Making Allies Out of Thugs –updated–
It's not exactly what President Bush and his administration do best. In fact, they ostracize our enemies as if we are in this world alone. Evidently, the conservatives haven't been paying much attention to Iraq, or what happens when you leave potential allies, no matter how smarmy, on the outside dodging bombs, U.S. made bombs, that is, while their country is being destroyed.
When Bush and Franks, et al let Osama go at Tora Bora, they created a mythic folk hero out of
him, even though he was on the rise after 9/11. But now we still haven't caught
him. The fact is that even if and when we do it will only be a postscript, especially considering the chapters that have come after Osama.
When I read David
Frum yesterday, I wasn't exactly surprised, but wondered if Fukuyama would
be happy to have a new friend. Glenn
and Billmon are talking
about it today too. Frum is looking for a “second best” option in
Iraq these days because he's given up on the first. We talked about it yesterday,
new troops amassing on the streets when 30,000 haven't done the job yet.
David Frum has joined with Tom Ricks, whose education from 2003 to now has been
a fantastic, yet fatal, journey to watch, though he's still saying we have to
stay in Iraq for another 10-15 years. Ricks knows more about Iraq than most
people because he's chronicled the insanity and been caught up in every wrong
turn we made, to come out with his new book FIASCO. I give him credit
for finally making the journey to this book, but that said, he
still has to answer the questions and take the heat, which he brought on
himself by not questioning what he was being told. However, Ricks is certainly
not alone and to make him out the only one in the pitiful press pack who got
it wrong misses the point. The reality is, the entire U.S. press corps did the
same thing, so Ricks has a lot of company. I don't think any of the corporate
press did their jobs on Iraq, which I've said time and time again, as have others.
But David “axis of evil” Frum is a different case. He's Richard Perle's
sidekick, the man who wrote many of the words that had Bush believing the stuff
Rummy and Cheney were telling him. Now Mr. Frum has had a change of heart. As
far as Iraq goes, we're screwed, unfortunately, we're not in this position because
the neocons blew the planning, or shouldn't have concocted preemption, let alone the “war on terror” deadliness, in the first place. We're screwed because the war we waged wasn't
large enough.
This is not, as some American commentators argue, because the Iraqis refuse
to fight for their country. Thousands of brave Iraqis, civil and military,
have laid down their lives fighting or working for a secure and democratic
Iraq. But Iraq has powerful enemies, inside and out. To date, the US has fought
only a limited war against those enemies. Iran understands that the war in
Iraq is a regional war. Syria understands it too. Only the US has tried to
pretend that the war zone stops at the international border. In some horrible
rerun of Vietnam, the US has let the enemy establish safe havens just on the
other side of the line, from which it draws supplies and reinforcements with
impunity. It's like some baby boomer nightmare: after decades of swearing
that we would never repeat the mistakes of our parents, we are re-enacting
the errors committed in Indochina in the 1960s and 1970s, every single one.
Somebody slap this man.
WWIII is their answer. If we'd just bomb Iran, take on Syria, and encourage Israel
to push on through Lebanon, death be damned, we'd be set. But Bush just won't
commit to more muscle. I mean, really, to use Madeleine Albright's line, what's
all this military power for if we're not going to use it?
Note to Frum: our carnage is traveling and the news isn't good for anyone,
least of all us.
Now, with hundreds of Lebanese dead and Hezbollah holding out against the
vaunted Israeli military for more than two weeks, the tide of public opinion
across the Arab world is surging behind the organization, transforming the
Shiite group’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and
forcing a change in official statements.The Saudi royal family and King Abdullah II of Jordan, who were initially
more worried about the rising power of Shiite Iran, Hezbollah’s main
sponsor, are scrambling to distance themselves from Washington.(snip)
But perhaps not since President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt made his emotional
outpourings about Arab unity in the 1960′s, before the Arab defeat in
the 1967 war, has the public been so electrified by a confrontation with Israel,
played out repeatedly on satellite television stations with horrific images
from Lebanon of wounded children and distraught women fleeing their homes.Egypt’s opposition press has had a field day comparing Sheik Nasrallah
to Nasser, while demonstrators waved pictures of both. …
There are a lot of people sounding like they're reading the progressive blogs
today, at least the ones who focus on war and foreign policy. When I read Michael
Hirsch a couple of days ago, I thought I was reading
my own copy. Unfortunately, Hirsch is just drawing his conclusions now. Again, some of us have
been saying this all along.
So here we sit in the middle of a Middle East pit, with Nasralla being made
out to be the next Nasser. I could give you a summary, but read about him here
and his 1956 speech here,
which gives you a real view into the man. Suffice it to say that Nasser symbolizes
Arab freedom, dignity and the power of pan-Arabism or Arab nationalism, regardless
of the fact that many of Nasser's policies for the Egyptian people failed.
Since the Israeli bombing of Lebanon began, Israel has been losing steam and
Hezbollah's strength has gained. Nasralla is now a hero, the second thug we've
made into superman. But unlike bin Laden, if we had a real leader in the White House,
Nasrallah is someone with whom we might be able to deal. Why are Asian tyrants and thugs given respect and meetings, while people like Nasrallah are not? After all, Nixon went to China. Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are now parts of state governments. Do we not deal with them because they're Arabs and Muslims? When are we going to offer dignity to people who have a chance of making the Middle East whole? Yes, they hate Israel, but we can't change that, however, what we can do is give Arabs and Muslims a place to live in dignity and peace. A lack of bloodshed may not stem their hatred of Israel, but it could make it less important once life seems worth living. Or are we afraid to talk with Arab leaders because of what our Israeli ally might say? It's time to ask, what is in America's best interest? Can't we keep one very close, while reaching out to another who can help us all survive alive?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, is how the legend goes. We don't have to agree or even negotiate, at least not yet, but can't we agree to at least talk?
It's important to understand a distinction, which is that Nasrallah doesn't just represent
terrorism, but a whole structure on which the Lebanese people depend, which
became more apparent with Siniora's inability to maintain any control over Lebanon,
as his government weakens. Even the Lebanese army is more loyal to Hezbollah than Siniora, with Nasrallah having the power, which grows with every passing American made bomb that Israel lets fly.
You can't deal with al Qaeda and bin Laden or Zawahiri.
You can deal with Nasrallah and Hezbollah, even the Muslim Brotherhood, let me add. There are moderate Arabs throughout the region, or at least there were before this latest escalation began.
Unfortunately, we won't deal with Hezbollah, any more than Bush has been willing to deal with Syria.
But make no mistake about it, that day is coming, at least for Syria, trust me. But will we ever deal with our Arab enemies, if only in a
practical manner, understanding that there is a larger goal than war? Not as long as conservatives hold the foreign policy strings,
with people like Bush in the White House, who believe you degrade the support
for people like Nasrallah by siding with Israel even when they're wrong.
UPDATE (10:20 a.m.): The press conference with Blair and Bush was incredible to watch. David Gregory asked Bush a question about the violence and how Bush promised 3 years ago that Iraq would bring about a new reality in the region, but instead American's influence has collapsed. Bush could not answer the question. He was paralyzed. It was frightening to watch. Blair finally tried to tackle it, but by then it was too late. Remarkable. Also, Bush seems to be backing down and moving towards a ceasefire, which will give Hezbollah more power, even make it look like they won the war. Why would Israel agree? Bush's policies get more incomprehensible by the minute. This just came in from Billmon. Amen.
Comments are closed.