Why does USA interfere in Syrian-Lebanese affairs?

[Mary-Ann]

Why does USA interfere in Syrian-Lebanese affairs? It’s common knowledge that Lebanon’s premier, Rafiq Hariri, who enjoyed wide-ranging international contacts, was loyal to Syria, and agents of the Strategic Support Branch of the Pentagon with the help of CIA pushed him off the sled. There was no use to do it because Hariri had emerged in recent months as a chief opponent of the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon. He concluded to withdraw 14,000 Syrian troops. And USA took the first opportunity that offered to blame Syria “for this political assassination” and called for “an immediate withdrawal of Syrian soldiers from Lebanon”. And if Syria would be stubbornly refusing to do it, USA would provoke anti-Syrian mass actions in Lebanon. It’d become a good pretext for beginning US military campaign against Syria. Is that not enough for Washington to get problems with Iraq? It’s obvious that Iraqi war showed everyone US inability to size up the complicated situation, demonstrated lack of coordination in activities of Pentagon, White House and Bush administration (not speaking about other state departments). And now new problems in the Middle East are caused by a new US State Secretary, Condoleezza Rice, who is not top of issues there and that is why she is unable to sum up the situation at a glance and so to react adequately there. Poor America…What else is it waiting for?

[anticlimates]

Because Bush isn't happy unless he's telling someone what to do. He think it makes him look tough and his minders have told him to try and look tough.

Obviously with events of the last week it's obvious he doesn't really understand what's going on over there.

By sticking his nose in, he's influencing things in a very unproductive way. Now he's made himself part of the equation and those who oppose Bush in Syria and Lebannon will oppose what he's demanding for the region.

Prior to his interference things were working themselves out. Now Syria likely feels they must defy Bush to save face.

[PocketRocket]

Why does USA interfere in Syrian-Lebanese affairs?

Because they can get away with it, and no one will stop them.

[Herman Simancas]

GW Bush uses any excuses to meddle in the affairs of Middle East. He'll probably use the military to take out the Syrians.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

Interest in seeing Syria leave Lebanon dates from before the assassination, and it is not exclusive to the United States. In September, 2004, France and the United States co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which called on Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and cease to interfere in its internal politics. Because seven other Security Council members voted for it, the proposal was successful.

If the United States is to be criticized for acting on this resolution, we should equally criticize all those who support it, including Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

I disagree with anticlimates' assertion that this UN resolution will make the process of disengagement more difficult. In fact, it is precisely this external pressure which has caused President Assad to state this month that a Syrian withdrawal, "should be very soon and maybe in the next few months."

[Argus]

Why does USA interfere in Syrian-Lebanese affairs?

Syria has made itself a US enemy by funnelling terorrists and religious extremists into Iraq and by supporting terrorist organizations. The Baath regime has been a US opponent for many years and there is no surprise whatever that the US would use whatever opportunity presents itself to cause them trouble in return. Certainly it's predictable they would attempt to frustrate Syria's ambitions abour rebuilding "greater Syria", which includes Lebanon.

In any event, no sympathy for Syria from this quarter. They are a vicious regime, and the sooner they go the better.

Interesting to see the Lebanese demanding the right to vote for their leaders "like the Iraqis have done". One of the unstated reasons for going into Iraq in the first place was to plant democracies seeds in the minds of the Arab people. The election was widely watched, and Arabs elsewhere are increasingly wondering when they will get the chance to vote.

[Guest eureka]

Another "unstated" reason for going into Iraq was to provide every child with a popsicle, thus starting Iraquis on the road to being like Americans: obese and self absorbed.

[caesar]

Interest in seeing Syria leave Lebanon dates from before the assassination, and it is not exclusive to the United States

The Cuban government greatly wishes the USA to leave Cuban soil. Before the USA goes around telling others to leave territories that are not their own; they should follow the same course. Get out of Cuba; the Cuban government refuses the pittance the USA offers. The USA would just pass a law to get some entity off their soil; The Cubans cannot challenge the over powerful USA.

The USA government seems to think it can order everyone around; including Canada. The USA has no legal grounds for giving orders.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

I see no reason why the United States shouldn't voice its opinion in international affairs. On issues of global concern such as the Lebanon-Syria dispute, I would rather the United States do as they have done and specifically state their stance on the matter, rather than being ambiguous.

In this particular case, the United States is representing a coalition of at least nine nations. Because the United States, being the most militarily and economically powerful nation of the group, is best capable of enforcing the demand, I believe that it is the most qualified country to speak on behalf of the coalition.

