The question of what the next administration should not do in the Middle East turns on one basic issue: before you change the hardware (the actual policies) try to get the software (the approach) right. For 16 years America has been failing: eight years of botched peacemaking under Bill Clinton; eight years of botched war making under George w. Bush. So for starters the software must borrow the diplomatic equivalent of the Hippocratic oath. Above all do no harm but beyond that avoid failure. Because of our flawed conceptions, we are neither admired, respected, let alone feared in a part of the world increasingly critical to our national interests.

So what are the elements of the new software? First see the world as it is not the way we want it to be. It’s not a land of diplomatic opportunity; it’s an investment trap in an angry and dysfunctional Middle East. We can’t fix it or run away from it. Let’s get real about what we can really do. If we’re lucky and tough, fair, and smart, we’ll have what America has had in the past – moments of success. We need to avoid over engaging because we think we know how the region behaves. Bill Clinton had no business going for a make or break deal at Camp David in July 2000; neither Arafat, Barak, let alone America were ready for it; and George w. bush had no business launching a war of choice without knowing what he was doing, without sufficient forces, or a proper assessment of the most likely reactions of the Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds, let alone their neighbors. We are now trying to extricate ourselves from a trillion dollar social science project called Iraq. Maybe Iraq will emerge as a democratic polity; I hope so. But that’s really not the question. The issue is what will or has it cost us.

Read more »

Perhaps this advice applies equally to both presidential candidates: Don’t persist in the Bush administration’s quest for a bilateral security framework agreement with the Maliki government in Iraq. Instead, seek a brief extension of the present UN mandate, and then immediately commence work on a greatly expanded UN mandate for Iraq premised upon a full US withdrawal.

Why is the Bush approach no good? First of all, as Oona Hathaway and Bruce Ackerman have argued, there is no constitutional basis for concluding such an agreement without Congressional approval. Such approval is hardly likely now; with the Democrats poised to increase the size of their caucuses in the elections, it would be even less likely in the new legislature. Of course, the lame duck Bush administration, should it succeed in inking an accord before the next president takes office, does not intend to ask for anyone’s OK. In that case, the next president would be justified in considering the agreement null and void.

Read more »

Let me start our online discussion/debate with a quick word of thanks to our esteemed group of analysts. I am grateful that you are willing to take time out of your busy schedules to help me and the Council in our efforts to both influence policy and educate the public about the Middle East—a region that will likely remain a central focus of U.S. foreign policy for the next administration and beyond.

Our topic this week is: What shouldn’t a McCain or Obama administration do in the region?

Read more »