Commentary
Going to war was the U.S. president’s decision, for which he alone is responsible.
Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "democracy",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "DCG",
"programs": [
"Democracy, Conflict, and Governance",
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Iraq"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Press Release
Press Release: Iraq - Carnegie Endowment President Jessica T. Mathews Testifies Before House Armed Services Committee
Published on Jul 18, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 18, 2007
- PRESS RELEASE -
Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, testified today before the House Armed Services Committee hearing on “Iraq: Trends and Recent Security Developments.”
“The current conversation in Washington badly distorts what is happening in Iraq and what our options are. As it has from the very beginning, U.S. strategy has more to do with political needs in Washington than with realities on the ground—to our continuing confusion and detriment.”
Mathews offers five key considerations for a fresh approach to the debate on Iraq:
- The premise of our current strategy—that if violence is reduced, a political solution will follow—is false. What is underway today in Iraq is a natural and inevitable struggle for power. The American presence delays what will eventually happen anyway.
- The United States has been pursuing the same political goal since 2004 without success. The present description of the needed next steps as mundane and achievable “benchmarks” is a self-deluding fantasy on our part.
- A change in political strategy in Iraq and a shift in political attention and economic and military priorities across the region is needed to redefine possible outcomes in Iraq. Analysis of options must recognize—as it generally does not today—that a significant change in U.S. policy will change the potential for regional cooperation.
- Assertions being made regarding the implications over the withdrawal of U.S. troops lack significant evidence. Because the choice we face is among bad options, it is easy to argue against any change in course. While uncertainties are immense, it is therefore imperative to examine such claims with as much care and knowledge as we can command.
- Congress needs to urgently address and end the dangerous charade that has been underway between it and the administration regarding whether the U.S. government is currently planning a permanent presence in Iraq.
###
To read Dr. Mathews’ prepared testimony, go to www.carnegieendowment.org
Direct link to the PDF: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/mathews_iraq_testimony1.pdf
To request an interview with Dr. Mathews, please contact Trent Perrotto, 202/939-2372, tperrotto@ceip.org or Jessica Jennings 202/939-2265, jjennings@ceip.org
Biographical Information
Jessica Tuchman Mathews was appointed president of the Endowment in 1997. Her career includes senior positions in the White House, the State Department, the House of Representatives, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Resources Institute, and the Washington Post.
Dr. Mathews is a director of Somalogic Inc. and a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, The Century Foundation, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative. She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. She has previously served on the boards of the Brookings Institution, Radcliffe College, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, and the Joyce Foundation, among others.
More information can be found at: www.carnegieendowment.org/jmathews.
Recent Interviews and Articles
- “Memo to the next U.S. president” on the future of foreign policy, Charlie Rose, March 29, 2007
- “Four years later”: The anniversary of the Iraq Invasion, Newshour with Jim Lehrer, March 19, 2007
- President Bush’s Plan to Boost Troops in Iraq, NPR’s All Things Considered, January 10, 2007
- Iraq Strategy Casts Shadow Over Gates Hearings, Newshour with Jim Lehrer, December 4, 2006
- Iraq: What Next? – a January 2003 Carnegie report arguing against immediate military invasion of Iraq due to the civil unrest that would result, recommending instead a continued, multinational inspections process.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States. Founded in 1910, its work is nonpartisan and dedicated to achieving practical results. The Endowment has added operations in Beijing, Beirut, and Brussels to its longstanding offices in Washington and Moscow as part of its transformation into the first global think tank.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- The Problem With the Idea That Netanyahu Made Trump Attack Iran
- Implementing the Biden Administration’s China StrategyReport
At the heart of Biden’s approach to China was the consolidation of a framework for strategic competition with an eye toward coexistence.
Christopher S. Chivvis, Senkai Hsia
- What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?Article
India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.
Konark Bhandari
- The Diverging U.S. and Israeli Goals in Iran Are Making the Endgame Even MurkierCommentary
The cracks between Trump and Netanyahu have become more pronounced, particularly over energy and leadership targets.
Eric Lob
- How the Hormuz Closure Is Testing the Korean President’s Progressive AgendaCommentary
The crisis is not just a story of energy vulnerability. It’s also a complex, high-stakes political challenge.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares
