IN SEARCH OF GRAND STRATEGY

April 14, 2008 

General David Petraeus' and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees gave all three presidential candidates an opportunity to remind the voters of their positions on Iraq.  Coming on the heels of recent clashes between the government of Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, and the Shiite militias of Muqtada al-Sadr, the two events rekindled the debate about the war that had receded with the success of the surge and the marked downturn in casualties and violence.  Listening to the Senators question General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, I found myself asking, when will the candidates go beyond what we already know about their intentions and inform us of their grand strategy?

Early on in the war, President Bush articulated a broad vision for a democratic Iraq in the heart of the troubled Middle East that would serve as a model for other countries and as a force for peace and stability in the region.  He held out the hope that it also would contribute to a broader Middle East peace.  For President Bush, overthrowing Saddam Hussein arguably was as much about a grand strategy for Middle East peace as it was about weapons of mass destruction.

Of course that was before just about everything went wrong.  It was before the flaws in US strategy--insufficient troops and failure to protect Iraqi civilians--gave al-Qaeda the upper hand.  It was before the 2006 Israel- Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon and the Hamas-Fatah conflict that followed Palestinian elections.  It was before Democrats chose to make Iraq a political issue, won control of the Congress, and pushed legislation on a timetable for a US withdrawal.  It’s easy to understand why most Americans soured on the war once it began to look like just another intractable Middle East conflict, and it became a partisan political issue.

In this environment, talk of grand strategy quickly evaporated.  It only gave President Bush’s political opponents another target to shoot at.  The American people didn’t want to listen to it.  All they wanted to know was how their leaders were going to correct their mistakes, end the war successfully, and bring the troops home.  Thus, Republicans and Democrats have been mired in a debate about benchmarks, timetables, the consequences of troop withdrawals, and the cost of the war.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton believe the best course is to extricate us from Iraq as quickly as possible.  John McCain believes that will spell disaster, and we must press forward in Iraq maintaining a reduced but long-term presence. 

Now, while the candidates spar over whether or not to pull out of Iraq, they each try to present themselves as the person with the better judgment, the most experience, or the one that will make the best Commander-in-Chief.  It would help if they also would provide us specifics that would allow us to judge which one has the better vision and strategy for dealing with the multiple, complex, and interrelated problems in the Middle East.  They're interrelated if for no other reason than all our enemies there have the same motto, “Death to America.”

The primary season may not be the best time to have this discussion.  For the moment, Senator McCain is better off watching Obama and Clinton attack each other.  And Obama and Clinton, especially Hillary, have more pressing problems.

As soon as the battle between Obama and Clinton is over, however, voters, the media, and the candidates themselves should demand more.  It’s not enough to say that US intervention in Iraq was a “strategic blunder” and we must withdraw, to “withdraw would be a disaster” and we have to press on, or “I’ll meet with Ahmadinejad.”  US interests in the region are too great and the consequences of the wrong strategy too enormous for America not to have a serious debate about Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before the election.  Americans have the right to know how their next president intends to confront these issues.

Some believe that President Bush is set on attacking Iran before he leaves office.  The Bush Administration has declared Iran a bigger threat to the US in Iraq than al-Qaeda, and Bush put Iran on notice last week that the US would act to protect its interests.  Since the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judged that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program, however, the Bush Administration has not been positioned, politically or otherwise, to attack Iran, and time is running out.  Nevertheless, Iran continues supplying radical Shiite militias in Iraq with weapons, explosives, and supplies, and it continues reprocessing uranium.  Barring a change of policy in Iran (not likely) the next president will have to decide what to do about it, especially when it determines Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon.

Hezbollah and Syria continue to hamstring the government of Lebanon.  Iran continues to supply Hezbollah rockets that can strike deep into Israel.  Another Hezbollah-Israel clash is inevitable, either as a direct provocation of Israel or in retaliation for future US or Israeli military action against Iran.

Hamas is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.  It fires dozens of rockets from the Gaza Strip into Southern Israel every day.  No settlement between the Palestinians and Israel is possible as long as Hamas intentionally provokes conflict to prevent it.

Finally, al-Qaeda in Iraq may be on the run and much diminished in its capacity to do damage.  It may be down, but it’s not out.   

Whichever candidate you currently support for President of the United States, you should want to know their answers to several important questions.  “Senator, what is the likely effect of your position on Iraq for the future of that country?  How will you deal with Iran when it’s on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon?  What’s your approach to seeking a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?  How do you intend to bolster the Government of Lebanon against the threat from Syria and Hezbollah?  Finally, Senator, how are all these issues related, and what’s your grand strategy for dealing with them?”

Partisan political talking points and sound bites aside, there are plenty of good ideas available in papers and articles by scholars and Middle East experts.  And there is no shortage of Democrat or Republican strategic thinkers and policy experts.  Let's not wait until after the election to find out which of their recommendations the candidates plan to adopt.