Fair Comment ... But Does State Get It? Posted May 12, 2003 By Angelo M. Codevilla Much as in 1991, the Bush administration's diplomacy is undermining the effects of military success that, properly exploited, would bring the peace that America deserves. That is because, much as in 1991, the Bush administration is not using military success to coerce enemy regimes in the region into receivership. Instead, it continues to pursue long-standing goals of better relations with them. The State Department has convinced President George W. Bush, just as it convinced his father, that to translate military victory into good feeling toward America requires respect for current Arab regimes; that the Syrian regime can be America's partner against terrorism rather than a major fount of it; that a few personnel changes can transform the Palestinian Authority into something other than a gang of terrorists; and that the Saudi regime's stability is possible and desirable. This approach is based on a misreading of the Middle East, as well as of diplomacy itself. The experiences of the 1990s makes it doubly inexcusable. The Syrian regime is a somewhat less violent copy of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Run by the Ba'ath Party on behalf of a hated minority, it lives by killing tens of thousands of its own citizens and by massive corruption. International terrorism and militant Arab nationalism are its only significant exports. Although the State Department and CIA did not found the Ba'ath Party, they helped both the Syrian and Iraqi branches of it come to power in the 1950s and 1960s. For almost half a century, Arabists at the State Department and the CIA have sacrificed much to cajole the Ba'ath's secular, nationalist, socialist dictators. Time and again, the State Department and the CIA have pressed Israel to give in to Syrian demands and protected the Syrian regime from Israel's retaliation for terrorist attacks. Beginning in the 1970s and culminating in President George H.W. Bush's 1991 approval of Syria's invasion of East Beirut, U.S. presidents have been complicit in Syria's occupation of Lebanon. And what has America received in return? At least in 1991, the Syrian regime gave us pro forma support in Gulf War I. In 2003, Syria called for killing Americans in Gulf War II - and Russian weapons supplied by Syria destroyed the only U.S. Abrams tank ever killed in combat. Much of Iraq's Ba'ath structure went to Syria. After all this, Secretary of State Colin Powell got Bush to pronounce himself satisfied with Syria's cooperation. There were no demands that Syria withdraw from Lebanon, that it let its Bekáa Valley return to farming by removing the complex of terrorist bases that Syria has emplaced there. The regime does not have to stop fomenting anti-Americanism, much less change itself. This diplomacy is worse than that in 1991. The State Department and the CIA did not invent Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). But they supported it diplomatically and financially decade after decade because they placed upon it the same hopes they have placed on the Ba'ath movement - to which it intimately is related. In 1982 they saved it from being destroyed by Israel in the course of the Lebanon War, and kept it alive in Tunis. After 1991, instead of using America's post-Gulf War I prestige to foster the rise of indigenous Palestinian leadership, State and the CIA worked to install the PLO in a quasi-government in the West Bank and Gaza. This was the "Oslo Peace Process," in which Israeli and American "experts" empowered the PLO in exchange for its promises to be nicer. This occupied nine years, cost thousands of lives and fueled anti-Americanism. Today, instead of following up the destruction of Iraq's Ba'ath movement with Israel's destruction of the PLO, State and CIA push a "road map" [see symposium, May 13-26], different from Oslo only in detail, that further empowers the PLO in exchange for promises and cosmetic personnel changes. Dumb in 1991, dumber now. Since the substance of the State Department's approach is indefensible, officials have argued only that it must be wise because President Bush favors it. But if favor could make this approach work better for this Bush than for his father, favor could as well make pigs sprout wings. Angelo M. Codevilla is a professor of international relations at Boston University. http://www.insightmag.com/news/434395.html State needs reform. Period.
Treeman, I tend to agree with you. I am a HUGE fan of Gringrich, who I consider the most important politician from the 90's. Clinton won his second term by co-opting Gringrich's Contract With America. I think Gringrich has better instincts for foreign policy than any of Bush's team, and instead of attacking Newt, Bush ought to show some consideration.
