BUSH TO CAST WAR AS PART OF REGIONAL STRATEGY


In Speech Tonight, President to Portray Iraq Effort as 'Battle for the Future of the Muslim World'

 

Informe de Peter Slevin en "The Washington Post" del 26-2-03

President Bush intends to outline his postwar vision for Iraq and the Middle East in a speech tonight designed in part to showcase the administration's belief that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's overthrow would be a significant step toward broad democratic change in the Arab world.

The planned address, to the American Enterprise Institute, is part of an intensive administration effort to defend a prospective invasion of Iraq. Bush will present an optimistic portrait of how events could unfold if he chooses war. The speech will emphasize a broader U.S. campaign -- part of what Bush calls a "battle for the future of the Muslim world" -- that will last far longer than military hostilities in Iraq and test the United States' already difficult relationships in the region.

While U.S. policy is focused on removing Hussein and destroying his most dangerous weapons, officials maintain that a successful mission in Iraq could produce a representative, pro-western government and help fundamentally reshape the region while enhancing U.S interests.

The administration has set itself an enormous challenge in Iraq, and the wider goal is more difficult still. Skeptics cite large obstacles, including widespread suspicions about U.S. motives and deep anger about the United States' unstinting support for the hard-line policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The resistance of some Arab regimes to reform is a major challenge, as is the traditional U.S. reluctance to challenge longtime allies.

"I think Arabs almost without exception would welcome more democracy and more freedom of expression and to be liberated from the police states they all -- in one form or another -- live under," said Youssef Ibrahim of the Council on Foreign Relations. "It does not follow that they would trust America to do this for them. The view over there is totally different from the view expressed here."

Critics also warn that the Bush administration must overcome a credibility gap born of long memories and unpopular U.S. policies. University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami warned that an invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation by U.S.-led forces would feed an image of U.S. imperialism and undermine the very goals the administration has set.

Army Chief of Staff Eric K. Shinseki told the Senate Armed Service Committee yesterday that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be needed to secure postwar Iraq. "Assistance from friends and allies would be helpful," he said.

Within Bush's inner circle, Iraq represents the intersection of a security threat and a geopolitical opportunity. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, produced a U.S. imperative to defeat terrorism, in part by force and in part by moves to expand political and economic opportunities. Bush and his advisers believe they are on the right side of a growing historical wave. They contend that parts of the Arab world are now reforming, and others will follow.

"This is a struggle of ideas," Bush said in a speech last year, "and this is an area where America must excel."

In explaining the policy last fall, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz took three 1980s photographs from his Pentagon office walls. Each depicted a pivotal moment in the Reagan administration's decision to abandon Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos in favor of democracy-minded Corazon Aquino.

Wolfowitz, who helped engineer the move as a young State Department officer, contended that the transfer of power to a nascent democracy not only improved conditions in the Philippines, but also helped inspire change across Asia. For Wolfowitz, one of the Bush administration's leading proponents of overthrowing Hussein, the experience provides a parable for U.S. action in Iraq.

"If, when Iraq is liberated, it can come up with a representative government that treats its people decently, I think it can have significant effects throughout the Middle East," Wolfowitz said.

Iraq, a beleaguered one-party state beset by corruption and economic decline, is the only country in which the administration has proposed using military force. But the prospective attempt by the United States to guide Iraq's 23 million people from authoritarian rule toward an elected, multiethnic, postwar government will be a severe test.

The administration envisions U.S. authorities ruling Iraq before gradually shifting power to a civilian authority -- with increasing Iraqi input -- that would prepare the country for elections and the rule of law. Bush and his top advisers hardly expect Jeffersonian democracy, but they believe Iraqis are ready to trade dictatorship for a measure of democracy. In an effort expected to cost tens of billions of dollars, U.S. officials have said they will stay the course.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, senators from both parties challenged the administration's assumptions as suspiciously optimistic. Similarly skeptical, Fawaz A. Gerges, a Middle East specialist at Sarah Lawrence College, warned in an interview that "U.S. officials seem to underestimate the complex and difficult task of nation-building in Iraq, let alone democratization. The way they're thinking about it is more like a fairy tale."

David Mack, vice president of the Middle East Institute, said, "They make it look like a no-brainer. Put me down as a skeptic. Americans are in such a hurry. The people in the region aren't. They're worried that they're jumping over a precipice."

Beyond Iraq, administration officials have been talking for months about the need for long-term change in a region where U.S. presidents for decades have favored the predictability of autocratic regimes. By one estimate, 65 million adults in the Middle East cannot read or write, 14 million are unemployed and 10 million school-age children are not enrolled in class. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said any approach to the region that does not address such troubles will be "built on sand."

The State Department asked Congress this month for $145 million for an assortment of mostly grass-roots initiatives designed to help Middle Easterners create civic space in often repressive Arab societies. The democracy, education and economic projects were initiated last year with $29 million, as the administration also embarked on a review of $1 billion in aid going to the region.

A number of analysts -- including many diplomats in the State Department -- believe the overall U.S. initiative will be stymied if the White House does not put more effort into solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"It's the core issue," said Judith Kipper, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Ending the violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which can only be done by the United States, is the single thing the U.S. could do that is good for Israelis and Palestinians and would also defuse the anti-Americanism and the suspicion."