Whether looking at the increasingly unstable situation in Baghdad, the stagnant peace process, the rise of Iranian influence, or the “birth pangs of the new Middle East,” American policymakers in both the White House and the newly-elected Democratic Congress are seeking to alter regional policy. While there are significant disagreements as to how exactly the United States should engage, there is a consensus that the current situation in the Middle East is unacceptable and undermining US regional interests.
Last week’s US elections saw the opposition Democrats capture scores of seats in the House of Representatives and Senate, giving the party undivided control of the legislative branch for the first time since 1994. Unlike past US elections, which have been waged almost exclusively on domestic themes, the 2006 midterms were largely over foreign policy issues — more specifically, they were referendum on Iraq and President Bush’s Middle East agenda. The results were clear rejection of the status quo; Bush himself, concluded that his party had received a “thumping.”
The question now is what comes next. It is a whole new ballgame in Washington, and pundits have offered a number of theories as to what direction the US will turn during this transition phase. While all believe change is inevitable, it is much more difficult to anticipate where the chips will fall. Clearly, the Democratic victory was based on the public belief that the US mission in Iraq is failing. And while Bush and his Republican allies lost the Iraq debate, it is not necessarily that the Democrats won it. The Democratic campaign message was simply that “change” was needed, without specifying an alternative formula. Some called for an immediate withdrawal of US military forces, while others supported other strategies — including dividing Iraq into three sectarian entities.
The message Bush immediately took from the election was that “stay the course” was no longer viable. Just one day after suffering the biggest political setback of his career, Bush sacked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Just one week earlier, he had stated the embattled defense secretary would keep his job until the 2008 presidential election. But Rumsfeld had become a divisive symbol of failure in Iraq, and his dismissal was welcomed by Democrats and Republicans alike.
But both parties now realize that neither sloganeering (waxing on about change) nor symbolism (Rumsfeld’s head) are solutions to the increasingly complex, difficult problems the US confronts in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Instead, both realize and are desperately seeking a new course, a path that promises palatable solutions. The burden of formulating such a plan now rests on the Iraq Study Group.
This bipartisan entity, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, was created earlier this year, entrusted with the mammoth task of crafting a blueprint that will steady Iraq, rejuvenate diplomacy with key Arab allies, encourage regional stability, and restore US prestige.
This week, the Iraq Study Group’s work continues. They will meet British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney. Their ultimate findings and recommendations are not expected to be announced until December. Allegedly, the Baker-Hamilton commission is considering issuing a broad proposal which would include not only Iraq, but other issues such as the Arab-Israeli peace process, which in many ways is and has remained the core regional problem since Israel’s inception. The commission will recommend that the Bush administration increase dialogue with its Arab partners in Amman, Beirut, Cairo, and Riyadh. More controversially, it likely will call for US dialogue with Damascus and Tehran.
While the Iraq Study Group report will be vigorously opposed by many in Washington, and viewed as threatening by some regional players, if it is as comprehensive as has been suggested, it would give American and regional policymakers hope — reason for optimism after many a season of despair. In Washington, both Democrats and Republicans alike will welcome a well-crafted alternative, and can benefit from the constructive criticism the report is likely to include.
Of course, even if the report offers hope and is warmly received in the region, there is great reason for pessimism. The Middle East has never been short of ideas, nor has it lacked promising initiatives. Thus, there is every reason to believe that however noble the Iraq Study Group report’s intentions, it will eventually fall to the wayside like ideas of the past: Camp David II, the Mitchell Commission, the Abdullah peace plan, and the Road Map, just to name a few recent plans quickly cast aside.
The reasons the Iraq Study Group plan may ultimately fail is that it will not be binding in either the US, Israel, Arab world, or Iran. This fact makes it absolutely essential that after the plan has been unveiled and accepted by the majority of decision-makers, that it must also be embraced. This requires active, continuous, and flexible American leadership, which will not fade in the face of criticism, inflexibility, and violence. No single party — in Iran, Israel, or elsewhere — can have veto power, nor have the ability to unilaterally alter terms.
There is ample evidence that justifies the belief shared by many foreign commentators that last week’s American elections will not result in any significant change in American policy. But they should also acknowledge that the election itself was unusual in that the American public repudiated its leadership primarily over international concerns.
Today, in wake of that defining, unique election, both Democrats and Republicans agree that a new course is needed. And both are looking to the Iraq Study Group to shape that course.
