http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1092884508487&apage=2 The Last Word: Is Bush an Israeli shill? Or a Saudi one? By BRET STEPHENS Pretty soon, the Anyone But Bush crowd is going to have to decide: Is the American president an Israeli shill or is he a Saudi shill? Does he do the bidding of the insidious pro-Israel neocons or of the insidious pro-Arab oil lobby? Is his foreign policy everything his father's was not – and therefore disastrous – or is it an extension of it – and therefore equally disastrous? A LONG time ago – this would have been 2002 and the early months of 2003– the first set of views held sway. "The Bush administration paints a rosy scenario for the upcoming war in Iraq," wrote University of Chicago professor Fred Donner in the Chicago Tribune. "It is a vision deriving from Likud-oriented members of the President's team – particularly Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith." On MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews observed that the war party consisted of "conservative people out there, some of them Jewish, who... believe we should fight the Arabs and take them down. They believe that if we don't fight Iraq, Israel will be in danger." In the pages of The Nation, the venerable organ of Leftist certitude, writer Jason Vest spun elaborate theories about the nefarious influence of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, or JINSA, on administration policy. At the same time, alarms were being sounded about some of the lunatic ideas making the rounds at Club Neocon. In July 2002, Rand Corporation analyst Laurent Murawiec gave a briefing to Mr. Perle's Defense Policy Board, in which he called Saudi Arabia "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" of American interests in the Middle East. Tom Ricks, the Washington Post reporter who broke the story about the briefing, noted the anti-Saudi line was gaining traction in such magazines as The Weekly Standard and Commentary, which, he helpfully added, "is published by the American Jewish Committee." The president's critics went into a tizzy. Crown Prince Abdullah had only recently proposed an Arab-Israeli peace plan, and the Saudis were still in pretty good odor. Mr. Murawiec, wrote Jack Shafer in Slate, "lights out for the extreme foreign policy territory," and sounds like "an aspiring Dr. Strangelove." Finally, 2002 was the year when administration critics rediscovered the sublime genius of Bush pere and his foreign policy team. Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, former Secretaries of State James Baker and Larry Eagleburger, and retired General Norman Schwarzkopf all cautioned against the rush to war. Invidious comparisons were made between their statesmanlike prudence and the callow impetuousness of Bush fils. HOWEVER, THAT was then. These days, everyone knows that President Bush is nothing if not his father's son – not to mention Prince Bandar's poodle. "The links between the House of Bush and the House of Saud," wrote Michael Steinberger in the October 2003 issue of the American liberal monthly, The American Prospect, "are deep, overlapping and notoriously opaque: The Saudi investment in the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm whose rainmakers include George Bush Senior; the Saudi bankrolling of Poppy's presidential library; the lucrative contracts the Saudis doled out to Halliburton when Dick Cheney was at the company's helm. The main law firm retained by the Saudis to defend them against the 9-11 families is Baker Botts – as in James Baker, the Bush family consigliere. And, of course, there's oil, the black glue connecting all the dots." These arguments were picked up in Craig Unger's bestselling House of Bush, House of Saud, and amplified in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. For Mr. Unger, the point of departure is the White House's post 9-11 decision to allow members of the bin Laden clan to leave for Saudi Arabia, while Mr. Moore makes much of the $1.4 billion Saudi Arabia paid over the years to Carlyle-connected enterprises. True, the guy who gave the go-ahead for the flight of the bin Ladens was Richard Clarke, neither pere nor fils was ever shown to have profited from a Carlyle-orchestrated/Saudi-connected deal, and Carlyle is run by Carter administration official David Rubenstein. Also, the Clinton administration, like every administration since Franklin Roosevelt's, had been close to the House of Saud: In his memoirs, Bill Clinton reports that in February 1994 "We got a piece of good news when Saudi Arabia agreed to buy $6 billion worth of American planes, after intense efforts by Ron Brown, Mickey Kantor and Transportation Secretary Frederico Pena." But never mind. What's really interesting is how much Messrs. Moore, Unger and Steinberger sound like those scary neocons of yesteryear. "The desert kingdom leads the way in financing and inciting Muslim holy warriors the world over," wrote Mr. Steinberger in his American Prospect article. So what's the difference between him and Mr. Murawiec? Answer: politics. "It wouldn't take much for the Democrats to turn [the Saudi] issue into a political bonanza...." Steinberger writes. "The Saudi issue is a winning one on every count for the Democrats, and they need to take advantage of it – now." Which is just what Mr. Moore has done. Of course, Mr. Steinberger is right – as Mr. Murawiec was right – that Saudi Arabia is no friend of the United States. He is also right that the Bush administration hasn't formulated a musular or even coherent policy toward the Kingdom, and so is vulnerable to criticism on the subject. Then again, wasn't one of the main points of the war in Iraq to remove US military bases from Saudi Arabia, and therefore extricate America from an entaglement begun during the first Bush administration? And don't the shortcomings of administration policy stem in part from the neuralgic reaction by the Arabist wing of the State Department to Mr. Murawiec's ideas and the ideology he represents? Presumably, if the neocons had been allowed to run the show in the Bush White House, the 82nd Airborne would now be stationed in Mecca selling tickets to the next Hajj. Maybe that's something we can soon look forward to in the Kerry presidency. IN ITS review of Fahrenheit 9/11, al-Jazeera.net noted "the implicit suggestion that the Saudi government is somehow driving the Bush administration's policies toward the region flies in the face of Washington's unprecedented support for Israel as well as strong regional opposition to the invasion of Iraq." It's a good thing at least some people have got their stories straight. Because either you believe the Jews are behind it all, or you believe the Saudis are. But not both. This is one conspiracy theory on which flip-flopping is not allowed. bret@jpost.com
I think it's funny how everything in an election year gets pinned on one person. I think the better question would be... "Is our government an Israeli shill or a Saudi shill?" Our government has been pandering to the Israeli's and Saudi's long before Bush took office. I'm highly doubtful this would change at all if Kerry is elected.
I think they pander to both and are worried that the middle east will be this centuries tinder box. The US learned a lot of lessons early in the 20th century about isolationism, and how it doesn't work. Seems they are too far over to the other side now. DD
I think the "pandering" would be more sophisticated. Here's an interesting article about the current US standing in the Middle East and Muslim world and what we are doing to improve it... is it enough? Check it out and see what you think: www.washingtonpost.com U.S. Struggles to Win Hearts, Minds in the Muslim World Diplomacy Efforts Lack Funds, Follow-Through By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 20, 2004; Page A01 The Bush administration is facing growing criticism from both inside and outside its ranks that it has failed to move aggressively enough in the war of ideas against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups over the three years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Sept. 11 commission last month called for a vigorous strategy for promoting image and democratic values of the United States around the world, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the administration is working hard on those efforts. But Middle East experts -- and some frustrated U.S. officials -- complain that the administration has provided only limited new direction in dealing with anti-American anger among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims and is spending far too little on such efforts, particularly in contrast with the billions spent on other pressing needs, such as homeland security and intelligence. On its boldest policy ideas, such as the Greater Middle East Democracy Initiative, the administration has limited its follow-through or deferred to the very governments that have most resisted democratic reforms, specialists and some U.S. officials say. "It's worse than failing. Failing means you tried and didn't get better. But at this point, three years after September 11, you can say there wasn't even much of an attempt, and today Arab and Muslim attitudes toward the U.S. and the degree of distrust in the U.S. are far worse than they were three years ago. Bin Laden is winning by default," said Shibley Telhami, a member of a White House-appointed advisory group on public diplomacy and Brookings Institution scholar. The dissatisfaction extends to some in the State Department who are involved in public diplomacy. "This is all feel-good mumbo jumbo," said a State Department official familiar with public diplomacy efforts who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Particularly in light of [people detained without charges at] Guantanamo Bay, it's unclear how this will make us safe. If this is so important, where's the money?" Top administration officials said yesterday that the United States has redirected funds and designed a wide range of political, economic, educational and aid programs to better lives, press reforms and improve America's image as ally to Muslims in more than 50 countries. "The foundation of our public diplomacy strategy is to engage, inform and influence foreign publics in order to increase understanding for American values, policies and initiatives," Patricia Harrison, assistant secretary of state for education and cultural affairs, said in testimony yesterday before the House International Relations Committee. Rice, in a speech yesterday at the U.S. Institute of Peace, conceded that public diplomacy is an area the administration wants to "look harder at" and said, "We are not obviously not very well organized for the side of public diplomacy." But she said the administration has made global outreach a priority and is making important progress, citing among other things increased broadcasting in the Middle East and programs to encourage literacy, democratic reform and education. The basic goals in the war of ideas are to dispel destructive myths about both U.S. culture and policy and to encourage voices advocating moderation, tolerance and pluralism in the Muslim world, Rice said. "The victory of freedom in the Cold War was won only when the West remembered that values and security cannot be separated," Rice said. "The values of freedom and democracy as much, if not more, than economic power