Although it is true that America's control over Guantanamo Bay is dubious, I don't believe that a nation should automatically be prohibited from commenting on the border disputes of other nations, simply because it is in a border dispute itself. After all, even Canada claims ownership over highly contested territories, such as Hans Island, which is also claimed by Denmark. Many analysts believe that Canada's deployment of troops to the high Arctic is a show of force aimed at Denmark. The fact that Canada is involved in this dispute has not stopped it from commenting on the situation in Lebanon. Paul Martin, by stating that he prefers a Syrian military presence in Lebanon, has chosen to oppose the UN Security Council on this issue.

Overall, I believe that the United States has a better claim to Guantanamo Bay than Syria has to the occupation of northeast Lebanon. Syria intervened in Lebanon to enforce a ceasefire between warring factions and ensure that anti-Syria factions did not triumph during the civil war. Now that the war is over, Syria's reason to stay in Lebanon is largely gone. On the other hand the United States' occupation of the Guantanamo Bay area is legitimate under a 1903 treaty which specifically states that the United States not only has "complete jurisdiction and control" over their bases on Cuba but also that this situation is permanent unless both governments agree to change it. De facto, I think the American government annexed the land more than 100 years ago. The Cuban position is that the treaty is void because the Cuban government would not have signed the agreement in 1903 at all if they hadn't been under American military pressure.

[Herman Simancas]

I see no reason why the United States shouldn't voice its opinion in international affairs. On issues of global concern such as the Lebanon-Syria dispute, I would rather the United States do as they have done and specifically state their stance on the matter, rather than being ambiguous.

In this particular case, the United States is representing a coalition of at least nine nations. Because the United States, being the most militarily and economically powerful nation of the group, is best capable of enforcing the demand, I believe that it is the most qualified country to speak on behalf of the coalition.

Although it is true that America's control over Guantanamo Bay is dubious, I don't believe that a nation should automatically be prohibited from commenting on the border disputes of other nations, simply because it is in a border dispute itself. After all, even Canada claims ownership over highly contested territories, such as Hans Island, which is also claimed by Denmark. Many analysts believe that Canada's deployment of troops to the high Arctic is a show of force aimed at Denmark. The fact that Canada is involved in this dispute has not stopped it from commenting on the situation in Lebanon. Paul Martin, by stating that he prefers a Syrian military presence in Lebanon, has chosen to oppose the UN Security Council on this issue.

Overall, I believe that the United States has a better claim to Guantanamo Bay than Syria has to the occupation of northeast Lebanon. Syria intervened in Lebanon to enforce a ceasefire between warring factions and ensure that anti-Syria factions did not triumph during the civil war. Now that the war is over, Syria's reason to stay in Lebanon is largely gone. On the other hand the United States' occupation of the Guantanamo Bay area is legitimate under a 1903 treaty which specifically states that the United States not only has "complete jurisdiction and control" over their bases on Cuba but also that this situation is permanent unless both governments agree to change it. De facto, I think the American government annexed the land more than 100 years ago. The Cuban position is that the treaty is void because the Cuban government would not have signed the agreement in 1903 at all if they hadn't been under American military pressure.

The USA is in a coalition of 9 countries. Why should it be the leader? Because it has more dollars to spend? Because it has greater military power? Of course not. Just because a country is more powerful, doesn't mean it can represent the opinions of all 9 countries. In Europe, for example, Spain has a very good position in the European Union and has a lot of influence, yet Spain has only 3,000 soldiers and isn't the richest country of Europe. The same with Luxemburg. Such a small country, yet it has quite a lot of influence. The USA cannot boss around the other countries just because it has more money. The Syrians must be taken out, but i think the European countries should do it, not the USA.

[Argus]

The USA is in a coalition of 9 countries. Why should it be the leader? Because it has more dollars to spend? Because it has greater military power?

Yes.

Spain has a very good position in the European Union and has a lot of influence, yet Spain has only 3,000 soldiers and isn't the richest country of Europe. The same with Luxemburg. Such a small country, yet it has quite a lot of influence.

Spain has little influence compared to the larger, wealthier, more powerful nations like France and Germany, and Luxumberg has almost none.

As for Spain having 3,000 soldiers, I think you mean "had" 3,000 soldiers in Iraq. I don't know what the current numbers are of the Spanish military but I assure you there are more than 3,000 soldiers.

[moderateamericain]

ever notice that tokyo tears apart international arguments like a piece of wet bread? GJ to tokyo!