Robert Kagan: Staying the course, win or lose
By ROBERT KAGAN

Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2006
Washington Post


HERE IN EUROPE, people ask hopefully if a Democratic victory in the congressional elections will finally shift the direction of American foreign policy in a more benign direction. But congressional elections rarely affect the broad direction of American foreign policy. A notable exception was when Congress cut funding for American military operations in support of South Vietnam in 1973. Yet it's unlikely that a Democratic House would cut off funds for the war in Iraq in the next two years.

The preferred European scenario -- "Bush hobbled" -- is less likely than the alternative: "Bush unbound." Neither the President nor his vice president is running for office in 2008. That is what usually prevents high-stakes foreign policy moves in the last two years of a President's term. In 1988 Ronald Reagan had negotiated a clever agreement to get the dictator Manuel Noriega peacefully out of Panama, but Vice President George H.W. Bush and his advisers feared the domestic political repercussions of cutting a deal with a drug lord at the height of the "war on drugs," so they nixed the plan. The result was that Bush had to invade Panama the very next year to remove Noriega -- but he did get elected.

This President Bush doesn't have to worry about getting anyone elected in 2008 and appears to be thinking only about his place in history. That can lead him to act in ways that please Europeans -- for instance, the vigorous multilateral diplomacy on Iran and North Korea. But it could also take him in directions they will find worrisome if that diplomacy fails.

There is a deeper reason this election, and even the next Presidential election, may not change U.S. foreign policy very much. Historically, and especially in the six decades since the end of World War II, there has been much more continuity than discontinuity in foreign policy. New administrations change policy around the margins, and sometimes those changes prove important -- George H.W. Bush temporized about the Balkans; Bill Clinton temporized and then sent troops. Clinton temporized about Iraq and then bombed. George W. Bush temporized and then invaded. But the motives behind American foreign policy, and even the means, don't differ all that much from administration to administration. Republicans berated the Democrats' "cowardly" containment until they took the White House in 1952, then adopted that strategy as their own.

This tendency toward continuity is particularly striking on the issue that most divides Americans from Europeans today: the use of military force in international affairs. Americans of both parties simply have more belief in the utility and even justice of military action than do most other peoples around the world. The German Marshall Fund commissions an annual poll that asks Europeans and Americans, among other things, whether they agree with the following statement: "Under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice." Europeans disagree, and by a 2 to 1 margin. But Americans overwhelmingly support the idea that war may be necessary to obtain justice. Even this year, with disapproval of the Iraq war high, 78 percent of American respondents agreed with the statement.

This broad bipartisan conviction is reflected in U.S. policies. Between 1989 and 2003, the United States engaged in significant military actions overseas on nine occasions under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II: Panama in 1989, Somalia in 1992, Haiti in 1994, Bosnia in 1995-96, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq three times -- 1991, 1998 and 2003, an average of one major military action every year and a half.

The reasons for this prolific use of military force have to do with the nation's history -- Americans have been fighting what they considered just and moral wars since the Revolution and the Civil War. And it has to do with Americans' relative power. It is no accident that the United States began to use force more frequently after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Those who imagine that the Iraq imbroglio may change this approach could be right, but the historical record suggests otherwise. Less than six years after the defeat in Vietnam, Americans were electing Reagan on a promise to restore American military power and engage in a concerted arms race with the Soviet Union.

Even today leading Democrats who oppose the Iraq war do not oppose the idea of war itself or its utility. They're not even denouncing a defense budget approaching $500 billion per year. While Europeans mostly reject the Bush administration's phrase "the War on Terror," leading Democrats embrace it and accuse the administration of not pursuing it vigorously or intelligently enough. Nor do leading Democrats reject the premise of the United States as the world's "indispensable nation" -- a notion that most Europeans find offensive at best and dangerous at worst.

In this respect, there is even less debate over the general principles of American foreign policy than during the Vietnam era. In those days, opponents of the war insisted that not just President Richard Nixon was rotten but that the "system" was rotten. They did not just reject the Vietnam War, they rejected the whole containment strategy of Dean Acheson and Harry Truman, which, they rightly claimed, helped produce the intervention in the first place. They rejected the idea that the United States could be a benevolent force in the world.

Today Democrats insist that the United States will be such a force as soon as George W. Bush leaves office. Although they pretend they have a fundamental doctrinal dispute with the Bush administration, their recommendations are less far-reaching. They argue that the United States should generally try to be nicer, employ more "soft power" and be more effective when it employs "hard power." That may be good advice, but it hardly qualifies as an alternative doctrine.

Many around the world will thrill at the defeat of Republicans.

They should enjoy the moment while they can. When the smoke clears, they will find themselves dealing with much the same America, with all its virtues and all its flaws.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, is the author of "Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?he...fd-b1298297bf28

A withdrawal may be precipitated in Iraq by the Iraq Study Group Report ...but maybe not...

World sees vote changing foreign policy
'The end of a six-year nightmare for the world,' EU parliamentarians say
The Associated Press

Updated: 11:26 a.m. ET Nov 8, 2006
MADRID, Spain - The seismic shift that midterm elections brought to Washington’s political landscape was welcomed by many Wednesday in a world sharply opposed to the war in Iraq and outraged over the harsh methods the Bush administration has employed in fighting terrorism.

From Paris to Pakistan, politicians, analysts and ordinary citizens said they hoped the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives would force President Bush to adopt a more conciliatory approach to global crises, and teach a president many see as a “cowboy” a lesson in humility.

But some also expressed fears that a split in power and a lame-duck president might stall global trade talks and weaken much-needed American influence.

On Iraq, some feared that Democrats will force a too-rapid retreat, leaving that country and the region in chaos. Others said they doubted the turnover in congressional power would have a dramatic impact on Iraq policy any time soon, largely because the Democrats have yet to define the specifics of the course they want to take.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said American policy would not dramatically change, despite the Democratic election success.

“The president is the architect of U.S. foreign policy,” the ambassador said in a videotape distributed by the U.S. Embassy. “He is the commander in chief of our armed forces. He understands what is at stake in Iraq.”

'Beginning of the end'
Regardless of the effect on world events, global giddiness that Bush was finally handed a political black-eye was almost palpable.

In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as “the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world” and gloated that they left the Bush administration “seriously weakened.”

In London's Guardian newspaper, commentator Martin Kettle wrote: "The cheering can be heard not just in America itself but around the planet."

In Paris, expatriates and French citizens alike packed the city’s main American haunts to watch results, with some standing to cheer or boo as vote tabulations came in.


One Frenchman, teacher Jean-Pierre Charpemtrat, 53, said it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew.

“Americans are realizing that you can’t found the politics of a country on patriotic passion and reflexes,” he said. “You can’t fool everybody all the time — and I think that’s what Bush and his administration are learning today.”

Democrats swept to power in the House on Tuesday and were threatening to take control of the Senate amid exit polls that showed widespread American discontent over Iraq, nationwide disgust at corruption in politics, and low approval ratings for Bush.

Bush is deeply unpopular in many countries around the globe, with particularly intense opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the U.S. terror detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and allegations of Washington sanctioned interrogation methods that some equate with torture.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez said the Democrats won the election thanks to a "reprisal vote."


'Bush is no longer acceptable'
People across the Mideast also reacted swiftly, saying it appeared the U.S. president had paid the price for what many view as failed policy in Iraq.

Most governments across the region had no official comment, but some opponents of the United States reacted harshly. “President Bush is no longer acceptable worldwide,” said Suleiman Hadad, a lawmaker in Syria, whose autocratic government has been shunned by the U.S.

Iranian state television blamed U.S. strategy in the Middle East for the change. "Experts believe that Bush's wrong strategy in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as financial corruption in the United States, was the main reason for the failure of Republicans in the midterm election."

Even some Iraqis voiced hope for change.

“We hope American foreign policy will change and that living conditions in Iraq will improve,” said 48-year-old engineer Suheil Jabar, a Shiite Muslim in Baghdad.

In Copenhagen, Denmark, 35-year-old Jens Langfeldt said he did not know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush’s values. He referred to the president as “that cowboy.”

In Sri Lanka, some said they hoped the rebuke would force Bush to abandon a unilateral approach to global issues.

The Democratic win means “there will be more control and restraint” over U.S. foreign policy. said Jehan Perera, a political analyst.

Passions were even higher in Pakistan, where Bush is deeply unpopular despite billions in aid and support for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

One opposition lawmaker, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, said he welcomed the election result but hoped for more. Bush “deserves to be removed, put on trial and given a Saddam-like death sentence,” he said.

But while the result clearly produced more jubilation than jitters, there were deep concerns.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told broadcaster TV2 he hoped that the president and the new Congress would find “common ground on questions about Iraq and Afghanistan.”

“The world needs a vigorous U.S.A.,” Fogh Rasmussen said.

Worries in China
Some also worried that Democrats, who have a reputation for being more protective of U.S. jobs going overseas, will make it harder to achieve a global free trade accord.

The accord, said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, “is very important for the future of trans-Atlantic relations.”

And in China, some feared the resurgence of the Democrats would increase tension over human rights and trade and labor issues. China’s surging economy has a massive trade surplus with the United States.

“The Democratic Party ... will protect the interests of small and medium American enterprises and labor and that could produce an impact on China-U.S. trade relations,” Zhang Guoqing of the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said in a report on Sina.com, a popular Chinese Internet portal.

The prospect of a sudden change in American foreign policy could be troubling to U.S. allies such as Britain, Japan and Australia, which have thrown their support behind the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Democrats campaigned on a platform that demanded a change of direction in Iraq, and the war has lost the support of the majority of American voters.

“The problem for Arabs now is, an American withdrawal (from Iraq) could be a security disaster for the entire region,” said Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi analyst for the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15618695/

The Iraq Mandate
Robert Dreyfuss
November 08, 2006


Robert Dreyfuss is an Alexandria, Va.-based writer specializing in politics and national security issues. He is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books, 2005), a contributing editor at The Nation, and a writer for Mother Jones, The American Prospect and Rolling Stone. He can be reached through his website, www.robertdreyfuss.com.

For the first time in American history, Americans have gone to the polls in wartime and rejected that war. Not only that, but they’ve done so overwhelmingly. Just as the election of 1932 was a seismic repudiation of the failed economic policies of the Hoover Republicans, the election of 2006 was a landslide against the Bush Republicans and their criminally misguided war against Iraq.

Amid pre-election polls showing that voters oppose “staying the course” by margins of as much as three to one, the American people have issued a sweeping mandate to the U.S. government: Get out of Iraq.

How that mandate is handled by Democrats and Republicans is yet to be resolved. And both energized Democrats and chastened, mainstream Republicans who want to change course in Iraq will confront a stubborn, blinkered president who, for the next two years, is still the commander-in-chief, and a giant stone Sphinx of a vice president, who has already declared that “it doesn’t matter” what voters think. “We've got the basic strategy right,” Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC News over the weekend.

It may not be popular with the public—it doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right.

So the question is: In the face of an electoral sandstorm of Biblical proportions, how long can Bush and Cheney continue to do “what we’re doing”? Let’s look at five forces arrayed against them: the Democrats, the Republicans, the military, the U.S. bureaucracy and the Iraqi resistance.

First, the Democrats. It would appear, from their initial post-election reactions, that some Democrats get it. “We cannot continue down this catastrophic path,” said Nancy Pelosi, who will be speaker of the House. “And so we say to the president, ‘Mr. President, we need a new direction in Iraq. Let us work together to find a solution to the war in Iraq.’” But the Democrats have shown themselves to be lily-livered vacillators on Iraq: most of them voted for the war (and for the Patriot Act), and their ranks are shot though with pro-war right-wingers, not to mention the revived neocon Joe Lieberman. But, if they intend to retain or expand their solid majority in the House and their potential razor-thin, but all-important majority in the Senate in 2008 without incurring the wrath of the American majority opposed to the war, the Democrats can’t blow it. That will mean that they must become a resonant echo chamber for the anti-war voice of the American voter, who will demand nothing less. The Democrats must thunder from the pulpit, threatening to rain down hellfire, hail and brimstone on Republicans who want to stay the course—while scrutinizing every Pentagon budget request and holding investigative hearings into war crimes, abuses, cost overruns and mismanagement. Expect every general who’s ever called for Donald Rumsfeld’s scalp to headline a House or Senate hearing. And just wait ‘til the new leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees get their hands on those long-suppressed files on the lies that got us into war in 2003.

Second, the Republicans. On the eve of the election, Senator Joe Biden, the Democrat from Delaware, said that a dozen Republican senators had approached him to say that it was time to change course in Iraq. In fact, most mainstream Republicans had long ago written off the 2006 elections, but they are in full panic mode about 2008. If the war in Iraq is still raging in the summer of 2008 and the GOP runs a pro-war candidate (think John McCain), the party will suffer yet another landslide loss. That’s precisely why Representative Frank Wolf and Senator John Warner, both Republicans from Virginia, created the Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker. The ISG report is expected in January, and it’s likely to call for what amounts to a withdrawal from Iraq. Expect Republicans to nod their heads sagely and praise Baker’s wisdom. Even more than the Democrats, it will be Republicans—contemplating the end of their political lives two years from now—who will demand an end to the war.

Third, the military. If the 2006 election is the first time that a war has ever been rejected by voters, the revolt of the generals is an unprecedented mutiny by flag officers against the commander-in-chief and the secretary of defense. The military, it should be noted, was mostly against the war in Iraq in 2002-2003, and its opposition has only grown as the war became a charnel house. Not only generals, but the staid Army Times has called for Rummy’s head. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who channels the Joint Chiefs of Staff and who has called for an immediate pullout from Iraq, plans to challenge pro-war Representative Steny Hoyer for the top Democratic post in the House. Strained to the breaking point, forced to recruit from the bottom of the barrel, the U.S. armed forces will continue to fight Bush’s war—but its leaders will make it unmistakably clear that they do not want to.

Fourth, the U.S. bureaucracy. The State Department and the U.S. intelligence community, in particular, were mostly bitterly opposed to the war in Iraq from the outset, too. Expect both to feel vindicated and empowered. The State Department can begin maneuvering to mend fences with our allies, to convince Russia and China that we no longer intend to push them out of the Persian Gulf, to open lines of communication with Syria and Iran. And the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community can mobilize its resources to provide ever-more convincing rationales why the Iraq war can’t be won. First up: the soon-to-be-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, the first one produced since 2002. That’s being overseen by Thomas Fingar, formerly of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research who is now stationed at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Next up: the ouster of neocon Zalmay Khalilzad, the manipulative pro-consul in Baghdad, and his replacement by Ryan Crocker, a long-time Arabist who recently served as U.S. ambassador to Syria.

And finally, the Iraqi resistance. Without the emergence of the nationalist resistance in Iraq in the fall of 2003, there would have been no war, no antiwar movement and no landslide of 2006. Should Democrats, Republicans, generals or bureaucrats get cold feet about leaving Iraq, they’d better realize: Iraq’s insurgency isn’t going away until the last American soldier leaves Iraq.

Is this enough to shatter the stone Sphinx and get President Bush to leave Iraq? I don’t know. Short of an outright act of defiance by the Democrats, such as cutting off funds for the war, the president can stand firm. He says he will, and he might. We’ve already sunk a trillion dollars into his illegal war of aggression, and it has cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi ones. It’s entirely possible that a thousand more Americans, and a few hundred thousand more Iraqis, will die between now and November 2008. If so, we can mourn them as we go to the polls to finish the job we started yesterday.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/0...raq_mandate.php

KAREN'S RULES ON DIPLOMACY: TALK TO THE MEDIA -- IF YOU DARE: HUGHES SENDS MEMO ON GETTING THE WORD TO THE WORLD - ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 8): Karen Hughes, the State Department's undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, sent a new memo to chief diplomats, top deputies and public affairs officers worldwide Friday, spelling out "Karen's Rules" for working with the media. The memo was given to The Washington Post by a recipient who points out that if all were well, nobody would have leaked it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0701254_pf.html

"KAREN'S RULES," REDUX - (ECCENTRIC STAR, NOVEMBER 8): Actually, these guidelines aren't much of a departure from the way that embassies have handled media work for years. Most of the 'rules,' which refer to precedents and official statements, think about local audiences and channels, ask for help when you need it is just common sense.
http://eccentricstar.typepad.com/public_di...s_rules_re.html

THE AMERICAN ART OF PERSUASION - MARTHA BAYLES (NEW YORK SUN, NOVEMBER 8): Today, the chief messages of U.S. public diplomacy -- that to fight terrorism, America must occupy Iraq, restrict visas, and suspend legal protections for both prisoners and citizens -- are seen as "big lies" by millions of people around the world. We can keep repeating this message, or we can change tack.
http://www.nysun.com/article/43078

IS BUSH UNHINGED? CALLING HANNAH ARENDT - JUAN COLE (INFORMED COMMENT: THOUGHTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST, HISTORY, AND RELIGION, NOVEMBER 7): The president's nanny corps -- his mother, his wife, State Department hands Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes -- know he's unhinged, but are too loyal to share that disturbing truth with the world.
http://www.juancole.com/2006/11/is-bush-un...nah-arendt.html

HOMAGE TO THE COLD WAR - ALIREZA REZAKHAH, TEHRAN (NORTH AMERICAN STUDIES BLOG, OCTOBER 16): "One of the post-cold war paradigms for U.S public diplomacy oriented around total controlling and limiting countries with nuclear power. United States major concern in the recent years was to halt addition to the members of nuclear club especially those regimes which are challenge to American values and interests."
http://northamericanstudiesrezakhah.blogsp...o-cold-war.html

THE 'BORAT' ELECTION: THE WORLD IS WATCHING TODAY'S VOTE TO SEE WHETHER AMERICANS STILL SUPPORT GEORGE W. BUSH - HOWARD FINEMAN (NEWSWEEK, NOVEMBER 7): Across the planet, people want to know: do Americans still see the world the way George W. Bush does? Or have Americans come to view him the way comedian Sacha Baron Cohen -- slyly, through his Borat character -- does: as a rootin'-tootin', boorish fool who breaks every lamp in the antique store?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15601744/site/newsweek/

Q&A: JOHN NEGROPONTE [DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR 18 MONTHS] - INTERVIEW WITH DAVID KAPLAN (U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, NOVEMBER 3): Q: "Are we getting any better sense of how we counter the war-of-ideas issue?" A: "You've got to deal with the people who are going to set off the bombs and shoot guns, so we have to take measures to do that. But you also have to look at the root causes, and that is a longer-term proposition, and it doesn't only involve us. It involves the Muslim countries themselves."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles...egroponte_8.htm

SUNNI INSURGENTS STILL CAUSING MOST U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ - CHRISTOPHER ISHAM AND ELIZABETH SPRAGUE (BLOTTER, NOVEMBER 7): The vast majority -- more than 80 percent -- of American military deaths in Iraq are still being caused by Sunni insurgents, according to an ABC News analysis of data released for the month of October by the Defense Department.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/1..._insurgent.html (scroll down link for item)

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR IRAQ? - JUAN COLE (INFORMED COMMENT: THOUGHTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST, HISTORY, AND RELIGION, NOVEMBER 8): What we can say is that the electoral outcome is a bellwether for the future of American involvement in Iraq. It will now gradually come to an end, barring a dramatic disaster, such as a guerrilla push to deprive our troops of fuel and then to surround and besiege them.
http://www.juancole.com/2006/11/what-does-...raq-fourth.html

THE MORNING AFTER: HERE'S A GLOOMY PREDICTION EVEN GIVEN A DEMOCRATIC VICTORY TODAY: OUR IRAQ NIGHTMARE WILL CONTINUE FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS, AND THERE'S LITTLE A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS CAN OR WILL DO ABOUT IT - MATTHEW YGLESIAS (AMERICAN PROSPECT, NOVEMBER 7)
http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=12191

FIGHTING OVER WHO LOST IRAQ: AS WITH VIETNAM, THE UGLY ARGUMENT OVER THE WAR WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE A CLEANSING EFFECT ON THE U.S. - ANDREW J. BACEVICH (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 7): Figuring out "who lost Iraq?" ought to provide the occasion for throwing out more than a few rascals who hold office and discrediting others -- a process that will no doubt get a kick-start with today's midterm elections.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail

SADDAM'S TRIAL: FARCE OR JUSTICE? - JEFFERSON MORLEY (WORLD OPINION ROUNDUP, WASHINGTONPOST.COM, NOVEMBER 6): The strongest expressions of approval came from two groups who don't often agree: Iranian online commentators and supporters of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that lead to Hussein's capture. The sharpest criticism came from Arab observers who saw the trial and verdict as tailored to U.S. interests and from European pundits opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/

WORLD OPINION DIVIDED ON VERDICT IN IRAQ: SOME CELEBRATE QUIETLY; OTHERS QUESTION U.S. ROLE, DEATH SENTENCE FOR HUSSEIN - MEGAN K. STACK (BALTIMORE SUN, NOVEMBER 7)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...0,1328315.story

A RARE MONDAY POST - MARC LYNCH (ABU AARDVARK, NOVEMBER 6): The verdict on Saddam is routinely being discussed on al-Jazeera and throughout the Arab media in terms of the Republican election campaign.
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark...ered_thoug.html

VICTOR'S JUSTICE: THE TRIAL OF SADDAM - PAUL WOLF (ASIA TIMES, NOVEMBER 8): Unlike the ad hoc tribunals on Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, the trial of Saddam Hussein has been the justice of a military victor in war.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK08Ak02.html

DON'T HANG SADDAM: WHY THE DICTATOR SHOULDN'T GET THE DEATH PENALTY - CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS (SLATE, NOVEMBER 6): You could argue that hanging the chief butcher and torturer would be an act of mass emancipation. But this still seems to be more like an exorcism than an execution -- a concession to superstition and primitive emotion. And we have enough of both in today's Iraq.
http://www.slate.com/id/2152999/

NO CLOSURE IN IRAQ - JULIETTE KAYYEM (BOSTON GLOBE, NOVEMBER 7): More than 2,300 US troops have died since Hussein was captured. Mission accomplished simply will not come with a conviction, however close to the election.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...in_iraq?mode=PF

HE'S TAN, RESTED AND READY: THE SMILE ON SADDAM'S FACE - WILLIAM S. LIND (COUNTERPUNCH, NOVEMBER 7): A quick extraction by Delta Force and presto!, Saddam Hussein can be president of Iraq once more.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lind11072006.html

BUSH AND BLAIR HAVE FORFEITED THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO HANG SADDAM: THE VERDICT ON THE FORMER IRAQI DICTATOR IS JUST, BUT EVERYTHING STINKS ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH IT HAS BEEN REACHED - MAX HASTINGS (GUARDIAN, NOVEMBER 6/COMMON DREAMS)
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1106-21.htm

IRAQ'S ROUGH JUSTICE: THE TRIAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS NOT EXACTLY A TRIUMPH FOR THE RULE OF LAW, BUT IT ACHIEVED A JUST RESULT - EDITORIAL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 7)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-...pinion-leftrail

SADDAM'S TRUE CRIME: THE TRIAL WAS A MESS BECAUSE THE U.S. OCCUPATION OF IRAQ IS A MESS - ANNE APPLEBAUM (SLATE, NOVEMBER 6): For the first time, an Arab dictator was held accountable for crimes against his people. Thanks to American incompetence in Iraq, it may be the last time for a long time, too.
http://www.slate.com/id/2153026/?nav=tap3

BAGHDAD VERDICT - HELLE DALE (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 8): The verdict and sentence in the trial against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, handed down on Sunday, serves as a timely reminder that progress is being made in Iraq.
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.p...07-083644-9433r

JUSTICE FOR IRAQ'S TYRANT? - MONITOR'S VIEW (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NOVEMBER 7): In Saddam's conviction itself, though, justice was done -- for now.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1107/p08s02-comv.html

SADDAM'S FATE - EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 7): Speedy appeals process and a speedy public execution are the most valuable actions the Iraqi government can take aside from the ultimate goal of defeating the insurgency and restoring order to Iraq.
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.p...06-100528-7534r

HELP IRAQ HELP ITSELF - FREDERICK D. BARTON (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 8): Iraqi PM Maliki's new independence is America's best chance to salvage the muddle Iraq has become.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/opinion/...agewanted=print

BACK THE SUNNIS? - WILLIAM R. HAWKINS (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 8): The U.S. sympathized with the Iraqi Shi'ites when they were oppressed by a hostile Saddam, but continuing to support them if they fall under hostile Iranian influence does not coincide with America's "perpetual" interests.
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.p...07-082918-7394r

AGAINST HALF-MEASURES: GO TO WAR WITH MORE TROOPS, MORE DEADLY FORCE, AND MORE VIGOR RATHER THAN LESS - RICH LOWRY (NATIONAL REVIEW, NOVEMBER 7)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA5M...TZmNzUxOTcyODQ=

MANY DEAD ENDS IN IRAQ: HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MORE TROOPS OR A BENIGN DICTATOR WOULD HELP, BUT NEITHER OF THOSE ARE LIKELY - MAX BOOT (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 8): The only real hope of restoring order in the short term is to send American reinforcements. Bad as the situation is today, it could get a lot worse if we simply pull out.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail

TOLERABLE OR AWFUL: THE ROADS LEFT IN IRAQ - THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 8): The only way we can pursue good in the world again is by either shrinking our presence in Iraq, if Iraqis will step up, or leaving entirely, if they won't.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/opini...agewanted=print

AFTER NOV. 7, U.S. STILL FACES THE RUDE SHOCK OF DEFEAT - IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN (SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, NOVEMBER 5): It is probably, not certainly, the case that the United States will be forced to withdraw from Iraq before the presidential election in 2008.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...&type=printable

SOONER RATHER THAN LATER: CUT AND RUN FROM IRAQ - MICHAEL NEUMANN (COUNTERPUNCH, NOVEMBER 7): The right question is: when should the US cut and run? Since sooner is a less bad defeat, sooner is better.
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann11072006.html

A MISGUIDED FAITH IN FORCE - H.D.S. GREENWAY (BOSTON GLOBE, NOVEMBER 7): One can hear the echoes of the Suez debacle today in Iraq because the United States, like the British at Suez, forgot "that force not skillfully shaped to a realistic political end is not a solution to anything," writes Martin Woollacott in a new book titled "After Suez, Adrift in the American Century."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...n_force?mode=PF

STOPPING A PALESTINIAN CIVIL WAR: THE U.S. NEEDS TO RETHINK ITS OPPOSITION TO A HAMAS-FATAH GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT BOTH SIDES FROM WARRING WITH EACH OTHER - M.J. ROSENBERG AND DAVID DREILINGER (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 8)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail

FROM BRUSSELS TO ANKARA - REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 8)
Turkey can thrive without the EU. The EU can't thrive without Turkey.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1162937269...ain_europe_asia
PAID SUBSCRIPTION

CHRIS HEDGES: BUSH AND ISRAEL, MIDWIVES TO RADICAL ISLAM - CHRIS HEDGES (TRUTHDIG, NOVEMBER 6): The blunders by Israel and the United States have left Iran as the undisputed leader in the Muslim world. These blunders have empowered the radical Islamic groups allied with Iran and have indeed ushered in the birth of a new Middle East, one that understands that the days of Israel and Washington's hegemony in the region are doomed.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200611..._radical_islam/

IRAQ AND THE U.S. MIDTERM ELECTIONS
============================================

ELECTIONS-US: Democrats Drub Republicans, Face Own Tests
Analysis by Abid Aslam
WASHINGTON - Come January, Democrats will control one and possibly both houses of the U.S. Congress for the first time in more than a decade after voters snubbed President Bush's Republican Party and prompted Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to quit his embattled post.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35415

U.S./IRAQ: A Convenient Verdict? - By Emad Mekay
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35386

Documentary Blasts Iraq War Profiteering - By Mark Weisenmiller
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35360

U.S.: Republicans Spring a New Winning Strategy - Analysis by Bill Berkowitz
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35335

U.S. Jews Give Bush, Republicans Failing Grades - By Jim Lobe
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35325

Hillary Clinton Urges Talks with Syria, Iran, North Korea - By Jim Lobe
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35330

Belafonte on Thinking Outside the Ballot Box - By Aaron Glantz
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35313

Syria's Peace Offensive
by Patrick Seale Released: 8 Nov 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace is the buzz word in Damascus these days. It is the recurrent leitmotiv of the President’s statements and those of his senior officials. The message they want to convey to the West -- and especially to President George W. Bush -- is that unless the Middle East peace process is immediately revived, the region will succumb to extremism and war.

This summer’s war in Lebanon has lent urgency to President Bashar al-Asad’s repeated calls for a resumption of peace talks, culminating in his statement in a recent BBC interview that Syria was ready to live side-by-side with Israel. "No Syrian has ever said that before," Vice-President Farouk el-Shara’ reminded me in an interview this week.

At a dinner last Saturday night, President Asad told some 500 delegates at an international conference on Syria’s financial reforms that he was determined that peace-making would be his contribution to his country’s heritage.

His words are brave because they run counter to the current Arab mood. Arab leaders are under great pressure from their public to resist Israel by all possible means. Rather than wanting peace, Arab opinion -- elated by Hizbullah’s success in Lebanon and outraged by the IDF’s indiscriminate slaughter in Gaza -- is demanding armed resistance to the Jewish state, even a renewal of suicide bombings.

Such is the rage at Israel’s murderous rampage in Gaza -- which in the last few days alone has killed at least 80 people and wounded another 200 -- that Palestinian and other militants are now taking up the cry of Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem is convinced that the region is at a critical turning point. Either a serious attempt is made to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, he says, or extremism will prevail, with catastrophic consequences for everyone concerned, including the United States.

President Asad, he explains, believes that a narrow window of opportunity for peace has opened, which may last a brief four to six months. It is essential to enlarge the window. If it is closed, conflict in the region will inevitably spread. A radical initiative is therefore required.

"The Israelis need to learn that the world is changing," Mr Muallem says. "Force cannot achieve political goals. Israel’s occupation of Arab territory is the great obstacle to peace and security. If Israel wants to belong to this region -- if it wants to live at peace with its neighbours -- it needs to come to terms with the new realities. Peace can create a win-win situation for everyone. We in Syria want to play a constructive role."

There are great fears in Damascus, however, that the Israeli government is too weak and too divided to engage in peace talks. In the words of Vice-President Shara’, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert does not look like a "decision-maker." He likens him to Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister who missed the chance of peace with Syria in 2000.

The Syrians see no sign that the current Israeli leadership shares the strategic vision of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin with whom Syria negotiated successfully until his murder by a Jewish fanatic in 1995.

An even greater fear is that the Bush administration has no real interest in Middle East peace. "We need the help of the Europeans and the Arabs to persuade the United States to put peace on its agenda," Foreign Minister Muallem says. "It will be to the great benefit of the region, and it will also help the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The Syrians speak with greater confidence these days. As seen from Damascus, the country has survived intense American and international pressure for two dangerous years, 2003-2005. Syrian officials say they narrowly escaped an American armed attack immediately following the invasion of Iraq. Had the Iraqi insurgency not checked American belligerence, they believe they would have been the next target.

Attempts were then made to isolate Syria, to pressure it with sanctions, and even to bring down the regime by forcing the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon under Security Council Resolution 1559. All these attempts failed, and the Syrians now breathe more easily.

Serge Brammerz, the Belgian judge investigating the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, is due to issue his final report on 15 December. "If Brammerz does his work professionally, we have nothing to fear," says Foreign Minister Muallem. "We have cooperated fully with him. We have even gone beyond what he requested." Syria has conducted military experiments simulating the explosion which killed Hariri, and has given the conclusions to the Judge.

What is the Syrians’ calculation? They are greatly heartened that the Europeans are re-engaging with Damascus. The recent visit by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, senior foreign policy adviser of Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair was described by Foreign Minister Muallem as a "wise move." The Syrians hope that Blair, in his last months in office, will use his influence with Bush to advance the cause of peace. But they remain sceptical because Blair has left it so late.

Expectations are also placed on Spain’s Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and especially on his Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, who is well-liked in Damascus, where he has been a frequent visitor. The Syrians also appreciated German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent remark that "We can’t deny that Syria is a main player in the region."

Such statements accord with Syria’s own sense of its regional role, and of the positive influence it can bring to bear on Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- if its own interests are addressed. A top Syrian priority is the recovery of the Golan seized by Israel in 1967. Secondly, and perhaps more immediately, is the need to maintain Syrian influence in Lebanon and prevent a hostile power establishing itself there.

As Vice-President Shara’ explains, Syria has no intention of sending its army back into Lebanon. And it has no problem establishing diplomatic relations with Beirut. But it will never sacrifice the close historical ties between the Syrian and Lebanese peoples. Syrian influence in Lebanon is a reality which needs to be recognised, he says.

The Syrians have great hopes that James Baker and Lee Hamilton, co-chairman of America’s bipartisan Iraq Study Group will not only help President Bush extricate the United States from Iraq, but will also change American policy towards the whole region. The Democratic victory at this week’s mid-term elections has encouraged expectations that America will now correct its aim in the Middle East.

James Baker, former American Secretary of State, is greatly respected in Damascus. He promised the late President Hafez al-Asad that he would launch a peace process immediately after the war to liberate Kuwait, and he kept his promise. The result was the Madrid peace conference of 1991.

Foreign Minister Muallem explains that this precedent is very much in President Bashar al-Asad’s mind. The Syrians believe that Baker would not have taken the job if he had not received assurances from President Bush that serious attention would be given to his advice.

Syrian officials claim that the two years in which diplomatic engagement with Syria was virtually frozen allowed President Asad to focus on domestic problems, such as transforming Syria’s state-controlled economy into the beginnings of a thriving market economy. Private banks and insurance companies now operate in Syria for the first time in 40 years; growth last year was 4.5 per cent; investments are pouring in; and a stock market is due to open in 2007. But between 3m and 5m Syrians -- out of a population of 18.8 million -- still live in absolute poverty, while public sector services, such as health and education, are in poor shape, and unemployment is high. An added burden is the influx of some two million refugees from Iraq.

When the matter of human rights is raised with Syrian officials -- particularly the jailing under harsh conditions of civil rights activists and political opponents -- they point to far greater abuses by the United States and Israel. Western actions, they claim, have damaged the cause of democracy and human rights. Nevertheless, Syria’s record on human rights is improving, says Foreign Minister Muallem. It needs encouragement to improve still further, he adds.


Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.

Copyright © 2006 Patrick Seale

---------------
Released: 08 November 2006
Word Count: 1,367
----------------
Rights & Permissions Contact: Agence Global, rights@agenceglobal.com 1.336.686.9002, or 1.212.731.0757

http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1094

November 8, 2006
Help Iraq Help Itself
Filed under: Post-Conflict Reconstruction, Iraq — PCR Project @ 11:32 am


By Frederick D. Barton
The New York Times | Published November 8, 2006 | Washington

IN recent days, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq has made public his disagreement with the dictates and tactics of the United States, including its proposed benchmarks for progress and the presence of military checkpoints around Sadr City.

American authorities view Mr. Maliki’s resistance as worrisome. But it’s just the opposite: his independence is our last best chance for a sustainable Iraq.

For the first time, a real politician appears to be fighting for his life. Whatever Mr. Maliki’s limitations, we may be seeing the emergence of a leader who puts Iraqi concerns above America’s blessing.

The table is now set for the prime minister to demand the phased withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. In taking that single bold step, Mr. Maliki will do more to develop a political base than any recent Iraqi leader.

By delivering on a key Iraqi aspiration, Mr. Maliki will finally give his people a reason to believe in their government. Iraqi soldiers and police officers will not risk their lives for leaders perceived as Green Zone operatives.

Until recently, Mr. Maliki has run a government in name only. He could not fix a pothole, let alone deliver electricity, a functioning bureaucracy or a broader national strategy. His promises — including a new plan to make Baghdad safe — went unfulfilled. His only prospective allies were Shiite militias, which have their own narrow interests.

But he does have one friend who is eager to be responsive. As America moves away from its Iraq engagement, the United States government is in need of being saved from itself. The administration cannot find a way to leave because of its own early rhetoric and the advocacy of many Democrats for a timetable.

When Mr. Maliki demanded the removal of American checkpoints last week, they were taken down within four hours. When Mr. Maliki declined to sign on to an American timetable for stabilizing Iraq last week, he found himself talking as a peer with President Bush. Iraqis welcome a leader who takes responsibility and stands up to an unpopular foreign force.

The United States has suggested in the past that if the Iraqi government invited us to leave, we would oblige. We must prepare ourselves for this event. While being shown the door is never comfortable, the United States is ready to leave and the conditions are not likely to get better.

The next two years will not be easy, even following this course. Calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops is only a necessary first step to enable Mr. Maliki to deal with Iraq’s enormous challenges. The most pressing are holding the country together, making people safe and distributing Iraq’s oil wealth. Dealing equitably with these issues and delivering results is the best way to expand a political base.

