I can't figure out the point of this. Are you blaming President Obama because the Middle East is a big mess? Could it be that it's the fault of the Sunni Arabs and their enemies, the Shia Arabs and Shia Iran? I think that the President can be blamed for not understanding the implications of his words and policies, for example blaming Netenyahoo for saying there is not going to be a Palestine state when in fact the takeover of Gaza by Hamas after Israel gave up its occupation and the rocket fire and three wars which followed are certainly enough to have ended any hope of another Palestine state long before Net opened his mouth.
7
"The conflicts we have now are ugly enough, but absent the restraint still imposed by American military dominance, it’s easy to imagine something worse." That's the "imagination" that compels the reluctant American to take on the task of being world's enforcer of "moral" order. At least the hypocrisy is becoming harder to hide...
6
Only a few piece I have read in the New York Times since 2003 have been filled with as much double speak, senseless jargon, revisionist history, lack of substance and understanding of reality as this one. Here’s the reality of the situation on the ground in the Middle East … we don’t own the region, we don’t control it - although we’ve tried and received ample amounts of blow-back as a result - and we don’t understand it in spite of the fact that focused a significant attention and intelligence resources into doing so since the beginning of the 20th Century. Truth is, the US can’t control the Middle East. At best we might be able to contain it’s worst excesses. That’s the best the US will ever be able to do in the Middle East.
The Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq exemplified just how misguided, arrogant and ignorant our government leadership was about what the US could do in the region. The invasion of Iraq changed the Sunni-Shia balance of influence in the region. With the support of Iran, Shia influence has been gaining ground particularly in Iraq but elsewhere as well. This has created a significant counter in the Sunni community with ISIS at the extreme end. It’s why we’re seeing these weird “alliances” appear. The Iraq War completely destabilized the balance of influence in the region and now everyone is paying for it. Nothing is clear, nothing is certain. The only thing the US can do is to contain it and not make it worse.
The Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq exemplified just how misguided, arrogant and ignorant our government leadership was about what the US could do in the region. The invasion of Iraq changed the Sunni-Shia balance of influence in the region. With the support of Iran, Shia influence has been gaining ground particularly in Iraq but elsewhere as well. This has created a significant counter in the Sunni community with ISIS at the extreme end. It’s why we’re seeing these weird “alliances” appear. The Iraq War completely destabilized the balance of influence in the region and now everyone is paying for it. Nothing is clear, nothing is certain. The only thing the US can do is to contain it and not make it worse.
18
Offshoring 'policing of the ME', instead of offshoring American jobs works for me. The hawks, who oppose tax increases to pay for their wars, need to realize the rest of us are not willing to pay the price of making them feel like 'real man', adding more trillions to their wealth while creating more terror for us, or helping their favorite foreign country.
18
Ever since Bush II led us foolishly into Iraq, it has become increasingly clear that foreign policy is a reflection of domestic politics. We had no real interest in invading Iraq, a country that didn't have the purported WMD, kept Iran in check, and hadn't attacked us. But, in addition to the ideological paradigms it served, Iraq War II also serviced some political needs, such as the Republican need to cast Democrats and liberals as "unpatriotic" and limp. The invasion of Iraq was a weapon ion the culture wars. And now, with neo-conservatism again resurgent, Republican warlike drum-beating seems motivated more by domestic political needs than by actual national interests. Ross Douthat rightly grasps this and thus appreciates certain moderately beneficial aspects of Obama's foreign policy. The fact is, none of these fights--Sunni vs. Shia, secular vs. religious, Arab vs. Persian--is our fight. It's probably good for us that Iran is fighting Isis, while the Saudis are now fighting Iran. We should get out while the getting is good.
23
After WWII the US kept 200,000 troops in both Germany and Japan for nearly half a century. In the 21st century, it should not have been a strain to maintain one-third that many to keep Iraq and Afghanistan stable for what? a couple of decades? Iraq is strategically the most important nation in the Middle East because of it is in the geographical center. It was also a relatively modern progressive nation, which was about the only thing Saddam bequeathed it. We should have owned up to our responsibility and maintained the occupation, using persuasion and force to try and help them build an exemplary society in which all the sects tolerated one another. That's how the nations of the world will have to maintain themselves in the future and there would have been no better place than Iraq to make it happen.
What we see now is a foreign policy devised by an historically illiterate, liberal ideologue who is essentially an anti-war Democrat at heart. It's not working.
The idea that we should be compromising with the nation most responsible for international terrorism in the past four decades is dubious at best. And to allow them to achieve nuclear superiority is not merely the height of folly but could be catastrophic for life in the Middle East in the long run as all nations there who are alarmed by a nuclear-armed Iran seek their own nuclear weapons for self-defense.
What we see now is a foreign policy devised by an historically illiterate, liberal ideologue who is essentially an anti-war Democrat at heart. It's not working.
The idea that we should be compromising with the nation most responsible for international terrorism in the past four decades is dubious at best. And to allow them to achieve nuclear superiority is not merely the height of folly but could be catastrophic for life in the Middle East in the long run as all nations there who are alarmed by a nuclear-armed Iran seek their own nuclear weapons for self-defense.
20
Pax Americana and 'offshore balancing" are not contrary. Offshore balancing is a method of retaining and expanding the Pax Americana. Ross should understand this, but he sets these ideas up in contrast instead. In doing so, Ross also misses the Metternichian master plan vis-a-vis China and Russia of the Iranian detente. A move so bold in American foreign policy, it rivals Nixon to China.
Obama will have to fight Israeli, Saudi and Arab GCC lobbies to achieve detente with the Persians. We all are witnessing this fight now. If Obama gets the deal with Iran and the detente begins, it will be a watershed event and perhaps the most significant and beneficial foreign policy realignment in Obama's presidency.
In the meanwhile, Obama has to support the Saudis in Yemen, even though he supports the Shia and Iranians in Iraq because he needs to maintain already-established Saudi spheres of influence because the Saudis and the Sunnis are losing so much along the periphery. Obama doesn't want to rattle the Arabs and Israelis too much with too many Persian successes at once.
But, there is no doubt that Iran's much more democratic and more middle class system of government (relative to the oil monarchs) is more successful and more sustainable. Their market and economy is much more varied and rich than the oil kingdoms. Bottom line is winners are emerging and having good relationships with winners is in our national interests.
Obama will have to fight Israeli, Saudi and Arab GCC lobbies to achieve detente with the Persians. We all are witnessing this fight now. If Obama gets the deal with Iran and the detente begins, it will be a watershed event and perhaps the most significant and beneficial foreign policy realignment in Obama's presidency.
In the meanwhile, Obama has to support the Saudis in Yemen, even though he supports the Shia and Iranians in Iraq because he needs to maintain already-established Saudi spheres of influence because the Saudis and the Sunnis are losing so much along the periphery. Obama doesn't want to rattle the Arabs and Israelis too much with too many Persian successes at once.
But, there is no doubt that Iran's much more democratic and more middle class system of government (relative to the oil monarchs) is more successful and more sustainable. Their market and economy is much more varied and rich than the oil kingdoms. Bottom line is winners are emerging and having good relationships with winners is in our national interests.
25
Nice try Mr. Douthat, but you will never convince liberal NYT's readers of the obvious: that how ever more circumspect is the current president's approach to Mid-East affairs as opposed to his predecessor, that it is an approach that comes is with its own set of fallibilities, for which the current president is responsible.
5
It will take 1 or 2 terms to straighten out the mess that Obama is leaving.
9
Ross Douthat (NYT March 29) gives a good analysis of what the U.S. is doing in the Middle East. What we do not debate or even discuss is the basic assumption that the U.S. must be the dominant power in this area. But why should we dominate an area so far from our borders? It is well known that the reason is the oil companies’ desire to make big profits there. How would we feel if Syrian or Iranian companies got big profits from the wheat and corn farms in the Midwest?
7
Let's pick a year, say 2006, approximately 20-40 Americans a week were coming home in body bags, and another 200-400 were coming home with major wounds/limb loss. Meanwhile, with the enthusiastic backing of the neo-cons and the Bush administration, Israel embarked on its disastrous war against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War. Meanwhile, across the world dissident groups some Muslim, some merely nationalist, committed hundreds of terrorists incidents around the world. The difference between now and then is with a right wing Government in power, the right wing and MSM media were not particularly interested in creating an atmosphere of hysteria to undermine that Government politically. And as Douthat stated, there was no political will for keeping 150,000 American soldiers in permanent combat operations in a 3-way struggle between the U.S. Imperial Power, the Sunni Militants, and the Shia Militants, which is the neo-conservative default position (and even the neo-cons, nor their patrons like Sheldon Adelson, want to pay a tax increase to pay for this permanent war. Instead, let's cut education, social security, medicare, SNAP, infrastructure spending, along with Sheldon's taxex, to pay for infinite war.
8
Ross: Shall we dust off Paul Wolfowitz and have another go?
5
This analysis would be greatly enhanced if we had a truly on"Onshore" approach to our domestic issues. After 60 years of enabling sprawling development it has become apparent we can't afford to repair and replace our century old infrastructure. The tens of thousands of smart hard working engineers and technicians supported by the Defense Budget could be creating energy independent, smart grid economies right here. Our best defense would be a strong domestic offense. We could thrive without Saudi oil. We do need lots of Canadian pipelines, they could carry water. We might not be demonized abroad if we were more successful being ourselves at home.
9
as many others have already stated and restated:
the eurocentric description of the region known as the "middle-east" is a deep, long-lasting quagmire...
it seems to me that two of the largest mis-calculations of the Cheney group are in the basics:
over 300 million people live in this region, when Turkey and Egypt are included...
and, like other regions where such large groups of humans are congregated, many tribes and beliefs are spoken-lived here, too few of which do so with "peace" as an underlying tenet...
no previous attempts at "conquering" these peoples has lasted for long---beginning with and before Alexander down to today...
just how much hubris is needed to overcome this kind of blank-headedness?
certainly no single world-policy, beginning even-before Colonel T.E. Lawrence, is going to extinguish this inferno...
mix in that 19th Century commodity, o-i-l, and we are facing a nearly impossible situation...no matter what the policy is called.
the eurocentric description of the region known as the "middle-east" is a deep, long-lasting quagmire...
it seems to me that two of the largest mis-calculations of the Cheney group are in the basics:
over 300 million people live in this region, when Turkey and Egypt are included...
and, like other regions where such large groups of humans are congregated, many tribes and beliefs are spoken-lived here, too few of which do so with "peace" as an underlying tenet...
no previous attempts at "conquering" these peoples has lasted for long---beginning with and before Alexander down to today...
just how much hubris is needed to overcome this kind of blank-headedness?
certainly no single world-policy, beginning even-before Colonel T.E. Lawrence, is going to extinguish this inferno...
mix in that 19th Century commodity, o-i-l, and we are facing a nearly impossible situation...no matter what the policy is called.
3
So, once again a criticism without any solution suggestions whatsoever. If there is no deal with Iran the Russians and the Chinese are most likely to oppose further sanctions, since both want something out of all this--Russia more influence in the region, China, oil. So no deal is much worse than some deal. We have for far too long invested gargantuan amounts of money and the blood and lives of our soldiers there, with little or no success--most especially in the last 14 years, so it is past time we found another way, and think outside the military box. If a deal with Iran begins that other way, then let's do it as soon as possible! Otherwise its the same old never ending war on terrorism that is accomplishing virtually nothing for us or the rest of the world.
Rodney Noel Saunders
United Methodist Pastor, Retired
Florissant, CO (no longer in Albuquerque, but no idea how to get that changed)
Rodney Noel Saunders
United Methodist Pastor, Retired
Florissant, CO (no longer in Albuquerque, but no idea how to get that changed)
6
U.S. foreign policy which has forever been based on blunders, irrelevant moral sanctimony, a failure to perceive our actual national interests, and political posturing is and consistently has been bad foreign policy. Our national survival has been based on our immense economic and military power; the supposed brilliance on the part of those who have administered our foreign affairs has repeatedly led to disaster.
Simplistic terms are Invented in an effort to show an intelligent approach to foreign policy. In reality, this only obscures the problem.
Simplistic terms are Invented in an effort to show an intelligent approach to foreign policy. In reality, this only obscures the problem.
1
Obama does not have a strategy.
Do not criticize him.
Criticize the people and the media that supported him.
Do not criticize him.
Criticize the people and the media that supported him.
9
The Bush-Cheney decision to use 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq created a mess of rubble out of America's Middle Eastern relations. Their moronic war handed much of Iraq to Iran. Islamic State, which wouldn't exist if not for the Bush-Cheney disaster, controls another section. The Kurdish region had already achieved semi-independence under Bush the First. Now Mr. Douthat wonders why President Obama encounters difficulties trying to clean up after the worst foreign-policy decision in U.S. history, a disaster the columnist refuses to scrutinize or acknowledge.
11
In effect Ross has no critique of Obama. The fact is that regional powers are coalescing, fitfully, to confront ISIS and checks are emerging to counter the hegemony of one single power like Iran. Saudi Arabia has risen as a counter to Iran. It is possible that ISIS is going to be thwarted without the US breaking and owning the situation leading to another monumental disaster. We're better off with this policy than a re-run of Bush, without whom we'd have been in a much better position now.
7
I think Obama is doing all his best, given the very complicated situation existing in the Middle East. The fact that Usa is supporting the coalition fighting the shiites in Yemen - which instead are supported by Iran - shows the objectivity of his foreign policy and shows to the Republican party and the Israeli leader Netyanahu that he doesn't want to accept any agreement with Iran unless it's founded on real guarantees about the inoffensive use of its nuclear sites.
4
American culture favors simplistic narratives. Complexity and detail is not something Americans excel at. Pax Americana fits the American image of itself; an image built at a time when its enemies did not have the scale of natural resources or industrial might we had. If that is no longer true, the game becomes Machiavellian and requires nuance. Our experience in Iraq/Afghanistan suggests that Americans do not possess such nuance because it thinks such traits show weakness or confusion. You can see it in the rhetoric on the right that constantly trying to pull us into another expensive war.
24
Since the Shah of Iran was ousted by Shite clerics, the Shites have been vying for power with the Sunni majority in the Middle east (in a hot and cold war). Saddam Hussien's Iraq/Iran war has continued in other forms until now it is spreading across the region. The Sunni countries acting in Yemen without much US assistance and the regional actions against Issis, seem to me to be positive developments - in that the US is not fighting proxy battles for its Sunni allies. This is not a problem that our military is organized to solve. Regional action and statements from the Islamic majority that Issis does not speak for them or seek a vision of the world that they endorse, seems to me to be necessary to finding a lasting solution. Pax Americana has not worked.
6
What is most frustrating is that there was a solution many decades ago called the United Arab Republic which we destroyed because our economic elite could not deal with a post-Modern Nation. Since the end of the UAR we in Canada have adopted a similar post modern nation structure and watched as our southern neighbour roils in the grips of 21st century reality.
It seems ominous that while democrats bury their heads in the sand the GOP is becoming ever more factionalized in the struggles between the loose connections of post modern nations like Canada and the European Union and the United States continues to fight its 19th century civil war.
The imposition of European Nation States in the Arab world was a mistake is a mistake and until there is a recognition of the long history of tribalism and the setting up of nations that might be loosely based on the model of Canada's Northwest Territories which recognizes numerous autonomous regions we will suffer the consequences. Metternich is a great example as we avoid the debate between modern Nation States and the post modern State of shifting economic and social needs.
It seems ominous that while democrats bury their heads in the sand the GOP is becoming ever more factionalized in the struggles between the loose connections of post modern nations like Canada and the European Union and the United States continues to fight its 19th century civil war.
The imposition of European Nation States in the Arab world was a mistake is a mistake and until there is a recognition of the long history of tribalism and the setting up of nations that might be loosely based on the model of Canada's Northwest Territories which recognizes numerous autonomous regions we will suffer the consequences. Metternich is a great example as we avoid the debate between modern Nation States and the post modern State of shifting economic and social needs.
2
To Max, NY
Obama's 2009 Cairo speech was a catalyst for the Arab Spring but sadly it turned out to be more empty rhetoric than concrete action. While strongly backing regime change in Syria and Libya, Obama and HRC turned a blind eye to harsh repression in client states (Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan) and supported a military coup when the "wrong" side won elections in Egypt. Strong condemnation and cutting off of aid to Egypt's generals would have been appropriate and sent a strong signal of a "new beginning."
As to Libya: do you really believe that the US played no military role in overthrowing the Gaddafi regime and the subsequent chaos? As with Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, Libya is now a fragmented state with no unifying national authority and thus a breeding ground for extremism- with spillover into sub-Saharan Africa. The current US administration shoulders considerable blame for those monumental policy failures.
Obama's 2009 Cairo speech was a catalyst for the Arab Spring but sadly it turned out to be more empty rhetoric than concrete action. While strongly backing regime change in Syria and Libya, Obama and HRC turned a blind eye to harsh repression in client states (Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan) and supported a military coup when the "wrong" side won elections in Egypt. Strong condemnation and cutting off of aid to Egypt's generals would have been appropriate and sent a strong signal of a "new beginning."
As to Libya: do you really believe that the US played no military role in overthrowing the Gaddafi regime and the subsequent chaos? As with Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, Libya is now a fragmented state with no unifying national authority and thus a breeding ground for extremism- with spillover into sub-Saharan Africa. The current US administration shoulders considerable blame for those monumental policy failures.
2
If we want to change the MidEast--and the world--let's spend 90% of our time and treasure on making America a heaven on earth: a place of freedom, health, happiness and prosperity for ALL our citizens. And while we're doing that, let's grant 3-month visas to the brightest young of all these battling nations. Let them see how it's done, then send them back home to do it--or to live with the choices of their own leaders, political and "religious."
7
The hardliners are all ready to go to war and they are willing to send our children and grandchildren to fight those wars.
4
I don't think you can have an honest discussion of our Middle East policies without copping to the real genesis of the problem, which is decades of imperialistic interventions to secure not just swathes of property, but what lies beneath, oil. So, while it is valid to discuss security issues in lieu of the escalation of violence in a region already prone to the same, to ignore the fact that our appetite for oil continues and affects all of our other machinations in the region is disingenuous.
In other words, it's not just the conflicts between the factions in the region or even our own or Europe's security that, as Douthat wrote "inexorably, inevitably" pulls back in. It's the riches. Given that the major energy entities are multinational corporations dealing with a world market, even increased domestic production is unlikely to change that dynamic. Obviously, it would equally silly to dismiss the other significant factors that influence the region and our relationship to it and the players vying for power, but to honestly assess differences in the way that various administrations approach the ME, it's well worth noting their attitudes about natural energy resources.
In other words, it's not just the conflicts between the factions in the region or even our own or Europe's security that, as Douthat wrote "inexorably, inevitably" pulls back in. It's the riches. Given that the major energy entities are multinational corporations dealing with a world market, even increased domestic production is unlikely to change that dynamic. Obviously, it would equally silly to dismiss the other significant factors that influence the region and our relationship to it and the players vying for power, but to honestly assess differences in the way that various administrations approach the ME, it's well worth noting their attitudes about natural energy resources.
2
While President Obama is occupied with the multi-disasters left him by the preceding administration, the Republicans in OUR OWN COUNTRY are instituting their own versions of religious wars against OUR OWN PEOPLE!
To usher in a new Age of Reason, we need to remove fundamentalist religion from our political discourse. Only then can we turn our attention to the problems of other countries, and only to save the innocent.
To usher in a new Age of Reason, we need to remove fundamentalist religion from our political discourse. Only then can we turn our attention to the problems of other countries, and only to save the innocent.
5
The Obama government's lightweight understanding of global politics is leading to transformational outcomes that will be catastrophic. His opponents from all political groups and the American public have to rise up and protest his attempts to re-shape the balance of power in the Middle East.
Obama has to be impeached; that is not a radical statement but an opportunity for the U.S. to start the process of rebuilding its military and economy. He is the most dangerous President in modern history. Our passivity and lack of vision, conviction and clarity is accelerating our national decline. We are blind to the gathering storm clouds.
Obama has to be impeached; that is not a radical statement but an opportunity for the U.S. to start the process of rebuilding its military and economy. He is the most dangerous President in modern history. Our passivity and lack of vision, conviction and clarity is accelerating our national decline. We are blind to the gathering storm clouds.
2
Mr. Douthat's Pax Americana is the modern day's benign version of American economic colonialism. Twentieth century London learned early that it could not afford the military and social costs of its economic hegemony over its empire and began dismantling colonialism, although in the case of its crown jewels, India and Africa, not without a fight. President Obama entered office knowing full well that America had achieved the limits of its Pax Americana influence, which was quickly unraveling due to its inability to achieve peace in the middle east and President Gorge W. Bush's misadventures there.
President Obama was left having to re-invent foreign policy as nationalism, Islamic Fundamentalism and nascent democracy collide in the Middle East. Twenty-first America has entered uncharted territory: Pax Americana has morphed into Amities Pratiques.
President Obama was left having to re-invent foreign policy as nationalism, Islamic Fundamentalism and nascent democracy collide in the Middle East. Twenty-first America has entered uncharted territory: Pax Americana has morphed into Amities Pratiques.
1
This is a most interesting think piece from a conservative pundit. It has the virtue of recognising that the post-Cold War world we have lived in for a quarter century now is quite different from what went before. But it makes the mistake of presuming that in either case what makes all the difference is America's leadership.
By now it ought to be clear that America's ability to dictate outcomes in the Middle East is very limited indeed. After all, we have wanted a two-state Israeli-Palestinian peace for decades now to no avail. We would never have wished al-Qaeda on ourselves, but could not prevent it. In Iraq and Afghanistan, at the cost of trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, we have not got the outcome we sought.
So, what should be clear by now are two things : First, American leadership can only succeed when it works with the major players in the region to help them bring about change on their terms and at their pace. Second, if America does not remain true to its guiding principles of freedom and democracy, there will increasingly be millions more Middle Easterners who cannot understand a cynical U.S. policy that allies us with autocrats, dictators and repressors (like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel), while preaching the benefits of freedom for ourselves.
The U.S. needs a foreign policy in the Middle East that is based upon reality and is forward looking. We need to work with both Saudis, Iranians and Israelis together to bring that about
By now it ought to be clear that America's ability to dictate outcomes in the Middle East is very limited indeed. After all, we have wanted a two-state Israeli-Palestinian peace for decades now to no avail. We would never have wished al-Qaeda on ourselves, but could not prevent it. In Iraq and Afghanistan, at the cost of trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, we have not got the outcome we sought.
So, what should be clear by now are two things : First, American leadership can only succeed when it works with the major players in the region to help them bring about change on their terms and at their pace. Second, if America does not remain true to its guiding principles of freedom and democracy, there will increasingly be millions more Middle Easterners who cannot understand a cynical U.S. policy that allies us with autocrats, dictators and repressors (like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel), while preaching the benefits of freedom for ourselves.
The U.S. needs a foreign policy in the Middle East that is based upon reality and is forward looking. We need to work with both Saudis, Iranians and Israelis together to bring that about
4
This is one of the few times that I actually agree with Ross Douthat. Part of the problem we have is that, as Ross points out, the Pax Americana system has been our modus operandi since the end of World War II, and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Shifting to a more nuanced "offshore balancing approach" will take time and patience. And of course there will be missteps along the way. Patience, in particular, is something that we, as a society, lack. But a complex world demands a more complex and subtle approach than we have pursued in the past. President Obama should be commended for attempting to nudge US foreign policy in this direction despite the resistance from those who seem to think we can simply use overwhelming military power to impose our will or an unwilling world. The world was a lot simpler when the USSR and the USA were the two toughest kids on the block. But just because local disputes were tamped down in that environment doesn't mean they went away. Our foreign policy needs to recognize that and be tailored to the world in which we live, not the one in which we'd like to live or in which many of us, mistakenly, think we do live.
1
And yet, no Americans are dying. In fact, grim as this might be, it is entirely appropriate that in a time of such great regional upheaval, those doing both the fighting and the dying should be the inhabitants of that region. It is long past time for us to recognize that the webs of sectarian, ethnic and cultural dynamics at work there are simply beyond our come lately level of understanding. Nothing but hubris could lead us to conclude that what this proxy war between the Saudis and Iranians needs is a fresh infusion of American blood.
7
Ross Douthat: I think the President is right to avoid a principal role in any of the Middle East confrontations. I believe we need to withdraw our participation even further. The Administration understands this can not be part of any approach to democracy. These small wars are contests of religious law. These countries, including Israel, are technical theocracies. The United States has also developed an appropriate baggage of Christian religious law that has now begun to tie our hands in our internal and foreign policies. The impact of Christian religious law on our Constitution and existing laws has gained a major foothold and rulings by the Supreme Court this year will be devastating. I think your future columns should explore this issue in detail and soon. The framers were right to establish our independence from religious law and we have forgotten the lessons that were the basis for their statement in the Constitution.
13
At last a thoughtful and nuanced insight and overview of the complex stew of toxicity which is The Middle east!
I would add that a cyclonic collision of Sunni vs Shia is centering around Yemen and we may yet get all the players out from under their tents and into the open where a grand bargain can be achieved post a major trans Muslim conflict.
Think The Hundred Years War in Europe!
I would add that a cyclonic collision of Sunni vs Shia is centering around Yemen and we may yet get all the players out from under their tents and into the open where a grand bargain can be achieved post a major trans Muslim conflict.
Think The Hundred Years War in Europe!
4
Anyone who believes that America can control the Middle East needs to read Lawrence Wright's book "The Looming Tower. " History is informing.
3
Well, at least we didn't get the same old right-wing nonsense. And Obama didn't have to learn from Bush that regime change in Syria would be a mess, which is why we stayed out of that, mostly. The emergence of ISIS as a ethnic-cleanser means that, just like Gaddaffi's looming bloodbath in Benghazi, they have to be stopped no matter who it temporarily helps or what chaos follows. We'd all love to get ourselves clear of the Middle-East, but it is region that loves to export its problems, and it's 25 million barrels of oil still matter, particularly if they are controlled by terrorists. There is no good solution here, altho maybe an end to settlements in the West Bank would be a good starting place?
5
as many others have already stated and restated:
the eurocentric description of the region known as the "middle-east" is a deep, long-lasting quagmire...
it seems to me that two of the largest mis-calculations of the Cheney group are in the basics:
over 300 million people live in this region, when Turkey and Egypt are included...
and, like other regions where such large groups of humans are congregated, many tribes and beliefs are spoken-lived here, too few of which do so with "peace" as an underlying tenet...
no previous attempts at "conquering" these peoples has lasted for long---beginning with and before Alexander down to today...
just how much hubris is needed to overcome this kind of blank-headedness?
certainly no single world-policy, beginning even-before Colonel T.E. Lawrence, is going to extinguish this inferno...
mix in that 19th Century commodity, o-i-l, and we are facing a nearly impossible situation...no matter what the policy is called.
the eurocentric description of the region known as the "middle-east" is a deep, long-lasting quagmire...
it seems to me that two of the largest mis-calculations of the Cheney group are in the basics:
over 300 million people live in this region, when Turkey and Egypt are included...
and, like other regions where such large groups of humans are congregated, many tribes and beliefs are spoken-lived here, too few of which do so with "peace" as an underlying tenet...
no previous attempts at "conquering" these peoples has lasted for long---beginning with and before Alexander down to today...
just how much hubris is needed to overcome this kind of blank-headedness?
certainly no single world-policy, beginning even-before Colonel T.E. Lawrence, is going to extinguish this inferno...
mix in that 19th Century commodity, o-i-l, and we are facing a nearly impossible situation...no matter what the policy is called.
2
It appears that our President has deeply disappointed poor Ross Douthat by minimizing the sacrifice of American Blood. Please continue to undermine, castigate and confuse the most gullible. What you are really doing is demonstrating your sinister self. Just another republican, seeking war by any means available.
4
Ross, thank you for this insightful and clarifying column.
While I am a supporter of the Pax Americana system, I agree that it doesn't work in the Middle East. Those of us who were paying attention back then knew what the true motivation was behind the invasion of Iraq - it wasn't terrorism, and it wasn't oil - and we also knew it wouldn't work.
To put it in simple terms, in order for Pax Americana to work, the U.S. has to be perceived as the "good guys", and in the M.E., we are not. We can see that the strategy of "offshore balancing" is beginning to have an effect - e.g., regional powers have taken ownership of the ISIS problem, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia has begun a counterinsurgency operation in Yemen - and over time, the problems in the Middle East will be perceived as being more self-inflicted and less the result of meddling by external imperialists. The hope is we will then be perceived as part of the solution, instead of the problem.
While I am a supporter of the Pax Americana system, I agree that it doesn't work in the Middle East. Those of us who were paying attention back then knew what the true motivation was behind the invasion of Iraq - it wasn't terrorism, and it wasn't oil - and we also knew it wouldn't work.
To put it in simple terms, in order for Pax Americana to work, the U.S. has to be perceived as the "good guys", and in the M.E., we are not. We can see that the strategy of "offshore balancing" is beginning to have an effect - e.g., regional powers have taken ownership of the ISIS problem, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia has begun a counterinsurgency operation in Yemen - and over time, the problems in the Middle East will be perceived as being more self-inflicted and less the result of meddling by external imperialists. The hope is we will then be perceived as part of the solution, instead of the problem.
15
Iraq was a buffer state. It existed to keep all those tribal and sectarian antagonists apart. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Bush 43, having flunked 20th century world history, decided to blow it up because its boss was, gasp, an unruly and vicious thug. What did they think would happen? Note, this is not hindsight. Plenty of people understood this in 2002 and early 2003 .
It seems strange to describe Cheney as an idealist and Obama as an adherent of what was once called realpolitik, but that is the truth. The so- called "freedom agenda" backfires a lot, and the consequences last for decades.
It seems strange to describe Cheney as an idealist and Obama as an adherent of what was once called realpolitik, but that is the truth. The so- called "freedom agenda" backfires a lot, and the consequences last for decades.
3
At least you acknowledge who set the stage for the current mess "the Bush administration’s post-9/11 decision" or more accurately the neocon opportunity to carry out their agenda... The region is a mess, we cannot just walk away, and a coherent policy is problematic given the turmoil there. John McCain's quotable "Arm the Rebels," "the Surge worked" one-liners play well on Fox news but don't go far ion the real world. "Arming the Rebels" sounded good but would likely have been arming ISIS, given the difficulty of figuring out which rebels to arm. No easy solutions here. Congress needs to debate a War Authorization that defines what the American people are willing to sign up for, long term, and then get the hell out of the way and let the administration muddle through as well as possible. Do the least harm might be a good goal at this point.
2
In what other profession would you retain the services of an individual who was so totally wrong about the advice they had given you in the past that they caused a disaster that almost destroyed you?
A broker? Financial planner? A dentist who pulled the wrong tooth? A lawyer who ended up getting you taken to the cleaners in a messy divorce?
Then please explain to me why oh why do we ask the opinion of Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Peggy Noonan, John Bolton,John McCain, Lindsey Graham and countless other chicken hawks - each of whom have never come forward and stated publicly that they were wrong? But wait, "this time I have it right and we should go ahead and bomb Iran?
To see those smug, self-righteous faces paraded again and again on the Sunday political talk shows is an embarrassment to our nations media. To watch the interviewer lob softball questions, refuse to call them out on their canned talking points that have nothing to do with the question is an affront to every american looking for the truth of what our government does.
A broker? Financial planner? A dentist who pulled the wrong tooth? A lawyer who ended up getting you taken to the cleaners in a messy divorce?
Then please explain to me why oh why do we ask the opinion of Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Peggy Noonan, John Bolton,John McCain, Lindsey Graham and countless other chicken hawks - each of whom have never come forward and stated publicly that they were wrong? But wait, "this time I have it right and we should go ahead and bomb Iran?
To see those smug, self-righteous faces paraded again and again on the Sunday political talk shows is an embarrassment to our nations media. To watch the interviewer lob softball questions, refuse to call them out on their canned talking points that have nothing to do with the question is an affront to every american looking for the truth of what our government does.
8
This is not "Obama's mess." It was created by George W. Bush and Cheney, et al and the legacy of the Iraq War.
5
Apparently it's all about oil. So how about a North American oil cartel - Mexico, US and Canada. No more foreign oil, no more US wars in Mid-East. By the way, the Obama Admin did say, unfortunately, "we have no plan" when it came dealing with ISIS et al.
1
I think the real policy for Obama is less US influence, less Israel security, and more muslim influence.
Obama thinks Israel having weapons that Iran lacks is unfair.
He also thinks US influence is not for good, recall he went on an apology tour six years ago.
We should not engage in treaties with our foe Iran, but Obama and Kerry are hellbent on allowing Iran the same weapons Israel has.
We should not over intellectualize what Obama does.
Obama thinks Israel having weapons that Iran lacks is unfair.
He also thinks US influence is not for good, recall he went on an apology tour six years ago.
We should not engage in treaties with our foe Iran, but Obama and Kerry are hellbent on allowing Iran the same weapons Israel has.
We should not over intellectualize what Obama does.
4
"restraint still imposed by American military dominance"? What planet are you living on? And you almost got through as essay with a modicum of rationality but I guess you just couldn't restrain yourself and blew it in the end.
2
Why does this guy Douthat get to write a column, rather than the much better-informed and articulate people who've written comments on his column? His title expresses the whole thrust of what he writes: Let's fob this whole thing off on Obama. We could I suppose try calling it Obamawar, but can we be sure that folks have totally forgotten history? Might the term "Bushwhack" even pop up?
6
Excellent analysis, however it really applies to the past, not the present. I view the Obama administrations approach to the Middle East as one of pure containment. Let the problems between countries be worked out by those in the region (unless or until we are directly threatened) and force them to come to their own solutions.
The Arab coalition now formed to fight in Yemen is an example of that happening; something that would not have happened only ten years ago.
The less oil we need from the Middle East, the more detached we can become. Oil was the reason the Middle East was so important to us and as our own wells/shale make us more energy independent, the more distant we can become to their region's on-going and long time disputes.
Israel, and the problems that come with it, in the region is a totally different matter for us. We need to stand strong with Israel, but they need to stand strong with us. Netanyahu is not acting in a responsible way with his mixed messages on peace with his neighbors and double talk to American Jews about his longer term goals. And as one of those Jews, I am hopeful those forming the coalition that he needs to govern will help him realize that our interests in the region are not the same as they were less than a decade ago.
I believe the Obama Administration has been the most nimble and realistic Administration with respect to the Middle East since the brothers Dulles established the framework that created most of this mess 60 years ago.
The Arab coalition now formed to fight in Yemen is an example of that happening; something that would not have happened only ten years ago.
The less oil we need from the Middle East, the more detached we can become. Oil was the reason the Middle East was so important to us and as our own wells/shale make us more energy independent, the more distant we can become to their region's on-going and long time disputes.
Israel, and the problems that come with it, in the region is a totally different matter for us. We need to stand strong with Israel, but they need to stand strong with us. Netanyahu is not acting in a responsible way with his mixed messages on peace with his neighbors and double talk to American Jews about his longer term goals. And as one of those Jews, I am hopeful those forming the coalition that he needs to govern will help him realize that our interests in the region are not the same as they were less than a decade ago.
I believe the Obama Administration has been the most nimble and realistic Administration with respect to the Middle East since the brothers Dulles established the framework that created most of this mess 60 years ago.
51
Oh Mr. Douhat, do some reading and for a change do some thinking beyond your rote reactionary reaction.
This "mess" is a mess made by 1,350 years of Sunni/Shiite hatred -- yes Mr.
Douhat that is now long that has gone on -- since 682 in fact; it is a mess made by Monsieur Picot and Mr. Sykes, by post WWI British and French meddling and colonialism, by the discovery of oil in Arabia in the 1920s, by 350 years of Ottoman misrule in Arabia, by the CIA's overthrown of Mohammed Mossadeg in Iran in 1953 and its substitution of the murderous Shah, and lately George W. Bush and his cohorts with their invasion of the three eastern Ottoman provinces of (Kurdish) Mosul, (Sunni) Baghdad and (Shiite) Basra, around which Picto and Sykes they drew one line and then named everything inside it Iraq. Yous see, there is no Iraq,not really. It is a colonial invention.
If you don't know these things, Mr. Douhat, you should not write about the Middle East. Anyone else in the media who does not know these things and has not read about them extensively should not comment about the Middle East and all you do when you do is to sow more ignorance.
Members of the U.S. Senate, especially now ones who sign stupid letters to foreign leaders, do not know and have never read about these things, should just plain shut up until they have found out about them.
No, if this is a mess it is a mess made by history and it is a mess that will keep making history long after this president leaves the White House.
This "mess" is a mess made by 1,350 years of Sunni/Shiite hatred -- yes Mr.
Douhat that is now long that has gone on -- since 682 in fact; it is a mess made by Monsieur Picot and Mr. Sykes, by post WWI British and French meddling and colonialism, by the discovery of oil in Arabia in the 1920s, by 350 years of Ottoman misrule in Arabia, by the CIA's overthrown of Mohammed Mossadeg in Iran in 1953 and its substitution of the murderous Shah, and lately George W. Bush and his cohorts with their invasion of the three eastern Ottoman provinces of (Kurdish) Mosul, (Sunni) Baghdad and (Shiite) Basra, around which Picto and Sykes they drew one line and then named everything inside it Iraq. Yous see, there is no Iraq,not really. It is a colonial invention.
If you don't know these things, Mr. Douhat, you should not write about the Middle East. Anyone else in the media who does not know these things and has not read about them extensively should not comment about the Middle East and all you do when you do is to sow more ignorance.
Members of the U.S. Senate, especially now ones who sign stupid letters to foreign leaders, do not know and have never read about these things, should just plain shut up until they have found out about them.
No, if this is a mess it is a mess made by history and it is a mess that will keep making history long after this president leaves the White House.
5
This is absolutely no evidence of a plan or strategy from this administration on the ME or for foreign affairs.
3
Succinct and to the point. The Middle East has spiraled out of control and Obama has not been steering. As usual he points his finger at the previous administration, where oddly enough, it was under control.
4
Sure there is.
Create mess. Move to next country. Create more mess. Repeat. Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt - all a mess and all on Obama's watch.
Create mess. Move to next country. Create more mess. Repeat. Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt - all a mess and all on Obama's watch.
Thank you, Ross Douthat; your article spawned very thoughtful comments in reply. I was heartened to read them.
2
I love your double standard. You didn't even mention the word "war" in briefly mentioning the naive and childish foray into Iraq by neo conservatives you hold in such high regard. Say what you will: Obama is a janitor ckeaning up the mess of your heroes that cost lives of Americans and fortunes for the special intersts that sent them there
3
Douthat should have started his column by acknowledging that is man, George W. Bush, freed Iran from its two main enemies the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddem in Iraq. more than anything it has allowed Iran the freedom to act as it sees fit.
While Obama continues to explain or even discuss his policies terribly it looks like his main goal is the preservation of Middle Eastern nation states. In Iraq and Syria ISIS is the main threat. In Yeman Shiites are the main threat. Not unlike the Thirty Years War in which countries shifted sides as benefited them the United States seems to be supporting those who will leave a nation behind.
While Obama continues to explain or even discuss his policies terribly it looks like his main goal is the preservation of Middle Eastern nation states. In Iraq and Syria ISIS is the main threat. In Yeman Shiites are the main threat. Not unlike the Thirty Years War in which countries shifted sides as benefited them the United States seems to be supporting those who will leave a nation behind.
2
President Obama has had a very aggressive policy in the ME. We radically changed the balance of power in Libya and Syria with direct US intervention. We pulled out of Iraq and left enough weapons behind to empower ISIS and we empowered the uprising in Yemen with an aggressive US CIA campaign backed by drones. It's called murder Ross. We also backed a military Coup in Egypt.
We haven't "off shored" anything. We are using the CIA, military contractors, drones and former members of the US military who are now contracted with both US and foreign powers in the region to keep us in the "Counter-terrorism" game. If you happen to be live in the ME and aren't affiliated with a terrorist group you might consider the USA a terrorist organization based on our "light footprint"
It may be less filling but it has certainly left a deep footprint.
We haven't "off shored" anything. We are using the CIA, military contractors, drones and former members of the US military who are now contracted with both US and foreign powers in the region to keep us in the "Counter-terrorism" game. If you happen to be live in the ME and aren't affiliated with a terrorist group you might consider the USA a terrorist organization based on our "light footprint"
It may be less filling but it has certainly left a deep footprint.
"It took all the kings horses and all David Petraeus's men just to hold Ieaq togather". Iraq is beyond civil war Ross. And will remain this way for our life time and many more. President Obama is doing the right thing here and over time will alow us an exit where none was in the past.
5
President Bush had the possibility of an exit, President Obama had the possibility of an exit; neither of them chose to take it or put off the choice too long. All an exit takes is a spirited defense of a port city with a decent airfield, and a fighting withdrawal to said city.
Pax or Pox...how many hundreds of thousands of civilians need to die, how many millions will be displaced before neo's give up their faith that wannabe hegemony can be imposed with more shock & awe?
3
"Hence the Bush administration’s post-9/11 decision to try to start afresh, by transforming a rogue state into a regional model, a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old."
right. and there in lies the problem..... conservatives do not know how to govern here at home. their ideology prevents it. how did they think they could run a foreign country?
right. and there in lies the problem..... conservatives do not know how to govern here at home. their ideology prevents it. how did they think they could run a foreign country?
5
Your essay is dead on. It is a perfect explanation of the situation that exists in the Middle East and the situation the Obama foreign policy team finds itself. I think those who say that Obama is the cause of the turmoil and chaos in the ME by pulling out of Iraq are so wrong. They have forgotten or wish to deny that the intent of invading Iraq - per the neocons - was to democratize the ME and Iraq was the first domino. That is exactly what happened, but as you say, it didn't quite work out the way they said it would. However, I don't think that "something worse" will happen if we leave them to their own devices. Except for Israel, which being hot headed could react in paranoid fashion and be drawn into the Islamic conflict. That is the one and only country that actually worries me in this "off shore" foreign policy. I believe the Islamic nations do not want to risk nuclear or any other kind of annihilation. Not even ISIS.
1
Perhaps Mr. Douthat could take a minute to read Ms. Dowd's column?
Can the same topic - printed on the same day - have two more different interpretations of the same topic.
Ms. Dowd [no friend of Obama's] is a coherent replay of how we methodically got into this 'mess'. It was - as always - a Republican lead war.
Imagine [apologies Mr.Cruz] - a 3rd war with with Iraq - by a guy named Bush!
Can the same topic - printed on the same day - have two more different interpretations of the same topic.
Ms. Dowd [no friend of Obama's] is a coherent replay of how we methodically got into this 'mess'. It was - as always - a Republican lead war.
Imagine [apologies Mr.Cruz] - a 3rd war with with Iraq - by a guy named Bush!
7
"The Method to Obama's Middle East Mess" is a misnomer.
We would not be there today if Bush had not lied about WMD, and invaded Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and opposed Al Qaida.
It should read "The Method to Bush's Middle East Mess For Obama."
We would not be there today if Bush had not lied about WMD, and invaded Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and opposed Al Qaida.
It should read "The Method to Bush's Middle East Mess For Obama."
56
Absolutely right. The late David Halberstam was right when he warned, in reference to Iraq, that the Bush administration was about to punch its fist into a hornets' nest by invading. He meant that balances of power in the region would shift, sectarian tensions would boil over,and animosity toward America would only increase. And so it came to pass.
The architects of this fiasco are now enjoying retirement. With the exception of GW Bush, their main preoccupation seems to involve criticizing President Obama for not managing, as they see it, the disaster they unleashed.
The architects of this fiasco are now enjoying retirement. With the exception of GW Bush, their main preoccupation seems to involve criticizing President Obama for not managing, as they see it, the disaster they unleashed.
7
Its hilarious how you neocons make things up and give catchy names to them. Let's get things straight your boy Bush destabilized this region that's been hanging in some kind of balance for 2,000 years. And you are also suggesting that we would all be better if it were all ruled by autocrats like the guy you toppled in Iraq in a vast prison state which is equally ridiculous.
9
"If you invade Iraq, you'll create 10,000 Al Qaida's" -Mubarak
Douthat and the clown car of dunces known as the Neocons don't understand the raw dynamics of power at the most remedial level.
Moral Authority/Perceived legitimacy (MA/PL) can take a long time to accrue and to wield but it is inexpensive to wield so it is sustainable. The more MA/PL you have the more potential Coercive authority you have.
Coercive authority is expedient but is and always has been prohibitively expensive. Moreover, the more CA you use, the less CA you have. Also the more CA you use the less MA/PL you have, The less MA/PL you have the harder to replenish your CA. Coercive Authority IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. Wise princes therefore conserve their use of CA and constantly work to enhance their MA/PL. North Korea relies on CA exclusively and that's why it is impoverished.
For hundreds of years the British took a "maintain balance of power" position towards Europe. That means they joined the under dog's side. In the 7 years war they were the only ally to Prussia's Frederick the Great when he was simultaneously attacked by Russia, Austria and France.
More recently what Douthat calls "offshore balancing" but is better termed as the "Clinton Doctrine" was applied to a terrible mess in the Balkans and it has produced a lasting peace there where there had been genocide and ethnic cleansing. & it did it on the cheap.
Clearly Douthat doesn't know what he's talking about.
Finally the more MA/PL you have )
Douthat and the clown car of dunces known as the Neocons don't understand the raw dynamics of power at the most remedial level.
Moral Authority/Perceived legitimacy (MA/PL) can take a long time to accrue and to wield but it is inexpensive to wield so it is sustainable. The more MA/PL you have the more potential Coercive authority you have.
Coercive authority is expedient but is and always has been prohibitively expensive. Moreover, the more CA you use, the less CA you have. Also the more CA you use the less MA/PL you have, The less MA/PL you have the harder to replenish your CA. Coercive Authority IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. Wise princes therefore conserve their use of CA and constantly work to enhance their MA/PL. North Korea relies on CA exclusively and that's why it is impoverished.
For hundreds of years the British took a "maintain balance of power" position towards Europe. That means they joined the under dog's side. In the 7 years war they were the only ally to Prussia's Frederick the Great when he was simultaneously attacked by Russia, Austria and France.
More recently what Douthat calls "offshore balancing" but is better termed as the "Clinton Doctrine" was applied to a terrible mess in the Balkans and it has produced a lasting peace there where there had been genocide and ethnic cleansing. & it did it on the cheap.
Clearly Douthat doesn't know what he's talking about.
Finally the more MA/PL you have )
14
The first gulf war was ended with a "balancing system" solution: Bathist Iraq checked Islamic republican Iran.
It's been 35 years since Iran behaved truly badly on the international stage. The Neocons say they are pariahs, yes they've called for ending Israel - but not by war, by plebiscite vote there to create a pluralistic entity in the Israel/Palestine Condominium, not by bombing it as the Neocons would imply. Shia's don't have terror cells in the west. Meanwhile our good buddies in Saudi Arabian and the like are funding fundamentalist madrasas that are polutiing minds that swarm into Al Qaida and Isis type organizations. If Nixon could play the China card to leverage better conscessions from the Russians, than we should be able to play the Iran card to get Saudi's to stop backing global Sunni fundamentalist causes that contribute to Jihadism.
Meanwhile we can bomb Iran's enemies in the North and Saudi's enemies in order to establish municpal balances of power.
The balance of power approach does work. Its theory is based upon the fundamentally sound mechanism laid out in game theory's Prisoner's dilemma as articulated by Robert Axelrod in "The Evolution of Cooperation." Once parties know that they will never be able to vanquish the other parties (as balancing system implies) and that punching them brings a return punch (tit-for-tat) the ingredients exist for raw, long term cooperation, which is exactly what happened in the Balkans in the 90s.
Neocons=incompetant
It's been 35 years since Iran behaved truly badly on the international stage. The Neocons say they are pariahs, yes they've called for ending Israel - but not by war, by plebiscite vote there to create a pluralistic entity in the Israel/Palestine Condominium, not by bombing it as the Neocons would imply. Shia's don't have terror cells in the west. Meanwhile our good buddies in Saudi Arabian and the like are funding fundamentalist madrasas that are polutiing minds that swarm into Al Qaida and Isis type organizations. If Nixon could play the China card to leverage better conscessions from the Russians, than we should be able to play the Iran card to get Saudi's to stop backing global Sunni fundamentalist causes that contribute to Jihadism.
Meanwhile we can bomb Iran's enemies in the North and Saudi's enemies in order to establish municpal balances of power.
The balance of power approach does work. Its theory is based upon the fundamentally sound mechanism laid out in game theory's Prisoner's dilemma as articulated by Robert Axelrod in "The Evolution of Cooperation." Once parties know that they will never be able to vanquish the other parties (as balancing system implies) and that punching them brings a return punch (tit-for-tat) the ingredients exist for raw, long term cooperation, which is exactly what happened in the Balkans in the 90s.
Neocons=incompetant
4
Finally the "balancing systems" employed by Bush Sr. at the end of the 1st Gulf war - and the one used to resolve the Balkan cost very little American money, lives, treasure, - some say we made a profit on the 1st Gulf war, and at the end of both of those situations America's prosperity and International Moral Authority were at all time heights, not just for America, not just for the 20th century, but for all of history, everywhere.
The reckless use of coercive force by the Neocon Bush administration help plunge the nation and the world into an economic implossion, and America's moral authority went from all time high to all time low. Our Moral Authority was so low as a result of Bush's invasion of Iraq that Obama couldn't rouse a coalition to go after Assad's Chemical weapons. Not internationally or even from the American people.
The reckless use of coercive force by the Neocon Bush administration help plunge the nation and the world into an economic implossion, and America's moral authority went from all time high to all time low. Our Moral Authority was so low as a result of Bush's invasion of Iraq that Obama couldn't rouse a coalition to go after Assad's Chemical weapons. Not internationally or even from the American people.
3
Al-Qaeda & ISIS are strains of Sunni terrorism that when not attacking the West occupies itself attacking Shias; if it is the enemy, then Shia Islam in general, and the Houthis in Yemen, Baathist Syria and Iran are natural allies of the US.
But none of the Muslim states in West Asia are known for being liberal democracies, respecting human rights in general and the freedom of religion in particular, and so in this sense, none of them are natural US allies, save, perhaps Turkey. On the human rights front, Syria and Iran are "enemies" -- though the US has been willing to look the other way in lots of other cases.
The Muslim world is in general anti-Israel, and in particular Iran is so; and Israel is a key US ally. Perhaps the hostility towards Israel can be put to bed with the peaceful emergence of a Palestinian state, but this is beyond US' power; certainly domestic politics in the US will not allow any serious effort on this front.
Peace in West Asia requires the US to make a number of unpleasant choices; and it should choose consistently. It has to choose between stability and human rights, recognizing that human rights are not existent during a conflict.
One set of choices: Settle the conflict in Syria without preconditions. Lead a general West Asian alliance to victory over ISIS and al-Qaeda. Eschew regime change in Iran, and come to terms with Iran. Push a viable path for Israel-Palestine.
But none of the Muslim states in West Asia are known for being liberal democracies, respecting human rights in general and the freedom of religion in particular, and so in this sense, none of them are natural US allies, save, perhaps Turkey. On the human rights front, Syria and Iran are "enemies" -- though the US has been willing to look the other way in lots of other cases.
The Muslim world is in general anti-Israel, and in particular Iran is so; and Israel is a key US ally. Perhaps the hostility towards Israel can be put to bed with the peaceful emergence of a Palestinian state, but this is beyond US' power; certainly domestic politics in the US will not allow any serious effort on this front.
Peace in West Asia requires the US to make a number of unpleasant choices; and it should choose consistently. It has to choose between stability and human rights, recognizing that human rights are not existent during a conflict.
One set of choices: Settle the conflict in Syria without preconditions. Lead a general West Asian alliance to victory over ISIS and al-Qaeda. Eschew regime change in Iran, and come to terms with Iran. Push a viable path for Israel-Palestine.
2
I don't have a Middle East peace plan, I'm not Solomon, but wisdom there begins by realizing that our interests are not Israel's interests. George Bush said that they hate our freedoms, true, but they also hate us because we have totally backed Israel, especially Congress. I wish they didn't hate Israel, but the fact is most do. For that reason alone, more knowledgable presidents, like George Bush the elder, the policy guy, were reluctant to bring the flaming sword of democracy to the Middle East, but the younger, the political guy, was pulled in.
Politico said approvingly that the affluent, highly educated Indian population could become a pressure group similar to Israel's, and if China's did too we may make further discoveries about some of hate in the world, which our pro-globalist media covers up by calling them all Asians.
We need to reexamine the potential bad effects of foreign influence on U.S. policy in the age of globalism.
I give Obama credit for trying what few today dare.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/friends-israel
'In 1984, AIPAC affiliates decided that Senator Charles Percy, an Illinois Republican, was unfriendly to Israel. In the next election, Paul Simon, a liberal Democrat, won Percy’s seat. [AIPAC head Tom] Dine said at the time, “Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And American politicians—those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire—got the message.”'
Politico said approvingly that the affluent, highly educated Indian population could become a pressure group similar to Israel's, and if China's did too we may make further discoveries about some of hate in the world, which our pro-globalist media covers up by calling them all Asians.
We need to reexamine the potential bad effects of foreign influence on U.S. policy in the age of globalism.
I give Obama credit for trying what few today dare.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/friends-israel
'In 1984, AIPAC affiliates decided that Senator Charles Percy, an Illinois Republican, was unfriendly to Israel. In the next election, Paul Simon, a liberal Democrat, won Percy’s seat. [AIPAC head Tom] Dine said at the time, “Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And American politicians—those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire—got the message.”'
4
What was the effect of Obama's hands off policy? Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other affected nations have started to take responsibility for their own region. I say it was a smart move, keeps us out of "their" problem. Although we can ask Pres GW Bush and crew who lit the fuse?
9
With so much praise heaped upon the decision to oust Saddam Hussein, most notably by former vice president, Richard Cheney, another misguided, major architect of the war in Iraq, history must be revisited yet again to bring some sense to this conversation.
Pernicious American interference in Iran and the Middle East is a model of incompetence. As Osama Bin Laden was being pursued into the mountains of Tora Bora after 9/11, Cheney & Company abandoned that chase to remove Iraq's dictator, all the flimsiest of "evidence" of Weapons of Mass Destruction." That invasion rapidly descended into murderous chaos costing American lives and treasure (into the trillions of dollars).
As for the conservative cry that President Obama has been "leading from behind," let me say that it was the bone-headed neocons, including Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the White House team, who set up the United States in the position we are in today.
Starting with The Arab Spring, launched by a news stand clerk who, in protest, set himself ablaze in the streets of Tunis. The revolts resulting from that singular protest were not of our making. From Northern Africa through the Middle East, dictators were, unfortunately, the only forces who could contain tribal and cultural hatreds spanning more than 1,000 years.
Our president is not responsible for spontaneous, faith-based wars in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia. Unpredictable violence is a result of regional religious intolerance.
Pernicious American interference in Iran and the Middle East is a model of incompetence. As Osama Bin Laden was being pursued into the mountains of Tora Bora after 9/11, Cheney & Company abandoned that chase to remove Iraq's dictator, all the flimsiest of "evidence" of Weapons of Mass Destruction." That invasion rapidly descended into murderous chaos costing American lives and treasure (into the trillions of dollars).
As for the conservative cry that President Obama has been "leading from behind," let me say that it was the bone-headed neocons, including Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the White House team, who set up the United States in the position we are in today.
Starting with The Arab Spring, launched by a news stand clerk who, in protest, set himself ablaze in the streets of Tunis. The revolts resulting from that singular protest were not of our making. From Northern Africa through the Middle East, dictators were, unfortunately, the only forces who could contain tribal and cultural hatreds spanning more than 1,000 years.
Our president is not responsible for spontaneous, faith-based wars in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia. Unpredictable violence is a result of regional religious intolerance.
13
The mistake in policy seems to be the idea if an 'old' war wasn't good enough, like against Iraq (March, 2003), then why not start a new war somewhere. This seems to be what the U.S. did, to Libya, then to Syria.
Just because it would fulfill some campaign 'promise', troops were pulled out of Iraq too soon. The 'Pottery Barn' theory said not to.
Then the war in Libya was backed by France, to lesser extent by Italy, and championed by then Sec'y of State H. Clinton.
While in the Senate and voted for the October Resolution (2002) in Congress for starting war in Iraq, without Iraq done uncalled-for aggressions at that time. That war was based on direct lies, willfully and unabashedly told, by people duly elected to high office and having sworn to some degree of statesmanship!
And the wrong advice was listened to.
Then the war in Syria followed, after the war against Iraq, then against Libya, that had turned out to be 'bad wars'. This was to be the new good war to topple yet another 'bad' dictator. It had the advantage the U.S. didn't have to pay much for it, in terms of cost of the military, cost in American lives. And it could be blamed, so conveniently, on Pres.Assad, even though Syria should have been helped instead, to fight off the kind of terrorism now propagating across the globe, the 'Islamic State'. But Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel ... didn't care.
So again a 'good war' easily sold for political points, so soon turning into a tragedy for yet another nation.
Just because it would fulfill some campaign 'promise', troops were pulled out of Iraq too soon. The 'Pottery Barn' theory said not to.
Then the war in Libya was backed by France, to lesser extent by Italy, and championed by then Sec'y of State H. Clinton.
While in the Senate and voted for the October Resolution (2002) in Congress for starting war in Iraq, without Iraq done uncalled-for aggressions at that time. That war was based on direct lies, willfully and unabashedly told, by people duly elected to high office and having sworn to some degree of statesmanship!
And the wrong advice was listened to.
Then the war in Syria followed, after the war against Iraq, then against Libya, that had turned out to be 'bad wars'. This was to be the new good war to topple yet another 'bad' dictator. It had the advantage the U.S. didn't have to pay much for it, in terms of cost of the military, cost in American lives. And it could be blamed, so conveniently, on Pres.Assad, even though Syria should have been helped instead, to fight off the kind of terrorism now propagating across the globe, the 'Islamic State'. But Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel ... didn't care.
So again a 'good war' easily sold for political points, so soon turning into a tragedy for yet another nation.
1
Gee, Pax Americana was so successful. Lets see, Korea , oh we're still there with a dangerous opponent stronger then ever, Viet Nam, Communists country although friendly now, Iraq, well trillions later and many deaths its a bigger mess., Afghanistan, oops, its the same or worse. Lybia, a real disaster. So, it does not seem to work but actually increases the problems.
Iran, ? We assinated their President and installed our pupet the Shah, killed the Ayotolahs son and imprisoned thousands with CIA advise. Took their oil. Wonder why they don't trust us?
No, the Pax plan was and is a disaster. Military does not work. It throws fuel on a 1000 year old war of Religious crazies. These folks are not interested in becoming us. They are going to fight and kill each other until another strong man subdues them , g for a while. Its not our business. Stay out. The only winners are the billions that the Military Industry gets. The Losers are the American people as they send their tax money to these areas and watch their roads, airports, transportation and education and health systems collapse.
Iran, ? We assinated their President and installed our pupet the Shah, killed the Ayotolahs son and imprisoned thousands with CIA advise. Took their oil. Wonder why they don't trust us?
No, the Pax plan was and is a disaster. Military does not work. It throws fuel on a 1000 year old war of Religious crazies. These folks are not interested in becoming us. They are going to fight and kill each other until another strong man subdues them , g for a while. Its not our business. Stay out. The only winners are the billions that the Military Industry gets. The Losers are the American people as they send their tax money to these areas and watch their roads, airports, transportation and education and health systems collapse.
11
Trying to figure out whom to support in the Middle East is like trying to find the "friendly" one in a den of rattlesnakes.
4
First off this is not Obama'a mess, but one created by decades of US interference and meddling in the Middle East trying to "engineer" their governments and politics including the support of dictators. It was exacerbated by the infamous pair, Bush and Cheney, by their two useless and ineffective wars.
Contrary to Ross' contention we should leave these tribes in the Middle East alone to sort out their issues and strike their own balances of power. The US has found out that it can't police the world and it can't grow democracies. These tribal peoples need to learn and do that on their own. It's their choice, not ours to make. We have enough problems here at home.
Contrary to Ross' contention we should leave these tribes in the Middle East alone to sort out their issues and strike their own balances of power. The US has found out that it can't police the world and it can't grow democracies. These tribal peoples need to learn and do that on their own. It's their choice, not ours to make. We have enough problems here at home.
13
Since Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United State which spends more on it's military than the next 8 nations combined- more than 3x China and 8x Russia- but only .75% of Americans have volunteered to join the military since September 11, 2001 his options are very limited.
Winning two elections by popular and electoral vote majorities constrains Obama. Without the political socioeconomic support of the American people no Middle Eastern strategy is sustainable.
In addition in the absence of a motivated and honorable support across ethnic sectarian lines from the mass of people in the nations of the Middle East no victory nor lasting peace is possible. By focusing on military solutions and stability instead of socioeconomics and democracy America has betrayed it's values and harmed it's interests. Neither Sunni Muslim Arab autocracy nor Israeli occupation, blockade/siege and exile can cap and control the ethnic sectarian super volcano for much longer.
The Middle East is also divided along ethnic lines by Arabs, Turks, Persians, Kurds and Europeans. And the Middle East has sectarian divisions among Sunni and Shia Muslims and Catholic and Orthodox and Protestant Christians along with Jews. The lasting historical impact of the Ottoman Turk, British and French Empires infects and impacts the Middle East.
Winning two elections by popular and electoral vote majorities constrains Obama. Without the political socioeconomic support of the American people no Middle Eastern strategy is sustainable.
In addition in the absence of a motivated and honorable support across ethnic sectarian lines from the mass of people in the nations of the Middle East no victory nor lasting peace is possible. By focusing on military solutions and stability instead of socioeconomics and democracy America has betrayed it's values and harmed it's interests. Neither Sunni Muslim Arab autocracy nor Israeli occupation, blockade/siege and exile can cap and control the ethnic sectarian super volcano for much longer.
The Middle East is also divided along ethnic lines by Arabs, Turks, Persians, Kurds and Europeans. And the Middle East has sectarian divisions among Sunni and Shia Muslims and Catholic and Orthodox and Protestant Christians along with Jews. The lasting historical impact of the Ottoman Turk, British and French Empires infects and impacts the Middle East.
3
Here we are again, arguing over this policy or that policy while being distracted from the real problem. America is disintegrating under the weight of combined greed, superstition, and carefully managed individualism. In a country that has benefitted so much from the work of intelligent and educated people, we are now near the end of a major emblem of modern American education: March Madness.
“A healthy mind in a healthy body” was the motto of athletics long ago. Today, it’s more like a healthy bank account in a profitable institution and never mind concussion or arthritis.
Right-wing writers will not starve while the Kochs and Fox survive. But they all contribute to the demented circus atmosphere that accompanies America’s demise.
“A healthy mind in a healthy body” was the motto of athletics long ago. Today, it’s more like a healthy bank account in a profitable institution and never mind concussion or arthritis.
Right-wing writers will not starve while the Kochs and Fox survive. But they all contribute to the demented circus atmosphere that accompanies America’s demise.
8
This article describes two different approaches, and the author admits that neither of them work. And what we are supposed to do instead is--?
2
I think we're going to have a hard time coping with a world in which there aren't any good solutions to this craziness, and we can't conveniently keep things swept under various rugs any longer.
1
As a progressive Democrat, I have to admit to being a bit in shock when a conservative gives President Obama credit for a policy--""offshore balancing'"--that I don't think describes what the Obama Administration has been doing. To me, it's just been a continuation of the "regime change" policy initiated under George W. Bush. First, Mr. Obama supported the Arab Spring Tahrir Square uprising in Egypt that ousted our erstwhile ally Honsi Mubarak. That ended in a disastrous Muslim Brotherhood regime that has since been replaced by a new military strongman, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Second, he participated in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya resulting in the Benghazi fiasco and a failed state that's become a terrorist battleground. Third, he supported President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi in Yemen to replace Ali Abdullah Saleh that has resulted in yet another failed state. Fourth, Mr. Obama also wants to replace the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. This policy clearly has been a total failure that is resulting in engulfing the U.S. in the proxy Sunni-Shiite religious between Iran and Saudi Arabia with all its contradictions. It seems to me that the Obama Administration in onshore and way out-of-balance. Without a strategic vision of the Middle East, that may require revisiting the arbitrary nations created without regard to ethnicity and religion in the aftermath of World War I, we may fighting terrorists across the landscape of failed states there for years.
3
Hmm, lots of analysis here but no prescription for what you'd do differently and how that would work. "If you're so smart...."
I think Obama's "lead from behind" light touch approach is interesting. This approach acknowledges that we are operating in a messy world of shifting alliances composed of those who are local, who care and who have a dog in the fight. We may work with an alliance that includes the Iranians in the North and with one that is aligned against them in the south. Such a "realpolitik" approach requires sophisticated thinking, study and knowledge. This is not a simple black & white, good vs evil ideological struggle with a simple solution.
I think Obama's "lead from behind" light touch approach is interesting. This approach acknowledges that we are operating in a messy world of shifting alliances composed of those who are local, who care and who have a dog in the fight. We may work with an alliance that includes the Iranians in the North and with one that is aligned against them in the south. Such a "realpolitik" approach requires sophisticated thinking, study and knowledge. This is not a simple black & white, good vs evil ideological struggle with a simple solution.
5
"Obama's Middle East Mess"? Long before you get to January 20, 2009 you need to assess the role that major events that Republican presidents contributed to the Middle East over time. First, you have the Eisenhower administration acting as Churchill's water boy in overthrowing the duly elected goverment of Mohamed Mossedgh in 1953. This was done, not for American interests as we had no quarrel with Iran, but to preserve the 80%-20% British take on the sale of Iranian oil. The Shah was installed as dictator. How did that work out?
Second, after the Iranian revolution in 1979 the Iraqi dictator made a political calculation that there would be a civil war in Iran which there might have been had Saddam not started a war against Iran. The U.S. did not have diplomatic relations with Iraq but the Reagan administration sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad with a proposal to restore diplomatic relations and to have the Bechtel Corporation build a pipeline from the southern Rumalia oil fields through Jordan to the Gulf of Aquaba.(George Shultz had been president and Casper Weinberger general counsel of Bechtel). Saddam accepted the former and Reagan sent Defense Intelligence Agency soldiers with satellite download equipment to provide intelligence for Iraqi attacks on Iran including chemical weapons attacks. Also, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner with 290 people.
Then you have the Bush II-Cheney war against Iraq. Can any instability be discerned here?
Second, after the Iranian revolution in 1979 the Iraqi dictator made a political calculation that there would be a civil war in Iran which there might have been had Saddam not started a war against Iran. The U.S. did not have diplomatic relations with Iraq but the Reagan administration sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad with a proposal to restore diplomatic relations and to have the Bechtel Corporation build a pipeline from the southern Rumalia oil fields through Jordan to the Gulf of Aquaba.(George Shultz had been president and Casper Weinberger general counsel of Bechtel). Saddam accepted the former and Reagan sent Defense Intelligence Agency soldiers with satellite download equipment to provide intelligence for Iraqi attacks on Iran including chemical weapons attacks. Also, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner with 290 people.
Then you have the Bush II-Cheney war against Iraq. Can any instability be discerned here?
11
George Bush and Dick Cheney sold the war to Washington politicians and to We the People on the basis of Weapons of Mass destruction.
That turned out not to be true.
But, yes, let's blame Obama for this mess he was left with.
That turned out not to be true.
But, yes, let's blame Obama for this mess he was left with.
12
Thank you for clarifying that there is no "sense" here for Americans. Maybe someone's pocketbook, a contributor to a political party, since the Supreme Court has ruled money is equal to people, is the decision maker.
3
Our successive nominees for regional hegemon (Iran, 1971; Iraq, 2003) didn't work out so well, for regional hegemons aren't stable enough long enough -- not unlike the disappointments with Douthat's "multi-polar" arrangements. The Saudis are too smart and for it. Without a regional hegemon in our pocket, the Pax American model requires never-ending military occupation -- the McCain/Graham option. So what does Douhat recommend?
1
Why try to blame the current administration for the faulty policies of the past 50 years? It is amazing to watch that as soon as the order imposed by the europeans after WWI has collapsed ,these folks have picked up where they left off a 100 years ago. The passing of at least 3 generations have done nothing to lessen the centuries old differences that these tribes had with each other. Unfortunately now they have modern weapons to cause destruction on a massive scale. there is not much we can do if they hate each other. Another piece of advise to anyone who is listening- Saudi Arabia is not a country, it will fall apart as soon as the veneer of monarchy is wiped off. It is just a bunch of tribes held together. Persians, Palestinians, parts of Syria and Iraq are ancient civilizations, the rest of the Arab world is just tribes masquerading as countries
3
The modern Republican party caters to those who want to believe that a fearful, messy world can be kept neat and orderly and anxiety free through intensive deployment of American power. Obama's foreign policy is based on a real world belief that should be embraced by all true small "c" conservatives: long lasting solutions to problems are brought on through sustained, patient, thoughtful engagement with people who have skin in the game.
6
The Obama administration recognizes the reality of the Middle East: It's ancient tribal and sectarian hatreds are beyond our ability to moderate or cure. That's something the neocons in the Bush administration never understood, or maybe they didn't care. So instead of endlessly costly ground wars meant to impose order, the Obama administration lets the various interests in the region do their own fighting. Let the Iranian Shiites and Saudi Sunnis go at it until they exhaust themselves or until the next round of regime change occurs. We can bomb ISIS or other targets for humanitarian reasons, but let's keep our own people out of harms way as much as possible. If the players in the region never manage to resolve their differences, that will be their own fault, not ours. The Obama strategy is clearly in our own best interest.
3
I suggest that America's confused Middle East policy makes sense in the following context: America has become literally the global policeman, reacting to violence and disorder without regard to creed, ideology, or nationality.
1
Reacting to it or creating it? Worldwide surveys indicate that the people abroad consider the US to be the greatest threat to world peace at present. Are they wrong? That is a question we need to answer without blinders on.
4
we are the world's policemen, but it is not in a vacuum-- it is born of a perceived superiority to those of a different creed, ideology and nationalities. Call it American exceptionalism if you must; I call it jingoistic arrogance.
1
What would have been in our best interests was to support Mubarak, Gaddafi, Hussien, and Assad. " A country has no friends only interests".
The truth is that democracy is not the panacea for every country's problems, like it or not. Saudi Arabia and China, our friends, have as much if not more repressive regimes then many of "our sworn enemies who pose a threat to democratic principles".
The truth is that democracy is not the panacea for every country's problems, like it or not. Saudi Arabia and China, our friends, have as much if not more repressive regimes then many of "our sworn enemies who pose a threat to democratic principles".
1
The "method" of American Pragmatism really is "Don't do stupid stuff."
More stupid stuff has been due to dogmatic master plans than for any other reason--think any of the big "isms" --from Communism to Capitalism (all public ownership/control of capital to all private ownership/control) from Polytheism to Monotheism (thousands of supernatural psyches to only one--which incidentally is not Christianity--since it posits angels, devils, saints and immortal but lifeless! souls/psyches.)
The goal has always been (at least for two millennia) a peaceful, neighbor loving Middle East. Obviously harder than it sounds.
More stupid stuff has been due to dogmatic master plans than for any other reason--think any of the big "isms" --from Communism to Capitalism (all public ownership/control of capital to all private ownership/control) from Polytheism to Monotheism (thousands of supernatural psyches to only one--which incidentally is not Christianity--since it posits angels, devils, saints and immortal but lifeless! souls/psyches.)
The goal has always been (at least for two millennia) a peaceful, neighbor loving Middle East. Obviously harder than it sounds.
Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the god of Abraham. Different sects.
Therein lies the problem.
Therein lies the problem.
So, what would happen if we just packed up all our war machines and left? Chaos? Wose or better than the present chaos? Americans would definitely be safer and taxes could be reduced by a bundle. We might even be able to devote money to crises at home: helping veterans, improving health care, creating jobs, upgrading our education system, rebuilding the infrastructure. Who knows? We might lose the image of a warmongering nation builder and come to be thought of as a respected world leader again.
4
I fail to understands what are the US vital interests in Middle East today. Is it possible that these interests evolve with changing time. Mr. Douthat is calling for
imposing American military dominance to prevent something worse what "Pax Americana" policies of Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld, and Bush lead too. It seems that the neocons never learn from history and continue to have delusion about imposing "American" will in a region that more than 1000 year history of tribal, ethnic and religious conflicts. American policy makers should redefine and refocus on real American vital interest today.
imposing American military dominance to prevent something worse what "Pax Americana" policies of Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld, and Bush lead too. It seems that the neocons never learn from history and continue to have delusion about imposing "American" will in a region that more than 1000 year history of tribal, ethnic and religious conflicts. American policy makers should redefine and refocus on real American vital interest today.
3
The bottle was uncorked and the evil genie let loose by Bush and Cheney and their compadres of the Project for the New American Century. As a result, the Mideast is a mess, and every choice that Obama can make is a bad one. So don't blame him.
I often wonder whether the seeds of the Arab Spring might have actually grown had the soil not been fouled buy our own actions.
I often wonder whether the seeds of the Arab Spring might have actually grown had the soil not been fouled buy our own actions.
3
The master plan admits that the military strength and action required for a pax Americana exceeds the economic resources of the United States as well as our desire to engage in ground wars. The grand plan recognizes the lessons of history: we stink at occupation and nation building in non-advanced nations, we cannot 'win' wars against undeveloped, tribal peoples in their own lands. We can win battle after battle, but our foe is never truly vanquished. From Eisenhower's decision that the Korean War wasn't militarily winnable at reasonable costs (lives, injuries, dollars, risk of larger global war) and we would settle for a tie, to the outright loss in VietNam,, a Gulf I which left Saddam in charge, Iraq II which did not eliminate the opposition or produce an acceptable government, to the mess in Afghanistan we have learned the past military approach does not work.
We have learned with NATO and Japan that with a pax Americana your allies become less and less militarily capable as they shift their budget $ to economic growth, and the US takes on a larger share of the military load. The way to save a NATO or alliances in the Middle East and Asia is to force allies to take the lead or at least more of the load so they become better able to defend themselves.
The failure of Iraq is not on Obama. The goverrnment and military established by the GWB administration was flawed. The whole strategic vision for the Iraq II war was wrong. We cannot reshape nations by force.
We have learned with NATO and Japan that with a pax Americana your allies become less and less militarily capable as they shift their budget $ to economic growth, and the US takes on a larger share of the military load. The way to save a NATO or alliances in the Middle East and Asia is to force allies to take the lead or at least more of the load so they become better able to defend themselves.
The failure of Iraq is not on Obama. The goverrnment and military established by the GWB administration was flawed. The whole strategic vision for the Iraq II war was wrong. We cannot reshape nations by force.
2
The middle east is a mess; but it's a bipartisan mess.
The solution is in the approximately 300 million Arabs and 80 million Persians that live in the region. That means a population roughly equivalent to the US and Canada needs to make up its mind about what kind of nations to be. Unfortunately, their desire to engage in century old religious disputes is legend.
The region will not be civilized in my lifetime. I am 61.
The solution is in the approximately 300 million Arabs and 80 million Persians that live in the region. That means a population roughly equivalent to the US and Canada needs to make up its mind about what kind of nations to be. Unfortunately, their desire to engage in century old religious disputes is legend.
The region will not be civilized in my lifetime. I am 61.
1
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. American military adventurism has only brought defeat whether it be Vietnam or Iraq. Usually with disasterous consequences to the region. Anyone remember the millions of Cambodians that died after we pulled our troops out of Vietnam? We are seeing a similar dynamic play out in the Middle East. Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it...
2
The age of Middle Eastern tranquility escapes my memory. . . Making good decisions depends upon having a grasp of the range of possible consequences. What's happening now was part of the conversation when policy was set. I guess I disagree that the administration is "surprised." I think more likely it is defensive. Obama's attitude says, "this is what I came here to do and we're going to do it." I don't blame him because we have a long history showing the other way wasn't working. Let's reserve judgment on Obama.
1
It's fair to criticize Obama's middle East policy. Walking back really bad policy decisions from previous administrations doent look pretty. Let's see where it's at when he leaves in January 2017. Will the next administration have the luxury of continuing Obama's "offshore balancing" or will it be involved in numerous ground and air campaigns like many Republicans currently advocate?
2
"Hence the Bush administration’s post-9/11 decision to try to start afresh, by transforming a rogue state into a regional model..." Wow. I have not read all the comments but I am sure many readers were stopped cold with those words. Even a reader with Alzheimer's will remember "weapons of mass destruction" and Condoleezza's fretting as she conjured up images of "mushroom clouds". If truth is a continuum, the justification of "regional model" is even more blatantly false than the "weapons of mass destruction."
It has always been about oil for the US and profits for the oil industry. Now that the US is moving toward energy independence, it is just about profits for the oil industry.
It has always been about oil for the US and profits for the oil industry. Now that the US is moving toward energy independence, it is just about profits for the oil industry.
2
"absent the restraint still imposed by American military dominance, it’s easy to imagine something worse."
It's assumed that America restrains the region, but this needs sustained analysis and proof.
It is easy to begin listing examples where American backing released restraint -- propping up the House of Saud and its Wahhabi enablers has endless pernicious effects. Or Israel launching the 1967 war and subsequent refusal to return the occupied territories.
The belief that America reduces violence strikes me as a post hoc rationalization. We are there for the oil, but once there, let's assume it benefits the locals. Actually, the involvement of great powers often intensifies regional conflicts. The article's tossed off assumption of an American calm is a very challenging case to make.
It's assumed that America restrains the region, but this needs sustained analysis and proof.
It is easy to begin listing examples where American backing released restraint -- propping up the House of Saud and its Wahhabi enablers has endless pernicious effects. Or Israel launching the 1967 war and subsequent refusal to return the occupied territories.
The belief that America reduces violence strikes me as a post hoc rationalization. We are there for the oil, but once there, let's assume it benefits the locals. Actually, the involvement of great powers often intensifies regional conflicts. The article's tossed off assumption of an American calm is a very challenging case to make.
3
I think a significant shortcoming in the argument is the assumption that unipolarity and multipolarity are policy choices rather than descriptions of reality. Trying to sustain a unipolarity that doesn't exist can be a recipe for dissipating a country's resources.
1
Lip service and occasional gestures to the contrary, U.S. policy in the Middle East has never been motivated by a sincere interest in democratization. The reason is simple: domestic democracy is inconsistent with foreign control over your most valuable resources. The always dominant consideration of U.S. policy has been control of the supply of the lifeblood of industrial capitalism: petroleum.
The U.S. has supported a rogues gallery of theocratic monarchies, military dictatorships, and (in the case of Israel) an ethnocracy, in the region precisely to prevent the locals from using their own resources to their own advantage instead of to the advantage of U.S. elites.
The U.S. has supported a rogues gallery of theocratic monarchies, military dictatorships, and (in the case of Israel) an ethnocracy, in the region precisely to prevent the locals from using their own resources to their own advantage instead of to the advantage of U.S. elites.
2
What assumptions are being made by calling this "Obama's Middle East Mess?"
It is a mess from our perspective, but maybe it isn't a mess from the perspective of many of the players in the area. Of course people are dying, and women and children especially are suffering the most. It is heartbreaking to have to sit back and watch and admit that we are helpless against the sheer force of how many people seem to want conflict to be their life. But all of this is a reflection of some deeply held attitudes. And maybe it is anything but a mess to them, which is why it defies solution from our perspective. But it certainly isn't Obama's mess.
It is a mess from our perspective, but maybe it isn't a mess from the perspective of many of the players in the area. Of course people are dying, and women and children especially are suffering the most. It is heartbreaking to have to sit back and watch and admit that we are helpless against the sheer force of how many people seem to want conflict to be their life. But all of this is a reflection of some deeply held attitudes. And maybe it is anything but a mess to them, which is why it defies solution from our perspective. But it certainly isn't Obama's mess.
3
Our strategic 'Pax Americana' has always been based on the assumption that military might trumps all and we can sort everything out to our satisfaction after the smoke clears. 'Pax Americana' seems have a stronger appeal to a particular voting block in the US then to solving any actual strategic problem. This was certainly reflected in the Bush administrations meticulously planned (at least by the Pentagon) military invasion of Iraq followed by an adhoc and tragically inept civil strategy. In Vietnam, President Johnson's attempt to crush North Vietnam with overwhelming American force devolved to "I won't go down as the first American President to lose a war", showing the fallacy of total military dominance as a strategy.
In the middle east, we've certainly had to eat our own lunch many times over, starting with the CIA over-throwing the elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 at the behest of Anglo-American oil companies, leaving the "Shah" in control as ruler of Iran, and ending up with an Islamic state under the rule of the Ayatollahs. We could have been dealing with another Turkey today rather than the mess we're looking at.
If President Obama is trying to keep us involved at multiple levels without committing us to an all-out war, I would much rather see that strategy than the alternative. We have to back away from the good-guy/bad-guy narratives that dominate our politics at home and leave us with a trail of carnage and failure when we try to apply it overseas.
In the middle east, we've certainly had to eat our own lunch many times over, starting with the CIA over-throwing the elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 at the behest of Anglo-American oil companies, leaving the "Shah" in control as ruler of Iran, and ending up with an Islamic state under the rule of the Ayatollahs. We could have been dealing with another Turkey today rather than the mess we're looking at.
If President Obama is trying to keep us involved at multiple levels without committing us to an all-out war, I would much rather see that strategy than the alternative. We have to back away from the good-guy/bad-guy narratives that dominate our politics at home and leave us with a trail of carnage and failure when we try to apply it overseas.
1
I'm afraid Mr. Douhat is giving too much credit to the administration by creating a vague, theoretical strategy to cover up for the chaos in our foreign policy.
The most honest part of this article comes early on when he admits the administration has continually been surprised by events in the Middle East.
There is no coherent policy -- there is just reactionary measures motivated by internal political polling and the machinations of the obama cabal.
This POTUS never makes bold moves on the world stage -- unless they are conciliatory. The USA no longer leads, but lags behind with no stomach for decisive military action. This administration hides behind secrecy and refuses to be accountable to Congress & the American People for what is does (or does not do) on our behalf around the world.
The world is a more dangerous place now, it is more unstable, and our interests are not being furthered -- all due to the amateurs in charge who are inexperienced, unqualified and undeserving of the positions they now hold.
The most honest part of this article comes early on when he admits the administration has continually been surprised by events in the Middle East.
There is no coherent policy -- there is just reactionary measures motivated by internal political polling and the machinations of the obama cabal.
This POTUS never makes bold moves on the world stage -- unless they are conciliatory. The USA no longer leads, but lags behind with no stomach for decisive military action. This administration hides behind secrecy and refuses to be accountable to Congress & the American People for what is does (or does not do) on our behalf around the world.
The world is a more dangerous place now, it is more unstable, and our interests are not being furthered -- all due to the amateurs in charge who are inexperienced, unqualified and undeserving of the positions they now hold.
2
Bush and Cheney escalated the Middle East mess-- by invading Iraq under false pretenses. Obama's mistake was not calling for prosecution of these madmen. We collectively have "no stomach (left) for military action," decisive or otherwise. That's why less than 1% of Americans enlists in the military nowadays. You can't build an empire on that low level of participation. Nor should we.
3
The fact that our invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam was a mistake, and indeed it was, does not mean that criticism of the current administration is not justified.
No one forced Obama to run for president and he had to know what he was getting into and plan for it. That said, he and his administration have totally destabilized the region, e.g. shifting positions on Assad, backing the loser in Yemen, negotiating a treaty with Iran in which it will end up a nuclear power (we all know this will happen) thus forcing Egypt and Saudi to start making military moves, and the cut and run strategy in Iraq, not to mention have made America seem tentative and weak, which is death in that region.
Both the Bush administration philosophy and the Obama administration philosophy (such that there is one) stem from this hubris that somehow our western classical liberal ideas are simply transferable to the middle east. Bush and Co thought post Saddam Iraq would turn into Sweden and Obama thinks left to their own, the middle east countries will form another EU. Both wrong.
It is tempting to say, who cares, not our problem, but the world is too small for that. This is not a place where regional conflicts are likely to stay regional.
No one forced Obama to run for president and he had to know what he was getting into and plan for it. That said, he and his administration have totally destabilized the region, e.g. shifting positions on Assad, backing the loser in Yemen, negotiating a treaty with Iran in which it will end up a nuclear power (we all know this will happen) thus forcing Egypt and Saudi to start making military moves, and the cut and run strategy in Iraq, not to mention have made America seem tentative and weak, which is death in that region.
Both the Bush administration philosophy and the Obama administration philosophy (such that there is one) stem from this hubris that somehow our western classical liberal ideas are simply transferable to the middle east. Bush and Co thought post Saddam Iraq would turn into Sweden and Obama thinks left to their own, the middle east countries will form another EU. Both wrong.
It is tempting to say, who cares, not our problem, but the world is too small for that. This is not a place where regional conflicts are likely to stay regional.
3
We need to keep the Mideast sea lanes and airways open; but otherwise avoid getting entangled in Mideast disputes that are insoluble.
Israel has made a two state solution impossible in the West Bank by, according to a Times' map. installng armed Israeli settlements every few miles. Netanyahu has made clear that he will not allow a Palestinian state, and appears to believe we have a duty to join Israel in any dispute Israel has with Iran, as well as give Israel billions of dollars a year as our Republican Congress tries to cut US domestic programs.
The Arab world is strictly divided by Sunni vs. Shiite, and Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and Turkey will never make true efforts to destroy Sunni ISIS. The majority of people in both countries support ISIS according to polls; and Turkey appears to assists ISIS. However, it was amazing to see how quickly Saudi Arabia went into full war mode against Shiites in Yemen.
These are local problems which are only sink holes for America's soldiers' lives and our treasury. The disputes are long standing, and no amount of interference by the US will diminish them.
Israel has made a two state solution impossible in the West Bank by, according to a Times' map. installng armed Israeli settlements every few miles. Netanyahu has made clear that he will not allow a Palestinian state, and appears to believe we have a duty to join Israel in any dispute Israel has with Iran, as well as give Israel billions of dollars a year as our Republican Congress tries to cut US domestic programs.
The Arab world is strictly divided by Sunni vs. Shiite, and Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and Turkey will never make true efforts to destroy Sunni ISIS. The majority of people in both countries support ISIS according to polls; and Turkey appears to assists ISIS. However, it was amazing to see how quickly Saudi Arabia went into full war mode against Shiites in Yemen.
These are local problems which are only sink holes for America's soldiers' lives and our treasury. The disputes are long standing, and no amount of interference by the US will diminish them.
1
The Pax Americana version of diplomatic strength is much older than the Bush wars. It is akin to the Roman and British Empires, both of which were ruined. The American version of those historical failures are following that path. Ruling over quietly defiant "lesser" nations, as well as those publicly sick of empirical control and strong militaries, for the benefit of the ruling empire, does not end with applause for the empire. It elicits revolutions and, historically, the doom of the latest empire. The omnipotent threat of war or else, has always failed. Obama has moved toward diplomacy and away from fall of the "big stick." It may or may not work. But it is worth attempting rather than demanding obedience or else war. Empires tend to be top heavy and fall.
