This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 001793 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA/ARN, NEA/PA, NEA/AIA, INR/NESA, R/MR, 
I/GNEA, B/BXN, B/BRN, NEA/PPD, NEA/IPA FOR ALTERMAN 
USAID/ANE/MEA 
LONDON FOR GOLDRICH 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
 
TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON SYRIA'S PULLOUT FROM 
LEBANON 
 
                        Summary 
 
-- Lead story in all papers today, March 6, highlights 
President Assad's decision to pull back Syrian troops 
from Lebanon.  A number of commentaries discuss the 
event, arguing that this was a "smart" move in order 
to thwart "schemes against the nation". 
 
                 Editorial Commentary 
 
-- "Syria withdraws from Lebanon" 
 
Center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(03/06) editorializes:  "The Syrian President set at 
date for the beginning of the end of a situation that 
lasted thirty years; a situation that had to come to 
an end one way or another after all the debate about 
the Syrian presence in Lebanon that followed the 
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik 
Hariri and the angry reaction it received from all 
parties.  This makes us believe that this region is 
facing explicit and implicit pressures that force the 
smart leaders to understand the game and take the 
appropriate position in order to come out of it 
safely..  President Bashar Assad knows very well what 
is going on around his country  in Iraq and Palestine, 
and has the courage to make the right decision.  He, 
of course, realizes that the Arab leaders, who advised 
him to thwart any opportunity for those with ill 
designs for this region, did so out of concern for 
Syria.  The region has seen real disasters.  Decision- 
makers therefore must learn a lesson from what happens 
as a result of miscalculations, because it is the duty 
of the leaders of the nation to preserve the security, 
stability and safety of our countries and our people. 
This does not mean giving in or collapsing before 
pressures, but rather deflating and defusing them and 
thwarting evil intentions..  We hope that Syria's 
decision to withdraw from Lebanon will bring to a 
close this matter, in which we see foreign schemes 
acting against the safety of all the Arab countries. 
We also hope that the Lebanese leadership will take 
the initiative towards maintaining Lebanon's unity and 
stability and undertake the necessary steps to 
reorganize its internal status and its relationship 
with Syria." 
 
-- "America's joy that will not be complete" 
 
Columnist Yaser Abu Hilaleh writes on the op-ed page 
of independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (03/06):  "America 
wants an immediate Syrian pullout from Lebanon.  Ok. 
But there are certain facts that should be remembered. 
Who brought the Syrian `occupation' to Lebanon?  Why 
was the American `liberation' delayed?  The Syrians 
would not have entered a country bordering Israel 
without Israel's approval first and America's approval 
second..  The Syrians entered Lebanon after they got 
the required approvals, because their presence aimed 
at supporting the Christian militia and standing up to 
the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the 
Lebanese nationalist forces.  Indeed, the Syrians were 
more successful in reining in the Palestinians and 
those Syrians who fought the Israelis in the October 
(1973) war were the same soldiers who fought the 
Palestinians at Tel Za'tar and Tripoli.  The Syrian 
army managed to tip the balance in favor of the 
Christian militia and marginalize the PLO, which had 
become the military arm of the Lebanese nationalist 
movement.  And this was an Israeli and an American 
objective.  However, the Americans' did not `liberate' 
Lebanon from the Syrian occupation after the departure 
of the PLO and the defeat of the Lebanese nationalist 
movement for two reasons.  The first was the blow they 
received from the Shiite Jihad movement when the U.S. 
Embassy in Beirut was attacked, and the second was the 
American need for the presence of the Syrian army to 
regulate the momentum of the Lebanese resistance 
against Israel..  These facts are just reminders that 
the man in the White House is not the inheritor of the 
legacy of nationalist revolutionary movements but the 
ruler of a superpower with national interests, and he 
listens to the pulse of the people only when that 
pulse is in rhythm with his own interests, otherwise, 
he is ready to cooperate with the unjust ruler against 
the oppressed people..  The Syrian army is going to 
pull out of Lebanon and America is going to find 
itself face to face with the Lebanese people.  What if 
the majority adheres to the right of Hizbollah to 
resistance?  What if Hizbollah refuses to lay down 
their weapons, would the American army assume this 
task? Would America enter the game among the sects? 
On who's side?  the Maronites, the Sunnis, the 
Shiites?  The America that has experienced the 
resistance in Lebanon and in Iraq knows the 
seriousness of falling into the Lebanese quagmire, so 
it does not get involved with a direct military act, 
but will settle for economic and media pressures on 
Syria." 
 
-- "The Syrian scene post Lebanon" 
 
Columnist Mohammad Kawash writes on the back page of 
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm 
(03/06):  "We do not think that the American campaign 
[against Syria] will stop at Syria's withdrawal from 
Lebanon.  There are a great deal of accusations being 
leveled by President Bush and his administration 
against Damascus, foremost among them is support for 
terrorism through relations with opposition 
Palestinian factions, Hizbollah and Iraq and its lack 
of control over borders with Iraq.  This means that 
the American President has in his pocket many 
different accusation cards to play against Syria and 
he will continue to escalate..  What is coming will be 
graver and more dangerous, because there is in 
America's intentions and schemes far more than 
effecting Syria's military withdrawal from Lebanon." 
 
-- "Syria in the bull's eye: why?" 
 
Columnist Fuad Dabbour writes on the op-ed page of 
center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(03/06):  "The U.S. administration and its partners in 
the Zionist Entity view Syria's opposition to their 
project to control and tame the region and use its 
resources as an obstacle that must be removed by 
creating problems and lighting the fires of Lebanon so 
they burn Syria in the process, all the while thinking 
that this will weaken Syria and force it to succumb. 
National and pan-Arab opposition to American Zionist 
schemes that aim to eliminate the Palestinian cause 
and to strengthen the grip of the occupation of Iraq 
and then to take control of the region is the duty of 
all the Arabs and not just Syria.  This requires Arabs 
to stand by Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian and 
Lebanese resistance movements so they can stand up to 
the scheme of aggression that targets the entire 
nation before it becomes too late." 
 
-- "American salt in the markets!" 
 
Columnist and former Jordanian Minister of Industry 
and Trade Mohammad Halaiqah writes on the back page of 
independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (03/06):  "We have 
said before that all that is going on in the region is 
the aftershock of the Iraqi quake..  Did we really 
need Saddam Hussein's departure by a military 
occupation for all this to happen?  Did Lebanon need 
the assassination of a major political leader for 
resistance to evolve and for Syria to start thinking 
about withdrawal?  Did we need all this bloodshed to 
be convinced of the need for reforms, democracy, 
freedom, civil society, transparency and good 
governance in the Arab world?  Could we have listened 
to the voice of the people without an American recipe 
or a terrorist bomb?  Strange is this that is 
happening in our Arab world!  We have become observers 
of the event and its repercussions without having any 
tools to make the event or influence it.  It is as if 
we have no choice but to act reactively." 
HALE