التقرير الأسبوعي لمراكز الأبحاث الاميركية

مركز الدراسات الأميركية والعربية - المرصد الفكري / البحثي

 

التقرير الأسبوعي لمراكز الأبحاث الاميركية

 A Bi-Lingual Report of U.S. Think Tank Community

 July 1, 2011

المقدمة:

وسيتناول مركز الرصد والابحاث التجاذبات الانتخابية بين المرشحين عن الحزب الجمهوري للرئاسة، لا سيما قراءة توجهاتهم السياسية نحو الوطن العربي ومنطقة الشرق الاوسط، اذ يكمن الدافع الاساسي لهذا الاهتمام اصرار مراكز القوى المختلفة على تأجيج الأزمة الداخلية التي يواجهها الرئيس اوباما والتي قد تسفر عن تمكن الحزب الجمهوري ايصال احد مرشحيه للبيت الابيض. وفي هذا السياق، يتابع التحليل خطاب المرشح عن الحزب الجمهوري الاوفر حظا وحاكم ولاية منيسوتا، تيم بولنتي، امام "مجلس العلاقات الخارجية" والوتيرة العالية لتحديه الرئيس اوباما.

 

         واستهلّ معهد هدسون Hudson Institute تشريحه لما اسماه "مبدأ اوباما،" لسياسته الشرق اوسطية التي افصح عنها الاسبوع الماضي. وقال "تعد الافكار قضية جوهرية، خاصة للمثقفين على شاكلة الرئيس اوباما. اذ انه لا يتسم بالجمود الايديولوجي بل باستطاعته المناورة بمرونة. لكن هذا الفهم الذي ارساه للتاريخ، ونظرته لمسألة السيادة، وثقته بالمؤسسات متعددة الاطراف قد عملت بمجموعها على بلورة ارائه حيال القوة الاميركية وزعامة اميركا بوسائل عدة تميزه عن اسلافه من الرؤساء. ففي الشأن الليبي، اثبتت مراعاته لمجلس الأمن الدولي ونبذه لتسلم اميركا الدور القيادي لقوات التحالف ان اهتمامه منصب على الحد من قدرة اميركا عوضا عن انجاز تقدم ملموس هناك. كما وينظر الى ليبيا والربيع العربي برمته على ان الأمر ثمة تشتيت لجهوده في التركيز على الاستراتيجية الشاملة مما يعد قطيعة مع مسار السياسة الخارجية الاميركية المتبعة طيلة القرن المنصرم. ويخطيء النقاد الذين يتهمون اوباما بأنه فاقد البوصلة في مجال السياسة الخارجية. فلديه افكار جلية لما ينوي القيام به. المعضلة القائمة بالنسبة له تكمن في اقدامه على تحديد خطوط استراتيجيته باسلوب مبسط اذ ان غالبية الشعب الاميركي سيتخلى عنه عندئذ."

 

         اما مؤسسة هاريتاج Heritage Foundation فقد تناولت مسألة استمرار الهجمات الاميركية على مواقع الخصوم في الاراضي الباكستانية. وقالت "التصدع الناشيء عن عملية بن لادن اظهر للسطح الخلافات الشاسعة بين الاهداف الاستراتيجية الاساسية لاميركا والباكستان. لكن الدفع بتأجيجها الى نقطة الانفجار ليس في مصلحة اي منهما. فالمسار المفضل للمسؤولين الاميركيين هو الحفاظ على اللهجة الحاسمة والمستمرة في مخاطبة نظرائهم الباكستانيين. ويبقى عامل الزمن كفيل لاثبات مدى عزم المسؤولين الباكستانيين انتهاج سياسة تبقي على انخراطهم مع الدول الغربية او اختيار مسار اكثر خطورة ينبذ الولايات المتحدة ويتشبث بوكلاء الارهاب الذين يفضلون رؤية باكستان بلد ضعيف وغير مستقر."

 

         وطالب مركز الدراسات الاستراتيجية والدولية CSIS بانشاء مناخ سياسي متين في الشرق الاوسط. وقال "كما اثبت الربيع العربي، فان الجيل الفتي استشعر الفرصة والحاجة الملحة للانخراط في سياق حل العقبات السياسية العامة التي تواجهها حكوماتهم، والانظمة تواجه تحديا للإتيان بحلول افضل مما قدموا حتى الآن. وامام المؤسسات الاميركية والهيئات الحكومية على السواء فرصة نادرة للاستفادة من هذه النجاحات والبدء بالاستثمار في مناخ سياسي عام اكثر متانة في الشرق الاوسط."

