|
Reforming
the Middle East:
President Bush’s Neo-Con Logic Versus
Regional Reality
By Anthony H. Cordesman |
|
The Arab world may ultimately forgive
the US for going to war with Iraq if the
Iraqi people clearly benefit from the
result, but President Bush’s speech of
February 26 will almost certainly be seen
as a major failure in public diplomacy,
and as reflecting a neoconservative
ideological view of the Middle East that
is decoupled from reality.
A Dismal Failure to Address the
Arab-Israeli Peace Issue
The worst part of his speech, and the
most dangerous in terms of its probable
impact on regional tensions and the
terrorism, is that it dismally failed to
deal with the key problem causing tension
in the region. President Bush dealt with
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the
Second Intifada as follows:
| The passing of
Saddam Hussein's regime will
deprive terrorist networks of a
wealthy patron that pays for
terrorist training and offers
rewards to families of suicide
bombers. And other regimes will
be given a clear warning that
support for terror will not be
tolerated.
But without this outside
support for terrorism,
Palestinians who are working for
reform and long for democracy
will be in a better position to
choose new leaders, true leaders
who strive for peace, true
leaders who faithfully serve the
people. A Palestinian state must
be a reformed and peaceful state
that abandons forever the use of
terror.
For its part, the new
government of Israel, as the
terror threat is removed and
security improves, will be
expected to support the creation
of a viable Palestinian state
and to work as quickly as
possible toward a final status
agreement. As progress is made
toward peace, settlement
activity in the occupied
territories must end.
And the Arab states will be
expected to meet their
responsibilities to oppose
terrorism, to support the
emergence of a peaceful and
democratic Palestine, and state
clearly they will live in peace
with Israel.
The United States and other
nations are working on a road
map for peace. We are setting
out the necessary conditions for
progress toward the goal of two
states, Israel and Palestine,
living side by side in peace and
security. It is the commitment
of our government and my
personal commitment to implement
the road map and to reach that
goal.
The United States and other
nations are working on a road
map for peace. We are setting
out the necessary conditions for
progress toward the goal of two
states, Israel and Palestine,
living side by side in peace and
security. It is the commitment
of our government and my
personal commitment to implement
the road map and to reach that
goal.
|
He conspicuously avoided any mention of
rapid action, new peace initiatives, the
Quartet, and any outline of the proposed
“road map” for peace. At best, he
implied that the US would rely on victory
in Iraq to indirectly pressure the
Palestinians to make concessions that the
Israelis would accept.
His speech effectively leaves the
Second Intifada in an American policy
vacuum, although it is the one polarizing
political issue in the Middle East and one
that public opinion polls show leads some
70% of Arabs to express anger at the US.
On this ground alone, the President's
speech will be seen as a dismal failure by
the Arab world, Iran, and most of the
Islamic world.
Failing to Address Arab Concerns
Regarding Iraq
President Bush’s discussion of Iraq
struck many of the right notes, but was
horribly light on the kind of details and
substance that might have reassured the
Arab world and defuse the dominating flood
of conspiracy theories in the region. The
President struck the right tone and
outlined the right goals in saying,
| A liberated Iraq
can show the power of freedom to
transform this vital region by
bringing hope and progress into
the lives of millions. America's
interest in security and
America's belief in liberty both
lead in the same direction, to a
free and peaceful Iraq.
The first to benefit from a
free Iraq would be the Iraqi
people themselves. Today they
live in scarcity and fear, under
a dictator who has brought them
nothing but war and misery and
torture. Their lives and their
freedom matter little to Saddam
Hussein, but Iraqi lives and
freedom matter greatly to us.
Bringing stability and unity
to a free Iraq will not be easy,
yet that is no excuse to leave
the Iraqi regime's torture
chambers and poison labs in
operation. Any future the Iraqi
people choose for themselves
will be better than the
nightmare world that Saddam
Hussein has chosen for them.
If we must use force, the
United States and our coalition
stand ready to help the citizens
of a liberated Iraq. We will
deliver medicine to the sick,
and we are now moving in to
place nearly 3 million emergency
rations to feed the hungry.
We'll make sure that Iraq's
55,000 food distribution sites
operating under the Oil for Food
program are stocked and open as
soon as possible.
