As most are undoubtedly aware, recent events in Iraq have rekindled the controversy over what role, if any, the United States should have in resolving what is, arguably, a sectarian civil war in Iraq. The widening conflict in Iraq and its virtually nonexistent border with Syria and its civil war all have the potential for disastrous consequences throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Watching the recent talk-show parade of past and present administration officials, think tank policy wonks, and political leaders is, at best, disillusioning and, at worst, horrifying. I don’t wish to initiate a pissing match or blame game so perhaps we can all just stipulate that “mistakes were made” by the previous administration and the feckless foreign policy of the current administration has insured that mistakes continue to be made. We are where we are, regardless of the whys and hows, so, to quote Hillary, “What difference does it make?” The question at hand is what do we do NOW.
It seems apparent that our previous efforts at limited military occupation coupled with counter-insurgency efforts and nation-building/democratization have been an abject failure. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. And as tempting as it might be to adopt an isolationist position and simply wash our hands of the whole fetid affair, the reality is the United States cannot allow fundamentalist Muslim extremists to secure a de facto independent state in the Middle East from which to stage operations dedicated to the destruction of the West, with the United States as ground zero.
And any real discussion of America’s possible responses to the current crisis require some deeper soul-searching with respect to what this country’s role should be in the more expansive current geopolitical environment. While certainly subject to debate, my assessment is that the neo-con vision of the United States sowing the seeds of democracy either at the muzzle of a gun or with a bucket of money have largely proven ineffective (see horse-water metaphor above). The cultural/religious/economic/demographic disparities throughout the world simply preclude the notion of a single political and economic system being universally embraced by all.
So what is America to do? Assuming most Americans are unwilling to acquiesce to a world-wide leveling off the economic playing field and the resulting precipitous drop in our standard of living as the rest of the world achieves equilibrium, how does the United States maintain its admittedly privileged status? Are we reaching the previously referenced “come to Jesus” moment when we, as a nation, must acknowledge the necessity of American hegemony in the world to preserve our existence? And are we willing to accept the consequences of that role?
If the country makes the decision that our survival necessarily requires the imposition of a global “Pax Americana,” are we prepared to dispense with the illusion of the United States always being the good guy and accept the consequences of being THE global superpower? For instance, let’s revisit Iraq. We’re not going to send the troops necessary to occupy Iraq and Syria; the American public simply won’t accept what would undoubtedly be an even greater sacrifice of blood and treasure than we have already endured. But it’s obvious the current situation cannot continue to deteriorate and inevitably spread. Are we prepared to shit can the notion of free elections and install a political leader who is going to toe the line while concurrently using our military might to crush opposition forces “with extreme prejudice” and heavy collateral damage?
And when fundamentalist Muslim terrorism groups predictably capitalize on our unilateral actions to recruit followers and take retaliatory actions against the United States and our interests, are we willing to forgo any semblance of proportional response and establish a policy of turning large swaths of the Middle East into glass when jihadists strike at us?
I’m thoroughly confused. I don’t see a clear way forward without the United States taking a real “gut check” and deciding what our role in the world is going to be. We cannot be a world leader and everybody’s best friend at the same time. The roles are incompatible. It seems increasingly clear that trying to be everybody’s best friend is a losing proposition. And being an effective world leader is going to require a rather significant and, for many, unpalatable rebranding of the American image.