Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Op-Eds

News Opinion Op-Eds

America's exasperation doctrine

Maybe everyone is misreading America's views on foreign policy?

Among Republicans, there's a big argument between the so-called isolationist wing of the party and the ostensibly interventionist wing. On the left, there's a similar debate (though liberals are never described as isolationists no matter how isolationist they might be). Among Democrats, the dividing lines are murkier if for no other reason than the Democratic Party takes its lead from President Barack Obama, and his own views are murky, to put it charitably.

The biggest boon to the anti-interventionists is the simple political reality that Americans just don't want to intervene in Syria. They also want to get out of Afghanistan. They don't seem to care much that Iraq is slowly sliding back into chaos. The footage out of Egypt may be horrific, but I would be surprised by any groundswell of sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Some commentators paint all of this as part of a general isolationist or inward-looking attitude on the part of the American people. And lord knows that after so much American blood and treasure has been spilt since 9/11, nearly everyone is war-weary.

But there's a simpler reason for American reluctance to intervene in the Middle East that plays a much bigger role in peoples' attitudes about foreign policy. It can be summed up with the words "to hell with them."

I borrow the phrase from my National Review colleague Rich Lowry. In 2006, as even the rosiest scenarios in Iraq turned gray, Lowry wrote an essay on how the Bush administration was losing the support of the "to hell with them" hawks. These were, in Lowry's words, "conservatives who are comfortable using force abroad, but have little patience for a deep entanglement with the Muslim world, which they consider unredeemable, or at least not worth the strenuous effort of trying to redeem."

Recall that this was the time when the Palestinians held an election in Gaza and proceeded to elect a repugnant terror organization, Hamas, as their dictators. President George W. Bush routinely responded to every fresh atrocity by insisting "Islam means peace" until it became a punch line.

Over the preceding two decades, the U.S. sent troops into harm's way five times to liberate Muslim people -- in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq -- and yet America's reputation generally worsened. And whenever Muslim fanatics launched horrific and brutal terrorist attacks -- mostly slaughtering fellow Muslims -- the supposedly vast reservoirs of moderate Muslims rarely voiced much outrage. Meanwhile, our supposed partners in Afghanistan and Iraq, never mind our allies in Egypt and elsewhere, didn't express much interest in democracy that extended beyond saying the right words to keep the river of U.S. tax dollars flowing.

The understandable -- if not necessarily laudable -- response from many pro-defense conservatives was, "To hell with them." They don't want our help and, besides, we can't help them when we try. If they attack us, will attack back, but beyond that, they're on their own.

That attitude is back with a vengeance, and not just among self-described hawks. There's even a version of that attitude among doves. Though they probably wouldn't say, "To hell with them," they share a similar attitude that there's little the U.S. can do for the Arab and Muslim world. Indeed, this exasperation is something of a boon for segments of the anti-American left, who've always seen U.S. power as a force for ill in the world. President Obama offered the Muslim world a grandiose do-over, promising to be, in effect, an anti-Bush president. He's now less popular among Arabs and Muslims than President Bush was in 2008.

The "to hell with them" attitude is no doubt prevalent among Americans who dislike Muslims, but having animus in one's heart is not a prerequisite for exhaustion and exasperation with large swaths of the Middle East. All you need to do is read the headlines coming out of the Middle East and feel like, "I've seen this movie before." And thanks to fracking and other technological boons, the fact that we're becoming less and less reliant on Middle Eastern oil only serves to undermine arguments that we need regional stability at any cost.

You can't prove a negative, but my hunch is that support for Israel or South Korea, never mind our NATO allies, remains quite strong. If real friends were threatened, the American people would support coming to their aid. It's just that there's a growing -- or, in many cases deepening -- sense that we don't have real friends in the Muslim world.

Jonah Goldberg is the author of "The Tyranny of Clichés," now on sale in paperback. You can write to him in care of this newspaper or by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • U.S. is short-sighted in Egypt

    U.S. is short-sighted in Egypt

    Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi celebrated his recent return from the U.S. by imprisoning prominent opposition blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah for participating in a peaceful demonstration. Historically, Washington's renewed pledges of massive military aid have triggered major crackdowns on dissent in Egypt....

  • In Egypt, signs of hope, not 'hijacking' [Letter]

    In Egypt, signs of hope, not 'hijacking' [Letter]

    I have been working in Egypt on various development projects for more than 15 years now and have been present here for seven to eight months in each of the past three years. I have personally witnessed every significant sociopolitical event here over that time and am in constant conversation about...

  • Lessons of Egypt ignored

    Lessons of Egypt ignored

    David Super's commentary ("U.S. is short-sighted in Egypt," Nov. 10) overlooks or chooses to ignore several facets of the Arab Spring and this country's role.

  • The limits of power

    The limits of power

    Our view: A suspension of U.S. military aid may be too little, too late to force Egypt's generals to restore civilian rule

  • Obama's bungled Middle East policy

    Obama's bungled Middle East policy

    It can now be said that President Barack Obama was instrumental and outspoken in causing the ouster of Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, even though Egypt had been a friend of the United States and had kept general peace in the Middle East for some 30 years, especially between Egypt and Israel.

  • Obama is out of step in Egypt again

    Obama is out of step in Egypt again

    Our view: America's continued support of Egypt's military is strategically and morally untenable after Wednesday's violence that left hundreds dead

  • Egypt's descent into chaos

    Egypt's descent into chaos

    Our view: Two weeks after deposing the country's first democratically elected president, Egypt's generals offer little hope for a speedy restoration of civilian rule

  • Egypt's revolution, Part II

    Egypt's revolution, Part II

    Our view: The country's fledgling democracy is imperiled anew by the generals who are once again calling the shots

Comments
Loading

52°