The United States and Great
Britain are providing tens of
millions of dollars to the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees
and to such groups as the World
Food Program and UNICEF to
provide emergency aid to the
Iraqi people. We'll also lead in
carrying out the urgent and
dangerous work of destroying
chemical and biological weapons.
We will provide security against
those who try to spread chaos or
settle scores or threaten the
territorial integrity of Iraq.
We will seek to protect Iraq's
natural resources from sabotage
by a dying regime and ensure
those resources are used for the
benefit of the owners, the Iraqi
people.
The United States has no
intention of determining the
precise form of Iraq's new
government. That choice belongs
to the Iraqi people. Yet we will
ensure that one brutal dictator
is not replaced by another. All
Iraqis must have a voice in the
new government, and all citizens
must have their rights
protected.
Rebuilding Iraq will require
a sustained commitment from many
nations, including our own. We
will remain in Iraq as long as
necessary and not a day more.
America has made and kept this
kind of commitment before, and
the peace that followed a world
war.
After defeating enemies, we
did not leave behind occupying
armies. We left constitutions
and parliaments. We established
an atmosphere of safety in which
responsible, reform-minded local
leaders could build lasting
institutions of freedom. In
societies that once bred fascism
and militarism, liberty found a
permanent home.
There was a time when many
said that the cultures of Japan
and Germany were incapable of
sustaining democratic values.
Well, they were wrong. Some say
the same of Iraq today. They are
mistaken.
The nation of Iraq with its
proud heritage, abundant
resources and skilled and
educated people is fully capable
of moving toward democracy and
living in freedom…
|
The humanitarian aspects of what he
said are very important. So are the points
that the Iraqis will decide their own
destiny. But, there are no details. There
are no statements about how long the US
will stay and how quickly the US will seek
to turn decisions and control over to the
Iraqis. There are no disclaimers about a
lasting military presence. There are no
disclaimers about US control of Iraq’s
oil. There are no specifics about the
planned nature of the US-British military
presence, dealing with Iraq’s massive
debt and reparations problems, how Iraq
can make its own decisions about the
future of oil, how quickly Iraqis will be
able to work on the problems of federalism
and forging their own political system.
The President says the US will not carry
out an occupation but does not address
regional fears regarding putting a US
general in charge.
The speech is strong as a summary of
noble intentions but lacks any reassuring
substance and details. It leaves every
important issue in terms of the public
diplomacy of rebuilding Iraq unaddressed.
It does far too little to defuse the
region's fears and rebut the charges made
by America’s enemies.
Ideological Hopes Regarding Regional
Change
The President implies that victory in
Iraq will somehow miraculously transform
the entire region. Once again, he strikes
the right note in terms of good
intentions:
| The world has a
clear interest in the spread of
democratic values, because
stable and free nations do not
breed the ideologies of murder.
They encourage the peaceful
pursuit of a better life, and
there are hopeful signs of the
desire for freedom in the Middle
East.
Arab intellectuals have
called on Arab governments to
address the freedom gap so their
people can fully share in the
progress of our times. Leaders
in the region speak of a new
Arab charter that champions
internal reform, greater
political participation,
economic openness and free
trade. And from Morocco to
Bahrain and beyond, nations are
taking genuine steps to
political reform. A new regime
in Iraq would serve as a
dramatic and inspiring example
of freedom for other nations in
the region.
It is presumptuous and
insulting to suggest that a
whole region of the world or the
one-fifth of humanity that is
Muslim is somehow untouched by
the most basic aspirations of
life. Human cultures can be
vastly different, yet the human
heart desires the same good
things everywhere on Earth.
In our desire to be safe from
brutal and bullying oppression,
human beings are the same. In
our desire to care for our
children and give them a better
life, we are the same. For these
fundamental reasons, freedom and
democracy will always and
everywhere have greater appeal
than the slogans of hatred and
the tactics of terror.
…We go forward with
confidence because we trust in
the power of human freedom to
change lives and nations. By the
resolve and purpose of America,
and of our friends and allies,
we will make this an age of
progress and liberty. Free
people will set the course of
history and free people will
keep the peace of the world.
|
The problem is that the President does
nothing to explain how the US will help
the region address its economic and
demographic problems and strains. He does
not address Arab or Iranian fears that a
war on Iraq will only be a first step in
moving on to future conflicts. He only
makes a passing effort to reassure
friendly Arab regimes as to what US goals
really are for peaceful change.
