My Plan for U.S. Policy in the Middle East: Tell me where I'm wrong...

Great Debates
1

Core idea: appeasement, and reliance on geographical remoteness to solve the problem.

1.) Take out Saddam. We can’t let terrorists think that their actions directly contribute to the U.S. backing away from a potential threat. So do this first, just to show them they can’t bully us. Preferably by assassination, so as to reduce the possible number of deaths.

…but, in reality, the terrorists can affect us and alter our decisions, so…

2.) Abandon Israel, express total neutrality in the Middle East, no alliances whatsoever. After we take out Saddam to show would-be terrorists they have no effect on U.S. policy, we go ahead and allow them to affect U.S. policy when it won’t look so bad. Let Israel fend for itself, withdraw all aid for it from financial to diplomatic to military.

Result? It’s unlikely that Islamic fundie leaders will be able to whip people into a suicidal fervor against the U.S. when the U.S. is a distant land unconnected to their problems. If Israel is their problem, but the U.S. has nothing to do with Israel, then there’s no connection. The leaders themselves might continue to despise the U.S. for it’s decadent lifestyles, or some other poppycock like that, but they could hardly get people willing to die on foreign soil for something like that. Israel is in their own backyard, so to speak, and a much easier target for whipping up religious fervor in your followers. Most people care only about problems they can touch and see.

To my mind, if we don’t do #2, there will most certainly be a nuclear explosion in a major U.S. city in the near future. Obviously this is to be avoided, and no ally is worth the potential cost in American lives this would result in…certainly not an “ally” like Israel, which has caused us nothing but trouble over the years. However, if we do #2 but don’t do #1 or something equivalent to it, then would-be terrorists know they have us by the nuts and can repeat 9-11-01 whenever they want something else from us. Basically, I think the Islamic extremists must be appeased without letting them know they’re being appeased.

Just a thought,
Rex Dart

2

Tre’ Machiavellan.

What do you think the global fallout would be if we were to abandon Israel? What nation in their right mind would enter into a pact (or simple understanding) with us after that?

We’d soon loose the Pacific Rim, as the nations there Finlandize towards China.

We would lose all sorts of influence in parts of Eastern Europe. Why would they trust us to provide a counter-balance to Russia or the EU?

I like your action #1, but not #2. I think that the US is far too easy to push around in global affairs, and would love to us lay down the law a bit, to let folks know we are serious. But that isn’t the American way, I suppose.

Not to mention, action #2 is giving in to terrorist demands. No, I am not accusing you of molly-coddling terrorists. Pulling out of Israel would be seen as a massive victrory for Al Queda. What makes you think they wouldn’t just change their goal and keep going?

3

What’s all this “we” stuff?

It’s not “we” that carries out these policies, it is “they,” those who own and control the country. They do it in their own interests, which are wildly divergent from ours.

“Taking out Saddam” as it is euphemistically phrased, or in other words, invading Iraq, is the single best way to ensure a vast escalation in anti-U.S. terrorism. You want more terrorism, go ahead and invade Iraq. It is absurd to think that the elimination of Saddam has anything to do with U.S. desires to invade Iraq. The U.S. wants control over the vast natural resources of the country, that is all. The elimination of Saddam will not change this, unless it is coincident with the installation of a U.S. puppet dictator.

There is no concievable situation in which a U.S. invasion of Iraq will help the majority of Americans. We will pay the costs, but they will reap the benefit.

On point #2, of course I would agree that the U.S. should not be paying Israel to kill Palestinians. As for the supposed loss of influence, this is a freakin’ joke. The U.S. has no influence in the world politically. The influence it does have stems from its power, and this would not be diminished one iota if the U.S. government stopped forcing us to pay for Israelis to kill Palestinians. In fact, if we were able to force the U.S. government to stop supporting their off-shore military base Israel, world opinion of the U.S. would dramatically increase.

4

Do you also favor withdrawing US aid to Arab countries – namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan?

