 |
| Volume XVI, Summer 2009, Number 2 |
| |
EXCERPT
U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Syria: Balancing Ideology and National Interests
|
| |
| Mir H. Sadat and Daniel B. Jones |
| |
Dr. Sadat, a Middle East and Southwest Asia specialist, is a faculty member in the School of Intelligence Studies at the National Defense Intelligence College in Washington, D.C. (hsadat@yahoo.com). LTC Jones serves as a strategic intelligence officer in the U.S. Army. The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or positions of the Department of Defense or the U.S. government.
Since the attacks of 9/11, the U.S. military has been heavily relied upon to safeguard U.S. national security. The American political leadership has applied slogans such as the “war on terror” in order to legitimize the use of military power for the fulfillment of U.S. foreign-policy objectives. Vowing to shift from this strategy, then-Senator Barack Obama promised that, if elected, his administration would utilize all elements of national power and not just rely upon military solutions. On October 26, 2008, nine days before the presidential election, the U.S. military in hot pursuit of individuals involved in aiding the Iraqi insurgency launched a helicopter raid into Syrian territory along the Syria-Iraq border. Not only did this signify a violation of Syrian territorial sovereignty, it was used by the United States as evidence that Syria was a hotbed for terrorists and insurgents active in Iraq.
One of the first agenda items for the Obama administration in which the role of diplomacy may outweigh that of the military is U.S. foreign policy toward Syria. It seems that the Obama administration is engaged in guarded but genuine diplomacy with Syria. As of March 2009, the U.S.special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, had not yet met with Bashar al-Asad or with other officials in Syria on behalf of the Obama administration. However, in March 2009, the highest-ranking Executive Branch representatives in four years met with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem and presidential adviser Bouthaina Shaaban.
Situated between the current flashpoint of Iraq and the perennial hotspots of Israel- Palestine, Lebanon and Iran, Syria is in a position to either advance or hinder U.S. goals in the Middle East. However, the United States has not executed a foreign policy toward Syria that benefits from this opportunity. America has been unable to develop and maintain a consistent position toward Syria. Instead, divergent impulses have guided American policy with regard to that state.
This paper examines the theoretical basis of U.S. foreign policy toward Syria and provides a brief evaluation of which approach would be more effective for the Obama administration. We start with an examination of the realist influences on foreign policy toward Syria during the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. It proceeds to the idealistic influences of neoconservativism on policy toward Syria during the administration of President George W. Bush. The paper ends with a discussion of the potential for a return to realism or liberalism in foreign policy toward Syria during President Barack Obama’s administration. We recommend an overall moderate-realist approach mixed with liberal approaches in specific instances. A U.S. foreign policy based on idealism over national interests needs to be carefully reconsidered.
|
| |
|
