Lebanese Civil War Being Spurred by Syria?

Michael Young has a piece in the Wall Street Journal today that might earn him the Cabinet Member and Parliamentarian Pierre Gemayel, who was gunned down this morning in north Beirut.

The Syrians are going to every length to quash the UN Investigative Inquiry into the assassination of Rafiq Hariri that spurred the Cedar Revolution a year and a half ago. The fingerprints will predictably lead to Syrian President Assad, whose clumsy and stupid terror tactics are again suspected as the motive for killing Gemayel.

This is the same Syrian Government that

never accepted its forced withdrawal from Lebanon last year, and has worked tirelessly since then to reimpose its writ here. Now there is new hope in Damascus: Influential American voices are suddenly suggesting a reversal of course toward Iraq's neighbors. It was music to Syrian President Bashar Assad's ears to hear James Baker, the Republican co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, advocating dialogue with Syria and Iran in an interview last month: "I don't think you restrict your conversations to your friends." The Iraq Study Group's report, expected in the coming weeks, will possibly include such an invitation. Syria's Lebanese foes fear they will pay if the U.S. and Damascus cut a deal.
If so, it wouldn't be the first time for Mr. Baker. In 1990, he was a leading light in President George H.W. Bush's administration, which ceded Lebanon to Syria in exchange for President Hafez Assad's agreement to be part of the international coalition against Iraq. An inveterate "realist," Mr. Baker is not likely to balk at negotiating with Mr. Assad if it means the U.S. can buy some peace of mind as it transforms its presence in Iraq. His proposal is unpopular at the White House, and last week Mr. Bush made that known to Mr. Baker and his colleagues. However, because of his electoral defeat, the president, pressed by a Congress avidly searching for new ideas, might find less latitude to ignore Syria down the road.

Unless, of course, the U.N. incriminates Syrian officials in the Hariri murder. That Mr. Assad realizes the fatal implications of this connection was evident when British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently sent a senior adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, to Damascus for a chat. The visit, reportedly approved by Washington, aimed to see if Syria could be enticed away from Iran. If The Economist is correct, and the magazine spoke to Mr. Sheinwald upon his return, the Syrian president has four conditions: an end to the Hariri investigation, a guarantee that the U.S. would not undermine his regime, a return of Syrian influence in Lebanon, and the handing back of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in 1967. No doubt Mr. Assad would demand much the same from the U.S. if it ran to Damascus to "engage" him on Iraq, assuming the Syrian leader would consider conceding to Washington in a moment of strength what he refused when he was weak.

Therefore, we already know what Syria will demand if Baker's proposal to include them in some sort of negotiations to cover US flanks as it begins to disengage from Iraq. Michael Young continues with splashes of cold-water realism:

There seems to be a consensus in the U.S., whether in Congress or in the administration, that there is no going back on upholding Lebanese sovereignty or in finding Hariri's killers. But it is not clear to many in Washington that asking Syria and Iran for help in Iraq, if that's what the Iraq Study Group advises, will drastically limit the administration's ability to deny both countries' gains in Lebanon. For Syria and Iran, Lebanon is vital in their broader quest for power in the Middle East. They will collect there on whatever is offered to the Americans in Iraq, and the retreating administration already has far fewer means to prevent this.

Mr. Baker and his fellow realists, custodians of stalemate in their own way, want the U.S. to return to its previous approach to the region, where interests defined behavior more than values--particularly democracy. But if engagement with Syria, or even Iran, is on the cards, then the U.S. might have to surrender the one genuine triumph it can point to after Mr. Bush formulated a democratic project for the Middle East: the peaceful, popular overthrow by the Lebanese of Syria's debilitating domination. The U.S. might also find itself having to relinquish that all-too-rare happening in the region: a vigorous international legal process that promises to punish a state-sponsored crime. Yielding on Lebanon will not advance American interests; it will only damage them more, turning the severe setbacks in Iraq into a full-scale regional rout.

If Iran gets control of Lebanon through its cats-paws' Syria and Hezbollah, the bloodshed this summer on Israel will be nothing compared to what will occur if and when attacks resume from the northern border.

We should fear for Michael Young's life, but the US should be more afraid for Lebanese democracy.