And He's Off

"Ah'm headin' over tuh that there middle east to make a bigger mess. It'll be the next preznet's problem, heh heh heh."

REUTERS/Larry Downing

President Bush is about to embark on his first major trip to the long-troubled Middle East region. The man's been president for 7 years and been engaged in a regional war for six. And yet, this is his first major trip to the area. Just how serious is aWol about peace in the Middle East?

Bush is visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories, plus Arab allies Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He said he will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to make "tough decisions on complex questions" so an elusive peace deal could be reached.

"I am optimistic about the prospects," Bush said.

His advisers, however, have all but ruled out a three-way meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders during the trip, dampening any thoughts that the president's personal diplomacy would yield a concrete peace accord at this time.

There's more: "And He's Off" >>

The Middle East: just waiting out the ineffectual and counterproductive Bush administration

Throughout the Middle East, there seems to be a degree of resignation in the air – a sense that Gaza will suffer for the remainder of the Bush administration, and once he is out of the way, the dialogue will commence. The next administration will talk to Hamas, and so will the Israelis. "They'll have to," said Dr. Eyad Sarraj, a Palestinian human rights activist "because they'll have seen that Hamas can deliver."

The looming end of the Bush regime underpins the political thought throughout the region. The political leaders of the region are looking forward to the end, preparing for change, and readying themselves for the coming dialogue.

Throughout the region, the disdain is virtually palpable, even among people like Dr. Sarraj, who consider themselves friends of the United States. The aura of just waiting it out does not bode well for any future Bush administration initiatives where the Israel/Palestine dilemma is concerned.

This sense of resignation and time-biding offers context for Condi’s recent embarrassingly inept trip to the region. (We know it was a failure because we didn’t hear anything about it.) The trip was such a flop that the tepid response by the Saudis that they might consider attending a U.S. sponsored summit was hailed as a significant development.

One Egyptian diplomat put it about as bluntly as possible "No one likes American policy."

The Israeli’s are equally critical:

A senior Israeli official sat silently for several seconds after he was asked which negotiating approach was most likely to lead to progress in peace talks with Israel's Arab neighbors. Then he laughed and, in flawless English, suggested to a colleague that he must not have understood the question. "I don't see any promising pathway," he said. "There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and what people believe."

The Israeli government understands that to have peace with Syria "means giving back the Golan Heights," the strategic high ground that Israel seized in 1967, and "we're willing to discuss it," he said. But with Bush insisting "from the Oval Office" that the U.S. won't talk to Syria, nothing can be expected. "The Syrians really want to talk to the United States," the official said. Even among government officials in Iraq there's little embrace of Bush policy, and surprising expressions of distrust.

Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, with three decades in clandestine service, sworn to protect the Jewish state from enemies such as Hamas, now speaks aloud what was unthinkable until recently. “It is time to negotiate with the movements leaders.” (The leaders he now advocates dialogue with are the same leaders Mossad has made a policy of targeting for assassination.)

The Hamas takeover of Gaza in June effectively split the Palestinians into Gaza, controlled by Hamas, and the West Bank, politically dominated by the more secular Fatah party and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his appointed prime minister, Salam Fayad.

In response, the White House has rolled out what it calls a "West-Bank-first" strategy. (Without batting an eyelash that the strategy was “Gaza First” right up to the moment it blew up in their faces.)

The “new” approach envisions financial, political and diplomatic support for Mr. Abbas and Fatah. The thinking is that life can be improved in the West Bank to such a degree that support for Hamas will evaporate in both the West Bank and Gaza. Simultaneously, Washington maneuvers to work with Israel to isolate Hamas further, while refusing to talk to the leaders.

"I don't say we should talk to Hamas out of sympathy to them. I have no sympathy whatsoever for Hamas. I think they are a ghastly crowd," Mr. Halevy says. "But I have not seen anybody who says the Abbas-Fayad tandem is going to do the job."

Mr. Halevy says defeating Hamas politically is unrealistic, given its enduring popularity among Palestinians. Hamas defeated Fatah in Palestinian parliamentary elections last year.

