He Had Patience to Lose?

President Bush has sternly informed the world that he has long since lost patience with Bashar al-Assad over the Syrian dictator's intransigence on numerous regional issues. The American leader is offended that the Syrian wants some say and attempts to exert some influence in the affairs of neighboring country. Can anyone else see what's wrong with this picture?

Let's agree that in an ideal world no country will try to influence another's policies and will not presume to draw others within a sphere of influence. But let those who are without sin be the first to preach on this point, and let sinners mend their ways before joining the choir. As long as American leaders affirm the Monroe Doctrine, they have no business objecting to similar spheres of influence around the world. Patriots will protest that the Doctrine didn't create a sphere of influence, but only defined a zone of non-interference, within which the U.S. does nothing more than defend each country's sovereignty from foreign influences. Similarly, apologists for American hegemony will claim that we are interested only in Lebanese autonomy, only in ensuring that the country doesn't become a Syrian puppet. The fact that a large minority, at least, of Lebanese people feel an uncompelled affinity with Syria doesn't penetrate this consciousness. All the Americans want to know is whether anything will get in the way of their doing business in a given country. Since a sphere of influence usually means favorable trade relations with the local dominant power at the expense of outsiders, the U.S. abhors the idea outside the Western Hemisphere, where "freedom" reigns except in places where alleged dictators in Venezuela or Bolivia try to ruin everything by doing business with China, India, Russia or Iran.

I'd guess by now that the world, if not most of the U.S., has run out of patience with the pompous posturing of George W. Bush. If they haven't, that's only because they feel assured that they can wait until January 2009 and be certain then that they'll never have to deal with him again. Unfortunately, any American leader is likely to take the same attitude, party differences mattering less than cultural prejudices. Syria is resented, partly and rightly because it's a dictatorship, but also because its power is perceived as a threat to Israel. Syria is elected to an adjunct membership in the Axis of Evil not only for mucking in Lebanese affairs, but also for supporting anti-Israeli terrorism. On this point, if the Israelis want to do something about it, they might be within their rights to chastise Syria, just as Syrians may feel entitled to contribute to the long war against Zionism. That's a matter for the Israelis and the Syrians and the Palestinians and the Lebanese to work out eventually, and I won't presume to advise any of the parties involved. In fact, it isn't my country's business to set any rules for resolving the Middle East conflict, and if my President complains because one of the parties won't play by his rules, my first priority is to tell my fellow Americans that he is wrong. Mission accomplished.