War criminal

The only way of averting further international catastrophe is to force Bush from office and prosecute him for international crimes, writes Hassan Nafaa*

---

With much media hype, US Congress debated a report by Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to Iraq, and General Petraeus, commander of US troops in Iraq. According to the report, the situation in Iraq is under control with security improving. So there you have it. Don't worry, Americans. A little patience and victory is at hand. That was the main message of a report so apologetic that it is practically unworthy of discussion.

Nothing strange here. The report was issued by people who work for the US government, who are implementing its diplomatic and military policies. It was unlikely to offer an objective view or impartial critique of US policies. And yet it is highly significant, for it gives us a clue as to the real intent of the Bush administration and its future course of action. Had the administration been willing to change its policies in Iraq, it would have seized the opportunity to admit some of its mistakes and promise not to make more in the future. What happened was the exact opposite. The policies followed in Iraq, the report claimed, were sound at heart, and more of the same was to be expected.

The report didn't get to the root of the problem. For example, it omitted any reference to the fact that the invasion of Iraq was based on distorted information and that post-invasion policies were all wrong. So it made no mention of how to rectify past mistakes. Intentionally, the report confined itself to the "security dimension" of the crisis, the only aspect it deemed worthy of discussion. Its writers went out of their way to prove that violence has ebbed in the country since the recent "surge" in the number of serving troops.

It is now clear that the Crocker-Petraeus report had one thing in mind; namely, to exonerate President Bush's decision to increase rather than decrease the number of troops in Iraq, against the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report. The Crocker-Petraeus report argued that the surge in troops made tangible security "achievements", and that such achievements weren't possible otherwise. In short, the report gave the US administration a chance to pretend -- albeit in a roundabout manner -- that it was sympathetic with the public call for withdrawal, but would keep doing things its way.

As soon as the report was released, the Bush administration claimed that the success made so far would enable it to pull out some troops immediately and that a total of 30,000 troops would be withdrawn by next summer. The administration doesn't seem to understand that this course of action uncovers the real reason for the recent surge in troops. The surge was simply a gimmick, a ploy that allows the administration to pull out some troops while keeping many more in place. So it is all a delaying tactic. The administration wants to give the impression that withdrawal, now a popular demand, is already in progress. It is playing for time until the US presidential campaign gets underway. It is ceding as little ground as possible to the Democrats while giving its fellow Republicans a fighting chance.

The only reason the Bush administration resorted to such inane tactics, in my opinion, is that it knows that the Democrats have run out of options. The current situation gives Bush and his clique the leeway they need not only to press ahead with their policies in Iraq but also to pursue far-reaching plans concerning the establishment of a "new Middle East". Such plans involve a potential military strike against Iran, or even a simultaneous offensive against Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. Here is the rub. The worst thing facing the world today is not having an extremist US administration, one that is threatening world security, and indeed US security. The worst thing is the inability of the US political establishment to rein in this idiotic administration and spare us further horrors.

Our real problem is not about fixing past errors of the US administration. It is about preventing it from doing further damage. Our problem is not what Bush wants to do, but what the American system doesn't seem capable of doing.

Every society, especially at crucial transitional moments, experiences moments of doubt in which the wrong people can take over. But long-standing democracies, such as the American, are supposed to have enough checks and balances to restrain personal whims, rein in dictatorial streaks, and curb extremist ideologies. Unfortunately, we don't see this happening. The 2000 elections brought a man of limited experience and skills, a man with extremist leanings, to the mightiest position in the world. Bush came to the presidency, if you may recall, by order from the Supreme Court. His rival, Al Gore, was ahead in the overall vote.

A few months after Bush took office, extraordinary things happened. In the ensuing hysteria, an extremist ideological clique managed to hijack the US regime and place its immense capabilities at the service of an idiotic political agenda. The Democrats bowed to the storm, not wanting their "patriotism" to be brought into question. But the great failure was that of the entire regime, a regime that was so shocked and paralysed that it allowed a deranged cabal to monopolise decision-making. That cabal proceeded to bully everyone right and left, and using all legitimate and illegitimate means it managed to promote its agenda for world hegemony. The war on terror was nothing but a smokescreen used to conceal its sinister agenda.

Some political groups inside and outside the US tried to find excuses for President Bush when he declared war on Afghanistan. This was somewhat understandable given Al-Qaeda's notoriety and the backing it got from the Taliban. But there was no room for excuses when the White House turned its hellish war machine against Iraq and started bullying anyone who dared to question its policies inside and outside the Middle East. As the administration's gangster tactics became more and more flagrant, many realised that the man in charge in the oval office was drifting from politics into crime.

The dilemma of the US political system defies solution. None of the crimes committed by the Bush administration, none of the horrors committed by the White House clique, seem big enough to elicit correction. Granted the Democrats are experiencing a sudden awakening, but it is perhaps too late to repair the damage already done.

True democracies, such as the American, are supposed to spring into action and bring leaders to account when they lie to the public, and especially when they use deception and misinformation to justify an illegitimate war against a member state of UN, bullying even the UN Security Council into submission. But the US system failed to do so. For a long time it seemed that the Americans were willing to swallow the insult and turn a blind eye to what their leaders were doing, but only on condition that they do well in Iraq.

That's why the institutions of the US regime failed to take timely action. That's why the Democrats failed to rally public opinion and stop the war on Iraq during the presidential elections of 2004. And that's why Bush won a second term, and with a comfortable majority.

Ahead of the 2004 elections, I wrote an article calling on the American people to feel remorse for having elected a man so obviously unfit for office. I pleaded against Bush getting a second term, for he was a clear menace to the security of the US and the world. The Americans did the exact opposite and lived to regret it. What made them react? They were losing in Iraq. Americans voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats in the congressional mid-term elections. Now President Bush's approval rate is under 30 per cent.

The worse is not over yet, for the war in Iraq is still costing America lives and money with every passing day. And yet Americans are acting like a Third World country, helpless. Their worst nightmare is not over yet. Not only do they have to address the errors of the past, they need to prevent a reckless president from committing further idiocies, such as striking against Iran -- a scenario that would make anything that happened so far look like child's play. Unfortunately, there is every indication that the American system, in its current makeup, cannot stop the president from dragging the country into further trouble.

Iraq was once ruled by a tyrant named Saddam Hussein, a man who was accused of killing, torturing and persecuting thousands. Then President Bush told us that he would rid Iraq of the dictator and scrap Saddam's weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that Saddam never had. Instead of building a safe, modern and democratic Iraq, Bush proceeded to spread chaos. A million Iraqis have died as a result. Four million more have been displaced. Thousands of men and women have been tortured and raped in prisons, streets and homes.

Now the US president is getting ready to do the same in Iran, a country he claims has nuclear weapons. The only way, in my opinion, to avoid another catastrophe is to force Bush from office and try him for war crimes. Can the Americans do it?

* The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.