Locking in Belligerence

By BJ

A little over a year ago, the Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld looked into the possibility of pursuing a peace settlement between Israel and Syria as a way to peel the Syrians away from the Iran-Hezbollah alliance.  The argument basically breaks down to the fact that Syria, as a secular, (and majority Sunni), country, has little in common with the Shiite fundamentalists leading Iran and making up Hezbollah, but is the key linking the two together. And as links go, it is a very weak one.  Syria has neither the natural resources nor access to Saudi money that allows Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon to stave off the pressure of international isolation.  All of this makes Syria more dependent on Iran, a dependency the Syrians seem to be hoping to get out from under of.

And this isn’t some far-fetched wishful thinking, as the recent talks between Israel and Syria showed.  French President Sarkozy has also been reaching out in an effort to normalize relations between Syria and the rest of the world, and the story just came out yesterday that General Petreaus was looking to go to Damascus to discuss security in the region.  Given all of that, it would seem the realist school of foreign policy wonks see this as a highly viable option.

Not too surprisingly, the Likud right in Israel and the neocons in the Bush administration in Washington are very much opposed to such a normalization, and it is in that context that we should probably view the recent cross-border assault by the US into Syrian territory.  As fester noted earlier, "it is not a common response for Country A that is attacked by Country B to help out Country B's objectives"

As Slate's Fred Kaplan noted, this was a very high-risk operation for very little in the way of rewards and his column with:

Maybe the next president will reconsider the costs and benefits.

Assuming that president is Obama, such a reconsideration is probably assured, but that doesn't mean he will be able to do anything about it.  This stike, and possibly others in the near future if Kaplan can be believed, have set back whatever progress may have been made towards wedging Syria away from Iran, and it will take time for a President Obama to repair that damage and move forward.  Time he is unlikely to have.

Because any such progress cannot be made without considering what is happening in Israel itself.  And what's happening there is that the (currently) more diplomatically-focused Kadima party is entering an election where they are likely to lose ground and quite possibly the government to Likud, who will almost certainly throw up roadblocks to any Obama administration overtures to Syria.  (If you want a truly terrible scenario baed on this, read Bill Lind.)

Basically, the Bush adminstration has just ensured that relations with Syria remain in a state of belligerence for at least the foreseeable future.  One of its many not-so-pleasent legacies to the world.

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

Comments

[Peter G.]

Fester's analysis was pretty well spot on. I disagree on only one point. I think Syria is pulling troops back from the border not as blowback but to get them out of harms way pending further special ops incursions.

[Continuum]

I disagree.

I think most non-Americans view Obama as a distinct break with the previous Bush Administration.

Obama will use the adminstration change to also change relations with many other nations around the globe, both friend and foe.

Obama's support among the populations and their leaders will be a gateway to new negotiations and hopefully some kind of reasonable peace.

[BJ Bjornson]

Continuum, I like Obama and all, but let’s keep this in perspective. I think the changeover to someone not seen as a continuation of the Bush presidency will assist Obama considerably on the international stage, but his mere presence isn’t going to change the facts on the ground or rewrite recent, and in some cases ancient, history. And there is the simple fact that other countries will look out for their own best interests, not America’s, and will be looking to feel out and test their limits with a new administration.

The Middle East is a diplomatic minefield at the best of times, and this is far from the best of times. The economy is crashing, Afghanistan is unraveling, and Iraq remains unresolved. There isn’t a magic wand to solve any of them. I believe Obama will do a better job than Bush has or McCain ever could, but he’ll still have his work cut for him.

[anderson]

Wow, the commentary on this site is so ... reasonable and thoughtful. Where are the flames?! the hate?! the ad hominem?!

C'mon, step it up.

[BJ Bjornson]

It’s true Anderson. I now have to go out to some of the wingnut sites and pester folks with reasoned arguments to provoke the kind of froth-mouthed rage you used to see more often. Ah well, reasoned discussion has its place, I suppose. ☺

[Peter G.]

To answer BJ: as you sow so shall you reap. If you present a reasoned argument supported by documentary links or evidence a reflexive ad hominem reply merely looks childish and there are lots of other playgrounds for those children. Still I wonder why this place doesn't seem to elicit more commentary. It's not like there aren't points to debate. If it will make you feel better: You're all a bunch of commies! That I happen to mostly agree with.