Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The Leverage Problem
For the past several months, I've been working on a big project related to U.S. policy toward the Middle East at the Center for a New American Security. (My research partner is Duke's Bruce Jentleson, whose research I have long admired.) During that time, I've had the opportunity to interact with a wide array of former and current U.S. policy makers as well as the kinds of na'er-do-well academic specialists on the region whose work I have always found to be thought-provoking. One thing virtually everyone can agree on is the dilemma in which U.S. policy makers find themselves: in a region that is rapidly democratizing, the United States is over-invested in the least democratic institutions and regimes in the region.
Where things get tricky is when one tries to decide what to do about that. The principle problem is one that has been in my head watching more violent crackdowns in Bahrain and Egypt: the very source of U.S. leverage against the regimes in Bahrain and Egypt is that which links the United States to the abuses of the regime in the first place. So if you want to take a "moral" stand against the abuses of the regime in Bahrain and remove the Fifth Fleet, congratulations! You can feel good about yourself for about 24 hours -- or until the time you realize that you have just lost the ability to schedule a same-day meeting with the Crown Prince to press him on the behavior of Bahrain's security forces. Your leverage, such as it was, has just evaporated. The same is true in Egypt. It would feel good, amidst these violent clashes between the Army and protesters, to cut aid to the Egyptian Army. But in doing so, you also reduce your own leverage over the behavior of the Army itself.
At some point, of course, the United States has no choice to cut all ties to a regime or institution. We are not, I feel strongly, quite there in either Egypt or Bahrain. But as I hear of more and more of my friends in the region beaten with crowbars and pelted with rubber bullets by the forces charged with protecting the citizenry, it's fair to wonder whether or not the United States is using the leverage it has to its greatest effect.
What are your thoughts on the
What are your thoughts on the potential impact over the course of the next decade for the US to use Building Partnerships, Security Force Assistance, and or FID type missions as leverage? The opportunities that exist in that arena are significant however until now the US has not organized, trained or equipped its personnel towards these missions; we largely just push money to support other countries militaries.
unused leverage = no leverage
unused leverage = no leverage at all
usa could change its ways and its policies in a minute, but, maktub, its destiny is to collapse.
Who says the region is
Who says the region is "rapidly democratizing"? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe there should be contingency planning for that outcome. But that's not a set in stone reality, and policy shouldn't be constructed based on a potential, though by no means very likely, outcome. One would think a former military officer would understand that.
Continuation of aid =
Continuation of aid = leverage
Offer of new aid =/= leverage?
This makes me think of Pilate
This makes me think of Pilate - he had all the leverage in the world, but no moral standing. And so he couldn't do the right thing.
Until the US gets back it's moral standing,any leverage it has doesn't matter. Get out now, and invest in some moral standing for a generation. Then your leverage might matter.
AM could you please write a 9
AM could you please write a 9 year anniversary special on the end of the war in Iraq today?
Perhaps touch upon: How it made the world a safer place. And answer questions like: Did we find what we were orginally looking for? Was it worth the losses in life and money we spent and who is going to protect the Americans and Contractors that now remain in Iraq, without any protection? Will they be over-run if Iran decides to play dirty?
Your thoughts on the end of the war are appreciated.
Hurts my sorry ass, remember
Hurts my sorry ass, remember these guys? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDn44EwgRN0&feature=related
Exum, take two steps back and ask yourself what your goal is. You need to explain the scope of your policy before you bring it to the peanut gallery for discussion! Otherwise you are pissing up wind.
Think a few posts back I heard a voice from the past that said the US tried to project itself on the folks in Vietnam and what we ended up with were accommodating hosts who had their own agenda. Worse is an American political party pushing an agenda abroad by wrapping it around high ground, support comes up short on both ends of the policy. America is dealing with sovereign nations, we need to get out of their business. It is just not the Middle East or South Asia, it is the world that the US engages with. The US Treasury (deficit) is becoming a joke and we have not even started to service the baby boomers and ObamaCare is just around the corner (without any cost controls). Unless Americans have jobs, there is no policy future! Lower taxes come from a broad base (we can not afford to ship jobs off shore). High taxes come from a government that has a lot of good intentions but has no clue how to pay for them. There is an infinite market for free goods and services. There is enough to go around but you have to manage it before you ask for it.
