CIAO DATE: 11/2008
Volume: 15, Issue: 0
Fall 2008
Tom Neumann
An interesting article appeared in the paper the other day. It concerned a report from the former American overseer of Iraq’s prisons. The official, Don Bordenkircher, claimed that during his time there several prisoners had “boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria.”
Ilan Berman
Here in Washington, the “silly season” is well and truly upon us. Observing the frenetic campaign cycle, with its endless media appearances, speeches and jostling for political position, it’s easy to understand why conventional wisdom has it that no serious policy gets done in an election year. And yet, foreign policy remains front and center on the national agenda. As of this writing, at least one crisis, the conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia, has broken into the open, while another—that of Iran’s nuclear ambitions—waits in the wings.
Turkey: Partnership on the Brink
Zeyno Baran
Is Turkey turning away from the United States? On the surface, it certainly looks that way. The number of Turks with a positive view of the U.S. has dropped steadily, from 52 percent in 2000, to 30 percent in 2002, to only 13 percent as of June 2008, according to the most recent Pew poll. Seventy percent of Turks consider the U.S. an “enemy.” These numbers are particularly dismal compared to those of other countries polled: only 60 percent of Pakistanis, 39 percent of Egyptians, and 34 percent of Russians and Chinese hold the same views.
Israel and Syria: Tactical Peace
David Wurmser
Over the last few months, Israel and Syria—through Turkish mediation—have resumed some sort of peace talks. Despite the volume and frequency of these overtures at the moment, this round of “peacemaking” will not break precedent; meaningful progress is highly unlikely. Instead, it fits a pattern of previous such efforts—overtures which led nowhere or even ended in the opposite, namely escalation (as in 1995-1996 and 1998-1999). Neither the Israeli nor the Syrian government is currently positioned to enter real peace talks. But each, for its own reasons, has a great momentary interest in talking about talks with great vigor.
Israel and the Palestinians: Ending the Stalemate
Caroline B. Glick
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s July 30, 2008, announcement of his intention to resign from office and the recent upsurge in internecine violence between Hamas and Fatah operatives in Gaza has thrown a monkey wrench in the Bush administration’s goal of seeing Israel and the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority sign a peace treaty laying out the borders and powers of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008. But even in the unlikely event that such an agreement is reached, far from stabilizing Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians, it will likely have either no impact on the Palestinian conflict with Israel, or a profoundly negative one.
The U.S.-Israel Partnership: Forks in the Road
Michael Oren
Supporters of Israel are intensely interested in which of the two presidential candidates, John McCain or Barack Obama, is “best” for the Jewish state. Of course, “best” is a subjective concept, colored by whether one regards settlements as beneficial or disastrous for Israel, for example, or the creation of a Palestinian state as essential or deadly. The word also assumes a substantial degree of familiarity with the candidates’ positions on issues that impact Israel either directly or collaterally. Attaining such clarity from politicians is difficult even in normal times. But during an election year, it is especially daunting. Speeches by presidential hopefuls geared to special constituencies, statements from commentators and aides, misquotes and gaffes—together these can cloud the contenders’ platforms, particularly on matters as complex and controversial as the Middle East. Moreover, more than a little disinformation on Obama and McCain has been disseminated by opponents and interested parties, further obscuring their true views.
Hezbollah: Lebanon’s Power Broker
Robert G. Rabil
Over the past decade, Hezbollah has undergone a major metamorphosis. From its origins as a radical sectarian militia in the 1980s, it has migrated into Lebanon’s political mainstream. In the process, Hezbollah has acquired the institutional trappings of a state and the capabilities of an army.
Khairi Abaza
Egyptian politics are in a state of stagnation. Despite numerous promises of reform in recent years, the government of president Hosni Mubarak has failed to embark upon a genuine opening of the political system, and hopes for reforms have faded.
