With the US cornered in the region, everyone, including the White House, awaits the findings of a high-level panel on US Middle East policy, writes Abdel-Moneim Said The whole world is waiting in anticipation for the report of the Baker- Hamilton Commission on US Middle East policy. The report is not only crucial to our region. It is of interest to Europe, because everything that happens in this region is. And it is of interest to Asia, as the North Korean nuclear test was arguably related to what America did to Iraq. Despite the anticipation, many officials and observers have maintained a stance of wait-and-see. Perhaps some expect the Baker-Hamilton Commission to seek their opinion. Perhaps some influential figures from the region, people who know Baker and Hamilton personally, may offer their advice. And yet, most of the real debate is about to take place in the US, where heated discussion is already underway. The US public knows that something is remiss with US Middle East policy. The situation in the region is worsening. Terrorists have grown in number and aptitude. And Islamist fundamentalists have gained political clout, as in Palestine and Egypt, or military ground, as in Somalia. Iran has come closer to obtaining nuclear weapons while Hizbullah is throwing its weight around in Lebanon. The US mid-term elections sent a signal to policymakers that the current policy is costly and dangerous. As a result, the whole approach is up for revision. This is good news for the liberals, who opposed the US war on Iraq since day one. Some liberals predicted a Vietnam-style predicament of the proportions one sees today in Iraq. Liberals also questioned the intentions of the ruling US elite and were consistently sceptical of lofty US rhetoric about Iraq. The primary task of the Baker-Hamilton Commission would appear to be finding an exit strategy from Iraq. To do so, the commission will have to rethink US policy in the Middle East and perhaps admit that the region is not willing yet to take a place within the ranks of the current international order. US conservatives, including James Baker, have never subscribed to the lofty rhetoric of the so-called neo-cons. Most do not believe that force alone can bring about the desired outcome. What the conservatives want is to change the balance of power in a manner helpful to US foreign policy. For them, the invasion of Iraq was not designed to overthrow Saddam Hussein or spread democracy but to create a new situation and a network of connections that is beneficial to US objectives. So far, the US administration has confused strategy for history and battles for ideology. It appears up to the Baker-Hamilton Commission to rethink the whole situation. The commission's task is not limited to getting US troops out of Iraq. The commission seems set on saving as much as possible of US interests in the region. The neo-cons, for their part, are unlikely to admit defeat. With Rumsfeld leaving the scene, with Wolfowitz and Feith before him, the neo-cons are in a fix. As Joshua Muravchik put it, the neo-cons' image is similar to that of the "ugly American". The neo-cons have projected an image that combines ideological irrationality with political failure. But the neo-cons are not going to disappear from the scene. They are firm in their belief that peace in the world is indivisible and that the values of freedom and democracy are universal in nature. They also believe that the world is full of evil that must be confronted. The neo-cons speak of their failure in Iraq as being one of implementation, not policy. They admit that the numbers of troops deployed in Iraq were insufficient. They recognise the fact that Arab bitterness over colonialism and Palestine proved more powerful than expected. But they still argue that the political and ideological make-up of Middle East countries is responsible for terrorism. And they maintain that the Middle East, if permitted to acquire weapons of mass destruction, would pose a lasting threat to the US and the West. The threat from the Middle East, the neo-cons are still convinced, must be confronted with armed force and not through a new balance of power as conventional conservatives argue, or through withdrawing from the scene as liberals contend. The neo-cons clearly recall the power policies of Ronald Reagan and they argue that it was because of such policies that the Soviet Union is no more. They also credit military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo for protecting peace in Europe. It is hard to resolve such matters through ideological debate alone. The questions are urgent as they are thorny. In Iraq, should the Americans stay, they're bound to suffer more casualties. Should they pull out, the strategic vacuum would lead to definite catastrophe. Between the two options, there is a grey area that is no less precarious. As for Iran, one option would be to treat it as just another nuclear power. The other option would be to bomb about 1,500 sites linked to the Iranian nuclear programme, which is likely to open the gates of hell in a region already spiralling out of control. Another matter that the Baker-Hamilton Commission will have to deal with is the Arab-Israeli conflict, a virtual snakes pit of history, geography, religion and culture. What will the Baker-Hamilton Commission say on that? Let's wait and see.
