By John J. Mearsheimer - Jacob Heilbrunn Talks to Maurice R. Greenberg About China & America Robert D. Blackwill Exposes the - The National Interest
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Number 129 • Jan / Feb 2014 • $8.95
Talks to Maurice R.
Jacob Heilbrunn
Greenberg About China & America
Exposes the
Robert D. Blackwill
Smear Against Henry Kissinger
www.nationalinterest.org
by John J.
Mearsheimer
Number 129 . January/February 2014
The Realist
5 Maurice Greenberg on China & America
As Beijing rises and Washington drifts, the former aig chairman discusses the future of both
countries. While China’s new president Xi Jinping is paving the way for meaningful reform,
America must put its financial house in order.
Articles
9 America Unhinged by John J. Mearsheimer
Washington’s commitment to global domination since the Cold War ended has had immense
costs and brought few benefits. It must learn to distinguish between peripheral and vital strategic
interests—and accept that it is far safer than its elites think.
31 Inglorious Revolutions by David A. Bell
The notion that revolutions are often quickly successful is chimerical. They are usually bloody
and protracted affairs. It is Western hubris to expect them to usher in stable, representative
democracies overnight.
39 In Defense of Kissinger by Robert D. Blackwill
Princeton historian Gary Bass offers a tendentious and misleading account of Richard Nixon and
Henry Kissinger’s approach toward the violent 1971 South Asia crisis in The Blood Telegram. The
actual record shows that they got it right.
Images Shutterstock: pages 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 30, 34, 37, 52, 55, 57, 69, 74, 77, 83, 86;
Wikimedia Commons: pages 41, 45, 62, 90, 91, 93
51 Tinker, Tailor, Leaker, Spy by David V. Gioe
The debate so far over massive leaks of classified information has focused on the balance between
liberty and secrecy. But the real cost will be seen in coming decades, in the form of a reduced
ability to recruit human-intelligence sources.
60 China’s Near-Seas Challenges by Andrew S. Erickson
Beijing’s present focus on developing potent capabilities to resolve disputes favorably in its
maritime periphery threatens stability and important international norms in a critical area of the
global commons.
Reviews & Essays
67 The Myth of America’s Triumph by Michael Lind
Josef Joffe’s ode to America is as bogus as claims that the country is in terminal decline. His
affection for America misleads him into becoming its cheerleader at a moment when Washington’s
reputation around the world is steadily eroding.
79 Western Civ’s Life Coach by David Rieff
Beware Arthur Herman’s survey of Western thought, which begins in bombast and ends in
triviality. He downplays its Christian heritage and misrepresents Plato and Aristotle.
87 The Odd Couple by Robert W. Merry
In the annals of American history, few stories of personal fellowship are as poignant and affecting
as the friendship between Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, which culminated in
enmity. America saw the gop rupture based on atmospherics, brazenly inaccurate accusations,
ideological fervor and personal whims writ large.
Published by
The Center for the National Interest
Maurice R. Greenberg Chairman
Henry A. Kissinger Honorary Chairman
James Schlesinger Chairman, Advisory Council
Jacob Heilbrunn Editor Dimitri K. Simes Publisher & CEO
Harry J. Kazianis Managing Editor Paul J. Saunders Associate Publisher
Alexa McMahon Associate Managing Editor
Robert Golan-Vilella Assistant Managing Editor Advisory Council
John Allen Gay Assistant Managing Editor Morton Abramowitz
Graham Allison
Political Editor
Conrad Black
Robert W. Merry
Patrick J. Buchanan
Contributing Editors Ahmed Charai
Aram Bakshian Jr. Leslie H. Gelb
Ian Bremmer
Evan G. Greenberg
Ted Galen Carpenter
Gary Hart
Christian Caryl
Zalmay Khalilzad
Ariel Cohen
Kishore Mahbubani
Amitai Etzioni
John J. Mearsheimer
Nikolas K. Gvosdev
Bruce Hoffman Richard Plepler
Michael Lind Alexey Pushkov
Lewis E. McCrary Brent Scowcroft
Paul R. Pillar Ruth Wedgwood
Kenneth M. Pollack J. Robinson West
David Rieff Dov Zakheim
Owen Harries Editor Emeritus Cover Design: Emma Hansen
Robert W. Tucker Editor Emeritus Cover Image: ©Adam Niklewicz/Corbis Images
Editorial Office The National Interest, 1025 Connecticut Ave, nw, Suite 1200, Washington, dc 20036. Telephone: (202) 467-4884,
Fax: (202) 467-0006, Email: editor@nationalinterest.org, Website: http://nationalinterest.org
Subscription Office Postmaster and subscribers please send address changes and subscription orders to: The National Interest, P.O. Box
1081, Selmer, tn 38375. Telephone: (856) 380-4130; (800) 344-7952 Rate: $39.95/yr. Please add $5/year for Canada and $20/year for
other international deliveries.
The National Interest (ISSN 0884-9382) is published bimonthly by the Center for the National Interest. Articles are abstracted and
indexed in P.A.I.S., Historical Abstracts, International Political Science Abstracts, U.S. Political Science Documents, Political Science Abstracts
and America: History and Life; articles are available on microfilm from University Microfilms International, and archived on Lexis-Nexis.
Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, dc, and at additional mailing offices. ©2014 by The National Interest, Inc. The National Interest
is printed by Fry Communications, Inc. It is distributed in the U.S. and Canada by Ingram Periodicals (18 Ingram Blvd., La Vergne, tn
37086; 615-793-5522) and Source Interlink Companies (27500 Riverview Center Blvd., Bonita Springs, fl 34134; 239-949-4450).
The Realist
Maurice Greenberg JH: What do you think specifically has
changed and why?
on China & America MG: We had some principles we stood
for and believed in, and we were respected
The National Interest’s editor Jacob around the world for those principles.
