Wednesday, October 20, 2004

US uncertainties and Mideast certainties

PV Vivekanand

REGARDLESS of the see-sawing opinion polls that varyingly project George Bush and John Kerry as the winner of American presidential elections on Nov.2, few are willing to place any bets on who would prevail. The situation is at best blurred or even confused 10 days before the Americans vote.
Opinion polls have an erratic record and could not be considered anywhere near an accurate prediction. And now it appears that the Americans — indeed, the rest of the world — would have to wait for weeks after the elections to know who would lead the sole superpower for the next four years because of the legal challenges spawned by the fiasco in Florida in 2000.
The Middle East has a lot at stake in the elections, starting with the crisis in Iraq, the worsening conflict in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Bush-proposed drive to impose democracy and reform in the Arab World.
Then again, there is little hope of a dramatic shift in these situations except perhaps the "democracy" initiative, which has been rejected by the Arab World since it involves American-engineered reforms suited to serving American interests being imposed on the Arabs.
There is indeed uncertainty in the US over whether the Americans would give Bush another four years at the White House or opt for Kerry to lead the country beginning in January next year. However, there are certain certainties in the Middle East regardless of whoever emerges the winner in the US.
The situation in the Middle East could only worsen if Bush is re-elected.
Over Iraq, the incumbent asserts that his plans for Iraq are working out fine and he does not foresee any long stay for American and allied foreign forces in the country. However, he stops short of defining "long."
On the ground in Iraq, realistic predictions are that the American-led coalition forces would have to boost their strength, toughen their battle against insurgents and stay on for at least five years before Iraqis would be able to take over their country's security and governance. Never mind the plan for elections in January. The plan might or might not go ahead as envisaged, but, either way, it does not offer a realistic solution to the problems in Iraq.
No doubt, Bush, if re-elected, would go about with a vengeance to bring Iraq under control. Obviously, this would mean a dramatic rise in the number of Iraqis killed.
American casualties are something Bush would not worry too much about since he would be in his second and final term in office.
As the three presidential debates highlighted, Bush is seen detached from the realities brought about by his own investigators that his reasons were hollow for invading Iraq, toppling Saddam Hussein, occupying the country and trying to instal a US-friendly government in Baghdad.
He continues to insist otherwise and this highlights the insight that Bush is not finished with the Middle East.
The expected intensity on the part of a re-elected Bush could be seen is linked to his plans for "regime change" in Iran and wider regional transformations. The US has to have the situation in Iraq under control before turning its guns on Iran and Syria as the first step towards shaping the Middle East to suit American strategic interests.
Sure enough, Iran and Syria know the game, and that explains why the US has not been finding much success in preventing foreign fighters entering Iraq to war against the the coalition forces.
If fact, Arab commentators have emphasised that the US would remain pinned down in Iraq for thr foreseeable future and would not have the stability and respite it requires to pursue its plans for elsewhere in the region, Iran, Syria and Lebanon included.
Who knows, by the time Iraq is stabilised, Bush might have finished his second term, and then it turns into another ball game.
In Palestine, Bush could be expected to firm up his stand behind Ariel Sharon's unilateral plans to impose his version of a solution on the Palestinian people. Indeed, Bush might be making a few high-decible notes occasionally, but in effect a second Bush administration would only help strengthen and speed up Sharon's designs on Palestinian land.
It is an even bet whether Bush, if re-elected, would shift his focus back to his "democracy" initiative for the Middle East. He might do that, given that he has found Arab support wanting for his bid for second term as president and seems convinced that he does not have many friends left in the Arab World.
Spurred by his hawkish, neoconservative camp, Bush could push the "democracy" initiative, which effectively aims at pressuring Arab governments to fight groups and individuals remaining hostile to the US because of the lopsided American appraoch to the Middle East conflict and other issues of concerns to Arabs and Muslims around the world.
Ideally, Bush would like the Arab governments to consider and treat such groups and individuals as aliens in their own countries and terorrists who pose threats to regional and international security and stability. He would like to see the Arab governments act in total disregard of democratic principles that guarantee personal rights in the name of his democracy initiative. That is where the rift between the US and the Arab World is likely to widen the most.
The Arabs have made it clear that they reject reforms imposed from the outside. In fact, many Arab leaders have emphasised that Arab governments should work out their own reform progress based on the nature, ground realities and the peculiarities of their respective societies rather than wait for the Americans to bring in their "reform" package to the Arab doorstep.
It is unrealistic to see the US seeking a situation where it is a certainty that Islamists would emerge as a strong force and challenge American interests if Western-style elections were to be held in the Middle East. Therefore, there is an air of superficiality to the Bush "initiative" and the pointer is towards ulterior motives that are closely linked to protecting American and Israeli interests first and last.
How could Kerry be expected to fare if elected as president?
Kerry has outlined a plan to withdraw American forces from Iraq. However, the presidential realities would not allow him to disengage from Iraq since the invasion of that country and the American miliary presence there are part of a long-term strategy designed and implemented by the hawkish neoconservatives who seek American domination of the planet.
Cutting and running from Iraq has no room in those plans, and any such move would deal a bitter blow to the grandoise neoconservative project for global domination.
However, Kerry would need to be at the helm of affairs in the US for him to realise that quitting Iraq is not an option at all. And once that realisation sets in, then he would find it tough going to realise his pledge to "call the boys home from Iraq."
Indeed, it is open to debate whether Kerry would follow a Bush-model "scorched earth, iron-fist and make-it-or-break-it" approach to the insurgency in Iraq. If he does, then we could see additional American soldiers being sent to that country contrary to Kerry's election promises; and the US would be getting deeper into the imbroglio.
It is open to debate whether Kerry would follow the neoconservative script further, but it is definitely a certainty that he would come under pressure from the hawks who are present also in the Democrat camp. Let us not forget that the neocon design for shaping the world to suit American interests is bipartisan. Neocons in the Bush administration might find their way out of executive positions if Kerry wins the White House, but they would only be replaced by their Democrat-leaning counterparts.
The same is true for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kerry might not come forth as strong as Bush in backing Sharon, but his effective impact on the scene would not be aimed at pre-empting the Israeli prime minister's unilateral plans that seek to prevent the emergence of any possibility of an independent Palestinian state being created in Palestine.
What would be Kerry's approach to the sought-for US-serving reforms in the Arab World?
Well, this is a grey area at this juncture in time. However, Kerry would be finding himself pressed into doing something about the Bush initiative for reforms in the Arab World. How far he could withstand it or whether he succumbs to pressure remains uncertain.

'Security for Americans'

Kerry is of unknown quality in this respect, whereas Bush is known to follow an aggressive campaign, both internally and externally, as exemplified by his war against terror that followed the Sept.11 attack.
Perhaps that is the strongest card that Bush could use to wave in voters to his camp, and he has been using it liberally throughout his hustings.
Vice-President Dick Cheney has also been pushing the same strategy. This week he raised the possibility of terrorists bombing American cities with nuclear weapons and questioned Kerry could counter such an "ultimate threat ... you've got to get your mind around."
"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us — biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," Cheney said.
"That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Cheney said.
It is not surprising that both Bush and Cheney are conveniently pushing behind them the truth that the Bush administration did have pre-Sept.11 warnings of attacks using airplanes as missiles to be slammed into high-rise buildings but did nothing about them. But the question is whether this, and the deception that the Bush administration used in order to justify the war on Iraq, are lost on the Americans.