Get PJ Media on your Apple

Spengler

America Wants the Impossible and Gets the Unmentionable

June 16th, 2014 - 4:14 am

America wants the impossible
By Spengler

(Cross-posted from Asia Times Online)

The United States has misunderstood everyone in the world outside its borders and mismanaged everything. It has done so with a bipartisan consensus so broad and deep that it has no opposition except simple-minded isolationism. America gets unwanted results — most recently in Iraq – because it wants the wrong things in the first place. And there seems to be no way to persuade Americans otherwise. The crumbling of the Iraqi state will provide yet another pretext for mutual recriminations among political parties. The trouble is that both parties wanted the wrong thing to begin with.

It is impossible to recruit clever young people out of American universities to the dour, depressing mission of managing the decline of other civilizations. Americans are missionaries, not imperial mandarins. America cannot ignore the Middle East

because it has critical interests in the region, including the free flow of hydrocarbons, but it cannot fix it.

It tried to fix Libya, and traded the nasty regime of Muammar Gaddafi for a Petrie Dish of jihadist militias; it tried to fix Egypt, and traded the miserable regime of Hosni Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood, and the inevitable return of military rule in the face of the twin threats of terror and starvation; it did not even try to fix Syria, which has collapsed into sectarian division. It spent US$1 trillion, 5,000 dead, 50,000 wounded, and several million disrupted American lives trying to fix Iraq and Afghanistan.

From the Pillars of Hercules to the Hindu Kush, America confronts a belt of countries unable to feed themselves, let alone to invest their capital in profitable businesses or educate their young people. Without hydrocarbons their economies would resemble the worst of sub-Saharan Africa. The only four that have conquered illiteracy – Iran, Turkey, Tunisia and Algeria – have suffered a sudden collapse in fertility, from pre-modern to post-modern levels, in a single generation.

What should America have done?
i: Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was a reasonable alternative after 9/11. I supported the invasion at the time because America needed to make a horrible example out of one hostile Muslim government in order to persuade the others to cooperate in suppressing terrorists. But America should have installed a strongman and left, with the option of returning to install yet another strongman, as Daniel Pipes proposed at the time.
ii) The Sunni-Shi’ite conflict was inevitable, but the US could have reduced it to a low boil by neutralizing Iran – bombing the nuclear weapons facilities, decapitating the Revolutionary Guard, and financing the opposition. That would have cost a few hundred million dollars all in.
iii) With Iran neutralized, the Assad family’s lifeline in Syria would have been severed. As Erik Prince once suggested, Washington could have struck a deal with Moscow on succession: allow Moscow to choose Assad’s successor.
iv) Israel should have been encouraged to reduce Hezbollah in Lebanon with the West’s blessing, rather than handcuffed under the 2006 American plan to end the Israel-Lebanon War. Then Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice forced the Israelis to withdraw with the promise that the Iranian-controlled militia would be disarmed. With Iran unable to help, Hezbollah would have been easy to destroy.
v) With Iran out of the picture, America would have been able to demand that the Saudis and Turks stop supporting the sort of militant jihadists who are now rampaging through Syria and Iraq. Absent the Iranian threat, the Saudis would have agreed.
vi) America should have ignored Libya and continued to support a military government in Egypt. The aging Mubarak had to leave, but an orderly transition plan still would have been possible.

The devil is not in the details, however, but in the original design. No-one could have walked into the Oval Office in 2001 and told then president George W Bush that his job was to manage the inevitable decline of Muslim civilization: to humiliate the Iranians, to hobble the contending parties and to leave as much power as possible in the hands of abhorrent military or monarchical governments. No-one could have gone to American universities and recruited the soldiers, spies and diplomats to execute a plan which preferred the slow and inevitable spread of human misery to a cataclysmic alternative.

The British Raj ruled India with just 3,000 regular officers, as Sir John Keegan observed, but these were officers trained in Greek and Latin at British schools and who knew the history of Rome’s decline as well as their American counterparts today know the plot of the Game of Thrones. They learned local languages, wore local dress and commanded local troops. They had no intent of saving India, much less of rebuilding it in Britain’s image, for all the missionary twaddle about the White Man’s Burden. The British were in India to get rich, and their cynicism and self-dealing made them cannily effective. Poor but clever Scots and English lads enlisted in the Colonial Service to seek their fortunes.

Americans never lived off colonies (although the Southern Confederacy intended to, by extending slavery through Latin America). They lacked the imperial motivation to bestir themselves outside their country’s borders. We never nurtured foreign policy elite that views America as radically unique, and other parts of the world as existentially challenged by comparison.

America has neither the students nor the teachers to fix its problems overseas. There are a few sages still left, notably Angelo Codevilla, who holds up the example of John Quincy Adams against the utopian obsessions of the major schools of foreign policy thinking.

On the left, we have the likes of Obama’s so-called national security team, including human-rights dabblers like Samantha Power and Ben Rhodes. On the right we have the neoconservatives, who believe that Being Determines Consciousness (democratic institutions will make people into democrats), and Catholic natural law theory, which boils down to the assertion that unaided human reason will lead everyone to the Western idea of individual liberty and democratic governance.

Americans seem to think that because they had the good grace to stumble into world history a couple of hundred years ago, everyone else should stop what they are doing and emulate them. That point of view is not as ludicrous as it sounds: no nation has ever been more successful than the United States, which has brought more prosperity and security to more people than any other political experiment in human history.

America’s genius lies in assimilating individuals of all ethnicities into a state based on a laws rather than race or language, and Americans assume that because Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Christians cohabit peacefully within their borders, they should be able to do so everywhere. That ignores the possibility that those individuals who wanted to leave peacefully with people of other ethnicities abandoned their home culture, leaving behind those who did not.

A sense of national exceptionalism may derive from long history; China may think itself external on the strength five millennia of history. America is a new nation and its sense of national exceptionalism derives from hope and expectation. But that is a very specific sort of hope and expectation: it derives from the Calvinist faith of America’s founders, with its tension between Christian universalism and the notion of an Elect.

The radical Protestants who created the American experiment saw their achievement as a universal example but had no expectation that a depraved world would as a general rule choose to emulate it. Most of humanity, they believed, would be damned and forgotten. Today’s mainstream of American Conservatism tends to see America as exceptional only in the sense that it an exceptionally good recipe that every cook ought to be able to master.

It has become nearly impossible in America to ask the question: Which cultures are viable and which are not? Individuals of all cultures are viable Americans, but that is not necessarily true of the culture they left behind. I have argued for the past dozen years in this space and in my book How Civilizations Die (Regnery 2011) that Muslim civilization will not survive: it passes directly from infancy to senescence.

That does not impugn the success of Muslim immigrants to America, nor of the hundreds of head-scarf-clad girls one sees at Ariel University in Samaria, but it does mean that Muslim states will be unstable and crisis prone and that Muslim populations will be discontented and prone to extremism for the duration. It is a fool’s errand to stabilize them; the best one can do is to prevent their problems from spilling over onto us.

European culture may not be viable in the long term, but Germany continues to compensate for its declining workforce by attracting talented immigrants from the European periphery. It has postponed the impact of poor demography by a generation.

Orthodox Christian culture is attempting to revive after the terrible enervation of Communist rule. Few in the West have the remotest idea what this means. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently claimed that Western hostility to Russia stemmed from its return to its Orthodox roots (as noted by Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation): “The thesis (said Lavrov) has begun to circulate that the Soviet Union with its Communist doctrine [at least] remained within the framework of the system of ideas developed in the West, while the new Russia is returning to its traditional values, which are rooted in Orthodoxy, and as a result has become less understandable.”

The Russians have difficulty believing that no-one in the West, at least no-one in a position of influence, has the remotest idea of what Russian Orthodoxy might be and what its quarrels with the West might mean, although these are vivid, living issues in the minds of Russians. Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a new Hitler; he is what defeated Hitler, as well as Napoleon. It wasn’t congenial to the West in 1812 and it isn’t now, but it can’t be booed away. America shouted at the top of its lungs at Putin after Crimea and waved a toothpick, and the Russian leader cut a deal with Beijing.

The Western consensus – among economists as well as political types – appears to be that China will collapse of its own weight. The Chinese will rise up against the Communist Party and the unfinished revolution of Tiananmen Square will triumph, the pundits claimed on the 25th anniversary of the suppressed student demonstrations. The Chinese have been living with an emperor for the better part of 4,000 years; what makes anyone think they are going to change now? China is doing very well, and American predictions of its implosion are a lot of whistling in the dark.

None of this will change in face of practical consequences, even the direst ones. The Republican foreign policy establishment will blame Obama for the stupidity of leaving Iraq without a modest American military force; there will be no introspection, no reflection of the errors that plagued American intervention from the outset. It isn’t only that too many careers and too much political capital is at stake: Americans simply don’t want to think about the world as it actually is.

By default, that ultimately may the world to other players with a sturdier sense of reality. China never has cared much about the world past its vast borders. But China is not burdened with the social engineering approach to remaking the world of American conservatives, nor the affirmative-action mentality of the Obama administration.

China has seen cultures succeeded and fail hundreds of times through its long history. It has no compunction about harsh measures against restless minorities. News media reported that President Xi Jinping has called for the resettlement of part of western China’s Uyghur minority, a Turkic Muslim people. Uyghurs have perpetrated several terrorist acts recently, and Beijing is losing patience.

Chinese policy towards its fractious Muslim minority is cruel but entirely effective; I have no doubt that it will succeed, despite the hand-wringing of the human rights organizations. American policy has been generous and generally ineffective. Is there anything in between? I do not think we shall ever find out.

On the other hand, China has no interested in reforming any regime or shaping any culture as long as it does not pose a threat to its interests. China is concerned with the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf (it is Saudi Arabia’s largest customer), and the orderly expansion of the “new Silk Road” through Istanbul and into Europe. I am not enthusiastic about a future “Pax Sinica” stretching into Western Asia, but in the absence of American power, someone will fill the vacuum.

Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman. He is Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. His book How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is Dying, Too) was published by Regnery Press in September 2011. A volume of his essays on culture, religion and economics, It’s Not the End of the World – It’s Just the End of You, also appeared that fall, from Van Praag Press. 

(Copyright 2014 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (25)
All Comments   (25)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
What should America have done?

Nuked Mecca and Medina on 9/12/2001.
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
It really is too bad that Mr. Goldman's excellent writings often are marred by typos or an incorrect word here and there which confuse what he is trying to convey. And the errors remain uncorrected too often.


22 weeks ago
22 weeks ago Link To Comment
America could, theoretically, develop a system of military and civilian hegemony over failed states. Certainly we have the surplus energy and educated personal to do the job. The first hurdle would be financing, the Achilles heel of imperialism, which might be solved by a system of taxes both from the failed states them selves, interested neighboring states, and international donors interested in peace.

Secondly would be administration. There is a large body of historical experience of imperial states, Britain and the Ottoman Empire being examples. Lessons learned could be mined from their historical experience. This would require a civilian administrative department of the US Department of State.

But that is doubtlessly impossible politically, both domestically and internationally.

Barring an intelligent and informed intervention we had better keep out of it. Is anybody tired of the US losing one war after another despite have won one battle after another? The US nomenklatura is feckless. We should demand they keep their noses, our sons and husbands, and our taxes out of other people's business.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
On a cold hard level, both al-Qaeda and the present Iranian regime could be crushed under the weight of the United States, China, Russia, and India. That would require a de facto understanding of southwest Asia as a region of shared influence.

The principal reason why people in southwest Asia have been able to get away with behavior that would get anybody else killed is because it has long been the prize for “The Great Game”. Take away the game, and people in the region will fall in line – or else.

I don't particularly like the expansion of Chinese influence into southwest Asia, but if that is the price for utterly destroying al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, I could live with that.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
The principal reason why a high speed railway from Beijing to Istanbul is unlikely isn't technological – it's military. The completion of such a railroad network would pose an existential threat against al-Qaeda, and as such, terrorists will do everything within their power to make sure that the railroad won't get completed. And yes, this is a dare thrown straight into the face of the Chinese Dragon.

Is China really prepared to use the necessary harshness to subdue Muslims from the Middle East? So far, the Chinese attitude has been to watch Americans fight on behalf of Chinese spoils. Well, those Chinese spoils are threatened and American troops are nowhere in sight. It's Chinese petroleum contracts in Iraq – let the Chinese defend their interests there.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
David,

I agree with most everything you say.

But one small quibble.

Catholic natural law does not "boil down to the assertion that unaided human reason will lead everyone to the Western idea of individual liberty and democratic governance."

If anything, it boils down to the idea that morality is discoverable by reason and not relative. Natural law morality sets goals and limits on how you act in whatever situation you find yourself in, but generally does not say what set of social arrangements is best except to rule out very bad ones (i.e. no slavery).

And traditionally Catholic natural law thinkers have been much more tolerant of mixed constitutions: Kings, aristocracies, and some form of democratic participation. Catholics have generally been suspicious of (Protestant) democratic impulses.

If Catholic natural law thinkers stray into international affairs, it's generally on the subject of just war theory. But that theory just tells you how one ought to fight a war, not if a war is a good one (policy wise) to fight.

