|
Edited on Mon Aug-07-06 11:13 AM by ProSense
George W. and the DominoesIraq was supposed to trigger a democratic chain reaction in the Middle East. Instead—see the missiles over Haifa—the tumbling is going backward.Snip... Bush and his adjutants have, of course, heard these arguments ad nauseam—and ignored them ad infinitum. From the start, his attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian question seemed to be one, at least in his eyes, of constructive disengagement. Perhaps this was (like so many things with Bush) a rejection of his father, who enjoyed nothing more than playing the peacemaker in the Middle East. Or perhaps it was (like so many other things) a rejection of the Clinton model, which entailed untold time and immeasurable energy in the pursuit of a land-for-peace deal that still ended in failure—although, as one former Clinton foreign-policy hand noted to me, “Engagement à la Clinton doesn’t necessarily get you to yes, but while you’re trying and talking, there tends to be less shooting and dying.” More likely, however, the hands-off attitude of the Bush crowd toward Israel and a potential Palestine owes mainly to the administration’s fixation on the war on terror generally and on Iraq in particular. For the neoconservative theoreticians who conceived the war, Iraq was to be the centerpiece of what Condoleezza Rice has lately taken to calling, with bizarre optimism, “a new Middle East”—precisely the role that more-traditional foreign-policy strategists had long hoped that a coexistent Israel and Palestine would play. Snip... And so has its democratic variant turned out—so far—to be bogus with respect to Iraq. In fact, what democratization has brought to the Middle East to date has been, most prominently, dangerous instability: the election of thuggish Hamas to control of the Palestinian Parliament; the endowing of murderous Hezbollah with a substantial voice in the Lebanese government; the election of a vengeful Shiite majority in Iraq (where, we learned last week, American generals fear that we are on the edge of civil war). Moreover, as Odom adds, “it is precisely our actions in Iraq that have opened the door for Iran and Syria to support Hezbollah and Hamas actions without much to fear from the U.S.” So what to do? Get out now, Odom says. “We need to eat some crow,” he told an interviewer. “It will bring the Europeans back and have them cooperate. If we’re lock-armed with the Europeans, that is the greatest chance for success in Iraq.” As for the administration’s argument, put forward by Dick Cheney, among others, that precipitous withdrawal would cause yet another set of dominoes to fall—the governments in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—Odom waxes incredulous. more... http://www.nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/18858Bush comments on Mideast, Castro, IraqAssociated Press Text of comments Monday by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a news conference at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions: Snip... QUESTION: If I can follow on question, she had asked...
BUSH: I can't remember that far back.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: ... Lebanon's parliament's speaker, Nabih Berri, whose been negotiating for Hezbollah, has rejected the first resolutions as unacceptable; they want the Israeli troops to pull out immediately.
Is that a negotiable point?
And also, will Secretary Rice -- will you be reaching out to Berri, as you had spoken with him before?
BUSH: Whatever happens in the U.N., we must not create a vacuum into which Hezbollah and its sponsors are able to move more weapons.
Sometimes the world likes to take the easy route in order to solve a problem. Our view is it's time to address root causes of problems.
And to create a vacuum is unacceptable. It would mean that we haven't addressed the root cause.
The idea is to have the Lebanese government move into the south so that the government of Lebanon can protect its own territory, and that there be an international force to provide the help necessary for the Lebanese government to secure its country.
Remember, in Germany, the first thing I said was -- or one of the first things I said -- I think I said this -- help me out here if I didn't...
(LAUGHTER)
RICE: If you didn't.
BUSH: . . . was we want the Saniora government to survive and to be strengthened. The lynchpin of the policy is to support democracies.
And so the strategy at the U.N., the diplomatic strategy, is to support that notion. Because a democracy in Lebanon will not only help that nation address its long-term issues, such as rebuilding and providing a hopeful life, but a democracy on Israel's northern border will stabilize -- help stabilize the region.
We are committed to a democracy in the Palestinian territory. President Abbas, in our conversations -- in his conversations with Condi, talked about moving forward with democracy.
But there are people who can't stand the thought of a society based upon universal liberty from emerging. And that in itself ought to be a warning signal to those of us who care deeply for peace, that people would be willing to kill innocent citizens in order to stop the advance of liberty.
Now, I've talked a lot about the universal appeal of liberty. And I readily concede some people aren't willing to -- some say, Well, you know, liberty may not be universal in this sense: American imposes its will.
We don't impose liberty. Liberty is universal. And it's one of the interesting debates of the 21st century, I think, that some would be willing to say that it's OK for people not to live in a free society.
It's not OK for us. If you love peace, in order to achieve peace, you must help people realize that which is universal. And that is freedom.
She asked you a question.
RICE: Right.
Snip...
QUESTION: Mr. President, if I could turn to Iraq for a moment, when you and Prime Minister Blair met at the White House a few months ago, you were asked about mistakes and missteps. And he said the one mistake he made was miscalculating and thinking that a young democracy, as you put it, would be born very quickly after the fall of Saddam .
Are you prepared today to agree with him and acknowledge that you had the same expectations which were wrong?
BUSH: Actually, I think -- I can't remember his answer. I'm sure you've characterized it perfectly.
My attitude is that a young democracy has been born quite quickly. And I think the Iraqi government has shown remarkable progress on the political front. And that is that they developed a modern constitution that was ratified by the people and then 12 million people voted for a government.
Which gives me confidence about the future in Iraq, by the way. You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box. And a unity government is working to respond to the will of the people. And, frankly, it's quite a remarkable achievement on the political front.
And the security front is where there has been troubles. And it's going to be up to the Maliki government, with U.S. help, to use the trained forces and eventually a trained police force to take care of those who are trying to foment sectarian violence.
We've made some progress against some of those folks, particularly when Mr. Zarqawi met his demise. Remember, al Qaeda is in the country, all attempting to stop the advance of democracy. And, you know, the blowing up of the mosque created an opportunity for those who were trying to foment sectarian violence to achieve their objective. But the Iraqi people rejected that kind of sectarian violence. Their army stood strong.
No question it's still difficult. On the other hand, the political process is part of helping to achieve our objective, which is a free country, an ally in the war on terror, that can sustain itself and govern itself and defend itself.
OK, who else? I don't want to hurt any feeling.
Yes, sir?
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/15218365.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_news
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
