New at Reason

December 21, 2006

Michael Young looks at American influence in the Middle East.

Comments

|12.21.06 @ 8:58AM|#

More wishful thinking from Michael Young.

How's that "Hezbollah has made itself irrelevant to Lebanese politics" thing coming?

Warren|12.21.06 @ 9:13AM|#

Michael,
What the hell are you talking about. I can't find any redemption in a democratically elected tyranny. I'm perfectly amenable to the notion that the stature and influence of the US might soon be in ascendance. However, there is no reason to believe it is currently so, and I see few hopeful signs for the future. Furthermore if US fortunes do change it will certainly be do to some reversal in our foreign policy. This administration is defined by nothing if not consistent incompetence, and all our current woes can be justly laid at it's feet.

|12.21.06 @ 10:01AM|#

Anyone read Friedman's op-ed in the NYTimes yesterday? I've never seen him so despondent (this in the middle of Hannukkah no less!)

I'm still short the US - things will get worse before they get better.

|12.21.06 @ 10:13AM|#

Frankly,

I think that the greatest threat to US influence is our recent (last dozen years or so) tendency to reverse course on foreign policy decisions. Regardless of the rectitude or value of our policy initiatives, such as invading Iraq, the fact that we are willing to change course so readily due to internal political pressure makes us unreliable partners on the global stage.

In a realpolitik context, nations are judged by other nations on their ability to follow through on promises, strategy, and stated directives. In this capacity, the United States has proven far from reliable. It make total sense that previous allies might doubt our commitment to any long term policy (foolhardy or not).

The irony here is that even when our foreign partners heartily disagree with our policy decisions (again, Iraq) we undercut our long term value as a policy partner when we change course. In the mid-east especially, this decade's testing ground for global will power, we continue to prove ourselves utterly unreliable. Our allies have little reason to trust us as we don't have the political will to stay the course in difficult situations, and our enemies have little reason to fear us as we can be counted on rethink our tactics and alter our outlook based on even limited resistance (as long as it has enough press and is sufficiently violent).

Bargaining partners are valued based not only on what they bring to the table, but primarily on their credibility. Even a foolhardy bargaining partner can be highly valuable if they are highly credible. In fact, the willingness to follow through can make a minor player on the realpolitik stage into a major force. Just as self evident is the fact that a major player can have all effectiveness sapped at the bargaining table by demonstrating a history of unreliability, which is the situation we are marching into.

The combination of ability and credibility are the primary factors in the success of international strategy. A relatively small player on the international stage, but one that can be counted on to do exactly what it says, will garner a disproportionate amount of influence. In contrast, even the largest players (including us) will sacrifice the lion's share of its influence if the other players on the global stage recognize a degree of unreliability in the actions of this global lion.

Is it really that surprising that even relatively small nations do not trust us (or in the case of adversaries, fear us)? Despite our overwhelming ability to coerce and destroy most potential enemies, we consistently demonstrate a lack of will to take lasting action in a long term, strategic sense. The global community recognizes that internal political costs in the US are too high for us to take any action that is overly controversial or costly in terms of our own blood (unless it occurs as a result of a major calamity, as in the case of 9/11). Sacrifice is not a word much associated with the modern US reputation, in contrast to the early cold war era at which time our sacrifices in the Second World War had temporarily secured our reputation for doing what was required to win.

Our influence is waning, but not for lack of ability. Rather, our influence declines from lack of stalwart commitment. I'm not suggesting that committing to bad policy decisions is morally correct, but I am suggestion that our enemies and allies take serious note when we reverse course, and judge us appropriately in a strategic sense.

Just my 2 cents.
-damon

|12.21.06 @ 10:14AM|#

For all the hostility that it provokes today, the U.S. is still likely to remain the default reservoir of assistance called on by a majority of democrats in their times of struggle.

Like those Democracies in Venezuela & Palestine we're assisting?

Listen Michael,

Promoting democracy is all fine and nice and will no doubt earn Bush points in heaven. But cheerleading and being appreciated for ideas is not the same as influence.

Influence comes from being engaged in real solutions and solving real problems rather than being seen as the cause of many of those problems.

Influence comes from having smart diplomacy and negotiation strategies rather than refusing to talk to people we don't like and telling everyone else "my way or the highway."

Influence comes from having leverage and using it to affect change rather than losing our leverage by advertising our weaknesses to the world and pissing off long-time allies.

|12.21.06 @ 11:43AM|#

The skeptics might, further, protest that the administration has pretty much abandoned its democratic project for the Middle East.

Not sure how you can abandon something you never embraced in the first place. The administration and the neo-cons never embraced democracy for the middle east. It was just the execuse de jour when all the other execuses fell apart. Case in point: the adminsitration's support of Abbas' (a loyalist) call for early elections in Palestine, but rebuffing Hezbollah's (an adversary) similar demands in Lebanon.

|12.21.06 @ 12:20PM|#

What you're saying, damon, is that our nature as a democratic Republic - ie, we change our policies based on "internal pressure" brought to bear on the government by the people - makes us a poor figure for permanent alliances.

George Washington and I agree wholeheartedly. We are no damn good whatsoever at this ruling-the-world stuff. It takes a nation with a character very different from our own to play that game, and we should just stay away from it.

We're not Rome. We've not Britannia. We shouldn't try to be.

|12.21.06 @ 12:38PM|#

Mr. Young,

Would you give your only begotten son for illiberal democracy?

I think I need to read the article again but basically what you are saying is: Iraq War II a disaster but a necessary one because the Islamic Brotherhood won a couple more seats in the Egyptian parliment?

Isn't Iran a stable, functioning partial democracy the US would be pleased as punch to see in Iraq, Syria? No because Iran isn't towing the US line, my bad, wrong democracy.

Even where our recent efforts to foster democracy have met with success and little bloodshed such as Ukraine or Georgia have largely turned out to be false dawns.

Also I recently heard reason mag. is a small l libertarian publication -- the article was engaging but even in the slightest libertarian from any pov?

|12.21.06 @ 5:55PM|#

Er...actually it was the Founding Fathers who opened the Pandora's Box of democracy. They wisely advised us to promote it by example, rather than by the sword. For two hundred years democracy spread resolutely across the western world, a pretty good example of what a good example can do.

Now, instead of seeing America as a good example of what democracy can do for you, the Middle East can look to Iraq as an example of what democracy can do TO you. Bush has cleverly proven the thesis of every dictator in the world and quietly driven the middle classes, who have the most to lose from chaos, into the arms of authoritarian regimes that guarantee them stability.

In other words, Mr Young has it completely backwards, as usual. Bush undid centuries of slow, steady progress by abandoning core principles of human rights and international law and replacing them with a shrill, narrow-minded view of all nations as imperfect Americas that must be reformed like schoolchildren. But it is human nature that a peremptory command, no matter how reasonable in another context, will be met with refusal. Try it on a stranger sometime. It's a good way to pick a fight.

|12.21.06 @ 6:40PM|#

I'm no expert, but I don't see the current Iraq war as having a strong long-term impact on global US influence.

The US and its allies won't remain in Iraq forever. After they leave, whatever happens in Iraq, US policy towards that country will probably consist mainly of diplpomacy, economic negotiations, and if necessary covert operations. Whatever the exact details, it won't tie up nearly as many personnel or as much resources as the occupation. So in the long run, the US won't have a large portion of its unavailable for emerging situations.

Iraq aside, the paradigm(sp?) in the middle east, and the international system at large, is likely to remain largely the same as it is now for the near future. I'm not too worried about Iran, since they're probably going to have a secular liberal revolution (whether violent or not) within the next 20 years or so. Other global changes, like economic development in India and China, increase the influence of other major players. However, that will happen gradually enough so the US can make any needed adjustments and there won't necessarily be an advesarial relationship between them and us.

|12.21.06 @ 8:49PM|#

Michael,

The alternative is that the U.S. might find itself with much less of a significant role in an Arab world now in the midst of defining its own future.

The Arab world has been "in the midst of defining its own future" for, oh, say, 200 years. Ever since the demise of the Ottomans was inescapable. Let me know when the they get "out of the midst".

But all in all, this whole Iraq experience might teach the US a needed lesson. Sure the ME has seen the limitations of what US power can do. But so have the American people. You can lead a horse to water, beyond which you are free to drown yourself in it whilst trying to teach said horse what the hell it ought to be doing with this whole "water" concept.


damon

the fact that we are willing to change course so readily due to internal political pressure makes us unreliable partners on the global stage.

I'm not sure how old you are, but what joe said. And what BG said too. The US has never been a reliable international partner, for all the reasons you list.


BG,

I'm no expert, but I don't see the current Iraq war as having a strong long-term impact on global US influence.

I think you've got it just about right on. Because our influence was never really due to our wars of conquest in the first place.



If US influence is going to decline, the more likely cause will be from us European-izing ourselves (and no, I do not admire modern European ideology in case anybody had doubts). Social security, socialized medicine, more welfare for the greater few, these things could damn near bankrupt us. As they almost have Europe.

Oh, and one other thing -- Al Gore & Co. If HillaryCare doesn't kill us, the next iteration of the Kyoto Protocol could.

My hope is that enough Americans are greedy enough bastards, that they won't let all this "The World Will End Warmly" hype do us too much economic and technological damage.