Originaly Published at: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3935
Foreign Policy in
Focus (FPIF) Commentary
George Bush's 2007 State of The Union Speech: Annotated
Written by: Stephen Zunes | January 24, 2007
Editor: John Feffer, IRC
President George Bush gave his 2007 State of the Union address on January
23. While the speech covered many domestic issues, Bush also laid out his foreign
policy approach to Iraq, Iran, terrorism, and democracy promotion. Excerpts
from the president's speech are in italics; my comments follow.
+++++++++++++++++++++
BUSH: “Al-Qaida and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed
by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. They want to overthrow
moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry
out new attacks on our country.”
ZUNES: Al-Qaida and like-minded Sunni extremist groups have generally not
targeted moderate governments, but have instead focused their efforts against
repressive governments, such as the family dictatorships of the Gulf, the Mubarak
regime in Egypt, and the Karimov dictatorship in Uzbekistan. Since its inception,
al-Qaida has principally targeted Saudi Arabia, a repressive theocratic monarchy
that has no constitution or legislature, oppresses women, denies religious
freedom, and engages in widespread torture and extrajudicial killings. In any
case, unlike traditional guerrilla groups for whom a safe haven for operations
is critical, al-Qaida operates through a decentralized network of underground
cells and does not need to control any government to organize terrorist operations.
++++
BUSH: “By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force
our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They
would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology.”
ZUNES: No public statement by al-Qaida or any of its recognized leaders has
ever criticized the United States for supporting liberty. Instead, they have
criticized the United States for supporting dictatorial regimes and occupation
armies that deny liberty. And, whatever their grievances, there is no serious
risk that the United States will retreat from the world. The current debate
is whether the United States should continue to exert its power unilaterally
through military means or to be a more responsible global citizen that works
multilaterally and honors its international legal obligations. And, even if
the United States did suddenly pursue an isolationist posture, scores of other
countries would do whatever was necessary to prevent al-Qaida from imposing
its will or spreading its totalitarian ideology.
++++
BUSH: “In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an
escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America,
and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take
direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists
like Hezbollah—a
group second only to al-Qaida in the American lives it has taken. The Shia
and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever
slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked
purposes. They want to kill Americans … kill democracy in the Middle
East … and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.”
ZUNES: It is grossly misleading to equate these Shia groups with al-Qaida:
Hezbollah and a number of other Shia groups do receive Iranian support and
do embrace an extremist ideology but—unlike al-Qaida—they are focused
primarily on advancing the interests of the Shiite communities in their respective
countries and do not have a global terrorist agenda. In addition, rather than
trying to “kill democracy in the Middle East,” it was Shia groups
that overcame initial American objections to successfully push for direct elections
in Iraq and it is Shia groups that are currently pushing for greater democracy
in Bahrain against the U.S.-backed Sunni monarchy. Extremist Shiites have killed
Americans in Lebanon and Iraq, but only after American troops intervened in
their country and began counter-insurgency campaigns that killed large numbers
of civilians. Hezbollah has not killed any Americans in well over 20 years—they
stopped not long after U.S. troops withdrew from their country—and has
since become a legal Lebanese political party that has successfully competed
in Lebanese elections. Furthermore, unlike al-Qaida—which has sought
chemical agents and other material for mass killings—there are no indications
that any Shiite groups have sought such weapons.
++++
BUSH: “This war is more than a clash of arms—it is a decisive
ideological struggle, and the security of our Nation is in the balance. To
prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove
19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us. What every terrorist fears
most is human freedom—societies where men and women make their own
choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead
of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant
ideologies—and most
will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own
security interests by helping moderates, and reformers, and brave voices for
democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and
women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of
all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security … we must.”
ZUNES: This is an accurate assessment of the roots of terrorism, yet there
are no indications that President Bush is considering a change in U.S. policy
from its ongoing military, diplomatic, and financial support of more than a
dozen dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa.
Indeed, all of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other
U.S.-backed regimes that repress human freedom, governments that still receive
billions of dollars worth of American support for their police and military.
++++
BUSH: “In Iraq … a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and
reprisal … continues
to this day. This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight
we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would
not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our
own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is
still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find
our resolve, and turn events toward victory.”
ZUNES: Many Iraqis and Western observers repeatedly warned the Bush administration
that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely unleash the very kind of sectarian
conflict that has unfolded. Prior to the U.S. takeover, Iraq had maintained
a longstanding history of secularism and a strong national identity among its
Arab population despite its sectarian differences. U.S. occupation authorities—in
an apparent effort to divide and rule—encouraged sectarianism by dividing
up authority in the U.S.-appointed provisional government based not on technical
skills or ideological affiliation but ethnic and religious identity. This pattern
has continued under subsequent governments, resulting in virtually every political
question debated not on its merits but on which group it potentially benefits
or harms. This has led to great instability, with political parties, parliamentary
blocs, and government ministries breaking down along sectarian lines. Iraq's
Sunni Arab minority has long identified with Arab nationalism and distrusts
much of the Shiite leadership in large part because they came to power as a
result of the U.S. invasion, and some extremists within the Sunni opposition
have targeted Shiite civilians in response. Seeing their government faced with
a growing insurgency and their community falling victim to terrorist violence,
elements within the Shiite-led government have responded by utilizing death
squads to target Sunni civilians, with U.S. forces unable or unwilling to stop
it. In other words, U.S. policy has contributed greatly to the sectarian violence
and is not likely to reverse it. As a result, most Iraqis—both Sunni
and Shiite—want U.S. forces out of their country. Indeed, the presence
of American forces is fueling the insurgency and is helping to undermine the
legitimacy of the government. As a result, it is not a matter of “resolve,” but
whether ongoing U.S. military operations in Iraq are doing more harm than good.
++++
BUSH: “We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq … we are
deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines
to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi
forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded
in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure
the city by chasing down terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads.”
ZUNES: Most reputable accounts indicate that the Iraqi armed forces are not
yet in a position to lead American forces in counter-insurgency operations,
particularly given the high level of infiltration by supporters of both Shiite
militias and Sunni insurgents. In any case, as with most guerrilla wars against
foreign occupation armies, most of the fighters live at home or are otherwise
capable of melting into the population and laying low until the army completes
its sweep and they can then resume fighting. An additional 20,000 troops in
a city of over five million is not likely to clear and secure many neighborhoods
for more than a very short period of time.
++++
BUSH: “And in Anbar province—where al-Qaida terrorists have
gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them—we
are sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find
the terrorists and clear them out. We did not drive al-Qaida out of their
safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free
Iraq.”
ZUNES: Elements allied with al-Qaida only represent a tiny fraction of the
insurgency and no al-Qaida operative from Afghanistan has ever been captured
or positively identified in Iraq. Most of the insurgency in Anbar consists
of homegrown Sunni Islamists, tribal groups, Baathists, and other nationalists.
Except for a tiny enclave in the autonomous Kurdish region outside of Baghdad's
control, there were virtually no al-Qaida-affiliated activities in Iraq prior
to the U.S. invasion in 2003. It is the presence of U.S. forces that has resulted
in the emergence of whatever al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists do exist in Anbar
and elsewhere in Iraq.
++++
BUSH: “If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the
Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect
an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists
aided by al-Qaida and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence
could spill out across the country—and in time the entire region could
be drawn into the conflict. For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For
the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle.
And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe
havens … new recruits … new
resources … and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow
this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite
tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment
in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in
Iraq, and to spare the American people from this danger.”
ZUNES: Baghdad was secure from Islamic extremists—both Sunni and Shiite—under
the secular regime that the United States overthrew in 2003. Under Saddam Hussein's
authoritarian rule, Iraq was free from chaos, and the successful UN-sponsored
disarmament effort had prevented Iraq from threatening other countries in the
region. That an American invasion could unleash forces that would foment chaos
in Iraq and threaten the stability of the region was widely predicted beforehand.
