Today’s New York Times ratifies what I
sensed yesterday: The White House is waking up and
turning against Assad. They’re even starting to consider some
of the diplomatic moves against Syria that they should have been
pursuing months ago. One thing they’re not considering though, is
withdrawing Ambassador Robert Ford:
Administration officials said Mr. Ford’s visit to Hama, where he
was met by welcoming crowds, showed the value of sending an envoy
to Syria - something members of Congress have criticized. While the
officials said they could not prove Mr. Ford’s presence there
averted a violent assault by security forces, one said: “It’s very
possible. A lot of people were expecting Hama to be very ugly.”
Sending Ford to Damascus with a recess appointment in December
(as I said
at the time) was shameful. If he had to be sent, he should have
been withdrawn months ago in protest of Assad’s brutality (as I
said in April). In pushing for “dialogue” between the regime
and the opposition, Ford has been effectively aiding Assad (as I
said
earlier this month). But clearly the administration has no
intention of withdrawing him, and indeed the unnamed officials have
a point that Ford probably did some good with the trip to Hama. In
fact, in the immediate wake of the attack on the embassy Monday,
withdrawing Ford (as
Aaron suggested yesterday) might be somewhat counterproductive;
while it would signal Assad’s diplomatic isolation internationally,
the regime might be able to spin it domestically as a victory for
the “get out of Syria” demonstrations they’ve been inciting.
Just to be clear, Ford’s presence in Syria can be of net value
if, and only if, the administration has truly made a clean break
from its engagement fantasies. Reuel Marc Gerecht
writes in the current Weekly Standard that “the Obama
administration should be… deploying the American ambassador in
Damascus as a shield and voice for the opposition (if Ford gets
expelled, he gets expelled)”; presumably that was written before
Ford’s visit to Hama, which is of course the sort of thing Gerecht
is suggesting. More of this — and not encouraging more “dialogue”
with the regime — is what Ford should be doing. If there must be
an American Ambassador in Syria, let’s make Assad wish there
wasn’t.
Rosetta Stone | 7.14.11 @ 5:48AM
I’d have to check with you here. Which is not something I usually do! I enjoy reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!
PCC| 7.14.11 @ 7:08AM
The petulant withdrawal of diplomatic representation to countries or regimes with whom we disagree is seldom a productive exercise.
It is as important to talk to our enemies as it is to talk to our friends, even if it is only to tell them how much we disagree with them and what the potential negative consequences of their policies might be.
Do you think the Cold War would have ended better had we never engaged with the Soviets?
Diplomatic communications are a good thing, even with people with whom we disagree; content and credibility is everything.
WJ| 7.14.11 @ 8:43AM
This blogger has no interest in engaging the Syrians. He simply wants the US or NATO to kill Syrians to make things safer for Israel.
JimH| 7.14.11 @ 8:51AM
The ambassador’s visit to Hama may have forestalled a bloodbath there by the Syrian government. Bearing witness to, and possibly preventing government atrocities is a good reason for the ambassador to remain.
rogelio| 8.1.11 @ 1:33AM
Beyond engaging, or not engaging Syria, what should the US actually do? Yesterday the Syrian tanks rolled into Hama and other rebel cities killing dozens of civilians.
It may be worthwhile to write a thoughtful article on concrete actions the US can implement to put real pressure on the Syrian dictator.
Personally I would like to see a few Tomahawk missiles in the dictators palace window one nite, but probably that won't prove a popular idea...
yisong| 10.29.11 @ 2:13AM
slewing bearing can be widely used in heavy platform vehicle, container cranes, truck crane, high-altitude vehicles, sun-following solar power systems engineering and the new field of energy. http://www.1stbearing.com