Can you hear me now?

Yes, we do have an obligation in the world, but we can't be all things to all people. We can help build coalitions, but we can't put our troops all around the world. We can lend money, but we've got to do it wisely. We shouldn't be lending money to corrupt officials. So we got to be guarded in our generosity... The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He'd better not be or there's going to be a consequence, should I be the president... I hope you can get a sense of, should I be fortunate enough to be the president, how my administration will react in the Middle East. - Governor George W. Bush

The preceding remarks were made my Governor Bush on October 11, 2000 (my 18th birthday, incidentally) in the second Presidential debate. The three-year-old text of the debate doesn't give us the clearest picture of how his administration would react to the Middle East, but we can hear you now, Mr. Bush.

A Ha'aretz columnist writes notes that Bush this week opened yet a new front in his administration's involvement in foreign relations and efforts at conflict resolution, visiting African states including Liberia, the subject of speculation over a future police role for American forces. With so many irons in so many unbanked fires, can Bush succeed where one after another of his predecessors failed - bringing an end to six score years of Arab Jewish conflict? His point is well-taken: since September 11, American troops have conquered two countries and continue to hold them together (to the extent that they are "together"). North Korea has built nukes, and Bush is committing the U.S. to conflicts in Israel/Palestine and Liberia, besides all the previous commitments (Kosovo, etc) left over from the inconsistent Clinton administration.

Can Bush do it? Short answer, no. But can the U.S. do it? Can Bush's leadership bring the ample wealth, armed force, and mediating skill of the U.S. government and its friends to bear on multiple conflicts, and by taking arms against a sea of troubles, end them?

A cynic might point out that the more conflicts Bush highlights the more likely he is to find a success. In other words, if Iraq falls apart, we need a success story (by November, 2004) to fall back on. Liberia? They've been collapsing since 1989! And if you try to solve the conflict in Liberia, you have to at least contain if not resolve the 12-year-old conflict in next door Sierra Leone, where Liberian president Charles Taylor has been supporting insurgents.

The bottomless pit of conflicts doesn't have to expand far beyond our current commitments to be daunting. Afghanistan is in very bad shape (Post on poppy proliferation), and Iraq has been conquered for two months and is still quite unpacified (Arab News editorial). Palestinian-Israeli relations have been sagging in the last few weeks (NYTimes on Palestinian frustrations), underscoring the fact that the U.S. has to keep constant pressure on all parties to expect any results.

Mr. President, we can hear you now. Now stop making promises and deliver results.