embassy bombing
Yesterday, the US embassy in Damascus was attacked by 4 gunman, wielding grenades and driving two explosive-laced cars/trucks. One of the vehicles exploded outside the embassy; the other failed to detonate and was disarmed by Syrian security forces. No Americans were injured in the attack, which failed to penetrate either the residential or service sections of the embassy (no word on which part was the main target). About a dozen people were injured, one Syrian security agent was killed, and 3 of the attackers were killed on the spot. The fourth died later.
Condoleeza Rice has thanked security officials in Damascus for their effective response to the attack, although appreciation has been tempered by back-handed comments about how Syria could do a lot more to assist the US in the region. Syria has had a similarly Janus-faced response, calling for broader American-Syrian dialogue while also blaming US Middle Eastern policies for inciting this type of "terrorist" violence.
I think this remains a dialogue of the deaf, but, as a number of commentators have noted, the attack certainly isn't going to worsen US-Syrian relations. On the Syrian side, the attack is actually quite advantageous. It makes the state look strong and competant before an international audience, still captivated by the Lebanon war and the 9/11 anniversary. And it enables Syria to (again) assert its relevance in regional politics and the neccessity of its inclusion in Levantine security discussions, including those on Lebanon and Palestine. It also enhances the government's domestic power. The state look capable, and if, as it claims, a radical Islamist group was responsible for the attack, it delegitimizes religious organizations--which are becoming increasingly prominent in Syria, much to the distress of the secular government--and reduces resistance to state-sponsored crackdowns.
The political convenience of this attack, combined with its timing, the ease with which it was thwarted, and the limited amount of bloodshed have led some of these commentators to suggest that the Syrian government might have actually STAGED the attack. A cynical interpretation, but I give it at least a 50% chance of accuracy. In my initial reading about the attack, I thought it sounded wierd; a gunfight instead of an explosive-laden suicide bomber? Shouting religious slogans? Failed bombs diffused by courageous security services? And on-the-scene descriptions by "political commentator Ayman Abdel-Nour, who was in the area when the attack occured"? OK, it's a posh area, he could have been out for a morning stroll, but it raises eyebrows. Later, I heard that the fourth attacker died at the hospital BEFORE he could be interrogated. And that the government has been asserting that a radical Islamic group carried out the attack--although no local groups are claiming responsibility.
For the best summary of these rather suspicious details, check out this Al-Jazeera article.
While it's impossible to determine if the Syrian state was responsible for the attack, one thing I'm absulutely certain of is that the this incident was NOT linked to Al-Qaeda. Far too small and poorly executed; compare it, for example, to the 1998 bombings of the Tanzanian and Kenyan embassies. Also far too convenient for the Syrian state, which Al-Q doesn't like. If it wasn't the Syrian government, this was a few local, pissed-off firebrands.
For those of you who are wondering about how this affects American security in Syria, my guess is, not significantly. If the attack was staged, then there's no effect. If it wasn't, then it's important to recognize that it was made on a government target, not American civilians. And that the government has really been playing up the fact that their security services effectively protected American embassy staff; they don’t want any US citizens to get hurt. If I were in Damascus, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I wouldn't be freaking out either.
Condoleeza Rice has thanked security officials in Damascus for their effective response to the attack, although appreciation has been tempered by back-handed comments about how Syria could do a lot more to assist the US in the region. Syria has had a similarly Janus-faced response, calling for broader American-Syrian dialogue while also blaming US Middle Eastern policies for inciting this type of "terrorist" violence.
I think this remains a dialogue of the deaf, but, as a number of commentators have noted, the attack certainly isn't going to worsen US-Syrian relations. On the Syrian side, the attack is actually quite advantageous. It makes the state look strong and competant before an international audience, still captivated by the Lebanon war and the 9/11 anniversary. And it enables Syria to (again) assert its relevance in regional politics and the neccessity of its inclusion in Levantine security discussions, including those on Lebanon and Palestine. It also enhances the government's domestic power. The state look capable, and if, as it claims, a radical Islamist group was responsible for the attack, it delegitimizes religious organizations--which are becoming increasingly prominent in Syria, much to the distress of the secular government--and reduces resistance to state-sponsored crackdowns.
The political convenience of this attack, combined with its timing, the ease with which it was thwarted, and the limited amount of bloodshed have led some of these commentators to suggest that the Syrian government might have actually STAGED the attack. A cynical interpretation, but I give it at least a 50% chance of accuracy. In my initial reading about the attack, I thought it sounded wierd; a gunfight instead of an explosive-laden suicide bomber? Shouting religious slogans? Failed bombs diffused by courageous security services? And on-the-scene descriptions by "political commentator Ayman Abdel-Nour, who was in the area when the attack occured"? OK, it's a posh area, he could have been out for a morning stroll, but it raises eyebrows. Later, I heard that the fourth attacker died at the hospital BEFORE he could be interrogated. And that the government has been asserting that a radical Islamic group carried out the attack--although no local groups are claiming responsibility.
For the best summary of these rather suspicious details, check out this Al-Jazeera article.
While it's impossible to determine if the Syrian state was responsible for the attack, one thing I'm absulutely certain of is that the this incident was NOT linked to Al-Qaeda. Far too small and poorly executed; compare it, for example, to the 1998 bombings of the Tanzanian and Kenyan embassies. Also far too convenient for the Syrian state, which Al-Q doesn't like. If it wasn't the Syrian government, this was a few local, pissed-off firebrands.
For those of you who are wondering about how this affects American security in Syria, my guess is, not significantly. If the attack was staged, then there's no effect. If it wasn't, then it's important to recognize that it was made on a government target, not American civilians. And that the government has really been playing up the fact that their security services effectively protected American embassy staff; they don’t want any US citizens to get hurt. If I were in Damascus, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I wouldn't be freaking out either.
posted by Emily at 8:27 PM
2 Comments:
Yesterday's article in al-Ahram had the first car as carrying the attackers only, the second as carrying gas containers (like the ones we know and love that feed all our portagaz's). There was nothing about anything failing to go off. There was something about an Asian diplomat--Chinese, I think--sustaining light injuries, and I think 14 or so civilians also being injured.
Of course none of this actually diminishes the chances that the govt. staged it, and lord knows the Syrian govt. is used to getting its way. As if there weren't enough violence in the world....
Btw the same issue of al-Ahram also carried an article referring to doubts which cannot be dismissed concerning the 9/11 attacks, which may very well have been organized by the US government. I decided I could go without reading the yards of very fine print on that one. But I must admit that the distinct possibility that governments in this neighborhood do do that sort of thing makes me a tiny bit less irritated by those who think we took down our own Trade Center. Maybe they are not quite in the same category as Holocaust deniers....
K. H.
ah, a post! a most insightful post. glad to see it, lady. ;0)
Post a Comment
<< Home