About Syria
23 July 2006 7:10 am by Taylor Marsh
UPDATE (12:21 p.m.): John McLaughlin speaks…
Lesson No. 4 is that even superpowers have to talk to bad guys. The absence of a diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of the one with Syria — two countries that bear enormous responsibility for the current crisis — leave the United States with fewer options and levers than might otherwise have been the case. Distasteful as it might have been to have or to maintain open and normal relations with such states, the absence of such relations ensures that we will have more blind spots than we can afford and that we will have to deal through surrogates on issues of vital importance to the United States. We will have to get over the notion that talking to bad guys somehow rewards them or is a sign of weakness. As a superpower, we ought to be able to communicate in a way that signals our strength and self-confidence. …
Thomas
E. Ricks has an excerpt of his book, which comes out this week, in the Washington
Post today. The title of it says it all. It's going to be quite an account,
I have no doubt, because few reporters know the Iraq war better than Ricks.
He'll be on “Meet the Press” today as well. I only wish the man I'm
about to talk about would read the book and be reminded of the lessons. But
Tom's getting ready to go to Israel and Syria. He's got big plans in his head.
So yesterday I decided to see who was on Tim Russert's CNBC
show. It was none other than Tom wait 6 more months Friedman. Okay,
I'll bite.
It struck me as very deliberate at the time, but I didn't think much about it. That is, not until I saw one particular article in today's New York Times.
At one point, Friedman started talking about what would be the game changer
in the region. What could change the whole complexion of the Middle East? In
essence, what would Henry Kissinger do? That's what Tom wanted to know. It revolved
around the role of Syria in the whole Middle East puzzle.
Here's the way Friedman laid it out, which I can't really argue with on the
merits because they're obvious. Syria is the staging ground for the Iraqi insurgents.
Check. Syria is also the land bridge between Iran (though obviously not connected, still a conduit) and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Check. Syria
also is the support for Hamas. Check.
It's also important to remember that when the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik
Hariri was assassinated, which brought on the cedar revolution and Syria's expulsion from Lebanon. President
Bush recalled U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey from that country. We haven't had a
representative there since, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We need
an ambassador in every country, because we need relationships, especially with
our adversaries, otherwise we just end up screaming into the abyss. So given this reality, you have to ask yourself just how serious Bush is in
stopping anything through diplomacy, especially if he actually believes what
he said to Blair last week. I'm also starting to wonder if Bush didn't know the mike was hot; either way he didn't care.
Friedman's contention is that if we get Syria to change her ways we can change
the outcome in the Middle East. Syria needs to start siding with the Sunni Arabs,
which will leave Hezbollah and Iran out in the cold (they're Shia), both truly isolated. He
thinks it can be done if the Saudis and the United States go to Syria and say,
what do you want? Then whatever the answer is simply give it to President
Bashar al-Assad.
Who can forget what Bush
said the other day? “What they need to do is get
Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over.” To
this Blair replied, “Who, Syria?”
Yes, Syria.
So yesterday we find out, via Tim Russert's little show on CNBC, that Tom Friedman
is going to Israel and Syria this coming week. “He's got his bags packed,”
is how Russert put it, making a point of it.
Then today there's this little piece in the New York Times, which peaked my
interest a bit, especially after watching Tim and Tom on TV.
…But officials said this week that they were at the beginning stages of
a plan to encourage Saudi Arabia and Egypt to make the case to the Syrians
that they must turn against Hezbollah. With the crisis at such a pivotal stage,
officials who are involved in the delicate negotiations to end it agreed to
speak about their expectations only if they were not quoted by name.“We think that the Syrians will listen to their Arab neighbors on this
rather than us,” a senior official said, “so it’s
all a question of how well that can be orchestrated.”(snip)
The effort begins Sunday afternoon in the Oval Office, where President Bush
is to meet the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, and the chief of the
Saudi national security council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Prince Bandar was
the Saudi ambassador to Washington until late last year and often speaks of
his deep connections to the Bush family and to Vice President Dick Cheney.
…
Condi has already said she's not going to Damascus.
We all know Tom Friedman has friends all over the Middle East, not to mention he was for the Iraq war all the way. It also wouldn't
be the first time he came back from the region with a plan to put in print.
I know, it all seems so high school. But with our current president that's what makes
it all so plausible. Then again, it could just mean more Middle East gamesmanship.
I'm so fed up, I admit, I've taken to grasping at straws.
