This is the first part of a two part series.

“Mr. Hariri’s death should give, in fact it must give, renewed impetus to achieving a free, independent and sovereign Lebanon. What that means is the immediate and complete implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559. And what that also means is the complete and immediate withdrawal by Syria of all of its forces from Lebanon,” said Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, on Feb. 16.

On the surface, U.S. policy toward recent developments in Lebanon seems to make sense. After all, Syria has occupied Lebanon and has manipulated their political system for over 30 years. Why shouldn’t we demand a full and complete withdrawal? Syria is suspected of harboring insurgents who penetrate the loosely guarded Iraq border to attack U.S. troops. The Bush Administration considers Syria’s support of the Hezbollah Party to qualify as terror sponsorship and by translation, these and other factors make Syria a terrorist state.

However the Syrian occupation, admittedly undemocratic, is crucial to the stability of Lebanon. Lebanon’s citizenry is made of several ethno-religious groups: Sunni Muslim, Shia Muslim, Druze and four disparate Christian sects. Combined with Lebanon’s isolating terrain of mountainous regions and valleys, this ethno-religious demographic led to the very civil war that prompted the Syrian occupation to begin in 1976.

Since the occupation began, many Syrian citizens have migrated to Lebanon in a move that some observers call a ‘colonization process,’ and others say is due simply to the increased freedom and improved quality of life they enjoy while residing within Lebanese domestic policy and economy. It is likely that the Bush Administration considers at least some of these to be part of the Syrian covert operations present in Lebanon. Bush has said that anything less than full withdrawal of troops and intelligence elements from Lebanon, as well as the disbanding of all local militias, i.e. Hezbollah, constitute unacceptable “half measures” by Syria.

Many leaders in Washington point to a ‘Beirut Spring’ or a ‘Mid-East Thaw’ as a signal that the people of the region are begging for democracy. While a large proportion of the Lebanese populace may desire to eject occupying forces and foreign troops from their nation, a significant amount of people (I daresay potentially even of equal numbers) seem to be willing to tolerate their neighbor’s forces within the Lebanese borders in order to keep the peace.

But buried beneath the Bush Administration’s propaganda campaign on these issues lay the actual roots of the U.S. interest in Lebanon: a 1996 document entitled, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. There is quite a bit of coverage on the document available online, where it has been discussed especially after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A rather succinct summary follows:

“[A Clean Break] featured a series of recommendations designed to end the process of Israel trading ‘land for peace’ by transforming the ‘balance of power’ in the Middle East in favor of an axis consisting of Israel, Turkey and Jordan. To do so, it called for ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a Hashemite leader in Baghdad. From that point, the strategy would be largely focused on Syria and, at the least, to reducing its influence in Lebanon.”

A statement put before the U.S. Senate late last year elaborates on the connection between A Clean Break and the current administration:

“There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: 1. Peoples the world around have a history of culture and religion. In the Mideast, the religion is predominantly Muslim and the culture tribal. The Muslim religion is strong, i.e., those that don’t conform are considered infidels; those of a tribal culture look for tribal leadership, not democracy. We liberated Kuwait, but it immediately rejected democracy.

2. In 1996, a task force was formed in Jerusalem including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. They submitted a plan for Israel to incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Clean Break …”

“…The plan was rejected by Netanyahu, so Perle started working for a similar approach to the Mideast for the United States. Taking on the support of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Cambone, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, et al., he enlisted the support of the Project for the New American Century.

“The plan hit paydirt with the election of George W. Bush. Perle took on the Defense Policy Board. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith became one, two and three at the Defense Department, and Cheney as vice president took Scooter Libby and David Wurmser as his deputies.”

In short, the strategies currently employed in the Middle East are not reactions to actual developments, 9/11 or a terrorist threat. The current presidential administration (et al.) have hijacked U.S. foreign policy and used real situations and developments as an excuse to implement their plans. That is something that should seriously concern us all.

Part two of this column will appear in the March 28 issue of The Daily Collegian.

T. James Hanaburgh was a Collegian columnist. Check out his blog at http://whatsparksaremadeof.blogspot.com/.