Too little too late

In an effort to salvage his legacy, George Bush is finally engaged in the Middle East peace process. With any luck, he’ll have the two sides back to where they were when he took office by the time his term expires.

It will be more difficult for him to achieve anything meaningful, considering how he’s squandered American credibility in the last seven years. Already word from the Middle East is that both sides are thinking about who will next lead the United States come January 2009. They’ve learned the hard way — the US cannot be counted on to carry over foreign policy from one administration to the next.

Remember: when Bush took office, US Middle East policy changed course. The US ceased to be a broker of peace in the region. Bush essentially told Israeli PM Sharon to do what he wanted, which caused renewed inflammation between the two sides. The policy remained through the next presidential cycle, and has only now been revisited.

Which brings us to the reason. Bush isn’t running for office. Therefore, he has no votes to court. Considering his dismal record, and the way history will view him, this is his last best hope to be remembered as something other than a total failure. Won’t work here though… I will continue to believe that his change of policy was motivated by domestic politics, and that it may have been a contributing factor to the terrorists’ decision to attack us on 9/11.

Where the buck stops

When you strive to become president of the United States, you should do so only with the understanding that when something goes wrong in the world, you will take the heat. Therefore, you’d better be equipped for the job.

Today, Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by an apparent terrorist who shot her twice before detonating the bomb he was wearing. One more tragic event in a long series of tragic events that have marred what should have been a relatively peaceful, productive eight years for the world, considering that they arrived on the heels of a period when the US was flush with wealth and good standing around the globe.

One might ask, why now? Why pick on poor George? Why not still during the Clinton administration, which saw years of relative calm following the first attempt to bring down the twin towers in Manhattan? Was it because the terrorist leadership (correctly) assessed that Bush would be a bungler who would play into their hands? That the terrorist leadership understood better than his own fellow citizens that George Bush was not equipped to lead the most powerful nation on earth?

Perhaps the core of the terrorist leadership does indeed hate America and all that it stands for, the democracy we hold so dear, as Bush has claimed. But not all terrorists do, or did. Most of the army of terrorists, like any army, enrolls in a cause for reasons that emerge as situations evolve. Most of the men and women who have blown themselves up over the last years might otherwise have been selling goods in shops somewhere, or attending school, or farming, or doing something with no remote connection to terrorism. And what began as a small core of fanatics, isolated in the mountains of Afghanistan years ago, has now grown to become a real threat to world peace. And all on George Bush’s watch.

Of course we will never know if 9/11 would have even happened were Al Gore president instead of Bush. We have no way of knowing that. My feeling is that it wouldn’t have happened. My feeling is that a Gore administration would have taken more seriously that August 2001 daily intelligence rief that warned of terrorist activity involving hijacked airliners. If indeed such activity would have been evolving to even inspire such a brief. Would the terrorist leadership have tested Gore, who was clearly more competent than Bush? Would they have even been motivated to attack the US at that time, considering that the Clinton administration, of which Gore was a part, was actively pushing the Israelis and Palestinians toward peace and a Palestinian state? Or that Gore’s agenda included energy independence for the US, which would mean reduced interest in Middle Eastern oil? After all, the Bush family fortune was built on oil, and while oil has meant prosperity for much of the Middle East, to the radicals it was not only the reason for exploitation but the incursion of Western ideas and habits into the Muslim lands.

President Bush is confident that history will record his presidency as a successful one, that what he began will eventually end well. He’s delusional. If things end well, it will be only because someone else fixed it. What we will have is eight years that shouldn’t have happened the way it did. But with Bush, what else could we have expected?

Let’s try something new with Iran

What most Americans remember about US/Iranian history — at least those who remember anything — is the revolutionary takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. This, most believe, is the single sin in the relationship between the two nations. Iran, therefore, is the villain.

Granted much of the full history is not within the memories of most living people, but it’s recorded in history books everywhere. And while it’s certainly not a requisite for citizenship to be well informed about things like this, it sure doesn’t hurt. Knowledge tends to keep people from drawing inaccurate conclusions.

So, a very brief review of history is in order, issues the Iranians certainly might remember but which the West chooses to forget. They’re the kind of things that would make people angry, and that anger would be passed down through generations — sorta like Remember the Alamo or Remember Pearl Harbor.

Back in the 1920s, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now British Petroleum, agreed to share its profits (85% British-15% Iran), but as time went by the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. Because of this duplicity, in 1952 popularly elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq moved to nationalize its holding of what was at the time the British Empire’s largest company, and the Iranian Parliament agreed unanimously. Following this, the US and Britain attempted to instigate a coup against Mossadeq and re-install the Shah. The coup failed, and the Shah fled into exile.

However, a later coup succeeded, which brought the Shah back. His reign descended into a dictatorship, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution and the seizure of our embassy. In the decade following, we took Iraq’s — and Saddam’s — side in its war with Iran. So is it any wonder that the Iranians are embittered against us and the West?

What I would recommend is that at least one courageous presidential candidate remind Americans of this history and propose that rather than posturing and threatening Iran we apologize for our past mistakes and perhaps promise never to meddle in their politics again. I certainly wouldn’t expect the current administration to do this, but if the world saw there was at least some sanity here, our credibility might improve a bit.

Us Against the World

In the face of dismay among world leaders for our apparent block of a cease-fire in Lebanon, White House spokesman Tony Snow said that the US would “push back,” probably meaning that President Bush is prepared to declare “Your mother wears combat boots” to those who criticize us.

It’s always risky to appear to be critical of Israel. But criticism isn’t necessarily anti-Semitic. Most of the world believes that Israel’s reaction to the kidnapping of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah was excessive. Certainly the deaths of many innocent civilians bears that out.

It’s not hard to understand Israel’s point of view, when so many of its neighbors would be happy to wipe it from the face of the earth. But this is where leadership comes in. And only the US can provide that leadership. It’s been missing for almost six years thanks to the Bush administration. An effective foreign policy would persuade both sides that the existence of the other is inevitable, and the only solution is to set aside hatred and coexist peacefully. I’m no statesman, so I don’t know what would be persuasive. All I know is that it can’t be done militarily. It’s failed in the past and it will continue to fail. Right or wrong, force only inspires more hatred and more revenge.

The hatred is spilling over too. Yesterday in Seattle, a Muslim-American shot six people in the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, killing one. Before pulling the trigger, he announced his hatred of Jews. This hatred is apt to spread: with the culture of revenge so familiar to both Muslims and Jews, it may set off a wave of hate killing.

It all must end. But it won’t as long as Bush and Company inhabit the White House. No one in the administration has the diplomatic skills or goals to help achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. So far its policies have only served to inflame an already volatile region. Americans can’t sit here and worry more about high gas prices without realizing that an unstable Middle East helps push those prices up. And contrary to their plan, the administration’s strategy there has only made the region more unstable.