Occam's Razor In Damascus

Daniel Pipes, generally worth listening to where Syria is concerned, has the simplest answer to the vexing question of why Bashar Assad would have ordered the Hariri hit: because he's stupid. Returning to the creation myth of contemporary Syria, the death of Basil Assad (Sonny to Bashar's Fredo), he depicts underwhelming history of Bashar's presidency, winding up:

With his flair for incompetence, Mr. Assad presumably decided that the former prime minister had to die for this betrayal. But, quite contrary to Mr. Assad's presumed expectations, far from reducing pressures on Syria to leave Lebanon, the atrocity magnified and intensified them.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[Gary Gunnels]

Bashar Assad,

I thought it was well known that Bashar Assad is moron.

[a]

GG:
"I thought it was well known that Bashar Assad is moron."

Why? because he didn't let the French run free in Lebanon?

[Andrew]

Stupid...and weak. I wonder if he even calls the shots. It is worth noting that he likely has been shielded from the real world on a level approaching Kim or Castro.

It goes to the point about the reasonableness of democracies, vs. the senselessness of police regimes.

[PapayaSF]

I thought Eleanor Clift was a hoot on the McLaughlin Group last week. Her argument was that Syria wouldn't have done the hit because it would be stupid for them to do so. Riiight, Eleanor, sons of dictators never make bad decisions!

[DaveInBigD]

Its interesting to see Occam's Razor and Hanlon's Razor coexist in the same moment.

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence." When you've got incompetence and malice working together, there's no end to what you can achieve.

[Gary Gunnels]

a,

No, because its been said and written about him on any number of occassions. *yawn*

[Syrian Embassy, WDC]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Syria condemns the violent murder of Lebanon's former Prime Minister, Rafic Hariri. President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria has just expressed his deep sorrow and described this assassination as a horrendous atrocity.

Bashar Al-Assad is the great popular leader of the peace and freedom loving Syrian people. He is a light of peace and justice unto the world.

It is only a coincidence that those who do not agree with President Al-Assad are shot or blown up. Any suggestions to the contrary are vile lies and provocations.

Yours,

Dr. Imad Moustapha

[zeroentitlement]

I'm putting on my tinfoil hat now: anyone got Vegas odds on the possibility that the U.S. engineered Hariri's assassination to get Lebanon pissed enough at Syria to help us start a war there? I mean, for fook's sake, anyone who's heard Condi Rice's screechy saber-rattling at Syria this past week has to wonder...

[Jon H]

"I mean, for fook's sake, anyone who's heard Condi Rice's screechy saber-rattling at Syria this past week has to wonder."

Also, the Pentagon's new enthusiasm for handling black ops, rather than letting the CIA do it.

Would the Pentagon do it? Well, we know they'll use torture. Who knows what they're capable of.

[Ken Shultz]

"I mean, for fook's sake, anyone who's heard Condi Rice's screechy saber-rattling at Syria this past week has to wonder."

Also, the Pentagon's new enthusiasm for handling black ops, rather than letting the CIA do it."

Halfway through denouncing these statements as completely preposterous I realized that they're not preposterous.

...President Bush, after all, is also incompetent.

[Jaybird]

Not so incompetent that Lebanon is blaming him.

Of course, the UFOs are using their satellite mind control rays to make them ignore the obvious conclusion that the US, probably at the behest of Israel, did it and framed Syria.

[matthew hogan]

Strange times, indeed. US troops in Iraq while Osama is in Pakighanistan, Arafat actually really dead, and Daniel Pipes kinda making sense on things Middle Eastern.

[a]

"Not so incompetent that Lebanon is blaming him"

Lebanon isn't blaming Assad either. Lebanon has many voices. The Lebanese opposition is blaming Syria, but that doesn't necessarily mean they believe Syria actually did it. They are using this tragedy to further their goals, like any other political group.

[Franklin Harris]

More Occam's Razor: Daniel Pipes says Syria did it because he really, really wants Syria to have done it. Or to take the fall for it. Either serves his purpose.

[Franklin Harris]

Of course, the UFOs are using their satellite mind control rays to make them ignore the obvious conclusion that the US, probably at the behest of Israel, did it and framed Syria.

Please. Occam's Razor. Mossad did it themselves.

[Former Suscriber]

So you guys have Christopher Neocon Hitchens write the preface for your book. Cathy Young is down for monitoring e-mail. The South had no right to secede because all rights are granted by the government. Now you're toting the Israel-firster Daniel Pipes as an authority on the Middle East? Can you guys just call up Commentary and arrange a merger already?

[dhex]

must everything you read give your particular worldview a reach-around?

[wonkette]

Did I hear somebody allude to ass-fucking?

[Ken Shultz]

If you're refering to the article some commenter linked to yesterday, having read it, I would argue that Cathy Young was not "down for monitoring e-mail." Also, just yesterday, one Reason contributor seemed to mock the simplistic suggestion that the Union was right to supress state soverignty just for the sake of supressing state soverignty.

...But you're right about Hitchens. Forwards to Reason anthologies should only be written by libertarians. In fact, Reason anthologies should only be read by libertarians. Indeed, Reason the magazine should only be read by libertarians--I don't know why they keep putting it out on the magazine racks where just anyone might read it!

[David T]

Has Justin Raimondo blamed Israel yet?

[Rick Barton]

Anything that Pipes writes about the Mideast must be read with a caution that comes from understanding his reflexive and violent, pro-Israeli government sentiments.

These sentiments have led him to numerous wild errors of fact such as his emphatically blaming the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on Muslims. Also, Pipes seems to have no compunctions about issuing ugly, anti-individualistic, racist categorizations against Muslims.

[Rick Barton]

...Having said that, the "Syrian government did it" hypothesis is certainly credible, as is the "they did it because Assad is an idiot" hypothesis. (But that much of an idiot?) Also, the Israeli government has benefited and they must be considered suspect as well.

[David Nieporent]

Has Justin Raimondo blamed Israel yet?

What, are you kidding? His first rambling excuse for a column after the assassination contained the remark, "Once again, it's all about Israel."

To be fair, he didn't come right out and say "Jews did it," the way he did with anthrax and 9/11. He just nudge-nudge-wink-winked it, arguing that this is good for Israel and that Israel (and that infamous "amen corner") are framing Syria.

[racer_x]

More tinfoil:

How about the U.S. gets Israeli Mossad to kill Assad, frame Syria using counter-ops Wahhabists (traceable, if uncovered) from Saudi Arabia. Israel swings Lebanese public opinion against Syrian occupation, which happens to conveniently operate next to Israel's borders.

Assad's conciliatory gestures toward Syria have gotten him killed. The American ambassador gets called back to the U.S, under the cover of sucessfully evacuating Jack Bauer and his team from a black-ops CTU, who have enabled a successful intelligence collaboration against Syria.

So Israel takes the pressure off of Syria's porous eastern border with Iraq by creating problems in Lebanon. Syria's been sending in their own recon to support and organize Baathist insurgents, since they see all of Iraq up for grabs against the Iranians who are also supporting their own Shiite militancy in Iraq. It's a war of attrition, just waiting for when the U.S. leaves.

The Wahhabist schools are infiltrated by counterintel as the Saudi government looks the other way. They do this since they botched their "plausible deniability" to Bin Laden's unauthorized 9/11 splinter-cell attack, which nonetheless shook the world economy and allowed for oil price increases in order to prop up the faltering Saudi regime.

Osama Bin Laden becomes an unknowing puppet for American propaganda, justifying U.S. military expansion surrounding Iran, which is getting missle imports from North Korea in order to further their covert success from creating an untested nuclear weapon.

China and Russia (along with the EU) play games to get back into the lucrative energy market as they also extend their strategic spheres of influence geographically, each covertly supporting Iran and Syria against each other.

Since Israel has nukes pointed at Iran (a Chinese interest), the U.S. uses Israel to broker with China in order to restrict N. Korea's paranoid weapons program.

N. Korea is bent upon diplomatically-destroying the UN armistice which has allowed S. Korea to thrive and create a combined Japanese-Korean economic foundation rivaling China.

Of course, China's massive population pressures make it likely that they must either employ their people by expanding their influence, and keep hardliners from fueling their own military interests with an internal power struggle, or face increasing social unrest. Absent this, China goes on an expansionist war in the Asia-Pacific region, reclaiming Taiwan as a strategic military outpost.

The U.S. dependence on Chinese imports either allows for continued U.S. multinational corporate influence into China, or it forces us to avert our delicate defensive posture over Taiwan.

Current U.S. economic policy allows the dollar to fall against imports, as a means of recouping export trade to make up for the economic ripple caused by 9/11, slowing China's manufacturing base, while also pressuring for a free-floating yuan in the world market. A free-floating yuan would allow the U.S. to finally gain the benefits of its WTO support for China's trade status, and increase our ideological influence.

You see, people, it all ties together! And in the end, everybody is happy, especially those of us living in the bomb shelters, with 5 women for every man, if we fail our mission to balance our interests in Asia aginast our relationship with Europe.

I think I'll go watch old reruns of "24" now . . . (no one ever said I didn't have a good imagination)

[racer_x]

I think I should ghostwrite a book for that housepainter Tom Clancey. 😉

I hearby copyright my work, Racer_x (c) 2005

[Douglas Fletcher]

Look, I did it, okay?

[SPD]

You broke my heart, Bashar! But I swear that nothing will happen to you while our mother is alive.

[Peter K.]

"Christopher Neocon Hitchens" on Pipes's nomination to join the board of the United States Institute of Peace (a federally funded body whose members are proposed by the president and confirmed by the Senate):

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086844/
Aug. 11, 2003
"On more than one occasion, Pipes has called for the extension of Israel's already ruthless policy of collective punishment, arguing that leveling Palestinian villages is justifiable if attacks are launched from among their inhabitants. It seems to me from observing his style that he came to this conclusion with rather more relish than regret. And, invited recently to comment on the wartime internment of the Japanese - as a comparison case to his own call for the profiling and surveillance of Muslim and Arab-Americans - he declined on the grounds that he didn't know enough about the subject. One isn't necessarily obliged to know the history of discrimination as it has been applied to American security policy - unless, that is, one is proposing a new form of it. To be uninformed at that point is to disqualify oneself, as the Senate should disqualify Pipes.

The board of USIP already contains enough people to make sure that the hawkish viewpoint does not go unrepresented. It includes Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense, and Harriet Zimmerman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The objection to Pipes is not, in any case, strictly a political one. It is an objection to a person who confuses scholarship with propaganda and who pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity."

Speaking of those who pursue petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity, Justin Raimondo recently wrote "Yeah, well I always read Cavanaugh, whose pieces shine like diamonds on a dung heap."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4933

You have to wonder if the Pipes plug is a reaction to this.

[dhex]

"Did I hear somebody allude to ass-fucking?"

always, madame.

personally, i think pipes is a fucking twit, but even he's never entirely wrong. all sorts of people with gross opinions are right about certain things that ideology can blind us to, which is why engaging with media and writing which goes against your held beliefs is useful.

i.e you don't sound like a comic book nerd who can't handle that zoltor isn't considered the most amazing superhero of the ultrahuman federation by other fans of the series.

[gaius marius]

i can't believe reason credits that bloodthirsty monster. it's like praising charles manson.

it is one thing to be a machiavellian -- it is another to need to see blood. pipes wants to see blood spilled for his cause, and rationalizes a paranoid politics, a speculative ubiquity of islamofascist terrorism and racist suspicion of all muslim arabs from that starting point. there is no hardbitten civitas in that, no acknowledgement of the fluid dynamics of politics. he himself describes his views as "the simple politics of a truck driver". so the only valid views are those without complexity or nuance? has antiintellectualism made such inroads into the american psyche that this becomes credible?

what pipes says eminates from the central passion of needing arabs to die for their sins against the ideology of "freedom". as non-saint hitchens notes (and mr k cites above), pipes has "relish" for death. he may be informed -- so was robespierre. what of it? he is mad. someone at a magazine named 'reason' has to acknowledge that.

Please. Occam's Razor. Mossad did it themselves.

whatever the actuality is, a realist must admit that the cui bono analysis -- unevidenced as it is -- leads to the neoconservatives.

syria does not benefit in any way from this -- and it is contra to much assad has done recently to try to reconcile on some superficial level at least with the united states. assad knows that regime change is a risk.

israel too had seemingly little to gain. as josh landis noted:

"How can it be the Israelis? It doesn't make sense for them to do it. They had everything going their way in Lebanon and they didn't have to do a thing. America and France were doing all the heavy lifting for them. The Lebanese opposition was organizing against Syria in a way that Israel had failed to achieve in 1982. If the world discovered there was Israeli involvement it would be devastating for Sharon."

however, the neoconservative view is that syria is the linchpin of the region and longterm key to securing israel's security. is it really coincidental that the plan articulated in 1996 by richard perle, douglas feith and others called for damascus to be secured through baghdad?

