[size=5]Bush Strategy in Shambles[/size=5]

Patrick J. Buchanan

April 12 2002

President Bush's war on terror is close to being derailed, and his Middle East policy is starting to look like downtown Jenin.

What happened? Not long ago, President Bush, victorious in the Afghan war, seemed everywhere invincible. But this last month has left him looking almost impotent in the Middle East.

What happened was predicted here six months ago. When Phase I of the war on terror ends, I wrote, the president will face a tough choice: Follow the War Party and invade Iraq, which will shatter his Arab and allied coalition, or try to force a peace in the Palestinian conflict, which will shatter his domestic coalition.

President Bush decided to pursue both courses. He is now on the verge of shattering both coalitions. How did it happen?

Just weeks ago, Vice President Cheney was sent to the Mideast to line up Arab recruits for the march on Baghdad. But in every capital, he found zero Arab support for a U.S. invasion and angry Arab insistence that America get the Middle East "peace process" back on track. That is the message a chastened Cheney brought home.

Then events took charge. A Hamas suicide bomber carried out the Passover massacre, and Ariel Sharon decided to settle the hash of the man he believes to be the godfather of all anti-Jewish terror: Yasser Arafat.

When the president, in a rambling Easter weekend interview, said that his sympathy lay with Sharon, a firestorm swept the Arab world. The president was warned that his Arab allies, such as the king of Jordan, might be in mortal peril of violent overthrow.

So the president did a stunning about-face. Calling on Sharon to get his troops out of Palestinian cities, he sent Secretary Powell to the region to effect a cease-fire. But when the president moved off the Baghdad war track and onto the Oslo peace track, he scheduled a confrontation with Sharon and his U.S. allies. For Sharon rejects Oslo's land-for-peace formula as an Arab scheme to shrink Israel and enlarge the Arafat enclave for a final assault on the Jewish state.

Today, the president's Mideast policy collides with Sharon's on almost every point. The president demands a cease-fire, an end to Israeli incursions in the West Bank, negotiations now between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the dismantling of Israeli settlements and Israel's withdrawal to something like its 1967 borders.

How far apart are he and Sharon?

Colin Powell was quoted in Madrid as saying, "(Arafat) is the partner that Israel will have to deal with," even as Sharon was calling the Powell decision to meet Arafat "a tragic mistake." Sharon's envoy to the U.S. media, Benjamin Netanyahu, says: "The Oslo agreements are dead. Arafat killed them." He says Arafat should be deported. "You cannot uproot terror without uprooting (the Palestinian Authority)."

"I do not accept the word 'Palestinian state,'" Netanyahu told The Washington Times, which added, "(Netanyahu) would apportion an autonomous Palestinian area, overseen by Israel." This is the Bantustan solution no Palestinian leader could accept without meeting the fate of Anwar Sadat. Where, then, do we stand?

-continued-

Sharon considers Arafat a terrorist and is resolved to smash his Palestinian Authority as a nest of terrorists. He has never shaken hands with Arafat and has no intention of negotiating with him or of going back to the Oslo process or of accepting the Barak Plan, let alone the Saudi Plan.

The ball is in the president's court. If Sharon refuses to pull out of the West Bank or negotiate with Arafat, how does the president compel him? And if he cannot bring Sharon around, what does he tell an Arab world, enraged by Israel's re-invasion of the West Bank and appalled at the killing and carnage?

By December 2001, President Bush had overthrown the Taliban, smashed al-Qaida, stood at 90 percent approval, and had behind him a united country and international coalition. Today, he is under attack from his former media allies, Congress is rising in support of Sharon, his international coalition is history, Arafat refuses to renounce the suicide bombers, and the Arabs are celebrating Palestinian resistance.

Ronald Reagan was never in this situation, but Richard Nixon was. In November 1969, his presidency at break-point, Nixon went to the nation and asked the Silent Majority to stand behind his Vietnam policy, then under siege. President Bush may have to go the same route or abandon his Mideast policy.

But he has a huge reservoir of goodwill, and if he will tell America what must be done in the Middle East and the war on terror, he may yet prevail. But does the president know what he wants to do? Does he see how this Middle East war ends or how this war on terror plays out? Has he thought it all through?

DaMan

Or maybe this is all part of the chess game. There are a lot of Intelligence and Military strategists involved in these decisions. Things may be going exactly the way they intended. If you set something up to fail, you are only left with one alternative to proceed with. Only time will tell.

Malpaso, I hope you are right, but I fear you are WRONG!

