Peace is not good

That must be what the State Department thinks. From AP:

The United States has recalled its ambassador to Syria amid rising tensions over the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon.
...
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, announcing the move, said it reflected the Bush administration's "profound outrage" over Hariri's assassination.

Boucher did not accuse Syria of being involved in the bombing Monday in Beirut. "I have been careful to say we do not know who committed the murder at this time," he said.

But he said the deadly attack illustrated that Syria's strong military and political presence in Lebanon was a problem and had not provided security in the neighboring country.

"It reminds us even more starkly that the Syrian presence in Lebanon is not good," Boucher said. "It has not brought anything to the Lebanese people."

The Robert Fisk article that I linked to earlier described the 15 years of peace that Lebanon has enjoyed, much (all?) of it with Syrian presence. Fisk went so far as to call Beirut "one of the Middle East's safest cities." Maybe that wasn't the Syrians doing, but it certainly is a better track record than the American record in Baghdad or Kabul. Until yesterday, the Lebanese had enjoyed some 15 years of peace--I'll bet they think that is good, even if they chafe at the Syrian presence. But our State Department doesn't see peace as a worthy objective, apparently. In reality, they're just jumping on this opportunity to put pressure on Syria. Makes you wonder who was REALLY behind the bombing, doesn't it?