Heilbrunn recently spoke with Maurice R. Enemy and friend alike may not like us,
Greenberg, the former chairman and ceo of but they respected us and what we believed
aig, chairman and ceo of starr Insurance in. I don’t sense that anymore. I think we’ve
Holdings, Inc., and chairman of the Center backed away from being a world leader, for
for the National Interest. What follows is a whatever reason.
lightly edited version of their conversation.
JH: Do you think it’s a loss of confidence
Jacob Heilbrunn: If you look at your and willpower or an actual diminution of
career and life as a businessman—as American strength?
a soldier who fought in Normandy and
helped liberate Dachau concentration MG: I think we have the strength potential
camp—it does exemplify America at to do whatever we want as a country. One
its peak. We’ve had this whole era with of our strengths has been the diversity of
America as a superpower. When you look our population. The immigrants that came
back, do you feel that America today has to this country were Eastern Europeans.
absorbed the lessons that we learned in And they had a different work ethic. They’d
World War II and afterward, or have we never go on welfare; my God, they’d rather
peaked as a superpower? slit their throats than do that. We have
a different population today, and we’ve
Maurice R. Greenberg: Well, we’ve become entitlement-bound. And it’s not
changed. There’s no question about that. considered improper to get entitlements,
When I came back from World War II, for whatever reason. They don’t feel
along with ten million other Americans, I any degradation in their own self, as an
had to finish high school. I didn’t want to go individual. That’s a change. Is it going to go
to college. I could have gone to West Point. back and change again?
But I didn’t want to stay in the military. I
was nineteen years old when I came back. JH: It’s interesting that England is doing
I stayed in the reserves because I needed relatively well economically now, even
the money, and I was going to school. So though its leaders pushed through some
when the Korean War broke out, right after pretty severe austerity cuts. The pound has
I finished law school, I was recalled, and I strengthened against the dollar.
spent over a year in Korea. But America’s
changed, there’s no question about it. MG: They did. They’re doing their best to
The Realist January/February 2014 5
encourage financial institutions to settle in of land, he should be able to do that and
London. Because where do you go? Wall keep the money himself. China must build
Street is under great pressure by regulation. a larger and more efficient agriculture than
Hong Kong has limitations. Singapore is it currently has. The leadership needs to
a little out of the way. So London, which make more funds available to small- and
had been at the top of the heap, is trying to medium-sized businesses, and I’ve been
regain the crown. arguing with the Chinese about that for
years. If you’re going to become a consumer
JH: What was your impression of the new market, you’ve got to let these small
Chinese leadership when you were there companies grow. They’re starved for capital
recently? and need to be able to borrow from the
banks, and the banks have been lending
MG: I’m a member of the advisory all their money to these state-owned
board to the Tsinghua University School enterprises. I think there’s a movement to
of Economics and Management, and find some way to make funds available to
Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, small- and medium-sized companies. Then
recently spent an hour meeting with the they grow, hire people, become consumers.
members. He came across as very focused, There’s change coming, but it won’t be
determined, confident. The Third Plenum rapid change.
showed that he has further consolidated
his power. It is a precondition for JH: Has there been something that’s
getting meaningful reform through the surprised you the most in seeing China
bureaucracy. There is agreement that reform from 1975 through today?
in many areas, particularly on the economic
side, is necessary and desirable. It won’t MG: A number of things. There were
happen overnight. The leadership may no cars when I first went to China. You
desire change, but there is a certain time wouldn’t see any tall buildings; we
frame over which it will occur. constructed the first, the tallest building
I think Li Keqiang, the premier, is in Shanghai. We built a hotel, office and
fighting for more openness in the market. apartment complex called the Shanghai
On the Standing Committee I don’t think Center. It was the tallest building in
all are going to go along with that. The Shanghai when it opened in 1992. It is
Shanghai free-trade zone is a test. Change now about number eighty in height. That’s
will come slowly; they can’t do it any other happened all over China. They’ve done
way. There are a number of ghost cities more in a brief period of time in the course
where they move people into and must of history than many nations have ever
create jobs for them—it’s not easy to do. done.
I think one of the things they’re wrestling
with is that if a farmer wants to sell a plot JH: So you’re bullish on China?
6 The National Interest The Realist
MG: I am. I’m bullish looking at it How are we going to escape that? What from Chinese eyes. It’s not going to be a are we going to do with that money? Are Jeffersonian democracy; it’s a long ways we going to burn it? It’s on the books. away. The distrust between our two It’s borrowed. And so clearly we have a countries is very concerning. Unless we problem here. And, you know, you can’t learn how to trust each other, we have a live beyond your means; there’s nothing difficult period ahead. I don’t mean magic about that. You must pick priorities, tomorrow or the next day, but in the next and the number of priorities. Certainly decade or so. If China makes the switch, the protection of our nation is a priority. ultimately, not all at once but over a period You can’t become just a weak power; of time, to become a consumer-based you do that, and you’ve got all other rather than an export-based economy—in kinds of problems that emerge almost principle, it’ll always be exports—but if immediately. There’s always somebody consumerism grows, their gdp will grow who wants to knock the king of the hill dramatically. They’ll become the largest off of the hill. And we have a lot of people economy in the world. They’ll radiate more climbing up on different sides of us. And influence around the world. Certainly, we don’t do people any good by making they’re exploring that in the South China them dependent upon government. I’m Sea, along with Japan, the islands with not saying you don’t take care of those Japan. And so we’re going to be tested. who are truly in need—yes, we have that How are we going to respond to these tests? obligation—but you don’t encourage What’s in our best national interests? What’s in the interests of the world more broadly? JH: When it comes to the financial world that we constructed—you were talking about the debt being a problem in America—liberals like Paul Krugman say, “It’s no big deal,” or “inflation is down, money is cheap, borrow it while you can for nothing, worry about the debt later on.” Why are they wrong? MG: First of all, we’re printing money every month. The endgame is going to be a burst of inflation. There’s no question about that. The Realist January/February 2014 7
everybody to become dependent on the Let’s get real—coming from a certain
government. family doesn’t stop people from getting
jobs in America, and Washington’s K Street
JH: How much of that risk-taking lobbying firms are full of former officials
entrepreneurial culture do we still retain and former members of Congress. Political
today? donors and supporters become ambassadors
and take other key government positions.
