Nancy Pelosi shows the Way
Dr. George Voskopoulos
April 18, 2007
The recent visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Damascus, Syria provoked Republican circles. It was condemned on the ground of “undermining U.S. policy aimed at marginalizing a so-called pariah state”. Robert Mailey from Los Angeles Times rightfully suggests that the “charge is absurd”.
Nancy Pelosi did the obvious, that is what the Republican administration has not been able to do all these years. Syria constitutes a key country in the process of bringing peace to the Middle East. President Bush has not understood that and tried to under-mine President Assad’s regime thus providing him with motivation to become a nega-tive input in the conflict.
Nancy Pelosi cannot obviously be criticized for undermining U.S. foreign policy ob-jectives most probably because there do not seem to be such. There is no clear exit strategy from Iraq actually being torn apart from a civil war, no macrostrategic plan-ning for bringing the peace between Shias and Sunnis, nor evident plans of resolving the Palestinian issue. The above cannot provide a safe security environment for Israel either.
There seems to be only a small nucleus of the current Republican administration that cannot see the obvious faults of this policy in the Middle East and the application of the Greater Middle East Plan.
As we most often suggest our students, policies should be evaluated on the basis of results and the goal to serve. Current American foreign policy objectives failed on a number of issues, namely; they did not make the western world feel safer, they did not built bridges with the Muslim world, they did not punish the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks against the US, they dramatically alienated the European public opinion from America, they sovietized American foreign policy, meaning overlaid diplomacy, they failed to engage all those who have a say in the Middle East conflict.
Domestically, the acceptance of these policies is reflected on the failure of the Army to materialize recruiting goals as shown by a number of articles and reports from CATO Institute.
Nancy Pelosi did what most Europeans expect from the leaders of a powerful country; that is to show self-restrain, be ready to change course and exploit diplomatically all those who could assist in one way or another the peace process.
Henry Kissinger was right when he suggested that, “military victory is not possible in Iraq” (International Herald Tribune, 1-4-2007). Despite being a Political Realist him-self he managed to see the obvious and suggested that “one must be prepared to negotiate with adversaries”. That is an actual definition of the art of diplomacy.
Obviously President Bush does not appreciate diplomacy. Most Europeans suggest that he does not dispose of this kind of managerial skills, while his current strategy leads to escalation not conflict management and resolution. A number of analyses in the European press focus on the lack of accountability on the part of the current American administration. They also suggest that its exhausted political capital does provide motivation for alternative policies.
Yet, the responsibility of a leader such as the US goes beyond individuals and their idiosyncratic attitudes vis-à-vis the world. The US and the world urgently need new a leadership able to see the merits and costs of particular policies, a leadership disposing of flexibility, intuition and adaptability.
Nancy Pelosi did the obvious, that is what the Republican administration has not been able to do all these years. Syria constitutes a key country in the process of bringing peace to the Middle East. President Bush has not understood that and tried to under-mine President Assad’s regime thus providing him with motivation to become a nega-tive input in the conflict.
Nancy Pelosi cannot obviously be criticized for undermining U.S. foreign policy ob-jectives most probably because there do not seem to be such. There is no clear exit strategy from Iraq actually being torn apart from a civil war, no macrostrategic plan-ning for bringing the peace between Shias and Sunnis, nor evident plans of resolving the Palestinian issue. The above cannot provide a safe security environment for Israel either.
There seems to be only a small nucleus of the current Republican administration that cannot see the obvious faults of this policy in the Middle East and the application of the Greater Middle East Plan.
As we most often suggest our students, policies should be evaluated on the basis of results and the goal to serve. Current American foreign policy objectives failed on a number of issues, namely; they did not make the western world feel safer, they did not built bridges with the Muslim world, they did not punish the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks against the US, they dramatically alienated the European public opinion from America, they sovietized American foreign policy, meaning overlaid diplomacy, they failed to engage all those who have a say in the Middle East conflict.
Domestically, the acceptance of these policies is reflected on the failure of the Army to materialize recruiting goals as shown by a number of articles and reports from CATO Institute.
Nancy Pelosi did what most Europeans expect from the leaders of a powerful country; that is to show self-restrain, be ready to change course and exploit diplomatically all those who could assist in one way or another the peace process.
Henry Kissinger was right when he suggested that, “military victory is not possible in Iraq” (International Herald Tribune, 1-4-2007). Despite being a Political Realist him-self he managed to see the obvious and suggested that “one must be prepared to negotiate with adversaries”. That is an actual definition of the art of diplomacy.
Obviously President Bush does not appreciate diplomacy. Most Europeans suggest that he does not dispose of this kind of managerial skills, while his current strategy leads to escalation not conflict management and resolution. A number of analyses in the European press focus on the lack of accountability on the part of the current American administration. They also suggest that its exhausted political capital does provide motivation for alternative policies.
Yet, the responsibility of a leader such as the US goes beyond individuals and their idiosyncratic attitudes vis-à-vis the world. The US and the world urgently need new a leadership able to see the merits and costs of particular policies, a leadership disposing of flexibility, intuition and adaptability.
Print
Email