1
Calling an empire that lasted almost half a millenium, and which during significant periods of that maintained a more peaceful, prosperous, and fruitful civil society than would exist for another 1000 years, an "historic failure" seems histrically naive. So does calling an empire that lasted centuries, girdled the earth, and fostered the greatest advance in the human material condition since the agriculural revolution one. Both empires had their flaws, but nothing lasts for ever.
1
This notion of Pax Americana is reminiscent of the empires of old. One problem is resource exhaustion via undesired occupation. The second is lack of interest alignment. America has more or less energy dependent through efficiency, greater oll and gas potential and fast growing renewables, so the need to control the Middle East is less important. Finally, you have overlapping rivalries with no rhyme or reason fueled by authoritarian regimes controlling oil production.
Why wouldn't it make sense to make a deal with Iran rather than engage in another war? Why does it make sense to unconditionally support Israel when they refuse to make a deal with Palestinians? Why continue to unconditionally support Saudi Arabia when they fund an extremist ideology that fuels terrorists? Why should we ever re-engage with ground forces in Iraq?
Mr. Douthat, if you have a logic framework to answer the above questions, then maybe it's worth discussing. Until then, America is better as a catalyst than a hegemon. Let these countries fight each other until they see the value in working together.
Why wouldn't it make sense to make a deal with Iran rather than engage in another war? Why does it make sense to unconditionally support Israel when they refuse to make a deal with Palestinians? Why continue to unconditionally support Saudi Arabia when they fund an extremist ideology that fuels terrorists? Why should we ever re-engage with ground forces in Iraq?
Mr. Douthat, if you have a logic framework to answer the above questions, then maybe it's worth discussing. Until then, America is better as a catalyst than a hegemon. Let these countries fight each other until they see the value in working together.
1
Ross Douthat is being nostalgic about Pax Americana! This model is not past its sell-by date yet and still useful. But the US has to be frugal with its own resources, after years of squandering.
Until the Arab Spring Pax Americana had served the purpose of propping up autocratic regimes in the Middle East. The Obama administration has tried to backtrack on some ugly and short-sighted policies of his predecessors, knowing they were one major source of evils. By doing so, the US is seen as disengaged.
Had Obama continued to provide for the very same support these client states used to enjoy in the past, the US would now be fighting many wars in the region! The outcome might even be more disastrous than the two wars fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Until the Arab Spring Pax Americana had served the purpose of propping up autocratic regimes in the Middle East. The Obama administration has tried to backtrack on some ugly and short-sighted policies of his predecessors, knowing they were one major source of evils. By doing so, the US is seen as disengaged.
Had Obama continued to provide for the very same support these client states used to enjoy in the past, the US would now be fighting many wars in the region! The outcome might even be more disastrous than the two wars fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.
9
OBAMA'S middle east mess?
7
Obama's Middle East mess???? Seriously?
6
we've gone from conflagration under bush to bad under obama. that's improvement, and as good as the situation in the middle east has ever been in seventy yeàrs. we don't get "good" there. we only get horrific, lousy, and bad, and even not great is an impossible dream.
2
We should stop calling Saudi Arabia and Israel "allies." Saudi Arabia won't even let women drive cars. They routinely flog and mutilate anyone who offends Islam or even steals a loaf of bread. Israel is an aggressive expansionary power that is slowly annexing the West Bank. We went to war in 1991 to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, but U.S. foreign aid pays for Israeli settlement growth in the West Bank. So exactly how are either of these countries "allies" except in the sense that they provide us with intelligence so we can fight their enemies for them.
4
The method we have is exactly what should be expected from Obama team what you consider his
describing ISIS as JV. Nothing over there is JV.
describing ISIS as JV. Nothing over there is JV.
3
The word "Method" near an article on the US in the Mideast reminds me that April 1 is almost here. While a column has to be short, some mention of Hillary Clinton's incompetence as Secretary of State should have been made: ISIS emerges from "nowhere", Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Ukraine descend into chaos, etc.
Let's learn about Big Data: what percentage of arms on all sides in the Mideast/North Africa are US made and sent there for some "balancing" act? (Gee, let's send more as part of our "balancing" strategy, what could go wrong?)
Let's learn about Big Data: what percentage of arms on all sides in the Mideast/North Africa are US made and sent there for some "balancing" act? (Gee, let's send more as part of our "balancing" strategy, what could go wrong?)
5
Let's give Iran a chance to be our good friend and ally in the Middle East too. Israeli and Saudi Arabia are easy acts to follow.
8
When you let the middle school world affairs club actually run the show, this is the mess you get. Good luck to the next administration in unravelling all this.
3
Mr. Douthat makes a good analysis of the options, but leaves out, in my opinion, the most important piece of the equation: Money.
Pax Americana in the Middle East, if allowed to continue, will simply do the United States what other previous Pax's, i.e., Pax Britanica and it predecessors in the region, have done to those "hegemons". It will bankrupt us, like it bankrupted them.
Mr. Obama's new set of policies in the region may not be a perfect model, but it's the only model that will meet the realities of the situation. We simply cannot afford the Pax Americana model anymore. Let others spend their wealth, which was accumulated thanks to our umbrella. It's long overdue for us to fold that umbrella and spend our money at home.
Pax Americana in the Middle East, if allowed to continue, will simply do the United States what other previous Pax's, i.e., Pax Britanica and it predecessors in the region, have done to those "hegemons". It will bankrupt us, like it bankrupted them.
Mr. Obama's new set of policies in the region may not be a perfect model, but it's the only model that will meet the realities of the situation. We simply cannot afford the Pax Americana model anymore. Let others spend their wealth, which was accumulated thanks to our umbrella. It's long overdue for us to fold that umbrella and spend our money at home.
116
correct... and a big part of "spending money at home" is producing our own oil and gas... thanx to the ingenious frackers (so hated by New York that their operations - but not their product, of course - are banned there), we have moved a good distance toward that objective
I think we have to look at three examples of the results of US military intervention; Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iraq. The intense bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War weakened the government and infrastructure of Cambodia to the extent that, when the US withdrew from the region, the decimated country that remained was incapable of resisting the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge would take over the government of Cambodia and become one of the most brutal, tyrannical regimes in modern history. In Afghanistan the US gave military supported Islamic fundamentalists in their struggle against the Russian occupation. When the US left Afghanistan the “freedom fighters” that the US supported became the Taliban, which was able to come to power in a weakened and decimated Afghanistan. Again the US intervention created an environment that led to a brutal, tyrannical regime taking power in Afghanistan. In Iraq the US intervention, the decimation of the infrastructure and the weak government and divided government that we left behind created an environment that led to the ascension of ISIS, another brutal and tyrannical regime. What exactly has US intervention achieved?
6
It achieved, and continues to achieve, a gold rush for Cheney's Halliburton and the Bushes' Carlyle Group, for KBR and Lockheed Martin and Blackwater (whatever alias they have now), and for many, many others. We paid, and will pay, for every bullet, bomb, missile, and plane; the soldiers' wounds and disabilities (as we should); every warlord bribed, every prisoner kept, every general ensconced in his DC love nest. We achieved debts of trillions, rotting infrastructure, threats to our social welfare, and losses to our public good. We achieved the deaths of a hundred thousand or so innocents abroad and thousands of our own people killed. And the enmity of those who were once on our side, also.
So there's that.
So there's that.
1
The "mess" is all Obama's fault...the GOP cookie cutter boilerplate for 2016.
The prescription- we must be tough, get back to a unipolar world using our incontestably #1 military.
Even though we see how that worked under Dubya (blowing up debt/deficit). Reticent peg? A bigger sledgehammer's all we need.
The basic problem with a unipolar world, aside from its cartoon simple weltanschauung, is that instead of splitting the "mini mes" we get them all. And there is no way to round table that square, we will always wind up picking winners and creating resentful losers. L00k at Palestine...
Further, this "good guys v. rogue" black and white matrix leads to serious misreads, and errors in action. Iran has less to do with "its proxy" in Yemen than the internal dynamic of Saleh, ousted in the ousting prior to the latest ousting, manipulating the Houthi to regain a lost cause. & we are drawn in by our long term Proxie of SA to save their proxy, the most recent ousted.
In the bipolar MADness of the Cold War these things could be contained by the Big Guy champions who putatively would hack it out in the nuke arena for their "clients" as negotiators. That is not there anymore.
The Obama circle understands in a unipolar world it is always our fault. And that some mini mes would best be held at arm's length. The better to cut them loose if needs be...and the Saudis would be a good first bunch to set "free"...you know women can't even DRIVE there, much less vote, right?
The prescription- we must be tough, get back to a unipolar world using our incontestably #1 military.
Even though we see how that worked under Dubya (blowing up debt/deficit). Reticent peg? A bigger sledgehammer's all we need.
The basic problem with a unipolar world, aside from its cartoon simple weltanschauung, is that instead of splitting the "mini mes" we get them all. And there is no way to round table that square, we will always wind up picking winners and creating resentful losers. L00k at Palestine...
Further, this "good guys v. rogue" black and white matrix leads to serious misreads, and errors in action. Iran has less to do with "its proxy" in Yemen than the internal dynamic of Saleh, ousted in the ousting prior to the latest ousting, manipulating the Houthi to regain a lost cause. & we are drawn in by our long term Proxie of SA to save their proxy, the most recent ousted.
In the bipolar MADness of the Cold War these things could be contained by the Big Guy champions who putatively would hack it out in the nuke arena for their "clients" as negotiators. That is not there anymore.
The Obama circle understands in a unipolar world it is always our fault. And that some mini mes would best be held at arm's length. The better to cut them loose if needs be...and the Saudis would be a good first bunch to set "free"...you know women can't even DRIVE there, much less vote, right?
3
When you have two "civilizations", and I use the term loosely, for whom "Death To America " is a rallying cry at social and religious gatherings, and they want to fight each other, why do we want to get in the way?
I admit that my feelings are cynical, but I don't see the spark of enlightenment in much of the Middle East that has guided the peaceful rise of much of the post-WWII world. There are religious forces itching for war and birthrates that have paid no heed to the limited resources of the region. It might be that the region has to exhaust itself in the same way Europe did almost a century ago before it sees the light.
In any case, if you have two adversaries that want to fight you, but also want to fight each other, realpolitik dictates that you let them fight each other and stay out of it yourself.
I admit that my feelings are cynical, but I don't see the spark of enlightenment in much of the Middle East that has guided the peaceful rise of much of the post-WWII world. There are religious forces itching for war and birthrates that have paid no heed to the limited resources of the region. It might be that the region has to exhaust itself in the same way Europe did almost a century ago before it sees the light.
In any case, if you have two adversaries that want to fight you, but also want to fight each other, realpolitik dictates that you let them fight each other and stay out of it yourself.
9
Many comments correctly place the blame on the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team but Obama and team have been in charge for six plus years. Obama's strategy of drone warfare (kill rather than capture), continued support for dictatorial monarchies and vassal regimes, while actively de-stabilizing Syria and Libya, and supporting a military coup d'état in Egypt has led to massive blow-back and a situation that has spiraled out of control. Disastrous policy choices all around and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.
22
This is a bizarre reading of history and a sorry attempt to equate Obama's strategies with the disastrous choices of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. Obama is to blame for the Arab Spring? He's stayed out of Syria as much as possible. The Libya no-fly zone was led by the UN, French and British to stop a slaughter. And how exactly would you have had him intervene in Egypt?
1
you want to expend american lives in specal ops missions to get those guys out alive? or do you want a ground invasion? of all the bad options i think drones are the best.
1
JL,
"...drone warfare (kill rather than capture)."
You seem to imply that capture is a viable option in combatting powerful enemy operatives. The SEALS' attempt to capture Bin Laden is illustrative of the massive risk and resource investment needed to go that route. I think you undervalue the comparatively preferable aspects of drone warfare.
"...drone warfare (kill rather than capture)."
You seem to imply that capture is a viable option in combatting powerful enemy operatives. The SEALS' attempt to capture Bin Laden is illustrative of the massive risk and resource investment needed to go that route. I think you undervalue the comparatively preferable aspects of drone warfare.
Why are there all these endless inconclusive wars that only produce millions of innocent victims in all of the countries involved? Human beings are considered the highest form of animal species on earth. We can think and create the most complex concepts and reduce them to practice in all spheres except getting along with each other both on an individual and group basis. I fear that there is no solution to aggressive hostile immoral destructive human behavior.
2
Hi-
It is not clear from the article whether pax or offshore is more in line with American interests. What are American interests in the area?
1) Terrorism-Terrorism in the US since 1990 was homegrown (OK City) or al Q'aida, which put down roots in Southwest Asia. al Q'aida has historically done badly in the Mideast and seems to losing to IS. IS appears to have no interest in attacking the US unless we, as we doggedly persist in doing, attack them.
2) Oil. Thanks to North Dakota, we really don't need them any more.
3) Stability. As Bush, Sr. understood, but never W, Mideast democracies would be like Egypt before our good buddy Sisi staged a coup, i.e., nationalist, religious-based and especially angry with modern (Western-based) decadence. It is fascinating that the US religious right is much closer in many of its goals to the fundamentalist S'hia in Iran than the relatively secular Israelis they do support. If the S'hia had an AIPAC, the US might have been spared a lot of grief.
It is a historical irony that the US, born in revolution, has assumed the role of world cop. When we support our dictators, we should remember how support of the Shah of Iran went. During the Cold War we were in bed with some of the nastiest slime on the planet because we feared Communism. Are we going to repeat because we fear Islam? Unlike Communism, Islam IS a religion, and is growing in Africa, where, demographically, the young people are. Let's not miss the boat.
It is not clear from the article whether pax or offshore is more in line with American interests. What are American interests in the area?
1) Terrorism-Terrorism in the US since 1990 was homegrown (OK City) or al Q'aida, which put down roots in Southwest Asia. al Q'aida has historically done badly in the Mideast and seems to losing to IS. IS appears to have no interest in attacking the US unless we, as we doggedly persist in doing, attack them.
2) Oil. Thanks to North Dakota, we really don't need them any more.
3) Stability. As Bush, Sr. understood, but never W, Mideast democracies would be like Egypt before our good buddy Sisi staged a coup, i.e., nationalist, religious-based and especially angry with modern (Western-based) decadence. It is fascinating that the US religious right is much closer in many of its goals to the fundamentalist S'hia in Iran than the relatively secular Israelis they do support. If the S'hia had an AIPAC, the US might have been spared a lot of grief.
It is a historical irony that the US, born in revolution, has assumed the role of world cop. When we support our dictators, we should remember how support of the Shah of Iran went. During the Cold War we were in bed with some of the nastiest slime on the planet because we feared Communism. Are we going to repeat because we fear Islam? Unlike Communism, Islam IS a religion, and is growing in Africa, where, demographically, the young people are. Let's not miss the boat.
1
Lets face it Ross we have only 1 ally in the Middle East and that friendship ensures we have a pack of enemies. The Islamic world is at war with itself on various fronts. The conflict is primarily Sunni vs Shiite but we also have the radicals vs. establishment going on as well. The debate will now be how entangled should we become in this conflict. The Obama administration is trying to keep us out of the conflict while still pursuing our main policy objectives; the military defeat of ISIS and the halting of Iran's nuclear program. Defeating the former may require working with the latter as distasteful as that sounds. The good news is that all alliances in the Middle East are temporary. I would not lose any sleep over allowing the Iranian al Quds fighters throw ISIS out of Tikrit and then 1 year down the road bomb Iranian nuclear facilities in Natanz and elsewhere. Likewise we should employ Bashar al Assad's forces on the Syrian western front to defeat ISIS. Once this objective is achieved we should then immediately work for Assad's removal (haul him off to the Hague for war crimes). Foreign Policy is dirty work in this region. If we want to get sanctimoniuos, we'll end up spending another couple of trillion dollars for an occupying operation doomed to failure.
2
Why can't we be more like Canada... via some sort of national purpose that defines a nation as a "were OK as we are" versus our penchant for "we're number one" which consistently makes look like a "number 2" in a world that is like one big pay toilet... where the epitaph is always the same: "here we sit broken hearted, paid our quarter and only far..." What we should be doing is "stamping out pay toilets instead of building more in the name of spreading religious obsession with "free enterprise."
2
Ross, your supple mind is at its most fluidly inventive - and disingenuously gymnastic - when grafting on rationales for our disastrous war in Iraq that were utterly absent from our casus belli at the actual time we invaded. But keep rewriting history - no need to get slowed down by the facts. After all, you're concocting fantasy.
6
So, how, exactly, is Obama's policy in the Middle East messier than the policies of all previous American administrations?
5
Atop a socioeconomic stew of instability in the Middle East that long pre-dates American involvement, the military-industrial-security complex has turned the region into its sandbox. The MIS complex uses this regional morass to perpetuate itself absent the Cold War. The ongoing governmental abettor is Congress with spurts of exuberant, -- maybe even intentionally -- incompetent (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bremer, ...) administration support.
4
Ross, you really don't (or refuse to) get it. This "mess" was created by eliminating the power vacuum (yes, Saddam was a bad man!) in Iraq. Compound it even more by dissolving the Baath party - many of whom now make up ISIS. Yes, we broke it. Or, more appropriately, your men in the Executive Branch during the Bush Admin. initiated that. But the Obama admin. is refusing to carry-on a wrongheaded (and expensive!) foreign policy in Iraq. Yes, the messes will be there if we aren't there. But they would eventually have shown up if we did stay there. It was wrong to do what the Bush Admin. did, and as long as you pundits keep up the criticism on the Obama admin. in this matter, it just serves to remind us all of the disastrous decision by the Bush Admin. to invade in March, 2003. And, furthermore, it serves to warn us as to what another Bush presidency could mean to the future of this country. So, keep it up.
9
"... a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old."
One must possess a pretty unique moral compass to imagine, let alone write, that W's and the neocon's middle east strategy, born in hubris, greed and duplicity and executed without a shred of competence, could somehow be less morally compromised. Just contemplating the crushing irony of that has pretty much ruined my day.
One must possess a pretty unique moral compass to imagine, let alone write, that W's and the neocon's middle east strategy, born in hubris, greed and duplicity and executed without a shred of competence, could somehow be less morally compromised. Just contemplating the crushing irony of that has pretty much ruined my day.
8
Multipolar environments are more unstable? That would go against abundant research demonstrating that complex environments are more stable than simplified ones. That's why species loss is such a threat ecologically. This may also be true of cultural ecologies. ISIS is a monoculture, an invasive species taking over like kudz. So is Wahabiism. Pakistan used to have great diversity, include subtle Sufis. Now, not so much. Meanwhile in America the Grand Old Party used to be diverse, and get real work done. Now it's reduced to a monoculture, and leaves a dangerous void in government. Short term, an arrangement like Pax Americana can seem solid and stable. That's an illusion. It's like the French Revolution, removing centuries of layered complexity for a simpler order - which as Burke recognized was a huge mistake.
4
When there are two "civilizations", and I use the term loosely, who broadly shout "Death To America" as a rallying cry at social and religious gatherings, and they want to fight each other, why do we want to get in the way?
I'll admit that my feelings are cynical, but I see no spark in most of the Middle East for the enlightened progress much of the rest of the world has pursued. There are broad religious forces itching for war and birthrates that have paid no heed to the limited resources and job opportunities of the region. It might be that the region needs to exhaust itself in the same way Europe did almost a century ago before it sees the light.
In any case, if you have two adversaries that want to fight you, but also want to fight each other, realpolitik dictates that you let them fight each other and stay out of it yourself.
I'll admit that my feelings are cynical, but I see no spark in most of the Middle East for the enlightened progress much of the rest of the world has pursued. There are broad religious forces itching for war and birthrates that have paid no heed to the limited resources and job opportunities of the region. It might be that the region needs to exhaust itself in the same way Europe did almost a century ago before it sees the light.
In any case, if you have two adversaries that want to fight you, but also want to fight each other, realpolitik dictates that you let them fight each other and stay out of it yourself.
4
So, arrogance, self-interest, and lack of clear thinking, is still the reason behind the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq. I have often asked if anyone, out there, could possibly unravel the complicated relationships in the middle east. All I have heard is criticism of President Obama, but no explanation. That's why I still think he knows something we don't know. At least, I hope so.
3
"Obama's Middle East..." How did it become President Obama's middle east? He has to deal with it of course; but the problems there are the result of many administrations and the support of American institutions such as the oil industry and other natural resource predators.
The problems in the middle east are also financial, social and political. They always were. The "Arab Spring: didn't just happen. It happened when food became too expensive. The social aspect was dominated by religion probably because of the perception that religion was above corruption. It's not. The political influence is that seeing a vacuum, political bodies adjust and try to fill that vacuum.
We need a better paradigm that works for the people. It's all a matter of priorities.
The problems in the middle east are also financial, social and political. They always were. The "Arab Spring: didn't just happen. It happened when food became too expensive. The social aspect was dominated by religion probably because of the perception that religion was above corruption. It's not. The political influence is that seeing a vacuum, political bodies adjust and try to fill that vacuum.
We need a better paradigm that works for the people. It's all a matter of priorities.
2
During the "Pax Americana" days, we dumped massive national resources into the Middle East, only to create new problems of equal or greater magnitude.
Obama's Middle East policy dumps fewer national resources into the region, resulting in new problems of equal or greater magnitude.
Bottom line: Obama's way is cheaper for similar results. Analysis complete!
Obama's Middle East policy dumps fewer national resources into the region, resulting in new problems of equal or greater magnitude.
Bottom line: Obama's way is cheaper for similar results. Analysis complete!
4
Despite our history of creating disastrous consequences in the middle east from our military invasions, many conservatives continue to believe that the next American intervention will somehow be a success. The weapons that we supplied to the Iraqi military end up in the hands of ISIS, but somehow arming Syrian "moderates" will be successful, according to John McCain. Some American leaders simply can not accept that we can't solve every mid east problem. Yet history gives us little encouragement.
One thing that you will notice....those advocating an aggressive American intervention in the mid east always criticize President Obama's strategy, but NEVER propose a COMPREHENSIVE plan of their own. That should tell you something.
One thing that you will notice....those advocating an aggressive American intervention in the mid east always criticize President Obama's strategy, but NEVER propose a COMPREHENSIVE plan of their own. That should tell you something.
18
When asked if invasion of Iraq would unleash sectarian violence, John McCain (and Paul Wolfowitz) said there no history of such in the region.
McCain is a joke who should be put out to pasture.
McCain is a joke who should be put out to pasture.
1
"Obama's Middle East Mess"? GWB/ Cheney and the neocons own this lock, stock, and barrel.
33
We'll never know if things in the Middle East would be as bad as they are now without Bush's war, will we, Ross?
18
The United States is essentially bankrupt. Multi=polar is another word for dead, wounded and maimed American servicemen and women, as well as countless deaths of innocent civilians. The turmoil wrought by this so labeled rational policy appears far worse than the situations that existed before. When you are, as a country, in a hole stop digging, with a shovel or a pen.
4
The mess began with the Gulf War – not the second – but the first. Saddam, after fighting Iran as a US proxy, amasses debts, and using oil to pay same, complains to the US that the Kuwaitis were stealing his using a slant drilling technique, dumping the stolen oil on the spot market, depressing oil prices; he has to pump more to pay his bills, invites the Kuwaitis to stop, they refuse; he meets with, notifies April Glispie, the US ambassador; she receives a cable from the US State Department saying “the US takes no position in quarrels between Arab states.” Saddam has his green light, invades. Bush, without bothering to consult with anyone, utters his ‘this will not stand’ comment, leading to events Ross inventories in today’s column. Enter another clueless Bush, another Gulf ‘War’ – both better described as illegal, unprovoked invasions of sovereign country – and Saddam is killed, followed by predictable chaos, at least predictable for every US field grade officer and up who, to advance in rank, must study as part of his/her professional curriculum cases such as what happens in, say, a Tito-less Yugoslavia – namely, that absent effective leadership, countries can disintegrate. If we don’t happen to like the effective leadership, too bad. The reality is that the US doesn’t have a right or obligation to impose ‘democracy’ on countries that don’t want it or where it won’t work, especially if that means bankrolling ad infinitum every new 'democracy' that puts up a flag.
24
The disaster created by the so-called neo –conservatives Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Bolton is a lasting one. Their disgusting policies have enabled Al Qaida – non -existent in Iraq at that time - and also Iran to increase their power and influence. In addition, Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians has led to an immense radicalization of the whole Middle East. A Pax Americana is not working because the US is not what it might have been in the past. Corporations and banks call the shots in the US and a war is always good for the greedy corporations always yearning for more profit.
36
Pres Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and he understands the Muslim world through his father's lineage. We should trust his judgement.
5
Blame it on Sykes-Picot and the British and French retreat after WW2. Or blame it on the unbelievable incompetence of the Iraq occupation. Or lay it at the feet of Saudi Arabia's export of Wahabism. Or on consumer appetite for oil. Or on the battle of Karbala.
The morass of the Middle East was neither created by Obama's weaknesses as a leader nor the lack of public support for enforcing a Pax Americana.
What is fair and balanced and accurate to say is that America and the world would be in a much better position in the Middle East today but for the advice and advocacy of Dick Cheney and his coterie.
The morass of the Middle East was neither created by Obama's weaknesses as a leader nor the lack of public support for enforcing a Pax Americana.
What is fair and balanced and accurate to say is that America and the world would be in a much better position in the Middle East today but for the advice and advocacy of Dick Cheney and his coterie.
15
You can throw it back to Bush or to Clinton or Bush or Carter. Go back as far as you like. What is so now is that there is no explanation of the current doctrine that is being mouthed by anyone NOW in THIS administration that is believable, that makes sense, that is palatable. All there is is spin and disbelief for those trying to wrap their minds around the events. Eventually there will be a new tipping point, new atrocities, new bombs (hopefully not nuclear), and new rationalizations about which people can write, repot and go on book tours to defend. We're screwed!
1
Pick a starting point, any starting point and our folly, not Obama's, becomes crystal clear. I'll start with the 1953 CIA led overthrow of Premier Mosaddeg in Iran, but let's be honest it is one of many. Our policy has always been built on the sand foundation of oil money, faux hegemony, and political naivete. I say let it get worse and protect ourselves from the fallout....in that way it actually gets better for us and ....maybe the world.
9
Totally agree with you that 1953 was the beginning of our problems in the ME. Why we decided to perform a regime change at the behest of a British oil company (BP) to reverse the nationalization of their oil contracts still escapes me. Actually, no it doesn't...it's just hard to admit that your government is so corrupt that it continually overthrows even democratically elected leaders in the name of their corporate sponsors...
1
Having read this over several times I fail to see any concrete recommendations that Mr. Douthat makes. What does he think the President should do? Should he continue to negotiate with Iran or stop negotiating and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities? Should he concentrate on defeating Assad or ISIS in Syria? Should he encourage the Saudis in their fight with the Houthis in Yemen? After all the Houthis are Shia and thus unlikely to cooperate with Al Quaeda. These are the kinds of choices available to the President. I think Douthat should make a few suggestions.
12
THIS WHOLE WARRING, MURDERING, KILLING MESS in the Middle East is now Obama's fault, and he's getting us deeper into the killing quagmire (Yemen, is next). SURE, sure, it was all started by Bush-Cheney, but that was ages ago.
Once upon a time, before Bush Shock-and-Awed and invaded Iraq, there was a precarious balance of power in the Middle East. There were tyrants -- oppressive tyrants! -- and there was the Sunni-Shiite tension, but all through the lands, there was peace. Children went to school, people gathered for picnics and soccer matches, at weddings and coffee houses... and all through the lands, while there were undercurrents of tensions, there was peace. People greeted each other, "Salaam"... peace, and there was peace.
Today, there is killing and war all over the Middle East. Millions have died and been wounded, and huge swathes of countries are destroyed. And the killing continues. Economies are destroyed. Bush started it all, but Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama, has been pushing harder and harder for more war. The only reason some of us continue to support Obama is that, he seems to be less war-like than the panting Republican war-dogs trying to get power. Shudder, we live in dangerous times...
Once upon a time, before Bush Shock-and-Awed and invaded Iraq, there was a precarious balance of power in the Middle East. There were tyrants -- oppressive tyrants! -- and there was the Sunni-Shiite tension, but all through the lands, there was peace. Children went to school, people gathered for picnics and soccer matches, at weddings and coffee houses... and all through the lands, while there were undercurrents of tensions, there was peace. People greeted each other, "Salaam"... peace, and there was peace.
Today, there is killing and war all over the Middle East. Millions have died and been wounded, and huge swathes of countries are destroyed. And the killing continues. Economies are destroyed. Bush started it all, but Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama, has been pushing harder and harder for more war. The only reason some of us continue to support Obama is that, he seems to be less war-like than the panting Republican war-dogs trying to get power. Shudder, we live in dangerous times...
5
As Vizzini said in The Princess Bride, "Never fight a land war in Asia." The Middle East is in Asia.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
4
Everything else has been tried and failed. Let Obama follow through his policies, at least his are the least militaristic and if nothing else will result in minimal deaths. Succeeding with Iran will be a huge feather in his cap, do not fall in Israel's trap of further conflicts in Middle East.
7
"Our strongest allies, officially, are still Israel and Saudi Arabia,"
Gosh, Ross, I am glad that you said "officially." Surely you do not mistake parasites for allies. An ally is someone who would go to war to defend you if your country were threatened with invasion. There is no one like that anywhere in the Middle or Far East. Now we do know that don't we?
Gosh, Ross, I am glad that you said "officially." Surely you do not mistake parasites for allies. An ally is someone who would go to war to defend you if your country were threatened with invasion. There is no one like that anywhere in the Middle or Far East. Now we do know that don't we?
15
Ross, In truth, it actually took MUCH MUCH MORE than "all the king’s horses and all of David Petraeus’s men just to hold Iraq together". It took billions of dollars to pay off the tribal leaders!
The GOP voluntarily created this hellish mess by allowing itself to get DUPED by Bibi Netanyahu and his band of Neocons into invading Iraq, the biggest foreign blunder in US history. And now your party is being duped by Bibi and the same band into invading Iran! So why aren't you writing about that?
The GOP voluntarily created this hellish mess by allowing itself to get DUPED by Bibi Netanyahu and his band of Neocons into invading Iraq, the biggest foreign blunder in US history. And now your party is being duped by Bibi and the same band into invading Iran! So why aren't you writing about that?
17
Four distinct interpretations of the word 'religion' are at bloody play in the Middle East. This notion that oil and/or territorial boundaries are THE prime motivating factors is insipid at best. Mr. Douthat would do his Times' readership a service by spending more of his analytical capital parsing these four feverish ideologies, searching among them for common, peaceful ground.
Wars fueled by religious fervor are the worst. Every atrocity will have 'God's blessing' in one armed camp or another. How's about winding down, instead of up?
Wars fueled by religious fervor are the worst. Every atrocity will have 'God's blessing' in one armed camp or another. How's about winding down, instead of up?
3
The self-contradictoriness and illogic in the Middle East policies is a direct result of extremely poor kinds of 'diplomatic' (and military), policies. Both wrong policies need immediately to be addressed and changed, because of the changing circumstances, or because they were wrong from the very beginning.
The first is how the U.S. caters to perfidious, nationalistically-minded, countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel, supposedly our staunchest allies, who had demanded we accede to their goals ...
which came to involve wars aimed at toppling governments like Syria's, and before that, Iraq's.
If we don't commit troops there for the explicit purpose of regime change, it doesn't alleviate the sheer aggressive nature of the policy.
The U.S. absolutely should renounce this. It is the worst example of flagrantly foolish policy.
The second is in how the U.S. confuses its foreign policy with policies for economic development, and often without regard for the real needs of the people. The selfish aims of establishing political hegemony for sake of economic domination, have finally struck back, boomeranged, upon countries like Britain, France, and the U.S. who premised their entire foreign policies, upon such diplomatic and then, military, aims.
Like today, still recognizing the: Syrian National Council (Nov. 2012), as the 'legitimate' government of Syria. SEE http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/International_recognition_of_the_Syrian_National_Council
The first is how the U.S. caters to perfidious, nationalistically-minded, countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel, supposedly our staunchest allies, who had demanded we accede to their goals ...
which came to involve wars aimed at toppling governments like Syria's, and before that, Iraq's.
If we don't commit troops there for the explicit purpose of regime change, it doesn't alleviate the sheer aggressive nature of the policy.
The U.S. absolutely should renounce this. It is the worst example of flagrantly foolish policy.
The second is in how the U.S. confuses its foreign policy with policies for economic development, and often without regard for the real needs of the people. The selfish aims of establishing political hegemony for sake of economic domination, have finally struck back, boomeranged, upon countries like Britain, France, and the U.S. who premised their entire foreign policies, upon such diplomatic and then, military, aims.
Like today, still recognizing the: Syrian National Council (Nov. 2012), as the 'legitimate' government of Syria. SEE http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/International_recognition_of_the_Syrian_National_Council
4
In this Op Ed Mr Douthat forgets the enormous role that the USA has in the present chaos in the Middle East. In Iran it put the Shah in place, for the Iranians a cherished experience of many decades, Al Quaida was an offspring of US meedling in Afghanistan, headed and co funded by Saudis. And the collapse of the fragile societies in Iraq and Lybia, did it happen without an important role for the USA? The 'collapse' Douthat is discussing is a western product, included the collapse of the Palestine future.The USA simply backed Israel whatever. So, a retreat from this series of catastrophic interventions is a real step forward.Pax Americana, ever seen it in the ME?
11
It sounds a lot to me like the famous line from Godfather III: "Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in." My better half learned another truth from her father when she was a little girl. He told her; "You can't run away from yourself." There is only one superpower and the United States has too many commitments in the Middle East and Europe to pretend that it is no long the one superpower. The fallout has been far too large: Look at Syria and ISIS and the advance of Iran...
Sixty years of failed force application and the answer is even more of the same. No vision, no NATO considerations, no ideas, no lessons learned, no thought as to consequences, but much faith, moral superiority, and erasure of inconvenient history.
2
Douthat complains: "Regional powers bear the primary responsibility for dealing with crises on the ground, our military strategy is oriented toward policing the sea lanes and the skies"
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that?
1
"A Metternichian master plan discernible only to President Obama and his advisers? Not exactly: This administration has been persistently surprised by Middle East developments ..."
That question and answer could be rewritten with no loss of current salience and a whole lot of explanatory hysteresis if you substituted "Bush" for "Obama."
And therein lies the tale of why this is a fundamentally dishonest column.
Thus, I am aware that the writer does not always select his own headline. But there is no difference in conviction between Douthat's snarky attitude in the above quote from the body of the article and the headline of the article, "The Method to Obama's Middle East Mess."
As if at some indeterminate time after George Bush decamped to paint dogs in Texas, we all woke up and discovered a "mess" has arisen in a previously stable Middle East.
Has the Obama Administration made miscalculations in its Middle East policy?
Arguably yes.
But only in the context of the Mother of All Screw-Ups, the stupid and unnecessary invasion of Iraq in the first place.
And to turn a blind eye to this governing reality really does entitle Douthat to today's prize for the most dishonest Op-Ed column in the newspaper.
Yes, yes, I agree the deck was stacked in Douthat's favor since David Brooks was not contributing today and Tom Friedman was off, and so didn't have a chance to start backsliding into the "muscular" approach to policy in that area which he so famously championed in 2003.
That question and answer could be rewritten with no loss of current salience and a whole lot of explanatory hysteresis if you substituted "Bush" for "Obama."
And therein lies the tale of why this is a fundamentally dishonest column.
Thus, I am aware that the writer does not always select his own headline. But there is no difference in conviction between Douthat's snarky attitude in the above quote from the body of the article and the headline of the article, "The Method to Obama's Middle East Mess."
As if at some indeterminate time after George Bush decamped to paint dogs in Texas, we all woke up and discovered a "mess" has arisen in a previously stable Middle East.
Has the Obama Administration made miscalculations in its Middle East policy?
Arguably yes.
But only in the context of the Mother of All Screw-Ups, the stupid and unnecessary invasion of Iraq in the first place.
And to turn a blind eye to this governing reality really does entitle Douthat to today's prize for the most dishonest Op-Ed column in the newspaper.
Yes, yes, I agree the deck was stacked in Douthat's favor since David Brooks was not contributing today and Tom Friedman was off, and so didn't have a chance to start backsliding into the "muscular" approach to policy in that area which he so famously championed in 2003.
5
The administration got to where it is in the Middle East largely because the previous administration took actions that destabilized the region. Not that the current administration is blameless -- it should, for example, have acted immediately when ISIS first burst on the scene in Iraq. Nevertheless, it is largely at the mercy of events that were triggered by Bush's invasion of Iraq and his refusal of Iran's proffered hand after 9/11.
The United States could safely withdraw from the Middle East, though that would have to include an end to the special relationship with Israel. The U.S. is a big, powerful country that can meet its energy need without Middle East oil. No one in the region would attack or even bother us if we actually withdrew.
Since withdrawal is not going to happen anytime soon, the only practical course is to strain every nerve to bring about a détente with Iran, and to balance that relationship with the one we have with Saudi Arabia, just as we did with China and the USSR in the 1970s and '80s. However, powerful forces at home and abroad are bitterly opposed to détente with Iran, and they probably can prevent it from happening. My own prediction is that the regional war already underway will expand and grow more violent, and that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East will be underway in a few years. Rather than withdraw, we will be sucked into the maelstrom, with disastrous consequences for the American people.
The United States could safely withdraw from the Middle East, though that would have to include an end to the special relationship with Israel. The U.S. is a big, powerful country that can meet its energy need without Middle East oil. No one in the region would attack or even bother us if we actually withdrew.
Since withdrawal is not going to happen anytime soon, the only practical course is to strain every nerve to bring about a détente with Iran, and to balance that relationship with the one we have with Saudi Arabia, just as we did with China and the USSR in the 1970s and '80s. However, powerful forces at home and abroad are bitterly opposed to détente with Iran, and they probably can prevent it from happening. My own prediction is that the regional war already underway will expand and grow more violent, and that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East will be underway in a few years. Rather than withdraw, we will be sucked into the maelstrom, with disastrous consequences for the American people.
4
Only a myopic Republican, aware that George W. Bush set the Middle East aflame with two wars of invasion he could not win, end, or pay for --- one based on the faked evidence Colin Powell trotted up to the U.N. --- could call the measured policies of President Obama, vis-à-vis the Middle East, a "mess."
8
A question to ask any candidate for national office:
How many American troops are you willing to sent to the middle east? 200,000? 500,000? Are you willing to look your family in the eye and send your son or daughter?
How many American troops are you willing to sent to the middle east? 200,000? 500,000? Are you willing to look your family in the eye and send your son or daughter?
1
Has there ever been a problem in another country that the Republicans didn't think could be solved by killing people and destroying infrastructure?
6
"Writing as the preeminent American exponent of genuine military professionalism, General Marshall could hardly have stated his admonition in clearer terms: to abandon the tradition of citizen-soldier, seeking to create an invincible offensive force able to win any argument, was to open the door to SCHEMERS pursuing criminal policies. Sadly this describes what Americans have allowed to occur in our own day.
The all-volunteer force is not a blessing. It has become a "blight". Americans can, of course, choose to pretend otherwise, but those choosing such a course cannot be said to love their country. Nor can they be said to care about the well-being of those sent to fight on their country's behalf."
Breach of Trust
by: Andrew J. Bacevich
The all-volunteer force is not a blessing. It has become a "blight". Americans can, of course, choose to pretend otherwise, but those choosing such a course cannot be said to love their country. Nor can they be said to care about the well-being of those sent to fight on their country's behalf."
Breach of Trust
by: Andrew J. Bacevich
2
Our desire to shape the Middle East has been based on two things: oil, and knee-jerk support of Israel. We have paid dearly for both, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.. Happily, we're on our way to total energy independence, and perhaps it's time we became independent of Israel also.
If Saudi Arabia or Israel feels threatened by Iran, those countries need to work it out. If countries in the region are concerned about Iran or any other nation getting nuclear weapons, they need to do something about it. The US feeling responsible for solving problems in the region seems as absurd as Germany feeling it needs to settle disputes between Alberta and British Columbia.
We can't kill or colonize our way out of this mess, which seems to be the preferred GOP approach. The only way I know of to avoid a decades-long war in which we attempt and fail to do that would be to spend a few weeks sending B-52s, B-2s, and Minuteman missiles into the region to turn it into a nuclear wasteland.
The entire region is nothing but greed and lust for power wrapped up in politics and religion. If they can't or won't act like adults, I don't see how we can force them to - at least not at a price I'm willing for the US to pay.
What would you do, Ross?
If Saudi Arabia or Israel feels threatened by Iran, those countries need to work it out. If countries in the region are concerned about Iran or any other nation getting nuclear weapons, they need to do something about it. The US feeling responsible for solving problems in the region seems as absurd as Germany feeling it needs to settle disputes between Alberta and British Columbia.
We can't kill or colonize our way out of this mess, which seems to be the preferred GOP approach. The only way I know of to avoid a decades-long war in which we attempt and fail to do that would be to spend a few weeks sending B-52s, B-2s, and Minuteman missiles into the region to turn it into a nuclear wasteland.
The entire region is nothing but greed and lust for power wrapped up in politics and religion. If they can't or won't act like adults, I don't see how we can force them to - at least not at a price I'm willing for the US to pay.
What would you do, Ross?
4
The Middle East is a caldron of death and destruction caused by nationalism and sectarian hatred. The USA cannot shed more American lives and treasure in an area where those most effected do not take up the battle themselves. The Saudis are a country which plays dual roles as our friend while supporting terrorists with financing. They and the Jordanians and Turks must step up. Civil wars are the norm in the ME which cannot be rectified by the US which has little respect as our allies in Europe and the ME seriously question our commitments to their security. Meanwhile our relations with Israel are at an all time low because of distrust regarding nuclear Iran. It is true that Bush actions began to light this caldron .Obama's Administration is seriously inconsistent and totally ineffective in dealing with the entire situation. I doubt that Obama's legacy will omit his ineptitude in foreign policy. A poor deal with Iran will only embellish his reputation.
1
It is a wrong heading - Obama is not the President of Middle East, he is US President. Obama Administration is trying to get a new structure for Middle East that is appropriate for today's world. We can not continue to talk about post Cold War era - it is post post Cold War era where US is not dependent on Middle East oil, social media interconnected the world and eliminated physical boundaries, China and India are emerging as major powers and Iraq has proved the futility of military power to solve social and cultural problems of foreign countries. We need soft power, strategic partners and imagination that is freed from old assumptions. Imagine Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Isreail are working together in the Middle East - imagine muslim population are not thinking their social problems in Shia and Sunni color, imagine Isreail is the source of creativity for the Arab world. These may look like illusion today, but human ingenuity can make this real - this is Obama's dream. History will show how realistic is this dream - as human we have to keep our passion for our dreams. Pandits can dissect the dreams to show its fault lines but rationality does not work here, it is the domain of intuition.
2
The administration is exhibiting a foreign policy that prefers area stability over democratization. Can't disagree.
7
Whether Obama has made the best decisions or not, I believe the Middle East mess is the leverage the Republicans will use to win the presidency. They can paint Democrats/Obama as having disastrous foreign, say that chaos, failed states, and radical Islamism are spreading, that we are in more danger than ever before, that Obama has been weak on terrorism. Combine that with their talk of big government, Obamacare, and taxes, and it looks like a winning strategy to me. And mind you, I'm not suggesting that there is a shread of truth to this, just that to most people who follow the news only barely or via Fox News, it will sound like the truth.