MG: I think it’s around. It depends on Why stop U.S. companies from hiring
the industry. It depends on many things, capable and well-connected people by
including people who are not bitten by applying a standard we don’t use at home?
this dependency bug. But the laws have
made it more difficult as well. Eliot Spitzer JH: Do you see another financial bubble
destroyed—essentially destroyed—aig, for because the Federal Reserve is in overdrive?
nothing to do with the law. He decided
that he was going to run for governor, and MG: There’s no way out. I don’t see any
he was going to take down individuals to way out. What we have to do really is
help his career. And the press played along make it easier for business to grow and
with that. And so there’s been tremendous to prosper. We have the highest corporate
change. Why would any company that’s tax rate in the world. Now, how does that
public remain in New York State? We’re help the country? If you want to avoid
hampering ourselves. We’ve lost a compass the consequences of what we’ve done,
that made us great. you’ve got to counterbalance that by some
intelligent action on how to get business
JH: You wrote about Jamie Dimon and JP going rapidly to pay the taxes that are
Morgan in the Wall Street Journal as another needed—not at the highest tax rate, but
example. a more moderate tax rate to create jobs
and income. You can’t do it by saying,
MG: Yes. The government is also “Well, we’re going to get rid of debt by
investigating JP Morgan and other taxing everybody more.” That’s proven to
American companies for hiring relatives of be wrong—just look at Europe. But how
government officials in China and other do you get into the minds of those who are
countries. That only makes sense if they socialists by nature? That’s what we have;
are not qualified or not doing their jobs. we are now approaching a socialist society. n
8 The National Interest The RealistAmerica Unhinged
By John J. Mearsheimer
S
ince early 2011, political develop- sure the right person is in charge in Cairo
ments in Egypt and Syria have re- and Damascus.
peatedly captured the attention of Packaged together, such beliefs create a
the American foreign-policy elite. The powerful mandate for continuous American
Obama administration has tried to guide involvement in the politics of these two
the turbulent political situation in post- troubled countries.
Mubarak Egypt and become increasingly Anyone paying even cursory attention to
engaged in Syria’s bloody civil war. The U.S. foreign policy in recent decades will
United States is already helping arm some recognize that Washington’s response to
of the forces fighting against the Assad re- Egypt and Syria is part of a much bigger
gime, and President Obama came close to story. The story is this: America’s national-
attacking Syria following its use of chemi- security elites act on the assumption that
cal weapons in August 2013. Washington every nook and cranny of the globe is of
is now directly involved in the effort to great strategic significance and that there
locate and destroy Syria’s chemical-weapons are threats to U.S. interests everywhere. Not
stockpiles. surprisingly, they live in a constant state
These responses reflect three widespread of fear. This fearful outlook is reflected in
beliefs about Egypt and Syria. The first the comments of the chairman of the Joint
is that the two states are of great strategic Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey,
importance to the United States. There before Congress in February 2012: “I can’t
is a deep-seated fear that if the Obama impress upon you that in my personal
administration does not fix the problems military judgment, formed over thirty-eight
plaguing those countries, serious damage years, we are living in the most dangerous
will be done to vital American interests. time in my lifetime, right now.” In February
The second one is that there are compelling 2013, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
moral reasons for U.S. involvement in stated that Americans “live in very complex
Syria, mainly because of large-scale civilian and dangerous times,” and the following
deaths. And the third is that the United month Senator James Inhofe said, “I don’t
States possesses the capability to affect remember a time in my life where the world
Egyptian and Syrian politics in significant has been more dangerous and the threats
and positive ways, in large part by making more diverse.”
These are not anomalous views. A 2009
John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison survey done by the Pew Research Center
Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science for the People and the Press found that
at the University of Chicago. He is on the Advisory 69 percent of the Council on Foreign
Council of The National Interest. Relations’ members believed the world
America Unhinged January/February 2014 9was more dangerous than—or at least as and treasure. Nor is there a compelling
dangerous as—it was during the Cold moral case for intervening in either country.
War. In short, the elite consensus is that Equally important, the United States
Egypt and Syria are not the only countries has little ability to rectify the problems in
Washington has to worry about, although Egypt and Syria. If anything, intervention
they are among the most pressing problems is likely to make a bad situation worse.
Consider America’s dismal
record in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Libya. Moreover, it does not
matter much who is in charge
in Cairo or Damascus. The
United States has a rich history of
working with leaders of all types,
including Communists, fascists,
military dictators and traditional
monarchs. For all the talk about
the need to topple Syria’s Bashar
al-Assad because he is a ruthless
tyrant, Washington was able to
live with him—and his equally
ruthless father—for more than
forty years.
Interfering in countries like
Egypt and Syria and turning the
world into one big battlefield has
significant costs for the United
States. The strategic costs are
at the moment. This grim situation actually not great precisely because the
means the United States has a lot of social United States is such an extraordinarily
engineering to carry out, leaving it no secure country. It can pursue foolish
choice but to pursue an interventionist policies and still remain the most powerful
foreign policy. In other words, it must state on the planet. (This is not to deny
pursue a policy of global domination if it that America’s interventionist policies are
hopes to make the world safe for America. the main cause of its terrorism problem.
This perspective is influential, Nevertheless, terrorism is a minor threat,
widespread—and wrong. Contrary to the which is why Washington is free to
conventional wisdom, the United States is a continue pursuing the policies that helped
remarkably secure country. No great power cause the problem in the first place.)
in world history comes close to enjoying the The pursuit of global domination,
security it does today. What’s more, Egypt however, has other costs that are far
and Syria are not vital strategic interests. more daunting. The economic costs are
What happens in those countries is of little huge—especially the wars—and there
importance for American security. This is are significant human costs as well. After
not to say they are irrelevant but rather that all, thousands of Americans have died in
Washington’s real interests there are not Afghanistan and Iraq, and many more have
great enough to justify expending blood suffered egregious injuries that will haunt
10 The National Interest America Unhingedthem for the rest of their lives. Probably to think the United States could sit out
the most serious cost of Washington’s World War II, but they made a serious case
interventionist policies is the growth of for staying on the sidelines, one that many
a national-security state that threatens to Americans found compelling. At the heart
undermine the liberal-democratic values of the isolationists’ worldview is a simple
that lie at the heart of the American geographical fact: the American homeland
political system. is separated from Asia and Europe by two
Given these significant costs, and given giant moats. No great power can mount an
that the United States has no vital interests amphibious operation across the Atlantic or
at stake in Egypt and Syria, let alone the Pacific Oceans, and thus no outside power,
capacity for fixing the problems afflicting whether it was Nazi Germany or Imperial
those countries, it should adopt a hands- Japan, could directly threaten the survival of
off policy toward them. American leaders the United States.
would do well to honor the principle of If the case for isolationism was powerful
self-determination when dealing with before Pearl Harbor, it is even more
Cairo and Damascus, and with many other compelling today. For starters, the United
countries around the world as well. States has thousands of nuclear weapons,
which are the ultimate deterrent and go
T he United States is an exceptionally
secure great power, contrary to the fol-
derol one frequently hears emanating from
a long way toward guaranteeing a state’s
survival. No adversary is going to invade
America and threaten its survival, because
America’s national-security community. A that opponent would almost certainly
good way to illustrate this point is to reflect end up getting vaporized. In essence, two
on isolationism, a grand strategy with a rich giant oceans and thousands of nuclear
but controversial history. weapons today shield the United States.
Isolationism rests on the assumption Moreover, it faces no serious threats in its
that no region of the world outside own neighborhood, as it remains a regional
of the Western Hemisphere is of vital hegemon in the Western Hemisphere.
strategic importance to the United States. Finally, the United States faces no great-
Isolationists do not argue that America has power rival of any real consequence. In
no interests in the wider world, just that fact, most strategists I know believe it has
they are not important enough to justify been operating in a unipolar world since the
deploying military force to defend them. Cold War ended, which is another way of
They are fully in favor of engaging with saying America is the only great power on
the rest of the world economically as well the planet; it has no peers. Others believe
as diplomatically, but they view all foreign China and Russia are legitimate great
wars as unnecessary. powers and the world is multipolar. Even
I am not an isolationist, but the logic so, those two great powers are especially
underpinning this grand strategy is not weak when compared to the mighty United
easy to dismiss. Quite the contrary, as States. In addition, they have hardly any
President Franklin Roosevelt discovered power-projection capability, which means
in the early 1940s, when he had great they cannot seriously threaten the American
difficulty countering the isolationists. It homeland.
is commonplace today to dismiss those All of this is to say that the United States,
isolationists as fools or even crackpots. But which is the most secure great power in
that would be a mistake. They were wrong world history, has been safer over the past
America Unhinged January/February 2014 11America’s national-security elites act on the assumption that every
nook and cranny of the globe is of great strategic significance
and that there are threats to U.S. interests everywhere.
twenty-five years than at any other time in weapon. 1 Political turmoil in a nuclear-
its history. General Dempsey’s assertion that armed state could in theory allow terrorists
the present marks the most dangerous era in to grab a loose nuclear weapon, but the
his lifetime is completely wrong. The world United States already has detailed plans to
was far more perilous during the Cold War, deal with that highly unlikely contingency.
which witnessed the various Berlin crises, Terrorists might also try to acquire fissile
the Cuban missile crisis and the 1973 Yom material and build their own bomb. But
Kippur War. And it is hard to fathom how that scenario is extremely unlikely as well:
Senator Inhofe, who was born one year there are significant obstacles to getting
after Hitler came to power, could think enough material and even bigger obstacles
today’s world is more dangerous than the to building a bomb and then delivering
first decade of his life. it. More generally, virtually every country
Am I overlooking the obvious threat has a profound interest in making sure no
that strikes fear into the hearts of so many terrorist group acquires a nuclear weapon,
Americans, which is terrorism? Not at all. because they cannot be sure they will not
Sure, the United States has a terrorism be the target of a nuclear attack, either
problem. But it is a minor threat. There is by the terrorists or another country the
no question we fell victim to a spectacular terrorists strike. Nuclear terrorism, in short,
attack on September 11, but it did not is not a serious threat. And to the extent
cripple the United States in any meaningful that we should worry about it, the main
way and another attack of that magnitude remedy is to encourage and help other
is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. states to place nuclear materials in highly
Indeed, there has not been a single instance secure custody.
over the past twelve years of a terrorist
organization exploding a primitive bomb
on American soil, much less striking a
major blow. Terrorism—most of it arising
C ontrary to what isolationists think,
there are three regions of the world—
Europe, Northeast Asia and the Persian
from domestic groups—was a much bigger Gulf—that are indeed of vital strategic im-
problem in the United States during the portance to the United States. Of course,
1970s than it has been since the Twin Europe and Northeast Asia are important
Towers were toppled. because the world’s other great powers are
What about the possibility that a terrorist located in those regions, and they are the
group might obtain a nuclear weapon? Such only states that might acquire the capability
an occurrence would be a game changer, to threaten the United States in a serious
but the chances of that happening are way.
virtually nil. No nuclear-armed state is
going to supply terrorists with a nuclear 1 Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “Why States
weapon because it would have no control Won’t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists,”
over how the recipients might use that International Security 38, no. 1 (2013).
12 The National Interest America UnhingedOne might counter that they still cannot Eastern states that do not have much oil are
attack across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans of little strategic significance to the United
and reach the shores of the United States. States. They include Egypt and Syria, as well
True, but if a distant great power were to as Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Yemen. Thus,
dominate Asia or Europe the way America it makes little sense for Americans to worry
dominates the Western Hemisphere, it much about what is happening in Egypt
would then be free to roam around the and Syria, much less countenance military
globe and form alliances with countries intervention in those countries. In short,
in the Western Hemisphere that have an what happens in Cairo and Damascus has
adversarial relationship with the United little effect on American security.
States. In that circumstance, the stopping It is apparent from the discourse in the
power of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans American foreign-policy establishment,
would be far less effective. Thus, American as well as the Obama administration’s
policy makers have a deep-seated interest behavior, that my views about the strategic
in preventing another great power from importance of Egypt and Syria are at
achieving regional hegemony in Asia or odds with mainstream thinking. So let
Europe. us consider in more detail how those two
The Persian Gulf is strategically countries might affect U.S. security.
important because it produces roughly
30 percent of the world’s oil, and it holds
about 55 percent of the world’s crude-oil
reserves. If the flow of oil from that region
E gypt and Syria are weak countries by
any meaningful measure of power.
Both have small and feeble economies, and
were stopped or even severely curtailed hardly any oil or other natural resources
for a substantial period of time, it would that might make them rich like Kuwait or
have a devastating effect on the world Saudi Arabia.
economy. Therefore, the United States Furthermore, neither Egypt nor Syria
has good reason to ensure that oil flows has ever had a formidable military, even
freely out of the Gulf, which in practice when the Soviet Union provided them with
means preventing any single country from sophisticated military equipment during the
controlling all of that critical resource. Most Cold War. Neither was a serious threat to
oil-producing states will keep pumping and its neighbors, especially Israel. Remember
selling their oil as long as they are free to do that Israel fought major wars against Egypt
so, because they depend on the revenues. in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, and the
It is in America’s interest to keep them that Israel Defense Forces (idf ) clobbered the
way, which means there can be no regional Egyptian army in each instance. Syria
hegemon in the Gulf, as well as Asia and fought against the idf in 1948, 1967 and
Europe. 1973, and it too suffered humiliating
To be clear, only the oil-producing states defeats at the hands of the Israelis.
of the Persian Gulf are of marked strategic Egypt and Israel made peace after the
importance to the United States, not every 1973 war, but Israel and Syria remain
country in the broader Middle East. In enemies. Nevertheless, every time there
particular, Washington should be concerned has been a possibility the two sides might
about the fate of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, become embroiled in a war—during the
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, 2006 war in Lebanon, for example—the
because it wants to make sure their oil flows Syrians have gone to great lengths to avoid
uninterrupted into world markets. Middle a fight. The Syrians fully understand they
America Unhinged January/February 2014 13could not hold their own against the idf. noting that the canal was closed from 1967
Of course, the recent turmoil and conflict to 1975 and the international economy
in Egypt and Syria have weakened those experienced no serious damage.
two countries further. Indeed, Israel is The threat of preventing the U.S.
now so confident of its military superiority Navy from reaching the Persian Gulf by
over its Arab neighbors that it is actually shutting the canal is an empty one, because
reducing its conventional forces. American ships can reach the Gulf through
Most importantly for the issue at hand, the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea. It
neither the Egyptian nor the Syrian might be more convenient for the United
military is a serious threat to the American States to send some ships bound for the
homeland or even to U.S. forces stationed Gulf through the canal, but it is hardly
in the Persian Gulf. And there is no reason essential for projecting power into that
to think that situation will change in the region.
foreseeable future. Given that Egypt and
Syria have little economic or military
power and hardly any oil, advocates of
global domination rely on a variety of other
O ne can discern four arguments in the
public discourse about why Syria
might be a vital American interest. Some
claims to make the case that they are core maintain that toppling Assad is important
American interests. because it would deliver a staggering blow
One argument is that the United States to Hezbollah and especially Iran, since they
should care greatly about Egypt because are both staunch supporters of the Assad
it controls the Suez Canal. Roughly 8 regime. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah put
percent of global seaborne trade and 4.5 the point succinctly in the summer of 2011:
percent of world oil supplies travel through “Nothing would weaken Iran more than
that passageway. Moreover, the U.S. Navy losing Syria.” A few months later, Tom Do-
uses the canal to move ships from the nilon, President Obama’s national-security
Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf. adviser, explained that the “end of the Assad
Thus, if Egypt were to close the canal, it regime would constitute Iran’s greatest set-
would damage the international economy back in the region yet—a strategic blow
and complicate American efforts to project that will further shift the balance of power
power into the strategically important Gulf. in the region against Iran.”
This is unpersuasive. If Egypt closed the This deep concern about Iran is
Suez Canal, it would not seriously hurt motivated by the belief that its influence
the international economy. Ships would be in the Middle East has grown significantly
rerouted, mainly around the southern tip of and that it is bent on achieving regional
Africa, and oil from the Middle East would hegemony. Its pursuit of nuclear weapons,
be distributed to the recipient countries so the argument goes, is part of Tehran’s
in different ways. Furthermore, Egypt drive to dominate the Middle East.
