The Return of Nuanced Diplomacy

The July/August issue of Foreign Affairs contains a book review by former Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, who is currently Barack Obama’s senior Middle East adviser.  In the review, Kurtzer writes that:

The Israeli-Palestinian impasse, the sectarian conflict in Iraq, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran are serious problems that must be addressed; they cannot simply be "managed or endured."

The alternative is to learn from the past: instead of seeing the Middle East through an ideological lens, the next administration must rely on agile and nuanced diplomacy and engagement based on hardheaded U.S. interests. Washington can accept the region for what it is and still work tirelessly in an attempt to craft lasting solutions to seemingly intractable problems.

In reading articles by diplomats, it is useful to remove the colorful adjectives and adverbs – who could oppose “agile and nuanced” diplomacy, or engagement based on “hardheaded” U.S. interests, or working “tirelessly,” or crafting “lasting” solutions, especially when they can solve “seemingly intractable” problems?  What’s not to like?

Stripped of the nice-sounding but content-free adjectives, Kurtzer has come out for diplomacy based on U.S. interests to craft solutions to problems. 

Kurtzer rejects an “ideological lens,” but there is a pretty strong argument that it was only when Ronald Reagan substituted such a lens for Jimmy Carter’s lectures on our “inordinate fear of Communism” that the Cold War was won.

A clue to the actual content of Kurtzer’s diplomatic approach is provided by the article he published in the International Herald Tribune on September 7, 2006 entitled “Get Out of Iraq.  Now.” (In testimony last month before a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kurtzer touted his article, so it apparently still reflects his views).  In the article, he said that:

I support withdrawing American forces as soon as possible, if possible within the context of a regional and international accord, but unilaterally if such an accord proves to be impossible to attain. . . .

So what should be done as we decide to withdraw our forces from Iraq?

First, the United States should convene a contact group of regional and extraregional parties to try to concert strategy. We would indicate at the outset our strategic decision to withdraw within a year, but allow for that strategy to be shaped by the views and advice of our friends.

Next, Iran and Syria have to be part of that discussion, however distasteful that is to America. If we leave them out, they will only have an incentive to disrupt our withdrawal. If we invite them in - recognizing that they will be among the chief beneficiaries of our withdrawal - this may help moderate their appetites for mischief.  [Emphasis added].

Boy, how agile and nuanced and hardheaded can you get?  And what a lasting solution to a seemingly intractable problem!

Kurtzer will be a leading figure working tirelessly in the next administration, if Jimmy Carter gets his second term.

Comments

[Yael]

Ah, "mischief." That's exactly what Ahmadinejad is up to! He's a rascal, an imp, a prankster, and a scamp... with a penchant, yes an "appetite," for mischief. Rather like a Persian Dennis the Menace, I'd say. (He really gave Mr. Wilson a hard time, didn't he?)