The speech implies that US policy
regarding terrorism and regional progress
ultimately rests on the example set by the
fall of the Iraqi dictatorship and by the
eventual emergence of a democratic Iraq
– when and if this takes place. It
relies on the strange neo-con thesis that
change in Iraq will somehow catalyze the
region.
In reality, it is hard to see why this
will be true in a single case. Each of the
23 nations in the Middle East is already
driven by its own internal problems –
largely the result of economic and
demographic problems that cannot be solved
without massive structural economic
reform, new efforts at limiting population
growth, and massive job creation for an
exploding growth in the number of young
men and women entering the job market. The
Middle East and North Africa had a total
population of 112.2 million in 1950. It
was 248 million in 1980. It is 415 million
today, and it will be at least 832 million
by 2050. Even now the region needs to
create some 10 million jobs a year.
The fall of Saddam Hussein will remove
a loathsome dictator and remove a key
threat that weapons of mass destruction
will be used to intimidate or attack a
region with some 60% of the world’s
proven oil reserves. It will not, however,
bring Iran’s struggling factions
together. It will not solve any of Saudi
Arabia, Oman, or Yemen's economic and
demographic problems or reduce Bahrain's
ethnic and religious tensions. Talk of
democracy has little meaning even in the
case of Kuwait and Qatar, where massive
populations of foreign workers will remain
disenfranchised.
Victory over Iraq may make Turkey and
Jordan's economic and social strains
worse, at least in the short run, and will
scarcely catalyze progressive political
change. It will do nothing to change
Egypt, Lebanon, or Syria as long as they
are focused on the Second Intifada and
each is driven by internal tensions that
override any example set by Iraq. The
nations of North Africa – Algeria,
Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia – have very
different regimes and different internal
political problems but it is remarkably
difficult to explain why events in Iraq
will catalyze positive political change
and it can do nothing to solve the
critical economic and demographic problems
there.
Finally, the Problem of Terrorism
Saddam Hussein's regime is so dangerous
that a war may well be worth fighting. The
President's speech, however, is almost
disingenuous in its treatment of
terrorism. The war will not deter the
small margin of true Islamic extremists in
the region or their willingness to use
terrorism. They will see it as the
vindication of all their fears, the lack
of any meaningful effort to address the
Second Intifada will tend to bring
together Islamic extremists and
Palestinian hard-liners, and the
President's focus on democracy will appear
to be an effort to impose Western
secularism on an Islamic world.
There is a near total failure in the
President's speech to address the true
causes of terrorism in the region, and
recognize that we and Arab states will
have to fight against such extremism and
terrorism for decades. We are not dealing
with a clash between civilizations. We are
dealing with clashes within an Arab and
Islamic world that are driven by massive
cultural, social, economic, and
demographic forces and which will
spillover to attack the US and other
Western targets almost regardless of the
particular mix regimes that occur at any
given time. More pluralism, human rights,
and the rule of law are critical elements
of countering these forces, but the causes
are much broader and deeper. Even the best
outcome in terms of Iraqi nation building
will at best be of mild help in dealing
with terrorism. It will solve nothing.
President
Discusses the Future of Iraq in Speech at
American Enterprise Institute
Complete Speech
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html
ABOUT DR. ANTHONY CORDESMAN
Dr. Anthony Cordesman holds the Arleigh
Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies and is
Co-Director of the Center's Middle East
Program. He is also a military analyst for
ABC and a Professor of National Security
Studies at Georgetown. He directs the
assessment of global military balance,
strategic energy developments, and CSIS'
Dynamic Net Assessment of the Middle East.
He is the author of books on the military
lessons of the Iran-Iraq war as well as
the Arab-Israeli military balance and the
peace process, a six-volume net assessment
of the Gulf, transnational threats, and
military developments in Iran and Iraq. He
analyzes U.S. strategy and force plans,
counter-proliferation issues, arms
transfers, Middle Eastern security,
economic, and energy issues.
Dr. Cordesman served as a national
security analyst for ABC News for the
1990-91 Gulf War, Bosnia, Somalia,
Operation Desert Fox, and Kosovo. He was
the Assistant for National Security to
Senator John McCain and a Wilson Fellow at
the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars at
the Smithsonian. He has served in senior
positions in the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the Department of State, the
Department of Energy, and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency. His
posts include acting as the Civilian
Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, Director of Defense Intelligence
Assessment, Director of Policy,
Programming, and Analysis in the
Department of Energy, Director of Project
ISMILAID, and as the Secretary of
Defense's representative on the Middle
East Working Group.