Saudi Arabia: The Gathering Storm
Ali Alyami
The United States has had close ties to Saudi Arabia and its ruling family since the formation of the Saudi state in the early 1930s, when American oil companies began to survey the vast inhospitable sandy terrain of that country in hopes of finding oil deposits. They did, birthing a relationship between two countries divided by religious, political, social, economic and educational values. Frankly put, Saudi Arabia and the Unites States have nothing in common other than the fact that the former has oil and the latter needs it to lubricate the engines of its military and economic might.
William Boykin
“I tell you to act upon the orders of Allah, be united against Bush and Blair, and defeat them through suicide attacks so that you may be successful before Allah.” That directive was issued by Osama Bin Laden in 2003, in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And it was remarkably successful. In droves, his followers began to attack U.S. and British forces, resulting in indiscriminate death and destruction throughout Iraq and, ultimately, in Afghanistan and other parts of the world.
James S. Robbins
As the conflict in Iraq winds down, the “forgotten front” of the War on Terror, Afghanistan, has moved back into the forefront of the national security debate. Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan (hereafter OEF) is aptly named, since the conflict will endure long into the next administration. Whoever takes the oath of office in January of 2009 will face the same types of challenges in Afghanistan that have bedeviled the current administration since 2001, and to an extent have been characteristic of Afghan politics for decades. The primary strategic challenge that the new administration will face is arriving at a definition of success—or perhaps victory—in Afghanistan similar to that used in Iraq, and seeking a means eventually to declare the mission accomplished and bring the troops home. This is unlikely to take place in the foreseeable future, however.
How to Think About the Iranian Bomb
Ilan Berman
When he takes office on January 20th, 2009, the next President of the United States will have to contend with a range of pressing issues, from a global economic slowdown to soaring energy prices and a domestic housing market in crisis. On the foreign policy front, however, none will be as urgent as dealing with the persistent nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. How the United States responds to Iran’s atomic drive will, to a large extent, dictate the shape of American strategy toward the greater Middle East for the foreseeable future.
The Iranian Democracy Imperative
David M. Denehy
Ever since the Islamic Revolution 29 years ago, Iranians have sought to change the nature of their relationship with their government. These efforts, however, have so far been frustrated; a sense of political disenfranchisement, coupled with the false hope that Tehran’s theocratic regime can change from within, has blunted the efforts of those seeking to promote freedom in Iran. Those courageous voices that have emerged to promote liberty have fallen upon deaf ears in the West, and even among their own countrymen.
Todd Keister
With the “surge” in Iraq an apparent success, opponents of the war in Iraq have paradoxically been given more justification for their demands for an immediate troop withdrawal. Republican presidential candidate John McCain argues that we must stay in Iraq until victory is achieved, while his Democratic counterpart, Barack Obama, claims that it is time for the Iraqis themselves to take responsibility for prosecuting the “war.” Neither of these positions, however, provides a basis for a viable strategy.
William Wunderle, Gabriel Lajeunesse
The United States has conducted irregular warfare and counterinsurgency campaigns since its inception.1 In fact, part of America’s war of independence was an insurgency against the British. Since its independence, the U.S. has fought counterinsurgency campaigns against the Native Americans, against the South during the Civil War, in the Philippines, and, of course, in Vietnam.2 The experiences of America’s friends and allies are similar. Among others, the British fought counterinsurgencies in Malaya and Northern Ireland, the French in Indochina, Algeria, and Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Israelis conducted counterinsurgency operations during the two major Palestinian uprisings (1987-1993 and 2000-2005) in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet, America’s ability to conduct counterinsurgency has been more ad hoc than institutionalized.
Maintaining Momentum: An Interview with The Honorable Thomas J. Ridge
The Honorable Thomas Ridge is President and CEO of Ridge Global LLC. From January 2003 to February 2005, he served as the nation’s first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Before becoming Secretary, he served as President Bush’s Homeland Security Advisor, and in that capacity developed and coordinated a comprehensive national strategy to strengthen protections against terrorist threats in the United States in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Between 1995 and 2001, he was twice elected Governor of the State of Pennsylvania.
Thomas Joscelyn
Alan Mendoza
Steven I. Paget
Brendan Conway