WASHINGTON, 9 April 2003 — Conservatives within the Bush administration would like to see a change of government in Syria but want it to happen through peaceful means rather than US military action, according to current and former senior US officials.
On Sunday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said, “There’s got to be a change in Syria,’’ which has been accused by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of allowing war materials and Arab fighters to cross its border to help the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. “The Syrians need to know...they’ll be held accountable,’’ he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.’’
Wolfowitz and other officials have not spelled out how they expect a peaceful change of government in Syria would occur. But many are beginning to speak about a successful conclusion of the war in Iraq providing a possible springboard for change.
“I think a lot of countries, including Syria, will eventually get the message from this (Iraq war) that it’s much better to come to terms peacefully with the international community, to not acquire these weapons of mass destruction, to not use terrorism as an instrument of national policy,’’ Wolfowitz said.
Rumsfeld’s remarks, which included a warning to Iran to not permit armed Iraqi exiles in Iran to return to Iraq outside US control, encouraged other Bush administration supporters to speak out on the issue. R. James Woolsey, a former CIA director told an audience at UCLA last Wednesday that the “fascist’’ government in Syria had to be replaced.
The Syrian government considered Rumsfeld’s remarks a threat, triggering statements from other US officials aimed at easing Syria’s concerns. “Nobody in the American administration (has) talked about invading Iran or Syria,’’ Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in an interview with London-based Arab daily Al-Hayat published on April 5.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Monday dismissed a report first mentioned last December by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Iraq had shipped some of its chemical and biological weapons to Syria.
But Myers told reporters “there is no evidence’’ that weapons of mass destruction have been moved out of Iraq into another country.
Syria has been regularly listed in CIA reports as a country that possesses or is building chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles that can deliver them.
Richard Perle, a close adviser of Rumsfeld and major supporter of the Iraq war, said in an interview on Monday, “There are different ways to get people to change and I hope the example of Iraq after Afghanistan will prove persuasive.’’ There has been disagreement within US administrations for years over how to handle Syria, first under President Hafez Assad, and more recently under his son, Bashar Assad.
Although Syrian support of terrorist groups was always on the agenda, said one former diplomat with direct experience in the area, “Assad was a clever negotiator and insisted his country was not being used as base for operational activities.’’
In addition, he kept reminding the US that “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.’’ Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a new relationship has developed between the CIA and Syrian intelligence because Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network targeted the secular government in Damascus as well as the United States.
Rumsfeld’s recent statement that singled out Syria along with Iran for assisting Iraq surprised not only the White House but also the CIA, which had not reported any major flow of military equipment or fighters from Syria to Iraq. “It is clear that the policy group in the Defense Department is intent on eliminating the present Syrian government as a factor in the Arab-Israeli dispute,’’ said Walter P. “Pat’’ Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specalist in Mideast affairs.
“I think it’s a good thing. I don’t think the benefit derived from their help against Al-Qaeda outweighs the bad things they do harboring Iraqi materiel or fostering problems in the Israeli-Arab dispute.’’
