Posted on 04/06/2007 5:03:48 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The other face of America! This is how Arab media and political circles describe Nancy Pelosi as she winds up her tour of the Middle East amid criticism from the Bush administration. And, there is little doubt that much of the Arab elite likes that face better than the one presented by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her trips to the region.
Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, describes her tour as a fact-finding exercise. But, judging by the substantial negotiations she engaged in, hers was a full-fledged diplomatic mission. At least, this is how most Arabs see it.
“She is the friendly face of America,” says a senior Syrian official. “Where Condi frowns, Nancy smiles.”
Ms. Pelosi was specially feted in Damascus, capital of Syria, the oldest member of the club of “nations sponsoring international terrorism”, according to Washington.
“Her visit was a godsend to an isolated and beleaguered regime,” says a Lebanese minister. “The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi’s party takes over the White House in 2009.”
The Pelosi mission confirms the analysis made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic that the United States is incapable of developing and implementing a long-term strategy. According to this analysis, the US is like a fickle monarch who might wake up one morning and decide to do the exact opposite of what he had been doing for years.
The most radical elements in the region liked Pelosi best if only because she endorsed their campaign of vilification against the Bush administration. Her motto was: Surrender before you have too, and claim credit for it! She represented a superpower that, because no one can take away anything from it, is prepared to give away everything.
The Pelosi Doctrine, as demonstrated during the tour, is the opposite of the Bush Doctrine spelled out in 2002.
The Bush Doctrine links the United States’ national security to democratization in the Middle East. It asserts that undemocratic states serve as breeding grounds for terrorism the way that marshes breed mosquitoes. The US should therefore, throw its weight behind those forces and governments that promote reform in the region.
In practical terms, the Bush Doctrine means a number of things.
It means using force to remove regimes that lack internal mechanisms for change, as was the case with the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq. It also means persuading friendly regimes to broaden their popular base, liberalize their economies, and open up the social and political space, as is the case in Egypt and Jordan among others. Elsewhere, the Bush Doctrine envisages robust opposition to the ambitions of such opportunist powers as Syria, in its quest to dominate Lebanon, and the Islamic Republic of Iran in its pursuit of regional hegemony.
In the Bush Doctrine the Israel-Palestine conflict is regarded as an almost peripheral problem that could be tackled best when the region is democratized, liberalized, and woven into the global system.
The Bush Doctrine is based on the implicit assumptions that the US represents a political system that is morally superior to that of its adversaries in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The Bush Doctrine is idea-driven, not to say idealistic.
The Pelosi Doctrine, however, is based on realpolitik of the kind that Henry Kissinger or James Baker III, among countless other cynics, would approve.
It rejects the idea that the US political system, or the culture in which it is rooted, is in any way better, let alone superior, to systems developed by other peoples across the globe, including the Middle East. Pelosi applies the tenets of multiculturalism to international affairs: All systems are comparable; all systems are of equal value. She believes that other cultures might not be as good as hers, but hers sure can be as bad as theirs.
The Pelosi Doctrine opposes the use of force, even against obnoxious anti-American regimes. Throughout her tour, Madame Speaker made it clear that she was determined to hasten the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, with hints that the US military presence in Afghanistan would also be wound down. Pelosi’s America would fight back only in self-defense, and rejects pre-emptive war based on perceived threats.
According to the Pelosi Doctrine, the US must work with the regimes in place, including those perceived as enemies. A great power, Pelosi believes, cannot afford to be judgmental. It must work with the realities on the ground rather than seek to change them in accordance with its vision of the world.
Pelosi also restores the status of the Israel-Palestine conflict as the most important issue of the region, if not of international life as a whole, and seeks to resume Washington’s role as mediator in a revived peace process. She rejects what some Arabs see as President George W. Bush’s partiality toward Israel, and urges a return to the even-handedness that the US demonstrated in the last years of the Clinton presidency.
Throughout her visit, Pelosi sought to project a modest image of the United States as opposed to the “arrogant” one presented by Bush.
What would the Middle East look like if the Pelosi Doctrine replaces the Bush Doctrine as the matrix of US foreign policy?
The US will withdraw from Iraq before the new Iraqi regime is capable of defending itself against its internal and external foes. It will then be up to rival regional powers, notably the Islamic republic, to determine the fate of Iraq, together with their local clients.
The new democratic regime in Afghanistan would also come under possibly fatal pressure. The country’s fate would then be in the hands of rival powers, notably Iran, Pakistan and Russia in conjunction with their respective clients within the country.
In the absence of political and diplomatic pressure from Washington, the current trend toward reform and liberalization would come to a halt in most parts of the region. Concerned about the rise of radical forces and greater hostility from revolutionary actors, such as the Islamic republic and the revived Al— Qaeda, Arab regimes would postpone democratization and revert to repressive methods.
Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution” would fade into memory, as Syrian troops return to Beirut to resume occupation.
The Pelosization of US foreign policy would also encourage the “one-state” camp with regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict. At present, a majority of regional powers support a two-state solution in the context of the Saudi peace proposals. But the two-state option is based on the assumption that the US remains an active element in its support, rather than a mediator hedging its bets.
The Pelosization of US foreign policy could plunge the Middle East into endless civil and regional wars, facilitate the return of terrorist organizations now facing defeat and ultimate destruction, and, in time, threaten US national security on a grander scale. And that, in turn, could force the US into wars bigger and costlier than the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq that Pelosi regards as mistakes.
“The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi’s party takes over the White House in 2009.” -- said a Lebanese minister -- he gets it!
The Pelosi Doctrine opposes the use of force, even against obnoxious anti-American regimes. Throughout her tour, Madame Speaker made it clear that she was determined to hasten the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, with hints that the US military presence in Afghanistan would also be wound down. Pelosi’s America would fight back only in self-defense, and rejects pre-emptive war based on perceived threats.
The Pelosization of US foreign policy could plunge the Middle East into endless civil and regional wars, facilitate the return of terrorist organizations now facing defeat and ultimate destruction, and, in time, threaten US national security on a grander scale. And that, in turn, could force the US into wars bigger and costlier than the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq that Pelosi regards as mistakes. "
I read this at a different site earlier today...GREAT column.
You picked out the sentence that really stood out to me.
I guess Pelosi blew ANY chance of Bush’s Doctrine having a chance...because now these countries will just cause enough trouble to ensure a Dem in the WH in 2009.
Excellent Article! All should take time to read and send onto Our Friends, Congressmen and Senators. Hopefully the GOP is reading the Article and will use it on a national ad campaign.
Nancy succeeded in her mission. She blew any chance for peace under the Bush administration. She and the Democrats know they cannot win if the WOT is going well. She went there to screw it up and she did.
One of the things I Like about this is the way they blame Bush for criticism of Pelosi. Criticism came from the Washington Post ,nobody and I mean nobody can say the Washington Post is a friend of George Bush.
Condi would smile too if she had her lips tied to her elbows.
This dippy bi*** needs to be indicted under the Logan Act.
L
Washington’s lack of holding her accountable for the felony she has committed is worse, IMHO, that what she actually did here. Beyond emboldening our terrorist enemies, she has operated outside the law, with impunity, which sets a horrid example for the rest of the criminals in our Congress, as well as showing the world that the government of the USA is totally out of control.
“Nancy succeeded in her mission. She blew any chance for peace under the Bush administration.”
I am afraid you sized it up correctly — she emboldened our enemies.
“The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi’s party takes over the White House in 2009.”
Pretty much says it all about the 2008 election.
Pres. Bush is always going to get the blame for everything.
I heard him getting grief tonight from a talk show host that is conservative for him not STOPPING Pelosi from going.
Oh, now that would have gone over well from a party and a MEDIA that tend to use the word “dictator” a lot when referring to Prs. Bush.
If she feels that way then she has no business representing our system (i.e. Democracy).
Our papaer showed her today leaving on a fact finding mission to Jupiter.
Pelosi should be ashamed of herself,but she isnt. She is too stupid to realise what she has done. She has violated the Logan act, She has given comfort and aid to our enemies and she has shown that obviously she hasnt read the Constitution and knows nothing of the separatiion of powers.
She is a total disgrace and a Bug-eyed fool.
Very true....and she will probably get a standing ovation when she walks into the House for the first time, when they get back in 10 DAYS.
Lantos is at least HONEST...he did say that they were there presenting the Democrat foreign policy...so he at least told the world that they are breaking the law...and conducting foreign policy against the wishes of the duly elected POTUS/CIC.
SHE will lie about it and get away with it.
BTW...I just saw this dingbat lefty on Fox News...she was supposed to be debating about the conduct of Iran regarding the Brit troops...but instead she said that a car bomb in Iraq that killed a bunch of people at a neighborhood market was “John McCain’s fault” because he went out there when he was there...just to prove a point...and so the insurgents attacked those people because of McCain....and so McCain is at fault!!!!
You can’t make this stuff up.
“It rejects the idea that the US political system, or the culture in which it is rooted, is in any way better, let alone superior, to systems developed by other peoples across the globe, including the Middle East.”
Maybe this is why they are so happy to welcome her. She is placing their forms of terrorist supporting political systems at par with ours!
Wacko! This lady makes me sick.
Our side needs to start calling them out when they lie (which they do repeatedly) and when they say insane things like that. But it never seems to happen. I confess, I don’t understand it.
Seriously, I thought this was satire...
I am beginning to think that the Dems have called Pres. Bush and VP Cheney liars so often, over so many things, it has conditioned people to not even listen when the GOP says the same about one of them...
It is kind of like the “Nazi” thing....so many people have called the others of acting like a nazi so many times..that it has lost it’s meaning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.