Vice President Cheney and members of Secretary Rumsfeld's Defense Policy
Board are again pushing for more aggressive foreign policy moves. This
time, former House Speaker Gingrich led the attack, demanding that the
State Department "exploit the victory in Iraq fully." That
means, for example, punishing France and Russia for their opposition
against the war, confronting the "enemy states," such as North
Korea, Iran, and Syria, and adopting Israeli prime minister Sharon's
fifteen objections to the President's "road map" for Middle
East peace.
Although the hawks want a free world under America's direction, they
do not want to allow foreign governments to object to American policies
unpunished. Mr. Gingrich faults the State Department for planning the
"road map" for the Middle East jointly with the European Union,
Russia, and the United Nations. He considers collaboration with these
entities "intellectually a formula for denial of everything we've
learned over the past six months," namely that America is better
off pursuing its policies without them.
The state department was not impressed by the Gingrich speech. "What
he said is garbage," quipped Elizabeth Jones, assistant secretary
for European affairs. "He is an idiot, and you can publish that."
In their demands for a vigorous and unilateral foreign policy, the administration's
hawks care little how the rest of the world reacts to American initiatives.
If others do not agree with us, they argue that is their problem, not
ours.
Few foreign governments would doubt the capability of America's armed
forces to impose America's will upon them. The real danger to U.S. interests
abroad, however, is not an attack by a foreign state but continuing
unpredictable terrorist activity against Americans and their allies.
A survey commissioned by the University of Maryland shows large majorities
of Muslims thinking that American military actions in the Middle East
increase, rather than decrease, the threat of terrorism. A Zogby survey
in six Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon,
and the United Arab Emirates) found close to 95 percent convinced that
the U.S. wants to control Arab oil and subjugate the Palestinians to
Israel's wishes.
Mr. Rumsfeld assured the Iraqis they will be free to choose their own
leaders. Soon thereafter, however, her warned them that the U.S. will
not allow the Shiite majority to institute a theocracy. The Secretary.
moreover, ignored the fact that in free elections in Muslim countries
the more radical Islamists, often represented by the Muslim Brotherhood,
tend to be the strongest and most active political force. All of Iraq's
neighbors are worried that a freely elected Islamist regime in Iraq
might lead to destabilizing repercussions throughout the whole region,
particularly if America's military presence in the Middle East is not
reduced and ultimately discontinued.
President Bush and his hawkish Defense Department want to keep the U.N.,
the European Union, and Russia out of Iraq as long as possible. The
Arabs oppose that policy. Shaikh Zayed, the President of the U.A.E.,
stated the Arab position: "The Iraqis alone are entitled to handle
the reconstruction of their country; and the international community,
through its organizations and institutions, is the principal authority
to guarantee the success of the efforts by the Iraqis to rebuild their
state."
With Al Qaida and other terrorist conspiracies on the run, America no
longer needs more shows of military power but a road map for pacifying
the Muslim societies in general and the Arabs in particular. We need
to seek their friendship if the terrorist temptation is to be extinguished.
That is far more important than imposing the American model of government
on them. Rather than ostracizing the governments that opposed the war
on Iraq, the President ought to invite them to share the burden of rebuilding
Iraq politically and economically.
Let's not forget: Arrogance and vindictiveness do not make friends,
conciliation and compromise do.