Logo

Washington, Jan 23 - The Big Question is a feature where influential lawmakers, pundits and interest group leaders give their answers to a question that’s driving discussion in news circles around the country.  Today’s Big Question is: What are the odds Obama’s new envoys can make a difference in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Rep. Ed Royce said: Secretary Clinton has appointed two distinguished diplomats for these positions. Indeed, either could have been Secretary of State themselves. The State bureaucracy doesn’t like the concept of special envoys, but she deserves credit for empowering such strong personalities. My working relationship is closest with Ambassador Holbrooke, with whom I worked during his days at the United Nations, particularly on African issues. Both diplomats bring a lot to the table.

There will be no quick fixes though. Senator Mitchell must contend with the fact that there are those in the region (Hamas and others) who do not even recognize Israel’s existence. Ambassador Holbrooke faces tribal regions in Afghanistan and Pakistan that have never been effectively governed. And our European allies have shown little stomach for the fight. Pakistan society is becoming increasingly militant, which is especially troubling given the country’s nuclear arsenal and its links to global terrorism. Consider British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s assertion that 4,000 British Muslims have trained at terror camps in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

The title "special envoy" builds an expectation that some type of "grand bargain" might be celebrated in the Rose Garden. That would be great. But both of these regions of the world are plagued with a growing extremism that will frustrate peace initiatives and not be easily or quickly reversed. Yes, these two diplomats can "make a difference," but slow progress is probably the best we can expect.