What's 'funny' is that Republicans offer no foreign policy solutions, and often trip over themselves defending what the Bush Administration did 11 years ago. Obama may be unpopular for his disengagement from the Middle East... but what is the actual alternative? How do you fix the sectarian nightmare that Bush unleashed, besides throwing American bodies and treasure at it?
IMO, four big questions should guide American foreign policy in the Middle East.
1. Are the government’s actual and intended policies compatible with U.S. interests and those of U.S. regional allies/is there opportunity to influence them in a favorable direction?
2. Does the government have the potential to be stable or to have sustainable rule?
3. What role does the government play in the region’s balance of power?
4. Will the government treat its people in a reasonable fashion?
The first question determines the direction of U.S. bilateral policy. The second determines whether military or non-military aid is likely to be effective. The third determines how much priority should be given to the relationship. The fourth is of lesser importance, but provides insight into whether the country’s policies are compatible with U.S. values, which can be helpful when advocating a sustained foreign aid or military assistance program. Recent military operations in Libya and appeals for military operations in Syria under the notion of a “responsibility to protect” do not satisfactorily address such questions. Absent true genocide, as defined in the Convention on Genocide, the U.S. should refrain from “responsibility to protect” interventionism. Libya did not meet that standard. Syria does not. Such interventionism is little different from regime change in Iraq on grounds that it would expand the sphere of democracy, one of the number of arguments that were behind the 2003 war.
Regime change in the absence of the necessary ingredients for stable and democratic governance should not be expected to produce stable and liberal democracy. Revolutions are not always democratic in nature. Indeed, more often they are not. The Middle East is filled with complex sectarian fault lines. When an illiberal or authoritarian regime is challenged, often but not always by a repressed majority, it is very likely that the nature of the revolution is not democratic or liberal, even if appeals to democracy and human rights are made to try to secure assistance. Iraq offers one example where democracy failed to take root. Libya offers another. Given the internal factors in both countries, the post-regime change outcomes should not be too surprising. Syria would almost certainly add to that list.
Most of the Middle East’s instability results from authoritarian/illiberal regimes that have underperformed when it comes to achieving high living standards and opportunities for the full range of their citizens (due to their own sectarian biases), sectarian fault lines that divide societies, historic rivalries, ideology, and the region’s shifting balance of power. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is a minor issue in the scheme of those larger structural drivers. That dispute does not pose significant risks to Israel or other key regional U.S. allies. Disproportionate attention should not be focused on addressing that matter. A more realistic posture would involve standing ready to help mediate the dispute if or when the parties are ready, not trying to rush to a final settlement when the fundamental differences remain enormous. A step-by-step approach with smaller interim agreements would be viable and could pave the way for a future final settlement. Big diplomatic efforts should be focused where larger American interests are at stake. The biggest such regional matter concerns Iran’s nuclear activities. The second includes shoring up American regional allies to assure that the balance of power remains consistent with safeguarding their national security and interests. The third concerns mitigating the risks posed by the broader phenomenon of terrorist organizations ranging from Hezbollah to ISIS.
Finally, it should be noted that neo-isolationism does not provide an effective foreign policy. It represents abdication, even as the U.S. does have substantial interests in the Middle East and a number of strategic allies there.
