Soccer Dad

To engage or not to engage ...

Jon B. Alterman has advice on How to manage Assad.

First, despite all of their differences, the U.S. and Syrian governments share a variety of interests. Neither wants to see Iraq descend into chaos or break up, and neither wants an ascendant jihadist movement in the Middle East. Alliances have been founded on more slender reeds.

Second, there is little evidence to suggest that a cornered Syria is a more pliable Syria. The pervasive security apparatus, robust patronage system and utter lack of political alternatives suggest the Syrian government can remain in power indefinitely. The United States is not about to invade Syria, and while U.S. pressure can reduce Syrian economic growth, a quick look around Damascus makes clear that economic growth is not the government's highest priority.

Third, the cost of engaging with Syria is time and jet fuel -- and little else. The United States and Syria could -- and should -- embark on a series of parallel (if initially uncoordinated) efforts to pursue common interests. Over time, trust could be built to expand joint pursuit of shared goals. If it doesn't work, the United States can walk away without harm to its pride or prestige.

First, does Syria really have in interest in keeping Iraq from descending into chaos? This is an assumption that is dubious. If chaos in Iraq in any way enhances Assad's power, I suspect that he won't mind it.

Second, there's also no evidence that a doted upon Syria is more pliant either. President Clinton invested a lot of political capital in engaging Syria and found Bashar's father totally uncooperative.

Third, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out elsewhere on the page today, the cost can be higher than time and fuel

You don't want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse.

Really there's little especially remarkable about Alterman's article except that anyone still believes that there's an advantage in engaging Syria. Barry Rubin recently pointed out in an interview with Michael Totten.

I think it depends on who you are looking at specifically. Those with little experience of Syria--naïve journalists and politicians rather new to the issue, especially in the United States--simply don't understand what is happening. What is most disturbing are the statements of former secretaries of state James Baker and Colin Powell, who have been stung by Syria but now seem to forget all the bad interactions and talk as if they had great success in managing Damascus. To hear both of them talk, they persuaded the Syrian regime to close terrorist offices during their tenure but those offices have always remained open. The next U.S. president might try to engage Syria and spend a year or so finding out that it doesn't work.

And it's also worth remembering that Hafez wasn't nearly as good a bet as he was portrayed. In the Word of Hafez al-Assad Daniel Pipes demonstrated that Assad Sr., despite the conventional wisdom violated nearly every agreement he made. There's no reason to assume that his son would be any more reliable.

syria.

Posted by SoccerDad at July 27, 2007 6:44 PM