Posted on 03/24/2008 10:10:19 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Arabs keen to see the end of George W. Bush's presidency fear that a win for likely Republican candidate John McCain will bring little change to U.S. policies they blame for destabilizing the Middle East.
For Arab politicians who have gained from U.S. policy in countries including Iraq and Lebanon, continuity may be a good thing.
But Bush's many critics in the Arab world worry that McCain will continue current U.S. policies, which they fault for unleashing chaos in Iraq and providing unflinching support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.
McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq until it is more stable, setting him at odds with Democratic rivals who want to withdraw from a country which has been wracked by violence since U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein five years ago.
During a Middle East tour this month, McCain's statements on Israel also sounded alarm bells for Arabs who have long criticized Washington for not exercising enough pressure on the Jewish state to withdraw from occupied Arab land.
"The first time McCain started to catch attention was when he visited ... Israel and committed himself to recognizing Jerusalem (as its capital) and not pressuring Israel," Mohamed al-Sayed Said of Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies told Reuters in Cairo.
"This confirms the natural inclination of Arabs to think that whatever the next administration is, it will be a tool of the Israelis."
But while Arabs see little difference between candidates when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict -- with all repeatedly committing themselves to Israel's interests and security -- Iraq is seen as a different story.
IRAQ
The 2003 U.S.-led invasion, which was opposed by Washington's Arab allies including Egypt, empowered Shi'ite factions such as the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council -- a group with longstanding ties to Shi'ite Iran.
Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, a cleric and senior member of the group, said a McCain presidency would be a good thing. "I believe it is a positive matter if the Republican candidate wins in the coming election. We know now how the Republicans think."
"McCain is so close to the Bush administration and they both adopted the same policy."
McCain, speaking during a visit to close U.S. ally Jordan, said that a premature withdrawal from Iraq would enhance Iran and Sunni Islamist militant group al Qaeda -- both foes of America -- and endanger the region.
But Mudhafer al-Aani, a senior member of the largest Sunni bloc in Iraq's parliament, urged a correction of "the great mistakes of the administration."
"McCain's statements on the U.S. presence in Iraq represent the same policy as the current president's," he said.
An Iranian political analyst, who declined to be identified, said that while the authorities were publicly keeping their distance from the U.S. election campaign, their preference appeared to be for Democratic candidate Barak Obama.
"I guess they look at McCain as some sort of continuity of the present situation. I can't say for sure, but from their positions, I gather they will not like a repetition of Republican rule," the analyst said.
"(McCain) has confirmed the American intention to keep American troops in Iraq. This is something that is against the wish of Iran. They want the Americans to be gone, and the issue to be sorted our regionally, in which Iran will play a big part," the analyst said.
Syrian political commentator Thabet Salem said McCain's pro-Israeli stance and comments against Syria, as well as a commitment to keep U.S. troops in Iraq could lead to more Middle East instability.
"McCain has exhibited little willingness to depart from the foreign policy of the neocons, which encourages spread of fundamentalism and terrorism," he said.
Well gee whiz I guess we better suck up more to the Arabs and vote as they demand!
Bush has not exactly provided “unflinching support” for Israel’s conflict against the Palestinians. He’s pretty much washed his hands of it. The Arabs will have to take the blame for that mess themselves.
Yes, we all know the middle east was a model of stability before George Bush became president.
The ME has been destabilized for thousands of years. It's full of irrational hotheads who are almost permanently sexually frustrated.
“Many Arabs fear McCain would continue Bush policy”
A pretty compelling argument to supprt McCain.
(I wonder if during the election of 1944 there were people who worried about how Hitler and Hirohito felt about the outcome?)
Well boohoo, guess we’d better vote for Obama just to make the Arabs happy.
Meanwhile millions of illegal aliens and future illegal aliens are hopefull that McCain will continue Bush policy.
"Arabs" being a code word for Muslim.
If the Muslims are afraid of McCain, that's a good reason to vote for him.
Right. The only valid definition of “stable” as it ever applied to the Middle East is, “those things you keep your girlfriends in.”
I guess they look at McCain as some sort of continuity of the present situation.
Well I sincerely hope so. And, I hope we can beat the brains out of the terrorists/radical muslims in the near future.
“little change to U.S. policies they blame for destabilizing the Middle East.”
Correction: little change to confronting islamo facism in the middle east.
Oh no! Our enemies are concerned about McCain! It’s really nice of the AP to only quote our enemies.
We all have seen what a stable Middle East is capable of. Instability brought us a Democratic Iraq. Instability brought us the kicking of Syria out of Lebanon. It brought to light the Libyan nuclear program and its abandonment. Bring on more instability!
It’s a reality that in nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Syria, a change in policy to a more isolationist and reactive one would be welcomed. Even some nations that are generally aligned with us, such as Saudi Arabia would enjoy an administration not so pushy on the subject of democracy. Jordan would probably like an administration willing to throw Israel under the bus for anything that allows a free Palestinian state and thereby gets rid of these people they don’t want either.......
There are a lot of various twists and turns here, but near all our enemies (Iran, Syria, certain warlords in Somalia, Libya) and many of those even aligned with us would like a reactive and more isolationist US, willing to sell out Israel and make huge concessions and compromises no matter what the cost, just so we can wash our hands free of any responsibility, or quickly retreat under the pretence of some bogus agreement etc. You must understand, currently the US holds to a very profoundly idealistic policy that democracies make more stable and less volatile nations that generally are adverse to war. Even Musharraf of Pakistan is probably annoyed that we push this democracy thing down his throat and tie all loans and aid programs to some effort to this end, i.e. elections etc.
An Obama or Hillary means the US will more or less withdraw not only in Iraq, but in general. While they will wage on with the GWOT they will not touch the underlying cause; despot regimes with disenfranchised populations and states like Iraq, Syria, Libya and Iran that meddle/sponsor it. The Middle East and much of the Islamic world will be in it’s status quo: corrupt, backwards, dangerous, ruled by despots, ignorant, oppressive, and more or less stuck in their version of the dark ages with religion being their sole means of organizing society. Tin pot Middle East dictators for and against us generally agree, the US should be more reserved when it comes to spreading democracy.
There is no reason on earth to vote for McCain.
SSDD from you as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.