I had the greatest of difficulty in getting past the slug that followed the title of Stephen Walt’s recent article in Foreign Policy. The title is “The United States Should Admit It No Longer Has a Middle East Policy”. Here’s the slug:
If the current — and future — U.S. administration wants to battle the Islamic State, save Syria, and keep ties with Israel, it’s got to ditch the Cold War playbook.
The reason I had a problem getting past that slug is that I don’t think anything of those things have the vital interest that most Americans seem to which I gather is Mr. Walt’s point. Here’s how he characterizes the effects of U. S. Middle East policy over the last 25 years:
If you can stand it, just look at the record: 1) “Dual containment†in the Gulf helped convince bin Laden to launch the 9/11 attacks; 2) two decades of U.S. stewardship over the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process†has killed off the “two-state solution†that Washington favored; 3) the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a policy blunder of vast proportions whose ill effects continue to multiply; 4) U.S. interference in Libya, Somalia, and Yemen helped create failed states there, too; and 5) Washington has not exactly covered itself in glory in Syria either. Given that record, it is hardly surprising that Americans and Middle Easterners openly question what the U.S. role should be and why some of us think trying to “manage†the Middle East is a fool’s errand.
Let’s consider those objectives again. Why are we interested in DAESH? IMO only the fear that they’ll foment terrorist activity domestically here in the United States. There are other ways to address that than making war on pickup trucks and mortar emplacements in the Middle East. We’ve already spent billions fighting DAESH and if we keep along our present path not only will we spend billions more but willy nilly we’ll be fighting them with the notorious “boots on the ground”.
As long as Islam is Islam (sola scriptura, condoning of violence against non-believers within the actual texts, lack of a magisterium) there will be halfwits promoting violence in its name. Do we really care what alphabet soup of letters they use as its name?
If by “Syria” you mean a multi-confessional nation-state with more or less secular values, that particular Humpty Dumpty can’t be put together again. Why we’re working as hard as we are to dismember its corpse eludes me. If we really want to save Syria, we’ll get the heck out of the Russians’ way. They’re doing a pretty fair job of saving what’s left.
And I guess I’m really the cheese standing alone on the subject of Israel. I think that John Quincy Adams’s warning of nearly a century ago rings true today: America is the well-wisher of freedom and independence for all but the vindicator and champion only of her own and for precisely the reasons the former president enunciated. Our glory should not be dominion but liberty. Whatever happened to that?
Unless he means the Cold War, I do not know what he is referring to with Somalia. It was a failed state before the 1992 Operation Restore Hope began, and it has not improved since. I was there, and it was a shithole when we went ashore, and it was just a more crowded shithole when we left.
It looks like Russia and the oil bust is going to fix the Middle East problem, for a while at least.
Walt’s bill of particulars on U.S. failures is disingenuous. By selective references to time and mischaracterization of U.S. objectives, he obscures that the predominant strain of U.S. foreign policy since WWII has been that which he advocates– Offshore balancing.
(1) To the extent that U.S. troops stationed in the Holy Land would predictably create a response like 9/11, the U.S. had a permanent bases in Saudi Arabia since 1951. Since WWII, U.S. policy has been to be the offshore balancer to the exclusion of other major powers. Classic foreign policy realism.
Things did change over the last 50 years, which are worth examining, but Clinton’s foreign policy of containment is not one of the significant changes. “Dual containment” simply recognized that Iraq and Iran were revisionist states that actively sought to project power and undermine the status quo. Containment would be withdrawn when either state became normal countries again. This is a policy intended to make offshore balancing easier (or perhaps possible).
2) U.S. policy has never had resolution of the Iranian/Palestinian conflict as a primary goal. It has sought to avoid another Israeli-Arab conflict, and has supported a negotiated agreement.
Note that Walt while preaching disengagement from the Middle East complains that the U.S. is not doing enough about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He wants the U.S. to stop settlements and press the case against Israel under international law. He does not care about international law violations by any other countries in the region. The most benign explanation in his unique treatment of Israel is that it is the only “normal” country in the region in the sense of resembling the 19th century European nation-states whose diplomacy serves as the basis for foreign policy realism. He cannot wait for the day to balance against Israel so that the template will have use, at least once.
As to the other points, it would be helpful to know Walt’s position on the Gulf War and subsequent steps. The policy options in 2003 were set by developments over the previous 25 years, and I am unaware of any prominent foreign policy thinker in 2003 that was arguing anything other than either invasion or continued . . . continuing containment.
I think Obama has made foreign policy blunders in the Middle East, but responsibility for civil wars already underway is greatly exaggerated. Unless Walt is now arguing that the U.S. should no longer be an offshore balancer, the U.S. is going to have find small ways to prevent conflicts from becoming so large that balancing is no longer an option. Effectiveness cannot be measured by pointing out that bad things are happening in the Middle East.
two decades of U.S. stewardship over the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process†has killed off the “two-state solution†that Washington favored
It was our “stewardship” that killed the two state solution? I thought the two state solution was killed off by factions on both sides who don’t want a two state solution.
Adding to PD Shaw’s remarks …. The US has spent most of 70 years since WWII trying to ensure that oil flowed smoothly from the Middle East to Europe and Japan, despite such complications as Indian-Pakistani hostilities, Israeli-everybody hostilities, and Russian/Soviet attempts to screw things up. There isn’t any politicians alive in the US, or any military officers, who haven’t spent virtually their entire lives confronting that task.
Not really so surprising that they’ve reacted as they have sine 911.