Yesterday, I attended a Brookings policy briefing on Syria after the Mehlis report. On hand were Martin Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel, Flynt Leverett, former NSC official, and Ammar Abdulhammid, the Saban Center’s “resident Syrian.” First some aesthetics: Ammar clearly stole the show, seeming witty and knowledgeable in comparison to the more wooden Leverett, who seemed unable to escape a script he had in his head. Good Marxist that I am, I attribute this to a division of labor, rather than considering this to be any indicia of their personalities or intellectual prowess. Ammar is bieng paid to be the Syrian, with supposed knowledge of which way the winds are blowing on the Syrian street and thus can be colorful. Flynt is being paid to counter whatever Syrian policy seems to be coming out of the White House and thus speaks the language of a policy wonk who wants to criticize but does not want an unseemly mark on his public record. Indyk served as moderator and thus did not speak too much. What little he added to the dialogue reminded me of his bitterness toward Arafat after the failure of the Camp David accords in 2001. I normally describe this frustration as the “why can’t the fat kid run fast?” (if he could run fast he would not be the fat kid). His recent WSJ editorial captures much of this — Bashar is maladroit, weak and unreliable … Again according to my simplistic division of labor theory, this seems predictable for a former diplomat. As an aside, I would also note that my opinion of Robin Wright, who has an article about Syria in today’s WaPost, suffered. She seemed to be both arrogant and ridiculous. But whatever… And while I dont know the name of An-Nahar’s DC correspondent, he put a good question to Ammar that basically undermined much of Ammar’s position and Ammar was unable to intelligently fire back…
Okay, khalas, I leave substance to my next post… (sorry, no time)