Moenmac: This Sinking Ship of Fools
----snip---
<<This is not foreign policy. It is chaos.>>
truthout.org
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | 04.01.02
Recent events in the Middle East have proven beyond a shadow of doubt
that the Bush administration's complete lack of engagement with Israel and
Palestine will stand as a historic example of deadly poor judgment. What we
see is an administration that is hopelessly in over its head, groping for a
solution far past the time when one could be reached, and all the while hedging
its bets to keep a conflict with Iraq on the table.
Consider the timetable of events: The Bush people came to Washington
filled with scorn for the peacemaking efforts of the departing Clinton
administration. On the eve of the election of hard-liner Sharon as Israeli Prime
Minister, the Bush administration refused to send a peace envoy to the
last-gasp talks between Israel and Palestine in Egypt. Weeks later, Bush
pulled out the highly visible CIA brokers who had been stage-managing a
cessation of the conflict. All the while, Bush and his people parroted the same
asinine rhetoric: we'll help make peace once y'all stop shooting at each
other...or, to put it another way, we'll help make peace once you make peace.
As scenes of horror flash across CNN today, Israeli and Palestinian
representatives speak out. Salting their comments are heartfelt laments at the
absence of Bill Clinton and American engagement in any peace talks. Sadly for
them and their people, the days of American engagement are long past. The
current administration's opinion of the efforts made by Clinton were summed up
by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer last month, who stated that,
"You can make the case that in an attempt to shoot the moon and get nothing,
more violence resulted." Though he was later forced to apologize for the claim
that Clinton's peace efforts led to war, there is no mistaking the truth that
Fleischer was stating the opinion of the Bush White House.
Attempting to explain the Bush administration's appalling negligence in
dealing with this conflict requires an examination of several factors. Foremost
among them is what appears to be an astounding lack of ability among Bush's
foreign policy people. The one true 'policy wonk' on the staff, Condoleeza Rice,
is a world-renowned expert on a nation that no longer exists - the Soviet Union.
No one else seems capable of dealing with the complexities of the issue.
Beyond that lies a deep fear of failure: no one in the White House wants to
make an effort at peace in that region and risk the appearance of falling short.
This combination of ignorance and cowardice has borne bloody fruit.
There is one man in the administration with the clout and deft touch to have
an impact in this conflict. Secretary of State Colin Powell is well known and
much respected on the world stage, yet he has been noticeably absent of late.
He has visited the region only twice since taking his position. When the
administration needed to gather support for a war with Iraq a few weeks ago, it
was not Powell but Vice President Cheney who made the whirlwind tour of the
Middle East. Cheney's efforts came to naught, at least publicly; after his trip,
the Arab League released statements warning America against a war with Iraq.
Powell's silence to date on the Israel/Palestine conflict lies at the crux of
the matter. He is ensconced in an administration that wants nothing to do with
the conflict. Because Powell holds deep reservations about a war with Iraq, he
does not want to undermine his standing in the administration by taking an
unpopular position on the current situation. Powell is keeping his powder dry
because he will need all the clout he can swing to direct Bush and the
administration's chief Iraq war-hawk, Paul Wolfowitz, away from a dangerous
conflict with Saddam Hussein. The one man who could pull Israel and Palestine
away from each other's throats has his hands tied because this administration
wants war elsewhere in the region.
Powell's reticence may not amount to much in the long run, however. It is
becoming clear that the Bush administration will attack Iraq. American troop
presence in the region, particularly in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, has increased
from 25,000 to 80,000 in recent months. Weapons and communications
equipment are being pulled out of storage and brought to a secret base in
Qatar, which could serve as a command and control point for an Iraq action that
is away from Saudi Arabia, a nation not supportive of any Iraq plans. Asked
whether America plans war against Iraq, General Tommy Franks replied, "Let
me put it this way. We are increasing or improving our command and control
capacity in all of my region."
The violence between Israel and Palestine, and the recent unanimous
warning from the Arab League, complicates this scenario. A sudden reversal of
opinion by British Prime Minister Blair, who delayed the release of a "damning
dossier" of information on Hussein for fear of inciting a revolt within his own
party, adds to the complexity of the issue. This past Saturday, thousands of
demonstrators marched through central London, chanting "War is not the
answer!" and demanding that Blair back off any conflict in Iraq. Blair is traveling
to Bush's Crawford ranch next week, where he will plead with Bush to take a
more cautious approach with Iraq.
The level of attention Bush pays Blair will inevitably depend on how much he
cares to have Britain ruled by the liberal Labor party; a disgraced and defeated
Blair replaced by a more conservative British administration would serve Bush's
long-term plans. In any event, Bush and his people have never shied away from
going it alone.
Any scenario that includes an American war with Iraq hinges upon the fate
of Yasser Arafat. If Arafat begins to publicly denounce these suicide bombings
and pleads for American assistance, Bush may have little choice but to send
American troops and envoys to the region. Such an action would please the
Arab League, whose support - or lack of resistance - Bush will need to attack
Iraq. This administration's callous lack of engagement in the conflict may
change dramatically because they need this diplomatic hedge to clear the path
to Baghdad.
In short, American blood will be spent in a too little-too late engagement
between Israel and Palestine to assure that more American blood will be spent
in a cynically-conceived attack on Iraq. Add to this scenario the fact that our
war in Afghanistan is far from over - indeed, it may not be finished for a long
time if 100 years of regional history holds true - and that the administration
foolishly and dangerously put the nuclear option on the table.
This administration has allowed the Middle East to become a bloodbath as
it attacks the Stone-Age nation of Afghanistan, all the while failing to capture
any of the agents behind the September 11th attacks and guaranteeing a
resurgence of civil war and chaos in that country. Meanwhile, the administration
plans for war in Iraq while virtually ignoring Saudi Arabia, the birthing bed of
international terrorism, because of its interests in the oil game. All the while
Bush does yardwork in Texas, not even bothering to telephone the principles
involved in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
This is not foreign policy. It is chaos. If this is what happens when the
adults are back in charge, the world yearns for the rule of those children who
believed constructive engagement served the purposes of peace. We sail on
dangerous waters, a jagged reef yawns before us, and no one is steering the
ship.
William Rivers Pitt is freelance writer and a regular contributor to t r u t h o u
t. You can visit Will at : www.willpitt.com |
