Research & Commentary Results

It was absolutely predictable that Republicans would attack President Obama whatever he did in Libya, though Newt Gingrich, in his overeagerness, overreached by criticizing him for too explicitly opposite reasons. It was also likely that the anti-interventionist left, which sees (almost?) any use of American military power as imperialistic and unwarranted would likewise be opposed.

Rahm Emanuel famously quipped that a crisis should never go to waste. In his absence, the Administration seems determined not to take sufficient advantage of the ongoing and huge crisis in the Arab world. Its hesitant, uncertain, and (to date) completely ineffectual response to events in Libya sadly make this all too clear.

It now appears that the US finally has gotten serious about doing something meaningful to assist opposition forces in Libya. Exaggerated fears and an insufficient grasp of the adverse consequences of not taking such action previously paralyzed US (and most European) policymakers with respect to even an eastern no-fly zone, let alone more robust measures. Meanwhile, what is left of the organized Libyan opposition is increasingly hard-pressed.

The greatest threat to U.S. national security is Congress’s abdication of its constitutional responsibilities. Nothing could make this point more clear than the current discussion of whether Washington should bear the lion’s share of the costs and risks of a no-fly zone over Libya.

The Middle East Institute, in partnership with the Fondation Pour le Recherche Strategique, is proud to host Dr. Susanne Schmeidl and Dr. Geraldine Chatelard for a discussion of situations of protracted mass displacement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Funded by the European Commission, the project aims to generate policy recommendations that will strengthen transatlantic cooperation to respond to the refugee crises in the above-mentioned countries. The event will feature the findings of the two project team leaders, based on more than two dozen field-research papers.

US-Libya Business Association Honorary Chairman Amb. David Mack and Executive Director Charles Dittrich traveled to Libya for five days in mid-December. They met with Libyan government officials, Libyan private business leaders and representatives of American companies working in the country. They will share impressions regarding the political and economic climate in Libya and the implications for both overall US-Libyan relations and the prospects for American business interests.

This Commentary first appeared in the American Interest's Middle East Blog on January 13, 2011.

The Middle East Institute hosts a lecture and discussion with Mark N. Katz, examining the impact of the current and future US withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan on Islamic radicals. Katz argues that the US withdrawals from both countries will lead radicals to conclude they have defeated the US in the "War on Terror" and that US regional strength is on the decline. This, he argues, will spur Islamic radicals to seek further gains elsewhere.

*This article was first published in January 2011 by the Foreign Service Journal.

Relations between Libya and the U.S. have a turbulent history: War at the beginning of the 19th century; U.S. government support for Libyan independence after World War II; official and private-sector American engagement in the development of Libya’s oil wealth and human resources in the mid-20th century; Libyan terrorism and U.S. military retaliation in the 1980s; U.S.-engineered economic sanctions and isolation in the late 20th century; and restoration of diplomatic relations in 2006.

An earlier version of this Commentary first appeared in the American Interest on December 10, 2010

Iraq, the newest democracy in the Middle East, turned down an invitation to attend the December 10 investiture ceremony for the Chinese Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. It thus kept company with a litany of repressive governments that declined invitations to the ceremony, including Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Tunisia and Venezuela.

Turkey’s policy toward the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq has undergone an important shift since 2009. Only a few years ago, Turkey did not recognize Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government and refused to meet with its representatives in any official capacity due to its fear that recognition would embolden Turkey's own Kurdish minority to demand similar home-rule status.

The government formation stalemate in Iraq—well into its seventh month and counting—may at last be nearing an end. The next few weeks could seal a deal between rival electoral blocs that will produce the next national government.

Two scenarios with very different outcomes appear to be jockeying for rail position in the race to produce the next Prime Minister.

This piece first appeared as a op-ed in The National on August 30, 2010

The last American combat troops rolled across the Kuwaiti border from Iraq on August 19, nearly two weeks ahead of schedule. The Obama administration has spoken of this milestone as a promise fulfilled and the first major step toward bringing a “responsible” end to the war in Iraq, setting the stage for the final withdrawal of American troops at the end of next year.

The Middle East Institute is proud to host Rochelle Davis, professor of Anthropology at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, to discuss US military conceptions of culture and the war in Iraq.

This Commentary first appeared as an op-ed in The National, July 25, 2010.

After the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by United States and coalition forces, a short but sharp war, and the declaration of “Mission Accomplished” aboard an American aircraft carrier, Iran felt isolated and encircled on all sides by US might. Not so today.

Tehran has closely observed US travails in Iraq over the years, and watched with satisfaction as the US began withdrawing its forces in anticipation of a full withdrawal by the end of 2011.