6
Time and again, commentators criticize the Administration over virtually every policy and action it takes. Mr. Douthart follows suit. Negative criticism like Mr. Douthart's is easy; constructive criticism requires realistic thought and understanding, experience, expertise, knowledge. Its about time that the negative chorus, like Mr. Douthart, offers some realistic alternatives to the government action it criticizes. Other than suggesting in the last paragraph that the U.S. consider withdrawing entirely from the Middle East, Mr. Douthart offers no recommendations for how U.S. interests would be better served were it to remain engaged in this part of the world. Mr. Douthart, do you have any meaningful, concrete proposals on this issue? Thank you.
9
So what would Douthat have the President do? Go back to building a "Pax Americana," assuming that it works, while our own homeland crumbles under its weight?
Douthat sounds as arrogant as most Americans who suffer the disease called 'American Exceptionism.' He thinks America is so great that it can solve everything if only we have better policies than what the Obama administration can come up with.
Well, we cannot. We don't have the magical power to control other people's will, we can't undo the legacies of colonial interventions left in the region, we certainly cannot get millions of people to sing kumbaya in 6 years when they have hated each other so many more years before. Heck, we can't even get our two parties to see eye to eye.
So what does Douthat think Obama should have done instead?
Douthat sounds as arrogant as most Americans who suffer the disease called 'American Exceptionism.' He thinks America is so great that it can solve everything if only we have better policies than what the Obama administration can come up with.
Well, we cannot. We don't have the magical power to control other people's will, we can't undo the legacies of colonial interventions left in the region, we certainly cannot get millions of people to sing kumbaya in 6 years when they have hated each other so many more years before. Heck, we can't even get our two parties to see eye to eye.
So what does Douthat think Obama should have done instead?
11
It is past time for American to sit back and think about what her real interests in the Middle East actually are. We founder from one crisis to the next and have not had or taken the time for a longer look at what we want out of the area and our involvement.
4
President Obama is reducing America's role as the world's cop. Given the spectacular failure of the GWB administration's Iraq invasion & occupation, such a move is welcomed by most Americans, at least according to my own statistically invalid polling.
It all boils down to whether Americans want to spend their tax money and their children's lives to fight political opponents around the world -- political opponents who by and large represent no material danger to the US. Iran falls into that category. Even ISIS and Al Qaeda, fueled as they are by Arab Sunni money, fall into that category. Yes, 9/11 attacks could occur, but no amount of American policing short of full scale occupation of such lands as Saudi Arabia could prevent that development.
The real issue is whether, as Mr Douthat noted, another country asserts itself to replace us as the world's policeman. Russia has demonstrated it's willingness to do so in its own neighborhood, as has China in its backyard. To the extent that our allies in these areas are willing to spend their own money and lives in defending these areas, our role becomes less of the world cop and more of the coalition leader. (except for the UK, let's not confuse the "coalition" bribed together by GWB for Iraq with a meaningful commitment from allies). For the past 20 or 30 years, none of our material allies have been willing to even meet NATO level defense spending commitments.
It's time for the new approach put forward by Mr Obama.
It all boils down to whether Americans want to spend their tax money and their children's lives to fight political opponents around the world -- political opponents who by and large represent no material danger to the US. Iran falls into that category. Even ISIS and Al Qaeda, fueled as they are by Arab Sunni money, fall into that category. Yes, 9/11 attacks could occur, but no amount of American policing short of full scale occupation of such lands as Saudi Arabia could prevent that development.
The real issue is whether, as Mr Douthat noted, another country asserts itself to replace us as the world's policeman. Russia has demonstrated it's willingness to do so in its own neighborhood, as has China in its backyard. To the extent that our allies in these areas are willing to spend their own money and lives in defending these areas, our role becomes less of the world cop and more of the coalition leader. (except for the UK, let's not confuse the "coalition" bribed together by GWB for Iraq with a meaningful commitment from allies). For the past 20 or 30 years, none of our material allies have been willing to even meet NATO level defense spending commitments.
It's time for the new approach put forward by Mr Obama.
2
The same people who are critical of Obama now are the same people who were critical of Bush 41 after Gulf War for not finishing the job with a regime change. For lack of imagination and sense of history, the wisdom of the current approach will be realized better only through the misadventure of someone else trying out what is being suggested as an alternative. The question to ask is not whether the middle east better off, rather whether America is better off, because that is what and should matter to a US President.
4
Three thoughts.
First two: FDR took our troops out of Haiti and Nicaragua. We got Papa Doc and the Somozas.
Third: a quote from Neville Chamberlain who called the Nazi ultimatum to Czechoslovakia a “quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing."
Add'l point: the ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East is a huge historical event.
Liberals are AWOL. As they always are on matters of great moral importance.
First two: FDR took our troops out of Haiti and Nicaragua. We got Papa Doc and the Somozas.
Third: a quote from Neville Chamberlain who called the Nazi ultimatum to Czechoslovakia a “quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing."
Add'l point: the ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East is a huge historical event.
Liberals are AWOL. As they always are on matters of great moral importance.
2
You omitted one other thought-Richard Nixon took our troops out of Vietnam and we got, well, the fall of Saigon.
It will always be George Bush II's Middle East Mess with his crazy 15 year war in Iraq for non-existent WMD and to stroke Bush's ego and make millions for Cheney and Halliburton.
Obama's succes over eight years is:
1. Fewer US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. US less dependent on imported oil.
3. US more independent of Israel.
Progress from the Bush Middle East mess.
Obama's succes over eight years is:
1. Fewer US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. US less dependent on imported oil.
3. US more independent of Israel.
Progress from the Bush Middle East mess.
12
When Obama took office the Middle East was stable because the US had its troops present. Obama failed to renegotiate a residual force agreement that he was supposed to negotiate as everyone knew he was to do, because of his campaign promise to withdraw all troops. The Bush withdrawal agreement was an interim step to the residual troop agreement and everyone knew it. The US becoming less dependent on imported oil had nothing to do with Obama's policies. The US became more independent of Israel because the US has sided with Israel's enemies in the Middle East under Obama.
When the war in Iraq started everyone, including the Clintons and john Kerry believed that Iraq has WMD. That is on the record.
When the war in Iraq started everyone, including the Clintons and john Kerry believed that Iraq has WMD. That is on the record.
Should America care if during the next 20 years the Shiites & Sunnis manage to wipe each other off the face of the map with endless insurgencies & civil wars? I think not.
4
You should be fired. How can you pretend as if the Bush administration's concern was "transforming a rogue state into a regional model"? It's well documented that they fabricated all the military intelligence used to justify their illegal war. Poof! Out of thin air. You're seriously trying to tell me the people who thought they could lie and start a war without real justification were concerned about democracy? That the people who created secret state sanctioned torture dungeons around the world wanted to create a country that was "less morally compromised"? Where was their moral concern when they were giving no bid contracts to Halliburton to electrocute American soldiers and Blackwater to mow down unarmed Iraqi civilians? Where was Bush's, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, and the rest of the neocon cabal's morality when they sent nearly 4500 American soldiers off to die, but made up excuses to dodge service in Vietnam when their opportunity came?
And then, almost as bad, you pretend as if there's no link between that illegal war and the current situation the Obama administration has to deal with. There wouldn't be an ISIS if it wasn't for you and the idiocy of the republican party 15 years ago, that cheerleaded the war and the torture dungeons they use to recruit. Iran wouldn't have increased regional power if your politicians hadn't bombed the only person keeping them at bay. Syria wouldn't have imploded if there wasn't ISIS and other groups in Iraq ready to move in and fight.
And then, almost as bad, you pretend as if there's no link between that illegal war and the current situation the Obama administration has to deal with. There wouldn't be an ISIS if it wasn't for you and the idiocy of the republican party 15 years ago, that cheerleaded the war and the torture dungeons they use to recruit. Iran wouldn't have increased regional power if your politicians hadn't bombed the only person keeping them at bay. Syria wouldn't have imploded if there wasn't ISIS and other groups in Iraq ready to move in and fight.
10
Correction. I meant to say Israel-Palestine thing.
Mr. Douthat's underlying premise is false. Notwithstanding the spiffy tagline, "offshore balancing," there is no method of Obama's foreign policy.
Truth be told, we're holding our breath in embarrassment for President Obama who is plainly over his head, to wit:
BOTH parties are threatening a surge in legislation to increase the sanctions on Iran when Congress returns from recess, and to staunch the bleeding caused by Obama's favorable diplomacy towards Iran and his enmity towards Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
BOTH parties are alarmed at Obama's muddled Syrian policy of removing both ISIS and Asad, while siding with none of the rebel bands, and without armed intervention except inconsistent bomber runs.
BOTH parties are re-reading the Constitutional authority of Congress in waging foreign wars.
BOTH parties are concerned, too, that President Obama's ME foreign policy is contagious. We're looking sick, desperate and needy in dangerous places in places like the Ukraine, Cuba and soon enough in rapidly destabilizing nations in Latin America, Venezuela, likely Argentina, and not impossibly in Brazil.
BOTH political parties recognize President Obama's behavior risks multiple world crises. Yet Mr. Douthat dignifies the Obama "method" as an OFFSHORE BALANCING SYSTEM. Then he wastes his column space trying to explain it, apologize for it, and sadly, justify it.
Truth be told, we're holding our breath in embarrassment for President Obama who is plainly over his head, to wit:
BOTH parties are threatening a surge in legislation to increase the sanctions on Iran when Congress returns from recess, and to staunch the bleeding caused by Obama's favorable diplomacy towards Iran and his enmity towards Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
BOTH parties are alarmed at Obama's muddled Syrian policy of removing both ISIS and Asad, while siding with none of the rebel bands, and without armed intervention except inconsistent bomber runs.
BOTH parties are re-reading the Constitutional authority of Congress in waging foreign wars.
BOTH parties are concerned, too, that President Obama's ME foreign policy is contagious. We're looking sick, desperate and needy in dangerous places in places like the Ukraine, Cuba and soon enough in rapidly destabilizing nations in Latin America, Venezuela, likely Argentina, and not impossibly in Brazil.
BOTH political parties recognize President Obama's behavior risks multiple world crises. Yet Mr. Douthat dignifies the Obama "method" as an OFFSHORE BALANCING SYSTEM. Then he wastes his column space trying to explain it, apologize for it, and sadly, justify it.
3
Will Obama take the word of Mahmoud Abbas too?
Abbas Calls on Arab States to Attack Hamas
Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas used the platform of the Arab League summit in Sharm el-Shekh, Egypt, this Saturday to attack his "unity partner" Hamas, making a subtle call for the Arab states to take military action against the Gaza-based Muslim Brotherhood offshoot.
Speaking at the 26th summit in the southern Sinai peninsula, Abbas made reference to the campaign of airstrikes launched last Thursday by Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries against Iran-backed Shi'ite Houthi rebels in Yemen - the Houthis have overthrown the government while rapidly expanding their control.
"I hope that the Arab countries will take the same policy they employed in Yemen for all Arab countries suffering from internal conflict - like Palestine, Syria, Libya and Iraq," Abbas said according to Yedioth Aharonot, in an open jab at Hamas in Gaza.
Abbas Calls on Arab States to Attack Hamas
Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas used the platform of the Arab League summit in Sharm el-Shekh, Egypt, this Saturday to attack his "unity partner" Hamas, making a subtle call for the Arab states to take military action against the Gaza-based Muslim Brotherhood offshoot.
Speaking at the 26th summit in the southern Sinai peninsula, Abbas made reference to the campaign of airstrikes launched last Thursday by Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries against Iran-backed Shi'ite Houthi rebels in Yemen - the Houthis have overthrown the government while rapidly expanding their control.
"I hope that the Arab countries will take the same policy they employed in Yemen for all Arab countries suffering from internal conflict - like Palestine, Syria, Libya and Iraq," Abbas said according to Yedioth Aharonot, in an open jab at Hamas in Gaza.
The current foreign policy strategy of the Obama administration that replaced "Pax Americana" should not be called "Off Shoring". The more appropriate term is "Chaos Americana" or perhaps "Chaos a la Obama".
1
have you forgotten bush already?
1
It is not Obama's Middle East Mess as headlined in this article.
It is G. W. Bush's Middle East Mess that Obama is trying to clean up and it is still costing all of us.
It is G. W. Bush's Middle East Mess that Obama is trying to clean up and it is still costing all of us.
7
Mr. Ross Douthat, I guess you are probably still upset at President Obama for not meeting Netanyahu when he came at the Republican Party's invitation to mock our President.
I do not intend to go into the history of how this mess got started very similar to the Financial Meltdown orchestrated by the Bush team. However just to clear a few points and would like you and your staff to do some homework prior to writing the next column on this subject.
Shia Muslims are in the majority in the Persian Gulf countries according to the CIA World fact book. Total Muslim Population of 151.6 Million of which 106.1 are Shia Muslims.
Since Saudi Arabia realized that they would become a minority they have invested heavily in their brand of extremist ideology throughout the world since 1979 to propagate their brand of Extremist Wahhabi Islam, which ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusrah, and Taliban. Saudis, Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain have been investing heavily to propagate this ideology.
Very recently the Saudis gave Egypt $12+ Billion and to Pakistan/Nawaz Sharif $1.5 Billion and they have called them to side with Saudis to attack Yemen - very similar MO that your GWB used with a coalition of the bought and willing.
Saudis are scared of Iran because the Persians have been able to develop their economy and have diversified into other sectors, whereas the Saudis have not. Both Israel and Saudia are concerned about how Iran would behave after the Peace deal and they want to scuttle the deal.
I do not intend to go into the history of how this mess got started very similar to the Financial Meltdown orchestrated by the Bush team. However just to clear a few points and would like you and your staff to do some homework prior to writing the next column on this subject.
Shia Muslims are in the majority in the Persian Gulf countries according to the CIA World fact book. Total Muslim Population of 151.6 Million of which 106.1 are Shia Muslims.
Since Saudi Arabia realized that they would become a minority they have invested heavily in their brand of extremist ideology throughout the world since 1979 to propagate their brand of Extremist Wahhabi Islam, which ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusrah, and Taliban. Saudis, Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain have been investing heavily to propagate this ideology.
Very recently the Saudis gave Egypt $12+ Billion and to Pakistan/Nawaz Sharif $1.5 Billion and they have called them to side with Saudis to attack Yemen - very similar MO that your GWB used with a coalition of the bought and willing.
Saudis are scared of Iran because the Persians have been able to develop their economy and have diversified into other sectors, whereas the Saudis have not. Both Israel and Saudia are concerned about how Iran would behave after the Peace deal and they want to scuttle the deal.
5
I note that you had nothing to recommend, so I assume you believe we're stuck in the middle east with no better plan than Obama's. Your summary of recent history in the area, however, is mistaken. We didn't go into Iraq to create a model democratic state. Bush and Cheney were many unpleasant things, but they were not that stupid. They made war on Iraq to reduce it to a client state. If Saddam Hussein had been willing to lead such a state, we would have tolerated his corrupt, undemocratic regime, as we did during the Reagan and Bush I years. As for Iran, despite its theocratic nature, it is likely the least corrupt state in the area, including Israel, and is formally if not essentially democratic (one votes for candidates the mullahs approve). Obama seeks to eliminate Iran as a potential nuclear state and to come to terms with likely the most powerful country in the middle east. That is a better goal than propping up a corrupt dynasty in Saudi Arabia and allowing Israel to steal Arab land until it has it all.
10
Pax Americana in the Mid East failed. Today Egypt and Saudi arabi are taking the military lead in Yemen. Let the people in the area fight it out with U.S. support. We should be done with our boots on the ground. When we "take charge," locals sit back and watch. It's time they carried the load.
3
When Obama took office the Middle East was relatively stable. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were under control and winding down. Things began to go really bad after Obama took office and pulled all of our troops out of Iraq before our military commanders recommended that be done. We all know that Bush signed and agreement that would remove all of our troops by a certain date, but we also know that that was an interim step and that there was supposed to be a maintenance of force agreement signed prior to that date. The Obama administration halfheartedly tried to negotiate maintaining a residual force in Iraq prior to the final withdrawal date but deliberately failed to do so. They failed to do so because Obama wanted to pull out all the troops to fulfill a campaign promise. Everyone, the man on the street included, knew that after we pulled out all of our troops from Iraq that chaos would follow. Chaos has followed and the Middle East is in turmoil. Obama did what he did knowing the consequences because he would merely just blame Bush as has been his practice from the day he took office. Blaming Bush doesn't work anymore because most people are better informed and by now know the truth. Obama is responsible for the chaos in the Middle East.
2
As I ponder your stand on leaving residual troops in Iraq, I ask this question of you-would you be willing to gather your kit and weapon and place your boots on the ground? We have many, many people stating we need to get involved with combating ISIS, yet, how many are willing to put their lives on the line for this.
Last though, what say you concerning the "Peace With Honor" as implemented by President Nixon? Should we blame President Ford for the fall of Saigon? The analogy is the same.
Last though, what say you concerning the "Peace With Honor" as implemented by President Nixon? Should we blame President Ford for the fall of Saigon? The analogy is the same.
It might be worth remembering what the Romans needed to achieve peace across wide swathes of the Mediterranean (first) then northern Europe (later) while establishing Pax Romana. The Romans expended a great deal of their own blood and treasure, and also needed to be willing to use brutality to cow conquered peoples into submission. I doubt we are so willing to decimate other peoples in order to achieve order and the peace that emerges from it. And this is correct--what compelling interest do we (or our allies) have that would justify decimating the peoples of Iraq, Iran, or other countries to achieve our ends?
2
let's pronounce that Iran and its allies are our greatest global enemy - compare them to our relationship to the Japanese on Dec 7, 1941 as a direct threat - and get on with dealing with them globally. And remind them on how the USA war with Japan ended.
A more honest title to this article should be "How President Obama might manage the Bush Cheney Mess". Be clear that the alliances of the imperial states which defeated Napoleon at Waterloo kept the monarchies in power for 100 years and culminated in WW1 and 2, the Russian Revolution and the expansion of colonialism. These monarchies were rigidly opposed to the expansion of democratic rights and they brutally suppressed repeated demands for change in their countries. Metternich maintained the status quo of imperial power.
Yes nations have interests and so does America. As flawed as the American model of democracy is, it provides more hope for more people than any other system. Europe with the EU has provided a model in which change is fostered and it has resulted in 70 years of peace. Democracy is more than an economic system. The various forms provide methods for sharing power, resolving conflict and promoting the general welfare of ALL citizens. It is an alternative to the vestiges of communism, empires and theocratic states which infest the middle east from Libya to Iran.
The problem is that democratic systems must be learned and legitimated
Yes nations have interests and so does America. As flawed as the American model of democracy is, it provides more hope for more people than any other system. Europe with the EU has provided a model in which change is fostered and it has resulted in 70 years of peace. Democracy is more than an economic system. The various forms provide methods for sharing power, resolving conflict and promoting the general welfare of ALL citizens. It is an alternative to the vestiges of communism, empires and theocratic states which infest the middle east from Libya to Iran.
The problem is that democratic systems must be learned and legitimated
Obviously it's too early to determine what the ultimate effectiveness of Obama's strategy will be in unraveling the colossal mess George Bush created in the ME.
The so called "Pax Americana system" has probably seen its best days as the region continues to unravel, despite our or any other stable countries intentions.
Obama's approach for a more reduced involvement may minimize the overall liabilities of the US even as it influences potentially more favorable outcomes for what should be our goal of stabilizing the region.
Maintaining a distance from extremist positions like that of Netanyahu gives Obama the opportunity to flex the US's support among the region's competitors,
in a situation where most, if not all of the parties, oppose our presence to begin with.
Obama and his successor will need to determine if trying to maintain a "Pax Americana" system can be sustained any longer anyway, in a region in which we appear to have outworn and outlived our welcome. It may be time for the US to begin to accept a more limited role in the region while the inhabitants sort out how they will live and under what type of government.
The so called "Pax Americana system" has probably seen its best days as the region continues to unravel, despite our or any other stable countries intentions.
Obama's approach for a more reduced involvement may minimize the overall liabilities of the US even as it influences potentially more favorable outcomes for what should be our goal of stabilizing the region.
Maintaining a distance from extremist positions like that of Netanyahu gives Obama the opportunity to flex the US's support among the region's competitors,
in a situation where most, if not all of the parties, oppose our presence to begin with.
Obama and his successor will need to determine if trying to maintain a "Pax Americana" system can be sustained any longer anyway, in a region in which we appear to have outworn and outlived our welcome. It may be time for the US to begin to accept a more limited role in the region while the inhabitants sort out how they will live and under what type of government.
2
Very interesting overview of the two appraoches our country can -- abd has recently -- taken to foreign affairs, particularly in the middle east. However, where Douthat begins is with the suggestion that Obama's approach has been a mess, leading to no discernable successes. But, of course, so what Bush's; a mess that is, resulting in no achievements. But here's the difference: many more American service men and women are alive because of the approach taken by Obama. And, by the way, I don't fault ole' Ross for not identifying any true path forward in the middle east: there isn't one. Why do we as Americans, feel the need to control and influence every conflict throughout the entire globe? Imagine if we felt the need to involve the United States in the Iraq/Iran war. Not our fight, and no clear good guy. Yeah, I say when there is no clear objective, monitor on the sidelines, just as Obama is.
1
I think this writer needs to stick to politics of the far right wing element than try to analyze foreign policy. This is not a good analysis of anything concerning the Middle East past or present. Maybe McCain can give him some pointers since he is always wanting to fight more wars as does the rest of the right wing extremist element in this country. Afghanistan was a mistake for the Russians and a mistake for the US. We just haven't reached the end of the rope yet and the President was wrong to extend any deadline no matter how much he likes the new Afghan president.
3
Our strategic 'Pax Americana' has always been based on the assumption that military might trumps all and we can sort everything out to our satisfaction after the smoke clears. 'Pax Amercana' seems have a stronger appeal to a particular voting block in the US then to solving any actual strategic problem. This was certainly reflected in the Bush administrations meticulously planned (at least by the Pentagon) military invasion of Iraq followed by an adhoc and tragically inept civil strategy. In Vietnam, President Johnsons attempt to crush North Vietnam with overwhelming American force devolved to "I won't go down as the first American President to lose a war", showing the fallacy of total military dominance as a strategy.
In the middle east, we've certainly had to eat our own lunch many times over, starting with over-throwing the democratically elected President of Iran in 1953 at the behest of Anglo-American oil companies, and replacing him with a military general turn "Shah", and ending up with an Islamic state under the rule of the Ayatollahs. We could have been dealing with another Turkey today rather than the mess we're looking at.
If President Obama is trying to keep us involved at multiple levels without commiting us to an all-out war, I would much rather see that strategy than the alternative. We have to back away from the good-guy/bad-guy narratives that dominate our politics at home and leave us with a trail of carnage and failure when we try to apply it overseas.
In the middle east, we've certainly had to eat our own lunch many times over, starting with over-throwing the democratically elected President of Iran in 1953 at the behest of Anglo-American oil companies, and replacing him with a military general turn "Shah", and ending up with an Islamic state under the rule of the Ayatollahs. We could have been dealing with another Turkey today rather than the mess we're looking at.
If President Obama is trying to keep us involved at multiple levels without commiting us to an all-out war, I would much rather see that strategy than the alternative. We have to back away from the good-guy/bad-guy narratives that dominate our politics at home and leave us with a trail of carnage and failure when we try to apply it overseas.
2
The arrogant Power Elites in Washington are like pyromaniacs who join volunteer fire departments and then start fires for the thrill of putting them out.
From the PoV of the American Nomenklatura, the entire planet is the huge panoply of flammable structures that they can ignite. And the War Machine is their tool for quenching the expensive and bloody catastrophes that they themselves have enabled.
And like true pyromaniacs they do it because it's exciting and fun. And it ain't their money. And they always walk away rich from their wreckage.
From the PoV of the American Nomenklatura, the entire planet is the huge panoply of flammable structures that they can ignite. And the War Machine is their tool for quenching the expensive and bloody catastrophes that they themselves have enabled.
And like true pyromaniacs they do it because it's exciting and fun. And it ain't their money. And they always walk away rich from their wreckage.
I'll give Ross credit for this: 99% of all Republican criticism of the President is filled with outlandish, gratuitous and irresponsible insults--Ross avoided that here. Therefore, he borders on a sensible column. It is not often that he writes this way, but it is possible. However, of course, there are at least several errors in his analysis: Obama is not so much trying to get us out (see Afghanistan this week) as keep us from going all in. That would explain the motivation behind a Tehran deal, incidentally.
It's not just or even mostly corruption that is the problem with mideast governance. It is a complicated melange of factors including reactionary religious principles, uneducated citizens, high unemployment, etc.
Finally, this column almost sounded like praise for Obama. I think Ross had an epiphany but can't quite bring himself to say so out loud.
It's not just or even mostly corruption that is the problem with mideast governance. It is a complicated melange of factors including reactionary religious principles, uneducated citizens, high unemployment, etc.
Finally, this column almost sounded like praise for Obama. I think Ross had an epiphany but can't quite bring himself to say so out loud.
1
The issues in the Middle East pre-date the Bush years. We give him far too much credit when we suggest his administrations' actions caused the current state of affairs. What about a century of economic repression? This is 1% vs 99% writ on a global scale. I don't expect improvement anytime soon.
1
I've been a supporter of what I've seen as the Obama approach to the Middle East since our minimalist role in Libya. The region needs to lead in solving its own problems; we do not have the monopoly on moral authority to solve problems around the world. Every empire that ever existed thought they had that kind of authority, but the history of intervention should convince anyone that such authority is a damaging illusion. I'm encouraged to see countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt finally stepping up and taking a stand. Iran? The country has a sophisticated public quite capable of eventually acting positively. We have our warmongers and they have theirs. Let's not encourage either country's backward looking folks by emphasizing military confrontation. No more Bolton(s) for me.
1
The goal is long-term stability. Long-term stability requires an enduring alignment of expectations among those competing for resources. Pax Americana enforces expectations using blood and treasure. The middle east grew to expect American use of power. The American electorate decided that they didn't want to spend the needed blood and treasure. A power vaccuum has been left, and the US must find a way to help bring about a new alignment of expectations.
To many readers here are trapped in old and useless thinking, its still 1999 (pre George W Bush) to most Obama loyalist. It's Bush's fault has a validity to it but way to much time has passed and the situation on the ground has changed completely.
Time to catch up; the Arab spring, a positive happening, set in train by President Obama collapsed. The faillure of the Arab spring was not President Obamas fault but it was he who poked the hornets nest. Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Libia spun into kaos. The rise of maruding Islamist in North Africa happen after the Arab Spring. The raise of issi comes from the failure of the Arab Spring in Syria and the resulting civil war.
President Bush tried military Democracy building President Obama tried people power; so far they have both failed. Both courses have been equaly bloody.
President Obama's current course of empowering Iran is going to change the game again. We shall see.
Time to catch up; the Arab spring, a positive happening, set in train by President Obama collapsed. The faillure of the Arab spring was not President Obamas fault but it was he who poked the hornets nest. Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Libia spun into kaos. The rise of maruding Islamist in North Africa happen after the Arab Spring. The raise of issi comes from the failure of the Arab Spring in Syria and the resulting civil war.
President Bush tried military Democracy building President Obama tried people power; so far they have both failed. Both courses have been equaly bloody.
President Obama's current course of empowering Iran is going to change the game again. We shall see.
1
MKM,
I am still trapped in the late 1970s when Carter told us to put on sweaters, wean ourselves off cheap mideast petroleum and invest in renewables. Sometimes I am in 1953when we overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran.
It is very difficult to be in 2015 and look at our congress and look at the problems we have to solve and say "Oh my God, what have we done to deserve this."
I am still trapped in the late 1970s when Carter told us to put on sweaters, wean ourselves off cheap mideast petroleum and invest in renewables. Sometimes I am in 1953when we overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran.
It is very difficult to be in 2015 and look at our congress and look at the problems we have to solve and say "Oh my God, what have we done to deserve this."
Name one country in the Middle East that isn't sitting on top of a mass of angry citizens, has enemies at it's borders, or has a divided ethnic/religious population. The oil rich ones can pour money on it's seething masses, but that is merely a delaying tactic. There is no economic base to rely on for economic stability, unemployed young males in the 30-50 % range. And we're expected to have a plan?
2
Whatever President Bush II imagined our war against Iraq and what it might accomplish, it certainly seems that Cheney got most of what he wanted -- a war to enrich the military-industrial complex enormously. It didn't give us the kind of access to oil he seems to have imagined, but all in all it was a very lucrative war.
We are now surprised to be seen around the world as The Enemy, not only but especially by Muslims around the world -- an invader of other lands and peoples for the purpose of greater power and enrichment. No matter what this president or the next does, our military efforts will be seen as invasive, while diplomacy is a joke, sabotaged by own Congressional members. The pathetic best America can do, given the powers that rule us now, the 21st Century style of war (which encompasses terrorism wherever sheer power is insufficient), and the fury and ignorance of the peoples caught in the mess, is to attempt to keep a loose lid on the turmoil lest it erupt into a 21st Century World War.
We are now surprised to be seen around the world as The Enemy, not only but especially by Muslims around the world -- an invader of other lands and peoples for the purpose of greater power and enrichment. No matter what this president or the next does, our military efforts will be seen as invasive, while diplomacy is a joke, sabotaged by own Congressional members. The pathetic best America can do, given the powers that rule us now, the 21st Century style of war (which encompasses terrorism wherever sheer power is insufficient), and the fury and ignorance of the peoples caught in the mess, is to attempt to keep a loose lid on the turmoil lest it erupt into a 21st Century World War.
3
How about we try something totally new? Let's revolutionize our fossil fuel requirements and take all that money that we burn in the Middle East and transform our energy economy to renewables? How about if we spread that oil transformation around the world dropping the technology and money around the globe as easily and without budgetary regards as we spread killer drones dropping souls bombs to the far corners of the globe? You think maybe the Middle Eastern royals will find a way to solve their own problems, and if they don't will it even matter? Nah, you'd never support that. It's too kind.
5
Describing something as a mess presumes that, objectively, it can be cleaned up. The situation in the Mideast defies description only because we are dealing with irrational players who are motivated and controlled by fantasy. Probably in a perfect world we could contain hostilities if we had an iron hand, but that's unrealistic for a multitude of reasons. So what's left? More of the same until the players see that each of their positions of superiority and mutual disrespect will lead to constant turmoil.
2
Nature doesn't hate a vacuum until it's there. We should be pulling away more aggressively than Obama seems (and only seems) to be and make other countries with greater proximity to and more of an interest in the region step up to the plate. There are a couple of dozen other countries that for a couple of generations now have been only too happy to praise our leadership and commitment while they focus their substantial resources on themselves. It reminds me of the cynical lip service our leaders pay to praising our young enlisted men and women.
1
The results of our post 9/11 debacle are clear: we made a mess of Iraq by eliminating Saddam Hussein's balance of terror that kept competing tribes in check and productive as a society. The result: an un contained metastasis of Al Queda. We've done enuf damage in the Middle East. Time to retreat, recalibrate, and figure out how to do things differently. A nuclear treaty w Iran is a new avenue... it should be given a chance since doing more of same and maintaining the status quo is no longer acceptable. Iran's 77 million people are educated, worldly and want integration with ROW. A good chance that they will drive sanity and peace, pulling the Revolutionary Guard w them. Let's give it a shot.
5
Offshore balancing once was known as the Nixon Doctrine. Nixon's main proxy in the Middle East, Iran under the Shah, was lost in 1979. Israel and Saudi Arabia, the successor proxies, are ever less helpful as they provoke as much as they suppress turmoil. Obama has reason to expect that a deal with Iran will create a new proxy that will be more useful in controlling much of the Middle East than Israel or Saudi Arabia. Israel's fear at having to share its privileged relationship to America with Iran is the real source of Netanyahu's fevered rhetoric about the coming nuclear deal, not the absurd claim that Iran with a couple of bombs would launch an attack on Israel which has dozens if not hundreds of nukes.
2
Ross: Good perspective. One small correction --
"Tehran can gradually join Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv in a multipolar order..."
Maybe you missed it (you sleeping off a tequila party during a college or something and missed a class maybe?), but the capitol of Israel is Jerusalem -- not Tel Aviv. Or is it you want to play that ridiculous game of pretending it is not.
"Tehran can gradually join Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv in a multipolar order..."
Maybe you missed it (you sleeping off a tequila party during a college or something and missed a class maybe?), but the capitol of Israel is Jerusalem -- not Tel Aviv. Or is it you want to play that ridiculous game of pretending it is not.
2
Just because Obama was unfortunate to inherit the chaos W and the neocons created in the Middle East, and just because Obama's not stupid enough to try to invade Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Iran simultaneously--just for starters--doesn't mean Obama has "caused" the chaos in the region or is in any way "responsible" for it. The "logic" that blames Obama just because he was president during this disastrous period in which so many chickens came home to roost for America's past bad choices is totally nonsensical, because contrary to fact. If Obama had not defeated Hillary, McCain, and Romney--all equally bought and paid for by the Israel lobby--we would have been in a new idiotic and totally disastrous proxy war for "regime change" for Israel in Iran, even worse than our insane neocon follies for Israel in Iraq, many years ago by now.
2
Are Western powers working hard to get a diplomatic solution to Yemen? Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Yemeni factions should agree to a balance of power in Yemen that they can all live with. Otherwise, Yemen will become as much of a mess as Iraq and Syria.
During the Cold War, we saw the damage that power blocks can do through proxies. We're seeing it now in the Middle East. Netanyahu may like to see increasing violence between Sunnis and Shiites supported by Saudi Arabia and Iran, because it fits his narrative that Israel and the Saudis are working together to contain Iran. However, that increasing violence will take many innocent victims and make it harder for the region to progress and become more stable, more democratic, and more prosperous.
During the Cold War, we saw the damage that power blocks can do through proxies. We're seeing it now in the Middle East. Netanyahu may like to see increasing violence between Sunnis and Shiites supported by Saudi Arabia and Iran, because it fits his narrative that Israel and the Saudis are working together to contain Iran. However, that increasing violence will take many innocent victims and make it harder for the region to progress and become more stable, more democratic, and more prosperous.
2
Remember "curveball" and the Chalbis (sp) - yep, that's what got Cheney et al. into a war (with the Saudis the puppet-masters) - and, now, of course the Right expects Obama to wave a magic wand and solve all of the ME's thousands of intractable problems. What is it that makes armchair columnists such experts? Oh, yes, trillions of greenbacks later, let us know when the WMD are finally located? I am sure the thousands of murdered souls would sure as heck like to know their deaths weren't in vain . . . ps
2
This thoughtful analysis tracks with my own conviction that the Middle East will simply not get better if governments in the region never have to do the hard work -- and that Obama's policy is to keep the U.S. on the sidelines long enough to force regional leaders to come to terms with their realistic options and take responsibility. Some level of disintegration and spiraling violence is inevitable in the short run if such an approach is to work in the medium to longer term. But Arab leaders have for too long been enabled to play politics -- to distract their publics with an obsession with Israel, to quietly fuel religious extremism "just enough" to maintain an alternative outlet for jobless and frustrated young people, and of course to enrich themselves -- while the real problems go unaddressed. I don't usually agree with Ross Douthat, but have to say he's onto something here.
65
Great comment, MaryJ.
1
This mess was created by your men Cheney and Rumsfeld who lead a neophyte knucklehead named Bush into creating the Middle East maelstrom we have now. And not one of them is man enough to admit their responsibility.
37
Ross, you may not like the administrations approach in the middle east, but look at it this way. The Obama administration is trying to create fences and keep parties apart. The Bush administration' plan to remake the middle east by invading the axis of evil countries and remake the entire region would have been death in the desert for the US government through the cost in blood and treasure to our country. When we invaded Iran and removed Saddam our allies, the Saudis, became alarmed that the Iranians who are Shiites, would become ascendent in the region. What ever trouble they have been, the Iranians helped us to pull our nuts out of the fire in Iraq. Al-qaeda and ISIS were part of the insurgency to overthrow Assad who are backed by our allies the Saudis. ISIS is out of control, so now we depend on the Iranians to help fight off ISIS. What would a better plan be?
17
Of course it isn't Obama's middle east mess, it's simply a set of regional conditions the US government has to respond to just as it has to respond to messes in Ukraine, Africa or Asia. It's certainly abandoned the utterly misguided attempt by the Bush administration to remake the region with military interventions (a strategy heartily endorsed by Douhat at the time) which proved a total disaster and indeed contributed significantly to destabilizing the region. Isis would not be in Iraq were Hussein still in power. Neither is there any appetite on the part of the American people to invest more blood and treasure in middle eastern adventurism of the sort that Douhat has previously applauded. The general incoherence of the situation doesn't lend itself to grand strategic plans and when Republicans and their shill like Douhat start demanding them it's just code for more US military interventions. The administration's ad hoc approach which is inevitably not particularly tidy is never going to satisfy these people but it's low risk, low cost and proportionate.
21
"The general incoherence of the situation doesn't lend itself to grand strategic plans..."
I think this one sentence captures the essence of the dilemma.
(I disagree, however, with characterizing Mr. Douthat as a shill. I see him simply as someone with a different opinion and perspective from mine, and for now at least won't question his integrity)
Going back to this sentence quoted by me above. I liken the situation to certain disease states. We contend as best we can with certain diseases based on admittedly incomplete understanding of just what causes them (pathology) , as well as admittedly incomplete understanding of how everything in the body truly fits and works together (physiology). We do manage to often come up with ways to "defeat" certain diseases (think polio). Others we simply have learned to more effectively "manage" (think diabetes, coronary artery disease). Yet other disease processes we keep trying to advance understanding, continue to search for interventions, but really haven't made much headway (think septic shock leading to multi-organ failure, Alzheimer's Disease). Extending the analogy, we have often found that the intervention can be as bad as the disease. Often we use a treatment that causes another difficult problem to emerge. And when we realize this, we come to know that even if we more completely grasped both "pathology" and "physiology", intervention might yet be limited in effectiveness. So it is with the world.
I think this one sentence captures the essence of the dilemma.
(I disagree, however, with characterizing Mr. Douthat as a shill. I see him simply as someone with a different opinion and perspective from mine, and for now at least won't question his integrity)
Going back to this sentence quoted by me above. I liken the situation to certain disease states. We contend as best we can with certain diseases based on admittedly incomplete understanding of just what causes them (pathology) , as well as admittedly incomplete understanding of how everything in the body truly fits and works together (physiology). We do manage to often come up with ways to "defeat" certain diseases (think polio). Others we simply have learned to more effectively "manage" (think diabetes, coronary artery disease). Yet other disease processes we keep trying to advance understanding, continue to search for interventions, but really haven't made much headway (think septic shock leading to multi-organ failure, Alzheimer's Disease). Extending the analogy, we have often found that the intervention can be as bad as the disease. Often we use a treatment that causes another difficult problem to emerge. And when we realize this, we come to know that even if we more completely grasped both "pathology" and "physiology", intervention might yet be limited in effectiveness. So it is with the world.
An unpredictable illness is not a bad metaphor for the complexities we face across the middle east. As to Douhat's role as a shill I think it unlikely the NYT pays him, or Brooks for that matter, to provide objective assessments of the American political scene....viz.
Shill
transitive verb
: to talk about or describe someone or something in a favorable way because you are being paid to do it
Shill
transitive verb
: to talk about or describe someone or something in a favorable way because you are being paid to do it
There is a very strange deification of our military going on in this country, which has been going on for some time as an overcorrection of the lingering effects of Vietnam.
Military solutions seem to be the end all of Republican and rightwing thinking. If the surge led by Petraeus was so successful, why couldn't we leave Iraq after 2008, as Bush and Cheney had negotiated for us to do so?
After creating a disaster and unleashing a tsunami of violence in the Middle East, with a lack of understanding of the balance of power between Shia and Sunni, between Iraq and Iran, the McCains and Wolfowitzs and even the unapologetic Cheneys keep crying for more and more wars.
Turns out the invasion of Iraq and the march to Baghdad was the easy part (remember the "Mission Accomplished" crowing from Bush and Cheney?).
Until the Right comes up with a clear idea of what to do with the mess they created, i.e. not just to bomb and put boots on the ground, but what to do longterm, I prefer Obama's approach and I prefer Samantha Powers over John Bolton.
Military solutions seem to be the end all of Republican and rightwing thinking. If the surge led by Petraeus was so successful, why couldn't we leave Iraq after 2008, as Bush and Cheney had negotiated for us to do so?
After creating a disaster and unleashing a tsunami of violence in the Middle East, with a lack of understanding of the balance of power between Shia and Sunni, between Iraq and Iran, the McCains and Wolfowitzs and even the unapologetic Cheneys keep crying for more and more wars.
Turns out the invasion of Iraq and the march to Baghdad was the easy part (remember the "Mission Accomplished" crowing from Bush and Cheney?).
Until the Right comes up with a clear idea of what to do with the mess they created, i.e. not just to bomb and put boots on the ground, but what to do longterm, I prefer Obama's approach and I prefer Samantha Powers over John Bolton.
37
Douthat overlooks inconvenient details.
A report [1] issued by the US Army War College nine months after the US invasion of Iraq maintains that the war was strategic mistake that:
. Diverted military attention from Al Qaeda/bin Laden, a significant threat to the US, to Iraq/Hussein, not a significant threat to the US,
. Opened a new, unnecessary combat front (akin to Germany attacking Russia in WW II )
. Conflated bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, “an error of the first magnitude.”
. Diverted hundreds of billions of dollars better spent on border, port, homeland security that could have made the US safer.
[1] Jeffrey Records, “Bounding the Global War on Terrorism,” Army War College, December 2003.
A report [1] issued by the US Army War College nine months after the US invasion of Iraq maintains that the war was strategic mistake that:
. Diverted military attention from Al Qaeda/bin Laden, a significant threat to the US, to Iraq/Hussein, not a significant threat to the US,
. Opened a new, unnecessary combat front (akin to Germany attacking Russia in WW II )
. Conflated bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, “an error of the first magnitude.”
. Diverted hundreds of billions of dollars better spent on border, port, homeland security that could have made the US safer.
[1] Jeffrey Records, “Bounding the Global War on Terrorism,” Army War College, December 2003.
10
Ross,
Your first paragraph Recap is correct...
In the past, there was no Pax Americana in the Middle East (the US always had an off-shore presence) ..In the the past, the ME was driven by the Cold War rivalry... When the Cold War ended other Regional players ( Iraq/Iran) attempted to fill the vacuum...
The US blocked the ambitions of Iraq... but failed to block the ambitions of Iran and in the process empowered Iran.. and we are currently paying for this failure today...
What Obama has done is to enhance the influence of Shiite Iran... and the Sunni Arabs ( Saudi Arabia & Co. ) are fighting back..
In addition, the Israeli -Palestinian conflict also reflects this Iran empowerment...
You cannot have Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians when Iran can play the spoiler...
That's why Obama's approach to the Middle East - especially his animosity towards Israel ( which is the only Regional Power that America can rely on) is all wrong...
Your first paragraph Recap is correct...
In the past, there was no Pax Americana in the Middle East (the US always had an off-shore presence) ..In the the past, the ME was driven by the Cold War rivalry... When the Cold War ended other Regional players ( Iraq/Iran) attempted to fill the vacuum...
The US blocked the ambitions of Iraq... but failed to block the ambitions of Iran and in the process empowered Iran.. and we are currently paying for this failure today...
What Obama has done is to enhance the influence of Shiite Iran... and the Sunni Arabs ( Saudi Arabia & Co. ) are fighting back..
In addition, the Israeli -Palestinian conflict also reflects this Iran empowerment...
You cannot have Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians when Iran can play the spoiler...
That's why Obama's approach to the Middle East - especially his animosity towards Israel ( which is the only Regional Power that America can rely on) is all wrong...
3
Pax Americana doesn't sit well with Vox populi.
