Battle Everyone, Speak To No One

By TIM KILLEEN

That seems to be the current (and long-existing) conservative approach to American foreign policy. We've seen it time and again- from the fact that we still treat Cuba like the greatest demon on Earth to the continuous call from the Right for preemptive military strikes against Iran in defense of Israel. It came back full-force during the 2008 campaign when Republicans and other conservatives took every opportunity to make then-Senator Obama out to be stupidly naive and idealistic in wanting to open diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea even if they didn't do everything we wanted of them.

Last week, Mona Charen continued this trend in a piece on the National Review website. Charen is incensed by the fact that the Obama Administration continues to speak with officials from Russia (even after we caught 11 of their spies) and Syria (despite its close relationship with Iran and its newly purchased radar system which could endanger Israel). Charen huffed:

Since January 2009, a procession of high-level officials, including Under Secretary of State William Burns, Sen. John Kerry, and George Mitchell (three times) has trooped to Damascus for talks with Bashar Assad. The administration also announced the appointment of an ambassador, Robert Ford, for the first time in five years (though Republicans have so far effectively blocked him). The Obama White House also relaxed export licenses, invited the Syrian deputy foreign minister to Washington, and withdrew U.S. objections to Syrian admission to the World Trade Organization. Senator Kerry stressed that his visit and the decision to send an ambassador to Damascus reflect the fact that engagement with Syria is “a priority at the highest levels of our government.”

As well they should be! Syria's role in the Middle Eastern peace strategy is absolutely vital; any amelioration of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict requires Syria's active participation; and President Bashar Al-Assad is, personally, more open and tied to the West than most other leaders in that region. What Charen and those whose position she espouses don't seem to accept is that discussion is a necessary tool in the world of international relations- which gets one much farther than the silent treatment- and the willingness to have such discussions means neither that you like the nation on the other side of the table, nor that you endorse its actions. I understand that for some it's difficult not to constantly act like the biggest guy in the room, unwilling to tolerate any dissent or the slightest insult (and willing to punch any insult-giver in the nose), but this isn't 1957 anymore and a more subtle and diplomatic approach is, for better or worse, now a necessity.