On Syria: A Question for Barack and Hillary
George W. Bush certainly seems like he likes to strangle things. He's been trying to strangle Cuba and Cuban-American families with tightened restrictions on family-related travel to emphasize how much every President of the United States since Eisenhower has tried (and failed) to undermine Fidel Castro's government.
Now, Bush yesterday started to strangle Syria more tightly. Arguing that Syria is not doing enough to stop the movement of terrorists between Iraq and Syria, Bush issued an Executive Order increasing the number of Syrian officials whose financial assets can be held.
So -- someone on the press beat with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, ask these two presidential hopefuls if they agree with the President's action against Syria or not? If so, why? If not, what reasons would they as President use to undo our counter this action.
I'll give you my answer. Bush's move is reckless -- and threatens to add further stress to a region that is wondering whether Bush's initiative to achieve some kind of Israel/Palestine deal is real or contrived.
Syria must be a party to any arrangement with the broader Arab world -- and thus far, Syria has been on the whole reasonably behaved with regard to Israel. When Israel attacked some warehouses that Seymour Hersh argues were not nuclear weapons related, Syria restrained itself from attacking back and did not unleash agents into Israel to create domestic strife.
But beyond that, I have no idea if terrorists are really moving between Iraq and Syria or not -- but I do know that the Syrian government itself sees zero benefit to hosting insurgents or Islamic radicals in its country. The Syrian government is as worried about the impact of anti-government Islamist militancy within its borders as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states.
What I do know is that Syria is hosting more than 1.2 million refugees from Iraq and that the United Nations and Europe have been applauding and publicly commending Syria and Jordan, which has another million. This refugee problem is a function of the American invasion, and it's simply outrageous that the United States would move to further punish Syria when it is carrying much of the load for our Middle East actions.
I really want to hear what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would do in this case.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
I'm glad you wrote about this. I've been hearing a lot of rhetoric about Syria from the administration lately. This action and the forcing of a missile defense shield in Europe exacerbate the already strained relations between the U.S. and Russia.
February 14, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is fair to say Obama would act more cautiously.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7083_remembering_cli.html
Clinton: We don't have as much information as we wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that...there was evidence of a North Korea freighter coming in with supplies. There was intelligence and other kinds of verification.
Obama: Now, we don't know exactly what happened with respect to Syria. We've gotten general reports, but we don't know all the specifics. We got general reports in the run-up to the Iraq war that proved erroneous, and a lot of people voted for that war as a consequence.
I don't see him jumping the gun on anything.
February 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not expect either candidate to touch this issue. It is too close to the Israel issue. Remember Israel, the subject that can destroy national campaigns if not parsed correctly. Israel is so wrapped up in our policy towards Syria that anything a candidate says could be spun as an attack on Israel.
February 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve fails to acknowledge the fact that several journalists and politicians have been assassinated in Lebanon since Rafik Hariri's assassination, and they all have one thing in common: they all opposed Syria's intervention and meddling in Lebanese affairs. At this point, only the comatose, brain-dead believe that Syria had nothing to do with Hariri's death and all the other murders that have taken place since. I am openly challenging Steve to come back on this board and declare his position on this matter. Syria is doing everything they can to slip the noose of a UN investigation, and Steve seems to be openly supporting this regime in it's criminal cover-up.
February 14, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK I accept your challenge. What evidence do you have Syria has assassinated any Lebanese politician? None. As I expected. Come back when you have something new to say.
February 15, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This executive order is just symbolic barking at Syria, and doesn't bite Syria. Under legislation passed in 2004 with overwhelming and bipartisan support in Congress, far more painful trade sanctions against Syria are already in place and the president has the ongoing power to impose, by executive order, yet more biting, painful ones if he wants to.
Obama refers to Syria as one of "our enemies". Bearing that in mind, looking at the specifics in this executive order it's clear Obama if asked would say he had no objections. If the new executive order were more punitive to the extent that reasonable, educated people like Steve Clemmons had something beyond symoblics to complain about, and Obama agreed, he'd have a very difficult job explaining himself in sound bites on the campaign trail.
February 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink