Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (297612)	7/30/2006 7:04:15 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573001

Views of the crisis from the perspectives of six leaders with much at stake in the outcome of tumultous events Bush aims to expel tyranny Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief Sunday, July 30, 2006 (07-30) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Each day of Middle East violence appears to make it less likely that President Bush can win the "war on terror'' that has defined his presidency. Israeli bombs and Hezbollah missiles kill children and destroy homes, shattering the fabric of civilization and seeming to guarantee another generation of hatred. The moderate leadership of Lebanon, once hailed by Bush as a model of Middle East progress, has been exposed as feeble, and it has angrily vowed to seek compensation for Israel's aggression. The U.S. refusal to call for an immediate cease-fire has inflamed anti-American sentiments and widened the schism with some allies. And the inability to talk to, let alone rein in, Syria or Iran has raised serious questions about the Bush administration's policy of Middle East disengagement. Publicly the Bush team talks about how the fighting provides an opportunity to turn upside-down the existing order which seems to produce endless cycles of violence. However, to most observers, the carnage is likely to spur even more unrest and further unravel Bush's Middle East strategy. The stakes for the American president could hardly be higher. After six years of scorn from internationalists and most global audiences, Bush will emerge from the crisis either trumpeting the demise of one of the world's deadliest terrorist groups or having to explain how a presidency dedicated to making the world safer has done so little to advance the cause of peace. Perhaps both, in some degree. The exasperated expression on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's face in Rome last week after failing to negotiate an agreement struck only the administration's most ardent supporters as a sign of the world's intransigence. To most everyone else it was a sign of the Bush administration's diplomatic ineptitude. Bush never promised a cessation of violence or an end to the generations-old dispute between Israel and its neighbors that also vexed his predecessors. In fact he pointed to the time-consuming, hands-on approach of President Clinton as an illustration of the futility of the U.S. trying to broker a lasting Arab-Israeli settlement. Bush did not inject himself in drawing maps or direct negotiations. Instead, he declared his support for a two-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side, and he sought to isolate countries such as Syria and Iran, which he accused of supporting terrorists and believed stood in the way of a peaceful resolution. He asserted repeatedly that the Middle East would be served by toppling Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq to serve as a "beacon of hope'' for the region. Iraq became the "central front'' on Bush's war on terror, an endeavor which he declared, just two days after planes slammed into the World Trade Center, would be the central focus of his presidency. Two weeks before the U.S. invasion, he said the attack on Iraq will "contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world.'' It is now clear that the toppling of Saddam Hussein did not strengthen the U.S. hand in promoting peace between Arabs and Israelis, and to many observers it has weakened it. Bush's steadfast devotion to Israel -- affirmed by Republicans and Democrats in the Congress -- has eroded the U.S. ability to serve as a mediator in Middle East disputes. "The American capacity to influence events in Israel has been going down steadily over the last several years,'' said Zbigniew Brzezinksi, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. "It's very difficult to see much effect over the last two weeks for whatever steps we have been taking or for whatever we have been saying on this subject.'' And as the violence flares from Beirut to Baghdad -- two cities about as far apart as San Francisco and Portland -- it is getting harder and harder to dismiss the tens of thousands of deaths as bumps on the road to a lasting settlement. The most recent bloodshed has undermined Bush's assertion that democracy of the sort that fosters peace is sweeping through the region. "We now have two Arab countries that Bush has trumpeted as models and vanguards of America's policy of promoting freedom and democratic change: Iraq and Lebanon,'' wrote columnist Rami G. Khouri in the Daily Star, Lebanon's largest English-language newspaper. "Neither is a very comforting sight today. Not many Arabs will sign up for Bush's democracy and freedom plan if this is what they will expect to happen to their countries.'' If Bush can help orchestrate a cease-fire after Hezbollah has been significantly weakened, and the region isn't so angry at him for waiting, the current violence in Iraq might advance his vision of peace and stability in the region. But it is a scenario which almost no one foresees. A far more probable outcome is a weakened Hezbollah and a strengthened wrath toward Israel and the United States. In a major address in 2004 on his vision for Middle East democracy, Bush said "as long as that region is a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will produce men and movements that threaten the safety of Americans and our friends.'' Sadly, what is happening today seems likely to contribute despair and anger for years to come, frustrating Bush's hopes for stability. sfgate.com