Tag: ISIS
Drops and strikes
A grim President Obama announced last night that the United States is dropping humanitarian assistance to stranded civilians in Iraq and will also strike Islamic State (IS) convoys if the extremists move on Erbil, the thriving capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. IS has reportedly taken the Mosul Dam. Yezidis and Christians, both anathema to IS, have fled.
Continuing to do nothing had become more difficult than doing something, but the President’s moves are at the lower end of the military intervention spectrum. They fall in the temporary expedient category. They will do nothing to reverse IS gains but may save some lives and steer IS away from Erbil.
Those objectives rank high as immediate priorities, but they don’t solve long-term problem, which is the consolidation of IS control over a substantial portion of western and northern Iraq. From there it can threaten Syria, Kurdistan, Turkey and Shia-dominated southern Iraq. IS can also threaten Europe and the United States if it becomes a haven for international terrorists.
The drop that really matters is the political one. Prime Minister Maliki is said to be negotiating the conditions for stepping down from the prime ministry. He wants immunity from prosecution and and security protection. That would be a small price to pay for unfreezing the political situation in Baghdad, though Maliki is likely to remain a force in Iraqi politics for a long time to come. His State of Law coalition won the largest number of seats in the April parliamentary election and he won by far the most personal preference votes.
Moving Maliki out of the prime minister’s office may be a necessary step, but there is no reason to believe it will be sufficient. Whoever replaces him will have a difficult time reconstituting the Iraqi security forces and maintaining a governing coalition that necessarily has to include Sunnis and Kurds as well as Shia. New American military equipment will take time to arrive and the Iraqis will need time to learn how to use it effectively. There will be no instant reversal of IS gains because some brave new soul sits in the prime minister’s office.
Meanwhile in Gaza the 72-hour ceasefire has expired. Hamas immediately dropped more rockets on Israel. The Israelis are striking Gaza from the sea and air. My guess is that this will not last. Both sides seem at the end of their gains. But that does not mean there will be a serious political settlement that changes the situation in a fundamental way. We may just be in for another long pause before they go at it again. That would be a shame, above all for the people of Gaza. Israeli strikes and Hamas drops will solve nothing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The tides of war
In Gaza the tide of war seems to be receding, though a ceasefire still seems far off. Israel seems to prefer unilateral withdrawal to an agreement that would necessarily involve Hamas. In Ukraine, Russia’s eastern strongholds of Donestsk and Luhansk are preparing for siege. Russian President Putin may well need to invade if he is to save his proxies from an increasingly effective Ukrainian army.
In Iraq, the Islamic State (IS) continues to consolidate its gains and make modest progress against not only the Iraqi army but also against the Kurdish peshmerga. But in Syria, the IS has suffered setbacks. The Western-supported Syrian Opposition Coalition is losing ground to both the regime and IS but hopes to install its next government, to be named soon, inside Syria.
A definitive end to any of these wars seems far off. Each of the contestants–half non-state actors–has enough outside support to prevent defeat, even if none of them appears strong enough to achieve anything close to victory. Bashar al Asad is no more likely to govern all of Syria in the future than Nouri al Maliki is likely to govern all of Iraq. The Islamic State has taken large but largely empty portions of eastern Syria and western Iraq, but it is unlikely to take Baghdad or Damascus. Ukraine may re-establish its authority in Donbas, but only if Russia allows it to happen. Israel won’t reoccupy Gaza, but will instead try to get the Palestinian Authority to play a major role there in the post-war period.
Contemporary warfare is no longer about victory and defeat of clashing armed forces in the classic sense but rather about degrees of control over the civilian population. It is “war amongst the people,” in the phrase UK General Rupert Smith coined. Civilians are not bystanders, collateral damage is not collateral, military objectives are political. A definitive end to war of this sort is unlikely, absent definitive international intervention. The best that can be hoped for is a political settlement that channels conflict into nonviolent directions, at least for a time. We did better than that in the Balkans, but only because Europe and the United States were not only willing to intervene militarily but also insert tens of thousands of troops to stabilize the situation.
