• Home
• /
• Opinion

A Confused US Legacy

To the uninitiated in the region’s politics this may sound somewhat perplexing, but so is US foreign policy in the Middle East. Then again, for the most part, politics in any part of the world is generally a world of intrigue, confusion and at times, back-stabbing.

The difference in the Middle East is the antagonists have been at it longer than most. Take conventional party politics and throw in centuries of animosity ingrained from generation to generation, percolating amid sectarian divides that runs deep. Combine this with societies where loyalty is given in priority to family, tribe, clan, sect, above that of the notion of one nation. Now add memories that never fade and perhaps a glimmer of a picture may begin to emerge as to why this region, more so than others is so complex.

The paradox is that this region gave birth to the world’s three main religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — and as such, should have been more peaceful. But throughout history the Middle East has been through ups and downs and downs and more downs.

In particular the past eight years have taken the Middle East through greater effervescence than previous years. During these tumultuous years the Bush administration has tried to portray its misadventures in the region, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global fight against terrorism with optimism, and that despite the many setbacks it suffered.

Aside from the two unfinished wars, the Bush administration tried to “sell” a positive spin on other public relations shortfalls, which may include the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo black spots on American democracy.

Bush tried hard from the early days of the Iraq war to leave his mark on the region in a positive manner. He began with a well-orchestrated publicity stunt — his landing aboard a fighter jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln — and his far too premature “Mission Accomplished” statement. As we now know, the plan backfired, leaving President Bush with mud on his legacy and crow on his plate.

Then in the final months of his administration Bush pushed hard to find a positive note to his exit from the White House and from a disastrous Mideast policy.

He turned to the forgotten Middle East peace process. He tried to push an agreement between Syria and Israel. It was too little, too late. Nothing worked. So he gave Iraq a final shot, a going away visit. One final thrust deep into the heart of the beast he created. Big mistake.

For everything else President George W. Bush would have wanted to be remembered, he will likely be remembered in the Arab world as the president who had an old shoe thrown at him. Make that two old shoes. The shoe in the face is considered the ultimate insult in the Arab World. It is a gesture which speaks volumes about how the people of Iraq feel, something Bush paid very little attention to.

Yet what speaks even louder is the massive popular support from Arab masses shown to Muntazer Al-Zaidi, the Iraqi television reporter who threw the shoes at the American president. He has turned into something of a pan-Arab hero, praised from Algeria to Yemen and everywhere else in between.

Al-Zaidi’s portrait is seen hanging next to those of Che Guevara, the Argentinean revolutionary who helped Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista, and who ignited revolutions across Africa and Latin America. Guevara is a popular figure in the Arab world. Still, you’ve got to give the White House spin masters due credit. They continue to keep their cool and try to present a positive face to the most pessimistic situations. It’s called “spin.”

Some of the latest spin came from US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates who addressed a conference organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies on security in the Gulf region this past weekend. Gates offered a highly upbeat view of Iraq’s future, post American-partum.

Gates’ vision of a peaceful Iraq was criticised by several observers as failing to face the reality of the issues on the ground. Critics said Gates’ description was simplistic, overly optimistic, and painted an unrealistically rosy picture of a very uncertain future.

Saadoun Al-Dulaimi, a former Iraqi defence minister, told me the previous day that he believed mayhem and chaos would engulf Iraq “15 minutes after American troops pull out of the country.”

One sentence that stood out from Gates’ address was that he closed on a note of caution, not a typical modus operandi for the secretary of defence when talking about Iraq: Gates allowed himself an honourable exit strategy by stating that “the danger of Al Qaeda and its ideology is all too real,” and that “the gains are still reversible.”

Does Gates truly believe that all will be well in Iraq after the US pullout? Probably not. So why the charade? Most likely to be able to declare ‘Mission Accomplished’ once again, and get the hell out of Dodge before high noon.

Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst based in Washington, DC