╌>

An End to Magical Thinking in the Middle East

  
Via:  Nerm_L  •  4 years ago  •  25 comments

By:   William J. Burns

An End to Magical Thinking in the Middle East
It’s time to abandon the dogma that’s driven our foreign policy and led to so much disaster in the region.

Sponsored by group News Viners

News Viners


Not long ago President Trump was lambasted for betraying Kurdish allies by withdrawing US troops from northern Syria to avoid a direct confrontation with Turkey who is a NATO ally.  Today President Trump is loudly criticized for escalating tensions and threatening war with Iran who has been an enemy of the United States since the 1970s.  The reality is that the US drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani was just another day in the Middle East.

The problem confronting the United States is the contrast between the two recent events involving the US military in the Middle East.  Why is the United States involved in the Middle East?  Career politicians are obviously upset because that question has been brought to the forefront during an election year.  And career politicians don't have a ready explanation for why the Middle East is so very important to the national interests of the United States.

After four decades of just more days in the Middle East the threat of terrorism has not diminished.  We have been required to expand the size and power of law enforcement within the United States to guard against terrorist attacks.  Our military and diplomatic adventures in the Middle East over the past four decades have not made the United States more secure.  Our war against terror has been conducted inside the United States by civilian law enforcement, not in the Middle East with drone strikes and diplomatic agreements.

The United States has served as an ally of convenience or an enemy of convenience, depending upon the political needs of the day in the Middle East.  The United States flag that has been waved as gesture of political support will be burned the next day to make a political statement.  The Middle East does not care about the United States; the Middle East only uses the United States to satisfy political expediency.  Today in the Middles East is just another day.

A war with Iran would be just another day in the Middle East.

Why is the United States involved in the Middle East?  Why does the United States place military and diplomatic personnel in harms way in the Middle East?  What does the United States hope to achieve in the Middle East?  Are career politicians willing to sacrifice more lives and treasure simply to avoid answering those questions?  It's an election year; now is the time to demand answers.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



President Donald Trump’s October decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria produced a rare moment of bipartisanship in foreign policy. With a shared sense of alarm, Republicans and Democrats alike accused Trump of betrayal.

Certainly, it was a betrayal of the Kurdish partners who bled for us in the fight against the Islamic State. It was also a betrayal of process—leaving our military leaders and diplomats struggling to keep up with tweets, our allies in the dark, our messaging all over the map, and chaos on the ground.

If all this episode engenders, however, is a bipartisan dip in the warm waters of self-righteous criticism, it will be a tragedy—or worse, a mistake. We have to come to grips with the deeper and more consequential betrayal of common sense—the notion that the only antidote to Trump’s fumbling attempts to disentangle the United States from the region is a retreat to the magical thinking that has animated so much of America’s moment in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War.


America’s post–cold war journey in the Middle East looked a lot more promising at first than it does today. Blessed with a stronger geopolitical position than its successors, the George H. W. Bush administration was also less prone to magical thinking. The administration brought discipline to the challenge of mobilizing the Desert Storm coalition—and to resisting the temptation to pursue fleeing Iraqi forces to Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Secretary of State James Baker masterfully orchestrated the Madrid peace conference between Arabs and Israelis, but kept his expectations in check, careful not to over promise what might come of the long slog of negotiations.

Bill Clinton built on that foundation, with painstaking progress throughout the 1990s but a debilitating setback at the Camp David Summit in 2000. George W. Bush’s modest successes, such as persuading Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya to abandon terrorism and a rudimentary nuclear program, were overwhelmed by the massive failure of the Iraq War in 2003. That tragically unnecessary conflict laid bare the deep and violent fissures of Iraq, opened the playing field for Iranian ambitions, and unsettled Arab partners already drowning in their domestic dysfunctions. The War on Terror crowded out other priorities. To the extent that the administration tried to press other concerns—about the political and economic stagnation on which terrorists fed, for example—the debacle in Iraq and our own War on Terror abuses made us unpersuasive messengers.

