|
|
|
|
SPEAKING
FREELY
Bush: The strategist in the
shadows
By Robert A Juhl
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click
here if you are interested
in contributing.
Is US President
George W Bush a dimwitted bumpkin who allowed a
cabal to deceive him into undertaking a foolish
war in Iraq? Or is he a competent strategist
following a cynical plan that may bring about a
settlement in the Middle East? To answer this
question, let us begin by looking at fundamentals.
Traditional US strategy in the Middle
East
For decades, US geopolitical strategy
in the Middle East has relied on Israel being the
dominant player. Israel's power to inflict huge
losses on its enemies has kept the rest of the
Middle East players dependent on outside powers
and disunited. This was a strategy that provided
stable, cheap oil prices as long as oil supplies
were plentiful and consumers had the upper hand.
In
recent years, however, this strategy was
becoming increasingly counter-productive. One typical
assessment is in a Council on Foreign Relations
study from 2001 titled Strategic Energy
Policies for the 21st Century. "... Recently
things have changed. [The United States'] Gulf
allies are finding their domestic and
foreign-policy interests increasingly at odds with
US strategic considerations, especially as
Arab-Israeli tensions flare. They have become less
inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for
security of markets ... A trend toward
anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders'
ability to cooperate with the United States in the
energy area." According to this and other
establishment assessments, traditional
Israel-centered US strategy faced a bleak outlook.
At the same time, the playing field was
changing. The rise of China and other energy
consumers started putting pressure on oil
supplies, and producer countries began to hold the
upper hand. With tight oil supplies in view for
the foreseeable future, US support of Israel as
the regional super-power had become a net
liability rather than a net advantage.
It
was time for a fundamental change in strategy
toward the Middle East. The question Bush
confronted was how to reduce US reliance on Israel
in a manner that would allow it to survive and,
with skillful diplomacy, prosper.
Basis
of a solution
A settlement of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the obvious place
to begin. In his first administration, Bush Jr saw
three major obstacles to a Middle East settlement.
The first was former Palestinian leader Yasser
Arafat. The second and third were linked: the
presence of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and a
strong Iraq hostile to Israel.
Bush's strategy:
lay foundations for a settlement. Easier said
than done. But one pragmatic place to start was
to eliminate Saddam and remove Iraq as a threat
to Israel. With Saddam gone, over the near and
medium term Iraq would be too preoccupied with internal
power questions to pose a threat to anyone.
The next question facing Bush was the tactic
to get rid of Saddam. After a short detour into
Afghanistan, caused by the attacks of September 11,
2001, Bush's focus returned to the Middle East
and Iraq. Speaking in early 2003, before the
invasion of Iraq, he predicted a "new stage for
Middle East peace" once Saddam lost power. He saw
the time was ripe to move on Iraq using the
neo-conservative gambit.
Who used whom?
"How did the neo-con defense intellectuals
... manage to capture the Bush administration?"
asked political analyst Michael Lind. It is a
question that has been asked by many observers.
The popular perception is that a clever cabal of
neo-cons used deceptive tactics to sway a rather
dim-witted president into attacking Iraq.
If my analysis is closer to the truth, the
situation was just the opposite: Bush saw a group
- the neo-cons - who were both arrogant enough and
foolish enough to think that their hands could
guide US policy from the shadows backstage. To
Bush, they were a godsend. He used the neo-cons by
letting them think they were steering US policy
toward Iraq. Had the plan for Iraq failed, the
blame could have been shifted to fall on their
heads. If the Iraq venture succeeds, as now
appears possible, Bush stands ready to take credit
as the provider of democracy to Iraq and a driving
force behind a settlement between the Israelis and
Palestinians.