"The danger is that they will not be defeated, that they will become more despairing...and they will no longer feel constrained by anything, because there is nothing left for them to hope for," he says.

Then he said something that truly gives me hope. When the former Mossad chief finally “gets it” there is reason to rejoice. "We don't need their recognition," he says. "We are a sovereign state...They need us to recognize them. The shoe is on the wrong foot." (Really, who cares whether Hamas recognizes Israel or not?) We're dealing in issues which are existential to free society," Mr. Halevy says. "When you look around for potential allies in this war, sometimes you have to settle for strange bedfellows."

There's more: "The Middle East: just waiting out the ineffectual and counterproductive Bush administration" >>

Setting the Mideast on fire

Retired U.S Army Colonel Pat Lang, the former head of Middle East intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) at the Pentagon, discussed the situation in Gaza with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Key points: American foreign policy has gone down the wrong track: invading Iraq blew the lid off, weakened America's influence, and damaged the U.S. military's capability to intervene elsewhere in the region. The U.S. must step up diplomatic efforts with Iran, Syria, among others. IOW, see what you get when you trust Republicans with national security? One giant clusterfuck.

Watch the video. Transcript below the fold.



BLITZER: How worried should the -- concerned should the U.S. be that what has happened in Gaza -- Hamas taking over there, getting rid of Fatah -- could spread and then happen on the West Bank, as well?

LANG: Well, I think it's a possibility. I mean the fact of the matter is that, however, unpleasant it is to us, the Palestinian people, in elections that everybody says were pretty fair, in fact, elected these guys to run the parliamentary government. And, in fact, it's very difficult to choose other people's leaders for them, in the long run.

So I think maybe American policy has been on the wrong track in this. You know, no matter how much we might -- how much we may dislike these guys, they have offered a truce to Israel over -- for a 10 year period, and we ought to be looking at that as the best alternative of a group of bad alternatives.

BLITZER: Earlier today, Saeb Erakat, a well-known Palestinian figure here on CNN, a Fatah member, suggested that outside forces were instigating this Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence. And he also said this.... Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAEB ERAKAT, CHIEF PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: We are determined not to allow what happened in Gaza to happen in the West Bank. And we stand tall with this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Suggesting it's part of a bigger regional problem. And a lot of experts, as you know, see the hand of Iran, maybe Syria, in a lot of this mischief.

LANG: Well, with regard to what he said about the West Bank, they were determined to not have this happen in Gaza as well. I think, you know, as you've been saying today, in fact, there's a major stress being put on the region by the fact that the Iranians are seeking to realize what they think of as their place in the sun, expanding their influence, getting recognized as being a paramount power to Islam, things like that, on the other hand.

On the other hand, the United States government has its own agenda, seeking westernization and democracy. These two things are exacerbating local conflicts of this kind in a tremendous way. And the real problem in this region is between us and the Iranians, really.

BLITZER: How much of this current explosion of violence in Iraq, in Gaza, in Lebanon, a threat potentially between Turkey and Kurdistan in the North, is a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, getting rid of Saddam Hussein?

LANG: Well, the specifics of the invasion of Iraq, of course, set off a maelstrom inside Iraq as we took the lid off a jar full of competing factions that was Iraq. And now they're all competing (ph). But there's this larger problem involving the whole region, involved in the fact that we have been pushing the whole region to change in directions in which are not natural to them and which various people in the area seek to manipulate and make use of in order to advance their own particular interests.

So, in general, our policy in the region is not helping the cause of people. Things are being (ph) quiet there.

BLITZER: I asked the question because a lot of analysts have suggested that the U.S. now, given the situation in Iraq, is seen as weakened. And whenever the United States in that part of the world as season as weakened, others want to take advantage of that and score their own points.

LANG: I think it is true, in fact, that people see it as very unlikely that we are going to intervene on the ground anywhere in the region with ground troops because of the fact we are so absolutely committed in Iraq to the very limit of our capacity, as you've been saying. On the other hand, they also know that the United States remains vastly powerful in terms of air power, possession of a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, things like this, and that this country is not something they can discount.