Barack Obama was the last person who needed to be convinced that America’s fantasies in the Middle East were often self-defeating, and he was clear-eyed about the need to shift our approach. But he never managed to escape his inheritance. His early, lofty hopes for a “new beginning” fell victim to the unsynchronized passions of the region and its leaders, most visibly during the Arab Spring and most painfully in the Syrian civil war. The ambitions of his long game—redirecting America’s focus to the Asia-Pacific, reversing the inversion of force and diplomacy, and reducing the U.S. military footprint—collided with the vexations of the region and the tactical missteps of our short game.

Despite the notable accomplishment of the Iran nuclear deal, adjusting the terms of our engagement was harder than Obama had anticipated. Most of the region’s players were accustomed to America’s centrality in their world, and schizophrenic in their simultaneous resentments and expectations of American influence. While we saw the Arab Spring as a window of opportunity and the Iran agreement as a demonstration of the value of hard-nosed diplomacy, most of our friends saw them as existential dangers. They continually exaggerated our ability to affect events, and we did the same.

Trump’s diagnosis of the pathologies of U.S. policy in the Middle East was in some ways similar to Obama’s, and his anti-establishment view struck a chord with many Americans. As Trump saw it, we were suckers for taking on too much and gaining too little in the Middle East, where people had been fighting for millennia, and where we had no obvious responsibility or capacity to fix things. Trump’s prescription, however, has been crudely drawn and ineptly executed, a reflection of his own distinct brand of magical thinking.


We are nearing the end of two decades of military intervention in Afghanistan, and are still locked into an open-ended War on Terror in the Middle East—despite all the problems elsewhere in the world and in our own society. Many Americans are bewildered and exasperated by the cost in blood and treasure of our prolonged misadventures.

We need to get beyond the bluster and betrayals of the Trump era, without retreating into the magical thinking that has so often gotten us into trouble in the past. We need to take stock of our diminishing interests, avoid the trap of unthinking retrenchment or disengagement, and instead shift the terms of our engagement in a region likely to remain first in class in its myriad dysfunctions and consistent only in its capacity for diplomatic disappointment.

We ought to be mindful of external competitors such as Russia and China, but not unnerved by them. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has played a weak hand well in the region in recent years, yet it remains a weak hand, and Russia’s successes are dependent on other people’s mistakes. China’s risk aversion has only been reinforced by watching us lurch through the regional minefield. Europe remains a natural partner for the U.S. in the Middle East—but an effective partnership will require us to listen more and Europeans to take on even more responsibilities.

If we can recover the sense of discipline and limits that animated the diplomacy of George H. W. Bush and Baker, if not the geopolitical weight of their America, there is no reason we can’t navigate a very different moment in the Middle East without massive setbacks, and maybe even with occasional successes. It is certainly time to try.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Nerm_L    4 years ago

What price is the United States willing to pay for a status quo that accomplishes nothing?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2  bbl-1    4 years ago

The 'dogma' is the existence and power of the Abrahamic Religions.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @2    4 years ago
The 'dogma' is the existence and power of the Abrahamic Religions.

So, the United States is sacrificing lives and treasure to transform the Middle East into a secular society?  Is that the new status quo?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1    4 years ago

Hardly.  Pompeo, Pence and many others are christian dominionist.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.1    4 years ago

This started long before Trump took office.

He is dealing with the failed policies of the last several presidents. I am sure the President that eventually takes over for Trump will face the same quagmires and pitfalls.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.1    4 years ago
Hardly.  Pompeo, Pence and many others are christian dominionist.

Pence has been in office for a little less than three years; Pompeo for less than two.  The United States has been militarily and diplomatically involved in the Middle East for over four decades.

Congress authorizes the funding.  And several career politicians have held Congressional seats for over three decades.  Surely those long serving career politicians can explain why the Middle East is important enough to spend public money for over three decades.

Blaming Christian dominionist is a cop out that avoids asking or answering any questions.  Is the United States spending another day in the Middle East just to pursue political stupidity?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.4  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.3    4 years ago

Alright.  You can take that route if you choose. 

Here is right back at you.  GWBush and the rest of the conservative wing of the GOP took us into Iraq in 2003 under false pretenses. 

