Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

In Middle East, U.S. must focus on diplomacy, not military intervention [Letter]

It is telling that Matthew Van Dyke in his recent commentary fails to present a single policy recommendation while criticizing the Middle East foreign policies of the last two U.S. administrations ("Bush's recklessness, Obama's fecklessness make U.S. look weak as Iraq crumbles," June 17). Like many commentators, Mr. Van Dyke relies on a false dichotomy between isolationism and military intervention.

Although Mr. Van Dyke is correct that the 2003 invasion of Iraq represents what may be the greatest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history, his argument — that the present administration's feckless "isolationist tendencies, exemplified by President Barack Obama's foreign policy" has led to "complete chaos in the Middle East" — fails to acknowledge core realities which have been illuminated by George W. Bush's misadventures.

The hard truth is that two of the longest wars in American history have made two things very clear. First, the American military is not well suited to occupation. And second, American public opinion strongly opposes long term foreign military interventions of the sort that Iraq and Afghanistan have become.

With this in mind, President Obama has wisely sought to shift U.S. foreign policy objectives toward long term goals which do not involve large scale open-ended American military deployments in the Middle East. This is what he was elected to do, and it is a policy that has the support of the American public as well as of those American soldiers who fought so hard in the region over the past decade.

It should be stressed that as the Obama administration has wound down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his State Department has greatly expanded its working relationship with China, strengthened American influence throughout Asia and the Pacific, increased the U.S. military presence in Europe and renewed negotiations with Iran. These policies, rooted in diplomatic and economic ties, are far from isolationist. They represent a complex integrated approach to international diplomacy.

If Iraq has taught us anything, it is that the challenges facing the Middle East cannot be solved simply by sending in American troops. Today, the Iraq conflict has merged with the conflict in Syria. A unilateral American intervention would be unwelcome in the region and is likely only to worsen the situation. Arming "moderate rebels" would be seen by other parties as a direct American escalation and result in a ramping up the existing war by proxy.

Because the Middle East War is now an international conflict, only an international diplomatic agreement will bring about a resolution. By focusing American leadership on developing mutually beneficial economic and political relations, the Obama administration has put the U.S. back on track to restoring America's international standing. Only with international trust restored in this way, will the United States again be globally respected as an honest broker of international peace and security.

Ben Homer, New York, N.Y.

The writer, a graduate student in international affairs at the New School, is producing a documentary film focused on the Syrian refugee issue.

-
To respond to this letter, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Iraqis give away U.S. weapons

    Iraqis give away U.S. weapons

    Observing the Iraqi forces fighting ISIS running away every time they engage ISIS is one thing, but it is entirely another thing for the Iraqis to abandon their American weapons every time they retreat in a panic ("Islamic State seizes part of ancient town of Palmyra in Syria," May 20).

  • Obama's costly foreign policy failures

    Obama's costly foreign policy failures

    Peter Morici produced a fine piece of writing and logic ("The poverty of Obama's foreign policy," May 20). But he should give some credit to President Barack Obama's self-proclaimed "successes" in Iraq, Yemen and Libya.

  • In Iraq, a de facto U.S.-Iran alliance

    In Iraq, a de facto U.S.-Iran alliance

    In principle, the Obama administration's strategy for confronting the Islamic State made perfect sense: The U.S. would conduct military airstrikes against insurgent strongholds in Syria and Iraq in support of coordinated attacks on the ground by troops fielded by our regional allies. The goal was...

  • Obama takes radical Islam too lightly

    Obama takes radical Islam too lightly

    I give The Sun's editorial board credit for using the correct term — "radical Islam" ("Radical Islam in Africa," April 13) to describe the terrorist attack in Kenya. But you really can't expect the Obama administration to do one thing since President Barack Obama described al-Qaida as "one the...

  • Only Muslims can defeat radical Islam

    Only Muslims can defeat radical Islam

    Commentator Huma Munir offered an excellent portrayal of the Qur'anic vision that has been corrupted to justify a violent political reality ("Real Muslims don't terrorize," April 7).

  • Mideast Christians risk persecution and death for their faith

    Mideast Christians risk persecution and death for their faith

    One of the terrible by-products of the rise of Islamic radicalism is the destruction of Christian communities of the Middle East ("Islamic State seizes Christians," Feb. 25).

  • Obama ended the Iraq war, which was what voters elected him to do

    Obama ended the Iraq war, which was what voters elected him to do

    In response to reader Jay Hilgartner's letter, Bud Adams asserts that the "disaster of nation building in Iraq" occurred when President Obama removed all U.S. troops from the country in 2011, against the advice of his military advisers and at a time when the country was calm and stable ("Republican...

  • Confronting terrorism requires force

    Confronting terrorism requires force

    Regarding Barbara Risacher's recent letter on the war on terror, the least attractive option is to fail to respond forcibly to terror — a view the writer apparently favors ("New thinking in war on terror," Feb. 26).

Comments
Loading

72°