Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October 2003, page 11

Special Report

 

George W. Bush and His Evil Twin: Which One Is in Charge Today?

 

By Richard H. Curtiss

President George W. Bush kicked off a weekend of hard-driving pre-Labor Day political events that included speeches by Vice President Richard Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as well. In his speech to the American Legion Convention in St. Louis, MO, the president highlighted the accomplishments of America's military in Iraq.

Defending his foreign policy, Bush suggested that pacifying Iraq, hunting down al-Qaeda, and bringing peace to the Middle East are all part of a larger struggle against terrorists fearful of democracy and civilized values.

"Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks," Bush stated. "There will be no retreat. Building a free and peaceful Iraq will require substantial commitment of time and resources, and will yield a substantially safer and more secure America and the world. More and more progress will come in Iraq and will require hard and sustained efforts."

Bush called the conflict a "test of our perseverance, our patience and our will." He continued, "the stakes could not be greater. Our only goal, our only option, is total victory in the war on terror."

The president summarized progress to date in Iraq: 200 raids, 1,100 detainees, 8,200 tons of ammunition and thousands of weapons seized, 42 of the most-wanted Iraqi leaders captured or killed, 38,000 Iraqis hired as police officers and 31 countries contributing 21,000 troops to the efforts in Iraq.

Further defending his administration, Bush argued that the recent attacks are signs that our foes are desperate. "The more progress we make in Iraq, the more desperate the terrorists will become," he said. "It's hard to characterize what kind of movement it is since this is one of the major battles of the first war of the 21st century.

Bush was joined in St. Louis by his former White House communications director, Karen Hughes, who sometimes accompanies him to important speeches.

At an earlier meeting in St. Paul, MN, demonstrators proclaimed, "Admit failure. Beg the U.N. for help." Placards alluded to the unsuccessful hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

One can't help but note that when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is in charge everything goes as smoothly as butter. Powell knows the right answers and how to reassure the international community.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, Vice President Richard Cheney and the grandstanding secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, do everything wrong. Their messages leave Americans and the entire world deeply worried.

 

When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is in charge everything goes as smoothly as butter.

Let's start with the positive messages Powell is sending out to the world. The United States cannot afford to lose its battle in Iraq. Never mind whether or not President George W. Bush actually believed that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain was on the verge of unleashing weapons of mass destruction. Even if that claim represented not the truth but a Machiavellian plot encouraged by American neoconservatives, one fact remains: the war was fought, and the U.S. is now deeply mired in a situation that must be resolved.

Washington has few major allies, although the possibility that the United Nations may internationalize this occupation could yield many potential ones. In that case, virtually every world nation (possibly even France), would be willing to contribute to Iraq's reconstruction in every way possible.

The astonishingly evil conspiracy to blow up the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, slaughtering 23 willing workers and hampering U.N. relief efforts, has only exacerbated America's problem. This nihilistic attempt to wreak harm on the United States, and of course on the Iraqi people themselves, may discourage the U.N. from assuming a larger presence in Iraq.

By turning to the United Nations to gather an alliance of troops, Washington could quickly isolate the problems in Iraq into readily manageable issues. Since the U.S. still would have the largest number of troops in the country, it will by definition retain command of the situation, particularly in the so-called "Sunni triangle." In time the international forces will be joined by Iraqis trained to defuse violent confrontations.

So far the Shi'i majority in southern Iraq is generally cooperating, and will continue to do so long as they believe that Iraq will eventually become an independent nation again. In the north, Kurds, Turkmens and others, many of whom have been transplanted into areas where their ancestors never lived, will realize that they need to work together as Iraqis rather than as disparate tribal elements. None of this is rocket science. What is essential is that the Iraqi people as a whole be convinced that a military government will be short, transitional, and will move the country rapidly toward true independence.

If the world community understands that U.S. triumphalism was only a brief and unfortunate aberration, it may feel better about joining a coalition. Indeed, it is second nature for Powell to deal with these issues. And, while the vice president and secretary of defense go merrily on their strange and divisive way, it appears as if Powell is doing exactly that.

 

Abhorrent Alternatives

The alternative policies of the Cheney-Rumsfeld neocon brain trust are so abhorrent that Powell, his close associate Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage and their allies in the State Department may decide to ignore the neocon madmen and follow their own instincts. Strangely, Bush doesn't seem to realize the extraordinary difference between a truly open-handed, open-minded American policy and the cramped, gnarled, particularistic vision of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The defense secretary, it seems, wants to keep Iraq for the benefit of American monopolists, and no one else. Should he succeed, a neocolonialist empire would persist ad infinitum. That is madness, and it cannot stand. The Iraqis would quickly rebel—and who would blame them? It is obvious, or should be, that such thinking must be rejected in favor of getting things moving according to an internationally acceptable plan of action—one that gives all the world's citizens a chance to do their part to make Iraq a better place for all its people: Shi'i, Sunni, Kurds, Christians, and Turkmens.

Dozens of Americans have come up with a quick-but-necessary fix. To cite just one example, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert writes: "The U.S. cannot bully its way to victory in Iraq. It needs allies, and it needs a plan. As quickly as possible, we should turn the country over to a genuine international coalition, headed by the U.N. and supported in good faith by the U.S.

"The idea would be to mount a massive international effort to secure Iraq, develop a legitimate sovereign government and work cooperatively with the Iraqi people to rebuild the nation. If this does not happen, disaster will loom," Herbert warns, "because the United States cannot secure and rebuild Iraq on its own…It needs help. It needs friends."

Richard H. Curtiss is executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

< Prev		Next >