The realists

The New York Sun wonders why campaign advisers to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been to Syria in the last few days to meet with President Assad.  Neither campaign is forthcoming about the details of the visits.  Former Carter Administration foreign policy "realist" Zbigniew Brzezinski went on behalf of Obama, while Clinton's presidential campaign was represented by national finance chairman Hassan Nemazee.  The State Department lists Syria as a terrorist-sponsoring state.

Where is the sense of reality about who President Assad is and what his regime is all about? To suggest, as the Syrians report Mr. Brzezinski said, that they share some kind of common interest in respect of "stability" is disingenuous. Mugniyah, whom the Syrians had been harboring, has been among the FBI's most-wanted terrorists since 1983, when he authorized the attack on the American Marine barracks in Beirut. Mr. Assad runs a police state. Dictatorships can only thrive if the population is in constant terror and convinced the state itself is all knowing.

This has lead some to speculate that the Syrian regime itself might have been complicit in the killing of Mugniyah. We wouldn't gainsay the possibility entirely. Terrorists like drug dealers and mafiosos fight over turf all the time. What we would gainsay is that a benign construction could be put onto the role of the Assad family's Baathist regime in Syria. If the assassination of Mugniyah is a sign of anything, it is most likely that the Baathist regime is itself losing its grip on power. After all Mugniyah was a valuable asset for Mr. Assad, who relied on his capabilities to continue to threaten the prospect of a stable Lebanon.

So where's the "realism" on the part of Mr. Brzezinski and other so-called foreign policy "realists," who have accused President Bush of foreign policy malpractice for downgrading relations with Syria after the Syrians threw in with the Iranians to sabotage Iraq? Why are advisers to Senators Clinton and Obama in the Syrian capital at a time like this? Are they pressing for a separate peace with the regime? It is something on which Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will be challenged in the coming campaign, we have little doubt. Where do they stand in respect of Syria — and why can't they bring themselves to explain what their advisers are doing in the capital of one of the countries most hostile to America and Israel?

What does this say about either candidate's support for democracy in Lebanon?

Comments

[Ol' BC]

Isn't there a law against such things?

[Rand]

While I doubt Obama or Clinton will drop friendliness to Lebanon's democracy, it's certainly going to go on the backburner. Their campaigns have always put good relations with everyone over spreading democracy, and this is just a further sign of that. While these trips aren't illegal, they are undermining the US position with Syria, and very obviously encourage the already prevalent belief that if Syria waits till the next election on doing anything the US wants, it'll get a better deal. Which is a shame but like I said that was an already prevalent belief, and in the US no one really thinks a lame-duck president can get much accomplished anyways.