Right Idea, Wrong Person
Nancy Pelosi's sitdown with President al-Assad can achieve little but further isolating and shaming the administration in Washington. And Washington should be ashamed. It's been too long - 2005 - since they sent any top delegation to this most-crucial Baathist nexus of strife, and have habitually done nothing positive or engaging to direct that nation in flux. But Pelosi should be ashamed as well.
The chatter in Washington these days about "showing the President a better way" holds no water from the perspective in global strategy. Our allies and enemies abroad don't see the Democrats as the cavalry, rushing in to save the imperilled world from unilateral barbarism. They just see an America split by internal strife, and a hazardous executive with its hands not tied, but merely encumbered. Put plainly, they just see weakness.
I'm all for diplomacy. It has to be done from a position of strength. Pelosi's independent delegation to the Middle East - no matter how well planned out or how necessary the dialogue - is little more than a sop to those who think Democrats will undermine Bush at any cost. She may think that she's laying the groundwork for future talks, either by this administration or the next. The fact is, that's just not true - not as true as the clear message of divisiveness it sends to the world.
Great - he's ready to engage. Too bad he's not doing it with the inspiration or presence of the White House, which is about the only force in the world that could achieve anything on this serious matter. And al-Assad will not just want, but need that kind of protection and support if he's going to so much as move a finger for Middle East peace.
The same goes for the Saudis and the Israelis. Knowing that a thin Congressional majority stands behind them - maybe - is not going to let these nations' leaders sleep more peacefully.
It's not because they're venal and entrenched. Not necessarily. Consider if you were in Bashar al-Assad's position. The man's a former opthamologist. The Air Force - and its intelligence arm, which has based Syria's regional power on links with the actions of groups like HAMAS and the Iraqi Baathists - put his father in power. They kept him there and they kept him in line. Bashar knows that if he pushes to hard to shake the machine of terrorism that the Syrian intel and Air Force has going on, that machine will chew him up and replace him.
Unless, of course, he gets support. But he hasn't. His reign began with an immense liberalization which, without support from Washington, has been abridged and languished. He, like his father, even more so, has asked for help from the White House. He's got only silence.
Silence and things like this:
"A lot of people" would be the then-Deputy Secretary for Defense, Richard Armitage, two years ago. He showed up to holler at Bashar about the Syrian's leaky border with Iraq, and offered zilch in way of substantial security cooperation or diplomatic assistance. Before that, nothing. We don't even have an ambassador there, out of protest. Protest? We're in a war. You either talk or you fight; make allies or make casualties. Syria's intel is glutting Hizb Allah and seeding Baathists into Iraq, and we're sending neither words or bombs.
Bombs won't help. Words will. Backing reform in the Middle East means dealing with people who want to see change and can actualize it at home - not the Achmed Chalabi exiles, but the Bashar al-Assads. We've ignored that opportunity for seven years. We blew it with Iran, and got Achmedinajad as a result.
Pelosi should be ashamed on account that her trip does, indeed, make America look weak, divided and inept - undercutting the very strength she would hope to make a change in the Middle East. And Bush should be ashamed as well, as the man in charge, for not doing the right thing and engaging Syria with both hands, whether of friendship or of violence.
She can't show him the way ahead. That's not how it works - like it or not, he's our leader. The responsibility to do the right thing is where it has always been: In his hands.
The chatter in Washington these days about "showing the President a better way" holds no water from the perspective in global strategy. Our allies and enemies abroad don't see the Democrats as the cavalry, rushing in to save the imperilled world from unilateral barbarism. They just see an America split by internal strife, and a hazardous executive with its hands not tied, but merely encumbered. Put plainly, they just see weakness.
I'm all for diplomacy. It has to be done from a position of strength. Pelosi's independent delegation to the Middle East - no matter how well planned out or how necessary the dialogue - is little more than a sop to those who think Democrats will undermine Bush at any cost. She may think that she's laying the groundwork for future talks, either by this administration or the next. The fact is, that's just not true - not as true as the clear message of divisiveness it sends to the world.
She said she brought a message to Assad from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria. Assad gave assurances that "he's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said. She later left Syria, heading for Saudi Arabia, the next leg of a Mideast Tour.
Great - he's ready to engage. Too bad he's not doing it with the inspiration or presence of the White House, which is about the only force in the world that could achieve anything on this serious matter. And al-Assad will not just want, but need that kind of protection and support if he's going to so much as move a finger for Middle East peace.
The same goes for the Saudis and the Israelis. Knowing that a thin Congressional majority stands behind them - maybe - is not going to let these nations' leaders sleep more peacefully.
It's not because they're venal and entrenched. Not necessarily. Consider if you were in Bashar al-Assad's position. The man's a former opthamologist. The Air Force - and its intelligence arm, which has based Syria's regional power on links with the actions of groups like HAMAS and the Iraqi Baathists - put his father in power. They kept him there and they kept him in line. Bashar knows that if he pushes to hard to shake the machine of terrorism that the Syrian intel and Air Force has going on, that machine will chew him up and replace him.
Unless, of course, he gets support. But he hasn't. His reign began with an immense liberalization which, without support from Washington, has been abridged and languished. He, like his father, even more so, has asked for help from the White House. He's got only silence.
Silence and things like this:
"A lot of people have gone to see President Assad ... and yet we haven't seen action. He hasn't responded," Bush told reporters soon after Pelosi arrived in Damascus on Tuesday
"A lot of people" would be the then-Deputy Secretary for Defense, Richard Armitage, two years ago. He showed up to holler at Bashar about the Syrian's leaky border with Iraq, and offered zilch in way of substantial security cooperation or diplomatic assistance. Before that, nothing. We don't even have an ambassador there, out of protest. Protest? We're in a war. You either talk or you fight; make allies or make casualties. Syria's intel is glutting Hizb Allah and seeding Baathists into Iraq, and we're sending neither words or bombs.
Bombs won't help. Words will. Backing reform in the Middle East means dealing with people who want to see change and can actualize it at home - not the Achmed Chalabi exiles, but the Bashar al-Assads. We've ignored that opportunity for seven years. We blew it with Iran, and got Achmedinajad as a result.
Pelosi should be ashamed on account that her trip does, indeed, make America look weak, divided and inept - undercutting the very strength she would hope to make a change in the Middle East. And Bush should be ashamed as well, as the man in charge, for not doing the right thing and engaging Syria with both hands, whether of friendship or of violence.
She can't show him the way ahead. That's not how it works - like it or not, he's our leader. The responsibility to do the right thing is where it has always been: In his hands.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home