The BA's (although BS seems more appropriate) bewildering policy of yes and no, no and yes, has left conservatives and liberals without any clue as to what's going on-kind of similar to Tom Daschle not knowing about the secret bunker of Washington workers stashed away by the BA in case Washington disappeared. The BA, which has always been very black and white about issues before (see: "axis of evil," see: Charles Pickering), has added purple polka dots, some stripes and even a few grass stains to their statements. What before was clean and clear-even if it was intolerably wrong in my humble opinion-now has become a jumbled mix of Ari Fleischer back-speak combined with our President's usually errant (as in "wandering," although "imperfect" fits the case here, too) proclamations.
Our policy toward the Middle East has made some startling changes in just the past two months. Remember that Osama bin Laden fellow? Well, he used to be "evil," but now he's either too dead (we don't need confirmation, right?), or too good at playing hide and seek for us to bother with serious pursuit. What about that Saddam Hussein guy? Papa Bush once said of him, "We're dealing with Hitler revisited." Apparently Hitler isn't much of a concern anymore. Junior, trying to silence the critics that buried his father for not taking a hard enough line against Saddam, declared "Saddam needs to go" just a few day ago. But his weak attempt at bathroom humor doesn't belong here. Action does. Iraqi refugees are now scavenging the world looking for accommodations, but the attack still hasn't come. Why? Because the BA has managed to push the Arab countries, as well as the European Union-two groups whose support is necessary in order to mount an attack against Saddam-as far away as possible with its baffling Israel-Palestine policy.
Bush and company started off as Israel's greatest ally, the key supporter for a nation besieged by suicide bombers. But when things began to break down, the BA realized that maybe it wasn't in its best interest to be involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It wasn't our business, after all. But when Ariel Sharon got a little carried away and let his grudge against Yasser Arafat take the place of diplomacy, it became time to participate again. However, the question of which side to take became more difficult. The incentives for backing an all-out Israeli attack on Palestine and its "terrorist infrastructure" (who knew a random group of civilians whose hatred for Israel and desire for a recognized Palestinian state were linked together by "infrastructure"?) were the continuance of a consistent policy, the banishment of the highly dangerous (though weak) Arafat and the condemnation of suicide bombing as an immoral and intolerable method of war.
The contradictory incentives run as follows. First, an Israeli invasion of Palestinian land means civilian casualties. Currently, many civilians in Ramallah are living on what bread and water they can get. The streets are quiet, and civilian life has not been disturbed, but destroyed. A 14-year-old girl standing on the balcony of her home was shot by a tank. Second, an attack on Palestine means an attack on Arab people and that's not setting a very good base for a future attack on Saddam (assuming that's still in the cards). Third, Europe is turning further and further away from American backing of Israel. The European Union's foreign minister has asked for both Sharon and Arafat to step down. The EU sees importance in peace and a certain impropriety in the Israeli military's power bulldozing the Palestinians. By distancing the European Union, America not only loses an essential ally in the balance of world power, but loses more necessary support for an attack on Iraq.
The BA asked for a withdrawal of Israeli troops. It's a shame they didn't call George first, though. He was hanging out at his Texas ranch, probably engaged in a favorite activity: shooting plastic pigeons with the faces of his least favorite leaders. Picture: Arafat. Picture: Hussein. Picture: Gore. So Junior decides that while swinging his own guns the Israelis might as well do the same, and backs the invasion. At the same time he signs a U.N. resolution that Israel withdraw. Now George Bush did not go to Williams. Nor does George Bush do kegstands (ok, maybe I'm wrong there). What was he thinking? Probably a little of everything.
The funny thing is that even though both the BA and Junior chatted and agreed that they should back the Israeli invasion, they can't seem to stick to the same plan for more than a few hours. American policy toward the Israel-Palestine conflict seems to change with the tide; it appears as consistent as Enron was financially sound. After a period of backing the Israeli invasion, the BA has finally come to the conclusion that the current situation isn't helping anyone. Apparently they hadn't previously noticed the lack of good the last 18 months of Israeli policy has done for the situation. There needs to be a different policy and different figures. And there needs to be peace, or at least peaceful compromise.
So the BA reverses policy again, Colin Powell proclaims that Israeli withdrawal should be "immediate" and Sharon doesn't pay much heed. Can you blame him after all? One week the BA steps up military action in Afghanistan to trounce terrorism, the next week they say that Israel's military efforts against terrorism are unproductive. It's a mixed message at best. This is not a product of too many kegstands. This kind of mixed message can only come from mixed drinks.
The BA is running dangerously close to distancing themselves from those they need most, those they care about and their very own goals. Saddam seems more and more secure with each day of Israeli occupation. The BA seems more and more confused about whether it wants to be involved in this conflict and, if so, how to do so. It's no piece of pie, that's for sure, but the BA is only making things more difficult by being inconsistent in their policy. And when the most powerful country is inconsistent, the conflicts it attempts to deal with become equally messy.
What comes next from the BA is hard to tell and scary to imagine. Wait ... coming in over the wire ... "BA relocates capital to Williamstown to be closer to dazed purple cows." Oh boy. Three more years.