NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The Stakes Terrorism is one of greatest shames and horrors of modern days human conduct. Terrorism has no nationality but most offenders appear to be the representatives of Islamic states. From very ancient times these two religions: Christian and Islamic had controversies and fought for dominance. But terrorism has many other aspects besides the religious and as resent events of terror show these aspects involves much more money and power. Shibley Telhami, who holds the Anwar Sadat chair at the University of Maryland, is a prolific writer, researcher, and public commentator with an unusual gift for both policy analysis and rigorous theory building.
This book, a popular commentary rather than an academic treatise, surveys American policy in the Middle East and provides a real-time critique of the U. S. war against terrorism. Telhami argues for a prudent exercise of American power in managing the complex set of interests and threats (terrorism, Iraq, energy security, and Arab-Israeli peace) that monopolize the foreign policy agenda. The nature of the threat revealed by the horror of 9 / 11 cannot be addressed through coercive power alone (p. 3). Telhami's approach stands in stark contrast to the go-it-alone, transformative outlook common inside the Bush administration.
It should be clear that although power is an important asset for prudent diplomacy, it is not a replacement for diplomacy (p. 169). He criticizes the Bush White House for both its tendency toward unilateralism and its focus on the supply side of terrorism while ignoring the demand (that is, root causes). Telhami also takes Bush to task for missing an opportunity after September 11 to build a comprehensive new treaty regime... mandating a strong collective response to attacks on civilians (p. 10). His critique is also normative. Telhami says American moral authority is undermined by applying different standards to actions taken by Israel and the Palestinians.
Telhami goes to great lengths to place the new terrorist threat in a political rather than a religious context. An entire class of moderate Arab leaders those willing to cooperate with the United States in the war on terrorism is increasingly hemmed in by restive, anti-American publics denied even the most basic rights of political participation. He argues that an effective strategy against terrorism must address popular political frustrations and respond to the crisis of legitimacy sweeping the region. The legitimacy and participation dilemmas, argues Telhami, are heightened by the media revolution epitomized by television networks like al Jazeera. Still, he is cautious about prospects for democratization and pessimistic about liberal values taking root.
What is not compelling is Bush's history of enunciating similarly bold initiatives only to abandon them when political sacrifice is required. It was not so long ago, for example, that the president unveiled his road map to peace for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying he was going to put his prestige and authority on the line and use his powers of persuasion to bring about a cessation to the violence. Given Bush's obsequiousness toward Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, most knowledgeable observers rightly doubted the administrations commitment to acting as a fair broker in a notoriously intractable dispute. Within a month, it was evident that the so-called road map led nowhere. Eloquent words not followed by action create only doubt about the integrity of the speaker. Much of what the administration claimed about the necessity for war with Iraq is now discredited, so it is not surprising that many doubt the president when he issues rhetorical assurances about Americas dedication to liberty and democracy.
In his speech to the NED, for example, Bush criticized the history of U. S. support for dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. That was good, even surprising. What implications does such an admission have for our current relationship with authoritarian governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Little, apparently.
Bush issued only the vaguest of reprimands to these allies, and there were no specific suggestions for how Saudi Arabia or Egypt could be held accountable for making progress toward democracy in the future. Commentators across the Middle East were quick to point to this double standard, and to the hesitancy of the United States to condemn Israeli violations of human rights and liberty. The Bush administrations willingness to coddle an increasingly autocratic Vladimir Putin and to turn a blind eye to Russias war in Chechnya was also noted. Nor is it possible to forget the contempt the Bush administration had for the UN Security Council. The president speaks well of democracy in the abstract, but when asked to forge a consensus among real democratic states between political parties in Congress is rather less keen on the democratic virtues of persuasion and compromise.
Explaining the politics of oil, Telhami says the U. S. acts as sole guardian of Western energy interests, guaranteeing the flow of oil to energy-hungry Europe and East Asia. Even though Americas energy security policy initially focused on denying Soviet power, Washington came to challenge regional hegemon's as well first Iran in the 1980 s and then both Iran and Iraq in the 1990 s. This eloquent, yet succinct volume does have its drawbacks. Telhami's attempt to provide a framework to explain root causes is, at times, reductionist.
