An alternate take on the Middle East

Given the centrality of the Middle East in the recent debates, from the war in Iraq to what to do about Iran to protecting Israel, it's worth taking a glance at an alternate take on American foreign policy. This article by Edward Luttwak in the American Prospect has made a big splash. In it, Luttwak argues that the Middle East should essentially be irrelevant, that the threat of terrorism is overblown, that the fear of the armed forces of regimes like Iran is ridiculous ("Mussolini syndrome"), that the Arab-Israeli conflict is neither solvable or likely to explode in the near future, that our oil supply is safer than we think, and that we it is a pipe dream to believe that we can easily change these ancient societies. Therefore, the best course is to leave the region alone.

Thanks to finals I don't have the time to give this article the long review it deserves. But I will say that I agree with Luttwak's central thesis that the Middle East should be less central to American foreign policy. America would be better served in the long run by leaving the region to its own devices. However, I am unconvinced by his argument that Middle Eastern oil is of declining importance, and I don't believe that a disengagement from the Middle East is possible unless we make a serious effort to reduce our oil consumption. By serious I mean a steep carbon tax, not sideshow distractions like subsidizing ethanol or tax handouts for oil companies. If we don't make a serious effort to reduce the carbon intensity of our economy, we may as well resign ourselves to getting involved in all sorts of sticky situations in the Middle East, and the rest of the world, over the next few decades.

On War

The other day, I had an interesting conversation with a professor whom I respect very much (names are not important for the sake of this post). I (jokingly) asked him if he would be voting for Hillary, and he responded that she is the only Democrat who he would consider voting for. Taken aback, I asked why. He said that she seems like the only Democrat who would be willing to use force in response to a terrorist attack, pointing, for instance, to Obama's statement that he would more or less "call the police" in response to a terrorist attack. This seems like a common criticism of this lot of Democrats. Indeed, Rudy Giuliani has implied numerous times that Democrats are unwilling to respond effectively to terrorism.

I think that is a criticism that we should look into. Certainly, some Democrats (e.g. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) have made clear that they do not view war as a legitimate tool of foreign policy.

But, they're the crazies.

Despite Obama's "call the police" remark (perhaps I shouldn't use quotes; it is not a direct quote, and he made an attempt at legitimizing himself), I do not believe that he (or any other Democrat, except for the aforementioned loonies) would be unwilling to respond to a 9/11-type terrorist attack with force. Certainly, he may be hesitant to do so, and the public, given recent history, may be more hesitant to rally behind such a war, but is hesitancy a bad thing? Wars should be debated; other options should be seriously considered. If this war in Iraq has taught us anything, it should be this: rushing into war is not good.

I agree whole-heartedly with anyone who states that we need a president who always keeps war as an option on the table. War, from time to time, is a necessary evil. And I think that all serious political candidates realize and accept that. But, given that the focal point of the 2008 election will be the Iraq war, it makes sense for Democrats to position themselves as anti-war per se, and not simply anti-Iraq war. After all, the public (or at least Democratic primary voters - more on that in a second) does not want to hear "I want to get us out of Iraq, but I might start another war before McCain can sing 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.'"

Plus, I think there is something to be said about what we can call the "primary conversion." As we see with the Republicans, the three main candidates, who have very moderates pasts, are all positioning themselves (perhaps with a slight exception given to Giuliani) as conservatives. The Democrats are doing something similar. Given that primary voters are mainly the more liberal Democrats, it would not make sense for candidates to be hawkish. Please do not take this as a defense of the "primary conversion." I have lambasted McCain in the past for his newfound conservatism; I am not happy that Obama and gang are pandering to the Kucinich brand of Democrats (i.e. hippies).

Main point: despite what stupid things Obama may have said (for such an eloquent man, he really blew it at that debate, eh?), I think any Democrat would handle a terrorist attack in a responsible (albeit less hawkish) manner.