CRY HAVOC, AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR :

Cheney Trips Up : The vice president's Middle East expedition didn't help the war on terror. (William Kristol and Robert Kagan, 03/22/2002, Weekly Standard)

WE UNDERSTAND perfectly well the sophisticated defense of American diplomacy last week. It's all tactical, we're told. Never mind what the vice president says, and never mind what the Arabs say. In order to win Arab acquiescence in an attack on Iraq, the Bush administration needed to quiet things down in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The president needed to look like he cares about Arab sensitivities. And absent some U.S. effort to revive the peace process, we'll never get Arab leaders on board for an assault on Iraq.

It's a clever argument, but we think it's wrong. The Arabs will not be so easily bought. Nor is it possible to build up Arab goodwill with a few gestures here and there. Even now, it looks like Cheney's improvisational diplomacy has put the administration in a no-win situation. Either Cheney goes ahead with the meeting with Arafat in Cairo--in which case he will be sending a clear message that the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists under Arafat's authority is of less concern to the United States than appeasing Arab opinion. Or the meeting is canceled. The Arab summit will then become an anti-Israeli and anti-American free-for-all.

How's that for calming things down? The administration could actually be worse off than before Cheney's trip. Arafat will have gotten a new lease on life, but the conflict will be no closer to a resolution. Meanwhile, having accepted the central Arab claim--that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the issue of Iraq are inseparable, and that the former must take precedence--the administration will have to persist in the hopeless effort to bring peace to the Middle East. Either that, or it will have to reverse course and make clear to the Arab leaders that Iraq is our top priority, not the peace process.

Hawkish critics of the administration seem to be making a fairly basic error where peace talks are concerned; they apparently think that the US should be taking a harder line than Israel. When last we heard, Israel had not yet declared war on Palestine but was instead trying (futilely) to get a peace deal. We're in the region trying to broker such a deal. That requires us to, at least to some degree, remain an honest broker, which, in turn, requires that we say and do some things that aren't necessarily in Israel's best interest from time to time. There are, as far as I can tell, only two other alternatives : (1) Israel could declare war, in which they'd likely have our full though reluctant support; or (2) Israel could ask us to openly side with them in peace efforts, in which case a new, more impartial, broker would need to be brought in. The obvious question as regards option two is : who? Who has the leverage over both sides to apply where needed, the money to fund the deal, and the power to enforce it? Answer : only the U.S. So the only real choice is between continued peace efforts or an immediate declaration of war. Until Israeli decides it's time to go to war, it seems absurd to ask American negotiators to be more Zionist than Zion is itself.

Meanwhile, what would be so terrible about an Arab summit that turns into "an anti-Israeli and anti-American free-for-all"? This might actually provide a welcome moment of clarity in which the US and Israel are forced to accept that war is the only viable option in the Middle East. The outcome of such a war is surely not in doubt, so let's get it on.

UPDATE (OOMENS OF WAR) :

IRAQ TEETERS :
An uneasy Iraq awaits US move : Recent defectors describe a 'siege' mentality in Baghdad and demoralized, ready-to-jump troops. (Scott Peterson, The Christian Science Monitor)

[T]hey also speak of a deep demoralization within the armed forces that could lead to mass defections and a popular uprising in the face of any concerted US military action - a critical ingredient to any Pentagon strategy to carry out Washington's policy of "regime change" in Iraq.

AND AMERICA'S READY FOR PUSH TO COME TO SHOVE :
Poll: Americans want Saddam out, but split on how (Richard Benedetto, 3/25/02, USA TODAY)

Most Americans consider removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq to be a high priority, and they strongly support the use of United States air power to oust him, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 26, 2002 1:39 PM