would pay a significant economic price if Terrorism is the basis of a second
it shut down the canal, which is its third- a r g u m e n t f o r t re a t i n g Sy r i a a s a
largest source of revenue and is sometimes fundamental strategic interest. The claim
referred to as an “economic lifeline.” Not is not only that Syria supports terrorist
only would Cairo lose the money generated organizations like Hezbollah, but also that
by that passageway, but it would also risk Al Qaeda and other groups hostile to the
economic and political retaliation by the United States now operate in Syria. Thus,
countries hurt by the closing. It is worth as two hawkish commentators writing
14 The National Interest America Unhingedin the New York Times put it, the United This matter is deemed especially important States could intervene in Syria and “create because the fact that Obama did not punish a bulwark against extremist groups like Al Syria for crossing his red line makes his Qaeda, which are present and are seeking threat to attack Iran if it moves to acquire safe havens in ungoverned corners of Syria.” nuclear weapons look hollow. Toppling Assad would also seriously weaken None of these arguments are convincing. Hezbollah, which is heavily dependent on There is no question that America’s Syria as well as Iran for its survival. disastrous war in Iraq strengthened Iran’s Another line of argument is that the position in the Middle East, mainly by United States must be intensely involved in bringing a Shia-dominated government to Syria because of the danger that its raging power in Baghdad. But Iran is nowhere civil war will spill over into neighboring close to having the capability to become countries, thus causing a wider conflict a hegemon in the Gulf. It does not have that will threaten American interests in formidable conventional forces, and nobody the region. “The longer the war,” the Wall worries much about it conquering any of Street Journal argues, “the graver the risks to its neighbors, especially because the United America’s allies.” States would intervene to stop it. Finally, there is the claim that Syria Nor is it clear that Tehran is pursuing matters greatly because America’s credibility nuclear weapons. The consensus opinion is at stake. Specifically, President Obama in the American intelligence community said in August 2012 that Syria would be is that it is not. But even if that judgment crossing a “red line” if it used chemical proves wrong and Iran acquires a weapons against the rebels. The implication nuclear arsenal, it could not use that was that the United States would respond capability to dominate the Persian Gulf. with military force if that happened. Nuclear weapons provide states with According to the White House, Assad little offensive capability and thus are ill used chemical weapons on August 21, suited for spreading Iran’s influence 2013, and killed 1,429 civilians. This tragic in its neighborhood. Furthermore, both event, so the argument goes, was not only Israel and the United States have nuclear a clear violation of a fundamental norm, weapons and would never tolerate Iran but it also put U.S. credibility on the line. achieving regional hegemony. Nor would America Unhinged January/February 2014 15
Saudi Arabia or any other Arab state, September 11. It gave Washington valuable
which means Iran would face a formidable intelligence about Al Qaeda—information
balancing coalition if it tried to rule the that helped stymie attacks on American
Gulf. targets in Bahrain and Canada—and it was
Finally, no matter how powerful one deeply involved in the Bush administration’s
thinks Iran is today, losing in Syria is not program of extraordinary rendition.
going to diminish its economic or military According to the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, it
power in any meaningful way, although it was one of the “most common destinations
will curtail its regional influence somewhat. for rendered suspects.”
But that outcome has two possible By backing the campaign against Assad,
consequences for the United States, neither the Obama administration has helped turn
of which is good. One is that Tehran is Syria into a haven for terrorist groups. In
likely to go to great fact, groups that loathe
lengths to keep Assad the United States
in power, complicating dominate the armed
Washington’s efforts opposition to Assad.
to depose the Syrian M o r e o v e r, m a n y
leader. However, if Iran Western governments
does lose in Syria and now worry because
thinks it is America’s t h e i r c i t i z e n s a re
next target for regime flocking to Syria and
change, its incentive joining the rebels.
to acquire a nuclear The apprehension is
deterrent will increase. that they will become
Thus, toppling Assad is radicalized and return
likely to make Iranian home as full-blown
nuclear weapons more, terrorists. Intervening
not less, likely. in Syria will just make
The claim that the the terrorism problem
United States should there worse, unless, of
treat Syria as a core course, Washington
strategic interest helps Assad defeat
because it is a hotbed the rebels and return
for terrorism also to the status quo
suffers from a number of flaws. For one ante. That is unlikely to happen, however,
thing, terrorism is not a serious enough because Obama is committed to arming the
threat to justify intervening in Syria, rebels.
especially with military force. Moreover, But backing the rebels certainly does not
intervening in countries like Syria is solve the terrorism problem, as the most
precisely what helps trigger the terrorism powerful groups are comprised of jihadists
problem. Remember that the United States who hate America. Furthermore, if the
faced no terrorism problem from Syria United States gets more deeply involved
before the Obama administration threw its in the conflict, the actors supporting
weight behind the effort to oust Assad from Assad—Hezbollah, Iran and Russia—are
power. Indeed, Syria helped the United likely to up the ante themselves, increasing
States deal with its terrorism problem after the prospect the war will drag on for the
16 The National Interest America UnhingedEgypt and Syria are not vital strategic interests. What happens
in those countries is of little importance for American security.
foreseeable future. And the longer the civil countries. In other words, further American
war lasts, the stronger the jihadists will intervention would probably help spread
become within the opposition forces. the fire, not contain it.
If nothing else, one might argue that In theory, the United States could solve
removing Assad from power would deliver this contagion problem by invading and
a devastating blow to Hezbollah, which is occupying Syria, much the way it did in
supported by Syria as well as Iran. The first Iraq between 2003 and 2011. Thankfully,
problem with this claim is that the United there is zero chance that will happen.
States is not a mortal enemy of Hezbollah Thus, the best strategy for the Obama
and not in its crosshairs. Washington administration is to pursue a diplomatic
should not give it any incentive to target the solution.
