Failure in the Middle East has the potential to wreck the President’s foreign policy world wide
By WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
By WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
Secretary of State John Kerry went uncomfortably off-message yesterday
in Pakistan, voicing a surprising level of support for Egypt’s military to journalists
in Islamabad:
“In effect, they were restoring democracy,” Mr. Kerry said of Egypt’s
military to Pakistan’s Geo News during a South Asia tour on Thursday. “The
military did not take over, to the best of our judgment—so far, so far—to run
the country. There’s a civilian government.”
Obama
administration officials tried to walk back the remarks—”He didn’t stick to the
script,” an unnamed source growled to the WSJ—but it was too late. The media pounced, the
remarks were quickly torn apart on Twitter, and Team Obama is again struggling
to regain its balance on Egypt, trying not to call what happened a coup while
hoping that the military doesn’t get too much more blood on its hands in
restoring order to Cairo and Alexandria.
Let’s
get the obvious parts out of the way: No, the Egyptian military is not
restoring democracy in Egypt. You can’t “restore” something that never existed,
and it takes a lot more than a couple of elections to make a democracy. Democracy
requires a host of institutions, tacit agreements, and social norms most of
which don’t exist in Egypt. It also depends on a certain basic level of
economic progress and prosperity, also not exactly likely to sprout up on the
banks of the Nile anytime soon.
The
army wasn’t trying to build democracy, either; it was restoring order and
protecting the deep state, more or less in accordance with the will of a large
number of middle class and urban Egyptians. That’s the beginning and end of
it. Americans desperately want somebody to be the pro-democracy good guys.
But right now at least, democracy doesn’t seem to be on the menu at the Egypt
café.
We
don’t want to be too hard on Secretary Kerry. Foreign policy is never easy to
do in real time, and the world is in a good deal of disarray at this very
moment. But his remarks do point to a deeper problem with the Obama
administration’s foreign policy approach—a problem that’s finally starting to
bite.
The
Obama administration has made a fundamental strategic choice that hasn’t worked
out well. Officials decided to support the Muslim Brotherhood in the hope of
detoxifying US relations in the Middle East and promoting moderation among
Islamists across the world. Between Prime Minister Erdogan’s surging
authoritarianism in Turkey and the unmitigated Morsi disaster in Egypt, that
policy is pretty much a smoking ruin these days, and a shell-shocked
administration is stumbling back to the drawing board with, it appears, few
ideas about what to try next.
Adding
insult to injury, the Obama administration has conducted itself erratically
enough to have lost everyone’s respect in the process. It hastily and
indecorously ditched long time ally Mubarak and embraced the Muslim Brotherhood
only to drop the Brothers when the going got tough. It’s hard to blame anyone
in Egypt right now for thinking that the Americans are worthless friends whose
assurances are hollow and who will abandon you the minute you get into trouble.
At every point along the way, the administration made the choices it did out of
good motives, but it would be difficult to design a line of policy more
calculated to undermine American prestige and influence than the one we chose.
Rarely
has an administration looked as inconsequential and trifling as the Obama
administration did this week as it tried to square the circle. It isn’t using
the c-word because it doesn’t want to offend the military, but it bleats
ineffectually about human rights in hopes of retaining a few shreds of
credibility among the supporters of the ousted President. The armed forces
appear to be treating the United States with indifference; our support won’t
help and our scolding won’t hurt.
It’s
very hard to see how all this has won us friends or influenced people. The
kerfuffle with Kerry’s remarks in Pakistan wouldn’t normally amount to much.
Even Secretaries of State are human, it is hard to explain complicated ideas in
short television interviews, and all of us get our feet in our mouths sometime.
But as one more misstep in a long series, it has had more impact than usual.
We’ve
said from the beginning that the Arab Spring was going to present the
administration with some horrible headaches and impossible choices. George
Washington was the first US President to learn just how much trouble a long and
complicated revolutionary process in an allied nation could cause. The French
revolution split his cabinet, caused him huge political and diplomatic
headaches, and so embittered American politics that he felt and feared that he
had failed. Those who criticize the President should never forget just how
difficult these challenges really are. Flip and vain talking heads are always
sure that there are simple, easy alternatives that would make everything work
out okay. That is almost never the case, and it certainly isn’t now.
All
that said, it’s unlikely that the President and his team can be anything but
unhappy with the view as they look across the Atlantic: Edward Snowden is
sitting pretty in Moscow with Putin humiliating the administration (once again)
by failing to give it advance notice of the decision, Assad is still holding
court in Damascus and even predicting victory, there appear no easy outs in
Afghanistan, Iran is surging in Iraq, and the promise of the Arab Spring has
mostly evaporated. The recent jailbreaks in Iraq, Libya and
Pakistan, along
with Thursday’s announcement that the US would be temporarily
closing its embassies across the Middle East due to an unspecified terrorist
threat, suggest al-Qaeda and other fanatical terror organizations are on a
roll. Meanwhile, the US is farther than ever from the kind of partnership with
relatively liberal and democratic Muslim parties and movements that the Obama
administration sees as the best way to tame terror and build a better future.
Success in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks would have a large impact, but
that prospect, sadly, still seems unlikely.
Fortunately
for the administration, the public seems to want to think about the Middle East
as little as possible. Yet the President’s poll numbers on foreign policy continue to decline, and much of the foreign policy
establishment seems to be tip toeing away from the administration as quickly as
it can.
Failure
in the Middle East has the potential to wreck the President’s foreign policy
world wide. The “pivot to Asia” was predicated on a shift of American attention
and resources away from the Middle East. That seems less likely now; many in
Asia are wondering what happens to the pivot when the Secretary of State has
clearly put the peace process at the center of his priorities. It is not easy
to discern a commitment to humanitarian values or human rights in an administration
that has passively watched the Syrian bloodbath metastasize and that has put
together global surveillance programs that have angered many human rights
groups as well as some allied powers.
President
Obama still has more than three years left in the White House, but many of the
policies that he brought with him or developed early in his tenure have now
passed their sell-by dates. Abandoning Iraq, the surge in Afghanistan,
intensification of the drone war in Pakistan, alliances with moderate Islamists,
and a democracy agenda in the Middle East: sadly, those dogs won’t hunt anymore.
Many in
the State Department and the broader foreign policy establishment believe that
the relatively small group of trusted aides with whom the President has worked
most closely don’t have the depth or experience to manage the country’s
international portfolio well. We aren’t going to arbitrate that issue here;
such criticisms are often self-serving. But whether he relies on the same aides
or reaches out to more and different advisers, the President is going to have
to change his approach to the Middle East and, one suspects, to Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment