Notes on “Reclaiming Control of U.S. Security in the Middle East”

The day before yesterday, Matthew Yglesias linked to a report by the Center for American Progress on Iraq, called “Reclaiming Control of U.S. Security in the Middle East.” He read it in its entirety, I only read the summary I am afraid, but it does sound very interesting, so I will try to read more of the report in the coming days (busy busy busy). For now, some excerpts, notes, etc. Of course, I strongly urge you all to read the report yourself.

Page 1.
“active steps to stabilize the entire Middle East.”

“The United States has no good options giving the strategic and tactical mistakes made on Iraq since 2002, but simply staying the course with an indefinite military presence is not serving U.S. interests.”

“the United States must reset its strategy by looking beyond the deteriorating in Iraq in order to counter the threat from global terrorist groups and ensure stability in the entire Middle East and Gulf region. To do this, we need to develop a new overall Middle East strategy, not just a series of tactics focused heavily on Iraq.”

Page 2.
Their new plan:
1* Accept the reality of Iraq’s political fragmentation.
2* Implement a phased military redeployment from Iraq within one year.
3* Initiate regional security and diplomatic efforts to contain Iraq’s conflicts.
4* Develop a strategy to devolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and stabilize the Middle East.

Page 3.
“Neither U.S. troops in and around Baghdad nor diplomats in the Green Zone can force Iraqi leaders to hold their country together… even if the security situation does improve, there will not be significant progress on the government side.”

Quote an Iraqi student: “Our situation is really tragic. We are surrounded on all sides and can’t do anything. Whichever side you work with, you end up being targeted by the other, and the worse thing is that there are more than two sides.”

Page 4-6
“A recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq noted that ‘the term “civil war” does not adequately describe these multiple, overlapping conflicts in Iraq or adequately capture their complexity as they also include extensive Shi’a, Al Qaeda, and Sunni insurgents attacks on U.S. forces, and widespread criminally-motivated violence.’ The United States cannot settle Iraq’s many internal conflicts even with its considerable conventional military power, particularly since the use of this military power is employed in an overall approach to the Middle East and the threat of global terrorist networks that is partial and incomplete.”

Furthermore, the U.S. needs to stop “passively waiting for Iraq’s national leaders” to work out the problems and “adopt a more active stance to advance its interests throughout the Middle East. In short, the United States needs to implement a strategic reset aimed at using U.S. power to protect our core national interests. The four simultaneous steps” the US must take: see image.

For more information about those steps (what they exactly mean), I suggest reading this part of the report. It is also worth mentioning that the Center for American Progress believes that “the ISG’s set of recommendations aimed at Iraq has been overtaken by events – the ISG was examining an Iraq that simply does not exist anymore” (page 6). The plan of the CAP however, “recognizes the grim realities of Iraq’s fragmentation and the fundamentally changed regional dynamics.” The CAP recommends “shifting U.S. priorities from refereeing Iraq’s multiple conflicts to aggressive counterterrorism alongside multiple efforts to stabilize the region.” According to the CAP, they “advance a more pragmatic approach aimed at garnering necessary international support for Iraq while taking the fight to our real terrorist enemies.”

Page 8.
Lastly, “in the next year, the United States needs to refocus its Middle East regional strategy by”:
- Developing crisis management strategies to address more effectively the fallout from conflicts such as the intra-Palestinian battles in the spring of 2007.
- Using regional and international proposals to provide a diplomatic framework to move the Arab-Israeli conflict toward resolution.
- Engaging in diplomacy with U.S. rivals such as Iran and Syria similar to the way the United States negotiated with the Soviet Union and China in the Cold War.
- Offering smartly targeted rule-of-law assistance to reduce and eliminate security vacuums and help foster democratic values from the ground up.