Road to Damascus

March 30, 2007. White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino:

Q So specifically on this one — this will be the highest-ranking U.S. official to go to Syria since the Hariri assassination, even before that, and apparently she's going to meet with President Assad. Would you have a specific message to the Speaker of the House about meeting with President Assad at a time when the administration has even withdrawn our ambassador from Damascus?

MS. PERINO: Well, again, I don't know if anyone has spoken to the Speaker. I do think that, as a general rule — and this would go for Speaker of the House Pelosi and this apparent trip that she is going to be taking — that we don't think it's a good idea. We think that someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends, and the message that it sends to our allies. I'm not sure what the hopes are to — what she's hoping to accomplish there. I know that Assad probably really wants people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they're coming from, but we do think that's a really bad idea.

April 2, 2007. Associated Press photo:

CAPTION: Syrian President Bashar Assad, left, meets with a three-man delegation from the United States House of Representatives, in Damascus on Sunday, April 1, 2007. Representatives Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt flew in Damascus on Saturday on a two-day visit ahead of the U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria's on Tuesday. Pelosi is the highest-ranking American politician to come to Syria since relations began souring in 2003. The visit came in response to mounting U.S. calls to engage Damascus to bring stability to the Middle East region.(AP Photo/Sana)

That would be Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., and Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala. All Republicans. As you can clearly see, however, none of them is drinking tea.

Here's another shot of the same delegation meeting with Syrian Grand Muftti Sheikh Ahmad Bakr Eddin Hassoun on Saturday in Damascus. The Muftti is on the left, explaining to Rep. Pitts why brown shoes don't make it (AP Photo/Bassem Tellawi).

After spending the weekend railing against Pelosi's trip while ignoring the delegation from his own party, President Bush finally dropped the partisan charade today, saying:

We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals — signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad. And by that, I mean, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror; when, in fact, they're helping expedite — or at least not stopping the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq; when, in fact, they have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hezbollah; and when, in fact, they destabilize the Lebanese democracy.

That's an uncharacteristically articulate expression of Bush's standard don't talk to Bad Guys approach — the same approach that has produced, among other things, a nuclear North Korea.

Much of the reaction to the White House's previous hypocrisy — attacking Speaker Pelosi while ignoring Reps. Wolf, Pitts and Aberholt — rightfully focused on the absurdity of the it's-OK-if-you're-a-Republican double standard. But at least that double-standard got it half right, as opposed to President Bush's amended comment today — "whether they be Republicans or Democrats" — which is consistent, but consistently wrong.

I don't know what Wolf et. al. said during their visit with Syria's president, but the visit itself was a good idea. This is how grown-up countries, and grown-up people, behave. Talk first. Only fight if you have to.

And talking with Syria is something that the Iraq Study Group said we would have to do if we are to have any hope of a tolerable ending to our misadventure in Iraq:

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. …

Like Iran, Syria is content to see the United States tied down in Iraq. That said, the Syrians have indicated that they want a dialogue with the United States …

Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial. Nevertheless, it is our view that in diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions. …

The United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results.

The problem now is that, thanks to President Bush, America is so desperately entangled in Iraq that we need the help of unfriendly countries like Syria (and, yes, Iran) more than they need our help. Having actively squandered nearly every bit of leverage we might have had in talks with Syria, and having recklessly frittered away much of America's diplomatic influence and respectability, Bush now has the gall to complain that talks with Syria might not produce instantaneous results.