7
Getting to Douthat's Pax Americana...
President GW Bush filled his staff with principals of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) who had published a manifesto advising a foreign policy of American-launched wars in the Middle East (starting with Iraq) and stating that being such a radical change from conventional foreign policy, it would be a long time in the implementation, “absent some catastrophic and cataclysmic event – like a new Pearl Harbor” [1] (something like the attacks of 9/11/01).”
[1] “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” Project for a New American Century” December 2000 p. 51
President GW Bush filled his staff with principals of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) who had published a manifesto advising a foreign policy of American-launched wars in the Middle East (starting with Iraq) and stating that being such a radical change from conventional foreign policy, it would be a long time in the implementation, “absent some catastrophic and cataclysmic event – like a new Pearl Harbor” [1] (something like the attacks of 9/11/01).”
[1] “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” Project for a New American Century” December 2000 p. 51
4
Mr. Douthat: In addition to "corrupt ally" Saudi Arabia, paymaster for the 9/11 hijackers, are you including settlement-spreading Israel? Or is this just my imagination?
16
Did President Obama ever bet on the wrong horse when he pushed forward the "Arab Spring". After Tunisia, a short and wet spring leg directly to a cold and bloody "Arab Winter". Did Mr Obama really expect stakeholders in the old order to simply disappear into the woodwork? Failed states in Libya, Yemen and Iraq can be attributed to Mr. Obama's belief that an "Arab Spring" would flourish. The return of military dictatorship in Egypt and the rise of the Iranian sphere of influence are also due to Mr. Obama's meddling in the region. Aside from the gun runners, what Arabs have benefited in those countries from the Obama policies?
3
Like we could have prevented any of this had Bush not let the jinn out of the powder keg called the Middle East.
6
"...If we could actually escape Middle East entanglements entirely, even that 'something worse' might be less costly to the United States than trying to sustain the Pax Americana. And if we had a trustworthy hegemon in the wings to replace us, all of this might be moot.
But in the world as it exists, what we have is an administration that wants to believe it’s getting us out, but a region that’s inexorably, inevitably pulling us back in..."
___
"...[I]f we had a trustworthy hegemon..."
There can be no arbiter; even if Israel was removed from the equation. The Sectarian violence goes back centuries.
Because the U.S. supports/defends Israel, we are forever linked to all that happens throughout the region. Therein lies our interest, good and bad.
But in the world as it exists, what we have is an administration that wants to believe it’s getting us out, but a region that’s inexorably, inevitably pulling us back in..."
___
"...[I]f we had a trustworthy hegemon..."
There can be no arbiter; even if Israel was removed from the equation. The Sectarian violence goes back centuries.
Because the U.S. supports/defends Israel, we are forever linked to all that happens throughout the region. Therein lies our interest, good and bad.
5
You call it Obama's Middle East Mess? How about Bush's Millenial Blunder?
19
Again, Ross, you are blinded by an idiotic ideology that forgets inconvenient facts. The CheneyBush invasion of Iraq was premised on 9/11, and that entire scenario was premised on pre-2000 writings of the cabal (which included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush) called the Project for the New American Century ("PNAC"), which considered a "Pearl Harbor-like attack on the U.S. homeland" s the "trigger" to "establishing a "western-style democracy in the Arab Middle East." In other worse, the Iraq War was planned well before 9/11 and opportunistly used it to attack an other country which had nothing to do with based on lies in order to seize control of its natural resources.
We saw how well that worked out, and now the Obama Administration wishes to resume our former policy of balancing forces in the Middle East.
Indeed, the Cheney/PNAC policy ended up making Iran the strongest regional Muslim power. Since Citizens' United hides political contributions, it makes it impossible to see WHO funded PNAC. Could it be that Cheney and the other "chickenhawk" patriots were actually working for a foreign power, that same foreign power who benefitted from our abortive Iraq policy?
We saw how well that worked out, and now the Obama Administration wishes to resume our former policy of balancing forces in the Middle East.
Indeed, the Cheney/PNAC policy ended up making Iran the strongest regional Muslim power. Since Citizens' United hides political contributions, it makes it impossible to see WHO funded PNAC. Could it be that Cheney and the other "chickenhawk" patriots were actually working for a foreign power, that same foreign power who benefitted from our abortive Iraq policy?
9
Mr. Douthat opines that we need a trustworthy hegemon in the region. I think that might be China. China need Iranian oil. We do not, we have enough oil between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. We need to make sure Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel are kept in check, China can police Iran and the Iranian client states. I think that is where this is heading.
5
What blather. Bush 43's purpose into going into Iraq was to expand Pax Americana, as Douthat describes it. Remember, Saddam was selling oil on the black market and an American political dynasty bought and paid for by big oil did not want that. Douthat also left out the fact that our man in Afghanistan, Karzi, was a former oil executive also.
Proof? Remember how our troops guarded with their lives the Iraq oil ministry while the antiquities museum was looted at will. Rummy said that was OK because part of being free is the freedom to loot.
And why do conservatives have such a hard time understanding a fight against someone here and an alliance with them over there?
Wasn't that a major factor in WWII? Wasn't the USSR our ally against Germany yet our enemy during postwar reconstruction?
Our need to use air power is two fold: to prevent genocide and to compensate for all the military mistakes made by Bush &Co. that has allowed ISIS to grow militarily stronger as the Bush enabled forces drop their weapons and run leaving them for ISIS to retrieve and use.
This president has it right to let the nations of the middle east take responsibility for their own actions. After THIRTY combined years of US involvement in the area (20 in Iraq, 1991-2012, and 10 in Afghanistan) it's time for a change.
Proof? Remember how our troops guarded with their lives the Iraq oil ministry while the antiquities museum was looted at will. Rummy said that was OK because part of being free is the freedom to loot.
And why do conservatives have such a hard time understanding a fight against someone here and an alliance with them over there?
Wasn't that a major factor in WWII? Wasn't the USSR our ally against Germany yet our enemy during postwar reconstruction?
Our need to use air power is two fold: to prevent genocide and to compensate for all the military mistakes made by Bush &Co. that has allowed ISIS to grow militarily stronger as the Bush enabled forces drop their weapons and run leaving them for ISIS to retrieve and use.
This president has it right to let the nations of the middle east take responsibility for their own actions. After THIRTY combined years of US involvement in the area (20 in Iraq, 1991-2012, and 10 in Afghanistan) it's time for a change.
21
"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey." Cheney 1994
17
Ross, name any republican anywhere with a coherent plan or policy position you'd rather see handling our middle eastern foreign policy. Time's up . . . just what I thought.
26
Pax Americana, ah yes. A shining example of that being the CIA deposing a democratically elected leader in Iran and installing a cooperative Shah. How'd that turn out?
48
Exactly. We started the whole Islamic revolution mess when Kermit Roosevelt led the first gang of CIA thugs on the agencies very first covert operation. The went to Iran to fix the election so that the puppet shah could be put in place -- a fowl act done so Great Britain could continue to steal the vast profits from Iran's oil fields as they had for most of the 20th century, while the bulk of Iranians lived in abject poverty.
We started that ball rolling and the right wing-nuts in our government and business community have been keeping it rolling since. How effective has Obama been at stopping the roll? Not very, because right-wing politicians and profiteers, with spokespeople like Dick Cheney and the "One line, no mind flying purple President eater" -- Boehner , are keeping that ball rolling, almost at full speed, right over the President.
We started that ball rolling and the right wing-nuts in our government and business community have been keeping it rolling since. How effective has Obama been at stopping the roll? Not very, because right-wing politicians and profiteers, with spokespeople like Dick Cheney and the "One line, no mind flying purple President eater" -- Boehner , are keeping that ball rolling, almost at full speed, right over the President.
2
Give me a break Ross. Republicans throw an explosive device into a gasoline storehouse, against the advice of many informed voices, which they attacked rather than respond to (even including General Shinseki who was brave enough to warn them that this would be no walk in the park) and you give it some grand strategy name.
The fact is, Republican and neocon policy in the Middle East has led to the complete disaster we have today, with millions of broken lives.
Here are just a few steps in the Republican disaster, which you try to spin as some grand and intelligent policy--- word limits drastically shorten the list
1) overthrow a pro-American democratically elected government in Iran, led by a national hero because Republicans didn't think he was giving the British oil company a good enough deal on Iranian oil. (Eisenhower-- also planned the Bay of Pigs invasion, dumping it in Kennedy's lap; Nixon would have gone on to give air support and bomb Cuba but JFK realized the disaster and stopped unfortunately not soon enough.)
2) Sell arms to Iran (Reagan) while simultaneously strengthening Saddam Hussein even after he used WMDs, thus somehow balancing power at the Iran Iraq border by holding their coats while the 2 countries fight each other at the cost of many lives, including those of brave Kurds
3) Support Netanyahu's settlement building after the murder of Rabin by a right winger
4) Invade Iraq, disband its army, thus strengthening Iran. Tell Iran they probably are next.
The fact is, Republican and neocon policy in the Middle East has led to the complete disaster we have today, with millions of broken lives.
Here are just a few steps in the Republican disaster, which you try to spin as some grand and intelligent policy--- word limits drastically shorten the list
1) overthrow a pro-American democratically elected government in Iran, led by a national hero because Republicans didn't think he was giving the British oil company a good enough deal on Iranian oil. (Eisenhower-- also planned the Bay of Pigs invasion, dumping it in Kennedy's lap; Nixon would have gone on to give air support and bomb Cuba but JFK realized the disaster and stopped unfortunately not soon enough.)
2) Sell arms to Iran (Reagan) while simultaneously strengthening Saddam Hussein even after he used WMDs, thus somehow balancing power at the Iran Iraq border by holding their coats while the 2 countries fight each other at the cost of many lives, including those of brave Kurds
3) Support Netanyahu's settlement building after the murder of Rabin by a right winger
4) Invade Iraq, disband its army, thus strengthening Iran. Tell Iran they probably are next.
15
The United States throughout most of it's history has been isolationist in relation to rest of the world outside its borders. We've been fortunate in that for the most part we've had the Atlantic and Pacific to help maintain the isolation. Eventually technology caught up and the two oceans became less of a shield. We have maintained the mythos that America doesn't want an empire. Our involvement in world affairs was to protect our economic interests against the great evil of communism of by using client states, many of them despotic. Now that great evil is gone, at least for the most part.
So we won? Or did we? We're dealing with a world where a good portion of the countries are made up of nations created by the old colonial powers. These nations cross tribal boundaries, and ignore tribal interests. The result? Chaos and terrorism. Iraq is a prime example. with the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds as historic enemies. Do we go in and militarily try to create a Pax Americana? Go in by conquering all these broken up nations and re-dividing them into working units? We impose a form of democracy reinforced by American might. This will take decades and many military lives. Or do we back off and try to contain the mess until it resolves itself. Use our military might to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who might use them. Both choices will result in terrorist attacks and deaths on US soil. Neither choice is appealing but they are the choices.
So we won? Or did we? We're dealing with a world where a good portion of the countries are made up of nations created by the old colonial powers. These nations cross tribal boundaries, and ignore tribal interests. The result? Chaos and terrorism. Iraq is a prime example. with the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds as historic enemies. Do we go in and militarily try to create a Pax Americana? Go in by conquering all these broken up nations and re-dividing them into working units? We impose a form of democracy reinforced by American might. This will take decades and many military lives. Or do we back off and try to contain the mess until it resolves itself. Use our military might to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who might use them. Both choices will result in terrorist attacks and deaths on US soil. Neither choice is appealing but they are the choices.
18
This is a very good perspective on our situation in the middle east. Obama wants NO part of it, he thinks if Iran becomes the big dog in the region, they will control all of the minor players, and if Israel get nuked in the mean time, well, so be it. Folks, we are sinking deeper, and deeper into the middle east growing disaster.
4
Israel gets nuked? When this nation has 400+ nukes themselves? The opposite is more likely and everyone knows it.
Ross,
Your commentary is a shamefully blatant effort to rewrite recent Middle East history and justify the invasion of Iraq, which is the greatest blunder and stupidest of US foreign policy since the founding of this nation.
Your commentary is a shamefully blatant effort to rewrite recent Middle East history and justify the invasion of Iraq, which is the greatest blunder and stupidest of US foreign policy since the founding of this nation.
134
your analysis is reasonable and then it degenerates to erroneous conclusion. US with the Saudis and Israel have truly destroyed the middle East so for heaven s sake quit.
"Hence the Bush administration’s post-9/11 decision to try to start afresh, by transforming a rogue state into a regional model, a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old."
This is the strangest justification for a invading a country that we had no reason or business to invade.
This is the strangest justification for a invading a country that we had no reason or business to invade.
81
We sure blew the demonstration of how democracy is supposed to work.
22
Ross, please get it straight: the "withdrawal" from Iraq was started in the Bush administration, and, without a status of forces agreement, the US had no legal right to keep forces in Iraq. Since the regime - aligned with Iran - wouldn't do an acceptable SOF with the Obsma administration, we were out of there. Otherwise, we'd have been an occupying force. The mess in Iraq is, was and will be the responsibility of ush/Cheney and the neocons. The same ones who think sending troops in will somehow bring about a different result. Diplomacy and letting the factions in the Middle East is not only a reasonable result, it also puts the responsibility on those involved. Kinda like the never-served neocons who think war is great, as long as they don't actually have to sacrifice.
22
If Mr. Douthat is saying that we have no good choices in the Middle East, then for once I agree with him.
11
Ross, go explain what you just wrote to the all the Bushes and their band of brothers, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Netanyahu, psycho Bolton et al.
Try to explain to them what they wrought and then explain to the next Republican candidate how failed their policies are and to be sure not to emulate them no matter what Sheldon Adelson says.
Tell them Obama is trying not to waste any more lives or money. That's what we pay the President to do.
Try to explain to them what they wrought and then explain to the next Republican candidate how failed their policies are and to be sure not to emulate them no matter what Sheldon Adelson says.
Tell them Obama is trying not to waste any more lives or money. That's what we pay the President to do.
48
Query to Mr. Douthat. How much should we raise taxes to do all you say we should do? I assume as long as they are regressive and only hit the poor that is a sacrifice worth making.
34
Method? No such thing, just an exercise in stupidity. When you are no longer feared, all chaos breaks out. Think about it, when we close down the police station in town, it sends a message that anything goes. Best we work on regime change here in the US.
4
When Republicans come up with more compelling reasons to vote for them for President, regime change will occur. Given the slate of potential candidates, it's not looking good.
4
In all honesty...
1. It is so untrue and far from the fact, to call it "Obama's Middle East mess" !
2. The whole world knows who individually and collectively created it.
3. Obama only tried to undo the mess (extremely tied in knots), restore the credibility of America in the world community, and is still attempting to make America, the Middle East and the world, a saner and safer place.
It is hypocrisy to call it "Obama's Middle East mess" !
1. It is so untrue and far from the fact, to call it "Obama's Middle East mess" !
2. The whole world knows who individually and collectively created it.
3. Obama only tried to undo the mess (extremely tied in knots), restore the credibility of America in the world community, and is still attempting to make America, the Middle East and the world, a saner and safer place.
It is hypocrisy to call it "Obama's Middle East mess" !
44
Ok, Bush created the mess and Obama made it messier. Happy? Right now IT IS Obama's Middle East mess!
3
Perhaps Mr. Douthat should read some of the reader comments to his article. Quite a number provide a much better analysis of the Mideast, post George W. Bush, then his current contribution does. Mr. Douthat's half hearted distillation of Pax Americana may play to the Fox News Crowd, but most responses to this article understand the Mideast mess more comprehensibly than Mr. Duthat writes.
In ascribing much blame for the Iraq disaster where it certainly belongs, to George W. Bush Administration, should be viewed as a warning to America. There is a third Bush on the horizon - a Bush and his proxies this country should eschew and thoroughly disavow for the 2016 Presidential race and thereafter.
In ascribing much blame for the Iraq disaster where it certainly belongs, to George W. Bush Administration, should be viewed as a warning to America. There is a third Bush on the horizon - a Bush and his proxies this country should eschew and thoroughly disavow for the 2016 Presidential race and thereafter.
41
Yes, Jeb Bush claims he is different from his brother, but then lists essentially the same disastrous foreign policy team (but, I guess, who else do the Republicans have, except people who may be, hard to imagine, even worse).
7
"Let's recap the state of America's commitments in the Middle East".
Seven paragraphs later, you offer the sugar coated pill of the absolute "blunder" that was George Bush's first administration. You write as if the deaths of some 4500 Americans was just a necessary "speed bump" to defend us all from imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Why can't you just say that the only reason we're, and Mr. Obama, embroiled in the region so fully is due to Mr. Bush's, and his team of cheer leaders, folly of inducing "democracy" into the region; seems it's not working and his successor must deal with the aftermath.
Pointing fingers now may be a little late to help those already dead and the trillions of dollars lost but to insist that it's all "Obama's fault" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe you're pleased with "we broke it, we got to fix it" but if "fixing it" means more American lives squandered, then I might suggest "leaving it alone".
If Mr. Netanyahu wants a war with Iran, he's a big boy with his own country and military. The United States could "tacitly" back him but, for once, let's just ride this one out as long as we can. When the dust settles, we can then deal with whichever theocracy has won.
Seven paragraphs later, you offer the sugar coated pill of the absolute "blunder" that was George Bush's first administration. You write as if the deaths of some 4500 Americans was just a necessary "speed bump" to defend us all from imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Why can't you just say that the only reason we're, and Mr. Obama, embroiled in the region so fully is due to Mr. Bush's, and his team of cheer leaders, folly of inducing "democracy" into the region; seems it's not working and his successor must deal with the aftermath.
Pointing fingers now may be a little late to help those already dead and the trillions of dollars lost but to insist that it's all "Obama's fault" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe you're pleased with "we broke it, we got to fix it" but if "fixing it" means more American lives squandered, then I might suggest "leaving it alone".
If Mr. Netanyahu wants a war with Iran, he's a big boy with his own country and military. The United States could "tacitly" back him but, for once, let's just ride this one out as long as we can. When the dust settles, we can then deal with whichever theocracy has won.
45
4500 Americans and nearly 200,000 Iraqis dead during our occupation. Saddam would have taken a long time to kill that many people.
1
Under Obama we have become virtually energy independent. The oil leash is weakened to the extent that we don't fear Saudi Arabia, except in the Republican gulag. McCain, who lost to Obama, war, war, or war. Coherent? Yet Republican propagandists want someone, anyone to believe that Obama does not have a coherent plan? Is anyone surprised?
"This administration has been persistently surprised by Middle East developments," but not nearly as surprised as Bush was when 9/11 disturbed his vacations. Iranian detente may be a far better "game changer" than toppling Saddam and "Mission Accomplished!" failure. This administration has worked to open doors to Iran, the only Muslim state in the Gulf that did not harbor or fund Al Qaeda and offered assistance and intelligence to Bush to fight Al Qaeda.
Douthat is correct in that "offshore balancing offers the most benefits when your entanglements are truly minimal, but it’s very hard for a hegemon to... sidle offstage, shedding expectations and leaving allies in the lurch." But he is wrong in imagining that Obama wants to continue entanglements or maintain expectations (two state solution).
No clear goal? Certainly not oil dependence and religious civil war. Maybe a "Metternichian plan" that is not clear to Douthat, but is obvious to America where oil addiction, medieval royalists, and theocracy are recognized as causing global warming, tyranny, and intolerance and abuse of occupied or enslaved minorities.
"This administration has been persistently surprised by Middle East developments," but not nearly as surprised as Bush was when 9/11 disturbed his vacations. Iranian detente may be a far better "game changer" than toppling Saddam and "Mission Accomplished!" failure. This administration has worked to open doors to Iran, the only Muslim state in the Gulf that did not harbor or fund Al Qaeda and offered assistance and intelligence to Bush to fight Al Qaeda.
Douthat is correct in that "offshore balancing offers the most benefits when your entanglements are truly minimal, but it’s very hard for a hegemon to... sidle offstage, shedding expectations and leaving allies in the lurch." But he is wrong in imagining that Obama wants to continue entanglements or maintain expectations (two state solution).
No clear goal? Certainly not oil dependence and religious civil war. Maybe a "Metternichian plan" that is not clear to Douthat, but is obvious to America where oil addiction, medieval royalists, and theocracy are recognized as causing global warming, tyranny, and intolerance and abuse of occupied or enslaved minorities.
29
Ross, perhaps we should consider that the American people have had enough with a heavy handed version of Pax Americana.
Too much blood, too much treasure, too much wasted time. Seeing ISIS parades of US taxpayer funded military vehicles doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy about the success of Pax Americana.
Maybe offshoring the risk and costs actually sorts out how serious the problem is to those governments most affected. If they do not deal with it, why should American families ? Let's start with that.
Too much blood, too much treasure, too much wasted time. Seeing ISIS parades of US taxpayer funded military vehicles doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy about the success of Pax Americana.
Maybe offshoring the risk and costs actually sorts out how serious the problem is to those governments most affected. If they do not deal with it, why should American families ? Let's start with that.
35
"If they do not deal with it, why should American families?"
I am reminded of what LBJ said about South Vietnam: "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
Let the Middle Eastern boys hash it out for themselves.
I am reminded of what LBJ said about South Vietnam: "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
Let the Middle Eastern boys hash it out for themselves.
The Middle East will remain in turmoil with or without us but I feel the turmoil should be defined by the people who live there. We are only there for self-serving reasons: oil and financing our huge military industrial complex. The region is not filled with leaders seeking democracy or wanting anything to do with our way of life, they merely crave access to more weapons to carry out more violence against their neighbors. We have brainwashed them into believing this is their fate. That is the tragedy. I believe our involvement in the Middle East has ruined chances for peace in the region. We have angered generations of young people and helped to create instability throughout the world.
31
Until I read an apology for cheerleading the invasion I gave no use fir anything the neocons say
9
I don't think Mr. Douthat is endorsing more wars or policing every errant nation in the Middle East or Africa. Questioning Obama's strategy of pulling out to let regional powers balance each other out is fair; the new strategy may not work. Then what? Some commenters fear more American involvement; others imply if America was less involved with its currently "bad" allies in the Middle East, somehow the Al Qaeda and ISIS ranks would shrink in response. On the other hand, those two groups, plus Iranian hegemony, might just mushroom out of proportion to what they are now. Everything is possible. Don't assume our President has all the answers.
What he needs are more policy advisors/experts to present all possible scenarios, not just those he wants to hear; like what Mr. Douthat is opining.
What he needs are more policy advisors/experts to present all possible scenarios, not just those he wants to hear; like what Mr. Douthat is opining.
2
Maybe he has been advised of many possible scenarios and what he is doing is what he believes is the best way forward. I just want to hear from those wanting the US more involved in the ME militarily if they will support the draft and a 20 % surcharge on paid income taxes to pay for that involvement.
2
But in the Middle East, there has been no real evolution toward democracy among our network of allies;
Only American fools yet believe that the Muslim faith and democracy can co-exist as a single entity. It cannot, and will not ever evolve into that. This deadly combination is just as unnerving as when Right Wing Christians seek to radicalize themselves in our own government. Like oil and water religion and government should not be mixed and stirred as it accomplishes nothing. It all boils down to common sense which is uncommon in the Pax Americana Doctrine which NEVER lost it's stranglehold and is evident yet in our policy of undermining Putin and Russia as a whole by our instigative revolt there. Imperius Rex!
Only American fools yet believe that the Muslim faith and democracy can co-exist as a single entity. It cannot, and will not ever evolve into that. This deadly combination is just as unnerving as when Right Wing Christians seek to radicalize themselves in our own government. Like oil and water religion and government should not be mixed and stirred as it accomplishes nothing. It all boils down to common sense which is uncommon in the Pax Americana Doctrine which NEVER lost it's stranglehold and is evident yet in our policy of undermining Putin and Russia as a whole by our instigative revolt there. Imperius Rex!
6
I continue to be amazed and appalled by conservative’s response to the events currently taking place in the Middle-East. Their pique is directed towards President Obama when the real culprits for the current chaos are those that argued so vociferously for an invasion of Iraq and now argue again for more war in the area, this time against Iran.
In 2001 the real enemy was in Afghanistan and when we went to war we all got behind President Bush because we all knew and trusted the president that was where the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed.
Later we were told that we would be greeted as liberators and that there was to be a new blossoming of freedom in the Middle East if we only removed Saddam Hussein of Iraq from power.
Yet here we are, all these years later and the region is a mess and now the people who started the fire want to blame Obama.
WWI was ignited by Gavrilo Princip – it appears to this reader that our current war in the middle east was ignited by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowiz et al., yet they want to blame someone else for the greatest foreign policy fiasco of the new century.
When will the insanity end?
In 2001 the real enemy was in Afghanistan and when we went to war we all got behind President Bush because we all knew and trusted the president that was where the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed.
Later we were told that we would be greeted as liberators and that there was to be a new blossoming of freedom in the Middle East if we only removed Saddam Hussein of Iraq from power.
Yet here we are, all these years later and the region is a mess and now the people who started the fire want to blame Obama.
WWI was ignited by Gavrilo Princip – it appears to this reader that our current war in the middle east was ignited by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowiz et al., yet they want to blame someone else for the greatest foreign policy fiasco of the new century.
When will the insanity end?
12
The foreign policy of both George W. Bush and President Obama has been a disaster. Throwing billions of dollars to those countries in the Middle East and Africa has only made things worse. When we got in bed with the Taliban to fight off the Soviet Union, and refused to build up what was necessary for Afghanistan years ago, and then not stepping in immediately when Osama Bin Laden was kicked out of Somalia and took over Afghanistan, shows how little those in power knew about intelligent and quick action of the right kind. When you don't do immediate action with enough man power on the ground in the right way for the right result, you will accomplish little. Why did President Obama not allow those in our military to at least attempt a rescue for those Nigerian kidnapped girls even if some were killed because at least Boko Haram would of been killed, and prevented from more killing which has just went on and on. What is our millions doing for Nigeria? Nothing. Michele Obama holding up a sign saying, " free our girls," is one of the most idiotic examples of foreign policy that I have ever seen in my lifetime, especially when her husband had the means to take immediate action with our military. Neither war mongering or the naïve belief in rosy scenarios for older established hatreds by religious fanatics and tribal feuds is considered foreign policy. Actually, George Bush Sr. had more intelligence, restraint , and foreign policy than either his son or President Obama.
1
Well, there is certainly a lot of blaming of the past going on in these 14 comments that have been published so far. I'm sure it is cathartic but I have to ask, "To what end?" Where are the strategically brilliant moves being developed and advocated by those doing the blaming.
Now, I hasten to add that I don't know the solution to the Middle East or Ukraine or......messes, but looking at past history, we may want to seriously consider something along the lines of containment OR gathering a multi-national force in fact, not fiction, to crush ISIS. It will take serious thinking to decide how that might work and commitment by many others.
What we do know is that a nuclear armed Iran is not going to make for peace in the region. And turning a blind eye to ISIS isn't going to do that, either.
So, folks, what is the way forward that doesn't emulate our 1930's outcome?
And, Mr. McBride, as far as lies go, maybe it is impossible to be a political leader and not lie because the electorate wants to hear their views being put forward. And they savage anyone else without looking at what has changed. Which explains our current miasma of incompetent Republicans running against an incompetent Democrat. Plato was right, those who are competent and refuse to govern are condemned to be governed by incompetents. I have little hope of that changing. The potentially competent leaders have all gone to Tech.
Now, I hasten to add that I don't know the solution to the Middle East or Ukraine or......messes, but looking at past history, we may want to seriously consider something along the lines of containment OR gathering a multi-national force in fact, not fiction, to crush ISIS. It will take serious thinking to decide how that might work and commitment by many others.
What we do know is that a nuclear armed Iran is not going to make for peace in the region. And turning a blind eye to ISIS isn't going to do that, either.
So, folks, what is the way forward that doesn't emulate our 1930's outcome?
And, Mr. McBride, as far as lies go, maybe it is impossible to be a political leader and not lie because the electorate wants to hear their views being put forward. And they savage anyone else without looking at what has changed. Which explains our current miasma of incompetent Republicans running against an incompetent Democrat. Plato was right, those who are competent and refuse to govern are condemned to be governed by incompetents. I have little hope of that changing. The potentially competent leaders have all gone to Tech.
1
Imagine what will happen if a Republican is elected president: increased military spending, more and bigger wars--probably economic collapse.
13
It's the Middle East, Sir, where short-term successes are a consequence of restraint (e.g. Poppy Bush) and luck, not philosophy. Offshore balancing is a straw-philosophy which approximates what Obama did, and what he did was the only arrow in the quiver. He did make mistakes, though. His biggest: letting Maliki reign.
But wasn't Maliki elected while Bush was President? Are you suggesting we should have ignored their election, tossed Maliki and put in our puppet? Maybe the real problem is that the Shia hate the Sunni and now that they are in power the Shia are going to give what they got. How do you suppose the US should fix that?
1
Oh, dear. Mr. Douthat is pontificating on foreign policy.
"Hence the Bush administration’s post-9/11 decision to try to start afresh, by transforming a rogue state into a regional model, a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old."
Excuse me?
Let's see, is he bemoaning the direct result of Bush II's attempt at nation building at the same time holding those policies responsible for the demise of stability via the Arab Spring ...while complaining that President Obama's strategies in assistance to the region are tantamount to appeasement, pretty much because we don't have boots on the ground? So forgive me if I am unclear as to his expectations.
President Obama's policies aren't so much a mess as an attempt to extricate American boots without causing the complete collapse of some of the governments the last administration played RISK with. This is a highly intelligent way to proceed.
With the exception of Israel (see this month's elections as proof) the rest of the ME is not democratically functional. And since it's pretty clear our boots on the ground can't fix the rest of the Arab world...We, the People, should be just fine with the President untangling us one threat at a time. Mr. Douthat needs to get past his hawkish perspective and think about what's actually in the best interest of these here United States.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
"Hence the Bush administration’s post-9/11 decision to try to start afresh, by transforming a rogue state into a regional model, a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old."
Excuse me?
Let's see, is he bemoaning the direct result of Bush II's attempt at nation building at the same time holding those policies responsible for the demise of stability via the Arab Spring ...while complaining that President Obama's strategies in assistance to the region are tantamount to appeasement, pretty much because we don't have boots on the ground? So forgive me if I am unclear as to his expectations.
President Obama's policies aren't so much a mess as an attempt to extricate American boots without causing the complete collapse of some of the governments the last administration played RISK with. This is a highly intelligent way to proceed.
With the exception of Israel (see this month's elections as proof) the rest of the ME is not democratically functional. And since it's pretty clear our boots on the ground can't fix the rest of the Arab world...We, the People, should be just fine with the President untangling us one threat at a time. Mr. Douthat needs to get past his hawkish perspective and think about what's actually in the best interest of these here United States.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
16
Can we afford an unstable Middle East as described by Mr. Douthat?
Can we afford to prop up autocrats when their subjects yearn for better, only to find the alternatives worse for the locals?
Can we afford to withdraw from the worst of the chaotic situations only to have Iran's proxies - Hezbollah/Hamas/Houthis fill the vacuum or worse, ISIS?
Is it morally correct to spend our resources on military adventures, including the lives of American warriors and the inevitable cost of caring for the wounded and maimed, and in the process shortchange our domestic needs - infrastructure, education, healthcare because we can't afford that many guns and too little butter?
Mr. Douthat assumes there are discrete choices and each has foreseeable outcomes. I disagree - at best we can manage events as best we can as the unforeseen arises, time after time.
Can we afford to prop up autocrats when their subjects yearn for better, only to find the alternatives worse for the locals?
Can we afford to withdraw from the worst of the chaotic situations only to have Iran's proxies - Hezbollah/Hamas/Houthis fill the vacuum or worse, ISIS?
Is it morally correct to spend our resources on military adventures, including the lives of American warriors and the inevitable cost of caring for the wounded and maimed, and in the process shortchange our domestic needs - infrastructure, education, healthcare because we can't afford that many guns and too little butter?
Mr. Douthat assumes there are discrete choices and each has foreseeable outcomes. I disagree - at best we can manage events as best we can as the unforeseen arises, time after time.
7
There is a foot note.
The Egypt-Palestine thing is kind of a side show compared to these regional interplays and power plays now underway.
The equation has essentially changed between Israel and its USA partner and Benjamin Netanyahu knows this and that is the reason for his echoes.
It also means that the USA influence in this matter is destined to change and that we may be seeing the last gasps of hard-to-justify rhetoric.
Except of course from our poor GOP leadership and its endless dependence on pandership.
Let's not forget that a Republican president and his inept cohorts got us into the Iraqi war.
The Egypt-Palestine thing is kind of a side show compared to these regional interplays and power plays now underway.
The equation has essentially changed between Israel and its USA partner and Benjamin Netanyahu knows this and that is the reason for his echoes.
It also means that the USA influence in this matter is destined to change and that we may be seeing the last gasps of hard-to-justify rhetoric.
Except of course from our poor GOP leadership and its endless dependence on pandership.
Let's not forget that a Republican president and his inept cohorts got us into the Iraqi war.
17
The republican's dangerous fantasy of thinking more war would actually bring democracy to the middle east has caused the horrific destabilization of the region. The republican neocons are crazed for war and frankly I'm sick of their insanity. Unleashed centuries old hatreds can't be solved by American troops put smack in the middle of their tribal wars. Let the Bush and Cheney families go over there if they feel that strongly about war instead of sending other people's families to war.
21
"(as soon as we get the Iran deal, game changer, baby!)."
This is a gross mischaracterization of the tone and reasonableness of the statement that appears in the linked article on Politico. It speaks to the desperation of this cynical column. And it underlines all its many dishonesties.
Why doesn't Mr. Douthat say something constructive? He's done it once or twice. We know he's capable. Who is the adult in the room?
This is a gross mischaracterization of the tone and reasonableness of the statement that appears in the linked article on Politico. It speaks to the desperation of this cynical column. And it underlines all its many dishonesties.
Why doesn't Mr. Douthat say something constructive? He's done it once or twice. We know he's capable. Who is the adult in the room?
10
Republicans and their supporters, such as Mr. Douhat, are great at criticizing Obama's foreign policies, but not so great when it comes to offering alternatives. At least, Douhat acknowledges that the Bush approach was unsuccessful, but not that it was extremely expensive in terms of money and lives. What Douhat won't acknowledge, is that Bush's totally unnecessary Iraq war destabilized the Middle East and took out Iran's enemy allowing them to use the assets saved from fighting Iraq to aide rebel groups and work to building a nuclear weapon. What really scares Douhat and other Republicans is that Obama's negotiations withe Iran will be successful and get them to re-enter the global economy and eventually turn their back on rebel groups and nuclear weapons. But diplomacy takes time, and as we learned from Bush's Iraq war, Republicans would rather shoot first and talk later.
18
As long as analyses such as this one ignore the complexities involved, we will get this sort of confusion.
(1) Sunni. This is the sect that believes establishing a Caliphate is a requirement of religious canon and is inimical to nation-states. ISIS is the direct result of over a century of traditionalist Islam being taught in schools; now coming back to bite the hands that fed it. The end-game here is to defeat ISIS while insisting on changes in the policies and practices of Sunni nation-states, especially with regards to the UDHR.
(2) Shia. This sect believes the Mahdi will return and establish a new Caliphate in end times, so it is somewhat amenable to nation-states, but requires a tutored form of 'democracy' with vetted candidates chosen by religious leaders. Equally inimical to Israel due to the consideration of Jerusalem as part of Islamic religious territory, the danger of Shia nation-states is the very stability that allows them to work on advanced weaponry.
Add to this that the budding nuclear arms race cannot be unilaterally blocked by the US; all materials can be sourced from China, Russia, the EU, and rogue nuclear regimes (N. Korea, Pakistan).
So, the Administration rightly is attempting to stay in the game in each of this scenarios and maintain the ability to influence events. There simply is no choosing a single side and pushing for victory, in spite of the overly simple, fanatical Republican "analyses" of events.
(1) Sunni. This is the sect that believes establishing a Caliphate is a requirement of religious canon and is inimical to nation-states. ISIS is the direct result of over a century of traditionalist Islam being taught in schools; now coming back to bite the hands that fed it. The end-game here is to defeat ISIS while insisting on changes in the policies and practices of Sunni nation-states, especially with regards to the UDHR.
(2) Shia. This sect believes the Mahdi will return and establish a new Caliphate in end times, so it is somewhat amenable to nation-states, but requires a tutored form of 'democracy' with vetted candidates chosen by religious leaders. Equally inimical to Israel due to the consideration of Jerusalem as part of Islamic religious territory, the danger of Shia nation-states is the very stability that allows them to work on advanced weaponry.
Add to this that the budding nuclear arms race cannot be unilaterally blocked by the US; all materials can be sourced from China, Russia, the EU, and rogue nuclear regimes (N. Korea, Pakistan).
So, the Administration rightly is attempting to stay in the game in each of this scenarios and maintain the ability to influence events. There simply is no choosing a single side and pushing for victory, in spite of the overly simple, fanatical Republican "analyses" of events.
24
Pax Americana in the ME is part of a system of maintaining global economic stability that is crucial particularly in today's weak worldwide economic environment.
By assuring stability in the ME, America, among other things, assures other nation's energy supplies. For example, Japan is totally dependent on energy supplies from the ME. It obtains 76% of their needs from the Gulf states while Iran provides 5%. China, the largest importer of petroleum, obtains 34% of its needs from the Gulf states while Iran only provides 8%.
The takeover of Yemen by Iran-supported Houthis would provide Iran with control of who accesses the Suez Canal through the Mandab Strait in addition to the Strait of Hormuz that it has threatened to close in the past. This potential control of these two strategic straits combined with Iran's ambitions for nuclear weapons would be a real global game changer.
Not only would the Gulf States and Israel resist but China and Japan as well, not to mention Europe that depends on the Suez canal for its trade with the Far East.
That's why the US established a Pax Americana when Britain could no longer afford to maintain a Pax Britania after WWII in the ME. If America withdraws who will fill that need, Iran? Hardly, as much as they are trying to.
Given these facts, the withdrawal of America from the ME will likely provoke a regional war with global consequences that will quickly reach our shores.
That's what is at stake here.
By assuring stability in the ME, America, among other things, assures other nation's energy supplies. For example, Japan is totally dependent on energy supplies from the ME. It obtains 76% of their needs from the Gulf states while Iran provides 5%. China, the largest importer of petroleum, obtains 34% of its needs from the Gulf states while Iran only provides 8%.
The takeover of Yemen by Iran-supported Houthis would provide Iran with control of who accesses the Suez Canal through the Mandab Strait in addition to the Strait of Hormuz that it has threatened to close in the past. This potential control of these two strategic straits combined with Iran's ambitions for nuclear weapons would be a real global game changer.
Not only would the Gulf States and Israel resist but China and Japan as well, not to mention Europe that depends on the Suez canal for its trade with the Far East.
That's why the US established a Pax Americana when Britain could no longer afford to maintain a Pax Britania after WWII in the ME. If America withdraws who will fill that need, Iran? Hardly, as much as they are trying to.
Given these facts, the withdrawal of America from the ME will likely provoke a regional war with global consequences that will quickly reach our shores.
That's what is at stake here.
6
It would be most helpful if those countries who stand to benefit most from this Pax Americana would help foot the bill. As it is, it seems that Americans are watching their own country crumble while working assiduously to help the Chinese and Japanese maintain their quality of life.
Yes, Britain reached the point where she could no longer afford Pax Britannia, due in part to the loss of the colonies that paid for it. I submit that the US is at or near that point after a decade and a half of war. We have a breaking point, too.
Yes, Britain reached the point where she could no longer afford Pax Britannia, due in part to the loss of the colonies that paid for it. I submit that the US is at or near that point after a decade and a half of war. We have a breaking point, too.
2
And since we are close to being oil independent, who cares? Let's invest more in clean energy and forget the middle east. It is not our problem and is beyond our ability to fix. It is a Sunni-Shia fight that has been brewing for 1400 years. We have generally supported the Sunni dictators through the years. Are you surprised the Shia mistrust and don't like us? Let the regional players fight it out-that includes Israel.
1
So you agree that oil is the only reason we invaded Iraq in 2003?
1
When presidential candidates ask rhetorically were you better 4 yrs ago than you are now the question should be rephrased; is the US better off now or 14 yrs ago. Sadly we were better off geo-politically with Saddam and the other autocrats in the middle east in charge and capable of suppressing sectarianism. Instead of western style democracy and e pluribus unum we have religious tribalism and regional power politics. The US cannot control or significantly alter events without a Pax Americana half-way around the world. There are limits to America's power and perhaps the bumbling Obama policy is to keep us out of endless Trojan Wars. American blood and treasure deserve better.
7
I find our "experts" on the Middle East amusing, in a sick sort of way. Nobody has the smallest idea how dangerous everything's getting by the day because we all have the quaint idea that "everyone's just like us with funny clothes and accents". The actors in that region are deadly serious about expanding power and reach and we are about to hand Iran the final bit they need to project deadly force around the world. The Sunnis - millions of them - will push to match that nuclear projection capability and we are closer than ever to real nuclear war.
We chafe at our overwhelming role in the world and rail against the expense of large military forces but those forces have been the only thing keeping the mass murderers at bay. Now we will be faced with lunatics with multi-kiloton weapons and the ability to hit any point at all within our nation at will - and we are crippling and reducing our armed forces at the same time. Why did we stop our antimissile defense network in Europe?
I hate to see what's coming next. Elections have consequences.
We chafe at our overwhelming role in the world and rail against the expense of large military forces but those forces have been the only thing keeping the mass murderers at bay. Now we will be faced with lunatics with multi-kiloton weapons and the ability to hit any point at all within our nation at will - and we are crippling and reducing our armed forces at the same time. Why did we stop our antimissile defense network in Europe?
I hate to see what's coming next. Elections have consequences.
4
"This administration has been persistently surprised by Middle East developments"
Where exactly is the proof of this? This sounds to me like another Fox News sound byte, picked up by Red State/Breitbart/etc., repeated ad nauseum in right wing circles, and at that point just stated as fact without so much as a though.
Being "surprised" by Middle East developments is what happens when you refuse to read a security briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." because you didn't want to listen to a democrat, and then two planes crash into NYC. Being "surprised" is what happens when experts tell you that overthrowing Saddam would cost thousands of lives, get us stuck in the Middle East for a decade, cost trillions, cause a sectarian war, and create a gigantic power vacuum resulting in destabilizing the region, but you ignore that, fabricate military intelligence, and go in anyway, claiming it will cost 50 billion and no lives.
Where exactly is the proof of this? This sounds to me like another Fox News sound byte, picked up by Red State/Breitbart/etc., repeated ad nauseum in right wing circles, and at that point just stated as fact without so much as a though.
Being "surprised" by Middle East developments is what happens when you refuse to read a security briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." because you didn't want to listen to a democrat, and then two planes crash into NYC. Being "surprised" is what happens when experts tell you that overthrowing Saddam would cost thousands of lives, get us stuck in the Middle East for a decade, cost trillions, cause a sectarian war, and create a gigantic power vacuum resulting in destabilizing the region, but you ignore that, fabricate military intelligence, and go in anyway, claiming it will cost 50 billion and no lives.
11
Mr. Douthat's overall analysis of the situation is accurate; unfortunately his conclusions appear parochial and condescending: unless the US or some other power takes care of the Middle East, the region will descend into wars, chaos and disaster. It is the quintessential conservative viewpoint: those backward countries lack the ability to live in peace with one another without our assistance.
This viewpoint ignores the fact that historical US (and European) interventions are some of the most destabilizing influences the region has had, and many of the current problems there can be traced back to these interventions. Suppose we all left them alone for a few decades, as we did Southeast Asia. Certainly there would be bloodshed, but it is very likely that in time they would find a way to live in peace. Who knows? Maybe Egypt or Iran could one day be as strong a trading partner as Vietnam is today.
For those who point to the killing fields of Cambodia as proof of the dangers of abandoning a region, I have to ask whether fewer people would have died if the US had extended our involvement for another decade or two.
This viewpoint ignores the fact that historical US (and European) interventions are some of the most destabilizing influences the region has had, and many of the current problems there can be traced back to these interventions. Suppose we all left them alone for a few decades, as we did Southeast Asia. Certainly there would be bloodshed, but it is very likely that in time they would find a way to live in peace. Who knows? Maybe Egypt or Iran could one day be as strong a trading partner as Vietnam is today.
For those who point to the killing fields of Cambodia as proof of the dangers of abandoning a region, I have to ask whether fewer people would have died if the US had extended our involvement for another decade or two.
10
One more factor not mentioned in this essay--the USA has burned through all our credibility and good will in the last 10 years we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the eyes of the locals, whatever we touch is tainted. This is the real legacy of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in the region.
5
I remember the arguments against getting out of Vietnam. It was hard because we didn't win and couldn't control ending the conflict. Bad things happened.
The Middle East is even more complex, but our presence there has negative effects. Resentment of the US is a powerful recruitment tool for groups like ISIS. I think it's likely that being the "hegemon"is part of the problem
Saudi Arabia and Israel have their own interests and politics. They may be alienating us as much as we're alienating them. How far should we go to prove we're not betraying our allies?
Douthat sounds frustrated that nobody can fix it all. Bush couldn't do it and neither can Obama. The idea that Americans have the power to impose restraint lost credibility long ago, but it seems really hard to let go of that idea. Better to excoriate the president than acknowledge limits to American power.
He seems irritated that our alliances have been shifting, which upsets his sense of good guys and bad guys. It's quite different from beating Hitler's Nazis in WWII, but didn't changing relationships with the Soviet Union require adjustments? I don't think there's anyway to keep the region from being multipolar. At least we have a temporary respite from worrying about oil.
The Middle East is even more complex, but our presence there has negative effects. Resentment of the US is a powerful recruitment tool for groups like ISIS. I think it's likely that being the "hegemon"is part of the problem
Saudi Arabia and Israel have their own interests and politics. They may be alienating us as much as we're alienating them. How far should we go to prove we're not betraying our allies?
Douthat sounds frustrated that nobody can fix it all. Bush couldn't do it and neither can Obama. The idea that Americans have the power to impose restraint lost credibility long ago, but it seems really hard to let go of that idea. Better to excoriate the president than acknowledge limits to American power.
He seems irritated that our alliances have been shifting, which upsets his sense of good guys and bad guys. It's quite different from beating Hitler's Nazis in WWII, but didn't changing relationships with the Soviet Union require adjustments? I don't think there's anyway to keep the region from being multipolar. At least we have a temporary respite from worrying about oil.
2
What is the point of Mr. Douthat's confused thinking in this column. He clearly knows no better than the administration what should be done in the Middle East. He seems to be claiming that the Bush era politics in the Middle East were bad, and that the Obama administration is also bad because it "will probably increase the risk of arms races, cross-border invasions and full-scale regional war."
Who says?
This is Mr. Douthat's back handed way of criticizing the Obama administration, but not on the basis of what it has done, but because it might not work in the future.
Clearly the linchpin in the current strategy is detante with Iran. A great deal of ink has been spilled making Iran into a bogeyman with all kinds of horrors attendant on rapprochement with Tehran.
This is of course, absurd. The opposite is true. If an accord with Iran is reached it will unleash an economic engine of mammoth dimension in the region. The benefits will flow to every nation in the region. Iran already trades with Israel secretly. That trade will increase many times.
President Obama's course is the only possible alternative to outright war in the region. It is the correct policy, and sniping based on some future pessimistic scenario is just whiny Republican annoyance that the President is doing well, and is likely to get credit for it.
Who says?
This is Mr. Douthat's back handed way of criticizing the Obama administration, but not on the basis of what it has done, but because it might not work in the future.
Clearly the linchpin in the current strategy is detante with Iran. A great deal of ink has been spilled making Iran into a bogeyman with all kinds of horrors attendant on rapprochement with Tehran.
This is of course, absurd. The opposite is true. If an accord with Iran is reached it will unleash an economic engine of mammoth dimension in the region. The benefits will flow to every nation in the region. Iran already trades with Israel secretly. That trade will increase many times.
President Obama's course is the only possible alternative to outright war in the region. It is the correct policy, and sniping based on some future pessimistic scenario is just whiny Republican annoyance that the President is doing well, and is likely to get credit for it.
5
"Hence the Bush administration’s post-9/11 decision to try to start afresh, by transforming a rogue state into a regional model, a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old."
Of the several reasons given by the Bush administration for invading Iraq, this is the most palatable, if not the most honest. Facing a region filled with bad actors and with the history of the British and Soviet experience in Afghanistan in mind, the Bush administration neverless decided to invade Iraq for whatever reason that really motivated them. What they accomplished was not the creation of democracy as the failure of the Arab Spring has taught us, but instead the opening Pandora's Box from which flew all of the troubles with which we are currently dealing.
While I think that President Obama has made mistakes, for Republicans to criticise him for not managing flawlessly the incredible mess that was largely of their own creation is the height hypocrisy. Eventually a Shi'ite Iran and a Sunni Saudi Arabia may be able to establish a kind of detente in the region if the United States continues its "offshore balancing." The alternative appears to be the endless expenditure of blood and treasure attempting to do what we have tried and failed to do in the past. What is the old saw about those who don't know history?
Of the several reasons given by the Bush administration for invading Iraq, this is the most palatable, if not the most honest. Facing a region filled with bad actors and with the history of the British and Soviet experience in Afghanistan in mind, the Bush administration neverless decided to invade Iraq for whatever reason that really motivated them. What they accomplished was not the creation of democracy as the failure of the Arab Spring has taught us, but instead the opening Pandora's Box from which flew all of the troubles with which we are currently dealing.
While I think that President Obama has made mistakes, for Republicans to criticise him for not managing flawlessly the incredible mess that was largely of their own creation is the height hypocrisy. Eventually a Shi'ite Iran and a Sunni Saudi Arabia may be able to establish a kind of detente in the region if the United States continues its "offshore balancing." The alternative appears to be the endless expenditure of blood and treasure attempting to do what we have tried and failed to do in the past. What is the old saw about those who don't know history?
5
The peoples of the Middle East survived quite well without our meddlesome intrusions and incompetent interference millennia before "America" existed even as a word. I look forward to the day that most Americans accept that fact, and that we have no business being there, and will only vote for candidates who promise to get us out and keep us out.
Let AIPAC and the neocon lobbies scream bloody murder; I do not care.
Let AIPAC and the neocon lobbies scream bloody murder; I do not care.
8
This is a good column.
I'm particularly curious about the Administration's thinking re: Syria. That's a human tragedy on an enormous scale and of course contributes to the ongoing nightmare of IS, the presence of Iranian militias and proxies all over the Arab world, and spiraling sectarian violence.
I don't understand how this got so bad so quickly. According to the UN some 9 million Syrians have been displaced. How can the country ever recover? The region as a whole will be destabilized for years, countless years, especially since civil life has all but been destroyed and ethnic and confessional rifts laid bare.
That this should have happened with people like Samantha Power in the Administration is especially cruel and ironic. She's written about genocide, the Administration as a whole seems quite sensitive to human rights, speaks clearly to the need for community and peace and tolerance - yet - things in the ME just keep getting more chaotic and dangerous.
I'm a Democrat and voted twice for the President, but our foreign policy isn't reassuring to me at all. This includes the highly secretive Trans Pacific Trade talks about which Robert Reich has written but also the apparent provocation of Russia. We had reasonable relations with Russia. Why did they feel so threatened as to annex the Crimea and apparently support a civil war in Ukraine? Things like this don't come out of the blue unless you assume Putin is just bad.
So, it's all quite troubling.
I'm particularly curious about the Administration's thinking re: Syria. That's a human tragedy on an enormous scale and of course contributes to the ongoing nightmare of IS, the presence of Iranian militias and proxies all over the Arab world, and spiraling sectarian violence.
I don't understand how this got so bad so quickly. According to the UN some 9 million Syrians have been displaced. How can the country ever recover? The region as a whole will be destabilized for years, countless years, especially since civil life has all but been destroyed and ethnic and confessional rifts laid bare.
That this should have happened with people like Samantha Power in the Administration is especially cruel and ironic. She's written about genocide, the Administration as a whole seems quite sensitive to human rights, speaks clearly to the need for community and peace and tolerance - yet - things in the ME just keep getting more chaotic and dangerous.
I'm a Democrat and voted twice for the President, but our foreign policy isn't reassuring to me at all. This includes the highly secretive Trans Pacific Trade talks about which Robert Reich has written but also the apparent provocation of Russia. We had reasonable relations with Russia. Why did they feel so threatened as to annex the Crimea and apparently support a civil war in Ukraine? Things like this don't come out of the blue unless you assume Putin is just bad.
So, it's all quite troubling.
3
Let's face it. We, Democrats and Republicans, have been making a bad situation worse in the Middle East. For us and for them. The answer: Since we are not capable of helping, let's withdraw all our people, money and support from the entire region.
6
Douthat's is highly critical of Obama, schooling him in the hard realities of the middle east, mocking his naive policy. As I neared the end of the lecture, I was anxious for the real wisdom, the part where Douthat recommends a better course of action. Fizzle. Douthat closes by suggesting all paths are doomed.
Frankly, I can get this level of analysis in the political food fights of online comment sections. We don't need columnists who rant that the world is a mess and it's all Obama's fault. Fox has got that territory well covered.
Frankly, I can get this level of analysis in the political food fights of online comment sections. We don't need columnists who rant that the world is a mess and it's all Obama's fault. Fox has got that territory well covered.
8
Mr. D., I admire your insightful and cogent presentation of the Middle East situation and the President's possible "master plan". I do hope you are correct - I feel many times that there can be no solution for the Middle East and its ancient divisions and subdivisions, which are so difficult for the West to discern or understand.
1
Finally someone who understands the real situation of the USA Versus the Middle East. The only problem with Mr. Douthat's analysis is that in actuality there is no way out for the USA. The reason is that the end result of "pulling out" will certainly bring termoil that will spill into Europe, will create vacuum that will be filled by Russia and China, will enhance military conflicts that will pull Egypt , Turkey, Saudi and eventually Israel, will encourage terror that will engolf the area from Indonesia through Pakistan, India and all the way to North Africa and finally will land on US shores. President Obama must understand that a "paradigm shift in how the United States relates to the Middle East, a shift from a Pax Americana model toward a strategy its supporters call “offshore balancing" is not achievable.
1
Pax Americana is party responsible for this mess. Clearly not for the Sunni/Shia rivalry, but we did remove Saddam who, despite all his sins, kept the region stable.
The fact of the matter is that the middle east has to solve the middle east's problems.
The fact of the matter is that the middle east has to solve the middle east's problems.
10
"Since the Cold War, and especially since 1991, the Pax Americana"
Pax Americana, this is easily the most laughable thing I have heard in my life. I agree Obama's Middle East policy has been far from stellar given his refusal to get our soldiers out of the region. That brings us back to 'Pax' which is what is so laughable. There should be a bumper sticker for cars around the world, 'Honk if your country has not had an unprovoked attack from the US'. The list of those working their horns keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Why do they hate us, because we won't stay out of their business!
Pax Americana, this is easily the most laughable thing I have heard in my life. I agree Obama's Middle East policy has been far from stellar given his refusal to get our soldiers out of the region. That brings us back to 'Pax' which is what is so laughable. There should be a bumper sticker for cars around the world, 'Honk if your country has not had an unprovoked attack from the US'. The list of those working their horns keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Why do they hate us, because we won't stay out of their business!
6
Douthat and and the rest of the conservatives cannot face the the absolute fact; the blaring, glaring truth of the breathtaking incompetence of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal's attempt to impose a "Pax Americana" in the Middle East with our bungled invasion of Iraq.
"That order did not, of course, emerge." Just bad luck, I guess.
Obama and every president that follows him for the next 50 years or more will struggle with the wreckage and they will do it with one hand tied because the whole world knows the American public has no stomach for any more military adventures in the Middle East or anywhere else.
American conservatives will not face those facts, like other inconvenient truths.
"That order did not, of course, emerge." Just bad luck, I guess.
Obama and every president that follows him for the next 50 years or more will struggle with the wreckage and they will do it with one hand tied because the whole world knows the American public has no stomach for any more military adventures in the Middle East or anywhere else.
American conservatives will not face those facts, like other inconvenient truths.
8
I do not believe that we are so much surprised at the tragedy playing out in the Middle East but that Obama was elected, in part, to get us out of there and to draw down our commitments - he's been trying to do what we elected him to do, but the situations there are not playing along. We've tried, the world has tried, but this isn't a movie script, powerfully self-interested parties are playing for keeps and no one from the outside can fix it. It's best that we do even less though political pressures are driving him to do more.
8
The larger picture is that history is moving on to the next phase - as it always does - while people like this author think that it is still 1945, when America emerged as a well-respected and well-liked superpower in the world. Fast forward 70 years, good will for America is no where to be found in the Middle East, just awe for raw militiary muscle (and that too sporadically). America's policies, decisions, actions in the ME over three score years are the cause of this erosion in respect, admiration and fear. Sure, raw military might will ensure American dominance a few more decades, at which point it will be the end of the line for US in the Middle East - just as the situation was up until the 1930s.
3
We need to start being a very strict parent. Pull out everything. All the troops, all the money. GOP wants to starve the beast, this is a good place to start. We don't really need anything from that region. Most of our oil is from Canada. Why are we even involved. Obama wanted to pivot to Asia and everyone called him a wimp. He was actually dead on. Communications with Asia is crucial right now.
Oil isn't just in Texas, Middle East, etc. News flash, we live in a sphere. Put money into developing new rigs or better new ways of getting energy resources. Unfortunately, mostly by accident of birth location, innocent people will suffer. But if you have the audacity to place a flag on your lapel, stand up strongly for what that represents. Or start wearing three pins, USA, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, eg USA, Aipac, and big oil.
Oil isn't just in Texas, Middle East, etc. News flash, we live in a sphere. Put money into developing new rigs or better new ways of getting energy resources. Unfortunately, mostly by accident of birth location, innocent people will suffer. But if you have the audacity to place a flag on your lapel, stand up strongly for what that represents. Or start wearing three pins, USA, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, eg USA, Aipac, and big oil.
6
Let's take 1/10 of what we've spent on war in the Middle East since we started helping the Taliban and Osama bin Laden fight the Russians, and helping Iran defeat its main counter-weight in the region, secular Iraq, and spend that 1/10 on helping the millions of displaced persons and refugees. Instead of "now that we've torn up your house, we'll abandon you in the desert," how about "we'll house, feed and clothe you?"
Be vigilant to help anti-corruption and democratic forces when/if they arise, but continue to pursue peace and our national interests with whomever is the de facto government in each country. Yes, we'll see domestic disturbances where the corrupt, violent and unjust are on top, but if we jump in, we'll find the whole family uniting against us, the intrusive, untrusted (with substantial justification) outsider.
And, the elephant in the room, let's start decreasing financial and military support for Israel until that right-government starts to move, or loses to a centrist government that will move, toward rights, including nationhood, for the Palestinians. This is not to abandon our tough little friend, but to stop him from provoking fights he expects us to jump into. Netanyahu et al, have you not yet heard us shouting at full voice, "we will defend with blood and treasure your right to live secure in your home, but you must stop robbing and beating the neighbors!"
Lastly, continue to do what we can to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the ME.
Be vigilant to help anti-corruption and democratic forces when/if they arise, but continue to pursue peace and our national interests with whomever is the de facto government in each country. Yes, we'll see domestic disturbances where the corrupt, violent and unjust are on top, but if we jump in, we'll find the whole family uniting against us, the intrusive, untrusted (with substantial justification) outsider.
And, the elephant in the room, let's start decreasing financial and military support for Israel until that right-government starts to move, or loses to a centrist government that will move, toward rights, including nationhood, for the Palestinians. This is not to abandon our tough little friend, but to stop him from provoking fights he expects us to jump into. Netanyahu et al, have you not yet heard us shouting at full voice, "we will defend with blood and treasure your right to live secure in your home, but you must stop robbing and beating the neighbors!"
Lastly, continue to do what we can to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the ME.
10
One might say thay Iran is our biggest problem. Well we already know who created that problem by eliminating a dictator who was its effective counterbalance. But really, our biggest problem/enemy is our deluded self. A number on the "Exceptional Right" would have you believe that we rule the world and therefore must police it. Well, we don't, and need to let others take responsibility. Is it not obvious by now, that wherever and whenever we think we know better, we make things worse? We should move quickly and smartly to extricate ourselves fron these military entanglements. The world might become a safer place...at least for Americans.
11
Good analysis with quite a few flaws:
1. A hegemonic power requires fear of pre-emptive war in order to cow rogue states. You need fear because it's too expensive to occupy everywhere. Part of the neo-con impetus for invading Iraq in the first place was that they believed our ability to persuade bad actors had eroded. In classic Rumsfeldian, what good is having the best military in the war if no one thinks you will use it. Well, we used it.... and now everyone knows we will never use it again. What Obama is dealing with is the natural aftermath of that wretchedly irresponsible decision. American hegemony in the middle east, thanks to the neocons, is no longer possible. All options are not (and never were) on the table. Pretending like they are would just be foolish and feckless.
2. The Middle east is not pre-war Eurpoe. Muslim armies are not going to sweep into Europe as they did in the 8th century. As long as Iran does not acquire a bomb... WIthout a bomb, the middle east conflict is a regional tribal affair with some nasty but incidental blowback... It can certainly be contained (if not managed). Obama is basically setting the correct priorities and doing as good a job as possible given our new reality.
3. If Israel is our greatest ally they should start acting like it. These conflicts have basically nothing to do with Irsael. Which makes it a perfect time to undburden the Palestine problem, therby extracting itself permantely from the madness of its neighbors.
1. A hegemonic power requires fear of pre-emptive war in order to cow rogue states. You need fear because it's too expensive to occupy everywhere. Part of the neo-con impetus for invading Iraq in the first place was that they believed our ability to persuade bad actors had eroded. In classic Rumsfeldian, what good is having the best military in the war if no one thinks you will use it. Well, we used it.... and now everyone knows we will never use it again. What Obama is dealing with is the natural aftermath of that wretchedly irresponsible decision. American hegemony in the middle east, thanks to the neocons, is no longer possible. All options are not (and never were) on the table. Pretending like they are would just be foolish and feckless.
2. The Middle east is not pre-war Eurpoe. Muslim armies are not going to sweep into Europe as they did in the 8th century. As long as Iran does not acquire a bomb... WIthout a bomb, the middle east conflict is a regional tribal affair with some nasty but incidental blowback... It can certainly be contained (if not managed). Obama is basically setting the correct priorities and doing as good a job as possible given our new reality.
3. If Israel is our greatest ally they should start acting like it. These conflicts have basically nothing to do with Irsael. Which makes it a perfect time to undburden the Palestine problem, therby extracting itself permantely from the madness of its neighbors.
183
Jason: Interesting analysis but I take issue with your third point. The intractable problem Israel faces is that it cannot abandon the West Bank nor can it currently negotiate a solution because it has no peace partner with any political legitimacy that it can deal with. So, for the foreseeable future, maintaining the status quo remains its best option.
The evidence is pretty clear that (1) the PA has no interest in any agreement that acknowledges any Jewish sovereignty over any portion of the land and (2) the day Israel withdraws its military from the West Bank will be the day the PA falls to Hamas. Having learned the lessons of unilateral withdrawal from both South Lebanon and Gaza, Israel won't just be declaring its borders and retreat behind them. We all know that the power vacuum it leaves in its wake won't be filled by Arab democrats.
The evidence is pretty clear that (1) the PA has no interest in any agreement that acknowledges any Jewish sovereignty over any portion of the land and (2) the day Israel withdraws its military from the West Bank will be the day the PA falls to Hamas. Having learned the lessons of unilateral withdrawal from both South Lebanon and Gaza, Israel won't just be declaring its borders and retreat behind them. We all know that the power vacuum it leaves in its wake won't be filled by Arab democrats.
"If Israel is our greatest ally they should start acting like it."
Your statement jumped out at me. This the first time I've seen this issue expressed in the reverse. Most often the reference is to the U.S.'s role as Israel's ally. The way you concisely put it opens up the idea that tiny as it is
Israel has the power to be a valuable ally and has a responsibility to behave like one in exchange for help and support it receives from us. Good outside the box thinking.
Your statement jumped out at me. This the first time I've seen this issue expressed in the reverse. Most often the reference is to the U.S.'s role as Israel's ally. The way you concisely put it opens up the idea that tiny as it is
Israel has the power to be a valuable ally and has a responsibility to behave like one in exchange for help and support it receives from us. Good outside the box thinking.
5
Good points that further the legitimacy of Doubthat's essay. One thing though. My greatest fear is what Israel will do, not what the Islamic nations will do, when America pulls back. What happens when the next president assumes that "Israel is our greatest ally" and believes that Israel will act like it? As recent events have shone, that is not the case even now. Luckily, Obama and his team are wary but will a Republican president tread so cautiously? Or will Israel's trigger happy paranoia start something no one can stop?
2
As always with the War Party, Douthat urges that we choose to revert to a Pax Americana strategy, tacitly assuming that we even have a choice in the matter.
One fundamental underlying assumption of Pax Americana is that the US economy can sustain a military that can dominate any conceivable adversary (or combination of adversaries) in any engagement, anywhere in the world, under any conditions. But this is ridiculous. The US GDP continues to shrink as a fraction of the global economy. It would do so even if the GOP were not eagerly wrecking our own economy (while the 0.01% offshore their assets), just because other nations' economies are growing, as we should expect them to. If there was ever a time when the US had a sufficient plurality of capital or talent to maintain such military hegemony, it was true only due to historical accident, and that time has surely long since ended. The War Party wants the US middle class, burdened for decades with falling living standards and withering economic security, to sacrifice more blood and treasure to sustain an illusion. No such sacrifice could suffice, and the War Party is wrong to demand it.
One fundamental underlying assumption of Pax Americana is that the US economy can sustain a military that can dominate any conceivable adversary (or combination of adversaries) in any engagement, anywhere in the world, under any conditions. But this is ridiculous. The US GDP continues to shrink as a fraction of the global economy. It would do so even if the GOP were not eagerly wrecking our own economy (while the 0.01% offshore their assets), just because other nations' economies are growing, as we should expect them to. If there was ever a time when the US had a sufficient plurality of capital or talent to maintain such military hegemony, it was true only due to historical accident, and that time has surely long since ended. The War Party wants the US middle class, burdened for decades with falling living standards and withering economic security, to sacrifice more blood and treasure to sustain an illusion. No such sacrifice could suffice, and the War Party is wrong to demand it.
3
If, as a country, we have decided that loyalty to our allies no longer matters, nuclear proliferation is someone else's problem, ethnic cleansing and the butchering of civilians is not our business, and oil is something we really don't need anymore, then by all means, the policy of minimal intervention is definitely the way to go.
Seems like a whole lot of Times readers think that as long as they recycle, compost, and ride their hideously ostentatious Citi Bikes to work, all the world's issues will work themselves out - and that the real problem is America. Well, I'm no flag waving, Bush supporting, freedom-fry eating conservative - I voted for Obama - but this country, while completely corrupt, somewhat devoid of humility, and kinda racist, is still the best game in town. By far.
We stayed out of WW2 until it arrived on our doorstep, and by then millions were dead and the Axis alliance had a foothold around the globe.
Nowadays people like to condemn Truman for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but as horrible as it was, in the long run it ended up saving many more lives than it cost - on both sides. Japan would have fought on forever.
Perhaps the knowledge that America's arsenal is being controlled by a President who doesn't favor military intervention is one of the reasons opportunistic countries like Iran are fast becoming regional superpowers, and groups like ISIS are conquering territory faster than Alexander the Great. There are no consequences.
Seems like a whole lot of Times readers think that as long as they recycle, compost, and ride their hideously ostentatious Citi Bikes to work, all the world's issues will work themselves out - and that the real problem is America. Well, I'm no flag waving, Bush supporting, freedom-fry eating conservative - I voted for Obama - but this country, while completely corrupt, somewhat devoid of humility, and kinda racist, is still the best game in town. By far.
We stayed out of WW2 until it arrived on our doorstep, and by then millions were dead and the Axis alliance had a foothold around the globe.
Nowadays people like to condemn Truman for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but as horrible as it was, in the long run it ended up saving many more lives than it cost - on both sides. Japan would have fought on forever.
Perhaps the knowledge that America's arsenal is being controlled by a President who doesn't favor military intervention is one of the reasons opportunistic countries like Iran are fast becoming regional superpowers, and groups like ISIS are conquering territory faster than Alexander the Great. There are no consequences.
1
What most Americans fair to realize is that the "industrial military complex" -- warned of by, of all people, President Eisenhower -- is what is at steak if we "off shore" -- i.e., involve ourselves less in military conflicts -- our involvement in the Middle East and other places in the world involved in terrorist conflicts or other types of conflicts. In other words, the fewer arms and ammunition bought by our military the less money the American companies involved in producing war machines and ammunition make. It's more about the money than it is about resolving the conflicts without military intervention.
If you keep your eyes open, however, the people who advocate war are the people who have never been in a military conflict or even the military. Douthat like W and most of the neocons fall into this category: no military conflict experience and little or no military service.
If you keep your eyes open, however, the people who advocate war are the people who have never been in a military conflict or even the military. Douthat like W and most of the neocons fall into this category: no military conflict experience and little or no military service.
3
The president inherited a catastrophe from 43. Once 43 destroyed the tenuous stability of the center of the middle east, any systematic approach is too costly or too risky for us to entertain. A nuanced case-by-case approach is the only way to work until a good opportunity arises. Let this be a lesson to would-be statesmen who attempt to transform the rowed order without doing their homework.
2
"Offshore balancing" appears to be the creation of a system where all that existed really were poor individual choices at the time they were made. Put all together they spell chaos and weakness. Obama and his whole administration are about internal politics. Foreign policy has always been an unnecessary evil that we (the Administration) couldn't control, so lets just play every incident to our best image and lie about its results if they turn out bad.
Hey Susan Rice is still the National Defense Adviser despite the total mis-packaging of Benghazi and Berghdal.
Hey Susan Rice is still the National Defense Adviser despite the total mis-packaging of Benghazi and Berghdal.
Something tells me most everyday Americans would prefer the offshore balancing system that Douthat refers to. Trouble is, the DC establishment - including most media - is wedded to the idea of a Pax Americana system led by the US hegemon.
Of course, DC elites aren't the ones bearing the burden. They aren't the ones sending their kids or husbands off to interminable wars. They aren't the ones caring for wounded or psychologically distressed veterans. They aren't the ones living in crumbling cities and sending their kids to subpar schools because Congress and lobbyists and pundits are primarily concerned with focusing this nation on overseas entanglements.
So, if the average American had the choice of continuing to be the world's policeman, or packing our bags and letting those folks in the middle east fight it out amongst themselves (which, ultimately, is the only way they're going to settle things), I bet they'd choose the latter. I would agree that Obama's foreign policy has been bumbling at points, but I appreciate the fact that he's trying (at least as much as currently politically possible) to disentangle us from those messes.
Of course, DC elites aren't the ones bearing the burden. They aren't the ones sending their kids or husbands off to interminable wars. They aren't the ones caring for wounded or psychologically distressed veterans. They aren't the ones living in crumbling cities and sending their kids to subpar schools because Congress and lobbyists and pundits are primarily concerned with focusing this nation on overseas entanglements.
So, if the average American had the choice of continuing to be the world's policeman, or packing our bags and letting those folks in the middle east fight it out amongst themselves (which, ultimately, is the only way they're going to settle things), I bet they'd choose the latter. I would agree that Obama's foreign policy has been bumbling at points, but I appreciate the fact that he's trying (at least as much as currently politically possible) to disentangle us from those messes.
3
So it is Obama's Middle East mess now is it? I seem to remember someone else stirring the pot there. Could it be that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and G.W. Bush dumped that mess, in addition to an economy in shambles, upon "Obama"? It is entirely possible that President Obama will be judged to have erred in his own ways in the Middle East and other areas of the world. If he has erred. I'm betting he'll be far more honest in admitting those errors than most of those who have preceded him; particularly those who immediately preceded him, but don't dump his predecessors sins into his bucket.
4
How is it that we are firmly For and Against (depending on location) both sides in the spreading regional conflict? Obama should go on television and address the nation and explain to us what our national goals and direction of policy are in the Middle East/North Africa. I don't see what they are. The rhetoric and the military actions seem more and more divorced from reality as we go on.
I'm liberal, not some Red State guy taking a pot shot at Obama, but I would really like to know what's going on.
I'm liberal, not some Red State guy taking a pot shot at Obama, but I would really like to know what's going on.
1
I've always believed that Mr. Douthat is a bright guy. In fact, notwithstanding my "progressive" predilections, I often find myself agreeing with Mr. Douthat on his analysis, if not necessarily his prescription, on many social issues. On the other hand, his political analyses have always seemed way too geared toward supporting one side (go Republicans!) and eviscerating the other, logic or honest insight be d*mned.
This analysis is, however, brilliant. What it lacks is a prescription to the problem.
That, however, I find refreshing. After all, I'd rather a little humility than the chest-thumping, small brained (or other bodily part), chicken-hawked arrogance so recently displayed on the op-ed pages by John Bolton (a former ambassador no less!).
Kudos, Ross. Looking forward to your next non-chest-thumping analysis.
This analysis is, however, brilliant. What it lacks is a prescription to the problem.
That, however, I find refreshing. After all, I'd rather a little humility than the chest-thumping, small brained (or other bodily part), chicken-hawked arrogance so recently displayed on the op-ed pages by John Bolton (a former ambassador no less!).
Kudos, Ross. Looking forward to your next non-chest-thumping analysis.
Where does this Pax Americana model come from?
The "Pax Americana model" of which Mr. Douthat writes was the unquestioning American optimism born of the conquests of World War II. The assumption of our military-industrial complex was that if the United States could defeat Japan and Germany simultaneously then surely it could remake the world order in its own image. This cheerful arrogance got us into Vietnam, and later in the Iraq (to name only two).
Japan and Germany were remarkably like the U.S. since they already had highly organized and disciplined societies, were heavily industrialized, and were technologically advanced. We were more alike than we cared to admit at the time. After their defeat the U.S. simply converted them into top tier trading partners and made them richer than at any time in their history.
The Pax Americana agenda failed to account that Vietnam and Iraq did not fit that same profile and their tribal wars predate the existence of the United States. The mid-East overall is engulfed in tribal wars that the U.S. cannot solve, and they will unfold and be worked out on their timetable, not ours. What Mr. Douthat does not address is why should the U.S., under any president, think that wading into that squalid fiasco is our duty or to our benefit.
The "Pax Americana model" of which Mr. Douthat writes was the unquestioning American optimism born of the conquests of World War II. The assumption of our military-industrial complex was that if the United States could defeat Japan and Germany simultaneously then surely it could remake the world order in its own image. This cheerful arrogance got us into Vietnam, and later in the Iraq (to name only two).
Japan and Germany were remarkably like the U.S. since they already had highly organized and disciplined societies, were heavily industrialized, and were technologically advanced. We were more alike than we cared to admit at the time. After their defeat the U.S. simply converted them into top tier trading partners and made them richer than at any time in their history.
The Pax Americana agenda failed to account that Vietnam and Iraq did not fit that same profile and their tribal wars predate the existence of the United States. The mid-East overall is engulfed in tribal wars that the U.S. cannot solve, and they will unfold and be worked out on their timetable, not ours. What Mr. Douthat does not address is why should the U.S., under any president, think that wading into that squalid fiasco is our duty or to our benefit.
5
All things considered United States should leave the Middle East countries including Isarel to Middle Eastners. Once they find out USA is out of this they will figure out whats best for them otherwise we are looking at a perpetual war with millions dying.
George Bush and Chenny have created sufficient mess for number of years to come. Let's not further their cause. Nature has a curious way to get even. Let's count our blessings and get out.
George Bush and Chenny have created sufficient mess for number of years to come. Let's not further their cause. Nature has a curious way to get even. Let's count our blessings and get out.
3
In a nutshell let's hope it works.
Anthony Cordesman was on Charlie Rose Friday evening and gave a good wrap as did Thomas Friedman in the NYT the other day.
The gamble is that the 70% of the Iranian population that is 35 and under will become the game changers once the Ayatollah retires and the Republican Guard goes on and learns how to operate back hoes and excavators.
What no one mentions is that this is one of the next movements in the "fossil wars" that will forever be in our future.
Putin's moves in the Crimea and Ukraine are all about fossil reserves and the USA invasion of Iraq was all about fossil reserves and who controlled them.
All of the attention on Yemen is because it is strategically central to control of the Suez canal and the regional stakeholders and the USA do not want to see a rogue landlord putting up a toll booth or on-shore artillery batteries and missile launchers.
Welcome to the "Fossil Wars."
This is why Saudi Arabia has its fancy Air Force and Putin took back the Crimea which has a major nuclear sub base.
It's all pretty tricky and there is not much the USA can do other than try to put the chess men in a long-term sustainable balance and hope that Sunday brunch and soccer become valued past times.
Anthony Cordesman was on Charlie Rose Friday evening and gave a good wrap as did Thomas Friedman in the NYT the other day.
The gamble is that the 70% of the Iranian population that is 35 and under will become the game changers once the Ayatollah retires and the Republican Guard goes on and learns how to operate back hoes and excavators.
What no one mentions is that this is one of the next movements in the "fossil wars" that will forever be in our future.
Putin's moves in the Crimea and Ukraine are all about fossil reserves and the USA invasion of Iraq was all about fossil reserves and who controlled them.
All of the attention on Yemen is because it is strategically central to control of the Suez canal and the regional stakeholders and the USA do not want to see a rogue landlord putting up a toll booth or on-shore artillery batteries and missile launchers.
Welcome to the "Fossil Wars."
This is why Saudi Arabia has its fancy Air Force and Putin took back the Crimea which has a major nuclear sub base.
It's all pretty tricky and there is not much the USA can do other than try to put the chess men in a long-term sustainable balance and hope that Sunday brunch and soccer become valued past times.
1
It seems that one policy to placate all is an impossibility. Even America's allies are at total odds with each other . Pres. Obama and his opposition in Congress seem to have lost the plot and are at a loss as how to proceed. There are certainly a number of good souls in the Middle East who can pull us all out of this disaster. If anything the only job for the US administration is to identify them and help them to influence the leaders in the Middle East .
But can we afford to be the hegemon of a region so far away and is so culturally antithetic to us and our hegemony? It sort of worked when there were TWO regional hegemons, both far away (Moscow and D.C.), but Moscow has washed its hands and the rulers of the region still expect our weapons and our force whenever they need them. How many of them could remain in power without our support? And how broke do we have to go before we realize we're overextended? Sending in armies would destabilize the U.S. and make us the focus for more hatred in the Middle East -- and everywhere else.
3
"In a Pax Americana system, the United States enjoys a dominant position within a network of allies and clients; actors outside that network are considered rogues and threats, to be restrained and coerced by our overwhelming military might. Ideally, over time our clients become more prosperous and more democratic, the benefits of joining the network become obvious, and the military canopy both expands and becomes less necessary."
And this worked, when? Oh, that's right, once. Perhaps. When among United States' allies were Russia and China. And how did perpetuating once-necessary militarism work for Russia (For those not selling themselves, each other, myths about Reagan.)? The path Douthat now wants the U.S. to emulate.
Douthat offers us nothing more than a kinder, gentler version of John Bolton's "Bomb Iran" advice. But wrap it as pretty as you can, Ross, and you're still offering us all the "demonstrably proven" advice and experience Bolton's still out there peddling. Pay no attention to those failures - the failed policies, the failed policy makers - behind the curtain.
Sounds more like Pox Americana. And a pox upon its procurers and panderers.
The only Middle East mess is the one Ross's heroes handed us. The mess Obama's trying to clean up. Along with America's P5+1 allies, by the way. The same ones who helped PaxAm work the only time it has worked. For a while, anyway. The mess Ross's heroes want to make still messier.
Park it, Ross. Fairy tale time is over.
And this worked, when? Oh, that's right, once. Perhaps. When among United States' allies were Russia and China. And how did perpetuating once-necessary militarism work for Russia (For those not selling themselves, each other, myths about Reagan.)? The path Douthat now wants the U.S. to emulate.
Douthat offers us nothing more than a kinder, gentler version of John Bolton's "Bomb Iran" advice. But wrap it as pretty as you can, Ross, and you're still offering us all the "demonstrably proven" advice and experience Bolton's still out there peddling. Pay no attention to those failures - the failed policies, the failed policy makers - behind the curtain.
Sounds more like Pox Americana. And a pox upon its procurers and panderers.
The only Middle East mess is the one Ross's heroes handed us. The mess Obama's trying to clean up. Along with America's P5+1 allies, by the way. The same ones who helped PaxAm work the only time it has worked. For a while, anyway. The mess Ross's heroes want to make still messier.
Park it, Ross. Fairy tale time is over.
5
Excellent summary analysis of our current and never-ending Middle East dilemma. Unfortunately, what's missing is an indictment of the nearly complete abdication by Congress to perform its constitutional role of oversight and guidance. This congressional failure is abetted by an all volunteer military that enables 98% of the American public to blithely look away from the death and sacrifices suffered by the families of our armed forces.
3
The problem is in the makeup of the total foreign policy, everything about it, the diplomatic, the economic & political, the use of military force at all.
The U.S. wants to have it all, have hegemony, domination of peoples for its own selfish narrow and nationalistic reasons, plus as a token gesture, we are supposed to swallow whole, the aim of facilitating democratic leadership, and all the 'good' things that are supposed to go along with that.
(It didn't work in Iraq. Didn't in Libya. Didn't in Gaza...)
To make that palatable as an 'excuse' so to speak, any of the kinds of recently-pronounced ideas of what justice or fairness means, are assumed to apply equally well to nations who never had reason to think that way about their cultures and lives within their societies, and as if that weren't bad enough, those ideas we would foist upon them in our well-meaningness, are not even compatible at all with their religions, to which they most diligently try to adhere to, as they have for many thousands of years!
Simply put, the U.S. has tried to mix oil and water: easy cakewalks (Syria is no cakewalk!), and 'do-gooderism', like helping those 'rebels' topple legitimate governments, no matter how many refugees it causes to flee, how much devastation and killing it takes. So a democracy of 'the people', according to some perverted idea of it, is supposed to come soon for that cratered, grey landscape, covered with the rubble of millennia, the rubble of our own religious heritage.
The U.S. wants to have it all, have hegemony, domination of peoples for its own selfish narrow and nationalistic reasons, plus as a token gesture, we are supposed to swallow whole, the aim of facilitating democratic leadership, and all the 'good' things that are supposed to go along with that.
(It didn't work in Iraq. Didn't in Libya. Didn't in Gaza...)
To make that palatable as an 'excuse' so to speak, any of the kinds of recently-pronounced ideas of what justice or fairness means, are assumed to apply equally well to nations who never had reason to think that way about their cultures and lives within their societies, and as if that weren't bad enough, those ideas we would foist upon them in our well-meaningness, are not even compatible at all with their religions, to which they most diligently try to adhere to, as they have for many thousands of years!
Simply put, the U.S. has tried to mix oil and water: easy cakewalks (Syria is no cakewalk!), and 'do-gooderism', like helping those 'rebels' topple legitimate governments, no matter how many refugees it causes to flee, how much devastation and killing it takes. So a democracy of 'the people', according to some perverted idea of it, is supposed to come soon for that cratered, grey landscape, covered with the rubble of millennia, the rubble of our own religious heritage.
1
However smart Douthat is--and he is smart--and the needs of the situation--communicate something important to everyone--to try to write a sensible column on the entire Middle East in less than 1500 words is a mirage and ultimately misleading. Too much is assumed without analysis in sentences such as "But in the world as its exists," in its division of the world into two policy contrasting policy choices, and its cursory and conclusory evaluations of what had gone before and what may come in the future.
2
It is astonishing that folks think being surprised by events in the middle east is the mark of a man oblivious to the facts. Yes, the current president finds events out of control and perhaps surprising. But haven't they all? Reagan bombed Khaddafi and for his efforts, we got Lockerbie. We have since seen a host of surprises. We have decades of a so call alliance with the Saudis yet they fund mosques that are hot beds for radical Islam. And then we had Bush II who may not have been surprised but that's because he had no idea what he was getting into.
6
Yes this is a paradigm-shift, but the Old Paradigm governed since World War II, not just since the Cold War; it never really succeeded in Korea or Viet Nam, either, and the chaos and corruption attendant on Soviet totalitarianism and it legacy in Putin, and on the resistance to modern democracy in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe have decisively refuted it. The so-called Neo-Cons are not conservative, they are reactionaries and just don't get it.
Nor is this "Obama's mess". He has been given a mess, and has had the wisdom to change the paradigm of Pax Americana. The mess is not ours, it inheres in the backward, undeveloped, world. Ross' wish for order here and blaming Obama is simply a vestigial stump of the Old Paradigm Pax Americana. Republican hawks would do better if they got with the Program.
Nor is this "Obama's mess". He has been given a mess, and has had the wisdom to change the paradigm of Pax Americana. The mess is not ours, it inheres in the backward, undeveloped, world. Ross' wish for order here and blaming Obama is simply a vestigial stump of the Old Paradigm Pax Americana. Republican hawks would do better if they got with the Program.
9
There has been no grand purpose in the fighting in the Middle East, other than to control the resourcing, and dsitribution of oil and gas, plus the profit on the war machines themselves, including banks that fund it all. No one dares breath a word about this on these pages. Yet it is the most obvious conclusion in the world. This is not about "America" or democracy! It's about some that are profitting on wars and oil, like they have through this Middle East mess, and two previous world wars. Scratch the surface of any conflict, and you will find the war profiteers, gleefully rubbing their hands together in greed, hearltess and mindless about the sufferings of the human race and the earth. And my, do they love to pontificate in self justifications! Let's reduce the military defense complex by three quarters. We'll still be a bigger military than everyone else in the world put together.
49
I suspect your pithy assessment would apply to most wars at most times.
Given the disastrous results of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton etc. decisions why do we give the opinions of a fellow traveler like Mr. Douhat any credence?
103
Agree. Here is a blog post from yesterday:http://oursalon.ning.com/profiles/blogs/time-for-war
2
Your piece on Salon is excellent - thanks for the link!
1
Political points aside there are no easy answers if any to these problems. Every expert in the field has been wrong about the unfolding events of the last four years and put in a reactionary position.
It might be time for the US to sit on the sidelines for a while till some of the dust settles. We or anyone else doesn't have any ability to pick the winners or losers ,coupled with the fact we don't have any real allies in this region and no longer need their oil it might just be time to disengage. For those in that region
i pray for peace but only see war.
It might be time for the US to sit on the sidelines for a while till some of the dust settles. We or anyone else doesn't have any ability to pick the winners or losers ,coupled with the fact we don't have any real allies in this region and no longer need their oil it might just be time to disengage. For those in that region
i pray for peace but only see war.
28
It is precisely because Saudi Arabia cannot depend so much anymore on selling its oil to the U.S. or various European nations, etc., that the U.S. changed its policies for the worse. Far from helping, this has put the U.S. and other nations in the position of appeasing Saudi Arabia's, Qatar's, etc.
nationalistic and even perfidious aims. Among those, Saudi Arabia's
stance on the current government in Syria stands out. This means the U.S. is picking sides in the war, and thereby has by its own terrible choice, of backing the Syrian National Council and renouncing diplomacy with Syria, caused utter devastation to Syria and regions beyond, exacerbating the problems in Iraq as well. Among the 200,000 and more killed only so far in Syria, over half were absolutely not Pres. al-Assad's fault. Those deaths were Pres. Barrack Obama's fault. Those millions of refugees losing their homes, and half of Syria's population leaving or homeless, cities destroyed, and all the devastation there, are really only Pres. Obama's, former Sec'y Clinton's, current Sec'y of State John Kerry's fault, and the fault of the very neo-con influenced advisors' in the White House, faults. And belligerent people like Sen. McCain's, Sen. Lindsey Graham's, etc. etc. faults!
nationalistic and even perfidious aims. Among those, Saudi Arabia's
stance on the current government in Syria stands out. This means the U.S. is picking sides in the war, and thereby has by its own terrible choice, of backing the Syrian National Council and renouncing diplomacy with Syria, caused utter devastation to Syria and regions beyond, exacerbating the problems in Iraq as well. Among the 200,000 and more killed only so far in Syria, over half were absolutely not Pres. al-Assad's fault. Those deaths were Pres. Barrack Obama's fault. Those millions of refugees losing their homes, and half of Syria's population leaving or homeless, cities destroyed, and all the devastation there, are really only Pres. Obama's, former Sec'y Clinton's, current Sec'y of State John Kerry's fault, and the fault of the very neo-con influenced advisors' in the White House, faults. And belligerent people like Sen. McCain's, Sen. Lindsey Graham's, etc. etc. faults!
1
More like "Pox Americana". Every time America tries to involve itself in these tribal, regional and religious conflicts we make an enemy somewhere. It used to be that we had to be involved to protect Isreal but now that Bibi has shown himself to be a bad actor as well, I question America's military, financial and diplomatic commitment to the Middle East. Our influence isn't waning. We never had any real influence to begin with. We're alone in advocating for peace in the area so let them fight it out until exhaustion brings them back to the negotiating table. Besides we're not being "inexorably" pulled back in, we're being pushed back in by the Neocons in our Republican Congress. A Pox on them too.
69
My friend, the so called neocons in Congress are not the ones ordering air and drone strikes. These decisions are coming from the white house.
What else can one realistically expect in the context of
the single greatest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam? And I
do mean "realistically". There is
no good end in sight since when you are principally responsible
for unleashing complete chaos on one of the major countries
in the region, you can't expect to get back to a reasonable
starting point until there is utter exhaustion among all the bad
actors currently running amok and let loose by this country's
beyond belief managerial incompetence and blindness. This will, unfortunately, take a very long time.
The arm chair ensconced commenters have no clues and no
valid insights to offer, but they feel duty bound to offer insipid critiques
that say nothing useful nor even clever. It would be much
more helpful if they could offer some constructive ideas about
how the truly horrific and catastrophic Syrian refugee problem could be
addressed.
They might also offer public apologies for their gaga enthusiasms
babbled to their readers in 2002-3 before the darkness descended.
People who seem to dream that this country could do anything
to improve the chaos in the region are pitiful yearners for a long ago
epoch when the country had resources that might stabilize a regional
mess. But not any more. You can't do anything terribly useful
and long term with drones, cruise missiles, air power. You need
armies whose loyalties you can count on to take and control territory
and win over populations, such as in Kurdistan.
the single greatest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam? And I
do mean "realistically". There is
no good end in sight since when you are principally responsible
for unleashing complete chaos on one of the major countries
in the region, you can't expect to get back to a reasonable
starting point until there is utter exhaustion among all the bad
actors currently running amok and let loose by this country's
beyond belief managerial incompetence and blindness. This will, unfortunately, take a very long time.
The arm chair ensconced commenters have no clues and no
valid insights to offer, but they feel duty bound to offer insipid critiques
that say nothing useful nor even clever. It would be much
more helpful if they could offer some constructive ideas about
how the truly horrific and catastrophic Syrian refugee problem could be
addressed.
They might also offer public apologies for their gaga enthusiasms
babbled to their readers in 2002-3 before the darkness descended.
People who seem to dream that this country could do anything
to improve the chaos in the region are pitiful yearners for a long ago
epoch when the country had resources that might stabilize a regional
mess. But not any more. You can't do anything terribly useful
and long term with drones, cruise missiles, air power. You need
armies whose loyalties you can count on to take and control territory
and win over populations, such as in Kurdistan.
9
Please include in your calculation for an effective Mid East policy the fact that the vast majority of the American public has no appetite for further American military intervention in the region. Neocon enthusiasm for US leadership in the Mid East, will become a major liability for those proponents when the flag draped coffins begin to appear on tarmacs, with no end in sight.
33
You forget that Republicans don't allow coverage of the flag-draped coffins on the tarmacs. And our supplicant news media, lacking a visual, fails to remind us it's happening anyway.
3
Yemen has been in chaos for the past thirty years. Remember, there used to be a North and South Yemen. One was the traditional hybrid of tribal agreement. The other was a communist nation. Neither worked. They tried to integrate the two into a cohesive state. Worked for a while. Tourism flourished. Now and then, a tribe would kidnap tourists, treat them like honored guests and receive some concession from the government or oil company. Enter Al Queda. Game over. Destabilization. That is what POTUS has been fighting. The drone strategy worked very well for a while and was a model approach to fighting Al Queda in Yemen. However, tribal infighting is something no one can predict nor remedy. Old memories die hard. Each set of actors seeks out those who will supply them and we have a proxy war. Do not get excited about this region. Tomorrow they could just as easily make deals and the conflict is over.
9
Douthat is repeating he party/establishment/Big media-Big Politician-Big Business/Big Lobbyist line. The questions asked by this nexus tend to assume the following big three at least in the ME
1. America needs to be the big brother (and by inference can influence and keep order)
2. Israel and the despotic Arab regimes particularly Saudi are 'allies'
3. Iran cannot be had to have nuclear bomb
Take away the first premise and the rest is meaningless. What we have seen thus far is only the first chapter of the Arab Spring, which is basically the common people trying desperately to throw off the yoke of the rulers, who are nothing like them. I throw the Palestinians into this mix who are essentially being colonized by European transplants
How come nobody in the mainstream media questions these premises? The world has changed. The baseline has shifted. We can no longer afford interventions and our military superiority is bound to dissipate in a few decades.
Where does it say that Iran cannot have nukes while all the countries at the table (and the whining Israel that is not) have nukes themselves??
Why purchase stability from despots who don't represent their people?
What is more precious?? American values centered around freedom, human rights and democracy??or 'stability'?
Time to go back to the drawing board, which clearly wont be on the backs to Douthat et al.
1. America needs to be the big brother (and by inference can influence and keep order)
2. Israel and the despotic Arab regimes particularly Saudi are 'allies'
3. Iran cannot be had to have nuclear bomb
Take away the first premise and the rest is meaningless. What we have seen thus far is only the first chapter of the Arab Spring, which is basically the common people trying desperately to throw off the yoke of the rulers, who are nothing like them. I throw the Palestinians into this mix who are essentially being colonized by European transplants
How come nobody in the mainstream media questions these premises? The world has changed. The baseline has shifted. We can no longer afford interventions and our military superiority is bound to dissipate in a few decades.
Where does it say that Iran cannot have nukes while all the countries at the table (and the whining Israel that is not) have nukes themselves??
Why purchase stability from despots who don't represent their people?
What is more precious?? American values centered around freedom, human rights and democracy??or 'stability'?
Time to go back to the drawing board, which clearly wont be on the backs to Douthat et al.
8
The inference that Israelis are "European transplants" occupying the "Palestinians" is despicable. The reality is it's vice versa. Arab invaders are committing war crimes against Israel. Anti-Israel and Anti-Semites need a history lesson. Jews are the natives of Israel for over 3500 years, it's a fact. Besides those Jews who fled the pogroms of Europe from 1880s onwards, the majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahim, 850,000 who were expelled from the Arab world after 1948. They lived long before the 7th century CE Muslim conquest. The "Filastines" originate from Arabs from elsewhere. They migrated to the land of Israel in the 19th & 20th centuries for the work opportunities provided by returning Jews in the kibbutzim. The Romans renamed Judea "Palestina", Latin for Philistia, a nation in Gaza conquered by Assyrians in 703 BCE. This was done as part of an ethnic cleansing of Jews after a failed revolt in 135 CE. The term Jew comes from the land of Judea, which with Samaria are ancient Israel, the center of Jewish people, religion and history. It's been misnamed the "West Bank" by the media. They were liberated in the 1967 Six Day War from Jordan who occupied it since 1948. There was no nation of "Palestine" before that.
The inference that Israelis are "European transplants" occupying the "Palestinians" is despicable. The reality is it's vice versa. Arab invaders are committing war crimes against Israel. Anti-Israel and Anti-Semites need a history lesson. Jews are the natives of Israel for over 3500 years, it's a fact. Besides those Jews who fled the pogroms of Europe from 1880s onwards, the majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahim, 850,000 who were expelled from the Arab world after 1948. They lived long before the 7th century CE Muslim conquest. The "Filastines" originate from Arabs from elsewhere. They migrated to the land of Israel in the 19th & 20th centuries for the work opportunities provided by returning Jews in the kibbutzim. The Romans renamed Judea "Palestina", Latin for Philistia, a nation in Gaza conquered by Assyrians in 703 BCE. This was done as part of an ethnic cleansing of Jews after a failed revolt in 135 CE. The term Jew comes from the land of Judea, which with Samaria are ancient Israel, the center of Jewish people, religion and history. It's been misnamed the "West Bank" by the media. They were liberated in the 1967 Six Day War from Jordan who occupied it since 1948. There was no nation of "Palestine" before that.
ross, you are right. the alternative is military occupation of the entire middle east. obama has exercised courage and wisom in breaking from a catastrophicly unsuccessful paradigm. there are no easy or even good solutions. offloading looks good to me.
35
See what Iran cooked up in Yemen Syria Lebanon all this without the bomb.
Imagine Iran had the Bomb very plausible that Saudi Arabia would be turned into a wasteland. Despite the above Obama is willing to deal with Iran and basically guarantee the bomb to Iran if not today then at the maximum in 10 years.
Instead of strengthening our allies we consistently weaken them. Obama's outbursts towards our strongest ally in the middle east Israel shows immaturity at best. We are lucky to have SISI of Egypt who ignored Obama and overthrew Morsi he knew the stakes and had to ignore the Cry Baby Obama.
Imagine Iran had the Bomb very plausible that Saudi Arabia would be turned into a wasteland. Despite the above Obama is willing to deal with Iran and basically guarantee the bomb to Iran if not today then at the maximum in 10 years.
Instead of strengthening our allies we consistently weaken them. Obama's outbursts towards our strongest ally in the middle east Israel shows immaturity at best. We are lucky to have SISI of Egypt who ignored Obama and overthrew Morsi he knew the stakes and had to ignore the Cry Baby Obama.
8
You might want to review the other comments, most of which are well-considered, especially in respect to your own. Perhaps then you'll realize how far out of the current American mainstream on American opinion you and your neocon cronies have become. At least some fellow citizens can learn from experience even if you and your buddy Douthat cannot or simply refuse to.
4
what allies?
saudi arabia is a wasteland, physically, morally and spiritually...
it has been the saudis who have 'cooked up' radical wahhabi islam across the middle east, pakistan and central asia...
saudi arabia is a wasteland, physically, morally and spiritually...
it has been the saudis who have 'cooked up' radical wahhabi islam across the middle east, pakistan and central asia...
3
You are lucky Sisi isn't your president.
3
Douthat writes -and correctly I might add: "Since the Cold War, and especially since 1991, the Pax Americana idea has predominated in our foreign policy thinking." What he fails to include, however, are the consequences of this Pax Americana policy and to present a clear alternative other than our traditional form of foreign policy in foreign places in which our allies don't reside: that form being the US dictating how things are to be. For all Obama's faults, he has remained adamant in attempting to find less militaristic solutions to the problems that those whom Douthat supports have created.
15
When Douthat sends his children to fight in the Middle East, I will send mine.
15
I'm so thankful that Ross Douthat and his Republican cohorts are not in charge of foreign policy. It seems to me that Republican President George W. Bush and his team bear a lot of responsibility for helping to stir up the turmoil that now consumes the Middle East. But the Republicans like to conveniently forget that invading Iraq was a choice, since Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and their attach on us on 9/11.
Because President Obama is in charge, there are fewer American sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and friends dying in the civil wars among the Sunni and the Shia in various countries. President Obama, I'm so glad that you are the one who has our backs.
Because President Obama is in charge, there are fewer American sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and friends dying in the civil wars among the Sunni and the Shia in various countries. President Obama, I'm so glad that you are the one who has our backs.
30
Joan - many, many of us in other countries are also glad that the levelheaded
President Obama is in charge of foreign policy. It's terrifying to imagine the destruction a John Bolton or John McCain or Ted Cruz could wreak on the world.
President Obama is in charge of foreign policy. It's terrifying to imagine the destruction a John Bolton or John McCain or Ted Cruz could wreak on the world.
5
"But in the world as it exists, what we have is an administration that wants to believe it’s getting us out, but a region that’s inexorably, inevitably pulling us back in."
Translation: Those who screwed the whole area up to begin with want another chance to complete screwing up the entirety of North Africa and the Middle East.
Translation: Those who screwed the whole area up to begin with want another chance to complete screwing up the entirety of North Africa and the Middle East.
17
It's good that Douthat points out that the problem was created by Bush and the republicans, that thought they could change the way the US were engaged in the region (although he doesn't say that basically this was done because they wanted to pursue their monetary interests). The post-Bush mess cannot be easily resolved. The region has been destabilized. Now, the US have to navigate their politics based on temporary strategies, because there is nothing stable there. Except the Iran regime!! The problem is that the US politicians typically do not understand the middle-eastern culture. The hawks in the US want to destabilize the feeble "democratic" government now in charge in Iran - not sure why, perhaps to follow the catastrophic lead of Israel. But the Israel government has also shown over and over that they cannot understand the middle eastern culture. The French were right when they were saying: "do not get into Iraq". Perhaps, the US politicians and commentators should just learn to shut up and follow what europeans have been doing for ages already to deal with the middle-eastern and muslim countries (not without difficulty themselves).
12
Yes, and remember what DeGaulle tried to tell JFK about Vietnam?
2
The entire crisis is the fault of the United States invasion of Iraq. Does Ross believe that this is not the case? What does Ross believe is the root cause for the hell in the middle east? Of course, it is President Obama who was elected at the most horrible time in history to clean up the Republican mess.
14
This is an example of criticism without advocating an alternative. Douthat has established only that the situation is difficult, and he actually has acknowledged, as no other conservatives have done, that the Obama Middle East strategy is a strategy.
14
Ross, let me ask you a question,'What started it all that we find ourselves in contradicting unholy, alliances?' Obviously that it was not Obama's doing. The Pandora's Box was opened when the bloodthirsty, greedy neocons , Cheney and his ilk manipulated their clueless, timid puppet - W. Evil forces were unleashed which went way beyond our control. All the king's horses and all the king's men could'nt put Humpty Dumpty together again. And why should there be a Pax Americana system where the United States enjoys a dominant role? The reason you mention are prosperity and democracy in these client/allies. But we have only left poverty, cruel despots and ruin. And what entitles us to this dominance? Why dominate a region culturally and ethnically different from us with their own laws and code of conduct? The offshore balancing system that you mention seems to be more pragmatic. Let the regional powers bear the primary responsibility and prevail. Let them form their own alliances, fight their own wars. If there is a shift in who is the dominant power,so be it. It's in their neck of the woods, leave them to it. The Sunni-Shia war has always been an ongoing war but it did not get this vicious until WE stepped into the picture. Oh! but I forgot the elephant in the room - Israel. 9/11, the threats to our security and the hatred we have had to endure! And FYI, Iraq was not held together by Petraeus because he was too busy - busy e-mailing and tweeting his lady-love.
11
This column fails to present the military and diplomatic alternatives which exist between Pax America and offshore balancing. The alternatives are never really between despotism and chaos, there is always a way forward between the U.S. being committed to applying overwhelming military force and permitting warlordism to run rampant. It we haven't found it yet, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The absence of a democratic Egypt is a big loss, and there is a deep current of popular feeling toward genuinely pluralistic, democratic political outcomes there, unfortunately now suppressed by the military, but that story isn't over yet. Netanyahu will not always lead Israel. If Turkey and Israel were not at such odds, Turkey is a (somewhat) democratic, Islamic country which could participate. Saudi Arabia is useless, but there are other avenues to opening up the Middle East to greater democratic norms.
2
When has Egypt ever been democratic? Your definition of the term eludes me.
1
All I see is a President trying to reverse the mistakes of previous administrations, notably the previous one that made this mess in the region worse than it ever was. The cynicism of Bush-Cheney is here matched by the cynicism of Bolton-Douthat.
There are some--in the weapons and security business--who think whatever makes the cash registers ring is good for America. The rest of us think the only positive thing going on in the Middle East is the diplomacy going on with Iran. If Israel is such an ally, what have they done for us lately? For the first time we're seeing other Arab nations putting their militaries to work to quell disruptive forces in their own region. More of that please.
There are some--in the weapons and security business--who think whatever makes the cash registers ring is good for America. The rest of us think the only positive thing going on in the Middle East is the diplomacy going on with Iran. If Israel is such an ally, what have they done for us lately? For the first time we're seeing other Arab nations putting their militaries to work to quell disruptive forces in their own region. More of that please.
21
The major problem with the “offshore balancing system” is that it ignores the historic inability of the regional actors to act as anything other than selfish children. That matters, because they sit atop what is still the source of energy for much of the world that serves as our markets and suppliers: they affect the viability of millions of American jobs.
Mr. Obama doesn’t get cut even the minimal slack Ross seeks to cut it, any more than Dubya for blowing Iraq by permitting a series of ghastly occupation gaffes under Rumsfeld. One series of naïve mistakes in the past doesn’t excuse the set we’re in the middle of making now.
It would be immensely easier, and wiser, to isolate Iran than to cozy up to it. ISIS represents an existential threat to them, and they’d hardly refrain from defending themselves and their “Iraqi” Shia client from them, with or without our help. Indeed, it could make sense to ship the Kurds armaments to allow them to reinforce their buffer, and sit back, watching what the Persians would do about it. A well-armed nation of almost eighty million under direct threat has the capacity to destroy ISIS all by its lonesome.
All these brush-fires are tactical, and we could address them by various means. The strategic regional threat remains Iran, that this president seems to believe can be brought to reason but that clearly cannot. They have their hegemonic dreams fueled by religious fervor, and we make a dreadful mistake by abetting them.
Mr. Obama doesn’t get cut even the minimal slack Ross seeks to cut it, any more than Dubya for blowing Iraq by permitting a series of ghastly occupation gaffes under Rumsfeld. One series of naïve mistakes in the past doesn’t excuse the set we’re in the middle of making now.
It would be immensely easier, and wiser, to isolate Iran than to cozy up to it. ISIS represents an existential threat to them, and they’d hardly refrain from defending themselves and their “Iraqi” Shia client from them, with or without our help. Indeed, it could make sense to ship the Kurds armaments to allow them to reinforce their buffer, and sit back, watching what the Persians would do about it. A well-armed nation of almost eighty million under direct threat has the capacity to destroy ISIS all by its lonesome.
All these brush-fires are tactical, and we could address them by various means. The strategic regional threat remains Iran, that this president seems to believe can be brought to reason but that clearly cannot. They have their hegemonic dreams fueled by religious fervor, and we make a dreadful mistake by abetting them.
2
Selfish children, hegemonic dreams, religious fervor. Sounds like a Republican Party projection to me.
9
So what's the answer? More American troops on the ground in the next administration, more millions spent to pay for this war so we raise the deficit and not taxes, more members of our brave armed forces coming home with PTSD and severe physical injuries and some not coming home at all?
Well, there may be a third Bush presidency in our future, and a third Bush war coming in the Middle East. We'll see what Mr. Douthat has to say then.
Well, there may be a third Bush presidency in our future, and a third Bush war coming in the Middle East. We'll see what Mr. Douthat has to say then.
7
Ross, this "Pax Americana" doesn't work in the Middle East because we just don't know what we're doing or who to trust. In the 1980's Osama bin Laden was America's best friend because he was fighting our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. America gave bin Laden whatever he wanted including the latest weapons and training courtesy of the CIA. That alliance was shattered when the first plane hit the World Trade Center on 9/11 in a major terrorist attack orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. By 9/12/2001 Osama bin Laden became Public Enemy #1 who had to be hunted down at all costs. Ditto Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator but at least he kept Iraq glued together. Yet Saddam Hussein also had to go because we thought he was hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction. We also rationalized that once Hussein was out of the picture, Iraq would become the very model of a modern Mid-East democracy, thanks to little help from Uncle Sam. Yeah, that worked out great--now we're stuck with ISIS and an Iraq that's tottering on the brink of a civil war. Even the comments reflect this confusion. Not to long ago Saddam Hussein was denounced for suppressing the rights of his people. Now there's a genuine nostalgia for a ruthless strongman like Saddam Hussein to restore law and order to Iraq. And we wonder why the Middle East is always in chaos???
6
Do remember that it was the buildup of American military bases and forces in Bin Laden's Holy Land that set him off, another instance of our arrogant ignorance of and refusal to respect cultural/religious sensitivities, a pillar of American Exceptionalism.
3
Before you advocate for yet another costly and unwinnable war in the Middle East, please read The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbons. It may be an old book but it contains lessons the Republicans apparently haven't learned.
20
Declining hegemony is not exactly a matter of choice. Offshore balancing, according to realist international relations theorists, offers the best, perhaps only, option for a declining power to protect its own security. Otherwise, the attempt to maintain global hegemony and Pax Americana will inevitably fail and result in 'imperial overstretch,' at much greater cost than adjusting to the shifting balance of power. Douthat seems to agree with this view, even suggesting that letting the Middle East disintegrate into 'something worse' would be better than a futile attempt to impose American dominance on the region. He may even be correct that the Obama administration's policy has an underlying coherence that is not obvious. Winding down the superpower's commitments is bound to be a messy process, but perhaps no other option is available.
5
Given the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq and our second worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, we should be trying to contain the implosion in the Middle East to the Middle East and trying as well to tamp down the worst excesses involving human rights atrocities and war crimes and let (as if we had a choice) the region burn itself out like what happened between the Catholics and Protestants in the Thirty Years War. I wish there was a better plausible strategy, but there isn't.
2
You give Democrats WAY too much credit. Foreign policy is a distraction to the task of extending government into our domenstic affairs. It seems Barack and Hillary rarely spoke, and who would be surprised to find the same is true of Barack and John? You are free to see a pattern here Ross. All I see is incompetence and more evidence that Barack Obama starring in his own version of "Being There." The key being only Democrats are blind.
2
All I know American Boys are not dying in the same numbers as they were under the previous administration. The Middle East was/is/will likely be a mess. Not much America can do...
7
Our Iraq adventure left us with an emboldened and enhanced Iran, a war weary electorate, an exhausted military, and political vacuums throughout the region. Our options re Iran are limited to negotiation, capitulation, and military action. This is a classic example of choosing a least worst among them. Take your pick.
6
The genie still in the bottle is the fact that there are well over 20,000 atomic bombs (weapons) in the world today. If we don't start trying SERIOUSLY to reduce this number, we'll end up just like Charlton Heston riding along the beach on a far away planet and seeing the Statue of Liberty lying on the ground in this far away planet named earth.
Everything else pales beside the threat of a nuclear war. We need to wake up to this fact!
Everything else pales beside the threat of a nuclear war. We need to wake up to this fact!
1
Ross, you imply that we can't forgo our hegemony without inevitably ending up with our current Obama strategy of just muddling through. Perhaps we need to rethink this, and luckily we have someone who has already done some of that for us. John Bolton.
I assume you're currently lobbying your extended family's young men, and perhaps a few of the women, too, to take part in the "boots on the ground" warfare you and John advocate.
4
Great analysis. Obama is trying to create additional strategic options for the US in the middle east. The hope is, by having even a minimal working relationship with Iran, US is not boxed in like it is now: stuck supporting Saudi Arabia and other sunni nations even though these are the countries that are responsible for radicalization of Islam across the globe. It is kind of ridiculous that the US involvement in Iraq (first war and second) were primariluy to secure oil supplies, but the country that was most threatend by Saddam Hussien was Saudi Arabia. While the US has spent a fortune in treasure and blood trying to keep middle east stable, Saudi Arabia has spent nothing ... and continues to benefit the most. By normalizing relationship with Iran, Obama is hoping to get the US out of the middle east, and leave the middle east to the countries there. If gas prices go back up because of middle east instability, the local production in the US will become viable again, and US could become energy independent if needed. This is obviously not good news for Saudi Arabia, or even Israel. Hence the desperation on Netenyahu's part. If US withdraws from middle east, Israel will need to create its own alliances within the middle east ... hopefully a first step to reconciliation with the neighborhood they are living in.
203
You make a lot of sense and bring some clarity to this knotty mess. I think that the West and its allies should do whatever is necessary to free itself from dependence on Arab oil. Then we can sit back as spectators of the show that is being enacted in the Middle East without getting involved.
4
I'm not sure what Mr. Douthat is recommending. He himself says to achieve the Pax Americana in Iraq would require significant American military presence there "for decades." He also forgets that Saudi Arabia, far from being a good client state, has promoted the kind of radical Sunni Islam that started the mess to begin with. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are simply tentacles of that sick ideology. Iran and Israel and the United States are, in fact all allies against this menace, if they would only see it. But Iran and Israel are sworn enemies. Saudi Arabia is opposed to the power of both. Forming productive alliances in the Middle East is never a simple matter, as Mr. Douthat acts as if he didn't know.
The Obama retort to criticism Mr. D quotes in paraphrase, "why don't you try it if you're so smart?" starts to make sense.
Clearly, the years since 9/11 have shown the bankruptcy of the Pax Americana model in the Middle East. Our only real ally there is Israel. But our interests and the interests of the rest of the "free" world do not align perfectly with those of Israel. Iran, as I said, is our natural ally, because our real enemies are the same. The same is true of Israel and Iran, as ISIS and its proxies gather around each. But hardline doctrine on all sides prevents us from seeing our commonality.
The Obama retort to criticism Mr. D quotes in paraphrase, "why don't you try it if you're so smart?" starts to make sense.
Clearly, the years since 9/11 have shown the bankruptcy of the Pax Americana model in the Middle East. Our only real ally there is Israel. But our interests and the interests of the rest of the "free" world do not align perfectly with those of Israel. Iran, as I said, is our natural ally, because our real enemies are the same. The same is true of Israel and Iran, as ISIS and its proxies gather around each. But hardline doctrine on all sides prevents us from seeing our commonality.
4
So, besides once again hammering the President, what's your point? Anyone who follows the news knows that the middle east is a mess. The simultaneous alliances and oppositions between the USA Iran and Syria are bizarre. But how do we justify an alliance with Saudi Arabia, a country that is one of the most socially primitive, despotic regimes on the planet. They rank right up there with North Korea in terms of a mismatch with our values. The reality is that there is no means for the USA to referee the centuries old battle between shiites and sunnis; or arabs and persians. Asking The President to solve that is like asking him to to cure cancer (see other NYT op-ed ;-) Bottom line: Support Isreal and forget the rest.
2
A bizarre analogy unexpectedly came to mind while reading this column. I thought of upper middle class people who 70, 90 years ago had servants but within a short period they no longer could afford them. The reason was that those poor people were satisfied with room and board and an occasional bit of money. But when wages had to be paid, the upper middle class could not
longer afford them and the system broke down.
The second part of the analogy regards our many involvements. There was a time when controlling the world was a somewhat easy task. The world was made up of destitute countries, poorly armed, and who needed aid and protection from the US. We could cut a wide swath across the globe, feeling powerful and, eventually, became arrogant. What? Land reform in Guatemala? Get that Communist out of the way? A Socialist president in Chile? You got to be kiddying, says Kissinger. But the world has changed, the rice growers of the East are sending up space rockets, the world arms industry is feeding factions all over, people want to break up colonial imposed borders, and the great powers with their planes, rockets, ships no longer frighten
religious fanatics. And we are slowly coming to the realization that we can no longer afford to be the omnipotent power, It is not worth our lives and treasure. Handling these fractious groups that Douthat lists isn't really that easy or rewarding. But we have something ferocious by the tail and we are afraid to let go.
longer afford them and the system broke down.
The second part of the analogy regards our many involvements. There was a time when controlling the world was a somewhat easy task. The world was made up of destitute countries, poorly armed, and who needed aid and protection from the US. We could cut a wide swath across the globe, feeling powerful and, eventually, became arrogant. What? Land reform in Guatemala? Get that Communist out of the way? A Socialist president in Chile? You got to be kiddying, says Kissinger. But the world has changed, the rice growers of the East are sending up space rockets, the world arms industry is feeding factions all over, people want to break up colonial imposed borders, and the great powers with their planes, rockets, ships no longer frighten
religious fanatics. And we are slowly coming to the realization that we can no longer afford to be the omnipotent power, It is not worth our lives and treasure. Handling these fractious groups that Douthat lists isn't really that easy or rewarding. But we have something ferocious by the tail and we are afraid to let go.
18
Mr. Douthat:
One country's hegemony is another country's oppression. I am also a bit baffled by the concept of a "trustworthy hegemon". That, too, depends on who is required to do the trusting. Historical references show that no "Pax" has ever delivered on that concept; there has been a lot more bloodshed than peace. It has always proved nettlesome that those being oppressed seem to want self determination more than the hegemic "peace" they are offered.
Pax Romana labeled the Mediterranean, Mare Nostrum. India was Pax Britainia's "crown jewel". Pax seems to mean our peace, your loss. Now you offer up Pax Americana. The shear arrogance of such a label is embarrassing and historically inept. As P.R goes it is as insulting as our use of the word crusade. Neither gets much respect in the Middle-East.
So, is our goal to create more stability by the creation of a multi-polar environment.Who do you have in mind for the part of the "trustworthy hegemon": Israel? You will end up with more than "six degrees of enmity" if that is the plan. I'm still waiting for being welcomed with open arms and flowers as Mr. Cheney promised.
I'm more inclined to think that admitting our mistakes and sidling a respectable distance offstage might be wiser. Our military supremacy is evident, it needn't be at the forefront of negotiation. The Bush Administration claimed its goal was a democratic Iraq. Hegemony is the antithesis of democracy.What is it you are advocating here?
One country's hegemony is another country's oppression. I am also a bit baffled by the concept of a "trustworthy hegemon". That, too, depends on who is required to do the trusting. Historical references show that no "Pax" has ever delivered on that concept; there has been a lot more bloodshed than peace. It has always proved nettlesome that those being oppressed seem to want self determination more than the hegemic "peace" they are offered.
Pax Romana labeled the Mediterranean, Mare Nostrum. India was Pax Britainia's "crown jewel". Pax seems to mean our peace, your loss. Now you offer up Pax Americana. The shear arrogance of such a label is embarrassing and historically inept. As P.R goes it is as insulting as our use of the word crusade. Neither gets much respect in the Middle-East.
So, is our goal to create more stability by the creation of a multi-polar environment.Who do you have in mind for the part of the "trustworthy hegemon": Israel? You will end up with more than "six degrees of enmity" if that is the plan. I'm still waiting for being welcomed with open arms and flowers as Mr. Cheney promised.
I'm more inclined to think that admitting our mistakes and sidling a respectable distance offstage might be wiser. Our military supremacy is evident, it needn't be at the forefront of negotiation. The Bush Administration claimed its goal was a democratic Iraq. Hegemony is the antithesis of democracy.What is it you are advocating here?
26
The choice of Isolationism leaves a gap bad actors fill, and in time the chickens come home to roost anyway; fact! Your sarcastic condemnation of the Bush / Cheney doctrine, conveniently ignores the complete reversal of their foreign policy by the current administration, as if such never occurred; not so fast. None of you ever considered what a stable Iraq with US monitoring force left behind could have yield; it isn't an option. Yet, as you selectively recite history to bolster your point of-view, please let me remind you that Europe, Japan, Korea and Vietnam were also engulfed in flames, but it took major wars and monitoring force left behind for decades to turn the tide, no short cuts or instantaneous gratification; try that for history!
misstatement of historical events facts
misstatement of historical events facts
Without a doubt this administration is trying a new strategy. What I can't really say, perhaps this one or other. It does involve us leaving and seemingly hoping for the best.
Will it work? How long before we know? What will success be like? Any guides to help us assess or is that coming later?
It is difficult to say Yemen is the success it was claimed to be. Perhaps a failure but then if regional actors were supposed to step up and take charge of their own affairs, maybe this is success. Saudi Arabia and Egypt seem to be aligning to push back against Iran.
We are helping Iran to be in greater control in Iraq, perhaps part of the Nuclear deal being hammered out now. Perhaps just acknowledging that Iran has already dominated many countries and terror groups, so leave and let the Saudi's and Egypt go against them militarily and be done with it all.
So is this failure or success? Maybe in the definition of the architects of the strategy this is the preferred outcome. Who knows but those in charge and they aren't talking.
Will it work? How long before we know? What will success be like? Any guides to help us assess or is that coming later?
It is difficult to say Yemen is the success it was claimed to be. Perhaps a failure but then if regional actors were supposed to step up and take charge of their own affairs, maybe this is success. Saudi Arabia and Egypt seem to be aligning to push back against Iran.
We are helping Iran to be in greater control in Iraq, perhaps part of the Nuclear deal being hammered out now. Perhaps just acknowledging that Iran has already dominated many countries and terror groups, so leave and let the Saudi's and Egypt go against them militarily and be done with it all.
So is this failure or success? Maybe in the definition of the architects of the strategy this is the preferred outcome. Who knows but those in charge and they aren't talking.
2
One can only say that, after 9/11, war against an established government -- of whatever kind -- in the Middle East, was a ruinous decision; and I hold the belief that it has led to most of our troubles there: Osama bin Laden still influences its bloody history.
9
Obama's goal is straightforward- instead of spending resources and military effort in the Mid East, concentrate on domestic issues and strengthen anti-poverty programs, public education, police and prison reform, and other government programs. Obama hoped to develop alternate energy sources (i.e. "green technology") because, if that was successful, it would increase US influence (since we developed the technology) and reduce the strategic importance of the Mid-East by reducing international dependence on oil.
It is too early to say if Obama is delusional, or if he needs more time to achieve beneficial results from this approach.
It is too early to say if Obama is delusional, or if he needs more time to achieve beneficial results from this approach.
6
This is a very confused discussion about the evolution of policy in the region. Under Obama, the US is disengaging ground combat forces from the Middle East and South Asia. Douthat is correct that this more closely resembles an "offshore balancer" strategy, but Douthat doesn't seem to grasp how this strategy works in the current setting.
In the Middle East and South Asia, American efforts have generally been lots of inputs in and very little effectiveness out. The inputs in have been accompanied by monumental amounts of corruption for scant results. Futility has accompanied every American effort to effectively intervene in any conflict in the region.
What is apparent now is that the local governments in the region have to carry almost the full burden of any ground combat. For example, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Egypt are teaming up to deal with Yemen. The US is "assisting." The US is out of the ground combat role in the region, possibly forever. Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Afghanistan apparently "get this." They may not like it, but they "get it."
But does the Pentagon "get it?" Apparently not. Pentagon military officials were quoted this week in the NYT that their operations in and around Tikrit "were according to plan." Iraq and Syria are anything but "according to plan." The Pentagon is populated by fools and delusionists, apparently. They are waiting for an interventionist-oriented White House in 2017. Who knows?
In the Middle East and South Asia, American efforts have generally been lots of inputs in and very little effectiveness out. The inputs in have been accompanied by monumental amounts of corruption for scant results. Futility has accompanied every American effort to effectively intervene in any conflict in the region.
What is apparent now is that the local governments in the region have to carry almost the full burden of any ground combat. For example, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Egypt are teaming up to deal with Yemen. The US is "assisting." The US is out of the ground combat role in the region, possibly forever. Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Afghanistan apparently "get this." They may not like it, but they "get it."
But does the Pentagon "get it?" Apparently not. Pentagon military officials were quoted this week in the NYT that their operations in and around Tikrit "were according to plan." Iraq and Syria are anything but "according to plan." The Pentagon is populated by fools and delusionists, apparently. They are waiting for an interventionist-oriented White House in 2017. Who knows?
10
Mr Douthat , perhaps you forget that it wasn't Obama who invaded Iraq on false
pretences and created this mess. You might want to watch some old TV shows with Cheney , Rummy and Mushroom Cloud Condi to refresh your memory. Also check out W's SOTU speech in 2003
pretences and created this mess. You might want to watch some old TV shows with Cheney , Rummy and Mushroom Cloud Condi to refresh your memory. Also check out W's SOTU speech in 2003
19
The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld model was implemented by men who were completely confident of their opinions and actions. Cheney apparently still is. They were completely wrong, and their policy was an abject failure, thoroughly wasteful, ineffective, and demoralizing.
I actually thought Mr. Douthat was going to be much more harsh in his assessment of Mr. Obama's foreign policy, but he seems to acknowledge a strategy behind our disengagement. I hope Mr. Obama gets us all the way out because, from what I can tell, our involvement has only served to anger the people of the warring countries, giving them a convenient target to blame (us) and causing us to waste lives, limbs, and tsunami-like floods of money (Osama's revenge).
I think Mr. Obama understands that these tribal-religious conflicts have been going on for centuries. No "hegemon" is going to permanently fix the Middle East. Only the native combatants can. And until they really want to, let's not get any further into the middle of the Middle East.
I actually thought Mr. Douthat was going to be much more harsh in his assessment of Mr. Obama's foreign policy, but he seems to acknowledge a strategy behind our disengagement. I hope Mr. Obama gets us all the way out because, from what I can tell, our involvement has only served to anger the people of the warring countries, giving them a convenient target to blame (us) and causing us to waste lives, limbs, and tsunami-like floods of money (Osama's revenge).
I think Mr. Obama understands that these tribal-religious conflicts have been going on for centuries. No "hegemon" is going to permanently fix the Middle East. Only the native combatants can. And until they really want to, let's not get any further into the middle of the Middle East.
344
I agree with you that "getting out" should be our ultimate strategy but because we've been "in" for so long our sudden withdrawal would leave a lot of innocent people, especially the women and girls of Afghanistan in a terrible situation.
Yes to all JVW has said because, you can't save people or countries from their own polices, or their own habits. There is the reason history repeats itself. AA for example, can only help those who help themselves. And in that regard, I think it was C.S. Lewis who said, "Pain is God's mega-phone to rouse a deaf world."
The critical,fateful mistake was an invasion of Iraq that overcommitted what had been an implicit American military threat, weakening the ability of the US to credibly stare down multiple actors. That said, the idea of ever achieving a natural regional balance - on less than epochal timescales - that does not destabilize the wider world is just as delusional as it is alluring. It is not going to happen, no matter how attractive the idea of it happening is. No easy answers? Yes! But a continuance of regional retreat on the part of the US is part of no realistic or plausible scenario.
Pax Americana is an imperial project, and involves defending the interests of International Corporatia (Exxon/Mobil, etc.). For those of us who've lost faith in the Imperial project in the Middle East after the meddlings in Iran (starting with Mossadegh in 1953), Egypt/Israel/Palestine, the Gulf (Iran/Iraq war), Lebanon, Kuwait/Iraq (Gulf war I), Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq II, ISIS, the argument that Pax Americana is the right strategy requires too much suspension of disbelief. As much as we hate seeing heads cut off, does anyone seriously believe a permanent boots-on-the-ground strategy 1) is likely to work for the medium run and 2) will win friends and influence the peoples of the region? I think it's far more realistic to confront the limits of American imperial power, as Obama has, and ask the local actors to step up and take the responsibility of trying to be real nation-states. There are good reasons why the Persian and Ottoman empires and their predecessors have ruled this region on and off for thousands of years, and it requires blind hubris to think that the United States, for all of its' military power, has the ability to create a solution that is not owned by the local actors. The Middle East over the last 15 years while our society rots at home has been the perfect fulfillment of Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of Great Powers thesis.
232
So true. I'm just amazed at the number of people who tout tactics and approaches that have NEVER in fact been very successful. Meddling in countries on the other side of the world has almost never ended well and the same is true for arming rebel forces and foreign armies who are not close allies!
Media talking heads and foreign policy hawks constantly rebuked Obama because he didn't arm the Syrian rebels, as if that were a no-brainer that would have destroyed ISIS when in fact, it wouldn't have served any purpose except to hand over even more of our equipment to them. Where do these so-called experts think ISIS got all their American tanks?
Media talking heads and foreign policy hawks constantly rebuked Obama because he didn't arm the Syrian rebels, as if that were a no-brainer that would have destroyed ISIS when in fact, it wouldn't have served any purpose except to hand over even more of our equipment to them. Where do these so-called experts think ISIS got all their American tanks?
5
The problem with our Middle East policy is that we have engaged our military forces when we were not under attack. The same poor strategy was used in the wars in Korea and Vietnam, but we did not learn any lessons from those tragedies.
Our military can defeat any nation in an all-out war. It should not be squandered fighting other nations' small wars.
We cannot change the past, but we can change the present and the future, and set a better example for the rest of the world.
We should disengage from active fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East.
As for terrorism, we should rely on intelligence (including agents on the ground, plus the NSA) and drone strikes to attack any terrorists whom we designate as a real threat to the United States. In the meantime, we need to build up both our diplomatic power and our strategic forces to defend us against any future attacks by nations which can actually cause us great harm.
Our military can defeat any nation in an all-out war. It should not be squandered fighting other nations' small wars.
We cannot change the past, but we can change the present and the future, and set a better example for the rest of the world.
We should disengage from active fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East.
As for terrorism, we should rely on intelligence (including agents on the ground, plus the NSA) and drone strikes to attack any terrorists whom we designate as a real threat to the United States. In the meantime, we need to build up both our diplomatic power and our strategic forces to defend us against any future attacks by nations which can actually cause us great harm.
6
What are you suggesting as a better plan? You forgot that part.
13
Was it Trotsky who said 'You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you?" And so it is. War will find us. Already, we may have been found. What shall we do?
5
The empire is faltering no matter who runs it. Overextended, we have bases in 82% of the world's countries. We have a trillion dollar a year military budget and that military is our prime method of running the world. It's failing. The dyke is collapsing and the Pentagon. Wall street etc are helpless. Feels like the Fall of the Roman empire.
11
Extricating ourselves from the middle east sounds ok to me. The long term trend for that part of the world seems clear, and there's not much we can gain from trying to stem an inexorable tide towards chaos and anarchy. We once tried to bomb Viet Nam back into the Stone Age. Islamic countries seem determined to achieve that feat all on their own - or not, but it's got to be their decision, not ours.
16
As usual an intelligent analysis by Mr. Douthat. A little to lenient on Obama though. Obama has by withdrawal from Iraq and wishy washy “strategies” in the ME that hundreds of thousands if not millions will die. He has successfully alienated our friends and strengthened our enemies and ensured all will despise America. The mess his administration leaves will take decades to clean up.
3
@jacobi: "He has successfully alienated our friends and strengthened our enemies and ensured all will despise America. The mess his administration leaves will take decades to clean up."
Perfect description of the legacy of George W. Bush.
Perfect description of the legacy of George W. Bush.
7
The Bush administration negotiated the status of forces agreement that set the time for the US departure. The Bush administration would not subject US personnel to Iraqi judicial system.
It was GW Bush that "opened the gates of hell," unleashing sectarian violence across the region and the killings of hundreds of thousands so far.
It was GW Bush that "opened the gates of hell," unleashing sectarian violence across the region and the killings of hundreds of thousands so far.
6
The Iraq withdrawal still has more soldiers than Bush negotiated on having there. How can a sane person blame Obama for the Iraq mess, the ME problems brought on by the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Gitmo and the Arab Spring? He didn't cause them or do them. Bush and his buddies did. Think before you post.
2
Will Obama take Abbas at his word too?
Abbas aide calls for 'Decisive Storm' against Gaza
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/17758-abbas-aide-call...
Abbas aide calls for 'Decisive Storm' against Gaza
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/17758-abbas-aide-call...
2
This has nothing to do with President Obama policies. This is the can of worms that Bush and his cronies have opened assuming we can put the monster genie back in the bottle. Obama is indeed following the best policy: minimal interference, as where ever we go we leave chaos. So better focus on domestic issues: maybe start with free University education for all Americans, as right to education should be a fundamental right. A small step in the right direction that GOP still wants to obstruct. How much $$ are needed for free education for all as compared to what we spend on military industrial complex. Someone should do the math!!
16
Mr Douthat is too young to remember the halcyon days when the Free World mostly consisted of states whose tyrants supported US property rights, while the enslaved world consisted of those states whose tyrants were aligned with the USSR.
In the middle of the Vietnam war, some started to question why those living under some tyrants were called 'Free', while those living under other tyrants were enslaved and the US had the duty and obligation to free them. Those who questioned (a large minority, but still a minority) didn't like the US government's answers.
After 9/11, things got a little more complicated: 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia is one of the US's BFFs. Fortunately, the King of Saudi Arabia still rules with an iron fist and ensures that America gets all the oil it needs. So it wasn't Saudi Arabian youths, but Saddam's Iraqi Guards who perpetrated 9/11.
So there are still tyrants who are keeping their subjects 'Free' and who must be supported by the US, and other tyrants who are enslaving their subjects and who must be overthrown.
Plus ça change...
In the middle of the Vietnam war, some started to question why those living under some tyrants were called 'Free', while those living under other tyrants were enslaved and the US had the duty and obligation to free them. Those who questioned (a large minority, but still a minority) didn't like the US government's answers.
After 9/11, things got a little more complicated: 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia is one of the US's BFFs. Fortunately, the King of Saudi Arabia still rules with an iron fist and ensures that America gets all the oil it needs. So it wasn't Saudi Arabian youths, but Saddam's Iraqi Guards who perpetrated 9/11.
So there are still tyrants who are keeping their subjects 'Free' and who must be supported by the US, and other tyrants who are enslaving their subjects and who must be overthrown.
Plus ça change...
161
Americans are not responsible for peace in the Middle East. Sometimes, you have to let the Sunnis and Shiites deal with their own mess. If some Sunni states were not backing ISIS, we would not have ISIS.
The best thing for the US to do is to just watch, offer support here and there, as American interests dictate. You will save American taxpayers money and soldiers lives, at least. The best strategy is the one the Obama administration seems to be following. Just watch things. Cut deals. Avoid entangling America in someone else's wars. The Arabs are not talking seriously about an Arab NATO. This is overdue. They should foot the bill, cash and lives, for their own security.
The best thing for the US to do is to just watch, offer support here and there, as American interests dictate. You will save American taxpayers money and soldiers lives, at least. The best strategy is the one the Obama administration seems to be following. Just watch things. Cut deals. Avoid entangling America in someone else's wars. The Arabs are not talking seriously about an Arab NATO. This is overdue. They should foot the bill, cash and lives, for their own security.
15
You fail to get at the root causes of the conflicts going on in the Middle East, the Maghreb and parts of Central Africa. There are three main reasons why you wrongly blame President Obama while ignoring what caused his problems in these regions:
1. The closeness of two Bush administrations over twelve years cozying up to the Saudis who have spread this salafist, Wahabi strain of extremist Islamic fundamentalism to poison the well regionally and even in our own country as the primary financiers of 9/11. This is all the responsibility of the neo cons who thought they could reshape the Middle East.
2. You completely ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a primary source of discord throughout the world as the United States always backed Israel without question, until now. American leadership in the region has been questioned for decades because it was assumed by allies and foes alike that the U.S. Couldn't be an honest broker for peace.
3. The Iraq war was a disaster and the Bush administration of GW Bush is completely responsible for adding chaos to the region.
The mess that we are in is the responsibility of two republican administrations both named Bush and I hope that we don't make things worse by adding a third Bush to this disaster for our country. After all, he is being advised by the same people as 41 and 43; not a good sign.
1. The closeness of two Bush administrations over twelve years cozying up to the Saudis who have spread this salafist, Wahabi strain of extremist Islamic fundamentalism to poison the well regionally and even in our own country as the primary financiers of 9/11. This is all the responsibility of the neo cons who thought they could reshape the Middle East.
2. You completely ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a primary source of discord throughout the world as the United States always backed Israel without question, until now. American leadership in the region has been questioned for decades because it was assumed by allies and foes alike that the U.S. Couldn't be an honest broker for peace.
3. The Iraq war was a disaster and the Bush administration of GW Bush is completely responsible for adding chaos to the region.
The mess that we are in is the responsibility of two republican administrations both named Bush and I hope that we don't make things worse by adding a third Bush to this disaster for our country. After all, he is being advised by the same people as 41 and 43; not a good sign.
22
GHW Bush was a partner of Osama's father, Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, the Carlyle Group (private equity). They were filmed walking hand-in-hand at Carlyle meetings.
Salem bin Laden, Osama's eldest brother, invested in GW Bush's failing Abusto Energy corporation; kept it from going bankrupt.
Saudi Arabia' Prince Bandar was such a frequent guest at Crawford Texas that W's daughters called him Uncle Bandar.
GW Bush let bin Laden family after 9/11/01 attacks before FBI could interview them
Salem bin Laden, Osama's eldest brother, invested in GW Bush's failing Abusto Energy corporation; kept it from going bankrupt.
Saudi Arabia' Prince Bandar was such a frequent guest at Crawford Texas that W's daughters called him Uncle Bandar.
GW Bush let bin Laden family after 9/11/01 attacks before FBI could interview them
3
That is extremely absurd to state that the Israeli-"Palestinian" Arab conflict is somehow the key problem in the Middle East .That if it's "solved " that it will magically make all the other much worse wars and genocides occurring in nations hundreds and thousands miles away from Israel which have nothing to do with it whatsoever and also restore Western credibility and influence defies all logic.
1
"The conflicts we have now are ugly enough, but absent the restraint still imposed by American military dominance, it’s easy to imagine something worse."
Yes, the return of the Republican Party to the White House. Scott Walker would be completely unprepared to manage a competent foreign policy, especially if he continues to receive guidance from the very people who loudly championed our invasion of Iraq and now want more "toughness" on Iran and Syria. And Walker is the preferred candidate of the right at the moment.
The president is taking some serious political risk with his pursuit of a nuclear agreement with Iran; he deserves credit for not insisting on a perfect deal when the leverage is not there. If the deal with Iran works out, that would be a rare American success story in the Middle East.
Yes, the return of the Republican Party to the White House. Scott Walker would be completely unprepared to manage a competent foreign policy, especially if he continues to receive guidance from the very people who loudly championed our invasion of Iraq and now want more "toughness" on Iran and Syria. And Walker is the preferred candidate of the right at the moment.
The president is taking some serious political risk with his pursuit of a nuclear agreement with Iran; he deserves credit for not insisting on a perfect deal when the leverage is not there. If the deal with Iran works out, that would be a rare American success story in the Middle East.
8
Mr. Douthat is absolutely correct that the US policy, to the extent that there is a policy, tends to partition off its problems.
Iran is contributing to the destabilization of the entire region, but the US seems to think, as Mr. Douthat points out, that the Obama administration believes that once a nuclear deal is achieved then Iran can become an ally. A NYT editorial even saw Iran taking on police duties in the region, as it were.
However, it is necessary to look at the entire picture and that leads to the conclusion that Iran seeks hegemony in the Middle East over its neighbors and at their expense.
This will lead not to Iran serving the purposes of the West, but rather to the mother of all wars in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the UAE cannot allow Iranian hegemony. Yemen is the start. The US has now offered to help Saudi Arabia against the Iranian supported Houthis. Yet, the US continues to negotiate with Iran on nuclear issues as if all is well.
Iran wants sanctions lifted and will agree to whatever they can get the Americans to settle for. They will not stop their attempts at hegemony and destabilization and as soon as they want they will upgrade from nuclear threshold to nuclear power.
So what is the US policy? Mr. Douthat is too generous is seeking to ascribe any type of policy to this chaos. What it is is plain and simple chaos.
Iran is contributing to the destabilization of the entire region, but the US seems to think, as Mr. Douthat points out, that the Obama administration believes that once a nuclear deal is achieved then Iran can become an ally. A NYT editorial even saw Iran taking on police duties in the region, as it were.
However, it is necessary to look at the entire picture and that leads to the conclusion that Iran seeks hegemony in the Middle East over its neighbors and at their expense.
This will lead not to Iran serving the purposes of the West, but rather to the mother of all wars in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the UAE cannot allow Iranian hegemony. Yemen is the start. The US has now offered to help Saudi Arabia against the Iranian supported Houthis. Yet, the US continues to negotiate with Iran on nuclear issues as if all is well.
Iran wants sanctions lifted and will agree to whatever they can get the Americans to settle for. They will not stop their attempts at hegemony and destabilization and as soon as they want they will upgrade from nuclear threshold to nuclear power.
So what is the US policy? Mr. Douthat is too generous is seeking to ascribe any type of policy to this chaos. What it is is plain and simple chaos.
49
The argument that Yemen is a proxy war is nonsense. Iranian support for Shia in Yemen is miniscule. There are no troops or advisors on the ground; there may be minimal financial and material support, but even this is unproven and not needed for the Houthis to occupy a piece of Yemen while facing a disorganized and demoralized national army.
The Yemen proxy war is another attempt by those who wish to intensify conflict between the US and Iran. Iran is not an existential enemy of the US, nor the Sunni-dominated states. It is to Wahhabis and Zionists. Neither of those two groups should dominate US foreign policy or activities.
The Yemen proxy war is another attempt by those who wish to intensify conflict between the US and Iran. Iran is not an existential enemy of the US, nor the Sunni-dominated states. It is to Wahhabis and Zionists. Neither of those two groups should dominate US foreign policy or activities.
5
"Iran seeks hegemony" and that's our field of expertise, butting in everywhere in the world with our bloated, unsustainable empire.
2
Oh, so it's Iran that seeks hegemony in the Middle East, not Israel. So a nuclear-armed, belligerent country that has attacked and bombed most of its neighbors at one time or another is threatened by Iran, who has bombed no one.
It is to laugh.
It is to laugh.
3
The Neo-Con-Artist Pledge of Allegiance:
"You go to war with the Neo-Con-Artist delusions and anxious, money-hungry military-industrial-profiteers you have today, not with the thoughtful diplomacy, reason and patience required of an actual adult"
"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld with Steve Croft, Nov. 14, 2002
"And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Donald Rumsfeld - Aviano Air Base in Italy, Feb. 7, 2003
"Stuff happens."
Donald Rumsfeld news briefing on the issue of looting and chaos in Baghdad, Saturday, April 11, 2003
"My belief is, we will, in fact be greeted as liberators."
Dick Cheney just before the Iraq Invasion Meet The Press with Tim Russert March 16, 2003
"Dick Cheney became vice president well before George Bush picked him. And he began to manipulate things from that point on, knowing that he was going to be able to convince this guy to pick him, knowing that he was then going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush — personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum."
-- Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell
Never, ever trust a Neo-Con-Artist or apologist hellbent on military destruction.
"You go to war with the Neo-Con-Artist delusions and anxious, money-hungry military-industrial-profiteers you have today, not with the thoughtful diplomacy, reason and patience required of an actual adult"
"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld with Steve Croft, Nov. 14, 2002
"And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Donald Rumsfeld - Aviano Air Base in Italy, Feb. 7, 2003
"Stuff happens."
Donald Rumsfeld news briefing on the issue of looting and chaos in Baghdad, Saturday, April 11, 2003
"My belief is, we will, in fact be greeted as liberators."
Dick Cheney just before the Iraq Invasion Meet The Press with Tim Russert March 16, 2003
"Dick Cheney became vice president well before George Bush picked him. And he began to manipulate things from that point on, knowing that he was going to be able to convince this guy to pick him, knowing that he was then going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush — personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum."
-- Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell
Never, ever trust a Neo-Con-Artist or apologist hellbent on military destruction.
205
We, the US, created this mess.
The US deposes Mossadecq in Iran, which leads to the 36 year Rule of the Ayatollahs.
Reagan arms the Afghan fundamentalists who change their name to Taliban and give bin Laden sanctuary and al Qaida an entire country.
Viet Nam dodging cowards Bush and Cheney lead The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq setting off sectarian war unseen in the modern Middle East.
Now, because in six years Obama has not waved his magic wand and undone 62 years of repeated, stupid, hubristic US follies, it's all the fault of the black guy.
The US deposes Mossadecq in Iran, which leads to the 36 year Rule of the Ayatollahs.
Reagan arms the Afghan fundamentalists who change their name to Taliban and give bin Laden sanctuary and al Qaida an entire country.
Viet Nam dodging cowards Bush and Cheney lead The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq setting off sectarian war unseen in the modern Middle East.
Now, because in six years Obama has not waved his magic wand and undone 62 years of repeated, stupid, hubristic US follies, it's all the fault of the black guy.
37
This column is premised on an assumption that American foreign policy enjoys a united front. But President Obama is facing subterfuge from Congress, particularly with regards to Israel and Iran. Netanyahu was invited to grandstand before Legislators, who afforded the Prime Minister a chance to present himself like he was the American President, no less speaking of foreign policy, which is the purview of the Executive Cabinet. Then, 47 Senators took it upon themselves to correspond with Iran for the lone purpose of undermining President Obama in an effort he has been behind since the 2008 election. So Ross, before coming down on President Obama for not bringing order to a chaotic part of the world, look no further than those making chaos at home.
12
A more depressing than normal Douthat column. The good news, much shorter than normal, in part by his having the links do all his work.
His mystery thesis appears to be Obama unknowingly following the multipolar regional balancing policy advocated in a mobidly obese, 5,933 word, 2002 piece by, per Google, conservatives, anti interventionists, Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne.
They claim: the U.S. brought 9.11 on itself by having too much global power, others too little; that more great powers with military force projection (nukes, drones, cruise missiles?) will bring peace and stability; while, we stay out of the fight, as we did until 1944 in Europe to force the burden of security on others (a lie); that to be unipolar the U.S. wants a divided Korea (a N. Korean lie), and, Persian Gulf/sea lane security should be for Japan and China among others. Poor Turkey, Iran, Egypt. Not even candidates.
And, Douthat seems to say that multipolar is failing because events in the ground are calling for a unipolar policy, meaning, US combat troops in Iraq.
Links suggest people in international relations are in closer contact with Martian than earth reality. Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar have no good or consistent definitions; do not map to any real foreign policy problem of humans on earth in any useful way; Invent and delete histories to suit their purposes; and, make absurd, unprovable, contradictory claims about which of the word salads is the best for peace..
His mystery thesis appears to be Obama unknowingly following the multipolar regional balancing policy advocated in a mobidly obese, 5,933 word, 2002 piece by, per Google, conservatives, anti interventionists, Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne.
They claim: the U.S. brought 9.11 on itself by having too much global power, others too little; that more great powers with military force projection (nukes, drones, cruise missiles?) will bring peace and stability; while, we stay out of the fight, as we did until 1944 in Europe to force the burden of security on others (a lie); that to be unipolar the U.S. wants a divided Korea (a N. Korean lie), and, Persian Gulf/sea lane security should be for Japan and China among others. Poor Turkey, Iran, Egypt. Not even candidates.
And, Douthat seems to say that multipolar is failing because events in the ground are calling for a unipolar policy, meaning, US combat troops in Iraq.
Links suggest people in international relations are in closer contact with Martian than earth reality. Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar have no good or consistent definitions; do not map to any real foreign policy problem of humans on earth in any useful way; Invent and delete histories to suit their purposes; and, make absurd, unprovable, contradictory claims about which of the word salads is the best for peace..
This is too tiresome!
It's time to remind Mr Douthat that the political party and philosophy that he is an apologist for, took this nation into a war, in the part of the world his latest self-ascribed wisdom is referring to, by lying to the nation about the nature of those threats. Iran, remember?
Yes, lied! I am tired of the NY Times readers having to accept so many false equivalences. Yes, you may disagree with the present Administration, but the amnesic self-righteousness is difficult to swallow.
It's time to remind Mr Douthat that the political party and philosophy that he is an apologist for, took this nation into a war, in the part of the world his latest self-ascribed wisdom is referring to, by lying to the nation about the nature of those threats. Iran, remember?
Yes, lied! I am tired of the NY Times readers having to accept so many false equivalences. Yes, you may disagree with the present Administration, but the amnesic self-righteousness is difficult to swallow.
210
whoops! Iraq, my bad!
12
America - a country and generation that cannot police and jail its own white collar criminals who created a worldwide economic calamity - should not be giving advice about how to govern to other countries.
1
In 2003 John Bolton promised the world that the U.S. knew that Iraq was on the verge of having the bomb.
That was among the 935 lies told by the Bush Administration to promulgate war that killed, maimed, traumatized, tortured, murdered, wounded and otherwise displaced millions of previously settled, like it or not, citizens of the middle east.
Ross Douthat, writing in the "National Review" at the time, praised a Phil Gramm analogy favoring war that compared Sadaam to a rattlesnake in the garden that had to be dealt with. Ross said, “We couldn't have put it better ourselves” and went on to essentially assert that we should be thankful we had "real mean" in office. “At least no one was suggesting we put Jimmy Carter in charge...”
Now, in the wake of 12 years of massive destabilization of the Middle East, Netanyahu's lying refusal to deal with the Palestinian issue, further fueling antipathy toward the West, and Conservative pressure, such as John Bolton this week urging bombing attacks on Iran, Ross Douthat sees his place as one from which he can suggest that "in the world as it exists," as if that were preordained, but actually one created by Conservative War psychopathology, including Douthat's the Obama Administration is in paralysis.
You write incredibly articulately and intelligently, Ross, but what a work of treachery you are: your argument is nothing more, under the armor of words, than false equivalence.
.
That was among the 935 lies told by the Bush Administration to promulgate war that killed, maimed, traumatized, tortured, murdered, wounded and otherwise displaced millions of previously settled, like it or not, citizens of the middle east.
Ross Douthat, writing in the "National Review" at the time, praised a Phil Gramm analogy favoring war that compared Sadaam to a rattlesnake in the garden that had to be dealt with. Ross said, “We couldn't have put it better ourselves” and went on to essentially assert that we should be thankful we had "real mean" in office. “At least no one was suggesting we put Jimmy Carter in charge...”
Now, in the wake of 12 years of massive destabilization of the Middle East, Netanyahu's lying refusal to deal with the Palestinian issue, further fueling antipathy toward the West, and Conservative pressure, such as John Bolton this week urging bombing attacks on Iran, Ross Douthat sees his place as one from which he can suggest that "in the world as it exists," as if that were preordained, but actually one created by Conservative War psychopathology, including Douthat's the Obama Administration is in paralysis.
You write incredibly articulately and intelligently, Ross, but what a work of treachery you are: your argument is nothing more, under the armor of words, than false equivalence.
.
287
Was that 935 discreet lies, or did you count the many orchestrated repetitions by various Bush administration officials to various media sites?
At last. By accident or design, a right-wing columnist admits Iraq wasn't about WMD but about a "fresh start". So how did that turn out, Ross? The region may not have been a model of stability before, but the invasion of Iraq unleashed an escalation of violence and unrest that could outlast not just President Obama and half a dozen of more presidents who come after him. It takes nerve, ignorance or both for Douthat to suggest that this if this country doesn't stay involved it will get sucked in. We were already sucked in - and, with the help of the media, suckered in - on March 20, 2003.
With the kind of Pax Americana that Douthat pleads for, who even needs war? This comes hard on the heels of Bolton seriously and shamelessly writing about bombing Iran. Maybe the Times can make it a trifecta of bellicose op-eds by inviting one from Cheney.
With the kind of Pax Americana that Douthat pleads for, who even needs war? This comes hard on the heels of Bolton seriously and shamelessly writing about bombing Iran. Maybe the Times can make it a trifecta of bellicose op-eds by inviting one from Cheney.
291
PS: I almost forgot - what business does Douthat (or is it just the headline writer?) have calling it OBAMA's Middle East Mess?
247
Exactly. Not only is it wrong to all it Obama's mess, it is the height of American chauvinism to even think in that direction. I am tired of it.
9
Could it be that Obama has been president for 6 years and let's just say that his foreign policy in the Middle East has been been somewhat incoherent, lackluster, and practically non-existent. Even the Iranians were smart enough to see through Obama's feeble gesture of celebrating the Persian New Year at the White House with gusto! Obama promised hope and change. Sadly this isn't exactly the kind of hope and change anyone anticipated.
2
Those who would lob grenades would first throw stones: their aim directed by a looking glass that sees a convex surface of blame with dominoes falling in every direction like the buildings of 9/11, only to then enter a zone in which the looking glass is conclave: fully reflecting how right their assumptions are by distorting issues and conditions. Note: Ross raises the "delusional" even before he describes the real and underlying conditions of the Middle East.
Asking the wrong questions leads to wrong answers. Dangerous assumptions, guilt and blame are implied in Ross' frame and become a prominent part of his answer. It is no "surprise" Ross thinks so. (The domestic Nation of Islam, led by Elijah Muhammad, once ordered that its newspaper, Muhammad Speaks, to begin every story of catastrophe, with the opening lead, "As the Messenger predicted." In an opposite corollary, Ross sees each new challenge as "Obama failed;" the pre-approved Republican answer to all change that is unpredictable and unforeseeable on the President's watch.)
Ross omits Obama's Nobel speech. It sagely addresses the shift in conflicts from inter-state to intra-state, but since 2009, two powerful forces have emerged: vast, various dark money for Middle East fractal violence and the attraction the conflicts hold for global outliers who beyond ideology revel in killing and have found blame and outlet for their blood frenzy (an exponential, funded global translation of LA/Mexican gang killing).
Asking the wrong questions leads to wrong answers. Dangerous assumptions, guilt and blame are implied in Ross' frame and become a prominent part of his answer. It is no "surprise" Ross thinks so. (The domestic Nation of Islam, led by Elijah Muhammad, once ordered that its newspaper, Muhammad Speaks, to begin every story of catastrophe, with the opening lead, "As the Messenger predicted." In an opposite corollary, Ross sees each new challenge as "Obama failed;" the pre-approved Republican answer to all change that is unpredictable and unforeseeable on the President's watch.)
Ross omits Obama's Nobel speech. It sagely addresses the shift in conflicts from inter-state to intra-state, but since 2009, two powerful forces have emerged: vast, various dark money for Middle East fractal violence and the attraction the conflicts hold for global outliers who beyond ideology revel in killing and have found blame and outlet for their blood frenzy (an exponential, funded global translation of LA/Mexican gang killing).
56
The US invasion of Iraq blew up the Middle East. It upset the balance of power in the region and renewed centuries-old sectarian & tribal hatreds that had been somewhat contained, largely through autocratic rule. George W. Bush's policy to spread democracy in the Middle East without a thought to its history or the consequences was insane, a foreign policy blunder of such magnitude, we'll be dealing with it for years.
President Obama's policy seems one of containment not wholesale intervention. Helping when asked but with conditions, like a new government in Iraq and logistics support in Yemen as long as Arab states were in charge of military intervention.
It's messy. Sometimes we're with the Shia and Iran, other times we're with the Sunnis and Saudi Arabia, but for the first time, Arab states and coalitions are actually taking the fight to their enemies themselves. Jordan went after ISIS in Iraq and Syria and a 10-nation coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt are attempting to drive out Iranian backed rebels in Yemen.
President Obama's strategy seems to be to push the regional players to the frontlines while the US offers support, but with conditions attached. It's clear he still wants to greatly minimize US involvement in the Middle East and sees this approach, as muddled as it is, as a means to an exit strategy.
That's what was always missing from the strategic planning for the war with Iraq - an exit strategy. That's why we're still stuck there.
President Obama's policy seems one of containment not wholesale intervention. Helping when asked but with conditions, like a new government in Iraq and logistics support in Yemen as long as Arab states were in charge of military intervention.
It's messy. Sometimes we're with the Shia and Iran, other times we're with the Sunnis and Saudi Arabia, but for the first time, Arab states and coalitions are actually taking the fight to their enemies themselves. Jordan went after ISIS in Iraq and Syria and a 10-nation coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt are attempting to drive out Iranian backed rebels in Yemen.
President Obama's strategy seems to be to push the regional players to the frontlines while the US offers support, but with conditions attached. It's clear he still wants to greatly minimize US involvement in the Middle East and sees this approach, as muddled as it is, as a means to an exit strategy.
That's what was always missing from the strategic planning for the war with Iraq - an exit strategy. That's why we're still stuck there.
307
"It upset the balance of power in the region and renewed centuries-old sectarian & tribal hatreds that had been somewhat contained, largely through autocratic rule." Somewhat? This what: aside from the 17 year long war in Lebanon, the three wars of annihilation launched against Israel between 1948 and 1973, the Suez War, Libya under Qadafi, a seven year long war between Iran and Iraq taking a million lives, the swallowing of Kuwait, an entire country by its neighbor and let's use 9-11 as an exclamation point, shall I go on? Somewhat. All this before "the US invasion of Iraq blew up the middle east." If that was a "balance of power" then there is no hope at all and we may as well just fold our tents and say our prayers because between doing nothing and doing something is the abyss to where we are all heading.
2
Still, if Mideast stability required that a genocidal tyranny be kept in power -- worse than Bashir Assad of Syria as a matter of fact -- it was only a matter of time for such a house of cards to fall anyway, Bush or no Bush intervention.
I agree with much of this comment, but "driv[ing] out Iranian backed rebels in Yemen" overlooks the fact that the Houthis are not invaders in Yemen; they are domestic insurgents who have mounted a rebellion against Sunni domination by Saudi Arabia, home to the Wahabbi extremism that begat bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers. To exactly where does the Saudi-led coalition expect to "drive out" these Yemenis?
As more than one commentator has noted this week, it is sublimely ironic that we have now managed to be fighting on the side of Iranian-led Shiites against Sunni ISIS in Iraq and on the side of Saudi-led Sunnis against Shiite Houthis in Yemen. We have thus managed to insert ourselves into a sectarian civil war that dates back many centuries.
Why don't we just withdraw the drones and air support and implicit promise of US boots on the ground if needed someday, make some popcorn, and see how the locals sort this phase of the struggle for Islamic orthodoxy out?
As more than one commentator has noted this week, it is sublimely ironic that we have now managed to be fighting on the side of Iranian-led Shiites against Sunni ISIS in Iraq and on the side of Saudi-led Sunnis against Shiite Houthis in Yemen. We have thus managed to insert ourselves into a sectarian civil war that dates back many centuries.
Why don't we just withdraw the drones and air support and implicit promise of US boots on the ground if needed someday, make some popcorn, and see how the locals sort this phase of the struggle for Islamic orthodoxy out?
2
Ross, you wrote:
"If we could actually escape Middle East entanglements entirely, even that “something worse” might be less costly to the United States than trying to sustain the Pax Americana."
Ross, we can actually escape them, once we summon the courage to both make energy independence a national priority and let the Israelis know that, while we sincerely wish them well, they should henceforth consider themselves on their own.
It is our dual addiction to Middle East petroleum and Israel that keep us entangled in this most toxic corner of the world - a corner so much nearer to Europe than it is to America.
In the aftermath of Netanyahu's recent stunt here in America, we should all see the wisdom of George Washington's preference that we avoid foreign entanglements:
"In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated."
"If we could actually escape Middle East entanglements entirely, even that “something worse” might be less costly to the United States than trying to sustain the Pax Americana."
Ross, we can actually escape them, once we summon the courage to both make energy independence a national priority and let the Israelis know that, while we sincerely wish them well, they should henceforth consider themselves on their own.
It is our dual addiction to Middle East petroleum and Israel that keep us entangled in this most toxic corner of the world - a corner so much nearer to Europe than it is to America.
In the aftermath of Netanyahu's recent stunt here in America, we should all see the wisdom of George Washington's preference that we avoid foreign entanglements:
"In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated."
392
Yes.
In the post WWII period, the European powers were able to push off responsibility onto the US--responsibility we gleefully accepted. Now we have spend amazing amounts on our military and funds for propping up dictators, while they have universal health care.
In the post WWII period, the European powers were able to push off responsibility onto the US--responsibility we gleefully accepted. Now we have spend amazing amounts on our military and funds for propping up dictators, while they have universal health care.
6
Coupled with Eisenhower's warnings about the military industrial complex, America should have learned from history. Putin, Netanyahu and the clapping seals of GOP caucus are children playing with a loaded gun. Someone is going to get hurt eventually.
4
I love GW's advice to "guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." We've sure seen enough of that, lately!
2
Douthat writes it, but still won't see what he just wrote.
"But in the Middle East, there has been no real evolution toward democracy among our network of allies; instead, their persistent corruption has fed terrorism and contributed to Al Qaeda’s rise."
Those old "allies" are the problem, not the solution, "instead, their persistent corruption has fed terrorism and contributed to Al Qaeda’s rise."
So Obama's method starts with, "Stop doing that."
Doing all that didn't work is what Douthat wants, what he bemoans Obama won't do anymore.
And yes, that very much includes Netanyahu, not just the Saudis and corrupt autocratic friends.
It means pulling back from them. It means balancing with some reach toward others, including Turkey and Iran, and balancing between.
It is long past time. Even Sec of State Baker just said so, to an Israeli lobby no less.
So Douthat, read what you just wrote.
"But in the Middle East, there has been no real evolution toward democracy among our network of allies; instead, their persistent corruption has fed terrorism and contributed to Al Qaeda’s rise."
Those old "allies" are the problem, not the solution, "instead, their persistent corruption has fed terrorism and contributed to Al Qaeda’s rise."
So Obama's method starts with, "Stop doing that."
Doing all that didn't work is what Douthat wants, what he bemoans Obama won't do anymore.
And yes, that very much includes Netanyahu, not just the Saudis and corrupt autocratic friends.
It means pulling back from them. It means balancing with some reach toward others, including Turkey and Iran, and balancing between.
It is long past time. Even Sec of State Baker just said so, to an Israeli lobby no less.
So Douthat, read what you just wrote.
388
i guess alienating our allies means not having a foreign policy designed to serve their interests rather than ours.
3
If you would read what Ross actually writes, you would see that for the past six months he has basically agreed with Obama's mideast strategy--no more US unilaterally initiated wars unless the US is immanently threatened. Ross always throws in the caveat that it ain't pretty, a point with which the administration would agree. Netanyahu and the chickenhawks may howl, but Obama is trying something that might work in the long run, as opposed to trying the same old things while expecting different results
5
The mongoose might decide to play nice with the cobra, but that doesn't mean that the cobra will reciprocate. Such is the enormous risk posed by your proposition to pull back from allies and reach out to "others".
We could pull back from the Saudis and the Israelis, and just watch as they and the Israelis decide to end their Iranian problem in one joint radioactive stroke. It might be just the thing to end the millennial long Sunni hatred of Jews.
We could pull back from the Saudis and the Israelis, and just watch as they and the Israelis decide to end their Iranian problem in one joint radioactive stroke. It might be just the thing to end the millennial long Sunni hatred of Jews.
1
Pax Americana? Did Douthat coin that term, or someone else? Because Obama's methods involve a whole lot less laying waste in the Middle East, which makes them more peaceful than Desert Storm and W's two wars of choice encompassed by "Pax Americana."
Of course it's easy to imagine something worse, but war really isn't the answer. This is just another argument that we have to destroy the village to save it.
Of course it's easy to imagine something worse, but war really isn't the answer. This is just another argument that we have to destroy the village to save it.
152
Obama's methods are peaceful?
Millions of people are now getting killed in the middle east on our watch.
This is the most violent time in the middle east in the history of america.
Perhaps all you care about are American lives. But if you care about humans, Obama's methods are leading to the greatest loss of human life since Cambodia.
Violence is just as easily (maybe more easily) created by inaction, or indecisive action, as it is by direct aggression. The war in Iraq was Bush's mistake, but Obama has made many more, and in the process greatly empowered the greatest terrorist state of our time, Iran. This will go down in history as an administration with a foolish and uninformed foreign policy.
Millions of people are now getting killed in the middle east on our watch.
This is the most violent time in the middle east in the history of america.
Perhaps all you care about are American lives. But if you care about humans, Obama's methods are leading to the greatest loss of human life since Cambodia.
Violence is just as easily (maybe more easily) created by inaction, or indecisive action, as it is by direct aggression. The war in Iraq was Bush's mistake, but Obama has made many more, and in the process greatly empowered the greatest terrorist state of our time, Iran. This will go down in history as an administration with a foolish and uninformed foreign policy.
1
The Middle East is more peaceful!? Compared to what ... the Crusades?
2
"Pox Americana" is closer to it; for them and us both.
1
And what exactly would you have us do? Bomb Iran? Put troops in every Middle Eastern and African country that's unstable?
It's easy to bang the drum of war but after the Bush Administration disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, I for one am grateful for the Obama Administration's policy of minimal intervention.
It's easy to bang the drum of war but after the Bush Administration disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, I for one am grateful for the Obama Administration's policy of minimal intervention.
513
"Put troops in every Middle Eastern and African country that's unstable?"
That would be "every Middle Eastern and African country." And yes, that fits the neocon fantasy of bases in every country.
That would be "every Middle Eastern and African country." And yes, that fits the neocon fantasy of bases in every country.
208
"the neocon fantasy of bases in every country"
And I'm sure that Cheney's hand-me-down heart just skips a happy beat thinking of what such a universal US global base complex would do for his Halliburton stock and his warmongering soul (such as it is).
And I'm sure that Cheney's hand-me-down heart just skips a happy beat thinking of what such a universal US global base complex would do for his Halliburton stock and his warmongering soul (such as it is).
17
grateful for the Obama Administration's policy of minimal intervention.
Ha! Bombing a country to smithereens, arming various sects there, watching as it escalates into neighboring states, while being prodded by your Corpocratic adversaries to put boots there, in Iran, in Ukraine, and maybe even N Korea sooner or later is hardly minimal. Minimal is keeping your nose out of other county's conflicts and allowing a region to settle it's own affairs.
Ha! Bombing a country to smithereens, arming various sects there, watching as it escalates into neighboring states, while being prodded by your Corpocratic adversaries to put boots there, in Iran, in Ukraine, and maybe even N Korea sooner or later is hardly minimal. Minimal is keeping your nose out of other county's conflicts and allowing a region to settle it's own affairs.
4
It's interesting to note the tacit admission that Iraq was a war of choice, contained in the paragraph:
" Hence the Bush administration’s post-9/11 decision to try to start afresh, by transforming a rogue state into a regional model, a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old. "
Too bad that's not what the American people were told, and certainly not what was portrayed to the troops who would be going there over and over and over and over.
And even though that paragraph begins with the word ' hence ' following a statement about " Al Qaeda's rise ", no one has shown there was Qaeda in Iraq before the U.S. invaded - they arrived as a result of poor planning and execution by the same people Douthat says were trying to establish a regional role model.
Those people were warned about what creating a vacuum of disorder in Iraq would cost, but they merrily cast aside such warnings and plans, promising that troops would be met with flowers.
Only the blindest of the blind, afflicted with rampant amnesia, would contemplate reverting to the world view of the people who led the nation (and world) so far astray.
" Hence the Bush administration’s post-9/11 decision to try to start afresh, by transforming a rogue state into a regional model, a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old. "
Too bad that's not what the American people were told, and certainly not what was portrayed to the troops who would be going there over and over and over and over.
And even though that paragraph begins with the word ' hence ' following a statement about " Al Qaeda's rise ", no one has shown there was Qaeda in Iraq before the U.S. invaded - they arrived as a result of poor planning and execution by the same people Douthat says were trying to establish a regional role model.
Those people were warned about what creating a vacuum of disorder in Iraq would cost, but they merrily cast aside such warnings and plans, promising that troops would be met with flowers.
Only the blindest of the blind, afflicted with rampant amnesia, would contemplate reverting to the world view of the people who led the nation (and world) so far astray.
825
"The blindest of the blind," indeed. And yet roughly half the American electorate, afflicted with rampant amnesia, will continue to denounce Obama and vote for the Republican demagogue who can trumpet America's "exceptionalism" the loudest and promise to fix the Middle East with Made-in-America bombs ("shock and awe"). How refreshing it would be if George W. Bush woke up one morning and decided to say to the nation, "I want to apologize for invading Iraq without just provocation, for the deaths of so many Americans, Europeans and Iraquis, and for squandering the trillions of dollars that could been so much better spent in our own country. I meant well, but I got it all wrong."
23
charles - If Dubya woke up one morning and called such a press conference, Cheney would pull the mic plug and cut power to the lights before Dubya finished the first sentence :)
12
Anybody remember Obama's comment during the 2008 campaign ... " let's not leave Iraq as stupidly as we went in ".
2
Ross describes two possible states, his Pax Americana and offshore balancing. There is this other little organization called NATO that seems to have been overlooked in his two states. Given the proximity of both Middle East and Russia to the heart of NATO, it seems likely that NATO will play a greater role in balancing to keep the Suez Canal and Persian Gulf open for business. These two waterways have shrunk dramatically in importance to the US, which now looks west and south to Asia and the Americas as primary trading partners.
Expect a lot less offense from the US and a shifting of the defensive burden to European nations.
Expect a lot less offense from the US and a shifting of the defensive burden to European nations.
74
@Look Ahead: And there's one other little organization called the United Nations that seems also to be overlooked in this equation. The U.N. should probably be the principal actor when it comes to dealing with the genocidal threat being presented by a group of ambitious thugs called ISIS. And yet no one on our side appears to be willing to call the U.N.'s member states into action. Very possibly the governments of Russia and/or China would veto the formation of a U.N. force to confront this scourge of humanity (although in Russia's case it's hard to see why, considering their peculiar attraction to the Butcher of Damascus). Even so, it's difficult to understand why our President or his U.N. ambassador hasn't at least made the case for such intervention before the General Assembly. It's one thing for the U.S. to decline to take the lead role- let alone the only role- in a war against the forces of barbarism taking place halfway around the world. On the other hand, how many more heads will be lopped off the necks of "unbelievers" before we make an effort to unite all of humanity in a worthy and necessary cause?
33
That's a really good point. I don't see any reason Russia or China would find the presence of IS reassuring, although in the case of Russia chaos in the Middle East might increase the value of their fossil fuels.
In fact that might be part of the problem?
In fact that might be part of the problem?
3
And what country constitutes 80% of Nato?
1
Ah, yes. If only we had Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld calling the shots we wouldn't have to endure these unnecessary complexities that the Obama administration seems to find itself mired in. After all, Rumsfeld, on the authoritative Fox News, said that a "trained ape" could do a better job than the president.
He should know. The previous administration monkeyed around with the Middle East and handed it over to the current one in perfect working order. All we had to do to achieve peace was to hold a dominant position among willing allies. But sadly, since Bush handed a bruised and battered economy over to Obama, the only thing we've been able to dominate is the midpoint of every scale by which we measure the health and strength of a nation. "We're number 12!" is hardly a rallying cry that demands respect from monarchies and insane theocracies that eat their own young.
Senate Republicans tried to help Mr. Obama by undermining his authority in nuclear negotiations with Iran. House Republicans sought expert advice from Ben Netanyahu, a dispassionate third party, known for his even-handedness in these situations. It was all to no avail.
What we need is another Bush running the country. He'd know how to wage the kind of economically ruinous chronic war that brings prosperity and peace. And since he doesn't buy that evolution thing, he's not, and has never been an ape, trained or otherwise.
He should know. The previous administration monkeyed around with the Middle East and handed it over to the current one in perfect working order. All we had to do to achieve peace was to hold a dominant position among willing allies. But sadly, since Bush handed a bruised and battered economy over to Obama, the only thing we've been able to dominate is the midpoint of every scale by which we measure the health and strength of a nation. "We're number 12!" is hardly a rallying cry that demands respect from monarchies and insane theocracies that eat their own young.
Senate Republicans tried to help Mr. Obama by undermining his authority in nuclear negotiations with Iran. House Republicans sought expert advice from Ben Netanyahu, a dispassionate third party, known for his even-handedness in these situations. It was all to no avail.
What we need is another Bush running the country. He'd know how to wage the kind of economically ruinous chronic war that brings prosperity and peace. And since he doesn't buy that evolution thing, he's not, and has never been an ape, trained or otherwise.
705
George W. Bush lost the popular vote here in America. He was aided in stealing the election by his brother Jeb. But he wanted to create an “evolution towards democracy” in the Middle East? Ross Douthat must think New York Times readers are stupid.
Everyone knows that democracy wasn’t the primary goal. Bush, Rove and other Republicans wanted to politically exploit 9/11, so they invaded a country with an unpopular leader who had nothing whatsoever to do with that tragedy. Dubya was able to run in 2004 as a “war president” with all dissent suppressed as “unpatriotic,” so he got four more years to destroy the economy.
In this column Douthat also claims, incredibly, that the purpose of the Iraq war was to create “a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old.” Remember Abu Ghraib? The Bush administration’s justification of waterboarding and other forms of torture? The denigration of the Geneva Conventions by Bush’s Attorney General as “quaint”?
“Morally compromised” is too nice a term for these guys.
Obama inherited a huge mess in the Middle East thanks to the GOP. Republicans like Douthat have no right to attack him for his foreign policy, and no credibility when they do.
Everyone knows that democracy wasn’t the primary goal. Bush, Rove and other Republicans wanted to politically exploit 9/11, so they invaded a country with an unpopular leader who had nothing whatsoever to do with that tragedy. Dubya was able to run in 2004 as a “war president” with all dissent suppressed as “unpatriotic,” so he got four more years to destroy the economy.
In this column Douthat also claims, incredibly, that the purpose of the Iraq war was to create “a foundation for a new American-led order that would be less morally compromised than the old.” Remember Abu Ghraib? The Bush administration’s justification of waterboarding and other forms of torture? The denigration of the Geneva Conventions by Bush’s Attorney General as “quaint”?
“Morally compromised” is too nice a term for these guys.
Obama inherited a huge mess in the Middle East thanks to the GOP. Republicans like Douthat have no right to attack him for his foreign policy, and no credibility when they do.
82
@gemli
There are alternatives to Obama's approach that differ from the neocon approach of GW Bush. You should open your mind to consider alternatives instead of blindly denying ongoing crises.
There are alternatives to Obama's approach that differ from the neocon approach of GW Bush. You should open your mind to consider alternatives instead of blindly denying ongoing crises.
2
The good old neocon days when the Middle East problems would be solved in six-months.
Now it's a muddle - who knew?
Now it's a muddle - who knew?
16
Just a note to them; in case prior administration's policies were forgotten not All recent history books have burned. Thus reviewing one may help understand context in which his presidency began.
Conversely his critics now blame him for backing nations with common threats to ours, but for them it's worth putting blood and money at risk.
But rather then applauding 'a lead from behind strategy;' Obama is being derided for not increasing our Veterans hospital waiting lists.