Strategic reset

Strategic reset was a policy framework designed to stop counterproductive U.S. engagement in a fragmenting Iraq and to strengthen the United States' stance throughout the Middle East. In military terms, "reset" refers to "a series of actions to restore units to a desired level of combat capability commensurate with future mission requirements."^[1]

The proposal advocates harnessing U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic power to protect critical

• acknowledging Iraq's political and demographic fragmentation
• implementing prompt
  phased military redeployment
• establishing local and regional methods for improving security and diplomacy in the Middle East
• developing a functional strategy to resolve the Arab–Israeli conflict.

The framework was set forth in a 2007 report by the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank based in Washington, D.C.^[2]

Background

The

In 2007, when retired

• "What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region. ... [A]fter thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically."^[4]

Citing Gen. Sheehan, the report gives examples from what are described as seven years of relative progress in the Middle East (1994–2000) followed by seven years of setbacks (2001–2007), such as:^[5]

• decline and stall of the Arab–Israeli peace process followed by irruption of war between Israel and Hezbollah
• Late 1990s containment and sanction of Iraq replaced by refugee crises and war
• Iran's new global influence and increased progress on its nuclear program
• Hamas' movement from margin to center of its political stage and victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election.
• oil prices to rising levels of violence in the Middle East

U.S. strategy in Iraq in 2007 relied on Iraqi political progress, increased numbers of U.S. troops in the country, and diversification of tactics for political and economic support.^[6] While proponents of strategic reset supported diversification, particularly as it regards "situat[ing] the strategy in a regional approach,"^[6] they strongly oppose sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, and they maintain that the "fundamental premise of Bush's surge strategy—that Iraq's leaders will make key decisions to advance their country's political transition and national reconciliation—is at best misguided and clearly unworkable."^[7]

In 2006, the bipartisan

In 2007, The Washington Post described as "strategic reset" a proposal by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that took the form of "an unusually detailed public explanation of the new American effort to create a de facto alliance between Israel and moderate Arab states against Iranian extremism."^[13]

Principles of the strategic reset framework

Advocates of strategic reset maintain that the current administration's misjudgments regarding Iraq policy have jeopardized the United States'

• "[T]his business of arming and training Iraqi security forces in the absence of a political solution is not just a waste of time and money, but directly counterproductive. Our weapons and funding are fueling civil conflict in the face of deep political fragmentation and there are absolutely no guarantees as to who these arms will be turned against next year or the year after that."[20]

The second danger arises from the fact that the majority of Iraq's security forces are Shi'a who constitute "some of the closest allies of America's greatest rival in the Middle East—Iran."^[21]

Decentralization

A second response to fragmentation in Iraqi politics is decentralization of U.S. policy and power structure in Iraq. The strategic reset framework calls for reassignment of personnel from the

• Increased efforts to enlist Iraq's neighboring countries in regional progress toward stabilization. The strategy proposes to involve these neighbors by alerting them to the potential local costs of further destabilization; it also suggests that the presence of redeployed U.S. forces will act as a deterrent to those who might otherwise be tempted to exploit Iraq's current weakness.[26]
• Specific measures to prevent escalation of conflict among
  Arabs near the northern city of Kirkuk. Kirkuk, rich in oil and populated by a Kurdish majority, is the subject of a scheduled referendum that is expected to result in the city becoming part of Iraqi Kurdistan—a prospect frightening to Kirkuk's minorities as well as to its neighbors Turkey and Syria.^[27]
• Security initiatives aimed at
  jihadists returning to find targets for violence in their home countries once the United States has left Iraq. The strategic reset capitalizes on connections forged between intelligence networks and local authorities by increased diplomatic efforts.^[28]
• Humanitarian aid to Iraq's refugees. Some 4 million Iraqis have been displaced by the conflict, fleeing either to
  displaced persons. It also suggests that, for moral as well as for political reasons, the U.S. should sharply increase the number of Iraqi refugees it annually accepts, from the current 7,000 up to 100,000.^[30]

Strategic reset requires that U.S. diplomatic efforts to resolve the

• Strategies to manage crises such as the Fatah–Hamas conflict
• Provision of a diplomatic framework to coordinate regional and international peace proposals
• Diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria similar to U.S. Cold War diplomatic strategy with China and the Soviet Union
• "Smartly targeted" rule of law support to alleviate security vacuums caused by political instability^[33]

Criticisms

David Gooden, writing for the

• Reset (military)
• Reverse Course – Shift in US-Japan relations and reconstruction during the Allied occupation

References

External links

• "Strategic Reset" report at Center for American Progress