وفي سياق منفصل، تناول المركز (CSIS) اقدام السلطة الفلسطينية التوجه للأمم المتحدة بغية الحصول على وضع كامل العضوية في المنظمة الدولية. وقال "زيادة الضغط الدولي على اسرائيل وجهود نزع الشرعية عنها يسهم في تعزيز النزعات الوطنية والمتشددة داخل الحكومة الاسرائيلية والمواطنين ايضا. وعوضا عن ذلك، فمن المرجح ان يتوجه الاسرائيليون نحو تطبيق مسار عقابي وتعزيز انشاء المستعمرات او تشديد القيود على الفلسطينيين في الضفة الغربية وغزة. اما على المستوى الداخلي، فان المناورة بالتوجه للمنظمة الدولية قد تشكل عقبة امام السلطة الفلسطينية. وقد تواجه تناميا في مشاعر الاستياء والمعارضة لتوجهاتها ان اقتنع الفلسطينيون بان استراتيجية التوجه للمنظمة الدولية لاحداث تغيير في مستوى المعيشة للانسان العادي قد باءت بالفشل."

         وانضم الى موجة انتقاد الخطوة الفلسطينية معهد واشنطن Washington Institute من زاوية العقبات التي قد تنطوي عليها بالنسبة للولايات المتحدة. واصدر المعهد دراسة من تأليف المفاوض الاسرائيلي السابق، تال باكر، تناول فيها السيناريوات المتعددة التي ستطرح على الامم المتحدة، والعوامل الاقليمية والداخلية التي دفعت بالزعامة الفلسطينية الاقدام على تلك الخطوة، والآثار المختلفة المترتبة عن اعتراف محتمل من قبل المنظمة الدولية. وبحثت الدراسة المذكورة في الخيارات السياسية المختلفة المتوفرة للولايات المتحدة لصياغة اسلوب رد مناسب يوازن بين المصالح المتناقضة والاولويات، والحفاظ على خيار حل يتم التوصل اليه عبر طريق التفاوض في ظل مناخ اقليمي متغير ومتقلب.

 

         بينما تناول معهد ابحاث السياسة الخارجية Foreign Policy Research Institute نتائج الانتخابات التركية الاخيرة، قائلا "ان مفردة المساواة لا تنطبق على شخصية اردوغان. فهو يحكم بقبضة حديدية للوصول الى اهدافه. ويخضع اسلوبه الاداري ونزعته السلطوية الى انتقادات تنم عن نزعة انتقامية. اذ فسح المجال للسلطات الضرائبية لاستهداف خصومه في الدوائر الاعلامية والتجارية ... في حين ان حزب العدالة والتنمية كان يضم طيفا من الشخصيات ذات التوجهات المختلفة يوما ما، وتم تحويله الى اقطاعية خاصة لرئيس الوزراء. ولا توجد مؤشرات في الافق تدل على تحدي زعامة اردوغان بصورة جدية. وجدول اعمالة لانشاء تركيا جديدة قد نجح لغاية اللحظة وقد يكون باستطاعته تتويج الانجازات باستصدار دستور جديد. وقبل المضي في هذا المضمار، هناك بعض القضايا التي تتطلب اهتماما عاجلا، لا سيما الاضطرابات الاقليمية والتحديات الاقتصادية وما قد يتهدده من الوصول الى طريق مسدود في البرلمان. وقد يكون مجديا لرئيس الوزراء التخفيف من التوترات التشريعية عبر التقدم بمشروع لنواب حزب السلام والديموقراطية لاعطاء الاكراد وضعا شبيها بالفيدرالية عندما يحين الوقت لصياغة الدستور. وستكون خطوة كهذه جريئة ومثيرة للجدل وستؤدي الى رفضها على وجه السرعة من قبل اقطاب المعارضة الاخرى، لكن من شأنها اتاحة الاجواء للشروع بالمناقشة حول كيفية التوصل الى حل معضلة طال امدها."

