The Middle East Conundrum

Following the terrible attack by Middle Eastern terrorists in 2001, the United States has been involved in a “War on Terrori”.  Now, more than a dozen years later and at a cost of more than 57,000 U.S. dead and wounded, it seems reasonable that we should ask what has been accomplished.  Sadly, there is no convincing evidence that anything of enduring consequence has been achieved.  Both Iraq and Afghanistan appear to be slipping back into the terrorist dominated shadows that existed in 2001.  Some may argue that the killing or capture of important Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama Bin Laden represents significant progress in defeating terrorism.  However, others claim that there is an almost infinite pool of other Islamic extremists waiting in the wings to step in.  Certainly, when one considers the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, it’s difficult to feel pleased with our accomplishments and to justify the tragedy brought to the unfortunate 57,000 and their families.

I’ve been fortunate to have had the opportunity over the past few years to take part in a series of N.C. State University Encore courses on the Middle East taught by several particularly excellent instructors.  Don Dubay is a long time key advisor to Presidents, The State Department and our military.  He has lived in a number of Middle Eastern countries and has a profound understanding of the history and cultural complexities of the region.  Dr. David Champagne is an authority on Afghanistan who also has livid in the country and has had a distinguished career of advising the U.S. on historical and cultural factors important in formulating Foreign Policy and military strategies for that country.  Although these men are diplomatic in their statements and presentations, it’s clear, reading between the lines, that they are often frustrated by government officials not heeding their advice and warnings.  Without going into great detail, I would summarize the major lesson that I have come away with as follows.  The common trait that we often see in politicians is their propensity for pursuing their own agendas regardless of conflicting information, advice or logic.  This has been paramount in creating the morass in the Middle East and it has been true for most of the involvement of Western Nations in the Middle East for hundreds of years.  The focus has always been on the needs and desires of the Western Nations and not on the welfare of the people living in the region.  The result is a deep-seated mistrust and resentment that has been nurtured down through many generations of Middle Easterners and a fact that non-Middle Easterners still, for the most part, fail to understand.  The concept of “cultural relativism” seems to be very difficult to comprehend, particularly for politicians.

So after more than a dozen years, where are we now with respect to Middle Eastern objectives and the “War on Terror” in particular?  As with many political issues, goals and objectives are difficult to pin down.  Not only are politicians often reluctant to commit to specific goals but also even when specified they may simply be cover for shadow goals or hidden agendas.  We see this routinely with regard to domestic issues.  Politicians regularly parrot objectives favored by the voting public yet secretly maneuver, behind the scenes, pursuing a hidden agenda aimed at providing them with some personal gain, the true shadow goal directing their actions.  With regard to foreign policy, it’s not so much the U.S. voting public that is being deceived but rather other governments or the citizens of nations subjected to our foreign policy decisions.  In some cases even U.S. allies may be deceived.  In most cases the paramount reason for this deception is that the true goal of those formulating foreign policy is to gain some advantage for the U.S., strategic alliance, access to natural resources (e.g., oil) or some other local advantage over our chief adversaries, i.e., Russia, China, North Korea, etc.  In order to deflect attention away from such a self-serving goal, the publicly stated, although insincere, goal focuses on helping the local population.  Unfortunately, this has been the standard practice for most foreign powers engaged in Middle Eastern affairs for many years.  The result is that Western nations have little credibility in the Middle East, are not trusted and have been a major cause in giving rise to anti-Western movements, including Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

After the terrible terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, President Bush declared a “War on Terror” and it continues today with no sign of victory in sight.  Gains against anti-Western individuals (e.g., Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden) and terrorist groups such as The Taliban and Al Qaeda appear to be evaporating as we disengage our military forces from the region.  Why have we not been able to win the “War on Terror” and, more importantly, can such a war ever be won?

First of all, my feeling is that the terminology, i.e., “War on Terror” sets us up for failure.  Terror is a strategy, not a country or even a defined group.  It’s like declaring a war on violence or hatred.  In order to win a war, you need to defeat your specified adversary.  One can never totally eliminate a strategy or attitude.  You may be able to exterminate a terrorist group but you can never be assured that such a group or similar group will not reform.  In fact with such deep-seated resentment for the Western Nations and the U.S. in particular, the Middle East is a boiling cauldron of mistrust and hatred.  To make matters worse, it’s cloaked in the realm of a religious war, a “jihad”, pitting the Muslim world against the infidels, i.e., any non-Muslim religious group, especially the Jews and Christians.  We could potentially wage war for decades in the Middle East, killing scores of “terrorists” only to have them replaced by others as fast as we can kill them off.  As some have stated, “there are a million Osama Bin Ladens waiting in the wings for their own chance to lead the jihad and eventually die as martyrs.

So, with the pessimistic scenario that I’ve painted, what should we do?  My immediate “gut” reaction on 9/11/2001 was that we should isolate the “Middle East” from the rest of the world until they adopt fundamental changes, i.e., “encase them in plastic wrap” so to speak and require them to self-stabilize the region, adopt a more “civilized” approach to dealing with issues and denounce religion-based intolerance and hatred.  Concurrently, Western Nations under the leadership of the U.S. should have pledged to reverse the age-old colonialism approach to the Middle East and to treat the people of the region with respect and to support only those Middle Eastern Leaders who place the welfare of their citizens ahead of their own greedy lust for more power and wealth.  We should have offered the prospect of teaming with the people of the Middle East for the benefit of all.  However, for such a strategy to have been possible, all non-Middle Eastern nations would have had to agree.  I’m not sure that all such countries would have been willing to cooperate, Russia and China in particular.

Given that we didn’t attempt this strategy just after 9/11/2001 and we now have an additional 12+ years of clumsy intrusion on the record, we still need a major worldwide initiative with the objective of stabilizing the Middle East and bringing the entire region into the 21^st century.  This will never be possible unless all ethnic, political and religious factions see the end result as a benefit to them.  Our challenge is to devise a strategy for accomplishing this in today’s world.  It won’t be easy.  If, in fact, it is at all achievable, numerous monumental issues will need to be resolved.  It must be passionately desired by everyone involved and many compromises will be required.  For once, global interests must be placed ahead of national, regional, ethnic or religious interests. Will this ever happen?  I doubt it but one can always hope for a miracle.