There are some public Catholic thinkers who are on board with the democracy agenda -- i.e. Weigel -- but they're not Catholic natural law thinkers.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dear BronxZionist
You seem to think that Spengler's argument against Petraeus' surge refers to harm done by US military. It doesn't. Spengler argued that Petraeus arranged peace by arming the Sunnis, and that this armament will enable them to form one side of a prolonged civil war. He was predicting future effects, which could currently be getting under way. Will the Iraqi army regain the lost cities and restore the status quo, or will there be a prolonged conflict between the government's Shia forces and ISIS and other Sunni forces? Will Iraq soon look like Syria??
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I must take exception to your assertion that the Chinese have lived under emperors for 4,000 years implying that all's well in the Middle Kingdom. That certainly is their overall span but it has been by no means a continuous, stable rule.

Dynasties change over and over again, never bloodlessly. There have been periods of anarchy and "warring states." There have been periods of weakness and stagnation.

While one can make an honest argument that the current Communist period is not as unstable as it seems, it certainly lacks a stabilizing principle, especially as to succession, and exists in a state of profound hypocrisy between professed ideals and actual practice.

Sorry, but the current Chinese political situation is meta-stable at best. Their greatest weakness is their dependence on export for internal political peace. If we, we'll take them down with us.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
In the German media 1. the 1950's and 60's is made fun of. Women are shown at home cooking a meal for the hubby who is at work. Patriarchy, uggh!! 2. The reference for comparison is today with jobs for women, still a booming economy, emanciaption triumphant, sex liberated from procreation, individual freedom approaching atomism. It is a whoppying good time.

I ask: Which German culture, 1. or 2., is evolutionarily supperior, and I mean just plain survival. Well, Germany 1. HAD about 3 children per woman and Germany 2. evinces 1.4 children per woman. 2.1 is from a point of view of evolution necessary for reproduction. Which culture is evolutionarily superior? Mock Germany 1. and immerse oneself into the joys of Germany 2., yet, alas, Germany 2. (and all of Europe) is, as that German Pope noted, "a culture of death". (How is that for a Spenglerian "Decline and Fall of the West"?) Gemrany is dying out! Europe is dying out! Many Muslim lands are dying out! The USA has now entered into the death spiral.! All such civilizations, from American "exceptionalism" through European welfare-ism exhibit the same moribund culture, dying from the decadence of the "joy of sex" (without family). Sexual joy is quickly past, a family is not so.

I find that "Spengler" (this time I prefer the penname to the author's real name) has in the above article lived up to the historical Spengler. The West is declining and falling, indeed, due to moral decadence (as Putin, possibly inspired by his talks with Solzhenitsyn or some Orthodox prelate, has so marvelously and clearly pointed out -- Putin has his fans among "orthodox" Catholics in Germany and some rightests who want to retain a nation). I think Russia may have a chance to survive, Germany of Nordic DNA does not. I am fascinated by this article and have the impression that many a reader is imperious to its insights.

Finally, as a kid at the end of WW II through the 1950's it felt good, yes, exceptionally good to be an American. Cultural life bloomed in the heart. If the reader has not experienced such exuberance, he will possibly not understand the loss. In the 1960's I literally felt, sort of a cultural shock, a shift or, say, paradigm change in American and German culture. The wonderful feeling was being squashed. By the 1980s, "The Closing of the American Mind" (book author was Allan Bloom) ended for good that 1945 feeling and, well, I left America. The America of today is exceptionally different, at least in feeling, from that of decades ago. Long live Spengler!
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I completely agree with Charles42 - let's spend a trillion dollars or so on making our economy and country entirely independent of oil imports, if not hydrocarbon free using nuclear power and solar. We don't have to make oil cheap, just drop the price to around $50 a barrel. It would have the added benefit of collapsing any Russian imperial ambitions.

I will say that America has a purpose to serve - we are the world's last pie-eyed optimists. Such people don't seem "rational", but they are necessary. Because of this we serve a purpose to many countries and peoples - we are the one major power that they know doesn't want to steal their country or enslave their nation. We honestly don't want anything they have, and can afford to buy anything we might want. We are the tough guy in a bad neighborhood who but helps you change your flat tire and refuses to accept money for the trouble. I'll never be ashamed of that.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Reminds me of this Nasser quote: "The genius of you Americans,” the Arab-nationalist and one-time president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, once explained, “is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing.” "
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All