President Bush’s Mideast muddle

In a speech to the Saban forum last week, President Bush defended his record in the Middle East. (via memeorandum)

Over the past eight years, I have had the privilege to see the Middle East up close. I have stood on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and I’ve hiked the cliffs of Masada. I’ve enjoyed dinner in the desert of Abu Dhabi, and prayed at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. I have looked into the eyes of courageous elected leaders from Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories. I have been convinced that no region is more fundamental to the security of America or the peace in the world than the Middle East.

The speech is a mix of good, bad and bewildering.

In the Holy Land, the dashed expectations resulting from the collapse of the Camp David peace talks had given way to the second intifada. Palestinian suicide bombers struck with horrific frequency and lethality. They murdered innocent Israelis at a pizza parlor, or aboard buses, or in the middle of a Passover Seder. Israeli Defense Forces responded with large-scale operations. And in 2001, more than 500 Israelis and Palestinians were killed.

Politically, the Palestinian Authority was led by a terrorist who stole from his people and walked away from peace. In Israel, Ariel Sharon was elected to fight terror and pursue a “Greater Israel” policy that allowed for no territorial concessions. Neither side could envision a return to negotiations or the realistic possibility of a two-state solution.

While his description of Yasser Arafat is accurate, his portrayal of Ariel Sharon is unfair. In 2001, negotiations should have been the furthest thing from anyone’s mind in Israel. Defeating the Palestinian Authority, at that point, was the only priority.

Elsewhere he observed:

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein had begun his third decade as the dictator of Iraq — a reign that included invading two neighbors, developing and using weapons of mass destruction, attempting to exterminate Marsh Arabs and many Kurds, paying the families of suicide bombers, systematically violating U.N. resolutions, and firing routinely at British and U.S. aircraft patrolling a no-fly zone.

Syria continued its occupation of Lebanon, with some 30,000 troops on Lebanese soil. Libya sponsored terror and pursued weapons of mass destruction. And in Iran, the prospect of reform was fading, the regime’s sponsorship of terror continued, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons was largely unchecked.

Finally there was the threat of terror against America and its interests:

Against this backdrop, the terrorist movement was growing in strength and in ambition. Three decades, violent radicals had landed painful blows against America — the Iranian hostage crisis, the attacks on our embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center, the attack on Khobar Towers, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the strike on the USS Cole.

And then came September the 11th, 2001, when 19 men from the Middle East carried out the worst attack on the United States since the strike on Pearl Harbor 67 years ago this weekend. In the space of a single morning, 9/11 etched a sharp dividing line in our history. We realized that we’re in a struggle with fanatics pledged to our destruction. We saw that conditions of repression and despair on the other side of the world could bring suffering and death to our own streets.

How did President Bush approach these problems?

First, we took the offense against the terrorists overseas. We are waging a relentless campaign to break up extremist networks and deny them safe havens. As part of that offensive, we pledged to strengthen our partnership with every nation that joins in the fight against terror. We deepened our security cooperation with allies like Jordan and Egypt, and with our friends in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, long a breeding ground for radicalism, has become a determined partner in the fight against terror — killing or capturing hundreds of al Qaeda operatives in the Kingdom. We dramatically expanded counterterrorism ties with partners in North Africa. And we left no doubt that America would stand by our closest ally in the Middle East — the state of Israel. (Applause.)

Second, we made clear that hostile regimes must end their support for terror and their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, or face the concerted opposition of the world.

This was the approach we took in Iraq. It is true, as I’ve said many times, that Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11 attacks. But the decision to remove Saddam from power cannot be viewed in isolation from 9/11. In a world where terrorists armed with box cutters had just killed nearly 3,000 of our people, America had to decide whether we could tolerate a sworn enemy that acted belligerently, that supported terror, and that intelligence agencies around the world believed had weapons of mass destruction.

It was clear to me, it was clear to members of both political parties, and to many leaders around the world that after 9/11, that was a risk we could not afford to take. So we went back to the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed Resolution 1441 calling on Saddam Hussein to disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. With this resolution, we offered Saddam Hussein a final chance to comply with the demands of the world. And when he refused to resolve the issue peacefully, we acted with a coalition of nations to protect our people and liberated 25 million Iraqis.

Finally there was:

Third, America identified the lack of freedom in the Middle East as a principal cause of the threats coming from the region. We concluded that if the region continued on the path it was headed — if another generation grew up with no hope for the future, and no outlet to express its views — the Middle East would continue to simmer in resentment and export violence.

And how does President Bush view the results of his efforts?

Finally, to advance all the principles that I’ve outlined — supporting our friends, and pressuring our adversaries, and extending freedom — America has launched a sustained initiative to help bring peace to the Holy Land. At the heart of this effort is the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. I was the first American President to call for a Palestinian state, and support — and build support for the two-state solution has been a top priority of my administration.

To earn the trust of Israeli leaders, we made it clear that no Palestinian state would be born of terror, we backed Prime Minister Sharon’s courageous withdrawal from Gaza, and we supported his decision to build a security fence, not as a political border but to protect the people from terror.

To help the Palestinian people achieve the state they deserve, we insisted on Palestinian leadership that rejects terror and recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Now that this leadership has emerged, we’re strongly supporting its efforts to build institutions of a vibrant democratic state.

With good advice from leaders like Former Prime Minister Tony Blair and Generals Jones, Dayton, Fraser, and Selva, the Palestinians are making progress toward capable security forces, a functioning legal system, government ministries that deliver services without corruption, and a market economy. In all our efforts to promote a two-state solution, we have included Arab leaders from across the region, because we fully understand that their support will be essential for the creation of a state and lasting peace.

I believe here is where President Bush has gotten things wrong. His stated objective of creating a democratic Palestinian state has led him to a number of self -delusions. Calling the withdrawal from Gaza “courageous” without acknowledging the costs of doing so is very problematic. President Bush predicted that the responsibilities of governing would moderate Hamas. But that didn’t happen. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza – like the withdrawal from southern Lebanon five years earlier – strengthened the major terrorist group in the territory abandoned by Israel. It also led directly to sustained rocket fire against southern Israel. And now the people of Gaza are under the authority of the terrorists of Hamas. So the withdrawal, so far, has advanced neither peace nor freedom.

Elsewhere President Bush said:

For the first time in nearly three decades, the people of Lebanon are free from Syria’s military occupation. Libya’s nuclear weapons equipment is locked away in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Places like the UAE and Bahrain are emerging as centers of commerce. The region — the regime in Iran is facing greater pressure from the international community than ever before. Terrorist organizations like al Qaeda have failed decisively in their attempts to take over nations. They’re increasingly facing ideological rejection in the Arab world.

The occupation of Lebanon by Syria, I suppose is over. However Hezbollah now has a choke hold over that country. Given that Hezbollah is a proxy of Syria’s, I don’t see how this is an improvement. Libya has put its nuclear ambitions aside but still remains a threat. And Al Qaeda is rejected, but less because of anything that the United States did than its own overreaching.

Natan Sharansky did the best job of critiquing President Bush’s performance in the Middle East.

Sharansky, the former Prisoner of Zion who currently chairs the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, told The Jerusalem Post Thursday: “I have to give Bush credit, because he brought back the agenda of linking security and democracy, which was abandoned by the free world after the defeat of the Soviet Union. [But] what makes it hard for him to implement it is that he’s so lonely.

“Many politicians and institutions that should be promoting democracy and freedom are cynically reluctant to do it, because Bush raised the agenda,” Sharansky went on. “That’s why I give Bush an “A” for raising the idea, a “C” for implementation and I give his opponents, who abandoned the idea, an “F,” because they are attacking Bush not for inconsistency in implementing the agenda but for raising it. Their approach denies the people of the Middle East the ability to live in freedom.”

Specifically, here is the problem, according to Sharansky:

On the Palestinian issue, Sharansky tried unsuccessfully three times to persuade Bush not to allow the Palestinian Authority election last year that was won by Hamas.

“I told Bush before and after [the vote] that quick elections cannot replace the democratic process,” Sharansky said. “Elections require a free society. Elections have to be the last step of the democratic process.”

While President Bush has championed the idea of freedom he has failed to insist on its implementation, rather he has been satisfied to see elections without demanding more fundamental changes in Arab societies. Elections by themselves are not transforming.

Daniel Pipes is even more unsparing in his criticism of the President. Pipes sounds surprisingly like Indyk and Haass.

I believe that President Bush got the big issue of fighting Islamic terrorism correct. Many of his approaches have been marked by undue optimism and not pursuing details as he ought to have done.

Is it fair to blame him for Iran’s closeness to acquiring nuclear weapons? Pipes can criticize, he’s provided a much different framework for American policy and doesn’t put much stock in the positive effects of democratization. But I don’t see how Indyk and Haass can. If they’d been in charge of Middle East policy, we’d be trying to talk Iran out of its nuclear capability. And we’d
have probably done the same to Saddam, who likely would still be in power. Then we’d have two major threats from the Gulf region rather than just one.

Finally, I’m disappointed that President Bush still views the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as central to the Middle East’s problems. I thought he had realized that Arab rejection of Israel’s legitimacy was the bigger problem.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.