The christian dominionist fact is not a cop out.  Have you seen or listened to Pompeo's recent speeches?  That is what it is and that is what he said.  He sounds like a Mullah---except on the other side of the ditch.

Spending money?  Well, obviously you are not aware or have forgotten President Eisenhower's Farewell address.  I will leave that at that.  In 1961 I was fourteen and watched it on the TV.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.5  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.4    4 years ago
Here is right back at you.  GWBush and the rest of the conservative wing of the GOP took us into Iraq in 2003 under false pretenses. 

Yes.  Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer had held a Congressional seats for 10 years before President Bush invaded Iraq.  Pelosi and Schumer were both involved in supporting President Clinton's no-fly zone over Iraq.  President Bush's invasion of Iraq was just another day in the Middle East.

Why?

The christian dominionist fact is not a cop out.  Have you seen or listened to Pompeo's recent speeches?  That is what it is and that is what he said.  He sounds like a Mullah---except on the other side of the ditch.

That is an explanation that explains nothing.  Are Christian dominionist trying to convert the Middle East to Christianity?  Is that why the United States has been embedded in the Middle East for over four decades?

Spending money?  Well, obviously you are not aware or have forgotten President Eisenhower's Farewell address.  I will leave that at that.  In 1961 I was fourteen and watched it on the TV.

US military materiel and arms is one of the United States' largest exports.  But that doesn't require deploying US troops to the Middle East; the people in that region are quite capable of killing themselves.  The Middle East is a ready market for US arms and doesn't need any encouragement to sustain that market.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran have enough oil money to buy sizable arsenals from the United States.  In fact, those countries have done just that over the last four decades.  If anything the arms manufacturers would not want the United States government meddling in their Middle Eastern open market.  Where's the profit in the United States interfering with the regional wars in the Middle East?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.7  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to    4 years ago
Nope, $,$$$,$$$,$$$'s. Plain and simple. 

Regional war in the Middle East would cause oil prices to soar.  The United States would become the largest producer of oil.  The oil reserves of the United States would compete with gold.  And the large coal reserves of the United States would have become much more valuable.  There is far more money to be made by allowing the Middle East to destroy it's oil industry.

Plain and simple.

Nope, $,$$$,$$$,$$$'s doesn't explain why the United States has been involved in the Middle East for over four decades.  The United States could have made a lot more money by staying out rather than becoming entangled.  What has United States meddling in the Middle East accomplished?

Why does the United States need to stay another day in the Middle East?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.9  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to    4 years ago
What companies developed those oil fields, what manufacturers built the pipelines, refineries, and ships to transport the oil, and what defense contractor builds the weapons and provides security for the defense of those fields. Of course it is about the money...and the prescient warning from Eisenhower has come to fruition. The U.S. is invested in the region going on eight decades now, geo-politically and militarily, as an aftermath to the financial incentives.

The same companies that develop oil fields, build pipelines, and transport oil in the United States.  The same companies that protect the oil infrastructure in the United States against terror attacks.  The companies that would make the same amount of profit without Middle Eastern oil as they do with Middle Eastern oil.  There is more profit to be made when a commodity becomes scarce and prices increase astronomically.  Gold provides an example.

While the flow of oil provides revenue for Middle Eastern countries, that hasn't been an incentive to avoid regional conflicts.  Without the United States meddling in the Middle East to prevent self destruction, arms manufacturers and energy companies would make much more profit than they are now.  The United States continuing to meddle in the Middle East acts against the best interests of the military-industrial complex.

The military-industrial complex wants a war with Russia and China.  Global war provides more opportunity for profiteering than does regional insurgencies and asymmetric warfare.  A lot of people became rich during World War II and the Cold War.  Korea and Vietnam weren't big money makers for the military-industrial complex.  The military-industrial complex has more of a vested interest in escalating tensions in the Balkans, Baltic, and South China Sea than in the Middle East.  The United States isn't going to be interested in spending money on advanced weapon systems to fight an asymmetrical regional conflict that only requires drones and expendable boots on the ground.  The US military can successfully attack Tehran with 20 year old technology that is already in storage; the military won't need hypersonic missiles to fight a war with Iran.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.10  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.5    4 years ago

You missed the point.  As expected.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.11  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.10    4 years ago
You missed the point.  As expected.