Insurgencies are defeated only when the politics are right. Mr. Maliki must share the authorship of a withdrawal plan with Iraq’s major factions in order to take on the militias and foreign terrorists. Engaging the Sunni nationalists, whose stated opposition to foreign troops has been their central argument, is a start. With the future presence of American forces determined, their role during the coming months would be more likely to enjoy the support of rank-and-file citizens.

The oil deal must get beyond traditional divides. The most promising approach is a tripartite arrangement that splits oil revenues among the national and regional governments and provides a direct benefit to Iraq’s 26 million people. If Mr. Maliki pursues this course, he may well become the leader that Iraq needs.

Mr. Maliki’s new independence is America’s best chance to salvage the muddle Iraq has become. Let’s not get in his way.

Frederick D. Barton is a director of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

http://pcrproject.com/blog/2006/11/08/help-iraq-help-itself/

"WHO'S RUMSFELD?"

--Lance Cpl. James L. Davis Jr., stationed in Iraq; cited in C. J. Chivers, "Marines Get the News From an Iraqi Host: Rumsfeld's Out. 'Who's Rumsfeld?'" (New York Times, November 10)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/world/mi.../10marines.html?
_r=1&oref=slogin

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND THE ELECTIONS - MARC LYNCH (ABU AARDVARK, NOVEMBER 9): The US should have had an aggressive public diplomacy campaign stressing the virtues of democracy and how the campaign and the election would only produce a stronger, more effective American policy in Iraq.
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark..._election_.html

KAREN HAS JUST INFORMED ME THAT I'M VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH DEMOCRATS - RICHARD WOLFFE (NEWSWEEK, NOVEMBER 7): Hughes is seen inside Bush's inner circle as the polar opposite of Karl Rove -- she tries to stake a claim in the middle ground of American politics rather than stoke up the partisan base.
http://www.talk.newsweek.com/politics/defa...asp?item=272176

THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS MUST NOT OUT-RIGHT THE BUSHIES ON ISRAEL - DANIEL LEVY (TPMCAFE, NY, NOVEMBER 9): In a full U.S. reengagement in the Arab-Israeli conflict the allied Arab states could be asked to play an active supporting role -- including early gestures of public diplomacy towards Israel, providing the Israeli government with both vital assurances and an important marketing tool.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/20...shies_on_israel

JOURNALISTS' COVERAGE OF MIDDLE EAST SHALLOW AND DISTORTED - ROBERT FISK, (NEW CALIFORNIA MEDIA, CA, NOVEMBER 12): Journalists in the "West" should feel a burden of guilt for much that has happened in the Middle East because they have, with their gullibility, sold a fictitious version of events.
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_articl...e7e168675751cab

U.S. ELECTIONS: DAY-AFTER VIEWS FROM ABROAD - EDWARD M. GOMEZ (WORLD VIEWS, SF GATE, NOVEMBER 8)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/det...&entry_id=10730

REACTIONS FROM ABROAD SET CONCILIATORY TONE, SEEING VOTE AS A PROTEST TO IRAQ POLICY - ALAN COWELL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 9)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/world/eu...agewanted=print

RELIEF SUFFUSES WORLD VIEWS OF U.S. VOTE: MOST WELCOME RETURN OF BIPARTISAN GOVERNMENT; RUSSIA, CHINA EXPRESS CAUTION - MOLLY MOORE AND PETER FINN (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 10)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6110901780.html

FROM RUSSIA, WITH LOVE: RUSSIA CELEBRATES THE DEMOCRATIC VICTORY - IGOR KHRESTIN (WEEKLY STANDARD,, NOVEMBER 9): While The European Union "sighed with relief" and welcomed the "Canadians of American politics" back into control of Congress after a 12-year hiatus, Russian analysts and policymakers found themselves torn between Bush-bashing gleeful postmortems (a "great victory for democracy") and mild apprehension at the worsening state of bilateral affairs.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...12/927osfco.asp

OUTLAW EMPIRE MEETS THE WAVE: 5 QUESTIONS FOR OUR FUTURE - TOM ENGELHARDT (TOMDISPATCH, NOVEMBER 8): Yesterday's electoral "wave" of repudiation is hardly an American phenomenon. It's global and, if anything, we were way late into the water.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=138154

ARAB MEDIA AND THE US ELECTIONS - MARC LYNCH (ABU AARDVARK, NOVEMBER 9)
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark...arab_media.html

IRAQIS TAKE NOTE OF ELECTION RESULTS AND RUMSFELD RESIGNATION - CHRISTOPHER BODEE, ASSOCIATED PRESS (NORTH COUNTY TIMES, NOVEMBER 9) Many Iraqis say the U.S.-led forces failed to offer day-to-day protection against insurgent and militia attacks.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/11/09...2_0511_8_06.txt

"JUBA RETURNS," AND OTHER SNUFF FILMS FROM IRAQ: THE WAR OF THE SNIPERS - PATRICK COCKBURN (COUNTERPUNCH, NOVEMBER 9): The most recent Islamic Army propaganda video is about a black-masked man identified as "Juba," the Baghdad Sniper" and shows him prowling Baghdad in search for unwary American troops. Snipers have always fascinated film makers, propagandists and the general public because they personalize men making war.
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick11092006.html

BAGHDAD SAYS 150,000 IRAQIS KILLED - IRAQI HEALTH MINISTER ALI AL-SHAMMARI TODAY SAID VIOLENCE OVER THE PAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS HAS KILLED SOME 150,000 IRAQIS (RFE/RL, NOVEMBER 9)
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/...d5bd6cf5ef.html