Not Total Recall

The Obama administration is having a hard time explaining why the US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, has returned to Washington. Despite the apparent threat against Ford’s life, the administration has gone out of its way to stress that the ambassador’s departure should not be read as a harbinger of further escalation against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. However one looks at it, the episode represents a diplomatic failure for the administration in the face of the Syrian regime’s threats.
 
Initially, when the State Department first announced Ford’s return on Monday morning, spokesman Mark Toner said, “Ambassador Robert Ford was brought back to Washington as a result of credible threats against his personal safety in Syria.” Ensuring that nothing is read into the move, Toner added that the decision “was based solely on the need to ensure his safety.”
 
By the afternoon, however, the official line had been further tweaked. Although Toner never described the decision as a recall, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland made sure to emphasize that “Ambassador Ford has been asked to come home for consultations. He has not been withdrawn; he has not been recalled.” Nuland confirmed the assessment of a targeted regime campaign against Ford that “could lead to violence against him.” However, she stressed that the administration had “every intention that Ambassador Ford will be going back.”
 
Why was the administration so eager to manage perceptions of Ford’s departure? An anonymous State Department official who spoke to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on Tuesday provided some answers. The official expressed his view that “apparently, people here did not plan for what comes after the recall.” Most tellingly, the official criticized the timing of the decision, which comes as “members of Congress are talking about military operations in Syria,” in reference to Senator John McCain’s recent remarks in Jordan.
 
With some in the Syrian opposition already interpreting the move as the beginning of further escalation by the US following the end of the Libya mission, the administration wanted to immediately end all such speculation. There will be no change in the posture toward Syria was the administration’s message.
 
But the entire episode was a failure for the Obama administration, having made it appear weak. Perhaps that is why the anonymous official told Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, “Maybe the decision was a mistake.”
 
Although Ford’s departure wasn’t an official recall, the Assad regime nevertheless took the opportunity to call back its own ambassador, Imad Mustapha, who is under federal investigation for spying on Syrian-American dissidents and targeting their families in Syria.
 
The swiftness with which Mustapha was summoned back suggests premeditation. Even prior to Ford’s recent confirmation, there was speculation as to whether the US ambassador was intentionally challenging the regime to throw him out by visiting various hotspots to express solidarity with the people, even after the regime had restricted his travels. At the same time, despite repeated assaults against Ford, it was commonly understood that the administration was refraining from kicking out Mustapha in order to deny the regime a pretext to expel the US ambassador.
 
One reason behind this tactic was for the administration to claim the moral high ground. If the regime wanted to expel Ford for effectively doing his job, then let the onus fall on Damascus. Washington could then retaliate against Mustapha without jeopardizing Ford’s mission.
 
However, the administration was outmaneuvered, as the regime managed to show that it could get rid of Ford without formally expelling him—by threatening his life—while simultaneously denying the US the opportunity to expel Mustapha.
 
If the shifting talking points of State Department spokespersons didn’t give it away, a comment by an administration official to Al-Hayat suggested that the administration was quite cognizant of the unflattering optics of the entire episode. This official explained that the message behind Ford’s return was to reaffirm that “It was the US administration that sets the rules of the game when it comes to Ford’s staying or leaving, not the Syrian government.”
 
However, with the administration “hoping” the Syrians will live up to their responsibilities to ensure diplomats’ safety so that Ford could return, it’s unclear how it is setting the rules. In fact, this latest threat against Ford came despite previous warnings to the Syrians reminding them that Ambassador Ford “is the personal representative of the president and an attack on Ford is an attack on the United States.”
 
Yet there never was any serious response to these repeated attacks. Therefore, the spin indicated that the administration was trying to find a way to hide the fact that it flinched in the face of Assad’s threats.
 
Washington’s attempt to balance its unwillingness to escalate and its struggle to find a proper public response for its decision to pull Ford under threat are likely behind the rush to announce yesterday that the ambassador would be back in Damascus before Thanksgiving. Initially the State Department maintained Ford’s return was conditional on an “assessment of Syrian regime-led incitement and the security situation on the ground.” How that assessment was reached in 48 hours is unclear.
 
In the end, the administration is eager to send Ford back to Damascus because, in many ways, the ambassador has come to personify the Syria policy. Having Ford on the ground allows the White House to say that it is actively doing something in Syria.

Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies