Wishful thinkers who had expected President Barack Obama to lay out a new U.S. grand strategy for the Middle East -- the so-called Obama Doctrine -- during his much-anticipated address at the State Department on Thursday were bound to be disappointed.
That post-1945 American presidents were able to enunciate a series of U.S. "doctrines" to help mobilize support at home and abroad for American policy in the Middle East reflected a reality in which Washington -- driven by pressures of the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict -- was advancing a set of core strategic goals that seemed to be aligned with U.S. interests and values.
The "good guys" deserving U.S. protection and support were the "moderate" Arab regimes that were supporting American (and Western) interests, providing access to the region's oil resources, and seeking some form of coexistence with Israel. In that context, it is important to remember that until the administration of President George W. Bush started advancing its Freedom Agenda, no administration declared that spreading democracy was a core U.S. interest in the region.
The current political upheaval in the Middle East is just the latest and most dramatic in a series of changes that have been transforming the region since the end of the Cold War and that are making it more difficult for any U.S. president to articulate a set a principles that could guide policy in an area of the world that has been drawing in more U.S. military and economic resources.
Indeed, Obama's speech only helped to demonstrate the failure on the part of the president and other officials and lawmakers to provide a clear rationale for U.S. intervention in the Middle East. Hence, Obama was trying to draw the outline of a revisionist narrative in which the goals of the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia were aligned with U.S. interests and values -- despite the fact that the demonstrators there ended up ousting from power staunch pro-American allies.
And while most Americans would probably applaud Obama's call for protecting individual rights, freedom of religion, the emancipation of women, and the promotion of free markets in Egypt and other Arab countries, there are no indications that the majority of the people who are driving the change that supports these principles.
If anything, considering the findings of several opinion polls conducted in the Middle East, Arab governments who will be more responsive to their people's aspirations are probably going to be less inclined to move in the direction set by Obama and to embrace policies that will be less favorable to the interests of the U.S. and Israel.
Reiterating -- as Obama did in his speech -- that the collapse of the authoritarian regimes in the region doesn't have to lead to civil wars between religious, ethnic and groups sounds nice. But the experience of Iraq -- not to mention Lebanon -- suggests otherwise, especially as the struggle between Sunnis and Shiites seems to be spilling over into Bahrain and the rest of the Persian Gulf.
And while in Iraq U.S. policies are helping to put in place a Shiite-led government with ties to Iran, in Bahrain Washington is backing the Saudis in their effort to suppress a Shiite revolt backed by Iran.
In fact, the alliance between the U.S. and the Saudi Arabian theocracy -- less democratic than Syria, more corrupt than Libya, the purveyor of radical Islamic values, where women and non-Muslims have no political and other rights -- makes a mockery of much of what Obama was saying on Thursday.
Moreover, Obama's address on Thursday also highlighted what could be construed as a paradox. The more American military and financial commitments in the Middle East keep rising the more the U.S. becomes marginalized in the process.
Indeed, contrary to the hopes articulated by some Arabs and Israelis, Obama's speech did not amount to the kind of "game changer" that could bring back to life the dormant Palestinian-Israeli peace process. There is very little that the Obama administration could do to change the status-quo in Israel/Palestine. Why pretend otherwise?
Well, perhaps because Obama believes that he does not have any other choice but to continue muddling through in the Middle East from which the U.S. will not be able to extricate itself anytime soon. Hence, Obama's disjointed response to the upheaval in the Arab World: Grudgingly supporting the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, unenthusiastically backing limited military action in Libya, projecting a nuanced attitude to the unrest in Bahrain, and confounding supporters and opponents in Washington and in the Middle East who tend to project into him the respective fantasies (peacemaker) or nightmares (anti-Israeli).
That may not a doctrine. But then that is not too bad if you consider that his predecessor in office had one. With the single-minded determination required to prevail in ideological combat, W. saw the world through the prism of a Great Idea -- the struggle between Good and Evil -- and tried to impose it on a the complex reality of Iraq where the ethnic and religious identities took precedence over notions of democracy and liberalism.