United States. Furthermore, even if the flow But even if diplomacy fails and the war
of Iranian and Syrian arms to Hezbollah spreads beyond Syria’s borders, it would
were cut off, it would remain a powerful not undermine American security in any
force in Lebanon and the broader region, meaningful way, as it would not lead to a
as it has deep roots and enjoys substantial single country dominating the Gulf and its
support among important segments of oil. Besides, every oil-producing country
Lebanese society. Moreover, the flow of has powerful incentives to sell its oil and
arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah generate revenue, whether it is embroiled in
would eventually start up again, because no a conflict or not.
matter who rules in Damascus, it is in their Lastly, there is the argument that
interest to support Hezbollah. That militant American credibility is on the line in Syria
organization directly threatens Israel’s and thus the United States must remain
northern border, which provides Syria deeply involved in that country’s politics.
with the only leverage it has for getting the To be sure, credibility would not even
Golan Heights back from Israel. be an issue if President Obama had not
What about the claim that the United foolishly drawn a red line over Syrian use
States should intervene in Syria’s civil war of chemical weapons. One might counter
to prevent it from becoming a regional that the president had no choice but to rule
conflict? It’s worth noting that the Obama the use of chemical weapons out of bounds,
administration helped precipitate this because they are especially heinous weapons
problem by attempting to remove Assad and there is a powerful norm against using
and failing, which helped exacerbate them.
the ongoing civil war. Furthermore, These counterarguments are not
if America gets more involved in the compelling. Despite all the hyperbole
conflict, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia are surrounding chemical weapons, they are
likely to increase their support for Assad, not weapons of mass destruction. They are
which would increase the prospect that certainly not in the same category as nuclear
the war would spill over into neighboring weapons. Israel, after all, has been willing
America Unhinged January/February 2014 17to live with Syrian chemical weapons for Iran’s troops, which allowed Iraqi chemical
many years, while it has been adamant that weapons to be effectively dumped on
it will not tolerate Iranian or Syrian nuclear them. And when Saddam gassed Iraqi
weapons. Kurds at Halabja in March 1988, the U.S.
Also, consider the history of civilian government refrained from blaming him,
casualties over the course of Syria’s civil war. just as it had throughout the war whenever
As noted above, the United States estimates Iraq used chemical weapons, which it did a
that 1,429 civilians were killed in the August number of times.
21 gas attacks, which is a considerably There is actually a good chance the
higher number than the estimates of Britain, Obama administration will take the
France and Doctors Without Borders, all credibility problem off the table with
of which put the death toll under four diplomacy. It appears that the Russians and
hundred. Regardless of the exact number, the Americans—working through the un—
bombs and bullets killed roughly forty may succeed in destroying Syria’s stockpile
thousand Syrian noncombatants before of chemical weapons. If that happens,
the recent gassing, yet those many civilian Obama should declare victory and then stay
deaths did not prompt the White House to out of Syrian politics. But if that effort fails
intervene in Syria. and Assad keeps some chemical weapons,
Is the crucial difference that chemical the president will once again be urged
weapons cause a particularly gruesome to consider using military force against
death when compared to bombs and Syria to uphold American credibility. In
bullets? This contention dovetails with the that event, the United States should not
White House’s campaign to purvey pictures attack Syria; indeed, the smart policy would
of Syrians dying or dead from chemical be for Obama to ignore the fact that he
weapons. There is no meaningful difference, drew a line in the sand and move toward
however, between killing people with a noninterventionist policy toward Syria.
bombs and bullets versus gas. This approach makes sense for a variety of
Regarding the norm against using reasons.
chemical weapons, it surely is not a First, the credibility problem is greatly
powerful one. After all, no country, save for overrated. As Daryl G. Press notes in his
France and the United States, was willing important book, Calculating Credibility,
to go to war against Syria this past summer when a country backs down in a crisis,
when it used gas against the rebels. And it is its credibility in subsequent crises is not
hard to argue it is a powerful norm for most reduced. “A country’s credibility, at least
Americans, who want no part of a military during crises,” he writes, “is driven not
strike on Syria. by its past behavior but rather by power
And while Obama may think the norm and interests.” 2 Thus, the fact that
is formidable, remember that in 1988, America suffered a humiliating defeat in
when Iran appeared to be on the verge of the Vietnam War did not lead Moscow to
defeating Iraq in their long and bloody war, think that the U.S. commitment to defend
the Reagan administration came to the aid Western Europe was not credible.
of Saddam Hussein and helped his military So even if the United States fails to
use chemical weapons—including the lethal
nerve agent, sarin—to stymie the Iranians 2 Daryl G. Press, Calculating Credibility: How
on the battlefield. Washington provided Leaders Assess Military Threats (Ithaca, ny: Cornell
Iraq with information on the location of University Press, 2005).
18 The National Interest America Unhingedenforce the norm against the use of problem Obama created when he unwisely
chemical weapons in Syria, there is no good drew a red line over Syrian use of chemical
reason to think the leadership in Tehran will weapons.
conclude Washington is not serious about In sum, no vital American interests are
preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear at stake in either Egypt or Syria. Thus,
weapons. After all, American policy makers there is no compelling strategic rationale
have gone to enormous lengths over the for intervening in their politics. Indeed, it
past decade to make clear that a nuclear appears that intervention does more harm
Iran is unacceptable. than good to America’s security interests.
Second, the White House has no viable
strategy for removing Assad from power
or for eliminating his chemical weapons
with force. Actually, it is unclear how
O ne might concede this point, but
argue instead that moral consider-
ations demand deep American involvement
committed Obama is to unseating the in Egypt and Syria—and other countries as
Syrian leader, given that jihadists dominate well—to eliminate their ruling autocrats.
the opposition. Moreover, the president The underlying logic is that these strong-
is unwilling to punish the Assad regime men deny their people basic human rights
with sustained and large-scale strikes for and are likely to kill innocent civilians. The
fear of getting dragged into the conflict. ultimate goal, unsurprisingly, is to promote
What this means, in essence, is that even if democracy in those countries, not only for
one believes some damage will be done to human-rights reasons, but also because
America’s credibility by walking away from democratic regimes are likely to be friendly
Syria, it is better to pay that small price to America.
rather than engage in
fruitless if not dangerous
military strikes.
Third, if the United
St a t e s u s e s m i l i t a r y
force against Syria
and gets even more
deeply enmeshed in
that country, it would
reduce the likelihood
Washington would use
force against Iran. It
is clear from the recent
debate about striking
Syria that the American
public is tired of war.
