Posted: 09 Sep 2016 05:30 AM PDT
Sum up our failed Middle East policy in a nine-letter word
starting with an S. Stability.
Stability
is the heart and soul of nation-building. It’s the burden that responsible
governments bear for the more irresponsible parts of the world.
First you send experts to figure out what is destabilizing some hellhole
whose prime exports are malaria, overpriced tourist knickknacks and
beheadings. You teach the locals about democracy, tolerance and storing
severed heads in Tupperware containers.
Then if that doesn’t work, you send in the military advisers to teach the
local warlords-in-waiting how to better fight the local guerrillas and how to
overthrow their own government in a military coup.
Finally, you send in the military. But this gets bloody, messy and expensive
very fast.
So most of the time we dispatch sociologists to write reports to our
diplomats explaining why people are killing each other in a region where they
have been killing each other since time immemorial, and why it’s all our
fault. Then we try to figure out how we can make them stop by being nicer to
them.
The central assumption here is stability. We assume that stability is
achievable and that it is good. The former is completely unproven and even
the latter remains a somewhat shaky thesis.
The British wanted stability by replicating the monarchy across a series of
Middle Eastern dependents. The vast majority of these survived for a shorter
period than New Coke or skunk rock. Their last remnant is the King of Jordan,
born to Princess Muna al-Hussein aka Antoinette Avril Gardiner of Suffolk,
educated at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, and currently trying to
stave off a Muslim Brotherhood-Palestinian uprising by building a billion
dollar Star Trek theme park.
The British experiment in stabilizing the Middle East failed miserably.
Within a decade the British government was forced to switch from backing the
Egyptian assault on Israel to allying with the Jewish State in a failed bid
to stop the Egyptian seizure of the Suez Canal.
The American experiment in trying to export our own form of government to
Muslims didn’t work any better. The Middle East still has monarchies. It has
only one democracy with free and open elections.
Israel. Even Obama and Hillary’s Arab Spring was a perverted attempted to
make stability happen by replacing the old Socialist dictators and their
cronies with the political Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood. They
abandoned it once the chaos rolled in and stability was nowhere to be found
among all the corpses.
It might be time to admit that barring the return of the Ottoman Empire,
stability won’t be coming to the Middle East any time soon. Exporting
democracy didn’t work. Giving the Saudis a free hand to control our foreign
policy didn’t work. Trying to force Israel to make concessions to Islamic
terrorists didn’t work. And the old tyrants we backed are sand castles along
a stormy shore.
Even without the Arab Spring, their days were as numbered as old King Farouk
dying in exile in an Italian restaurant.
If stability isn’t achievable, maybe we should stop trying to achieve it. And
stability may not even be any good.
Our two most successful bids in the Muslim world, one intentionally and the
other unintentionally, succeeded by sowing chaos instead of trying to foster
stability. We helped break the Soviet Union on a cheap budget in Afghanistan
by feeding the chaos. And then we bled Iran and its terrorist allies in Syria
and Iraq for around the price of a single bombing raid. Both of these actions
had messy consequences.
But we seem to do better at pushing Mohammed Dumpty off the wall than at
putting him back together again. If we can’t find the center of stability,
maybe it’s time for us to embrace the chaos.
Embracing the chaos forces us to rethink our role in the world. Stability is
an outdated model. It assumes that the world is moving toward unity. Fix the
trouble spots and humanity will be ready for world government. Make sure
everyone follows international law and we can all hum Lennon’s “Imagine”.
Not only is this a horrible dystopian vision of the future, it’s also a silly
fantasy.
The UN is nothing but a clearinghouse for dictators. International law is
meaningless outside of commercial disputes. The world isn’t moving toward
unity, but to disunity. If even the EU can’t hold together, the notion of the
Middle East becoming the good citizens of some global government is a fairy
tale told by diplomats while tucking each other into bed in five-star hotels
at international conferences.
It’s time to deal with the world as it is. And to ask what our objectives
are.
Take stability off the table. Put it in a little box and bury it in an
unmarked grave at Foggy Bottom. Forget about oil. If we can’t meet our own
energy needs, we’ll be spending ten times as much on protecting the Saudis
from everyone else and protecting everyone else from the Saudis.
Then we should ask what we really want to achieve in the Middle East.
We want to stop Islamic terrorists and governments from harming us. Trying to
stabilize failed states and prop up or appease Islamic governments hasn’t
worked. Maybe we ought to try destabilizing them.
There have been worse ideas. We’re still recovering from the last bunch.
To embrace chaos, we have to stop thinking defensively about stability and
start thinking offensively about cultivating instability. A Muslim government
that sponsors terrorism against us ought to know that it will get its own
back in spades. Every Muslim terror group has its rivals and enemies waiting
to pounce. The leverage is there. We just need to use it.
When the British and the French tried to shut down Nasser, Eisenhower
protected him by threatening to collapse the British pound. What if we were
willing to treat our Muslim “allies” who fill the treasuries of terror groups
the way that we treat our non-Muslim allies who don’t even fly planes into
the Pentagon?
We have spent the past few decades pressuring Israel to make deals with
terrorists. What if we started pressuring Muslim countries in the same way to
deal with their independence movements?
The counterarguments are obvious. Supply weapons and they end up in the hands
of terror groups. But the Muslim world is already an open-air weapons market.
If we don’t supply anything too high end, then all we’re doing is pouring
gasoline on a forest fire. And buying the deaths of terrorists at bargain
prices.
Terrorism does thrive in failed states. But the key point is that it thrives
best when it is backed by successful ones. Would the chaos in Syria, Nigeria
or Yemen be possible without the wealth and power of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
Iran? Should we really fear unstable Muslim states or stable ones?
That is really the fundamental question that we must answer because it goes
to the heart of the moderate Muslim paradox. Is it really the Jihadist who is
most dangerous or his mainstream ally?
If we believe that the Saudis and Qataris are our allies and that political
Islamists are moderates who can fuse Islam and democracy together, then the
stability model makes sense. But when we recognize that there is no such
thing as a moderate civilizational Jihad, then we are confronted with the
fact that the real threat does not come from failed states or fractured
terror groups, but from Islamic unity.
Once we accept that there is a clash of civilizations, chaos becomes a useful
civilizational weapon.
Islamists have very effectively divided and conquered us, exploiting our
rivalries and political quarrels, for their own gain. They have used our own
political chaos, our freedoms and our differences, against us. It is time
that we moved beyond a failed model of trying to unify the Muslim world under
international law and started trying to divide it instead.
Chaos is the enemy of civilization. But we cannot bring our form of order,
one based on cooperation and individual rights, to the Muslim world. And the
only other order that can come is that of the Caliphate.
And chaos may be our best defense against the Caliphate.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment