 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
On to Damascus?
The Bush administration's saber-rattling toward Syria had become so overheated that the White House felt the need to send out Secretary of State Colin Powell this week to reassure the world that U.S. forces have no plans "right now" to march on Damascus once Iraq is under control. Powell's calming words were welcome, as far as they went, but they were no substitute for a coherent policy toward Syria and other troublesome governments in the Middle East. The White House has much more work to do if it wants to alter the perceptions of those who fear -- or hope -- that Iraq is just a rest stop on the road to a much broader military intervention in the region. The administration's tough talk toward Syria is justifiable, up to a point. Weapons and Hezbollah fighters have infiltrated Iraq from Syria since the war started. The White House also says members of Saddam Hussein's regime have sneaked across the border in the other direction, receiving sanctuary in Syria. Beyond that, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government is a bigger sponsor of Hezbollah and other Middle Eastern terrorist groups than Hussein was, and U.S. officials say Syria is developing chemical weapons. At the same time, Washington officials acknowledge that Syria has provided important help in the war against al-Qaida. Syria also has made overtures about playing a more constructive role in reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Washington should be seeking a balanced diplomatic approach that holds Syria accountable for its provocative actions while encouraging further cooperation on issues such as terrorism and regional peace. In any case, the Bush administration has compelling reasons for ruling out military action against Syria. The most obvious reason: Our government has no legal pretext for war. Unless President Bush intends to expand his notion of pre-emptive military action in ways that would violate international law and American values, we have to exhaust efforts to settle our differences with countries such as Syria through peaceful means. No one has seriously suggested that Syria poses a direct threat to American security. And unlike Iraq, Syria is not subject to a series of U.N. resolutions authorizing military action to eliminate illegal weapons programs. Other reasons are practical: Victory in Iraq has come at a substantial price. Our military personnel and ordnance have been stretched thin, and reserve units have been exploited beyond the breaking point. The cost of the war and postwar reconstruction will add to federal deficits for years to come, and the national focus on the war has diverted attention from pressing domestic needs. Barring a direct threat to our security, the country simply isn't prepared for a new war against a more formidable foe than Hussein. While the prospect of war against Syria may be far-fetched, the Bush administration's warlike rhetoric already has damaged our long-term interests in Iraq and surrounding Islamic countries. The threats have reinforced fears in the region that the United States is at war against Islam and has broader designs on reshaping the map of the Middle East. That's a controversy our government can't afford right now. The task of building a civil society in Iraq has barely begun. The task of stabilizing Afghanistan is far from over. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is still moribund. The global war against terrorism is open-ended. On these and other crucial issues, Washington needs the active, honest support of governments in the Islamic world. Many of those governments don't see the world exactly as the Bush administration does, but our government has to find ways to work with them on matters of common interest. The past few days of escalating threats against Syria have hindered that effort.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times Opinion page |
|||||||||||||||
