Time to engage Syria?

[Fish]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...15107035c.html

F. Michael Maloof


It may be time to consider engaging the Syrians in helping to seek a settlement in what has become one big mess in the Middle East.
The United States looks upon Syria as a supporter of terrorism. It does, from Hamas, Hezballah, al-Qaeda to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command.

Without Syria, Hezbollah cannot receive the arms, missiles and other resources it gets from Iran to wage war against Israel.
While we undertook regime change in Iraq by invading it, the United States cannot take similar action in every country it dislikes. However, there is good reason to believe that recent U.S. policy toward Syria actually has driven it closer to Iran and Hezballah.
This was no more apparent than just prior to U.S. action in Iraq in March 2003.
Months prior to that occasion, the Syrians sought to open a backchannel with policymakers in the office of the secretary of defense. The request came through my office. In exchange, the Syrians requested U.S. assistance in economic infrastructure development. In the interim, the Syrians even offered to stage U.S. troops to go into Iraq as an unconditional basis to avoid a U.S. attack. Those offers were turned down.
By offering a backchannel, the Syrians suggested that there was information that would be shared with the United States that it would not provide publicly. Indeed, the Syrians were asked whether Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been sent into Syria prior to U.S. action.
The response, from no less than one of Syrian President Bashar Assad's top advisers, was that publicly Syria would deny their existence in Syria. However, if the backchannel were created, "there would be a lot we could talk about."
According to sources with direct access to the Syrians, there are elements in Syria that seek reform and are pro-American. The offer of a backchannel suggested that such a prospect may exist.
However, there never was a Bush administration follow-up to the offer. Instead, then Secretary of State Colin Powell in May 2003 made a trip to Syria and publicly confronted and admonished President Assad. He accused Syria of harboring Saddam Hussein's escaped leadership and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The admonition received a Syrian response similar to what the United States used to receive from the Chinese when publicly raked over the political coals. The Chinese would refuse any further discussion on topics of substance. Eventually, the United States sought quiet diplomacy at the policy level with the Chinese, which has had some positive results.
The Syrian response to the Powell confrontation was predictable.
Syria turned to Iran to improve its already good relations.
I'm not an apologist for Syria. In fact, an Aug. 31, 2004, Boston Globe article quoted two anonymous congressional committee sources as saying that I was under investigation for attempting to overthrow the Syrian government for my prewar efforts. Unfortunately, U.S. policymakers in the days leading up to U.S. action in Iraq and afterward left to the Central Intelligence Agency any initiatives to Syria.
CIA jealously coveted its own exclusive backchannel to Syria. Consequently, CIA made every effort to scuttle the Syrian initiative of opening a backchannel to U.S. policymakers.
This had become apparent when CIA rejected a Syrian initiative months prior to U.S. action in Iraq to present Saddam Hussein's unconditional terms. Once rejected, CIA then subverted an eleventh-hour Syrian initiative to present the same terms to U.S. policy-makers through my office.
CIA was so upset with this attempt that it even accused a number of us in the office of the under secretary of defense for policy of attempting to run a "rogue" operation to bypass CIA. That wasn't true, since CIA was informed of all steps. Informing CIA, however, helped elements within CIA more interested in doing damage to the Bush administration to scuttle that attempt.
The Syrians interested in working closer with the United States saw for themselves CIA's scuttling efforts. In turn, the Syrians then decided to close down its own channel with CIA.
In October 2003, then-CIA Director George Tenet went to Syria to attempt patching up the CIA-Syrian channel. It did not succeed.
In November 2003 Congress passed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. It effectively imposed U.S. sanctions on Syria. On May 11, 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order implementing provisions of the sanctions.
The whole idea was to get the Syrians out of Lebanon. It finally happened after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri on Feb. 14, 2005, in which the United States accused Syria of involvement. The United Nations continues to investigate.
But that is where U.S. policy toward Lebanon ended. It failed to bolster the fledging Lebanese government or back the Christian Lebanese who had always been the Bush administration's most ardent supporters.
In part, the reason for U.S. inaction was due to the continued presence of Lebanon's Syrian-backed but Christian President Emile Lahoud. This inaction resulted in Iran filling the power vacuum through its Hezbollah proxy.
The Bush administration has ostracized Syria and painted it as an international pariah. Nevertheless, the Syrians again have offered to help find a diplomatic solution to the latest crisis.
Already, U.S. policy-makers and congressional leaders publicly are rejecting the offer.
Perhaps we could inject some creative diplomacy. Call the Syrians on their offer and see if they can produce by weaning themselves from supporting terrorists and Iran and staying out of Lebanon.
If they can, we offer the Syrians the economic infrastructure assistance they sought from the United States in early 2003. It even could help bring about the reforms Syria's president has been promising for a long time.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. This approach may just prevent a larger explosion in the Middle East.

They say you catch more fly's with sugar as with vinegar.

[Skybird]

In one thing the author is right: the American ME policy is one of broken strings, inconsistencies and illogical laissez-faire, and for too long it is like that.

However, Syria is supporting Islamic terrorism since long. Now getting them to the table as an equal and giving them economical reward if only they would stop supporting terrorists for this very single moment (who says they do not start with that again once they find something new that they want? who says they even do not continue on other levels while promising to call back or give up on Hezbollah?) - well, it tastes like a precedence that I do not like. It sends the message: supporting terrorism and secretly controlling a neighbouring country by intel service and funding a foreign militia pays off.

A successful lesson that will not go unnoticed in the Islamic world.

Reward that will help them to get strong today - may be paying off against the West in the future. It would not be the first time that the West tries to install a certain figure, or support a certain political trend - only realising some time later that exactly this reward is used to fire back against the West. Most times, if not all times, Western attempts to influence political conditions in Arabic and Islamic nations, backfired on us, and often brought us the opposite of what we hoped to achieve. We shall not support them and help them to become stronger and more acceptable. For that we have the French foreign minster who currently changes hugs and kisses with Iran. Helping them to become stronger and more acceptable will not necessarily make us a new friend - but eventually only a stronger enemy. After all it still is a dictatorship, and an Islamic country. Don't assist them in any of these.

Maybe threatening them with bombing the hell out of them if they continue with supporting Islamic terrorism and destabilising Lebanon is the more consequent way to get them involved. At least it is the more honest dealing with them. Western military really could cause them pain and hurt them badly. Best of it - we do not depend on them, for they do not have oil. Syria is by far not that invulnerable as Iran, and they know it. Smashing their military alone would leave them as a vulnerable prey for future Turkish ambitions in that region. I don't think they will accept that risk.

But if they do - the world is not worse off without a Syrian military.

[Takeda Shingen]

If military action ever comes against Syria, then it will have to come from Europe, and we all know how the internal politics of the European Union will prevent this. The United States, with it's embroilment in the Iraqi quagmire, is not capable of any meaningful action. Therefore, I say that the posibility of the military engagment of Syria is little more than fruit of the imagination.

[Yahoshua]

Interesting article

I don't know anything about the accuracy of the CIA-Syrian channels, but with the fun-filled maze of politics nowadays I wouldn't be surprised if everything in this paper was true.

[Fish]

A earlier interview with the autor.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/maloof.html

[Subnuts]

Engage them? But I can't afford a ring right now.

[STEED]

The British army is so over stenched the Government is thinking about conscription again.

[tycho102]

More like, engage Syria with a cubic kilometer of napalm, "engage Syria". I am tired of the "Peace of Saladin" tacic.

I use that tactic when I'm playing "Robin Hood: Defender of the Crown". I'll call a cease-fire, hold a joust, take the Usurper's land and conquer him in the same turn. The AI trigger never gets the chance to fire (when you take the land square adjacent to the Usurper, the AI immediately spends tons of gold on defenses).

This tactic is partially why Europe consideres Hitler to be the most evilest dictator, ever. He lied to them. He made treaties that he fully intended to break when he had all his troops in position. And that tactic is exactly why I believe Syria would not currently be negotiating in "good faith".

[Fish]

Originally Posted by STEED

The British army is so over stenched the Government is thinking about conscription again.

How old are you?

In one thing the author is right: the American ME policy is one of broken strings, inconsistencies and illogical laissez-faire, and for too long it is like that.

I don't mean to single out Skybird. So please do not take it that way Skybird.

I have noticed that many on this forum look to the U.S. to behave in a more moral and fair regard than any other nation. Why look to the U.S. to elevate the world to a higher plane of exisance? How about those citizens of other nations look toward your Gov'ts to make a change? Many don't like the current U.S. policy. What are the policies of your nation? Seems to me that if you live in a democracy, which many claim, call, no write your representative in the Gov't and tell them of your displeasure. I may be wrong but I think we all live in representatve democracies, the Chinese aren't on this internet. Fight the battle in your country and change your country's policies. If you can do that and change the country in which you live then you have made your and your fellow citizens life a better one.

As long as you look toward the U.S. for your, or the world's, well being, rest assured that the U.S. will do what is in the U.S.'s best interest, without regard for other nations.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Fish

How old are you?

To old for conscription.

Even the British army is now requesting the return of conscription due to the fact our soldiers are not renewing there contracts and no one is joining the army. The main reason seems to be the Middle East.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I have noticed that many on this forum look to the U.S. to behave in a more moral and fair regard than any other nation. Why look to the U.S. to elevate the world to a higher plane of exisance?

It is not only the members of this forum, it is a world-view. This is due to the longstanding US rhetoric that it is the 'straight broker' in world affairs. The United States has, for most of the 20th Century, presented itself as the moral leader of the world. Naturally, a nation that touts that moniker is going to be scrutinized in every action.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by STEED

Even the British army is now requesting the return of conscription due to the fact our soldiers are not renewing there contracts and no one is joining the army. The main reason seems to be the Middle East.

That's going to be the big question over here within the next year I think. Watched NBC or CBS news the other day and they had General McCaffery(spl?) on and said that the units that are left in the states now are undeployable due to troop shortages and training. He just got back from a tour of Iraq for the president so I would assume that statement isn't politically motivated.

[Yahoshua]

Good, we can start by emptying the prisons around the countrya nd starting penal battalions. Step out of line and you go home in a box. It'll clean our place up REAL well.