Towards the 'James Cheney' Formula

ALI H. ASLAN
01.02.2007 Tuesday - ISTANBUL 21:33


If only we were able to see the products of the American collective intelligence more frequently and before it was too late. This was my first wish after the announcement of the Iraq Study Group report by co-chairmen James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

Making a realistic analysis of the situation and presenting comprehensive proposals, this independent commission puts across, in painful language, the grave situation the US has fallen into in the Middle East under the guidance of quixotic nationalists, neocons and the pro-Israel lobby.

If President Bush had lent an ear to such reasonable voices before adopting a unilateral action strategy and pre-emptive strike doctrine resulting in entering the Iraq War blindly, neither the US nor the region nor the world would suffer from this much headache..

The essence of the report lies with the idea of guaranteeing long-term strategic US interests in Iraq and the whole Middle East at the expense of some tactical steps back ; like working with Iran and Syria. When the commission’s formation and contacts are looked at, it can be seen that the report is a study mainly reflecting U.S. ‘deep state’ views.

Before everything else, the report looks like an unnamed ‘national’ uprising against efforts to drag the US into a dangerous adventure in the region and make it a servant to Israeli policies. For this reason, it is natural that the loudest voices of protest against the report come from Democratic and Republican extensions of the pro-Israel lobby. No surprise the neocons lead the critics. Some of the descriptions Richard Perle used in reference to the commission and report are: “disappointing,” “ absurd” and “ misadventure.”

I am amazed that some neocons are still able to come forth and talk without getting a red face; as if they were not the ones who dragged the US and the region into misadventure.

Why are the gentlemen angry? Because they think Israel was not sufficiently consulted while the report was being prepared . A final resolution of the Iraq problem has been tied to the revival of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace process. How dare suggesting a diplomatic outreach to Syria and Iran , chief enemies of Israel and the US? How could one even give Golan Heights to Syria in negotiations? Etc., etc…

There is a war lobby in Washington whose hair stands on end when peace is even mentioned They hold huge America with their hands and are using it like a machine gun. The Iraq War is not enough for them; Iran should be attacked. There is no need for discussion or diplomacy, just attack. (Since serving in the military is not mandatory; their own children are safe. The poor American people are conned and their children go to foreign fronts to die anyway. ) Enough Muslim blood has not flowed yet ; Sunni-Shiite conflict should be fueled. There should be no Islamic nation in the Middle East that is stronger than Israel or not under its guidance.

It is relieving to hear balanced voices - like the Baker-Hamilton commission - opposed to this rapacious ideology that never gets enough power, blood and chaos. However, it would be naïve to expect the application of the commission’s views to a satisfying degree given the current political circumstances.

The pro-Israel lobby has caught most Democratic and Republican politicians by the throat. They are especially determined to darken the political future of those advocating engagement with Syria and Iran. No wonder Republican Senator John McCain, who is making 2008 presidential calculations, opposes such a move. I do not think that the Democrats’ strongest candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, can take an attitude any different.

When it comes to the current White House administration, President Bush reacted to the commission’s recommendations respectfully both out of politeness and politics because he is cornered. In the final analysis, Bushthe-son will have to decide which of his father’s old friends’ views he would adopt. The diplomat James Baker or the warrior Richard Cheney?

Baker asked that the recommendations be taken as a whole rather than conveniently selected by the administration. However, I think we will most probably see a “ James Cheney” type of formula emerging in the end.

The commission asked that a new diplomatic strategy be initiated by the end of this month. President Bush is going to spend the coming week in crucial consultations aimed at renewing Iraq policy. It is expected that he will announce new elements in his policy by making an address to the nation before the Christmas holiday .

Turkey’s being hardly mentioned in the report has disappointed those in Washington who would like to have Turkish-American strategic partnership bolstered. . In the places where Turkey is mentioned it is viewed more from the perspective of Turkey’s potential to create problems in Iraq.

In other words, Turkey’s ability to become a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution was highlighted. On the other hand, most of the recommendations in the report are compatible with Turkey’s red-line policies; like Iraq not being divided into three parts, an independent Kurdish state not being established, and a referendum not being held in Kirkuk in 2007. A revival of the Middle East peace process is also in Turkey’s interests. If a dialogue project is implemented directly with Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran, Turkey can lose its mediator advantage. On the other hand, Ankara’s long-time efforts for a regional consensus will be consolidated.

To conclude, I think that the Iraq Study Group’s report includes recommendations that are generally compatible with the long-run interests of Turkey, Israel and the US and to the benefit of regional and world peace and stability. The devil is in the implementation…

Washington

12.17.2006

e-mail:a.aslan@zaman.com.tr