B u t i f t h e Un i t e d
States did jump into the fight, even with This line of thinking is not convincing;
airpower alone, it would surely make the in fact, it is dangerous. The United States
American people even more reluctant to should not be the world’s policeman, in
begin another war against Iran. For all part because it should respect the principle
these reasons, American leaders should pay of self-determination and allow countries
little attention to the so-called credibility to decide their own political fate. For good
America Unhinged January/February 2014 19The United States, which is the most secure great
power in world history, has been safer over the past
twenty-five years than at any other time in its history.
reason, almost every American recoils at large numbers of civilian casualties.
the idea of another country interfering That is especially true in cases like Syria,
in their political life; they should realize where there are sharp ethnic and religious
other peoples feel the same way about U.S. differences, and where the fighting often
interference in their domestic affairs. What takes place in urban areas, increasing the
is sauce for the goose should be sauce for prospects of collateral damage.
the gander. Regardless, what is happening in Syria
Furthermore, the United States would be is not genocide or anything close to the
deeply involved in the politics of countries systematic murdering of a particular
all across the globe if it pursued this group. Proponents of intervention are
ambitious policy. After all, there will never fond of portraying Assad as a modern-
be a shortage of nondemocratic regimes to day version of Hitler and arguing this is
reform, and sometimes there will be the the West’s “Munich moment,” implying
temptation to use the sword to achieve that he will engage in mass murder if not
end. Moreover, the United States has an dealt with immediately. This is hyperbole
abysmal track record when it comes to social of the worst kind. Assad is certainly a
engineering of this sort. Remember that the ruthless dictator, but he has done nothing
Bush Doctrine, which crashed and burned that would put him in the same class as
in Iraq, was supposed to facilitate the spread Hitler, who murdered more than twenty
of democracy across the Middle East. Thus, million civilians in the course of a ruthless
if Washington pursues a policy of toppling campaign of territorial expansion, and
authoritarian regimes and promoting would have murdered many millions
democracy, there will be no end to our more had he won World War II. As noted,
crusading but few successes along the way. roughly forty thousand civilians have died
Another moral argument says the United in the Syrian civil war, and the rebels have
States should intervene in the Syrian civil killed many of the victims.
war because it is a humanitarian disaster. Finally, Assad’s use of chemical weapons
Many thousands of civilians have died, hardly justifies intervention on moral
and the Assad regime has gone so far as grounds. Those weapons are responsible
to murder people with poison gas. It is for a small percentage of the civilian deaths
deeply regrettable that civilians are dying in Syria. Moreover, the claim that killing
in Syria, but intervention still makes little people with gas is more gruesome and
sense. There is no compelling rationale for horrible than killing them with shrapnel is
entering the war and no viable strategy for unpersuasive.
ending it. If anything, American entry into Not only is there no moral rationale for
the conflict is likely to prolong the war and intervention, but the United States also has
increase the suffering. no strategy for ending the war. Even when
Syria is in the midst of a brutal civil Obama was threatening to bomb Syria
war, and such conflicts invariably involve this past summer, he emphasized that the
20 The National Interest America Unhingedstrikes would be limited—“unbelievably pressure to resign from the Egyptian
small,” according to Secretary of State John military and a large slice of the public. The
Kerry—and not designed either to topple Obama administration, which was never
Assad or end the civil war. This restricted- enthusiastic about a Morsi presidency,
bombing strategy is certainly at odds with stepped into this messy situation and
the claim that Assad is a contemporary facilitated his overthrow. He was replaced
version of Hitler who must be dealt with by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a
immediately. Of course, the United States strongman in the Mubarak tradition.
is now involved in negotiations that aim to In taking this step, the United
get rid of Assad’s chemical weapons, but not States was helping foster a coup against
him. In fact, if they succeed, his prospects a democratically elected leader who was
for staying in power will increase. More not a threat to the United States. The new
important for the point at hand, those Egyptian government then turned against
negotiations are not aimed at terminating the Brotherhood, killing over a thousand
the conflict. people and putting Morsi in jail. The
Obama administration lamely tried to
I t is widely believed in the American na-
tional-security establishment that Wash-
ington has the capacity to fix the problems
prevent this bloody crackdown but failed.
Moreover, it has cut only a small portion
of the $1.5 billion in aid the United States
that plague countries like Egypt and Syria gives Egypt each year, even though U.S.
and that the key to success is to turn those law mandates that most foreign aid be cut
countries into democracies. to any country “whose duly elected head of
This is certainly not true in Syria. The government is deposed by military coup or
United States has no viable strategy for decree.”
ending the conflict there, much less turning The end result of meddling in Egypt’s
Syria into a democracy. Indeed, it seems politics over the past three years is that the
clear that the Obama administration made United States is even more widely despised
a fundamental mistake when it opted to try in that country than it was before (which
to remove Assad. Washington should have is saying something). The Brotherhood
stayed out of Syria’s business and let the and its allies loathe America for helping
Syrian people determine their own political to overthrow Morsi and then standing
fate, whatever the result. by while their members were murdered.
The same logic applies to Egypt, whose The military and many civilians dislike
politics the Obama administration has the United States for having supported the
been trying to micromanage since protests Brotherhood when it was in power. On
against then president Hosni Mubarak top of all that, the Obama administration
broke out in January 2011. As the protests ended up helping remove one autocrat only
gained momentum, the United States to replace him with another, and in the
stepped in and helped oust him from process helped overthrow a legitimately
power. Obama then welcomed Egypt’s elected leader.
move toward democracy and supported its Perhaps Obama mishandled the situation
newly elected government, even though the in Egypt and should have employed a
Muslim Brotherhood dominated it. different strategy. Yet it is hard to see what
After a mere one year in office, President Washington could have done differently
Mohamed Morsi, who was a member of in Egypt (or Syria) that would have
the Brotherhood, came under tremendous produced a happy ending.
America Unhinged January/February 2014 21You can also read
