I know it is conventional wisdom that America made a colossal mistake fighting in the Middle East. In time, the consensus that America failed in the Middle East since 9/11 will crumble.
This article is kind of funny:
Is it possible a post-American Middle East can thrive in a post-Ukraine world? From the Abraham Accords, evolving into Israel’s burgeoning entente with Sunni Arab states, and Saudi-Iran détente talks to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s reconciliation with the Saudis, UAE and Israel, events in recent weeks underscore that new patterns of accommodation have been occurring at a dizzying pace in an increasingly multipolar Middle East. Why?
What if these trends reflect a view among Middle East states that they need to hedge against a fear that the U.S., exhausted from two decades of failed wars, is no longer a dependable security guarantor? Hence, they need to be more pro-active in fending for themselves and reducing security threats in the region.
The author wonders if the post-Ukraine War Middle East will "actually work" despite America's "failed" wars in the region.
I shook my head at the author's claim that an
"exhausted" America that failed in its security role is forcing locals
to create this stability. I remember the Vietnam War. America was
exhausted
then. America is not exhausted now.
Yet not long after he says American exhaustion is somehow promoting locals to defend stability, he undermines that claim: "In fact, the U.S. retains sizeable capabilities in the Middle East, and will continue, if by default, to backstop threats to stability."
Huh. So countries friendly to us are promoting stability trusting we have their backs?
Where, if America fought "failed wars" in the Middle East for two decades, was the local motivation to provide stability before 9/11--or even the Persian Gulf War--before America allegedly made things worse?
But I digress.
So the logic is that the Middle East was a mess long before America sent armies to the Middle East. America intervened directly for more than two decades, making things worse. And yet now local forces for stability are magically growing, knowing that American power backs them.
To repeat, huh.
Gosh! Who'd have thought that good things could happen after America's allegedly failed wars? I'm just spitballing here, but hear me out.
What if the America-led wars against Iraqi and jihadi threats in the region and America's promotion of a coalition to contain mullah-run Iran helped set the foundation for this possible success of locals organizing for stability? One reason America could withdraw most of our power from the Middle East is because we deflated the threats to stability. Our military power rose to cope with instability and the lack of allies trying to fend off rising chaos. And after checking that tide our military power could recede.
I'm actually pleased about this article. It at least admits good things are happening. It is a start to admitting that maybe America's fighting and sacrifice had a role in those good things. As I've argued, time makes a difference in such an evaluation:
Consider the Korean War. When I was growing up I would have glibly called it a draw. We held our autocratic south and the communists had the north at the end of the war, just like at the beginning.
But as the decades have passed and South Korea became a free and prosperous democracy while North Korea has sunk further into an impoverished black hole run by truly evil people, I believe we clearly won the Korean War.
And conversely but related, Iran so far hasn't "won" the Iraq War. (And Iran won't win there as long as America doesn't resume policies based on the fantasy belief that mullah-run Iran can be turned into a beacon of stability.)
People have enough problem recognizing America's victory in Iraq. That's darned near a modern American pastime. No doubt it will take longer to change views about Iraq--and our fight in the Middle East more broadly.
NOTE: War coverage continues at this post.
