Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Sean Kirst: Clinton could help in Mideast

Sean Kirst The Spokesman-Review

Bill Smullen fought in Vietnam and was a top aide to Colin Powell during his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his first 19 months as secretary of state.

He has seen dire times. But Smullen says the current explosion of violence in the Middle East is as dangerous as any international situation he remembers.

“My biggest concern is that I have just never seen such a time in modern history when there have been so many problems facing an administration in our country as there are at this moment,” says Smullen, director of the National Security Studies Program at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

To Smullen, a Republican, the Bush administration is in a corner. Traditional diplomacy has little chance of progress as Israeli forces pound Lebanon as a way of punishing Hezbollah militants. The U.S. is diplomatically estranged from Syria and Iran, two of the major players in this conflict, while Hezbollah is a diplomatic “untouchable” because of terrorist activities. President Bush needs to find a special envoy, Smullen says, an administration outsider whose global reputation is matched only by his negotiating skills.

The answer is Bill Clinton, he says.

Yes, Smullen says, that step would take profound humility on the part of Bush and his advisers. But the international crisis is at a point where the United States needs to come together quickly in a bipartisan way, he says. While many Americans might not fully grasp the urgency, Smullen says, it is all too easy to imagine waking up one morning to learn we’re at war with Syria or Iran.

A war with Iran, Smullen says, could be disastrous in any number of ways. Our armed forces, he says, are already stretched too thin. To Smullen, war would be a mistake militarily, diplomatically and economically.

In that kind of crisis, he says, wise leaders find the courage to take dramatic steps. He says Bush could only benefit from reaching out to Clinton, a Democrat who remains beloved in many places around the world.

“The envoy suggestion is a sound one (because) of the strength he brings to discussions between people at odds with one another,” Smullen says. “He hears both sides. He listens to both sides. And he arbitrates so well. … He came so close and he almost brought peace to the Palestinians and Israelis at Camp David.”

The proposal would also carry obvious attraction for Clinton, who left office under the cloud of the Lewinsky scandal, and who is said to be concerned about his place in history. Staff members at Clinton’s Harlem office did not return calls seeking comment.

Smullen says he first heard the idea in “conversation,” but wouldn’t say with whom. He and Powell haven’t discussed it, he says.

Smullen says there are clear benefits for Bush in choosing his White House predecessor as an envoy.

Clinton – who already has served as a U.N. special envoy to the nations ravaged by the Asian tsunami of 2004 – would offer diplomatic cover to the president and his Cabinet. As an individual, Smullen says, Clinton could meet with the Iranians, the Syrians and Hezbollah leaders without compromising Bush administration principles.

Smullen offers these thoughts from a pertinent area of expertise. Until last fall, he served as coordinator of a State Department “advisory committee on cultural diplomacy.” That was a fancy name for a panel with a simple purpose: assessing how the U.S. is perceived around the globe.

The committee wrapped up its work in a report summarized in these words: “America’s image and reputation abroad could hardly be worse.”

That was due to the invasion of Iraq, Smullen says. It was due to the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Those perceptions have certainly not gotten any better – not with highly publicized reports of secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe, or murder and rape charges against U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Smullen doesn’t say it, but his implication is clear: At a time of potential catastrophe in the Middle East, the Bush administration evokes little faith or respect. Faced with what Smullen describes as “the most serious situation” in years involving Israel and the Arab world, the U.S. desperately needs someone trusted by leaders abroad.

Bill Clinton, Smullen emphasizes, is the one clear choice.