By Fluksman Samuehl With only 19 months left in the White House, the question in international politics is whether President George W Bush’s foreign policy will ever succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. From Iraq’s new strategy to the so-called surge strategy – where to from now? Is President Bush fighting a private war? Clearly, President Bush is trying to navigate uncharted waters as he continues to be bogged down in a war he barely understands. George W Bush became the 43rd US President in January 2001 after defeating a Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore in closely contested Presidential elections in the year 2000. When Bush ran for Presidency, he did not want to get involved in international peacekeeping and peacemaking initiatives. He had to make sure that American vital interests are secured at home and abroad. It later emerged that he is clearly a very conservative man and unilateralist in his foreign policy objectives. But the emergence of a unipolar post-Cold War world had major political implications for the international community. It later emerged that President Bush and the Republican Congress understand nothing is more important than the protection and defense of the American people. Even before the 11 September attacks, his administration made clear that it refused to accept constraints on American freedom of action, doubted the value of international institutions including the United Nations, and was prepared to alienate even close allies in pursuing what it saw as American vital interests. President Bush had to redefine how America engages the world, shedding the constraints that friends, allies, and international institutions have traditionally imposed on its freedom, insisting that an America unbound is a more secure America. The foreign Policy of the US government, backed by its military strength, has unprecedented global influence now that the US is the world’s only superpower – its first hyper power. America also exports its value system, defining what it means to be civilised, rational, developed and democratic – indeed, what it is to be human. When President Bush ran for office in 2000, he vowed a ‘humble’ foreign policy, and he probably had an idea about specific issues he desperately wanted to see enjoying high priority in his foreign policy objectives during his presidency. But the attacks on US soil on the morning of 11 September 2001 changed the foreign policy focus. These unprecedented attacks on the US soil have demonstrated that no single country is big enough to respond to the challenges of international terrorism. With political miscalculation, President Bush declared ‘war on terrorism’ and announced his doctrine to the world, which held that the United States would make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these attacks and those who harbour them. The Bush Administration had its reputation tarnished due to its unilateral actions. The application of Bush’s pre-emption doctrine led to the Afghanistan War in 2001, which the US had the support of much of the rest of the world, and then the Iraq War in 2003, which did not attract wider international support. But the US Administration dismissed complaints that it had invaded Iraq without the express authorisation of the United Nations Security Council. President Bush outlined the doctrine that advocated pre-emptive, and if necessary unilateral, military action against potential threats. The language in Washington’s corridors of power was clear – rogue states, which needed regime change or democracy were identified and listed by the State Department in Washington. As the War on Terrorism moved forward and new threats emerged, President Bush has increasingly come under pressure for his failing foreign policy. This illustrates his failure to push a clear strategy that would contribute towards a winning formula. Four years down the line, Iraq is today a proper war zone and probably the most dangerous place on planet earth. On daily basis, the situation is becoming increasingly uncertain. The US troops have been operating in dangerous and trying circumstances with little success. The unpopular Iraq war is now being compared to that of Vietnam. The word ‘withdrawal’ appears to be absent on Bush’s vocabulary. The US society is deeply divided over the validity of the war in Iraq. It is clear that Bush’s successor will inherit the unpopular war. It is up to the next US President to steer the country towards a calmer waters. What has the US achieved so far? The US invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban regime, which had supported and harboured Bin Laden. The Afghan War was fought primarily to deny terrorists a home base. However, uprooting the organisation in its entirety has been a highly complex and frustrating task. But fighting this kind of war presents a very difficult challenge to Bush’s Presidency. First, there is no international acceptable definition of terrorism – one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Secondly, the enemy appears to be invisible, stateless and terrorism seems to have become a fully-fledged ideology. The legitimate question often asked is what constitutes a terrorist? International actors seem to pay little attention to this matter. In their view, it is sufficient to say that what looks like a terrorist, sounds like a terrorist, and behaves like a terrorist is a terrorist. This is exactly the dilemma facing the international community. This leaves us with far-reaching legal consequences. The gross inability of the international community to agree on the definition of terrorism is so serious that it allows terrorism to succeed in some instances The US led the invasion of Iraq in what became known as ‘the coalition of the willing’. This turn of events sparked a comprehensive rethinking of American foreign policy. Over the last few years, it would appear as if US Administration enemy number one, Al Qaeda, has transformed from an active source of planning, training, and attacks into an umbrella organisation that provides an inspirational focal point for loosely affiliated terrorist groups in dozens of countries worldwide. These developments present a direct challenge to the success of the war on terror. In the long run, it would appear as if US is pushing a secret agenda to ordain Israel as the sole superpower in the Middle East. The US has vested economic interests in the region. As far as Iraq is concerned, the solution is obvious – a political settlement and not a military one. Is the US-led coalition winning the fight against terrorism? It seems that if American efforts are focused on positive rebuilding and vision for the future, the foot soldiers for Bin Laden and radical Islam will desert. In my view finding answers to this question may lie in broad consultations including Iraq’s neighbours – genuine dialogue, not simply informing others of decisions already reached. What next? The ball is now in the court of the American political class to choose a pragmatic President over the next 19 months. Even Bush’s so-called new security strategy appears to be failing. Certainly American people need a commander-in-chief who is passionate about the beauty of multilateralism. If the tension is to scale down in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, the 44th US President should be a person who believes in the upholding of international law and the spirit of multilateralism. This would trigger a shift in thinking in terms of International relations Fluksman Samuehl is a former Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association: Namibian Branch. He holds a Masters Degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies from the University of Lancaster in the UK. He is currently studying towards his PhD with the University of St Andrews in Scotland. His research interests concern United Nations Reforms, Foreign Policy and Global Diplomacy.