Perspectives and Political Objectives of the Middle East - Research Paper Example

United s involvement in Afghanistan United s involvement in Afghanistan In their book, Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East, authors Ross and Makovsky (2009) explore a range of myths and illusions that underpin the challenges that the United States has faced in dealing with the Arab world. The two authors trace the challenges of the United States policy on the Middle East from the Cold War era to the current age. Illustrations are made regarding on how faulty assumptions developed into wrong approaches regarding the interests, perspectives, and political objectives of the Middle East. For instance, the United States wrongly interpreted the response of the Middle East to the rise of Communism. The US policy makers were under the impression that the Middle East would automatically reject the Soviet ideologies because of their inconsistency with the faith of Islam. Understanding the complexities, successes, and challenges of the United States involvement in Afghanistan acquires clearer insights when analyzed together with the core arguments propounded by Ross and Makovsky (2009). The authors make general and specific claims and arguments about the nature of the US foreign policy in the Middle East and its ramifications in the aspects of peace, balance of power, democratization, and religious extremism. The impact of the US foreign policy on the Middle East can have either positive or negative results depending on its capacity to interpret, predict, and relate with the challenges in the Middle East. Policies that have tended to demonstrate preferential treatment towards the State of Israel as particularly cited as problematic (Duncan, 2004). According to the argument, regional interests, nationalism interests, and Islam are essentially dissimilar. As such, they tend to manifest themselves in region in different forms in accordance with multiple factors. Cases have been pointed out where the pursuit of Islamic interests appears to contradict established interests. Hierarchies of interests vary and manifest themselves in multiple forms in accordance with the stakes of the region’s governments, strategies of various groups, and cultural factors (Hudson, 1996). Rigid structures and frameworks that apply across time and space cannot be developed to assess the nature of realities in the region. Therefore, the existing policies cannot apply in the interpretation of the political and social realities of the Middle East. Lack of comprehension of these forces has led to futile strategies in the formulation of peace plans in the region (Hudson, 1996). The traditional American policy for the Middle East, according to the authors, anchored on the myth of Arab Unity. The United States handled the region as a homogenous entity that relied on common interests and goals. The authors single out the case of the poor handling of the region’s peace proposals by former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat by the administration of former President Carter as a case in point where the United States failed to capitalize on the opportunity of the moment. The mistake, according to the authors was the belief that Sadat could never act alone outside the bracket of the Arab worldview. Myths that control the Arab approaches on matters, according to the authors, lead the United States policy makers to make poor judgments of situations that often prove to be very costly. The authors argue that such approaches generate a mismatch between the guiding ideology and the methods applied in the practical terms. Ideologies are equally explored in the manner in which they cloud the judgments on matters of regional balance and other issues that appertain to the relationship between the United States and the Middle East. Ross and Makovsky (2009) contend that relationships that are more productive are possible and the pursuit of peace achievable if the United States reworks its policies in the region in ways that correspond with the fluid nature of Middle East politics, religion, culture, and other interests. Neoconservatives tend to support and promote hardline policies in the United States dealing with the Middle East. Neoconservatives embrace the notion of deterrence and pre-emptive strategies in the handling with the troublesome relationship between the US and some parts of the Middle East (Wahabuddin, 2010). Essentially, they urge the adoption of strong policies of defending Israel from regional threats and aggression. Analysts contend that much of the pressure and support on the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq came from the neoconservatives. The same case applies to the pressure to reign in on the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the case of Afghanistan, the neoconservatives have opposed suggestions of negotiations between the existing government and the radical extremists. Critics argue that the neoconservatives only foster situations of tension and fuel conflicts through their uncompromising position on the US foreign policy. Realists on the other hand adopt strictly practical approaches to in the US foreign policy on the Middle East. Realists are driven primarily on the principles of balance of power, strategic interests, realpolitik, geopolitics, and raison d’état. The application of a realist’s perspective on the Afghanistan case might be seen in terms of the compelling reasons in the issue. Since the US invasion of Afghanistan, the US has continued to shift its approaches in light of the emerging realities. Military goals have been adjusted in ways that reflect the changing realities on security, political, and social realities (Ross, & Makovsky, 2009). In essence, the compelling reasons have been the need to check on the costs of the war against the strategic interests of the US. Increasingly, the United States has begun limiting its military presence on Afghanistan by training and empowering local security structures to check on all possible external threats posed by Al Qaeda and other extremist groups (Ross, & Makovsky, 2009). This approach embraces the tenets of realism in the sense that it seeks to adopt positions that are consistent with the problematic nature of the situation. The approach is a marked departure from past approaches, which have tended to ignore some ideologies and superficial values that have underpinned perspectives adopted by the United States in its handling of previous cases in the Middle East. Realists are largely goal-oriented (Janice, 2009). Their approaches are tailored to respond to certain challenges within a specified time and for strategic ends. Realism and idealism have significant divergent points that would often precipitate disagreements and tensions in the formulation of the United States policies on the Middle East. Naturally, idealists would wish to impart change in the Middle East to suit the ends of democracy (Janice, 2009). They will use various means of establishing democratic structures through a strategic removal of the existing frameworks of dictatorship. In essence, structural change would underpin their core objectives. On the other hand, realists will opt for the most appropriate option available. They will tend to project positions that take into consideration the existing challenges and structures as understood within the framework of regional balance of power and stability. Perspectives on the Afghanistan have tended to pit realists against idealists regarding the questions of post-conflict relationships, military withdrawal, and the fostering of democratic processes. Arguments consistent with the course of realism have focused more on the benefits that the United States will gain and the possibility of the Afghanistan government to remain stable after the withdrawal of the American military structures. In the past, the United States has relied increasingly on regional warlords to help fight the Taliban from many parts of the country (Finkel, 2009). This policy was reached due to the realization of the threat that the warlords posed to the central government and the kind of loyalty they commanded in the regions. Through the perspective of realism, the United States appreciated the chaotic nature of the country and limited capacity of the administration of President Ahmed Karzai. Partnership became the most viable option to follow. On the other hand, approaches of idealism on the case of Afghanistan have been seen through the manner in which the US government has continued to support the expansion of democratic space in the country. The values of freedom of expression, freedom of the media, and the protection of human rights have been impressed upon the structures of the Afghan government (Janice, 2009). The overriding objective was to complete the mission of regime change and democratization, which were lacking under the old order of Taliban extremism. The change has allowed for the overhauling of the oppressive and suppressive rules that denied people their rights and limited the processes of governance within the minority Taliban rule (Finkel, 2009). In essence, the application of idealism in the case of Afghanistan entails the restructuring of the old order with the objective of creating a new government and a new society founded on the principles that are consistent with democracy and human rights. Ultimately, the differences between idealism and realism should be seen as more complimentary than antagonistic. The United States has often been criticized for having supported the Iraqi and Egyptian regimes under Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak respectively (Hudson, 1996). Focusing on the regime of Hosni Mubarak, the past support has often been termed as strategic to the US interests in the Middle East (Hudson, 1996). Egypt under Mubarak was a secular state that proved a key ally in dispelling tensions and challenges posed by hostile Islamic states in the region. Naturally, the United States has often preferred to deal with Sunni governments than Shiite-ruled states. The Sunni-Shiite divide in the Middle East is considered as one of key factors that guide US policies for the region although the complex nature of global terrorism has made the factor more complex (Hudson, 1996). Egypt under Mubarak was also considered as a key ally in supporting some of the US approaches on peace between Israel and its neighbors. The authors contend that it is possible to achieve democratic rule in the Middle East. According to them, countries that are deficient in democracy can adjust to levels of democracy as long as it is not disruptive to their structures of society and other systems. The customization of democracy to suit the unique culture and religious beliefs of the people would be the most appropriate approach in the pursuit of democracy. According to the authors, the apparent reluctance of the countries in the Middle East to adopt democratic processes is built on the false assumption of conquest and perceived arrogance of the west in projecting views and processes of democracy (Ross, & Makovsky, 2009). The Quran, according to the authors, is not supportive of totalitarianism (Ross, & Makovsky, 2009). Radical groups have hijacked sections of the holy book and converted them into a violent doctrine for self-serving reasons. In essence, it might be considered that some of the most stable and moderate countries in the Middle East are dominantly Islamic. Radical groups have often tended to use the Quran for the purposes of enhancing dictatorship of enhancing the ends of radicalism as understood in the context of global terrorism (Ross, & Makovsky, 2009). It is important to consider the fact that the religious element of the societies in the Middle East is discussed as a non-hindrance in the pursuit of democratic governance. In terms of methodology, the texts explored in this discussion generally adopted case study approaches in exploring the United States involvement in Afghanistan as understood together with the policies for the Middle East. Various cases are cited in order to authenticate the central arguments. Some of the cases cited include the Gulf War, the Iraqi invasion, the Palestinian conflict, the Afghanistan war, and other major historical occurrences that have highlighted the nature of conflict, challenges, tensions, and opportunities in the relationship between the US and the Middle East. The suitability of the case study approach is that it anchors the subject in an element of realism in ways that clarify some abstract ideas that could be resident in the claims and arguments made by the authors. References Duncan, L. C. (2004). Anti-Semitism and US-Israel relations: Trouble for middle east specialists - and their critics. The Middle East Journal, 58(4), 667-674. Finkel, A. (2009). Creating a failed state: The US and Canada in Afghanistan. Labour, (63), 285-287. Hudson, M. C. (1996). To play the hegemon: Fifty years of US policy toward the middle east. The Middle East Journal, 50(3), 329-329. Janice, J. T. (2009). US foreign policy in the middle east: From crises to change. Insight Turkey, 11(4), 182-184. Ross, D., & Makovsky, D. (2009). Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East. New York: Viking. Wahabuddin, R. (2010). Obama’s Afghanistan strategy: A policy of balancing the reality with the practice. Journal of Politics and Law, 3(2), 80-93. Read More