Defense & Security
Allies of resistance: America needs more porcupine partners
The president’s Interim National Security Guidance states that in the Middle East, “we will right-size our military presence to the level required to disrupt international terrorist networks, deter Iranian aggression, and protect other vital U.S. interests.” Against this backdrop are many questions concerning how the U.S. can balance its military commitments in the Middle East while also prioritizing longer-term progress. Is the current force posture necessary to support a more limited view of U.S. interests in the region, and are these commitments sustainable? Do current commitments in the region create unnecessary risks and constrain strategic choices to prepare for the future? What are the long-term trade-offs of more, or less, U.S. presence in the Middle East?
On April 19, Foreign Policy at Brookings convened a panel of practitioners, academics, and policy experts to address these key questions and discuss what a sustainable military presence in the Middle East looks like. Questions from the audience followed the discussion.
Viewers submitted questions via email to [email protected] or on Twitter using #USMiddleEast.
Agenda
-
April 19
-
Panelist
Daniel L. Magruder Jr. Federal Executive Fellow - The Brookings Institution, Colonel - U.S. Air Force
Michael E. O’Hanlon Director of Research - Foreign Policy, Director - Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Co-Director - Africa Security Initiative, Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Philip H. Knight Chair in Defense and Strategy @MichaelEOHanlon
Robert Pape Professor of Political Science - University of Chicago
-
