Dear America,
It is difficult to say whether the Middle East is imploding or exploding, but the distinction is significant, especially in the United States. President Obama has essentially abrogated the "Bush Doctrine," which was a euphemism for the notion that everything everywhere is our business, an adjunct to the conceit of "American Exceptionalism." Thus, Mr. Obama has made it American foreign policy to play a measured role in military interventions when we are asked to do so, and even to precipitate in and lead such efforts in some instances as in Libya and against Syria's ISIL contingent, but to decline to prosecute such conflicts either unilaterally or even with ostensible alliances...whether of the willing or the coercible...as if they were matters of American self-interest. In that context, an exploding Middle East might be a matter of significant American interest, and the potential of ISIL to send human projectiles back to our shores may qualify as such. But when it came to Libya, American policy was to participate in the rebellion against the dictator Muammar Gaddafi but not to act independently from the coalition, including NATO, that gave air support to the rebels. Similarly, though there is a revolution going on in Syria, it constitutes the implosion of a state controlled by an autocrat, and as such, the United States has given some meager logistical support to the rebels, but no intervention has been undertaken. The only role being played by the United States in the Syrian conflict now is that of providing air support to troops from the region, such as the Kurdish pesh merga, in their attempts to degrade and destroy ISIL, which again may constitute a matter of American self-interest by virtue of its potential to foment and execute attacks against us on our own shores. But as to the revolution against the dictator Assad, we are not participants in the conflict.
The Bush Doctrine took another tack. In Iraq, George W. Bush manufactured justifications for invasion of that country and deposing its dictator, Saddam Hussein, with thin, and what turned out to be the apocryphal allegations such as Hussein's production of weapons of mass destruction...the infamous WMD's. Similarly, Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan for the stated purpose of apprehending Osama bin Ladin, but that effort continued long after it was apparent that no such apprehension was possible as we didn't know where he was. As it turned out, he was holed up in Pakistan, where he was captured, though without the necessity of a war against that nation. But even with these two most recent instances of the failure of American interventionism fresh in our national memory, some American politicians continue to cleave to the paternalistic notion that we are not only responsible for the entire world, we have the right to assert our values whenever we see something we don't like as well. In that vein, John McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona, opined during a hearing with one of our military leaders that Saudi Arabia's decision not to inform us about its air strikes into Yemen...another middle eastern country that is imploding...was a reflection of a lack of trust in the United States among nations in the region, impliedly because we aren't waging more wars in the middle east like the Bush adventures for which McCain apparently pines. Of course, in the case of John McCain we are safe from any backsliding at his behest since his only real credential in the area of foreign affairs is that he was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War and he came within 30 demerits of being expelled from the U.S. Naval Academy when he was there, graduating fifth from the bottom of an 899 member class. But there are senators and congressmen who are actually capable of intelligent argument, and among them may be the next George W. Bush.
It has taken us the entire duration of the era between World War II and the Obama administration to realize that, while we indulge in the misguided belief that everyone loves the United States and subscribes to our values, such is often not the case. There are places even in Europe where the United States is considered intrusive and pontifical in its foreign policy and its moral prescriptions for others. But now there seems to be an abreaction to the evolution of our policies to other nations in the form of calls for additional American participation in the travails that have befallen the middle east. Criticism of the Israeli policy of settlement in the West Bank of the Jordan River is becoming politically incorrect after finally achieving at least the status of a topic for legitimate conversation over the past few years. Though that policy is probably at the center of propaganda being used by Israel's enemies, the country persists and the obduracy on that point of Benjamin Netanyahu got him reelected at this critical time in middle eastern politics. All he needs is the support of the Republican reactionary contingent in the American congress to embolden him to escalation of his tactics and exacerbation of an already tense and dangerous situation.
Thank God John McCain didn't become president. All Netanyahu needs is a cheer leader like McCain to put him over the edge. But we still have a McCain problem. If he manages to continue to be a leader among Republicans, who knows what he can talk someone like Jeb Bush, another marginal thinker, into advocating. The focus of our national politics during this prelude to the 2016 elections has been domestic issues, but we had better watch out. With potential presidents of the ilk John McCain lurking...Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Mike Pence and Mike Huckabee to name just a few...the world blowing up might be a more pressing concern.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment