George S. Hishmeh

At no other time in recent history has the standing of the United States reached rock-bottom levels such as during these waning days of President George W. Bush in the White House, because of his administration’s failed foreign policies and the country’s near economic collapse.

Whether it is Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, who has maintained his seemingly comfortable lead in the opinion polls in the days before the election on November 4, or the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, who will win the contest, the first priority of the successor next year will be to undertake serious and convincing moves to get the country out of this morass at home and abroad.

As far as the global economic meltdown, optimists are seeing the first signs of a slow turnaround on the horizon, but the same could not be said about the unsuccessful American adventures overseas, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s good intentions vis-à-vis the Arab-Israel conflict have not yielded any worthwhile results so far, and are unlikely to achieve anything tangible in the weeks remaining before of the end of Bush administration’s term.

Obama’s and McCain’s election campaigns have not revealed any transformational ideas, except for a promise by the Democratic candidate to give the foreign policy issues immediate attention. Unlike McCain, Obama stressed the centrality of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has been in full swing for more than 60 years, in improving the standing of the US. “This constant wound ... this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy,” he was quoted in an interview last May.

“The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national security interest in solving this.”

The consequence of the failed Bush policies is evident in the attempt of his administration and of the Iraqi government to agree on a so-called Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). The pact is intended to provide a legal cushion for a continued US military presence in Iraq after December 31, when the UN Security Council mandate authorising their stay along with a few thousand other troops in Iraq expires. A partial US pullout from Iraqi cities and towns is reportedly scheduled for next year and a total pullout will follow by 2011, marking the end of the American invasion that lasted longer than US involvement in World War II and has certainly been considerably more expensive.

However, the controversial draft security pact, which has not been officially revealed, has been severely criticised or opposed by various Iraqi political factions, including the supporters of the anti-American Shiite cleric, Moqtada Sadr, who is believed to be living in Iran. The key issue concerns Iraqi sovereignty in the interim period, namely the Baghdad government’s right to prosecute US troops and contractors in the event of their involvement in serious crimes.

In an unexpected reversal, the Shiite-led Baghdad government yielded to the criticism and changes to the draft security pact, a step that would obviously annoy Washington.

“The Cabinet has agreed that necessary amendments to the pact could make it nationally accepted,” government spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said after the Cabinet meeting on Monday.

Whether Iran had a role in all of that is not certain, but Iranian objections to the security pact has been widely reported. Iran is said to fear that the proposed pact will give US forces a long-term foothold in Iraq, a step that several Arab states are likely to reject.

Secretary of Defence Robert Gates did well by not closing the gate to further negotiations with Iraq on the pact, despite his stiff reaction to the Iraqi intention: “I don’t think you slam the door shut, but I would say it’s pretty far closed.”

Moreover, the Bush administration should be aware that the anticipated escalation of the war in Afghan next year, along with a sizeable military commitment to Iraq, may be financially burdensome to the new administration, considering the present economic meltdown here and elsewhere.

The best thing that could happen at this time is for the Bush administration to delay any further negotiations with Baghdad until after the presidential election, when input from the president-elect may be helpful in reaching an amicable settlement.