This week, Vice President Dick Cheney wrapped up his tour of the Middle East for discussions about what the White House termed "issues of mutual interest." His stops included Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, Turkey, and a surprise visit to Iraq. The outcome, however, leaves many wanting a new direction for U.S. policy in the region.

The future of Iraq was on the agenda in Cheney's closed-door talks with the Middle East heads of state. As one of the war's chief architects, the Vice President stated that the five-year war "has been a difficult, challenging but nonetheless successful endeavor."

How the Bush administration has determined success throughout this campaign has shifted endlessly. The two ideas in foreign policy circles and among presidential candidates about the best U.S. response in Iraq include either the troop surge or a gradual withdrawal. While the former is thought of, by its proponents, as the means to finish the job of rooting out terrorists and bringing stability to the country, the latter is an attempt by others to preserve the integrity and resources of the United States and force accountability on Iraq.

The fact remains, however, that the U.S. needs to be insightful and nuanced in its management of Iraq, and more generally, of its foreign policy in the Middle East. The antagonistic and divisive approach has proven ineffective, to say the least, and exposes the shortcomings in our current leadership's understanding of the issues.

Cheney's trip to the Middle East was also in part an effort by the Bush administration to place the on-again-off-again peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians back on track. The commitment to the process, renewed in Annapolis, Md. last November, has been derailed since the conflict flared up in January when Israel responded by "collective punishment" - cutting off fuel supplies and later, all border crossings - in response to Palestinian rocket fire into southern Israel. Additionally, last month's killing of over 100 Palestinian civilians in Gaza further exacerbated the humanitarian situation and immeasurably set back the peace process. Needless to say, with such heightened tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, Cheney's efforts at nudging another round of negotiations were unsuccessful.

"What we can do is try to facilitate the process...it's never been a situation in which all of a sudden the heavens open and peace descends upon the Middle East. It is the Middle East," stated Cheney in an interview with ABC News's Martha Raddatz. "It is a very, very difficult, complex, complicated problem, with a lot of different facets to it."

For peace to take root within any timeframe, the United States must view its role as being more than a facilitator of discussion. Now in his last ten months in office, President Bush has waited too long to make peace a priority. Little will be accomplished if the U.S. does not venture beyond "facilitation"; action, it is said, speaks louder than words, as do benchmarks and deadlines. Having largely ignored this conflict for most of its tenure as a major foreign policy objective, the Bush administration has little credibility among the Muslim countries in the region to be taking the lead on addressing this issue, let alone expect to resolve it by the year's end.

As the Democratic and Republican Party conventions draw nearer, and as November 4 makes official a new administration, all Americans must take stock of how the remaining three presidential candidates are speaking about their foreign policy experience. The attitude of "staying the course" has not served our country well. The new president cannot be afraid of setbacks or act out of the fear of failure, but press on to reach the goal of reciprocity and sustained good relations. We need a new American leadership on the world stage with a vision of constructive engagement and bringing people together based on common ground.

Comments (0)

Write comment

Name

Title

Comment

Add Comment