PERSPECTIVE-It's easy and tempting to either "blame Bush" or "blame Obama" for our current foreign policy problems, and in an increasingly-volatile world seemingly gone aflame, and with a U.S. too obsessed with a red/blue state of mind, we've become distracted from what's best for the U.S. and for the world. The Ukraine, east Asia and our neighbors to the south have their own conundrums, but the Mideast has (again) taken central stage.
It's anyone's guess as to whether President Obama will be any less insulated and/or slow to take the right actions than his predecessor, George W. Bush, but the need to focus on good intentions and pragmatic, tough solutions must trump U.S. partisan politics (despite the fact that partisan politics has ruled the day since the year 2000, with both sides horribly and equally guilty of exploiting and aggravating our partisan divide).
The facts remain, however, that while George W. Bush and Barack Obama had both personal and philosophical reasons to take their actions, their good intentions must be balanced with their not-so-good and/or naïve beliefs, and both the beneficial results must be balanced with deleterious (if not disastrous) results.
After 9/11, President Bush concluded that we must take action proactively--but he took the wrong order of actions and used his personal grudge against Saddam Hussein to take action in Iraq in a manner that was unnecessarily costly, both in lives and in dollars. Bush failed to recognize many things, but he did have a few idealistic paradigms to promote...and probably history will show both helpful and harmful results of his actions.
After the war in Iraq and our economy took such horrible turns, President Obama concluded we must reverse the mistakes made by Bush in Iraq, but made similar errors (with good intentions) in Egypt, Libya and Syria. Fewer American lives were lost, but disasters did occur--and while Obama despised both colonialism and imperialism, he has (like his predecessor) done many things entirely opposite to what he originally wanted to do.
President Bush hated nation-building, but fell into the trap of doing it. President Obama hated excessive intervention abroad, but fell into the trap of doing it. Bush and Obama both have been guilty of doing too much, and doing too little, and it's difficult to know whether they merely did their best...or are unforgivably guilty of being tone-deaf and arrogant.
In part because of President Bush's foreign policy actions and misactions, he was NOT invited to either of the past two Republican presidential national conventions. As President Obama's approval ratings fall because of his foreign policy actions and misactions, he runs the same risk as his predecessor of being a drag on future Democratic party efforts to reassure independent voters of Democratic Party foreign policy largesse.
But there are actions that must be considered and taken...if, as a nation, we can get past the red/blue divide, or the "I hate Bush" or "I hate Obama" trap that prevents us from taking the right actions--because actions must be taken:
1) The goal of promoting true democracy is both venerable and foolhardy in the Middle East (to be defined as that region between Northern Africa and Pakistan) at this time, and will be both messy and ugly in the process:
Despite our desire to have the world become tolerant and democratic, we've both learned the hard way and through painful and repeat experiences that there is both a growing minority of Western- and democratically-minded residents of the Middle East...as well as a persistent majority of residents who tolerate killing, religious and tribal over nationalistic identification, and other beliefs that prevent true nation-building at this time.
When democratic elections in nations ranging from Algeria, the Gaza Strip and Egypt occurred, the results were NOT very good--extremists won the day, and the countries that allowed the Western-educated military to limit democracy survived...and created stability in ways that democracy and mob rule didn't.
A similar tendency occurred in Europe during the later Middle Ages that created a sense of nationalistic identification that--to this day, and despite its own militaristic tendencies--persists and prioritizes economic development and domestic peace.
Which is not to say that the efforts of Bush in both the Gaza Strip and Iraq, and the efforts of Obama in both Libya and Egypt, were entirely wrong--ultimately, the local residents MUST choose their fate, and the West needs to really "get it" that the Middle East is following a very different path than East Asia. The Middle East/East Asia comparison is critical for any analysis of "Third World" national progress.
Both the Middle East and East Asia had their borders set by former European colonial powers, but East Asia has, by and large (and often with majority Islamic populations) chosen pragmatic and peaceful nation-building, and a focus on economic growth...while the Middle East has (with a few prominent exceptions) not gotten over its addiction to sectarian bloodshed.
This bloodshed is particularly horrible (from a Western standpoint) between the Shiites and Sunnis, but while the West remains horrified by the violence, much of the residents there accept it. In other words, they really ARE different than the European and Asian models of nations that we "liberated". Al-Qaida is Sunni in nature, and the Iranian theocracy is Shiite in nature, and they are both equally-abhorrent and dangerous world influences.
