Serious talk about withdrawing troops, normalizing
relations with Iran, and distinguishing our national
interests.
By Kelley Beaucar
VlahosJuly 24, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" -
Time to get out.
No major foreign
policy institution has really had the guts to say it
before. But let’s be serious, very few voices in
Washington’s national security elite actually
believe there needs to be a significant withdrawal
of American troop presence from the Middle East. If they
do, they couch it pretty well.
The Quincy Institute
for Responsible Statecraft, however, has decided that
it’s time to shake off the euphemisms and tired fealty
to the failed orthodoxies of the past.
In a detailed report released today, the authors
insist that it’s not only time to go, but they say the
future of U.S. national security and regional stability
relies upon it:
America’s military
presence has caused the U.S. either to involve
itself unduly in the region or be drawn into many
strategically insignificant feuds and disputes. This
policy of military domination has made Americans
less safe, undermined U.S. standing abroad, and
rendered America less prepared to respond to threats
at home and to nonmilitary challenges such as
pandemics and climate change. Nor has it served the
peoples of the region.
Written by Quincy
principles Paul Pillar, Andrew Bacevich, Annelle Sheline,
and Trita Parsi, “A New U.S. Paradigm for the Middle
East: Ending America’s Misguided Policy of Domination,”
is a straightforward brief for dramatic change in our
approach to the Middle East. For too long, they say, the
case for militarism has relied on two planks: countering
terrorism and protecting commerce (mainly oil). These
arguments have become brittle and not only that, our
extended troop presence and proclivity to get involved
in other countries’ regional disputes in order to
“protect our interests” has guaranteed we never leave
when there might be an opportunity to do so: see Syria
and Iraq.
While there is a
legitimate interest in keeping Americans safe and
maintaining the free flow of commerce, the scholars
write, the U.S. has gone about it all the wrong way.
As the United
States has overextended itself in the Middle East,
geopolitical rivals in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran
have reaped the benefits of America’s strategic
ineptitude. And even when the U.S. is not at war in
the Middle East, Asian giants benefit from the
American military protecting Middle East oil
supplies on which the U.S. is ever less dependent.
In summary, both security and economic concerns
require a fundamental reorientation of U.S. policy
in the Middle East, centered on a significant
drawdown of America’s military presence in the
region.
A new paradigm indeed.
Quincy calls for reducing the footprint over 5 to 10
years and not make it dependent on conditions on the
ground (otherwise we will never leave). They point out
that aside from Turkey (a NATO country), the U.S. has no
formal security agreements in the region and it should
stay that way. They call for a new security architecture
assisted but not led by the U.S., akin to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe or
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, “while
maintaining an offshore military presence that allows
for intervention if necessary to protect the United
States.”
Importantly, we must
forget about showing favoritism and refusing to talk to
adversaries. We need to normalize relations with Iran,
get out of Yemen, end attempts at regime change in
Syria, and stop condoning the bad behavior of our so
called friends, like Saudi Arabia.
…Overt U.S.
backing of the Saudi regime has often encouraged
greater belligerence than when the Saudis have been
less sure that the U.S. would intervene on their
behalf. Unquestioned U.S. support for Israel has
facilitated its continued occupation of Palestinian
territory and reduced incentives to pursue a
peaceful resolution of the conflict. A significant
reduction of U.S. troops in the Middle East will
help instill greater restraint and reduce the
tendency toward destabilizing behavior among partner
governments.
I cannot do the entire
report justice, so read the
whole thing. Quincy is promoting many of the goals
that TAC has defended and projected for a long time. It
is great to see these goals packaged, underscored with
scholarship and with clear, unequivocal language about
leaving the Middle East. We know Americans are tired of
failed war policies and missions they no cannot clearly
understand. There is no better time than now to do
something about it.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive
editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007,
focusing on national security, foreign policy, civil
liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15
years as a Washington bureau reporter for
FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News in Washington from
2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social
media strategist. She has also worked as a beat
reporter at Bridge News financial wire (now part of
Reuters) and Homeland Security Today, and as a
regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native
Nutmegger, she got her start in Connecticut
newspapers, but now resides with her family in
Arlington, Va. - "Source"
-
Post your comment below
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.