Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall John Kerry calling for meetings between U.S. officials and Iraq’s neighbors quite a while back (Syria, Iran). This was received with great resistance and anguish by conservative talk show hosts, supporters of the Iraq War, and the Bush Administration. Apparently, things have changed and Dr. Rice made a visit to Syria quite recently. What is the cause of this change in Administration policy? Have things in Iraq and/or Syria change that much, or is this policy change something that is only internal to the U.S.? Thanks.
Welcome to SDMB, we correct you when you’re right!
Thank you, that kind of honest dialog is welcomed and appreciated. I suspect that I might feel quite at home here.
Something has been going on with Syria since last year
- the Israelis want raprochement
The USA has probably realized that their regime is Ba’athist, which means that the regime is not run by religious nutters.
Syria’s problem is that it is relatively poor, part of it is Westernized but they have a young population with nothing to do - it also has difficult neighbours.
Syria did a sterling job as a peace keeper in The Lebanon, but got kicked out, which is irritating.
The USA administration is coming to its senses - Syria is a potential friend
The Bush administration is (rather belatedly) realizing that any long-term solution to the goal of “winning” in Iraq will require the involvment of Iraq’s neighbors.
However, it is also an elite of Alawi Shi’ite families ruling a predominantly Sunni country. That’s bound to cause trouble sooner or later.
Not necessarily, the trouble is not so much the religion, more it is when the Mullahs get in control. Also Syria has a more complicated religious mix, unfortunately the CIA factbook site appears to be down, but from memory they have a fair number of Christians and their Kurds are likely to be Sufi.
The Iraq Study Group recommended direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East. This report was released in December '06, & since then Kerry, Pelosi, and in separate trips Republican Congressmen Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., Frank Wolf R-Virginia, Joe Pitts R-Pennsylvania, David Hobson R-Ohio and Darrell Issa R-California have all been to Dmascus. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who visited Syria in 2006 before the report was leaked, defended Pelosi’s trip in the face of Limbaugh/Fox News wailing and rending of clothes. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad has held talks with envoys from Syria and Iran about ending violence in Iraq.
The Saudis have been working hard to lure Syria away from Iran’s orbit as well. The UN Head and head of the European Commission have been there as well in the last 5 months.
I think there is a consensus in Washington, that this needs to happen (indeed the whole purpose of the Iraq Study Group - set up by Wolf - was to look for a bipartisan way ahead in Iraq) & only the remaining loyalists of the Neo-con (Neo-Neo-Cons?) pre-2003 Foreign Policy agenda really still think that direct Syrian engagement outweighs the price we pay*. BTW this seems to be a similar view held by the EU, moderate Arab governments and the UN - despite their triangulation away from Washington on the ME
(*)I think in Lebanon the real problem is that Syria is anti-the Prodemocracy forces and pro-(And arming) Hezbollah. I think after Iraq those are issues even more than the Golan Heights, are what will drive Washington/Syria wedges, but Iraq is becoming so overwhelming that all other issues may take a back seat to it.
So from my feeble understanding, it appears that President Bush is indeed taking at least a few of the recommendations of the the Iraq Study Group seriously. I still have my doubts about whether the firing of Rumsfeld and the opening of Syrian relations weren’t short-term political casualties simply used to smooth over the results of the November’ 06 elections in political damage-control mode. On the other hand, perhaps I am underestimating the face-saving nature of the November elections in the sense that the results allowed the Administration to come out of the corners that they had painted themselves into. The former suggests loss of political power, the latter implies self-acknowledged stubbornness and incompetence. Either way, it seems like this new direction is a far better than treating Syria like Iran Jr. They do have complex issues, but at the very least we are talking about things that may separate them from Iran’s influence. This is a Good Thing.
Iagree to a certain extent FRDE better secular nutters then religous nutters but I dont think the Syrians are the Wests best mates .
Our best friends in the region are the Turks and the Jordanians.(And to a certain extent the Kurds but the Turks and them are not very likely to be sending each other Christmas cards for quite a while.)
Does that “consensus” include Bush and Cheney?
Certainly the literal answer is yes - they said no way were they going to sit down and talk to no Syrian Dictator about Iraq let the foolish America hating softheads suggest that all they wanted they would never … and that has clearly happened.
At some level Rice and Khalilzad’s contacts - and Asst. Sec of States Ellen Saurbrey’s trip to Syria to “discuss refugees” - may imply that it does and if someone says yes I won’t dispute them.
Realistically what I think it is that for political reasons they are going through the motions & going in half-measures, in a nod to the World it is more to be seen as covering bases - Tony Snow was being hammered everyday at the podium being asked this very question --now the Answer is “We did talk to the Syrians“ Rather than “We won‘t…”issue some what neutralized for the talking heads.
Still, you will note Rice isn’t flying to Syria, there are no Syrian delegations in D.C. for talks. Etc.
Just my $0.02 I am not in their meetings.
http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/usa_secret_transfers.php They are involved in the torture renditions. I wonder why they agreed to do it. Something is afoot.
According to WaPo, the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations now are getting a fresh look from both the Hill and the WH.
Who needs delegations? We have diplomatic relations with Syria. Syria has an embassy in Washington, and presumably the U.S. has one in Damascus. Plenty of established open channels for negotiations.
I hear you BG and I agree. However I think Deputy Assitant Sec. State/Foreign Ministers – rather than Embassy staff – are really waht are called for in this situation.
FYI there is an Article on the Front Page of the Washington Post today A-1 Above the fold that is entitled Second Life for Study Group By Michael Abramowitz about how the Adminstration is reappraising the Iraq Study report.
Refering specifically to Syria it says
*The president spoke graciously about the study when it was first released, but the report enraged some conservatives inside and outside the administration as a recipe for defeat. Many officials involved with the study think the president was not happy with being given a blueprint for Iraq policy from a group of outsiders, let alone one led by his father’s former close aide Baker.
Since then, however, the White House has appeared to be inching toward concepts in the report, most notably its more active diplomacy in the Middle East. Although the effort is clearly less than the full diplomatic “offensive” that was recommended, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has since traveled to the Middle East trying to restart the peace process, met for the first time with Syria’s foreign minister and has been more assertive in trying to engage Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran, to help quell the nation’s sectarian violence.*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001406_2.html?hpid=topnews (free reg. required)