Bush and widespread anti-incumbent sentiment

Fareed Zakaria, Editor, Newsweek International, commenting in the 14th November issue of that magazine has made a significant observation -- "as President Bush's approval ratings sink at home, the glee across the globe rises. He remains the most unpopular political figure in the world, and newspapers from Europe to Asia are delighting in his troubles."

The situation for the Bush Administration has become more difficult in the past few weeks with further revelations of discord from within the USA and continuing problems in Iraq. As the death toll of US military personnel continues to rise in Iraq (it has climbed to over 2050), questions are being asked afresh about facts and information that were used to justify the controversial invasion of that country.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The visit of the UN Secretary General to Iraq and UN approval for the continued presence of the multinational force till the end of 2006, has not greatly improved Bush's ratings within the USA. The Democratic Party in the US Senate has started its own campaign to overcome the stalling tactics of the Republicans by imposing rare closed sessions in that body. This is being undertaken to force the majority in the Senate to complete a probe on whether the Bush Administration misused intelligence before the Iraq war. The Republicans are furious because they see such a tactic as an effort to draw public attention back to Iraq. The White House also considers such steps as factors that are compounding the problem for Bush, at a time when he is facing the fall-out from an indictment of Lewis Libby, a senior aide related to the handling of pre-war intelligence. Some 58 per cent of Americans surveyed during the middle of November indicated that they disapproved of Bush's handling of his job. This was a decline of five per cent in the last two months.

Several other reports have also added to the home-work for Bush staffers.

Clinton Administration terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have come out with conclusion that the United States is losing the war on terrorism. They have suggested that despite relatively easy victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush's subsequent policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq and 'escalated the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.' They have also indicated that 'Bus's mounting political woes at home have undermined the chance for any bold US initiatives to address the grim social realities that feed Islamic radicalism.'

Another report has raised international concern not only about the use of torture by US interrogators but also the presence of secret prisons for al-Qaeda captives (in Eastern Europe). Declassified documents have also revealed that there has been 'widespread' use of torture and abuse of prisoners since 9/11. Evidence has been also surfaced that 44 prisoners died in Iraq and Afghanistan in US custody under questionable circumstances. This has been received by many including myself with great disappointment. This has affected the high moral ground which the USA has always taken on the question of upholding human rights.

It was as such, a relief to see efforts undertaken by Senator John McCain in this regard. McCain proposed an amendment to a law in the US Senate (also endorsed by Colin Powell) regarding the manner in which prisoners should be treated. It was passed by a vote of 90 to 9 and was a 'stunning rebuke' of US Administration policy.

Washing of US policy dirty linen in public since the Abu Ghraib scandal is definitely affecting US image abroad. Open criticism is beginning to whittle away support for Bush.

It would also be pertinent to refer here to Frances Fukuyama and his comments on the 'Bush doctrine' and associated US national security strategy. He has censured the Administration's inability in being able to differentiate between pre-emption and prevention. He has also castigated the failure of Bush's unilateralist foreign policy that has relied more on ex-post facto legitimisation of initiatives. He has similarly taken to task both Bush policy and his intelligence officials. He has upbraided these aspects for their failure in several directions -- finding Weapons of Mass Destruction, in being able to anticipate the almost uniformly hostile reaction of the Iraqi population to US concept of benevolent hegemony and the deep currents of anti-Americanism in Iraq.

This sort of criticism only highlights the fact that both the USA and the UK have been unable to understand that the presence of British and US troops in Iraq are a part of the problem. This thesis has been supported by a recent secret poll commissioned by senior British Officers (reported by British Sunday Telegraph on 23 October). It pointed out that millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified. The poll also suggested that less than one per cent of the Iraqi population in southern Iraq think that allied military involvement is helping to improve security in Iraq.

Despite holding elections of sorts and crafting a Constitution, US policy-makers have to appreciate that reformulation of US goals in Iraq is now needed. Zbigniew Brezezinski is quite correct when he suggests that the US Administration not only has to confront the political background of the terrorist menace but also realise that this is reinforcing public sympathy for the terrorists among the Sunni population inside Iraq and among Muslims in general in the countries neighbouring Iraq. The terrorist political agenda is evoked from images reflecting denigration of Muslims by heavily armed foreigners. Intense political hatred is also created through scenes of Palestinian civilians continuing to suffer under continued Israeli occupation.

President Bush and his able Secretary of State Rice have been trying to round off the sharp edges since the beginning of this year. Spin doctors have been engaged to soften the situation. However, as evidenced in the hostile protests faced by Bush during his visit to the Mar del Plata Conference, his team has a long way to go. It should be a source of concern for creative thinkers in the USA, that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of American policy. Another factor is also emerging within international relations. Apprehension about US efforts and the creation of a disagreeable unipolar world is leading many nations to be more cautious and to explore ways of shaping closer regional associations rather than relations trans-Pacific or trans-Atlantic in nature. Such a trend does not bode well for the future.

US forces in Iraq have swelled to 161,000. Bush knows that the growing anti-war sentiment within the USA is beginning to find such figures unacceptable. I have a feeling that de-escalation in the number of troops will begin after the December 15 national elections in Iraq. I do not however see any significant reduction. There will probably be more rotation but a minimum figure of at least around 100,000 is expected to continue till the end of next year.

In my opinion, any disengagement of Coalition presence including that of the British troops will largely depend on how the Iraqi authorities handle the trial of former President Saddam Hossain. It will definitely impact on the internal political and security situation in Iraq. In more ways than one, the scenario will be a severe test for the new government in Iraq in the midst of a strong insurgency. It is also bound to affect Bush's popularity back home.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador -- any response to mzamir@dhaka.net