Also, as RobertTB points out, I think following #2 will not accomplish anything in reducing terrorism. The most likely outcome is more instability, dead Jews, and loss of the one true ally that the US has in the region. And its not like withdrawing aid will make the whole Arab world shake their head and welcome the US and friendly bedfellows.

Al Qaeda hates Saddam nearly as much as the US does. Taking out Saddam is only doing Al Qaeda a favor because their eventual goal of replacing Saddam with an Islamic fundamentalist regime is one step closer. And, they have more ammunition to support their propoganda that the US is conducting a war against Arabs and Muslims around the world. Taking out Saddam will not convince any terrorist anywhere that the US means business. Not that we shouldn’t take out Saddam, but without at least 5 years of nation building in a post-Saddam Iraq, the US shouldn’t delude itself into thinking that a Saddam-less world is a helluva lot safer. Whether or not the US has the gusto to stick with the democratic transition in Iraq (and Afghanistan) probably dictates a lot towards our future security.

The terrorists that act against the US are very careful to remain mobile and unaffiliated to government. All governmental connections are tenuous – neither the government nor the terrorists would be so stupid to put their eggs into a very easily targeted basket.

Lastly, Israel fights many of the same terrorists as the US does. The Palestinian IJ, the Egyptian IJ, Hamas, Hizbullah, the PFLP, al Qaeda, and so forth are probably much more interconnected than they are connected with any given government. Hizbullah perhaps less so because they are Shi’ite. We should support Israel militarily, because headway against them in the West Bank is reduced resources for them attacking the US. Intelligence against these organizations will only help us battle future attacks.

5

I have read one rationalization of the get rid of Saddam = less terrorism philosophy that actually made some good points.

It was called “The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism” by Barry Rubin, and was pubilished in the November / December 2002 edition of “Foreign Affairs”. Rubin is the Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and Editor of the “Middle East Reviews of International Affairs” journal. He has also written several books on the Middle East and terrorism.

I suggest you read it, but here is a quick summary.

1 - US policy has been remarkably pro-Islamic. In 11 of the past 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, the US sided with the Muslims.

2 - The more lenient the US is, the more Islamic radicals strive against it’s policies - and the weaker America appears to the simplistic, militaristic tribal systems that spawn those radicals.

3 - US policy is misrepresented to the Islamic people by Islamic governments. This is done to a) keep the radicals in line and b) deflect criticism of government policies by providing a safe target.

Conclusion - Gently guiding the mid-east is counter-productive, as it encourages armed response by radicals. Giving up on the middle-east is impossible, due to the world reliance on oil.

“Only when the systems that manufacture and encourage anti-Americanism fail will popular opinion also change. In the interim, the most Washington can do is show the world that the United States is steadfast in support of its interests and allies. This approach should include both standing by Israel and maintaining good relations with moderate Arab states - which should be urged to do more publicly to justify U.S. support.”

6

I’m gonna ask for a cite on that one.

Conclusion should be: Get OFF oil.
And find Osama. Iraq can wait until we do that. Then we need to get rid of EVERY dictator in the world. Start in the non-middle east, just to limit radical Islam support at first.

7

OK, step back a second.

If we follow my point #2, do you think there will be another major terrorist attack on US soil in the forseeable future? I think not, because Al-Quada and other Islamic fundie groups will no longer have a clear reason to hate the U.S., at least no reason so passionate as to inspire suicide terrorist attacks on our soil. They won’t suddenly love us, but they won’t have much reason to hate us anymore. Past transgressions fade pretty quickly. So if point #2 prevents the loss of American lives, isn’t that alone sufficient for us to follow it?

Of course, maybe we could go further, and actually side with them against Israel. That would surely eliminate the terrorist threat. Israel’s fight against terrorists on their own soil did nothing to prevent the attacks that occured on ours. What kind of an ally are they? What are we really getting out of our alliance with them? We’re creating problems by allying with them. Why should we be grateful when Israel occasionally helps to solve a problem that wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for our alliance with them?