Public despair and humiliation (p. 14) and helpless dependence (p. 63) are not unique to the Arab world. No one would dispute that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to stabilizing the region, yet Telhami overstates the conflicts centrality and its interconnectedness with terrorism, Iraq, and other problems besetting the Middle East. This may be partly due to his reliance on public opinion data. The Palestine issue, though central to Arab rhetoric and symbolism, is not at the substantive core of the Arab political agenda, as is oil politics and Islamism. Still, Telhami does offer a balanced assessment of the collapse of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and provides a nuanced explanation of the psychology of the conflict (for example, Palestinian victimization and Israeli insecurity).
Are the cold war and the war against terrorism really analogous in the way Bush suggests? Wasnt the lesson of the cold war that containment, rather than military engagement, worked? As U. S.
casualties mount in Iraq and the prospect of a relatively short, smooth transition to democracy dims, the president is confronted with the manifold contradictions of his policies. Having convinced the American people war was justified because Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat, he must now explain why no WMD have been found. His answer has been to recast the reasons for war. Now Bush claims that transforming Iraq and the rest of the Middle East into democracies is the best way to fight terrorism. Yet the occupation of Iraq appears to be in disarray, the United States has never been less popular in the Muslim world, and the administrations failure to speak honestly to the American people of the cost of this war, both monetarily and in human life, has undermined popular support for staying the course.
It doesnt help that the day Bush delivered his speech boasting of the willingness of Americans to make sacrifices, it was announced that U. S. troop strength in Iraq would be reduced in time for next years elections. With fewer U.
S. troops, only limited Iraqi participation, and still little international or UN presence, the policing of Iraq does not promise to get easier. Arguing for more public diplomacy, Telhami says Washington could do a better job explaining its policies and disseminating information on American culture and values. However, by shifting the debate from substance to form, Telhami distracts from his own arguments about the consequence of real policy decisions. A stepped-up public diplomacy campaign also raises issues of credibility.
The book concludes with a riposte against current beltway thinking that American hard power can be used to promote a democratic and liberal order. Telhami is wary of schemes to reshape the region. Instead, Washington would be better served to cooperate, assist and inspire other states (p. 184). As both an up-to-the-minute primer and a sweeping critical analysis of American policy and the Middle East, The Stakes is as valuable as it is economical. Consequently it is possible to forecast three possible alternatives for the US policy maker as of how to continue war on terrorism and cope with the situation on Middle East.
These policy options are: withdraw from the region, maintain status quo in the region and aggressively extend its presence in the Middle East and engage in democratization and nation-building efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Considering the aforementioned facts and research it is possible to say that the best alternative for the US would be to withdraw from the region and focus more on the internal issues. But beyond combating terrorism with more war and violence, we must first understand the causes of it. To stem fanaticism, we must first fight indifference to evil We fight indifference through education; we diminish it through compassion (Wiesel, 5). This is a simple answer, but is much more complicated than it sounds. It would be impossible to make everyone in the world happy when dealing with a country such as the United States, but understanding their position and ideas, and then dealing with it as effectively as possible can go a long way in curbing the hatred and terrorism that exist in the world.
The world is definitely changing, and it must be every individuals duty to do what they can to be accepting of everyone and stop the hatred and indifference that exists. Our goal must be to do our very best to stop terrorism at its source, whether international or domestic. Bibliography: Telhami, Shibley. The Stakes: America and the Middle East, the Consequences of Power and the Choice for Peace.
Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 2002. Wiesel, Elie. How Can We Understand Their Hatred? Parade 7 April 2002: 4 - 5.
Free research essays on topics related to: war on terrorism, war against terrorism, israeli palestinian conflict, saudi arabia, middle east
Research essay sample on Israeli Palestinian Conflict War Against Terrorism
