Strategic Scribbles: The US and the Islamic World
Gerald Seib, a veteran political columnist and former Middle East correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, is always an informative reference for what is going on in the heads of the Washington establishment. Seib could generally be described as an impartial analyst among strident ideologues. He contributed to the debate concerning the Middle East with a column entitled “How Should U.S. Deal with the Islamic World.”
Clearly the debate was intensified by the recent anti-Western protests in the Islamic world and the assassination of the U.S. diplomat in Libya. In Seib's thinking the protests in the wake of the release of a crude video made in California ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed are signs of deep anti-American sentiment and of a vast ignorance of the realities of American life (basically holding the American government responsible for what has been done within the private sphere of freedom of expression).
How should one react? Successive American governments (Republican and Democrat) have used military force against Islamic adversaries and at the same time supported nascent democratic movements that have, as has now become clear for better or worse, empowered Islamic leaders. The question concerns what degree of assertiveness America should take with the governments being forged out of the Arab Spring, and also with the governments of previously established countries such as Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In Seib's narrative, to simplify, there are three options:
1) Drop out of the Islamic world. The anti-American hatred will not soften and the tendency is now toward becoming less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
2) Try to import American values and interests.
3) Tolerate these new leaders, even while they are hostile, because no better option exists for American interests.
In simplistic terms, isolationists (today entrenched in the tea party), favor the first option. Mitt Romney and the Republicans are sympathetic to the second, while Obama and the Democrats favor the third. The establishment rejects the first option and the question is if there will be compromises between the second and third depending on the results of the presidential and congressional elections.
A large question in the debate regards the validity of supporting despotic Islamic governments in resisting extremism in this time of transition, even if these governments are not ideal for American values and interests.
Another analyst who well reflects the conversation of the political establishment (in this case, global), is Philip Stephens of the newspaper The Financial Times. He makes an interesting contribution to the debate. According to Stephens, the U.S. needs to continue as the most powerful nation, and with an air of exceptionalism, whether under a re-elected Obama administration or under the new leadership of Romney. “USA! USA! USA!” is chanted with more force by the Republicans, but also intoned by the Democrats.
It will be ever more difficult for the U.S. to control world events (and not just in the Middle East). The American superpower will act in a more cautious manner (and here the isolationists' warnings about the necessity of more fiscal rigor makes sense and makes them seem less delusional). One can see the smaller appetite in American public opinion for military excursions, such as those is Afghanistan and Iraq.
A country with the U.S.’s geographic advantages, its natural resources, internal dynamism and capacity to rebound can afford an imperial retraction. With this North American retraction and with other powers in more elevated positions of power, the scenery in the coming decades will be patched multinationalism. We can visualize, for this reason, a vacuum of power, turbulence and the reluctance of allies and rivals of the U.S. to assume responsibilities.
We will have more competition, insecurity and instability with the incapacity of the U.S. to be guarantors of international order in its new selective role. Philip Stephens concludes that Pax Americana has its flaws, but its critics will lament its departure.
Clearly the debate was intensified by the recent anti-Western protests in the Islamic world and the assassination of the U.S. diplomat in Libya. In Seib's thinking the protests in the wake of the release of a crude video made in California ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed are signs of deep anti-American sentiment and of a vast ignorance of the realities of American life (basically holding the American government responsible for what has been done within the private sphere of freedom of expression).
How should one react? Successive American governments (Republican and Democrat) have used military force against Islamic adversaries and at the same time supported nascent democratic movements that have, as has now become clear for better or worse, empowered Islamic leaders. The question concerns what degree of assertiveness America should take with the governments being forged out of the Arab Spring, and also with the governments of previously established countries such as Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In Seib's narrative, to simplify, there are three options:
1) Drop out of the Islamic world. The anti-American hatred will not soften and the tendency is now toward becoming less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
2) Try to import American values and interests.
3) Tolerate these new leaders, even while they are hostile, because no better option exists for American interests.
In simplistic terms, isolationists (today entrenched in the tea party), favor the first option. Mitt Romney and the Republicans are sympathetic to the second, while Obama and the Democrats favor the third. The establishment rejects the first option and the question is if there will be compromises between the second and third depending on the results of the presidential and congressional elections.
A large question in the debate regards the validity of supporting despotic Islamic governments in resisting extremism in this time of transition, even if these governments are not ideal for American values and interests.
Another analyst who well reflects the conversation of the political establishment (in this case, global), is Philip Stephens of the newspaper The Financial Times. He makes an interesting contribution to the debate. According to Stephens, the U.S. needs to continue as the most powerful nation, and with an air of exceptionalism, whether under a re-elected Obama administration or under the new leadership of Romney. “USA! USA! USA!” is chanted with more force by the Republicans, but also intoned by the Democrats.
It will be ever more difficult for the U.S. to control world events (and not just in the Middle East). The American superpower will act in a more cautious manner (and here the isolationists' warnings about the necessity of more fiscal rigor makes sense and makes them seem less delusional). One can see the smaller appetite in American public opinion for military excursions, such as those is Afghanistan and Iraq.
A country with the U.S.’s geographic advantages, its natural resources, internal dynamism and capacity to rebound can afford an imperial retraction. With this North American retraction and with other powers in more elevated positions of power, the scenery in the coming decades will be patched multinationalism. We can visualize, for this reason, a vacuum of power, turbulence and the reluctance of allies and rivals of the U.S. to assume responsibilities.
We will have more competition, insecurity and instability with the incapacity of the U.S. to be guarantors of international order in its new selective role. Philip Stephens concludes that Pax Americana has its flaws, but its critics will lament its departure.