LA Times OpEd: Responsible Leaders Faced With Such Failures Would Resign

But, as we know full well, the Bushies never take responsibility and never resign (except to "spend more time with" their families", even when they don't have families).

The LA Times offers a must-read, hard-hitting and most accurate account of the failures of the Bush Administration in the Middle East, such as the promises to support the New Lebanon which they never did, not supporting the Palestinians fairly in the peace negotiation process while capitulating to every Israeli demand, and by creating such problems with Iraq that it was guaranteed to create more terrorists and more hate and fear of the U.S. and Israel in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs everywhere.

Here's a bit (but please try to find the time to read the rest; I think it's one of the best synopses of the failures I've read to date):

THE BUSH administration's plan to bring democracy to the Middle East is now in ruins. In a nation where political responsibility still counted for something, the architects of that strategy would be forced to resign.

Remember the argument for the Iraq war — that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would lead to a stable, democratic Iraq and bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Remember the argument that the key problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was lack of Palestinian democracy? Remember Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's promise that the U.S. would "support the new Lebanon"?

In truth, reliance on democratization was always not so much a strategy as an excuse for the lack of one. It provided a flimsy cover for the Bush administration's inability or unwillingness to address the key challenges and opportunities of the region. These failures included walking away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and refusing to consider deals with Iran and Syria when, in the wake of 9/11, these regimes were extremely eager for compromise. As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and Mideast scholar Flynt Leverett, among others, have argued, Bush forfeited the chance to recruit these two states as allies in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Sunni extremist world, which the Syrian and Iranian regimes have their own good reasons to hate.Instead, the administration, backed by most of the Democratic leadership, has supported the Israeli government in its plan for a unilateral solution that would confine the Palestinians to Bantustans. It has treated Iran and Syria with unremitting hostility, trying to undermine the Syrian economy and impose sanctions on Iran, demanding concessions while openly proclaiming its desire to overthrow both states.

Not surprisingly, when the flare-up of fighting between Israel and the Palestinians provided an opportunity, Tehran and Damascus unleashed Hezbollah. This is an extremely risky and irresponsible strategy for Syria and Iran, but no serious student of the Middle East can claim that it is an unexpected one, given the situation in which the United States has placed them.

Far from promoting democracy in the region, the U.S. is being led closer to Israel's traditional three-part strategy toward its neighbors: reliance on deals with dictatorial regimes that fear their own people; promotion of divisions between different religious and ethnic groups; and, when necessary, war.

In Lebanon, Israel is justified in demanding that the Lebanese government exert more control over Hezbollah. But Israel must remember that Shiites represent more than 40% of the Lebanese population — and the vast majority support Hezbollah. Thus, the only way that Hezbollah can be controlled without massive violence is by integrating its members into the Lebanese state.