The Bomb that Will Bring Us Together

by Eric Martin

ABC News is reporting today that General Petraeus has been pushing for a meeting with Syria's leadership but the Bush administration has refused.  Although ABC News labels this an exclusive scoop, in truth, the story has been circulating for some time.  Josh Landis, for example, was on the beat months ago:

The following “Exclusive” ABC story is not so exclusive. Syria Comment has been writing since August 2008 that Petraeus tried to go to Damascus in the fall of 2007, but was refused permission by the Vice President. It wasn’t the president.

As Daniel Levy mentioned recently, Petraeus and Pentagon leadership have been pleased with recent overtures from the Syrians, and cautiously optimistic about the potential to build on that cooperation:

The Pentagon sees Syrian efforts to seal the border with Iraq as having been a mixed bag, and they would certainly want further improvements. General Petraeus has acknowledged these improvements and carries with him a PowerPoint presentation that includes a box entitled "Improved Relations and Coordination with Syria".

But then, despite this progress and the continuation of peace talks between Israel and Syria, the Bush administration went ahead with a cross border raid and airstrikes aimed at targets in Syrian territory.  Instead of supporting and expanding the diplomatic process, the Bush administration opted for a show of force.  According to initial reports, which, admittedly, should be taken with a grain of salt, this hasn't worked out too well:

The Syrian government has broken relations with Baghdad. It has completely opened its border. This article in  Al-Arabiya  (Al-Arabiya is generally fairly reliable) says that the Syrians have reduced their forces on the border. That's NOT what I'm hearing from BOTH sides of the border. What I'm hearing from very trustworthy sources whom I've known for years is that the Syrians have completely withdrawn their forces from the border.

• No troops.
• No border guards.
• No police.

Do I have to spell it out? Maybe I do. The Syrians have worked massively to close their border. They have worked massively to prevent armed groups getting across the border. All of that has now come to an end.

But then, the belief in the efficacy of force, coupled with an uncompromising refusal to accommodate the vital interests of various adversaries, is a particular maladay of the Bush administration.  This passage from Ron Suskind's One Percent Doctrine (pp. 104-105) is prophetic as to the many foreign policy stumbles and tragedies to ensue:

...it became clear at the start of 2001 that [the Bush] administration was to alter the long-standing U.S. role of honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to something less than that. The President, in fact, had said in the first NSC principals meeting of his administration that Clinton had overreached at the end of his second term, bending too much toward Yasser Arafat -- who then broke off productive Camp David negotiations at the final moment -- and that "We're going to tilt back ward Israel." Powell, a chair away in the Situation Room that day, said such a move would reverse thirty years of U.S. policy, and that it could unleash the new prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and the Israeli army in ways that could be dire for the Palestinians. Bush's response: "Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things." [emphasis mine]

Sometimes it does, but as Sharon learned, as we learned in Iraq, and the Israelis relearned in Lebanon in 2006, the clarification that follows a show of force isn't always a positive.  War, the use of force, armed conflict - each has myriad unintended, and often painful, consequences for all parties involved.  Yes, that is stating the obvious, but then, our foreign policy during the Bush years has been modeled on a doctrine that disdains reality and empiricism so common sense takes on the air of wisdom. 

If it is true that Syria has flung open its borders, then what exactly is the value of clarifying the situation with such bellicosity when the net result is a negative?

To echo publius' point, the Republican Party's foreign policy consensus - drawing heavily from neoconservative doctrine - has been repeatedly discredited and battered by reality.  Yet the Bush administration, when Cheney's wing gets too much say, stumbles on.  And the McCain campaign, instead of repudiating the neocon program, has doubled down by recruiting the most committed and doctrinaire advocates to fill out his roster of advisors.

Petraeus, much more in line with the progressive/Obama school of thought, recognizes the wisdom of engaging adversaries diplomatically, differentiating between opponents so as to deal with each entity and issue discretely (which disrupts alliances of convenience among enemies rather than encourage them) and, lastly, when the opportunity presents itself, even working with erstwhile battlefiled opponents.  Petraeus implemented this strategy in Iraq by encouraging the Awakenings movement that coopted former Sunni insurgents, is beginning to pursue it in Afghanistan by reaching out to certain Taliban elements and is trying to do the same with Syria - where he sees a potential opening and wedge to be driven between Syria and Iran.

Oddly, considering the extent to which he is lionized by so many McCain/Plain supporters, Petraeus would likely have to wait for an Obama administration to see any further exploration of normalizing relations with Syria.  McCain/Palin, like the Cheney wing of the Bush administration, label this type of pragmatism reckless, naive appeasement.  They don't negotiate with evil, dontcha know. 

Because that's worked out so well over the past eight years.

[UPDATE: I forgot to add this bit from McCain/Palin advisors Max Boot and Richard Williamson:

A McCain administration would discourage Israeli-Syrian peace talks and refrain from actively engaging in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Mavericky!]

Comments

[david kilmer]

"They don't negotiate with evil, dontcha know."

Coyness is nice. But coyness can stop you from saying all the things in life you'd like to.

[Eric Martin]

Well done.

[Platosearwax]

Wow. I was going to do a Smith's reference, but david kilmer pwns the thread.

