Five Star Piece: This Sinking Ship of Fools, William Rivers
Pitt -- April 1, 2002
Suzanne's
comments: William Rivers Pitt, with this piece, catches up with
Robert Jensen as having the most Five Star Pieces (3) on our site. I don't know how this guy can be so
smart (I asked him -- stay tuned -- good news is that he's on our
list so I look
forward to getting an answer). The bad news is how depressing this piece is.
But, if you want to look an impossible
reality square on, with all its twisted turns (read Palestine and Israel,
Afghanistan and Iraq ), give yourself a headache paying attention to this.
"American blood will be spent in a too little-too late engagement between Israel
and Palestine to assure that more American blood will be spent in a
cynically-conceived attack on Iraq. Add to this scenario the fact that our war
in Afghanistan is far from over -- indeed, it may not be finished for a long
time if 100 years of regional history holds true -- and that the administration
foolishly and dangerously put the nuclear option on the table...This is not
foreign policy. It is chaos."
Recent events in the Middle East have proven
beyond a shadow of doubt that the Bush administration's complete lack of
engagement with Israel and Palestine will stand as a historic example of deadly
poor judgment. What we see is an administration that is hopelessly in over its
head, groping for a solution far past the time when one could be reached, and
all the while hedging its bets to keep a conflict with Iraq on the table.
Consider the timetable of events: The Bush people came
to Washington filled with scorn for the peacemaking efforts of the departing
Clinton administration. On the eve of the election of hard-liner Sharon as
Israeli Prime Minister, the Bush administration refused to send a peace envoy to
the last-gasp talks between Israel and Palestine in Egypt. Weeks later, Bush
pulled out the highly visible CIA brokers who had been stage-managing a
cessation of the conflict. All the while, Bush and his people parroted the same
asinine rhetoric: we'll help make peace once y'all stop shooting at each
other...or, to put it another way, we'll help make peace once you make peace.
As scenes of horror flash across CNN today, Israeli and Palestinian
representatives speak out. Salting their comments are heartfelt laments at the
absence of Bill Clinton and American engagement in any peace talks. Sadly for
them and their people, the days of American engagement are long past. The
current administration's opinion of the efforts made by Clinton were summed up
by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer last month, who stated that, "You
can make the case that in an attempt to shoot the moon and get nothing, more
violence resulted." Though he was later forced to apologize for the claim that
Clinton's peace efforts led to war, there is no mistaking the truth that
Fleischer was stating the opinion of the Bush White House.
Attempting to
explain the Bush administration's appalling negligence in dealing with this
conflict requires an examination of several factors. Foremost among them is what
appears to be an astounding lack of ability among Bush's foreign policy people.
The one true 'policy wonk' on the staff, Condoleeza Rice, is a world-renowned
expert on a nation that no longer exists - the Soviet Union. No one else seems
capable of dealing with the complexities of the issue. Beyond that lies a deep
fear of failure: no one in the White House wants to make an effort at peace in
that region and risk the appearance of falling short. This combination of
ignorance and cowardice has borne bloody fruit.
There is one man in the
administration with the clout and deft touch to have an impact in this conflict.
Secretary of State Colin Powell is well known and much respected on the world
stage, yet he has been noticeably absent of late. He has visited the region only
twice since taking his position. When the administration needed to gather
support for a war with Iraq a few weeks ago, it was not Powell but Vice
President Cheney who made the whirlwind tour of the Middle East. Cheney's
efforts came to naught, at least publicly; after his trip, the Arab League
released statements warning America against a war with Iraq.
Powell's
silence to date on the Israel/Palestine conflict lies at the crux of the matter.
He is ensconced in an administration that wants nothing to do with the conflict.
Because Powell holds deep reservations about a war with Iraq, he does
not want to undermine his standing in the administration by taking an unpopular
position on the current situation. Powell is keeping his powder dry because he
will need all the clout he can swing to direct Bush and the administration's
chief Iraq war-hawk, Paul Wolfowitz, away from a dangerous conflict with Saddam
Hussein. The one man who could pull Israel and Palestine away from each other's
throats has his hands tied because this administration wants war elsewhere in
the region.
Powell's reticence may not amount to much in the
long run, however. It is becoming clear that the Bush administration will attack
Iraq. American troop presence in the region, particularly in Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia, has increased from 25,000 to 80,000 in recent months. Weapons and
communications equipment are being pulled out of storage and brought to a secret
base in Qatar, which could serve as a command and control point for an Iraq
action that is away from Saudi Arabia, a nation not supportive of any Iraq
plans. Asked whether America plans war against Iraq, General Tommy Franks
replied, "Let me put it this way. We are increasing or improving our command and
control capacity in all of my region."
The violence between Israel and
Palestine, and the recent unanimous warning from the Arab League, complicates
this scenario. A sudden reversal of opinion by British Prime Minister Blair, who
delayed the release of a "damning dossier" of information on Hussein for fear of
inciting a revolt within his own party, adds to the complexity of the issue.
This past Saturday, thousands of demonstrators marched through central
London, chanting "War is not the answer!" and demanding that Blair back off any
conflict in Iraq. Blair is traveling to Bush's Crawford ranch next week, where
he will plead with Bush to take a more cautious approach with Iraq.
The
level of attention Bush pays Blair will inevitably depend on how much he cares
to have Britain ruled by the liberal Labor party; a disgraced and defeated Blair
replaced by a more conservative British administration would serve Bush's
long-term plans. In any event, Bush and his people have never shied away from
going it alone.
Any scenario that includes an American war with
Iraq hinges upon the fate of Yasser Arafat. If Arafat begins to publicly
denounce these suicide bombings and pleads for American assistance, Bush may
have little choice but to send American troops and envoys to the region. Such an
action would please the Arab League, whose support - or lack of resistance -
Bush will need to attack Iraq. This administration's callous lack of engagement
in the conflict may change dramatically because they need this diplomatic hedge
to clear the path to Baghdad.
In short, American blood will be
spent in a too little-too late engagement between Israel and Palestine to assure
that more American blood will be spent in a cynically-conceived attack on Iraq.
Add to this scenario the fact that our war in Afghanistan is far from over -
indeed, it may not be finished for a long time if 100 years of regional history
holds true - and that the administration foolishly and dangerously put the
nuclear option on the table.
This administration has
allowed the Middle East to become a bloodbath as it attacks the Stone-Age nation
of Afghanistan, all the while failing to capture any of the agents behind the
September 11th attacks and guaranteeing a resurgence of civil war and chaos in
that country. Meanwhile, the administration plans for war in Iraq while
virtually ignoring Saudi Arabia, the birthing bed of international terrorism,
because of its interests in the oil game. All the while Bush does
yardwork in Texas, not even bothering to telephone the principles involved in
the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
This is not foreign
policy. It is chaos. If this is what happens when the adults are back
in charge, the world yearns for the rule of those children who believed
constructive engagement served the purposes of peace. We sail on dangerous
waters, a jagged reef yawns before us, and no one is steering the ship.