Personally I'm not real big on Newt (don't hate the guy like many do, just don't agree with him all the time), but I think he was on target when he blasted State. It's one of the worst kept secrets that State harbors people who are sympathetic with some of our enemies. Not to mention more than a few incompetents whose single contribution to government has been in the form of campaign donations. We need people in there who will deal with tough situations, not sugarcoat them in diplomatese. As for B-Bob's comment... Well, it has some merit. Although I do think that this is an important enough issue to be taken seriously - and debated seriously.
Yes, his comment does have merit, especially when people post inane messages like he did in response to the interesting article that you posted.
Since you're such a big fan, it wouldn't hurt to spell his last name correctly. Also, what the hell is the "insight mag?"
It's a conservative news magazine that seems like they have taken their cue from Fox News. A quick run of their headlines vs. the bio of their editor... Current Headlines & Teasers: <i><b>Tricky 'Dick' </b> During his early years in Congress, Rep. Richard Gephardt voted for Ronald Reagan's income-tax cut, aid to the Nicaraguan Contras and backed a constitutional ban on abortion. Twenty-five years later, with an eye on the White House, he is a pro-choice, tax-and-spend liberal. <b>Political Notebook Democrats Trot Out an Uninspired Lineup</b> In a precampaign debate the Democratic presidential hopefuls lacked charisma and any compelling message likely to unify the party. <b>Washington Diary Taking the 'Hypocritic Oath' </b> Senate Republicans considered a "nuclear option" to break Democrat filibusters against Bush judicial nominees, while Democrats weighed in against the energy bill. <b>Fair Comment Syria's Partnership With Evil No Surprise to the Informed ... </b> The Assad regime of Syria showed its true character by siding with Saddam Hussein, and the Bush administration shouldn't forget it. <b>Fair Comment ... But Does State Get It? </b> Instead of capitalizing on U.S. military success, the State Department and the CIA again are pushing for diplomacy in dealing with Arab regimes. When will they learn their lesson?</b> <b>A Letter From the Editor </b> John F. Kennedy used to travel to Navy exercises while president and made certain he was well-photographed. So did Bill Clinton, though we didn't hear Democrats complaining about those "photo opportunities."</i> Managing Editor Bio: <i>Paul M. Rodriguez Managing Editor The managing editor oversees an aggressive news team of seasoned professionals who believe that every story not only should be reported accurately but in context. "I'm a firm believer that the best kind of news reporting is the type that delivers it straight and upside the head when justified. It doesn't make a lick of difference what the issue is or who's involved: What is important is to provide readers with insider information the larger and slicker publications just won't or can't report because of bias and slant that tends to protect the people they cover and duck the issues they should expose to scrutiny." Paul's strongly held views about how the news business is supposed to operate -- "Just the facts, ma'am" -- stem from a 25-year career in Washington covering politics and the machinations of government and its employees.</i> Opinion masquerading as news.
It's one of the worst kept secrets that State harbors people who are sympathetic with some of our enemies. Treeman. Why not just call them traitors? What a bunch of McArthyite crap.
Basically because the State department would rather try and conduct diplomacy instead of staying out of the way and letting Rumsfeld and the guys at the Pentagon that Newt works for go to war with Syria, and help to further oppress the Plaestinians then the State department is a bad bunch of failures.
Except for the fact that their own editor calls it "fact" and says that he is trying to combat bias and slant in the media. I don't debate Slate is op-ed, but neither do they. This mag is attempting to present themselves as news which is misleading.
I absolutely disagree. Here is what the editor says- Our editorial focus is simple: Report news others won't or can't. We follow the story wherever the facts lead, regardless of who's involved. Though you also will find commentary and opinion within our pages, you won't have to guess about what is authentic news and what is opinion. We tell you each and every issue what's what and we label it. For example, if you read a news story, that's it: You are reading facts reported as accurately as is humanly possible and in context. If you read a commentary piece or opinion article, you'll know that, too, because we label it honestly so you will never be in doubt. I only continue this nitpicking discussion because I think you have a tendency to dismiss ideas because of their source. I won't pretend that I have not done the same thing on occasion, so we have both been wrong. Dismissing an article or quote because of its source is the basis for an illogical argument.
