Posted on 04/13/2002 5:04:47 PM PDT by Pokey78
In most of the major news- papers in America and abroad, the key word to describe President Bush’s recent Middle East policy has been “reversal”. That’s the polite version: incoherence, disarray, humiliation are the words one hears behind closed doors. The argument goes something like this: after months of deliberate disengagement, Washington has finally relented and re-engaged with the intractable Israeli-Palestinian dispute. After once advocating a crude “black and white” approach to terrorism, the Americans have finally been persuaded by their European friends and Arab “allies”, that the Middle East is, in fact, a painting in greys. You can’t speak of terrorism and democracy, of evil and good, the argument runs, in the context of Israel. Hamas is not Al-Qaeda. Yasser Arafat is not Osama Bin Laden. The United States must therefore intervene to impose its own solution on both parties. Without such a solution, America can kiss goodbye to its ambitions to move on to Iraq. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is twaddle. Beneath the inevitable twists and turns of world events, there is much less of a “reversal” in current US policy than meets the eye. In fact, the current violence and chaos in Israel and the West Bank, culminating in the latest suicide bomb as secretary of state Colin Powell was pressing for peace, may play ultimately into the Americans’ hands. To see why, cast your mind back to Bush’s Rose Garden speech declaring “enough is enough” 10 days ago, and to his declaration that Israel must withdraw “without delay” from the West Bank. The headlines focused on the actual news: that Bush was publicly chiding Israel for the first time. But the speech itself — wrestled over for days in the White House and finally synthesised by Condi Rice — gave a far different impression. The bulk of the speech was a ringing defence of Israel, her right to self-defence, and an explicit declaration that Arafat’s terror machine is directly linked to Iraq, Iran and Syria. This is what Bush believes; it is what the hawks’ wing in Bush’s cabinet assumes; it is what the US Congress — which is more pro-Israel than the administration — clearly feels. And the proof of the real intent of the administration has been in its subsequent response to Israel’s refusal to end prematurely its campaign to root out the infrastructure of Palestinian terror. Apart from mild statements of concern and irritation, the administration has done nothing. Nor is it likely to do so. The critical thing with this tight-lipped administration is to watch what it does. Its inaction and reticence are eloquence personified. So why the chiding of Israel? What Bush’s speech did, and what Dick Cheney’s and now Powell’s Middle East tours have done, is to take the heat off America for essentially supporting Ariel Sharon’s war. By publicly haranguing Sharon, by pressing him to do something most American officials knew wouldn’t happen, the White House gets some credibility for even-handedness in the Middle East — all for the sake of the Europeans and Arabs. By going through the motions of diplomacy in the Arab-Israeli dispute, the administration is also beginning the throat-clearing to prepare the world for the next war — against Iraq. “See?” they’ll say. “We tried.” Now you can’t blame us for moving on. Cheney’s trip ended in apparent failure; so, in all likelihood, will Powell’s. But that, of course, for many in the administration, was the point. What the current Bush strategy is about is not solving the Israeli-Arab conflict — the Bush people are far too intelligent to believe that such a solution is even faintly feasible. What it’s about is demonstrating to the world that no level of “engagement” is likely to achieve anything worthwhile under current conditions. The new “engagement” is primarily therefore a sham — for international consumption. Its purpose was beautifully illustrated last Friday as Powell swiftly premised his upcoming meeting with Arafat on Arafat’s unconditional condemnation — in Arabic — of the latest suicide bombing. Arafat, who supports, orchestrates and pays for such murders of civilians, said nothing for days and then gave a highly equivocal condemnation of terrorism, blaming the Israelis equally for the targeting of civilians. Quod erat demonstrandum. You couldn’t have had a clearer illustration of who exactly Arafat is, and the folly of talking to him about anything to do with peace. That’s quite a coup for the American hawks. More significant are the tangible fruits of the Israeli operation. Hundreds of top Palestinian terrorists have now been detained. Their headquarters have been ransacked; their documents seized; their contacts examined. The links between the Palestinians, Saddam, Syria, Iran and Al-Qaeda can now be explored in greater detail than before. Of course, there’s always the remote chance that Powell may succeed, and some sort of meaningful dialogue could emerge. Stranger things have happened. Perhaps, as each side stares into an abyss of ever-widening conflict, they might pull back from the brink. Israel might decide, as she surely should, to withdraw from the West Bank and essentially construct a new Berlin Wall to keep Palestinians out. The Palestinians might decide that they are sick of being used as pawns by other Arab dictators in a bloody game of Middle Eastern chess. If such a miracle occurs, America doesn’t lose. In fact, it would be a wonderful development. But the beauty of the current Bush strategy is that it doesn’t really matter. Whether this piece of diplomacy succeeds or fails, the broader war continues. The current public clash with Sharon could improve Washington’s frayed relations with the more amenable Arab tyrants, by showing the limits of Washington’s clout with Jerusalem. But Sharon’s intransigence also serves underlying American interests in gaining better intelligence to counter terror in the region. To take no chances, America has been quietly moving the bulk of its military operations from Saudi Arabia to the more stable base of Qatar, just so the war on Iraq is not contingent on Saudi approval. Domestically, the Bush administration is risking little. Bush still has an approval rating of more than 80% in opinion polls. Unlike Europeans, most Americans still strongly sympathise with an Israeli democracy battling Arab dictatorships and terrorism, and Bush’s conservative base is furious for what backsliding there has been. Powell should not be misread either. The notion that he is some sort of gadfly in the administration, an internal dissident bravely trying to forge peace while his fellow cabinet members wage war, is a fiction. Powell is as much a team player as Bush is a friend of Israel. Any government waging war must have a diplomatic wing, to soothe allies, placate world opinion, buy time. Powell is the good cop to Donald Rumsfeld’s bad cop. But nobody doubts who the sheriff is.
