How the West Can Help to End the Crisis in the Middle East - Part II

In the previous post I tried to explain which part the West played in the Middle East’s dismal failure to become a stable and prosper heir of the Ottoman Empire. Just to make sure that I am not misunderstood, I think it is important to stress that neither the West nor any other external power bears the sole blame for this unfortunate development. As it is almost always the case in social sciences in general and history in particular, monocausal explanatory approaches offer little if no meaningful insight and hardly ever help to understand the issues at hand. But to draw a comprehensive picture of the Middle East’s conflict situation in all its particularized aspects would not only go far beyond the scope of this blog, it is also beyond my personal capability. For this and other reasons, my entry focuses solely on the consequences of Western policies towards the Middle East and how they would have to be altered in order to support the people in the Arab World on their long and sorrowful path to a brighter future.

The Wild Card

Now it is about time to see if you are satisfied with everything I mentioned or if you have the feeling that I left out an issue of major importance. I admit it, I did indeed, and that for a good reason. While the colonization and the support for dictators was both cruel and short-sighted, strategically it does at least make some sort of sense. But the last, “half” issue (“half” because it is more a symbolic than an actual grievance for the majority of Muslims) does simply not add up, at least in my opinion. You probably wonder what the “wild card” I mentioned in my previous post is all about, or, even better, might have an idea of what I have in mind. No worries, I will not keep you on the tenterhooks any longer, so here is the mystery’s solution: I am of course talking about the West’s - and here predominately America’s - unquestioning support for Israel. Now to make this very clear, I do not want to discuss if Israel has a right to exist (I don’t see why not) or in which borders, my point is simply that Western support for Israel does not make any sense, at least not from a strategical perspective - unless you believe President Netanyahu’s horror stories about a rampaging Iran firing nuclear missiles all over the globe. I admit that not only the rhetorics of Iranian leaders, but especially the funding, training and supporting of terrorists on the part of Iran is by no means inspiring confidence, but the invocation of a major threat to the West (and its strategic supplies) by Iran seems fairly exaggerated.

Khalij Fars missile on a transporter during military parade in Iran. Source: M-ATF, from military.ir and iranmilitaryforum.net

If my assessment is correct, Israel doesn’t have much to offer, and strategic partnerships should have - in my humble opinion - mutual benefits. But while Israel is profiting enormously from its Western support (for example the Yom Kippur War in 1973 might have turned out quite differently without American assistance), it has very little to offer in return, especially since the end of the Cold War. But why is Israel so crucial in this discussion? Why is Israel a perennial issue in the news and why can’t it be a Middle Eastern country like any other? Well, I wish that would be possible, I really do, but unfortunately contemporary events show that it simply doesn’t work that way, and here is (my explanation) why: After the colonial masters withdrew, Israel remains as a symbol of Muslim impotence against the West.

The Colonial Complex

The fate that the Middle East had to suffer was not at all unique. Basically every part of the world outside of Europe was conquered and subsequently colonized by the latter. The list of injustices is long and many grievances remain unresolved to this very day, but most countries try to look forward and move on. For example, China, the world’s cultural and economic powerhouse for countless centuries, is trying hard to get back on track after the derailments of the 19. and 20. century, while India, once famous for its wisdom and prosperity, today makes every effort to overcome its colonial past and to set the course for a better future. So what is it that chains the Middle East to its own past and prevents its people from moving on? Muslim culture and the (perceived) difficulties to modernize Islam is certainly a reason, but there is little the West can do about that. But there is more. The people of the Middle East and the wider Muslim World - and in this respect they differ from other former colonies - have a constant reminder of their inglorious defeat, a reminder that makes their shared consciousness relive all the defeats and humiliations by the hands of the West that the Muslims had to suffer. Long story short: Israel stands as a symbol of their impotence against the West. And to make matters worse, Israel is also controlling the access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, one of Islam’s three holy sanctuaries. So next time you are wondering why it is such a big issue when Israel is doing a wrong that other governments in the region are doing as well without getting much opposition from the Muslim world, keep in mind that it is not as humiliating to get slapped in the face by your father at home than by the new boy in school in front of all your friends, especially when that new boy is under the exclusive protection of a motorcycle gang.

Source: "Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run" by Angus Maddison, p. 29.

Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. Source: Godot13.

