Notes from Aspen Strategy Group
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releaseDocument text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
Notes from Aspen Strategy Group
US Policy on Arab Revolutions
TJP summary: Plenty of different opinions on what was done right and wrong. No
consensus.
Indyk: syria will spill into Bahrain and KSA (Saudi). We should have moved earlier.
KSA is a BFD.
Feaver (ex Bush): BO's obsession w anti Bush (especially wrt Iraq) has
unnecessarily limited Administrations ability to engage in Iraq which -as we see
now w Syria - is just dumb.
Dannzinger (ex Obama Admin): obama has done a remarkable job and the only
way he could have done better is if I had held a senior post in the Administration.
Kahl (ex Obama Admin) : Feaver is living in a fantsy world. BO couldn't make a
SOFA deal w NAM. He tried, but we had no leverage and Iraqis wanted to break
sense of occupation. So President went to zero based engagement and now wants
to build engagement w Iraq from zero base.
Flornoy: Feaver, you make me feel like I lived in a different reality. Did a good job
of articulating "lead from behind" strat in Libya. When you consider our national
interests in the context of our domestic condition, we did the best we could.
Zelikow: what are the top priorities of admin. Defeat AQ and avoid a "pre mature
war w Iran; avoid Iraqi civil war - Iraq is moving troops now to west; manage the
hot situations in ME.
Froman: "lead fom behind" is not admin policy. Leverage our resources and those
of our allies.
Hadley: now in era of big bets. We need to define our objectives and spot moments
when we should lead and take a big bet.
Maghan O: advancing our interests w a Lead from behind or a light handed
approach will only work if a numner of assumptions are accurate (eg Muslim Bro
will moderate; monarchy -KSA- will self reform). These are big assumptions and
therefore using a light hand may fail. Agrees w Hadly that there are times we should
take a big bet and Iraq would have been an example of that.
Indyk: we need to engage more in Syria. It is a regional lynch pin and lead from
behind won't work.
Feaver: Dannzinger is uncharacteristically wrong. A different approach 4 yrs ago
would have left us in better positions in Iran Iraq and Syria.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025797
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents