[Peace-discuss] I Bush on the ropes?

[Morton K. Brussel]

I forward what might be called an optimistic assessment of the  
current situation in the Middle East.


Washington's Wars and Occupations:
Month in Review #22
February 26, 2007
By Max Elbaum, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras

SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE

On just about every front of its "war on terror" the Bush  
administration's
position is getting weaker by the day.

There's no way to predict exactly when or where another disaster  
could hit the
headlines. Another level of crisis could emerge out of the already  
failing "plus
up" in Iraq (as the British cut and run.). An uncontrollable chain of  
events
might develop out of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked resurgence in  
Afghanistan and
Pakistan. The avalanche of anti-U.S. sentiment that has swept the  
Middle East (and
the world) could lead to upheavals which shake up power relationships  
in any number
of countries.

It's also impossible to know for certain what Bush & Co. will do. There
are heavyweights in Washington who think defending the empire  
requires at least
some level of Middle East retreat/retrenchment similar to the recent  
Korea Agreement
(see below). But key figures in the administration seem inclined  
toward more military
escalations, in particular an attack on Iran.	

The only sure thing is that prospects for matters in the Middle East  
(or in U.S.
public opinion) to simply continue as they are for the duration of  
the Bush presidency
are slim to none. Something's gotta give.

The challenge before the antiwar movement is to exert maximum  
pressure from below
so that when a break is imminent, it cuts in the direction of peace  
and an end to
U.S. military aggression rather than more war and killing.	

IRAQ: "YOU LOST"

In Iraq, Bush's "new strategy" has resulted mainly in a surge of U.S.
helicopters shot down and U.S. compounds attacked by "new and  
sophisticated"
insurgent tactics. The Sunni-Shia sectarian divide is not being  
reduced. Rather
it has deepened in the wake of the dramatic public charge by an Iraqi  
woman that
she was raped by government security forces. A widely-read Iraqi  
woman blogger,
Riverbend, wrote:

"I look at this woman and I can't feel anything but rage. I know that  
looking
at her, foreigners will never be able to relate. She's one of us. She's
not a girl in jeans and a t-shirt so there will only be a vague sort  
of sympathy.
Poor third-world countries - that is what their womenfolk tolerate.  
Just know that
we never had to tolerate this before. There was a time when Iraqis  
were safe in
the streets. That time is long gone... She's just one of tens,  
possibly hundreds,
of Iraqi women who are violated in their own homes and in Iraqi  
prisons...

"And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate for Iraqis, and  
for Americans
inside Iraq, Americans are still debating - are they winning or  
losing? Is it better
or worse?

"Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It's worse.  
It's
over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to  
the cheers of
your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family  
whose home
your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when  
the Abu Ghraib
pictures came out.  You lost when you brought murderers, looters,  
gangsters and
militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq's first democratic  
government."

The British at least seem to be recognizing reality. Under tremendous  
pressure from
an antiwar public, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that 1,600  
British troops
will leave Iraq within a few weeks and another 3,000 will have left  
by the end of
2007. The White House pretends the withdrawal is because "things have  
improved
in southern Iraq."  It denies that Blair's desertion is a huge  
embarrassment
for Bush. But expert Juan Cole tells it like it is:

"This is a rout, there should be no mistake. The fractious Shiite  
militias
and tribes of Iraq's South have made it impossible for the British to  
stay.
They are taking mortar and rocket fire at their bases every night.  
Blair is not
leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He  
is leaving because
he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further  
it will completely
sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come."

TALIBAN-AL-QAEDA-PAKISTAN POWDER-KEG

The New York Times reported Feb. 19 that "Taliban insurgents seized  
control
of a district in southwestern Afghanistan as the Afghan police  
abandoned their post
and fled. The district is the second to fall into Taliban hands this  
month, and
its capture underlines the precarious hold of the government and NATO  
troops."
Overall, the Taliban insurgency is stronger than at any time since  
2001, and Bush
is having a hard time convincing NATO allies to send more troops.

Also on Feb. 19 the Times reported that "Senior leaders of Al Qaeda  
operating
from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once- 
battered worldwide
terror network and have set up a band of training camps in the tribal  
regions near
the Afghan border... officials point to the prospect that the  
terrorist network
is gaining in strength despite more than five years of a sustained  
American-led
campaign to weaken it."

This Taliban and Al Qaeda resurgence is directly connected to support  
from inside
Pakistan. Pakistan's government has agreed to a de facto cease-fire  
with Taliban/Al-Qaeda
backers in parts of the country. Important elements in Pakistan's  
security apparatus
continue to aid the anti-U.S. fighters. But Washington is in a bind,  
fearing that
upping the pressure on its nuclear-armed "ally" will spark some kind of
revolt or coup that would bring Pakistanis who are openly hostile to  
Washington
into power.

HAMAS-FATAH PACT: A BLOW TO WASHINGTON

Desperate to win support from Arab governments and at least a portion  
of the Arab
population for moves against Iran, the Bush administration sent  
Condoleeza Rice
to try to "make progress" on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Rice was  
counting
on the pain being inflicted on Palestinians by the U.S.-led "boycott"
of their democratically elected government to isolate Hamas and press  
President
Mahmoud Abbas to make new concessions to Israel.

