Sick and tired of the Middle East
Comments
0Share0
Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
March 8, 2012
Americans -- left, right, Democrats and Republicans -- are all sick of
thankless nation-building in the Middle East. Yet democratization was
not our first choice, but rather a last resort after prior failures.
The United States had long ago supplied Afghan insurgents, who
expelled the Soviets after a decade of fighting. Then we left. The
country descended into even worse medievalism under the Taliban. So
after removing the Taliban, who had hosted the perpetrators of 9/11,
we promised in 2001 to stay on.
Victor Davis Hanson
Bio | E-mail | Recent columns
Ads by Google
McMahan Scandal Bombshell
Ex-Wife's "Pay or Die" Note: It Was Extortion All Along
thedailycannibal.com
Save Energy Heating Water
Remove water heater limescale the eco-friendly way. 10yr warranty
www.AquaGenesisUSA.com
We won the first Gulf War in 1991. Then most of our forces left the
region. The result was the mass murder of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites,
12 years of no-fly zones, and a failed oil-for-food embargo of
Saddam's Iraq. So after removing Saddam in 2003, we tried to leave
behind something better.
In the last 10 years the United States has spent more than $1 trillion
and has lost thousands of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both
places seem far better off than when ruled by the Taliban and Saddam
Hussein -- at least for a while longer.
Yet the Iraqis now bear Americans little good will. They seem
friendlier to Iran and Syria than to their liberators. In Afghanistan,
riots continue over mistaken burning of some defaced Korans, despite
serial American apologies.
How about the choice of bombing the bad guys and then just staying
clear? We just did that to the terrorist-friendly Gadhafi dictatorship
in Libya. But now that Gadhafi is gone, there is chaos. Islamic gangs
torture and execute black Africans who supported the deposed regime,
according to press reports. British World War II cemeteries that were
honored during 70 years of Libyan kings and dictators could not
survive six months of a "free" Libya. In Benghazi, gangs just
ransacked and defaced the monuments of the British war dead.
Not having boots on the ground may ensure that endless chaos will
consume the hope of a calm post-Gadhafi Libya. That was also true of
Somalia and Lebanon after American troops were attacked and abruptly
left.
How about another option of aid and words of encouragement only? We
have urged Egyptian reform, under both George W. Bush and now Barack
Obama. When protestors forced the removal of dictator Hosni Mubarak,
the United States approved. It even appears likely that we will keep
sending Egypt significant annual subsidies of more than $1.5 billion
-- as we have for more than 30 years. Yet anti-American Islamists are
now the dominant force in Egyptian politics. American aid workers were
recently arrested and threatened with trial by new Egyptian reformers.
Still another American choice would be not to nation-build, bomb, or
even get near a Middle Eastern country -- as is the case with Iran and
Syria. The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran
since the Shah left in 1979. Until the Obama administration
desperately tried to re-establish contacts with the Bashar al-Assad
regime in Syria by appointing a new ambassador, there had been nearly
six years of estrangement.
Yet Iran is nearing its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon both to
threaten Israel and to bully other oil-exporting regimes of the
Persian Gulf. The Syrian government is now butchering thousands of its
own citizens with impunity.
A final option would be to return to the old policy of re-establishing
friendly relationships with Middle East dictatorships regardless of
their internal politics -- and then keeping mum about their excesses.
We did that with Pakistan, which has both received billions in U.S.
aid and produced a nuclear bomb. Yet it is hard to imagine a more anti-
American country than nuclear Pakistan, without which the Taliban
could not kill Americans so easily in Afghanistan.
The United States once saved the Kuwaiti regime after it was swallowed
up by Saddam Hussein. We have enjoyed strong ties with the Saudi
monarchy as well. Neither country seems especially friendly to the
U.S. It is still a crime to publicly practice Christianity in Saudi
Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 mass-murdering hijackers of 9/11 were
Saudis. Oil in the Middle East costs less than $5 a barrel to produce;
it now sells for over $100, largely due to the policies of our allies
and OPEC members.
Let us review the various American policy options for the Middle East
over the last few decades. Military assistance or punitive
intervention without follow-up mostly failed. The verdict on far more
costly nation-building is still out. Trying to help popular insurgents
topple unpopular dictators does not guarantee anything better.
Propping up dictators with military aid is both odious and
counterproductive. Keeping clear of maniacal regimes leads to either
nuclear acquisition or genocide -- or 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan.
What have we learned? Tribalism, oil and Islamic fundamentalism are a
bad mix that leave Americans sick and tired of the Middle East -- both
when they get in it and when they try to stay out of it.
(Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover
Institution, Stanford University, and the author of the just-released
"The End of Sparta." You can reach him by e-mailing
aut...@victorhanson.com.)