[Jay C]

Eric:

Since (if for no other reason than by comparison ;) you're the FP maven hereabouts - can you give us the nickel version of just why it is that officially shit-listing Syria seems to have become and remained (even this late in the game) a staple of Bush-era Mideast policy?

Yes, Syria IS a Ba'athist dictatorship, and yes, they HAVE meddled unconscionably in Lebanon (and still do): but other than that, I have always thought that Syria, oddly, represents one of the few major chances for the US to pick up some sort of positive "points" in potentially developing what could be a semi-client state in the region.

And WHY, for f---'s sake, does even the remote prospect of a Syrian-Israel peace deal drive the neocons so far up the wall?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but ISTM that if there is a final peace deal with Israel (with the Golan demilitarized and turned into a free-trade zone), and some sort of agreeable modus vivendi worked out over Lebanon, Syria might be ripe to become as US-friendly a country as is likely in the region (a la Jordan) - as opposed to their present reluctant (I gather) alliance-of-convenience with Iran.

Other than reflexive neocolonialist "never trust an Arab" prejudice, what else might there be motivating a US policy of simply treating Syria like a pariah state (which no one else does): even when there is a potential positive gain* to be made?

I mean, *I* believe an Israeli-Syrian peace accord would be a HUGE positive - it's astounding that supposedly serious thinkers would believe otherwise.

[Ugh]

A McCain administration would discourage Israeli-Syrian peace talks and refrain from actively engaging in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Yes, because peace between Israel and Syria and/or Israel and the Palestinians would be horrible. Seriously, WTF? What could possibly be bad about Israeli-Syrian peace talks? What is the upside to discouraging such things? I mean, the only thing I can think of are potential crass domestic political benefits for Republicans.

What I'm hearing from very trustworthy sources whom I've known for years is that the Syrians have completely withdrawn their forces from the border.

If this is true, and it seems a fairly predictable result of our actions, then I'm even more inclined to think the cross-border raid was a big fnck you to a potential Obama administration. There won't be an uptick in violence in Iraq from the open borders until sometime after the election, maybe not until Obama takes office, at which point Republicans can again blame Democrats for being weak on national security and/or say "see what happens when you elect a weak democrat president, our enemies take advantage of us."

[Eric Martin]

Jay C: I think it has to do with Golan, and all the water that flows from said Heights.

Any deal between Israel and Syria would require Israel giving back significant portions of the Golan Heights - if not quite the entirety.

For the hard right Likudniks and assorted American neoconservatives, this is too high a price to pay. Instead, they would give: nothing. Just hold on to Golan and all that precious water and tell Syria to go f@#K itself.

Or, in the parlance of the day, spread the gifts of freedom and democracy via regime change to Syria. For the liberation of the Syrian people who they love, while the left defends the dictators in charge!

For some sad reason, the Bush administration has bought into this neocon view of Israel and its neighbors - that Israel should not have to give in on settlements in the West Bank or Golan, etc. So they actually work against an Israeli/Syrian detente!

It's not that Syria doesn't have a troublesome track record in the region (as you pointed out), or that we wouldn't want to compel them to behave more responsibly (a lesson we should learn as well), but if you recall, before this Bush administration, the US had decent relations with Syria.

In fact, Syria was in Papa Bush's coalition for the first Gulf War!

[cleek]

Bombs. Bombs will bring us together.
Think of my bombs whenever
Some sly terrorist comes along
Sneaking through town.
Don't mess around,
You gotta be strong.
Just Stop [stop], or I'm gonna bomb you
Stop [stop], or bombs will rain upon you
Look in my eyes and know I don't care about borders
(or treaties)

I will, I will, I will, I will
Be in your skies forever.
Bombs will bring us together.
Said it before and I'll say it again while others pretend
I'll bomb you now and I'll bomb you then
Just Stop [stop], or I'm gonna bomb you
Stop [stop], or bombs will rain upon you
Look in my eyes and let bombs keep us together. forever.

[Mike Schilling]

A McCain administration would discourage Israeli-Syrian peace talks.

An administration so pro-Israeli that it protects Israel from itself. What more could you ask for?

[JakeB]

Now I'm going to have that darn song going through my head all day. Still, better than the "Tanz mit Laibach" that was -- that gives me a headache.

Sorry to nitpick, but, is "maladay" (4th para non-quoted text) a portmanteau that includes "Alackaday"?

Other than that, agree that all the murderous incompetencies of the Bush administration do make it seem like this latest idiocy is at least in part an attempt to cut Obama's feet out from under him (and if McCain manages to steal the election, gives him a new place to bomb -- really it's a win-win-win situation).

[david kilmer]

cleek - dude that is evil.

[liberal japonicus]

I thought that it had something to do with the Christian revivalist Greater Israel heralding the End Times. I personally suspect that the neo-con philosophy is leavened with a large amount of this, which is suppressed because it would really undercut their arguments.

[Hartmut]

discourage but not actively engage? Do I spot a wee inconsistency there?

[minnesota phats]

The beligerent neocon view of foreign policy hasn't caught up with the economic realities that we've recently been forced to confront. We've been reduced to approaching other nations with our pockets inside out saying things like "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for an arsenal today."