Maybe my point #1 isn’t absolutely necessary since we already put the screws to the Taliban. Perhaps that showed them the price of terrorism, so now all we have to do is make sure they don’t have any reason to accept that price. Withdrawal of support for Israel does just that. Total neutrality is fine with me, we could abandon our support of all regimes in the area, that might work out. I do have a soft spot in my heart for Turkey, whose inspired efforts towards secularization on a nation-wide scale have had such excellent effects. Yet though I consider Turkey a model for what the Islamic world ought to become, how the current divide in Islam between fundie theocrats and the more progressive elements ought to be resolved, I don’t want any part of forcing that change down anyone’s throat. It will never work, and will only cause headaches for us.

As for the oil issue, I’m not concerned. Necessity has always been the mother of invention. If the oil dries up, or it becomes too expensive and begins to weaken the economy, the market will produce cost-effective alternatives.

8

I think following your point 2 will only increase terrorism. It will only reduce the amount of intelligence we have, will only show that the US is manipulatable, will only show that terrorism has worked.

If you think our support for Israel led to 9/11, you are mistaken. Bin Laden only recently (post 9/11) started talking about Israel/Palestine. He has talked much more about getting the US out of Saudi Arabia and about the US support for the corrupt and repressive House of Saud. The US support for repressive regimes in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are the biggest chunk of al Qaeda’s gripe. If you follow that al Qaeda’s advertised goal is establishment of a caliphate from Indonesia to Spain under sharia, then Israel is a very small part of this. That’s why they are against secular Arab states like Iraq. They want to banish Western influence, they want to establish Muslim law, they want to re-establish a fundamentalist Muslim empire on land which has been held by Muslims at any point in history.

Support for Israel is certainly part of what is ticking off the Arab world. But, if the Israeli situation had not been played up by every repressive regime in the Arab world to focus their populations’ anger on an external source, I really don’t think it would be anything huge. Said repressive regimes hadn’t tolerated fanatical Islamic teachers because they are clinging to ever-more tenuous power as their population gets more and more unhappy. 9/11 would have still happened even without Israel because of our air bases on the Arabian Peninsula and a million other perceived insults.

Look at Chechnya, look at Serbia, look at India versus Pakistan, look at Nigeria and other parts of Africa. Certainly the Muslim world has an interest in these conflicts, but not to the extent of the Israel/Palestine thing. And our support for Muslims in these conflicts (in Kosovo and Pakistan, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, some sympathy with Chechen rebels) hasn’t won us friends. The perceived US hegemony and anti-Muslim bias extends far beyond Israel/Palestine and boiling it all down to one issue is IMHO foolish and dangerous.

9

That’s why I advocate doing something to make it appear that the US is not being manipulated by terrorism, even though that’s exactly what would be occurring.

These also are past transgressions which we might simply vow never to repeat. Withdraw support for these supposedly repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Pure and complete diplomatic neutrality in that region, no meddling whatsoever.

Al-Quada has to recruit from those fanatical elements among that population. So it stands to reason that the rank and file holy warrior focuses his anger at the US in connection to Israel, because that connection has been emphasised in their countries. Without that connection to make any longer, the rank and file terrorist will not be as angry at the US. This makes it harder to recruit people for suicide missions against the US.

Certainly there are other things we could do to make friends with the Islamic world, but I don’t think that anything we choose to do will be sufficient so long as we maintain our support for Israel. I think abandoning Israel is the first step, perhaps a sufficient step for a while, and a necessary step.

10

Heh, I gave you one :slight_smile: Actually, the only cite I can remember reading today on these forums. Took up the whole second paragraph too!

But I suspect you are really asking which wars, and for an exact quote. Since I’ve got the article right here, and have nothing better to do, here you go.

“During the last half-century, in 11 of the 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the United States has sided with the former group.”

