1hundredsixty8

Note: I began this post three weeks ago, so it is not quite timely.

Let me understand this: Obama was taken to school by Putin, allowing the Russians to take the lead on the whole Syria crisis and thereby damaging American standing in the world. Or the whole affair was a spectacular maneuver by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to get the Russians to pressure the Syrians to relinquish their chemical weapons. One thing is certain: Polls showed that the American public has no appetite for military intervention in the Middle East. What a difference a decade makes: Bush and the neo-cons had little problem lathering the country up to invade Iraq. Even the Congressional Democrats, sensing the blood lust of the people (someone had to pay for 9-11, goddammit!), backed Bush’s military adventure. The politics the Obama administration must confront has tied its hands when it comes to punishing the Hassad regime for crossing the “red line”.

(I think it is difficult not to see American war-weariness as an exaggeration, another concoction of some real events mixed with media hyperbole. While it is true that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had senseless human and material costs, it is also true that very few Americans have actually fought in these wars. This is the consequence of the post-Vietnam transition from a citizen army to a professional army. It may also be a reason the neo-cons felt emboldened to embark on pre-emptive war. These are among the issues Andrew Bacevich explores in his recently published book, “Breach of Trust”.)

Since the end of World War II, the Middle East has been the nexus of a continuing series of crises: Arab-Israeli wars, Palestinian diaspora, the Suez Crisis of 1957, the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980’s, the Lebanese civil war, Desert Storm, the intifada, Operation Iraqi Freedom. As with all conflicts, the contributing factors are numerous and complex. Certainly, the oil wealth of the Gulf States, the economic inequality prevalent in most of the countries, historical antipathies and sectarian divisions all play a role in engendering violence. Israel has been a convenient touchstone for Arab discontent. The virulent strain of fundamentalist religious zeal plays a significant part in galvanizing the disaffected youth of the Arab states. This is a region scarred by the centuries it spent as part of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent colonial machinations of the British and the French. That history begat a Mid-East that is the perfect combination of internal divisions and external rivalries. The recent turmoil in Libya and especially Egypt illustrates the vulnerability of Mid-Eastern governments. I am sure the Saudis and Bahrainis are not at ease with the events of the past three years. It is just as certain that a mostly Sunni Saudi Arabia worries about the influence the Shiite Iranians exert in the neighboring Arab states.  And there is, of course, oil, the honey-trap that maintains  the interest of developed economies such as the United States, Europe and China.

It is a tricky deal then, to keep local conflicts such as the one in Syria from expanding, to prevent different players with different agendas from making the situation worse. There is no simple foreign policy prescription that offers a pragmatic solution. Viewed historically, whomever is ultimately responsible, the accord the Russians and the Americans have worked out is a triumph of diplomacy.