The ME is about getting a life. The people that live in the ME want jobs and services. It is not the US government's job to provide that to the people of the ME, period. First the ME needs to get stabilized and that is about agreement on religion and that disagreement has been going on for a thousand years. It would be stupid to think that policy can address the religion issue ( Women's rights and Sharia law, right. That is Hilliary's BS for an American audience, rude and true.). If the ME cannot agree on religion, then they need to find something else that has equal footing with synergy and that would be their economy. That is a rough one cause one will knock the legs out from the other to get attention. What is left is a pissing contest and the only people that can stop that are the people of the ME. The US cannot help them unless they decide to stop the violence to stabilize their countries to let jobs happen.
If I wrote policy what would it look like?
You want to sell oil, the US is a buyer. You want to purchase military toys, the US is a seller. If you want US AID, what are you going to do with it? This is the US strategy (Does the US have a strategy or just bluffing one? The blind leading the blind?) and if you agree you get AID, if you make measurable improvement in the strategy goal you keep getting US AID, if not the AID comes off the table. It is quid pro quo there are no entitlements, sorry. If you want help building your economy, I will ask my industry leaders to work with you. You need to meet the industry leaders needs, not the US government's needs. You and industry must finance the economic investments, it is your business not the US government's. If you want to use your US AID dollars to finance your economy improvements that is fine, but you still have to met measurable improvements there are no entitlements.
It is about managing America's future and working with partners that want to be part of that future, otherwise we respect your sovereignty.
I am getting tired of Washington fixing problems only to have to put more money under the solution to keep it from falling over. No politician will admit failure, so we keep digging the hole deeper.
When you write policy remember that you are writing it so that the people we help become independent not dependent on it. There are no entitlements.
So back to the initial point,
So back to the initial point, that being how would, could, and or should the US influence countries that we feel the need to do so with. The reasons that we may feel the need to do so will be long yet can still be prioritized rather easily. Having personnel embedded with their militaries as we are still doing in Saudi Arabia and other places is perhaps a cost effective way to have inroads and relationships with their personnel. Too bad we look at most things based on 6-12 month mission timelines…
"the United States is
"the United States is over-invested in the least democratic institutions and regimes in the region."
that is because American FP was "Searching for Ataturk" for the last 50 years.
You need to start by admitting there was only one Ataturk.
What? You, the various people
What? You, the various people you talked to and the US govt. only just realised that their closest allies are also the most repressive leaders? You were misled in your part for the last 60 years in the opposition and suppression of any group that actually represented the people and tried to fight back against these regimes? Its only now that people are rising up that you feel the need to take a moral stand?
C'mon AM, you are better than such naive thoughts! The US has but 2 policy goals in the ME: Protect the oil and protect Israel - Now I am not challenging the right of the US to have these goals as any country as the right to follow its own self serving policies but any change in attitude now would be nothing more than a cynical ploy; The question you should be asking is not how to withdraw support from these oppressors but how you are going to manage to corrupt those that take over into carrying on the same bootlicking policies of their predecessors when they will be voted in by people hostile to both US policy and the existence of the colony of Israel.
Visitor on December 18, 2011
Visitor on December 18, 2011 - 10:02am
Having personnel embedded with their militaries as we are still doing in Saudi Arabia and other places is perhaps a cost effective way to have inroads and relationships with their personnel.
Where do you want to be in three years? Still embedded?
How does embedding troops help achieve your primary goal? How would embedding troops give leverage?
What is your primary goal? What do the people you are dealing with want? What motivates them.
You better find synergy in your goals or you are just wasting time and money playing army. Waste is infinitely expensive cause it gets you no where. Just breathing oxygen in the diplomatic community gives you inroads for discussion SoS does it every day.
