"There Must Be a Middle Way"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“There Must Be a Middle Way”

March 17, 2011

While the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear reactors have dominated the headlines (and the stock market,) and while our heartfelt sympathies go out to the thousands of victims and their families, the violent protests in a fragile Middle East are likely to have a more meaningful impact on our wealth and our lives.

Like bullies around the world, Muammar Gadhafi responds to toughness. In December 2003, the Libyan leader agreed to suspend his quest for weapons of mass destruction. He had seen what American forces had done to Saddam Hussein earlier in the year and decided to shunt aside bravado in favor of discretion. He shut down his chemical and nuclear weapons facilities and invited UN inspectors to witness what he was doing. Fast forward eight years, and whatever leverage the rebels in Libya had appears to have been lost in the mixed messages emanating from the American Administration. In contrast with President Theodore Roosevelt who said he would speak softly and carry a big stick, President Obama has talked tough (“we’re tightening the noose”), but is carrying a wiffle bat. In Egypt, the January 25 Revolution Youth Coalition refused to meet with American Secretary of State during her recent visit. Their declaration stated that “the U.S. Administration took Egypt’s revolution lightly and supported the old regime while Egyptian blood was being spilled.” Actions have consequences, but so do inactions.

In his bid to seek favor with other nations, the President has focused on being the anti-Bush. Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former State Department official, wrote in an op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times that “when we were asked to support their cause with more than words, we blinked. Americans in turn will read of Mr. Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo, with its lofty promises to stand for universal human rights, and cringe.” In doing nothing (today heading off to Brazil for five days,) he appears weak, but more importantly he seems to have lost his moral compass, as it applies to the U.S. and its history of standing firm behind human rights. There is no question that the U.S. must operate in its own self interest, which often means dealing with unsavory characters. But the U.S. has always stood for freedom and democracy, and those who have fought for those rights have always known they had a friend in America. In 2009, the President declined to publically support the Iranian Green Movement. Perhaps it would not have made a difference, but it would have sent a message.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid out (to my mind) a compelling argument against implementing a no-fly zone over Iraq, as it would require the destruction of Libya’s Air Force and anti-aircraft installations; such activity, in his opinion, would have established a state of war. However, specific and tough actions could have been taken. A meeting between the main rebel group, the National Council of Libya, and the American Secretary of State could have been arranged, which would have demonstrated our commitment to their cause. We could have sent the Enterprise into the Mediterranean from the Red Sea. Our air force could have conducted war games out of Aviano, a NATO Air Base in southern Italy and about fifteen minutes by air from Libya. We could have provided weapons, transportation and medical supplies to the rebel forces. As it was, we dithered, the rebels lost their impetus and Gadhafi’s troops regained the offensive. With Gadhafi’s troops outside Benghazi, affecting the outcome now will be far more difficult.

As the Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial made clear yesterday, the real fears of Arab leaders include a resurgent Turkey and a nuclear-empowered Iran. Memories are long in this part of the world. The Ottoman Empire finally disappeared in the aftermath of World War II. At its height, the Ottoman Empire stretched from the eastern gates of Austria, encompassing the entire eastern Mediterranean and west to Algeria along Africa’s northern coast. The Persian Empire disappeared centuries before the Turks, but it was only in 1979 when the last heir to the Peacock Throne was finally tossed out of Persia, a country reborn as Iran. Looking like a giant lobster, their empire stretched from India to the Balkans on the north and to Egypt on the south. With their history of being subject to the conquering arms of their neighbors, Arabs have largely looked upon America as a (relatively) benign presence.

America cannot fight every war. There is a limit to our resources and, as I wrote on Monday quoting George Friedman of Stratfor and Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations there are parts of the Middle East far more critical to our interests than Libya, but that is no excuse for giving the appearance of letting those who fight for freedom dangle in the breeze. A middle ground could have been found; it would have had us flexing our muscles and meeting with the revolutionaries, perhaps preventing what looks to becoming a failed revolution.

Carl Gershman, President of the National Endowment for Democracy, wrote a fascinating article, “The Fourth Wave,” in the March 14 issue of The New Republic. He writes that over the past five years the number of countries registering declines in political rights has exceeded those registering gains by 77 to 57. However, he adds that “the events in the Middle East offer powerful and, I would argue, conclusive evidence supporting the idea that democracy is a universal value.” All of the evidence explaining the democracy deficit in the Arab world is “now being refuted by millions of Arab citizens ready to risk their lives for freedom…”

The protests occurring in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are not just about democracy, they also reflect an ages-old dissension between Sunnis and Shiites. It is a complex situation fraught with risk, but one underscored by a desire for freedom. The stance America takes, more than resolutions from a dysfunctional UN or expressions of support from an enfeebled NATO, is more important to our partners and friends in the Middle East. As democratic protests persist in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain, the President cannot afford to stand aloof above the fray. Mr. Obama is the President of the sole superpower in the world. In his first year in office, he made 411 TV appearances. In the past two weeks he has been notably absent. He is not a delegate to some world body. He has a responsibility to lead, to be strong; he must provide hope for all who yearn for freedom and democracy while not losing sight of our country’s self-interests. Between war and passivity, there must be a middle way.