New wind blowing in nation's capital

WASHINGTON -- I have to wonder whether I'm imagining it, but after the endless squabbling and bitterness of the last two years, there really does seem to be a new wind blowing through Washington. What are my proofs, you demand?
Well, first, the Gridiron dinner March 12. This annual extravaganza, famous for its witty and well-costumed satirical skits skewering all political parties and ideas in Washington (including the press), witnessed a definite spirit of conciliation.
Last year, President Bush did not even attend, begging off with some other commitment, but leaving questions in his wake. This year, he was not only there for the long evening (he started his speech with "Good morning & quot;), but everyone within range confirmed that he laughed even at the jokes aimed at him. He then made good fun of the budding tsunami-built friendship between his father and former President Bill Clinton: When Clinton woke up from surgery recently, W joked, "he was surrounded by loved ones -- his wife, his daughter and ... my dad."
Upbeat mood
The mood was so upbeat that a miscreant over the Iraq war like myself, recently not a favorite of this administration and surely not a journalist any of them sought out, was pleasantly surprised when several officials deliberately wandered over to chat and suggest we do interviews.
Then there was President Bush's meeting on Tuesday in the Oval Office with Jordan's young, moderate King Abdullah II, in which the American president seemed to take a view on Hezbollah, the powerful guerrilla/political group in Lebanon supported both by Syria and Iran, that was totally inconsistent with his views of the past.
In Iraq from the beginning, the Bush hard-line position has been that the only way to deal with insurgents -- which they always called "terrorists" so there was no way you could think they could be forced to change -- was to wipe them out. The American military, in contrast to the new Iraqi government, has consistently refused to make attempts to negotiate with insurgent leaders, even though they have put forth feelers.
But the president told King Abdullah, son of the late and beloved King Hussein: "We view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and I would hope that Hezbollah would prove that they're not by laying down arms and not threatening peace." On top of that, the president was scheduled to meet with the patriarch of Lebanon's Maronite church, Nasrallah Sfeir, whose position is strongly to integrate Hezbollah into the country's political mainstream.
Then, the president made a call for Israel to "withdraw from the settlements. There must be contiguous territory for a Palestinian state -- into which a Palestinian state can grow." While he has made this statement several times recently, this deliberate repetition is surely a harbinger of a new era.
This creeping moderation -- I should add that this can only be looked upon as moderation, compared to the Robespierreian radicalism of the last three years -- can be traced throughout the administration.
Practical viewpoint
Even John R. Bolton, just named U.N. ambassador and long considered one of the hard-right (not exactly a neocon, in this world of theoretical disputations), does not take extreme positions on the United Nations. In 1997 writings of his, he lays out a critical but practical viewpoint: The U.N. can be a useful tool in the American foreign policy kit ... The U.N.'s traditional fiefdoms, where people retire for their whole lives, doing nothing for high salaries, should be dismantled ... Management and financial reform remain essential ... These ideas are not much different from those of many who love the U.N. but who realize the urgency that must be applied to the hard work of reforming the organization, lest it truly become irrelevant.
Still, of all these little signs of spring budding in Washington, I think the most important is President Bush's reversal (if, indeed, it truly is that) on considering Hezbollah, which is at least as much a political organization, with many members in the parliament, as a military one. His words last week on the matter bring up every question for decades, indeed centuries, as to how you bring a radical organization in from the cold. Those who have seriously studied insurgencies, guerrilla movements, terrorist groups or whatever we call them know that you have to offer enough reform within society to bring the more moderate members in.
Universal Press Syndicate