The tides of war may be receding a bit now in Ukraine and Middle East, but the respite isn’t likely to last. War amongst the people gives the people a lot of reason to resent the enemy and little reason to reconcile. Non-state actors may melt away but survive to fight another day. Unless states make a conscious and concerted effort to resolve fundamental political issues, they are likely to find themselves fighting non-state actors over and over, as Israel has done with Hamas and Hizbollah. IS’s current explosion in Iraq is not its first. Its antecedents were behind the 2006/7 insurgency that the Americans successfully overcame with the cooperation of Sunni tribes. But that success did not lead to a broad political settlement.
The search for such a settlement is what leads to calls for “national dialogue.” Yemen’s was thought to be relatively successful, though implementation is proving difficult. Libya is trying to launch one, but violence in both Tripoli and Benghazi has made it not only difficult but dangerous. The international intervention many Libyans would like is unlikely. The restored Egyptian autocracy is uninterested in national dialogue. It is forging ahead without trying to return its Islamist and liberal opponents to a political role. Israel doesn’t want Hamas included in the Palestinian Authority government. Nor does Kiev want the separatist leaders incorporated back into its polity.
The tides of war may be receding for the moment, but the odds are they will return, perhaps stronger than ever.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
An unhappy Eid
For most Muslims, today marks the begining of Eid al Fitr, the feast thats end the month of Ramadan. It won’t be an Eid Mubarak (Blessed Eid) for lots of people: there is war in Syria, Iraq, Gaza/Israel, Sudan and Libya, renewed repression in Egypt and Iran, instability in Yemen. The hopes of the Arab spring have turned to fear and even loathing, not only between Muslims and non-Muslims but also among Shia, Sunni and sometimes Sufi. Extremism is thriving. Moderate reform is holding its own only in Tunisia, Morocco and maybe Jordan. Absolutism still rules most of the Gulf.
The issues are not primarily religious. They are political. Power, not theology, is at stake. As Greg Gause puts it, the weakening of Arab states has created a vacuum that Saudi Arabia and Iran are trying to fill, each seeking advantage in their own regional rivalry. He sees it as a cold war, but it is clearly one in which violence by surrogates plays an important role, even if Riyadh and Tehran never come directly to blows. And it is complicated by the Sunni world’s own divisions, with Turkey and Qatar supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia opposing it.
The consequences for Arab civilians are dramatic. Well over 100,000 are now dead in Syria, half the population is displaced, uncounted more are dead in Iraq and millions more displaced. Egypt has largely reversed the liberation of its aborted 2011 revolution but still faces more violence than before it. Libya has been unable to tame or dissolve its militias, which are endangering its population and blocking its transition. While the total numbers killed in the Gaza war are far smaller than in Syria or Iraq, the percentage of civilians among the victims–and the broader impact on the civilian population–is causing anti-Israel revulsion worldwide.
Greg wants the United States to favor order over chaos. The trouble is it is hard to know which policies will do what. Will support for Iraq Prime Minister Maliki block the Islamic State, or will it incentivize extremist recruitment and make matters worse, perhaps even causing partition? The military government in Egypt, with which Greg thinks we should continue to engage, is arguably creating more problems with extremists in Sinai and the western desert than it is solving with its arbitrary and draconian crackdown against liberals as well as Islamists. The Obama administration is inclined to support America’s traditional allies in the Gulf, as Greg suggest, but what is it to do when Qatar and Turkey are at swordpoints with Saudi Arabia ?