A region that is rapidly
A region that is rapidly democratizing.
Yeah.
I guess we have to do the 70's over again - in reverse it seems-- to convince our brainiacs that the world didn't begin their freshman year. "
Your "friends" if they live will be beating heads in, or putting bullets thru others, probably at a cyclic rate compared to the regimes now. If they don't, their "friends" will do it to them.
=============================================================
As to moral standing -- please tell me what country you are comparing us to, or what one your posting from. So I can review your own history for you. You either were as bad as us at our worst, or probably much worse. Or you got rolled in a few hours - Scandinavia comes to mind - and then their best fighting for instance was in Waffen SS units.
At this junction in history we are having to make the hard decisions and balance the scales, quite possibly your country is under the umbrella of our protection. If not you're probably in a shithole, and blaming us because your countries are run by gangsters that we may indeed do business with, as the de facto government is the de facto legitimate one. Until it's replaced, usually by something worse. If it's something better, you either got incredibly lucky, or we and the West had something to do with moderating their behavior.
Seems to me that our leverage
Seems to me that our leverage in this region is ephemeral at best, and we need to "normalize" things -- i.e., diplomats & perhaps some military training teams. I question the need for much of a forward presence in the Gulf. Wrt Egypt, our leverage in military aid is of some potential value as a bargaining chip, but a successful outcome of the "revolution" depends far more on the leverage exerted over the military by the Egyptian people -- parents & siblings of the soldiers.
Ex, that's one of those
Ex, that's one of those things that seems so obvious once someone says it, but it takes someone to say it in the first place. One of many paradoxes about this world, eh? There's nothing scarier than the people who think there's a solution toevery problem if we would only do A or B.
I would appreciate it if the CAPTCHAs would lay off the Cyrillic alphabet, however.
So I if “diplomats breathing
So I if “diplomats breathing gives you inroads” what makes you believe that interacting with their military would not do the same? Interaction provides opportunities for information and understanding of that information. How long have we been mentoring the Saudi Natl Guard…and we likely will be for a long time. This is done with a purpose.
Visitor on December 19, 2011
Visitor on December 19, 2011 - 2:40pm
So I if “diplomats breathing gives you inroads” what makes you believe that interacting with their military would not do the same?
Don't get me wrong, not saying that playing military would not be the answer. USA has been through ten years of war and many strategy changes, it would be a nice change of pace to know what we want from these people (and ourselves) before we get further in bed with them. Remember, USA is buying oil at a good price and been paying good money for AID to these countries for years. Not sure I feel the need to be on the hook for military training too. It is not like we do not have a presence in the area. The leverage is there and people are looking around like there has to be a new solution. USA diplomacy is applied in layers and we never expire the old baggage.
What I am saying is before Americans commit to anything (I am not sure there is a need to do anything) we need to be confident that it will produce results within our strategy (USA's ME strategy has been a circle jerk).
Cheaper solution to military advisers would be to sit down with the key players and talk. My suggestion would be to start with the Arab League and let them do the work. Why the hell do we pay the State Department people six fucking figure salaries for? So they can fly around the world in style? (hell no).
Americans pay these butt heads to find diplomatic solutions not to just spend money. They need to earn their keep.
To an extent I do understand
To an extent I do understand your point, that being said while talk is great how do you really know what they are doing if you are not there to have some eyes on. I am not trying to say that all liaisons are spies but unless they are dumb, deaf, and blind they will observe and should be collecting information. Now that info may never leave their brain bank however if the DAO, US Ambassador or others have questions they would have people that they can confirm/deny their assumptions. We all know what unconfirmed assumptions can do.
That being said those efforts are not free and if not managed well can be counterproductive. Regretfully the DoD, as well as other agencies have perhaps relied a bit too much on technical means vs. HUMINT over the last few years. Heck the US Army HUMINT Team where I was on my last deployment to Afghanistan was unable to go anywhere, even a meeting with a source unless they had 3 MRAPs and 12 people. Yet they wondered why no one would meet with them…
Ex, this is a BS argument.
