Some Thoughts on the Middle East (Part 2)
There is an old cliché that says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If there is any truth to that saying, then by definition our policy in the Middle East is insane. I would like to present an alternative view of our role in the Middle East.
Currently, our interests in the Middle East revolve around two issues: oil and Israel. In the Cold War, an argument could be made for American presence in the Middle East to maintain an advantage against the commies. That is why we not only supported Israel but also had friendly relations with some unsavory characters, most notably Saddam Hussein. Our view was that if you were against the commies we were your friend. And course, our major ally in the region was Israel.
Since the Cold War ended, we have not seriously readjusted our policies in the Middle East, even though a much different dynamic is in place. There is no major super power threatening us. There is of course the threat of radical Islam, but as the current sectarian violence in Iraq demonstrates, the fundamentalist Muslim world is hopelessly divided against itself. Further, unlike the Cold War years in which our presence in the Middle East deterred the commies, our presence in the Middle East actually incites and encourages radical Islam.
Therefore, I believe the US should strategically disengage from the Middle East. I have no problem with selling Israel the materials it needs to ensure its ability to defend itself. But there is simply no need for us to have troops on the ground anywhere in the region, and there are many reasons for us not to. Nor is there any reason for us to do business with Arab states that seethe with hatred for the US. This of course would necessitate independence from the Middle East for our energy resources, a long overdue development in my view. We are not wanted in the Middle East, and we do not need to be in the Middle East.
The chief sticking point in the region is the Palestinian issue. And until it is resolved according to the mandates of international law, the region will never have a chance for peace. Sadly, the US has disqualified itself from the unique position it had to be an honest broker for peace. Our one-sided support for Israel has ruined that. However, it is my hope that the European Union and Russia might be able to fill in the vacuum and forge a lasting peace. At least, I think that is the best bet, since London, Paris, Rome and Moscow are not Israeli-occupied territory like Washington D.C. is.
Some would argue that disengagement would only encourage and strengthen radical Islam, and make the world less safe. But this logic flies in the face of reality. The reality is that our current policies in the region are spawning more terrorists, more hatred, more instability. Disengagement from the region and allowing truly neutral parties to negotiate the Palestinian issue would remove two of the major instigators of hostility in the region.
I am not at all optimistic that any of this will happen. And of course, as I have said over and over again, only the Prince of Peace can truly teach the nations to beat their swords into plowshares. I believe Christians should pray for justice to be done and for the gospel to spread.
Currently, our interests in the Middle East revolve around two issues: oil and Israel. In the Cold War, an argument could be made for American presence in the Middle East to maintain an advantage against the commies. That is why we not only supported Israel but also had friendly relations with some unsavory characters, most notably Saddam Hussein. Our view was that if you were against the commies we were your friend. And course, our major ally in the region was Israel.
Since the Cold War ended, we have not seriously readjusted our policies in the Middle East, even though a much different dynamic is in place. There is no major super power threatening us. There is of course the threat of radical Islam, but as the current sectarian violence in Iraq demonstrates, the fundamentalist Muslim world is hopelessly divided against itself. Further, unlike the Cold War years in which our presence in the Middle East deterred the commies, our presence in the Middle East actually incites and encourages radical Islam.
Therefore, I believe the US should strategically disengage from the Middle East. I have no problem with selling Israel the materials it needs to ensure its ability to defend itself. But there is simply no need for us to have troops on the ground anywhere in the region, and there are many reasons for us not to. Nor is there any reason for us to do business with Arab states that seethe with hatred for the US. This of course would necessitate independence from the Middle East for our energy resources, a long overdue development in my view. We are not wanted in the Middle East, and we do not need to be in the Middle East.
The chief sticking point in the region is the Palestinian issue. And until it is resolved according to the mandates of international law, the region will never have a chance for peace. Sadly, the US has disqualified itself from the unique position it had to be an honest broker for peace. Our one-sided support for Israel has ruined that. However, it is my hope that the European Union and Russia might be able to fill in the vacuum and forge a lasting peace. At least, I think that is the best bet, since London, Paris, Rome and Moscow are not Israeli-occupied territory like Washington D.C. is.
Some would argue that disengagement would only encourage and strengthen radical Islam, and make the world less safe. But this logic flies in the face of reality. The reality is that our current policies in the region are spawning more terrorists, more hatred, more instability. Disengagement from the region and allowing truly neutral parties to negotiate the Palestinian issue would remove two of the major instigators of hostility in the region.
I am not at all optimistic that any of this will happen. And of course, as I have said over and over again, only the Prince of Peace can truly teach the nations to beat their swords into plowshares. I believe Christians should pray for justice to be done and for the gospel to spread.
posted by Shane at 3:10 PM
10 Comments:
Isolationism, tempting as it is, really isn't a valid response. It's probably the worst response there is, in fact, due to destruction of the US economy due to cutting off oil, followed by several American and Israeli cities vanishing due to Iranian nukes, followed by Iran (and possibly a few other nations) vanishing in turn, followed by near worldwide misery.
