The American campaign in Iraq that began in 2003 is officially over today, although 50,000 American “advisers” are still in the country training Iraqi army and security personnel. No one believes all the violence is over or that Iraq will not face grave challenges in the months and years ahead.
UPDATE — Sept. 1, 2010: Today’s New York Times contains coverage and analysis.
More on the history of American involvement in Middle Eastern affairs
“Does President Abbas, already a weakened figure, have the courage to defend the necessary concessions to his people, particularly when it comes to conceding the “right of return” to Israel? Does Prime Minister Netanyahu have the determination to withdraw from at least 95 percent of the West Bank and to accept a Palestinian capital in Arab East Jerusalem? And does President Obama have the statesmanship to persuade both parties to make the deal and to reassure them that the United States will be there with a safety net if it fails? “
These are questions raised by former ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk in an Op-Ed piece in today’s New York Times (Aug. 27, 2010). Indyk thinks the chances for peace are better now than they have been for the past ten years.
The Sept.-Oct. issue of Foreign Affairs is running a series of articles devoted to the Middle East under the heading “Remaking the Middle East.” The NMH community may find this material through the Library’s licensed link to ProQuest.
At least 51 Iraqi army recruits were killed in a suicide bombing in Baghdad. The attack comes at a time when the U.S. is set to end combat operations by the end of this month and at a time (five months after elections) when Iraqi politicians have yet to form a new government.
UPDATE August 25, 2010 — At least 40 were killed in a wave of coordinated attacks in various parts of Iraq further raising doubts about the ability of the Iraqi army and security forces to keep the country stable:
In a significant shift, Arab public opinion has begun tilting toward Iran in spite of fears up to now of Iran’s nuclear development program. In fact, Arabs are beginning to think that program may be good for the Middle East, not bad.
Shibley Telhami, “A Shift in Arab Views of Iran,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 14, 2010
The lead editorial of today’s New York Times “Pakistan’s Double Game” contains a good summary of the problems surrounding the behavior of Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI) over the course of the last few decades, problems we have been discussing in this course since its inception in 2000. Pakistan has long used the Taliban as a proxy: its overall aim is to build and maintain influence over what happens in Afghanistan, thus preventing Afghanistan from falling into orbit around India, Pakistan’s biggest enemy.
“‘Not only is the status quo with respect to Gaza unsustainable, but the status quo with respect to the Middle East is unsustainable,’ Mr Obama said.”
“‘The depth of America’s moral commitment does not justify or excuse actions by an Israeli government that unnecessarily make Israel a strategic liability when it should remain an asset,’ Mr. [Anthony] Cordesman wrote, in commentary for the centrist Center for Strategic and International Studies, where he is the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in strategy. ‘It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it tests the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews.’”
Helene Cooper, “Washington Asks What to Do About Israel?,” New York Times, June 6, 2010
The attack on two Ahmadiyya mosques in Lahore, Pakistan this past week in which at least 80 people died has raised anew the question of whether Pakistan should take serious measures to separate “mosque and state.”
Juan Cole offers some thoughts on this question.
The lead editorial in today’s New York Times (“Dealing With Pakistan”) suggests what the U.S. can be doing to help Pakistan become a stable state.
RSS FEEDS
