Monday, June 27, 2011

Barack Gorbachev: Adjusting to the Global Reality

Leon T. HadarJournalist and foreign affairs analyst

Barack Gorbachev: Adjusting To The Global Reality

The political leaders and the generals were continuing to debate on whether to start pulling out the troops from Afghanistan at a time when political power was being consolidated by a relatively young reformer interested in mending relations with the rest of the world and despite the growing recognition that the war there was lost.
But finally, in April 1988, Mikheil Gorbachev, the leader of the USSR, introduced a timetable for the departure of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, announcing that the withdrawal of about 100,000 troops will start in the following month. It took Gorbachev another four years to complete the withdrawal from South Asia while he was also trying to manage the gradual erosion in Soviet hegemony in Central and Eastern Europe and the broader restructuring of the global position of the Soviet Union.

Gorbachev and most of the leaders in the Kremlin "were convinced that we did not need Afghanistan and had no business being there," a former Soviet advisor told journalist and authorMichael Dobbs. "We would have lost the war anyway," he explained. "We should have learned from the British that Afghanistan is a country that cannot be conquered."

Yet even an open-minded reformer like Gorbachev was not ready to admit that a superpower like the Soviet Union had suffered a military defeat in Afghanistan, and insisted on spinning as a success what amounted to the failure on the part of Moscow to impose its will on the country, not to mention the enormous losses in life and money.

That in retrospect, Gorbachev's Vietnam in Afghanistan is starting to look more and more like Obama's Afghanistan in, well, Afghanistan, brings (once again) to mind George Santayana's warning that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (although it should probably be changes to "do not want to remember"). In both cases, political leaders found it difficult to extract their country from costly military quagmires.

But the dilemma facing Gorbachev in the late 1980s and Obama in the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century goes beyond failed military interventions in Afghanistan. In both cases, leaders of great powers experiencing erosion in its economic power and the overstretching of its military are forced to adjust an outdated global strategy to the changes in its military and economic capabilities.

Ironically, many observers have been comparing the current political upheaval in the Arab World to the growing pressure for liberalization in Central and Eastern Europe in 1989, celebrating the so-called Arab Spring as another post-Cold-War victory for the U.S. and its push for democracy and free markets.

But as I noted after the fall of the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt early this year, "those who compare the protest movements in Poland, East Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1989 to those in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen today, miss the point. It's not that the Egyptian insurgency is fueled by the same democratic-liberal ideals that drove the uprising in Poland. It probably is not. But this we do know: In both cases, the old order was maintained by an external power -- the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe in 1989; the United States in the Middle East today."

From that perspective, when it comes to the Middle East and its peripheries (Afghanistan and Pakistan), Obama is now trying to come up with the least costly strategy to help manage American decline, not unlike the man who presided over the collapse of Soviet power in Eastern Europe in 1989.

Indeed, as journalist and author Victor Sebestyen chronicled in his seminal Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, Gorbachev had hoped that the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan could be orchestrated as a peaceful transition of power and that Moscow's willingness to allow the downfall of its friendly dictators in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest and Berlin, would help preserve Soviet influence in the region.

And like Gorbachev, Obama and much of the foreign policy establishment in Washington seem to cling to the fantasy that the U.S. can muddle through towards victory in Afghanistan and to the notion that Washington could help drive the transformation taking place in the Middle East to the benefit of long-term U.S. interests.

In fact, both the neoconservative narrative, which traces the start of the Arab Spring to the U.S. "liberation" of Iraq and the ensuing Freedom Agenda, and the liberal internationalist story-line that envisions "success" in Afghanistan and the partnering the United States with the dramatic change in the Middle East, reflect a lot of wishful thinking. Like an aging film star that has lost her sex-appeal a long time ago, American leaders and pundits are finding it difficult to admit that U.S. ability to determine political outcomes in the Middle East has been reduced in a very dramatic way.

In reality, after all the sacrifice of so much precious life and treasure in Mesopotamia and in Af-Pak, including two costly military surges, and the rest of the useless military and diplomatic hyper-activism in the Broader Middle East (like in Libya and Israel/Palestine), Iraq is expected to become a political and economic satellite of Iran while the corrupt pro-American government in Afghanistan will probably fall into the hands of the Taliban sooner or later. The rest of the region is likely to experience a series of civil wars between ethnic groups, tribes and religious sects. And there won't be any peace in the Holy Land in the near future.

The global player that is going to ride high after the dust settles in the Middle East and U.S. troops return home sometime in this decade will be China. Years of pre-occupation with the Middle East and the investment of economic and military resources to try to control and remake have diverted American attention from East Asia, a region of the world where core geo-strategic and geo-economic interests are at stake, while providing the Chinese with an opportunity to grow their economy, military power and diplomatic influence not only in East Asia but also in South and West Asia.

