Assad on Black Sunday: “U.S. remains pragmatic”

Syrian president tells visiting Lebanese group:

• Americans have been pragmatic throughout the crisis
• Europe is confused
• For Russia, defending Damascus is defending Moscow’s status
• The Arab League is blind as a bat
• Lebanon is not in Africa to dissociate itself from Syria
• The Aoun-Franjieh-Ra’i triplet is Lebanon’s godsend
• The FSA is undone and we’re fighting al-Qaeda
• The battle will be long and our sole choice is to win it

The Local Coordination Committees of Syria say government forces and militiamen loyal to President Bashar al-Assad killed a record 566 people, many of them women and children, across the country on Black Sunday.

At least 85 of the fatalities were in the town of Jdaidet al-Fadl near Damascus, which the army retook from opposition forces (see my April 16 post “Syrian army secures Damascus with ‘four walls’”).

At the same time, Assad was talking his fill on the Syria war to a deputation of supporters from Lebanon.

According to Beirut’s pro-regime daily al-Safir today, the Syrian president told his Lebanese loyalists at al-Muhajereen palace in Damascus the following:

Lebanon is not in Africa to dissociate itself from Syria

“Lebanon’s official policy of dissociation from the Syria war is misplaced. One cannot dissociate himself when he is in the line of fire and when the flames are approaching. I don’t understand! What does this policy mean exactly? Does it mean transposing Lebanon into Africa pending an end of the Syria crisis, when Lebanon would revert to its natural spot?”

The Aoun-Franjieh-Ra’i triplet is Lebanon’s godsend

Three Assad apologists -- Hezbollah ally Michel Aoun, the one-time Lebanese Army Commander who now leads the Free Patriotic Movement, MP and Marada Movement leader Suleiman Franjieh, and Maronite Cardinal Bechara Boutros al-Ra’i – are “farsighted, nationalist and insightful leaders…

“To Aoun’s credit, he tussled then made peace with us honorably. His position on the Syria crisis is so much more credible because he was not our friend in the past -- on the contrary, he was a vicious adversary. That’s why we recognize the value of his stance.

“As for MP Suleiman Franjieh, I can’t say more than he is my friend and my brother.

“Cardinal Ra’i is a guiding light.

“Aoun and Franjieh consolidate the Christians’ Eastern dimension and consecrate the Christians’ enrichment of the region’s social fabric.

“The same can be said of the Armenians who did not turn their back on Lebanon during its ordeal or on Syria now.

“While Islam blends us with the Kurds and the Arab identity binds us to the Christians, the Armenians succeeded in integrating our societies.”

The FSA is undone and we’re fighting al-Qaeda

“Developments on the ground are going well.

“Our strategy is to keep Damascus and the other cities under army control. As concerns the countryside, we deliberately choose to clear some areas for tactical reasons at times.

“Better we sap (their strength) than having them sap ours.

“The so-called Free (Syrian) Army is effectively undone. We’re now fighting al-Qaeda. Some 23 foreign nationalities are currently fighting on Syrian soil.

“Many advised us at the onset of the crisis to respond decisively. But you can’t do that to your own people on your home turf.

“Had we followed the counsel, the picture for some people would have looked blurred and we would have lost a few friends. Today, however, we are winning (the hearts and minds) of some of our adversaries.

“For example, we responded wisely when armed rebels broke into the Yarmouk Camp (for Palestinian refugees). We were urged to force them out.

“Instead, we reinforced our positions around the camp and fenced in the armed insurgents. In no time, we heard residents clamoring for the terrorists’ evictions from the camp…”

Generally, “the battle will be very long, but our sole choice is to win it.”

The Arab League is blind as a bat

“The Arab League is blind as a bat. It was originally set up to serve British interests. It never played a pan-Arab role, except in the days of Egypt’s late Gamal Abdel-Nasser.

For Russia, defending Damascus is defending Moscow’s status

“Moscow’s strategic decision to stand by the Syrian state is not for the love of our people and us. It is because Russia considers the battle to defend Damascus as a battle to defend the status and interests of Moscow.”

Today’s Russia is stronger than the former Soviet Union. Some people link the outcome of the Syria crisis to the meeting between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland in June.

