Keeping Our Bastards Straights

I've seen a lot of bloggers mine Jeffrey Goldberg's Atlantic article on the future of Iraq for the hilarious section where he reports that Norm Podhoretz doesn't know what a Kurd is, but I thought I might say something about a more serious issue Goldberg raises. In particular, this near the end:

It is true that the neoconservatives’ dream of Middle East democracy has proved to be a mirage. But it’s not as though the neocons’ principal foils, the foreign-policy realists, who view stability as a paramount virtue, have covered themselves in glory in the post-9/11 era. Brent Scowcroft, President George H. W. Bush’s national security adviser and Washington’s senior advocate of foreign-policy realism, told me not long ago of a conversation he had had with his onetime protégée Condoleezza Rice. “She says, ‘We’re going to democratize Iraq,’ and I said, ‘Condi, you’re not going to democratize Iraq,’ and she said, ‘You know, you’re just stuck in the old days,’ and she comes back to this thing, that we’ve tolerated an autocratic Middle East for 50 years, and so on and so forth. But we’ve had 50 years of peace.” Of course, what Scowcroft fails to note here is that al-Qaeda attacked us in part because America is the prime backer of its enemies, the autocratic rulers of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

And indeed, both sides are right in this dispute between Rice and Scowcroft. But Scowcroft's point of view at least reaches a minimal standard of coherence. The Bush administration's strategy, by contrast, is a mess. You see that resentment over US support for the despotic governments in Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf is fueling anti-American terrorism and decide that the solution is to . . . keep supporting those governments and invade Iraq. After all, we support our clients for a reason so any modification to those policies would entail a cost. Iraq, by contrast, had been a regional adversary for quite some time. So why not support democracy by supporting it in Iraq? It's about on a par with worrying about gangrene developing in your right hand, but also worrying that you're right-handed and may not be able to write without it, so instead you decide to amputate the left hand and hope for the best.

Shockingly, it didn't work out.

But the point still holds. The US faces two different kinds of problems in Iraq. On the one hand, there are the geopolitical aims of revisionist powers like Iran and Syria and (back in the day) Iraq. On the other hand, there's the relationship between populist Arab anger at the United States and our dysfunctional relationships with sundry clients in the region. These are both thorny issues, but they don't get less thorny if you mix them together and decide to go for a double bankshot the way the Bush administration did.

Comments

Well, when you put morons in high government positions...you get morons in high government positions...

Posted by RKU | January 24, 2008 2:33 PM

But Scowcroft's point of view at least reaches a minimal standard of coherence.

What? Scrowcroft's point of view is asinine. "We’ve had 50 years of peace"? Really? Which 50 years were those?

For a "realist", Scrowcroft sure has some pretty unreal notions of "peace".

Posted by Al | January 24, 2008 2:35 PM

There's a lot more to criticize in that article than NPod'S sutpidity or Rice/Scowcroft dialogue. How about Jeffrey Goldbergs' breathless man-crush on Kurdish torturers? Is there a "no mockery" pact between Atlantic authors? The NRO is much more entertaining for the spats between JPod/Krikorian, Ponnuru/Frum, Ponnuru/Derbyshire, etc.

Don't just put the hate-on Russert, Matt. Work on alienating every important journalist in America with your incisive young-turk witticisms!

Posted by Ikram | January 24, 2008 2:38 PM

It's all a mess of an argument. It's not as if those who resent our support of dictators and authoritarians in the Middle East actually want to bring liberal democratic rule to the area. If you factor this in, it becomes immediately obvious that the realists are more right than you think, for any attempt to sacrifice stability for democracy in the Middle East is doomed to failure.

Posted by gregor | January 24, 2008 2:39 PM

You see that resentment over US support for the despotic governments in Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf is fueling anti-American terrorism and decide that the solution is to . . . keep supporting those governments and invade Iraq.

I don't think this argument is as incoherent as it seems (note that logical coherence does not entail being correct). Our options in the middle east were to prop up tin pot dictators, or to allow the Soviets to prop up their own tin pot dictators. While naive, the neo-cons believed that we can break the cycle by instituting democracy.

Posted by Justin | January 24, 2008 2:43 PM

....we’ve tolerated an autocratic Middle East for 50 years...

...keep supporting those governments...

...our dysfunctional relationships with sundry clients in the region...

I keep hearing vague phrases like these about how we "support" autocratic regimes in the region. I never hear specifics as to what this really means. Other than the billions we annually give Egypt (a legacy of Camp David), how do we support them? By buying their oil? What's the alternative?

