Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2004, page 13

Special Report

 

Bush’s Latest Two Trips Included a Major Surprise

 

By Richard H. Curtiss

President George W. Bush made the first U.S. presidential visit to Iraq in history on Nov. 27, Thanksgiving Day. Traveling in utmost secrecy, Bush’s Air Force One plane landed using no lights of any kind. L. Paul Bremer told 600 members of the First Armored Division and the 82nd Airborne he had a Thanksgiving proclamation from the president, and looked around for the higher-ranking officer to read the message. At this point Bush stepped forward, surprising most of the military personnel, who cheered and whooped their approval. Bush clearly was moved at his rousing reception, and a tear dripped down the president’s cheek.

The unexpected visit will probably increase Bush’s chances in a potentially close election. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a commander of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, said the event also would boost soldiers’ morale: “This is the kind of thing that will make a major impact on their level of trust with their own commander in chief.” McCaffrey added, “The visit brought tears to my eyes,” as well.

Chris Lehane, a strategist for retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark’s presidential campaign, said Democrats would not fault Bush for visiting the troops. “It’s absolutely appropriate to be honoring our soldiers overseas in battle on a day like Thanksgiving,” Lehane said.

The presidential visit had been planned and kept secret for almost six weeks even from the small media pool traveling with him. Bush was accompanied by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and the two then met with four members of Iraq’s Governing Council, including Ahmad Chalabi. The entire presidential visit lasted two and a half hours, and then Air Force One was on its way back to the U.S.

Bush’s visit to the troops was in stark contrast to his visit to London the previous week. Ken Livingstone, the lord mayor of London, welcomed President Bush with this statement: “I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen.”

From there, however, things could only get better, and so they did during the president’s three-day visit from Nov, 18 to 20. Bush was received at the airport by Britain’s Prince Charles, who has been a staunch supporter of human rights for Palestinians.

Since Bush then flew by helicopter to the Queen’s own quarters at Buckingham Palace, there were no crowds—enthusiastic or otherwise—to greet him on his first night in London.

Bush delivered the major speech of his visit Nov. 19 at Whitehall Palace, before a small invited audience of foreign policy experts. He spoke for nearly a half-hour, but there was no question period.

“We’re pursuing...a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East,” the president asserted. “We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror...”

 

“A forward strategy of freedom must also apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

On the current situation in Iraq, Bush stated: “Whatever has come before, we now have only two options: to keep our word or to break our word.”

Enumerating the positive changes brought about by the U.S.-British invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush said, “More than 150 Iraqi newspapers are now in circulation, printing what they choose, not what they’re ordered. Schools are open, with textbooks free of propaganda. Hospitals are functioning and are well-supplied.

“Iraq has a new currency,” the president continued, “the first battalion of a new army, representative local governments and a governing council with an aggressive timetable for national sovereignty. This is substantial progress, and much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germany and Japan after World War II.”

As British Prime Minister Tony Blair listened, Bush stated: “A forward strategy of freedom must also apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is a difficult period in a part of the world that has known many. Yet our commitment remains firm. We seek justice and dignity. We seek a viable, independent state for the Palestinian people, who have been betrayed by others for too long.”

Bush continued: “Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of the shape of a border. As we work on the details of peace, we must look to the heart of the matter, which is the need for a viable Palestinian democracy.

“The long-suffering Palestinian people deserve better,” Bush went on. “They deserve true leaders capable of creating and governing a Palestinian state. Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can bring about a Palestinian state and a secure Israel.

“Those who would lead a new Palestine should adopt a peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people and create reformed institutions of a stable democracy,” the president stated. “Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice the final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences.”

American columnist David Ignatius called the speech one of Bush’s best, pointing out that it drew praise from hostile commentators. According to Ignatius, what many British observers disliked about the speech was the “arrogance, belligerence, boorishness and self-absorption” that it conveyed.

A high point for those opposed to Bush was the felling of the larger-than-life-sized effigy of the president at Trafalgar Square, recalling the toppling in Baghdad of the statue of Saddam Hussain. Scotland Yard reported that the protesters numbered approximately 110,000, versus the 200,000 people claimed by rally organizers.

 

A Disappointed Blair

Overall, it became clear that Prime Minister Blair was disappointed that Bush made no serious efforts to appeal to the British public. The domestically beleaguered Blair might have expected more support from his American counterpart, particularly in supporting the Palestinians—a move which would have been popular in Europe as well as Britain. Blair had been pushing Washington to take a more assertive role on the Palestinian issue to counter the widespread conviction in Europe that the U.S. is far too sympathetic toward Israel.

Nor was there any progress in addressing the issue of British subjects held in U.S. detention camps at Guantanamo Bay’s Camp X-Ray with no relief in sight.

As a result, all Blair could come up with were lame statements that we “have stated our opposition” on these questions of importance to Britons.

The Nov. 15 bombings of two synagogues in Istanbul formed a somber backdrop to the president’s visit. The subsequent bombings five days later, during the presidential visit to London, of the British consulate and a British bank in Istanbul only intensified the instability radiating from occupied Iraq and Palestine.

Since Bush’s return to Washington, his administration has been slightly more reassuring, announcing that penalties will be assessed against Israel because of its expansion of the apartheid wall deep into Palestinian territory on the West Bank.

Although the penalty will take the form of minor cuts—some $290 million—from the latest tranche of loan guarantees awarded earlier this year to the Jewish state, this marks the first time that the U.S. will reduce credit in response to Israeli actions. The penalties should have at least some effect in reducing Israel’s financial credibility.

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

< Prev		Next >