, to go home or to “redeploy.” But if America withdraws before Iraqi reformers can establish a stable society, what illegitimate Arab strongman would wish to host a defeated infidel army with Islam on the rise in his backyard.

Without question, the Iraq War has been very costly. Several thousand brave soldiers have died, and many thousands more have been seriously wounded. But it would foolish to claim that our involvement in Iraq has weakened us militarily. We have just barely scratched the surface of our military potential.

Can you imagine what our military machine would look like if we were all 100% committed to winning the war? If we all sacrificed time, effort, and money to support the war effort, is there any single nation or confederation of nations that could stand against us? No.

What, then, has contributed to this perception of weakness on our part? How can we have the most powerful military machine in all of human history and still be perceived as weak by our enemies?

The key word here is perception. Hanson writes:

Americans in their televised wrangling seem traumatized over Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act, and wiretaps. For many George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are far greater threats than Osama bin Laden. Indeed, without a care for the thousands tortured by Saddam or dismembered by the terrorists, American leftists now seek to indict (in Germany of all places!) the former Secretary of Defense on charges such as subjecting detainees to “religious humiliation.” Religious humiliation? Is war now to be played out on Court TV or ape the hurt feelings of Sunday morning television?

Given the constant barrage of antiwar propoganda spewing from the MSM since the very beginning of the Terror War, is it any wonder that many Americans are disenchanted?

Hanson continues:

Iraq to the CNN talking heads is solely a story of amputations, unemployed veterans, anti-war song-writing Marines, and gratuitous violence against civilians — nothing much about Iraqis voting, the Husseins gone, or the brave each day fighting jihadists. Somehow trying to foster democracy abroad has earned far worse public outcry than the old Cold War support for dictators. Leftists apparently think helping the elected government in Iraq is comparable to our past support for a Somoza or Marcos, while those on the Old Right lament that it is not.

Our enemies and their accidental accomplices in the MSM have succeeded in framing the American experience in Iraq in overwhelmingly negative terms. War is awful, sure. But even in the midst of awful war there is good news. There are heroic deeds to be told. Tales of selfless courage. Compassion. Hope. Charity. Brotherhood.

I have seen only a handful of what could be referred to as “positive” stories about the Iraq War, and that can’t be because there are no such stories to be told. The soldiers are, after all, my fellow Americans. I hold our military in very high esteem. They are the best of the best. A helluva lot better than me.

And after all the hell they have been through, the least we can do is allow them to WIN.

Posted by: Chris at November 22, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #196274


Chris: I see your still in denial.

Posted by: jlw at November 22, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #196295

Chris is absolutely right. We must put America on a war footing. We must fully mobilize to defeat the threat in Iraq. Our industries must be immediately converted to producing weapons and we must reinstitute the draft. Americans must begin rationing and support the effort by putting their money into war bonds.

We cannot win when Republicans have left two-thirds of our Army and National Guard rated unfit for combat and our forces are dangerously short of tanks, vehicles, weapons and other vital equipment. We must fully mobilize. Rangel is right, and I’m glad to see some Republicans changing course for victory and backing him.

Keep fighting the good fight, Chris!

Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2006 3:41 AM
Comment #196309

American Pundit:

You think this is funny? Doesn’t it bother you, even a tiny bit, that our enemies agree with you and applaud your efforts? You and your liberal friends are nothing more than useful idiots to them.


Posted by: Chris at November 23, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #196318

Chris
A very good response. Then there are some who can only say to you, “I see you are still in denial”. The reason it appears to the left that we are weak in Iraq, is that we are not there to blow the country wide open, we are there to help the Iraqi police and military to become responsible defenders of their own nation. If it was the mission of the American forces to defeat the country we would have done that by now. Some on the left just still don’t get it.

Posted by: tomh at November 23, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #196333
Doesn’t it bother you, even a tiny bit, that our enemies agree with you and applaud your efforts?

I’d ask you the same question. Our enemies wanted Bush re-elected.

Iran endorsed Bush:

The head of Iran’s security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran’s best interests, despite the administration’s axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaeda terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country’s nuclear ambitions.

“We haven’t seen anything good from Democrats,” Hasan Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Al Qaeda endorsed Bush on one of their websites, www.elaph.com:

“because he (Bush) acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber.”

And from the al Qaeda affiliate, Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades:

“Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.”

“Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”

Doesn’t it bother you, Chris, that your President played right into al Qaeda’s hands time and again? Bin Laden LOVES Republicans and Bush. He couldn’t have built the worldwide movement he leads today without your help — as the CIA, State Department and the latest National Intelligence Estimate all acknowledge.

If you want to start pointing fingers at terrorist collabrators, look in the mirror.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2006 2:38 PM
Post a comment