Consider the
following claims, each of which in Washington circles has attained
quasi-canonical status.
* The presence of US forces in the Islamic world contributes to regional stability and enhances American influence.
* The Persian Gulf constitutes a vital US national security interest.
* Egypt and Saudi Arabia are valued and valuable American allies.
* The interests of the United States and Israel align.
* Terrorism poses an existential threat that the United States must defeat.
For
decades now, the first four of these assertions have formed the
foundation of US policy in the Middle East. The events of 9/11 added the
fifth, without in any way prompting a reconsideration of the first
four. On each of these matters, no senior US official (or anyone
aspiring to a position of influence) will dare say otherwise, at least
not on the record.
Yet subjected to even casual scrutiny, none of
the five will stand up. To take them at face value is the equivalent of
believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy — or that John Boehner and
Mitch McConnell really, really hope that the Obama administration and
the upcoming Republican-controlled Congress can find grounds to
cooperate.
Let’s examine all five, one at a time.
The Presence of US Forces: Ever
since the US intervention in Lebanon that culminated in the Beirut
bombing of October 1983, introducing American troops into predominantly
Muslim countries has seldom contributed to stability. On more than a few
occasions, doing so has produced just the opposite effect.
Iraq and Afghanistan provide mournful examples. The
new book Why We Lost
by retired Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger finally makes it
permissible in official circles to declare those wars the failures that
they have been. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that US
nation-building efforts were as pure and honorable as successive
presidents portrayed them, the results have been more corrosive than
constructive. The IS militants plaguing Iraq find their counterpart in
the
soaring production of opium that plagues Afghanistan. This qualifies as stability?
America’s New War in the Middle East
And
these are hardly the only examples. Stationing US troops in Saudi
Arabia after Operation Desert Storm was supposed to have a reassuring
effect. Instead, it produced the debacle of the devastating
Khobar Towers bombing. Sending
G.I.’s into Somalia back in 1992 was supposed to demonstrate American
humanitarian concern for poor, starving Muslims. Instead, it culminated
in the embarrassing Mogadishu firefight, which gained the sobriquet
Black Hawk Down and doomed that mission.
Even so, the pretense
that positioning American soldiers in some Middle East hotspot will
bring calm to troubled waters survives. It’s far more accurate to say
that doing so provides our adversaries with what soldiers call a
target-rich environment — with Americans as the targets.
The Importance of the Persian Gulf: Although
US interests in the Gulf may once have qualified as vital, the changing
global energy picture has rendered that view obsolete. What’s probably
bad news for the environment is good news in terms of creating strategic
options for the United States. New technologies have once again made
the United States the world’s largest producer of
oil. The US is also the world’s largest producer of
natural gas. It
turns out that the lunatics chanting “drill, baby, drill” were right
after all. Or perhaps it’s “frack, baby, frack.” Regardless, the assumed
energy dependence and “
vital interests” that inspired Jimmy Carter to declare back in 1980 that the Gulf is worth fighting for no longer pertain.
Access
to Gulf oil remains critically important to some countries, but surely
not to the United States. When it comes to propping up the wasteful and
profligate American way of life, Texas and
North Dakota outrank
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in terms of importance. Rather than worrying
about Iraqi oil production, Washington would be better served ensuring
the safety and well-being of Canada, with its bountiful supplies of
shale oil. And if militarists ever find the itch to increase US oil
reserves becoming irresistible, they would be better advised to invade
Venezuela than to pick a fight with Iran.
Does the Persian Gulf
require policing from the outside? Maybe. But if so, let’s volunteer
China for the job. It will keep them out of mischief.
Arab Allies: It’s
time to reclassify the US relationship with both Egypt and Saudi
Arabia. Categorizing these two important Arab states as “allies” is
surely misleading. Neither one shares the values to which Washington
professes to attach such great importance.
For decades, Saudi
Arabia, planet Earth’s closest equivalent to an absolute monarchy, has
promoted anti-Western radical jihadism — and not without effect. The
relevant numbers here are two that most New Yorkers will remember:
15 out
of 19. If a conspiracy consisting almost entirely of Russians had
succeeded in killing several thousand Americans, would US authorities
give the Kremlin a pass? Would US-Russian relations remain unaffected?
The questions answer themselves.
Meanwhile, after a brief
dalliance with democracy, Egypt has once again become what it was
before: a corrupt, oppressive military dictatorship unworthy of the
billions of dollars of military assistance that Washington
provides from one year to the next.
Israel: The
United States and Israel share more than a few interests in common. A
commitment to a “two-state solution” to the Palestinian problem does not
number among them. On that issue, Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s purposes
diverge widely. In all likelihood, they are
irreconcilable.
For
the government of Israel, viewing security concerns as paramount, an
acceptable Palestinian state will be the equivalent of an Arab
Bantustan, basically defenseless, enjoying limited sovereignty and
possessing limited minimum economical potential. Continuing Israeli
encroachments on the occupied territories, undertaken in the teeth of
American objections, make this self-evident.
It
is, of course, entirely the prerogative — and indeed the obligation —
of the Israeli government to advance the well being of its citizens. US
officials have a similar obligation: they are called upon to act on
behalf of Americans. And that means refusing to serve as Israel’s
enablers when that country takes actions that are contrary to US
interests.
The “peace process” is a fiction. Why should the United States persist in pretending otherwise? It’s demeaning.
Terrorism: Like
crime and communicable diseases, terrorism will always be with us. In
the face of an outbreak of it, prompt, effective action to reduce the
danger permits normal life to continue. Wisdom lies in striking a
balance between the actually existing threat and exertions undertaken to
deal with that threat. Grown-ups understand this. They don’t expect a
crime rate of zero in American cities. They don’t expect all people to
enjoy perfect health all of the time. The standard they seek is
“tolerable.”
That terrorism threatens Americans is no doubt the
case, especially when they venture into the greater Middle East. But
aspirations to eliminate terrorism belong in the same category as
campaigns to end illiteracy or homelessness: it’s okay to aim high, but
don’t be surprised when the results achieved fall short.
Eliminating
terrorism is a chimera. It’s not going to happen. US civilian and
military leaders should summon the honesty to acknowledge this.
My
friend M has put his finger on a problem that is much larger than he
grasps. Here’s hoping that when he gets his degree he lands an academic
job. It’s certain he’ll never find employment in our nation’s capital.
As a soldier-turned-scholar, M inhabits what one of George W. Bush’s
closest associates (believed to be
Karl Rove) once derisively referred to as the “
reality-based community.” People in Washington don’t have time for reality. They’re lost in a world of their own.
Source