Obama should be praised for recognizing that what is happening in the Middle East may follow neither the model of Iran in 1979 (radical Islam) nor the outline of Eastern Europe in 1989 (liberal democracy), but could instead generate a mishmash of changes that don't fit into a linear and coherent pattern. But at some point, the costs of his ad-hocish and accommodating responses to the developments in the region could prove too high to sustain in the long run.
Follow Leon T. Hadar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/leonhadar
Alon Ben-Meir: Defying the Rules of Conflict Resolution
The speech has only one purpose: marginalize the democratic sentiments of people across the region by throwing them a hollow bone, while drumming up the sectarian cold war Washington wants to settle on the ME between the Saudi lead "sunnis" and Iran led "Shia." That's the ultimate goal, and the only way we can justify continued presence in the region.
That is the reason why the speech contained no real "doctorine." It's fine the way things are.
For how long are we going to keep hearing that "this guy is OK -- because Bush was worse"? If that's the basis of Obama's claim to leadership, it is certainly not enough for me. Yes, Bush had a doctrine; it might have been the wrong doctrine, or the right doctrine wrongly implemented. But "better not to have a doctrine" is a foolish conclusion. It's not having a doctrine which brought us to the situation where USA is playing catch up with the events, rather than influencing them. It is NOT a good thing either for USA or for the world.
This comment puts the rest of the piece in context... i.e. "who cares if they were despots...," right?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/160812/obama-gives-major-middle-east-speech-region-still-listening
The fact that the the UK and the US have been able to suppress the restructuring for almost 100 years is actually remarkable.
Most of the current political structures in the ME do NOT reflect the will of the people , but are unwanted artifacts of the Turk/UK/US colonial period.
Some examples:
- Lebanon, until recently, had a completely minority government due to vestiges of the French rule. Now the government is closer to being representative of the population. Once Hezbollah fully takes power and the other factions of the population have only minority representation then the government will truly reflect the will of he majority.
- Iraq now has an elected majority government instead of a US puppet minority government. Sure the minority had to be forced to give up power, but in the long run it will be good for Iraq.
- Egypt is now forming a majority government that is now a UK/US puppet.
Over time, similar things will happen in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, although both leaders appear to be smart enough to restructure their countries without getting thrown out of power. But as a result,they will still have to become much more anti-US and Israel. Syria seems to be headed to a short civil war, but the new leadership will continue to be very anti-US and Israel.
The bottom line is the ME is becoming a dangerous place for the US.
Right you are! I'd add: The Middle East
is also becoming more dangerous for:
-- Arab liberals
-- religious minorities
-- journalists
-- bloggers
-- women (at least those who leave the home)
-- leftists (including old-fashioned Arab socialists)
-- poor people
-- long-suffering NGOs
And especially:
-- anyone who needs to eat and
would prefer to keep their bowels and blood
from spilling out onto the pavement.
Regional changes are forcing shifts in US policy.
Don't mean those changes are necessarily all good.
Translation:
"Once Hezbullah (an Iranian and Syrian proxy army)
finishes the conquest of Lebanon, the Lebanese
will be occupied, yet again.
This new government will suppress those Lebanese who refuse
to work with them, yet again.
Hezbullah will, however, represent
the will of the majority of the mullahs in Iran."
That's a good thing, I suppose....
for everyone but the Lebanese.
(I hear the other Sunni states are also not keen on the prospect.)
For a baby step starter, The US could stop aping the Israeli tactic of unilateral, unequivocal pre-conditions to negotiations - as if the negotiations themselves are conceived as the equivalent of a live hostage taking situation. The very idea of "first drop your weapons, then we'll talk" is ludicrous as a practical demand, as there is automatically nothing to talk about. The big guy just won. The actual, real, opposition thinks about this in terms of things like invasions, occupations, unimaginable carnage and destruction by other countries that will not just go home no matter how many times the lives taken in 9/11 are avenged. It says you are not serious about seeking negotiations but rather to confirm a continued escalation that was already underway, one aimed at maintaining the status quo - a constant effort to re-write the story so all the new ad hoc responses that are assuredly coming are interpreted through the new Blinders provided for your thinking safety.