"... A US ambassador is not a policy ..."

Rep. Gary Ackerman's in FP/ here

The nomination of Robert Ford to be the first U.S. ambassador to Syria since 2005 has prompted a typically partisan, myopic, and sterile Washington debate about whether this step by Barack Obama's administration represents "appeasement" of Syria. The charge is offensive and absurd, but as was typical of the previous administration's outlook, it ignores entirely what's really important to the United States in favor of ideological purity.

This overheated rhetoric is in desperate need of a reality check: A U.S. ambassador is not a policy. A U.S. ambassador is not kryptonite....the idea that the appointment of a U.S. ambassador is either a panacea or a form of appeasement is, at best, silly.

In the end, what matters is not whether or not a U.S. diplomat lives in Damascus. What matters is what the ambassador will have to say and whether that message is part of a well-considered and effective foreign policy. What matters is whether or not Syria stops recklessly arming Hezbollah, meddling in Lebanese politics, hosting Hamas in its capital, (see below on Syria's unofficial reply) allowing foreign fighters to enter Iraq, seeking weapons of mass destruction, and working to destabilize the Middle East.

For four years George Bush's administration tried to achieve these aims ... And what happened during that period? U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which prohibited arms sales or transfers to Hezbollah, .... A campaign of assassinations .... Hezbollah waged a short but successful street war against the Lebanese government .... Saudi Arabia and France, sensing the failure of U.S. policy, ceased supporting isolation and began to court Damascus....

The list of policy failures goes on. But were any of them due to the lack of a U.S. ambassador in Syria? Of course not. The Bush administration's failure to respond effectively in each of these cases was the result of its inability to acquire sufficient incentives or disincentives to induce or compel Damascus to change its behavior. Had there been a U.S. ambassador in Damascus, the outcome in each of these cases likely would have been the same. The real problem was that the Bush administration was overstretched -- politically, economically and militarily. Its rhetoric far outstripped its actual reach. Sadly, the reverses Damascus and its allies suffered from the Cedar Revolution, the popular 2005 uprising that forced Syrian troops from Lebanon, have now mostly been undone.

The supporters of the Bush administration -- who ought to have slunk off in shamed silence for having watched fecklessly as U.S. interests suffered reverse after reverse -- are now crying that Obama's new policy amounts to appeasement, in a strained attempt to prevent the return of a U.S. ambassador to Syria. They remain oblivious to the main lesson learned from the previous administration: What counts in the world -- and especially in the Middle East -- is power, hard and soft, and the will and capacity to use it. And during the years from 2005 to 2009, all of Bush's bluster notwithstanding, our foes took our measure, and found the United States lacking..... Where, one might ask, is the long list of U.S. concessions to Syria? How have we sold out our allies? Where is the retreat in the face of challenge? A few airplane parts? A few inconclusive meetings?

The Obama administration's foreign-policy recalibration is the consequence of having inherited a total collapse of U.S. credibility in the region. Sending an ambassador back to Syria will not solve our problems. It will allow us to gather better information about Syrian thinking and deliver messages to the Syrians more effectively. .."