Obama’s Realism and Congress’ Delusions
American Ambassador Stephen Ford is heading to Damascus.
The Democratic and Republican Congress blocked his appointment for 10 whole months. The justification for this was that Syria did not follow through with Washington’s demands.
The demands were made known to everyone when former Secretary of State Colin Powell put them forward to President Bashar al-Assad after the occupation of Iraq, i.e., seven years ago. In short: Syria should distance itself from Iran, stop arming “Hezbollah” and the Palestinian resistance groups (especially “Hamas”), stop interfering in Iraqi and Lebanese affairs, and get rid of its chemical weapons and all of its weapons aimed at Israel.
To summarize, the United States was hoping to change Syria’s geostrategic situation. Its plan was to enforce the “accountability” law adopted by Congress, and the White House considered the occupation of Iraq the beginning of this change. Thus, the military machinery fell on the region.
Bush did not lack religious conviction in stupidly committing more follies. Syria was second on the list in terms of those countries opposed to the invasion or engaged in internal subversion. Syria crossed the gateway to Lebanon, and it seemed to those in Washington and to many that they had become a rubber stamp for everything coming from Washington and Tel Aviv, especially after 2005. It seemed that the Syrian regime was poised for collapse.
At this stage the new Middle East plan was operating at the height of impulsiveness, with the new conservatives adhering to the whims of the administration — from the White House to the National Security Council to the Departments of Defense and State. Meanwhile, Israel was formulating its regional plan to suit its interests. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz wrote in those days, “We have a long list of things we think Syria ought to implement. We prefer for the United States to assume responsibility of this issue.”
Armed for military victory in Iraq with more than 150,000 troops thronging the Syrian borders and aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, Powell carried the Israeli conditions to al-Assad, who saw in their implementation a complete surrender to America’s will. It was as if they had been defeated in a war without having fought in it, especially since Powell presented no alternative. Instead, he proposed two choices: assent to what happened to Iraq in the fate of Saddam Hussein, or to what happened in Libya, when Muammar al-Gaddafi opened his phantom arsenal upon Washington and gave in to all of their demands without discussion.
Seven years after the occupation of Iraq and five years after cutting off diplomatic relations with Damascus, Congress and some in the White House are still behaving as if nothing has changed — not in America itself nor in the Middle East. The policy of this group seems inflexible. It seems to be unrelated to understood American pragmatism. These people have not noticed that their army is withdrawing from Iraq. Israel’s inability, and their inability, to win the war on Lebanon in 2006 means nothing to them in preparing to destabilize the situation in Damascus. They have not noticed the change in Syria — both the strengthening of Syrian relations with Iran and the transformed strategic relationship with Turkey.
Taking these changes into consideration, Obama opportunistically took advantage of a Congressional recess to follow through on the decision to appoint Ford as his ambassador in Damascus. Within White House news statements, there are expressions suggesting that the policy adheres to that of the previous administration. It was stated that the ambassador is coming with a firm message to Syria and to reiterate Powell’s conditions. But Congress is protesting, calling the move a “reward” for the Syrian leadership and seeking to continue its previous policy.
And it is preparing to fight a battle with the president and to blackmail him with increased support to Israel.
Ford will arrive in Damascus shortly. His appointment was not a “reward” and not a warning, but an admission of change.
The Democratic and Republican Congress blocked his appointment for 10 whole months. The justification for this was that Syria did not follow through with Washington’s demands.
The demands were made known to everyone when former Secretary of State Colin Powell put them forward to President Bashar al-Assad after the occupation of Iraq, i.e., seven years ago. In short: Syria should distance itself from Iran, stop arming “Hezbollah” and the Palestinian resistance groups (especially “Hamas”), stop interfering in Iraqi and Lebanese affairs, and get rid of its chemical weapons and all of its weapons aimed at Israel.
To summarize, the United States was hoping to change Syria’s geostrategic situation. Its plan was to enforce the “accountability” law adopted by Congress, and the White House considered the occupation of Iraq the beginning of this change. Thus, the military machinery fell on the region.
Bush did not lack religious conviction in stupidly committing more follies. Syria was second on the list in terms of those countries opposed to the invasion or engaged in internal subversion. Syria crossed the gateway to Lebanon, and it seemed to those in Washington and to many that they had become a rubber stamp for everything coming from Washington and Tel Aviv, especially after 2005. It seemed that the Syrian regime was poised for collapse.
At this stage the new Middle East plan was operating at the height of impulsiveness, with the new conservatives adhering to the whims of the administration — from the White House to the National Security Council to the Departments of Defense and State. Meanwhile, Israel was formulating its regional plan to suit its interests. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz wrote in those days, “We have a long list of things we think Syria ought to implement. We prefer for the United States to assume responsibility of this issue.”
Armed for military victory in Iraq with more than 150,000 troops thronging the Syrian borders and aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, Powell carried the Israeli conditions to al-Assad, who saw in their implementation a complete surrender to America’s will. It was as if they had been defeated in a war without having fought in it, especially since Powell presented no alternative. Instead, he proposed two choices: assent to what happened to Iraq in the fate of Saddam Hussein, or to what happened in Libya, when Muammar al-Gaddafi opened his phantom arsenal upon Washington and gave in to all of their demands without discussion.
Seven years after the occupation of Iraq and five years after cutting off diplomatic relations with Damascus, Congress and some in the White House are still behaving as if nothing has changed — not in America itself nor in the Middle East. The policy of this group seems inflexible. It seems to be unrelated to understood American pragmatism. These people have not noticed that their army is withdrawing from Iraq. Israel’s inability, and their inability, to win the war on Lebanon in 2006 means nothing to them in preparing to destabilize the situation in Damascus. They have not noticed the change in Syria — both the strengthening of Syrian relations with Iran and the transformed strategic relationship with Turkey.
Taking these changes into consideration, Obama opportunistically took advantage of a Congressional recess to follow through on the decision to appoint Ford as his ambassador in Damascus. Within White House news statements, there are expressions suggesting that the policy adheres to that of the previous administration. It was stated that the ambassador is coming with a firm message to Syria and to reiterate Powell’s conditions. But Congress is protesting, calling the move a “reward” for the Syrian leadership and seeking to continue its previous policy.
And it is preparing to fight a battle with the president and to blackmail him with increased support to Israel.
Ford will arrive in Damascus shortly. His appointment was not a “reward” and not a warning, but an admission of change.