When “Vision” Governs a Country

On the occasion of the midterm elections for Congress, I asked my American friend: What happened to President Obama? Even in the first year, it seemed that he was a prophet who came from the heart of history to rebuild the world anew and right the wrongs of his predecessor. He would leave Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuild the Western Alliance on the basis of engagement rather than unilateralism and restore the world economy to its former state of growth. His desire and hope for the resolution of the Arab–Israeli conflict was one of the steps meant to lead toward constructive relations between the Islamic world and the West. My friend replied that Obama truly was like the prophets — holders of messages. But when he emerged, he found no one behind him who demanded not only the existence of “vision,” but the sincere intention to make it a reality.

Politicians suddenly found the situation more ideal than they should. If their inclination was a regard for his goals, perhaps there would be a greater number of them on the left. His generals, too, let him down: They did not win the battle nor the peace. Iraq and Afghanistan reached a level of complexity, not only for the Americans but also for its allies who showed early financial and military stress. So the partnership took on a form in which America was the sole power in charge of convincing the world of this task. The economists at the big companies look as if they are willing to hide behind early profits, whereas lasting success requires patience, as exposure of the U.S. economy will lead to further declines even before it can return from previous losses.

The Arabs and Israelis wanted peace and yet no one was willing to pay the price. There were no Arabs who were prepared to make Israel feel the quality of the coming peace nor were there Israelis who believed that it was possible to achieve a settlement together. In contrast to the imagery following the Cairo speech, Muslims and Westerners have shown more signs of hatred than acceptance or satisfaction.

I was surprised by the response. It is an example of the political aspirations of people, in cases when a politician embodies those hopes through a “vision” — the finest, of course — and has the ability to promote that vision. People stood behind the president — that is, until they had arrived at their better tomorrow, happier and brighter than where they had lived before, or at least less miserable than they had known. In any case, it did not take long for the breathtaking image of Obama, whether it was winning in Washington, taking office or presenting his speech at the University of Cairo, to begin to fade away. But it was not lost completely from the minds of those who attended his address, despite the fact that it was the same message delivered by all who have shared his title. Certainly, there is a kind of uncertainty that haunts the academic and political writer who states that such comments cannot become reality and demands the same cynical reply that has long been the case. But this is certainly not true at all!

Discussions with my friend brought to mind again “politics” in general, and in our country in particular. First, there has always been doubt that it is possible to engineer the world in accordance with a particular “vision.” Perhaps the era of prophets has come to an end in any case. It was the senior George Bush who always spoke with such irony and cynicism: “Oh, the vision thing.” Here was a man accused that he had no vision regarding matters of the U.S. and the global arena following the end of the Cold War, and so he must have felt very foolish when he found himself speaking about the question of “vision” regarding the “new world order.” It was he who, unlike his son, spent practically all his life touring the world as ambassador to China, Intelligence Chief, Vice-President and then as president of the most powerful nation in history. All the while he held fast to the belief that politics is a process that goes according to circumstances stemming from choices rather than prior-held vision. Perhaps former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt had more courage when he mocked those who had pressed him regarding his vision, saying that “those who have visions should go see a doctor.”

In the end, is Obama not the antithesis of George W. Bush, or perhaps both — in their own way — were doomed to see their visions quickly turned into a means of mocking them? The U.S. administration during the Bush Presidency was characterized by ultra right-wing conservatives who construct their worldview according to the views of a group known as the New American Century. Their “vision” is characterized mainly by an ideological basis for international relations and the Bush administration in particular saw that one of the main threats to the U.S. comes from countries that are inconsistent with American values and principles, especially communist and non-democratic states. Further, there was a trend among neo-conservatives of the importance of regime-change in third world countries, particularly Arab and Islamic countries because their domestic policies and lack of democracy were seen to lead to the emergence of terrorism.

Hence, the “military stick” was used as one of the instruments of foreign policy in the post-9/11 era in the War on Terror (known as the Bush doctrine). This explains why the United States launched the war in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime in October 2001 and the war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Husein’s regime in March 2003. By Sept. 20, 2003, the features of Bush’s strategy against terrorism were clear as he stated that every country in every region of the world must choose whether they are with or against the U.S. (and by extension with the terrorists). From that point on, any state that continued to provide protection and support for terrorism would be considered a hostile regime to the United States. The result was that the administration had exercised double standards regarding the definition of legitimate resistance and terrorism. This is especially true in the case of the Palestinian issue where Bush saw, in line with the conservative stance, that the Palestinian Authority encourages terrorism and should not, therefore, stand in the way of Israel or its campaign because it is a similar campaign to that of the U.S.’ in Afghanistan. This trend began to introduce ideas, such as the control of the nations of the world within the framework of the “New American Century,” as well as intervention to rebuild states in what is known as the benign hegemony of the United States.

Bush’s ideas and tools are, in many cases, violent and ill-informed, whereas those of Obama are often soft and foolish. The dangers that await them both, however, result from their being prisoners of a “vision” of one kind or another, when in fact the situation is an intricate and structural one.