A reader writes:
Your post assumes we are losing in the Middle East. We aren't.
Iraq so far is still going forward with our help. Iran is slowly self-destructing. Afghanistan has not been taken over. Pakistan still is not under the full control of Islamist extremists. Yemen is a new battleground which looks a lot like Afghanistan – rural, isolated mountainous. We are capable of containing it.
Iran can be very dangerous if it gets nuclear weapons. That alone will definitely change the balance of power in the Middle-East and increase the chances of global war. How far would Iran push terrorism if it had nuclear weapons to intimidate? Would we still have access to oil? A pre-emptive strike would be catastrophic, but to bet lives on the idea that Iran will act rationally if it gets nuclear weapons is a huge gamble.
Moreover, you don't grapple with the fundamental fact of our Middle East policy, which is that it is the greatest reserve of oil in the world. That is why we have a national interest to be there, as opposed to Central Africa etc. And as you know, we in the United States are extremely dependent on carbon energy.
This war is about Islamist terrorism and how we react to it and our energy interests and how we protect them. These issues are related. It is not being intellectually honest not to include these issues into your arguments.
Let's unpack this. Are we "winning" in the Middle East? Well, there does seem a decline in the appeal of al Qaeda in many countries, although it seems clear that this is primarily due to al Qaeda's barbarism against fellow Muslims, as opposed to the persuasive powers of US military force. In Iraq, we have indeed gotten rid of Saddam and that is an obviously, momentously good thing.
We have also set up an extremely fragile multi-sectarian democratic system of government in that blighted non-country.
We are not the first invaders to try to get Iraq's factions to cooperate and run the country. The Brits tried for decades, and largely failed. The question is simply if this new vulnerable order will survive when US troops leave (if they leave); if the massive fiscal and human costs will have been worth it even if it does survive; and if the consequence has mainly been a terrible blow to US moral standing, to the reputation of US military invincibility, and to the credibility of of US intelligence. It is also quite possible that al Qaeda, which was scarcely in Iraq before the invasion, will return to dominate alienated Sunni regions, whose militias are still not integrated into the national army. I fear they will, and we will have another sectarian civil war before too long, and the deserts full of the decapitated heads of Awakening leaders.
I am thrilled that Iran is self-destructing but I see only a small way in which the West has enabled it – Obama's election and Cairo speech. And I don;t believe that broad sanctions would do anything but give Khamenei a life-line.
As for the final point, yes, it is absolutely valid to raise the question of carbon-energy. That is one key reason we invaded Iraq and treat the Middle East as a vital region as opposed to the primitive, stagnant backwater much of it remains. But, frankly, I'd be willing to see another war-created oil crisis if it forced the US to get much more serious about non-carbon energy supplies. Since our political system seems unable to tackle our energy and climate crisis, maybe a massive spike in the price of oil would help. After all, I see our long-term strategic interest in getting off of oil and getting out of the Middle East as much as possible.
My gloom is related simply to my view that after seven years of deeper and deeper military engagement with the Islamist and Muslim world, we have not moved the needle on the threats that remain. And we have lost a great deal of our own freedom, constitutional order and fiscal balance. This is how empires die. But I'd like to see the republic survive.
The Dish 