Author: Barry Rubin
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: September 8, 2009
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/201014/Pampering-extremists.html
Syria-sponsored Islamism doesn't bother America
On August 26, the US State Department spokesman,
Mr Ian Kelly, was asked what the United States thought about the dispute between
Iraq and Syria. His answer shockingly recalls the last time a US Government
made that mistake.
First, some background. Iraqi leader Nuri
al-Maliki visited Syria on August 18 to discuss the two countries relationship.
He offered Syrian dictator-President Bashar al-Assad a lot of economic goodies
in exchange for expelling 271 Iraqi exiles involved in organising terrorism
against their country. Mr Assad refused. Mr Maliki left.
The next day, huge bombings struck Baghdad,
directly targeting the Government's Foreign and Finance Ministries. More than
100 Iraqis were killed and over 600 were wounded. The Iraqi Government blamed
the very same exiles living in Syria who Maliki was trying to get kicked out
and implicated the Syrian Government directly in the attacks. The two countries
recalled their ambassadors; the Iraqis are calling for an international tribunal
to investigate.
Enter the United States. Since the Iraqi Government
was created by elections made possible by the US invasion, since the same
terrorists murdering Iraqis have killed American soldiers, and since Iraq
is a US ally and Syria is a terrorist sponsor allied with Iran, what US reaction
would you expect?
Why, support for Iraq, of course. For decades
under several US Presidents, Syria has been unsuccessfully pressed to kick
out terrorists targeting Israel, and later Lebanon. This is an old issue and
a very clear one for about a half-dozen reasons.
And what did the Obama Administration do?
Declare its neutrality!
Here's what Mr Kelly said, reading from his
State Department instructions:
"We understand that there has been sort
of mutual recall of the ambassadors. We consider that an internal matter.
We believe that, as a general principle, diplomatic dialogue is the best means
to address the concerns of both parties. We are working with the Iraqis to
determine who perpetrated these horrible acts of violence ... We hope this
doesn't hinder dialogue between the two countries."
Before analysing this response, let me tell
you of what it reminds me. Back in 1990, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was threatening
Kuwait, demanding that the weaker neighbour surrender to an ultimatum. Iraq
was no friend of America; Kuwait, though not an ally, was a state that had
good relations with the US. A decade earlier, America had gone to the verge
of war with Iran to protect Kuwait.
What did the US Government say? This was a
matter between Iraq and Kuwait in which the US wouldn't take sides.
A few days later, Saddam invaded and annexed
Kuwait. At the time and afterward, everyone said: What a terrible mistake!
The announcement of neutrality, the refusal to support a small threatened
country against a bullying neighbour ruled by a blood dictatorship, gave a
green light to Saddam and set off a war.
And now the Obama Administration has done
precisely the same thing. Of course, Syria won't invade Iraq, it will just
keep welcoming, training, arming, financing, transporting, and helping the
terrorists who do so.
The Obama Administration has declared the
war on terrorism to be over. But it also said that the US viewed as an enemy
Al Qaeda and those working with it. The Syria-based Iraqi terrorists fall
into that category. America sacrificed hundreds of lives for Iraq's stability.
Most of those soldiers and civilian contractors were murdered by the very
terrorists harboured by Syria.
How can the administration distance itself
from this conflict instead of supporting its ally and trying to act against
the very terrorists who have murdered Americans?
Nominally, of course, the cheap way out was
to say: We don't know who did these particular bombings. Well, who do you
think did it, men from Mars? Even this is not relevant since the Iraqi demand
for the expulsion of the terrorists - who have committed hundreds of other
acts - came before the latest attack even happened.
Moreover, the administration not only invoked
its obsession with dialogue at any price but did so in an incorrect and dangerous
manner. The Iraqi Government had sought dialogue, had used diplomatic means,
and was turned down flat.
So is this administration incapable of criticising
Syria? Even if it wants to engage in talks with Syria it doesn't understand
that diplomacy is not inconsistent with pressure and criticism, tools to push
the other side into concessions or compromises.
Looking at this latest development - along
with many other policy statements and events during the new administration's
term so far - how can any ally have confidence that the US Government will
support it if menaced by terrorism or aggression? It can't. The problem with
treating enemies better than friends is that the friends start wondering whether
their interests are better served by appeasing mutual enemies or mistreating
an unfaithful ally which ignores their needs.
- The writer is director of the GLORIA Centre,
Tel Aviv, and editor of the MERIA Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab
Reader, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle
East, and The Truth About Syria.