Nough said!  DaMan

Can't blame GW to much on this one.  Every US president since Truman has been dealing with the Arab/Israeli morass and with the exception of President Carter and the Camp David Accords none of them have come up with a solution.  Clinton, to his credit, got Isreal and Palastine closer than they had ever been, the famed "95%" deal.  Yet Arafat walked away.  Ehud Barak was eventually defeated at the polls, largely on a peace vs security referendum.  Once Sharon was in charge negotiations with Arafat were going to go nowhere.  My sense of it was this administration figured the Isrealis and the Palastinians could just sit and stew for a while.  You can't force someone to negotiate.  They have to want to.  

Then 9/11.  Things got a bit busy in Washington. By and large GW has done very well dealing the terrorism.  But the mideast then choose this rather inconvienent time to heat up again.

Like it or not, no peace can be brokered without Arafat.  There simply isn't annyone else to talk with that has anything approaching his authority.  Even Sharon knows that.  

And the Baghdad idea was a non-starter from the beginning.  I'm not sure even a majority of the American public were in favor that, let alone the rest of the world.  

This is the first time we have faced this so mistakes will be made.  There's nothign wrong w/ pointing them out - the important thing is that we learn, adapt, & react.  Personally, as little as I think of Bush Jr. as a man of intelligence, I think very highly of the job he has done in Afghanistan.  Israel/West Bank is another matter, but probably beyond our control.  Not like Clinton or Bush Sr. had any more success at it.

Watch out for Goad though.  B/c you posted this, you are part of the "left-wing propaganda conspiracy."

Ameshawki, I've repeatedly heard this (95%) deal. How was this "deal" quantified???!!

What was the 5% that Arafat rejected?  DO YOU KNOW??!! Or are you just repeating what you've heard?!

DaMan

PS - What was that 5%?  

Wow, Buchanan being critical of Bush's foreign policy! What a shocker!

There'e no such thing as a "deal", or an "agreement", with Arafat.

This is something we will all see. (...and should already have seen)

Savages don't understand the concept of honor or keeping one's word.

Uh-oh.  You posted an entire copyrighted article.  Get ready to face the wrath of the AR15.com...

[size=4]COPYRIGHT NAZI![/size=4]   [shock]

[img]http://www.verafilm.cz/gallery/himmler.JPG[/img]

"So you vant to plunder intellectual property, eh?"

Hmmm! Nobody seems to know what that 5% WAS!!!!

DaMan [:P]

A perfect example is the idea of a ground war. The hobgoblins were saying we could never fight a ground war in Afghanistan because the Russians did and got their asses kicked. Everyone was assured that we wouldn't. Now, the spin is that bin Laden escaped because we didn't have troops on the ground. Guess what, the next time ground troops are in question {Iraq maybe?}, they will have to be deployed.

Malpaso, bin Laden would have escaped... US ground troops or not!

DaMan

DaMan.

Maybe I can help you out.

Arafat had specific land demands in the land for peace would be deal.
The 3-5% figure is an approximation of the amount of LAND Israel refused to relinquish in exchange for peace.  They agreed to 95-97% of the demand, but refused 3-5%.

IIRC, only a small portion of the Golan Heights, equivalent to about 3-5% of what the "Palestinians" demanded, was refused.

It also wasn't just "promised," Israel actually withdrew from the areas, as is obvious from the headlines screaming that Israel has "occupied" several areas.

"Arafat had specific land demands in the land for peace would be deal. The 3-5% figure is an approximation of the amount of LAND Israel refused to relinquish in exchange for peace.  They agreed to 95-97% of the demand, but refused 3-5%."

CITIDELGRAD87, uh, what land did they NOT want to relinquish?  Don't YOU even know for sure!

DaMan

Reread my post, I told you EXACTLY what they wouldn't relinquish, PART OF THE GOLAN HEIGHTS.

Have I surveyed the Golan Heights?  No. Never been there.  Couldn't tell you EXACTLY what part of the map they said "no" to, in fact, I didn't personally hear them say anything.

Can I swear that the exact percentage is 3-5%?  No.

Did I follow the land for peace deal as it unfolded, using sources I consider reliable for news reporting?  Yes.

You can play the "Are you sure/how do you know" game on any topic.

J Cockring did so in attacking the police and crime lab to get OJ Off.

What exactly are you looking for, if anything?  If your point is to make ever increasing demands for specificity, detail, and a willingness to swear "for sure," you will be successful in your quest to be right because no one can satisfy your criteria.

Consider this, Are YOU sure we landed on the moon?  Apply your "are you sure, how do you know" filter to your answer.

According to you, very little is known about ANYTHING, but I doubt you DO apply the same "critical" eye to other matters.

Why are you so emotionally invested in this?      

Well, it is my understanding that the 5% includes portions of the West Bank [b]and[/b] Palestinian political control of Jeruselum.

[url]http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/01/03/arafat/index.html[/url]

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/06/15/clinton.arafat.01/index.html[/url]

Hey, shotar!  What was the 5%???!!!

CITADELGRAD says Golan Heights........ Sundrop says portions of the West bank and control of Jerusalem!

What do YOU say Shotar???!!!!  [:P]

DaMan

PS - Man, this is funny!    

Hey, shotar!  What was the 5%???!!!

CITADELGRAD says Golan Heights........ Sundrop says portions of the West bank and control of Jerusalem!

What do YOU say Shotar???!!!!  [:P]

DaMan

PS - Man, this is funny! RAF, you can join in on this too! Ideas?!!!  What was the 5%?!!      

Yes we do silly!!


We all know what that 5% was...



Yasser Arafat wanted 5% of all Israeli babies blown to smithereens while their mothers were out shopping, silly!!

That MUST be what the PLO is holding out for. Why else would they kill innocent children by the dozen?

For more beachfront property on the Mediterranian? Give us even more land or else we'll attack and kill your [s]IDF soldiers[/s] innocent children? Nah...

For COMLPETE control of the western wall? Let us finish our desecration of what's left of your holy of holies or else we'll attack and kill your [s]IDF soldiers[/s] innocent children? Nope...

For allowing even MORE Palestinian terrorists to flood into Israel? Let us overpopulate the area with Palestinians or else we'll attack and kill your [s]IDF soldiers[/s] children. Not even...




That mysterious 5% MUST have something to do with just wanting to kill, kill, kill Israeli babies because that is ALL they're doing!!

Da Man, so that's it?

You IGNORED my entire post.

Of course, you had to.

Using your logic, we don't know if Elvis is dead or alive becasue none of us checked the corpse, right?

This IS funny, but not the way you think it is.

The_Macallan, is a real brain surgeon!

I only asked for the 5% that Arafat didn't get!

Evidently you guys are just parroting crap you've heard from your favorite radio talk show host/hosts!

DaMan

My understanding is that the Palestinian objection was that the Israeli settlements in the west bank, including the portions of the west bank that were supposedly being returned to the Palestinians, would stay. In addition, the Israelis would retain full military control and control of water in the relinquished regions. To me, if Israel was planning on giving the Palestinians a homeland, this was a very weak offer. On the other hand, the Palestinians still refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The way I see it, this is going to get very ugly before it's over. And yes, I'm pro-Israel. At least they are civilized most times. Their main beef is Islam's desire to destroy Israel. I can understand how that might be a sticking point for them.

CITADELGRAD87, Elvis died while taking a crap!  

YOU are just talking CRAP! [:P]

DaMan

Why are we bothering with the ramblings of Pat Buchanan?  He has the political and intellectual acumen of a sun-dried turnip.

Gus, you win the kewpie doll!  

I'm still eager to learn how they quantified this deal! [:P]

DaMan

Can I have Jessica Alba instead???[;)]

And you are just parroting that great intellect, Pat Buchanan.  You just simply hate Israel and Israelis, so no answer is going to be good enough for you.  Your Palestinians have had plenty of chances over the years to bring this to a halt, but they don't want to.  I have yet to see the Israelis attack the Palestinians unless your Pals started attacking them.

marvl
What intellectual credentials do have that makes you think you know more than Pat Buchanan?  You must be a Jew or a Black and because he wasn't about to kiss your asses you resort to name calling.

I don't give a darn if he likes or doesn't like Jews or Blacks, I would vote for him and I will if he ever stands a chance.

Best I can tell the 95% is a media invention.

So far as land the Israelis offered to give up 88% of the land area requested by the Palestinians.

Now with the 88% there were a couple of problems:
1)  The land was not contiguous.
2)  The 12% contained the water which was to be controlled by the Israelis.

That is the 95% solution rejected by the Palestinians.

LarryG, gus gave the correct answer several posts back!

Thank-you for playing, Larry!  Better luck next time! [:P]

DaMan

5subslr5, you are also a winner!  You cut through the media propaganda and got down to the facts!  I salute YOU!  DaMan

Ameshawki said,

"Can't blame GW to much on this one."

You can take Bush to whereever you are and good riddance.