Thoughts from Bernard Lewis on the problem with the administration’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East:
Is Egypt 2011 like Iran 1979? Lewis: “Yes, there are certain similarities. I hope we don’t repeat the same mistakes.” The Carter administration handled events in Iran “poorly.”
The Obama administration should ponder something, as should we all: “At the moment, the general perception, in much of the Middle East, is that the United States is an unreliable friend and a harmless enemy. I think we want to give the exact opposite impression”: one of being a reliable friend and a dangerous enemy. “That is the way to be perceived.”
Exactly.
I think we want to give the exact opposite impression”: one of being a reliable friend and a dangerous enemy.
I sympathize with the proposition, and we can probably do better, but it’s worth remembering this is only really achievable in a nondemocratic state, where you can have the very same ruling party, if not actual leader, for decades. A democracy will by its nature suffer significant and unpredictable changes in policy as its people make changes to their government. Furthermore, an open democracy, where the changes are widely debated, will inevitably have an international image considerably more chaotic than one in which policy changes are debated, if at all, in private.
On the whole, I prefer the old 19th century image of the United States as insufficiently centralized to exert any serious world leadership, except by example — but suffused with enough patriotism to come suddenly and ferociously together when attacked. Don’t Tread On Me, in other words, but unless you do we’ll just be sunning ourselves on the rocks, oblivious to the insane struggles overseas.
“At the moment, the general perception, in much of the Middle East, is that the United States is an unreliable friend and a harmless enemy.”
“A harmless enemy”? What color is the sky where Lewis is at? Maybe he should ask Saddam Hussein how harmeless we are?
According to the pundits on CNN, Obama has solved the Egypt problem by telling Mubarek not to run for re-election.
The millions protesting in the streets and the army turning against Mubarek had nothing to do with anything, it was all Obama.
Carl:
“A democracy will by its nature suffer significant and unpredictable changes in policy as its people make changes to their government. Furthermore, an open democracy, where the changes are widely debated, will inevitably have an international image considerably more chaotic than one in which policy changes are debated, if at all, in private.”
All true. But I’m pretty sure the nuance will be lost on the 7 million in Tahrir Square. Even if we were as clean as the (presently coming down in piles) snow, that doesn’t mean Egyptians get pure, utterly factual, demagogurey-free (sp) info.
But for the people of the US, it creates the opportunity for a public debate on whether we should subscribe to the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, method, whether it’s preferable – or even possible – to not deal with scoundrels on that basis, from time to time. And if we do, to what extent.
It’s a fabulous debate, a difficult one, and one the nation should have.
And on a lighter note:
“Is it better to be respected? Or feared? I say: Is it too much to ask for both?”
Tony Stark
Maybe he should ask Saddam Hussein how harmeless we are?
He’s not around to opine, because he was an enemy in an era in which it wasn’t harmless to be, though he imagined it was.
But I’m pretty sure the nuance will be lost on the 7 million in Tahrir Square.
Yerch. I despise this kind of patrician patronizing contempt for others. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that on average any one of those 7 million can handle just about as much nuance as you can.
How bout the United States should be friend of the people not of 1 person or the 5% that keep the rest down.
Though the rules of the game has changed since the cold war . There no longer the 3 legged stool in the middle east of capitalist leaning oligarchy , communist or Islamist that was around during Iran. The communist aren’t that much a threat anymore so don’t have to mandatory support the oligarchy as preferred or the Islamist as a backup lose-lose situation anymore.
Though will admit I am optimistically thinking that the Egyptian military will know better than to cave to the Islamist if everything turns for the worse. Didn’t work out too well for the Iranian military.
Carl:
When emotions run high nuance gets thrown under the bus.
But let’s see – go ahead down there now and try to explain to them your (as I said, all true) thesis on the messiness of democracy. Report back to us as to whether or not it made the slightest difference.
If your schedule won’t permit that, then maybe you can check out the paragraph I wrote right after on how you cannot assume they are getting the correct info.
I hope you recover from your “yerch” soon 😉
go ahead down there now and try to explain to them your…thesis on the messiness of democracy.
I think they’re experiencing the messiness of direct democracy right now, don’t you? I don’t think you or I have a thing to teach them.
you cannot assume they are getting the correct info.
