Stay Informed

Sign up to receive the Middle East Bulletin!

Support Middle East Progress

In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

07/24/08
Strategy and Leadership Needed  —Lt. Gen. (Ret.) David W. Barno, U.S. Army; commander, Combined Forces Command Afghanistan (2003-2005); director, Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, Natl Defense University. Interview with Middle East Bulletin.
07/22/08
What the U.S. Should Do  —Andrew Exum, former Army captain, led U.S. Army Rangers in Iraq and Afghanistan; Ph.D student, War Studies, King's College London. Original Commentary for Middle East Bulletin.
07/08/08
Planning the Transition  —Ghaith al-Omari, director of advocacy, American Task Force on Palestine; former foreign policy adviser to Palestinian President Abbas. Original Commentary for Middle East Bulletin.

Setting the Record Straight

Neglecting Afghanistan

“[W]e're fighting two wars at once, three wars at once. We're fighting the global war on terror, we're fighting a war in Iraq, and we're fighting a war in Afghanistan. There are multiple demands on our forces. That's the reality of life at this point. The focus of our efforts clearly has been in Iraq, the battleground which Osama bin Laden identified as the central front in their war against us, the place in which they sought to set up a foothold for their caliphate that would reach into Europe.”
—Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell, DoD News Briefing, July 23, 2008  versus
  • “The most dangerous area of the world … representing the most significant U.S. national security threat … is not Iraq but the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. … [W]e still lack relevant, long-term strategies to achieve sustainable security and stability in both Iraq and Afghanistan.”
    —Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), speech, Brookings Institution, June 26, 2008

    • Middle East Analysis

    The Bush Administration’s Budget and Democracy in the Arab World

    Stephen McInerney, director of advocacy, Project on Middle East Democracy, Arab Reform Bulletin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    April 4, 2008

    Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar Assad (AP)

    Throughout his two terms, President Bush has rhetorically stressed the importance of supporting democracy and human rights abroad, particularly in the Middle East. But policy has not always matched rhetoric, and his administration has come under fire for focusing too heavily on changing the region through military force in Iraq rather than utilizing the nonviolent policy tools available for supporting democracy. In last year’s budget, many were disappointed to see small decreases in funding for democracy-related programs in Middle Eastern countries.

    But Bush’s latest and final budget request—unlike the one that preceded it—goes a long way toward living up to promises of prioritizing support for democracy abroad. Requested funds for programs in the Arab world that fall under the State Department heading of “Governing Justly and Democratically” were tripled to $390 million from last year’s appropriated level of $132 million. While much of the increase ($193 million) will go to programs in Iraq, the new request still increases funding to programs for the remaining Arab countries by more than 50 percent. The request includes significant increases for such programs in Mauritania, Morocco, the West Bank and Gaza, Yemen and Algeria, and for all four programmatic areas: rule of law and human rights, good governance, political competition and consensus building and civil society. …

    So, why the widespread increases? After peaking with the so-called “Arab spring” of 2005, President Bush’s “freedom agenda” is widely perceived to have faltered and taken a back seat to other policy goals. This budget may be viewed as a final attempt to revive what was formerly seen as a cornerstone of Bush administration policy, to cement the freedom agenda as a key part of Bush’s legacy. Additionally, as the administration has encountered increasing resistance from autocratic allies, the budget may represent a deliberate shift toward supporting democracy using less confrontational means. Finally, Bush administration officials have expressed concern that the next administration may reverse course on democracy promotion; funding increases may be an attempt to institutionalize programs before leaving office. Access the full article>>