The exit of American military forces from the Middle East has ended the same way as it started: as a failure of judgement and honesty. Sixteen years ago, we entered the Iraq war under the cover of fake information and false evidence. A week ago, we exited on the whim of a President under the cover of his “great and unmatched wisdom.” The former was the result of collective deception. The latter was the result of one individual’s self-delusion. Neither served the interests of the country.
Last week’s decision to exit the Middle East, and especially the way it was done – abandoning the people, the Kurds, that fought with us, is perhaps the last episode of what has been a seventy-year period of American preeminence in the global stage. Or it can be looked at as the first step into a future America that turns inward and isolationist. No doubt it satisfies a good number of Americans who, tired of the unwise waste of blood and treasure in foreign fronts, would like to see that priorities turn toward domestic needs. It also satisfies those who believe that American power was abused to prop up undemocratic regimes or the narrow economic interests of US firms and their international collaborators.
Nonetheless, somewhere between selfish abuse of power and arms-length indifference lies the space for a powerful and wealthy country, like the US, to play a constructive role in global affairs. This is especially true today, as we recognize that to expand economic prosperity, eradicate illnesses, improve educational opportunities and deal with the climate challenge in the interest of all of humanity more not less international cooperation is needed.
This constructive role seemed to be what America would commit itself to in the aftermath of the WW II. The Marshall Plan, NATO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and the UN had the purpose to establish a world order that would foster international cooperation and peace and promote economic development. In many of these initiatives, America was willing to absorb the cost (not necessarily without the anticipation of future benefits) because it had three exclusive advantages: military strength, economic power, and the soft power of a liberal democracy. The result was 70 years of relative peace and economic growth that set the post-World War II period apart from the periods that had preceded it. Robert Kagan (The Cost of American Retreat, WSJ Sept. 2018) makes the point that the US-underwritten world order had rules that America often flaunted. But “[A]t the heart of the order was a grand bargain: The other liberal powers ceded strategic hegemony to the US, but in return the US would not use that hegemony to constrain their economic growth.” That’s what Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy never managed to grasp.
Unfortunately, each of these advantages dissipated as time went on. First, the legitimacy of military power came into question either for being used in the pursuit of dubious and self-service objectives or not used enough. Thus, Clinton was criticized for his inaction in Uganda and his delayed intervention in the former Yugoslavia to end the inter-ethnic atrocities. Similarly, Obama was blamed for his hesitation to deal with Assad and Sissy that left the Arab Spring an unfulfilled dream under the forceful pushback of two dictators, one seasoned and the other newly-minted. Under the emotional weight of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Bush listened to his neocon advisers to seek retribution against the wrong country, Iraq, instead of the country of the perpetrators, Saudi Arabia.
Confidence in the ability of our economy to generate prosperity for all fell victim to domestic policies that opened an unjustifiable gap between the privileged few and the masses of working Americans. With crumbling infrastructure, festering but underfunded social problems and rising costs for the welfare net America is a country immensely rich in the aggregate but unwilling to absorb the economic cost to pursue its strategic interests through trade and climate agreements or defense treaties. In years past, trade relations and agreements with other countries, including China, were part of a national strategy. Eventually, working class Americans came to see globalization as a project run by large corporations for their own interests not theirs. Thus, globalization became the bane for an inward-looking nationalistic sentiment.
And finally, but most importantly, America’s soft power to promote liberal democracy has been dying by a million cuts under the continued onslaught of the current president against free press, the justice system, the electoral process, and the assiduous coddling of authoritarian strong men or one-party rulers.
So, here we are. American troops, not even given the president’s thought for an orderly and dignified exit, are retreating in haste from the Syrian front, reminiscent of the exodus from Vietnam. Russian flags, hoisted on armored vans, are seen entering American military campgrounds as they fill the void, a void that is both territorial and geopolitical. And Pompeo and Pence are now in Ankara as supplicants to plead for restraint. All this must grate the patriotism of Republican politicians. But it’s the price for their Faustian bargain with Mr. Trump.
Make America Great Again was just a slogan from another era. Millions of Americans took it as genuine precursor to something grand. But now, MAGA lies disfigured along the US-Mexican border, victim of the grotesque and inhumane treatment of impoverished and frightened migrants. It lies along the Syrian-Turkish border full of shame for the betrayal of our army’s brothers-in-arms. And it lies in the web of the incoherent utterings of a man without credibility.
It is up to the next president to pick up the pieces and restore America’s place in the world.
Let's Reason 
Excellent piece. Very sobering indeed!
LikeLike