Americans are Forsaking Bush

Columns

19 September 2007

By George S. Hishmeh

Like a sinking ship in Iraq's murky waters, President George W. Bush is being abandoned by an increasing number of Americans, some of whom were his key aides.

His address last week that followed the much-awaited but disappointing reports on the security situation in Iraq from the top US military commander there, General David Petraeus (dubbed "Betray Us" in an advertisement sponsored by an anti-war group) and the US Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, left no doubt that the two could not set a date for US troops withdrawal from the strife-torn country.

In fact, the president himself was crystal clear that he will be handing over the Iraqi mess to his successor at the White House. He acknowledged that "US political, economic, and security engagement" with Iraq will extend "beyond my presidency". The Iraqi leaders have asked for an "enduring relationship" with the US, he went on, "and we are ready to begin building that relationship - in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops".

Adding to the president's unflattering legacy in Iraq, another was similarly lurking around the corner. The upcoming "conference" or "meeting" in six weeks' time in Washington where Arab and Israeli leaders are expected to prepare the ground for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. But the Bush administration has yet to show any great enthusiasm about this much-trumpeted event despite the current visit to the region of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Bruce Riedel, who was a negotiator in the 2000 Camp David peace talks and is at present with the Saban Centre in the US, agreed that the Bush administration has limited leverage. He told the Washington Post that "Bush is the lamest-duck president in our lifetimes and now completely preoccupied with dragging out a war in the Middle East, which is extremely unpopular with Arabs across the board." He pointed out that Bush "has not in almost seven years in the White House used his political capital to advance the Arab-Israeli peace process; instead, he has been notably absent".

Air attack

Israel's reported air attack last Sunday against Syria touched off speculation over the aim of the secret operation, said to be a joint nuclear project with North Korea - an allegation vehemently denied by Syria and described as US "lies". More interestingly, there was speculation in a British newspaper that "the raid on Syria has come as speculation about a war against Iran has begun to re-emerge after a relatively quiet summer".

No doubt the French meddling last weekend in this issue did not help. Although French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner tried to tone down his earlier wild remarks that the world had to prepare for possible war with Iran, the thrust of his threat raised additional fears in the region of another Western military misadventure in the making, very much like the American blunder in neighbouring Iraq.

The latest high official to bash the American president for his policies was, much to the surprise of many in this American capital, the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan who said, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Writing in his just-released memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Greenspan declared that his "biggest frustration remained (Bush's) unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending." The last time the government produced a budget surplus was the year Bush took office, in 2001. In 2004, the US deficit hit a record of $413 billion.

Whatever has been the message that Petraeus and Crocker left in the halls of Congress and across the nation about military progress in Iraq following the surge, the unanimous view here is that it is not "sustainable".

According to Carlos Pascual, vice-president and director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, "the picture that's hard to square is how can one realistically create a case that military progress can be sustained without much stronger and aggressive political and diplomatic strategy that matches Petraeus's military strategy".

Although Bush seemed to concede the presidential election next year to the Democrats, the sad thing here is that there isn't much hope visible in what the Democratic Party has to offer, be it in Iraq or the Arab-Israeli conflict which has yet to be discussed fully and courageously by any of the several Democrats running for the country's top office.

George Hishmeh is a Washington-based columnist.