PAUL JOHNSON: A CASE FOR MASTERLY INACTIVITY?
http://jewishworldreview.com/0813/pjohnson.php3#.UgoHsUbD-Uk
A superpower with an emergency strike force, big airlift capacity and air superiority is always tempted to intervene in the internal affairs of Third World countries.
It looks so simple, especially for the U.S., which has a hyperactive media, noisy democratic institutions that clamor for “human rights” and a long tradition of intervention for humanitarian reasons. The Third World, especially the Muslim world, abounds in messy government crises in which mobs try to take control, troops open fire and people get killed. Congress and the media instantly call for a U.S. response, and the President finds his finger hovering over the action button.
It’s all too easy and satisfying to press that button. Troop carriers hurtle through the air, and presidential orders are obeyed instantly, producing impressive results. But after overthrowing a “wicked” Third World government, then what?
That is when the real problems begin. Small at first, they grow progressively larger—and are unending. Does anyone honestly believe that American intervention has solved the Iraq crisis? Or the Afghanistan crisis? Or that it ever will?
Cast your mind back to the 1950s, the last time U.S. policy was in the hands of an experienced and crafty general, who knew well the foolish advice military men often give civil authorities and could see through the machinations of the hydra-headed creature he baptized “the military-industrial complex.” General Dwight D. Eisenhower was President from 1953-61, a time when America’s superiority over the rest of the world was far greater than it is today. He received countless invitations and demands for U.S. intervention but always refused them. Only once, in 1958 and at the request of Leba non’s president, Camille Chamun, did Eisenhower agree to station troops for a short while. He withdrew them as soon as possible, three months later, without having fired a shot.
Eisenhower’s record of nonintervention is worth studying, as I’ve been doing in the course of writing a short biography of him. Ike recognized that getting involved in a military adventure was very easy, especially if you had the resources. But getting uninvolved was quite another matter and entailed the very real risk of humiliation and defeat. He therefore concluded it was best to say no—and did so.
Still, one doesn’t need to be a general, let alone one as shrewd and sophisticated as Ike, to see that further military involvement in the Muslim world would be foolish.
Currently there are repeated demands for the U.S. to arm the Syrian rebels. But we don’t know who these rebels are. More than a score of distinct groups have been listed—most have terrorist connections, close or remote, and some are terrorists. There is also absolutely no guarantee that once arms reach Syria they’ll be delivered to any particular group. Or, if they reach a group certified as “nonterrorist,” that they’ll remain in responsible hands.
The only safe conclusion is to assume that any weapons the West sends to Syria will end up, sooner or later, partly or wholly, in the hands of terrorists. We should concentrate our efforts on preventing Russia, China and Iran from further arming the Assad government.
We should also try to avoid any involvement in Egypt, something easier said than done, as the Egyptian armed forces are heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. It is probably right to continue the subsidy for the moment, but the U.S. shouldn’t increase it, nor should the U.S. try to direct the Egyptian army in what it should do.
The fact is, throughout the Middle East we are operating from a position of ignorance. We cannot, with any precision, identify the truly democratic forces or even be certain they exist. Nor do we know if any of them are immune to terrorist penetration. We are at a loss as to which personalities or organizations we ought to back—or, in deed, if any are reliable. Hence, our best policy is to stay our hand—what Benja min Disraeli called “masterly inactivity.”
Patience is key. If one thing is certain, it’s that the coming of democracy to the Muslim world is going to take a very long time.
Comments are closed.
