- ‘Tis the Season: London florist creates $4.6 million Christmas wreath
- No tailgating allowed at Super Bowl XLVIII
- Pentagon to transport African troops to Central African Republic
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend’s shopping jumps to his death
- Ukraine leader to talk with protesters; Washington urges caution
- Pope Francis: A nun saved my life
- Israeli P.M. Netanyahu backs out of Mandela funeral
- Elian Gonzalez makes first trip outside Cuba since custody battle
- U.S., British intelligence agents enter online sci-fi world to spy on gamers
- Sarah Palin to host the outdoors show ‘Amazing America’
HANSON: Obama’s Humpty Dumpty policy
White House hopes for engagement lie shattered
The United States is backing off from the Middle East — and the Middle East from the United States.
America is in the midst of the greatest domestic gas and oil revolution since the early 20th century. If even guarded predictions about new North American reserves are accurate, over the next decade, the entire continent may become energy-independent, without much need of petroleum imports from the Middle East.
America’s diminishing reliance on the Persian Gulf coincides with mounting Chinese dependency on Middle Eastern oil and gas. So as the Persian Gulf becomes less important to us, it grows even more critical to the oil-hungry, cash-laden — and opportunistic — Chinese.
After two wars in the Middle East, Americans are as tired of our forces being sent over there as Middle Easterners are of having us there.
The usual Arab complaint against the United States during the Cold War was that it supported anti-communist authoritarians in the oil-rich Gulf and ignored democratic reform. After the 1991 Gulf War, the next charge was that America fought Saddam Hussein only to free an oil-rich, pro-American monarchy in Kuwait, without any interest in helping reformists in either Kuwait or Iraq.
After the Gulf War of 2003, there was widespread new anger about the use of American arms to force democracy down Iraq’s throat. Finally, during the 2011 Arab Spring, the Arab world charged that the United States was too tardy in offering political support for insurgents in Egypt and Tunisia and again was late in “leading from behind” in helping European nations remove Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Now the Arab world is hectoring America to help overthrow Bashar Assad in Syria.
Let’s get this all straight. America has been damned for its Machiavellian shenanigans in supporting authoritarian governments, for its naive idealism in using force to implant democracies, for its ambivalence in not using force to protect democratic protesters and for its recent isolationism in ignoring ongoing Arab violence. Why, then, bother?
There are other growing fault lines. The old conventional wisdom was that Sunni Muslims shared Israeli fears of a Persian bomb on the horizon. The new conventional wisdom is that the Arab masses who are propelling the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Egypt prefer the idea of a nuked Israel to the danger of a nuclear Iran.
The subtext of Middle Eastern anti-Americanism is that the region, if given a chance, will embrace its own brand of freedom. But that does not appear to be happening in Egypt or Libya. For now, democracy does not seem to be the common glue that holds together various Syrians fighting to overthrow the odious Assad dictatorship.
Newly elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood attended college and later taught classes in California. Apparently, Mr. Morsi once came here to enjoy American freedom and for his family to be protected by our tolerance and security. Is that why he is crushing liberal opponents and the Egyptian media — to ensure that they never enjoy the protections and opportunities that were offered to him while a guest in the United States?
Note that anti-Americanism often was attributed to the unique unpopularity of President George W. Bush, who invaded two Middle Eastern countries, tried to foster democracies and institutionalized a number of tough anti-terrorism security policies. In turn, Barack Obama was supposed to be the antidote — a Muslim family on his father’s side, his middle name Hussein, early schooling in Muslim Indonesia, a number of pro-Islamic speeches and interviews, apologies abroad and a post-racial personal story.
Yet recent polls show that President Obama is even less popular in the Middle East than Mr. Bush was.
Staggering U.S. debt also explains the impending divorce. With $5 trillion in new American borrowing in just the past four years, and talk of slashing $1 trillion from the defense budget over the next 10 years, America’s options abroad may be narrowing. Mr. Obama also envisions a more multilateral world in which former American responsibilities in the Middle East are outsourced to collective interests such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Arab League.
Perhaps soon the problem will be that we simply will not have enough power to use it for much of anything — and would have to ask the U.N. for permission if we did.
Usually nothing good comes from American isolationism, especially given our key support for a vulnerable democratic Israel. But for a variety of reasons, good and bad, our Humpty Dumpty policy of Middle East engagement is shattered.
No one knows how to — or whether we even should — put it together again.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
By Tom Fitton
New photos confirm the attack's coordination and its cover-up
Get Breaking Alerts
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend's shopping jumps to his death
- Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu backs out of Nelson Mandela funeral
- Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, 'cherry-picked' intelligence: report
- MSNBC host: Obamacare a 'wealthy white men' racist word
- Lawmakers see 'false narrative' of Obama as a terrorist fighter
- CURL: Obama tells a whopper on IRS scandal
- Ted Cruz sees legal landmines ahead for Obamacare
- WOLF: The president's other Obamacare lies
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- MILLER: Brady Campaign says Colorado recalls due to NRA, not grassroots opposition to gun control