The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
This is an important piece by Caroline Glick on the coming political and economic storm in the Middle East.
We have seen a great deal of upheaval in the region recently, but Glick makes a powerful case that the Arab Spring is only the beginning. Most commentators fail to take account of the serious economic problems in Middle Eastern and North African nations that are not able to rely on oil exports to subsidize the ruling cliques. The apparently successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the ongoing attempt to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria were precipitated more by economic problems than a desire for political freedom.
Voting will not solve the grave socio-economic problems in the region. Paper constitutions and elections cannot magically transform socialist regimes that cannot produce enough goods to feed themselves into stable, prosperous democracies. The whole situation is a recipe for chaos. It is hard to predict which party or coalition will triumph in the Egyptian elections; it is even more difficult to see which faction will prevail in Syria. But moderation and decency are unlikely to flourish in the current environment.
This brewing geopolitical disaster is occurring at the same time as the EU and the US compete in a race to see who can go broke first. Economic catastrophe in North Africa and the Middle East could not have come at a worse time.
In relation to Syria, our progressive ruling class confines itself to offering insipid slogans about the Assad regime having lost its legitimacy. We have committed to regime change in Libya and Egypt without any idea at all about the character or direction of the changes. I have seen no evidence that any thought has been given to the connection between these policies (or platitudes) and our long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our policy makers should address some fundamental questions instead of continuing to make decisions based on platitudes directed in a piecemeal fashion. First, which elements should we support in these regimes? We need to make sure we don't make bad situations worse. If there are elements in these nations we should support, their goals and the relationship of those goals to our security is not clear at present. We should also ponder why we are involved in the internal politics of these nations. Our policies should relate to our interests guided by our justice.
Second, we need to be mindful of the fact that there are many obstacles to the birth of decent, stable regimes in places like Egypt, Libya, and Syria. What may be called the conditions of freedom are largely absent. The social and economic circumstances are not favorable to moderate representative government.
Third, we need a "grand strategy." Our particular polices should fit in to a larger picture. For instance, our policy makers should think of how events in Syria are related to Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and Israel.
We cannot begin to formulate a just and prudent policy toward the region until we take account of these foundational questions.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
As happened after the Great Depression, economic pain produced (after a few years delay) dramatic, anti-democratic and militaristic political change. Ms. Glick is right on point. Seriously, when will the Egyptian or Syrian tourist industries recover?
Apr '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
The current US foreign policy, such as it is, is not of a mind-set to deal with the situation in the middle east. If we continue on or trajectory of issuing strawberry scented foreign aid delivered on unicorn hearts, the adults may have to difficult a time to turn things around once they finally take over ... we'll see in 2013.
My recent piece on the Hamas Flotilla (http://alpipkin.com/blog/?p=1143) discusses a unique and innovative way the US should start looking at the region, and the other takes a lighter look (http://alpipkin.com/blog/?p=1151) to a recent event in and about Egypt.
Until we start looking at the world as it is, rather than how the administration wants it to be, the danger we and the rest of the world face will continue to grow ... maybe exponentially.
Apr '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
You write: The apparently successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the ongoing attempt to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria were precipitated more by economic problems than a desire for political freedom."
I don't know that I'm arguing about anything, but this popped into my head loud enough to merit posting:
Reacting to economic problems is demanding an environment where wealth is more available, and wealth is a form of political freedom. Thus protesting because your economy sucks is still demanding political freedom.
I believe that the fastest way to improve these people's wealth is to make them more free. We have proven here in America and elsewhere that giving people wealth is not the fastest way to make them more free -- in fact, it seems not to enhance their freedom at all.
I will take one issue: we can't worry about "just" as much as "prudent." "Just" is really expensive and subjective, thanks to the religious and cultural context of these events. I'd love to help these people to know justice -- but the first, best suggestion I'd make is to become Christian catechumens. That would NOT be prudent at this juncture.
Edited on Jul 16, 2011 at 12:15amMar '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
Ms Glick's pieces are always worth reading, but very depressing. The spengler piece she refers to even more so. They are both Steynian in their assertion that demography is everything.
They deal with the forest, whereas the current debt limit negotiations are the trees - or, more likely, the swamp.
It would be nice to think that someone in the US government, or any of the Presidential candidates, is thinking about the big picture. A Thatcher, or maybe a Churchill - but I see nobody.
Even Mr Churchill's bust has left the Oval Office.
Edited on Jul 16, 2011 at 3:52amAug '10
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
Total fail by Executive branch, total fail by State Department.
United Nations never even came into contention, their raison d'etre is global theft,nothing more.
Muddled, reactionary idealism and anti-Israeli sentiment dooms both houses. State has never shaken their virulent anti-semitism, institutionally codified. The Executive is occupied by a birthright muslim, his closest aide and friend born in Tehran. Both of them steeped in anti-American communism by their parents/mentors. Imagine they both feel Lumumba is a martyr, Arafat a national hero, and Castro/Chavez/Morales all successful popular liberators. Unable to see the influence that came from USSR as a bad one.
Arab spring is a probably a term for "stuff we can't predict or control", rather than an ideologically inspired desire for democracy. In a country that has never experienced democracy, usual results are the terrors that gripped post-revolutionary France. Now we have the Ikhwan waiting in the wings, patiently plotting their caliphate dreams.
Platitudes indeed. We are defending a Europe that refutes, an energy source easily substituted at home, and a judeo-christian philosophy ignored by our own State Dept. and Executive branch in a fit of petulant relativism.
Feb '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
Saudi Arabia alone can afford to provide the money to save Egypt, Syria and Tunisia. We - the US, Canada, and Europe can not afford to do so. (Well we could but we have our own financial problems.)
Possibly Israel is the Czechoslovakia we can save from ruin? Possibly Lebanon as a free state restored? Possibly the Kurds of Iraq and northern Syria can become an independent people?
The shocks to the Arab-Islam system,could be make us a few better allies in that part of the world? Southern Sudan is one such shock already delivered.
Small victories for the west are still possible. That is the best we can hope for.
As for the Saudis, I have suggested here how to reduce their influence in outside of the Middle East by better energy policies here.
We do not have Churchill. We can not save the whole of the Middle East. We can save something for ourselves.
May '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
John, your post has given me much to think about this morning and that is always a depressing activity. Your points and questions are more informed than anything I can add but it seems to me that our foreign policy has become increasingly confused and chaotic over the past twenty years. I feel like I don't know what is in our best interest anywhere. Leading from behind doesn't seem to be much of a strategy. Herman Cain seems to think that all we need to know is who is our friend and who is our enemy but that doesn't clarify anything for me. Maybe Ron Paul is right and America should just mind its own business. I don't know. I really don't know. Wish I did.
Jul '10
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
The Saudis have squandered their petro-dollars on guest workers, theology degrees for their chipper future cogs in the caliphate machine and their little terror hobbies. They have a far deeper fiscal crisis stemming from their ideological blinkers and related failure to develop economically pragmatic skills in their population. They are hugely dependent on the skills of guest workers for everything from oil drilling to security to cleaning the pool.
As for Egypt, significant levels of subsistence farming in the 21st Century is a huge red flag that there is trouble along the Nile. That and the populist shouts for war with Israel led Obama's Pentagon to push a sale of modern tanks to Egypt. (Way to grab the murder-Israelis vote.) That plowshares to swords thing can solve the Egyptian hunger crisis by reducing long-term demand. Given that another populist policy in Egypt is the execution of apostates from Islam, how can a Nobel winner go wrong?
May '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
"To emerge safely from what is coming, Israel needs to hunker down and prepare for the worst."
That is the last line of Ms. Glick's article, which I meant to attach to my comments above but forgot.
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
Louie,
Yes, but you have to know what political freedom really is and it has to be possible in the given circumstances. Look at all the nations where Marxism triumphed promising bread and freedom (and delivering on neither count).
I don't think just and prudent can be separated. I only used the distinct terms because all too often our foreign policy makers see them in opposition.
Louie Rhett:
Reacting to economic problems is demanding an environment where wealth is more available, and wealth is a form of political freedom. Thus protesting because your economy sucks is still demanding political freedom.
I believe that the fastest way to improve these people's wealth is to make them more free.
I will take one issue: we can't worry about "just" as much as "prudent." "Just" is really expensive and subjective, thanks to the religious and cultural context of these events. I'd love to help these people to know justice -- but the first, best suggestion I'd make is to become Christian catechumens. That would NOT be prudent at this juncture. · Jul 16 at 12:10am
Edited on Jul 16 at 12:15 am
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
To follow up on some of the comments above--the first thing we could do is avoid entangling projects in the region (e.g. the Libyan adventure). If we need to support regime change in a nation, we should make sure it makes us more secure and hinders our freedom of action as little as possible.
We don't have easy answers, but if we start approaching the situation with clear criteria to analyze the problems and proper goals we will be much better off than we are now.
