Democracy Arsenal

« I See London, I See France... | Main | A Contrarian Takes on the Middle East, Part II »

May 17, 2007

Ignore the Middle East? Too Late
Posted by Michael Fuchs

I like contrarian points of view, but this piece by Edward Luttwak seems a little bit much, even for me:

The operational mistake that middle east experts keep making is the failure to recognise that backward societies must be left alone... With neither invasions nor friendly engagements, the peoples of the middle east should finally be allowed to have their own history - the one thing that middle east experts of all stripes seemed determined to deny them.

The U.S. currently has roughly 150,000 troops in Iraq. It also has an interest in safeguarding the international supply of oil from the region. While I believe that we should work towards the end of the large U.S. presence in Iraq and the international dependence on oil, these nonetheless are realities for the moment. I also fear that, whatever bit of truth might have been found in Luttwak's argument not long ago, the invasion of Iraq has made it necessary for the United States to focus on the Middle East for years, decades, and perhaps even generations to come. Invasions? No. Friendly engagement? Absolutely.

But U.S. foreign policy focuses are not mutually exclusive. We would therefore do well to heed Luttwak's call that U.S. foreign policy should focus much more on Europe, East Asia and India.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/317463/18544434

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ignore the Middle East? Too Late:

Comments

I cannot speak to Luttwak's thinking because I've not read anything he's written on this subject for a while. But foreign policy foci certainly are mutually exclusive. Focus on many different things at once is a contradiction in terms.

This is no mere point of logic. It defines the massive opportunity cost of the long commitment in Indochina, especially after 1963, something the United States has never really taken stock of as far as its foreign policy is concerned. And it is critical to understanding the price we are paying for the Iraq commitment today. We can acknowledge the costs in lives and in money, but as long as we are oblivious to the entire attention of the government's senior officials being directed at one country and what that means for all our other interests, we are not seeing the whole picture.

As for the Middle East in general, I'd never argue it should be ignored. I think a case could be made that it involves American interests more than does sub-Saharan Africa, because of the importance of Middle Eastern oil to the world economy. But that's it. There is no other heavily populated area of the world that is less important to America's future than the Arab Middle East. Sure, it has oil -- but what else that we have any reason to value? A recipe for lamb kabobs?

Damage control, and damage control only, is the correct objective for American policy toward this part of the world. Transforming the Middle East was never any more than slightly more sensible an objective than transforming the surface of the moon. But the Bush administration's started toward that objective four years ago and now thinks leaving that path tantamount to surrender, while the chief complaint of its most dedicated liberal critics is that it hasn't really been sincere about transformation. Compared to the course we are on, Vietnam made sense.

Oil, oil, oil. Do we really think that if we left the Middle East to its own devices, China, India, Japan and SE Asia, after some traumatic hiccups, would not be able to obtain and maintain a steady flow of oil? Is it then more a matter of US desire for control and influence, rather than worry about "the global economy" and other metaphors for US global influence? The heights of arrogance are dizzying. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about the US pursuing its desires in the world and seeking to maintain a priviledged status among the world's nations. It's just that there are costs and consequences to such a posture and folks in the US should stop buying the bullshit that our actions overseas are necessary or essential. No, our actions overseas are chosen and preferred to the benefit of powerful interests. What Luttwak is doing is forcing the people who think they know it all to question basic assumptions behind our actions overseas, not least so purportedly wise men don't continue to make an ass out of you and me.

estradiol online pharmacy estradiol online pharmacy
Antibiotics medication
buy zithromax online buy zithromax online
Osteoporosis medication
buy evista online buy evista online
buy fosamax online buy fosamax online
Motion sickness medication
buy antivert online buy antivert online
Arhritis medication
buy motrin buy motrin online
buy naprosyn online buy naprosyn online
buy celebrex online buy celebrex online
Anti-Parasitic medication
buy elimite online buy elimite online

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Guest Contributors
Subscribe
Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Email: 
Powered by TypePad

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use