washingtonpost.com  > Opinion > Columnists > Mary McGrory
Mary McGrory

Not a Week for Reality

By Mary McGrory
Sunday, March 2, 2003; Page B07

It was a week to check your hearing. Many of the things that were being said could only be described as delusional.

Wednesday night the president -- who seemed to have been spoken to by British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- talked about Iraq in terms of peace. He wants to make war to bring peace to the Middle East and, yes, statehood to Palestinians.

_____More McGrory_____
'The Saddest Loss' (The Washington Post, Apr 23, 2004)
Blossoms and Bombs (The Washington Post, Mar 16, 2003)
Tony Blair in the Doghouse (The Washington Post, Mar 13, 2003)
About Mary McGrory
Add Mary McGrory to your personal home page.

_____What's Your Opinion?_____
Message Boards Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards
About Message Boards

From Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, in an interview with Dan Rather, also engaged in fantasy. Iraq, he said, was not defeated in the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Hello? What about those legions of Iraqi soldiers who surrendered to any English speaker they could find -- truck drivers, reporters, medics? They were asking for directions to the front?

President Bush's speech to the American Enterprise Institute seemed an implicit admission that cowboy lingo and U.N.-trashing hadn't won over the world. Solicitude for the Palestinians was a wholly new tack. Bush has sedulously avoided the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, turning a deaf ear to all appeals to consider evenhandedness as the not-so-secret weapon against anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. If he had said six months ago -- or six weeks ago -- that he could see a time when settlements in the occupied territories would end, he might have made a difference.

The one-minute-to-midnight conversion could have astonished the West Bank, although it may have had trouble believing it. The idea that the war would benefit Palestinians is stunning and totally contradicted by the record. Bush has sedulously ignored the Middle East.

He has accepted all of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's alibis for not going forward with the "road map" that the so-called Quartet -- consisting of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia -- is supposed to use in negotiations. Sharon pleaded suicide bombers, the election and finally the formation of his new government as reasons not to come to the table. The time for action has never been ripe, nor is it likely to be: Sharon has chosen a hard-line cabinet that would rather fight than switch.

We should not be surprised. The other foreign policy problem is being dealt with in a spirit of unreality. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who did a slam-dunk job of convincing his compatriots of the need to stop Hussein, although not necessarily to start a war, has been on the stage of another hot spot, the Korean Peninsula. North Korea observed the inauguration of the new president of South Korea by throwing a new fit; it fired a short-range missile into the sea. Translation: Why won't the United States talk to us?

There is no good answer to that question except to say that the real reason is that Bill Clinton, in his day, talked to the North Koreans and so Bush must not. This may not seem to be high statecraft. Bush has been exceptionally generous in sharing his feelings with us, instead of formulating the nation's views. He "loathes" North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, he told an interviewer. He is "sick and tired" of Hussein. With the bombs about to fall, the first person singular does not suffice.

But Powell is willing to be soldier rather than statesman, and he obediently says that we mustn't lower ourselves to parleying with a little dictator who could blow up the world if we don't give him the attention he demands. Powell insists that this is a multilateral matter and that we misunderstand and distort it if we don't include the North's neighbors at the table. Powell did the best he could with what spin he had. He said the missile was "fairly innocuous" and "fairly old." That was all the comfort he could give the new South Korean leader quaking by his side.

Unfinished international business was personified by Hamid Karzai, who is the role-model U.S.-installed leader of Afghanistan. He is, in fact, a dream. He speaks excellent English, has an exemplary attitude and has a brother in Baltimore who owns a restaurant. His beard is neatly trimmed and he wears colorful woven scarves. And he does not whine. Even with skeptical and sympathetic senators inviting him to speak candidly about his problems, beginning with nation-building funds far short of "a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan," he does not wince or cry aloud. Democrats importuned him to be candid, but he knows that no man can serve two masters. Bush, who has labeled Afghanistan "a success," holds the purse strings on whatever Karzai might get that is left over from lavish Iraq expenditures.

So, in spite of the fact that Karzai has to be guarded by U.S. forces, dares not venture far outside Kabul and sees warlords recapturing control of the countryside and Taliban remnants attacking American camps, he maintained that "it's a much brighter picture than you read in the newspapers." Sometimes the expression in his large, dark eyes seemed at variance with what he said, but this was not a week for reality in Washington.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company