and military might have won the Cold War." That thinking tracks recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, which besides calling for reorganization of U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism urged a diplomatic offensive: "If the United States does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us." Yet in a report to Congress in October, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy warned that cultural exchanges and similar efforts to win the hearts and minds of Muslims were "absurdly and dangerously underfunded." The budget for the State Department's public diplomacy programs worldwide for 2004 is $685 million -- the majority of which does not go to the Muslim world, despite the major shift in emphasis after the 2001 terrorist attacks, U.S. officials say. Only $79 million goes to education and cultural exchanges -- the heart of public diplomacy and the largest single expenditure in its budget -- with Middle East and South Asian countries. And the increases since 2001 have been small, with an initial decrease in the first budget after Sept. 11. The budget for the Department of Homeland Security is more than $30 billion. The numbers of people reached directly by key U.S. programs are extremely small, U.S. officials concede. A new U.S.-sponsored exchange program for Arab and Muslim high school students brought 170 students last year and 480 this year and will bring 1,000 next year. In contrast, about 5,000 exchanges were organized from former Soviet republics in the first year after the Cold War ended, a State Department official said. Congress has not been much of an ally, in some cases cutting even relatively small proposed increases for cultural and educational exchanges, U.S. officials say. "We need as a government -- all of us -- to view traditional public diplomacy tools as soft weapons," said Margaret Tutwiler, former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, who now works for the New York Stock Exchange. "The activities associated with public diplomacy need to be seriously prioritized on an equal level with an aircraft carrier. Both are equally important." Much of the U.S. focus over the past three years has been on rebuilding programs cut back or dismantled after the Cold War, when, in the words of one senior U.S. official, the United States "declared victory and the end of history and went home." Now Washington is struggling to get back to the level of foreign cultural programs and exchanges that existed in the 1980s, the official added. Other U.S. programs now supplement public diplomacy. The new Middle East Partnership Initiative, housed at the State Department, had $100 million for fiscal 2003 to help create nongovernment groups, particularly among women and youth, and to link businesses to support political and economic reforms. And since 2001, the U.S. Agency for International Development has increased its focus on education and job creation in the Muslim world. The administration has launched a major new broadcasting effort with Radio Sawa in Arabic and Radio Farda in Farsi, as well as Al Hurra, an Arabic-language television station, to counter the growing influence of regional broadcasting outlets. But the three get mixed reviews. "Sawa seems to be having some impact, but the reaction to al Hurra has been very negative," said Edward S. Walker Jr., president of the Middle East Institute and former ambassador to Egypt and Israel. "People watch it once or twice and then turn to al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya -- if they're inclined to look at news." The democracy initiative, formally launched at the June summits with countries in the Group of Eight and NATO, is the most ambitious U.S. effort to transform the Islamic world. Washington plans to sponsor the first meetings between European, U.S. and Muslim officials to discuss economic and political reform next month. But the administration has scaled back its goals because of an initial backlash in Muslim societies and fears that the United States might try to impose its form of government, officials said. President Bush used bold language last November in pledging to end six decades of U.S. policy that opted for stability in the oil-rich region over promoting liberty, including in such key allies as Egypt. Now, however, even some proponents of the effort say Washington needs allies in the war on terrorism too much to press them too hard toward democratization and civil liberties. In House testimony yesterday, Harrison noted that public diplomacy is "not the work of weeks or months. It is the work of years and generations." But other U.S. officials say much more funding will be needed to have a meaningful impact. "There is a total collapse of trust in American intentions and it's only gotten far worse over the past year," Telhami said. "When people hate or resent the United States far more than they dislike bin Laden, how can you succeed? That's the bottom line."
Funny in a "no one should be laughing about it" kinda way. We act as if middle eastern oil, Saudi oil, has only recently been a commodity we depend on. Or that Israel is severely outmatched in manpower to those countries around them within the last couple of decades. This goes back way, way, WAY farther than the Bush family ties issue. Definitely. Combined with, "And how long have we been?" The other thing is this... I'd say we are an Israel supporting/protecting country, and a Saudi Arabia trading/business partner... rather than a "shill" (by definition) for either. They just both happen to have some odds with each other, along religious lines, and that puts us as suspects to both sides. It's like a love/hate triangle. But that's just how I view it.