 

         اما مجلس العلاقات الخارجية Council on Foreign Relations فقد اخذ علما بفشل ادارة الرئيس اوباما في ما اسماه مجال التأهب للازمة، قائلا "باستطاعة ادارة الرئيس اوباما الحد من فرص الصدمة وعدم التهيؤ لازمات مستقبلية عبر تطبيق سياسة مراجعة المخاطر الأمنية القومية بصورة دورية للتحديات والتهديدات المتوقعة، وفي نفس الوقت رفع دور التخطيط الاستراتيجي لتوفير ارشادات سياسية عالية المستوى لكيفية ادارة الازمات وتجنبها كلية وهو الخيار الافضل. كما وينبغي تعزيز امكانيات مجلس الأمن القومي ووزارة الخارجية للتعامل مع حالات الطواريء المعقدة."

وحذر بولنتي في خطابه من نزعات الحزب الجمهوري للتقوقع وتقليص النفوذ الاميركي فيما يجري من احداث حول العالم، قائلا ان "الدروس التاريخية تحذرنا مرارا وتكرارا ان ضعف الاداء في السياسة الخارجية على المدى الطويل سيكون مكلفا لاجيالنا واولادنا اكبر مما يمكننا الادخار به" من استقطاع مؤقت في الميزانية.

وقد عبر بولنتي لاحقا عن ما يعتبره استفادة بعض الانظمة من دروس الانتفاضات الشعبية، اذ قال "الممالك العربية، البعض منها – مثل الاردن والمغرب – منخرطة الآن باحداث ما يمكن وصفه باصلاحات حقيقية. الأمر الذي ينبغي ان يحظى برعايتنا ودعمنا. اذ توصل هؤلاء الملوك الى قناعة تفيد بان عليهم الشروع في بناء شراكة مع مواطنيهم، تقود تدريجيا الى بناء مجتمعات تتمتع بالديموقراطية. وباستطاعة تلك الملكيات تهيئة التحولات نحو اصلاحات دستورية ومزيد من الحريات، مما يعزز شرعيتها. وان اقدموا على هذا المسار، فهم جديرون بدعمنا ايضا."

 

 

ANALYSIS, PUBLICATIONS, AND ARTICLES

 

Executive Summary

 

This week has been a slow one in the Washington think tank community as analysts begin to take off for America’s Independence Day celebrations this weekend. As a result, there are fewer studies.

This week the Think Tank Monitor looks at Republican policy towards the Middle East, should it recapture the White House next year. In addition to looking at the Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota governor and declared Republican presidential candidate) speech in front of the Council on Foreign Relations, we compare and contrast his statements with those of other Republican candidates. We notice many similarities, but notice large differences in policy towards Libya and Afghanistan.

 

The Hudson Institute looks at the Obama Doctrine as outlined in his Middle East speech last week. They concluded, “Ideas matter, and especially to intellectuals like President Obama. He is not a rigid ideologue and is capable of flexible maneuvering. But his interpretation of history, his attitude toward sovereignty, and his confidence in multilateral institutions have shaped his views of American power and of American leadership in ways that distinguish him from previous presidents. On Libya, his deference to the UN Security Council and refusal to serve as coalition leader show that he cares more about restraining America than about accomplishing any particular result in Libya. He views Libya and the whole Arab Spring as relatively small distractions from his broader strategy for breaking with the history of U.S. foreign policy as it developed in the last century. The critics who accuse Obama of being adrift in foreign policy are mistaken. He has clear ideas of where he wants to go. The problem for him is that, if his strategy is set forth plainly, most Americans will not want to follow him.”

 

The Heritage Foundation looks at the need to continue to attack terrorist in Pakistan. They note. “The breach over the bin Laden operation has brought to the surface the vast differences between America’s and Pakistan’s fundamental strategic objectives in the region. But it is in neither country’s interest to allow the relationship to implode. The best course for U.S. officials is to maintain consistent and firm messages with their Pakistani counterparts. Only time will tell whether Pakistani officials chart a course of remaining engaged with Western countries or choose a more risky path of shunning the U.S. and clinging to terrorist proxies that prefer a weak and unstable Pakistan.”

 

CSIS looks at creating a more robust political policy environment in the Middle East. They conclude, “As the Arab Spring demonstrated, young people sense both an opportunity and an urgency to become involved in the public policy problems their governments face, and gov­ernments face a need to devise better solutions than they have been able to up to now. U.S. institutions and government agencies have a unique opportunity to capitalize on these gains and begin investing in a more robust public policy environment in the Middle East.”

