|
|
Home | World | U.S. | Weather | Business | Sports | Analysis | Politics | Law | Tech | Science | Health | Entertainment | Offbeat | Travel | Education | Specials | Autos | I-Reports |
|
By Jeff Greenfield CNN Senior Analyst Adjust font size:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush will be in Jordan later this week, where he plans to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. And he's traveling with a heavy burden: the knowledge that the optimistic vision behind the Iraq war lies in ruins. News reports say the Iraq study group -- the bipartisan commission chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and ex-Congressman Lee Hamilton -- will recommend direct talks with Iran and Syria, as well as a timetable for partial withdrawal of American troops, both designed to find some way out of the spiral of sectarian violence. These ideas represent a stunning change from the ideas that animated the decision to invade Iraq three and a half years ago. That decision was not based simply on the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that his removal would change the entire region for the better. Specifically, the expectation was that the emergence of a free, stable Iraq would trigger regime change in Iran, where the mullahs ruled despite a strong hunger for a more democratic nation. That change, in turn, would dry up funding for Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, two of the more militant forces against the idea of a permanent peace with Israel. And Syria, as well, would feel the hot breath of reform and democratization. With the funding for terror dried up, the theory went, more moderate Palestinians -- such as Mahmoud Abbas -- would gain the upper hand, and prospects for a comprehensive solution would increase. And with reform spreading even to Saudi Arabia, the flow of money from some of that nation's wealthy citizens to extremist groups throughout the Muslim world would slow, maybe even stop. For a time there were signs that this hope might become real; three times millions of Iraqis went to the polls to vote on their future. As of now, at least, this looks like a false dawn. In Iraq, Shiites and Sunnis appear more determined than ever to strike at each other; and the two nations that were supposed to change or fall after the birth of a stable, free Iraq, now seem to have gained in influence. This somber portrait raises one more question: For years it has been an article of faith among some on the right that signs of American weakness -- the pullout from Saigon in 1975, Beirut in 1983, Somalia in 1993; and the failure to strike hard after attacks on American interests and forces -- have encouraged America's enemies. If that theory is right, then what lesson might they draw from the sight of the United States now preparing to ask for help from two regimes it once hoped to topple. SPECIAL REPORT
Interactive: Who's who in Iraq
Interactive: Sectarian divide
Timeline: Bloodiest days for civilians
|