We'll call it FoPNoS or Fopnos for short.
Americans seem to think of the area of foreign policy as a realm of voodoo where arcane masters can ensure that every outcome is our preferred outcome.
And it isn't just Americans who can't find Syria on a map who think that turning Syria into a Utopia of liberal, western-sympathizing Arabs is just a matter of moral courage on the part of the President. It is supposedly informed sources as well. Like the editorial page editor of the Washington Post: "We have witnessed as close to a laboratory experiment on the effects of U.S. disengagement as the real world is ever likely to provide," says Fred Hiatt in a recent editorial (here).
The narrowness of perspective and the shortness of memory here are almost charmingly naive, until one considers how uncharming and hopefully un-naive an editor at the Washington Post ought to be.
If we start unpacking some of Hiatt's statements in this editorial it quickly becomes apparent that naive is actually just the word for his view on what foreign policy is and what it can hope to accomplish and what it has and has not accomplished in the past. First, to argue that Obama's foreign policy is one of "disengagement" is to say "my perspective runs as deep as the administration immediately prior to this one." From a historical perspective, Obama has been more or less normally engaged with the rest of the world.
Yes: He won election on the promise that he would disengage us from the essentially pointless war the prior administration had blundered into. And that means some things--essentially he ran on a platform that said "It is more important to get out of Iraq than to stay there for several decades while they try to puzzle out how to govern themselves."
That is an attitude the American people fully endorsed. Why? Because they don't really care about Iraq qua Iraq, and they never have. And let us consider the alternatives here . . . the clear implication of Hiatt's piece is that American military presence in Iraq would ensure that, much in contrast to today, all would be well. And we can't help but grant that things were pretty stable after the surge.
But when we consider what has become "The Legend of the Surge" we should remeber that the surge was exactly that--it was a temporary increase in troop levels. Without increasing the capacity of our military (i.e. a draft), troop levels were bound to decline back to the levels more like we saw in 2005, when Iraq was pretty much on the road to where it is today. American troops were useful in keeping things from getting completely chaotic, but the country was clearly on a path to out-and-out civil war . . . and what effect would THAT have had on our domestic political situation?
Iraq is not now a potential stable democracy. Full stop. At no point in the recent past has it been, in spite of the bullshit spouted by neo-conservative Kool-Aid tipplers. By toppling Sadaam Hussein, we set in motion a process that more or less left us with a dog's breakfast of options. Handing power to the Shiite thugs and getting the hell out was probably one of the better ones from our perspective. Staying there and suppressing any Sunni opposition the Shiite thugs might engender for the next several decades really seems an inferior option to me, and, certainly, the American people made it quite clear that wasn't an option they were interested in pursuing.
Are things going to go badly in Iraq? Yes.
But that's kind of like asking if the human rights situation in Iran is going to be dismal. Of course it is. But how, exactly, do you propose to improve on this situation. Things go badly in the world. Sometimes things go badly in the world and it's your country's fault because the prior administration was run by morons. But things going badly in Iraq isn't an argument against policy there--it is simply a consequence of the situation there. Critics are either delusional or deeply dishonest to think that merely pointing to Iraq's difficulties as enough in itself: they have to sketch out their alternative, and what their alternative does is put us in the middle of that civil war. As a participant. One should keep that in mind.
When ordinary citizens in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and elsewhere in the Arab world unexpectedly began agitating for democracy, the West might have responded as it did after World War II (with the Marshall Plan) or the fall of the Berlin Wall (with a commitment to a Europe whole and free). If the United States had taken the lead, Europe and America together could have offered trade, investment, exchange and cultural opportunities to help bring the region into the modern, democratic world.
But for Obama the tumult in Egypt and elsewhere was a distraction, not a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The West responded timidly and inconsistently, and the moment was lost.This is almost laugh-out-loud funny. The so-called "Arab Spring" is, no doubt about it, a historic moment. But the idea that stable, western-leaning, democratic governments could easily be built out of these street protests is, frankly, beyond absurd. The liberal element was important to these protests, but expecting the liberal element to be a central part of any democratic government in these areas is akin to expecting the United States to bring to power a political party dominated by transvestites in 2016.
Liberals in these countries represent a small, exotic-seeming, and in many quarters, hated, minority. They aren't going to be the basis of your political status quo without massive and continuing outside intervention. Not just monetary intervention either. I'm talking about shock-and-awe violence followed by occupation followed by a long, bloody, popular insurgency against the foreigners and their domestic sympathizers, who will all be rounded up and executed en masse the minute we withdraw support. Anyone who believes otherwise is, to be frank, an idiot.
The model behind Hiatt's assumptions here seems to be Poland or the Czech Republic. These countries did indeed represent a great opportunity when the Berlin Wall came down. Why? Because they had spend decades under actual or de facto occupation by the Soviet Union. The focus of their nationalist aspirations was the hatred of our traditional enemy. Running into our arms was the natural and popular strategy to ensure the end of oppression at the hands of the Russians. But what happened in Russia, where there was a considerable force of Western-leaning liberals (certainly a more considerable one than in Syria, say), but where WE were the popular, traditional enemy? The liberals and their "foreign values" were marginalized and a confrontationalist regime emerged.
The "Arab Spring" will naturally release a period of power struggle and score-settling, and one of the great figures against whom scores must be settled is . . . us. The Arab Spring is not going to result in the Tunisian version of the Polish government, no matter what we do. Where "The Arab Spring" manages to overthrow the last vestiges of the old oppressive regimes, we can expect chaos. Bloody chaos. Where it doesn't, we can expect, at best, an ugly and slow evolution toward a new status quo that is less dictatorial. We can't expect a whole lot of love from any regime that reflects the feelings of most people in those Arab Spring countries.
Any expectations or hopes for the Arab Spring countries that are more sanguine (as in hopeful, not bloody) that this are hopelessly naive. Libya shouldn't be judged against Poland. Libya should be judged against reasonable expectations for Libya, which frankly can't be very high from a domestic tranquillity standpoint and can't be very high from a fulfilling American national interests standpoint. There WERE no opportunities on those fronts. If you thought differently, you really have been wasting your time and privileged access down there, Mr. Hiatt.
Or, maybe he hasn't been. Maybe he's more or less returning the favor of all that privileged access by parroting whatever bullshit his neo-con friends choose to feed him while they're picking up the bar tab.
Now THAT seems like a more realistic scenario.