A Paradox of U.S. Middle East Policy: The Friend Who Acts like an Enemy is an Enemy
By Barry Rubin
The expression, “With friends like you who needs enemies?” is an apt summary of a major problem for U.S. foreign policy during Obama’s second term.
Here’s the issue: a number of supposed allies of the United States don’t act as friends. In fact, they are major headaches, often subverting U.S. goals and interests. But to avoid conflict and, for Obama, to look successful to the domestic audience, Washington pretends that everything is fine.
Consider, for example, Pakistan. The United States has given billions of dollars to that country in exchange for supposedly helping keeping the lid on Afghanistan—and especially to ensure the Taliban does not return to power—and to fight terrorism, especially al-Qaida.
In reality, Pakistan supports the Taliban, wages a terrorist war on India, and hasn’t been all that helpful in fighting al-Qaida. It would be interesting to see the U.S. intelligence document evaluating how high up in Pakistan’s government was their knowledge that Usama bin Ladin was “hiding out” a few blocks from a Pakistani military complex. The fact that Pakistan threw into prison a local doctor whose work helped find bin Ladin indicates which side that regime is on.
Moreover, Pakistan’s regime is ferociously oppressing the Christian minority, becoming more Islamist, and giving women the usual treatment existing in such societies. Obama claims to be protecting women and religious minorities yet lifts not a finger in Pakistan. And rather than be a force against terrorism, the Pakistani government has been sponsoring a terrorist war against India.
After the horrible massacre of civilians in Mumbai, it became clear that the attack was sponsored and planned by Pakistan using terrorists trained and enjoying safe haven in Pakistan. India was left helpless as Pakistan simply refused to cooperate with the investigation or to turn over terrorists from the group responsible. In short, the United States is massively subsidizing a major sponsor of international terrorism.
Yet for the U.S. government to admit that the Pakistani government is more enemy than friend would make it even more uncooperative and might lead to attacks on the U.S. embassy and diplomats. Pretending that a regime like Pakistan’s is helpful–and continuing to fork over U.S. taxpayer money to it–is a huge temptation. Only if the regime in question does something obviously horrible, and even the bin Ladin case wasn’t sufficient to sour the White House on Pakistan, will the situation change.
Of course, some measures have been taken but basically Pakistan isn’t paying for its behavior. Consequently, it will continue acting in a hostile way, subsidized by the United States to do so.
The scope of this problem becomes clearly visible if you add to this list such places as Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Turkey, Venezuela, Bolivia, and several other countries being in a similar situation.
Take Egypt for example. The country is now governed by a radical, anti-American, antisemitic government dedicated to spreading jihad, imposing Sharia law, and driving U.S. influence from the region. It could be argued that a mix of carrots and sticks from the United States would moderate the regime’s behavior. But what if that doesn’t work? The temptation is to continue with the carrots and forget about the sticks.
Obama says that the “red lines” are that the Cairo regime must adhere to the peace treaty with Israel; treat women and religious minorities (that is, Christians) well; and help fight terrorism. But what if it doesn’t? Suppose the Salafist burn down churches and massacre Christians and the government does not protect the minority? Suppose a Sharia regime reduces women’s rights to a minimum? Suppose Egypt declares itself no longer bound by the peace treaty with Israel or pretty openly arms Hamas in the Gaza Strip for an attack on Israel?
Will Obama be prepared for a conflict, even a confrontation, with the Arabic-speaking world’s largest country? Would even a President Mitt Romney do so?
In other words, the argument would be made that it is better to keep giving money, selling weapons, and shutting up about criticism than to make a break. Moreover, the president who did so could be accused of getting the United States into an unnecessary battle and making more enemies. To some extent, that’s what happened with President George W. Bush.
The possible difference between the two current candidates could end up looking like this:
Obama version: Although you act as enemies we will believe you are friends.
Romney version: We know you aren’t really friends but we don’t have a choice.
In practice, the difference would be that Romney would have a lower threshold for acting against betrayal than would Obama.
Of course, a large part of the problem with Obama’s policy is that he not only treated enemies as friends and did not pressure supposed friends that acted like enemies, he joined them. Thus, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are arming anti-American Islamist forces in Syria with U.S. intelligence officers supervising the weapons’ supplying. The only restriction is that the guns don’t go to groups affiliated with al-Qaida. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how extremist they are. In Libya, one of the groups—treated as “good guys”– supplied with guns by the United States during the civil war there went on to kill the U.S. ambassador.
Yet given the current situation, especially in the Middle East, a realistic policy would make the enemies’ list seem too long and discouraging. In political and diplomatic terms that means the truth will be covered up. The important question is: How far does a country have to go, how futile and even counterproductive do the pay-offs have to be, before it is no longer treated as a friend.
I remember Hillary saying along about 2005 that we needed to deal with the Iraq we have rather than the Iraq we wished we had. And it was fair comment too. And what you say about Pakistan was just as true during the Bush administration. But while Bush was delusional about the salvific effects of Democracy Obama is much more in denial about the toxicity of Islamism than his predecessor ever was. You have said that Obama is our first Postmodern president andI agree. Postmodernists seem to think that reality is an infinitely elastic construct and Obama’s economic policy is often described in more pithy terms as ‘extend and pretend’. His foreign policy is also postmodern and there is a whole lot of pretending going on, but its real basis seems to me to be post colonialism. We, the hegemon, are bad; they, the victims of colonialism, are good. That’s the blind spot. Actually, they are human and therefore a mixture of good and bad who happen, at present, to be drunk on a totalist ideology. There is no way to engage them or otherwise do business with them. They tell us we are their enemy in no uncertain terms but we keep ignoring it and, yes, I don’t Romney was prepared to deal with the problem either. So perhaps the next attack will be bad enough to wake us up.
I really long for the day someone on PJM would just state the truth;
Saudi Arabia funds,Organizes and maintains massive global terrorist network. The House of Saud promotes and funds global Sharia law movement to replace democracy. These two movements support each other.
Saudi’s fund terrorist camps in Pakistan, and funded the Pakistani terrorist attack in Mumbai. Why is that so difficult for someone, anyone on PJM to admit..?
Saudi’s fund and operate hundreds of Sharia schools globally, dozens in the USA. These schools promote overthrow of the US republic, and all democracies, to be replaced with Sharia based theocracy. Why is this topic off the table..?
Saudi Arabia funds Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood, and has since their inception. Saudi Arabia in heavily involved in Syria and Egypt, providing weapons and funding to their proxies.
The next great terrorist attack will have Saudi prints all over it, even be Saudi Nationals like attack in NYC on 9/11. Maybe then people will wake up and demand action be taken against the source of terrorism and not idiotic response like invading Iraq.
Dear Prof. Rubin,
I wholeheartedly agree. Just adding two points:
1. US Governments’ longstanding flirt with the Islamists all over the Arab/Muslim world has become apparent in the diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks (Cablegate), and dating back at least 10 years from now, if not more. You may want to research this a little bit further for additional and valuable insight. It truly boggles the mind how accommodating the various US administrations and institutions have been towards one of the worst anti western transnational movements, up to inviting their representatives and even leaders to the US to speak before prestigious Universities and think tanks (e.g. Morocco’s Nadia Yassine as one particularly revolting example), and thus betraying their natural allies, the moderates and secularists.
2. Regarding Syria, it is courageous of you to admit that the regime change you advocated so passionately in “The Truth about Syria” and in many, many op-eds would lead to an even worse regime in the future. Maybe the current Syrian government would have been the lesser evil; and better the devil you know than the devil you don’t yet know (but looking at Hamas, you know that new devil already)…
Of course, one has to ask why the US, France & Co. are so determined to throw the Arab world back into an Islamist stone age. IMHO, it may be a deliberate attempt to hold them back from industrializing and developing, and therefore to keep them off the Oil buyers’ market (industrialized countries have a much bigger hunger for energy). Today, this sounds like your usual run-off-the-mill conspiracy theory, but what if that’s really the thinking behind the US administration’s middle-east policy?
If keeping the muslims ignorant and technologically backward was unoffical US and EU policy, why would we accept their students into our technical programs? If keeping them out of the oil consumers club is policy, why would we sell them our technology?
Are the US and EU really selling technology, when 90%+ of those students remain in the US and EU after graduation and end up working for western companies anyway? Are they really transferring technology effectively, if only a tiny subset of the 10% of so who do return home are able to apply their field-specific knowledge due to lack of local opportunities, companies, research institutions… and also due to inadequate local mentalities? Most of those western-educated students end up doing something totally unrelated to the higher education they’ve earned, if they return home at all.
By the way, brain drain as a problem preceded the Islamist wave that started in the 1990-ies. However, this wave worsened the local mentalities up to a point, that the climate for development and research has gotten from slightly above freezing point to Siberian winter. So expect less, not more transfer of technology, even if the number of students was to raise significantly.
Or, to answer more directly: if this is unofficial US and EU policy, accepting students from there would still make sense w.r.t. this policy: it doesn’t harm the US and EU, and would even accelerate brain drain, or at least keep it to current constant levels. It won’t change the backwardness these countries are heading towards.
Our state department is loaded with people with their own agenda that remain there through all changes in administrations providing the same bad advice and bias, often actively subverting top level directions. People with alternate political views find their careers stifled and move on to more congenial pastures, entrenching remaining liberal ideologues. It is and has been a fortress of the leftists going back to at least the time of FDR.
Every thing obama has done with the muslim countries makes perfect sense if he him self is a Muslim.