Many Arab states as currently constituted lack what every state needs in order to govern: legitimacy. The grand failure of the Arab spring is a failure to discover new sources of legitimacy after decades of dictators wielding military power. The “people” have proven insufficient. Liberal democracy is, ideologically and organizationally, too weak. Political Islam is still a contender, especially in Syria, Iraq and Libya, but if it succeeds it will likely be in one of its more extreme forms. In Gaza, where Hamas has governed for seven years, political Islam was quite literally bankrupt even before the war. Their monarchies’ ability to maintain order as neighbors descend into chaos is helping to sustain order in Jordan and Morocco. Oil wealth and tribal loyalties are propping up monarchies in the Gulf, but the demography there (youth bulge and unemployment) poses serious threats.
The likelihood is that we are in for more instability, not less. Iran and Saudi Arabia show no sign of willingness to end their competition. They will continue to seek competitive advantage, undermining states they see as loyal to their opponent and jumping in wherever they can to fill the vacuums that are likely to be created. Any American commitment to order will be a minor factor. This will not, I’m afraid, be the last unhappy Eid.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks July 28-August 2
1. The Elusive Final Deal with Iran: Developments and Options Going Forward Monday, July 28 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm JINSA; 1307 New York Ave NW, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND In the wake of the recent four-month extension of negotiations for a comprehensive deal on Iran’s nuclear program, JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy will hold a lunch panel event to assess this outcome and discuss steps going forward for U.S. policy to prevent a nuclear Iran. SPEAKERS: Ambassador Dennis Ross, Ambassador Eric Edelman, Stephen Rademaker, and Ray Takeyh.
2. Nuclear Politics on the Korean Peninsula Monday, July 28 | 3:00 pm – 5:15 pm Korea Economic Institute; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND The evolving security environment around the Korean Peninsula presents new challenges and opportunities for addressing the North Korean nuclear threat. What do South Koreans expect from Beijing after Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Seoul? What do South Korean aspirations for full nuclear fuel cycle capabilities mean for dealing with North Korea and for the balance of power in the region? And what do these trends mean for the US-ROK alliance? SPEAKERS: Douglas H. Paal: VP for Studies, CEIP, Donald A. Manzullo, President & CEO, KEI, Park Jin, Executive President of the Asia Future Institute, Kang Choi, Vice President, Asan Institute for Policy Studies, and others.
3. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova: How Corruption Threatens the Eastern Partnership Monday, July 28 | 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm National Endowment for Democracy; 1025 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND Last month, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova signed EU association agreements, putting to paper a clear desire to turn westwards and break from an unhappy post-Soviet legacy. Yet difficult issues remain, principally that of corruption. Entrenched corruption in these three countries persists as a result of the networks of criminality that thrived in the lawlessness of the 1990s. As these countries look to strengthen the rule of law and democratic accountability within their borders, the panel will discuss current corruption challenges and how outside actors – from Russia to the US – are influencing the reform process in each country. SPEAKERS: Oliver Bullough, Peter Pomerantsev, Vladimir Soloviev, Olga Khvostunova, Anne Applebaum, and Christopher Walker.
4. Contemporary Media Use in Turkey Tuesday, July 29 | 9:00 am – 10:00 am Gallup Organization; 901 F St NW # 400, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and Gallup invite you to attend a research briefing on news consumption habits and attitudes in Turkey, along with, for the first time, an in-depth look at the distinctive media consumption habits among Turkey’s Kurdish population. This briefing will share data on media usage, a methodological overview and a review of attitudinal data on government and foreign policy. SPEAKERS: Chris Stewart, Bruce Sherman, William Bell, and Rajesh Srinivasan.
5. Doing Colombia Peace Forum: Peace Proposals from Victims of Colombia’s Armed Conflict Tuesday, July 29 | 10:00 am – 12:00 pm US Institute of Peace; 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND In June, the government of Colombia and the FARC parties issued a ground-breaking declaration of principles on victims. They announced that they were inviting a delegation of victims to participate in the talks, and that other opportunities will be created for victims to be heard within the peace process. They requested that the United Nations and the National University convene a series of three regional and one national forum for victims to present their proposals. Two forums have already taken place and the others are scheduled for late July and early August. This event will discuss victims’ rights and proposals from four victims of different groups, including guerrillas, paramilitaries, and the State. A half a century of internal armed conflict has resulted in more than 6.5 million victims officially registered with the Colombian government’s Victims’ Unit. This is an opportunity to hear diverse perspectives of leaders who are survivors of violence to discuss their proposals for a just and lasting peace. SPEAKERS: Clara Rojas González, Colombian National Congress Representative, Aida Quilcué, Director of Human Rights, Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca, Deyis Margarita Carmona Tejada, Spokeswoman, Peasants’ Assembly of Cesar for Land Restitution, José Antequera Guzmán Co-Founder, Sons and Daughters of Memory and Against Impunity, and Gimena Sánchez, Senior Associate for the Andes, WOLA.
6. Book Launch—Made in Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka: The Labor Behind the Global Garments and Textiles Industries Tuesday, July 29 | 10:00 am – 12:45 pm Woodrow Wilson Center; 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND The garments and textiles sector is one of the world’s oldest export industries. It has often served as the “starter” industry for many countries, especially in Asia. Dr. Saxena’s book, based on original, in-depth research in three different Asian countries, casts light on some of the significant policy and attitudinal shifts that have occurred in this industry. The book also puts the entire garments and textiles sector into the larger context of international trade policy. SPEAKER: Sanchita Saxena, Executive Director, Institute for South Asia Studies and Director, Chowdhury Center for Bangladesh Studies, UC-Berkeley.
7. Great Expectations? Assessing US-India Strategic Relations Tuesday, July 29 | 12:30 pm – 2:00 pm East-West Center; 1819 L St NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C REGISTER TO ATTEND American enthusiasm for a strategic partnership with India has risen and fallen over the years. Optimism about US-India relations in the 2000s has been tempered by pessimism about these ties in the 2010s. Was the initial enthusiasm about US-India relations inflated? How valid are more recent skeptical perspectives? In his presentation, Dr. Dinshaw Mistry will discuss these questions, drawing upon ten contemporary cases where New Delhi’s policies converged with or diverged from Washington’s expectations. The answers offer important lessons for future US strategic engagement with India. Also with Dr. Stephen P. Cohen, Associate Professor, University of Cincinnati.
8. The Protection Project Review of the U.S. State Department Trafficking in Persons Report 2014 Wednesday, July 30 | 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm Johns Hopkins SAIS – Nitze Building; 1740 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND Luis CdeBaca, ambassador at large in the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons at the U.S. Department of State, and Mohamed Mattar, senior research professor of international law and executive director of The Protection Project, will discuss this topic.
9. The Iraq Meltdown: What Next? Wednesday, July 30 | 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Heritage Foundation; 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND The swift collapse of Iraqi security forces in northern Iraq in the face of an al-Qaeda-spearheaded Sunni insurgency is a disastrous setback for U.S. counterterrorism and Middle East policies that will have dangerous regional spillover effects. The Islamic State, formerly known the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and before that as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, now poses a rising threat to the United States and U.S. allies. Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) will discuss Iraq and the broader implications for the American foreign policy. Following his remarks, a panel of experts will discuss the current trends in Iraq. SPEAKERS: Jessica Lewis, Research Director, Institute for the Study of War, Steven P. Bucci, Ph.D., Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, The Heritage Foundation, and James Phillips, Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, The Heritage Foundation.
10. Africa Development Forum Event: What should African Leaders know to accelerate the achievement and sustainability of health goals in the post 2015 agenda? Thursday, July 31 | 9:00 am – 12:00 pm Chemonics International; 1717 H St. NW, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND Panelists will discuss the lessons they have learned from their experiences and efforts working towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Setting policy, developing plans, and coordinating and managing programs that deliver services across hundreds of hospitals and health centers requires resources and technical skills. This capacity needs to be quickly and effectively developed in most health systems where governance structures are vaguely defined. The panelists will draw from the lessons learned from the MDGs to propose ways African leaders can meet and even go beyond the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 4-Ensuring Healthy Lives targets in an efficient way that makes the best of all resources available and protects the poor. SPEAKERS: Darius Mans, Africare, Elvira Beracochea, Founder and CEO, MIDEGO, and Akudo Ikemba, CEO, Friends Africa.
11. The North Korean Economy: Challenges and Opportunities for Reform Thursday, July 31 | 9:00 am – 10:00 am Korea Economic Institute; 1800 K Street NW Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTENDIn an era of globalization, North Korea remains one of the most isolated economies in the world. While normally still functioning as a planned economy, Pyongyang has pledged in recent years that no North Korean will ‘have to tighten their belts again.’ However, to truly fulfill that pledge, North Korea will need to engage in the types of reform that China, South Korea, and others have been advocating. What steps has North Korea taken under Kim Jong-un to reform the economy and how successful have they been? What obstacles does North Korea face in developing a normal functioning economy? Please join the Korea Economic Institute of America and the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy for a discussion on these and other issues that face the North Korea economy today. SPEAKERS: Lee Il Houng, Bradley Babson, and William Newcomb.
12. NPC Luncheon with Denis Sassou-Nguesso, President of the Republic of the Congo Friday, August 1 | 12:30 pm – 2:00 pm National Press Club; 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND President of the Republic of Congo Denis Sassou-Nguesso will discuss peace, security and stability of the central Africa region and oil investments in his country at a National Press Club luncheon on Friday, August 1. Sassou-Nguesso, who met President Vladimir Putin in 2012, recently was quoted in a Nigerian newspaper as saying that Congo plans to attract Russian investment in oil industry, agriculture and education services.
13. Cultures of the Mekong Saturday, August 2 | 10:00 am – 3:15 pm S. Dillon Ripley Center; 1100 Jefferson Drive, SW, Washington, D.C. REGISTER TO ATTEND Civilizations have risen and fallen for centuries on the banks of the Mekong River. Long before there was Phnom Penh or Hanoi, there were the settlements at Ban Chiang, Angkor, and Champa in the areas now known as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand. Robert DeCaroli, associate professor in the department of history and art history at George Mason University, explores these cultures that grew up along this massive 2700-mile river. Other speakers include Michael H. McLendon, Joseph Antos, Richard V. Burkhauser, Peter Schuck, and Sally Satel,
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Limited US means to fight ISIS
Brett McGurk, an assistant US secretary of state, said recently that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is “no longer a terrorist organization. It is a full-blown army.” Others contend that the group will self-implode, or that the threat it poses to the United States is overblown.
On Thursday, Johns Hopkins and the Middle East Institute hosted an event to explore these questions. Omar al-Nidawi of Gryphon Partners joined Middle East Institute scholars Richard Clarke, Steven Simon, and Randa Slim in a discussion moderated by Daniel Serwer.
Simon argued against too much US engagement. He recalled that in 2006, a debate raged over to how to stem the tide of violence in Iraq. One camp, led by General David Petraeus, advocated a sweeping counterinsurgency strategy spearheaded by a troop surge. The other faction, headed by General George Casey, was more circumspect. Petraeus’s theory was flawed, he said, because Maliki’s was not a legitimate government, but rather a sectarian faction in a civil war. Petraeus prevailed, and President Bush deployed 20,000 additional troops. But in retrospect, Simon argued, Casey’s view seems shrewder than Petraeus’s, which was short-sighted. The resources required for a counterinsurgency effort are no longer available. America is powerless to do much now that its forces are out of Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki is in charge. We can use drones or other military tools to decapitate ISIS as a counter-terrorism measure, but counter-insurgency efforts by the US are no longer possible.
