Blair Doctrine

[John Simkin]

Why many debaters excel in blaming Bush for doing to little is a riddle for me in respect of that and also when comparing for example with Clinton, Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair etc. records on this question. And as for Kerry, he still is untried and unknown in the context of Middle East.

The reason why people are so critical of George Bush is that his policies have increased the conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. This is especially true of his “war against terrorism” policy.

Richard Clarke was Bush’s chief counter-terrorism adviser until retiring last year. Last night he gave an interview on the CBS current affairs programme, 60 Minutes. Clarke claimed that Bush ignored warnings about the attack on the USA by terrorists because of his obsession with Iraq.

One of Mr Clarke's tasks was to chair the administration's counter-terrorism and security group, a panel of CIA, FBI and White House experts that met several times a week to assess foreign threats. He said his urgent request for a cabinet-level meeting on the possibility of a terrorist assault was only granted a few days before the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. At crisis meetings in the White House the day after those attacks, Mr Clarke said he expected to discuss how to strike back at al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, and was surprised when the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, quickly shifted the subject to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Mr Clarke said in last night's interview. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaida is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq." Clarke initially thought that Mr Rumsfeld was joking, but quickly discovered that this was the view of Bush.

Clarke was commissioned to write a report on 9/11. The report concluded that Iraq had few links with al-Qaida and no involvement in the September 11 attacks. He said: "We sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the national security adviser or deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer ... Do it again.'

It is this obsession to punish the Iraq that has dominated Bush’s policy in the Middle East. While he remains there is no chance of peace in the Middle East. John Kerry might not end up being any better, but he can hardly be any worse than Bush.

[Dalibor Svoboda]

I do strongly feel that you didn’t answer the crucial point of the debate exchanges between me and cd mckie despite quoting me, namely:

I often wonder what we (governments, politicians and debaters in Europe) are not asking the USA to deal with in order to create a better world as we Europeans would like to have it. Did you ever try to write down a list of Europeans demands on USA policy and also of our rejections of the USA steps when they didn’t suite Europe? How long do you think that list would be?

Why do we expect Kerry (or Bush) to fix the Palestinian crises?? Why do we never ask Romano Prodi, Javier Solana or Jacques Chirac together with Gerhard Schroeder to do that instead??

After all even a little country as Norway did try!!

Or why basically no one suggested yet that Tony Blair should have a try? It was the British colonial policy which helped to create much of the “Middle East” as it does exist now, once in the twenties and then again after the Second World War.

Or are you by your contribution starting yet another debate thread inside “Blair Doctrine” debate?

Edited March 22, 2004 by Dalibor Svoboda

[Chris McKie]

I'm not sure how much further we can take this debate, Dalibor. It has been interesting to debate with you and I respect your opinions. I think the main points of difference between us (and indeed, John Simkin enters into the equation as well) are as follows (please corect me if I'm wrong!):

1. You seem to think that Bush has attempted to deal with the Palestinian issue, partly through the invasion of Iraq. I would say that, at best, the Iraq War has had a neutral impact on the conflict between Palestine and Israel. John Simkin appears to argue that Bush's "policies have increased the conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East." So the first question we disagree on is: how successfully has Bush dealt with the Arab-Israeli problem?

2. You also seem to credit Bush with making as good an attempt as some recent politicians (e.g. Clinton) to deal with the crisis through the US President's Road Map. I remember, rather naively, being quite 'excited' when the Road Map was announced. I am now of the opinion that Bush's priorities have changed post 9/11. He wishes to concentrate on the 'War against terrorism'. Whilst you and I may be in agreement with Bush's policy in Afghanistan (and Iraq), I think that he should do more to foster better relations between Palestinians and Israelis. Unless he does that the Americans will never 'win' the war against terrorism. The Iraq War is now over (athough of course the crisis in that country still persists), so I would argue that Bush needs to redouble his efforts to place the Road Map at the top of his agenda.

3. You seem to argue that us Europeans are expecting too much of the Americans and we should play more of a role in the Middle East. To an extent I would agree with you and I refer you back to my last post concerning attempts by the Blair government to kickstart the process by offering technical expertise to the PA. However, I would also argue that the Israelis are much more likely to be influenced by Washington than anyone else. If Bush is serious about stamping out terrorism, he will have to tackle the crisis between the Palestinians and Israelis. No more pre-emptive strikes should be on his agenda at the moment. It is time to force the two competing parties around the negotiating table and meet the 2005 deadline for a viable Palestinian state. Other countries can play a part, but the onus is on the Americans as the only world superpower to exert their influence on Israel (just as the onus was on the Americans to overthrow the Taliban and Saddam Hussein).

