U.S. Policies: Their Success Is Good for Us … Their Failure Is Not

This is not so much a criticism of U.S. policies as it is an expression of the serious fears surrounding us Arabs and Muslims, our future and our national security. (Most threats nowadays explode in the Muslim Arab world.) To be fair, let us start with a positive point regarding U.S. policies in our region. The unique or isolated “achievement” — roughly speaking — of the American policy in the region in recent times is leading the allied forces in the operation to free Kuwait. It is a success for its own strong reasons. First, the crime of the doomed Iraqi regime was so blameworthy, unjust and heinous that no conscientious individual could stand it, which therefore made the whole world condemn and stop it. Second, the U.S. leadership at the time was very sophisticated in that they resorted to serious consultation — not unilateral decision — with the countries of the region and the rest of the world. This consultation was at the heart of persuading the Saudis, especially, to prepare their country to be a wide, active theater for the operations to free Kuwait. Were it not for the landmark resolution of the Saudi state, Kuwait would never have been freed. How else would the liberation have taken place, and from where? The third reason was the strong American determination to restrain Israel and prevent it from thrusting its nose and agendas into this matter. It is well known that every time Israel pokes its nose into something, it ruins it and brings about failure.

With the exception of this achievement, American policies have failed. Of concern here is that these policies have had complex and deadly ramifications on the countries of the region, on their security, their stability, their present and future. And to those who would like more evidence, the following political map, or chart of strategic security, is presented:

1) In Iraq, U.S. policy ended up handing authority to those it claims are its enemies or to those closely linked to these enemies, a state of affairs which raises some questions of serious “strategic embarrassment”: Did this happen with premeditation, or was it the result of the ensuing defeat? And is this the announced democratic model, which they allowed themselves to impose by military force?

2) In Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO forces are getting increasingly trapped in that quagmire, despite the lapse of nearly a decade since the war began, a war that is witnessing the strengthening of the Taliban day after day, which in turn forced Afghan President Hamid Karzai to hold secret discussions — coordinated by the U.S. — with the objective of sharing power between Karzai and the Taliban! The question is whether this is the promised democratic model, a model tarnished with internationally recognized, widespread election rigging. Is the desired social model that Afghan women open hairdressing parlors? Are the air strikes destroying houses and killing women and children for the sake of realizing this “hairdressing”? Of course, prior to the Karzai era there was financial and administrative corruption, but why has this corruption multiplied 172 times under a government taken care of and protected by the U.S.? Is it an indication of their success there that the Americans are loathed by 70 percent of the people they came to liberate? Are other signs of success those leaks, which say that the main solution to the Afghan crisis is to divide Afghanistan into pieces?

3) In Pakistan, the American frustration could not be more evident, as they entered into a relation of hostility with the Pakistani people due to the air strikes against civilians in villages and deserts, strikes aimed at terrorists but to which innocents fall victim. At the same time, there are an increasing number of terrorists who are taking advantage of this situation to recruit more youths to their cause, bitter youngsters recruited and thrust into the networks of bloody violence. After gaining the enmity of the Pakistani people, the U.S. is accusing the Pakistani army itself of “negligence” in the fight against terrorism! Under U.S. pressure, Pakistan joined the war on terror and is now facing political and security instability, which may destroy it one day. Then, no sincere apology or sorrow from the U.S. will be of use to it.

4) In Palestine, the Arabs have expected pressure on Israel so that it stops only its settlement program, which is a humble request compared to the other, bigger ones. They were expecting pressure on Israel, but instead the pressure is suddenly turned onto them, meaning pressure on Arabs to agree to the Israeli strategy, which is to disregard the issues of Jerusalem and the return of the refugees and to recognize that Israel is a “Jewish state.” In return for what? For a huge “zero” called “peace.” The bitter truth here is that the Arabs are to content themselves with a peace based on falsehood, injustice and aggression, a stand that has baffled U.S. officials. The New York Times published an article the day before that “the United States had offered Israel incentives, which ... officials said ranged from military hardware to support for a long-term Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley” in return for nothing.

5) Somalia is witness to the worst catastrophe. The transitional government there is surrounded by terrorism, which is obstructing its work. Somalia's future is clearly very bleak. The American mind has devised a new policy toward this afflicted country, which is to provide development assistance to two separatist regions, Somaliland and Puntland. This is a geographical and logistic prelude to tearing Somalia into pieces, especially in the light of intelligence stating that Israel is preparing to recognize both of them. The U.S. has left behind its heritage of unification and started supporting separatism in Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia... and perhaps in other countries whose turns will come sooner or later.

6) With regards to Iran, the idea of a war against it, whether started by by America or Israel, has been discarded. Political analysts observe that the U.S. is exhausted, to the point of being weakened, in Iraq and Afghanistan and hence cannot wage a new war even if it would like to do so. Add to this the crushing financial crisis — finance is crucial in war — and what is being said about a “secret love” between Tehran and the White House, a love required by "political secretiveness" or the diplomacy of “concluding deals in secret” to be concealed. In this respect, it is quite probable that the U.S. will bring changes to its considerations in a way that makes it a new ally to Iran, Syria, Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas — there are secret communications taking place between America and most of these parties. This possibility should be the subject of observation and serious study by America's other friends in the region.

In spite of all this, however, I would say that we must continue to interact with the U.S., but in a way that is determined by the following:

a) that America's actions have an impact on the state of affairs of the country by virtue of the complexity of relations, interests and mutual affairs;

b) that the issue of consultation be made as important as that of national security, which is not open to neglect or compromise;

c) close cooperation with the U.S. in everything that is likely to lead to the good of the country;

d) dissociation from “America's political mistakes” with regard to intelligence, making decisions and taking stands.