America Will Win Either Way

Obama feels antipathy toward America. He is a typical representative of the alienated elites: the highly educated who love all cultures in the world except for their own. Such people can be found in New York and probably in Warsaw as well. Magdalena Rittenhouse interviews Edward N. Luttwak.

Magdalena Rittenhouse: Has Obama’s administration really made a serious mistake in the Middle East?

Edward N. Luttwak: Yes, a number of mistakes, actually. Everything we did in the Middle East since 2003 has been a mistake regardless of who was shaping the U.S. foreign policy — that is, “hawks” or “doves,” Republicans or Democrats. Everything is just based on the false assumption that you can go into any country, remove the dictator, promote democracy and control the situation. It’s a chimera. It seems sensible to refrain from taking any action. You cannot do anything about the current situation in the Middle East. This region has been locked in a mental prison of Islam, making any effort pointless. You need to wait until the emotions have calmed down. Any intervention from outside will produce counterproductive results.

So, should the U.S. completely withdraw from the region? There are people who argue that a passive attitude toward the conflict in Syria is a mistake. The Washington Post reports that the weapons sent secretly by America go to the extremists rather than to the moderate Syrian opposition — the ones which we intend to support.

No, Obama’s minimalism is a good strategy here. A hope that Syria will introduce democracy — and that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey will help in achieving it — is another delusion.

But Russia, Iran and Israel pursue their own interests in Syria. It is, to a great extent, a red herring war.

Actually, not to a great extent, but completely. It is a war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Russia has decided to support the latter. On their part, this is not an attempt to bring about some major changes in the Middle East, but rather the desire to maintain their influence in Syria. Russia does not have any key strategic interests there. It just cares about what it already has.

Obama began his presidency with the famous speech in Cairo. He promised a breakthrough in relations with the Islamic world. Do the current events prove the “doctrine of Cairo” to be a failure?

It was a serious mistake to apologize for America after 9/11, when it was Muslims who used violence. It is not true that a handful of people have done this. I was in Tunis at that time and watched the reaction of the higher echelon of that society: The educated people associated with the West drinking wine. They danced and sang with joy! I consider apologizing to the Islamic world, as Obama did in Cairo, to be inexcusable. Second is the issue of promoting democracy in the Arab world, which ultimately led to the downfall of Mubarak in Egypt. Whenever somebody intervenes in a more or less open way — the most natural thing in the world when you are one of the world powers — you must start at a minimum, which is the belief that you can achieve something realistic. In the Middle East, however, you cannot have it. That region is impossible to control. You come with good intentions, yet the results are bad.

Edward N. Luttwak (b. 1942) is a political scientist and economist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. He is a well-known conservative and the author of a number of books on politics and the international economy. He was U.S. President George H.W. Bush’s adviser. His latest book on China’s place in the modern world, “The Rise of China vs. The Logic of Strategy,” is to be released in November.