Soccer Dad

From syria with skepticism

Yesterday Time Magazine reported that Syria [was] in Bush's Crosshairs

The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad. Parts of the scheme are outlined in a classified, two-page document that says that the U.S. already is "supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists" in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that "these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists."

The report is classified. Why would that be?

But American experts on "democracy promotion" consulted by TIME say it would be unwise to give financial support to a specific candidate in the election, because of the perceived conflict of interest. More ominously, an official familiar with the document explained that secrecy is necessary in part because Syria's government might retaliate against anyone inside the country who was seen as supporting the U.S.-backed election effort. The official added that because the Syrian government fields a broad network of internal spies, it would almost certainly find out about the U.S. effort, if it hasn't already. That could lead to the imprisonment of still more opposition figures.

Now that Time Magazine has published this information, the report's not secret anymore, is it? Thanks for satisfying my "right to know."

Still I'm skeptical about this report. If the United States wished to pressure Syria without actual saber rattling, this is just about the only way to go about it. Is that a secret?

Also if it were true it would appear to go against the advice of Judge Abraham Sofaer who believes that there are ways to negotiate with Syria and Iran, and he bases his strategy on the way President Reagan engaged the Soviet Union.

To make negotiations possible the U.S. adopted specific policies, including:

• Regime acceptance. The U.S. refrained from activities aimed at destroying the Soviet regime it was seeking to influence, while vigorously denouncing its political and moral legitimacy.

• Limited linkage. Negotiations on human rights, arms control, regional issues and bilateral relations were pursued without linkage to Soviet conduct, enabling negotiations to proceed while the U.S. responded firmly through deeds.

• Rhetorical restraint. Reagan vigorously criticized the Soviet system and its behavior, but promised not to "crow" when the Soviets agreed to U.S. proposals, enabling Soviet leaders to avoid being seen as capitulating to U.S. demands.

• Self-interest. U.S. negotiating policy was based on convincing the Soviets to act in their own best interests.

Judge Sofaer goes on to emphasize the benefits of engaging Syria and Iran and what President Bush is doing to make that more difficult. His suggestions don't make the Iraq Study Group's recommendation any more palatable. Despite his grounding his suggestions in recent past history, it looks like the engagement he's proposing gives Syria and Iran too much without holding them to account.

Was there really a classified report telling how the U.S. is and will target Syria? I'm skeptical. Is there a way to engage Syria and Iran effectively without giving them too much? Possibly, but I don't think that Judge Sofaer's suggestions are the way to go.

Israel Matzav has more, including a correction that one of the political opponents - Ammar Abdulhamid - is not a member of the Muslim brotherhood that many in the West laud as "reformist."

Blogdigger tags: Iraq Study Group, Iran, Syria.