Maliki retains a large degree of support among Iraq’s Shia majority, said Slim. Indeed, as ISIS rounds up and executes Shia in Iraq and Syria, Maliki, Assad, and Hezbollah only grow more popular among the Shia. However, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani’s public split with the Prime Minister could be a game changer. This could pave the way for the formation of a consensus government, led perhaps by Basra governor Majid al Nasrawi. Another possibility is an alliance between Sadrists and former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi, who won a majority of seats in 2010. But Allawi lacks Iranian support. The only way this could work is if the Sadrists aligned with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
The Iranians believe ISIS is part of a larger Sunni conspiracy to destabilize its Shia allies, Iraq and Syria, Slim said. They see Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, and even the US as conspiring against Iranian interests in the region. Tehran has argued that forcing Maliki to step down would hand ISIS a victory. But Iran is much more concerned with losing Assad than with losing Maliki. There are any number of Shia leaders in Iraq who could replace Maliki, but Assad is probably the end of the line in Syria.
Sunnis are not as united as the Shia, said al-Nidawi. Divisions have deepened since 2010, when Maliki formed a government in spite of Allawi’s Iraqyyia bloc having won more seats. The rifts were exacerbated when Maliki purged the military and government of perceived (Sunni) enemies. His victory in April weakened the argument of those who sought a political solution, and gave traction to those Sunni who want to use violence to affect change. Short term reforms accommodating Sunni interests in gaining real power, self-government and security could however pave the way for a lasting solution, even if a complete reversal of de-Ba’athification is not feasible. Reintegrating some high profile Sunni politicians would also go a long way towards stemming the conflict. There are thousands of young Sunni men in Anbar and elsewhere who could be persuaded to fight against ISIS.
The Iraqi army is not as hopeless as people imagine. Assad’s army was in shambles during the first months of the Syrian rebellion. But they ultimately got their act together. Some remnant of Iraq’s army will do the same. The Americans have found units with as many as 300,000 troops worthy of support. Syria integrated its irregular Shabiha militia into its regular forces. Maliki will likely follow suit with the Shia militias in Iraq.
It is tempting to wait patiently and allow the Sunni insurgency and the Iran-supported government fight each other to a standstill, as Israel did during the Iran-Iraq war, Clarke said. But if ISIS is allowed to remain in Iraq and Syria, it could pose a threat akin to the Taliban in 1990s. In addition, regional stability is a legitimate American interest, as is blocking an expansion of Iran’s power and influence.
Clarke agreed with Simon that American policy options are limited. The first is to peel off some of the more nationalist Sunnis from the insurgency. Second, we need to think seriously about supporting independence for Kurdistan, if the Kurds will fight ISIS. Even Turkey is warming to the idea of an independent Kurdistan, whose establishment could shift the balance of power in the region away from the ISIS. A Kurdish state could also be a boon to Israel, which has imported Kurdistan’s oil and has long pursued alliances with its non-Arab neighbors. The US should also get serious about arming moderate Syrian rebels, who are fighting ISIS in northern Syria. Clarke called the administration’s current policy “flat ass pathetic.” Simon cautioned that by supplying them with weapons, we take ownership of the conflict. We may also cause more fragmentation, as factions compete for resources. Clarke countered that Obama’s “half assed” approach is undermining confidence of our allies in the region.
The speakers agreed that ISIS poses a serious threat to the region, and could ultimately endanger the United States and its allies. In the end, however, the US must recognize its limited capacity to affect change in the region.
The complete audio of this rich discussion is here.
Here is the video:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Damnably inconsistent
While the Middle East burns, policymakers can’t seem to agree on how to douse the fire. This discord was on full display Monday, at the Middle East Policy Council’s annual conference. Speakers included Kenneth Pollack, Paul Pillar, Amin Tarzi, and Ambassador Chas Freeman, with Thomas Mattair moderating. Pollack sought a more robust military presence in the region, while Freeman advocated for a hands-off approach. Pillar and Tarzi fell somewhere in between.
Pollack said America must reengage fully with the Middle East, diplomatically and militarily. From the beginning, Obama wrongly assumed that America had overinvested in the region. He believed that the US was in fact a major part of the problem and couldn’t affect the outcome of events in any case. These assumptions have proven demonstrably false over the last five years, he said. The Middle East today is, amazingly, in even worse shape than it was in 2006.
He noted a shift in Obama’s approach to the region in the last few years, beginning with the appointment of John Kerry as Secretary of State. Kerry’s attempt to revive the peace process signaled a more hands-on approach. The announcement of half a billion dollars in aid to the Syrian rebels was also a positive sign.
Moving forward, the old adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is especially apropos. America could have reduced the costs we are now incurring had we intervened earlier. We should have provided more support for Syrian rebels at beginning of civil war. When the US gets involved earlier, we have more leverage when things go awry.
Pillar said that the Hippocratic principle of “first do no harm” should take precedence over Pollack’s “ounce of prevention.” “Bumper sticker” solutions will not address our problems in the region. America’s Middle East policy must be ad hoc.
We have an unfortunate Manichaean tendency to divide the world into “ally” and “enemy,” Pillar said. US policy should be more flexible than that. It should serve our interests without regard to labels. Concluding a nuclear deal with Iran is one occasion where we must deal in shades of grey. Iranian interests sometimes clash with ours, as in Syria. But other times they converge, as in Iraq.
Tarzi argued against Pillar’s “ad hoc” approach to the Middle East. We must have stable partners in the region, he said. We must also look at why Iran began seeking nuclear weapons in the first place. Khameinei realizes that possession of the bomb gets you a seat at the table with the big boys, while giving it up means you get the boot (Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi). Assad may have saved his regime by using chemical weapons on his people, setting a dangerous precedent. America cannot allow these precedents to stand.
Tarzi added that Iran would not attempt to strike Israel or the US, a belief that was echoed to him by a number of experts on a recent trip to Israel.
Freeman cautioned against confusing sanctions and military posturing with diplomacy. Obama said at West Point “Our military has no peer.” But he added, “Just because we have the best hammer doesn’t mean every problem is a nail.” Unmatched military prowess has not proven equal to many of the problems in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is hard to think of any US project in the Middle East not at or near a dead-end. American efforts at negotiating Middle East peace are not so much dead, said Freeman, as “so putrid as to not be fit for a wake.”
Our attempts at democracy building have failed spectacularly. In fact we have pulled down several budding democracies in their infancy, as was the case with Egypt. US counterterrorism programs are only fanning the flames of anti-Americanism. In Iraq we replaced secular dictatorship with a religious one, and gave birth to the jihadistan we see today.
We have repeatedly told leaders in Middle East that they must be “with us or against us,” Freeman said. They remain annoyingly unreliable in this regard. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is with us on Iran and Syria, against us in Iraq. Salafists are against us in Iraq, with us in Syria.
We cannot have a policy when people are so “damnably inconsistent.” The US should withdraw from the Middle East, he argued. We must stop protecting Israel, which would make better decisions if it weren’t shielded from the consequences of its actions by the US.
Assad miscalculated with the over-application of force early on, Freeman said. Protests quickly escalated into a civil war. However, the conflict was exacerbated by the flow of arms into the country. We should try to stop the flow of weapons into Syria, rather than attempting to find the “mythical Syrian moderates” who will rise up against Assad.
Pollack countered that it is possible to build a conventional army of non-jihadists in Syria who can oppose both ISIS and Assad. The purely diplomatic solution Freeman proposes is not possible without a shift in the balance of power on the ground.
The speakers did not see eye to eye on much. On one point, however, they did agree: the Middle East in flames, and America has yet to articulate a coherent policy towards the region. Until we do, it will continue to burn.
PS: Here is the video of the event:
RSS - Posts