Dr. Cordesman has also served in
numerous overseas posts. He was a member
of the U.S. Delegation to NATO and a
Director on the NATO International Staff,
working on Middle Eastern security issues.
He served in Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey,
the UK, and West Germany. He has been an
advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of U.S.
Forces in Europe, and has traveled
extensively in the Gulf and North Africa.
MORE IN GULFWIRE FROM DR. CORDESMAN
[To access these reports and other
GulfWire on-line archive materials visit: http://www.arabialink.com/ArchiveInfo
for details.]
IRAQ SECURITY ROUNDTABLE AT CSFS: A
DISCUSSION WITH DR. ANTHONY CORDESMAN --
GulfWire Perspectives - January 28, 2003 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2003/GWP_2003_01_28.htm
A COALITION OF THE UNWILLING: ARMS
CONTROL AS AN EXTENSION OF WAR BY OTHER
MEANS BY ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN -- GulfWire
Perspectives - January 25, 2003 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2003/GWP_2003_01_25.htm
IS IRAQ IN MATERIAL BREACH? WHAT HANS
BLIX, COLIN POWELL, AND JACK STRAW
ACTUALLY SAID BY ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN --
GulfWire Perspectives - December 20, 2002
http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_12_20.htm
SAUDI ARABIA: OPPOSITION, ISLAMIC
EXTREMISM AND TERRORISM BY ANTHONY H.
CORDESMAN -- GulfWire Perspectives -
December 1, 2002 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_12_01.htm
PLANNING FOR A SELF-INFLICTED WOUND:
U.S. POLICY TO RESHAPE A POST-SADDAM IRAQ
BY ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN -- GulfWire
Perspectives - November 24, 2002
http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_11_24.htm
THE WEST AND THE ARAB WORLD PARTNERSHIP
OR A "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS? BY
ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN -- GulfWire
Perspectives - November 12, 2002 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_11_12.htm
STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: THE GAP
BETWEEN STRATEGIC THEORY AND OPERATIONAL
REALITY BY DR. ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN --
GulfWire Perspectives - October 22, 2002
http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_10_22.htm
A FIRSTHAND LOOK AT SAUDI ARABIA SINCE
9-11 GULFWIRE'S INTERVIEW WITH DR. ANTHONY
CORDESMAN IN SAUDI ARABIA -- GulfWire
Perspectives - October 10, 2002 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_10_10.htm
IRAQ: A DYNAMIC NET ASSESSMENT BY DR.
ANTHONY CORDESMAN -- GulfWire Perspectives
- July 12, 2002 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_07_12.htm
IF WE FIGHT IRAQ: IRAQ AND ITS WEAPONS
OF MASS DESTRUCTION BY ANTHONY H.
CORDESMAN -- GulfWire Perspectives - June
2, 2002 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_06_02.htm
IF WE FIGHT IRAQ: IRAQ AND THE
CONVENTIONAL MILITARY BALANCE BY ANTHONY
H. CORDESMAN -- GulfWire Perspectives -
June 1, 2002 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_06_01.htm
ESCALATING TO NOWHERE: THE ISRAELI AND
PALESTINIAN STRATEGIC FAILURE BY ANTHONY
H. CORDESMAN -- GulfWire Perspectives -
April 8, 2002 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_04_08.htm
REFORGING THE U.S. AND SAUDI STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIP BY DR. ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN --
GulfWire Perspectives - January 28, 2002 http://www.arabialink.com/Archive/GWPersp/GWP2002/GWP_2002_01_28.htm
BOOKS BY DR. CORDESMAN
"Iraq and the War of Sanctions:
Conventional Threats and Weapons of Mass
Destruction" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275965287/arabialink
"Iraq: Sanctions and Beyond,"
(CSIS Middle East Dynamic Net Assessment) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813332362/arabialink
"Saudi Arabia: Guarding the Desert
Kingdom," (CSIS Middle East Dynamic
Net Assessment) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813332427/arabialink
"Terrorism, Asymmetric Warfare,
and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Defending
the U.S. Homeland" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275974278/arabialink
|