4. This 'Blair Doctrine' thread somehow led on to a debate about whether John Kerry would do a better job. I take some responsibility for this. It's not always easy keeping political debates on topic. I tend to agree with John Simkin that "John Kerry might not end up being any better, but he can hardly be any worse than Bush." You are not convinced given the fact that Kerry is untried in the realm of foreign policy. He has more experience than most presidential candidates as I mentioned earlier.

I'm not really sure where this thread should go now. I just hope I haven't confused matters still further. Whatever the case, it has been interesting Dalibor.

[Dalibor Svoboda]

I'm not sure how much further we can take this debate, Dalibor. 

I thought yesterday when writing my contribution to our debate exchange that it would be my last posting. The debate between you and me as I wrote was a good one. I do think that your summary of the debate is quite acceptable even if I would do it differently.

Do you know what is the best with this Forum and the debate like we had on it? That all arguments you and me used will stay here for a while and lot of other interested people can read them and probably even react afterwards to them. With disagreement or with recognition as being also their thoughts. That´s good!

And for us two? The future will bring answers to our arguments!

Edited March 23, 2004 by Dalibor Svoboda

[Dalibor Svoboda]

The future (in small steps) is here, Cris McKie. We did move almost 10 months in time now from our last debate exchange.

Yasser Arafat is gone. George W. Bush has been reelected for four more years. (No Kerry around, to mend the situation in the Middle East he promised to do in his speeches and you was so much hoping for.)

The war in Iraq is more unpredictable now than last time we had a debate exchange on Middle East.

Newspapers reports about assassinations, suicide attacks and bombings in Saudi Arabia. Is there any hope for peace and better living for the people in the countries of Middle East?

Do you have any opinion on the situation in Middle East of today? Do you have any new opinion on the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis right now? Are you more skeptical then before? Or are you more hopeful?

Edited January 14, 2005 by Dalibor Svoboda

[Chris McKie]

The future (in small steps) is here,  Cris McKie.  We did move almost 10 months in time now from our last debate exchange.

Yasser  Arafat is gone. George W. Bush has been reelected for four more years. (No Kerry around, to mend the situation in the Middle East he promised to do in his speeches and you was so much hoping for.)

The war in Iraq is more unpredictable now than last time we had a debate exchange on Middle East.

Newspapers reports about assassinations, suicide attacks and bombings in Saudi Arabia. Is there any hope for peace and better living for the people in the countries of Middle East?

Do you have any opinion on the situation in Middle East of today? Do you have any new opinion on the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis right now? Are you more skeptical then before? Or are you more hopeful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good to hear from you again! The future of the Middle East is far from certain and I can't say I am much more hopeful than I was ten months ago. I certainly don't think the re-election of George Bush in November has helped the situation.

There was yet more violence in Gaza and the West Bank yesterday, with seven people killed, including five Palestinian militants. These incidents have come on the back of Mahmoud Abbas's victory in the recent presidential election, an event which seemed to herald a new era of hope for the Middle East. It is, of course, far too early to determine the importance of his electoral victory. It must be encouraging, though, that he gained 62% of the vote, albeit in a low turnout. Surely this suggests that the majority of the Palestinian people support peace.

It is not all down to Mahmoud Abbas though. Israel has responsibilities more than in the past. Ariel Sharon has stated his desire to meet with Abbas as soon as possible. This is encouraging particularly since Abbas said he is ready to get together with Sharon anytime. Sharon must give his active support to Abbas thus strengthening his Palestinian counterpart in his quest to persuade Hamas to support a ceasefire. Will Sharon do this?

However, above all else, as I have stated in previous posts, the onus is on George Bush (with some input from European countries as well) to take a more even-handed approach to the crisis. This, for me, is the crux of the issue and the main reason why I am generally no more hopeful now than I was some ten or so months ago.

Do you now think, Dalibor, that the invasion of Iraq has had a detrimental effect on the Middle East peace process?

[Dalibor Svoboda]

"Do you now think, Dalibor, that the invasion of Iraq has had a detrimental effect on the Middle East peace process?" wrote Chris McKie a few days ago .......

Former president Bill Clinton answered the similar question, namely “ … whether the Iraq war was worth the cost” in this way:

“It’s a judgment that no one can make yet. I would have not done it until Hans Blixt finished his job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since the conflict was over. We’ve got a big stake now in making it work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn’t agree with the timing of the attack. I think that if you have a pluralistic, secure, stable Iraq, the people of Iraq will be better off, and it might help the process of internal reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I think right now, getting rid of Saddam’s tyranny, ironically, has made Iraq more vulnerable to terrorism coming in from the outside. But any open society is going to be more vulnerable than tyranny to that.” (Time Magazine, June 28, 2004)

I’m supporting these kinds of arguments and analyses of the fighting in Iraq.

Besides that you can compare Clinton’s statement with my arguments I used when debating you almost a year ago …….

Edited January 18, 2005 by Dalibor Svoboda