As I noted, as ugly as the process has been, the deal with Russia on Syria isn't necessarily a disaster. As long as we don't view the deal as our main policy and continue to work for the overthrow of Assad, the deal is either irrelevant or a nice bonus if it reduces the chemical weapons stockpiles before Assad's forces fall.
So Israel is happy?
Israel today welcomed a US-Russia agreement that, if implemented, would result in the removal or destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons and its ability to produce them.
I'm of three minds on this.
Have no doubt, in the short run this is a victory for Syria (and Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran), as well as a short-term hit on our reputation. Assad held off our missile strikes and has bought time. He hopes the horse will sing, of course (and I'm not talking about Kerry, here). This could even be a long-term victory for Assad if he rides the agreement to survive the rebellion.
But we hold it within our hands to make sure that this deal doesn't negate Assad's long-term doom. We can supply and support the rebellion against Assad and apply pressure on Assad's allies to restrict the support Assad receives.
It's too soon for me to tell what we are doing. So why is Israel publicly happy?
One, because Assad kept the Golan Heights quiet and was at least a Devil they knew, a lot of Israelis worshipped at the altar of "stability" when it came to Syria. So in this view, if Assad survives yet doesn't have chemical weapons, it's doubly comforting for Israel.
Which is fine for Israel, I suppose, but doesn't address our interests which I believe involve getting rid of Assad just for the point of knifing a ruler who has killed a lot of American troops (in Iraq) and whose father had a big assist in killing a lot of American Marines in Lebanon.
The other possibility is that Israel believes the deal is only one part of our policy and that we will continue to work to destroy the Assad regime. And that assumes that enough Israelis have come around to the idea that getting rid of Assad is the right thing and the smart thing to do in order to weaken Iran and Hezbollah.
The other possibility is that the Obama administration made a deal with Israel on a third issue so that Israeli praise negates public Syrian and Iranian joy over the deal.
Then you have to ask what that deal is. Promise of weapons to deal with Iran? Pledges to strike Iran if Iran crosses a red line that Israel judges has been breached?
One of the problems I have in judging the deal we made is trust. If Bush made this deal, I'd wonder aloud what we're doing, but I wouldn't doubt that he was trying to bend events to our advantage. With the Obama administration, I have little trust on this score. The failure to defend what we gained at the cost of 4,500 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq is just the largest part of my distrust of the motives and objectives of this administration. Really, it is unforgivable:
Having won a difficult war in Iraq, the United States should have settled in for the long haul, just as we did in Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Korea, where tens of thousands of American troops remain to this day. Instead President Obama pulled the troops out, as he had always made clear he would. Iraq’s fragile constitutional democracy, so hard-won, was left to fend for itself. Al Qaeda in Iraq, all but wiped out, gained a new lease on life. ...
We are nearly five years into a presidency whose foreign policy is driven by the conviction that America’s profile in the world, above all the Muslim world, must be lowered. “One of the things I intend to do as president is restore America’s standing in the world,” Obama vowed as he pursued the presidency in 2008. Abandoning Iraq wasn’t the way to do it. America’s standing in the world has reached a new low. So low that even Bashar Assad can thumb his nose at an explicit presidential “red line” — then laugh as Vladimir Putin effortlessly suckers Washington into doing nothing about it.
George W. Bush made plenty of mistakes, but he understood the difference between leading and “leading from behind.” When he went to Congress for authorization to remove Saddam Hussein from power, he got it. When he told Saddam to leave Iraq or be forcibly overthrown, he made good his threat. When he explained the need for military action, he didn’t need to reassure Americans that their commander-in-chief “doesn’t do pinpricks.”
And it just isn't that the Iraq War was "Bush's" war in President Obama's mind (despite a national declaration of war). President Obama escalated the "good" war in Afghanistan twice and yet his commitment to securing what we've gained there is also in doubt.
Remember, our standing in the Moslem world is still very low even as we've tried to be more sensitive to Middle Eastern Moslems. If the Obama administration's thinking is right and that some lousy YouTube video can incite violence against us so easily, the fact of twerking alone is going to undo a hundred Cairo outreach speeches, no? Indeed, failure to intervene in Syria is making many Moslems wonder why we are "allowing" Moslems to be slaughtered there. Damned if you're Bush--damned if you're anti-Bush.
So let's focus on doing what we need to do rather than doing what we think will make us loved. Being respected by friends and foes alike will defend our interests and maintain our standing in the world.
Get rid of the Assad regime. Be the strong horse, not a friggin' singing Mr. Ed.
UPDATE: Hmmm. In light of my wondering why Israel might be supportive, this news argues for the second option:
Israel wants to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad toppled, its ambassador to the United States said on Tuesday, in a shift from its non-committal public stance on its neighbor's civil war.
Even Assad's defeat by al Qaeda-aligned rebels would be preferable to Damascus's current alliance with Israel's arch-foe Iran, Ambassador Michael Oren said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post.
His comments marked a move in Israel's public position on Syria's two-and-1/2-year-old war.
So Israel expressed approval of the chemical deal and comes out in favor of overthrowing the Assad regime? If those are related events, this is good.
If we are committed to defeating Assad's regime, the chemical deal is not necessarily a lasting substantive hit on our foreign policy even if in the short run it hurts our reputation because of the chaotic way it came about.