What the West can do

In the years to come the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) will be reduced to 228,500 men. To these, the US Department of Defense provided 747,000 weapons (and auxiliary equipment, valued at approximately $626 million) since the 2001 invasion. Some of them already disappeared miraculously and many more will change hands once the US withdraws from the country. It is no secret that Afghanistan is already overstuffed with weapons not only since the Soviet war in Afghanistan in which the US also provided weapons (and training, together worth at least $3 billion), that time to the mujahideen. This makes one wonder what kind of strategy this is or if America’s fundamental, evangelical, eschaton-expecting groups took charge and attempted to launch Armageddon themselves.

Members of the ANSF firing AKM rifles during weapon training in Nawbahar District, Zabul Province, Afghanistan.

I am mentioning this to point out the gross mistakes of the past. If the West is genuinely interested in a stable Middle East, Western policies towards this extremely crucial region have to change drastically. So what am I suggesting here? As a short wrap-up, the West could contribute to an improving stability of the Middle East (that would greatly benefit Western countries’ national security interests) by keeping out of Middle Eastern affairs. This would include the non-interference in internal affairs, ceasing the support of dictators in the region and an end to siding with Israel. A policy like this would ensure that islamists will run out of arguments why to attack the West - one might also call it giving in - and therefore directly serve Western national security interests. It would also benefit the Middle East, but only in the long run. The short-term consequences of such a policy would most likely have devastating results in terms of peace and stability. The withdrawal of US troops in Iraq and Western inactivity regarding Syria created a situation that gives us a whiff of an idea of what this policy might bring in its wake. But one might also argue that the only way to create sustainable stability in the Middle East is to let its people sort things out on their own. As clinical as this might sound, it is exactly what other former colonies had to go through and are still going through today. The alternative - continuing interference in Middle Eastern affairs - has met with very little success, at least in terms of stability and Western national security interests.

But...

“Alright then, let’s get out of there and mind our own business!”, you might conclude. Well - surprise! - it’s not that simple. We all know that the West, particularly the US have interfered in other countries' affairs not only in the Middle East but all over the world. Since the end of the Cold War, these foreign intrusions have declined as the world was ultimately saved from communist barbarism. Hallelujah! But the Middle East did not only gain Western attention as a battlefield of ideologies. Controlling the governments of this region means much more than political influence. It is more than just helpful to achieve one’s own goals. It is simply crucial. Crucial for the economies of industrialized nations that rely on a good that is distributed very unequally: Oil. While the West is not particularly blessed with this commodity, the Middle East has it in abundance. Supporting dictators was therefore a useful and simple means to realize the West’s agenda. Dictators are (comparatively) cheap, controllable, if necessary easy to remove and moreover corrupt enough to betray their own people. Without them the West’s strategic supply is incalculable. Future Middle Eastern rulers might feel different about their customers, a prospect that freezes the blood in Western governments’ veins (for a good reason). And even if the US would find a way to become independent of Middle Eastern oil, her major trading partners - the EU and China - will not, and in a globalized world economies tend to collapse collectively.

A burning oil field in Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm

Another consequence of the West’s political drawback from the Middle East would be the cessation of support for Israel. As I mentioned above, the benefits the West gains from this support are few, but the alternative appears much scarier. Without Western protection, Israel would - maybe not tomorrow but certainly in the long run - be at their neighbors mercy. Pretty bad prospects if you ask me, and the very idea of ignoring the fate of Israel’s people is abhorrent to many in the West (including myself). Maybe Samuel Huntington was right with his clash of cultures...

How to solve the puzzle?

Considering the pros and cons of politically withdrawing from the Middle East, the West is left with one option, and I have a feeling that this is pretty much what’s happening right now. Instead of foreign intrusion, the West only acts when the house is on fire. If the strategic supplies or important political interests are seriously threatened or when Israel’s safety is gravely at stake, the West will try to solve the problem by the use of its superior military power. Everything below that, be it the use of chemical weapons by a government against its own people, a brutal civil war that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands and turns almost half of the population into refugees or mass executions and potential genocide does not suffice to motivate the West to intervene in a substantial manner. Backing dictators is only an option if it is absolutely imperative to keep the oil flowing. It is basically the mind-your-own-business strategy I am talking about.

As a human being, I find it very difficult to look away when people have to suffer, and many people in the Middle East have to suffer these days. Unfortunately, there is little the West can do that is not adding fuel to the flames. Islamism is on the rise and it cannot be defeated with superior firepower. Drones, invasions and bombardments as well as democratization, state-building and reconstruction failed to beat the islamists and to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim community. Instead, islamism can only be defeated by the Muslims in the Middle East themselves. This will open the gates to a brighter future and societies that are not dominated by tyrants and armed men but by the people they are really composed of.