TIME FOR U.S. "BENIGN NEGLECT" IN THE MIDDLE EAST
The disarray in the Middle East after 14 years of fruitless U.S. military intervention is reason enough for the U.S. to disentangle itself from the region’s convoluted spider’s web and leave it to the affected countries to sort themselves out. Islam has been at war with itself literally from the moment of the Prophet's death in 632 CE to the present. There is nothing the uncomprehending West can do militarily to resolve an internecine religio-political quarrel of such depth and duration.
While the specialists in the State Department know a great deal about the Middle East, the war in Iraq revealed how precious little of that knowledge reaches the decision makers at the White House and the Pentagon. Consequently, U.S. policy for the Middle East is formulated with scant regard for its political realities, producing demonstrably disastrous results.
Time and again the U.S. and Europe have meddled in Middle Eastern politics, invariably with counterproductive consequences for both sides. A few examples:
The First British Afghan war which lead to the annihilation of the entire British expeditionary force in 1842
Mass starvation in the Middle East as collateral damage of WW-I
Invasion of Mesopotamia by Britain in WW-I, followed by the installation of a puppet government in the newly formed state of Iraq met by an unremitting insurgency prompting British retaliatory aerial bombardment of civilian population — a situation ultimately resolved by Britain’s withdrawal from the region 14 years later with nothing to show for it. (Sound familiar?)
The CIA’s overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953 eventually leading to the 1979 Iranian revolution and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran hostile to the U.S.
The support of the Mujahideen fighting the Russians in the 1980s leading to civil war in Afghanistan after the Russians pulled out, followed by the emergence of the Taliban from within the Mujahideen’s ranks and the quartering of al Qaida in country.
The U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan (now in its 14th year) producing no benefits whatsoever to the U.S. and the Afghan people, but rather considerable collateral damage and hostility among Muslims toward America. Very likely the Taliban will return to power with a vengeance once the U.S. withdraws.
The unprovoked U.S. Invasion of Iraq (a clear case of a war of aggression masquerading as a “pre-emptive war” to forestall the deployment of non-existent WMD’s, an objective later changed to “make Iraq a beacon of democracy” for a population incapable of governing itself democratically). Again, no benefit to the U.S. or the local population and resulting in considerable collateral damage and ongoing civil war, spreading to Syria with the rise of ISIS producing today’s massive refugee crisis. Thank you, G. W. Bush.
The 2011 overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya followed by civil war and general chaos, not to mention the assassination of the U.S. ambassador.
Viewing this record, any objective observer must conclude that the U.S. is unquestionably out of its depth in arrogantly attempting to forcibly reorder a religion-based civilization that predates American democracy by more than a millennium.
As long as the U.S. insists on “taking the lead” militarily in the Middle East, the neighboring countries will hang back and hold open the door. If instead the U.S. withdraws militarily from the Middle East, there are interested parties in the region, who, out of self-preservation, will fill the void. With millions of men under arms, these countries should be more than enough to deal with ISIS whose numbers are reportedly only in the tens of thousands. At the end of the day, it’s their damn fight, not America's.
If the U.S. persists in butting in militarily on what is essentially a series of civil wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and in other parts of Africa, it will:
Waste American blood, treasure in a futile attempt to achieve impossible objectives which have little or nothing to do with America’s vital national interests.
Fan the flames of Muslim hatred toward America, encourage the radicalization of ever-greater numbers of Muslims rallying to the jihadist banner, and put Americans at ever-greater risk from terrorist attacks at home and abroad
Risk irreversible escalation to all-out global religious war between Muslims and their traditional enemies, Christians and Jews, and, more broadly, the West.
Escalating the level of violence in the Middle East the U.S. will be met with increasing violence against Americans by a growing army of radical Muslims, both in the region and around the world. It is folly to imagine that the U.S. can force religiously-motivated radical Islam to back down by the application of “proportional response,” military force regarded as “acceptable” by current Western standards. Violence will be met by increasing violence until some outrage occurs -- another 9/11, this time with a dirty bomb, an EMP or a massive cyber-attack disabling the Internet and/or the power grid — and the gloves will come off. The standard of “proportional response" will change: Americans will howl for vengeance, persecute Muslims domestically and very likely carpet bomb large swaths of the Middle East. Far fetched? We should not underestimate American capacity for barbaric aerial vengeance when “the wolf rises in the breast" if history is any guide: think Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Hanoi and “shock and awe” in Baghdad. (Should this day come, articles like this one will be censored and their authors persecuted as traitors.)
The only way to prevent irreversible escalation to all-out, global war between Islam and the West is for the U.S. and its allies to withdraw and DE-ESCALATE so as to defuse widespread Muslim rage against the West, leaving the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds to duke it out without Western interference. ISIS’ appeal to jihad will be far less effective if it doesn’t have the U.S. military involvement in the region as the pretext for jihad, but is left only with a dubious call to arms against brother Muslims. Faced with waning recruitment and overwhelming opposition on the ground from neighboring countries filling the power vacuum left by Western withdrawal, ISIS will either be destroyed or forced to the negotiating table. This is Islam’s war with itself and only Islam can resolve it. U.S. intervention merely prolongs the conflict and impedes such resolution.
The choice is clear: continue to escalate the level of violence in the region and risk all-out, global religious war, or de-escalate so as to take the wind out of the sails of the jihadi movement and create an opportunity for Islam to resolve its differences without Western interference. It is hard for Americans to resist the impulse for military engagement and revenge in the face of ISIS' gruesome provocations, particularly when majorities in Congress are funded by the military-industrial complex. But we must recognize that eliciting such knee-jerk response is precisely the reason for such provocation, intended to draw recruits to the jihadi banner and provide motivation for the jihadi cause. Accordingly, U.S. “Benign Neglect” should be the order of the day and only the actions of an engaged, organized and informed electorate can bring it about. (See “Occupy Theaters.”)
While I am sympathetic to the plight of the Middle Eastern refugees, we must recognize that Western participation in the violence of the region is a catalyst provoking the refugee crisis. It follows, then, that Western military disengagement in the region will help resolve it. Moreover, there are better ways of handling the refugee situation than by Europe and the U.S. reluctantly offering asylum to millions of displaced Muslims who, in the event of a global religious war, will willingly or unwillingly become enemies of the host countries. Instead, the West should make Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon an offer they can’t refuse: immediate, massive aid to provide for the millions of refugees now in their countries — not just immediate needs of food, shelter, clothing and medical care, but resources to make the refugees productive in providing for their own needs (building shelter and infrastructure) and in creating useful goods and services to the host countries as a means of earning their keep. We should recognize that Syria, in particular, was a modern nation with an educated, productive workforce and highly developed infrastructure
(See:https://www.dropbox.com/sh/m3jzcmnuiast9yv/AAC0WcWIr5JnjUxFTa_yZnYba?dl=0)
Accordingly, with appropriate funding and organization, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon could come to view the Syrian refugees, as assets, not liabilities (just as the U.S. has done with past waves of immigrants). It is within the West’s power to make the welcoming of Syrian refugees a profitable enterprise for the neighboring countries, obviating the need for potentially disruptive resettlement in Europe and the U.S., while positioning the refugees to return to their countries of origin when eventually order is restored there. It’s a winning solution for all involved parties.
It is time for the U.S. to recognize and acknowledge the futility of its demonstrably failed militaristic policies in the Middle East, to abandon its Orwellian policy of war as the instrument of peace, and think outside the box by developing and implementing imaginative, constructive policies to resolve, rather than continuing to aggravate, the Middle East's predicament.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” “The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”“He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.”
Sun Tsu “The Art of War”