Tracy Press, CA
Oct 27 2007
Our Voice
Should an audible have been called for U.S. muddling in the Middle
East?
Press Editorial Board / Friday, 26 October 2007
The border skirmishes between Turkey and Kurdistan terrorists has yet
again stirred up the Middle East’s hornets’ nest, where tribes have
attempted to dominate each other for centuries.
Once again, the Bush administration is the de facto referee; this
time, it’s Turks versus Kurds. The outcome may be the same: no one
actually wins, but the U.S. really loses.
How did the U.S., the most powerful nation, end up again mired in the
middle of a dispute between two peoples that hate each other and
where a ceasefire is the best anyone can hope for?
We offer two contrasting points of view on U.S. Middle East policy:
President Bush’s, through testimony Wednesday by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, a Stanford University alumni, before the House
Judiciary Committee; and a critic’s, a statement Thursday to the
Institute for Public Accuracy by an Armenian-American, Ben H.
Badikian, professor emeritus and former dean of the School of
Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. Rice: `The Middle East is now and will remain one of the most
strategically important parts of the world for our national interests
and for international security. Therefore, the United States will
never retreat from our commitments in the Middle East.
`The goal we seek is a secure and peaceful region. But for that peace
and security to be lasting, not false stability, it must be rooted in
what President Bush calls the non-negotiable demands of human
dignity: the rule of law, limits on state power, free speech,
religious liberty, equal justice, property rights, tolerance of
difference, and respect for women.
`These values are a source of success for nations across the world.
And they are the only ideas that can give people in the Middle East a
future of modernity with dignity.’
Professor Bagdikian: `The face-off with Turkey over their
decades-long fight against their own independence-seeking Kurds, has
become a multi-sided dilemma for all parties.
`Kurds have lived for centuries in the mountains that straddle the
Turkish-Iraqi border. In Iraq, the Kurds are among the U.S. Army’s
most stable friends, and also occupy the other end of Iraq in its oil
rich region. Dilemma No. 1.
`But Turkey hates the Kurds and hints it might stop cooperating with
the U.S. Dilemma No. 2.
`Turkey needs U.S. help to enter the European Union. Dilemma No. 3.
`But the U.S. needs the big Turkish airfield to supply Iraq. Dilemma
No. 4.
`Bush has threatened Iran if it does not stop nuclear development and
Cheney has raised the threats of military action against Iran. But
Iran has oil and is Shiite. Dilemma No. 5.
`In Iraq, various Shiites are our `friends.’ But so is Israel a U.S.
friend. Dilemma No. 6.
`If we move militarily against Iran, it has missiles it can send into
Israel. Israel could fire back. Dilemma 7 and 8.
`It is a mess with no way to satisfy all the conflicting problems
created when Bush decided he would try to dominate the entire Middle
East.’