Related Resources

Peter Bergen commented that driving al-Qaeda out of its base in Afghanistan and disrupting its leadership are two major accomplishments in America’s war on terror. However, al-Qaeda is still very much active having morphed, taking on a “virtual” existence through the use of tapes that continue to disseminate its ideology. Bergen cautioned American policy makers that al-Qaeda's leadership is patient, determined, and content to work within a long time frame to accomplish its objectives, and he criticized the refocus by the US on Iraq as diverting energy and resources from the wider war on terror.

Turning to the on-going Arab-Israeli conflict, Robert Malley challenged the foundations of the current peace process arguing that the next solution must rectify three deficits: 1) limited vision on the part of stakeholders; 2) trust that a plan will be implemented; 3) legitimacy that would allow leaders on both sides to take decisive steps. According to Malley, a last peace agreement will only come with strong US leadership leading to an international coalition proposal and international trusteeship for Palestine to insure its stability an Israel’s security, subject to referendum vote by both sides.

Speaking on Iraq, Kenneth Pollack pointed out that for the first time the US is in a position to shape an Arab country's future. So far, there have been positive and negative outcomes from the US occupation. To succeed in the long-term, The US must knit together local Iraqi initiatives, succeed at ground-level institutional development, incorporate native Iraqis into reconstruction, and clearly articulate realistic timetables to the Iraqi people. Speaking on Iran, Pollack noted the restrained and constructive role Iran has played in Iraq and reminded the audience that Tehran’s weapons program is substantively different in it's capacity and objectives then was Saddam Hussein's WMD program. Iran is currently in ferment but the US should realize that it has no decisive policy towards the US.

Taking a broad look at the issue of Islam and democracy in the region, John Voll encouraged American policy makers to evaluate their terminology. Voll argued that predetermined, unitary definitions and perceptions of “Islam” and “democracy” in the minds of US policy-makers typically determine policy and this can be dangerous. US policy makers should abandon preconceptions and engage in detailed analysis. Looking at specific conditions on the ground in Muslim societies should drive US thinking - policy makers should be grounded in concrete plans and measures, not slogans and ambiguity.