Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Middle East Publishing Institution MIT Center for International Studies

1. Iraq’s Political Factions: The Last Chance to Build a Governing Coalition?

Author:
Barry R. Posen
Publication Date:
01-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
President Bush is renewing his efforts to create an Iraq that can govern, sustain, and defend itself, and is throwing more resources at the project. The first priority must be governance, however, as administration and defense cannot happen without a functioning government. And government cannot function without a legitimate, broad-based, political consensus. Such a consensus has eluded Iraqis since March 2003, and the President’s new strategy includes no political program to create such a consensus. Instead, he counts on creating a coalition of existing “moderates,” which do not exist, as the intense violence within Iraq clearly demonstrates. Thus, the President’s troop increases, economic assistance, and intensified train- ing will likely prove futile.
Topic:
Imperialism, Democracy, State Building, and Iraq War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and North America

2. Troop Levels in Stability Operations: What We Don’t Know

Author:
Peter Krause
Publication Date:
02-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Troop levels in Iraq have been one of the most hotly contested issues om American foreign policy over the past three years, from debates over the initial deployment in 2003 to those surrounding the troop surge in 2007. The Bush administration has faced significant criticism for ignoring the conventional wisdom regarding the number of soldiers required to secure Iraq, and recent attempts to change course in this area are seen by some as too little, too late. Specifically, the Pentagon’s deployment of only 120,000 American troops for the invasion and the decision by Paul Bremer, U.S. Administrator in Iraq, to disband the Iraqi army and police has kept the ratio of security forces to Iraqi civilians well below the 20 per 1,000 seen as the basic ante required to play the high stakes stabilization game. Many supporters of higher troop levels blame these missteps for the emergence of the robust insurgency and the coalition’s failure to defeat it. But where exactly does the 20 per 1,000 figure come from, how strong is the evidence sup- porting it, and what steps are being taken to assess and improve the conventional wisdom in this area? While the answer to the first part of the question is relatively accessible, the latter are more difficult. They address a daunting problem, but unveil a disconnect between the objectives and methods of policy and social science.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Iraq War, and Troop Deployment
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and North America

3. Channel Surfing: Non-engagement as Foreign Policy

Author:
Barbara K. Bodine
Publication Date:
08-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The adoption of Security Council Resolution 1701 brought a halt to the month-long Israeli-Hezbollah war. UNIFIL will be greatly expanded with a more vigorous mandate to back Lebanese assertion of full sovereignty and control over southern Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah’s militia and missile sites. But is an agreement hammered out in Manhattan sustainable on the ground? Was success in New York confirmation that the Bush administra- tion has come to terms with the utility of the United Nations and the facility of our friends and allies? Or does the agreement’s ambiguity and fragility underscore the costs of dogged non-engagement with our adversaries, even in times of crisis?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, United Nations, Military Strategy, and Hezbollah
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Lebanon

4. The War on Terror: Forgotten Lessons from World War II

Author:
Stephen W. Van Evera
Publication Date:
10-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
President Bush recently likened the war oon terror to the struggles American faced in World War II, expkaning that our enemies are “successors to Fascists, to Nazis ... and other totalitar- ians of the 20th century.”1 The analogy to World War II is useful and illuminating. Important lessons from World War II apply to the war on terror. Yet the Bush administration has itself left the lessons of World War II largely unheed- ed. Its conduct of the war on terror departs from the policies that brought the United States victory in World War II and success in the postwar years.2 The administration will have more success against our terrorist enemies if it learns and applies the methods that won the Second World War.
Topic:
Terrorism, War on Terror, World War II, and Propaganda
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, and North America

5. The Bush Administration is Weak on Terror

Author:
Stephen W. Van Evera
Publication Date:
10-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The U.S. public widely credits President Bush with toughness on terror. An August 2006 poll found 55 percent of Americans approving his handling of the campaign on terror and only 38 percent disapproving. Republican candidates are running successfully on the terror issue in this fall’s election campaign. In fact, the Bush administration is weak on terror. The administration wages a one-front war against al-Qaeda, the main terror threat, when effort on every relevant front is needed. Specifically, it has focused on an offensive military and intelligence campaign abroad while neglecting five other critical fronts: bolstering homeland security, securing weapons and materials of mass destruction from possible theft or purchase by terrorists, winning the war of ideas across the world, end- ing conflicts that fuel support for al-Qaeda, and saving the failed states where al-Qaeda and like groups can find haven. The administration has also bungled parts of the mili- tary offensive by diverting itself into a counterproductive sideshow in Iraq and by alien- ating potential allies. As a result, al-Qaeda and related jihadi groups remain a potent threat more than five years after the 9/11 attacks.3 Assessments by U.S. intelligence and other analysts actually indicate that the terror threat has increased since 9/11.4 The Bush administration’s toughness on terror is an illusion. Its counterterror cam- paign has been inept and ineffective.5 President Bush talks the talk of strong action but doesn’t walk the walk. And his weakness on terror is a putting the United States in great danger.
Topic:
Intelligence, Terrorism, Al Qaeda, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, and North America

6. Regionalizing the Iraq Conflict?

Author:
John Tirman
Publication Date:
12-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
In one way or another, we are headed for a new engagement with the regional players to in an effort end the Iraq war. The idea of bringing in the neighbors to help stabilize and reduce the violence in Iraq is very attractive, and could contribute to a plausible exit strat- egy for the United States. The likelihood of “regionalization” being a success, however, depends on which version. And even with the more cooperative schemes being suggested, the closer one looks, the less promise it seems to hold.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Regionalism, and Iraq War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, Syria, and North America

7. Iran: Rogue State?

Author:
Ali Mostashari
Publication Date:
09-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Iran is now an important focal point for U.S. foreign policy. Yet many have argued that the United States lacks a coherent foreign policy on Iran, amounting to no more than an enormous list of “evils”: namely, that Iran exports its radical Islamist revolution, supports Hezbollah and Hamas and actively opposes the Middle East peace process, is building nuclear and biological weapons capacity, was involved in the bombings of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires and the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, provides Al-Qaeda with safe passage and refuge, helps insurgents in Iraq, assassinates its own dissidents and oppresses its people, and so on.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, and Saudi Arabia

8. Filling the Army's Ranks for the Iraq War

Author:
Cindy Williams
Publication Date:
07-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Some two years into the occupation in Iraq, the U.S. Army faces a serious staffing challenge. As of May 30, 2005, the active-duty Army had missed its recruiting goals for four months in a row. If things do not improve substantially, the service will have only 10 percent of needed enlistees pre-signed for basic training at the beginning of 2006; normally it begins the year with about one-third of its trainees already committed to contracts.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Middle East

9. Raising the Salience of Mexico and Canada

Author:
Chappell Lawson
Publication Date:
04-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Canada and Mexico rarely figure high on the list of American priorities. Policymakers focus on conflicts in the Middle East; specialists in international relations discuss China's growing influence; and newspapers cover the international crisis du jour. It is easy to forget about two countries that appear to pose no direct or immediate threat to U.S. interests.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
China, America, Middle East, Canada, North America, and Mexico

10. Why U.S. National Security Requires Mideast Peace

Author:
Stephen W. Van Evera
Publication Date:
04-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Two myths have important, distorting effects on the Bush administration's policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. First is the optimistic belief that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only a minor obstacle to American foreign policy—a modest hindrance that will not prevent the United States from achieving its main foreign policy goals. Second is the pessimistic belief that a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is infeasible, so a forceful U.S. push for peace will only waste effort on a fool's errand. These two assumptions have led the administration to adopt a passive policy toward the conflict, declining to offer firm U.S. leadership toward peace.
Topic:
Security and Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
United States, America, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine