Just who’s driving the train in the Middle East?

Actually the correct question is even worse. Who’s building the train track? After five years in Afghanistan and Iraq, why is no one person yet assigned to be in charge of building the track and driving the train? In practical words, who is in charge to provide unity of effort, also called directing and coordinating the efforts of Defense, State, and other agencies like the CIA, USAID, and even Treasury, to name a few. It is as if even if we know which way we want to go, but we still don’t have a coherent way to get there.

This post is not about the strategic goal of democracy in the Middle East, middle east style of course. This post is about setting up a process to accomplish the strategic goal. It includes hindsight as to our failures so far, and foresight as to one possible favorable future.

Most agree that “hating George Bush” is not a policy, though many (mostly Democrats) seem to ignore this maxim. Most will probably agree that “we cannot afford to lose” is also not a policy. Operators know there has to be a plan, and unity of effort, to even have a chance of democracy in the middle east. Absent this, many have stepped up to the plate, and we seem to have ended up with many train tracks going in many directions driven by engineers with various speeds and start and stop points. And here we are five years into the Middle East with little end in sight and domestic fears that this has become a slow bleed process.

Of course we do have a Commander in Chief who has apparently not filled this most basic function of being the one person in charge who provides unity of effort and knocks heads as need be. It seems that the need has been earlier recognized, but the delegations of responsibility done to date have not even approached that necessary to gain the unity of effort between the various competing factions within the Executive necessary to build one train track to the strategic goal.

And this post is not about the many other lower level errors that have been committed. The friction between Defense and State over who is in charge off winning the peace, the CYA point papers, the de-Baathification policy adopted, the use of D.C. funding rules by the CPA, the overall poor performance by State, and the emphasis of national army over local gendarme rebuilding have all become lessons learned, at least to some. The past hands-off policy towards Iran is above the minor level, but also has had an impact. I use history to summarize all this by referring to all the pundits back in 2004 who kept saying the “window of opportunity” was closing if we don’t change our ways. And the window did close.

The loyal opposition (the Democrats) seem less loyal and more opportunistic to seek political advantage out of this mess we are in. This at a time when the Country does need real leadership and courses of action to solve our problems. To this citizen, the Democratic performance to date in regards the middle east has become just one more obstacle to overcome because they have not stepped up to the plate. The voters have provided them the opportunity.

There is one group who has stepped up to the plate. It is the people who live in the Middle East. They have implemented their own policies that are best called national policies, though tribal and religious policies are often also appropriate. If we can’t knock heads, and deal with Iran, they can, or think they can. In this mostly uncoordinated effort the strategic goal of democracy in the Middle East, middle east style again, may be advanced. One good example is the apparent Arab Sunni efforts to financially undermine the Persian Shiite regime in Iran, the result of which will be some kind of quasi democracy. Or the financial power of the various oil oligarchies will do much to quell the Syrian and Hamas and Hezbollah mischief constantly at play. If we the USA are up to old fashioned diplomacy, maybe even we can participate.

There are also reports of good things going on from the USA point of view . We have a “new” strategy and military leader in Iraq who has let the Iraqi leadership know this is their final bit of help from us; we have a new Iraqi ambassador who is a practical leader with much experience in the Middle East; we have a new number two in State who also knows how to knock heads; we have a President trying to find one person to be in charge, finally; and we have an increasingly frustrated public who wants to see the strategic goal becoming accomplished, and our American military coming home. And the so called loyal opposition party seems to be marginalizing itself on this issue. What people expect, and many people demand, is that there must be one main railroad to the strategic goal, and one main engineer driving the train. And while the engineer may stop in Iraq, it is not the final stop.

If we can accomplish this, then we will have built a template to achieving another strategic goal, winning the global war on terror. This strategic goal is different, and harder to achieve, than democracy in the Middle East. Operators, and citizens, can better think in chunks of what is doable. One chunk at a time, we say.