Surely no one really believes the world would be a better place if the US abandoned Israel, gave in to Osama's laundry list of demands, and let Iran have nukes. The Atlantic and Pacific don't make for quite the moat they once did.
Coming up with an inexpensive replacement for oil is probably a good place to start any meaningful, long-term reform. Until that happens, though, America's basically stuck with a choice of which bad guy can be bought off over there. Even after, there are still going to be vast fortunes accessible to whackos and thugs.
About the only thing to do is pray for the best and prepare for the worst...
Hi Jeff-
I don't think anyone is advocating isolationism, certainly not me. A critique of disastrous interventionism is not the same as isolationism. In fact, we could have had a wonderful role to play in brokering peace in the Middle East, but we chose different policies that have made things much worse.
It is very interesting that you bring up Iran, since the same people who have botched Afghanistan and Iraq are now clamoring for war with Iran. Iran is only a few years away from major transformation. It's leadership is more of a fundamentalist bent, but the general population is much younger and much more moderate. The last thing we need to do is isolate Iran, much less consider any military intervention. We need to have direct talks with Iran, and be patient. Time is on our side there, unless we continue policies that encourage the radicalizing of moderates.
And certainly no one advocates that we abandon Israel or give in to Osama. It is a testimony to the unbelievable power of the Israeli lobby in America that we have reached a point in popular discourse where if anyone is critical of Israel or seeks a more balanced Middle East policy that they therefore abandoning Israel. I specifically said we should continue to sell arms to Israel.
The bottom line for me is that our foreign policy is a disaster in the region, and needs to change. The only question is which new direction to take. I have offered one approach that seeks to put America's true interests first.
i'll focus on the last sentance of your response to Jeff, we need to focus on America's best interest.
America's BEST interest is not protect Israel at all cost.
America's BEST interest seems to be independance.
That is mostly gained by new energy resources which are right around the corner. The more difficult question is, is America's idea of freedom & democracy necessary in the Middle East for our BEST interest. I'm not convinced it is, I would like to hear why we have become so obsessed with the spread of democracy in countries that seem to not want it.
Wow, that's, um... wow.
Based on your use of the "Israeli lobby" phrase and references to failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm guessing you get a lot of your news through the filter of the New York Times and its satellites, broadcast and print. That's sort of like going to the Episcopals for Bible teaching. :)
As far as Iran, we've been on the verge of the "moderates" taking power for over a decade now. Unfortunately, we're actually further away from that ever happening than we were a decade ago. And so long as the mullahs have the guns and the will to use them, we'll never see it.
I think where your analysis goes astray is that you see Palestine as the core issue. It's not. It's a facile excuse. The Palestinians were actually treated worse by fellow Muslims than Israel. Even the existence of Israel isn't really the core problem.
The problem is that Islam teaches the superiority of the Muslim to the unbeliever. Western societies are based (in varying degrees) on the principles of equality and coexistence. Muslim societies are based on inequality and dominance of Islam. So long as this mindset (and the resulting belief in divine entitlement on Earth) remains, peace with Muslim nations will be elusive.
Coulter-
Thanks for your comments! I can see we share a very similar philosophy, though you probably come from more of a libertarian perspective while I come from a paleoconservative point of view. Feel free to comment any time!
Hi again Jeff-
Regarding the impact of the Israeli Lobby, consider the following sources that I doubt anyone could claim are biased against Israel-
-Here is a story on FOX reporting on the influence of AIPAC on the House resolution supporting Israel, removing language urging all sides to protect civilians - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204554,00.html
-Here is a story in one of Israel's major newspapers outlining Amnesty International's concerns about Israeli attacks on civilians in Lebanon-
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/753657.html
Obviously, in the larger picture we are in total agreement that if this mess is ever going to change it will be thru prayer and God's providence. However, on the political question we come from different perspectives. I would just say that those who have accepted the analysis you have presented have been demonstrably wrong on almost every major turn in the Bush admin. Their policies have made a bad situation much worse, and I think it is time for a new direction.
You see, that's where I'm baffled by your response. The major mistakes made so far (especially in Iraq) have been by or in service to the State Department. Recall, for example, that the Pentagon's hand-picked guy to run the country was removed after a couple of weeks and replaced with State's guy; along with him went all the plans for transition that had been drawn up. And State's "realpolitik" philosophy on the ME is unquestionably closer to your views than mine.
For that matter, the heart of neocons' views are closer to yours than mine. They believed of Iraqis what you believe of Iranians: that there's a moderate and secular majority that will rise up and seize the reins of power to rule themselves. Unfortunately, this just doesn't reflect the general Muslim mindset, as explained above. And if it happened only partially with the infinitely more secular Iraqis, it's just not going to happen in Iran.
