Gates Urges Increased Funding for Diplomacy

“

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates called yesterday for a "dramatic increase" in the U.S. budget for diplomacy and foreign aid, arguing that al-Qaeda does a better job than Washington of communicating its message overseas and that U.S. deployment of civilians abroad has been "ad hoc and on the fly."”
“"One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win," said Gates, delivering the annual Landon Lecture at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan. The wars of the future, he said, are likely to be "fundamentally political in nature" and will not be solved by military means alone.”


                                                            Washington post, November 27, 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112601985.html

We have heard now and then that US officials have asked for an increase in the military budget- trying to use “Hard Power” more significantly. This time the request is for an increase in funding for “Soft Power” that is the power of achieving your goals by persuading others to follow what you say and to do what you want. This clear shift in policy must have something behind it. United States has used its hard power so many times and recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. So this strategy has been put onto test for enough. The result of using hard power now can be seen in the two invaded countries .
In Afghanistan American troops still are present and there exists no complete peace. Every now and then some news about American soldiers being killed is announced. The situation in Iraq also suggests no progress. American military forces and security institutions are there but violence is increasing everyday. These all show that the military might of America has not been successful in bringing Americans close to their goals. They wanted an America supporting government to be installed but they were no way but to accept the general will of the nation by accepting the elected government. Now they are coming to this conclusion that all the bombings and destructions has resulted to nothing but a resent and resistance toward America’s actions , suggestions and ideas. So far they wanted to control the world through fea r of its military superiority but now they want to control the peoples through their hearts. If America could present its culture and politics as splendid, magnificent and appealing, peoples would resist its actions and ideas less than before. Gates’s criticism of the weakness in America’s communicating its message is actually a suggestion to turn from military actions to diplomatic approaches .

Seeking a Mideast Path, Bush Offers a Nudge

[

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 — It might seem, after nearly seven years of deliberate detachment from Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, that President Bush has plunged into Middle Eastern diplomacy with Clintonesque energy.
In fact, Mr. Bush and his aides still deplore what they view as President Clinton’s disastrously hands-on involvement in the peace process in 2000. And they insist that Mr. Bush does not intend to negotiate personally the two-state peace he has pronounced as his vision, just as they insist that this is not an 11th-hour effort to forge a legacy other than the one left by the Iraq war.

“The United States cannot impose our vision,” Mr. Bush told the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in the Oval Office on Monday, before saying, and sounding, again, Clintonesque, “but we can help facilitate.”"

                           New York Times, November 27, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/washington/27prexy.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/M/Myers,%20Steven%20Lee&oref=slogin

The Annapolis gathering that was held on Wednesday, nov.26 was another attempt to bring the Israeli- Palestinian conflict back into notice again. Thus it is not the first time that a third party is trying to initiate the peace process between the two sides of the conflict. Clinton while in the office of presidency had done such a thing in the so-called Camp David conference. But a great shift of position has occurred.

In the Camp David Conference Clinton acted as the leader of the negotiations while this time President Bush has claimed he tries only to “facilitate” the negotiations. In other words, the Camp David was held by the leadership of America while today’s Annapolis is held by the “support” of America. One of the reasons for this great shift would be the increasing hatred of the Arab world of America because of its full support of Israel that has occupied a Muslim and Arab country. In order to decrease this hostility, bush is trying to show America as a neutral country that hopes to end the conflicts between the two countries. But the positions that American officials have taken so far have made it clear for all too see America on Israel’s side. Thus no one is actually expecting a result with a positive effect on the conflict from this conference, even the participants themselves. So what was the purpose behind this action?

As one of the purpose, America is showing Arab- Israeli relationships as normal. That’s why many pressures have been put on Arab states to participate in the gathering. Among other Arab nations, Saudi Arabia was of highest importance for America because since then Saudi Arabian officials had refused any conference about the Palestine issue in which Israel was one of the sides of negotiations.
Another goal that America tries to reach is isolating Iran on this issue. Since the 1979 revolution in Iran, Iranian officials have expressed their support of Palestinian people and their anger toward the Israeli occupiers. This position held by Iran has affected the issue by bringing the presence of the Israeli government under question. These effects were not appealing to Israelis. America, as the main supporter of Israel, wants to show that Iran is isolated and its positions toward the issue have little effect, and in this way to help Israelis to become relieved of one of their major concerns and worries.

“Bush, Maliki Sign Pact on Iraq's Future”

"President Bush reached a deal yesterday that is intended to lead to a more normalized, long-term relationship between the United States and Iraq by the time he leaves office, but it left unsettled the question of how many and how long U.S. forces would remain”.

"The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own," said Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, Bush's top Iraq adviser. "That's very good news. But it won't have to stand alone."

Washington Post, November 27, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/26/AR2007112600649.html

As the second term of Bush’s presidency is coming to an end, he has increased his negotiations with Iraqi officials in order to pacify the situation. The Iraqi war that started nearly four and a half years ago has caused too many protests among Americans. They are more increasingly asking for an end to the presence of American soldiers in Iraq, seeing it as an absurd thing that leads but to death and depression. They don’t want their beloved ones to sacrifice their lives for nothing. Besides, they believe that if the budget that is being spent on military actions in Iraq was spent on domestic issues, it would have led to better results.
But it’s not just the American people that want America out of Iraq. Many countries and many international organizations are now raising this question that when American troops will leave Iraq. Under such pressures, American officials have held gathering and conferences seeking the help and advice of countries specially neighbors. All of these had no or little results. As President Bush has stated in this news, America is not going to leave Iraq now, instead they want to leave gradually and not to let Iraq to its own completely. But these pressures have at least forced American officials to negotiate with their Iraqi counterparts with a less sense of leadership. May be we can say that they have accepted to give some power, however little, to Iraqis themselves to take hold of their country. They want to show that they would have the Iraqis’ consent also. By continuing the military presence in Iraq, President Bush is drawing many criticisms to himself. Through such negotiations he may be trying to leave the office making some kind of “peace with honor” in Iraq.