Thousands of American soldiers have died and continue to die in Afghanistan and Iraq. The country also faces a debt crisis caused in large part by defense spending. It would seem that from these obvious observations that America should stay out of the Middle East for a while. But in light of recent events, not getting involved might be harder than you think.

A month ago, President  Ben Ali stepped down in Tunisia, in midst of a grassroots social networking revolution.  Two weeks later, and it is President Mubarak of Egypt stepping down. Now leaders from Algiers to Tehran are feeling the heat. And as all this plays out, the U.S. is watching. Which revolutions do we want, and which do we not? No matter what the answer, the movement will challenge American foreign policy after the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Today, there are two basic ways a developed and benevolent country can go when it comes to foreign turmoil. It can stay out of it and hope the potential for regional conflict, repression, or genocide burns out like a camp fire. Or it can take action and risk international dissent, war, and nation building.

Why not withdraw our influence and return to pre-World War II type isolationism? China is growing in prosperity, and besides Tibet, has benefited from minding its own business. A handful of countries in Europe are relatively powerful and prosperous, and benefit from their neutrality and or isolationism. However, these countries are not as much enlightened with the concept of peace as you think. They just know that they can get away with doing nothing. They often know America will do the heavy lifting, so they sit back and let us provide some sort of order, with the flexibility to criticize us if things go imperfectly.

They also know that certain powder kegs around the world do not affect them directly. And by the time the chaos reaches their borders, someone in the international community would have long since addressed the issue. But what if America starts to sit some of these things out?

Many argue that even the most radical elements in the Middle East are justifiably agitated, and if left alone, would leave us alone. But it is fair to challenge that assessment. Insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq take shelter in and bomb civilian populations to disrupt benevolent security operations of their own police in the name of U.S. “occupation.” It is not unreasonable to think that people who would do that might find other anti-western hysterias on which to act out, even if there were not a single American boot in the eastern hemisphere.

The world is small now too. It seems that anyone with a computer, money, dedication, and an unhealthy dose of resentment and or hate can cause – excuse the term – mass destruction. Staying out of the Middle East, which is rich in radical ideologies and inappeasable western resentment, has substantial security risks.

In a perfect world there would be an effective global police force, and the U.S. would not need foreign policy at all. But nation states are intrinsically too diverse to create effective global institutions. Just look at the toothless U.N.

The reality is that there are no good solutions when it comes to the Middle East, just good judgment and cooperation. Judgment by the U.S. to make policy exclusive to each situation, dependent on the magnitude of threat, action, and inaction. For example, high threat, low investment situations should require action. Low threat, high investment situations should require restraint. And cooperation from other benevolent world powers to get more involved. Hopefully these countries keep an eye on the Middle East too, so Americans are not burdened with, then blamed for, the world’s problems.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: politics & government // Add Comment »