If you answer by saying that we protected Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1990, that was a matter of protecting some autocratic regimes from a foreign threat from another autocratic regime.

And, if we don't like these regimes, how are we suppposed to stop tolerating them? What in the world would intolerance to autocratic regimes mean, specifically?

My hunch is that most people who use phrases like this have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. They complain about our "support" for these regimes because it makes them feel smug and self-righteous.

Posted by Jim W | January 24, 2008 2:50 PM

"It's about on a par with worrying about gangrene developing in your right hand, but also worrying that you're right-handed and may not be able to write without it, so instead you decide to amputate the left hand and hope for the best."

This is awesome. The Bush administration treats Freedom and Democracy like a punishment for countries that are being disobedient. Saudi, UAE are good countries, so no Freedom & Democracy for them. But Iran, Iraq, Syria? If you don't shape up, we're going to give you a Democracy.

Posted by roublen | January 24, 2008 2:52 PM

After all, we support our clients for a reason so any modification to those policies would entail a cost. Iraq, by contrast, had been a regional adversary for quite some time. So why not support democracy by supporting it in Iraq? It's about on a par with worrying about gangrene developing in your right hand, but also worrying that you're right-handed and may not be able to write without it, so instead you decide to amputate the left hand and hope for the best.

The old switcheroo, that's why. The goal is a democratic client, since democracy diffuses the populist anger, but you don't want to risk destablizing your current clients by pressuring them to become democractic, since you potentially could end up without any client states to work with.

So, you try to create a democracy by destablizing a state that's currently hostile while courting the internal opposition in order to set up a strong relationship with the successor government.

If it doesn't work, you still have your old clients and you don't feel that bad about the mess you created, since things there weren't exactly great beforehand. If it does work, you can up the pressure on your old client states, either for political reform or more help with other interest in the region.

To extend the hand metaphor, you're not cutting off your left hand. You're cutting off someone else's right hand and hoping that it is compatable enough that you can transplant it to replace yours.

I'm not endorsing this as a good idea (obviously, there's a substantial potential for chaos if things go wrong), but it does have a logic to it.

Posted by MattXIV | January 24, 2008 3:01 PM

If I got all my info from the news, I'd think the only foreign policy positions to be had were neocon, "realist" (make assumptions much?), or "liberal hawk."

Obama '08: Change in which we can believe.

Posted by David B. | January 24, 2008 3:28 PM

Jim W,

In addition to aid, which doesn't just go to Egypt, we also sell them arms (often at a discount), cooperate with their intelligence services (which often means helping them against internal threats), and flack for them in diplomatic settings.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that a major reason for hostility from Al Qaeda and ideologically-related types to the governments in question is that they specifically want to exclude non-Islamic influences from society, so relatively benign interactions by our lights (such as positioning troops in Saudi Arabia to defend against a potential attack by Iraq) are interpreted as an affront.

Posted by MattXIV | January 24, 2008 3:34 PM

It's about on a par with worrying about gangrene developing in your right hand, but also worrying that you're right-handed and may not be able to write without it, so instead you decide to amputate the left hand and hope for the best.

That about sums it up.

Posted by Shinyk | January 24, 2008 3:43 PM

I actually have to agree with Al. 50 years of peace, if you don't count all the wars and stuff.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | January 24, 2008 3:55 PM

The material that stuck with me when I read it (in my, for complicated reasons, wrapped in the new subscriber cover explaining about my very cool exclusive electronic access*) was the part where the neo-cons said that they were okay with instability in Iraq, if democracy didn't happen.

I happen to believe that this is the proximate goal--that the plan is to do within Iraq what they used to do between Iraq and Iran, preserve instability. In the inter-state case, they were trying to keep both sides weak and worried. In the intra-state case, they are trying to prevent establishment of a representative or legitimate ruling coalition, because such a coalition will toss out the Americans. Or at least, arrest and try the Blackwater people.

Posted by Jay Ackroyd | January 24, 2008 3:58 PM

Or at least, arrest and try the Blackwater people.

The innocent have nothing to fear.

Posted by Cyrus | January 24, 2008 4:09 PM

What? Scrowcroft's point of view is asinine. "We’ve had 50 years of peace"? Really? Which 50 years were those?

For a "realist", Scrowcroft sure has some pretty unreal notions of "peace".

It's all relative. The average day over the past 50 years prior to the Iraq invasion and the average day since.

