For four years, I truly believed that President Bush was different from the neoconservatives around him. He, unlike Dick Cheney, would deliver a Palestinian state in 2005. He, unlike Daniel Pipes, could wage war on Al-Qaeda and not on Islam. He, unlike Donald Rumsfeld, would instill honor and dignity in our armed forces to inspire courage and decency on the battlefield.
Of course, his actions belied his words, and too often to count. His appointments, such as those above, mocked his vision. But to me, he was truly an innocent man. An outsider in an insider town. A simple Texas boy who was under the influence of sly operators. He was trapped with relics of a bygone era whose power was too great for him to defy. Perhaps he and Bashar Assad, Syria’s president had something in common after all.
So I thought.
On Wednesday, President Bush had his own coming out party as a full-fledged, born-again neoconservative. As prophesied by Messrs. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle, ridding Iraq of Saddam and liberating the Iraqi people was the miracle cure for the region. Bush was riding high after Sunday’s Iraqi elections, and the road from Baghdad to Jerusalem was opening up before him.
Signs of his conversion were everywhere and he followed the script perfectly: He committed the US to reform and democracy, not UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. He dropped the deadline for a viable Palestinian state, one he had set in 2002 for this year, and he even dropped the all important word “viable” (a codeword that warns Sharon not to attempt a canton-like arrangement); he called on Israelis to do absolutely nothing, not even to support Prime Minister Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza (did he fail to see 100,000 Israelis protest what he deemed a “bold and courageous decision”?); to foment reform — not rebuild lives — in Palestinian lands, he will eke $350 million from Congress; good Arabs — Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain — he blessed; reform-light allies — Saudi Arabia and Egypt — he chided to do better; bad boys, Syria and Iran, he warned of the consequences.
Bush spoke as though he had helped draft any number of the quintessential neocon texts. There were scenes out of Paul Wolfowitz’s 1992 Defense Policy Guidance which defined “access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil” as a key objective of US policy and advocated military intervention — pre-emptive, if necessary — in Iraq to gain such access. Almost on cue, the Sunni and Shiite leaders of Iraq requested US troops to remain. To seal any discussion of departure dates, Bush said it would surely empower the bad guys, Zarqawi and his ilk. Enough said, right?
There are even elements of former RAND analyst and Hudson Institute fellow Laurent Murawiec’s infamous slide show for the Defense Policy Board. Laurent opined that Saudi Arabia is “the root of all evil” in the region and worthy of its own Iraq-style rescue — if for no other reason than to “secure” the eastern oilfields. Bush didn’t go so far in his gentle admonishment of Saudis, but according to veteran presidential adviser David Gergen’s analysis on the Charlie Rose Show, he couldn’t recall another State of the Union in which the president upbraided allies.
Egypt got credited for peacemaking, but was mildly scolded for going slow on reform. Laurent called Egypt “the prize” after all the other dominos in the region had fallen. Regime change in a Cracker Jack box, booty included.
In short, the president’s speech is perfect neocon speak. The “root causes” of terrorism have nothing to do with US policy in the region or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather, the surfeit of bomb throwers is a symptom of diseased societies in which people lack liberty. Bush’s inaugural speech confirmed that the US is threatened as long as large parts of the world “simmer in resentment and tyranny.”
Quite clearly, discontent in Europe is not of much concern. Though he dispatched Condoleezza Rice to the continent just hours after his address, there was no grandiose talk of rebuilding ties with the EU. Could the weak dollar and yawning budget deficit be aimed at crippling a few malcontents and weaken what is currently the most significant threat to US economic power? There’s enough ballyhooing from Berlin to suggest it is having some effect.
In the end, it turns out that Bush has always been quite clear: Sept.11 changed everything for him. He took on Osama with the same fervor as his conversion from the bottle to the Bible. Then there was the telltale rejection of George H.W., the Bob Woodward quote in which he said, “You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.” Perhaps he also meant to impugn his father’s rejection of Wolfowitz’ plan, acting wimpishly when there was a testosterone-enriched alternative.
Strength, indeed. But who will speak the truth to American power? For our arrogance and lopsided foreign policy, we’ve earned single-digit approval ratings in Jordan, one of our most-favored Arab nations.
Bush failed to mention Qatar, which is also engaged in extraordinary educational reforms, undoubtedly a form of petty retribution for the government’s sponsorship — and not suppression — of Al-Jazeera.
I fear that in the deafening roar of his own success, with a stable of neocons surrounding him, and without Colin Powell’s wise counsel, he will continue to pursue freedom as Don Quixote did windmills — with reckless abandon and little regard for the consequences of his actions.
The difference, of course, is that Don Quixote was certifiably insane.
— Maggie Mitchell Salem is a public policy and communications consultant in Washington, DC. Previously, she was director of communications and outreach at the Middle East Institute until February 2004. From 1994-2000, she was a US Foreign Service Officer, including two years when she served as a special assistant to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
