US plays key role in Middle East

MIDDLE East developments contain at least some promising signs, despite all the usual ongoing expressions of hostility punctuated by brutal violence. United States forces are concluding combat roles in Iraq, partially fulfilling candidate and US President Barack Obama's promise to withdraw from that nation. The President has also just opened the first direct talks in two years between representatives of Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama announced the mission's end of US combat units in a formal address to the nation. Very appropriately and commendably, he devoted a substantial part of the speech to praising the American military for achieving relative stability in a very vexing, complex and alien security environment.

Since 2007, our military has done an extraordinary job of recovering strategic position in Iraq, initially led by Gen David Petraeus, now the Allied commander in Afghanistan. The surge of conventional forces in Iraq, made possible by Bush's decision to increase the total US forces, was the result of Petraeus' pressure as well as his persuasive planning.

While the surge received the headlines, covert operations also have been significant in improving security in Iraq. Two years ago, very credible and well connected investigative reporter Bob Woodward brought out "The War Within," his fourth book on the military engagements of the Bush administration.

A principal conclusion of the author is that covert operations have been key to improved Iraq security. Such tactics involve secret missions, including killing targeted individuals.

Understandably, this side of military and intelligence work is rarely discussed in public. Even before the First Gulf War, Prof John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago perceptively emphasised the extraordinarily poor quality of the Iraqi military, contrary to much informed opinion of that time.

Nevertheless, revolutionary sentiments can create effective warriors, especially in response to foreign invasion. The US military deserves great credit in fighting an insurgency which could have turned into a very widespread regional unconventional uprising.

Very appropriately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special Mideast negotiator George Mitchell were also present at the opening of the Israel-Palestinian talks. She acknowledged the "shackles" of a history of intense conflict between the two sides. He emphasised that "a window of opportunity" has appeared. In blunt fact, persistence by both these senior leaders is directly reflected in the success of getting the Israelis and Palestinians together. Precedent persuades that US leadership is essential. While US President Jimmy Carter is regarded by many Israelis as weak and pro-Arab, the Camp David negotiations provide a worthy - indeed inspiring - example of success in the Middle East cauldron of hatred. Through sheer determination, backed by formidable intellect, Carter was able to achieve a durable peace accord between Egypt and Israel. His books "Keeping Faith" and "The Blood of Abraham" provide insight. Iran now looms over the rest of the region.

Nearly a decade before the US invaded Iraq, former Pres Richard Nixon wrote in his book "Beyond Peace" that permitting Saddam Hussein to provoke invasion would be a monumental blunder, which would reinforce the regional influence of Iran, a country of vital US interest.

Arthur I Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of "After the Cold War.

The China Post/ANN