For years Andrew Bacevich has lamented how his country allowed military force or the threat of military force to displace diplomacy as its principal instrument of foreign policy. It's no wonder then that he should embrace Martin Indyk's proposals for a reformation of Washington's approach to the Middle East.
Indyk has had a storied career in American diplomatic circles. He also twice served as US ambassador to Israel. Now he wants a sea change in America's approach to the Middle East. Bacevich clearly approves:
In an extraordinary op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal (of all places), [Indyk] asserts that “few vital interests of the US continue to be at stake in the Middle East.” Policies centered on ensuring the free flow of Persian Gulf oil and the survival of Israel have become superfluous. “The US economy no longer relies on imported petroleum,” he correctly notes. “Fracking has turned the US into a net oil and natural-gas exporter.” As a consequence, Persian Gulf oil “is no longer a vital interest — that is, one worth fighting for. Difficult as it might be to get our heads around the idea, China and India need to be protecting the sea lanes between the Gulf and their ports, not the US Navy.”
As for the Jewish State, Martin notes, again correctly, that today Israel has the capacity “to defend itself by itself.” Notwithstanding the blustering threats regularly issued by Tehran, “it is today’s nuclear-armed Israel that has the means to crush Iran, not the other way around.”
Furthermore, Martin has had his fill of the peace process. “A two-state solution to the Palestinian problem is a vital Israeli interest, not a vital American one,” he writes, insisting that “it’s time to end the farce of putting forward American peace plans only to have one or both sides reject them.”
Martin does identify one vital U.S. interest in the Middle East: averting a nuclear arms race. Yet “we should be wary of those who would rush to battle stations,” he cautions. “Curbing Iran’s nuclear aspirations and ambitions for regional dominance will require assiduous American diplomacy, not war.”
That last sentence captures the essence of Martin’s overall conclusion: he proposes not disengaging from the Middle East but demilitarizing U.S. policy. “After the sacrifice of so many American lives, the waste of so much energy and money in quixotic efforts that ended up doing more harm than good,” he writes, “it is time for the US to find a way to escape the costly, demoralising cycle of crusades and retreats.”
...
Martin deserves our congratulations. We must hope that his heresy catches fire and spreads throughout the Blob. In the meantime, if he’s in need of office space, the Quincy Institute stands ready to help.
Welcome to the ranks of the truth tellers, comrade.
“Fracking has turned the US into a net oil and natural-gas exporter.” As a consequence, Persian Gulf oil “is no longer a vital interest......
ReplyDeleteAs a child, living in the UK we used to go 'gleaning'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaning
This is what the US is going through with it's oil production.
Just as we children thought that gleaning was wonderful and provided 'pocket money' the American public is enchanted at the thought of energy self sufficiency.
The US administration knows that their rape and pollution of the watersheds to extract the last possible gallon of oil will eventually collapse.
Conventional and not so conventional oil will then be at a premium.
This is what the Tarsands promoters are betting on.
This is why the US has no intention of leaving the Persian Gulf oilfields.
The US oil boom is an illusion.
TB
ReplyDeleteThe post isn't about the viability of America's fracked oil and gas. It's about the demilitarization of American foreign policy - a shift away from a succession of futile wars without end.
While I would welcome a demilitarization of American foreign policy I think Trailblazer is right that, "the US has no intention of leaving the Persian Gulf oilfields." Also, Americans will never forgive Iran for the embassy hostage crisis. So, as wise as those proposals for a migration from militarization to diplomacy are, they won't happen.
ReplyDeleteWar and the military are a necessary part of the US economy.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wsj.com/articles/government-and-military-spending-fuel-u-s-growth-1540459800
Add that companies such as Boeing cannot compete without the subsidies of arms production, perhaps even more so nowadays.
TB
The American Myth of The Town Tamer is alive and well -- someone moves into a violent community and brings in the rule of law with a fast gun. It's a myth perpetrated by those -- unlike Bacevich -- who do not know the cost of war.
ReplyDeleteGood op ed, but alas it is not to be. Too many corporate interests at play here and its not oil and gas. Its the armaments business and businesses like those run by Eric Prince. For those interests to continue to flourish and donate to political campaigns the threat of war needs to continue. With the current President of the U.S.A. there won't be changes, he needs something to deflect to, instead of having voters notice what he is doing to their country. then there is the no small matter of what will they do with all those who serve in the military. There are approx. 3 million people in the military, the reserves and the civilian component. that would be a lot of unemployed people.
ReplyDeleteWe shall see what unfolds. Thanks, all.
ReplyDelete