In the Arena

Syria First

Building on my post below about the new Obama national security team, Aaron David Miller has a smart column in the Washington Post today about another area in which the Obama foreign policy is likely to differ from that of Bush–and also from what McCain was proposing. He believes that the first step toward a middle east peace is for the U.S. to support the negotiations between Israel and Syria, which the Bush Administration tried to thwart for the past two years in deference to the neoconservative radicals. 

I’m not sure that Syria can be brought fully into the community of sane nations, but Bashar Assad–an Alawite who presides over a predominantly Shi’ite (Ooops, I meant Sunni) country–certainly can’t feel too comfortable in his current alliance with Iran. Assad once told me that his father, Hafez Assad,  came very close to making peace with Yitzhak Rabin and that he’d be willing to pick up where they left off. We’ll see. Certainly, this is a more promising track than attempting a deal with the divided, dazed and confused Palestinians at this point (although every effort should be made to move that along).

And the first step Obama should take is to send our Ambassador, Margaret Scobie–or another foreign service professional–back to Damascus. Pulling Scobie out after the assassination of Rafik Hariri was the sort of witless, petulant thing action that made Bush such a weak diplomatic President.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Morning Must Reads: Accommodation

    Romney: 'I Misspoke'HuffPost Politics

    Not Farewell, But Fare Forward

    Five years ago, I opened up my e-mail to find a message from Priscilla Painton, then-executive editor at TIME. “No, this is not a solicitation to buy a subscription,” she began, before telling me that the magazine was looking for a new politics editor and asking whether I was interested. I don’t entirely remember what my initial reaction was, but I believe it involved a happy dance around the apartment.

  • greymatt

    Syria is predominantly Sunni. But we know what you mean. (Given that we know what Alawite is.)

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Wow. The Village is, like seriously, ditching Bush.

  • trifecta

    Wow. The Village is, like seriously, ditching Bush.
    .
    Would have been nice if they did this before Katrina. You know like in 2004 when organizations like the NY Times sat on information because it might affect the election. Jay, I predict we will soon hear that Bush drank through his whole presidency, but it was too inflammatory to bring up.

  • sqr1

    Yes, Syria is predominantly Sunni (but I don’t believe by much, I could be wrong). More importantly, though, I understand that the Sunnis in Syria historically have not adhered to the nutcase Wahabbiism followed by bin Laden and sponsored by the Saudis.
    .
    The traditional knock on Syria has just been that it embraced torture and wasn’t Democratic. The neocons also liked to pick on Syria because the lack of a serious military and significant oil reserves made it a relatively weak player in the region.
    .
    The irony of neocons beating up on Syria is that if the occupation of Iraq wasn’t horribly mismanaged,the most realistic stable outcome would have been the imposition of a relatively undemocratic government that allowed the peaceful coexistence of both non-fanatical Sunnis and Shiites. More brutal than we would like. Less friendly towards Israel than we would like. But moderate for an Arab nation…Sort of like Syria.

  • formerlyjames

    sqr 1, Syria embraced torture and wasn’t democratic? How is that different from the Bush administration?

  • formerlyjames

    But to get back to my point about Joe’s ramblings and rejoicing about a new foreign policy, still waiting to see a rejection of the past 60 years foreign policy. Bipartisian foreign policy. Republican and Democratic alike. Look it up. The neocons just ratcheted it up one insane notch beyond what it has been anyway.

  • jose

    sqrl
    Yes, Syria is predominantly Sunni (but I don’t believe by much, I could be wrong).
    I’m just curious. How could you write this and then continue on as if you were an expert?

    Not that anything you wrote was wrong.

  • sqr1

    Interesting question, jose. My response is that I am not, in any way shape or form, an “expert” on Syria, or even Islam or Arab countries, generally.

    Having said that, I think I am a fairly well-informed person who has generally paid attention to international affairs during the roughly 2 decades of my adult life. And while I can’t spout statistics on Syrian religious demographics off the top of my head, I have a general knowledge of the religious makeup of the country and am aware that Syria isn’t known for producing religious fanatics in the way that Saudi Arabia does. I’m not sure what part of my post you believe constituted an “expert” analysis.

  • portland911

    In what sense are the Palestinians “dazed and confused”? Abbas is clearly for two states on the 1967 borders. Most Palestinians agree. Hamas has said they will accept such an agreement if the Palestinian people want it. Gaza is under siege, the settlers are burning olive groves and beating children, the Israeli government refuses to move forward on final status. So all is not well. But “dazed and confused”? No. “Starved and terrorized” would be closer.

  • Cliff

    The community of sane nations? Who would that be? Do they get special decoder rings?
    .
    On the flip side, how insane is Syria? More batsh!t insane than North Korea, or less batsh!t insane?

blog comments powered by Disqus