News: Iraq: Bush reluctant to try diplomacy

The Dawn, Pakistan

THE recent effort by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to get a dialogue going with the Palestinians by announcing a unilateral ceasefire, was aimed more at creating an enabling environment for an exit strategy for the US to speed up a withdrawal from Iraq than for a serious solution of the Palestine problem. The rapid succession of events since then has shown that Mr Bush is not mentally prepared to make adjustments that might end the blood-letting or facilitate a series of measures that might rescue the volatile Middle Eastern region from a larger conflict.

As the result of the mid-term elections in November showed the US electorate rejects the continuation of the policy of persisting in direct military involvement in Iraq until victory. Despite the special operation launched with a larger US force, the country has fallen prey to uncontrollable violence in which insurgency against the occupying foreign forces is exacerbated by sectarian conflict and a total breakdown of law and order resulting in a virtual state of anarchy.

Immediately after the election, President Bush seemed to be ready to adjust to the new realities, and met the newly elected speaker-designate to underline the need for a bipartisan approach towards foreign policy issues. The Iraq Study Group, created by the president to examine all aspects of the Iraq policy and whose 10 members comprised five each of some of the most experienced and respected members of the two main parties, took up its mandate which it had delayed until after elections, It submitted a detailed and compressive containing 79 recommendations in early December.

The Iraq Study Group�s report got a positive reaction within the US congress, as well as in thinking circles all over the world. It went into considerable detail on all aspects of the Iraq problem and offered well thought out and step-by-step measures to deal with each crisis spot involved. It stressed the primacy of resolving the Palestine Israel problem on an equitable basis, based on the two-state solution contained in the roadmap that Bush had proposed in 2002 and which had won the support of EU, the UN and Russia. The Arab and Islamic countries had been dismayed and alarmed over the growing aggressive and arrogant behaviour of Israel which always had US backing, thus increasing hostile feelings towards the US.

The US claim that it stood for democracy and human rights lost credibility as it vetoed resolutions proposed in the UN Security Council over excessive use of force and indifference towards the sufferings of the Palestinian people. The war in Lebanon that was launched by Israel to teach Hezbollah a lesson ended in a virtual defeat for Israel despite the latter�s use of excessive force. This boosted the morale of militants in Arab and other Muslim countries.

Insurgency and total hostility towards the occupation forces in Iraq shows that the early exit of foreign troops would help achieve the objective of restoring peace and stability in Iraq. President Bush has revealed a stubborn resolve to stick by his existing policy of �staying the course� until victory. He is virtually seeking an alternative opinion from other sources such as the Pentagon and the State Department that would provide for continued US military involvement in Iraq since Iraqi security forces appear to have been penetrated by sectarian militias so that even the retiring UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, has warned against the terrible consequences of a precipitate US withdrawal.

Even the Iraq Study Group�s recommendations envisage major US withdrawals in early 2008 and call for the US to shift towards improving Iraqi capability to assume responsibility for security duties and US diplomacy to take a series of actions in other countries of the region to improve the political environment.

Unfortunately, even though Mr Rumsfeld has resigned as defence secretary, Vice-President Dick Cheney is still there to defend the power-based US policies in the Middle East that have the Bush stamp on them. Peace in Palestine depends upon the US throwing its full support behind the two-state solution. However, Mr Bush shows few signs of countering Israeli tactics and goals. Similarly, on Lebanon, Syria and Iran, Mr Bush continues to be defiant, and has not shown signs of flexibility in dealing with countries placed on the �axis of evil�, namely Syria and Iran, even though their leadership is willing to help in stabilising the situation in Iraq.

US public support for Bush�s Iraq policy has fallen further to 20 per cent, but despite the outcome of the mid-term elections, and the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group for a change of course, the president is not reconciled to the new realities. He is inclined to opinions like those of key generals as well as of senators like John McCain, a presidential hopeful, calling for an increase in US forces in Iraq.

Views that unless the US changes course it may face a bigger disaster than it did in Vietnam are not making an impression on the president who still worries about his place in history and still feels that with his time-table for democratic elections completed in Iraq, it requires only a little perseverance for the Iraq venture to end on a positive note. He has spoken to leaders of major Iraqi factions who have responded in a manner he finds encouraging.

The next four or five weeks will be crucial. The state of the union speech for 2007 will be a major milestone when he must spell out his vision and plans for the final years of his presidency. The hope that he will get it right, and opt for diplomacy and realism does not look like being fulfilled, and his unmistakable preference for staying the course may prove to be a recipe for disaster.

At this point, perhaps one should try to put the attitude of President George W Bush, with regard to the post Cold War and post 9/11 evolution of world affairs in a historical perspective. The two World Wars fought in the first half of the 20th century had exposed the failure of reliance on force to determine the order of things and the US showed its commitment to democratic principles by advocating first the establishment of the League of Nations, and after the Second World War, of the United Nations.

The first quarter century after 1945 saw some of the most positive changes on this planet. More than a hundred colonies were liberated, and the UN system expanded to deal with the real problems of mankind relating to poverty, health, the environment and other issues requiring global cooperation.

Unfortunately, the US and the Soviet Union entered into a Cold War, which was partly ideological and partly geo-political. The last proxy conflict between them was fought in Afghanistan, but after the Soviet defeat and disintegration, when communism as practised by Moscow was discredited, the US, now the lone superpower, took a 180 degree turn, proclaiming that the new threats the West faced were from Islamic extremism and nuclear proliferation.

The neo-conservative doctrine was first spelt out by Paul Wolfowitz (now World Bank president) and Lewis Libby (former chief of staff to Vice-President Cheney) in 1992, which was the last year of Bush elder�s presidency. The two terms of Democrat President Bill Clinton saw the US follow a more traditional pattern of diplomacy when the US intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo against Serb expansionism, and gave a leading role to the UN.

The Bush victory in 2000 saw the neo-cons in control, and the US adopted a power-based policy that sought Washington�s complete hegemony. The 9/11 terrorist attacks in late 2001 enabled Bush to propound his doctrine of pre-emption, assuming the right of pre-emptive attack and regime change anywhere in the world. The UN-backed intervention in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks was followed by the war on Iraq, launched in March 2003 without UN support or approval.

Despite failure to achieve victory in Iraq and the growing disenchantment with the US, Bush is reluctant to abandon his doctrine of pre-emption, and to return to a more traditional approach as recommended by the Iraq Study Group report. No doubt there are neo-cons like Cheney, and army commanders who believe that their aims of dominating the region are still achievable.

The latest developments in Palestine constitute an obvious effort to reduce the influence of militants like Hamas and Hezbollah and to impose a settlement tailored to Israeli goals. The West is also facing an intensification of resistance in Afghanistan and counts on India�s support and Pakistan�s assistance to suppress the traditional Afghan resistance to foreign occupation forces.

The apparent resolve of Bush to continue his strong-arm approach threatens peace and stability in the larger Middle East region. The Pakistan government needs to tread carefully in the emerging situation that may be marked by conflict and confrontation, with most of the pressure and suffering falling on the Muslim world..