Why the Bush raid failed?

Never since the occupation of Iraq in 2003 did the Americans stop accusing Syria of letting foreign fighters cross the border into Iraq. Syria always denied it, and expressed willingness to help bring security to Iraq, using technical assistance from the United States and Great Britain.Nearly three years ago, Syria strengthened border security, which led to the arrest of 1,500 Arab jihadists wanting to cross into Iraq through the Syrian border. American officers in Iraq said that because of Syrian cooperation, the number of foreign fighters coming into Iraq had been sharply reduced. Even Great Britain acknowledged Syria’s “positive role” in Iraq. Despite that, however, US accusations continued against Damascus. Reportedly, David Petraeus, the commander of Central Command, asked President George W. Bush permission to visit Damascus towards the end of 2007. This was after considerable progress on border security was made, and after Syria attended the Annapolis Peace Conference. Bush, however, did not give him a green light.

Why did the Bush Administration decide to launch a military raid on Syria? It was an outright violation of a nation’s sovereignty; a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council committing aggression on a founding member of the United Nations. The raid, actually, can be linked to three regional developments. The attack took place shortly after a meeting between Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu’allem and his US counterpart Condoleezza Rice, on the margins of the General Assembly of the UN in New York, last September. This was followed by another meeting with Undersecretary of State David Welch. Syrian authorities then announced that they had received notice from the US that America was going to “re-evaluate” its policies vis-à-vis Syria once a new president is voted into the White House.
The attack also took place after Damascus launched a series of initiatives towards Iraq, the last of which was appointing an ambassador to Baghdad. That post had been vacant for 30-years. Damascus was also preparing for the Syrian-Iraqi Security Committee meeting in mid-November and considering sending Prime Minister Mohammad Naji Otari to Baghdad. Bush decided to hit Syria after the obvious failure of his policy of isolation, which he had tried to implement since 2005. Interestingly enough, however, while Bush was at the pulpit of the UN last September, saying that Syria and Iran were in increased isolation, his Secretary of State was meeting with Walid al-Mu’allem.

Clearly the Bush administration has failed in Syria. The visit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy last September was clear and official testimony to failure of that policy. Bashar al-Assad’s participation at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in France was also testimony. Europe was also clearly pleased at Syria’s behavior, and appreciated Syrian cooperation on the Doha Agreement, indirect talks under Turkish auspices with Israel, the Euro-Mediterranean Conference, and convincing Hamas to adopt a more pragmatic approach.

Several US officials, including members of the Barack Obama team, did not hesitate to visit Syria and express their willingness to turn a new page with the Syrians. That would include reappointing an ambassador to Syria (since the post has been vacant since 2005), start dialogue over several Middle East issues, sponsor the ongoing talks between Syria and Israel (and see to it that they become direct), and start dialogue over an “honorable exit” for multi-national troops from Iraq.
With no doubt, many in the Bush team are not happy to leave the White House with Syria in much better shape than what they had hoped for since 2003. Some Syrian experts in US affairs, like Ambassador Imad Moustapha, think that the raid was a result of domestic US politics. That theory is solidified by the fact that Obama himself did not praise it — while John McCain did. Robert Maley of the International Crisis Group (ICG), who is close to Obama, even came out and said that the new administration in Washington DC would engage in “political dialogue” with Syria. There is broad consensus that the US raid was more political than military. It proved just how popular the Syrian government’s foreign policy decisions are, and how opposed ordinary Syrians are towards US aggression. Ideologues in Washington DC simply do not realize that the Syrian people rally around their leadership in times of conflict, especially when attacked by a foreign power. Syria was not dragged into radicalization or confrontation with the US, which would have not served anyone except the Republicans and McCain. Its positions were calm and wise, in-tune with national aspirations.

During the next two months, a current administration departs and a new president is elected and sworn-in at the White House. Washington bureaucrats are preparing to hand-over a bundle of sensitive files to the new administration, which include those of Syrian-US relations. Members of the Bush team want to create new realities to justify a new confrontation. Continuation of wisdom—and openness to Europe—all help at de-fusing tension and disarming the enemies of Syria.

Ibrahim Hamidi is a political analyst and journalist based in Damascus.