Here is the author’s breakdown of the conflicts:

Muslim states versus non-Muslim states:

Turkey vs. Greece
Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia
Kosovo vs. Yugoslavia
Pakistan vs. India
Afgans vs. Soviets
Azerbaijan vs. Armenia
Practically everybody vs. Israel

Muslim states versus secular forces:

Saudi Arabia & other monarcies vs. Egypt
Jordan & other regimes vs. Syria & Iraq
Kuwait & Saudi Arabia vs. Iraq

Arab states versus non-Arab states:

Iraq vs. Iran

Some of this is difficult to understand without a lot of knowledge of the region. For example, why is Iraq on the left sometimes and the right other times? And why break the wars into three categories anyway?

It’s because the author is trying to categorize the conflicts in terms of priority. The top category is holy war stuff - a Muslim state versus a Christian state, or a Hindu state, etc. Here, Muslim radicals would be on the side of the Muslim state.

The middle category handles less clear-cut cases. Everybody follows Islam, but the conflict is between religious governments (like Iran) and secular governments (like Iraq). Muslim radicals would be on the side of the religious government.

The last category handles the least clear-cut case. At the time, Iraq was secular, and Iran was religious. But Iraq is Arab, and Iran is not - which makes some difference. If you remember, the Al-Queda were referred to as “tourists” in Afghanistan, because they were Arab. Most Muslim radicals are Arab, and so would be expected to be on the side of the Arab state. That’s the theory anyway; I might not buy this one.

11

I question the relevance of any statement that starts “It stands to reason…” about the Middle East.

These people hate each other. That will not change in the foreseeable future. They don’t hate each other because the US supports Israel, they hate each other because their ancestors murdered each other. All of them are looking for revenge against those who got revenge on them.

And withdrawing our support for Israel will not lead to greater peace in the region. Our support for Israel is not the souce for all the conflict in the region. Iran and Iraq are both rabidly anti-Israel. They fought a nasty war. Iran invaded Kuwait because Saddam wanted her oil to pay his war debts.

We withdraw our support for Israel, and declare neutrality. Iran, Syria, Iraq, and others, form a coalition and attack. Israel defends herself, but without US support, she is losing.

Israel issues an ultimatum to her attackers. Withdraw now, or we go nuclear. The US remains neutral. Baghdad, Teheran, and about 150 other parts of the Middle East become radioactive craters. The blasts and fall out kill millions.

And the survivors begin another war over the remains.

Read the parable of the frog and the scorpion. These are Third World countries with oil revenue (some of them) and no history of democracy.

There will not be peace in the Middle East until peace is what everybody wants. And there is a sizable contingent in the region who don’t want it - and are actively working against it.

Regards,
Shodan

12

I receive Foreign Affairs and read Billy Rubin’s article last week. Though I don’t care to wade into a discussion of it yet, I want to add that I found his discussion of US intervention into the conflicts of Muslim states highly dubious.

13

Apparently you would want the US to choose an isolationist policy (at least as long as the middle-east is concerned) except that attacks directly aimed at the US should be strongly “punished”.

But actually, I don’t see in what way your #1 fits in this policy, since Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in the terrorist attack against the US (or do you think he was?). Attacking Afghanistan certainly was logical in your view, but why take out Saddam?
By the way, how are you going to track down terrorists in various middle-east countries without the cooperation of said countries? And if the US don’t have any more any commitment or involvment in the middle-east, why would any country (Israel included) would give a shit about the US opinion? If say, it’s unpopular (even slightly so) in the population to arrest some terrorist in behalf of the US, why would a government do so if it has nothing to gain from the US?
Of course, you can threaten to bomb everybody who doesn’t do exactly what the US says, but that wouldn’t exactly be non-involvment, and it wouldn’t exactly diminish the resssentment against the US, either.

And obviously, isolationism would have negative consequences for the US. For instance in trade. A lot of countries buy US weapons, or sign up with US contractors more or less in exchange for US goodwill, aid, or military commitment. Same with international agreements or treaties. If countries don’t expect to benefit from it, they will ignore the US interests, and will only take into consideration their own interests or the interests of other countries which have something to offer in the way of support or commitment.
Note that I didn’t discuss whether your proposal is the “right” or “wrong” thing to do from a moral point of view. Only its internal consistency and its consequences.

14

How is cheap gas not in “our” interest?

And where do you think ALL political influence comes from? It comes from military and economic power. I guess you missed the last 10,000 years of history.

15

Air pollution. Dead GI’s. Increased support for Al-Qaeda.

16

" . . . certainly not an ‘ally’ like Israel, which has caused us nothing but trouble over the years."

—Yeah, thing sure will be calmer and more peaceful after all those damn pesky Jews get massacred and run into the sea . . .

17

My plan would be to leave the Middle East alone.

18

I’ve thought for sometime that the US should abandon Israel to its own resources and subsequent fate. The whole thing is causing nothing but grief for much of the rest of the world, with little in return, IMO. Don’t forget: Everyone in Israel is there of their own volition. They should know or have known that they were imposing themselves into a dangerous situation, and provoking some incredible fanatics, religious and nationalistic.

 My take on Israel: you wanted it, you've got it.  Don't expect me to suffer in your defense.     

 On the other hand, we (US) are now somewhat backed into a corner, and cannot allow the appearance of appeasement, so I at least like the out-of-the-box thinking in the OP.

Eve: Don’t you think that eventually the anti-Israeli’s will eventually get their hands on something lethal enough to take 'em out?

19

I agree that abandoning Israel would be disastrous. Shodan’s scenario is plausible, except that the anti-Israeli forces would possibly get help from some European nations. Perhaps Germany, perhaps France. The European nations would certainly offer them moral support. The UN, as well, would have a field day if the US were to step back and leave Israel to her own devices.

And let’s not forget the immoral aspect of abandoning one of our allies to what we know would be a bloody and violent demise - even compared to what currently exists.

So allow me to respond with my own plan for Middle East reform:

1.) Depose Saddam. Scatter the Republican Guard. Place a benevolent secular government in place. Democracy would be nice, but it’s possible the people of Iraq are not ready for a democracy yet, in which case forcing it on them would be unwise. If that’s the case, something akin to Iran’s government - a supreme ruler who presides over a parliament of sorts - would be a decent midway point. Gradually, the people would grow fond of democracy - as they currently are in Iran - and would opt to get rid of the ruler in favor of a complete democracy. In the meantime, US presence would help keep things civil, and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq.

2.) After the war, give Iran a good, strong, thoughtful glare. Make sure that they, and the rest of the Middle Eastern despots, see the logical connection between “brutal dictator who supports terrorism and butchers his people” and “forced regime change”. This will help curb government support of terrorism, at least a little.

3.) Officially denounce Saudi Arabia’s, and anyone else’s, sponsorship of terrorism.

4.) Help nudge the people of Iran in the direction of democracy. They want it now, and it’s going to happen eventually. We should do everything we can short of military intervention to see that democracy realized. Once it is realized, slobber all over Iran like a wide-eyed puppy on its master.

5.) Re-emphasize how much we like the now-democratic Iraq and Iran. Make sure everyone sees the connection between democracy and good relations with the US. Most importantly, make the citizens of Iraq and Iran like us.

6.) With our new allies in Iraq and Iran, hopefully the rest of the Middle East will gradually begin to yearn for democracy, as well. Encourage this as much as possible.

7.) …

8.) Profit.
Or something like that.
Jeff

20

The purpose of withdrawing support of Israel as I proposed was not to bring peace to the MiddleEast and stop them fighting each other. It was to stop people from possibly attacking the United States with deadly terrorist attacks. Saving the lives of American citizens should be priority #1 for U.S. foreign policy. If these people are going to keep on killing each other no matter what we do, why not stand out of the way so we don’t take any hits ourselves?

Not so sure about that. Israel has a pretty good military. Without US aid, maybe it declines over the years, but I’m not so sure they can’t fend for themselves for quite some time yet. They’re very well trained from what I understand, and they could continue to purchase military technology, just not from us.

If Israel is the sort of nation that would launch a nuclear first-strike, then they certainly aren’t the sort of country we would want to be allied with.