America Abroad, Where Are You?
First, please go read The Hue & Cry's valuable roundup on high-stakes happenings in foreign affairs. With political ressure mounting against Bush and polls as low as a Rove smear campaign, new Middle East baddies are being trotted out with troubling alacrity. And what's America Abroad talking about? The conferences they went to and Iraq. If TPMCafe can do anything worthwhile, it's to call "BS" as its happening.
With all due respect to the contributers to America Abroad: you're failing. You can do better.
What should we be talking about? Dr. Rice's troubling comments on Syria and Iran, for one (hat tip: pzykr). Or this Times story which has unnamed officials claiming, in the Times' words, that "operations [in Syria] have spilled over the border - sometimes by accident, sometimes by design." If American troops have deliberately crossed the Syrian border, we're engaging in a troubling, covert war - all the more covert because we're not disucssing it.
I wish we were discussing things like the sourcing of the story: who's telling James Risen and David Sanger about, for example, the "series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians," and why? The story's built around anonymous "current and former military and government officials." Shouldn't we be responsibly wondering if such leaks are intended to garner support for stronger action in and against Syria? Has Judy Miller taught us nothing?
Or the fact that:
In a meeting at the White House on Oct. 1, senior aides to Mr. Bush considered a variety of options for further actions against Syria, apparently including special operations along with other methods for putting pressure on Mr. Assad in coming weeks
Though the story goes on to say that nothing's been decided, shouldn't we be recalling how the "nothing's been decided" line operated as political cover for the Iraq buildup long after things - important things, thing involving millions of lives - had in fact been decided?
I'd love to see the America Abroad folks talking about this. Mostly, I think our experts here can do better, and I'm calling them on it. Talking about "what ifs" about Iraq is fine, but probably less useful - useful in the sense that things can be altered one way or antother - than focusing attention on what those in charge are actually thinking about right now.
And that's military action in Syria and Iran. Tell me about your conference next month. For now, I'd rather be talking about how we can keep ourselves out of some more wars.
GFunk
Read this and our actions in the Middle East will all become clear. It was written in 1996 by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (among others) and offers their suggestions to the Netanyahu government on Israel's foreign policy. These folks have now been heavily involved in setting US foreign policy in the Middle East. Is it any coincidence that our policy now resembles what they originally recommended for Israel?
Here's the key paragraph:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right -- as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.
But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.
Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging -- through influence in the U.S. business community -- investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan's economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey's and Jordan's actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet's family, the direct descendants of which -- and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows -- is King Hussein.
October 20, 2005 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos, G, for another timely and informative post.
Interesting to see the Arab take on Dr. Rice's recent comments, summed up in Aljazeera's headline today - U.S. considers military attack against Iran, Syria. I guess the Administration still isn't fully aware of how its body language is undermining that whole "winning hearts and minds" thing.
At the same time, tension continues to escalate between Tehran and London; India, a surprisingly key player, struggles with internal dissent over which team to bet on; and the IAEA (the only organization that is demonstrating common sense and restraint in this dynamic) quietly moves forward with deliberate objectivity, and seems pleased with the information it's receiving so far.
Much to the chagrin of our State Department.
Thanks also to Purple State for a fascinating document. It occurs to me that the line on which our current Washington brain surgeons should be focusing comes near the end of the brief, where it is stated:
No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks.
I'm all for defense against an aggressor - to reject that application of military force would simply be idiotic - but the U.S. and other Western nations appear to be blind to the obvious fact that in this case we're that aggressor. American citizens need to decide if this is the public face we really want to show to the world.
October 20, 2005 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clear to me what's going on:
1. Amrrica Abroad having a panic attack over the future of "liberatl internationalism" and its is open season on LiberalHawks
2. Britain is trying to set up Iran - seems the hardliners there are quite pleased with the Nation Bush Built for them
3. Syria's targeted for regime change by air strike. Seems the UN Report was written before the investigation.
The Democratic Strategic Class in action, as far away from the action as possible, is about to get BushWacked one more time.
October 20, 2005 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink