American Foreign Policy in the Middle East

Codding 1

Andrew Codding

Foreign Policy

Dr. Beau Grosscup

4/21/2008

Position Paper

            Realism and Idealism are the two Political theories that have influenced U.S. Foreign Policy to the greatest extent since the beginning of the 20^th century. The American Idealist theory is a positive outlook on U.S. Foreign Policy. It has been based on Anti-Imperial expansion and the U.S. as a benevolent power. The goal is to promote social justice, economic/political justice (capitalism), law and order, and a society blessed by god. The U.S. pattern in the Idealist theory has been the proponents of liberal freedoms are allies, and the opponents of liberal freedoms are enemies. Opposite the spectrum Realist theory has counter-balanced American Political theory. Realist theory focuses on Neo-Imperialist expansion, promotes U.S. National Interest, Capitalism, Patriarchy, Caucasian Interest, and the Judeo-Christian religious belief system. Realist theory does not allow the U.S. to sympathize with foreign countries; instead, it only allows for exploitation and the security of U.S. interests worldwide. In Richard Dreyfuss’ Devil’s Game, Dreyfuss clearly favors the Idealist political theory over the Realist political theory.

A)         In Devil’s Game Dreyfuss does not support or give examples of the Bush Administration being an ally of the Middle East, he does not present the U.S. as a benevolent power or uncorrupt. Dreyfuss also does not defend the United States from being selfless, unbiased, or

Codding 2

racist. Dreyfuss does show how the United States became all of these things. Dreyfuss exposes the hypocrisy of American foreign policy as favoring the Realist theory, in an attempt to promote Liberal Idealist theory. Being a benevolent power has seldom been the goal of U.S. foreign policy; promoting capitalism and free enterprise in the third world has been a fundamental instrument in securing American business/economic interests, “…the IMF forced brutal changes in many Third World economies, as a condition for receiving international loans. These so-called loans led to severe economic pain in country after country…The IMF’s strict demands for austerity and cutbacks were the direct result of vigorous U.S. efforts to encourage free-enterprise economics in the Third World and to combat socialism.”(162-163). IMF (International Monetary Fund) strategies have led many countries to be reliant on U.S. aid, as well as forcing them to subdue to U.S. economic and corporate interest in their country. U.S. success in Middle Eastern economies through the IMF during the 1970’s forced the nations of Islam to adjust their economic strategies, “The rise of so-called Islamic banks was central to the Islamization of Egypt’s economy. Organized on the questionable principle that ordinary commercial banks do not operate according to Islamic law (unlike the Middle East), especially because that law supposedly does not allow interest to be paid on loans, Islamic banks often disparaged their non-Islamic competitors for being irreligious, and even, most offensively, for being “Jewish”. (163-164). When the IMF hit the Middle Eastern economic scene, domestic banks operated under Islamic law; in order to compete with the IMF these financial institutions had to change their policies such as; no interest loans. “In 1974, the Muslim Brotherhood formally issued a declaration commanding its members to support Sadat’s pro-IMF

Codding 3

infitah.”(163). More recently the United States has presented Islam (particularly Al-Qaida) as a dire threat to American security in order to have an excuse for neo-imperial expansion, “…the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies created a pretext for an imperial expansion of the U.S. presence in the greater Middle East including Pakistan, Central Asia, and the eastern Mediterranean/Red Sea/Indian Ocean region.”(305)

B)         During the Cold War the United States was in a well known power struggle with the Soviet Union, and more importantly it was a war of ideologies. Both superpowers were strengthening and expanding their sphere of influence, and securing allies was a crucial step in deterring the others interest. This polarization of power caused many countries to side with one or the other and in most cases ideologies and/or countries with similar governmental/political structures aligned. Therein brings me to my next point regarding U.S. alignment with the Middle East during the Cold War, “The central theme of this book is that the Islamic right was seen as a valuable ally during the Cold War.” (302). When Soviet Influence tinkered on the edge of the Middle East, many Middle Eastern countries were faced with a choice; either align with the Soviets and their allies and give up their traditional way of life (religious/economic/political), or align with the United States and the West and keep their traditions. This paradigm brought Islam together with the United States because it was convenient for both sides. Islam has never been the enemy of the U.S., it has only been used as a political and economic tool for U.S. convenience, “Equally, neither Al-Qaeda, nor its ideological comrades, nor the Islamic right as a whole—nor, for that matter, the entire Muslim

Codding 4

world—present the kind of challenge to America’s global hegemony that the Soviet Union Clearly did. No combination of the Middle East states, most of which are weak, impoverished, and wracked by internal divisions, is able to mount a threat in such an exaggerated way…”(305).  America used the threat of Al-Qaeda, which is a miniscule threat to the United States as a reason to target and manipulate the Middle East. Al-Qaeda does not represent Islam as a whole, but the United States uses Al-Qaeda as an instrument to dehumanize the people of the Middle East so Americans will be “on-board” with war over there. As a direct result to this, American expansion was able to gain a foothold in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda actually brought the U.S. and Islam together because America is more invested in Middle Eastern countries in an attempt to reform their governments and institutions. The United States has contributed billions of dollars to Afghanistan and Iraq’s infrastructure alone in an attempt to modernize their infrastructure as well as bring them capitalism and democracy. The recognized “governments” of Afghanistan and Iraq are our allies, and our common enemy has become the insurgency who supports non-liberal/democratic views.

C)         Many question whether the War on Terror has been a war on radical Islam, or a pretext for U.S. neo-imperial expansion. Pre 9/11 the Bush Administration did not reveal any plans for military action in the Middle East. Bush also stated his opinion on using the military for nation building, “Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from

Codding 5

happening in the first place.  And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." (The Lies). Post 9/11 it is clear to see that the Bush Administration has shifted their goals. What initially was presented as a War on Terror has clearly become an opportunity for neo-imperialist expansion rather than a War on Terror. The Bush Administration long ago threw out the possibility of “following their-own advice” that was initially stated Pre 9/11.  Shortly after Bush’s election he re-organized his cabinet securing proponents of pre-emptive warfare and a U.S. presence in the Middle East, “The Bush administration is a war cabinet that was put together with all of the most prominent advocates of war with Iraq. It is certainly not chance that George Bush just happened to select these people for his cabinet, and then we were attacked and evidence just "came to light" that Saddam was now a threat that had to be dealt with, however this is exactly how it was portrayed to the American people, and the world. In 1992, shortly after Desert Storm, Dick Cheney, then the Secretary of Defense, began drafting a foreign policy plan that was geared towards American military global preeminence and American control of the Middle East” (The Lies). The majority of Foreign Policy action Post 9/11 has been beyond the reach of the American people and congress. The creation of the National Security State can clearly been seen with the incorporation of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. These actions disrupted the checks and balances of our democratic system, and took away the liberal freedoms we enjoy as Americans and attempt to promote internationally. Americans need to re-evaluate whether they are living in a democracy where public opinion is the true motivator of Foreign Policy.

Works Cited

1)      Book: Devil’s Game, written by Robert Dreyfuss. Owl Books, 175 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10010.

2)      Website Article The Lies (Bush Administration hypocrisy): http://rationalrevolution.net/war/lies.htm

3)      The Project for a New American Century: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

4)      Website (Bush Administration Goals in Iraq): http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/01/iraq-060110-voa02.htm

5)      Website (defining goals of Al-Qaeda from Arab perspective): http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=35210&d=17&m=11&y=2003

6)      Website (U.S. Foreign Policy during Cold War): http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/coldwar.htm