Barry Rubin
WIZARD: “Back where I come from we have universities, seats of great learning–where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts –and with no more brains than you have…. But! They have one thing you haven’t got! A diploma!” –”Wizard of Oz”
By Barry Rubin
Are we now leaving the Hooray-for-The-Arab-Spring and Isn’t-Obama-Doing-A-Great-Job-Making-Everyone-in-the World-Love-America Era into something new? At least for the first time in almost three years there is some serious debate developing.
First, let’s take a quick look at the bad arguments that have dominated government policy, media, and academic debate recently: 1. President Barack Obama has done a great job making America popular in the Middle East by showing sympathy for Muslims, Arabs, democracy, and Palestinians specifically.
False. Polls show little if any change for the better. Allies and really democratic opposition movements are less confident in the U.S. government; no enemy has become one iota less hostile.
2. The Israel-Palestinian peace process is the core issue and easily solvable.
Doubly false. The core issue is the battle for power between revolutionary Islamists against a mix of nationalist, conservative-traditionalist, and moderate pro-democratic forces. Second, the Palestinian Authority doesn’t want negotiated peace but a state unbound by compromise so it can pursue a goal of eliminating Israel. And that goes triple for Hamas.
3. Democracy is inevitable
Perhaps eventually, in the long-term (emphasis on the word “long”) but not soon. Either a continued status quo or a revolutionary Islamist regime is more likely.
4. Thank goodness for the moderate, anti-violence Muslim Brotherhood protecting Egypt from an al-Qaida style movement.
No. Think of al-Qaida as the Weathermen (inside joke: You know, guys from the neighborhood) and the Brotherhood as the Communist Party.
5. America must make up for being so evil and bullying in the past by following the lead of local forces. It made a terrible mistake supporting dictatorships in the Arab world.
False. Past sins are exaggerated; anti-American propaganda echoed. You can’t assuage enemies who want to destroy you and think self-abnegation betrays a weakness prompting them to escalate aggression. If U.S. policy were following the lead of friendly local forces it would take a tougher line against revolutionary Islamism, Iran, and Syria.
As for supporting dictatorships, there was nothing else available in the Arabic-speaking world. The United States had to fight the Cold War and combat aggressive forces from Nasser’s Egypt in the 1950s and 1960s; Syria and Iraq from the 1960s on; and Islamist Iran after 1979. Dictatorships backed by the United State were never as repressive or aggressive as those on the other side. And when President Jimmy Carter criticized the shah of Iran’s regime in 1978 within months a revolution began that produced something worse, both for Iranians and the region.
Such are the choices unfortunately forced by reality.
The developing foreign policy establishment debate can be seen by comparing the Washington Post to the New York Times. The Post criticizes the Palestinian Authority for rejecting talks and compromise; the Times only blames Israel. The Post warns that it isn’t clear whether changes in the Arab world will be better or worse and points to the danger represented by the Brotherhood; The Times is generally uncritically optimistic.
The Times follows the Obama Administration’s lead. Only when the U.S. government finally called for the fall of the Bashar al-Assad dictatorship did the Times conclude, “Washington has limited economic and diplomatic leverage with Damascus. But if there ever was a time to use it, it is surely now.” Why now and not two months ago? Because the Obama Administration did it so it must be right.
By the way, the Times editorial is called, “Truth about Syria,” which also happens to be the title of my book. Did someone on the editorial board read it?
The Los Angeles Times echoes the similarly named New York newspaper and Obama Administration talking points:
“America acts, or should, when human rights, American interests or American principles are violated; when it can do so in conjunction with its allies; and when that action can make a difference. All of those elements are in place now in Syria. The Obama administration was right to act as it did.” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-syria-20110819,0,2514629.story
This “elements are in place” argument seems motivated not by anything “in Syria” but because the Obama Administration did it. If the deed had been done two months earlier or later, no doubt both Times’s would have found the timing perfect. Note that neither actually analyze U.S. strategic interests but merely humanitarian concerns and popularity.
In this debate, the “liberal Democratic” side’s weakness is the lack of any acknowledgement that it’s arguments about the Middle East have proven wrong and the myths listed above should be challenged. The “conservative Republican” error is to buy into a paler version of the other side’s arguments.
Consider a dreadful op-ed piece by Stephen J. Hadley who, as Bush’s national security advisor, might be considered the most senior Republican foreign policy expert:
“The region’s experiment with authoritarianism—which our nation and many others supported in the name of stability—has failed. It deprived the people of hope and produced an incubator of terrorism….Americans, of all people, should support the search for greater freedom, democracy, justice and human dignity in the region.”
Well, that sounds nice. But that’s also the theory governing the conduct of U.S. interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt. What Bush and Obama have in common is in assuming, in the words of Hadley’s article title, the United States can “shape change” in the Middle East based on its notions of freedom, democracy, etc.
In fact, the region’s “experiment with authoritarianism” might not be over and dictatorships, however regrettable, were also the abattoir of terrorism. Want proof in 30 seconds? Where was terrorism strong? Among Palestinians, in Lebanon, and in pre-1970 Jordan, where there were no strong governments. Where was terrorism weak? In Egypt, Syria, and post-1970 Jordan that had strong governments that repressed revolutionary terrorism.
How will the debate react to Egypt’s election; the domination of Lebanon by Syro-Iranian clients; Egypt-Hamas alliance; growing Islamism in Turkey, and such things we are going to see over the next year?
Obama’s policy and the worldview of a large part of the foreign policy establishment is parallel to a U.S. president saying in 1946 that the main task was to avoid Sovietophobia, assure Stalin that America respected Moscow’s legitimate interests, and pressure Western European allies for concessions.
What’s needed today is not to “fundamentally transform” foreign policy principles but to reassert the traditional Realist approach that President Harry Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson understood back then and so many policymakers–both Republican and Democrat–have implemented since then: identify friends to be supported and enemies to be combatted; preserve national interests; don’t apologize for America; support democracy where possible but without naiveté; and assert U.S. leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment