Also see below:     
Le Monde | Diplomacy Lesson    [

    Come Clean
    By Laurent Joffrin
    Lib ration

    Thursday 07 December 2006

    The strategy of lying is collapsing. Even though he balks at publicly admitting it, even if he wants to maintain a martial front, George W. Bush has backed off. What the commander in chief still suppresses, the men he has charged, designated, promoted have just come clean about: the war in Iraq is a historic failure. A predicted failure, certainly, and a universally condemned war. But the confession of these officials gives this condemnation all its weight, all its power of truth. The American president has vicariously confessed America's mistake.

    So the "weapons of mass destruction" really were a decoy; so the military operation really was a strategic folly that led to a quagmire. So the "war against terrorism" has brought about nothing but another war and more terrorism. So the plan for a remodeled Middle East really was just a dangerous pipe-dream born from the over-excited brains of ideologues drunk on military certitudes. So what some of Washington's best friends, admirers of the New World's democracy, had said - well beyond any anti-American circles - is now confirmed by the very mouth of the leaders involved. The proof is in that cynicism - even in international politics - can cost very dearly.

    Not that every war is unjust, or every intervention forbidden, or every act of force immoral. Within the framework of international institutions, founded on solid law and realistic political calculations, when requested by an oppressed people that would see the soldiers on that mission as liberators rather than targets, the principle of external intervention remains - or remained - legitimate. By charging head-first into a bloody trap, the American administration also damaged that idea. In their historic dreams, Americans wanted to be the knights errant of freedom. George Bush has defaced that mythology too.

    Go to Original

    Diplomacy Lesson
    Le Monde | Editorial

    Thursday 07 December 2006

    The Baker report on Iraq is first of all a stinging official report on the failure of George Bush's policies and those of his administration: failure in Iraq, in the Middle East, and vis- -vis Americans. The situation in Iraq is so "serious," the report warns, that "there is no silver bullet" and "no one can guarantee that any series of measures will arrest a slide toward chaos." By advocating "a new approach," by observing that the November American elections were "a referendum on the progress in Iraq," by asking that American leaders "be frank and open," and in demanding a "skillful implementation" of the chosen policy, the ten "wise men" inflict a spectacular slap across Mr. Bush's face. They demand both a new strategy and an end to the era of lies. They stave off the cookie-cutter solutions frequently mentioned in recent days in Washington, whether they be for an immediate withdrawal of American forces, for a significant increase in the military commitment, or for the division of Iraq.

    The second aspect of the Baker report, the "new global diplomatic offensive," is not a surprise when one remembers the former secretary of state's "style," but it goes very far. In fact, it strongly recommends a radical and immediate change in American foreign policy. The United States must, the report asserts, "enter into direct contact with Iran and Syria," "commit itself once again and firmly down the path of peace between Arabs and Israelis on all fronts," create "a group for international aid to Iraq," including the countries in the region and others, and, in Iraq itself, "actively work toward the involvement of all engaged parties, with the exception of al-Qaeda." These recommendations imply, for example, a review of policy with respect to Israel and, in Iraq, a dialogue with the guerrillas. Even though there will be no shortage of criticisms, that's called a lesson in diplomacy.

    The question obviously remains to know whether these recommendations will be followed by the White House and whether they have a chance of changing the situation in Iraq and the Middle East. A certain skepticism remains the order of the day. On the one hand, Mr. Bush hardly seems the sort of man to repudiate himself this way. On the other hand, the situation in Baghdad is so infernal that any new strategy risks being carried off in the vortex of the war.

    But another policy must be tried. The report advocates the measured ambitions of "improving the situation in Iraq" and "protecting American interests." The sole question is no longer "winning the war." Mr. Bush, who is likely to be remembered by history as the American president who, in response to a triggering event, September 11, changed the world for the worse, would be well-advised to take some inspiration from these recommendations as soon as possible.