Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East

Every year, we get treated to a torrent of banal, predictable books about the Middle East. Occasionally one floats above the flotsam to offer not only real insight, but genuine thoughtful recommendations on new paths the United States might pursue in its diplomacy with that chaotic region. "Myths, Illusions, & Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East" is fortunately in that rare second category. Ambassador Dennis Ross, among America's most seasoned diplomats, and co-author David Markovsky successfully demolish many fictions on which our Mideast diplomacy is often based. Neocons imagine that negotiating with autocrats is by definition fruitless and that the seeds of democracy wait to bloom beneath every Arab street, needing only a little fertilizer. Their opponents, so-called "Realists," claim that ideology and religion are just veneers for power politics and that America's "rational" calculus is universal and axiomatic. Both cling to the specious notion that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the heart of all the regions woes and conflicts -- despite the countless wars, coups, massacres, as well as retarded economic and political development among the Arab states which have nothing to do with Israel. Likewise, members of both of these schools over emphasize America's centrality in the region, imagining every action a reaction to some US policy in the narrow way every event in the Cold War was seen as byproduct of that conflict. Yet beyond this books careful historical analysis, the authors build on the shards of past misguided policies to offer new and practical way to precede that could serve as a roadmap for the Obama administration. Iran, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Islamic extremists, continue to be among our nation's most vexing foreign policy challenges. Ross and Markovsky discuss unused diplomatic tools that could be brought to bear on Iran, ways to strengthen the hands of moderate forces in the regions, and strategies to strength civil society among the regions autocratic regimes to lay the foundation for growth and future freedom. Though occasionally "Myths, Illusions, & Peace" reads like a long, imploring memo to the state department - and they would do well to study it -- serious students of America's role in this crucial region will not be dissuaded by its density. Indeed they will find it a rich and thought provoking text that they will want to consult again and again.

This is one of the finest books written on this subject. It is concise, detailed, factual and non-political. The authors bring tons of knowledge and experience to this book. At times I simply did not want to finish reading but to just embrace-the-moment. I recommend this book to all but I have the feeling that the Arabs and Muslims who do read this will somehow negate all the positives aspects that this book generates.

In the last decade, a very unfortunate book came out by Mearsheimer and Walt, the infamous "Israel Lobby" book, which was mostly panned by reputable critics, loved by either ignorant people, or flat out bigots. Many of the preconceived notions in the book continued to be perpetrated, despite the fact neither Mearsheimer and Walt ever were diplomats in the ME or had much to do with it. Well the rebuttal to that book, and the neo-conservative's generally equally false views, has come! Dennis Ross and David Makovsky do a stunning job laying out the "realist" and "neo-con" arguments, and rebutting them. The most important debunking, in this book, is of course on the "realists." The linkage myth is one that has plagued too many supposed academics, even tho it has proven to be false. Ross and Makovsky systemically smash that myth, citing events in which US leaders tried to vacate Arab and Islamists by not being as friendly to Israel. And as the Eisenhower example in 1956 shows, this approach is a miserable failure. I believe this is important because to think that Israel hurts us in the ME, while somewhat intuitive, is in fact misguided and incorrect. Other myths include how realists think that the US can dictate peace, or that Israel is the problem, which Ross and Makovsky show, conflicts with reality, by exposing us to the nuance Mearshemier, Walt, and their supporters know not. They also tear apart the idea that we can negotiate with Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran without preconditions by virture that these guys have proven themselves as not pragmatists, but sheer ideologues, despite what Brzezinski and Carter and Walt would say. Zinging the idea of living with a nuclear Iran also really was informative, because when one looks at it, it clearly is not as rational as the USSR/China, nor does the politic body have the control over the military needed. The book destroys the "realist" ideas that Israel is a burden, when the fact it is not only a massive ally to the US, but inadvertently to other Arab regimes, almost ironically. It also debunks neo-con ideas, like thinking regime change is the only answer, and on the more important issues on how to push democracy. While the neo-cons have great principle, they failed to apply it well, or take note about social development, wealth creation, or state infrastructure, which are necessary to actually build a democracy. This explains in Iraq why it failed, tho in no small part thanks to Ahmad's meddling there. There are two points where I disagree with the authors. I think they are a little optimistic on the peace process. I truly think the only reason Arafat didn't accept 2000 was because he wouldn't accept a Jewish state. But I do think for PR purposes, we must try, tho on better terms to Israel, who are the moral and winning party. I also wish they addressed the problems within Islam as practiced today. But they did mention the importance of challenging aggressive Islamist jihadism. A spectacular read in

What you thought you knew about peace-making in the Middle East is probably not true. Ross and Makovsky set out to rebut the "myths and illusions" of both the neo-conservatives and the "realists," two of the most influential schools of thought, and they succeed. Simplistically, one might have thought that the neo-conservatives, many of whom supported the war in Iraq and many of whom advocate regime change in Iran, are "pro-Israel," and that the "realists" are anti-Israel. Ross and Makovsky make a convincing case that the policies advocated by both groups are not in the interest of either Israel or the United States. The authors write from decades of experience and from a deep knowledge of the region and of all the key players. They argue that the eight years of the Bush administration brought confusion, indecision, and some downright incompetence when it came to Iran policy and to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. They also launch a detailed rebuttal of the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that Israel is now a strategic liability to the United States, showing convincingly in my view that Israel is a strategic asset. Ross and Makovsky avoid cliches and bring a fresh approach to long-debated questions. They write clearly and concisely and without jargon. Ross is back in government now, and I certainly hope that his clear-eyed proposals will hold sway in the Obama administration. I highly recommend this book.

I have followed the Middle East for many years, since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982. American policy has waxed and waned, and Dennis Ross and David Makovsky review U.S. policy toward the region -- not just the Arab-Israeli conflict -- since the FDR administration. Their level-headed approach is a useful guide to understanding the key issues, such as respect for sovereignty, what to do about radical Islamists and authoritarian leaders, the Irsaeli-Palestinian conflict and so on. So many people do not understand the complex politics of the regional players, yet they are quick to blame and condemn one group or another. Ross and Makovsky say, in effect, "Take a deep breath, count to 10 and make the effort to understand the history and the cultures and the religions of the area." Good advice. Their lack of dogmatism is somewhat unusual and quite welcome.