For example, in September 2002, Arab foreign ministers in Cairo issued a warning
that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “open the gates of hell.” As
a result, it is ironic that Bush now uses the very chaos and the rise of Islamic
extremism for which he was responsible as an excuse for continuing the war
he started. Studies from both U.S. government agencies and independent research
institutes indicate that the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq—not the prospect
of withdrawal—has led to growing anti-Americanism and Islamic radicalism.
The longer the United States continues to prosecute the war in Iraq, the greater
the danger to the United States.
++++
BUSH: “The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle
that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others.
That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great
effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation.
And so I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror,
made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas
for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And
we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.”
ZUNES: The decision in October 2002 by the leadership of both parties in
both houses of Congress to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq at the time
and circumstances of his own choosing demonstrates the danger of working in
close consultation with the Bush administration. Congressional Democrats—even
when they are in the majority, as they were in the Senate at the time of that
fateful vote—tend to buckle under pressure from the administration on
foreign policy. Indeed, the Democratic leadership has ruled out trying to force
a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq through cutting funding for the war—the
only real tool at their disposal. And it looks as though they will even fail
to block funding for the proposed increase of U.S. combat soldiers fighting
in Iraq despite polls showing a majority of the American public would like
them to do so. Even if Democrats on such an advisory council did actually display
some independence from the Bush administration on policy issues, they will
not likely be listened to anyway, given President Bush's failure to heed the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
++++
BUSH: “The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made
it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear
weapons.”
ZUNES: Meanwhile, the United States has blocked the UN from imposing sanctions
on Pakistan, Israel, and India despite those countries' ongoing violations
of UN Security Council resolutions related to their nuclear weapons programs.
In addition, the Bush administration severely weakened international non-proliferation
efforts by entering into a nuclear cooperation agreement with the Indian government
despite that country's ongoing defiance of UN Security Council resolution 1172,
which calls on India to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
++++
BUSH: “With the other members of the Quartet—the UN, the
European Union, and Russia—we are pursuing diplomacy to help bring
peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian
state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security.”
ZUNES: In reality, President Bush has undermined peace efforts by the UN
and European governments by insisting that the Palestinians unilaterally implement
their obligations under Phase I of the Quartet's Road Map instead of the original
emphasis on mutual and simultaneous efforts by both sides. The Bush administration
has also blocked international efforts to stop Israel's ongoing colonization
of large swathes of the West Bank (in violation of a series of UN Security
Council resolutions) and Israel's construction of a separation barrier deep
inside the occupied territory (in violation of a ruling by the International
Court of Justice). The Bush administration has also vetoed a series of UN Security
Council draft resolutions calling on Israel to end its ongoing violations of
international humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian territories. As
a result of these Bush administration policies, the Israeli government has
been able to move forward with its U.S.-backed “convergence plan” in
which Israel would be able to annex large sections of West Bank territory,
leaving the Palestinians in control of a series of non-contiguous cantons surrounded
by Israel and constituting well under 20% of historic Palestine. Such an economically
unviable mini-state, closely resembling the infamous Bantustans of apartheid
South Africa, would not likely be able to live in peace and security with Israel.
++++
BUSH: “We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in
places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma.”
ZUNES: Unfortunately, the administration refuses to speak out for the cause
of freedom in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan,
Oman, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, Chad, or the many other countries ruled by allied
regimes that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. By only speaking
out in support of freedom in countries with autocratic governments the administration
does not like but remaining silent in regard to autocratic governments the
Bush administration supports, it politicizes the human rights struggle, replaces
principle with political expediency, and compromises the struggle for freedom
worldwide.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stephen Zunes is the Foreign Policy In Focus Middle East editor (www.fpif.org).
He is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and the author
of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage
Press, 2003).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the International
Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) and the Institute for
Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). ©Creative Commons - some
rights reserved.
Recommended citation:
Stephen Zunes, "Bush's SOTU: Annotated," (Silver City, NM and Washington,
DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, January 24, 2007).
Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/3935
Production Information:
Author(s): Stephen Zunes
Editor(s): John Feffer, IRC
Production: John Feffer, IRC