An interesting commentary from the Nixon Center.

A Clarifying Moment
by Paul J. Saunders and Dimitri K. Simes

President George W. Bush has repeatedly said that the recent violence in Lebanon was “a clarifying moment” for the region and the world. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is right—but in a way profoundly different from what he seems to have in mind. For most of the world, his administration’s handling of the crisis has clarified that the United States outsourced its Middle East policy to Israel in a way that no Arab state could support and has severely undermined its credibility as a mediator. America’s leadership—and its security—will be sorely challenged if the Bush Administration does not address this damaging perception.

One major reason for this problem is that President Bush is not leveling with the American people—and perhaps even with himself—about who wants to do America harm and why. By lumping together all those opposed to the United States as “Islamo-fascists” who “hate freedom,” he conflates the objectives of theocratic Iran and secular Syria, Sunni extremists in Iraq and Shiite Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, and Osama bin Laden—who aspires for a global Islamic caliphate—and Bashir Assad, who hopes mainly to stay in power and ultimately to win more influence in the region. By putting all of them in the same basket, the President is basing U.S. policy on propagandistic phraseology rather than sober analysis of real problems.

The Bush Administration and its supporters are correct that their policies are not responsible for extremist Islamist terrorism. Again, that much is clearly true: terrorists are responsible for terrorism. But the administration is responsible for something else, namely, failing to understand that U.S. policy does affect the extent of terrorist activity and the ability of terrorist organizations to secure new recruits, new funds, and—very important—new state sponsors. Numerous public opinion polls, as well as interviews with suspected terrorists in U.S. custody, demonstrate this reality conclusively. Whatever the President may believe, it is America’s conduct, not its freedom or apple pie, that principally motivates and unites our diverse Muslim enemies.

Reducing Israel’s confrontation with Hezbollah to a part of a global battle between good and evil conveniently ignores the Israeli-Palestinian dispute—and makes it hard for most people outside the United States to take American policy seriously. There is no question that Hezbollah provoked Israel or that Israel is entitled to a vigorous response. But should the President and senior U.S. officials have fostered an impression that Washington supported Israel's indiscriminate choice of targets or its Catch-22 announcements that civilians should evacuate targeted areas but that Israeli forces would destroy moving vehicles? Should they foster an impression that because Israel is a democracy, it is entitled to do whatever it pleases? This idea of democracy has very little appeal anywhere else (even in many other democracies).

And in addition to being morally questionable, the administration’s policy is strategically misguided. The United States went to great lengths to force Syria from Lebanon in order to establish a fragile democracy there. But the country is considerably more fragile now, possibly on the brink of civil war. More broadly, what will be the result simultaneously trying to push the greater Middle East toward democracy and deeply offending large majorities there? It virtually ensures that any democracies in the region (other than Israel) will be anti-American, making Washington more dependent on the very autocrats President Bush wants to ease out—while forcing those same autocrats to clamp down harder on internal opposition if they do indeed want to work with the U.S.

Of course, the real problem is that there is no serious challenge to Mr. Bush's foreign policy in the American political mainstream. Many are increasingly alarmed, but this private talk has not generated meaningful alternatives, with the notable exception of Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). The Democrats' pseudo-opposition remains long on indignation, but short on insightful analysis and political courage. Still, notwithstanding the Democrats’ failure to organize effectively on foreign policy, opinion polls and fundraising data both suggest that Republican incumbents are in trouble—and that the Bush Administration’s foreign policy is partly to blame. Today, even many long-term moderate Republicans would reluctantly welcome Democratic control of the House of Representatives this fall—not because they expect better strategic thinking from the Democrats, but to impose greater accountability on the administration.

White House spokesman Tony Snow is right that “all [conservatives] have the same goal: They want to win the war on terror.” And President Bush is right that anger and resentment are among the root causes of terror. But responding to terrorism with policies that transfer the Middle East’s pent-up resentment from its just targets—the failed governments of the region—to the United States is irresponsible. No improvement in homeland security can compensate for redirecting the wrath of the Islamic masses toward America and Americans.

Nixon Center