“From our side, we say Syria’s steadfastness and strength will impact on the summit and not the other way around.  We need to impose our rhythm on the summit instead of vice versa. Each of the two presidents will be looking at the facts on the ground in Syria to determine what he does.”

Americans have been pragmatic throughout the crisis

“The Americans have been pragmatic since the onset of the crisis. They don’t go to the limit. In the end, they go along with the winner.

“Europe is confused.”

Pro-Assad daily expects “new gory chapter”

Syria's 14 provinces or governorates

On the day the Syrian opposition said it deferred a decision on forming a government-in-exile at its meeting in Istanbul, a newspaper close to Syria’s regime was anticipating an imminent and gory government campaign to jettison rebels from three of Syria 14 provinces: Damascus, “Rif Dimashq” (or Damascus suburbs) and Homs.   

The opposition said in a statement, “After studying the proposals and after deliberation on the question of creating an interim government, we decided to set up a five-member committee tasked with consulting with the forces of the revolution, the Free Syrian Army and friendly countries.”

The panel – which includes among others, National Coalition chief Moaz el-Khatib, Syrian National Council head George Sabra and former SNC leader Burhan Ghalioun -- would also be tasked with exploring the extent of Arab and international political and financial commitments needed to make an interim government viable.

The opposition is due to meet again on January 28 in Paris, along with representatives of some 20 countries that back the revolt against President Bashar al-Assad.

But Assad himself won’t be holding back meantime.

According to al-Akhbar daily, his mouthpiece in Beirut, it’s now “back to the battlefront.”

The paper explains, and I paraphrase in part:

In light of fresh reports about root changes in the Syrian army’s accomplishments and operations, and as a new round of diplomacy spurred by forces hostile to Syria gathers pace, fear of a bloodier conflict is mounting.

Syria is moving towards a new phase, politically and on the ground. The external diplomatic ambiance does not augur an impending settlement.

Lakhdar Brahimi urged “real change” in Syria, but failed to win concessions from either the regime or the opposition.

On the ground, the regular army’s efficacy has been going from strength to strength since the collapse of the rebels’ “Damascus foray.”

Several sources confirm Military Intelligence played a key role in the army’s recent successes in the Damascus suburbs and the Homs area.

After a reassessment of the situation, decisions were made to forsake efforts deemed futile. As a result, it was decided to abandon certain positions and not to engage in military confrontations in a range of areas, chiefly in the North.

The endeavors of players hostile to the Syrian regime are now focused on:

-- Lifting the Syrian National Coalition’s morale and lobbying for an interim government with promises of political and financial help.

-- Renewing the attempt to centralize the armed opposition under a single military command.

-- Putting on ice the issue of al-Nusra Front in the hope that all rebel groups would close ranks, particularly in the rural areas of Idlib and Aleppo.

-- Compensating for the “Damascus foray” fiasco with high-visibility blasts targeting regime political figures or a military push that would expand rebel control of this or that area.

On the battleground, reports from Damascus say regime forces will try to regain full control of the provinces of Damascus, Rif Dimashq and Homs. The implication is that military operations are expected to stretch from Eastern Ghouta southward to Qusayr and villages in the Homs rural area. The outcome of these confrontations will have far-reaching repercussions in the next stage.

Given the persisting internal split and intensifying outside pressures, Syria has a rendezvous with a new bloodstained chapter.

Call for decisive and urgent intervention in Syria

This op-ed piece by Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist now heading Saudi billionaire Prince Walid bin Talal’s new Arabic news channel Al Arab launching at year’s end, appears in Arabic today in the Saudi-owned newspaper al-Hayat

It’s time Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan intervened militarily to end the Syria crisis.

Why shouldn’t they when the situation there is getting worse by the day?

They don’t need a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

During the Jordanian-Palestinian war of September 1970, Hafez Assad massed his troops along the border with Jordan without a Security Council resolution.

Turkey too moved her troops to the Syrian border in October 1998, and threatened to invade Syria over its embrace of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and its leader Abdullah Ocalan. Turkish tanks were set to cross the borders into Aleppo without waiting for a Security Council resolution.

Look at the proposed tripartite military intervention as a limited regional campaign like so many others.

What could happen, a Russian intrusion? Impossible. Yes, the Russians would be furious and protesting. But the United States and the West would stand up for Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and at the minimum prevent blatant involvement by the Russians.

It would be a brisk and incisive campaign that would leave no time for the Russians to even airlift fresh arms supplies to the regime.

Iran, on the other hand, would never enter a full-scale war to save Bashar al-Assad. It would surely be foaming at the mouth. Some of its men would fight alongside the regime and perish with it.

But Iran won’t be foolhardy as to invade Bahrain or Kuwait for instance in retaliation to joint Arab-Turkish intervention to help out the Syrian people.

Without bona fide intervention, the Syria crisis would carry on for years. Lines have been drawn in the sand. There are no key figures left to carry out a palace coup or defect but hasn’t yet.

Sectarian officers and gang leaders are now commanding the regime’s war. It’s their war. Instead of turning against Bashar, they would protect him. Even if he fell, they would name a substitute from their lot. Their motto is, “Victory or death.”

Any Saudi or Turkish military analyst must recognize that the regime is winning as many points as it is losing. The regime has regained control of Douma and Darayya on the outskirts of Damascus. It has made up its mind and committed not to treat residents there as people it sought to win back but as enemies whose back it wants to break.

The last few days bear witness to the summary execution of hundreds of residents in townships vacated by the Free Syrian Army (FSA). We’ve seen images of countless bodies of victims with hands tied behind their backs and gunshot wounds to the head.

The people summarily executed were not FSA insurgents whose military strategy is to hit and run back to the rural areas. The victims were civilian inhabitants who tolerated the presence of FSA fighters in their townships.  Opposition sources say the summary executions by regime forces did not distinguish between FSA sympathizers and people who had stayed put at home.

The regime’s message is clear: “Whoever is not on my aside is against me.”

Before us is an example of the type of civil or liberation wars that “devour their own people” and peoples close by.

Who can say the Syrian liberation war won’t last as long as the Algerian liberation war, or that the Syrian civil war won’t last 15 years such as the Lebanese civil war?

Are Saudi Arabia and Turkey ready to tolerate decade-long and wide-ranging hostilities on their doorsteps liable to lead to Syria’s partition and regional intercessions, let alone spillovers – into Lebanon, for instance?

The agreed wisdom is they are not.

Conventional wisdom also posits that a blitz is a must-have.

A thrust by the Saudi and Jordanian armies advancing into southern Syria and a push by the Turkish army into northern Syria would secure quick gains. In the south, Deraa and Houran would be liberated within hours. Concurrently, Turkish forces would have moved into Aleppo in the north. Citizens would rush out to the streets to welcome their fraternal saviors. The regime’s armed forces would be in a state of shock and awe.

The next question would be when to move toward Damascus, which would already be within easy reach of Saudi and Jordanian forces.

Any military expert would tell you the Syrian army is seriously overstretched. Its supply lines are faltering. Its morale is low and it is hardly able to ward off FSA fighters.

Saudi Arabia could also assemble a bigger Arab striking force by co-opting contingents from Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and maybe Egypt. President Mohamed Morsi is already on record saying he wanted to help out his brothers in Syria.

But the concern is of the Syrian regime resorting, when on its deathbed, to “Option Zero” – namely the use of missiles armed with chemical warheads, including nerve agents.

The scenario is costly.

Strategy analysts in Adana will hasten to kill off the idea of a blitz because of the danger. They would say:

We’re not intervening. The free Syrians are fighting and are ready to die for their freedom. So let’s suffice with supporting the FSA.

But someone is bound to retort:

This has been our position for a year. We could not help the Syrians win their battle. We were reluctant to arm them. Some of us feared the arms would find their way into the wrong hands, specifically al-Qaeda.

We are trying to determine the extremists and moderates Syrian armed opposition ranks. But by hesitating, we are promoting extremism and driving the Syrian insurgents who are being bombed by regime warplanes into the arms of al-Qaeda and its bigots.

This is not to mention also that the idea of jihad in Syria is bound to draw into the battle Arab recruits, Saudis included.

We have to do something short of total war and beyond sending arms and communications equipment to the FSA.

A surgical airstrike against the chemical and biological weapons facilities is a good idea. It won’t only rid the regime of such a ghastly weapon, but deal it a mortal blow and pave the way for our rapid intervention.

The costs of civil strife in Syria dragging on for years far exceed the costs of a rapid intervention to end the crisis within days, notwithstanding the risks involved.

The regime’s sectarian army is exhausted, horrid and wobbly.

It’s time someone dealt it the coup de grâce for the sake of the region, the Syrian people and the additional 5,000 Syrians who will be killed in September and each month thereafter.

Indeed that’s the average monthly death toll in Syria until we see Arab and Turkish troops being greeted by Syrians packing Marjeh Square and waving Syria’s independence flag.

The West’s three big lies about Syria

This think piece, appearing today in the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, was penned in Arabic by Michel Kilo, a Syrian Christian considered a leading light of the Syrian opposition

Michel Kilo

The West’s politicians and experts parrot three big lies each time they get to talk about Syria. They lie to justify their passive role in Syria’s crisis. They trump up three Syrian “obstacles” that are difficult to surmount.

One

Their first lie is that Syrian society is a jumble of disparate sects and ethnic groups. It is as through the blend is new and did not exist throughout half a century of Baathist rule and a lot earlier.

They overlook the fact that Syria has always been a land of diversity and coexistence, bringing together different sects, religions, civilizations and ethnic groups.

It always welcomed strangers who gradually integrated its social fabric.

For example, the Kilo family to which I belong includes both Muslim and Christian residents of Latakia. And we call Muslim Kilos “cousins” they refer to us as cousins as well. We are united for better or worse and in the good days and bad days.

If you asked a Muslim or Christian Kilo about someone with the same surname, the answer is invariably, “He/she is a cousin.”

We hail from the Kurds Mountain area, which the regime has been shelling for the past month and a half. Although there are no Kurds left there, if you asked any other Syrian there about their place of residence, they would say: “The Kurds Mountain, east of Latakia.” That’s an area where Sunnite Muslims live in peace side by side with Alawites and Christians from all denominations.

My late father, God bless his soul, used to recount the story of a place of worship in the township of Kanasba that was falling apart until Muslims and Christians got together and decided to restore it. It still stands today. The Muslims call it the temple of Prophet Yahya and the Christians call it the temple of Yuhanna (John the Baptist).

Sects were not born under the Baath. It is Baath policies that bred sectarianism. That’s one of the problems afflicting our country today. The allegedly secular Baath Party deliberately reared sectarianism in state institutions to turn any quest for freedom by Syrians into a violent sectarian struggle.

Instead of noting this and recognizing that current sectarian manifestations amongst Syrians will evaporate once the regime is brought down, Western politicians and analysts insist on characterizing diversity in Syrian society as an insurmountable handicap.

Two

Their second fabrication is that the Syrian army is mighty, well trained and disciplined, and has in its arsenal modern and plentiful air defense systems as well as mass destruction weapons at sites dispersed across the country.

When blitzed by the United States, Iraq had no less than 625 air-to-surface missile bases, none of which brought down a single U.S. warplane. The United States was adamant that Saddam’s Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the world’s fourth largest army.

The West today is inflating the size, hardware and muscle of the Syrian army to steer clear of attacking the Syrian regime.

While I am not urging military intervention in Syria, I am persuaded such intervention was not ruled out because of the Syrian army’s might. Decision-makers on the matter of military intervention simply want the regime to continue pulverizing Syrian cities, towns and villages. Once the destruction is complete, they would start saying the Syrian army is weak, badly trained and equipped and we can put boots on the ground to kick out Assad.

Three

Their third lie is that the opposition is divided and impossible to unify. Except that when the Syrian National Council (SNC) was founded, the West was saying the Syrian opposition has sufficiently pulled together as to give national cover for external military intervention.

When the SNC urged Western powers to intervene, they backed off claiming the Syrian army was tough, the opposition fragmented and so was the whole of Syrian society.

Once Syrian opposition groups got together (at Arab League headquarters in early July) and thrashed out a detailed and all-inclusive roadmap to a new democratic, free, pluralistic and civilian Syria, the Western powers concocted a new lie about al-Qaeda having infiltrated the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

They fail to remember that they recently paved all al-Qaeda’s way from Benghazi to Tripoli. They turn a blind eye to the fact that the tens of thousands of people who have taken up arms against the regime are ordinary Syrians who have nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Gentlemen, be honest. Had your interests warranted your intervention you would have said Syria’s is whole in its diversity, its army is crippled and its revolution is untouched by al-Qaeda.

No quick fix for Syria: It’s game on!

Putin and Obama in Los Cabos

There is no quick fix for Syria. It’s game on!

I suppose that’s what Russian President Vladimir Putin and his American counterpart Barak Obama agreed at their meeting yesterday on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico.

Speaking after the two-hour meeting, Obama said he and Putin had pledged to work with "other international actors, including the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and all interested parties" to try to find a solution to the 15-month-old Syria crisis.

Putin said the two countries had found "many common points" on Syria.

“We agree to cooperate bilaterally and multilaterally to solve regional conflicts,” the leaders said in a joint statement, adding: “In order to stop the bloodshed in Syria, we call for an immediate cessation of all violence and express full support for the efforts of UN/League of Arab States Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan, including moving forward on political transition to a democratic, pluralistic political system that would be implemented by the Syrians themselves in the framework of Syria’s sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity. We are united in the belief that the Syrian people should have the opportunity to independently and democratically choose their own future.”

But despite the optimistic rhetoric at the meeting, the Obama administration is unlikely to change its stand on many issues, including Syria. This is what a former member of the Reagan Administration, Paul Craig Roberts, told Russian 24/7 English-language news channel RT.

“I am convinced Putin does not want a conflict with Washington. He wants to resolve the issue of the missile bases that are surrounding Russia. He does not want conflict. And Obama does not want any conflict either. But he is just a member of the government that wants regime change in Syria. And Obama is not exactly in position to be able to stop that.”

“Obama will do what he can to get along with Putin, but still has to represent the agenda of regime change,” Roberts added. “And the situation I think is unresolved.”

BBC News in turn quotes correspondents as saying there were no smiles between Obama and Putin during the news conference, and their interactions seemed stiff and strained.

Bouthaina Shaaban, a political adviser to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said after talks in Moscow this week with Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov that Damascus “welcomes the (Moscow) idea” of convening an international conference on Syria.

Later today, UN Security Council members will be briefed in consultations by the head of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS), Maj.-Gen. Robert Mood. The briefing has taken on further significance following Mood’s decision last Saturday to suspend UNSMIS activities until further notice.

It is also likely the Council’s next briefing from Annan himself may be moved forward from its currently scheduled date of June 26 to later this week.

The long and short of all this is that the give and take over the Annan mission, the UN monitors’ task and Russia’s proposed Syria conference will resume ad infinitum.

And the carnage will not stop anytime soon.

Editorially, leading Lebanese political analyst Nicolas Nassif, writing this morning for the staunchly pro-Assad Beirut daily al-Akhbar, believes the Syria stalemate will “probably persist another few months.”

In his think piece -- titled “Syria: The regime in daytime and the rebels at night?” – Nassif lists a series of observations regarding Russia’s stand on the Syria crisis. He says unnamed Lebanese officials formed the impressions on the sidelines of their just-concluded “mission” in Moscow.

Nassif itemizes five of their specific observations as follows:

1.     Moscow “behaves as though there is no Syria crisis. It carries on fulfilling military contracts signed with the Syrian government. It explicitly ignores Western sanctions against the regime, saying it doesn’t bother about them and they are irrelevant. It reiterates its determination to fulfill all contracts signed between the two countries.”

2.   Moscow does not conceal its “full coordination with Damascus on events and developments facing the regime, particularly as concerns its opponents who are being funded and armed unconditionally.” Russian officials do not deny being aware of escalating violence against the regime, which says it is in a position of legitimate self-defense. Contrary to previous impressions, “Russia is neither surprised nor embarrassed by the growing violence.” In step with Damascus, it lays the blame at the door of the opposition’s Western and Arab backers.

3.     Moscow reads the election of Syrian Kurdish activist Abdulbaset Sieda head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) as “an attempt to introduce the Kurdish factor into the equation and broaden the scope of confrontation with the regime religiously, socially and ideologically. Another aim of Sieda’s election is to turn the Kurds against the Syrian president who naturalized them and gave them their civil rights at the onset of the crisis.”

4.  Inasmuch as they are adamant about standing by Assad’s regime, and notwithstanding their call for an international conference on Syria, the Russians acknowledge that one reason for their own opposition’s demonstrations against Putin is his endorsement of Assad. But having been duped in Iraq, Libya and Yemen, the Russian officials told their Lebanese opposite numbers they won’t let this happen with Syria, whether inside or outside the UN Security Council.