The Chinese, unlike the Americans, have been so successful in readjusting to the changing global realities, that when the Americans wars in the Middle East will end, it is China and not the U.S. that will emerge as the main strategic winner.

US says hello to realism, bye bye to neoconservatism

Business Times - 28 Jun 2011

US says hello to realism, bye bye to neoconservatism

The majority of Americans agree the US should 'pay less attention to problems overseas'


IN A speech before an audience of Asian defence ministers and military commanders in Singapore early this month, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates pledged that the United States would sustain its military presence and diplomatic involvement in Asia.

He was trying to calm anxieties among US allies in the region about rising isolationist sentiments that are seen to be affecting Americans these days as they confront the realities of skyrocketing budget deficits and a military overstretched in two major wars and a few small ones in the Middle East.

But even Mr Gates admitted during his address in Singapore that 'fighting two protracted and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has strained the US military's ground forces, and worn out the patience and appetite of the American public for similar interventions in the future'.

Indeed, as Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress are joining many liberal Democrats in Congress in calling for reducing American intervention in the Middle East, some leading members of the Republican Party are warning that by pressing for US retreat from conflicts across the globe, the Republicans are helping to boost the isolationist mood in the country.

In fact, the majority of Americans agree that the US should 'pay less attention to problems overseas', according to a recent Pew poll.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the last Republican nominee for president, and close ideological ally of the neoconservatives and an enthusiastic supporter of US military interventionism, noted in a television interview that there has 'always been an isolationist strain in the Republican Party' which now, according to him, seems 'to have moved more centre stage, so to speak'.

But much of this talk about 'isolationism' may be misplaced and misleading. What is really happening is that both Democrats and Republicans, reflecting the views of their voters, are rejecting the notion advanced by former Republican president George W Bush and his neoconservative advisers - an idea which is also supported by a few pro 'humanitarian intervention' in the Democratic Party - that the US has an interest, and an obligation, to use its military power in order to promote global ideological crusades, including democracy and human rights.

That ideological transformation that is beginning to affect Republican voters and politicians - the majority of Republican voters also agree that the US should 'pay less attention to problems overseas', according to a Pew poll - has been driven to a large extent by the dire economic realities, including mounting federal budget deficits, that are lessening support for the never-ending American intervention in the Middle East.

More specifically, many conservative activists, including members of the popular Tea Party movement are finally resolving their unique form of cognitive dissonance: Supporting a huge defence budget while calling for huge cuts in government spending.

'There's been disquiet for a long time. Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad,' according to influential Republican Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona who has joined Democratic lawmakers in calling for the end of US support in the Western action against Libya, insisting that such a move 'is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism', a view consistent with the results of polls pointing out to growing support among Republicans for an accelerated withdrawal from Libya and Afghanistan.

The rising anxiety over the US policies in the Middle East is being echoed by some of the Republican presidential candidates, including the former governor of Utah and the outgoing ambassador to China, John Huntsman, who has placed his opposition to the intervention in Libya and war in Afghanistan at the centre of his campaign.

Mr Huntsman is clearly not committed to ideological fantasies and religious visions of George W Bush and seems to come out of the Realpolitik tradition of the First President Bush.

Then there are the two libertarian Republican candidates, Representative Ron Paul of Texas and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. They represent a significant chunk of the Tea Party movement and are calling for a major reassessment of US interventionist policies in the Middle East.

Likewise, the seven Republican presidential candidates gathered for a televised debate in New Hampshire two weeks ago expressed their general scepticism about the growing military commitments in the Middle East, including the most recent intervention in Libya.

'There is no vital national interest' requiring America's military role in Libya, argued Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, a darling of the Tea Party movement. Ms Bachmann, like other tea partiers, scorns Muslims.

But she also wants to balance the budget and understands that when Chinese bankers are financing its operations, the US is not in a position to launch new military adventures in the Middle East that end up raising oil prices into the stratosphere and damaging the American economy.

The leading Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said during the debate that it was time 'to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can' and warned that 'our troops shouldn't go and try and fight a war of independence for another nation'.

He and other Republicans are not 'isolationists'. They are first and foremost pro-American politicians who, like the current Democratic White House occupant, are trying to adjust US global objectives to the changing realities of ballooning budget deficits and an overstretched military.

That suggests that while neoconservatives are fantasising that the next Republican president would be a foreign policy clone of George W Bush, he or she could turn out to be a foreign policy clone of Barack Obama.

Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.