"Mystified as to the purpose of the visit"
Sometimes they just jump out at you. (McClatchy)
President Bush wraps up a weeklong tour of the Middle East Wednesday, leaving many Mideast political observers mystified as to the purpose of the visit and doubtful that the president made inroads on his twin campaigns for Arab-Israeli peace and isolation for Iran.
.
posted by mikevotes at
8:19 AM
17 Comments:
As someone who has followed events in the Middle East for a long time what surprises me these days is the transparency. The key players are out in the open now for everyone to see. Anybody who wants a quick update will find it all in that McClatchy article but I think the Internet is the main reason for the clarity.
By
Anonymous, at 8:29 AM
Yeah, I'll buy that.
But, I think you also have to include that the Arab leaders are not afraid right now to openly contradict this weakened lame duck president. They're not playing that subtle shading of cryptic language they have used in the past.
For example, Bush asks for a drop in oil prices, and within an hour, the Saudi oil minister is out there saying no.
Definitely propagated by the internet, but I seem to remember much more subtle rebuffs in the past.
By
mikevotes, at 8:33 AM
That's what I mean about it being out in the open. That kind of stuff only got said behind closed doors before. I'm not sure how much credit the Internet should get but I find it refreshing. Maybe the mainstream media just can't bury stuff anymore.
By
Anonymous, at 9:00 AM
Sorry....I missed your point about Bush. Yes, his weakness is a big part of what's going on.
By
Anonymous, at 9:10 AM
I think it's not just his weakness, as in his being a lame duck. I think it's also the weakness of his credibility. In short, foreign leaders he's full of shit -- either lying or delusional, it doesn't matter which.
By
-epm, at 9:20 AM
That's what I meant by weakness. America is still rich and powerful but Bush has lost the moral high ground.
By
Anonymous, at 9:23 AM
As far as the purpose of his Middle East Bushopalooza tour, I think it's all for our domestic consumption and faux legacy creation for the GWB Library. Does Bush really think he's a diplomatic force of influence in the Middle East? Maybe he does, give the conventional wisdom of the bubble-world in which he lives, where enablers and yes-men abound.
But really. This was Bush's attempt to be seen domestically as a world leader, not just a world abuser. In the end I think he came off looking like a naive ass to everyone but his echo chamber.
By
-epm, at 9:32 AM
I cringe whenever Bush is speaking. That confused/constipated look he gets on his face. The tortured phrases and grammatical mistakes. It's just a non-stop embarassment. Reagan may have been a sleepy old man but at least he could remember his prepared statements and could read a damn teleprompter.
By
matt, at 10:13 AM
Regarding weakness: I think it has little to do directly with "moral high ground" and alot more to do with what he can't get done. "Moral high ground" undermines his stnding in the US and abroad which does have an impact on his ability to get things done, but if he were a cold tyrant executing people in the streets, the Saudis and Bahrainis would still deal with him if he could deliver something.
He has no levers on them. All of the power is now on their side. The US is begging for help on Iraq, on mideast peace, on terrorism, on Pakistan, on oil..... There's very little we can offer to do for them.
....
EPM, Yes, I think the tour is largely an execise in legacy building, and an effort to create a broader historical context for the failures thus far.
....
Anon, As I said above, they can speak frankly because of the assymetric nature of the relationship.
....
Matt, we all do.
By
mikevotes, at 11:15 AM
"Moral high ground" undermines his stnding in the US and abroad which does have an impact on his ability to get things done, but if he were a cold tyrant executing people in the streets, the Saudis and Bahrainis would still deal with him if he could deliver something.
Very good point. But I don't think the average Arab is totally lacking in moral perception. They see the invasion of Iraq for what it was.
By
Anonymous, at 11:24 AM
Oh yeah. That's why they hate this administration, and that does make it harder for Arab governments to work with the US.
But, I would argue, if there was enough in it for them, or if the US was in a position of strength in the relationship, the Saudis, for example, would do what they had to do despite "the street."
As example, look at Pakistan up until 2005. The US was hugely unpopular there, but the dictator needed, was bought by, the US. It wasn't until the US started lagging on the world stage that the Pakistanis started openly not doing what we wanted.
It's our broader fall in power that's made the difference. Unpopularity is a part of it, but, I would still argue, ineffectiveness is the underlying element.
By
mikevotes, at 11:31 AM
But, I would argue, if there was enough in it for them, or if the US was in a position of strength in the relationship, the Saudis, for example, would do what they had to do despite "the street."
OK but I think times have changed. Faisal seems quite sensitive to broader opinion. The media in Arab countries is much more open than it used to be. This may be another result of the Internet. Anyway it all contributes to Bushes ineffectiveness.
By
Anonymous, at 11:43 AM
Oooops...Faisal should be Abdullah. My bad.
By
Anonymous, at 11:47 AM
He is definitely more sensitive to opinion in his country. Of course, he also hasn't been given anything worth fighting over.
By
mikevotes, at 1:43 PM
I think the jury is still out as to whether Saudi Arabia is forever doomed to be a feudal monarchy or whether it can evolve into something else. It does seem that Bush is pushing it backwards towards suspicion and repression...which is probably the mindset he is most comfortable with. His efforts to get a war going with Iran weren't too well received in the Gulf.
By
Anonymous, at 1:52 PM
In the near term, all indications are that they are destined to stay largely the way they are, at least as long as the oil money flows into the government, and the government has a weapons sponsor.
By
mikevotes, at 5:53 PM
You're probably right. The Saudis are very conservative people.
By
Anonymous, at 7:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home