Your Thoughts Exactly

Here is something we can be assured of: The plan of the Bush administration to storm into the Middle East using programs such as “Shock and Awe,” and assuming that they would be greeted as liberators by a population begging to emulate everything Western, (despite the fact some of their cousins had been disfigured or killed during the invasion,) has been a colossal failure. This failure could have only been predicted by those who know anything about military strategy (especially the important principle that wars require money and troops,) or have taken a college level course on the Middle East.

As even conservatives begin to speak out against the war, let’s not forget that, at the moment of truth in March 2003, no one, Republican or Democrat, was against authorizing this invasion. Coming out against it three years late, and, moreover, continuing to authorize money to fight the war despite claiming to be against it doesn’t gain you many points in the Marmaniac’s eyes.

But was the Iraq invasion part of some greater plan to bring Democracy to the Middle East? I would say yes and no. In the late 90’s, with the world relatively peaceful, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, and a bunch of other neo-cons would have had the U.S. use it’s post Cold-War unipolarity to wipe out specific trouble spots in the world, with public enemy number one being Sadaam. The Clinton Administration took a more hands off approach to foreign policy, choosing to focus on domestic issues and maintaining control of the government in the face of political scandal. The election of Bush II, complete with reinstating several cronies from the 80s into positions of prominence, vaulted the neo-cons into power, ready to implement their ideas on the rest of the world.

And then 9/11 happens, providing a symbolic beginning (and I mean this in the religious sense as well: the beginning of Armageddon so to speak) and blanket justification to the Bush Administration for any policy against anyone of Middle Eastern descent, no matter how unconstitutional or foolish.

But what if 9/11 hadn’t happened? Would the neo-cons, who from the 90s have advocated taking out Sadaam have gotten there way? I think so. I can’t imagine George W Bush going through eight years of office without attacking someone in some way.

If the destiny of the Bush Administration was to wildly attack the Middle East in hopes of spreading a democratic revolution, then it is the destiny of the administration that follows to clean up the mess. Here are some issues the next administration will have to face.

First we need to look at what philosophy we want to take within the region. Are we going to suppress authoritarian regimes through superior military force? Are we going to rely on the combined cultural power of the West and the powerful sway of the world economy to coerce governments and people into toeing the line? Are we going to use diplomacy? Are we just going to ignore the region as a whole, through determining that our own interests are best served elsewhere? Are we dealing with states or groups of people, and how to we distinguish between the two when determining policy?

Right now, our military is stretched to the limits in terms of the amount it can do. An invasion of Iran, for example, would mandate 1) a draft 2) a strong ally coming to support us, say Russia or 3) giving up control of Iraq. Any domino effect we could hope for following the toppling of Sadaam appears to be limited, and contingent on the success of the new Iraqi regime. Right now an Iraqi Civil War seems more likely than a peaceful transition to democratic rule.

The cultural and economic power of the West, specifically the United States, is the area of strength that we have not been exerting enough under the Bush Administration, and the best chance for success in the Middle East. We must strive to change the image of the U.S. with the Muslim world, which right now varies from “illegitimate invader,” to “The Great Satan.” How can this be accomplished?

First, we should be doing things like not getting our panties in a bunch when say, a company from a moderate Middle Eastern country does business with us. That’s fight, I am siding with W on this one, (not that it matters, since Dubai Ports World has already begged out of the deal.) If we are to embrace outsourcing and globalization as, 1) economically viable for the future of America and the world and 2) a method to increase interaction between countries, draw ties between them, and help prevent future security conflicts, we have to make compromises and respect the sovereignty and development stages of other countries. Shutting out the UAE is short-sighted, jingoistic, and borderline racist.

What we should be doing is encouraging deals with what I would label “Muslim moderates,” Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, UAE, and Indonesia. We need as many allies in the region as possible, and these countries are a good place to start. We also must, must, find some way to debunk the idea that the United States represents some sort of Christian crusading force that is somehow out to “get,” Islam. The debate over the place of Christianity as part of the identity of the U.S. is a domestic issue, but how we resolve it affects how the rest of the world views us. I believe that we need to focus on re-grasping and spreading the identity of the United States as the country that welcomes all religions and all peoples. This will dim the effectiveness of the anti-U.S. rhetoric of the extremist Muslim imams. Taking steps like putting Arab-Americans in visible positions of power within the U.S. government wouldn’t hurt either.

But those are the easy parts. In the next installment, I deal with the two key states of the Middle East: Iran and Saudi Arabia. Oh yea and that little strip of land called Israel.