The Nancy Pelosi / Syria Controversy: I Guess it Depends on Who is Doing the Talking.

On Thursday the 5^th of May, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice met with the Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem to discuss the U.S. administration's concern with the country's malleable border with Iraq. The U.S. claims Syria looks the other way while foreign fighters cross its border to join insurgent or terrorist groups operating in Iraq. Secretary Rice also exchanged pleasantries with Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki. Although neither of these contacts were broad based or of much substance, it is obviously a reversal of President Bush's policy of no contact with Syria or Iran.

The Iraq/Syria border issue has been a hot topic ever since the Iraqi insurgency began almost immediately after the Iraqi regime collapsed in April 2003. The border issue has been cited as one of the reasons why the Bush Administration has refused in the past to engage Syria in discussions. Oddly, ahead of the meeting between Rice and Moallem, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Syria had somewhat stemmed the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. If this is true, then did Rice really meet with Moallem to start a dialog with Syria; which has been a contention for many since the Iraqi debacle began? Also; if Iran is blacklisted in the administration's eyes; then why even exchange pleasantries with them?

This does however, bring up a question; why the sudden reversal of policy? Just last month, President Bush denounced U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria as "counterproductive" and "sends mixed signals to the Syrian government." Pelosi replied the next day by saying "It's interesting because three of our colleagues, who are all Republicans, were in Syria yesterday and I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that," Pelosi said, referring to the Sunday meeting of congressmen Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt with Assad in Damascus.

The U.S. State Department later disclosed that the Bush administration briefed Pelosi for her trip while publicly criticizing her decision. That seems to be a contradiction to brief someone and then criticize her doesn't it? State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the briefing did not represent an endorsement of the visit and denied that she carried any message from the Bush government. "No messages in the sense that this was a trip that was encouraged by the executive branch of the government," McCormack said. I wonder what the administration's response would have been if Pelosi had been a republican U.S. Speaker?

Even last year's bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by long time Bush family friend Jim Baker, recommended that the United States needed to engage in discussions with Syria and Iran in order to be successful in stabilizing Iraq. The Bush administration initially rejected this recommendation but did participate in a March 10 international conference in Baghdad that also included representatives from Iran and Syria. It's good to see that the current administration is finally taking the advice of the Iraq Study Group, but it seems it's a little late. Progress in Iraq may have occurred more quickly had the Bush Administration heeded this advice much earlier.

The Iraq Study Group was not the first to advise the administration that it needed to engage Iraq and Syria if they hoped to solve the situation in Iraq. This has been stated by many since early 2003. So the question still lingers; why the sudden reversal of policy? One can only assume that; according to this administration; it depends on who is doing the discussions and what political party they show allegiance to. Personally, I do not care who talks to the Syrians and Iranians as long as the talks lead to progress in Iraq.