Ex, this is a BS argument. You're assuming that the only reason that ME leaders grant audiences to US diplomats is because we are all too willing to shovel billions of dollars of military aid and sales into their countries. Here's a wild idea. Consider that there are other tools of national security, that developing relations with their intelligence services, economic leaders, and humanitarian assistance/development agencies in the countries might work even better than selling tanks, aircraft, and other weapon systems that only seem to be employed against the people of that sovereign nation.
Time to reset the ME policy.
Guess Obama has a problem in
Guess Obama has a problem in that he gave his speech in Cairo in 2009 and now he has to live up to it, poor him. These suits go off and make a problem and now they want someone else to climb in their cat box and scoop. Must be rough to make the big bucks. That is how the guys with the scoops get to the big league, they do a lot of butt polishing. It is smelly business to be at the bottom.
First thing to do is muzzle Hillary, the Middle East needs to learn how to live together before someone gets them all stirred up over genital mutilation. Clinton is SoS, not a presidential candidate. It is a trendy subject, I walked into an art class on a American University campus and genital mutilation was the topic of the flipp'in art lecture. Some people need to keep their agenda in their pockets and worry about the subject being taught. I do not think tuition rates have increase ten fold because the instructors are teaching ten times better.
In Bahrain the US is a renter, just like America is renter in Cuba (it is actually a lease if you want to get technical). I never told my landlord how to live his life. The US should get out of Bahrain's business. We can ask Bahrain to change, that is really between the rulers and the Bahrain people.
I am not paying Obama to be President of Bahrain.
In Egypt the US has been paying about $2-3 billion in aid since the early '80s, that has linkage to a Treaty. The US has also found it useful to sell the Egyptian's military equipment. That is business like any other country does business. The US has agreements with other countries in the region. One example is Kuwait which is why the US played mercenary for them in the early 90's.
Washington needs to simplify their interests and get away from the social agendas and get back to basic diplomacy (State's business, DUh!). Embassy are more than a place to park your high rolling campaign contributors. Separate your social agenda from your business and the Crown Prince will still answer your phone calls. If you got your diplomacy hat screwed on right, you can talk about other subjects while you are on the phone.
If that does not work then send Hillary to live in Bahrain ! After a couple months of hen pecking, your negotiating position should improve.
BTW... In any US Corporation, people that do not produce results are let go. In Government, screw-ups get paid more then transferred to get them out of the way.
The problem is that the US
The problem is that the US has branded itself as "the hope of all mankind" and "a shining city on a hill". A more normal nation with fewer delusions of grandeur could adopt a more balanced, reasonable and realistic foreign policy.
The US cannot. America has to constantly balance its delusions of grandeur and its commitment to "democracy" with realpolitik. These are no longer the seventies and eighties, this is the age of Al Jazeera. Everything you do will be scrutinised and criticised and you will be rightly called what you really are - hypocrites.
This should however, not distract us from the unmistakable trend in the Middle East - waning American relevance and influence. The end result of nine years of American involvement in Iraq is neither respect nor admiration but ridicule and hatred. Americans love to emphasise their superiority to the Chinese, but the American Government has killed infinitely more people this decade (primarily through incompetence and mainly in the Middle East) than the Chinese Government.
Think about that.
KingJaja on December 20, 2011
KingJaja on December 20, 2011 - 1:12pm
Hey, Obama is sitting on the throne of the shining city ! If some guys from the ME didn't have their turbines wrapped too tight the past ten years would not have happened.
Personally, as a US taxpayer and energy consumer, I would rather just walk way from the ME and let the region work out its own issues.
Someone in the shining city has a different agenda, write him a letter if you disapprove.
Has US "leverage" ever
Has US "leverage" ever worked? Countries will not go against their perceived national interests no matter the "leverage". It works best in areas like Japan where there is a clear win win. Lacking that....ummm it's kind of a fantasy. If "leverage" was such a viable concept Israel, Pakistan and The Kingdom would march in lock step with the US.
Add your comment