Then explain the point.  Trump's drone strike wasn't novel or new; just another day in the Middle East.  People in the Middle East have been burning US flags and chanting 'death to America' for decades.  Retaliation against the United States is the status quo established over the last 40 years.

Fifty per cent of the population of the United States was not alive when the 1979 Islamic Revolution took place.  Talking points that people know nothing about are really pointless.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.12  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.11    4 years ago

You mentioned the money----the drain on the taxpayers.  Eisenhower's warning of The Military Industrial Complex was-----and is real.  Wake the 'f' up.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.13  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.12    4 years ago
You mentioned the money----the drain on the taxpayers.  Eisenhower's warning of The Military Industrial Complex was-----and is real.  Wake the 'f' up.

Eisenhower was warning about profiteering from the Cold War.  The Cold War was a global conflict without fighting.  The weapons weren't even required to be effective; the only requirement was to be scary.  That's why the military was unprepared for Vietnam; the gee whiz, high tech weapons weren't suitable for an asymmetrical war.  

The military-industrial complex is still based upon Cold War thinking.  Lockheed F-35 aircraft aren't any more effective in asymmetrical warfare than Raytheon T-6 aircraft.  And low cost MQ-9 Reapers have proven more effective than manned aircraft.  The F-35 is a Cold War weapon platform. 

The bigger drain on taxpayers is still maintaining Cold War readiness.  The United States doesn't need to maintain seven battle fleets to fight insurgencies as we have in the Middle East.  The United State's arsenal of Cold War weaponry is useless in the Middle East although the military still tries to adapt those weapons for asymmetrical warfare.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3  Tessylo    4 years ago

81850989_2519933551597634_8470539818340712448_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ohc=LWabY5cJehwAQkjAWxwtCIsi1-9GmWNg_w07WmcC-lzyAkUIYH1_DOYoQ&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=7bc685b8ec88620c656ff9224b54d9f7&oe=5E96948E

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @3    4 years ago

Military, diplomatic, and civilian personnel died in the Middle East throughout Obama's time as President.  Shots were fired; Obama authorized drone strikes.

What did President Obama accomplish other than keeping the United States entangled in the Middle East for another day?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1    4 years ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    4 years ago

Yes, the United States attempting to continue a status quo that accomplishes nothing is something to cry about.

Is the United States going to spend more pointless days in the Middle East?  What has the presence of the United States in the Middle East provided other than twittertainment?  Another day in the Middle East, another worthless political meme.  

Have you not been entertained?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4  Just Jim NC TttH    4 years ago

384

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4    4 years ago

We've heard that same sentiment from every President since Jimmy Carter.  And here we are; just another day in the Middle East.

Why?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5  Tacos!    4 years ago
President Donald Trump’s October decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria produced a rare moment of bipartisanship in foreign policy. With a shared sense of alarm, Republicans and Democrats alike accused Trump of betrayal.

Kurds live in Iraq, too. About 3 times as many live in Iraq as live in Syria. Yet just within the last couple of days, we hear calls for the US to pull out of Iraq entirely. Guess that wouldn't be a betrayal anymore?

It would be nice if we could not only have a clear set of policies, but also stick to them. That's what makes them policies and not whims.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @5    4 years ago
It would be nice if we could not only have a clear set of policies, but also stick to them. That's what makes them policies and not whims.

Yes, that's the problem in a nutshell.  Politicians tell us we must be prepared to fight to protect our interests in the Middle East.  Those same politicians tell us that when we are attacked we must not do anything that would start a war.  Politicians are defending a status quo that is not accomplishing anything.

This is an election year.  Now is the time to demand answers.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6  Split Personality    4 years ago

interesting timeline of major events in the ME.

Curious how post WWI and post WWII redrawing of the ME maps by the European conquerors is given little attention.

or in other words, when will WWII officially be over?

 
 

Who is online






Igknorantzruls


88 visitors