The CSIS also looks at the PLO’s expected request for full membership status from the UN this fall. They note though, “an increase in international pressure on Israel and efforts to delegitimize it further will likely strengthen the nationalist and hard-line tendencies within the Israeli government and population. Instead, the Israelis are likely to seek to be punitive, potentially increasing settlement construction or tightening restrictions on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Domestically, the UN gambit could become a liability for the Palestinian Authority. It could face growing opposition and resentment if Palestinians feel that the UN strategy has failed to change the lives of ordinary Palestinians.”

 

The Washington Institute also looks at Palestinian statehood and the policy problems it poses to the US. In this Policy Note, former Israeli peace negotiator Tal Becker examines the scenarios most likely to unfold at the UN, the regional and domestic factors that have led the Palestinian leadership to pursue this course, and the various implications of potential UN recognition. The study examines different policy options available to the United States as it seeks a response that best balances conflicting interests and priorities, and best preserves the option of a negotiated solution in a volatile and changing regional environment.

 

The FPRI looked at the results of the Turkish election. They concluded, “Egalitarian isn’t a word that would fit Mr. Erdogan’s personality, however. He governs with a heavy hand to achieve his goals. His managerial style is criticized for exhibiting an authoritarian impulse, which has a vindictive streak. The tax authorities have been empowered to go after his opponents in media and business circles…Whereas the AKP once reflected a spectrum of personalities with varying outlooks, it has turned into the Prime Minister’s personal fiefdom. There are no signs in the foreseeable future that Mr. Erdogan’s rule will be credibly challenged. His agenda to create a new Turkey has so far succeeded and can culminate by introducing a new constitution. Before starting this endeavor, more immediate concerns need attention, namely regional tumult, economic uncertainties and what threatens to be parliamentary impasse. Perhaps the Prime Minister can ease legislative tension by proposing to the BDP deputies that a quasi-federal status for the Kurds be considered when the constitution is drafted. It would be a bold, controversial move that the other opposition groups would promptly reject, but nonetheless initiate discussion on how to finally resolve a long-festering dilemma.

The Council on Foreign Relations looks at crisis preparedness in the Obama Administration. They note the administrations failures and suggest, “The Obama administration can reduce its chances of being blindsided and unprepared in future crises by instituting a regular national security risk assessment of potential threats and challenges while also elevating the role of strategic planning to provide high-level policy guidance as to how they may be managed and better still averted. The capacity of the National Security Council and the State Department to handle complex contingencies should also be upgraded.”

 

 ANALYSIS

Republican Policy in the Middle East

 After three years out of the White House, the Republicans are hoping to ride on foreign policy and national security issues to the White House next year, they seemed to be convinced that a weak showing of Obama administration in foreign affairs could shift the tide of public opinion in favor of a more assertive and aggressive U.S. foreign policy lead by a republican president. In this brief analysis we will examine what would be the republicans Middle East policy if they beat Obama in 2012 presidential election. President Bush was a war president in most regards and his actions in the Middle East were geared towards reacting to 9-11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most Republicans were shocked during the recent presidential debates when Republican front runner Mitt Romney echoed that sentiment by saying, “It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can — as soon as our generals think it’s okay…One lesson we‘ve learned in Afghanistan is that Americans cannot fight another nation’s war of independence.”

 

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, for instance, is of the same mind, calling for an American presence of just 15,000 troops in Afghanistan. “The very expensive boots on the ground may be something that is not critical for our national security needs, nor is it something we can afford this point in our economic history,” he said.

 

That, however, doesn’t reflect the Pawlenty view. In his speech, he said, “What is wrong, is for the Republican Party to shrink from the challenges of American leadership in the world. History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we’ll save in a budget line item.” Earlier on Afghanistan, he said, “And it is not wrong for Republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in Afghanistan— though my belief is that General Petreaus’ voice ought to carry the most weight on that question.” This view actually reflects the majority of Republicans.

 

Libya also splits many Republicans. Pawlenty said in his speech, “In Libya, the best help America can provide to these new friends is to stop leading from behind and commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi, recognizing the TNC as the government of Libya, and unfreezing assets so the TNC can afford security and essential services as it marches toward Tripoli. Beyond Libya, America should always promote the universal principles that undergird freedom.”

 

However, Bachmann, a more conservative Republican said she would have not gone into Libya. Her fear was that some of the rebel elements are al Qaeda. 

 

There is much more unity on countries traditionally hostile to the United States policies, Syria and Iran. While Obama has pressed for limited engagement with these regimes, Republicans are pushing a more hard line. Pawlenty told the Council on Foreign Relations, “We have a clear interest in seeing an end to Assad’s murderous regime. By sticking to Bashar al Assad so long, the Obama Administration has not only frustrated Syrians who are fighting for freedom—it has demonstrated strategic blindness. The governments of Iran and Syria are enemies of the United States. They are not reformers and never will be. They support each other. To weaken or replace one is to weaken or replace the other.” He also encouraged working with Turkey.

 

Another issue that receives universal acceptance amongst Republican candidates is the treatment of religious minorities. Pawlenty said, “We must insist on religious freedoms for all, including the region’s minorities—whether Christian, Shia, Sunni, or Bahai.” The US, as a primarily Christian nation has become worried about stories of persecution of Christians across the region. It is an issue that doesn’t have much impact in Washington, but resonates in other parts of the United States. This issue could have a serious impact on US/Egypt relations in a Republican administration.

 

All Republican candidates are united in dismissing Obama’s” vacillation” concerning Egypt during the Arab Spring. Pawlenty told the council, ““Engagement” meant that when crisis erupted in Cairo this year, as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Tahrir Square, Secretary Clinton declared, “the Egyptian Government is stable.” Two weeks later, Mubarak was gone. When Secretary Clinton visited Cairo after Mubarak’s fall, democratic activist groups refused to meet with her. And who can blame them? The forces we now need to succeed in Egypt — the pro-democracy, secular political parties — these are the very people President Obama cut off, and Secretary Clinton dismissed.”

 

Finally, there is support of Israel. All the candidates are pro-Israel, although it is assumed that some will be more likely to back the state more unswervingly. Michele Bachmann lived in an Israeli Kibbutz for a summer and several of the candidates have visited the nation several times. In his speech, Pawlenty echoed the views of all of the Republican candidates, “It breaks my heart that President Obama treats Israel, our great friend, as a problem, rather than as an ally. The President seems to genuinely believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem in the Middle East.”

 

So, what can the region expect from a Republican President. The first and most obvious is that Israel will gain more political power in the new administration. However, that will not mean that the new president won’t try to engage both sides in a peace process.

 

A Republican president will also push for stronger sanctions against Syria , Iran, and Libya. Do not let the political talk about military intervention in Libya mislead – all the Republican candidates are unfriendly towards Libya. 

 

A Republican president will also cast a more skeptical eye towards political changes brought about by civil uprising. More emphasis will be given to pushing the current regime to make concessions to the people so they will have greater economic and political freedom. Current governments that are friendly to the US will not have to fear losing American support at a critical juncture.

 

There will be some unknowns. The role of the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya may change to fit the president. However, those choices are more likely to reflect the opinions of the military advisors than domestic political considerations. However, it is safe to assume that none of the presidential candidates will withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan during their administration.

 

 

 

By Lisa Curtis

Heritage Foundation

June 25, 2011

Web memo

 

New information has revealed contacts between members of Pakistani terrorist group Harakat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM) and Osama bin Laden’s courier. These revelations show that Pakistan’s segmented approach to terrorism contributed to bin Laden’s ability to live undetected in a military town deep inside Pakistan. Pakistan has long sought to distinguish between Kashmir-focused terrorist groups—which it allows to operate freely in Pakistan as a buffer against India—and al-Qaeda. U.S. officials should reject this distinction and make clear that they view any individuals who facilitate al-Qaeda as threats to America. If Pakistan fails to take action against terrorist organizations affiliated with al-Qaeda, Washington should withhold security aid to Islamabad.

 

By Jon Alterman

Center for Strategic and International Studies

June 27, 2011

Analysis Paper

 

With the winds of change blowing through the Arab world, the time is ripe for supporting a more robust public policy environment in the region.  Over time, a disciplined and coordinated effort can help nurture an environment in which younger generations are more intimately connected with policymaking and where political debate occurs outside the blogosphere, among individuals and civil society organizations and their governments.  Such an environment will contribute to enhancing the peace and security of the region and of the United States as well.  The gains will not be immediate, but the impact will be enduring.

 

 

By Haim Malka

Center for Strategic and International Studies

June 29, 2011

 

In the coming weeks, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) will likely submit a formal request to the United Nations for full membership status. According to the UN Charter, the Security Council must approve the request before it goes to the General Assembly for a final vote. With Israeli-Palestinian negotiations stuck for more than a year, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas portrays the UN vote as the only hope for ever achieving Palestinian statehood. It simultaneously signals Palestinian dissatisfaction with the Obama administration’s efforts to resume negotiations and lack of confidence in the prospect of reaching any agreement with the government of Israel.

President Obama has rejected the Palestinians’ strategy, telling Palestinians in a May speech that “symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.” The Obama administration has threatened to veto the proposal in the Security Council and has instead pushed anew to persuade the two sides to resume direct negotiations. An American veto would not be the end of the story. The Palestinians could still persuade the General Assembly to approve an upgraded observer status or to pass a nonbinding recognition of Palestinian statehood. The Palestinian strategy places the Obama administration in a quandary: it has identified an independent Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel as a U.S. national interest, but it is likely to be on record opposing Palestinian statehood. However it plays out, the Palestinian move creates dilemmas and risks for Israel, the Palestinians, and the United States.

 

By Gerald Robbins

Foreign Policy Research Institute

June 2011

E Note

 

Now that the results are known from Turkey’s June 12 general election, it is an appropriate time to discern this strategically important nation’s state of affairs. Turkey-watching is never an easy matter, especially given the current government’s fluctuating ways which confound many analysts. Nearly a decade has passed since the Justice and Development came to power with its heavily-inspired Islamist thinking. Detractors see the AKP’s methodology as a stealth jihad that’s gradually eroding the country’s secularist bearings. Conversely, AKP’s proponents applaud the various reforms which the party has enacted, ostensibly projecting it as a “bridge” between Western and Muslim civilizations. Whatever the case may be, the Turkish post-electoral environment is at a critical crossroad with far-reaching implications for its society and beyond. The election was essentially a foregone conclusion. The main issue wasn’t whether the AKP would win, but by how much.

By Douglas Feith and Seth Cropsey

Hudson Institute

June 29, 2011

Commentary Magazine

 

The words "vacillating" and "aimless" are commonly used by both left and right to describe President Barack Obama's approach to the Libya war. His political friends and foes alike lament that he has no clear goal in Libya—and that, by failing to articulate one, he is revealing his unease at having been dragged into the fight to oust the regime of Muammar Qaddafi. Democratic Senator James Webb of Virginia issued a press release on March 21, 2011, noting that the U.S. mission in Libya "lacks clarity." Former Republican Senator Slade Gorton wrote in the Washington Post: "We should never enter a war halfway and with an indecisive goal. Regrettably, that is where we stand today." The criticism has some validity, but it misses an important point: the administration's approach has logic and coherence in the service of strategic considerations that extend far beyond Libya.

 

By Tal Becker

Washington Institute for Near East Policy

June 2011

Policy Note 6

 

Barring a diplomatic breakthrough, Palestinian leaders plan to pursue a statehood resolution at the United Nations in September. Yet, the most striking feature of the debate surrounding this development is how little attention is being paid to the context of this initiative and what may happen the day after the UN vote. The UN move is as much a symptom as it is a cause, and unless understood in this way, the policy response is likely to be inadequate. Regardless of the outcome in New York, the downward spiral away from peacemaking seems to be intensifying at an alarming pace.

 

By Paul Stares

Council on Foreign Relations

June 2011

Policy Innovation Memo

 

The Obama administration was caught flatfooted by the recent Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Not only did the intelligence community fail to warn senior officials of the combustible situations in Tunisia and Egypt, but evidently little or no forethought was given to how the United States might respond to popular uprisings or other forms of political instability in those countries of clear importance to U.S. interests and regional goals. As a result, the administration struggled to manage the unfolding crisis, largely improvising its responses without a clear sense of their implications or the overarching strategic objectives. The Obama administration can reduce its chances of being blindsided and unprepared in future crises by instituting a regular national security risk assessment of potential threats and challenges while also elevating the role of strategic planning to provide high-level policy guidance as to how they may be managed and better still averted