But Rice's plans were upended by the Hamas-Fatah agreement for a  
National Unity
Government in early February. Even the Wall Street Journal admitted  
that Rice’s
"strategy has apparently failed, as the deal brokered by Saudi Arabia  
at Mecca
last week would seem to require Abbas and the other U.S.-backed  
moderates to move
closer to the Islamists - not vice versa."

The deal - which is still holding as of this writing - reflects the  
balance of forces
within Palestine, where even apartheid-style Israeli repression has  
not broken the
population’s determination win their human and national rights. It  
also reflects
the unwillingness of even such a pro-U.S. regime as Saudi Arabia (not  
to mention
the Sunni Arab populace) to simply line up behind the U.S. and Israel  
in targeting
Iran, Syria and Hamas as their major enemies.

The Wall Street Journal itself was blunt about what this means: "The  
U.S. finds
itself in a delicate place, facing the possibility it soon could be  
leading the
opposition against a unity government that the Saudis helped put  
together. If Rice
comes out strongly against the new government, she could create an  
even-greater
backlash against the U.S. across the region and beyond. The U.S. and  
Israel would
largely be alone if they tried hard to scuttle it."

Of course Washington is already "largely alone."  Its "allies"
- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States - are police-state  
regimes, propped
up against popular will by U.S. financial and military backing. All  
would face the
scope of popular protest that has been ongoing in Lebanon for months  
if they had
the amount of democratic space that exists within that country. Two  
highlights from
the latest Telhami/Zogby poll of public opinion in six Arab countries  
(Egypt, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Morocco, and the UAE) tell the tale:

*57% of those polled say they have very unfavorable views of the U.S.  
and 21% somewhat
unfavorable, compared to 8% say somewhat favorable and 4% very  
favorable.

*Asked which countries pose the greatest threat to them, 72% chose  
the U.S.

U.S. PUBLIC: POISED TO SHIFT ONE MORE NOTCH?

Bush has lost the battle for public opinion at home as well. More  
than 60% oppose
the "surge" and a majority backs a timetable to bring all U.S. troops
within a year.

Even the remaining support for staying in Iraq is shaky. Pro-war  
partisans no longer
try to defend Bush's specific Iraq policy; rather they change the  
subject and
offer demagogic arguments about "supporting the troops" and "defeating
terrorism." This has shored up their ever-shrinking base for now. But  
polling
trends indicate that - even without another front-page disaster -  
public tolerance
for the steady stream of U.S. casualties without any noticeable  
"progress"
is running out. The latest announcement that National Guard troops  
will be sent
back to Iraq earlier than promised is another blow to pro-war  
sentiment. (It also
shows that Washington's problems are not limited to public opinion:  
the specter
of an overstretched military finally "breaking" haunts U.S. military and
political leaders alike.)

Clearly it takes a long time and a lot of struggle for public  
opposition to translate
into actual policy shifts. The unwillingness of congressional  
Democrats to cut off
funding for the war is the most immediate example of the gap between  
word and deed
on Capitol Hill (as well as of the structural obstacles to real  
democracy in the
U.S.). But there is an unmistakable pattern of growing opposition to  
the Iraq war,
and if it tips over another notch, it is going to cause tremendous  
problems for
the guardians of Washington's empire.	

KOREA AGREEMENT: NEOCONS LOSE

Bush's weakness is the main reason an Agreement was achieved in the  
U.S.-North
Korea stand-off Feb. 13. The agreement was "a significant step for  
the Bush
administration into the reality zone, a strong departure from its  
previous failed
approach and a good first step," according to nuclear affairs expert  
Graham
Allison.

An analysis in Japan Focus Feb. 14 pointed out that this was a  
"historic deal
commencing
the process of the denuclearization of Korea, comprehensive regional  
reconciliation,
ending the Korean War, and normalizing relations between North Korea  
and its two
historic enemies, Japan and the U.S." Japan Focus wrote that "Some  
accounts
suggest that North Korea suddenly became amenable to reason... But  
North Korea had
scarcely changed its position since the Beijing talks began. It was  
the U.S. position
that had moved 180 degrees... The fundamental factors would seem to  
have been the
Republican debacle in the Congressional elections and the continuing  
catastrophe
of Iraq..."

The Neo-cons were furious. Bush's own former U.N. Ambassador attacked  
the pact
as making the U.S. "appear weak." Well, Bolton finally got one thing  
right.

WHICH WAY WILL THINGS BREAK IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

Just like the Korea standoff had to go one way or another, so too in  
the Middle
East.

Yes, the Middle East is the central preoccupation of Washington's  
current imperial
strategy. And the Bush administration is especially prone to dismiss  
calculations
about the balance of forces in favor of non-reality-based fantasies  
that lead to
military disasters.

But the Korea Agreement shows that sometimes reality - in the form of  
overwhelming
worldwide and domestic opposition - can puncture even George Bush's  
ideological
bubble.

Often it is only years after the fact that people recognize how much  
difference
mass protests made at moments like this. The U.S. antiwar movement  
wants to make
history, not only read about. Today new breadth, consistency and  
depth of antiwar
action are both necessary and possible. And with a few breaks, that  
can push matters
to give our way.


War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally sponsored project of the  
Center for Third
World Organizing. Donations to War Times are tax-deductible; you can  
donate on-line
at http://www.war-times.org or send a check to War Times/Tiempo de  
Guerras, c/o
P.O. Box 99096, Emeryville, CA 94662.