Strategic reset
In 2007, when retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan published a newspaper editorial explaining his decision not to accept the position of "War Czar" or White House implementation manager for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, he wrote: Citing Gen. Sheehan, the report gives examples from what are described as seven years of relative progress in the Middle East (1994–2000) followed by seven years of setbacks (2001–2007), such as:[5] U.S. strategy in Iraq in 2007 relied on Iraqi political progress, increased numbers of U.S. troops in the country, and diversification of tactics for political and economic support."[13] Advocates of strategic reset maintain that the current administration's misjudgments regarding Iraq policy have jeopardized the United States' national security interests and that it must act now in order to prevent further attrition of its military and to effectively confront a growing global terrorist threat.[17] Proponents of strategic reset point out that no significant progress has been made on "benchmarks" established by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice such as constitutional reform or laws regulating provincial elections, distribution of oil revenue, or treatment of citizens subject to de-Baathification; they argue that no realistic policy can predicate the resolution of Iraq's sectarian conflicts on the rule of a unified Iraqi governing authority.On June 26, 2007, for example, Iraqi commandos raided the house of Culture Minister Asad Kamal al-Hashimi, who is believed to have ordered an assassination attempt fatal to both sons of Mithal al-Alusi, a member of Iraq's parliament.According to the CAP, these security forces—who continue to receive considerable U.S. support—exhibit divided loyalties that stem directly from divisions in the political structure; they have been implicated in corruption, militia membership, death squads, and killing American troops sent to train them.[23] Redeployment is crucial to the reset strategy chiefly because of its potential to undermine terrorism: proponents argue that U.S. military presence in Iraq gives Al-Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool, as well as ideological justification for continued violence.[32] Further key steps would include: David Gooden, writing for the Des Moines Register, has criticized the proposal as "imperial liberalism," claiming that "[F]oreign military occupations are the root cause of Islamic terrorism" and that "[t]he Center for American Progress' plan for a 'strategic reset' will not achieve a lasting or a just peace.
United StatesMiddle Eastmilitarynational securityinternalexternalpoliticaldemographicphased military redeploymentdiplomacyArab–Israeli conflictCenter for American Progressprogressivethink tankWashington, D.C.Iraq WarBush administrationLawrence J. KorbJune 25, 2007U.S. Marine CorpsJohn J. SheehaneditorialWhite House implementation managerAfghanistanpeace processIsraelHezbollahcontainmentsanctionrefugeenuclear program2006 Palestinian legislative electionDirect relationoil pricesU.S. strategypolitical progressIraq Study GroupreportIraqi armycounterterrorismsectarianpolicyThe Washington PostCondoleezza Riceattritionrule of lawsecurity vacuumsAl QaedaTurkmenKurdistan Regional GovernmentTurkeyKurdistan Workers PartySunnisAl-QaedaBaghdadcivil warelectionsde-BaathificationcommandosparliamentKarabilahstalemateIraqi security forcesMatthew YglesiasThe AtlanticU.S. Embassy in Baghdadterrorismconsulardisplaced personsPhased redeploymentKuwaitAyman al-ZawahribrigadesquadronredeploymentTurkmensKirkukreferendumIraqi KurdistanminoritiesjihadistsJordanPersian Gulf regionIsraeli West Bank barrieranti-American sentimentPresident BushambassadorsFatah–Hamas conflictCold WarSoviet UnionDes Moines RegisterReset (military)Reverse CourseWayback MachineABC News