'The seven mortal sins of Bush's blindness'
Posted on Thursday, August 07 @ 09:43:50 EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Luc Debieuvre, Gulf News
A few months ago, opponents of the war in Iraq used to say that whatever action the Bush administration would take unilaterally, it would need the rest of the world to win the peace. Although the number of daily casualties in the American army confirm such predictions, U.S. President George W. Bush and his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, stick to their previous position, at least officially, and seem to be fully satisfied with their status as occupying power.
"For sure," writes the Wall Street Journal, "550,000 Nato compliant troops would be fine, but not at the cost of giving them (France and Germany) or the UN substantial say over the future of Iraq." They thus will go on with their coalition of "more than 30 countries over eight time zones", which is basically a few soldiers from here and there to be commanded by a Polish army hard pressed to provide the required number of troops.
They will pay for everything or reimburse all costs. Yet it is not permitted by American law to pay foreign soldiers directly.
This fake internationalisation will not fool anybody and "even if there are good weeks", they can't rebuild Iraq on their own. Not recognising this is their first sin.
A second major sin against a clever vision of Iraq's future is to believe that they will be able to build new Iraq, not only alone, but in their own image. In today's Iraq, the occupying American troops think American, work American and fly the banner every instant. From the creation of a 7,000 strong civilian troop to the implementation of a Police Academy, a school for judges or teachers, America feels at home in Iraq.
Western free-market style economic rules are being introduced, an Iraq Trade Bank being shaped, supply contracts being provided by a company called Halliburton whose quarterly results were never so good for years: all facts which logically should have a negative impact on those not sharing the same vision. And there may be many of them.
The point, however, is that the U.S. has put in place leaders they like rather than those the Iraqis want. Sooner or later, there can only be a reaction to that.
Misunderstanding
One step further towards misunderstanding is taken when arrogant behaviour prevents any fair analysis. For example, it may be more convenient for the U.S. army to describe the on-going guerrilla war as a military unrest favoured by former Baathist partisans. But it is likely wrong, as witnessed by crucial information recently collected by experts. By-passing Iraqi national sentiment may lead to significant mistakes of appreciation and that third sin can hardly be forgiven.
Yet, that's still little when one wonders what happened to the American capacity to treat intelligence material. In a self-convincing exercise, the WSJ editor (whose justifying comments about the war in Iraq have now been immortalised: "We did it because we had to do it.") recently summed-up the situation in occupied Palestine as follows: "Middle East Peace Progress: Israelis are releasing prisoners; Palestinian groups have been coerced into at least a temporary cease fire."
How was this success achieved? "Because Bush has taken time to de-legitimise Arafat" and in Iraq "to remove the most significant threat to Israel's existence".
The truth, actually, is that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was able to drag Bush into the trap of the fight against terrorism, preventing him from pointing out the numerous obligations ignored by the Israelis in their own commitment towards the roadmap.
It looked like another weakness of Bush, as illustrated by the appalling comment after last week's meeting with Sharon about the wall of shame: I do not like it, but what can I do since you do not want to stop it?
"Anyway, I hope it will become irrelevant". That was a venal sin; but not resisting the Israeli approach of putting a veil on their own atrocities and shining light on the fight against terrorism, is a more serious capital sin. But the list is not over.
The last three sins are European-flavoured. The first one consists of going on dividing Europe. To do that, an old recipe is to try and separate France and Germany on the one hand, and to insult France on the other.
As far as insults are concerned, it is true to say that although probably not a progress for humanity, UK tabloids have now been overtaken by U.S. newspapers such as the WSJ: "With Saddam left, Chirac has no more friends in the Region", "Mahathir, the new friend of Chirac", or "French interest in Iraq barely extended beyond oil and arms contracts", etc.
This is actually of no value but could even prove useful to WSJ's readers who will now learn that there is something on the Western and Eastern sides of America. Dividing France and Germany may appear to be more simple, provided however that it is done smartly.
When quoting the German foreign affairs minister: "Transatlantic relations are a cornerstone of freedom and stability in the 21st century", one should not miss to quote the rest of the statement: "The strongest country alone is not strong enough."
More serious
The sixth sin is more serious because it has historical roots which may look like having a continuing effect. We come back to the old accusations of the Gaullist aspirations of "glory" and the vision of a Europe which Chirac would dream to lead through forming a Western alliance and setting up a multilateral world where Europe rivals the U.S.
This Transatlantic rivalry is nothing new, at least in the commercial, agricultural, industrial and cultural fields. The point is to show how much an "arrogant" France would like to "lead the world" against the U.S. Sad to say, hate doesn't favour keen analysis.
That is the last sin which cannot be forgiven: the U.S. has not yet understood what happened in Europe the last several years. Did they ever realise how strong was the support enjoyed by Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder from not only German and French but also Spanish, Italian and even British public opinions?
Yet, time is no more for France to "lead" its European partners. The old Europe was that of nationalism; the new one is the integrated Europe, and as the FT concludes: "We should thank the U.S. for that."
Reprinted from Gulf News:
gulf-news.com |
