Arab Media Reaction To Bush Iraq Speech

by Brian Shott

(PNS) -- Interview with Jamal Dajani, director of Middle Eastern programming at Link TV, who watched Al Jazeera, Al-Arabi and Abu Dhabi television news shows and monitored online Arab newspapers following the president's speech on June 28:

Q: Mr. Dajani, very generally, how did President Bush appear to the Arab commentators you monitored? Was he effective?

A: One commentator on Abu Dhabi TV said the president looked like he was simply reading the speech. Others were struck by the forum -- that he was speaking in front of the military, not the American people. In front of a disciplined and unemotional military, they noted, the first applause came at least 20 minutes into the speech.

Q: You found three common reactions in all the news shows you monitored.

A: Yes, some of the reaction was not so different from the critical voices here in the U.S. press. First, Arab media still see the president as trying to link 9/11 to Iraq. The administration knows that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. To come back several years later and still make the same claim really astounded Arab commentators. They were really surprised.

Q: But ironically, it's more true today. Now there are foreign fighters in Iraq -- Al Qaeda members or jihadists who do have philosophical or financial connections to those who were behind 9/11.

A: This is an ongoing theme in Arab media -- that the actions of the U.S. encourage these developments. Under Saddam, there were no Al Qaeda members in Iraq. And now, after the occupation, it has become a hotbed for them, a magnet for jihadists, like what the Taliban established in Afghanistan.

Q: And the second reaction you saw?

A: Many Arab commentators see President Bush as someone who never admits his mistakes. So many took notice when he said, "Our progress (in Iraq) has been uneven." But they compared that to (Defense Secretary) Rumsfeld's recent comments, that defeating the insurgency could take 12 years. So they felt Bush tried, but wasn't strong enough to say, "We underestimated the insurgents, they are stronger than we thought, and we are not going to be out in a year or two." They felt Rumsfeld was more honest.

The third common reaction can be summed up in a headline from Al-Ahram, the largest paper in Egypt and one of the largest in the Arab world: "Bush Asks His People To Prepare To Shed More Blood in Iraq." Arab media said that this was a speech tailored to an American audience, not an attempt to reach Iraqis or Arabs or Muslims or whatever. What Bush was doing in this speech, many Arab commentators said, was preparing Americans for the long haul.

Q: Bush's address followed a major speech on democracy by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Cairo. Is the president making any headway convincing Middle Easterners that he's bringing democracy to the region?

A: Well, there's been a lot of comment about how hypocritical it is that Rice lectures other countries on democracy, particularly Syria and Iran, from podiums in Egypt or Jordan, which rarely or never have elections. The United States is seen as giving certain countries a wink or a nod, and other countries, a sledgehammer over the head.

Q: At one point President Bush talked about ripples stretching out from Iraq, mentioning developments in Libya, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Even the most cynical Arab pundit must see some positive winds of change blowing.

A: In general there's a common reaction here. Bush always mentions that democracy is on the move in the Middle East; women have the vote for the first time in Kuwait, and so on. Certainly things are happening. People are admitting this, and saying that yes, 150,000 U.S. troops have created an atmosphere of change in the region. But, Arab media say, you cannot make a blanket statement that the U.S. is behind all these changes. Bush mentioned that elections happened in Palestine for the first time. But if Arafat hadn't died, there wouldn't have been elections. The death of Arafat is the cause. Same with elections in Lebanon -- it was the assassination of (former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik) Hariri, not because U.S. troops are in Iraq.

Many do give credit where credit is due: There would not have been elections in Iraq had U.S. troops not taken down Saddam. But there's much critique of the U.S. for only giving Egypt a slap on the wrist for its actions against the opposition. Arabs view this as a major thing -- one out of four Arabs is of Egyptian descent.

Q: The president described those attacking U.S. troops in Iraq as "terrorists" who follow "a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom." Do Arab commentators see one common ideology among Iraqi insurgents?

A: There was a direct answer to Bush from Iraq a few hours after his speech, and this became the No. 2 news story of the day, after Bush. There was a press conference by a newly formed opposition party in Iraq, headed by a Sunni tribal leader. They supported military resistance by Iraqis to the occupation, but opposed terrorist acts that kill innocent civilians. So, yes, there are terrorists and anarchists, but there is also legitimate resistance from the Iraqis. There are many different groups of insurgents, with different ideologies.