It seems the Middle East has exploded, once again, over night. A glance at todays newspaper highlighted an eyeopening series of events.
Afghanistan saw another market place bombing where it is believed a convoy of U.S. troops was the target. This came only days after three German soldiers and seven civilians were killed by a suicide bomb blast. In Iraq, seven U.S. soldiers were killed in seperate blasts and the Iraqi parliment was still not able to come to terms on a proposed oil law. In retaliation of militant rocket fire into Israel, the Israeli army carried out a series of air raids in the Gaza Strip in which one missle hit a Palestinean house, killing eight civilians. Fighting between a Fatah militant group and the Lebanese army gripped the port city of Tripoli Sunday night. At least thrity nine people were killed and another blast also hit the capital Bierut. Meanwhile, in Iran, the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization announced that the nuclear program was moving ahead, and made it known that Tehran would not succumb to Western pressure to suspend enrichment.
All of this is just about enough to make my foreign policy loving head spin. It seems that everything is falling apart. Not to mention the fact that the “coalition” Palestinean government is on the brink of a total melt down.
It seems that we are told to wait just a little bit longer, that our policies are working but they just need time to take hold. The problem is, how much longer can we continue to let them go like this until we change course? It might be time to come to terms with the fact that we may need a diplomatic overhaul in our Middle Eastern policies. It should be clear that we must take a different course, the problem is that this will take incredible political muscle and will.
It seems as if we are currently entrenched in a policy under the current administration and it might take the next presidential elections until a different pair of eyes can ponder our current situation in the Gulf region. One idea might be to take a more hands on approach, and this is not to mean militarily. Our current war of words and rhetoric should give way to a more proactive approach of personal discussion between the U.S. and Arab nations, as well as with other countries that have leverage in the region.
There is minimal harm that could come of this, and we need look no further than the recently opened talks with Syria that have already begun to produce fruitful discussion. At the very least this might help us to regain our credibility as a regional player.
May 21, 2007 at 8:24 pm
I strongly disagree that talks with Syria are becoming fruitful. I have read strong arguments for and against, but the against arguments have always been more deeply rooted in pragmatic opinions, as opposed to speculative optimism. I would be happy to discuss strengthening our ties with Egypt and Jordan, but I believe that we cannot hold discussions of any consequence with the Syrian regime at this point.
Should they release their death grip on Lebanese politics and stop the instigations with Israel and Iraq, then we could work toward more meaningful discussions.
I think everyone can agree that modifications in diplomacy are worth exploring, however.
May 21, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I agree Kent. In my view, any progress will ONLY come with sustained diplomatic discussion. Currently, our entire foreign policy towards the ME is derived from what Prof. Edward Said calls “a classic orientalist view.”
(Edward Said was a comparative Lit professor at the University of Columbia, who unfortunately died earlier this year. He grew up as a Palestinian Christian, and is know for being opposed to our foreign policy in the region, unwavering support of Israel, and the Western view of eastern civilization in general-hence “orientalist”. I recommend his book “The Politics of Dispossession”)
Anyhow, in one of his lectures (available on google video), he rips apart the Harvard Professor’s thesis from which the US’s foreign policy is derived. (Meaning this guy has a say in our foreign policy).
Too often people in academia are labled as “not in touch with reality” or something to that effect.
However, we have to remember that our government actually consults many of these high profile professors. For example, Gregory Mankiw, a brilliant MIT macroeconomist/ professor, was chief economics advisor to President GWB. Whether or not Bush did everything Mankiw suggested, I’m not sure- (actually I don’t think he did…)
The same goes for foreign policy, and I believe we should be listening to Said, NOT Harrington (or whatever the other guy’s name is).
Check Said out. He’s the shit.
May 21, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Kent, maybe Jimmy Carter was right.
Very interesting piece in Tuesday’s WaPo by David Ignatius, where he reports that the Bushies may have finally come back around to the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101439.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
It’s hard to tell who is leading this charge. Maybe Condi, with her belated overtures to Iran and Syria, maybe Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Fallon, who have now had enough time on the ground to recognize that their prececessors weren’t crazy, or perhaps even Stephen Hadley now that he has the backing of a czar.
The only sure thing is that we haven’t heard from Cheney since he returned from the Middle East. Either he had a divine revelation while he was over there or, more likely, he’s being kept heavily sedated in an undisclosed location while this plays out.