If you compare them, the former ends up looking like something akin to peace. Which is more a testament to how severely we've messed up the region since the invasion of Iraq (and how much more the messing will continue) than an ode to the idyllic decades gone.

Posted by Eric Martin | January 24, 2008 4:11 PM

Well, the reasoning originally was that a (presumably pro-US) democratic Iraq would be our uber-client in the region, no? We'd eliminate one adversary while putting ourselves into a better strategic position for checking the ambitions of other regional powers, we'd be able to break away from the the dubious regimes we'd been dealing with elsewhere in the area, we'd presumably have a steady supply of oil, etc. I mean, as solutions go, it's pretty tidy. The problem with it was never that it didn't make sense, it's that it wasn't, you know, actually doable under the circumstances.

Posted by Matt | January 24, 2008 4:47 PM

It's all relative. The average day over the past 50 years prior to the Iraq invasion and the average day since.

If you compare them, the former ends up looking like something akin to peace.

Um, really? I doubt it. When you average in the Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I, all the Israeli-Arab wars, Lebanon civil war, Yemen civil war, Afghanistan wars, Ethiopian wars, Iraq-Kurd/Shiite massacres, Somali civil war, etc.

Posted by Al | January 24, 2008 6:03 PM

But Iran, Iraq, Syria? If you don't shape up, we're going to give you a Democracy.

"And it'll hurt me more than it hurts you."

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 24, 2008 6:14 PM

Jim W:

Let's say that the difference between US policy toward Iran and US policy toward Saudi Arabia is support. Then let's say that the difference between US policy toward Syria and US policy toward Jordan is support. Then let's say that the difference between US policy toward Egypt and US policy toward Hussein's Iraq is support.

Defined that way, 'support' means a wide range of policies ranging from modest transfers of technology, to privileges in the West for the ruling class (shopping and college for the kids), to the refusal to impose sanctions all the way up to the refusal to invade.

You're right that it effectively is a more inverted form of support. The US threatens its pet dictatorships that if they do not behave in ways favorable to the US, these dictatorships will be treated like the dictatorships the US does not like.

Still it is clear to everyone in the region that: the US supports Egypt (as compared to Syria, for example); that this support is in exchange for policies that are unpopular with the population and that likely would not be continued in a democracy; and that the repression the US popular dictatorships impose on their populations is partially orchestrated to maintain this US support.

Posted by Arnold Evans | January 24, 2008 7:30 PM

It's really not that complicated.

Everybody assumes these people are talking "for real" when they come up with these complicated notions of foreign policy.

They aren't.

It's just a cover for the real reasons - which are oil, war profits, hegemony, power, greed.

The rest is just a cover story - which is why it doesn't make any sense. Lies don't make sense. Remember how people say you shouldn't lie because you'll be found out when you can't keep the lies straight in your head?

That's US foreign policy for you.

It's that simple. When Condi Rice talks about "democracy", SHE IS A-LYING TO YOU. There may be some of these people, especially among the pundits, who are lying to themselves as well, but for the most part, the people in power are A-LYING TO YOU.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 24, 2008 7:52 PM

The arms we sell to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. are important in using violence or the threat of violence against their own people and maintain power (for this reason, a former African Union head thought that rich nations should only sell African dictatorships nukes instead of small arms and tanks because you can't use nukes on protesters in your own capitol city).

It is kind of ironic how arguably the 3rd and 4th most democratic countries in the region are the ones we either want to bomb (Iran) or we say nothing while Israel destroys its infrastructure (Lebanon).

Posted by Reality Man | January 24, 2008 9:11 PM

How despotic is the government of Jordan? By Western standards it's not very good. But by Middle Eastern standards Jordan is one of the freer countries of the region.
The quarrel that terrorists have with Egypt, Jordan et al is not they are despotic, but that they are (relatively) secular rather than theocratic. I doubt Al Qaida would complain about a government beating women for showing too much skin or executing people for blasphemy.

Posted by Jonf | January 24, 2008 9:20 PM

The problem isn't whether Al Qaeda is "despotic". The problem is that Jordan is despotic and Al Qaeda opposes them because of their ideology. And the real problem is that the Arab street feels that Al Qaeda is more "credible" than the monarchies in terms of what they promise the people and what they (might) deliver if they were in charge.

"Credibility" is the essence of Fourth Gen War, as William Lind repeatedly points out. Al Qaeda has it - the US doesn't. In Pakistan, bin Laden is admired FAR more than either Musharraf or Bush. It's that simple.

From the US standpoint, it doesn't matter that Al Qaeda is technically as "despotic" from OUR viewpoint as Jordan's monarchy. What matters is that the Arab street does not support OUR support of the monarchy. And from US national security concerns, what matters is that Al Qaeda does not approve of our support of the monarchies.

So what does our support of the monarchies actually buy us? Basically - nothing. It just seems that way.

If Al Qaeda ran Saudi Arabia, they would end up selling oil just like the Saudis do. And we would end up buying it (assuming we didn't take the trillion dollars we spend on war to protect our access to oil and spend that on removing our dependence on oil - which we could easily do if our "leaders" weren't owned by oil companies.)

It's that simple. The US has absolutely no need to "support" the Saudis or anybody else. The notion that we need to do that arose during the Cold War because we were afraid the Russian would parlay their "support" into being able to deny us the oil - which probably wasn't feasible either. The worst that would have happened was that the Russian would end up overthrowing the Saudis, putting in a puppet government like we did in Iraq, and then end up getting kicked out themselves as they were in Afghanistan. And that was only likely as long as "Islamic nationalism" was the driving ideology - as soon as that failed, Islamic fundamentalism became the driving ideology. And the Russians would never have been able to deal with that any more than the US has - look at Chechnya and Afghanistan.

The same solution would have sufficed - reduce our dependence on oil. And today we would find that even easier than we would have in the 50's.

In the meantime, if all we did was buy the oil and not sell weapons to the Saudis and Israel, and if we stopped supporting Israel to the exclusion of all else, Al Qaeda would forget the US existed and concentrate their ire on the Saudis and Israel. And why would we care about that?

There's no need to do ANYTHING in the Middle East except BACK OFF. We don't need to "export democracy", or "install stable regimes", or "conduct a war on Islamofascism", or any of that crap.

Just BACK OFF. Buy the oil and STFU.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 24, 2008 11:39 PM

Very well put overall point by Hack

The problem Al Qaida has with Egypt, Jordan et al - which is the same problem most Arabs and Muslims have with Egypt, Jordan et al - is that Egypt, Jordan et al either side with Israel or do not sufficiently side with the Palestinians in their conflict.

So it is an ideological dispute, but that is too broad. It is a specific element of ideology such that Nasser, an anti-Zionist secularist and Ahmadinejad, an anti-Zionist theocrat are both acceptable in a way that the Saudis, who are relatively pro-Zionist theocrats and Mubarak who is a relatively pro-Zionist secularist are not acceptable.

So if the US was to treat the relatively pro-Zionist regimes the same way it treats the relatively anti-Zionist regimes, it would not be accused of supporting the pro-Zionist regimes and drawing resentment from those opposed to those regimes.

That could either mean treat Saudi Arabia with the same hostility with which it treats Iran, or treat Iran with the same lack of hostility Saudi Arabia gets.

The gap in treatment which is correctly viewed as being based on the regimes taking the "wrong" side of the dispute over Zionism is what breeds the resentment and what is described as support for pro-US despotic regimes.

Posted by Arnold Evans | January 25, 2008 3:13 AM

There's a very simple answer to our problems in the Middle East: Go home. Both the neocons and the realists take a neo-imperial role for the U.S. in the Middle East, and in the world generally, for granted. A republic, not an empire.

Posted by Matt | January 25, 2008 9:14 AM

From a quick glance, it seems that Mr. Goldberg wants to carve up Turkey. However, he doesn't even seem to be aware of the fact that Turkey's current borders were not drawn by western powers. Good luck with all that.

Posted by gr | January 25, 2008 11:02 AM

Ah yes, sacrifice the Jew as the answer to the problem.

Why stop at the Middle East? Bring home all troops everywhere: Germany, So Korea and the rest. Retreat to isolationism. Fortess America. Allow the vaccuum to fill as it will.

That worked real well in the past.

Why are you all posting on this site when you have all the answers? Doesn't your country need you in positions of power?

Posted by Beer Here | January 25, 2008 1:15 PM

Beer Here ignores the fact that the US has never been isolationist, certainly not since WWII. And we got terrorism because of it.

And, yes, "sacrificing" Israel - what a "sacrifice", one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world and one of the most powerful military forces - is one of the keys to solving the terrorism problem for the US.

Yes, I have all the answers. No, I don't want to be "in power" in the state. I'd rather be "in power" outside the state.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 25, 2008 9:38 PM