Foreign policy is a tough business, especially when you are the world’s only real superpower.
If the policy makers in Washington didn’t understand that fact before the upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt rocked the world this week and last, they surely must at least be thinking on it now. What’s a country supposed to do to protect its interests?
The conservative pundit, Ross Douthat, summarized that thought in a piercingly adroit New York Times OpEd column earlier this week.
“We have theories,” Mr. Douthat wrote, “and expect the facts to fall into line behind them. … But,” he noted, “history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, then watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.
“Sooner or later,” he concludes, “the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic.”
U.S. foreign policy has been overly aggressive and single-minded in its pursuit of American interests for over 60 years, and the negative results are all too apparent in the initially awkward and uncertain responses of the Obama administration to the sudden rebellion against authoritarian rule that we are now witnessing in Egypt.
It has always been thought that America’s interests would best be served by some kind of meaningful peace in the Middle East vis-à-vis Israel and its neighbors. Thus, when Egypt’s Anwar Sadat sought a rapprochement with Israel in 1978, after two wars (in ’67 and ’73) that easily could have spread beyond the region, the United States sought to facilitate a lasting peace between the two countries.
The peace treaty signed by Sadat and Menachim Begin at Camp David in 1978 was a crowning achievement for U.S. foreign policy and the administration of Jimmy Carter. But three years later, Sadat was assassinated by militants in his own elite military forces, and the cause of peace was set back severely.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, still perceived by U.S. policy makers to be engaged in imperialistic expansionism, invaded Afghanistan, a country few Americans even knew existed at the time, in an effort to maintain a pro-Soviet Marxist government there.
Viewing the invasion as more evidence of Soviet “evil-empire” intentions (“We will bury you,” Premier Nikita Khrushchev had vowed two decades earlier), the U.S. reacted aggressively, tacitly supporting the Afghan freedom fighters, who happened to include a young rebel named Osama bin Ladin.
In the meantime, in Iran, the people revolted against the repressive government of its monarch, who had held power against a fundamentalist insurgency thanks to U.S. (CIA) support twenty-six years earlier. In his place, an aged prelate, Ayotollah Khomeini, installed an Islamic theocracy that was immediately perceived as a threat to U.S. interests.
Within two years, following the ultimate release of U.S. embassy personnel who had been taken hostage in the initial days of the revolution, the Iran regime was at war with neighboring Iraq, where another U.S.-created dictator, this one named Saddam Hussein, was intent on domination of the region. The U.S. covertly supported Hussein, who used poison gas in his attacks on the Iranians. The war lasted for eight years and only ended when both sides essentially ran out of troops.
By then, the Soviets, now ruled by a relative visionary named Mikhail Gorbachev, had withdrawn in defeat from Afghanistan, leaving in power another theocracy, this one run by Islamic extremists known as the Taliban. The Soviet Union fell apart early in the next decade, imploding of its own weight when it could no longer support its empire with corrupt and dictatorially-imposed socialist rule.
And then, undoubtedly feeling emboldened by tacit U.S. approval of his tactics in the war against Iran, Saddam Hussein invaded neighboring Kuwait, which, he claimed, was historically a province of Iraq.
The United States reacted with typical American aggressiveness in demanding Hussein’s immediate withdrawal from the sovereign state that just happened to be a major oil producing country. When Saddam refused, Gulf War I began, and in prosecuting it, the United States established a significant U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, which was now home to that young Afghan freedom fighter, Osama bin Ladin.
Throughout this period, Anwar Sadat’s successor, Hosni Mubarak had created a veritable dictatorship for himself. His regime had received billions in aid from the United States, part of the American pledge to honor Egypt’s 1978 peace agreement with Israel, and he had used that support to build a police state that was heavy on repression and brutality. Along the way, his government grew increasingly corrupt, further inflaming the passions of young militants who joined forces with bin Ladin’s newly formed al Qaeda.
On September 11, 2001, the foreign policy decisions that had created al Qaeda experienced the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the country’s history.
Less than two months later, another aggressive foreign policy decision led to the initiation of the war in Afghanistan, and just another eighteen months later, more aggressiveness (this one breaking new ground with a “preventive war”) led to an invasion of a sovereign state that had itself invaded a sovereign state in violation of international law a decade earlier.
One supposed purpose of that war was to unleash the forces of democracy in the entire region, as the U.S. president boldly declared in explaining his decision to his citizens and the world.
The democratic forces of which he spoke are now unleashed. To be sure, the war in Iraq did not unleash them. That war has created a messy quasi-democracy that has hardly been a model for anything other than how not to invade a country.
The one in Afghanistan is even more of a disaster. The “democracy” there is nothing more than a puppet regime of the U.S. that is corrupt to the core.
And now, whether the United States foreign policy apparatus favors it or not, another form of democracy will seek to establish itself in Egypt. And who knows what tomorrow may bring.
The world is, indeed, too complicated. And too tragic.
Wow Ed, that is a brilliant and seemingly accurate historical summary.
More than ever – I am wondering: what in the world are we to do?
But even in our own government we can see how power can be misused with all the oversight protections in place.
The bottom line is: the people in the world who are educated and knowledgeable about the democratic process and the concept of free will, may be quieted for a time – but ultimately stand up to be heard. So perhaps America’s efforts are not in vain.
Great summary Ed. I recall each one as if it happened yesterday, yet the foreign policy of my country has yet to see any light. Being the only superpower has left the world with an unbalance.
”We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine.”
Mr. Dathout has failed to take note of the fact that merely uttering the word democracy is not enough. One cannot put Israel on a pedestal as the middle east’s example of democracy, whilst watching it continue to build settlements on their neighbors land. Anyone questioning this is deemed an anti semite. Supporting it’s military, which includes weapons illegal under the Geneva Convention, only flames the anger of the recipients of the aformentioned weapons.
Moving on to Egypt. Israel and Egypt are the largest recipients of aid from the U.S. Would you consider a country wallowing in corruption, nepotism, human rights violations, and the theme of ”President for Life” due to rigged elections, an example of Democracy? Day one of the uprising of it’s people ushered in a media blackout with the exception of ”state owned” media, a closure of landlines, cell phones and the internet. The charming brute police force beating people for daring to use the right to free and peaceful assembly. What a disgusting example of Democracy.
Perhaps we need to redefine the word ”Democracy.”
More later on this topic. I have very strong opinions on the media coverage of this event as well.
As for the media, I sincerely hope the likes of Fox News is not an example of the majority opinion on Egypt and all other countries uprising against tyranny, poverty, and corruption and lack of freedom.
Glenn Beck needs to view some opinions other than his own. Yesterday he actually drew a map of his theory on the middle east. Not once has he (or others) discussed how the people feel, what the people want. It simply revolves around what is ”best” for the US or Israel. What a shame. To be an American is to uphold the belief that all humans have the right to free elections. Glenn expertly outlined the plan for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the world. They do not have majority support. Pres. Obama said so, and I do agree with him on this point. Of course his opinions will be bashed since many still believe he is a Muslim. I’ll refrain from commenting on this ridiculous rumour.
Glenn has obviously not listened to one word the Egyptian people have said. Not one. He has not listened to the young, old, Christians or Muslims. His reporting on the Muslim takeover (worldwide, no less) is nothing short of tabloid journalism. Perhaps he should examine the history of the US military, draw another chalk map of wars, invasions, support for questionable mid east leaders, US bases worldwide, and ask himself why the people of the middle east fear/hate US foreign policy.
My country has been greatly blessed. To continue being blessed, each American must silently or pro actively wish freedom for all. We cannot uphold the standard for Democracy and support tyrannical leaders who implement martial law using weapons stamped with ”made in the USA” without reaping the fallout of this hypocritical combination.
I did not intend to bash Glenn, that was certainly not my intention. His beliefs are held by many others. I also say with all humility, I am not an expert. I am rather an observer who has listened to the people, rather than any singular news agency. I would suggest watching/reading al Jazeera, BBC, Euro News, Aftenpost, Russia Today, Haaretz, etc and form a more universal view on the world.
”Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.”
John F. Kennedy
Ed,
Thanks for the accurate history lesson in support of Douthat’s thesis that foreign policy theories always fail. I’m not sure I agree completely that U.S. foreign policy has always been overly aggressive and single-minded since World War II, though. While our behavior has often been overly aggressive, I’d say it has been marked over all by inconsistency. It’s also been hampered by overly simplistic definitions of goals and objectives, leading to poor execution and no end of trouble. As for aggressive intervention–we seemed to be damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
Acting in our own perceived self interest–as individuals or as nations–is healthy and desirable. Encouraging and supporting true democracy and the rule of law in the world is also generally a good thing. And finally, favoring stability over conflict usually makes sense.
But the devil’s in the details: What is our true short- and long-term interest in any given situation? What is “democracy” and how should we deal with allies who let democracy slip over time into corruption or tyranny? How about true democracies whose people willingly violate international law and oppress others, contrary to what we think is their own self interest? And how long do we support a corrupt government simply because they’ve demonstrated a) a willingness to cooperate with us and b) the ability to keep the lid on their own people, potentially preventing war or the accession of even worse tyrants, but also leading to long-term problems we know all too well?
There’s no clear and simple course, since international politics is a hopelessly complex, ever shifting mess of human wants, needs and fears on a grand scale. Thus it has been and always will be. I advocate clear-eyed assessment of our interests and those of others, most likely costs in lives, treasure and less tangible outcomes of any action we might take or not take, and our true ability and willingness to cover the costs, stay the course.
Fuzzy thinking, wishful thinking, unfocused goals like nation building and making the world safe for democracy are traps for a mostly well-meaning, often selfish and accident prone superpower to avoid. Military force should be used only when the goals and priorities and clear and limited. Open-ended conflicts like Afghanistan are expensive and damaging all around, and do not justify the costs.
Jan
For a slightly different historical perspective, you might be interested in a piece posted recently at:
http://invincibleprobity.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/smiling-faces-and-purple-fingers-and-egypt/
“Smiling Faces And Purple Fingers – And Egypt”