Edward Walker, Hamilton alumnus of the class of 1962 and former U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Israel gave a lecture on "The Changing Strategic Picture of the Middle East" on Thursday, Jan. 19. Walker talked about how the U.S. invasion of Iraq has changed the political situation in the Middle East, and what
lessons we should take away from the war for future action in the region.
Ambassador Walker began by reading quotes from administration officials which suggested that the U.S. should not dwell on how and why we got into the war in Iraq, but rather say that "we are where we are" and go forward from there. Walker disagreed, however, saying that we must look at how and why we are involved in Iraq to judge how to move forward. In particular, he said, we have to look at what false assumptions we made going into the invasion, and think about what this means for our interests in the region.
First, Walker said, a basic underlying assumption of our invasion of Iraq was that the "transforming power of democracy" would bring freedom, peace and great change to the region, Ultimately, he said, it was believed that bringing democracy to the Middle East would contribute to the overall war on terrorism. Walker said that this assumption is not wise - while much evidence shows that democratic states do not fight each other, there is no evidence that democracies help to quell terrorism in their midst. In fact, he said, in the time since the invasion of Iraq it appears that instead of defeating terrorism, the U.S. may have inadvertently spread more terrorists across the region.
Another assumption made before the war which has proved to be untrue, said Walker, is that Iraqi oil production would exceed pre-war levels and help to bring prosperity to the nation. Three years after the invasion, oil production is still below pre-war levels, and the oil infrastructure is increasingly a target for attack. This has contributed to the empowerment of oil producers and oil-rich states over oil consumers. Oil has now been turned into a geopolitical weapon, Walker said, with the possibility that nations like Iran and Venezuela could use their oil supply as leverage for their political agendas. Walker noted that in oil standoff situations, democracies such as the U.S. are at a disadvantage because of popular pressure, while autocracies such as Iran are much less likely to "blink first."
Next, Walker discussed the assumption that the Middle East is made up of nation-states which function in the same ways as Western countries. Walker said that Westerners often have difficultly understanding that most Middle Eastern people identify themselves as Muslims before thinking of themselves as citizens of their nations. He said that the
many counterweights to nationalism in the region - ethnic, tribal and religious differences within nations - are often not taken into account by those considering the Middle East. By creating a power vacuum in Iraq, the U.S. has brought these intra-national differences
to a head, creating the nation divided among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis that we see today. Walker said that by pushing for democracy in a nation whose only civil society is based around the mosques makes religion the center of political power. In southern Iraq, for example, this gives Shiite clerics great control and makes the area much closer
to neighboring Shiite Iran than to the rest of Iraq.
The last assumption Walker addressed was the idea the United States' military and economic power gives it the ability to unilaterally influence events. In thinking about the Middle East and Iraq in particular, Walker said, we can not forget the incredible power that other states hold. The relations between Iran and Syria and between Iran and China are incredibly important to the future of the region, and the United States cannot control these factors. In fact, Walker said, the war in Iraq has shifted power in the region toward Iran, a nation that the U.S. does not have the ability or desire to attack. We should also recognize the fact that many authoritarian regimes in the region have been able to use the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a way to strengthen their own positions in their countries by portraying the war as an example of Western aggression against Islam. In this way,
Walker said, it is possible that the war in Iraq has set back democracy, freedom and the nation state system in the Middle East.
In conclusion, Walker said that the U.S. can prevail in Iraq and protect our interests in the Middle East if we have the commitment to continue and build up Iraqi security as a counterweight to other powers in the region. There is no excuse for making the same faulty assumptions of the Iraq invasion in the future, and the U.S. has to look past immediate crisis management in the region to think about what the Middle East will look like in the future. We must really "do our homework" to deal with the problems we have created, and take this time to examine what went wrong and what went right in the Iraq war, but Walker said he fears that this sort of thinking is not going on in Washington.
Walker then took questions from students and faculty on issues such as winning the hearts and minds of Middle Easterners, building democracy in Islamic countries, and what he thinks victory in Iraq would look like.
Ambassador Walker, who has served as the Linowitz Professor of Middle East Studies at Hamilton in 2003 and 2005 and received an honorary doctorate of laws from the college in 1999, is currently a candidate for the recently established Christian A. Johnson Distinguished Professorship in Global Political Theory.
-- by Caroline Russell O'Shea '07
lessons we should take away from the war for future action in the region.
Ambassador Walker began by reading quotes from administration officials which suggested that the U.S. should not dwell on how and why we got into the war in Iraq, but rather say that "we are where we are" and go forward from there. Walker disagreed, however, saying that we must look at how and why we are involved in Iraq to judge how to move forward. In particular, he said, we have to look at what false assumptions we made going into the invasion, and think about what this means for our interests in the region.
First, Walker said, a basic underlying assumption of our invasion of Iraq was that the "transforming power of democracy" would bring freedom, peace and great change to the region, Ultimately, he said, it was believed that bringing democracy to the Middle East would contribute to the overall war on terrorism. Walker said that this assumption is not wise - while much evidence shows that democratic states do not fight each other, there is no evidence that democracies help to quell terrorism in their midst. In fact, he said, in the time since the invasion of Iraq it appears that instead of defeating terrorism, the U.S. may have inadvertently spread more terrorists across the region.
Another assumption made before the war which has proved to be untrue, said Walker, is that Iraqi oil production would exceed pre-war levels and help to bring prosperity to the nation. Three years after the invasion, oil production is still below pre-war levels, and the oil infrastructure is increasingly a target for attack. This has contributed to the empowerment of oil producers and oil-rich states over oil consumers. Oil has now been turned into a geopolitical weapon, Walker said, with the possibility that nations like Iran and Venezuela could use their oil supply as leverage for their political agendas. Walker noted that in oil standoff situations, democracies such as the U.S. are at a disadvantage because of popular pressure, while autocracies such as Iran are much less likely to "blink first."
Next, Walker discussed the assumption that the Middle East is made up of nation-states which function in the same ways as Western countries. Walker said that Westerners often have difficultly understanding that most Middle Eastern people identify themselves as Muslims before thinking of themselves as citizens of their nations. He said that the
many counterweights to nationalism in the region - ethnic, tribal and religious differences within nations - are often not taken into account by those considering the Middle East. By creating a power vacuum in Iraq, the U.S. has brought these intra-national differences
to a head, creating the nation divided among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis that we see today. Walker said that by pushing for democracy in a nation whose only civil society is based around the mosques makes religion the center of political power. In southern Iraq, for example, this gives Shiite clerics great control and makes the area much closer
to neighboring Shiite Iran than to the rest of Iraq.
The last assumption Walker addressed was the idea the United States' military and economic power gives it the ability to unilaterally influence events. In thinking about the Middle East and Iraq in particular, Walker said, we can not forget the incredible power that other states hold. The relations between Iran and Syria and between Iran and China are incredibly important to the future of the region, and the United States cannot control these factors. In fact, Walker said, the war in Iraq has shifted power in the region toward Iran, a nation that the U.S. does not have the ability or desire to attack. We should also recognize the fact that many authoritarian regimes in the region have been able to use the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a way to strengthen their own positions in their countries by portraying the war as an example of Western aggression against Islam. In this way,
Walker said, it is possible that the war in Iraq has set back democracy, freedom and the nation state system in the Middle East.
In conclusion, Walker said that the U.S. can prevail in Iraq and protect our interests in the Middle East if we have the commitment to continue and build up Iraqi security as a counterweight to other powers in the region. There is no excuse for making the same faulty assumptions of the Iraq invasion in the future, and the U.S. has to look past immediate crisis management in the region to think about what the Middle East will look like in the future. We must really "do our homework" to deal with the problems we have created, and take this time to examine what went wrong and what went right in the Iraq war, but Walker said he fears that this sort of thinking is not going on in Washington.
Walker then took questions from students and faculty on issues such as winning the hearts and minds of Middle Easterners, building democracy in Islamic countries, and what he thinks victory in Iraq would look like.
Ambassador Walker, who has served as the Linowitz Professor of Middle East Studies at Hamilton in 2003 and 2005 and received an honorary doctorate of laws from the college in 1999, is currently a candidate for the recently established Christian A. Johnson Distinguished Professorship in Global Political Theory.
-- by Caroline Russell O'Shea '07