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right -- as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. ... But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank.

i would agree that there is little realist advantage in what they've done -- but so was it for iraq. fanatical idealism is their commander. "reality-based" solutions are disdained.

i know a lot of folks here don't want to hear that we might have done this thing. i'm sure cathy young will now label me a self-hating american. but cui bono is often a better analysis that occam's razor -- and this is a political cadre that adores machiavelli and has neutered cia to hold the reins of intel and black ops. many have predicted that they would wield them recklessly. perhaps they just did.

[Rick Barton]

David Nieporent:

To be fair, he didn't come right out and say "Jews did it,"

Yeah, and he never would. Criticism of the Israeli government is, of course, not criticism of Jews in general. The latter is never with foundation. The former often is.

[Rick Barton]

Peter K.,

I'm pretty sure that you misunderstood Justin Raimondo's comment about Tim's pieces. I think that his comment was an honest compliment. Read it again...

[tried]

Rick,

I think Peter got that it was a compliment. It's just when you get certain compliments from certain people (Mom likes your clothes, Raimondo likes your political posts) it's best to change immediately. In this light, Tim's praise of Pipes came from the lucidity he was shocked into by having Raimondo agree with him.

[Rick Barton]

tried,

I'm not sure, but I don't read Peter's post that way. Also, Justin and Tim's articles usually are more in agreement than disagreement when Tim writes about the matters that Justin and antiwar.com are concerned with.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, and he never would. Criticism of the Israeli government is, of course, not criticism of Jews in general. The latter is never with foundation. The former often is.

He never would because he's too glib to be caught making that gaffe, not because he makes a distinction between Jews and the Israeli government. The sneering references to "Likudniks" for instance, for people who have no connection to Likud. It's just a euphemism. His anthrax conspiracy theory involving hunting for a Jew -- not an Israeli -- to blame it on.

[Peter K.]

Tried is correct. I did charcterize Raimondo as someone who tends to "pursue petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity." And David is correct about his style when writing about Israel and Jews. He's the mirror image of Pipes.

[gaius marius]

he didn't come right out and say "Jews did it," the way he did with anthrax and 9/11. He just nudge-nudge-wink-winked it

sneering references to "Likudniks" ... just a euphemism

mr nieporent, i think you need much more than this to accuse someone credibly and responsibly of antisemitism. for as volatile as that charge is, you assume to know far too much about raimondo's justification. it's perfectly consistent to "hate" not only israeli policy but even what the state of israel has become and still love and respect judaism as a religion and jews as people.

i read raimondo once a week or so, and have never encountered what i would call antisemitism -- despite many virulent denunciations of israeli policy. can you back your claims with more than this? if not, please shut up. you damage not only yourself but the power and durability of denunciations of actual antisemitism.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Kremlinology was barely worth doing when it concerned the actual Kremlin, and it's definitely not worth doing when it concerns the decisionmaking of Reason staffers. I noted that Pipes is worth listening to on the topic of Syria because he's worth listening to on the topic of Syria. His point of view is well known and I disagree with it to the umpteenth degree, but he knows a lot about the workings of Syria's politics and the ambitions of its government.

[gaius marius]

but he knows a lot about the workings of Syria's politics and the ambitions of its government.

he does, mr cavanaugh -- but that unfortunately doesn't preclude him from being a bloodthirsty madman.

[Rick Barton]

David Nieporent:

...not because he makes a distinction between Jews and the Israeli government The sneering references to "Likudniks" for instance, for people who have no connection to Likud.

That's ridiculous. Raimondo features the writing of Jews who are opposed to the the Israeli government, on antiwar.com. And of course, "Likudnik" also refers to people, especially the neocons, who support the Likudnik agenda.

Peter K.:

He's the mirror image of Pipes.

Nonsense! Raimondo's critique is of the Israeli state and our government's support of it. Pipes drinks from the gutter of anti-individualistic, racism. We should be gratified that Pipes isn't a libertarian and ecstatic that Justin Raimondo is. Also Peter, did you understand that Justin was complimenting Tim? The two do tend to agree on foreign policy matters.

[marvin]

MR. DANIEL PIPES HAS IT ALL WRONG. THE REASON THAT BASHAR ASSAD IS SO DOLTISH IS THAT WHEN HE WAS CIRCUMCISED THEY GAVE HIS MOTHER THE WRONG PIECE.