Gen. Petraeus Prevented From Visiting Syria
General David Petraeus told the White House that he wanted to visit Syria in order to speak with the Syrians about the problems with the Iraqi-Syrian border earlier this year.
Petraeus wanted to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but was rebuffed by Bush administration officials at the White House, State Department and the Pentagon, the American news channel ABC News had learned.
Syrian protester holds an anti-American sign during a demonstration (AP Photos)
The General who has widely been credited with the success of the surge in Iraq and who became CENTCOM chief earlier Friday asked the White House whether he could visit Syria shortly before the strike against a target in Syria earlier this week.
According to ABC News, sources said that Petraeus believes diplomacy can be used to drive a wedge between Iran and Syria. Even though his idea to visit Damascus was rejected, he plans to “continue pushing the idea.”
“When the timing is right, we ought to go in there and have a good discussion with the Syrians,” said a Defense Department official close to Petraeus. “It’s a meaningful dialogue to have.”
The Bush administration opposes all negotiations with Syria, accusing the Syrians rightfully of supporting terrorist organizations. Washington believes that talking to Damascus will not only be useless, but may even be counterproductive.
However, Petraeus’ ideas seem to make more sense right now. We have seen in Iraq that diplomacy can work, especially when backed up by military force. Additionally, Syria is ruled by the Baath party, which is not rooted in extremist Islam but in Arab socialism. There is certainly room for the U.S. to drive a wedge between Damascus and Tehran for the two are certainly not ideological allies.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
“drive a wedge between Damascus and Syria” ?
Typo, presumably
fixed
Heh. so much for Bush’s “I listen to the commanders on the ground” schtick, eh?
And Arabic media are saying Syria has withdrawn all border guards and patrols along the Iraqi border and put up a big sign telling AQ to feel free.
You have a very…convenient…view of civil-military relations, Cernig, no doubt informed by the same partisan opportunism and relativity of standards that causes you to be so inconsistent on virtually every other issue.
Do you really suggest in the abstract that if a president is reliant on military professional advice in one area (i.e. warfighting doctrine) that it is therefore inconsistent if they do not allow officers free reign in doing whatever they want in other areas (e.g. diplomatic strategy, setting budgets, setting economic strategy, determining what parties can be in the legislature)???
Of course you don’t. If President Obama makes a similar distinction drawing different levels of authority for military officers with regards to different issue areas, I predict you will have no problem with it.
You just wanted to take Yet Another Shot At Bush.
Lame.