Soccer Dad

A good stern talking to

The editors of the New York Times apparently believe that what's needed to counter Syrian and Iranian adventurism in the Middle East is ...
a good stern talking to.

From The Road To Damascus

Whenever such talks are proposed, Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert point out the many objectionable policies of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. That misses the point. Diplomacy is not simply a matter of rewarding countries that act the way Washington likes. It can also be a useful tool for trying to induce countries like Syria to behave more constructively.

From A discredit to the UN

Those critical reports and follow-ups were the most useful thing the old unreformed commission used to do. The problem was that many other deserving targets were shielded by their diplomatic allies. Moving away from the practice altogether would be a decided step backward.

From Another Killing in Lebanon

This page believes that the United States needs to begin a dialogue with Syria, about Iraq and regional peace. But President Bashar al-Assad needs to understand that neither the tribunal nor Lebanon’s independence will ever be on the bargaining table. Europe, Russia and all of Syria’s neighbors need to join Washington in delivering that message.

Taking the first and third editorials, the Times is adamant that the United States must talk to Syria and let it know that it's behavior is unacceptable. That will get the chinless dictator to mend his ways won't it? The middle editorial finds that the most useful function of the UN's Human Rights commission as previously constituted was that it would issue reports! (To be fair that editorial mentions the anti-Israel bias of that instution.) Gee I'm sure that Syria and the rest of the world's human rights violators are just quaking in their boots. I mean, if the Times is encouraging talk to expose their nefarious deeds they might just be voted of power. Or something.

When I read New York Times editorials, I"m often overcome by the same curiosity expressed by Frasier Crane to Cliff Claven:

Hello in there Cliff. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world.

(Irrelevant trivia tangent: IIRC correctly Frasier asked the question to Cliff in response to Cliff claiming to be descended from the Romanoffs. What irony do we learn about Frasier regarding this later in his own series.)

(Especially) In comparison, the Washington Post's editorial page seems like a font of sage advice. In response to Hezbollah's efforts to destablilize Lebanon at the behest of its Syrian and Lebanese masters, the Post's editors wrote in Lebanon's new crisis

The response to this vicious campaign should be the same concerted multilateral action that followed Mr. Hariri's assassination last year and that forced Syria to withdraw its army from Lebanon. First the Security Council should act swiftly to establish the tribunal and begin criminal proceedings. It should also consider other actions against Syria, including sanctions, if Syria continues trying to block the formation of the tribunal and sponsoring political violence in Lebanon. At the same time, Security Council action against Iran for its refusal to suspend its nuclear program is long overdue; governments that are holding it up, beginning with Russia, must be forced to choose between supporting sanctions and breaking off strategic cooperation with the West. Until Iran and Syria are made to pay a price for their attempts to radicalize the Middle East, they will have no incentive to rein in clients such as Hezbollah.

Though the editorial doesn't talk about military action to contain Iranian and Syrian threats it at least calls for sanctions; not just talk in response to their sabre rattling.

And again the Post asks in Needed: A Big Stick

What's more, no attempt to reason with Mr. Assad and the Iranian mullahs will succeed unless they perceive that the United States and its allies wield sticks as well as carrots. As long as the Bush administration is unable to win U.N. Security Council approval for sanctions against Iran -- or impose them through an ad hoc coalition -- Tehran will have no incentive to make concessions. Mr. Assad will demand that the West concede him Lebanon and call off the murder investigations that would likely implicate him -- unless he worries that his failure to cooperate will result in fresh international sanctions against Syria.

Again, it would be nice if the Post were advocating military threats. Unfortunately, due to the unpopularity of the war in Iraq it's hard to imagine the United States, much less the world community, to summon the will to threaten and, if necessary, take the necessary military actions to deter Syria and Iran. Maybe that's why the Post is sticking to sanctions. Sadly that might be all that is possible right now.

(Second irrelevant trivia tangent: JoshuaPundit termed the latter Post editorial as a "Flying Pigs moment - nicely illustrated too. What Lewis Carroll poem is the source for the concept of "flying pigs?" What is the actual terminology?)

Or maybe the Post also eschews a military response to the very real threat that Syria and Iran pose to the Middle East. Back in August it was hailing the toothless UN ceasefire in A Month of War for ending Israel's justified response to Hezbollah terror

Secretary General Kofi Annan deplored how long it took for the Security Council to act, but it may be that the damage inflicted on Hezbollah during a month of fighting is what led it to accept the terms of the resolution. Alternatively, the militia may calculate that it can accept and ignore the terms -- that no Lebanese army or international force will dare prevent its rearmament and its return to the Israeli border. If so, it will be up to Lebanon's government, the United Nations and the European nations expected to supply troops to prove the militia wrong.

By taking the initiative out of the hands of Israel and putting it into the hands of the Europeans, the UN ensured that Hezbollah could re-arm against Israel and strong arm Lebanon. What was needed was not a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah but the destruction of Hezbollah - or at least its military capacity. That didn't happen and that's what's allowed Iran's puppet to continue destabilizing the Middle East.

Hopefully, the Washington Post is starting to see the light and will be more aggressive in its prescriptions to stop Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. What won't work is the NY Times prescription of a lot more talk and a lot less action.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Technorati tags: New York Times, Washington Post, Iran, Hezbollah, Syria.