5.     Moscow’s “confidence in the survival of the regime of Assad and his inner circle parallel its blind faith in the Syrian army’s unity and cohesion. Russians consider the Syrian army an immutable bedrock that will “protect the regime, prevent its collapse and preclude the president’s forcible ouster…”

On the ground in Syria, Nassif registers pluses and minuses for the regime and its opponents over the past three months.

Among them:

• The army has “lost control of cardinal sections of the rural areas of some major cities such as Damascus, Aleppo and Idlib… The chaos there was condensed in a sentence: ‘The regime in daytime and the rebels at night.’”

• The number of mass protests against the regime has dwindled considerably.

• Save for Homs, “which has been marginalized, destroyed and depopulated,” the regime maintains full control of the big cities, specially the capital Damascus.

“They destroyed me for good, but I’m staying put”

Abu-William perched on the balcony of his ruined flat (Asharq Alawsat photo)

An elderly figure sits cross-legged on the balcony of his wrecked home in Homs. Ceaseless bombardment and shelling by the Syrian Army for months has left most residential areas in Homs and many other restive cities, towns, neighborhoods and villages in ruin.

The lonely and broken man from Homs is Abu William Kaddoura. He could only salvage a broken chair, a wooden table, a mattress and an ashtray from his lifetime savings to own and furnish a home.

Taking a puff at his cigarette, he reflects on camera:

“My home? My home is wrecked. Today, my wife arrived from Damascus. She saw this and turned tail in under 15 minutes. She stayed 15 minutes in Homs before taking to her heals. I mean to say she was right. What is this? The dirt, the dust after the shell destroyed everything.

“Who did it? The Syrian Army! Who else? Who has tank shells? Who else has rockets? They destroyed me. They destroyed me for good.”

But how are you surviving now?

“By God’s grace and with the young men lending me a helping hand.”

Will you be staying put?

“Until I die. There is no way I would leave. I die? Then I am hauled to my grave. Let them take over my home afterwards.”

But who is helping you and protecting you?

“In truth, the young men, the young men from the revolution. They are good people. Much too good in fact! They are getting me food and water. But I am painfully shy. I shy away from asking them for anything – haraam (it’s a pity). I don’t know what to say, haraam. Today, they got me bread. They got me food. They’re good people. Much too good in fact!”

But your place is now wide open on the street below now!

“Yes, I know. But who is going to get in. Thieves? Let them come in. If they find anything, they can take it.”

And the message you wish to get across?

“Enough! Enough shelling! Let us live! If we still have 10 or 20 days to live, let’s know how to live them. God is merciful to everyone.”

The two-minute Abu-William video posted on YouTube yesterday:

“Syrian Army to blitz Idlib after Baba Amr fall”

An official Syrian communiqué will announce “in the next few hours” the Syrian Army’s full takeover of the rebel-held district of Baba Amr in the restive central city of Homs.

This is according to the Beirut daily al-Akhbar, which is close to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

A report titled “Crucial Hours” on the paper’s front page states: “Damascus sources confirmed to al-Akhbar the Syrian Army has gained control of most parts of Baba Amr neighborhood and broke into its main streets after a 25-day blockade. The sources said the army was overnight flushing the remaining rebels out of hiding while guarding against mines and booby traps. They (the sources) expect the authorities to issue a communiqué in the next few hours announcing the area is now safe.”

The global campaign organization Avaaz announced Tuesday that “a network of Syrian activists” coordinated by the group “helped the international journalist Paul Conroy escape into Lebanon. He had been injured and trapped in Baba Amr for six days under continuous Syrian government shelling. The three other journalists Javier Espinosa, Edith Bouvier and William Daniels remain unaccounted for.

“Avaaz responded to requests from the journalists, their families and colleagues to attempt to evacuate them and worked with over 35 heroic Syrian activists each night who volunteered to help in the rescue.  

“The activists have offered to support in the evacuation every night since Remi Ochlik and Marie Colvin were killed by Syrian government shellfire last Wednesday, during which time they rescued 40 seriously wounded people from the same place and brought in medical supplies. Tragically this operation led to a number of fatalities as the Syrian Army targeted those escaping, during their bombardment of the city on Sunday evening. 13 activists were killed in the operation. Syrian targeted shelling killed three activists as they tried to assist the journalists through Baba Amr.  