And if you think the recent flurry of diplomacy is a sign that the sheriff has gone wobbly on terrorism, or has been distracted from his essential mission of aiming at Saddam, you’d be very much mistaken. Bush knows in any case what any hard-nosed assessment of the region will reveal: that until Iraq and Iran have been dealt with, no peace in Israel will be possible. Those who think the Israeli-Arab conflict is the key to dealing with Iraq and Iran have it exactly the wrong way round. Iraq and Iran are the financial, ideological and military instigators of the current intifada. They intensified the ArabIsraeli conflict precisely to derail the coming war against them. But Bush won’t be derailed. When the regimes in Tehran and Baghdad are defeated, independence for a free Palestine alongside Israel will be possible. Until then, all the diplomacy in the world is mere window-dressing. And Bush is turning into something of a master decorator.
A nice summation of what most FReepers have been saying for weeks.
BUMP !!!
Arafat & his mob boyz could care less-They still get massive funding. The more bodies-the more shekels. Powell should freeze the funds-It's all about the benjamins.
What I believe the Arab regimes fear most is that the Palestinians are the most likely of all Arab cultures to become a democracy/representative republic. This accords with their support of Arafat, who is the single biggest obstacle to that development. Palestinians are the most westernized culturally of all Arabs - look at the images in the press, there are more of them who dress in the western style than in Arab style.
The last thing we would want to do is unite the Arabs and involve the United States in such a way that they can conduct a guerilla war against the United States and Israel. For the Militant Muslims, it is very much to their benefit to keep the pot boiling in Palistine and to pull us in on the side of Israel. For if they can divert us from taking down Sadam and then others, it will be a good ploy.
The Bush policy has been divide and conquer. It is the Miltant Muslims who are tyring to counter that policy with Unite and Resist. Thy hope to make the battle ground Israel and Palistine. There is no way to better unite Muslims than a conflict with Israel. Even people in the media should be able to figure that out. But don't bet the rent they will.
If the Muslims are successful in pulling us into a middle east war of terrorist attacks on Israel, they can unite all of Arabia against us. They would like nothing better than to get us on the ground in Israel and Palistine in a guerilla (terrorist) war. The ideal war for them would be a war of attrition in which our "peace keepers/ freedom defenders" died by the dozens per day, while our guys were accused fo killing babies if they struck back. The militants would fight and lose women and children, pretend to surrender, then fight and lose some more women and children, all the while stacking up body bags in Virginia. That is their game plan. Nothing else explains their actions.
If the Muslims can make that happen, if they could milkl the will to fight out of both the US and Israel, they can hope to turn the middle east into another southeast Asia, and Israel into a deserted South Vietnam.
The object for the Muslims since 1948 has been to take Israel. Our support is what keeps them from doing it. The goal is to remove our support. The Vietnam method of removing our support has to look good to them. It is about the only option they have. They are certain to continue to try to get it started.
What would the Muslims need to prevail? First a lot of American troops stationed in Palistine and perhaps part of Israel. They would need areas off limits to our counter attack. Safe sanctuaries like the Nort Vietnamese enjoyed in Nam would be nice. A friend that is not a friend but one we could not attack would be nice source of staging snctuary. Many parts of the Middle east could do that nicely. They would just need an "Osama bin Laden" trail to emulate the "HO CHI MEN" trail. Covertly backed up by Syria, Iraq and Egypt and even Iran they could trade bodies until we delcared victory and left.
It would not take long for the American media to be allied with the Arabs demanding we declare victory and come home. Ah yes, "Can't you just picture Katie Couric pleading for us to Give peace a chance."
Defeating the militant muslims is our goal. Their goal is to get us out of the middle east. If you were a militant Muslim how would you go about getting the US out of the Middle east?
Of course, how to handle the Saudis is the problem. We could conceivably embargo their oil shipments to us, but our with-friends-like-these-who-needs-enemas Euroweenies would pick up the slack, minimizing our efforts to defund these particular terrorist sponsors.
What to do about them. Oh, I know, send CPowell over there to "dipomacy" them out of their weevil ways.
(-----Okay, sorry. I just had a little sargasm.)
Whatever we're gonna do, it can't be nothing.
Thank you, Andrew!!!!!
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.