After noting diplomatic & economic overtures to Syria, Abrams offers a test of what constitutes engagement versus what is appeasement, and finds Team Obama flunking:
But when does “engagement” become “appeasement”? The case of U.S. policy toward Syria suggests that, here at least, the two approaches may not be far apart.
“Engagement” constitutes “appeasement” if it fails to change Syrian conduct, and the failure to change is overlooked while the “engagement” continues and accelerates. This would not just be fooling ourselves but condoning, rewarding, and thereby inducing even more bad conduct by the Assad regime.
Which is precisely what has happened during this year of American engagement.
* Syrian support for terrorism continues. Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, the DFLP, and the PFLP continue to be housed and protected in Damascus. Last August Iraq actually withdrew its ambassador from Damascus in protest over Syrian involvement in deadly explosions in Baghdad. Our commanding general in Iraq, Raymond Odierno, stated as recently as November that Syria continues to facilitate the movement of jihadists and explosives into Iraq.* Syria continues serving as the route for Iran’s rearmament of Hezbollah, in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions prohibiting such trafficking in weapons into Lebanon. And Syria’s activities in Lebanon remain aimed at diminishing that nation’s sovereignty, even though Syrian troops were forced to leave Lebanon in 2005.
* Internal repression in Syria remains as vicious as ever. Human Rights Watch reported that “Syria’s poor human rights situation deteriorated further in 2009.”
In fact, however the Obama administration views its overtures to Syria, the best evidence that these steps now constitute appeasement is found in Syria’s response. On February 25, Assad hosted an Axis of Evil party, meeting with Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Washington Post reported that “the presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East ‘without Zionists,’ combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region’s defining alliances.” More striking was the headline the Post put on the story: “Iran, Syria Mock U.S. Policy.”
When even the Washington Post spots fecklessness you are in trouble. Abrams goes on to note that Syria's has reasserted control over Lebanon to the dismay of the Lebanese, Iraq is astonished at US policy and that there is no chance Israel will cede the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a peace deal while Syria consorts with Its patron, Iran and with Hezbollah. Stiffing Syria will not bring about regime change, which requires, Abrams writes, the fall of the Iranian regime. But it will end Syria's diplomatic free ride.
Abrams recommends not confirming the ambassador 44 wants to send to Damascus--the first since the 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri led to the Cedar Revolution (now being strangled with Syria's connivance). Abrams also proposes blocking Syrian entry into the World Trade Organization, and other stern measures.
Bottom Line. Appeasing Syria is not only wrong, it is dangerous. If we reward bad behavior we will see--and deserve to see--more of it.
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, 9/11, National Security, Terrorism, Foreign Policy
Comments