So we do have a lot of leverage in terms of that kind of implied power, plus the fact that there are a lot of things people want from us in terms of recognition and assistance in the credit markets and all kinds of things like that. We do have manipulating levers if we wish to use them.

BLITZER: If you were still at the Pentagon, what would you be advising the secretary of defense and other top officials?

LANG: Well, to the extent that Secretary Gates would let me, I would say that the Defense Department ought to say that we need to seek to engage especially the Iranians, but also a number of other groups around the area, in various things that involve our desires and their desires in such a way as reach some meeting of the minds that will bring the temperature down enough so that we can restore a status in which at least people are not shooting at each other.

BLITZER: You mean talking to Iran and Syria, among others?

LANG: Absolutely. Among others.

BLITZER: Who else?

LANG: Well, I think you need to talk to the Turks in particular as to what their intentions are with regard to our Kurdish clients. I mean, there's no doubt the Kurds are relying on us tremendously.

We've encouraged them to set up what amounts to a very autonomous state in the north. We owe them something to that regard.

There are the factions inside Iraq that involve the different Shia militia armies and parties, as well as different insurgent groups. All of these are groups are groups in which we can engage, and which we're starting to do now out in Anbar province with the tribes and some of the secular insurgents.

BLITZER: Pat Lang, thanks for coming in.

LANG: My pleasure.

(H/t to No Quarter)

There's more: "Setting the Mideast on fire" >>

Willful Foreign Policy Malfeasance

Greetings fellow concerned citizens. I am new here, having been graciously invited to join by Blue Girl in a Red State. I am a bit new at this, so I will try not to screw it up.

Josh Marshall at TPM cited an article in Ha'aretz detailing how the United States has forbidden Israel to engage Syria in talks regarding normalization of relations. Not actual normalization understand you; just talks.


"The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.

In meetings with Israeli officials recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forceful in expressing Washington's view on the matter. ...

When Israeli officials asked Secretary Rice about the possibility of exploring the seriousness of Syria in its calls for peace talks, her response was unequivocal: Don't even think about it."


If there was any question about the obstreperousness of the Bush Administration as to meaningful foreign policy, that should be laid to rest. I am fairly pragmatic, and understand full well that the depths of ignorance can always be plumbed further by our politicians, especially the Bushies, but every now and then I am still stunned. Not only do our leaders refuse to engage in meaningful diplomacy, the opportunities for which often appear to be served to them on a silver platter, but they also strong arm other countries to refuse to make peace as well. This is no longer mere incompetence, this is willful and wanton refusal to act in the best interests of the United States and the world as it relates to the United States. Yet, we have become so anesthetized to poor leadership that this will undoubtedly not even register a blip on the outrage scale nationally.

I want my country back; thing is, time is fleeting. Demand is already being formented for the end to the Iraq war and for better domestic poicies; concurrent with those priorities, however, must be a demand for immediate enlightenment of diplomatic policy not just in the middle east, but across the globe. The 06 elections were a turning point, and it appears that prospects are good that we can build on that successfully in 08, both as to Congress and the Executive. I have, however, a deep concern that the damage that has been done over the last six years, and that looks to continue until January 2009, can become so pervasive, so deep, that the upward arc of the United States will be irretrievably altered for the worse. History teaches that all great civilizations have a zenith; let us work together to insure that we have not yet reached ours.

There's more: "Willful Foreign Policy Malfeasance" >>

Egyptian Anti-Torture Journalist Arrested, Documents Seized

Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Theory at Williams College, reported yesterday on his blog Abu Aardvark that a documentary film maker colleague of his has been harassed, and ultimately arrested, in Egypt in retaliation for a film she has been researching on human rights abuses and torture in Egypt. It's worth a read.

Furthermore, everyone should visit Abu Aardvark semi-frequently. Prof. Lynch tracks perceptions of America in the Middle Eastern media, and has made some interesting observations. It's a great resource for staying informed on how the United States is viewed abroad.

There's more: "Egyptian Anti-Torture Journalist Arrested, Documents Seized" >>