Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush is going to have his
hands full with important foreign policy issues almost immediately upon
being inaugurated next January — that is, if he manages to topple Al
Gore’s own White House bid Nov. 7.
Personally, I believe Gov. Bush already knows this. Furthermore, I
believe that’s why he chose former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to be
his No. 2; it had little or nothing to do with using Cheney to “prepare
for foreign policy questions during the debates.” It had everything to
do with life after the campaign.
Where will a Bush foreign policy team have to concentrate first?
Where else — the Middle East.
After the bombing of a U.S. warship, the escalating violence between
Israel and the Palestinians, and the Jewish state “digging in” to
prepare for a long conflict, any Bush foreign policy team had better be
filled with “A-team” players who know what the hell they’re doing
because they’ll have to hit the ground running.
Interestingly — or perhaps ironically — the last time a
Democratic president left office he too handed off a Mideast hand
grenade to an incoming Republican administration who, fortunately,
understood what must be done to rebuild U.S. credibility while
guaranteeing some semblance of peace in that most volatile region of the
world.
When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, President Jimmy Carter had
not yet managed to find a way to rescue some 51 American citizens from
Iranian fundamentalists, who captured them more than a year earlier from
the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Whether there was some sort of “arrangement” between the incoming
Reagan administration and the Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran to release the
Americans before Reagan took over — or get turned into dust — is of no
consequence to me. The fact is, Reagan and his people got the Americans
back, then — sadly — went on to learn hard lessons about foreign
policy in the Middle East (Beirut in 1983 comes to mind).
How many attacks against U.S. military personnel has the Clinton
administration suffered at the hands of Mideast terrorists? Several —
and more than the Reagan administration was ever willing to put up with.
Now, in 2000, another Democratic president is set to hand off another
Mideast firecracker to yet another Republican president (again, assuming
Bush wins) who must be prepared to emulate the most successful aspects
of earlier GOP administration foreign policy in the Middle East.
Otherwise more Americans are going to get hurt as trouble and violence
there escalates — and it will.
First of all, like Reagan, the very first thing the Bush
administration should do is remind those responsible for blowing a hole
in one of our warships in Yemen that they will be found and they will be
punished — and that it would be wise for anyone or any nation
considering getting in our way to rethink that.
Secondly, Bush should reaffirm his commitment to seeing an eventual
peace between all Jews and all Arabs in the Mideast, but should remind
those forces allied against such a peace that the U.S. will not continue
to be a sitting duck or a target of opportunity for Islamic extremists
who can’t stand peace. Bush should inform those considering further
action against U.S. assets that to do so would lead to a violent and
swift U.S. response. And he should remind those countries still
sponsoring these lunatics that by every definition they — and
all their people — are just as responsible for whatever happens to our
forces (and will be held accountable just the same).
Third, Bush should remind Israel — whomever is in charge by then
(Barak’s not doing so well) — that we’re here for them, so Israeli
military and political leaders can plan their next move in confidence.
Israel is, and always has been, severely outnumbered. They can use our
help and our commitment to their security.
Fourth, Iran and Syria, Libya and Iraq should all be told, through
proper channels that any and all diplomatic efforts at reconciliation
currently under way and begun by the Clinton administration will be
immediately stopped on Inauguration Day unless these leaders publicly,
completely, and demonstrably denounce their support for the terrorist
groups that, for decades, have made life in the Mideast an unbearable
hell on earth for everyone — Arab and Jew alike. If they don’t want to
do that, Bush and his foreign policy team should — well, just see my
second point above.
Harsh? Not compassionate? “Ill-advised”? Hardly. The Clinton
administration’s squishy rhetoric and rudderless ship of state has
caused many of the problems currently building in the Middle East
because it has frittered away so much of our credibility that no one
believes we’re serious about anything — from oil to terrorism.
Because of poor planning and increased violence there, this country’s
economic and national security interests are once again at grave risk.
Like it or not, because of our overwhelming reliance on the Mideast as
an energy source, Bush has simply got to get the situation under control
over there if his presidency — and the future economic state of this
nation — are to be successful or remain successful.
And no — it’s not just about $3 or $4 per gallon gasoline. It’s
knowing that nearly every industry in America depends on cheaper
oil to be profitable and to continue to deliver goods to market at
prices Americans can afford to pay.
It’s also about this fact: currently the U.S. relies on more than 61
percent of its oil from the Mideast. We have our own supplies, but it
will take years to re-engage them to the point where we can
substantially reduce our energy imports. So, we can ill-afford to let
any situation in the Mideast get out of hand. If it does and the region
erupts in war, what would happen to Wall Street? U.S. industry? The
price of goods for ordinary Americans? And what do we do in the meantime
to replace the lost imports?
If this happens, you can kiss this “red-hot economy” goodbye.
That’s why the Middle East, more than any other region (in the short
term) is so vital to Americans, even though many voters don’t see the
connection. And based on the Clinton administration’s performance, Vice
President Gore is not the guy we need to get things settled down over
there.
Gore, you remember, has written extensively about wanting to
eliminate the combustion engine (read: cars); he has supported
severe reductions of domestic oil and energy production in favor of
extremist environmental concerns; and he has attacked the “big oil
companies” incessantly during his campaign.
Just how important do you think Mideast oil and energy supplies are
to him?
A Bush foreign policy team will have its work cut out for it come
Jan. 20, 2001 — if the governor wins. But my guess is Cheney and Co.
are already prepared for the challenge.