But you are, right? You’re not being taken for a ride by, say, CNN’s coverage, because you’re a smart guy who reads the Internet, et cetera? Unlike those poor half-savage darkies in Cairo, who swallow whole every doofy proposition coming off the al-Jazeera wire. Makes you wonder a little why the Mubarak government thought it would be useful to cut off Internet and cell-phone service.
Gosh, do people in Egypt even know how to use cell phones? Maybe the kind with really big number keys and a simplified menu, that they hawk to seniors afraid of living alone on the Home Shopping Network.
Carl, please – in your anxiety to tilt at patrician windmills, you are creating a straw men and then attacking them with big words.
I invite you to do at least this much:
Read the second sentence of my first post. And ponder – deeply – the meaning of the prepositional phrase “in Tahrir Square”. Especially with regard to tense, as in present, and what that could mean to ANYONE’S ability to listen to a nuanced argument.
In fact I’ll save you some work – here’s the sentence:
“But I’m pretty sure the nuance will be lost on the 7 million in Tahrir Square.”
And I’ll give you a hint: It says nothing about a person’s intelligence level or what they could come to understand.
Cheers
Er…so if you’re one of the 7 million in Tahrir Square, you’re an idiot? Profoundly misinformed? And you know this…how? If you have a cogent point, Gregg, let me invite you to express it more clearly.
This is a situation where this administration, can actually blame the Bush administration. This is a reflection of our success in Iraq. The suffering states surrounding Iraq see an imperfect state, but a state where the population has a say in their own future. I don’t believe they fear the Muslim Brotherhood or any other group of “Hoods”. When a population is given an unbiased, un-coerced, opportunity to make a change, the plurality, will vote for a democracy and will accept it when their political party is defeated. If only because they have faith their side will have the opportunity to make their case again in the next election cycle. After all it is the very concept that has bought us the civility we have here. Give them the credit and the opportunity we granted ourselves. If we are to do anything it should be to ensure free and fair elections. That may imply intimating a few “Hoods”. I have no problem with that.
Mubarak was going to go eventually. We might have done better to have continued in 2005/6 to encourage him to democratize. Then we had the geopolitical wind at our back, which is perhaps Lewis’s point. Now we’re in a weaker position and the outcome will probably be worse.
It’s generally better to be stronger than weaker. Our current leaders don’t seem to get that.
We used to pay people to be our ‘friends’, and to keep them from being ‘friends’ with the USSR. It seems in my memory it hardly ever worked for us or them over the long haul. But a few things come to mind.
First and foremost, the Soviet system is D-E-A-D, so buying Egyptian friendship seems stupid NOW, especially if it costs a BILLION DOLLARS per year to keep that friend.
Anyone over 14 should know that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is just not necessarily so, especially if it costs a BILLION DOLLARS per year to keep that friend.
With a huge national debt and getting worse every day, we need to cut spending. And I get that a BILLION is just one percent of a TRILLION, but we’ve got to start somewhere, especially if it costs a BILLION DOLLARS per year to keep that friend and he uses some of OUR money to lie to his people and tell them that WE are the cause of his people miseries.
How much could we save if we STOPPED, lessened or slowed payments to all these murdering thugs. And suppose, instead of paying Mubarak to be our ‘friend’ and to pretend to like our other friend, Israel, suppose we just give Israel HALF a BILLION more to defend herself? Hell we’d SAVE the other HALF BILLION!!
How about we just cut off all aid, to all other countries that take our money then use some of it to blame us for their problems. THAT would maybe save another 3% or 5% but we’ve got to start somewhere.
It seems in my memory it hardly ever worked for us or them over the long haul.
I would say it worked very well indeed in the case of Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Those are very valuable allies, and none of them forgot — well, at least until the majority of the population no longer remembered the immediate aftermath of the war — how we helped them out then.
I think a good case can be made for cutting the Egyptians loose, yes. But we could still buy some valuable allies rather cheaply. I’m thinking of, say, Poland, maybe some of the Balkan states, and perhaps some countries in East Africa who could help out with the piracy problem, some of whom already think very well of the United States because of — warning, Obamabots read no further lest your heads explode — George W. Bush, who spent real money to help them fight AIDS.
a BILLION is just one percent of a TRILLION
1/1000.