When the U. S. directed at efforts at stabilizing the situation in the Middle East, it was strongly criticized for promoting paternalism instead of partnership. As a result, many political players took the American policies in the Middle East as promoting the U. S. hegemony. It is not yet clear what the initial goals of the U. S. policies in the Middle East were, but obviously transformational diplomacy makes American intervention in the Middle East subtler.
It can serve the relevant justification of the means the U. S. used during their “democratic” campaigns in Iraq and other countries of the Middle East. The principles of transformational diplomacy, as declared by President Bush, are currently observed in all spheres of American-Asian relations. The U. S. tries to distance itself from its traditional position of the conqueror, and now positions itself as the democratic partner. This is the essence of transformational diplomacy.
“We are taking action in tangible ways to work not only bilaterally with governments in the region on reform, but also directly with citizens and civil society through the State Departments” (Carpenter, 2006). Transformational diplomacy has thus acquired the new political meaning, and hopefully will be promoted across the nations. The Petraeus 14 observation points The Petraeus 14 observation points provide us with the brief analysis of the lessons learnt in Iraq. These points are extremely valuable sources of information, which allow us to look at Iraqi military operations from a different viewpoint.
“Do not try too much with your own hands” (Petraeus, 2001). Does this mean that the U. S. took the role, which is too significant and too complicated for it? Probably, it does. Many people are confident that no reasons can justify the war in Iraq. It seems that with the desire to promote stability and democracy in the Middle East states, the U. S. risks ruining the original structure of the Muslim nations. The U. S. had to act quickly, because liberation armies risk facing significant oppression on the face of traditional regime supporters.
Petraeus states that analyzing costs and benefits of each operation is critical to its success (Petraeus, 2001). The author is completely correct in this assumption. The American army has lost significant human resources being involved into operations, which were not well organized and balanced. In addition, the U. S. had to realize that its efforts could be wasted without the citizen support. The foreign state cannot successfully maintain the process of building other nations, if these processes are not supported by the citizens of these nations.
As a result, the success not only depends on the support of local leaders and local population, but on understanding the real needs of the failing states. Military operations cannot completely satisfy the needs of Iraqi nation. Thus, it is crucial for the U. S. forces to realize the benefits of counterinsurgency operations. These suggest broader approaches towards stabilization; moreover, counterinsurgency also opens gateways to implementation of social strategies.
Even in the light of the discussed issues nothing is more important than setting the right tone by the leader. What we currently observe in politics is the desire of the American diplomacy to shift the emphasis from paternalism to partnership, which is also the recognition of the initial failure to choose the "right tone" for the diplomacy promotion in the Middle East (Petraeus, 2001).
Advance Policy Questions for Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus, USA Nominee to be General and Commander, Multi-National Forces – Iraq. (2001). Retrieved 16 January, 2008 from http://www.terrorism-research.com/