It WAS helpful to the world that we took down Saddam Hussein--by far too many forget his disruptive and frightening influence on local, regional, and world politics. Yet rather than demanding immediate true democracy we should have promoted one of his many generals who let us take Baghdad, told him to watch himself, and pulled out right away with a new mandate to promote democracy and human rights while retaining stability.
As of now, by promoting democracy in an Iraq that was a colonial territory of three regions cobbled together (Kurdish to the north, Sunni in the center, and Shiite in the south), we allowed majority rule in a nation that has and had as much national identity as the former Yugoslavia...which was held together only by a strongman like Tito.
A civil war naturally occurred as both revenge and tribal tendencies became the order of the day after the Saddam Hussein era, and we ended up with a Sunni population that was now as discriminated against by the new government as the Shiites were under Hussein. Reconciliation of those Sunnis who honorably served under Hussein did not occur, and enemies were created that need not have been.
Al-Maliki is as sectarian as Hussein, despite his democratic election, and has further unnecessarily alienated the Sunnis as much as Hussein was unspeakingly violent to the Kurds and the Shiites. There are, pragmatically speaking, now THREE states where Iraq exists, and to think otherwise is foolish.
Ditto with Moammar Khadafi in Libya--his past history is unspeakably bad, but he appeared to have turned the corner after we went into Iraq, and he also appeared to have made peace with the West. It's difficult to make a proper comparison with the late Anwar Sadat of Egypt, but Libya is now in chaos with his Khadafi's demise, and many did and do wonder why we didn't just pressure Khadafi towards civil rights and democracy.
Ditto again with Mubarak in Egypt. It was sad that Mubarak, unlike his predecessor Anwar Sadat, chose not the best man but his son to lead Egypt, thereby alienating the military that kept the country together. Yet at least Egypt has done the right thing--rejected a democratically-elected but ideologically-dangerous Morsi in favor of a military coup that created the more pragmatic and effective government of newly-elected General el-Sisi.
It is hoped that the Palestinians will also create a Western-educated state that rejects Hamas' terrorist efforts and confronts the reality of an Israel that must coexist with a united Palestine. Yet it must be remembered that the leading source of Palestinian deaths remains OTHER Palestinians, and that Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt all have had to expel and/or limit the Palestinians' because of their own cultural dysfunctions.
There will NEVER be a true peace in the Middle East without a modern and friendly Palestine...but the question of whether the Palestinians can embrace inclusiveness, peace and regional cooperation instead of terrorism, and demonization of Israelis and the West, is one that has yet to be satisfactorily answered.
Democracy must be encouraged and pressured on the Middle East, but--at this time-- Western-educated strongmen will be needed in the short-term, and perhaps indefinitely, to address the bloodlust, lack of concern over sectarian violence, unemployment, economic inequality and cultural backwardness of that region.
2) If the United States and its European and Asian allies don't step in to intervene, someone else will, and it won't be pretty:
Both the U.S. and the world have had enough of both Iraq and Afghanistan--both al-Maliki and Karzai are disgusting individuals who've not been worth the economic and military support that the world has given them. Furthermore, in many ways, it can be said that the Iraqis and Afghans in general have also not been worth the support the world has given them (despite that some among them are the bravest people in the world).
Yet allowing Russia, China, Iran, the Taliban or al-Qaida the ability to take over this region of the world would only be WORSE. Even if the U.S., Asia and Europe become energy-independent and conclude that the Middle East can go rot and burn, the world IS becoming smaller and issues in the Middle East DO have inevitable consequences.
It must also be reminded that we still have troops in Europe (which did and do provide necessary protection to developing eastern European democracies) and in Asia (which did and do provide necessary protection to Japan, Taiwan, and especially South Korea). Arguably, the big question is NOT if but how much of a presence we'll have in Afghanistan or some other nation, but we'll want SOME base there or we'll inevitably get burned.
3) We must keep our friends close, but our enemies closer:
Is it THAT hard to figure out why we have the relationship we do with Pakistan? They are our most prominent "frenemy", and are both the source of our most fundamental alliances and the source of our most antagonistic divisions.
Ditto with Saudi Arabia--both a source of oil and a source of al-Qaida. Ditto also with a host of other nations in the region, be they kingdoms or democratically-elected. Maybe we can use the new "enemy of our enemy is our friend" approach with Iran in resolving the latest Iraqi crisis, but if Iran gets the nuclear bomb then we will have a new Israeli-Iranian conflict that is almost too terrifying to conceive.
It's awful enough that both Pakistan and India have the nuclear bomb, but both money and military largesse must not be ignored...because the alternative is so very much worse.
Hence we'll need drone actions, military interventions and payoffs to eliminate the most dangerous threats while supporting people and groups that otherwise deserve to be destroyed. Yet in the meantime, we can continue to flood American/Western culture and ideals to convince the locals in that region that making money is a lot more pleasant than making war (especially if that means sectarian and religious divisions are downplayed).
The military gets this--ask the veterans who WERE in Iraq and Afghanistan--so why can't the rest of us get it?
4) So who ARE our friends, and what should we do for them:
It is time for President Obama and his successors-in-waiting to consider figuring out the right balance of backing out and stepping in the Middle East...and to get over partisan politics and to focus on "lessons learned".
Israel IS our friend, and perhaps the unpleasant truth MUST be told: East Jerusalem can't be entrusted to the current Palestinian government(s), and in order to ensure Muslim, Christian and Jewish access to that city, Israel must be granted that city and adjacent territory to pragmatically (if not regrettably) protect the peace.
Furthermore, Israel is surrounded by a host of unstable and dangerous nations and territories such as the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria, and must daily defend itself against these neighbors.
It's a reasonable question of what the United States would do with these sort of neighbors: sooner or later, they would be destroyed, and their land unapologetically annexed. Israel has given up land in Lebanon, Egypt and the Gaza Strip for wars they did not start, and history has shown these actions only emboldened its neighbors and allowed Westerners with poor memories and historical training to pressure Israel all the more.
However, Palestinians who are Western-educated and who recognize Israel ALSO ARE our friends, and probably need military support to entirely crush Hamas and any anti-Western, anti-Israel, pro-bloodshed/suicide bomber culture that gets in the way of a strong Palestinian nation, economy and cooperative effort with Israel. This is a dangerous but interesting reality that America might need to one day confront.
Jordan ALSO IS our friend, and every effort should be made to help, protect and stabilize that country, particularly because it is the recipient of those refugees fleeing from unspeakable violence in Jordan and Iraq. The Jordanians' developing democracy and economy must be protected, and their people should be rewarded.
Egypt and Saudi Arabian and other leaders ARE our friends, and must be leaned on both for democracy and civil rights but given a pass to crush any popular-but-violent movements that could turn them into theocratic, terrorist-exporting sources.
And here's the BIG unsupported friend that is in need of recognition and support--we MUST have a Kurdistan! The Kurds have made military, cultural and economic advances that make mockeries of their Sunni and Shiite neighbors in Iran, Syria and especially Iraq.
The Kurds are the largest stateless national group in the world, and a Kurdistan that recognizes Turkish borders and is advanced to include its components in modern-day Syria and Iraq would be the perfect new ally and counterweight to our antagonists in Iraq, Iran and Syria.
This is particularly true as the explosive and never ending Sunni/Shiite fighting--and with no powerful entity we can relate to or rely on--from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Iran worsens by the day.
Yes, the Turks would be unhappy, but if we made it clear that Turkish borders were sacrosanct that would help. Otherwise, the concerns of Erdogan and the Turkish leadership should not be ours to share--their past treatment of the Armenians, and their growing departure from civil rights and Western ideals is both dangerous and must be balanced with a new friend: Kurdistan, who would rely on their existence and never forget it.
Kurdistan would be an American friend, a Western friend, and arguably the perfect place to locate that long-desired American/Western military/economic presence in that region, and the balance to our "frenemy" of Turkey that once sought to be an invaluable Western ally (but, alas under Erdogan, no longer).
Iraq will likely (and arguably should be) divided up into Sunni and Shiite states (al-Maliki must go, but the Ayatollah Sistani appears to be an honorable man and an ally to help create a friendly Shiite state in Southern Iraq).
It's anyone's guess as to how we would work with the Sunnis in Iraq and Syria at this point, and it's anyone's guess as to what would or should happen to Syria. Assad is a monster, but he is opposing monsters as bad as he is or worse.
To conclude, it's an UGLY world. Presidents Bush and Obama had and have ideals that created both hopeful opportunities and painful lessons learned for America and the world.
Yet to do nothing will inevitably be unspeakably worse than to do what must be necessary (and as awful, terrible and ugly as it has just been described) for both that region, the world, and right here at home in the United States of America. We can be tough AND smart AND representing our ideals abroad...but we must conclude that our nation and culture is one that is, overall, venerable and that our security is, overall, worthy of support.
(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected] This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . He also does regular commentary on the Mark Isler Radio Show on AM 870, and co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us . The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 51
Pub: June 24, 2014
Sidebar
CityWatch Los Angeles
Politics. Perspective. Participation.
20
Sat, Apr