What now? Four suggestions for Obama

Unless he can provide some hope that US policy in the Israel/Palestine conflict will give more hope to the Palestinian side than the Bush policy, it would probably be better for him to remain silent, and unfortunately recent statements by Hillary Clinton at her confirmation hearing signal that the plan is to back Israel, and whatever Israel does.

And Obama's repeated insistence that America will never talk to Hamas, even though they won a free and fair election, seems odd compared to his willingness to talk to Iranian leaders. Making peace, in the end, requires that it be made with the people who are fighting, however bad they might be.

Could the US realistically do a "down payment" on the removal of troops by the June deadline? It takes time to plan these things unless you want to leave the whole situation in chaos (I'm talking about working out decisions with the local Iraqi authorities who will assume the roles the US troops are vacating, and so forth), leave a bunch of equipment behind, and make sure all the logistics have been worked out (we're the main supplier of the Iraqi army, for example - once our troops are gone, how will the distribution work?).

It'd probably be more realistic to rapidly start the pull-back to bases, starting with the least dangerous and touchy areas, and see if you can complete the pull-back before the June deadline.

Lynch's first recommendation I agree with.

His second takes a major error of American policy and thought about the Muslim world -- the treatment of the words "Muslim" and "Arab" as synonyms -- and urges its perpetuation.

Lynch's third demands engagement on Gaza. He does not specify the content of the "new terms" on which America is to re-engage, nor does he acknowledge that even in the narrow context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Gaza is a secondary issue; any Palestinian state that finally comes into being will have to be anchored on the West Bank, not in Gaza. All that's really needed in Gaza is a cessation of hostilities. More than that may or may not be possible, but unless the foundations of a Palestinian state can be created on the West Bank a renewal of warfare is practically assured.

As to the fourth point...look, appointment of one special envoy may be well justified in specific situations, but appointment of several in the same region of the world suggests that the regular State Department isn't up to the job. If ambassadors and the assistant secretaries who supervise them aren't adequate representatives of American interests they need to be replaced, not imposed on by an additional layer of special envoys. And with the new administration they will be replaced anyway; either the new administration will find itself appointing already neutered ambassadors and assistant secretaries, or its special envoys will find their authority dissolving underneath their feet as soon as departing Bush appointees are replaced.

This is a consideration additional to the question we ought to ask, once euphoria over Barack Obama's foreign policy "dream team" has faded: whether a woman whose formative experience was dominated by campaign politics is capable of designing and implementing a coherent policy toward a complex and volatile region of the world. Honestly, there is no reason to think Hillary Clinton is. Seeing the whole, not the parts is not the same as reciting well-memorized talking points on the campaign trail or skating through a confirmation hearing of the doormat Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Obama administration's first weeks in office need to include a fair amount of pre-emptive damage control, and the assignment of real authority to an official within the State Department better able to coordinate regional strategy than Obama's Secretary of State will be.

1. Order up an NIE on Israel's nuclear bomb and missile arsenal; its history, targeting, doctrine of use, and strategic effect on US policy over the next decade. It's past time to bring our ME policy (and the NPT provisions) in line with the elephant in the room.

2. Find out what it will take to get J. Edgar's name off the FBI's Hoover Building. With all due respect to Ephram Zimbalist and Deep Throat, the constant reminder of Hoover's corrupt and venal legacy is an embarrassment to the FBI and the country as a whole. Federal agents deserve better, and a new attitude might improve the work product. Tony Compolo reportedly said that he felt his work as an ethics instructor at the Quantico Academy might be making progress when he spotted 'f__k Hoover' graffiti on the walls.

Is it too audacious for citizens to hope for a modicum of truth in the halls of power?

Before a few hours, President-elect Obama will be officially the President of the USA. With much respect for him, I can see President Obama as a successful star rather than a President. In my viewpoint, the Vice-President Joseph Biden will be the real President of the USA who will set the middle east agenda and put it into practice.
I hope I am wrong.

Hafid

Don't forget the pony, Marc.