Middle East in US foreign policy

As US liberals and some leftists are pulling up their sleeves in anticipation of a prolonged battle for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, the tussle becomes particularly ugly when the candidates’ foreign policy agendas are evoked. 

Of the two main contenders, Hilary Clinton is the obvious target. She is, uncompromisingly, an interventionist and her term as secretary of state (2009-2013) is testament to her role in sustaining the country’s foreign policy agenda under George W. Bush (as a senator, she voted for the Iraq war in 2002) and advocating regime change.

Her aggressive foreign policy hit rock bottom in her infamous statement upon learning of the news that Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi was captured and killed in a most savage way.

“We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton rejoiced during a TV interview, once the news of Qadhafi’s grisly murder was announced on October 20, 2011.

True to form, Clinton used intervention in this now broken-up and warring country for her own personal gains, as her e-mail records that were later released, indicate.

In one e-mail, her personal adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, congratulated her on her effort that led to the “realising” of “a historic moment” — overthrowing Qadhafi — urging her to “make a public statement before the cameras [and to] establish yourself as in the historical record at this moment”.

She agreed, but suggested that she needed to wait until “Qadhafi goes, which will make it more dramatic”.

Her rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, of course, pounce on the opportunity to discredit Clinton, which is not entirely difficult.

But many have argued that although Sanders is promoted as more amiable and trustworthy, when compared to Clinton, his voting record is hardly encouraging.

“Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorisation Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted [and] backed Obama’s Libyan debacle,” wrote investigative journalist, writer and editor Jeffery St. Clair.

Aside from supporting the US’ current position on Syria, Sanders “voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq”, including in 1998.

“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,” the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 read.

On Israel, Sanders’ legacy is very similar to that of Barack Obama.

He seemed to be relatively balanced (as “balanced” as American officials can be) during his earlier days in various official capacities, a position that became more hawkish with time.

It behooves those who argue that Sanders is the lesser of two evils to examine Obama’s legacy; his sympathy with Palestinians was underscored by his friendship with the late Palestinian professors Edward Said and Rashid Al Khalidi.

The trappings and balances of power, however, led Obama to repeatedly grovel before the Israeli lobby in Washington DC, and he stalwartly backed Israel’s wars on Gaza.

More Palestinians died at the hand of Israel during Obama’s terms than during the administration of George W. Bush, who was an unwavering supporter of Israel.

Still, the current administration is negotiating an increase in US funding of Israel, to exceed by far the current $3.7 billion a year.

As odd as this may actually sound, as first lady, Clinton, too, was criticised for not being firm enough in her support for Israel; she shifted her position, right or wrong, just before she eyed a senator position representing the state of New York.

Not that many are ignorant of Sanders’ less-than-perfect past records, but some are rushing to Sanders’ side because they are compelled largely by fear that a Clinton White House would spell disaster for the future of the country, not just in the area of foreign policy, but domestically as well.

It is this train of thought that compelled leading leftist professor Noam Chomsky to show support for Sanders and, if necessary, even Clinton in swing states, to block Republican candidates from winning the presidency.

Chomsky, of course, has no illusions that Sanders’ self-proclaimed socialist title is even close to the truth. He is not a socialist, said Chomsky in a recent interview with Al Jazeera, but a “decent, honest New Dealer”.

Thanks to the massive repositioning of the American political system to the right, if one is a “new dealer”, one is mistaken for a “raving leftist”.

To a degree, one can sympathise with Chomsky’s position, considering the madness of the political rhetoric from the right, where Donald Trump wants to ban Muslims from entering the country and Ted Cruz is advocating “carpet bombing” Middle Eastern countries to fight terrorism.

But, on the other hand, one is expected to question the long-term benefit of the lesser of two evils approach to permanent, serious change in society.

Chomsky made similar statements in previous presidential elections, yet America’s foreign and domestic policies seem to be in constant decline.

Seen within the larger historical context, US foreign policy, at least since the end of World War II, has been that of “rolling back” and “containing” perceived enemies, “regime change” and outright military intervention.

The tools used to achieve US foreign policy goals rarely changed as a result of the type of administration (the lesser of two evils, Democrat, or a raging Republican) but varied, largely based on practical circumstances.

The rise of the Soviet Union as a global contender after World War II made it difficult for the US to always resort to war as a first choice, fearing an open confrontation with the pro-Soviet bloc and possibly a nuclear war.

It was Henry Kissinger that helped navigate America’s imperial interests at the time, resorting to most underhanded and often criminal tactics to achieve his goals.

But the demise of the USSR whetted US’ appetite for global hegemony like never before.

The US’ interventionist strategy became most dominant starting with the 1990s. 

If Republican or Democratic administrations differed in any way, it was largely in rhetoric, not action.

Whereas Republicans justified their interventions based on preemptive doctrines, Democrats referenced humanitarian interventionism. Both were equally deadly and, combined, destabilised the Middle East beyond repair.

The Obama presidency made no significant departure from the norm, although his doctrine — “leading from behind”, at times, or aerial bombardment as opposed to “boots on the ground”, and so on — is mostly compelled by circumstances and not in the least a departure from the policies of his predecessors.

While US administrations change their tactics, infuse their doctrines and adapt to various political conditions, wherever they intervene in the world, massive, complex disasters follow.

Clinton might have come and seen Qadhafi brutally murdered, but Libya also descended into a “state-of-nature” type of chaos, where extreme violence practiced by militant brutes and managed by Western-backed politicians have taken reign.

Similar fates have been suffered by Iraq, Yemen and Syria.

Thus, it is essential that we understand such historical contexts before once more getting involved in impractical political feuds, which, whether led by Republicans or by Democrats, bring unmitigated harm to the Middle East, instability and incalculable deaths.

The writer, www.ramzybaroud.net, has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally syndicated columnist, a media consultant, author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include “Searching Jenin”, “The Second Palestinian Intifada” and “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story”. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.