As far as the "Israel lobby," I don't think anyone denies that Israel has its supporters in America. However, that term in particular points to the discredited Walt and Mearsheimer paper by that name that even the authors won't defend any more. Maybe that wasn't your intention, though.
So long as there's an unquestionabe orthodoxy coupled with an attitude of entitlement in the Muslim world, there are simply going to be problems. The best any government can do is to deal with those they can and bear the sword of the avenger on those they can't, sadly.
Hi Jeff-
I am not sure how this has been miscommunicated, but I am bitterly opposed to the neocons. And in fact I believe the exact opposite of the neocons- I believe that Iraq was a country led by a secular dictator with a majority popluation seeking to be fundamentalist, and Iran is a country with fundamentalist leaders with a majority seeking to be moderate. That is why I opposed taking out Saddam, and why I oppose going to war with Iran.
As far as the Israeli lobby is concerned, it is bizarre to me that somehow that phrase is in your mind connected to an obscure scholarly paper. The Israeli lobby is one of many lobbies, foreign and domestic, that seek to buy off our Congress. What is sad is that the Israeli lobby right now has such influence that at their command the House will remove language such as the language they had removed from the recent House resolutionon Israel and Lebanon, insisting that all sides protect innocent civilians.
We have very different views of what the "Muslim mindset" is. When I cited one Muslim (OBL) explaining his mindset, you dismissed it as simple propaganda. The reality is that there are many streams of thought among Muslims, and if we are to deal with the true threat of radical Islam we need to understand the many nuances of the Muslim world.
We missed a golden opportunity to show the Muslim world that we are fair when Israel began pounding Lebanon, and we blew it. Instead of stopping Israel's aggression on Lebanon, we sent them the weapons to do exactly what their defense chief said they would do: "turn the clock back 20 years on Lebanon." And that's why I think at this point the best thing we could do for peace in the region is get out and let other, neutral countries negotiate the Palestinian problem.
As I said, your views and the neocons have the same assumption at their heart: that there's a large group of "good guy" Muslims that will stand between us and the "bad guy" Muslims. You believe they'll show up if we disengage, while the neocons believe they'll show up if we take out enough of the bad guys. I find both views flawed because of the reasons discussed above. There's simply not a large number of Muslims anywhere willing to shed their blood on behalf of "infidels" against other Muslims, no matter how much they may detest the other Muslims.
The best you can hope for are the Arab Shiites like Sistani, who won't actually do anything to hurt us, but won't do much to oppose the "bad guys" either. They just like to stand on the sidelines and carp at both sides. (This includes, incidentally, the vast majority of Iraqi Shiites, as opposed to the Sadr minority of real "fundamentalists.")
I dunno how much experience you have actually discussing religion with Muslims, but you'll find a vast difference between Americanized Muslims and those whose background is in other countries. The former will talk about Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance, while the latter will cast it almost invariably as a religion of submission. And not just submission of the believer; the unbeliever must submit and acknowledge his second-class status under Islamic law as well. Without the basic notions of equality and tolerance present in Islam, peace can't be achieved.
Again, you're missing the boat on Israel and Lebanon. It wasn't Israeli aggression; it was Hezbollah aggression. You don't like that Israel chose to fight back. I don't like that they fought back in the traditional way of center-left governments: ineffectually and without much resolve. Not much point in starting something you're unwilling to finish.
How fortunate, though, that we don't have to worry about a group in Mexico lobbing hundreds of rockets over the border and kidnapping/murdering Americans with the tacit approval of the Mexican government. I suspect the views of many would be rather different if that were the case...
Hi Jeff
In my first post about the Middle East I made it very clear that Islam is not simply a religion of peace. OBL and others like him operate within a legitimate school of Islamic thought. It is however in the very clear minority.
Further, I don't even know what you are referring to when you say "There's simply not a large number of Muslims anywhere willing to shed their blood on behalf of "infidels" against other Muslims." I have never proposed that. What I have said is that the younger generation in Iran is much more moderate, and since they are the future of Iran there is great hope there.
Also, when you say "Without the basic notions of equality and tolerance present in Islam, peace can't be achieved" you are simply wrong. Historically there have been many periods of peace in Palestine, even with Jews and Arabs living together. That changed after 1948.
Regarding Israel and Lebanon, I very clearly spelled out that the issue was not that Israel started it, or that Israel fought back. It was that Israel's response, by the admission of its own leaders, was disproportionate. The Israelie defense minister didn't vow to "turn the clock back 20 years" on Hezbollah; he vowed to do it to Lebanon - and that is exactly what they did.
If I were to jump to conclusions on your posts as you have mine, I would assume that you think all foreign Muslims are the same, and that we should be "willing to finish the job" by launching an all out war against all Muslim countries.
The illustration with Mexico is invalid. A much more accurate one would be if the US decided to kill and wound thousands of southerners, leace a million homeless, and destroy the infrastructure of the south because of some raids by the KKK.
Post a Comment
<< Home