IRAQ
AP Photo
April 2009
"Enhancing Full-Spectrum Flexibility: Striking the Balance to Maximize Force Effectiveness in Conventional and Counterinsurgency Operations"
Paper
By William D. Anderson, Jr., Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2008-2009
With the United States currently engaged in difficult and taxing counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, renewed emphasis has been focused upon the country's capabilities and priorities vis-à-vis this type of warfare. Within the military, the Air Force has been especially and increasingly criticized for being too enamored with a Cold-War era conventionally minded force structure and for not shifting aggressively to meet the threats of COIN-style conflicts that many predict will be pervasive throughout the Global War on Terror.
This paper addresses the conceptual capabilities and limitations of air power in COIN in order to illuminate how the Air Force can leverage the distinct asymmetric advantage that air power presents across the spectrum of conflict. This asymmetry is founded upon a clear U.S. superiority in air power capabilities combined with the unique flexibility inherent in air power. An understanding of air power's efficacy in COIN, measured against conventional requirements and capabilities, will inform decisions on appropriate force structure and employment.
Summer 2009
"Newsmakers"
Newsletter Article, Belfer Center Newsletter
By Sharon Wilke, Associate Director of Communications
Belfer Center Newsmakers.
Summer 2009
"International Security Journal" Highlights
Newsletter Article, Belfer Center Newsletter
International Security is America's leading journal of security affairs. It provides sophisticated analyses of contemporary security issues and discusses their conceptual and historical foundations. The journal is edited at the Belfer Center and published quarterly by the MIT Press.
Spring 2009
"Long Time Coming: Prospects for Democracy"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 4, volume 33
The odds of Iraq achieving democracy in the next twenty-five years are nearly zero, at best about two in thirty, but probably worse. Since the end of the nineteenth century, thirty nations have had long-lasting autocracies as extreme as Iraq's. Of those, only seven are now democratic. Their average transition time was fifty years, and only two managed it in twenty-five years. Their collective political experience indicates a similarly pessimistic future for Iraq and comparable nations. Furthermore, Iraq lacks the structural conditions necessary for a successful democratic transition. Thus the sober question of whether Iraq can democratize should deter policymakers from considering regime change in Iran or North Korea.
Spring 2009
"Power without Influence: The Bush Administration’s Foreign Policy Failure in the Middle East"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 4, volume 33
By Jeremy Pressman, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2002-2003
The George W. Bush administration's efforts in the Middle East failed to advance U.S. national security. The Bush administration did not defeat terrorism, promote democracy in the region, or stop nonconventional proliferation. It was unsuccessful because it relied too heavily on military force, showed an unwillingness to learn and adapt, and did not resolve long-standing policy contradictions. Given the Bush administration's failure in the Middle East, scholars should examine why material power does not automatically translate into international influence.
AP Photo
April 2009
"Nasty, Brutish and Long"
Magazine or Newspaper Article, Prospect, issue 157
By Monica Duffy Toft, Associate Professor of Public Policy
It’s a busy time for civil wars. The Sri Lankan army has pushed far into Tamil territory, seeking a decisive victory. The killings in Northern Ireland show how spoilers try to gain advantage over rivals in any political process. Then there is the threat that recently pacified civil wars, such as those in Iraq and Sudan, will come back, while the global recession may push new ones forward.
AP Photo
January-March 2009
"Is It Love or The Lobby? Explaining America's Special Relationship with Israel"
Journal Article, Security Studies, issue 1, volume 18
By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs; Faculty Chair, International Security Program
"In The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, we argued that the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel is due largely to the influence of a domestic interest group—comprised of Jews as well as non-Jews—and that this unusual situation is harmful to both the United States and Israel....[P]ublic opinion in the United States does not explain why the United States gives Israel such extensive and nearly unconditional backing. Although most Americans have a favorable image of Israel, surveys show that they also favor a more even-handed Middle East policy and a more normal relationship with Israel. Thus, the special relationship is due primarily to the lobby's influence, and not to the American people's enduring identification with the Jewish state."
AP Photo
March 24, 2009
"A Modest Nationalism in Iraq Will Favor Iran"
Op-Ed, Aftab News
By Kayhan Barzegar, Research Fellow, Project on Managing the Atom/International Security Program
"The success of the party of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki in Iraq's provincial elections has been largely perceived as a challenge to Iran. During his campaign, Maliki focused on Iraqi independence, establishing a powerful central government, and taking nationalistic positions with respect to Iraq's domestic and foreign policies. Implementation of these policies, should they lead to the emergence of a modest nationalism, would favor Iran's national security and interests, especially in the advent of U.S. troop withdrawals...."
Belfer Center
Spring 2009
"Q&A with Meghan O'Sullivan"
Newsletter Article, Belfer Center Newsletter
By Meghan O'Sullivan, Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School and Beth Maclin, Communications Assistant
Meghan L. O'Sullivan is a lecturer in public policy at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. From July 2004 to September 2007, she was special assistant to President George W. Bush and served as deputy national security advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan during part of that tenure. She spent more than two years in Iraq, most recently in fall 2008 at the request of Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General Raymond Odierno, to help conclude the security agreement and strategic framework agreement between the United States and Iraq.
AP
March 6, 2009
War or Peace: President Obama’s Challenges in the Middle East
Speech
By R. Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics
The only way forward for the United States is to lead, but in a new way and with a new attitude.
