Stay Informed

Sign up to receive the Middle East Bulletin!

Support Middle East Progress

In-Depth Coverage

Original Commentaries

08/20/10
Center for American Progress Welcomes Resumption of Direct Talks  —
08/10/10
A View from the Ground  —Darbaz Kosrat Rasul, chair, Rebaz Foundation. Interview with Middle East Bulletin.
08/03/10
U.S.-Turkish Relations  —Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone, Jr., recently returned deputy ambassador in Afghanistan; former ambassador to Egypt (2005-2008); and deputy chief of mission and charge d'affaires in U.S. embassy in Turkey (1995-1999). Congressional Testimony.

Setting the Record Straight

Eye Still on the Ball

“Adverse developments in Iraq will be (and will look to be) increasingly a function of the Obama Team taking their eye off of the ball and rushing to declare mission accomplished. Yes, in such a scenario the Iraqis should bear most of the blame, but the part that is due to U.S. action or inaction will be Obama's responsibility. And it will matter. Iraq is at the center of a region that every president since Jimmy Carter has identified as vital to our national security. Iraq is next door to, and the playground for mischief from, the most thorny national security challenge the United States faces: a nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian regime. These inconvenient facts mean that if the Iraqi situation demands more focused and costly U.S. attention, it will likely get it. At that point, what sort of domestic coalition will be available for President Obama's Iraq policy?”
—Peter Feaver, director, Triangle Institute for Security Studies; former director for defense policy and arms control, National Security Council, “Obama’s Iraq Speech: Another Missed Opportunity,” Foreign Policy, August 3, 2010versus
  • “Iraq is a strategically important place in the Middle East, just by its geographic location, by its population, by the influence it's had in the Middle East for a long time. So neighboring countries from around the Middle East have an interest inside of Iraq.

    “But I will tell you that I think Iraqis themselves are nationalistic in nature, and that's why it's important. A strong Iraq will defend itself against interference from outside countries, and I think as we build a strong Iraq and as we continue to build a strong security mechanism and as we continue to help them economically and diplomatically, that will make it less likely of others from the outside being able to interfere.

    “Now, for the vacuum as we see today, again, I remind everyone is that we still have a significant presence here, and we are not going to—we will not allow undue maligned influence on the Iraqi government as they attempt to form their government. What we're trying to do is provide them the space and time for them to do that, and we will continue to do that post 1 September. We'll still have a significant civilian presence, and again, we'll still have 50,000 troops on the ground here to ensure that this government can be formed by the Iraqis. And that all the other nations respect their sovereignty as they go about forming their government.”
    —General Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, interview, “This Week” with Christiane Amanpour, August 8, 2010

    • Middle East Analysis

    Upcoming Events

    The Road Forward on Middle East Peace

    Event: October 1, 2009 - 12:00pm-1:00pm

    Introduction:
    Winnie Stachelberg, Senior Vice President for External Affairs, Center for American Progress

    Featured speaker:
    Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL)

    Moderated by:
    Moran Banai, U.S. Editor of Middle East Bulletin

    WATCH HERE

    Perseverance Is Required

    An interview with Senator George J. Mitchell, former Senate majority leader; chairman, Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee & chairman, Northern Ireland peace negotiations.

    Q: The Annapolis Conference happened this week, despite some doubts as to whether it would occur.What do you think the relevance is and what do you think the positive outcomes are?

    A:The relevance is that it’s tangible evidence that after nearly seven years of neglect, the Bush Administration has focused on what is the central issue in the Middle East.

    I commend the effort. Only time will tell whether it’s too little too late. But, I hope very much that something positive comes out of it – it’s badly needed and long overdue. There are of course, many reasons to be doubtful, even skeptical, but I think the goal, the objective is so important that, everyone ought to do everything possible to move toward it.

    Q: What do you think specifically the United States should be doing now to follow up on Annapolis?

    A:There has to be a complete change in the mindset of the administration in how it approaches the issue. Until now, administration efforts have been periodic, inconsistent, and anything but persevering. If there is to be success, that has to change. There has to be a strong and clear determination, a perseverance; not in one day and out the next, not one person one day another person next week, not one proposal now and another proposal next year. [It] has to be communicated to the parties in the region, an absolute determination to stay fully engaged until success is achieved. That has not been present so far.

    Q: I’m sure that you’ve heard that General Jim Jones has been appointed Middle East security envoy. You probably know him from his time as congressional liaison in the Senate…

    A: I don’t know him well. I know him, I know who he is and I have high regard for him.

    Q: From your work, what advice would you give to him?

    A: Oh, I don’t think he needs advice from me. One of the problems is that you’ve got maybe too many people giving advice on what people ought to do or not to do. I think he knows what his task and mission is and I’m confident that he’ll work at achieving it.

    I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is that while it’s necessary for the President and the Secretary of State to convene a meeting and have a press conference and make an announcement, they have to stay with it. They have to stay at it. They have to be determined; and that determination has to be communicated by word and action to everybody in the region. And it’s especially difficult now, because it’s been obviously not present for the past several years.

    Q: What do you think are the conditions that changed that made this possible or made it happen?

    A: I don’t know; you’d have to ask the President that. Clearly, there’s a lot of skepticism about legacy building and so forth, I have no idea about any of that. I think, frankly, that’s not particularly relevant. It should have been done before, but that’s passed. It’s being done now, we should get behind it and support the effort.

    Q: Are there any lessons learned from your work on the Mitchell Commission and in Northern Ireland that you think apply today?

    A: I’ve already stated them. There has to be an absolute determination that is constantly communicated in word and deed to get the job done. There has to be an American willingness to get engaged. It requires a fine balance and some good judgment and diplomacy. You don’t want to create the impression that it’s an American agreement. But on the other hand, the United States can’t just wring its hands on the sidelines if the parties are unable to reach agreement. We have to get involved. So, that takes a good deal of diplomacy and skill. It obviously is a huge challenge because it’s a very complicated situation. But, as I said, the objective is so important that it’s worth the effort, whatever the obstacles and dangers are.

    Q: One last question, Special Envoy and former Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday that he thinks that the situation on the ground is as important as the overall peace process. Again drawing on your experience, what is your perspective on that?

    A: Well, I don’t know the context of his remarks. But, I’ve said many times and I repeat here that, while these peace negotiations, these efforts to end conflicts, necessarily focus on political and security measures, they can’t succeed in any sustainable way unless a very high priority is also given to economic issues, to the daily lives of the people involved. You can’t take the position that well if we could just settle all the political and security measures, somewhere down the road economic improvement will come. It has to be front and center, an integral daily part of the process or else the process can’t gain the necessary support of the people in the societies that are engaged in conflict. So, I don’t know exactly what Blair said or what he meant, but that’s my feeling, and it’s absolutely true, I believe, in every conflict situation. People need physical security, they need political freedom, they need personal dignity. In the end what people need most of all are jobs. Economic growth, job creation, to give people opportunity, hope, create a sense of meaningful participation in society.