Foreign Policy

NY Event: Lessons from Iraq

Communications — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
06/17/2008 - 6:30pm

Is there an upside to the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history? Maybe. The current war in Iraq should definitively, permanently settle a handful of critical questions about American conduct in the world. Lessons from Iraq: Avoiding the Next War provides a list of those questions and even ventures some answers in the form of key lessons from Iraq.

Join us for a lively discussion of these lessons with noted contributors. The panel will be followed by a wine and cheese reception and copies of the book will be available for sale.

This event is co-sponsored by the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at NYU, The Nation Institute, and The Century Foundation.

Lessons From Iraq

Ron Tang — Fri, 30 May 2008 01:45:00 -0400

If what is shaping up to be the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history has an upside, it is that the current war in Iraq should definitively, permanently settle a handful of critical questions about American conduct in the world. This book provides a list of those questions and even ventures some answers in the form of key lessons from Iraq.

The idea of assembling lessons as tools for avoiding the next war is less of a stretch than it seems, given the group of writers represented here. They include a Nobel Prize-winning economist; the former chief UN weapons inspector;… more

Population Bombing

Ron Tang — Mon, 19 May 2008 08:46:00 -0400

In the 20th century, a global network of colluding activists, institutions, and governments sought to engineer solutions to various real and perceived social problems by, as Matthew Connelly puts it in his new book, planning "other people's families." In its most egregious expression, this movement led to the forced sterilization of millions of people around the world, including many thousands in the U.S., on the grounds that they were -- genetically or otherwise -- unfit. California alone had sterilized 7,500 people by 1931, and the practice continued in other states up until the 1970s.

This movement also, through philanthropies and government-directed… more

Daniel Levy in USA Today | "Is Israel Better Off After Bush Presidency?"

Communications — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:49:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . Bush's Mideast policy, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and his willingness to stand tough against unfriendly Arab regimes and Islamists have left Israel in a strategically weaker position today than it was eight years ago, says Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank on global and domestic issues. . . .

"At a mass level, people can go doe-eyed when President Bush repeats these nice, warm, embracing platitudes, but in serious assessments of where Israel is at today versus when Bush took office, I think people are a lot more sober and very concerned about the trajectory of where the region is," Levy says. "People are concerned that America is both so much less respected and feared today." . . .

Bin Laden And Palestine

Ron Tang — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:04:00 -0400

Less than a day after Republican presidential candidate John McCain promised that if he won the presidency Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed by 2013, a message from al Qaeda’s leader appeared on jihadist websites reminding the world that he is alive and well.

Bin Laden’s audiotape message commented on the recent 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel; promised that he would fight for the liberation of Palestine, and told his Muslim listeners that they have a duty to help in that effort.

Was the audiotape an attempt by bin Laden to remain relevant by pushing… more

Jeffrey Lewis in New York Times | "Western Experts Monitor China’s Nuclear Sites for Signs of Earthquake Damage"

Communications — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:47:00 -0400

New America in the News:
Full article

. . . Jeffrey G. Lewis, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Washington, said the military buildings that make up Plant 821 were probably unusually strong compared with civilian structures.

“I’d rather have been in the reactor building than a grade school” on Monday when the quake struck, he said. The site’s various plants “were built as military facilities, and so I wouldn’t be surprised if, by and large, they came through pretty well,” he added. . .

Daniel Levy in TIME Magazine | "Hamas Hysteria"

Communications — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:13:00 -0400

New America in the News:
Full article

. . . "If you're not talking to everyone, you're going to be Chalabied every time," says Daniel Levy, an Israeli who has negotiated extensively with Palestinians, referring to Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi who helped mislead the U.S. into war with Iraq. . .

Reports from Lebanon and Video Coverage of the New America Foundation's "Briefing on Beirut"

Communications — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:55:00 -0400

On Tuesday, May 13, the New America Foundation hosted an event featuring two journalists reporting from Beirut on the unfolding security and political crisis in Lebanon. Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of the Daily Star, discussed the large scale political and social trends have led to the current crisis. Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New America Foundation, reported live from the streets of Beirut on the tactical gains made by Hezbollah as well as its broader strategy. They were joined by a panel discussion featuring Daniel Levy, former Israeli negotiator and advisor to the Israeli prime minister's office, and current director… more

Flynt Leverett and Nir Rosen in IPS News | "Lebanon Crisis Shows Hues of Iraq"

Communications — Wed, 14 May 2008 10:55:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Full article

. . . "This is more and more becoming a Sunni-Shi'a conflict. It really does feel like Iraq," said journalist Nir Rosen in a conference call with analysts and reporters at the New American Foundation.

"Sunni militias, backed by the Future Movement, formed over the last year, and have been a complete failure, perhaps because they were fighting for money. They just disappeared and caused a great sense of betrayal and shock among Sunnis," said Rosen, adding that the perceived victimisation of Sunnis had instigated more radical circles in Tripoli to fight against the "apostate Shi'a", that they appeared "eager to start this battle", according to Rosen. . .

Rosen, who is currently in Beirut and accompanied Shi'a Amal fighters as they battled on the streets, described Hezbollah fighters acting "hand in hand" with the army on the commercial strip of Hamra Street in West Beirut. Most of the targets captured by Hezbollah and their allies were subsequently turned over to the army. "They are not trying to change the demographic balance in Beirut, it is to make a show of force to let rival militias know [Hezbollah] could have a real political coup," said Rosen. "Hezbollah's main concern is to keep weapons; it doesn't have much interest in running things in Lebanon." . . .

"Lebanon, in the post Hariri period, is not in any really meaningful sense a democracy. It is a political order rooted in the distribution of political assets along sectarian lines, and the patterns of distribution are way out of whack with demographic reality, particularly with regard to the Shi'a," said Flynt Leverett, once a senior specialist on the Middle East for the Bush administration's National Security Council.

Leverett described the Lebanese political arena as a "sideshow" when compared to the Bush administration's real strategic interests in the region. Washington champions hollow talk about "democracy" as a bulwark against radical influences, he said, but in reality the policy -- what he called the "height of strategic malpractice" -- only serves as an excuse for the U.S. not to diplomatically engage with the countries it must: Iran and Syria.

"[It was a mistake] to latch on to this so-called March 14th coalition -- Cedar Revolution -- in Lebanon and to decide to use it as a fulcrum for trying to leverage various U.S. policy objectives," said Leverett. "What we have done here is basically what we did in the 1980s. We picked a group of Western-oriented Lebanese political actors whom we liked because they kind of looked like us and talked like us," he said. "We decided to array them against people who have real street cred; the results then were disastrous, and I think the results now are proving to be very bad." . . .

Briefing on Beirut

Communications — Tue, 13 May 2008 06:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
05/13/2008 - 9:30am

On May 13th the American Strategy Program brought together five leading experts on Middle East and Foreign Policy to discuss the current crisis in Lebanon: a political standoff between the prominent militia Hezbollah and Lebanon’s government. Those participating in the discussion were Rami Khouri, the Editor-at-large of the Daily Star, Hisham Melhem, the DC Bureau Chief of Al Arabiyah, Nir Rosen, a fellow at NYU’s Center on Law and Security and New America, Daniel Levy, the Director of New America’s Middle East Policy Initiative, and Flynt Leverett, the Director of New America’s Geopolitics of Energy Initiative. Steven Clemons, the Director of the American Strategy Program moderated the event. An MP3 audio recording can be downloaded below, while video is available at right.

Rami Khouri joined the discussion via telephone from Lebanon. He stated that Lebanon was on the brink of change and the Lebanese people had one choice to make: whether they would move towards Baghdad, a violent civil war based on ethnic and religious divisions or Belfast, an inclusive, fair, and functioning government. Mr. Khouri was optimistic that the Lebanese would be able to work out the internal strife and form a pluralistic society that will integrate the Western and Arab ideals that are prominent in Lebanon. He stated that Lebanon was the best hope for Middle East pluralism and could serve as an example for the rest of the region once they move past the current crisis.

Hisham Melhem was less optimistic about Lebanon’s immediate future. He stated that Hezbollah’s armed offense signaled “the beginning of the end of Lebanese politics.” The rise of the militia’s strength and influence represent transformation and the loss of Lebanese liberalism and western orientation. He remained pragmatically hopeful that an accommodation would be reached, yet expressed concern that Hezbollah would become more extreme rather than moderate.

Nir Rosen also participated via telephone from Lebanon. “Nobody really knows what’s going on here,” Mr. Rosen said on the disarray in Beirut. He drew several comparisons to Iraq: the armed occupation of Beirut, by Hezbollah fighters, and the Sunni-Shi’a conflict. Mr. Rosen also believed that the Lebanese army was complicit, either by looking the other way or supporting Hezbollah during their siege.

Flynt Leverett stated that there have been major mistakes in U.S. policy towards Lebanon. By fully supporting the government led by PM Siniora, the U.S. overlooked unfair representation and power-sharing in Lebanon. Mr. Leverett opined that the U.S.’ role in Lebanon has been erosive to its standing in the Middle East.

Daniel Levy offered a few theories as to why the conflict erupted so quickly. It is possible the government miscalculated Hezbollah’s reaction or they were setting a trap for Hezbollah. Mr. Levy said it may have been by virtue of necessity; Lebanon was in a political and ideological stalemate for a long time and needed outside support or intervention.

-Faith Smith, American Strategy Intern