[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[stefania]

Interesting Times: Bush's Lost Year

December 30, 2004
The Jerusalem Post
Saul Singer
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1104376733121



When the history of the war against Islam's jihadi branch is written, 2004 will have to go down as a lost year. In 2002, the Taliban fell. In April 2003, the Iraqi regime was toppled and in December the fugitive Saddam was captured in a foxhole.

The year was not a total loss. Progress toward building a democracy in Iraq has been greater than it looks. A Shi'ite coalition is expected to sweep the elections in January, which will most likely accelerate the process of Iraqis taking control of their own security, leading to a considerably rosier picture one year from now.

Yet even if we assume that progress in Iraq is steady, and that Iran and Syria fail to recapture Iraq into their own column, the fact remains that the jihadis have created enough of a mess to stall the US momentum toward dismantling the terror network.

Was the relative paralysis of 2004 the result of election jitters, or does it reflect burn-out that will continue deep into Bush's second term?

I would like to bet that Bush has not forgotten his own post-9/11 realization that the only way to keep America safe is to keep on the offensive, a conclusion that should have been reinforced by the experience of 2004.

Let's take Bush at his word and assume that he plans to spend the political capital he has gained. If so, how should Bush regain his stride in 2005?

First, by bringing back moral clarity. Branding Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the "axis of evil" was the right thing to do. But saying that and then not having a policy, much less implementing it, toward Iran is worse than not having said it in the first place. Since then it seems that Bush has learned not to set such bold markers. That's the wrong lesson; we need more markers and more follow-up.

The first marker we need is what it means to win this war. The 9/11 Commission Report said the president should tell the American people that he cannot "promise that a catastrophic attack like 9/11 will not happen again," but that they are "entitled to expect their government to do its very best."

BUSH SHOULD do better than that. It's true that he can't guarantee there will be no more 9/11s before this war has been won. But he can and should set out a vision of a world in which no nation state deliberately supports terrorism. Once that world is achieved, the jihadis may still be able to inflict damage as individuals, but they will have lost their global war.

John Kerry unfortunately discredited the distinction between a war and a "nuisance," but it is a real one. Kerry had the right idea, but no way to get there, since he rejected the emphasis on confronting states. Bush has the way to get there, but has to rejuvenate it by returning to the bold clarity of 2002.

The objective of eliminating state-supported terrorism is concrete, much more so than rhetoric about defeating terrorism in general. As far as we know, neither Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia are under specific threats from the United States to end the support for terrorism coming from within their borders or face specific consequences for their regimes. Whether such ultimatums should be delivered publicly or privately is a fair tactical question; but they should be delivered, and backed by plans to enforce them.

Second, Bush has to show that the 82nd Airborne is not the only arrow in his quiver. Each terror state has to be made to decide: Can it hang onto its old way of doing things, or should it go the way of Libya, and renounce WMD and terror? But if the only choice the US has is to invade or not, it is not surprising that rogue states are not lining up to cry uncle.

Yet invasion or bust is not America's real choice. Bush has plenty of underutilized and underestimated levers. Imagine if the US started talking about democracy in Saudi Arabia. Or if Bush held a press conference with Iranian dissidents. Or if the US proposed sanctions against Iran and Syria in the UN Security Council.

Such measures would not be as easily deflected by France and Germany as it may seem. Europe may not go as far as the US demands, but it will have to come up with an alternative that is tougher than its current see-no-evil policy. This is exactly what happened when Bush called for a new Palestinian government in June 2002; Europe did not jump on board, but the idea of a Palestinian prime minister was born and its relationship with Yasser Arafat was never the same.

The year 2004 was a year of lying low; 2005 had better be a year of leadership. Iran will either hold or cancel a presidential election this year, which will be the perfect opportunity for the newly-unified opposition to pull a Ukraine: i.e. stay in the streets until the government steps down.

Let Europe say that Ukrainians deserve democracy more than Iranians. Support the people, they will come.

saul@jpost.com
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[Spenta]

The worst part of it is, people are just stitting around waiting to see what Bush will do, instead of taking actions.

Bush hasn't done anything, except for relegate Iran to the greedy and immoral EU (who won't do ****), and send US emissaries and feelers for negotiations with the Mullah$! And Bush will not do anything for the Iranian people either, his priorities are tax cuts for the rich and privatising social security, Iran is not worth the political fight when there are more important issues, like money for the rich.

The saddest part is that Iranians haven't figrued this out yet. So they sit around waiting for Bush as their children are dragged away in the middle of the night, instead of organising and fighting the Mullah$. And a year from now when the world accepts that the Mullah$ do have a bomb and there's nothing that can be done about it, and the nuclear emboldened Mullah$ will start their massacre at home, people will still be waiting for Bush, who once again will do nothing!

The best way to have killed off the Iranian opposition movement is precisely the way it was done here, make the people believe that help is coming with some pipe dream of Bush will do something, so that they cease and wait, instead of mobilise and take action. This is how the Iranian opposition was put to sleep!

How long have I been saying this?

Sad

[stefania]

We must not hope that Bush does nothing.


Let's hope that he keeps his promise to the Iranian people which have hoped for his re-election.

Just as he is keeping his promise to keep the tax cuts permanent and privatising Social Security ( our poor Europe should imitate such policies )
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[stefania]

_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[irani]