Daniel Pipes: A failure on all fronts

Posted: January 15, 2008, 3:03 PM by Marni Soupcoff
Daniel Pipes

George W. Bush's policies toward the Middle East and Islam will loom large when historians judge his presidency. On the occasion of concluding his eight-day, six-country trip to the Middle East and entering his final year in office, I offer some provisional assessments.

His hallmark has been a readiness to break with long-established bipartisan positions and adopt stunningly new policies, and by late 2005 he had laid out his novel approach in four major areas.

- Radical Islam Prior to 9/11, American authorities viewed Islamist violence as a narrow criminal problem. Calling for a "war against terror" in September, 2001, Bush broadened the conflict. Specifying the precise force behind terrorism in October, 2005, he termed it "Islamic radicalism," "militant jihad-ism" and "Islamo-fascism."

- Pre-emptive war Deterrence had long been the policy of choice against the Soviet Union and other threats, but Bush added a second policy in June, 2002: pre-emption. U.S. security, he said, "will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." Nine months later, this new doctrine served as his basis to invade Iraq and eliminate Saddam Hussein before the latter could develop nuclear weapons.

- Arab-Israeli conflict Bush avoided the old-style and counterproductive "peace process" diplomacy and tried a new approach in June, 2003, by establishing the goal of "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security." In addition, he outlined his final-status vision, specified a timetable, and even attempted to sideline a recalcitrant leader (Yasser Arafat) and prop up a forthcoming one (Ehud Olmert).

- Democracy Deriding "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East" as a policy that "did nothing to make us safe," Bush announced in November, 2003, "a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East," by which he meant pushing regimes to open up to citizen participation.

So much for intentions. How, in fact, have things worked out?

At the end of his first term, I concluded that the Bush policies, other than the Arab-Israeli one, stood "a good chance of working." No longer. Today, I perceive failure in all four areas.

Bush's once-improved understanding of radical Islam has been reversed, to the point that he uses lengthy and inelegant euphemisms to avoid referring to the problem by name, relying on formulations like "a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination."

Pre-emptive war requires convincing observers that the pre-emption was indeed justified, something the Bush administration failed to do. Only half the American population (and a far smaller proportion of people in the Middle East) accept the need for invading Iraq. This has created domestic divisions within the United States and external hostility greater than at any time since the Vietnam War. Among the costs: increased difficulty in taking pre-emptive action against the Iranian nuclear program.

Bush's vision of resolving a century of Arab-Israeli conflict by anointing Mahmoud Abbas as leader of a Palestinian state is illusory. Would a sovereign "Palestine" alongside Israel drain the anti-Zionist hatred and close down the irredentist war against Israel? No. Rather, the mischievous goal of creating "Palestine" will inspire more fervour to eliminate the Jewish state.

Finally, encouraging democracy is clearly a worthy goal, but when the Middle East's dominant popular force is totalitarian Islam, is it such a great idea to rush headlong ahead? Yet rushing ahead characterized Washington's initial approach -- until the policy's damage to U.S. interests became too apparent to ignore, causing it largely to be abandoned.

At a time when George W. Bush arouses such intense dislike among his critics, someone who wishes him well, like myself, criticizes reluctantly. But criticize one must; to pretend all is well, or to remain loyal to the person despite his record, does no one a favor. A frank recognition of mistakes must precede their repair.

I respect Bush's benign motivation and good intentions while mourning his having squandered a record-breaking 90% job-approval rating following 9/11 and his bequeathing to the next president a polarized electorate, a military reluctant to use force against Iran, Hamas ruling Gaza, an Iraqi disaster-in-waiting, radical Islam on the ascendant and unprecedented levels of global anti-Americanism.

Conservatives have much work ahead to reconstruct their Middle East policy.

- Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/01/15/daniel-pipes-a-failure-on-all-fronts.aspx