So Pelosi went to Syria to meet with President Bashar al-Assad and deliver a message from Israel signaling that Israel would like to resume peace talks with Syria.

... "Peace in the Middle East is a high priority ... We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations (for) peace with Israel," Pelosi added...^[1]

Wouldn't it be nice if the peace talks resumed?  Needless to say, one person doesn't think so.

...At the White House, President Bush criticized Ms. Pelosi's visit, saying it sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Bashar's government.

"Sending delegations hasn't worked," Mr. Bush told reporters. "It's just simply been counterproductive."

The United States, which has accused the Syrian government of providing militants with safe passage into Iraq and of meddling in Lebanon's politics after its army was forced to leave there in 2005, has sought to isolate Syria economically and politically. Damascus denies the charges...^[2]

Once again Mr. Bush demonstrates that diplomacy is a weapon of last resort.  It takes all of two seconds to see that if Israel enters into peace talks with Syria, and gives Syria back the land taken from it during the war, then Syria loses an important excuse for aggression against Israel.  If Israel returns the Chebaa Farms to Lebanon, Syria loses another important excuse.  With each excuse lost the hardliners become more isolated.

Bush wants to isolate Syria as long as it is meddling in Lebanon's affairs and letting militants into Iraq.  In order to do this he needs to provide evidence, like we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis... photos George, not cartoon trucks.  Unfortunately for our foreign policy, the world doesn't assume we know what we are talking about anymore, wonder why that is?

Imagine if Syria entered into a peace agreement which Israel met fully, and then proceeded to engage in some aggressive action?  Wouldn't that isolate Syria?  When someone has decided to do an evil thing, usually it involves making excuses.  One effective way to make it more difficult for them is to take away those excuses.

I'm not naive enough to believe that this one visit by Pelosi is likely to amount to anything substantial, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that you can solve problems with others by not talking to them.  In the meantime, the Syrians are happy to see Pelosi.

..."Ms. Pelosi is going to be very happy in Syria," said Izzat Abdoulkarim, who runs an optical shop in downtown Damascus. "George Bush says we are bad, but she will see this is not true."

He added, emphatically: "She views the world through a different perspective than Bush. She's more open-minded."^[2]

There's your message to the average Syrian civilian, George.  You are bad people.  Way to go.  Counting down seconds before some wingnut compares Pelosi to "Hanoi Jane". 5, 4, 3, ...

---

References:

1. Reuters: Pelosi says gave Syria Israeli peace message
2. New York Times: Pelosi, Warmly Greeted in Syria, Is Criticized by White House
3. Wikipedia: Jane Fonda, "Hanoi Jane" subsection

---

Well this will be good for the stability of the Middle East.  With U.N. approval, British Navy personnel have been stopping and boarding ships in Iraqi waters to search for supplies being smuggled from Iran to the Iraqi insurgents.  Earlier today, shortly after stopping and searching a merchant ship, the British suddenly found themselves surrounded by Iranian naval vessels.  The British were detained and escorted into Iranian territorial waters.

Navy personnel captured at gunpoint (The Scotsman Evening News):
...A journalist on board the ship, Ian Pannell, said that they had just boarded a dhow, a traditional Arabian sailing vessel.

Mr Pannell said: “While they were on board, a number of Iranian boats approached the waters in which they were operating – the Royal Navy are insistent that they were operating in Iraqi waters and not Iranian waters – and essentially captured the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel at gunpoint."...

Basically a large British naval vessel (in this case the HMS Cornwall) stops a passing ship, and then sends over teams of inspectors, in this case two small inflatable boats with a total of 15 British sailors and marines.  It's not clear but it sounds like the British may have completed the inspection when the Iranian vessels surrounded the two small inflatable boats and forced the sailors and marines to return with them to Iranian waters.  Details are sketchy at this point, and I haven't heard any news reports explaining why the Iranians captured the British, but presumably the claim will be that the British were in Iranian territorial waters.

Iran has been promising to respond to the capture of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, which has happened more than once.  The Iranian President has not been mincing words in his rhetoric--the holocaust was a myth, Israel should be wiped off the map, the US and Britain are enemies of Iran, etc.  Not surprising I suppose, our President hasn't had sunny things to say about them either... "axis of evil" and all that.

The last time Iran seized British Navy personnel the British men were held for 3 days, blindfolded, and displayed on Iranian television.  Considering how much more tense things are right now with the Iranians enriching uranium (and likely supporting the Iraqi insurgency), this was not exactly a bright move on their part.  All it does is strengthen the position of American and British hardliners who think a war with Iran is inevitable and necessary.

It looks like today is not going to be a good day.

So as part of Bush's new direction in Iraq, American forces attacked the Iranian consulate in Kurdish Northern Iraq yesterday, taking five employees prisoner.

Less than a day later, unknown assailants launch a rocket attack on an American embassy in Athens.

Feel safer yet, America?  'Cause you know, another war is just what we need right now.  So glad the Bushies are taking the Baker report seriously.

Y'know George, when Baker said "engage with Iran", I'm pretty sure he didn't mean "engage in war with Iran".

Is it 2008 yet?

From Blair tries to bridge the gap between Bush and 'realists' on Iraq strategy (Times Online)
...Asked if he was still in denial about the way the war was going, Mr Bush snapped back, saying: “It’s bad in Iraq — does that help?”...

It sure does, bunkie. Because half of America doubts you even have the ability to tell the truth, since you've been spinning your disastrous Iraq policy for almost 4 years now. Must be really annoying to have to just come out and admit that it isn't going well.

Good.

The above quote came from a joint press conference yesterday where Bush appeared with Tony Blair to discuss the ISG report. As predicted Bush continues to insist that there will be no engagement with Iran and Syria.

...Mr. Bush ruled out direct engagement with Iran — a key recommendation of the Iraq Study Group’s report — until the Tehran regime had halted its uranium enrichment programme. He also emphasised that he was waiting for other reviews, including one he has commissioned from the Pentagon, before deciding on a fresh approach on Iraq and the Middle East...

Note that previously when asked about the "new strategy for Iraq", Mr. Bush said he was waiting for the ISG report. Now that he has it, he's waiting for the previously unheard of Pentagon report.

It's worth noting, that while American soldiers die, and Bush waits, the ISG conclusions on the current situation in Iraq ended with these two sentences:

...The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out...

Waiting too long, Mr. President, has been a recurring theme in your administration. Waiting too long to take seriously the outgoing administration's warnings about Al Qaeda, waiting too long to respond to Katrina, waiting too long to dismiss Donald Rumsfeld... etc.  (About the only thing you aren't willing to wait for is weapons inspections.)

Hope you get your report from the Pentagon soon.

---

Yesterday, the highly anticipated report, in the making for the last nine months by a bipartisan team of 5 republicans and 5 democrats, was finally released.  (You can download a copy of the report and read it yourself if you like.)  Over the last few weeks I'd been hearing that there would be "no surprises" in the report, and I'd heard people make the assumption that because it was bipartisan, the report would be watered-down and otherwise impotent.  Well it's out now, and perhaps the biggest surprise of the report is its tone.  It is pretty much a complete repudiation of Bush's failed policy in Iraq, as well it should be.  Gone are the goals of a democratic Iraq, gone even is the assurance that we will definitely succeed.

From Bush rebuked for spread of chaos in Iraq (theglobeandmail.com):
...The long-anticipated report, a sweeping rejection of current U.S. policy, includes 79 specific recommendations with which the Iraq Study Group paints a picture of an invasion gone terribly wrong that has so far cost more than 2,900 U.S. lives (and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives), as well as $400-billion (U.S.).

It also suggests that U.S. officials have been involved in "significant underreporting of the violence" in the country.

"The situation is grave and deteriorating," co-chairman Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, said yesterday in releasing the report. "Violence is increasing in scope and lethality... the current approach is not working. And the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing."

The report says: "A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighbouring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al-Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized."...

The chairman of the team that authored the report is the Republican James Baker, former Secretary of State for the former President George H. W. Bush.  He has been quoted by many news agencies as saying "We do not recommend a stay the course solution. In our opinion that approach is no longer viable."

The report calls for an increase in the troops training Iraqi soldiers, but for no additional troops on the ground.  It calls for a serious commitment to supply the new Iraqi forces with the equipment they need.  It calls for drawdowns of American forces by 2008, and for a major diplomatic effort to stabilize the region involving direct talks with all of Iraq's neighbors (including Iran and Syria.)  It connects the dots between other US policy in the region and Iraq, and calls for renewed efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict including the return of the Golan Heights by Israel to Syria.

The formal release of the report included a meeting between Bush and the team who produced it wherein they gave the President a copy of the report to review.  Bush, for his part, expressed gratitude and a promise to study the report.  There's no onus (beyond a political one) on the President to follow any of the recommendations in it of course, and his press secretary, former FOX News anchor Tony Snow was quoted as saying the President had ruled out direct talks with Iran unless Iran agrees to halt its nuclear program--demonstrating once again that the Bush administration just doesn't get it.

If we were arguing from a position of strength, and Iran was coming to us for help, we'd be in a position to make demands.  We aren't in that position, and they're not begging us for help.  We'd be begging THEM for help.  You don't frame a request for help with demands, that's just effing stupid.  Iran would be perfectly happy to continue to funnel support to the insurgency and let America continue to stew in its own mess.  This is why we must engage with them.

It's not an ideal situation, but we gave away much of our bargaining power when we got into this ill-thought enterprise in the first place.  Think about it for two seconds.  Who was Iran's most powerful enemy?  Who was most successful in keeping Iran in check?  Why that would be Iraq under Saddam Hussein.  By first containing Hussein, and by later removing him, we removed a major military threat to Iran.  We basically put them in the catbird seat and enabled them to dictate terms to us.  You conservatives can thank your boy in the White House for that.

Anyway, I for one hope that the threat of political isolation will force the Bush administration to pull their heads out of their asses and start working constructively to fix this failed policy. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

---

"Magic Happens" is something software developers say a lot. Usually when we are working through the steps of a problem and need to get past a point we haven't figured out yet we'll say it...   more »