I think the United States needs to have a real discussion on our policies in the Middle East. There are a number of foreign policy experts (such as Edward Luttwak) who make convincing arguments for ignoring the Middle East altogether. We should discuss the benefits that a post-Iraq Middle East (with which we have as little to do as possible) may hold for our country, as well as for the Middle East. For too long have we been squandering power and treasure in a region that is quickly losing its importance. Any Middle East policy that involves our continual intervention in the region only reinforces the dismal status quo. I wouldn't expect a major sea change in Middle East policy from any of the current crop of Republican (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) or Democrat candidates. (That's right, no change from the Dems either--thus exposing the term "progressive" as perhaps the most misleading synecdoche ever coined by American politics.)
This is an open dialogue that is really long overdue. What are the relative costs and benefits of continuing to intervene in Middle East affairs? I think we've heard the arguments for continuing to intervene in the Middle East. Now lets here some other voices. Please read this article by Luttwak to get an idea of what a losing proposition Mid East involvement really is, and why intervention there really doesn't ever improve things--for either us or the Middle East. I certainly don't want to become myopic in my view that Middle East interventionism is a losing game (thus making a mistake opposite the one I want us to avoid), so if anyone has great arguments as to why we should preserve the status quo in our Middle East policies, I'd really love to hear them.
Thanks!
Tracy
2nd District, NE
(If the article link above doesn't work, here's the citation):
"The Middle of Nowhere." Prospect, May 2024. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.html?id=9302
Ignore Middle East and what to do with Middle East coming to US?
Where exactly Littwak proposes to export US Muslim and US Jewish population to severe contacts with Middle East?
Does Santa Claus already agreed to guarantee oil supplies to the international market (note, not just to US market) from Middle East?
Did Littwak already seen soon to be released revision of the Koran, in which Muhammad is backing out off his earlier goal for every Muslim to submit whole world to Islam?
If these problems are already resolved, than this idea to shut the door and pretend, that Middle East is in another Galaxy will work like a charm
intervention there really doesn't ever improve things
How many terror atacks had we had on US soil before intervention? At least two admitted ones (on WTC) and probably couple not-admitted (EgyptAir diving into the ocean, TWA-800).
How many terror atacks had we have on US soil after intervention? ZERO.
Things look very much improved, don't you think?
What do you mean by the Middle East coming to the US? Are you talking about Middle Eastern terrorists slipping into our country? The only ME terrorist group we really need to be concerned about is al-Qaeda (since Hezbollah and others are not interested in attacking the US, at least not on our soil). We don't need to intervene in ME affairs in order to provide security for ourselves at home. The reason there hasn't been an attack on our homeland since 9/11 is not because we overthrew Saddam. Rather, it is because we (and our European allies) have done a better job of policing our own airports since then. Moreover, I do consider the war in Afghanistan to have been an initial success. The disruption of al-Qaeda had been astounding. Since then, Iraq has become a distraction from the goal of providing security for our nation, and there have been indications that al-Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan.
We certainly don't have to export Muslims and Jews in order to stop intervening in Middle Eastern affairs. I don't advocate that, and frankly, I don't know where anyone would get such a crazy idea. We don't even have formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, for example, yet there are thousands of Cubans living in the United States. I don't understand how swearing off intervention in a region necessitates exporting from our country anyone from that region. Perhaps I'm missing your point.
We don't need Santa Clause to ensure that the oil keeps flowing, and we definitely don't need to intervene in ME affairs, either. All we really need is the ability to pay for oil (monetarily). The Saudis will sell us oil as long as we have the money because they MUST sell us the oil, or perish. Middle Eastern economies depend on oil to support them. Traditional economics--not military interventionism--will keep the oil flowing. The best thing we can do is to keep our economy strong. The laws of supply and demand will control the prices. Keep in mind, too, that the Middle East is not our only source of oil. As Luttwak points out, it's not even our most important source. Moreover, Middle East oil money goes to support terrorism. The link between Saudi oil revenues and terrorist financing has been widely reported.
Your assessment of how intervention has helped is, in my opinion, shortsighted. American intervention in the Middle East didn't begin with the Iraq War. The two attacks on the WTC were precipitated, in large part, because of our intervention in the Middle East during the first Gulf War. Al-Qaeda has cited our presence in Saudi Arabia specifically as one of its biggest beefs against us. I am beginning to see that the costs of this intervention outweigh the benefits.
I really do want to learn what others have to say about what our role in the Middle East should be going forward. Unfortunately, I expect that such a discussion will contain many of the same reactionary ideas we have always heard. Frankly, I don't find them all that convincing. If we continue with the status quo in our Middle East policy, I’m afraid we are in for more wasted time, money, and effort.
What do you mean by the Middle East coming to the US?
I mean that ME affairs are taken to heart by tens of millions of people in US. And events there will pull strings in the minds of US voters, and therefore in US international politics. You should remove those, who care about ME in order to stop being involved into ME. Muslim terrorists coming from ME to US is a major factor only because they can easily hide within US Muslim community (not necessarily an informed assistance, could be just fooled by cense of fraternity). But if all Muslims will be removed from US, Muslims terrorists will become a minor thread and an easy task for FBI. But you can not seriously suggest that all Muslims should be deported from US.
You said it yourself that you are not proposing it. Then be ready to be involved in ME.
We don't even have formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, for example, yet there are thousands of Cubans living in the United States.
Good example. USA is very much involved with Cuba. It obsessed with Cuba on the left and hate Cuba on the right. US even tried to invade Cuba and CIA tried to kill Castro. Now US is waiting impatiently for their Communist thug die. Absence of diplomatic relations and economic embargo is form of involvement.
Iraq has become a distraction from the goal of providing security for our nation, and there have been indications that al-Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan.
And how would you measure the level of distraction? I look an ZERO number of terrorist acts on US soil and it tells me that most likely Iraq become a grinder for terrorists. They go there and they are being killed there. I do not care in which particular Muslim country they are dieing as long as they are not coming to US.
Would you say, that meat grinder on a table A and not on table B distracts cook from grinding that meet?
The Saudis will sell us oil as long as we have the money because they MUST sell us the oil, or perish. Middle Eastern economies depend on oil to support them.
Another great point. Does it ever occur to you that by the very same reasoning Saudis had to pray 5 times a day to Mecca and 6 times a day to NYMEX. They should never dream of damaging western economies, because they will be ones, who will start dieing from hunger first. Therefore, 911 is impossible to contemplate for Saudis.
Well, on 911 we were attached by Saudi terrorist group. And you yourself gave link on so-called moderate Saudis financing suicidal terror war on western countries. Suicidal, in terms of being a suicide for Saudi economy.
You put too much trust into economy taken care of everything. You ignore ideology, and it is an idealistic approach on your part.
The two attacks on the WTC were precipitated, in large part, because of our intervention in the Middle East during the first Gulf War. Al-Qaeda has cited our presence in Saudi Arabia specifically as one of its biggest beefs against us.
Agree. And US had, should, must go to protect Kuwait from being swallowed by Iraq. Why? Oil to the world market! (note, that not only to US)
How would you like gas being rationed to one trip to the nearest supermarket per month? Do you want hospitals to demand father-to-be to bring barrel of gas, or mother-to-be will be thrown out of delivery ward?
Been away from the Forum/Blog on Business for the last week and have to chime in here... I also am a fan of Crazy Eddie Luttwak from way back. At least Eddie looks at the Mideast and elsewhere in a Grand Strategic Context that is long overdue and in terms of our overall Wherewithal to cope with the vast ill-thought out ends-means disconnects resulting form our current non-strategy. Whatever we do in Iraq and the Mid East above all we need to do it with the broader strategic context with our national interests in mind.
I agreee with Eddie on many points esp that we need to let the locals do the heavy lifting to really put the kibosh on the terrorist elements and how our overall startegic depth is being trashed to no good end. My argument with Eddie is that he downplays the key psychological diplomatic factors in a withdrawal. We need to be less precipitious and more deft in our diplomacy in bringing the locals (from the Egyptians, Turks, Jordanians, Saudis, Gulf States) on board and to get them involved in a regional stabilization and in acting as a legit counterweight to the Iranian Shia revival that Bush in his accumulated incompetencies has fostered in Iraq. Otherwise from a Geo-political point of view, an adverse "bandwagon effect" (I have expounded ad nauseum here in this forum before) and power vacuums may result from our precipitous withdrawal that the rising power of Iran may be tempted to take advantage of. See comments in threads
http://unity08.com/node/1704#
http://unity08.com/node/1830?page=1#
In much the same way remember Korea in 1950 to 1953. That war also had no direct bearing on our security at home per se (wasn't beven in our defense protection zone), but thank god we did stabilize that penninsula with our long presence there as it would have resulted in total destablization of the entire NE Asia and caused all sorts of ripple effects and instabilities there that we might not have been able to control. The key is getting some Regional Actors' buyin (shared interests)to create a Regional stabilization force in Iraq to contain the spillovers that may occur from our downsizing ops. We will probably in some way have to anchor with less of a fott print as we offshore operations in Iraq out of the cities and in enclaves and in Kuwait and the Gulf.
My guess is that we will probably be down to 60,000 troops by the end of 2024 and such a force would in Crazy Eddie's estimation be fairly sustainable from a Grand Strategic point of view. the key is getting the locals to do the real haevy lifting in all this much like in Korea and Europe and elsewhere during the Cold War. We need to synch our Military and Diplomatic and Economic (Big Marshall Plan for Mid east with Substantial Saudi/Gulf States Money like we did in Europe and Asia 60 years ago)policies in a way we have not even tried of late. Eddie would agree with we that we are flailing badly and need some key strategic context to our dunderhead policies if we are to be successful there and beyond.
And I totally agree with you on our homeland security now. I think it has been largely attributable to the fact that now we are vigilant and we have thrown the terrorists off stride with better intel. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance - and a decent cogent consistent Grand Strategy that connects our ends-means ala Luttwak and others.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Even though the US often does a poor to mediocre job in international affairs, & the idea that we need to be less interferring is appealing on many levels....
I cant help but to think that people like Israel, Taiwan, Poland, Kurds, and many others benefit greatly from our imperfect involvement in world affairs. Which is to say, regional minorities would get overwhelmed in many cases with a passive US policy.
So I cant go to far with that line of reasoning.
Still, we can do much better with policy, and we have a critical need for it in our next President & Congress.