To make this point clear,
let us assume a scenario in which the United
States and Britain had not invaded Iraq but Arafat
had died. Can anyone believe that Israel would be
releasing Palestinian prisoners and inviting
ambassadors from 10 Arab countries to Tel Aviv if
Saddam were still in power? It would be
unthinkable. The difference now is that Arafat is
dead, Saddam is in prison, and Iraq will be
politically and militarily marginal for the
foreseeable future. These key changes have paved
the way for discussions about a settlement between
Israel and the Palestinian Authority. And two of
these key changes were the result of actions by
Bush. They are actions that, in my opinion, are
part of a far-reaching strategic plan.
Not a divorce but a
separation
If my reading of Bush's strategy
is right, then the coming period of high oil
prices and tight supplies will drive the US to put
distance between itself and Israel. Does this mean
that the US will abandon Israel? Of course not.
But if things go well, and mutual hostilities
diminish as a settlement takes shape, Israel will
no longer need to rely so heavily on US support.
So we will probably see Israel scrambling to
cement mutually beneficial ties with its Arab
neighbors. And the US will increasingly be able to
act in accordance with its own interests, without
taking Israel's into account as well.
Waning of negative
pressures
Other factors favoring a renewed
settlement process are emerging. According to
polls, a majority of Palestinians, some 52%,
oppose violence against Israel, for the first time
since the outbreak of the intifada in September
2000. Palestine Liberation Organization chief
Mahmoud Abbas has stated: "I think now that the
intifada in its entirety was a mistake and it
should not have continued." And Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak has begun calling Israeli leader
Ariel Sharon the region's best chance for peace.
At the same time, there is some evidence
that the demographic pressure of the Palestinians
is easing. A recent study suggests that the
Palestinian birthrate has fallen to approximately
the replacement rate. And because of ongoing
emigration, the population may actually be
declining. These factors too are helping to set
the stage for a renewed push for a settlement.
The roadmap
The common
goal is to make progress on the "roadmap",
an internationally backed peace plan that
envisages an independent Palestinian state alongside
Israel. The roadmap, which was launched in 2002 by a
quartet consisting of the United States, the
European Union, Russia, and the United Nations,
envisages an independent Palestinian state
existing side by side in peace with the Israeli
state. Moreover, this year, 2005, is the target
year for establishment of the Palestinian state.
Fortunately, this time Bush comes to the
Middle East negotiating table encumbered by fewer
constraints. As this is his final term as
president, he no longer needs to cater to powerful
lobbies. And by an amazing coincidence, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently
investigating the most powerful pro-Israel lobby,
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC). Although this investigation will not
sideline AIPAC, it will diminish the lobby's
hitherto unmatched power to influence important
people in Washington.
Growing
optimism
Meanwhile, Bush approaches the negotiations with
considerable optimism. The year 2005
"is very important because it is going to lead to
peace. I not only believe that, I also know that
it's going to happen," he has stated flatly,
continuing: "Sharon has understood that. It is
very important that the Palestinians understand as
well that peace is not something that is achieved
with words, but with action. I have reason to
believe that the new Palestinian leadership
understands that and is moving in the right
direction."
Of course, the end game has
not started. In the early 1990s, Bush Sr hinted to
the Arabs that the United States would address the
Arab-Israeli conflict as soon as Iraq was kicked
out of Kuwait. He proved incapable of keeping his
implied promise. The determination of Bush Jr and
his ability to twist arms at the negotiating table
are yet to be tested. If my hypothesis is correct,
however, Bush Jr, in keeping with his grand
strategy, has made far more thorough preparations
paving the way to settlement negotiations than his
father.
Will the son actualize his
father's promise?
To return to my initial
question, is Bush a bumpkin or a strategist? I
think the evidence is clear: he is a competent
strategist who is following a plan. His plan is
cynical, partially based on invading Iraq under
what turned out to be false pretenses. Yet an
unprecedented opportunity to stabilize the
geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is
likely to drop into his lap. With good fortune, he
may rise to the occasion, to succeed where his
father failed.
Robert A Juhl is
a translator and writer living in Malaysia.
(Copyright Robert A Juhl, 2005)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click here
if you are interested in
contributing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Middle East Sex News
|
|
|
