printThe White House is furious that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has traveled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus. Assad is not the only Middle East leader Pelosi is speaking to. Omigod! Diplomacy!
Trust Pelosi to give as good as she gets; she has pointed to the hypocrisy of the administration, having said nothing about the “the recent visits by Republican members of Congress.” The U.S. also participated “in a regional security conference in Baghdad last month that also included representatives from Iran and Syria.”
But here’s the real difficulty, as the press sees it: “The United States has poor relations with Syria, accusing it of interfering in Iraq.” Come to think of it, Bush, like the snake he is, should be slithering on his belly to Bashar to thank him for serving as the US’s pressure relief valve vis-a -vis Iraq.
Although the cable cretins don’t bother to report about them, and the administration smears reporters who try —millions of Iraqis have been displaced and uprooted in the aftermath of our invasion. Syria has been incredibly generous to these poor refugees. Together, Jordan and Syria have taken in 1.6 million fleeing Iraqi refugees. “On 20 October, Ron Redmond, UNHCR chief spokesman, said some 40,000 Iraqis are now arriving in Syria each month.” Take into account that these figures date back to October 2006.
Pelosi ought to thank the Syrian president for extending to the Iraqi refugees the use of its public schools and the health care system, although they “have to travel out of the country every six months to renew their visas and cannot hold work permits, resulting in high unemployment.” [I’m sure they don’t risk popping back to Iraq when visa renewal falls due, despite McCain’s assurances.]
IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks) reports that “the majority of Iraqi refugees in Syria live in the suburbs of Damascus, in deteriorating socio-economic conditions.” That’s where Pelosi should be headed.
Update: Of course, American interests in the Middle East are not to be conflated with Israel’s. The two countries have completely different interests in the region (the one “lives” there, so to speak; the other often makes life impossible for those who live there). The fact that Bush should be speaking to Bashar doesn’t mean that Israel ought to be doing the same. Israel would be in better shape if it didn’t aim above all to please or emulate the US. Syria wants Israel to return territory acquired due to Syria’s aggression. Israel should reject this “option” if it cares to survive. However, time and again Israel has shown that it is no more than an American satellite.
Further reading:
We can deal with Syria. If Israel had any brains left they would have made a deal two years ago when Assad was trying.
Assad is allied with Iran and Hizballah out necessity (thank you President
Bush). He’s a secular leader in a region that has growing radical Islamic
elements. He treats Christians well and is tolerant of everything but
Islamic radicals. It only makes sense that we do this and it’s one more sign of incompetence that the Busheviks have not already done so.
Assad is allied with Iran and Hizballah out necessity (thank you PresidentBush). He’s a secular leader in a region that has growing radical Islamicelements. He treats Christians well and is tolerant of everything butIslamic radicals. It only makes sense that we do this and it’s one more sign of incompetence that the Busheviks have not already done so.
Nancy Pelosi and Bashar Assad together. Two reptiles hissing in the same basket. I’m really going to sleep better tonight knowing that two such prominent anti-Americans are nose to nose and cheek to cheek. Of course Pelosi will give as good as she gets. That’s how she makes her living. I’m sure Lucretia Borgia did too but that doesn’t mean I would trust Lucretia with my country’s security.
I guess it’s OK to take the obligatory shots at Dubya and the Republicans. That’s always safe. [Yes, Mr. Huggins, I’m well known for playing it “safe,” unlike these here courageous groupies, whose “courage” is reflected in their huge, mindless base and big bank accounts.]
But selling Pelosi as a diplomat and making Assad sound like Andy of Mayberry are both pretty far reaches. She’s a democrat. As such she doesn’t have this country’s best interest at heart. [Unlike Republicans, of course.] He’s hates this country too. [Bush just loves America!] If he hates us enough he might get elected to public office over here. Maybe he can be one of the new Democratic senators from Washington DC.
Bush is not doing himself any favors. Syria will become another hotbed of displaced persons, to be manipulated by those who don’t care for them, but would want to use them.
Following what the last two administrations have told them to do, Israel is at a worse place than I would’ve thought possible, just ten short years ago.
They need to think what is best for them, and stand up to those who would bully them, no matter the source or country.
Mr. Huggins, Most people do not understand how militarily weak our position is in Iraq. We can be cut off and destroyed by Iran, and their Iraqi Shia allies, at any time. This has not happened to date because we are busy killing their main competitors, the Sunni. That will not last, particularly if we attack Iran or attempt to disarm the Shia militias, which some of our brilliant Washington warriors are advocating.
Air power, our traditional savior, is largely ineffective in this environment (think Israel in the Leb last summer). Smart bombs and high tech systems will make little difference. The danger of the US military being logistically strangled is growing because of the surge. More troops mean more logistics. We do not have the ability to “surge” logistics. Bill Lind has more to say about this:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_3_29_07.htm
The bottom line is we need allies, or at least neutrals, in the region. Separating Syria from Iran won’t be easy, we’ve already screwed that up, but it can be done. Assad does not want the Iranians to win. He fears they will eat him next. He will deal if we give him some assurances that we are trying to get out, and that we will leave him alone. It would be foolish to pass up this opportunity.
Talking to Syria is becoming critical. A little more meat for the fire from Bill Lind.
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_4_03_07.htm
“NB: As a follow-up to last week’s column on Operation Anabasis, General Barry McCaffrey’s report on his recent trip to Iraq states that:
… at division and brigade level these C3I [Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence] command posts are not movable. They simply are not prepared to effectively fight a war of maneuver. (For example, against the Syrians or the Iranians.)
[Israel suffered from the same failings in Lebanon.]
We are overly dependant on Kuwait for logistics.
If Iranian military action closed the Persian Gulf, the US combat force in Iraq would immediately begin to suffocate logistically.
All the pieces of a very ugly puzzle are falling into place.
It’s almost time for Bush to declare the operation in Iraq a total success and withdraw (except perhaps leaving a huge military base there, which probably was the point of the whole exercise in the first place).
The mainstream media will be loathe to report the reprisals that will be suffered by those who helped the occupying force.
In the future, perhaps the West will learn to use pushbutton weaponry to eliminate credible threats in the region, and stay off the ground. Soldiers in an occupying force have never been effective instruments of social policy, and probably can’t very well win hearts and minds over from an ingrained religion of subjugation and tribal hatred to embrace freedom and the primacy of an individual’s life.
The West may never learn why, but the predictions of the Imams were right — the West does not have the stomach to do what would be necessary to rule the area.
The Democrats would consider it foolish not to capitalize on the situation for their own political gain.
–John Danforth–
If we did “have the stomach to do what would be necessary” then we wouldn’t be the West.
I would dispute that push button warfare does much. In fact it we created the problems in Iraq by destroying large sections of their infrastructure, but nothing critical to the operating of the government and military. The “No fly Zone” was costing us billions each year and doing nothing to resolve the situation, which is one reason that OIF received so much military support. Our aircraft were wearing out. We fly many times less hours today then we did then.
All of the comments above on our military position in the area are well taken. We no longer have a military big enough to occupy the world nor do we have a command structure with the necesssary courage to go against the PC and political culture of the day. Although I can’t see Iran or anybody else closing the Persian Gulf if our Navy thinks otherwise.
To me the the biggest bumblebee in this jug of Buttermilk is having Nancy Pelosi or any other democrat going to the Mideast and attempt “diplomacy”. Everyone fron the Ottoman Turks to the Brits and the French of past days to the Americans of today have tried and none have suceeded. This is the Middle East. The natives of this area can’t even figure themselves out. How can we. Add this to the fact that the Democratic party has never, in my memory, made a move for the security of the country. Everything I have seen from them has been calculated to play to the left. To do this they support and get support from the enemies of the US. America haters in the Middle East and other places (Hugo Chavez for one.) Have made no bones about it. They support democratic candidates in the US. With all this background I can’t look at Pelosi’s inserting herself in the region as anything but dangerous to our situation. She’s not on our side.
In addition to the comments above I just read that Jimmy Carter approves of Pelosi’s mission to Syria. That really gives me a sense of security. Well, if we must have one of them running about the world I would much rather have Nancy. She’s twice the man Jimmy is. [And has better legs.]