After the defeat of Republicans in the U.S. mid-term elections, Donald Rumsfeld, known as the mastermind of the war in Iraq, had to resign as the secretary of defense, which is seen as a major landmark for a fresh start.
James Baker, the former secretary of defense, and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, are co-chairing the Iraq Study Group, which is working very hard to find a way out of the conflict. The study group, which was formed independent of political affiliations, is consulting anyone whose views might possibly help to resolve the crisis in Iraq. There is a long list of people that have been interviewed. It even includes Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Hadley, Negroponte, Hayden and Khalilzad.
This new study clearly shows that the overconfident character of the Bush administration in the Middle East has diminished. In fact, Bush might even cooperate with Iran and Syria, two countries categorized as belonging to the ‘axis of evil.’
Bush, who has boasted about his determination, is now coming up with new and interesting ideas that stress the importance of change, trying to convince the American public that the Iraqi operation has turned into a fiasco. An example would be the statement of the American military that assures the goal has not changed, but tactics have.
We’ll learn of future propositions in a report on Iraq as the Iraq Study Group finishes it before Christmas, and we’ll see how it will affect the Bush administration’s plans for Iraq.
In the meantime, Bush will most likely ponder why he did not give enough importance to his father’s experience with Iraq. As you may know, the elder Bush did not order the American military to invade Baghdad and oust Saddam Hussein, even though the military had approached the Iraqi capital. Bush I responded to questions on why he tolerated Saddam Hussein by saying: “I didn’t give the order to demolish the regime in Iraq since it would have caused incalculable political and humanitarian loss. We’d have had to invade Baghdad and rule Iraq.”
Bush I responded to a similar question when he said that it would be a disaster to be in a position as an invader in Arab lands. Of course, this critical subject is and will always be open to interpretation. For example, some people say Bush I was afraid of losing his Arab allies while others say he was only authorized to stop Kuwait from being invaded by Iraq.
But, in my opinion, both Bush I and his successors avoided going to war with Baghdad because they had no logistical plans for Iraq or the Middle East. The basic questions were the future of ethnic and religious groups in Iraq after Saddam was ousted and keeping Iran from taking advantage of the situation.
Unfortunately George W. Bush gave approval to the neo-con plan for Iraq at the time of Sept. 11. This plan was only part of the fanciful project of democratization across the Middle East. Today’s situation both in Iraq and the Middle East has shown how “wonderful” a plan it was.
Let’s leave Bush alone with his account to his father and move on to London. There is the impression that Blair has learned from his mistakes in Iraq. The day when the summit in Istanbul for Alliance of Civilizations agreed that at the root of general problems across the Middle East is Palestine, Blair made a speech in London where he stressed the need to begin with Palestine in order to solve the question of Middle East.
What can we say? Wake up and smell the coffee? It may be late, but at least they are slowly realizing the truth.
