Miller:
The Middle East has become a veritable graveyard where U.S. illusions and myths come to die.
Here
are five of the most enduring and pernicious that need to be permanently
retired.
Whoever
is lucky enough to advise the next president ought to make that task the
subject of briefing memo No. 1.
1. There are comprehensive solutions to the
region’s problems.
No
there aren’t. And I challenge anyone to identify a single one in the entire
issue that has any kind of meaningful or sustainable end state. From the Syrian
civil war to the political situation in Iraq; the war against the Islamic State
militant group (ISIS) to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, we are dealing with
problems that require careful and extended management because there are no quick or easy resolutions.
Think
outcomes not end games. Even the Obama administration’s signal but highly
flawed achievement—the P5 plus 1 Iranian nuclear agreement—is an arms control
accord limited in time and scope with no guarantees or assurances that Iran’s
nuclear weapons aspirations have been laid to rest.
Indeed,
we need to stop thinking about fixing things in what I call administration
time—four to eight years—and start thinking about a decade or two which is more
realistic.
2. America has the answers.
No we
don’t. The Middle East is a broken, angry and dysfunctional region where an
absence of leadership; effective institutions; coherent, let alone good
governance and presence of sectarian, regional and religious rivalries have
combined to guarantee continued instability and in some cases fragmentation and
chaos.
And we
trivialize just how broken the region is and infantilize the peoples who live
there by assuming that somehow Washington can and must be involved as the
indispensable power in fixing all of this.
Hillary
Clinton is more inclined to see the region in this way. But even Mr. Trump has
talked about solving the ISIS problem once and for all.
Nor are
the region’s leaders just waiting to embrace American fixes. The fact is, most
positive outcomes in this region emanate first from circumstances that force
the locals to change their calculations and accept ownership for solving their
own problems. Only then does the U.S.
have the capacity to play a consequential role.
Clearly,
this has been the case in Arab-Israeli peacemaking. And it applies double when
it comes to trying to promote coherent functional governance in places like
Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Without
Arab leaders willing and able stand up and take the lead role in stabilizing
and reforming their own countries, Washington cannot succeed.
3. There must be real consistency in U.S.
policy.
Absolutely
not. Great powers behave in anomalous, contradictory and even hypocritical
fashion. It’s built into their job descriptions; and doctrines or cookie-cutter
approaches straightjacket U.S. policy and deny it flexibility to fix problems
are a recipe for disaster.
This is
particularly the case when human rights issues surface. It’s very hard in most
areas of the world to somehow harmoniously reconcile U.S. values and interests.
Take
the Middle East, for example. We encouraged an Arab Spring in Egypt and
Tunisia. Are we obligated to encourage one in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain too, if
the chaos wrought by the events of 2011 would threaten their stability?
What do
we do with the current government of Egypt if it refuses to reform and to stop
repressing the media and it continues to arrest thousands, when we need
Egyptian cooperation on any number of regional issues?
We
invaded and occupied Iraq to remove an evil dictator, with disastrous
consequences. Are we obligated to do the same to remove Bashar al-Assad? Or, in
the case of Libya—after helping NATO undermine Muammar el-Qaddafi—to occupy
that country too?
4.
Israeli-Palestinian peace should be a top priority for the next administration.
No it
shouldn’t. Not only is the conflict impossible to resolve right now without
Israeli and Palestinian leaders doing more themselves, the issue is not the
most pressing priority for the U.S. in the region.
Dealing
with ISIS, the meltdown in both Syria; dysfunction in Iraq and Libya; managing
relations with traditional partners such as Saudi Arabia; Israel and Egypt—all
suggest a threatening and fragmenting region that will not be substantially
ameliorated or repaired by a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which
just isn’t possible now.
Nor are
the Arab states, now far more preoccupied with their own internal problems—the
challenge from Iran and the Sunnis jihadis—all that focused on the Palestinian
issue.
Next
year at this time Israel will have occupied much of the West Bank for half a
century. And there’s little indication that either Israelis or Palestinians are
willing or able to exchange that reality for something better.
5. The U.S. can just disengage.
No we
can’t. America has allies, enemies and vital interests in the Middle East that
guarantee there will be no major pivot, rebalance or exit out. Washington’s
conundrum is that it’s stuck in a region it can’t transform, fix, or leave.
In the
face of that challenge, it must focus on protecting and managing as best it
can. That means drilling down on what’s really vital: fighting transnational
terror to protect the homeland and U.S. allies; maintaining access to Middle
East oil; countering the emergence of any regional hegemon (such as Iran) that
seeks nuclear weapons; and to find a way to work with Middle East partners that
may not share U.S. values or even all of its interests.
It’s
neither a pretty nor heroic picture. But it’s a far smarter and realistic
approach for an angry, broken and dysfunctional region that will suck America
dry if it’s not careful.
