Stepping Up to the Plate (Fred Barnes mea culpa)

Just when it looked as though Bush might go wobbly, the president goes after regime change in Palestine.

WHAT'S BOTH NEW AND REMARKABLE about President Bush's plan for a Middle East settlement are two ideas that underpin his policy and have never before been applied to the Palestinians. Those ideas are regime change and democracy. Both are anathema to Bush's own State department, the Arab countries supposedly allied with the United States in bringing about a peace settlement, and the European nations which support and finance the Palestinian Authority and its leader Yasser Arafat.

Just as new and remarkable is the fact that regime change, with Arafat's departure, and democracy, with local elections followed by a national vote, have not been offered as helpful suggestions or useful guidelines or options to be considered. Rather, in the president's speech Monday, they were made mandatory if a Palestinian state is to be recognized by the United States. And of course without American recognition such a state is not going to be created in the first place. This is an entirely new approach to the Middle East by the United States. Instead of making increasingly generous offers to Arafat--the tack of previous presidents, especially President Clinton--Bush issued demands to be met, harsh ones for the Palestinians, less onerous for the Israelis.

Six months ago, regime change in the Palestinian leadership was merely a glimmer in Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's eye. Democracy in the West Bank and Gaza was not even on the table for discussion. And in recent weeks, leaks from the Bush administration as the new policy was being crafted didn't indicate the president would insist on either. Based on those leaks, many journalists concluded the president would present tough but achievable terms for Arafat to meet in order to gain provisional statehood. In effect, the president would be rewarding the terrorism that Arafat refused to crack down on. My own view was: Bush was going wobbly. I was wrong. As it turned out, the president was steady and courageous and candid. His policy was not shaped for Arab or European or even American consumption. It's what he really believes.

Regime change has long been a Bush talking point--when talking about Iraq. At the White House, the removal of Arafat was viewed as a desirable but unattainable outcome. Yes, his ouster was frequently advocated by Sharon. But Sharon's tough talk wasn't followed up with an order to the Israeli army to exile Arafat. In recent months, Bush came close to calling for Arafat's replacement while never urging it explicitly. The fear was it would backfire, threatening diplomatic relations in the Middle East and perhaps strengthening Arafat's position.

The story was different at the State department. In its view, regime change is an idea whose time will never come. State officials are queasy about kicking Saddam Hussein out in Iraq. Ousting Arafat makes them downright apoplectic. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said repeatedly that Arafat is the chosen leader of the Palestinians and America must accept that. Now, with Bush's insistence on Arafat's removal, Powell has cynically taken credit for the idea in a front-page article in the New York Times.

An important element of Bush's adoption of regime change for the Palestinians is that it makes his Middle East policy consistent with his war on terrorism. The Bush doctrine holds that terrorists and those who harbor or support them are both guilty. Arafat has been implicated in terrorism, including the death of a American diplomat in Sudan, for more than three decades. He has resisted pleas to halt terrorism. As Bush said in his speech, "today Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism." At best Arafat is a harborer of terrorists, at worst a terrorist himself. In either case, Bush decided, he's not a fit peace partner with Israel. Like peace with a Saddam-led Iraq, peace with an Arafat-led Palestine simply isn't possible.

Bush's insistence on democracy is reminiscent of American calls for democracy in the "captive nations" under Soviet control in the Cold War. Only this time, the president means it. Bush believes the Palestinian people are, in effect, a captive people whom no one really cares about. He wants to free them from their captors, Arafat and his henchmen. To the extent the idea of imposing democracy on the Palestinians got any attention at all in Washington pre-Bush, it wasn't viewed as a viable option. Nor was the Israeli government insisting on it as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Only Natan Sharansky, the famous Russian emigre who is a member of Sharon's cabinet, was actively promoting the idea. Then, during his visit to Washington in March, Sharon began promoting the idea. By that time, Bush was looking for ways to generate "new leadership" among the Palestinians. Full-blown democracy became the answer.

Bush's stunning change in Middle East policy is his fourth major foreign policy pronouncement in less than a year. Let's review the bidding. On September 20, he declared his sweeping war on terrorism and those who abet it. In his State of the Union address on January 29, he singled out the "axis of evil"--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--for defeat. Last month at West Point, he downgraded deterrence and containment and adopted a new strategic doctrine to combat terrorist: preemption. And now there's a new policy toward Israel and the Palestinians. In each case, it looked like Bush had lost control of events. But it turned out he hadn't.

My own view was: Bush was going wobbly. I was wrong. As it turned out, the president was steady and courageous and candid. His policy was not shaped for Arab or European or even American consumption. It's what he really believes.

Kudos to Fred for admitting he was wrong. Billy Boy Kristol would never do this!

I REALLY enjoyed watching Barnes on Brit's show last night. And he was upfront and said he was wrong.

He did cross and uncross his arms about 50 times though. :-)

>>>... it looked like Bush had lost control of events. But it turned out he hadn't.

Fred Barnes comes to his senses. What's next? Bill Kristol? May be Mark "F Lewd" Levin?

Now, with Bush's insistence on Arafat's removal, Powell has cynically taken credit for the idea in a front-page article in the New York Times.

I would suspect Bush told Powell to take credit for it.

I see that Bush has that big an ego to care about who get's credit for what, it helps Powell save face (he does have an ego), and this way communicates more unity within the administration and signals to Palestinians 'don't hold your breath waiting for a flip-flop'

Fred and I are in the same place. And I too am very pleased with the President's policy after some time of sincere disappointment. And I must say, however, while under the throes of pressure from the Euro and American left, when he was pressed to send Powell on that God-awful mission in April, and the adjunct policy which seemed to eminate from State that followed, Bush (or at least the Administration) did go wobbly.

But one thing that seems to come consistently from Bush is righting the ship after a time of indecision. This seems to happen regularly -- as if he operates by letting his subordinates argue it out thoroughly and then comes in later to declare a winner in the internal arguement -- from which the policy flows.

Perhaps we need to become used to his modus operandi. President's haven't worked that way for awhile.

His policy was not shaped for Arab or European or even American consumption. It's what he really believes.

Yep it only took hundreds of civilians to be bombed to death for Bush to realize that Arafat can't be trusted. Only reason Bush is turning against Arafat, is because Arafats own people don't want him....oh and to suck up the Jewish vote I'm sure, since Bush policy seems to be based on vote buying lately! If Bush had stuck to his own hypocritical doctrine in the first place, Arafat would have been dead months ago, a few hundred Jews might still be alive today, and the Arab world would have gotten the message loud and clear what the costs are for phucking with the United States! We'll see how convicted Bush is when the Palestinians elect another Arafat terrorist as its next President!

Barnes is going completely looney. He defended Martha Stewart the other night on the grounds that she was being attacked by feminists who resented the fact that Stewart was promoting homemaking and that her major audience was stay at home moms. I rarely agree with Mara Liasson but she pointed out that Martha's target audience was yuppie scum without using the phrase. Barnes also defended the Gary Condit publicist who mischaracterized a Talk magazine article about Chandra Levy by saying that she engaged in one night stands.

A lot of Freepers should be sitting down to a hearty meal of steaming hot crow, basted in a zesty tomato sauce, about now. They know who they are...Hell, we all do. Let's see if any of them have the gonads Fred Barnes has. I'm not holding my breath.

>>>Yep it only took hundreds of civilians to be bombed to death for Bush to realize that Arafat can't be trusted.

Come on. This blaming President Bush for recent deaths in a conflict that is 50+ years old (actually more like 4000 years old), is pure distortion and bold face lies. What do you hope to achieve with such rancor?

His policy was not shaped for Arab or European or even American consumption.

It is important for the Europeople to realize that GWB has now reminded them that they couldn't defend themselves from my son's cub scout pack. A majority of the peoples of the world owe their very existance to the good ol' USA. The combined Arab world could probably roll up Europe in a matter of weeks if we stayed home.

BARNES: My own view was: Bush was going wobbly. I was wrong.

HA! I did NOT go wobbly!

Has Fred been lurking here? We were NOT wobbly first! LOL!

The bombing were approved by and signed off by Arafat. The Intafatah has been going on for just a few years. Who fired that one up pal? The rant was based that Bush HAD a Doctrine that stated that were ever terrorist reside ANYWHERE in the world, they would be hunted down and brought to justice. Did you see that implimented with Arafat? Why is Bin Ladin who murdered innocent people with bombs is considered world enemy #1, but Arafat who murdered innocent people with bombs is considered a diplomat? Stop being a cheerleader and open your eyes to the hypocracy! Are Bushes speeches suppose to stand for something or are they just ment to be fawned over with out any reguard that Bush doesn't seem to believe in them himself to actually impliment what he says?

Bush's stunning change in Middle East policy is his fourth major foreign policy pronouncement in less than a year. Let's review the bidding. On September 20, he declared his sweeping war on terrorism and those who abet it. In his State of the Union address on January 29, he singled out the "axis of evil"--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--for defeat. Last month at West Point, he downgraded deterrence and containment and adopted a new strategic doctrine to combat terrorist: preemption. And now there's a new policy toward Israel and the Palestinians.

Nice summary. This is the entire course of the War on Terror, laid out for anyone who wants to look.

>>>Stop being a cheerleader and open your eyes to the hypocracy!

This is serious business and those type remarks are uncalled for. I've been through this before with you Bush detractors and bashers. Bushes speach yesterday, was great, but its not up to Bush or the US to fight Israel's war against the Palestinians. If you thought that America's war on terrorism, extended into this specific Israeli/Palestinaian conflict, you were very much mistaken. America's war on terrorism has nothing to do with the ME conflict. The Palestinian's didn't attack us. And besides, what should Bush have done, nuked Arafat? Bushes recent and now these latest efforts are an attempt to get the ball rolling and may be resolve this conflict through dipolmacy. This is a situation that doesn't get any better, no matter who is POTUS.

Your reasoning is convoluted and you achieve nothing with such rancor.

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.