First, the United States had been far too friendly with atrocious regimes in the Middle East. And when bloodletting inevitably broke out, either internally or between aggressive regimes, too often we cynically played one side off the other. Or we backed repugnant insurgents, with little thought of the "blowback" that would result. We outsourced sophisticated arms and training to radical Islamists fighting against the Soviet-backed Afghan government. We hoped the murderous Saddam might check the murderous Iranian theocracy - and then again sold arms to the mullahs during the Iran-Contra affair.
All of this is very true, but it is also interesting that the focus is solely on the Middle East and that we assume George W. Bush (and the American people) has some moral high ground to impress democracy on an arbitrarily chosen nation. As an example, take the failed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Like him or loathe him, Chavez was properly elected by the people of Venezuela yet this administration certainly did not respect that democratic authority.
If you dislike that example, then what foreign policy has this administration enacted that has shown any glimpses of changing those past policies of supporting inhumane regimes? We support the regime in Eqypt. Bush continues to petition the EU to include Turkey. We support Uzbekistan, which is certainly not an enlightened democracy. We support Israel. There is a picture of Bush holding hands with Saudi royalty. We support China. I can certainly continue if you like. I have certainly not seen the Bush administration offer any change to that foreign policy standard which mirrors Clinton's efforts. So I ask again, where do we come off as some shining beacon in all of this?
No, point one is weak - very weak.
We breezily called for an uprising of Shiites and Kurds only to abandon them to be slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf War. We cynically gave the Mubarak dynasty of Egypt billions in protection money to behave. While we thought we were achieving short-term expediency, American policy only increased long-term instability by not pressuring these tyrants to reform failed governments.
True, but we worry (and rightly so) about the alternative. Kuwait's elected assembly is filled with virulent anti-American sentiment. Luckily for us they have little power. Imagine a Congress of Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells. We don't love Mubarak, but the alternative scares us.
Second, at key moments in the 1980s and '90s, the United States signaled that it would appease its terrorist enemies rather than engage in the difficult work of uprooting them. We did little other than file an indictment or shoot a missile at the killers who murdered American citizens, diplomats and soldiers in East Africa, Lebanon, New York City, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Leaving Lebanon, scurrying out of Somalia, and continually flying through Saddam's skies for 12 long years without removing him only cemented the image of an uncertain America.
Nice try, but Saddam and the religious militants of Islam are
not one and the same. It was well known throughout Islam that Saddam was not a practicing Muslim. In fact, Baathists in general are secular (and included Arab Christians) and disliked greatly by the Islamic militants.
The truth is, we really don't know what all was done with the terrorists during the 1980's and 1990's. I imagine that a great deal of it is classified. As a democracy we couldn't be as brash as the Soviets when it came to dealing with the likes of these groups. Killing innocent family members and removing body parts doesn't really work for a western nation that supposedly values human life and an open media.
Third, September 11 changed the way the U.S. looked at the status quo in the Middle East. That attack was the work of terrorists who were enabled by our autocratic clients in the Middle East, and emboldened by our previous inaction. In response, Iraq was an effort to end both the cynical realism and the convenient appeasement of the past - and so to address the much larger problems of the Middle East that, if left alone, could lead to another large-scale terrorist attack in the United States.
The last part of the last sentence is important. In essence the point of this paragraph is that "we had to do something." Too many ridiculous acts throughout history have been carried out because too many people subscribe to the theory that "we had to do something." Fascist philosophy often ran along the lines that inaction or deep thought and reflection before taking an action were the sings of inadequate manhood. Action, for fascists, must be immediate - thinking can come afterwards to justify the action taken. People, after all, respect quick action and decisive leadership. Of course, maturity should lead us to the conclusion that action is only as useful as the careful planning beforehand.
Whatever one thinks of our mistakes after Saddam was toppled, those three facts remain central to American foreign policy. Saudi subsidies to jihadists, Pakistani sanctuary for them, and Egyptian propaganda are all symptoms of these dictatorships hedging their bets - hoping their bought terrorists don't turn on them for their own failures and illegitimacy.
The three "facts" are rather weak points really. Pakistan remains a strong sanctuary for the Taleban because Waziristan isn't going to be "conquered" anytime soon unless we want to fight another protracted guerilla war. As for the "hedging their bets" I really don't see that this author understands terrorism in the Middle East at all.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri will still connive to bring the new caliphate to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. And they won't be stopped by either cruise missiles or court subpoenas, but only by a resolute United States and Middle Eastern societies that elect their own leaders and live with the results.
Even if the results are Iranian-type theocracies?
We can demonize President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld all we want, or wish they presented their views in a kindlier and more artful fashion. We can wish that the United States were better at training Iraqis and killing terrorists to secure Iraq. But the same general mess in the Middle East will still confront Bush's and Rumsfeld's successors.
Who is demonizing? They quite clearly failed to see the aftermath of the initial removal of Saddam Hussein. The President even admitted so.
And long after the present furor over Iraq dies down, the idea of trying to help democratic reformers fight terrorists, and to distance America from failed regimes that are antithetical to our values, simply will not go away.
That tough idealism will stay - because in the end it is the only right and smart thing to do.
Idealism rarely trumps pragmatism in the real world.