It is also useful to remember that we still have a very favorable geopolitical situation. Our neighbors do not possess the capacity to destroy our way of life. How many nations can say that? Our economy faces serious problems, but we still are a very productive nation with vast reserves of wealth and resources. Nations like Egypt and Syria are not in such an enviable position.
We should also pay more attention to the security situation on our border with Mexico. I think the upcoming elections there may very well produce a regime less friendly to us. Clear thinking about the "War on Drugs" and our southern border is necessary.
Apr '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
John Grant: Louie,
Yes, but you have to know what political freedom really is and it has to be possible in the given circumstances. Look at all the nations where Marxism triumphed promising bread and freedom (and delivering on neither count).
I don't think just and prudent can be separated. I only used the distinct terms because all too often our foreign policy makers see them in opposition.
I agree with Peter's guest-of-the-week at UK, Yuri Yarim-Agaev, that Marxism is structured for failure inherently. If Marxism delivers neither bread nor freedom then it will fail if it hasn't already.
Justice and prudence are separate cardinal virtues, and this is a really good example of why.
Fr. John A. Hardon notes in his Modern Catholic Dictionary: Prudence is "Correct knowledge about things to be done or, more broadly, the knowledge of things that ought to be done and of things that ought to be avoided."
Justice is a more subjective goal. Some of these people think justice is three-tiered seating for worshipers at Friday prayers and slavery or death for papist infidels like me.
Anything else is injustice and oppression in their eyes.
Feb '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
Sisyphus
The Saudis have squandered their petro-dollars on guest workers, theology degrees for their chipper future cogs in the caliphate machine and their little terror hobbies. They have a far deeper fiscal crisis stemming from their ideological blinkers and related failure to develop economically pragmatic skills in their population. They are hugely dependent on the skills of guest workers for everything from oil drilling to security to cleaning the pool.
.....
I am not certain that the Saudis - or Kuwaitis - are out of money. I forgot to mention the Berbers. We should be encouraging Berber nationalism in North Africa. Cold War strategy to mess over the Arab-Islam dominance.
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
Louie,
I see your point. We can talk about justice and prudence separately, but I don't believe one can actually separate them in reality. Justice is a very real thing (for instance, a part of justice is giving to others what they deserve, or distributive justice). If one is imprudent, one will not give to others what they deserve.
It is one thing to know the correct unchanging principles, it is another to employ them properly in changeable circumstances. A person could have just intentions and cause all sorts of ruin (think of Cordelia in King Lear).
Louie Rhett
Justice and prudence are separate cardinal virtues, and this is a really good example of why.
Fr. John A. Hardon notes in his Modern Catholic Dictionary: Prudence is "Correct knowledge about things to be done or, more broadly, the knowledge of things that ought to be done and of things that ought to be avoided."
Justice is a more subjective goal. Some of these people think justice is three-tiered seating for worshipers at Friday prayers and slavery or death for papist infidels like me.
Anything else is injustice and oppression in their eyes. · Jul 16 at 10:33am
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
I don't know enough about Ms. Glick's writings to offer an informed opinion, but I think Steyn and Spengler would say that demography is ultimately based on a conjunction of ideas and circumstances. There is no inexorable necessity that compels America to hover below the replacement rate or Italy to be far below it.
Now once the demography train has left the station, it may become practically unstoppable. Is there anything realistic that Japan could do to reverse its demographic implosion? I don't think so.
David Williamson: Ms Glick's pieces are always worth reading, but very depressing. The spengler piece she refers to even more so. They are both Steynian in their assertion that demography is everything.
They deal with the forest, whereas the current debt limit negotiations are the trees - or, more likely, the swamp.
It would be nice to think that someone in the US government, or any of the Presidential candidates, is thinking about the big picture. A Thatcher, or maybe a Churchill - but I see nobody.
Even Mr Churchill's bust has left the Oval Office. · Jul 16 at 3:51am
Edited on Jul 16 at 03:52 am
Jun '11
Re: The US and the Middle East: Platitudes Are Not Enough
I agree with much of the column but not sure I agree with "grand strategy." It presupposes two things, both of them (in my opinion) dubious:
First, that there is a coherent story line to be derived from all the turmoil in the various countries listed.
Second, that the US government is even marginally capable of deriving such a story line and translating it into a strategy.
A more practical approach would be to simplify the situation for the short term:
1. Iran is the enemy
2. Israel is the ally
3. Everyone else had better figure out where they want to line up, and act accordingly