David Schenker and Gilad Wenig are alarmed that the Gulf Arab countries are gearing up to undertake their own defense:
Seven Arab states participated in the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait in 1991. After the war, the GCC agreed in principle to build a regional military inclusive of Egypt and Syria, but the effort stalled. The delay led then-chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Lee Hamilton, to take Washington’s Gulf allies to task: “What they are really doing is relying on the U.S. as their security guarantor. And if they get into trouble again, they are going to blow the whistle.â€
Notwithstanding Mr. Hamilton’s warning, Washington has served reliably as the guarantor of Gulf security for much of the past 25 years. But lately, as the Obama administration has moved closer to a nuclear deal with Iran—and as Tehran has expanded its influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen—Washington’s traditional Sunni allies are increasingly concerned about a diminished U.S. commitment.
They do give some lip service to my view of the development:
The willingness of Arab states to finally sacrifice blood and treasure to defend the region from terrorism and Iranian encroachment is a positive development.
but the overall tone of the op-ed is apprehensive.
How bad would it be, really, if the Gulf States actually took responsibility for their own defense? Or, horrors, if the countries of Europe were to do the same? Our NATO frenemies have committed to spend 2% of GDP on defense. Many of the largest NATO economies are spending far less than that which means that overall the European members are spending far less than 2% in aggregate. Basically, they’re free riders on our defense spending. It’s ever so much easier and more comfortable to whine about the warmongering Yanks when you’re spending 1% of GDP on defense while we’re spending 4%.
I think the real unstated worry of the authors is that an Arab League defense force might present a threat to Israel and history suggests that’s a possibility. Ultimately, Israel’s problems are Israel’s problems. We do have interests other than Israel. And the U. S. security umbrella has been a cause of instability in the Middle East for the last several decades rather than a stabilizing one.
In other words it’s not just Obama’s fault.
You have people who not only think inside the box, refuse to think outside the box, and will reject any ideas from outside the box, but they will also actively try to negate any ideas that originate from outside the box.
The contradiction in their position makes no difference to the thrust of their argument. You are the problem. You not only recognize the contradiction, but you have spoken it.
Plato’s Cave should have ended with the philosopher being dragged back into his seat and forced to agree that the mob is correct. The shadows are the true reality. The truth is that people do not want more knowledge. They want as little knowledge as possible.
You are pissing into the wind, but good luck.
I think change is often met with dollops of apprehension — whether it swirls around individuals or global partners. The US has been a super power, world leader, and parent figure to much of the planet for a long time. However, now that Obama’s America has become so disengaged, unreliable and simply “different,” as to how it participates in other countrys’ affairs, uncertainty and uneasiness is filling the void as nations begin to act independently of the US.
Basically the game pattern of foreign alliances is being altered during a time of intense, unpredictable world disorder. Is putting our hands in our pockets a step towards allowing other nations an opportunity to grow up? Will nuclear proliferation decrease because of us pulling back, or will smaller, less disciplined regions crave their own nukes, increasing the possibilities of nuclear target practice around the globe? If so, will such destabilization and havoc metastasize, galvanizing the means to inflict damage on our relatively “safe” continent? And, with this in mind is our own national security so finely tuned and perfected that we can avoid to stay out of the fray as the world around us tests it’s mettle?
These are the far range concerns I hear being voiced about our diminishing and somewhat confusing foreign policy maneuvers and outcomes.
Keep in mind that the Gulf Arab countries have never been responsible for their own defense from external threats. I suspect that if they lose the US as a protector then they will seek to become clients of someone else – probably China – rather than step up and build an independent military capability. I think we are stuck with them for a while.
“They’re Saying That As Though It Were a Bad Thing”
Dave Schuler, I congratulate you on your good grammar. There are very few Amerikans, and almost none at LanguageLog.com, who can manage to use the subjunctive mood.
They and most Amerikans would probably say “They’re Saying That As Though It Was a Bad Thing.”
Andy- Do you see China being interested in that role? I don’t. Not sure how they would do it anyway. Also, I don’t really see Iran doing much more than securing influence in Iraq. Certainly don’t see the populations in the Gulf states welcoming Iran as their new overlord.
Steve
Steve,
China won’t do it like we would with a large, permanent regional military presence, though they will (relatively) soon be able to maintain foreign outposts and manage continuous ship deployments to areas of interest. They use a lot more soft power and also don’t get preachy about various kinds of human rights abuses. Combine that with a lot of military sales and other types of support and pretty soon China would be calling the tune.
It’s all speculation though, the US isn’t going anywhere for a while.
In order to be the world’s policeman, the US will need to increase Defense spending substantially. “Walk softly, and carry a big stick” only works if you are actually walking in the neighborhood with a big stick. There is also the “softly” part.
I saw that John Bolton recommended bombing Iran. Does he have any idea that when munitions are used the ammo dump is not magically resupplied? Does he even know what an ammo dump is?
Assuming that today is equivalent to Munich in 1938, this would make President Obama the equivalent of PM Neville Chamberlain. Supposedly, Western democratic countries could have stopped Hitler then and Iran now with tougher pieces of paper, sanctions, or other non-violent/violent-lite (bombing) means.
Forgotten is the pact between Stalin and Hitler. Stalin had a piece of paper with an ironclad agreement that Hitler was his best buddy, and at the first opportunity, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. If Hitler did not fear Stalin, I doubt there was anything the Western democratic countries could have done to stop him.
To all you Obama supporters, President Obama is being Chamberlainized (new word?). I would suggest you get out of your little box begin to rethink the “Munich in 1938” narrative. The Middle East was going to devolve into chaos at some point, and this includes the scenario without an Iraq invasion.