Give Iraq Her Dictator, “Quarantine” Middle East
Gina Nahai comes from left field with the notion that in order to stabilize the Middle East a Sunni dictator should again rule Iraq. For her the problem isn’t the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the 1400-year struggle between the two major divisions of Islam Shia and Sunni.
Nahai desires a “balance of power [that] is created and maintained within the various Muslim states — something akin to the Cold War.” The first step in doing this is installing a Sunni dictator. In other words bring back Saddam Hussein from the grave and hope he’s not as evil the second time around.
Call this the “super realist” position. Would Brent Scowcroft be so cruel?
In essence she has no hope that Islamic people can muddle their way to forging a democratic republic. The Middle East’s default must be a state of nature where life is “poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Above it all must be a strongman (emphasis on man) with a heavy boot to keep things quiet and the oil flowing.
It’s a view Andrew Bacevich [via memeorandum] might approve of. He rejects the idea of enlarging American military forces. Something new is in order:
The challenge confronting those aspiring to the presidency, therefore, is to devise an alternative to Bush’s failed strategy. To pass muster, any such strategy will have to recognize the limits of American power, military and otherwise. It must acknowledge that because the United States cannot change Islam, we have no alternative but to coexist with it.
Yet coexistence should not imply appeasement or passivity. Any plausible strategy will prescribe concrete and sustainable policies designed to contain the virulent strain of radicalism currently flourishing in parts of the Islamic world. The alternative to transformation is not surrender but quarantine.
James Joyner comments on the complexity Bacevich misses:
Yes, going into the Middle East with large concentrations of troops, killing people and breaking things, serves as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda and their ilk. At the same time, though, retreating with our tails between our legs will be seen–rightly so–as a victory for terrorism and further establish that as the most effective tactic against the West. Similarly, doing nothing in response to attacks with be seen as weakness, not compassion. It’s a vicious Catch-22 and there are no easy answers.
The views of Nahai and Bacevich are horribly depressing and ignores the hope found when millions of Afghanis and Iraqis risked their lives to vote for freely elected governments. It also ignores the economic power rising from the sands of Dubai. The rising skyscrapers and influx of corporate offices can be a model for the region.
In both Nahai’s and Bacevich’s views we should contain Islam (Bracevich uses the word “quarantine”) wait for it to eat itself and transform into something new and hopefully more positive.
How do you contain any region in a globalized world that is growing smaller and more interconnected? Cold War-style containment seems to ignore the world as it is. Strange coming from supposed realists.
“The Unintended Benefits of the Mess in Iraq”