“While Paul Conroy successfully escaped the city, ten activists died bringing relief supplies into Baba Amr...”

IDLIB NEXT

The Syrian Army’s next target after Baba Amr will be Idlib, according to a pro-Assad figure talking exclusively to Lebanese Hezbollah’s al-Manar news website.

Dr. Muhammad Darar Jamo, identified as “head of the political division and international relations of the International Organization for Arab Immigrants,” tells al-Manar in remarks published this morning: “The Syrian army is set to launch, within the coming 10 days, a major offensive in the north, starting in Idlib and extending to the borders with Turkey.”

Jamo said, “Calm on the Syrian-Turkish border is the kind of calm preceding a storm… specially that armed gangs consider Idlib a safe haven and an area of influence that is out of bounds for state authorities.”

In Turkey, meantime, activist Taner Kiliç, chair of the Executive Board of the Association of Solidarity with Refugees, explains in an article for Today’s Zaman how “Syrian asylum seekers have been sold out” by Ankara.

In the U.S. last week, Republican Senator John McCain called for arming Syrian insurgents against Assad regime repression.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disagreed with McCain’s plea during an interview Sunday with CBS News.



“We really don’t know who it is that would be armed,” Clinton said during a visit to Morocco. “Are we supporting al-Qaeda in Syria?” she said. “Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?”

All these news tidbits justify the title of an exceptional essay I read last night, "The Syrian Uprising of 2011; Why the Assad Regime is Likely to Survive to 2013."

The author is Dr. Joshua Landis, a highly respected Syria expert and associate professor and director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma. He wrote the piece for the journal of the Middle East Policy Council.

You can read it here.

Lavrov in Damascus: Aye or Nay?

The three Wise Men (illustration storyboardtoys.com)

According to Christian tradition, three Wise Men from the East (named Balthazar, Caspar and Melchior) traveled to the manger where infant Jesus lay bearing ceremonial gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Today, two senior officials from Russia – Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and spymaster Mikhail Fradkov -- travelled to Damascus bearing “three gifts” to President Bashar al-Assad, according to a leading Lebanese political analyst.

Nicolas Nassif, whose news analysis makes the front-page lead of the pro-Assad Beirut daily al-Akhbar and is reproduced in Syria’s electronic news journal Champress, says Lavrov arrives in Damascus for talks with Assad “armed with three nays:

1. “No to foreign military intervention in Syria.
2. “No to Assad standing down.
3. “No to armed rebels gaining footholds anywhere in the country.”

However, Nassif adds, “Moscow insists on internal dialogue between Assad and his opponents. Moscow favors a decisive blitz against the armed insurgents. It wants them out of the equation. Otherwise, they would wreck the internal dialogue that Moscow is championing.”

This, according to Nassif, explains the major – but “phased” – Syrian army’s offensive, initiated on January 27, to flush out insurgents from the three hottest flashpoints: rural Damascus, Homs and Idlib. The army having regained control of rural Damascus already, its focus has now shifted to “Homs and Idlib, especially that they are respectively close to the borders with Lebanon and Turkey.”

George Solaj, columnist for the anti-Assad Lebanese daily al-Joumhouria, sees Assad receiving four cautions from Lavrov rather than gifts:

1. Russia can do no more for Syria; international pressure is mounting and so is the death toll.
2. Take advantage of the offer on the table: change the regime’s chain of command instead of the regime itself; stay on the sidelines after naming someone to agree serious and swift reforms with the opposition; then implement them pending new elections allowing voters to choose between the regime and its opponents.
3. Moscow would host the dialogue conference and ensure your personal and family safety and immunity from future prosecution.
4. The alternative is a multinational siege of Syria and the outbreak of civil war.

Lebanon’s famed pan-Arab political analyst Khairallah Khairallah, writing today for the first Arabic-language online newspaper Elaph, wonders how the “Russian sickman” can possibly treat his Syrian counterpart.

His piece reminds me of a folk proverb in Arabic: عصفور كفل زرزور والاثنين طيارين

It translates into: A bird pays a surety bond for a beetle; problem is both are winged.